content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section*{Abstract}{\small
During the last decade, hundreds of young massive cluster candidates have been detected in the disk of the Milky Way. We investigate one of these candidates, Mercer 81, which was discovered through a systematic search for stellar overdensities, with follow-up NICMOS/HST infrared narrow-band photometry to find emission-line stars and confirm it as a massive cluster. Surprisingly, the brightest stars turned out to be a chance alignment of foreground stars, while a real massive cluster was found among some fainter stars in the field. From a first spectroscopic study of four emission-line stars (ISAAC/VLT), it follows that Mercer 81 is a very massive young cluster, placed at the far end of the Galactic bar. Additionally, in this work we present some unpublished spectra from a follow-up observation program which confirm that the cluster hosts several Nitrogen-rich Wolf-Rayet stars (WN) and blue supergiants.
\normalsize}
\end{minipage}
\section{Introduction}
Since the 1990s, infrared astronomy has experienced a considerable development, allowing to observe in detail the most extincted regions of the Milky Way. As a consequence, many obscured young massive clusters (YMCs) have been found in the Galactic disk, revealing a great amount of previously unknown star formation. YMCs are notable for hosting a population of massive stars, which typically consists of OB, Wolf-Rayet and hypergiant stars. YMCs are also ideal test beds to measure the high-mass region of the IMF (\cite{imf}) and the evolution of massive stars (\cite{evolmassive}), as well as useful tools to map the Galactic metallicity (\cite{diskmetals}).
Only a few Galactic YMCs have been investigated extensively, e.g. Westerlund 1 (\cite{wd1}), the Arches Cluster (\cite{arches}) or the Quintuplet Cluster (\cite{quintuplet}). However, several systematic searches for IR clusters have been carried out (\cite{survey1}, \cite{survey3}, \cite{survey4}), yielding hundreds of new cluster candidates that mostly remain unstudied. The usual way to confirm such candidates as real YMCs consists of finding their young massive stars, whose high mass-loss rates allow to track them as highly reddened emission-line stars, especially by means of their Paschen-$\alpha$ emission excess (\cite{paschena}). A subsequent spectroscopic analysis of these stars eventually lead to a complete characterization of each cluster.
\section{Discovery and rediscovery \label{discovery}}
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=13.5cm]{delafuentedF1.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig1} RGB image of Mercer 81, composed of NICMOS/HST photometric data as follows: F222M (red), F160W (green) and [F187N$-$F190N] (blue). From \cite{mc81}.
}
\end{figure}
The cluster candidate Mercer 81 was found in 2005 by \cite{survey2} in an algorithmic search for stellar overdensities in the GLIMPSE point-source catalog. In 2008, this candidate was observed with the instrument NICMOS onboard the Hubble Space Telescope as part of the observing program \#11545, whose main goal was to find highly reddened emission-line stars in candidate clusters. The strategy consisted of obtaining images through the filters F160W and F222M in order to measure the reddening; as well as narrow-band images at the wavelengths of Paschen-$\alpha$ (F187N) and the continuum region near $P_\alpha$ (F190N), in such a way that the subtraction image F187N$-$F190N would pinpoint the massive stars.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=15.5cm]{delafuentedF2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig2} The two only spectra that could be completed in the first observation program at ISAAC/VLT. From \cite{mc81}.
}
\end{figure}
Results of the aforementioned photometry were published by \cite{mc81}, who presented a composite false-color image of Mercer 81 (Fig.~\ref{fig1}; see caption for the RGB-color explanation) where stars can be easily identified by means of their color. The most reddened stars must present red/orange colors, while the $P_\alpha$ excess corresponds to a blue color; therefore, the massive members of the cluster are expected to have a combination of these colors, appearing pink/magenta sources. On the other hand, the unreddened foreground stars look yellow/green. Fig.~\ref{fig1} shows that the brightest stars in the field constitute a chance alignment of foreground stars, which probably were crucial for the candidate detection. However, a fainter but numerous group of highly reddened stars, including nine emission-line stars, can be seen in the north half of the field
\section{Spectroscopy}
In 2009, H- and K-band spectroscopy of the emission-line stars at ISAAC/VLT was proposed (program ID: 083.D-0765); unfortunately, due to a temporary failure of the instrument, only the spectra of two cluster members could be completed. These spectra (Fig.~\ref{fig2}), which consisted of a late-B/early-A supergiant and a Nitrogen-rich Wolf-Rayet star (spectral type: WN7-8), have been published by \cite{mc81}, where a model for the WN achieved with the CMFGEN code (\cite{cmfgen1}, \cite{cmfgen2}) was included.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\center
\includegraphics[width=15.5cm]{delafuentedF3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig3} New H- and K-band spectra of Mercer 81 cluster members. Objects follow the naming scheme of \cite{mc81}, with the addition of new cluster member Mc81-11.
}
\end{figure}
In 2011, we could complete the observations with additional spectra of 8 emission-line stars at ISAAC/VLT (program ID:087.D-0957), which are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig3}. All these objects show H and He broad emission lines, indicating extended winds and high mass-loss rates.
Three of the new spectra (Mc81-2, Mc81-5 and Mc81-7) are almost identical to Mc81-3, therefore having the same spectral type (WN7-8). Three others (Mc81-6, Mc81-9 and Mc81-10) are intermediate-O supergiants, as clearly showed by He\textsc{ii} features along with narrow C\textsc{iv} emission lines. Spectrum Mc81-11 might be as well classified as a O supergiant, although the low signal-to-noise ratio does not allow to confirm it. Finally, spectrum Mc81-8 shows intermediate features between a O supergiant and WN, perhaps entailing this object is in transition between these evolutionary stages (\cite{transition}).
\section{Discussion and future work}
Based on photometry (section~\ref{discovery}) and spectroscopic analysis of the 2 firstly observed spectra, \cite{mc81} presented a first characterization of Mercer 81 that now can be improved by means of the more complete spectroscopic data presented here. Particularly, the total mass of Mercer 81 (a few $\times 10^4$) given by \cite{mc81} was estimated assuming that all the unobserved emission-line stars were WN and that the cluster has the same evolutionary stage than Westerlund 1 (\cite{wd1evol}). However, our new data clearly suggest that Mercer 81 is younger, as we have detected earlier spectral types (O5-6 I) with respect to Westerlund 1 (O9 I, maximum), as well as the presence of emission-line stars other than WNs.
Since we are currently in the process of modeling the observed spectra, we cannot present here definitive results yet. Ongoing NLTE spherical atmosphere models will yield accurate spectral types and measure stellar and wind properties, including chemical abundances. This will result in a complete characterization of Mercer 81 which could be crucial to understand the chemodynamics of the inner disk due to its privileged location, at the far end of the Galactic Bar (\cite{mc81}). On the other hand, the extreme and uncommon objects belonging to this cluster apparently form an evolutionary sequence that may turn Mercer 81 into an ideal laboratory to study the final stages of massive stars.
\small
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This research was partially supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovaci\'on through grants AYA2008-06166-C03-02 and AYA2010-21697-C05-01. D.F. also acknowledges financial support from the FPI-MICINN predoctoral fellowship BES-2009-027786.
|
\section{Introduction}
Since it was first observed, charmonium production in hadronic collisions
has been a subject of considerable theoretical interest. Production rates
and their dependence on the different kinematic variables provide important
tests for comparing theoretical models.
In the last years, the production of $J/\psi$ pairs has attracted a significant
renewal attention in the context of searches for double parton scattering
processes \cite{Bartalini2011jp}.
A number of discussions has been stimulated by the recent
measurement \cite{LHCb} of the double $J/\psi$ production cross section at the
LHCb experiment at CERN. Theoretical estimates based on both collinear
\cite{Berezhnoy,Novoselov,Stirling1} and $k_t$-factorization \cite{Zotov} approaches
show that the single (SPS) and double (DPS) parton scattering contributions
are comparable in size and, taken together, can perfectly describe the
measured cross section.
To disentangle the SPS and DPS mechanisms one needs to clearly understand
the production kinematics. Naive expectations that the SPS mechanism should
result in the back-to-back event configuration received no support from the
later calculations. Including the initial state radiation effects
(either in the form of $k_t$-dependent gluon distributions \cite{BaranovJJ}
or by means of simulating the parton showers in a phenomenological way
\cite{Stirling1}) washes out the original azimuthal correlations, thus
making the SPS and DPS samples very similar to each other.
One cannot exclude, however, that the situation may change under imposing
certain cuts on the $J/\psi$ transverse momenta. On the other hand, it has been
suggested \cite{Stirling1,Stirling2} that the DPS production is characterized
by a much larger rapidity difference between the two $J/\psi$ mesons.
The dominance of the DPS contribution over SPS at large rapidity
difference was discussed recently also for $pp\to c\bar{c}c\bar{c}X$
reaction \cite{LMS2012,SS2012}.
The goal of the present study is to carefully examine the $J/\psi$ pair
production properties in the different kinematical domains paying attention
to the different contributing processes.
On the SPS side, we consider the leading-order ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$
subprocess (with radiative corrections taken into account in the
framework of the $k_t$-factorization approach) and the subleading ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^6)$
contribution from pseudo-diffractive ~gluon-gluon scattering represented by one-gluon
exchange and two-gluon exchange mechanisms; the latter mechanisms yet have
never been discussed in the context of searches for DPS.
On the DPS side, we consider the prompt production of $J/\psi$ pairs including
the direct $g+g\to J/\psi +g$ contribution and radiative $\chi_c$ decays.
\section{Theoretical framework}
\subsection{SPS contributions}
At the leading order, ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$, the SPS subprocess
$g+g\to J/\psi + J/\psi $ is represented by a set of 31 "box" diagrams,
with some examples displayed in Fig. 1.
Our approach is based on perturbative QCD,
nonrelativistic bound state formalism \cite{Chang,Baier,Berger},
and the $k_t$-factorization ansatz \cite{GLR83,Catani,Collins} in the parton model.
The advantage of using the $k_t$-factorization approach comes from the ease of including the
initial state radiation corrections that are efficiently taken into
account in the form of the evolution of gluon densities.
The calculation of this subprocess is identical to that described
in Ref. \cite{BaranovJJ}.
As usual, the production amplitudes contain spin and color projection
operators that guarantee the proper quantum numbers of the final state
mesons. Then, the $J/\psi$ formation probability is determined by the radial
wave function at the origin of coordinate space $|{\cal R}(0)|^2$; the latter
is known from the $J/\psi$ leptonic decay width \cite{PDG}.
Only the color singlet channels are taken into consideration in the
present study since this approach was found to be fully sufficient
\cite{BLZ} to describe all of the known LHC data on $J/\psi$ production.
The evaluation of Feynman diagrams is straightforward and follows the
standard QCD rules, with one reservation: in accordance with the $k_t$-factorization
prescription \cite{GLR83}, the initial gluon spin density matrix is
taken in the form
$\overline{\epsilon_g^{\mu}\epsilon_g^{*\nu}}=k_T^\mu k_T^\nu/|k_T|^2,$
where $k_T$ is the component of the gluon momentum perpendicular to the
beam axis. In the collinear limit, when $k_T\to 0$, this expression
converges to the ordinary
$\overline{\epsilon_g^{\mu}\epsilon_g^{*\nu}}=-g^{\mu\nu}/2$,
while in the case of off-shell gluons it contains an admixture of
longitudinal polarization.
All algebraic manipulations with Feynman diagrams have been done using
the computer system {\sc form} \cite{FORM}.
We have carefully checked that our present results are consistent with
earlier calculations known in the literature. The model based on the
diagrams of Fig. 1 was first formulated in Refs. \cite{Hmery,Scott}.
Later on, it was extended to considering the polarization effects
\cite{BaranovJung,Qiao} and to including the color-octet contributions,
see \cite{Qiao,Ko} and references therein. As far as the color-singlet
contribution is concerned, all these papers are fully identical to each
other; the calculations are made in the collinear scheme and restricted
to the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ order. Using the $k_t$-factorization approach
we go beyond these approximations by including the initial state
radiation corrections.
We have checked that in the collinear limit we perfectly reproduce the
results of Refs. \cite{Hmery,Scott,BaranovJung,Qiao,Ko}.
The full {\sc fortran} code for the matrix element is available from
the authors on request. This process is also available in the hadron
level Monte Carlo generator {\sc cascade} \cite{CASCADE}.
Numerical results shown in the next section have been obtained using
the $A0$ gluon distribution from \cite{Jung}.
In addition to the above, we also consider the pseudo-diffractive ~gluon-gluon
scattering subprocesses represented by the diagrams of Fig. 2.
Despite the latter are of formally higher order in $\alpha_s$,
they contribute to the events with large rapidity difference between
the two $J/\psi$ mesons and in that region can take over the leading-order
'box' subprocess. Our processes differ from the true diffraction
in the sense that there occurs color exchange, and so, the rapidity
interval between the two $J/\psi$ 's may be filled up with lighter hadrons
(thus showing no gap in the overall hadron density).
Among the variety of higher-order contributions, the pseudo-diffractive
~subprocesses mentioned here are of our special interest as they
potentially can mimic the DPS mechanism having very similar kinematics.
The evaluation of the one-gluon exchange diagrams
$g(k_1)+g(k_2)\to J/\psi (p_1)+ J/\psi (p_2)+g(k_3)+g(k_4)$ is straightforward, but
the number of diagrams is rather large. There are six possible gluon
permutations in the upper quark loop and six permutations in the lower
loop. Besides that, we have to consider interchanges between the two
initial or two final gluons:
$g(k_1)\leftrightarrow g(k_2)$, $g(k_3)\leftrightarrow g(k_4)$,
thus ending up with 144 possible combinations.
Note that the matrix element is free from infrared singularities.
This is due to the specific property of the quark loop amplitude which
vanishes when any of the three attached gluons becomes soft.
These calculations have also been performed in the $k_t$-factorization approach as described
above.
The two gluon exchange mechanism
has been previously considered in Ref. \cite{Kiselev}, where it was
reduced to the production of $J/\psi$ pairs in photon-photon collisions
\cite{Ginzburg} by recalculating the appropriate color factor.
We basically follow the same way in our present analysis,
but use an updated gluon density \cite{MSTW2008}.
Let us concentrate on the elementary $g{+}g{\to} J/\psi {+} J/\psi $ subprocess first.
Only 16 of the different possible Feynman diagrams survive in the
high-energy limit, which seems to be a suitable approximation for the
conditions in discussion. The corresponding amplitude can be cast into
the impact-factor representation \cite{Ginzburg}:
\begin{eqnarray}
&\hspace*{-4.5cm}
A(g_{\lambda_1}g_{\lambda_2}\to V_{\lambda_3}V_{\lambda_4};s,t)=& \nonumber \\
&is\! \displaystyle{\int}\! d^2 \mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$}\,\frac%
{\displaystyle{{\cal{J}}(g_{\lambda_1}{\to}V_{\lambda_3};\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$},\mbox{\boldmath $q$})\,
{\cal{J}}(g_{\lambda_2}{\to}V_{\lambda_4};-\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$},-\mbox{\boldmath $q$})}}%
{\displaystyle{[(\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$}+\mbox{\boldmath $q$}/2)^2 +\mu_G^2]
[(\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$}-\mbox{\boldmath $q$}/2)^2 +\mu_G^2]}}\,,&
\label{eq:A_2g}
\end{eqnarray}
and the cross section reads
\begin{equation}
{d\sigma(gg{\to}VV;s)\over dt} =
{{\cal N}_c \over 64 \pi s^2}\,\sum_{\lambda_i} \Big|
A(g_{\lambda_1}g_{\lambda_2}{\to}V_{\lambda_3}V_{\lambda_4};s,t)\Big|^2\, .
\end{equation}
Here the subscripts $\lambda_i$ denote the helicities of the gluons $g$
and vector mesons $V$, and $\mbox{\boldmath $q$}$ is the transverse momentum transfer,
$t\approx{-}\mbox{\boldmath $q$}^2$. The overall color structure of the reaction
is described by the factor ${\cal N}_c=(N_c^2{-}4)^2/[16N_c^2(N_c^2{-}1)]$,
where $N_c=3$.
We kept explicit an effective gluon mass $\mu_G$ which is responsible for
soft QCD effects \cite{Nikolaev:1993ke} and plays the
role of regularization parameter. However, in the present study we can
safely set it to zero, and the amplitude remains finite as the impact
factors ${\cal{J}}$ vanish when $\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$}\to\pm\mbox{\boldmath $q$}/2$. See also the discussion
in \cite{gamgam}.
At small $t$, within the diffraction cone, the cross section
is dominated by the $s$-channel helicity conserving amplitude.
In this case, the explicit form of the impact factor is
\begin{equation}
{\cal{J}}(g_{\lambda}{\to}V_{\tau};\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$},\mbox{\boldmath $q$}) = \delta_{\lambda,\tau}
\sqrt{4\pi\alpha_s^3}\,\displaystyle{\int}
\frac{\displaystyle{\psi(z,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})I(z,\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $q$})}}%
{\displaystyle{z(1-z)(2\pi)^3}}\,dz d^2\mbox{\boldmath $k$}\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\psi(z,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$ is the light-cone wave function of the vector
meson and $z$ is the light-cone momentum fraction carried by the heavy
quark. Neglecting the intrinsic motion of the quarks we set
$\psi(z,\mbox{\boldmath $k$})=C\;\delta(z-\frac{1}{2})\,\delta^{(2)}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$,
where the normalizing constant $C$ is adjusted to the $J/\psi$ leptonic
width and is related to the radial wave function at the origin as
$C^2 = 12\pi^5/(N_c^2 m_\psi^3)|{\cal R}(0)|^2$.
Within the above approximation, we have
\begin{equation}
I(z,\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $q$})= \frac{m_\psi}{2}\Big[
{1\over\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$}^2 +m_\psi^2/4}-{4\over\mbox{\boldmath $q$}^2 +m_\psi^2}\Big].
\end{equation}
Including the quark intrinsic motion would decrease the amplitude;
for a more detailed analysis see \cite{gamgam}. As it will become
clear from the numerical results, the nonrelativistic approximation
is sufficiently accurate for our purposes.
The cross section for the two-gluon exchange contribution to the
$p+p\to J/\psi + J/\psi +X$ reaction (see Fig. 2) is calculated in the
collinear approximation with MSTW2008(NLO) gluon distribution
function \cite{MSTW2008} and the factorization scale
$\mu_f^2 = m_t^2$, where $m_t$ is the $J/\psi$ transverse mass.
The elementary $g+g\to J/\psi + J/\psi $ cross section can be easily
calculated in the high-energy approximation similarly to how it was
done for the $\gamma+\gamma\to J/\psi + J/\psi $ reaction \cite{gamgam}.
The corresponding cross section is proportional to
$\alpha_s^6(\mu_r^2)$, and therefore depends strongly on the choice of
the renormalization scale. In the calculation presented here we take
$\mu_r^2 = m_t^2$.
In the high-energy approximation, the matrix element is merely
a function of the transverse momentum $\mbox{\boldmath $q$}$ of one of the $J/\psi$ 's. This
cannot be true at low subprocess energy, close to the $J/\psi$ \J threshold.
Here one
must take into account also the longitudinal momentum transfer. We
therefore replace $\mbox{\boldmath $q$}^2$ by the exact $\hat t$ or $\hat u$ for the $t$
and $u$ diagrams respectively. We neglect here the possible interference
between the box diagram and the two-gluon exchange mechanism, which is
formally of lower order than the square of the two-gluon amplitude.
However, firstly, the addition of box and two-gluon exchange amplitudes
is not warranted without the consistent evaluation of
$\alpha_s$-corrections to the box. Secondly, it will become obvious from
the numerical results, that the two-gluon mechanism is exceedingly small
in the region of invariant masses dominated by the box mechanism.
\subsection{DPS contributions}
Under the hypothesis of having two independent hard partonic subprocesses
$A$ and $B$ in a single $pp$ collision, and under further assumption that
the longitudinal and transverse components of generalized parton
distributions factorize from each other, the inclusive DPS cross section
reads
(for details see, e.g., the recent review \cite{Bartalini2011jp}
with many references to prior works listed therein)
\begin{equation} \label{doubleAB}
\sigma^{\rm AB}_{\rm DPS} = \frac{\displaystyle{m}}{\displaystyle{2}}
\frac{\displaystyle{\sigma^{ A}_{\rm SPS}\sigma^{ B}_{\rm SPS}}}%
{\displaystyle{\sigma_{\rm eff}}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\rm eff}=\Bigl[ \int d^2b\,\bigl( T({\bf b}) \bigr)^2 \Bigr]^{-1},
\end{equation}
where $T({\bf b}) = \int f({\bf b_1}) f({\bf b_1{-}b})\,d^2b_1 $ is the
overlap function that characterizes the transverse area occupied by the
interacting partons, and $f({\bf b})$ is supposed to be a universal
function of the impact parameter ${\bf b}$ for all kinds of partons with
its normalization fixed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{f}
\int f({\bf b_1}) f({\bf b_1{-}b})\,d^2b_1\,d^2b=\int T({\bf b})\,d^2b=1.
\end{eqnarray}
The inclusive SPS cross sections $\sigma^{A}_{\rm SPS}$ and
$\sigma^{B}_{\rm SPS}$ for the individual partonic subrocesses $A$ and
$B$ can be calculated in a usual way using the single parton distribution
functions. The symmetry factor $m$ equals to 1 for identical subprocesses
and 2 for the differing ones.
These simplifying factorization assumptions, though rather customary
in the literature and quite convenient from the computational point of
view, are not sufficiently justified and are currently under revision
\cite{Bartalini2011jp}.
Nevertheless, we restrict ourselves to this simple form (\ref{doubleAB})
regarding it as the first estimate for the DPS contribution.
The presence of correlation term in the two-parton distributions
results in reduction \cite{Ryskin2011kk,flesburg,Snigirev2010tk}
of the effective cross section $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ with the growth of the
hard scale, while the dependence of $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ on the total energy
at a fixed scale is rather weak \cite{flesburg}. Thus, in fact, we obtain
the lower bound estimate for the contribution under consideration.
The CDF \cite{cdf4jets,cdf} and D0 \cite{D0} measurements give
$\sigma_{\rm eff}\simeq$ 15 mb, that constitutes roughly 20$\%$ of the
total (elastic + inelastic) $p{\bar p}$ cross section at the Tevatron
energy. We will use this value in our further analysis.
When calculating the inclusive SPS cross section $\sigma^{ J/\psi }_{\rm SPS}$
we take into account both the direct production channel $g{+}g\to J/\psi {+}g$
and the production of $P$-wave states $g{+}g{\to}\chi_{cJ}$ followed by
radiative transitions $\chi_{cJ}{\to} J/\psi {+}\gamma$. Numerically these two
production mechanisms turn to be of approximately equal importance.
The calculation of the relevant Feynman diagrams is straightforward, but
is done in the $k_t$-factorization approach implying that the initial gluon spin density matrix
is taken in the form
$\overline{\epsilon_g^{\mu}\epsilon_g^{*\nu}}=k_T^\mu k_T^\nu/|k_T|^2$
(similarly to what we did for the "box" SPS subprocess). The computational
technique is explained in every detail in Ref. \cite{BLZ}.
The formation probability of $J/\psi$ meson is determined by its radial wave
function; the latter is extracted from the known leptonic decay width
\cite{PDG} and is set to $|{\cal R}_{\psi}(0)|^2=0.8$ GeV$^3$. The formation
probability of $\chi_{cJ}$ mesons is determined by the derivative of
the radial wave function; the latter is taken from the potential model
\cite{EicQui}: $|{\cal R}_{\chi}'(0)|^2=0.075$ GeV$^5$.
The decay branchings are taken from the Particle Data Book \cite{PDG}:
$Br(\chi_{c1}{\to}J/\psi\gamma)=35\%$, $Br(\chi_{c2}{\to}J/\psi\gamma)=20\%$.
The decay angular distributions are generated in accordance with the
calculated $\chi_{cJ}$ polarization properties under the assumption of
electric dipole dominance \cite{Wise}.
\section{Results and discussion}
We start with discussing the role of kinematic restrictions on the
$J/\psi$ transverse momentum. Shown in Fig. 3 are the fractions of SPS
events surviving after imposing cuts on $p_T(\psi)$.
Dashed line corresponds to requiring $p_T(\psi){>}p_{T,min}$ for only
one (arbitrarily chosen) $J/\psi$ meson with no restrictions on the other.
Were the two $J/\psi$'s produced independently, the probability of having
$p_T(\psi){>}p_{T,min}$ for the both $J/\psi$'s simultaneously could be
obtained by just squaring the single-cut probability (dash-dotted
curve in Fig. 3).
On the contrary, in the naive the back-to-back kinematics, a cut
applied to any of the two $J/\psi$'s would automatically mean the same
restriction on the other, thus making no effect on the overall
probability (dashed curve).
The DPS production mode with cuts applied to both $J/\psi$ mesons
is represented by the dotted curve in Fig. 3. As one can see, this
curve is rather close to that modeling the idealized independent
SPS production.
The explicit calculation (solid curve) lies between the two idealistic
extreme cases related to the fully independent (dash-dotted curve) and
fully back-to-back correlated (dashed curve) production of $J/\psi$ pairs.
In the region $p_{T,min}<4$ GeV the solid and dash-dotted curves almost
coincide, thus showing that the two $J/\psi$'s are nearly idependent.
With stronger cuts on $p_T(\psi)$, the curves diverge showing
that the production of $J/\psi$'s becomes correlated.
Another illustration of this property is given by the distributions
in the azimuthal angle difference $d\sigma(\psi\psi)/d\Delta\varphi$
exhibited in Fig. 4.
The distribution looks flat for the unrestricted phase space (the
upper plot), but tends to concentrate around $\Delta\varphi\simeq\pi$
when the cuts on $p_T(\psi)$ become tighter (the middle and the
lower plots in Fig. 4.)
In principle, one could get rid of the SPS contribution by imposing
cuts like $p_T(\psi)>6$ GeV, $\Delta\varphi<\pi/4$, but the DPS cross
section would then fall from tens of nanobarns to few picobarns.
We can conclude that the SPS and DPS modes are potentially
distinguishable at sufficiently high $p_T(\psi)$, but the production
rates fall dramatically, and so, the practical discrimination of the
production mechanisms remains problematic.
Now we turn to rapidity correlations explained in Figs. 5 and 6.
In the case of independent production (the DPS mode), the
distribution over $\Delta y$ is rather flat (dash-dotted curve in
Fig. 5), while in the case of SPS 'box' contribution (dotted curve
in Fig. 5) it is concentrated around $\Delta y\simeq 0$ and does not
extend beyond the interval $|\Delta y|<2$.
The shape of the double-differential cross section
$d\sigma/dy(\psi_1)dy(\psi_2)$ corresponding to the Leading-Order SPS
contribution is presented in Fig. 6. This contribution forms a long
diagonal 'ridge' in the $y(\psi_1)-y(\psi_2)$ plane.
In Fig. 5 we also show pseudo-diffractive ~contributions from the one- and two-gluon
exchange processes of Fig. 2.
As it was expected, these processes lead to relatively
large $\Delta y$ and even show maxima at $\Delta y \simeq\pm 2.$
This corresponds to a typical situation with one $J/\psi$ moving forward and
the other one moving backward, following the directions of the initial
gluons. The minimum for the two-gluon exchange $g+g\to J/\psi + J/\psi $
subprocess is a consequence of the educated guess correction
of the high-energy formula at low energies as discussed above.
At the same time, the absolute size of the one-gluon exchange cross
section is found to be remarkably small. There are several reasons
taking credit for this smallness. First, is the presence of two extra
powers of $\alpha_s$. Second, is just the large typical rapidity
difference that makes the invariant mass of the final state relatively
large:
$M_{\psi\psi}(\Delta{y}{=}2)/M_{\psi\psi}(\Delta{y}{=}0)
\simeq\cosh(\Delta{y}/2).$
In turn, larger masses mean larger values of the probed $x$,
and, accordingly, lower values of the gluon densities.
The third and the most important reason lies in the color factors.
The color amplitude of the first diagram in the first row of Fig. 1
reads $tr\{T^a T^c T^c T^b\}=[(N_c^2-1)/(4N_c)]\delta^{ab}$
(where $T$ stand for the $SU(3)$ generators).
After taking square and summing over the initial gluon colors
$a$ and $b$ it gives $[\frac{2}{3}\delta^{ab}]^2 = 32/9.$
Similarly, for the diagrams in the second row we have
$[tr\{T^aT^cT^d\}f^{bcd}]^2=[\frac{1}{4}f^{acd}f^{bcd}]^2=
[\frac{N_c}{4}\delta^{ab}]^2=9/2$ and
$[tr\{T^cT^d\}f^{ace}f^{bde}]^2=[\frac{1}{2}f^{ace}f^{bce}]^2=
[\frac{N_c}{2}\delta^{ab}]^2=9.$
For comparison, the color amplitude of the first diagram in Fig. 2
reads $\frac{1}{4}d^{ace}\cdot\frac{1}{4}d^{bde},$ and the terms
containing $\frac{1}{4}f^{ace}$ or $\frac{1}{4}f^{bde}$ disappear
because of cancellations between the different diagrams.
This yields after squaring
\begin{eqnarray}
[\frac{1}{4}d^{ace}\frac{1}{4}d^{bde}]^2 &= &
\frac{(N_c^2{-}1)(N_c^2{-}4)^2}{256\;N_c^2} =
\frac{1}{256}\frac{200}{9}\simeq 0.1. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The color interference term is even smaller (and negative):
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\frac{\displaystyle{[d^{ace}d^{bde}][d^{ade}d^{bce}]}}%
{\displaystyle{256}}
&\!\!=\!\!&\frac{(N_c^2{-}1)(N_c^2{-}4)(N_c^2{-}12)}{512\;N_c^2}
=\frac{-20}{256\cdot 3}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Note that all the considered contributions are of the same order
in $N_c$.
The same suppression factors apply to the two-gluon exchange as well,
but there is yet another suppressing mechanism specific for the
one-gluon exchange process. It comes from the fact that the amplitude
vanishes when any of the final state gluons becomes soft
(this property makes the process infrared-safe, as we have mentioned
already). Recall that by the same token the inclusive production rates
of $J/\psi$ and $\chi_c$ mesons become comparable to each other in spite
of the hierarchy of the wave functions ($S$-wave compared to $P$-wave).
As a consequence, although the two-gluon exchange $g{+}g\to J/\psi {+} J/\psi $
and one-gluon exchange $g{+}g\to J/\psi {+} J/\psi {+}g{+}g$ processes are of the
same QCD order, their magnitudes are considerably different.
\section{Conclusions}
We have considered the production of $J/\psi$ pairs at the LHC energies
via SPS and DPS processes taking into account several possible
contributing subprocesses.
We find it rather difficult to disentangle the SPS and DPS
modes on the basis of azimuthal or transverse momentum correlations:
the difference becomes only visible at sufficiently high $p_T$, where
the production rates are, indeed, very small.
Selecting large rapidity difference events looks more promising.
The leading order SPS contribution is localized inside the interval
$|\Delta{y}|\le 2$ (and continues to fall down steeply with increasing
$|\Delta{y}|$), while the higher order contributions extending
beyond these limits are heavily suppressed by the color algebra and
do not constitute significant background for the DPS production.
\acknowledgments
The authors thank Ivan Belyaev for useful discussions on many
experimental issues.
This work is supported in part by the Polish
Grants DEC-2011/01/B/ST2/04535 and N N202 236 640,
by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research
Grants No. 10-02-93118 and 11-02-01454,
by the FASI State contract 02.740.11.0244,
by the President of Russian Federation Grant No 3920.2012.2,
by the Ministry of Education and Sciences of Russian Federation
under agreement No. 8412,
and by the DESY Directorate in the framework of Moscow-DESY project
on Monte-Carlo implementations for HERA-LHC.
|
\section{Introduction}
Unprecedented areal and temporal coverage of the sky from dedicated surveys and amateur observers has greatly amplified the discovery rate of unusual optical transients. Surveys such as Pan-STARRS, the Palomar Transient Factory, and the Catalina Real-Time Transient Survey have demonstrated the wealth of data that will be common in the era of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST). In particular, a previously sparse regime of transient phase-space between classical novae ($M_{V{\rm,\,peak}}\sim -8$ mag; \citealt{be08}) and supernovae ($M_{V{\rm,\,peak}}\sim -18$ mag; \citealt{fil97}) is now being populated with an increasing number of transients. These objects are quite diverse in their properties and may shed light on a wide range of explosion and eruption physics.
In recent years, objects like SN\,2008S and NGC\,300\,OT \citep{pkt+08,bps+09,bsc+09, tps+09, spk+12} and other luminous blue variables (LBVs) \citep{hd94,pbt+10,sls+11} have been subjected to intense scrutiny. These intermediate luminosity optical transients (ILOTs; also referred to as SN impostors and luminous red novae) might be the eruption of a dust-enshrouded massive star and promise to lend great insight into the late stages of massive stellar evolution or other poorly understood stellar physics. Because the phase space these eruptions inhabit is crowded with fundamentally different transient systems, it is important for future transient discovery scrutinize this region with intensive spectroscopic and photometric followup to distinguish these explosions from other more traditional explosions, such as classical novae or supernovae, which to fall in this region of phase space would qualify them as remarkable in their own right.
Classical novae (CNe) are binary systems where there is mass transfer from a (possibly evolved) secondary through the L1 Lagrange point to a degenerate white dwarf (WD). When enough material has accreted to obtain critical temperature and density, nuclear burning begins. The $p-p$ chain gives way to CNO reactions, which drive convection. The amount of energy deposited by the $\beta^+$ unstable nuclei then drives a radiative wind. Because degenerate matter on the surface of the WD has a equation of state independent of temperature, these reactions proceed in a runaway fashion until the Fermi temperature is reached and the surface layers of the white dwarf begin to function as an ideal gas sensitive to temperature and finally expand. This expansion speed can easily reach escape velocity and the radiation pressure ejects a shell of material \citep{war03}.
The inferred classical nova rate in the Milky Way is $\sim 35\;{\rm yr}^{-1}$ \citep{dbk+06}, however interstellar extinction and selection effects limit the number of observed novae. The mean absolute magnitude of novae is $M_V \approx -7.5$ mag, and of nearly a thousand novae on record, less than 10 reached peak absolute magnitude brighter than $M_V = -10.0$ mag \citep{srq+09}.
Here we present the detailed photometric and spectroscopic observations of SN\,2010U. We show that SN\,2010U\ is clearly super-Eddington at maximum light and identify it as a close spectroscopic analog to other super-Eddington novae. We compare SN\,2010U\ to the general nova population and recognize it as one of the most luminous and fast declining novae discovered to date. These characteristics of SN\,2010U\ make it a valuable object to study in the context of outburst models and progenitor studies of luminous novae.
\section{Discovery and Reduction}
\citet{nk10} discovered SN\,2010U\ in NGC\,4214 on 2010 February 5.63 UT (UT dates are used throughout this paper) and was subsequently observed by several amateur astronomers that night. SN\,2010U\ is located at RA=\ra{12}{15}{41.06}, Dec=\dec{+36}{20}{02.9} (J2000), about $20"$ east and $27"$ north of the center of NGC\,4214 \citep{nk10} (Figure~\ref{fig:galaxy}). We use the distance modulus of $m - M = 27.41\pm 0.03$ mag \citep{dws+09} for NGC\,4214 and correct all magnitudes for Galactic reddening of $E(B-V) = 0.02$ mag using the dust maps of \citet{sfd98}. Observations by Itagaki provide a pre-explosion limit of 18.8 mag (unfiltered) on 2010 January 24.74. \citet{hpr+10} determined that SN\,2010U\ was initially mis-classified as a supernova, and is in fact a luminous and fast classical nova. They conclude that SN\,2010U\ reached a peak absolute magnitude of $M_R = -10.5$ mag and faded two magnitudes on a timescale of $t_2\approx 15$ d. They use a distance modulus of $m - M = 27.53$, while our distance modulus determination is more recent. Adopting our distance modulus, the peak absolute magnitude using the results of \citet{hpr+10} is $M_R = -10.4$ mag.
\subsection{Photometry}
\label{sec:phot}
We initiated a multi-band photometric follow-up campaign of SN\,2010U\
starting on 2010 February 6.98 using the 2-m Liverpool Telescope (LT;
\citealt{ssr+04}) with RatCam; the 8-m Gemini North Telescope (GN)
with Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph (GMOS; \citealt{had+04}); and
the 2.56-m Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT; \citealt{da10}) with the
Andalucia Faint Object Spectrograph and Camera (ALFOSC). We also
collected photometry from amateur astronomers K.~Itagaki, T.~Yusa,
J.~Brimacombe, and J.~Nicolas, who kindly provided us their unfiltered
discovery images from 2010 February 5.65 to 13.03, which captured the
rise and peak of SN\,2010U.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{sn2010U_field}
\caption{The field of SN\,2010U\ in NGC\,4214, observed on 2010 February
21.54 with GMOS on Gemini North. The composite 3-color image combines
observations with $gri$ filters. The inset on the right shows SN\,2010U\
about two weeks after maximum light.}
\label{fig:galaxy}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We bias-subtracted and flat-fielded all images using standard techniques in IRAF, and determined instrumental magnitudes using PSF-fitting of the source. We obtained nightly zero-points by observing a number of standard fields from the \citet{lan92} catalog. We improved the calibration of individual magnitudes of the transient through comparison with the average magnitudes of a local stellar sequence in the field of SN\,2010U\ established during selected photometric nights.
Observations from the LT used Landolt $B$- and $V$-band and Sloan $r^\prime$- and $i^\prime$-band, but were calibrated to Landolt standards in the Vega system. To place all fluxes on the same system, we transformed these measurements to the AB system using offsets derived from ${\tt pysynphot}$\footnote{\url{http://stsdas.stsci.edu/pysynphot/}} of $-0.115$, $0.000$, $+0.142$ and $+0.356$ mag, respectively. Unfiltered observations with the NOT, as well as amateur observations, were unfiltered but initially calibrated to Vega $R$-band, so we transformed these measurements to AB using an offset of $+0.183$ mag. Since GN observations were initially calibrated to the AB system no transformation was necessary, and all magnitudes quoted in this paper are AB unless otherwise noted. The quantum efficiency curves of the instrumental configurations used by the amateur astronomers peak around $6000-6200$ \AA, so the unfiltered magnitudes were scaled to match the $r^\prime$-band photometry. In the case of the observation by J.~Brimacombe, however, the transmission curve of his luminance filter\footnote{Transmission function at \url{http://www.sbig.com/sbwhtmls/}\\\url{announcement_baader_narrowband_f2.htm} } peaks at 5500 \AA\ and sharply declines outside the range $4200-6800$ \AA, making calibration to $V$-band most appropriate. We summarize the optical photometric measurements in Table~\ref{table:phot} and present the light curve in Figure~\ref{fig:lightcurve}.
We also observed SN\,2010U\ with the \emph{Swift} satellite \citep{gcg+04} on 2010 March 3.82 with the X-Ray Telescope (XRT; \citealt{bhn+05}) and the UV/Optical Telescope (UVOT; \citealt{rkm+05}). We did not detect any X-ray or UV/optical emission coincident with the location of the source. A previous \emph{Swift}/XRT observation of NGC\,4214 on 2007 March 26.50, which included the field of SN\,2010U, showed no activity coincident with the source location. We analyzed all \emph{Swift} data with the ${\tt Heasoft-6.11}$ software package and corresponding calibration files, applying standard screening and filtering criteria. We reduced XRT data with the ${\tt xrtpipeline}$ and determined $3\sigma$ upper limits with the ${\tt sosta}$ task in the ${\tt ximage}$ suite using a $5"$ radius aperture; see Table~\ref{table:swift_xrt}. We processed UVOT with the standard UVOT data reduction pipeline \citep{pbp+08} and determined $3\sigma$ upper limits with a $5"$ radius aperture; see Table~\ref{table:swift_uvot}.
\subsection{Spectroscopy}
We obtained three low resolution optical spectra of SN\,2010U\ using the Marcario Low-Resolution Spectrograph (LRS, \citealt{hnm+98}) on the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET; \citealt{rab+98}), ALFOSC on NOT, and GMOS on GN. We reduced the NOT spectrum using the QUBA pipeline \citep{vfb+11}, implemented in IRAF, and the HET and GMOS spectra using standard tasks in IRAF. We observed all targets at low airmass ($\lesssim 1.2$) with the slit was aligned to the parallactic angle, and flux-calibrated each spectrum using a spectrophotometric standard star observed at a similar airmass. All spectra were wavelength-calibrated by comparison with Helium-Neon-Argon arc lamps. We summarize spectroscopic measurements and instrumental configurations in Table~\ref{table:spectroscopy}. We analyzed the resulting 1-d spectroscopic data in IRAF using ${\tt onedspec}$ tasks and the Scipy Python packages \citep{jop+01}.
\section{Results}
Complete photometric and spectroscopic coverage of SN\,2010U\ confirms the findings of \citet{hpr+10}: SN\,2010U\ is a luminous classical nova, exhibiting a rapid optical decline and evolution from an optically thick spectrum dominated by hydrogen and iron emission lines to an optically thin nova spectrum entering the nebular stage. SN\,2010U\ is not a supernova nor the eruption of a massive star because of its modest ejecta velocities ($\approx 1100\;\textrm{ km }\textrm{s}^{-1}$) and rapid optical decline and spectral evolution. Supernovae typically exhibit much higher expansion velocities ($\gtrsim 10^4\;\textrm{ km }\textrm{s}^{-1}$) \citep{fil97} and while LBV eruptions exhibit a range of expansion velocities ($\sim 200 - 2000\;\textrm{ km }\textrm{s}^{-1}$; \citealt{sls+11}) and strong hydrogen Balmer emission, the presence of CNO element lines and rapid optical and spectral evolution of SN\,2010U\ strongly indicate that it was a classical nova and not an LBV.
\subsection{Optical Photometric Evolution}
SN\,2010U\ evolved rapidly after its discovery on 2010 February 5.63. Our light curve is well sampled near maximum light in $r^\prime$-band, and the transient is seen to rise $\approx 0.25$ magnitude from discovery to maximum. Although the rise of SN\,2010U\ is not captured in $V$-band, the first measurement at $17.28$ mag is contemporaneous with the measurement of maximum light in $r^\prime$-band. For the purpose of comparison with previous events, we adopt the date of $V$-band maximum, 2010 February 6.27, as the date of maximum light. After maximum, SN\,2010U\ rapidly declined with a linear slope in magnitude space, at first steeply and then becoming more gradual after 2010 February 10 (Figure~\ref{fig:lightcurve}). We followed the light curve of the transient until 2010 February 24. \citet{hpr+10} followed the transient until 2010 March 18.40, reporting a continued steady decline.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{lightcurve_h}
\caption{Light curves of SN\,2010U\ corrected for Galactic extinction \citep{sfd98} and plotted in AB magnitudes. $B$-, $V$-, and $i^\prime$-band data points are offset for clarity, and unfiltered amateur observations are calibrated to $R$-band. We adopt the date of $V$-band maximum, 2010 February 6.27, as the date of maximum light for SN\,2010U\ at apparent magnitude of $17.28$ mag. The $g^\prime$-band measurement is distinct from nearby $B$- and $V$-band measurements because the differences in the passbands yield significant deviations due to the presence of emission lines (Figure~\ref{fig:overall_spectra}). Photometry from \citet{hpr+10} is converted to the AB system, corrected for extinction, and included in this light curve. We find a $\sim 0.3$ mag difference in $r^\prime$-band, which is the source of disagreement in our determination of $t_2$. However, we note that the very rapid decline is also apparent in $B$-, $V$-, and $i^\prime$-band.}
\label{fig:lightcurve}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
The photometric evolution of classical novae is typically parameterized by the time to decline by two magnitudes from maximum light, $t_2$. Several studies have shown that $B$- or $V$-band are most appropriate to measure $t_2$ because H$\alpha$ emission complicates measurements in $r^\prime$ band \citep{sdh+11,be08}. We measure $t_2$ by adopting the $V$-band maximum (2010 February 6.27), and then linearly interpolating between two $V$-band measurements at 2010 February 8.98 and 2010 February 10.07 in magnitude space, which gives a result that is accurate to $\pm 0.13$ days. The uncertainty in the date of maximum light derives from the assumption that maximum light in $V$-band corresponds with maximum light in $r^\prime$ band, and therefore we have captured the peak of the light curve to $\pm 0.3$ d. We find that SN\,2010U\ underwent a fast decline, with a $V$-band maximum of $M_V=-10.2\pm 0.1$ mag and $t_2=3.5\pm 0.3$ days. Our determination of absolute magnitude and $t_2$ are in contrast to the results of \citet{hpr+10}, who derive $M_{R,{\rm max}}\approx -10.5$ mag and $t_2\approx 15$ d. This is primarily due to the smaller distance modulus adopted here, and our better sampling of the light curve in the range $t_{\rm max}$ to $t_{\rm max}+15$ d. In addition, a fast decline is evident in $B$-, $V$-, and $i^\prime$-band as well. The rise time of SN\,2010U\ from quiescence to maximum light remains unconstrained due to the comparatively shallow upper limit ($m_{r^\prime}\approx 18.8$ mag) on January 24.74 UT and a large gap before discovery.
We compare the colors of SN\,2010U\ to those of other fast and luminous novae and the general nova population to determine if there is intrinsic host galaxy extinction. In Figure~\ref{fig:colors}, the colors of SN\,2010U\ are plotted against another fast and luminous nova, Nova LMC 1991 (hereafter L91), and the average colors of the nova population. \citet{vy87} find that of 7 novae at maximum light, $(B - V)_{\rm avg}^{\rm max} = 0.23\pm 0.06$ mag, with a dispersion $\sigma_{B-V}\lesssim 0.16$ mag. They also find that at $t_2$, 13 novae are found to have an intrinsic color $(B - V)_{\rm avg}^{t_2} = -0.02 \pm 0.04$ mag, with a dispersion $\sigma_{B-V}\lesssim 0.12$ mag.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{colors}
\caption{Colors of SN\,2010U, L91, M31N, and the general nova population \citep{vy87} in units of $t_2$ after correction for Galactic reddening. A comparison of SN\,2010U\ to L91, another luminous and fast nova, assuming that any color difference is due to intrinsic host galaxy extinction, indicates that SN\,2010U\ might suffer as much as $E(B-V)\approx 0.2$ mag of additional intrinsic extinction, raising the peak luminosity to $M_V\approx -10.9$ mag. For the purpose of comparison, all colors are given in Vega magnitudes.}
\label{fig:colors}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It is interesting to compare SN\,2010U\ to L91 and speculate that any color difference might be due to intrinsic host galaxy extinction. For SN\,2010U\, near maximum light $(B - V) = 0.43 \pm 0.06$ mag and near $t_2$ $(B - V) = 0.13 \pm 0.11$ mag. If we were to assume that SN\,2010U\ has the same intrinsic colors as L91, then SN\,2010U\ might suffer as much as $E(B-V) \approx 0.2$ mag of additional intrinsic extinction, which would raise its peak brightness to $M_V \approx -10.9$ mag, making it the most luminous classical nova on record. However, SN\,2010U\ could also simply be intrinsically redder than L91.
\citet{hpr+10} assume the $V - R \approx 1.1$ mag color of V1500 Cyg, another luminous nova, to infer $M_V \approx - 9.4$ mag for SN\,2010U. However, we measure $V - r^\prime = 0.1$ mag (Vega), suggesting that SN\,2010U\ was not as red as V1500 Cyg. We conservatively assume no intrinsic host galaxy extinction for all further analysis.
\subsection{X-ray}
The \emph{Swift} XRT and UVOT observed the location of SN\,2010U\ 25.6 days after maximum optical light and did not detect the source (Tables~\ref{table:swift_xrt}~\&~\ref{table:swift_uvot}), placing a 3$\sigma$ upper limit of $9.1 \times 10^{-3}~{\rm ct s}^{-1}$ for the X-rays in the 0.3-10.0~keV energy band. Using the relationship derived in \citet{go09} to convert optical extinction $A_V$ into hydrogen column density $N_H$, we obtain $N_H ({\rm cm}^{-2}) = (2.21 \pm 0.09) \times 10^{21} A_V\;({\rm mag}) = 1.60 \times 10^{20}\;{\rm cm}^{-2}$. Using the \emph{Chandra} X-ray Center's \emph{Portable, Interactive Multi-Mission Simulator} (PIMMS)\footnote{\url{http://cxc.harvard.edu/toolkit/pimms.jsp}}, and assuming a spectrum for the nova X-ray emission, we convert count rates into flux limits by assuming a spectrum for the nova.
\citet{sno+11} present a compilation of 52 Galactic and Magellanic Cloud CNe and recurrent novae (RNe) observed with the \emph{Swift} XRT. X-ray studies of CNe have identified two different emission components, a hard X-ray component and a soft X-ray component. The fastest optically declining novae (as measured by $t_2$) usually have an early hard X-ray phase, while the slower novae do not. The hard X-ray emission may originate from shocks between the fast moving ejecta and pre-existing circumstellar material, and typically is hard thermal bremsstrahlung ($T \sim 6 \times 10^7 - 1 \times 10^8)$~K, low luminosity $(\sim 10^{34}\;{\rm erg\;s}^{-1}$ \citep{bko98}, and of shorter duration than the soft X-ray phase \citep{sno+11}. The soft phase begins when the nova shell becomes optically thin and the photosphere of the nova recedes to the surface of the hot WD, with blackbody emission at $T = 2-8 \times 10^5$~K \citep{sno+11}. This emission lasts as long as nuclear reactions continue on the surface of the white dwarf. \citet{sno+11} find that the Super Soft X-ray phase begins and ends sooner for fast novae (as measured by $t_2$) than for slow novae and that novae with slower expansion velocities will enter the Super Soft state later but emit X-rays for longer. The correlation between Super Soft X-ray turn off time and $t_2$ has significant scatter \citep{hk10,sno+11}, but if for SN\,2010U\ $t_2 = 3.5 \pm 0.3$ d, then the turn-off time would be lower than 60 d and possibly as low as 10 d.
Adopting a temperature of $k T = 5$ keV for the hard component of SN\,2010U\ would place a $3\sigma$ upper limit on the X-ray luminosity of of $L_X = 1.6 \times 10^{39}\;{\rm erg\;s}^{-1}$, while adopting a temperature of $k T = 60$~eV for the soft component of SN\,2010U\ would place a limit of $L_X = 2.6 \times 10^{38}\;{\rm erg\;s}^{-1}$. While neither of these limits are strong constraints, the upper limit on the Super Soft emission approaches the X-ray luminosities of some novae on record. \citet{sno+11} found that for Nova\,V407\,Cyg the blackbody luminosity of the Super Soft emission was $L_X = 9.3 \times 10^{37}\;{\rm erg\;s}^{-1}$ at 27 d after optical maximum, and that nuclear burning on the surface of the WD occurred from eruption until about 30 d after optical maximum, meaning that SN\,2010U\ could not have been much brighter in X-rays than Nova\,V407\,Cyg. The deeper pre-explosion observation on 2007 March~26.50 of the field of SN\,2010U\ placed a 3$\sigma$ upper limit of $6.7 \times 10^{-3}~{\rm ct s}^{-1}$, providing a weak upper limit on the luminosity of the nova system in quiescence. Adopting a temperature of $k T = 60$ eV for a soft quiescent spectrum of SN\,2010U\ would place a limit of $L_X = 2.1 \times 10^{38}\;{\rm erg\;s}^{-1}$.
\subsection{Bolometric Flux Evolution}
During the early evolution of the light curve near maximum light $(t \lesssim 4$ d), the ejected shell of SN\,2010U\ is still optically thick and we can fit the spectral energy distribution (Figure~\ref{fig:sed}) with a spherical blackbody function. We use the photometry from 2010 February 6.98, 8.98, and 10.07. Effective wavelengths for these filters were determined using ${\tt pysynphot}$ and the HET and NOT spectra, yielding $\lambda_{B, {\rm eff}} = 4387$ \AA, $\lambda_{V, {\rm eff}} = 5468$ \AA, $\lambda_{r^\prime, {\rm eff}} = 6202$ \AA, and $\lambda_{i^\prime, {\rm eff}} = 7463$ \AA.
We use $\chi^2$ minimization to find the best-fit parameters of radius and temperature, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sed}. For the spectral energy distribution (SED) nearest maximum light (2010 February 6.98), we obtain a photospheric temperature of $T=8090 \pm 470$~K and a radius of $R=1.99\pm0.19$~AU. Within the errors, the temperature of the photosphere remains constant for the following two epochs, while its radius recedes to $\approx 1.0$~AU, indicating that the envelope becomes optically thin. This temperature fits well with the typical $T_{\rm eff} \leq 10^4$~K derived for novae at visual maximum \citep{wil92}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{sed}
\caption{Best-fit radius and temperature parameters for each epoch. Within the errors, the temperature of the photosphere remains constant over the three epochs while the radius of the photosphere recedes to $\approx 1.0$~AU as the envelope becomes optically thin.}
\label{fig:sed}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
If we combine the expansion velocity measured from spectral lines (see \S~\ref{sec:spectral_evolution}) with the radius of the photosphere and assume ballistic expansion, we can estimate the time since explosion. We determine that time from explosion to 2010 February 6.98 was $t = 3.06\pm 0.40$ d. This suggests a rapid rise to maximum, but is otherwise consistent with the observations since it is uncertain how accurately the spectral line widths probe the bulk ejecta velocity, because the lines may be formed in a wind.
Using the best fit parameters, we estimate the blackbody luminosity of the photosphere. These luminosities are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:super_eddington} along with the Eddington Luminosity for a $1.4~M_\odot$ white dwarf, $L_{\rm Edd} = 1.75\times 10^{38}\;{\rm erg\;s}^{-1}$, calculated using a 100\% ionized atmosphere and Thompson scattering opacity. On 2010 February 6.98, we find that $L=(2.71 \pm 0.22) \times 10^{39}\;{\rm erg\;s}^{-1}$, and the luminosity declines by a factor of 4 over the next three days. SN\,2010U\ is clearly super-Eddington for at least the 4 days near maximum light, in agreement with determination by \citet{hpr+10}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{super_eddington}
\caption{Bolometric luminosity of SN\,2010U\ determined from fits of a spherical blackbody to photometry (See Figure~\ref{fig:sed}). Shortly after maximum light (+0.71~d), we find that SN\,2010U\ is clearly super-Eddington with luminosity $L=(2.71 \pm 0.22) \times 10^{39}\;{\rm erg\;s}^{-1}$. Over the next three days the luminosity declines by a factor of 4.}
\label{fig:super_eddington}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The super-Eddington luminosity of SN\,2010U\ is similar to that of L91, where model-atmosphere fitting to UV and optical data by \citet{sss+01} determined that it remained super-Eddington from $-5< t<8$ d around maximum light. They find a peak bolometric flux of $L = (2.6 \pm 0.3) \times 10^{39}\;{\rm erg\;s}^{-1}$ with $R = 0.7$~AU and $T = 1.3 \times 10^4$~K at maximum light. \citet{sss+01} determine from their model that the radiative forces are ten times the gravity forces for the entire atmosphere, thus the ``atmosphere'' should appear as a radiatively driven wind. \citet{sha01} suggests that a clumpy but porous photosphere would enable steady-state super-Eddington luminosities to persist for an extended period.
\citet{sss+01} determine from their model that the radiative forces are ten times the gravity forces for the entire atmosphere, thus the ``atmosphere'' should appear as a radiatively driven wind. \citet{sha01} suggests that a clumpy but porous photosphere would enable steady-state super-Eddington luminosities to persist for an extended period.
\subsection{Spectroscopic Evolution}
\label{sec:spectral_evolution}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.82\textwidth]{overall_spectra}
\caption{Multi-epoch spectra of SN\,2010U\ capturing the post-maximum ``iron-curtain'' stage (HET), ``pre-nebular'' stage (NOT), and the onset of the nebular stage (GMOS). Spectra were de-redshifted to match the [\ion{S}{2}] $\lambda6716.44$, $\lambda6730.82$ \AA\ emission lines from the host galaxy ($z = 0.00087$). Strong P Cygni profiles are present at early times (see Figure~\ref{fig:pcygnis}) but quickly fade into the continuum.}
\label{fig:overall_spectra}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\citet{hpr+10} published a spectrum of SN\,2010U\ 14 days after maximum light, noting the presence of H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, and \ion{O}{1}$\lambda\lambda7774$. They emphasize that this spectrum does not resemble that of a supernova nor any intermediate luminosity optical transients such as SN\,2008S nor NGC\,300\,OT.
Our three epochs of spectroscopy trace the classical nova spectral evolution of SN\,2010U\ from 1.03 d after maximum light (2010 February 7.30) to 15.30 d after maximum light (2010 February 21.51) (Figure~\ref{fig:overall_spectra}). The earliest spectrum exhibits strong emission lines of (in decreasing strength) the hydrogen Balmer series, \ion{Fe}{2}, \ion{Na}{1}, \ion{O}{1}, \ion{N}{1}, and \ion{C}{1}. Spectra were de-redshifted to match the [\ion{S}{2}] $\lambda6716.44$, $\lambda6730.82$ emission lines from the host galaxy ($z = 0.00087$). The radial velocity of SN\,2010U\ is $-260\;\textrm{ km }\textrm{s}^{-1}$, while the NED redshift of NGC\,4214 is $-290\;\textrm{ km }\textrm{s}^{-1}$. This $\Delta v \approx -30 \;\textrm{ km }\textrm{s}^{-1}$ is consistent with the internal motions of the galaxy.
Strong P~Cygni\ profiles are clearly seen in the \ion{Na}{1} D $\lambda5892$ and \ion{O}{1} $\lambda7774$ lines (Figure~\ref{fig:pcygnis}). The presence of these profiles in the 2010 February 7.30\ spectrum (Figure~\ref{fig:overall_spectra}) are characteristic of spectra of novae at maximum light \citep{war03}, therefore with this additional information to the initial rise in $r^\prime$ band, it is likely that the light curve (Figure~\ref{fig:lightcurve}) captures the maximum light of SN\,2010U. We take an average of the velocities of the P~Cygni lines of \ion{Na}{1}~D and \ion{O}{1} (Figure~\ref{fig:pcygnis}) and the widths of the Balmer series and \ion{O}{1} (Figures~\ref{fig:balmer_profiles}~\&~\ref{fig:OI_8446}) to derive an expansion velocity of $\approx 1100 \;\textrm{ km }\textrm{s}^{-1}$ (Figure~\ref{fig:line_velocities}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{pcygnis}
\caption{\ion{Na}{1}~D and \ion{O}{1} P~Cygni profiles from the 2010 February 7.30 spectrum, taken $1.03~\textrm{d}$ after maximum light. The P~Cygni profiles trace the ejecta velocities from the nova explosion, since at early phases the ejecta is optically thick and approximates the true expansion velocity. \ion{Na}{1}~D and \ion{O}{1} are doublet and triplet lines, respectively, and are centered relative to the weighted means of the NIST atomic line database relative strengths. The line flux is normalized to continuum.}
\label{fig:pcygnis}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
When the envelope is initially optically thick the radiation is ionization bounded and neutral and low-ionization emission lines are formed. As the nova evolves, the ionizing radiation becomes progressively harder as the photosphere recedes to the surface of the hot white dwarf and higher ionization states are seen. \citet{w90} determines that for electron number densities $N_e \gtrsim 10^9 {\rm cm}^{-3}$ the nova envelope is optically thick, while forbidden lines will appear once $N_e \lesssim 10^7 {\rm cm}^{-3}$.
By 5.94 d after peak (2010 February 12.21), the P~Cygni profiles become pure emission while the Balmer and \ion{Fe}{2} emission lines are still clearly visible. The wider wavelength range of the NOT spectrum reveals \ion{Ca}{2} H \& K emission lines and additional Balmer series lines continuing until the Balmer break. The most significant change is the increase in strength of the \ion{O}{1} $\lambda7773$ and $\lambda8446$ lines and the appearance of the forbidden lines of [\ion{O}{1}] $\lambda5577$, $6300$ and $6363$.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{balmer_profiles}
\caption{Hydrogen Balmer line profiles for SN\,2010U. The profiles become narrower and more box-like with time, and the FWHM decreases with time. The line profiles are scaled relative to the continuum flux.}
\label{fig:balmer_profiles}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{OI_profiles}
\caption{\ion{O}{1} $\lambda7774$ and $\lambda8446$ line profiles. Initially, these are P~Cygni line profiles characteristic of an optically thick expanding envelope that develop into a flat-topped profile, characteristic of an optically thin expanding shell. Flux is normalized to the continuum.}
\label{fig:OI_8446}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{line_velocities}
\caption{All velocities plotted are FWHM except the $t=0$~d \ion{O}{1} points, which are derived from the P~Cygni profiles. For compatibility with this plot, line species with P Cygni profiles (\ion{O}{1}) are plotted as twice the velocity of the blue shifted absorption component. The FWHM of the lines decreases with time.}
\label{fig:line_velocities}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
By 15.30~d after peak the \ion{Fe}{2} emission lines have mostly faded and the Balmer series dominates in emission (Figure~\ref{fig:GMOS_spectrum}). Throughout all spectral epochs, the Balmer lines are the strongest emission lines (Figure~\ref{fig:balmer_profiles}), evolving from a FWHM of $2200 \;\textrm{ km }\textrm{s}^{-1}$ at 1.03~d after maximum light to $1600\;\textrm{ km }\textrm{s}^{-1}$ at 15.30~d after maximum light. Initially, the Balmer profiles show an asymmetric structure, but then evolve to become narrower and more symmetric. The O~I~$\lambda8446$~\AA\ line developed a flat-topped profile (Figure~\ref{fig:OI_8446}) characteristic of an optically thin expanding spherical shell at a velocity of $815\;\textrm{ km }\textrm{s}^{-1}$. There are also faint forbidden lines of [\ion{O}{1}], signaling the entrance into the nebular phase of classical nova spectral evolution. The late time spectrum is characteristic of a nova shell, showing strong Balmer lines, \ion{O}{1}, and signs of [\ion{O}{1}]~$\lambda6300$~\AA\, which signals the transition from the permitted state to the forbidden state.
\citet{sls+11} argues that, based only upon an early spectrum from Keck/LRIS on 2010 February 7th UT (2 d after maximum light), the spectra and light curve are very similar to a LBV, (SN)\,2000ch \citep{wvh+04,pbt+10}. However, upon examination of extant nova spectra, a surprisingly close match to SN\,2010U\ is found with L91 (Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_comp_all}). The prominent \ion{Fe}{2} and \ion{O}{1} emission visible in the late time spectrum additionally suggests that SN\,2010U\ is not an LBV because most known LBVs do not show this behavior \citep{sls+11}.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{GMOS_spectrum}
\caption{Late time (15.3 d after maximum) spectrum of SN\,2010U. The strong presence of \ion{O}{1} and the first appearance of [\ion{O}{1}] emission suggests that SN\,2010U\ is entering the nebular stage. Host galaxy lines (such as [\ion{S}{2}]) are labeled in grey, while multiplet species are labeled with dotted lines.}
\label{fig:GMOS_spectrum}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\citet{wil92} devises an optical spectroscopic classification system that types novae by their strongest non-Balmer emission lines, typically \ion{Fe}{2} or a combination of He and N, called He/N. They find that He/N novae preferentially have shorter $t_2$, higher expansion velocities, and coronal lines, while \ion{Fe}{2} novae evolve to a forbidden line spectrum with lower ionization species. The He/N spectrum is formed in a discrete shell ejected during the explosive thermonuclear runaway while the \ion{Fe}{2} spectrum is formed in a continuous wind driven by the radiation from the residual burning of material on the surface of the white dwarf. \citet{wil92} explains that manifestation of the spectrum is dependent on which mechanism dominates in a two-component model. The spectral evolution of SN\,2010U\ and its evolution clearly identifies it as a member of the \ion{Fe}{2} spectral class.
We observe velocity evolution in the emission line profiles of SN\,2010U\ (Figure~\ref{fig:line_velocities}), with the Balmer and \ion{O}{1} $\lambda7774$ and $\lambda8446$ profiles exhibiting a jagged shape at early times, and then becoming smoother and narrower. For \ion{Fe}{2} novae, this is the result of a photosphere formed in a wind with velocity homologously increasing outward and mass loss rate decreasing with time. The decreasing density pushes the region of line formation steadily inward towards the surface of the white dwarf where flow velocities are lower.
\citet{sno+11} find that the presence of [\ion{Fe}{10}] 6375 requires a hot photoionization source, and thus correlates well with Super Soft X-ray emission. That this line is not visible in the nebular spectra complements the non-detection of X-ray emission from SN\,2010U.
\section{SN\,2010U\ as a Fast and Extremely Luminous Classical Nova}
\subsection{Comparison to Nova LMC 1991 and M31N-2007-11d}
Although roughly a thousand classical novae have been discovered, only a few luminous events are known due to their rapid decline and intrinsic rarity. Two other luminous \ion{Fe}{2} type novae have been studied extensively: L91 \citep{del91,sss+01,wph94} and M31N-2007-11d \citep{srq+09}, hereafter M31N. L91 was an exceedingly bright and fast \ion{Fe}{2} type nova in the Large Magellanic Cloud, so luminous that it was initially heralded as a prototype for a class of super-bright novae \citep{del91}. M31N was discovered during a spectroscopic survey of novae in M31 by \citet{sdh+11}.
The light curves of L91 and M31N are similar to SN\,2010U\ (a comparison between SN\,2010U\ and L91 is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:lightcurve_LMC_comp}). L91 was discovered 5 days before maximum light and M31N $\gtrsim 4$~d before maximum. The rise to maximum of L91 is among the longest for novae on record, with a peak of $M_v = -10.0$ mag. The light curve of L91 shown here is drawn from the photometry published in the circulars \citep{sss+91,gil91,glc+91,lmh+91,dlm+91}. \citet{srq+09} set a lower limit of 4~d on the rise time for M31N from quiescence to a maximum light of $M_V \simeq -9.5$ mag. Both novae declined rapidly from maximum light with $t_2 = 6\pm1$~d (L91: \citealt{sss+01}) and $t_2 = 9.5$~d (M31N: \citealt{srq+09}). By comparison, SN\,2010U\ has $t_2 = 3.5 \pm 0.3$~d and the rise time is unconstrained.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{lightcurve_LMC_comp}
\caption{Comparison of SN\,2010U\ (10U) to L91. ``$v$'' represents visual magnitude, and $v$-band and $V$-band measurements are offset by two magnitudes for clarity. Both novae exhibit similar peak absolute brightnesses and decline rates. The rise time of L91 (and M31N) is exceptionally long, while the rise time of 10U is unconstrained.}
\label{fig:lightcurve_LMC_comp}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Spectroscopically, L91 and M31N are remarkably similar to SN\,2010U--they are all clearly \ion{Fe}{2} type novae. L91 and M31N have slightly lower expansion velocities with H$\alpha$~FWHM of $\simeq 1880\;\textrm{ km }\textrm{s}^{-1}$ and $\simeq 1550\;\textrm{ km }\textrm{s}^{-1}$, respectively, while SN\,2010U\ has $\simeq 2230\;\textrm{ km }\textrm{s}^{-1}$. At early times both L91 and M31N show strong P~Cygni absorption profiles. L91 clearly mirrors the temporal and spectral evolution of SN\,2010U\ (Figure~\ref{fig:LMC_comp_all}).
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{LMC_comp_all}
\caption{Spectroscopic comparison to L91. Both novae exhibit strong \ion{Fe}{2} lines, hydrogen Balmer profiles with similar widths, P~Cygni profiles at early times, and similar timescales for spectral evolution.}
\label{fig:LMC_comp_all}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
L91 is one of the best studied novae of the modern era. UV spectra from the \emph{IUE} satellite revealed strong \ion{Fe}{2} absorption which would be reradiated as emission in the optical \citep{sss+01}. \citet{sss+01} construct a model atmosphere of L91 using ${\tt PHOENIX}$ and ${\tt CLOUDY}$ to obtain abundance estimates of the outburst and find that L91 was enriched in CNO elements and originated from a carbon oxygen (CO) white dwarf.
Although there is no late time spectroscopy of SN\,2010U, the spectrum 15.94~d after maximum light already shows evidence of forbidden oxygen, with no evidence for any neon. This, combined with the presence of carbon and oxygen and the similarity of spectra to L91, suggests that SN\,2010U\ also had a carbon-oxygen WD progenitor.
However, efforts to identify WD progenitor types are confounded by the possibility that an enriched envelope could exist on top of a CO white dwarf, or that an ONeMg nova may or may not have a dredge-up event that would enrich the spectrum, producing a wide range of observable spectra. Whether or not there is a direct mapping between the manifestation of the spectrum and the composition of the underlying WD is still an open question \citep{pk98,mas11}, although with detailed UV and X-ray spectral observations capturing the entirety of the nova outburst, such as in the case of L91 \citep{sss+01}, it may be possible to tell.
\subsection{MMRD and FWHM Relationships}
Studies of novae have revealed a correlation between peak absolute magnitude $M_V$ and decline rate $t_2$, termed the maximum magnitude versus rate of decline relationship (MMRD). The shorter $t_2$, the more intrinsically luminous the nova explosion \citep{dl95,dd00,sdh+11}.
\citet{sdh+11} executed an extensive multi-year study of novae in M31, discovering and spectroscopically classifying 46 novae, bringing the total of spectroscopically classified novae in M31 to 91. They derive a MMRD for M31 novae and compare to other historical samples of novae (Figure~\ref{fig:MMRD_V}) \citep{dl95,dd00,sdh+11}. There is a substantial amount of scatter in this relation. The extreme quadrant of the MMRD at high luminosities and shortest $t_2$ is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:extreme_spec_MMRD} with the most luminous novae known to date compiled by \citet{srq+09} and updated with recent discoveries by \citet{kck+10} and \citet{sdh+11}. Although in Figure~\ref{fig:extreme_spec_MMRD} there appear to be a comparable number of luminous He/N novae and \ion{Fe}{2} novae, because He/N novae are rarer they are in fact preferentially brighter and faster than \ion{Fe}{2} novae \citep{wil92, sdh+11, sdb+12}. For example, \citet{sdh+11} find in their M31 survey that three of their four fastest declining novae are He/N type, although by number He/N novae comprise only $\sim 20$\% of all novae.
Despite claims that there might be a ``super-bright'' class of novae \citep{del91}, \citet{srq+09} find no evidence for a distinct population. However, SN\,2010U\ is indeed a very luminous nova: compared to the 883 novae on record compiled by \citet{srq+09}, only 4 novae are brighter, two of which are not spectroscopically confirmed \citep{cfn+87,kck+10}. At the extreme end of the luminosity distribution there is large scatter from observational uncertainties such as intrinsic extinction and uncertainty in the capture of maximum light as well as uncertainties from intrinsic variability in the novae explosion due to variation in WD mass, accretion rate and metallicity \citep{srq+09}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{MMRD_V}
\caption{Maximum magnitude vs. rate of decline (MMRD) relationship created from data from the \citet{sdh+11} survey with luminous novae and historical MMRD relationships overplotted.}
\label{fig:MMRD_V}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{extreme_spec_MMRD}
\caption{MMRD relationships \citep{dl95,dd00,sdh+11} plotted over the most luminous novae on record \citet{srq+09,kck+10,sdh+11}. Upper or lower limits on $t_2$ are shown with arrows, and novae for which no $t_2$ measurement exists are plotted at $t_2 = 0$. The colors denote location and the symbols denote spectral type. All magnitudes are $V$-band except for the black points other than SN\,2010U, which are measured in $g^\prime$ \citep{kck+10}. The typical uncertainty is shown, which is largely an uncertainty of whether the nova was caught at peak magnitude.}
\label{fig:extreme_spec_MMRD}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Surveys also find that novae with faster expansion velocities have a faster decline from maximum light (Figure~\ref{fig:vel_t2}) \citep{mcl60,sdh+11}. The scatter in Figure~\ref{fig:vel_t2} is likely due to the time dependence of velocities, which depends on how soon after maximum light the spectra was obtained. Such a $t_2$ vs. H$\alpha$~FWHM relationship is a natural outcome if He/N novae are the fastest declining and the most violent, having the highest ejecta velocities. SN\,2010U\ is a fast declining nova with a moderate ejection velocity.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{vel_t2}
\caption{H$\alpha$ width compared to decline speed (measured by $t_2$) of the nova outburst for the \citet{sdh+11} sample of novae from M31, with L91 and SN\,2010U\ also plotted. SN\,2010U\ and L91 are at slightly slower velocities than the mean, but still consistent with the trend, given the large scatter. Interestingly, the three bright \ion{Fe}{2} novae are all faster declining than the mean.}
\label{fig:vel_t2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Nova Populations and Progenitor}
Since the spectroscopic classification scheme of \citet{whp+91} was devised and the MMRD predicted that more massive WDs produce more violent explosions (see \S~\ref{sec:super_edd}) \citep{dl95}, it has been an outstanding question whether the spectral type of a nova correlates with the properties of the underlying stellar population. In general, the nova population follows the galaxy light \citep{sdh+11,sdb+12}. Surveys of multiple galaxies of different morphologies aim to determine whether novae properties such as peak brightness, $t_2$, and spectral type correlate with the underlying stellar population.
In the Milky Way, \citet{dl98} find that He/N novae are concentrated at the Galactic plane and are fast and bright, while \ion{Fe}{2} novae are concentrated in the bulge and thick disk of the galaxy and are slow and dim. Because younger stellar populations have on average more massive white dwarfs, disk novae should be more extreme; therefore they claim that He/N novae are associated with a younger stellar population and that the \ion{Fe}{2} novae are associated with an older stellar population.
In M31, \citet{sdh+11} find conflicting results with no compelling evidence that spectroscopic class depends on location within the galaxy. However, they did find that the spatial distribution He/N novae is slightly more extended than that of \ion{Fe}{2} novae and that the spatial distribution of faster (lower $t_2$) novae is slightly more extended than that of slower novae.
In M33, however, \citet{sdb+12} find that five of eight novae are of He/N or \ion{Fe}{2}b hybrid novae, while only two are definitively of the \ion{Fe}{2} class. Hybrid novae initially have broad \ion{Fe}{2} lines which then later are replaced by He/N lines. Interestingly, the opposite evolution from He/N to \ion{Fe}{2} has never been observed. They speculate that this statistically significant difference in the fraction of He/N to \ion{Fe}{2} Galactic and M31 novae could be a result of the underlying population of M33, which is a bulgeless galaxy, and therefore would be expected to be dominated by a disk population.
To address whether or not the most luminous \ion{Fe}{2} novae are associated with a particular stellar population, it is useful to investigate the associated stellar populations of L91, M31N, and SN\,2010U. \citet{sa02} examine the region surrounding L91 and find that there are three clusters within $\sim130$~pc with ages less than the young age of $10^{7.5}$~yr, and that the location of L91 is close to another fast nova, LMC 1977\#2. Because the LMC is a bulgeless galaxy, we would expect it to be dominated by fast declining novae, and indeed it possesses a fast declining and fast ejecta population of novae \citep{dd93}. However, that the luminous \ion{Fe}{2} nova L91 specifically came from a young stellar population is in tension with the prediction that \ion{Fe}{2} novae are associated with older stellar populations.
The location of M31N-2007-11d is at large galactocentric radius from the center of M31 and perhaps a member of the disk, although another luminous but less-studied \ion{Fe}{2} nova M31N-2009-09b is close to the center of the galaxy. However, the large inclination of M31 makes it difficult to determine whether or not M31N-2009-09b is actually in the bulge or might be within the disk and projected in front of the bulge.
\citet{hpr+10} use pre-explosion archival \emph{Hubble Space Telescope} images with WFC3 F814W and WFPC2 F555W and F814W to investigate the progenitor of SN\,2010U\ and the associated stellar population. At the location of the nova, there is a photometric limit of $M_V \approx -3.2$ mag, which puts an upper limit on the mass of the progenitor system and its companion of $3-5~M_\odot$. The stars within 100~pc of the location of the nova are dim and red, suggesting association with an evolved population. The spatial location of any younger main sequence stars is distinct from the location of the nova, suggesting it is not associated with a massive star population, although it could be an evolved and obscured lower mass AGB star \citep{hpr+10}. If SN\,2010U\ originated from an evolved population, this would follow the emerging trend that \ion{Fe}{2} novae come from lower mass, older populations such as the bulge of M31.
Based upon the theory of the MMRD (see \S~\ref{sec:super_edd}), the high intrinsic luminosity and fast temporal evolution of SN\,2010U\ signal that the progenitor was a high mass WD. The evolutionary channels of how the binary system could reach its pre-outburst state depend on when the WD was born. The WD could be born massive from a massive star, or alternatively the WD could have formed from a less massive star and accreted material. If the WD was born massive, there is a higher chance that it would be an ONeMg WD. Some claim that ``neon novae,'' which exhibit strong [\ion{Ne}{3}] and [\ion{Ne}{5}] lines during the forbidden phase, and thus have a high neon abundance, originate from ONeMg WDs \citep{mas11}, although it is unclear whether or not these lines could be produced by an enriched surface layer and be uncorrelated with WD composition \citep{pk98}. The nova models of \citet{yps+05} are able to produce the full range of observed nova characteristics ($M_V$, $t_2$, $v_{\rm ejecta}$) using only CO WD progenitors, however with ONeMg WD progenitors they were able to produce ejecta envelopes that were enriched in neon by $\sim 10^4$ times compared to CO WDs.
Surveys have established that most luminous and fast novae are He/N novae, however, SN\,2010U, L91, and M31N are all \ion{Fe}{2} novae. \citet{srq+09} speculate that what may set these novae apart is their long rise time compared to the general nova population, which reaches maximum light in less than 3 days. \citet{sss+01} hypothesize that the long rise time is indicative of a large amount of ejected mass, such that the photons take a long time to diffuse and escape. For L91, \citet{sss+01} found $M_{\rm ej} \sim 3 \times 10^{-4} M_\odot$ with a progenitor of a high mass, cool WD with a low metallicity envelope. \citet{srq+09} speculate that a long rise time may be related to the formation of the \ion{Fe}{2} spectrum, which is formed in an optically thick wind driven by residual burning on the surface of the WD.
\subsection{Nova Physics and Super Eddington Luminosity}
\label{sec:super_edd}
\citet{dl95} proposed that the MMRD is primarily a function of the mass of the WD progenitor. If the WD is more massive, the surface layers will be more degenerate and allow a more intense but also more rapid expulsion of material. Recent studies suggest that the outburst properties additionally depend sensitively upon other parameters of the progenitor system such as the temperature of the isothermal core and the accretion rate of material onto the surface of the WD. \citet{tb05} calculate the ignition mass of the accreted material on the surface of the WD, $M_{\rm ign}$, and its dependence on the mass transfer rate $\dot{M}$ to the WD, and the WD mass. The temperature of the WD core, $T_c$, also influences $M_{\rm ign}$; however, \citet{tb04} find that $T_c$ is set uniquely by $\dot{M}$, and therefore $M_{\rm ign}$ is primarily a function of only two parameters. A lower $\dot{M} \lesssim 10^{-10} M_\odot\; \text{yr}^{-1}$ leads to a lower $T_c$, which then increases the $M_{\rm ign}$ needed to start the nova eruption. Alternatively, a high $\dot{M} \gtrsim 10^{-9} M_\odot\; \text{yr}^{-1}$ will trigger the thermonuclear runaway earlier; at extremely high $\dot{M}$, stable hydrogen burning can occur \citep{tb04}.
\citet{yps+05} show that very low accretion rates can produce the most extreme nova explosions, which are characterized by super-Eddington luminosities at maximum, large ejecta velocities, fast optical decline, and if the WD is of moderate mass, large ejecta masses. The extreme luminosities and rapid photometric declines of L91, M31N, and SN\,2010U\ suggest that these novae all originated from massive WDs. \citet{sss+01} claim that L91 had a $\gtrsim 1.2 M_\odot$ WD. Comparing the outburst characteristics ($t_2$, bolometric luminosity, and ejecta velocity) of SN\,2010U\ to the grid of theoretical predictions made by \citet{yps+05}, we find that only the models with massive ($M \approx 1.25 M_\odot$) and cool ($T = 3 \times 10^7$~K) white dwarfs accreting at a very low rate ($\dot{M} \lesssim 10^{-11} M_\odot {\rm yr}^{-1}$) are able to reproduce these parameters.
\citet{sss+01} speculate that the large luminosity of L91, which would otherwise be inconsistent with the large ejecta mass, could be the result of a traveling shock wave through colliding ejecta shells. As described in \citet{wil92}, there is a discrete low density and high velocity shell and an optically thick wind which is powered by nuclear burning of residual material on the surface of the white dwarf. He/N spectra are dominated by the discrete component, while \ion{Fe}{2} novae are dominated by the wind component. A more massive ejecta shell would be more likely to have residual material which to burn on the surface of the WD, and may explain why the massive ejecta of L91 and likely massive ejecta of SN\,2010U\ result in \ion{Fe}{2} novae.
The rise times of novae are generally longer than that of those predicted by spherically symmetric models, which suggests that time might be needed for the local thermonuclear runaway to proceed over the surface of the white dwarf \citep{war03}, and may result in an asymmetric outburst. \citet{whp+91} observe transient absorption features in high resolution line profiles of Balmer and \ion{He}{1} lines in other novae that are likely due to discrete absorption components, such as a small cloud of high density passing in front of the continuum source, suggesting the outburst is inhomogeneous. Clumpy ejecta would increase the effective Eddington limit and allow the nova outburst to sustain apparently super-Eddington luminosities for a period of time \citep{sha01}. Given that nova ejecta are inhomogeneous and quickly evolving with time, it is likely that the super-Eddington novae L91 and SN\,2010U\ sustained their remarkable luminosities through a porous photosphere or asymmetric explosion.
Although He/N novae are preferentially brighter than \ion{Fe}{2} novae, there are several very luminous \ion{Fe}{2} novae, in particular L91, M31N, and SN\,2010U. Although the MMRD and population studies suggest that \ion{Fe}{2} novae should predominately come from older stellar populations which have on average smaller mass WDs, this mapping between white dwarf and spectral type must not necessarily be direct. When a binary stellar system will evolve to a configuration that can produce a nova outburst is not a simple function of the mass or age of the dwarf, but is dependent upon the orbital parameters and stellar evolution of the binary system itself, for example, when the orbit might decay or the donor might evolve to fill its Roche lobe and begin mass transfer. Bright \ion{Fe}{2} novae like L91, M31N, and SN\,2010U\ may represent unique binary systems with cool, high mass CO white dwarfs accreting material from their companions at a very low rate.
\section{Conclusions}
SN\,2010U\ was a luminous (peak $M_V = -10.2 \pm 0.1$ mag) and fast declining ($t_2 = 3.5 \pm 0.3$ d) classical nova in the galaxy NGC\,4214. Optical spectroscopy revealed that it was an \ion{Fe}{2} type nova with strong hydrogen Balmer emission and expansion velocities of order $\approx 1100\;\textrm{ km }\textrm{s}^{-1}$. P~Cygni spectral line profiles in spectra taken near maximum light indicate that the emission was optically thick and early photometry indicates that the optical emission was approximately thermal blackbody with $T \approx 8000$~K. As the nova faded, the spectrum evolved to a nebular state dominated by emission lines and [\ion{O}{1}] emission began to appear.
Our conclusions are the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item SN\,2010U\ was a fast and luminous nova, among the top 0.5\% brightest of all historical outbursts and the third brightest nova for which spectroscopic information exists. It is remarkably similar to both Nova LMC 1991 (L91) and M31N-2007-11d (M31N) in photometry and spectra.
\item SN\,2010U\ is a \ion{Fe}{2} type nova. \ion{Fe}{2} novae are characteristically dimmer and slower to decline (longer $t_2$) than He/N. The existence of bright and fast \ion{Fe}{2} novae like SN\,2010U, L91, and M31N are interesting outliers in trends which aim to correlate spectral type with outburst properties.
\item SN\,2010U\ reached super-Eddington luminosities during the peak of its outburst. Most novae are sub-Eddington, however L91 was also super-Eddington for an extended period of time while it ejected a large amount of mass. It is likely that the \ion{Fe}{2} spectrum, which is formed in an optically thick wind, is related to high mass loss.
\item Massive and luminous nova outbursts like SN\,2010U\ probe a unique set of progenitor parameters, and point to an extreme region of parameter space with low accretion rate, high white dwarf mass, and low white dwarf core temperature. The extreme luminosity region of the MMRD is poorly constrained and subject to high scatter.
\item That SN\,2010U\ likely originated from a CO WD associated with an evolved stellar population is interesting in the context of the debate of nova populations and the manifestation of nova spectral type. Trends in the Milky Way, the LMC, and M33 suggest that more luminous novae of the He/N type originate from young stellar populations where average white dwarf mass is higher. However, L91, M31N, and SN\,2010U\ all are extremely luminous \ion{Fe}{2} novae that are likely from massive CO white dwarfs. Various paths of binary evolution can influence when these systems will enter a configuration that would generate nova outbursts.
\end{enumerate}
Upcoming wide-field transient surveys like LSST will discover optical transients in ever greater numbers. In particular, the high cadence and deep optical limits of the survey will reveal many classical novae, which have traditionally been difficult to study because of moderate luminosities and fast decline from maximum light. Understanding the extreme quadrant of high luminosity and rapid optical decline for classical novae is paramount for maximizing the scientific return of large photometric surveys, for which spectroscopic resources will not be available to confirm every discovery. Accurately characterizing the intermediate luminosity phase space now will be paramount to understanding the wealth of data from future transient surveys.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\acknowledgments IC thanks Greg Schwarz, Robert Williams, Maxwell Moe, Alica Soderberg, Warren Brown, James Moran, and Rosanne Di Stefano for valuable conversations about nova physics, and Wen-fai Fong for helpful comments on this manuscript. We graciously acknowledge the amateur astronomers who contributed critical discovery images: K.~Itagaki, J.~Brimacombe, T.~Yusa, and J.~Nicolas. IC is supported by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Grant. JCW's group at UT Austin is supported by NSF Grant AST 11-09881. JV is supported by Hungarian OTKA grant K76816. This research was completed through the use of many facilities. It is based on observations made with the Nordic Optical Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias. The data presented here were obtained in part with ALFOSC, which is provided by the Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalucia (IAA) under a joint agreement with the University of Copenhagen and NOTSA. The Liverpool Telescope is operated on the island of La Palma by Liverpool John Moores University in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias with financial support from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council. This research is based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory under program GN-2010A-Q-30 and principal investigator Edo Berger. Gemini Observatory is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), the Science and Technology Facilities Council (United Kingdom), the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council (Australia), Minist\'{e}rio da Ci\^{e}ncia e Tecnologia (Brazil) and Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnolog\'{i}a e Innovaci\'{o}n Productiva (Argentina). We acknowledge the use of public data from the Swift data archive. This research has made use of data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center Online Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. This research has made use of the XRT Data Analysis Software (XRTDAS) developed under the responsibility of the ASI Science Data Center (ASDC), Italy. The NIST Atomic Spectra Database was used: Ralchenko, Yu., Kramida, A.E., Reader, J., and NIST ASD Team (2011). NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 4.1.0), [Online]. Available: http://physics.nist.gov/asd3 [2011, August 1]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
|
\section{Introduction}
In an information transmission network, allowing coding operation at intermediate nodes will increase the capacity of the network than
simply relaying the packets. In multicast (single-source, multiple sinks) scenario, Ahlswede, Cai, Li, and Yeung proved that the maximum flow upper bound can be achieved by network coding in their seminal paper \cite{ACLY00}. In 2003, Li, Yeung, and Cai proved that \cite{LYC03} linear
network coding, i.e., only linear encoding and decoding is allowed, is sufficient to achieve the maximum flow upper bound.
Later in 2003, Koetter and M$\acute{\text{e}}$dard formulated and dervied Li et. al.'s results using algebraic methods \cite{KM03}.
In 2006, Ho et. al. showed that, in fact, performing random linear network coding will achieve the upper bound, when the underlying coding field is
large enough. Due to its simplicity, random linear network coding turns out to be a practial solution.
In contrast to the multicast scenario, the general case (multi-source and multi-sink with arbitrary demands) is not well understood. In \cite{KM03}, Koetter and M$\acute{\text{e}}$dard reduces the existence of linear network coding solution to the exsitence of a point in certain algebraic variety, which, in general, is NP-complete. In 2005, Dougherty, Freiling, and Zeger showed that the linear network coding is not sufficient in the general case \cite{DFZ05}.
In \cite{YYZ07}, Yan, Yeung, and Zhang characterized the capacity region for multi-source multi-sink network coding. However, the region is difficult
to compute. In fact, even approximating the capacity or linear capacity of network coding within any constant was proven to be hard \cite{LS11}.
In this paper, we investigate how random linear network coding behaves in multi-source multi-sink network. It turns out that it will
work in certain occasions, which can be easily characterized by a simple maxflow condition. And there is also a dichotomy of random network coding in the general case: it will work with probability $\to 1$ or fails with probability $\to 1$ when the size of the encoding field tends to infinity.
\section{Notations}
Let's consider a multi-source multi-sink acyclic network, which consists of a directed acyclic graph $G=(V,E)$, sources $S=\{s_1, s_2,
\ldots, s_m\} \subseteq V$, sinks $T=\{t_1, t_2,\ldots, t_n\}$, for each $t \in T$, demand ${\rm dem}(t) \subseteq [m]$, which indicates that
$t$ need to receive all symbols from source $\{ s_i : i \in {\rm dem}(t)\}$. Rate $(r_1, \ldots, r_m) \in \mathbb{N}^m$ means, for each $s_i$
sends $r_i$ symbols at a time over some underlying finite field $\mathbb{F}$.
When rate $(r_1, \ldots, r_m)$ is fixed, for convenience of description, let's add $m$ extra vertices $s_1^*, \ldots, s_m^*$, and also add $r_i$ edges from $s^*_i$
to $s_i$. And denote by $S^* = \{s^*_1, \ldots, s^*_m\}$, $r = r_1 + \ldots + r_m$.
If $U_1$ is a subspace $\mathbb{F}^r$, and $U_2$ is a complement of $U_1$, then every vector $\alpha \in \mathbb{F}^r$ can written
uniquely as a sum of a vector in $U_1$ and $U_2$, which is denoted by
$$\alpha = \alpha|_{U_1} + \alpha|_{U_2},$$
where $\alpha|_{U_1} \in U_1$ and $\alpha|_{U_2} \in U_2$. In abuse of notation, given a basis of $\mathbb{F}^r$ including $u$, we denote by $\alpha|_u$ the coefficient of $u$ when expressing $\alpha$ in this basis.
A linear network coding $\psi : E \mapsto \mathbb{F}^r$ is recursively defined as follows
$$
\psi(e) = \begin{cases}
b_{i, j}, & \text{$e$ is the $j^{\text{th}}$ edge from $s^*_i$ to $s_i$},\\
\sum_{{\rm tail}(e_i) = {\rm head}(e)} c_i \psi(e_i), & \text{otherwise},\\
\end{cases}
$$
where $\{ b_{i, j}$, $1 \le i \le m$, $1\le j \le s_i \}$, is the standard orthogonal basis of $\mathbb{F}^r$, and $c_i \in \mathbb{F}$ are coefficients.
When performing a random linear network coding, coefficients $c_i \in \mathbb{F}$ are chosen uniformly at random. If we take ${\rm dem}(i) = [m]$ for every source
$i$, we obtain the multicast network coding theorem \cite{ACLY00}, \cite{LYC03}, \cite{HMKK06}.
Let ${\rm maxflow}(s, t)$ denote the maximum number of edge-disjoint paths from $s$ to $t$, and ${\rm maxflow}(S,t)$ denotes the maximum number of edge-disjoint paths from some $s \in S$ to $t$. By the maxflow-mincut theorem, we know in both cases, the value equals the minimum size of the
$s$-$t$ ($S$-$t$) cut.
\section{Main result}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:fun} Assume $\psi$ is a linear network coding. Let $S_1 \subseteq S$, and $U_1$ be the subspace spanned by $\{b_{i, j} : s_i \in S_1, 1 \le j \le r_i\}$. If
$(V_S, V_T)$ is a $S_1$-$t$ cut, then
$$
\psi(e)|_{U_1} \in {\rm span}\{\psi(e_i)|_{U_1} : e_i \in (V_S, V_T) \}
$$
for every edge $e$ with ${\rm head}(e) = t$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $e$ by any edge with ${\rm head}(e) = t$. By the definition of linear network coding, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi(e) & \in & {\rm span}\{\psi(e_1) : {\rm head}(e_1) = {\rm tail}(e)\} \\
& \in & {\rm span}\{\psi(e_2) : (\exists e_1)({\rm head}(e_1) = {\rm tail}(e) \text{ and } {\rm head}(e_2) = {\rm tail}(e_1))\} \\
& \cdots & \cdots \\
& \in & {\rm span}\{\psi(e_l) : {\rm head}(e_l) \in S\setminus S_1, \text{ or } (\exists e_l \in E)(e_l\rightarrow e \text{ and } e_l \in (V_S, V_T))\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that $\psi(e_l)|_{U_1} = 0$ for all ${\rm tail}(e_l) \in S\setminus S_1$, we claim
$$
\psi(e)|_{U_1} \in {\rm span}\{\psi(e_l)|_{U_1} : e_l \in (V_S, V_T)\},
$$
which completes our proof.
\end{proof}
The next lemma explains why random linear network coding can achieve maximum flow bound in multicast ($|S|= 1$) network.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:rnd} Assume $p_1 = (e_{1,1}, \ldots e_{1, l_1}), \ldots, p_t=(e_{t, 1}, \ldots, e_{t, l_t})$ are $t$ edge-disjoint paths. In random linear network coding, if $\psi(e_{1,1}), \psi(e_{2,1}), \ldots, \psi(e_{m,1})$ are linearly independent, then $\psi(e_{1, l_1}), \psi(e_{2, l_2}), \ldots, \psi(e_{t, l_t})$ are linearly independent with probability $\to 1$ when $|\mathbb{F}| \to +\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $G$ is acyclic, there is a topological order to add the edges one by one such that when $e_i$ is added, all edges $e_j$ with ${\rm head}(e_j) = {\rm tail}(e_i)$ are already added. Let's add edges in this order to perform random linear network coding. Assume edges $e_{1, i_1} \in p_1, \ldots, e_{t, i_t} \in p_t$ are added, and assume w.l.o.g the next edge to add is $e_{1, i_1+1}$, it suffices to
show
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\Pr\{\psi(e_{1, i_1+1}), \psi(e_{2, i_2}), \ldots, \psi(e_{t, i_t}) \text{ are linearly independent} \\
&\quad \mid \psi(e_{1, i_1}), \ldots, \psi(e_{t, i_t}) \text{ are linearly independent }\} \ge 1-\frac{1}{|\mathbb{F}|},
\end{eqnarray*}
which will imply $\psi(e_{1, l_1}), \psi(e_{2, l_2}), \ldots, \psi(e_{t, l_t})$ are linearly independent with probability $\ge (1-\frac{1}{|\mathbb{F}|})^{l_1 + \ldots + l_m}$.
By the condition that $\psi(e_{1, i_1}), \ldots, \psi(e_{t, i_t})$ are linearly independent, let's extend them to a basis of $\mathbb{F}^r$, that $u_1 = \psi(e_{1, i_1}), \ldots, u_t = \psi(e_{t, i_t}), u_{t+1}, \ldots, u_r \in \mathbb{F}^r$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
& &\Pr\{\psi(e_{1, i_1+1}), \psi(e_{2, i_2}), \ldots, \psi(e_{t, i_t}) \text{ are linearly independent} \mid \cdots\}, \\
& = & \Pr\{\psi(e_{1, i_1+1}) \not\in {\rm span}(\psi(e_{2, i_2}), \ldots, \psi(e_{t, i_t})) \mid \cdots \} \\
& \ge & \Pr\{1 + \sum_{e : {\rm head}(e_i) = {\rm tail}(e_{1, i_1+1})} c_i \cdot \psi(e_i)|_{u_1} \not= 0 \mid \cdots \} \\
& = & \begin{cases}
1, & \text{ if $\psi(e_i)|_{u_1} = 0$ for every $e_i$} \\
1 - 1/|\mathbb{F}|, & \text{otherwise}. \\
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
Combining Lemma \ref{lem:fun} and Lemma \ref{lem:rnd}, we conclude that a random linear network coding can achieve the maximum flow upper bound in multicast network.
Also, from the above lemma by keeping track of $|T|$ collections of paths and taking a union bound, we claim that as long as $|\mathbb{F}| > |T|$, the probability that every sink can successfully decode is nonzero, which implies that there exists a linear network coding solution achieving the maxflow upper bound, which
is first proved in \cite{SET03}. In \cite{FS06}, Feder, Ron and Tavory proved a lower bound of size $\sqrt{2N}(1-o(1))$ by information theory arguments.
The next theorem is our main result, which characterize all achievable rate for multi-source multi-sink network that random linear network coding will work. And it reveals a dichotomy in random network coding: for a given rate, the random linear network
coding either succeed with probability $\to 1$, or with probability $\to 0$ when the size of the coding field goes to infinity.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main}
Rate $(r_1, \ldots, r_m) \in \mathbb{N}^m$ is achievable with probability $\to 1$ when $|\mathbb{F}| \to +\infty$ by random linear network coding if and only if,
for every $t \in T$,
\begin{equation}
\label{equ:cha}
{\rm maxflow}(S^* \setminus \bigcup_{i \in {\rm dem}(t)}\{s^*_i\}, t) + \sum_{i \in {\rm dem}(t)} r_i = {\rm maxflow}(S^*,t)
\end{equation}
Morevoer, if the above condition is not satisfied, a random linear network coding will succeed with probability $\to 0$ when $|\mathbb{F}| \to +\infty$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For the ``if'' part, assume \eqref{equ:cha} is satisfied, we need to show a random linear network coding can achieve rate $(r_1, \ldots, r_m)$ with probability $\to 1$ when $|\mathbb{F}|$ goes to infinity.
Fix any sink $t \in T$, it's enough to prove with probability $\to 1$ ($|\mathbb{F}| \to +\infty$), sink $t$ can decode all symbols from sources ${\rm dem}(t)$, i.e.,
$$\{ b_{i,j} : i \in {\rm dem}(t), 1 \le j \le r_i \} \subseteq {\rm span}\{\psi(e) : {\rm head}(e) = t\}$$
For convenience, let $d_1 = \sum_{i \in {\rm dem}(t)} r_i$, and $d_2 = {\rm maxflow}(S^* \setminus \bigcup_{i \in {\rm dem}(t)}\{s^*_i\}, t).$
And let $U_1$ be the subspace of $\mathbb{F}^r$ spanned by $b_{i, j}$ with $i \in {\rm dem}(t)$, $j \in [r_i]$, and let $U_2$ be the
subspace spanned by $b_{i, j}$ with $i \not\in {\rm dem}(t)$, $j \in [r_i]$, which is the complement of $U_1$.
Since ${\rm maxflow}(S^* \setminus \bigcup_{i \in {\rm dem}(t)}\{s^*_i\}, t) = d_2$, by maximum flow minimum cut theorem, there exists an $(S^* \setminus \bigcup_{i \in {\rm dem}(t)}\{s^*_i\})$-$t$ cut
$(V_S, V_T)$ with size $d_2$, where we denote by $e_1, \ldots, e_{d_2}$ all the edges in cut $(V_S, V_T)$. By Lemma \ref{lem:fun}, we know that, for every $e$ with ${\rm head}(e) = t$,
$$
\psi(e)|_{U_2} \in {\rm span}\{\psi(e_i)|_{U_2} : i = 1, \ldots, d_2\}.
$$
Note that, $\psi(e)|_{U_1} \in U_1.$ Thus,
$$
\psi(e) \in U_1 + {\rm span}\{\psi(e_i)|_{U_2} : i = 1, \ldots, d_2\},
$$
where $\dim(U_1 + {\rm span}\{\psi(e_i)|_{U_2} : i = 1, \ldots, d_2\}) = d_1 + d_2$.
On the other hand, by Lemma \ref{lem:rnd} and the condition that ${\rm maxflow}(S^*,t)=d_1 + d_2$, we claim
$$
{\rm rank}\{\psi(e) : {\rm head}(e) = t\} \ge d_1 + d_2
$$
holds with probability $\to 1$ ($|\mathbb{F}| \to +\infty$), which implies $U_1 + {\rm span}\{\psi(e_i)|_{U_2} : i = 1, \ldots, d_2\} = {\rm span}\{\psi(e) : {\rm head}(e) = t\}$, i.e., the random network works.
\vspace{0.3cm}
For the ``only'' if direction, let's assume for contradiction that $d_1 + d_2 \not= {\rm maxflow}(S^*, t)$ and sink $t$ can decode all symbols $b_{i, j}$ with $i \in {\rm dem}(t)$, $1 \le j \le r_i$. Noting that $d_1 + d_2 \ge {\rm maxflow}(S^*, t)$ always holds by the definition of flow, we may assume $d_1 + d_2 > {\rm maxflow}(S^*, t)$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:fun} and Lemma \ref{lem:rnd}, we have
\begin{equation}
{\rm rank}\{\psi(e)|_{U_1} : {\rm head}(e) = t\} = d_1,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{equ:U2}
{\rm rank}\{\psi(e)|_{U_2} : {\rm head}(e) = t\} = d_2
\end{equation}
hold with probability $\to 1$ when $|\mathbb{F}| \to +\infty$.
Using Lemma \ref{lem:rnd} again by taking $S_1 = S$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{equ:rankall}
{\rm rank}\{\psi(e)|_{U_2} : {\rm head}(e) = t\} \le {\rm maxflow}(S^*, t) < d_1 + d_2.
\end{equation}
If $t$ can decode all symbols from sources ${\rm dem}(t)$, i.e.,
$$\{ b_{i, j} : i \in {\rm dem}(t), 1 \le j \le r_i\} \subseteq {\rm span}\{\psi(e) : {\rm head}(e) = t\},$$
then, by \eqref{equ:U2}, we have
$$\{ \psi(e_i)|_{U_2} : 1 \le i \le d_2 \} \subseteq {\rm span}\{\psi(e) : {\rm head}(e) = t\},$$
which implies ${\rm rank} \{\psi(e) : {\rm head}(e) = t\} \ge d_1 + d_2$, contradicted with \eqref{equ:rankall}.
\end{proof}
By the above theorem, it's easy to verify the achievable rate of random linear network coding is monotone,
i.e., the achievability of $(r_1, \ldots, r_m)$ implies the achievability of $(r'_1, \ldots, r'_m)$ as long as
$r'_i \le r_i$ for all $i = 1, 2, \ldots, m$.
For further research, we feel the following question (not well formulated) is interesting.
\vspace{0.2cm}\textbf{Open Question.} For general multi-source multi-sink network coding, is there any computationally feasible solution which
achieves better performance than random network coding?
\section{Acknowledgement}
The author would like to thank his advisor Alexander Razborov for helpful discussions and comments, and his
friends Chen Yuan and Xunrui Yin for helpful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
Following the recent financial crisis a vast number of papers suggesting what could be improved in the financial policy making and Economics itself were published. In these papers agent-based modeling was seen as one of the key tools, which could improve the understanding of the financial markets as well as lead to the potential applications \cite{Bouchaud2008Nature, Farmer2009Nature, Lux2009NaturePhys}. The idea is not so new, see a paper by Axelrod published back in the 1997, ref. \cite{Axelrod1997Comp}, but it has been actively developed only in the last few years and is seen as one of the potential future prospects \cite{Roehner2010SciCul}.
Currently there are many differing agent-based approaches in the modeling of the financial markets \cite{Cristelli2010Fermi,Chakraborti2011RQUF2}. Reference \cite{Cristelli2010Fermi} suggests that the ideal financial market model should be both realistic, namely include realistic individual trader behavior (with the best example being \cite{Lux1999Nature}), and tractable, namely have an analytical solution (ex. see an analytical solution of the Minority Game by Challet \textit{et al.} \cite{Challet2000PhysRevLett}). This raises an interesting point - one has to build bridges between microscopic and macroscopic modeling, because doing so might lead to the ideal model. And this actually currently being done. In the recent paper Krause \textit{et al.} \cite{Krause2012PhysRevE} proposed a macroscopic stochastic model analogous to the Ising model interpretation for the financial markets, introduced in \cite{Bornholdt2001IJMPC}. Another interesting approach was made by Feng \textit{et al.} \cite{Feng2012PNAS} who have used empirical observations and trader survey data to construct agent-based and stochastic models for the financial markets.
Our approach is based on the integration of two alternatives. One of them is a very simple, yet very relevant and highly applicable \cite{Aoki2007Cambridge,Kononovicius2012IntSys}, Markov jump process based on the Kirman's agent-based herding model, introduced in \cite{Kirman1993QJE}. And the other one is a very general stochastic model \cite{Kaulakys2004PhysRevE,Kaulakys2006PhysA,Ruseckas2010PhysRevE}, which was built for the modeling of return and trading activity in the financial markets \cite{Gontis2008PhysA, Gontis2010PhysA, Gontis2010Intech}.
In the previous articles \cite{Kononovicius2012PhysA,Ruseckas2011EPL} we have used the Kirman's herding transition rates to derive a stochastic model for the absolute returns. In this approach we generalized and extended the work by Alfarano \textit{et al.} \cite{Alfarano2005CompEco,Alfarano2008JEcoDyC}. By doing so we have established the relations between the Markov jump process and a very general class of stochastic equations,
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d} x = \left( \eta - \frac{\lambda}{2} \right) x^{2 \eta -1} \mathrm{d} t_s + x^\eta \mathrm{d} W_s , \label{eq:xsde}
\end{equation}
generating power-law statistics. Namely the time series obtained by solving eq. \eqref{eq:xsde} posses power-law stationary probability density and power spectral density as follows:
\begin{equation}
p(x) \sim x^{-\lambda}, \quad S(f) \sim 1/f^\beta,\,\, \beta = 1 + \frac{\lambda-3}{2 (\eta -1)}. \label{eq:xsdefits}
\end{equation}
Stochastic differential equation \eqref{eq:xsde} was previously derived from the point processes and its ability to reproduce power-law statistics was grounded in \cite{Kaulakys2004PhysRevE,Kaulakys2006PhysA,Ruseckas2010PhysRevE}.
Many physical, physiological, and social systems are characterized by complex interactions among different components and power-law correlations in the output of these systems \cite{Kobayashi1982BioMed, Ivanov1998EPL, Ashkenazy2001PhysRevLett, Ashkenazy2002PhysA, Ivanov2004PhysRevE, Podobnik2009PNAS}.
The applications of such stochastic model might include varying complex systems possessing power-law statistical features.
In this paper we considerably extend agent-based herding model introducing the Markov jumps between three-states available to agents (these states may be alternatively seen as agent groups). This approach lets us reproduce the fractured power spectral density, which is an important statistical feature of the high-frequency empirical financial market data \cite{Gontis2008PhysA, Gontis2010PhysA, Gontis2010Intech, Liu1999PhysRevE}. First we introduce a possible relation between the Markov jump process and power-law stochastic processes, define herding interaction between three agent groups, introduce possible application for the financial markets. Next we give a stochastic treatment for the new approach and finally we discuss results in the context of microscopic and macroscopic modeling.
\section{The Markov jump process in the background of the power-law stochastic processes}
We choose the Markov jump process as a basic stochastic process, which enables the reproduction of the agent dynamics on the microscopic scale. This approach is already in use in restructuring Macroeconomics \cite{Aoki2007Cambridge} and building microscopic models for the financial markets \cite{Kononovicius2012IntSys}. The method works as a more detailed reasoning for the microscopic behavior is irrelevant in determining the macroscopic description.
Let us start from the model with $N$ agents facing binary choice (0 or 1). The state variable $X$ can be considered as a number of agents making choice $1$. In this case the state space is then $\{0,1,2,...,N\}$. One can interpret this model as a random walk, or a birth-death process, because $X$ changes at most by $\pm 1$ in sufficiently small time interval $\Delta t$. The transition probabilities from state $X$ to the states $X\pm1$ may be specified by
\begin{eqnarray}
& p (X+1) = (N-X) \mu_1(X,N) \Delta t ,\label{eq:pgen1}\\
& p (X-1) = X \mu_2(X,N) \Delta t ,\label{eq:pgen2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu_1(X,N)$ and $\mu_2(X,N)$ are positive transition rate functions. The transition probabilities \eqref{eq:pgen1} and \eqref{eq:pgen2} appear general enough to provide wide opportunities. The most simple one, when the functions $\mu_{1,2}$ are constant, represents well-known birth-death or entry-exit process.
One can obtain the power-law statistics starting from the ref. \cite{Kirman1993QJE}, where Kirman has noticed that a very similar patterns are observed in a relatively different systems. Apparently statistically similar herding behavior is observed in a very different fields - economics, see, e. g., a paper by Becker \cite{Becker1991JPolitEco}, and entomology, the credits goes to Deneubourg and Pastels (see \cite{Detrain2006PhysLifeRev} for the most recent work). The entomological observations concluded that even if the ant colony has two identical food sources available ants still prefer to use only one of them at a given time. The other food source is not completely neglected as the ants after some time switch to it. The economists observe similar behavior - people tend to choose more popular product, than less popular, despite both being of a similar quality.
Taking the discussed empirical observations into account Kirman has proposed to model the herding behavior as a Markovian chain with the following one step transition rates:
\begin{equation}
\mu_1(X,N) = \sigma_1 + h X , \quad \mu_2(X,N) = \sigma_2 + h (N-X) ,\label{eq:Krates}
\end{equation}
here $h$ parameter defines herding behavior, as a property of the agents describing the strength of imitation tendencies. While $\sigma_i$ parameters describe an asymmetric individual transitions of the agents made independently of the other agents' behavior. We will demonstrate that this simple model of herding interaction of agents can be considered as the background of pretty complex power-law behavior of financial variables.
In order to reproduce the sophisticated power-law behavior of the absolute returns in the financial markets we generalized the herding model by assuming that the meeting rates of the agents are not constant, but depend on the system state, $\frac{1}{\tau(X,N)}$, \cite{Kononovicius2012PhysA}. This strengthens a feedback of the macroscopic state on the agent transition rates as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
& \mu_1(X,N) = \sigma_1 + \frac{h X}{\tau(X,N)} ,\label{eq:pPlus}\\
& \mu_2(X,N) = \frac{\sigma_2 + h (N-X)}{\tau(X,N)} ,\label{eq:pMinus}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\sigma_1$ is not divided by $\tau(X,N)$. The reason behind this is a very simple one - we have previously assumed that a modeled market contains $N-X$ rational and long term fundamentalist traders, whose individual behavior should not depend on the temporary fads and moods. It is possible to use other assumptions as the model is rather flexible.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{varietyPDF.pdf}
\hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{varietyPSD.pdf}
\caption{Wide spectra of obtainable probability (a) and spectral (b) density functions of stochastic variable $y$, dynamics of which are defined by eq. \eqref{eq:ysdefull}. Black curves are the limiting, minimum and maximum exponent, power-law functions with: (a) $\lambda_{min} = 2$ and $\lambda_{max} = 5$, (b) $\beta_{min} = 0.5$ and $\beta_{max} =2$. Model parameters: $\alpha=1$, $\varepsilon_1 = 0.1$, $\varepsilon_2 = 0.1$ (red plus), $0.5$ (green cross), $1$ (blue stars), $1.5$ (magenta open squares), $2$ (cyan filled squares) and $3$ (orange open circles).}
\label{fig:ysde}
\end{figure}
The further stochastic treatments of the model, mainly relying on the van Kampen birth-death process formalism \cite{VanKampen1992NorthHolland} and the Ito rules for variable substitution \cite{Gardiner1997Springer}, leads to the following stochastic differential equation for new stochastic variable, $y=\frac{X}{N-X}$, introduced as a measure of the absolute return \cite{Kononovicius2012PhysA}:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d} y = \left[ \varepsilon_1 + y \frac{2-\varepsilon_2}{\tau(y)} \right] (1+y) \mathrm{d} t_s + \sqrt{\frac{2 y}{\tau(y)}} (1+y) \mathrm{d} W_s , \label{eq:ysdefull}
\end{equation}
here $t_s = h t$. This stochastic differential equation in the limit of large $y$, $y \gg 1$, can be considered to include only the highest powers of $y$. In such case, and by assuming that $\tau(y) = y^{-\alpha}$, one obtains:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d} y = (2-\varepsilon_2) y^{2+\alpha} \mathrm{d} t_s + \sqrt{2 y^{3+\alpha}} \mathrm{d} W_s , \label{eq:ysde}
\end{equation}
which is identical to eq. \eqref{eq:xsde}. The direct comparison of eqs. \eqref{eq:xsde} and \eqref{eq:ysde} yields the relation between the models' parameters:
\begin{equation}
\eta = \frac{3+\alpha}{2} , \quad \lambda = \varepsilon_2 + \alpha + 1 .\label{eq:ysdecomp}
\end{equation}
The direct consequence of the comparison is the ability to control the power-law exponents, $\lambda$ and $\beta$, of the $y$ statistical features obtained from the agent-based model, eqs. \eqref{eq:pPlus} and \eqref{eq:pMinus}, and its stochastic treatment, eq. \eqref{eq:ysdefull}. This can be used to reproduce $1/f^\beta$ noise with $0.5 < \beta <2$ (see fig. \ref{fig:ysde}). Yet the most important result is the agent-based reasoning being provided for a very general class of power-law stochastic processes, reproducible by stochastic differential equations \eqref{eq:xsde}, derived from the point processes \cite{Kaulakys2004PhysRevE,Gontis2004PhysA343,Kaulakys2006PhysA,Ruseckas2010PhysRevE}.
\section{Three-state model with herding interaction}
In this section we extend the herding model by introducing the three-state agent dynamics. One can easily extend the model by assuming that the original Kirman's transition probabilities describe the transitions between each pair of the agent states in the system. Thus in three-state case with numbers of agents in each group $X_1$, $X_2$, $X_3$ we will have six one step transition probabilities of a general form given by:
\begin{equation}
p (X_i+1, X_j-1, X_k ) = X_j (\sigma_{ji} + h_{ji} X_i) \Delta t .
\end{equation}
The above holds for non-equal $i$, $j$ and $k$ each taking a value from the set $\{1, 2, 3\}$. Note that herding behavior is assumed to be symmetrical, thus we have $h_{ij} = h_{ji}$. The schematic representation of the extended model is given in fig. \ref{fig:schemaModel}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{threegroup.jpg}
\caption{Schematic representation of the three-state model. The arrows point in the directions of the possible transitions, note that they can be grouped into three pairs. In the model each of the transition pairs is modeled using the original Kirman's model. The relevant parameters are grouped around the corresponding pairs of arrows.}
\label{fig:schemaModel}
\end{figure}
Note that due to conservation of total number of agents $N$, which is given by $N=X_1+X_2+X_3$, one can fully describe the three-state system by the two dimensional state vector, $\vec X = \{X_1, X_2\}$. We assume that $N$ is large enough to secure the continuity of $x_i = X_i/N$ and introduce the definition of the transition probability densities, $\pi^{i,j}(x_1, x_2)$ :
\begin{equation}
p(X_1 + i, X_2 + j, X_3 + k) = N^2 \pi^{i,j}(x_1, x_2) \Delta t .
\end{equation}
Here the indexes $i$, $j$ and $k$ stand for the corresponding change of the number of agents in the corresponding populations. The indexes $i$, $j$ and $k$ must take different values from the set $\{-1,0,1\}$. Consequently, $i+j+k=0$ and vector $\{i,j,k\}$ can be fully described by its two components $\{i,j\}$.
The transition probabilities imply the Master equation for the probability $\omega(x_1, x_2 ,t)$ to find the system in the state $\{x_1, x_2\}$ at given time $t$:
\begin{equation}
\partial_t \omega = \sum_{i \neq j} \left( {\bf E}^{i,j}-1\right) \pi^{-i,-j} \omega , \label{eq:master}
\end{equation}
here $i$ and $j$ are two non-equal indexes, which take values from the set $\{-1,0,1\}$. In the above ${\bf E}^{i,j}$ is the two variables one step operator, which is a convenient generalization of the one variable one step operator used by van Kampen in \cite{VanKampen1992NorthHolland}. The form of the two variables one step operator is given by:
\begin{equation}
{\bf E}^{i,j} [f(x,y)] = f(x+ i \Delta x, y + j \Delta y) ,
\end{equation}
here $i\neq j \in \{-1,0,1\}$, $\Delta x$ and $\Delta y$ are the smallest possible increments of $x$ and $y$ respectively. Note that the operator acts on all functions on its right side.
We expand this one step operator, using the Tailor series in the limit of small increments, $\Delta x$ and $\Delta y$, up to the second order terms. By recalling that in our case $\Delta x = \Delta y = N^{-1}$ (it follows from the definition of the almost continuous $x_i$) we obtain a Fokker-Plank equation,
\begin{equation}
\partial_t \omega = -\sum_{i} \partial_{x_i} \left[ D_i^1 \omega \right] + \sum_{i , j} \partial_{x_i} \left\{ \partial_{x_j} \left[ D_{ij}^2 \omega \right] \right\}, \label{eq:fokplank}
\end{equation}
where $i$ and $j$ belong to the set $\{1,2\}$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
& D_1^1 = \sigma_{21} x_2 + \sigma_{31} (1-x_2-x_1) - (\sigma_{12} + \sigma_{13}) x_1 , \nonumber \\
& D_2^1 = \sigma_{12} x_1 + \sigma_{32} (1-x_2-x_1) - (\sigma_{21} + \sigma_{23}) x_2 , \nonumber \\
& D_{11}^2 \approx h_{12} x_1 x_2 + h_{13} x_1 (1-x_2-x_1) , \label{eq:fpterms} \\
& D_{22}^2 \approx h_{12} x_1 x_2 + h_{23} x_2 (1-x_2-x_1) , \nonumber \\
& D_{12}^2 = D_{21}^2 \approx - h_{12} x_1 x_2 . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The obtained Fokker-Plank equation appears to be complex, but it can be simplified after some additional assumptions. The financial market interpretation based on the three-state model also enables us to make smooth transition to the system of stochastic differential, Langevin, equations.
\section{Financial market model with the three agent groups}
Let us start by assuming that the three-states available to the agents in the aforementioned setup correspond to the three types of traders: fundamentalists, chartists optimists and chartists pessimists. In the current agent-based modeling it is one of the most common choices \cite{Cristelli2010Fermi,Feng2012PNAS}.
Fundamentalists are the traders who have fundamental understanding of the true value of the traded stock. This understanding is quantified as the stocks fundamental price, $P_f(t)$. For a mathematical convenience and without loosing generality one can assume that the fundamental price does not vary with time. In other words, we are interested in the price fluctuations according to its fundamental value. Having this knowledge available to them the fundamentalists make rational long term expectations. Thus their excess demand, $ED_f(t)$, is given by \cite{Alfarano2005CompEco}:
\begin{equation}
ED_f(t) = N_f(t) \ln \frac{P_f}{P(t)} ,
\end{equation}
where $N_f(t)$ is a number of the fundamentalists inside the market and $P(t)$ is a current market price. The mathematical expression for the excess demand of the fundamentalist traders can be read as follows: if $P_f < P(t)$, the fundamentalist will sell the stock as he expects a decrease of price, while in the opposite case, $P_f > P(t)$, he will buy stock expecting price growth. This behavior is based on the assumption that $P(t)$ should converge towards $P_f$ given enough time.
The other two types, pessimistic and optimistic chartists, are short term traders, who estimate the future price based on its recent movements. Namely these traders rely on the technical trading strategies and short term opinion fluctuations. As there is a wide selection of such strategies and opinions, one can simply generalize by assuming that some strategies and opinions at a given moment are optimistic, i.e. suggesting to buy, while the others are pessimistic, i.e. suggesting to sell. In such case the excess demand of the chartist traders, $ED_c(t)$, is given by:
\begin{equation}
ED_c(t) = r_0 [N_o(t) - N_p(t)] ,
\end{equation}
where $r_0$ is a relative impact factor of the chartist trader, $N_o$ and $N_p$ are the total numbers of optimists and pessimists respectively. In the previous approaches \cite{Kononovicius2012PhysA, Alfarano2005CompEco} chartist traders were considered to be a single group, opinion switching in which was assumed to be purely random, thus over-simplifying the endogenous mood dynamics.
Price and later returns can be introduce into the model by applying the Walrasian scenario. As a fair price is assumed to reflect the current supply and demand, the Walrasian scenario in its contemporary form may be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\beta N} \frac{\mathrm{d} p(t)}{\mathrm{d} t} = - n_f(t) p(t) + r_0 [n_o(t) - n_p(t)] ,
\end{equation}
here $\beta$ is a speed of the price adjustment, $N$ a total number of traders in the market, $p(t) = \ln \frac{P(t)}{P_f}$ and $n_i(t) = \frac{N_i(t)}{N}$. By assuming that the number of traders in the market is large, $N \rightarrow \infty$, one obtains:
\begin{equation}
p(t) = r_0 \frac{n_o(t) - n_p(t)}{n_f(t)} .
\end{equation}
Consequently the expression of the return in the selected time window $T$ is given by
\begin{equation}
r(t) = r_0 \left[ \frac{n_o(t) - n_p(t)}{n_f(t)} - \frac{n_o(t-T) - n_p(t-T)}{n_f(t-T)} \right] . \label{eq:retfull}
\end{equation}
In the previous approaches \cite{Kononovicius2012PhysA, Alfarano2005CompEco} the expression for the returns, eq. \eqref{eq:retfull}, was simplified by assuming that the chartist traders change their opinion significantly faster than the fundamentalist traders. Further in this work we will use this assumption as well as regarding eq. \eqref{eq:retfull} as a definition for the return.
Note that in the above discussion we introduced some assumptions about the three agent states, which ought to be considered in the financial market scenario. We can further develop these ideas and simplify the Fokker-Planck equation obtained in the previous section for the general case of the three-state model. First of all let us link the states with actual agent types:
\begin{equation}
x_1 = n_f , \quad x_2 = n_p , \quad x_3 = n_o .
\end{equation}
Next let us point out the lack of qualitative difference between optimism and pessimism:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{23} = \sigma_{32} = \sigma_{cc} , \quad \sigma_{12} = \sigma_{13} = \sigma_{fc}/2 , \sigma_{21} = \sigma_{31} = \sigma_{cf}, \quad h_{12} = h_{13} = h_1 .
\end{equation}
Finally let us use the assumption that chartists change opinion significantly faster than fundamentalists:
\begin{equation}
h_{23} = H h_1 , \quad H \gg 1, \quad \sigma_{cc} \gg \sigma_{cf}, \quad \sigma_{cc} \gg \sigma_{fc} ,
\end{equation}
where $H$ is a speed ratio.
Under the financial market scenario the terms of the Fokker-Plank equation derived in previous section, eq. \eqref{eq:fpterms}, can now be re-expressed as:
\begin{eqnarray}
& D_f^1 = \sigma_{cf} (1-n_f) - \sigma_{fc} n_f , \nonumber \\
& D_p^1 \approx \sigma_{cc} (1-n_f- 2 n_p) , \nonumber \\
& D_{ff}^2 \approx h_{1} (1- n_f) n_f , \label{eq:fptermsFin}\\
& D_{pp}^2 \approx H h_1 n_p (1-n_f-n_p) + h_{1} n_f n_p , \nonumber \\
& D_{fp}^2 = D_{pf}^2 \approx - h_{1} n_f n_p . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\section{The system of stochastic differential equations for the three-state model}
It is useful to derive the stochastic differential equations analogous to the Fokker-Plank equation \eqref{eq:fokplank}. The general form of a stochastic differential equation in the case of two variables can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d} | n \rangle = | R \rangle \mathrm{d} t + [ {\bf S} \cdot \mathrm{d} | W \rangle ] ,
\end{equation}
with the state vector $ | n \rangle $, vector of the relaxation functions $ | R \rangle $, matrix of the diffusion functions $\mathbf{S}$, and the vector of Brownian motion $ | W \rangle $.
The elements of the matrix of the diffusion functions, $\bf S$, are related to the second order terms of the Fokker-Plank equation as \cite{Risken1996Springer}
\begin{equation}
D^2_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\forall k} S_{ik} S_{jk} , \quad \forall i, j .\label{eq:D2ij}
\end{equation}
After substituting the $D^2_{ij}$ for the expressions from eqs. \eqref{eq:fptermsFin} we obtain a system of a three linearly independent equations for the four elements of $\bf S$. It is convenient to additionally assume that $S_{fp} = S_{pf}$. Then by solving eqs. \eqref{eq:D2ij} we obtain all of the diffusion functions. Consequently we obtain the system of the stochastic differential equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
& \mathrm{d} n_f = \left[ (1-n_f) \sigma_{cf} - n_f \sigma_{fc} \right] \mathrm{d} t + \sqrt{2 h_1 n_f (1-n_f)} \mathrm{d} W_1 , \\
& \mathrm{d} n_p = (1-n_f - 2 n_p) \sigma_{cc} \mathrm{d} t + \sqrt{2 H h_1 n_p (1-n_f-n_p)} \mathrm{d} W_2 .
\label{eq:SDEfp}
\end{eqnarray}
Interestingly enough similar equations are obtained for the evolutionary three strategy games in the series of papers by Traulsen \textit{et al.} \cite{Traulsen2005PhysRevLett, Traulsen2006PhysRevE, Traulsen2012PhysRevE}.
The above stochastic differential equations are inter-dependent, while it would be more convenient to have a system of independent stochastic differential equations. Taking into account the previous approaches \cite{Kononovicius2012PhysA, Alfarano2005CompEco} one can expect that the introduction of the mood, $\xi(t) = \frac{n_o(t)-n_p(t)}{n_o(t)+n_p(t)}$, as a new variable instead of $n_p$ would solve this problem. This can be done either via Ito rules for variable substitution in Langevin equation \cite{VanKampen1992NorthHolland} or via variable substitution in the Fokker-Plank equation \cite{Risken1996Springer}.
At this point let us scale the time, $t_s = h_1 t$, and appropriately redefine the model parameters: $\varepsilon_{cf} = \sigma_{cf} / h_1$, $\varepsilon_{fc} = \sigma_{fc} / h_1$, $\varepsilon_{cc} = \sigma_{cc} / (H h_1)$. Let us also recall our generalization of the herding model, eqs. \eqref{eq:pPlus} and \eqref{eq:pMinus}, by introducing the additional variability of the event rate, $\tau(\dots)$. The same assumptions can be used to introduce the variability into the three-state model. In such a case one can get:
\begin{eqnarray}
& \mathrm{d} n_f = \left[ \frac{(1-n_f) \varepsilon_{cf}}{\tau(n_f,\xi)} - n_f \varepsilon_{fc} \right] \mathrm{d} t_s + \sqrt{\frac{2 n_f (1-n_f)}{\tau(n_f,\xi)}} \mathrm{d} W_{s,1} , \label{eq:nftau}\\
& \mathrm{d} \xi = - \frac{2 H \varepsilon_{cc} \xi}{\tau(n_f,\xi)} \mathrm{d} t + \sqrt{\frac{2 H (1-\xi^2)}{\tau(n_f,\xi)}} \mathrm{d} W_{s,2} , \label{eq:xitau}\\
& \tau(n_f,\xi) = \left[ 1 + \left| \frac{1-n_f}{n_f} \xi \right|^\alpha \right]^{-1} . \label{eq:taunfxi}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that in previous approach \cite{Kononovicius2012PhysA} we have defined $\tau(\dots)$ as an inverse function of $y$, namely $\tau(n_f) = y^{-\alpha} = \left[ \frac{n_f}{1-n_f} \right]^\alpha$. This form was selected for the sake of simplicity and also considering the limit of large absolute returns, $y \gg 1$. In the three agent group approach we choose to move further away from this simplification and introduce an inverse dependence on the log-price, $p =\frac{1-n_f}{\xi}$, thus arriving at the eq. \eqref{eq:taunfxi}. Similar approach was used in \cite{Lux1999Nature}, where the utility functions of the agents, and consequently their opinion switching, are dependent on the log-price.
In fig. \ref{fig:fractured} we show that this model possesses a fractured spectral density similar to the one obtained in the sophisticated stochastic models considered in \cite{Gontis2010PhysA, Gontis2010Intech}. The probability density function is a $q$-Gaussian like and has a power-law tail with the close-to-empirical exponent. Though the spectral density is fitted by the power-law functions with larger exponents than the empirical ones. The same behavior was also observed in the stochastic model for the absolute returns. In case of \cite{Gontis2010PhysA, Gontis2010Intech} the model's spectral density was reconciled with the empirical data by applying the additional $q$-Gaussian noise driven by the resulting time series. In a sense of the proposed stochastic model derived as endogenous fluctuations of three agent groups we can expect that the system's response to the exogenous fluctuations of information flow is defined by endogenous macroscopic state.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{frac_pdf.pdf}
\hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{frac_spec.pdf}
\caption{Probability density function (a) and power spectral density (b) of absolute return numerically calculated from the three-state agent-based model. The red squares represent the numerical results obtained by solving eqs. \eqref{eq:nftau} and \eqref{eq:xitau}. Model parameters were set as follows: $\varepsilon_{cf} = \varepsilon_{fc} = \varepsilon_{cc}=3$, $H=100$, $r_0=1$, $\alpha=2$. The black curves provide power-law fits: (a) $\lambda = 3.67$, (b) $\beta_1=1.42$ and $\beta_2=0.41$.}
\label{fig:fractured}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
In this work we derived the system of stochastic equations \eqref{eq:SDEfp} modulating dynamics of three agent groups with herding interaction. Proposed approach can be valuable in the modeling of the complex social systems with similar composition of the agents. We demonstrate how sophisticated statistical features of the absolute returns in financial markets can be reproduced by extending the herding interaction of the agents and introducing the third agent state. Fortunately, the model retains its macroscopic treatment by the stochastic differential equations \eqref{eq:nftau} and \eqref{eq:xitau}. Faster transitions between optimism and pessimism introduce two time scales of the model reflected in the fractured power spectral density fig. \ref{fig:fractured} (b). This is in qualitative agreement with the high-frequency empirical data, which exhibits a similar behavior with lower exponents of the spectral density of the absolute returns \cite{Liu1999PhysRevE,Gontis2010Intech}. Agent-based model in the present form considers only the endogenous fluctuations, while the exogenous fluctuations are related to the information flow and would be considered as additional noise. Earlier we proposed a double stochastic model, which demonstrates the influence of additional noise reducing exponents of power spectrum \cite{Gontis2010PhysA,Gontis2010Intech}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to express our gratitude to dr. Julius Ruseckas who provided useful suggestions and advices.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtr}
|
\section{Introduction}
In symplectic geometry one can observe a rigidity of intersections: certain submanifolds are forced to intersect each other in more points than an argument from algebraic or differential topology would predict. This motivates the following question: given a (usually Lagrangian) submanifold $L$ of a symplectic manifold $(M,\omega)$ does there exist a Hamiltonian diffeomorphism $\phi \in \,Ham\,(M, \omega)$ such that $\phi(L) \cap \L=\emptyset$. If such $\phi$ exists, we call $L$ {\bf displaceable}. Otherwise $L$ is called {\bf non-displaceable}.
Hamiltonian torus actions have interesting applications in answering this question. Generic fibers of momentum map are coistoropic submanifolds. In the case of toric actions (i.e. when dimension of torus acting is equal to half of the dimension of manifold) generic fibers are Lagrangians.
An important class of examples of symplectic manifolds is given by coadjoint orbits of Lie groups.
A Lie group $G$ acts on $\lie{g}^*$, the dual of its Lie algebra, through the coadjoint action. Each orbit
$M$ of the coadjoint action
is naturally equipped with the Kostant-Kirillov symplectic form. For example, when $G=SU(n)$
the group of (complex) unitary matrices, a coadjoint orbit can be identified with the set of traceless Hermitian matrices with
a fixed set of eigenvalues. It can be also viewed as a manifold of flags (full of partial, depending on the orbit) in $\bb{C}^n$ with appropriately scaled symplectic form.
The coadjoint action of the maximal torus of $SU(n)$ is Hamiltonian, but not toric (except $n=2$ case). This action can be extended to a ``Gelfand-Tsetlin'' action which is toric, but is defined only on an open dense subset of the orbit. Generic fibers of the Gelfand-Tsetlin momentum map are Lagrangians and one may ask about their displaceability. Nishinou, Nohara and Ueda proved in \cite{NNU} that at least one of these fibers in non-displaceable. This paper is a step towards answering the question of uniqueness of such fiber. We explicitly displace a large collection of fibers of momentum maps (for standard action and for Gelfand-Tsetlin action). In particular we prove that for non-monotone orbits of $SU(3)$ there is unique non-displaceable Gelfand-Tsetlin fiber.
\begin{theorem}\label{main}
In the case of non-monotone regular $SU(3)$ coadjoint orbit through $diag\,(a,b,-a-b)\in \lie{su}(3)^*=$ the Gelfand-Tsetlin fiber above the point
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{cases}
(\frac a 2, -\frac a 2 ,0)& \textrm{ if }b<0\\
(\frac{a+b}{ 2}, -\frac{a+b}{ 2} ,0)& \textrm{ if }b>0
\end{cases}
\end{displaymath}
is the unique fiber of the Gelfand-Tsetlin map that is non-displaceable.
\end{theorem}
\textbf{Organization}. Section \ref{Preliminaries} provides background about standard action and the Gelfand-Tsetlin action.
\\
\textbf{Acknowledgments.} The author is very grateful to Yael Karshon for suggesting this problem and helpful conversations during my work on this project.
The author also would like to thank Leonid Polterovich and Strom Borman for useful discussions.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Standard action}\label{standardaction}
Consider the Lie group $G=SU(n)$. We identify the dual of its Lie algebra, $\lie{su}(n)^*$, with the vector space of $n \times n$ traceless Hermitian matrices.
Choose the maximal torus of $SU(n)$ to be
$T_{st}=\{ \textrm{diag} (e^{it_1},\ldots,e^{it_{n-1}},e^{-i(t_1+\ldots+t_{n-1})})\}$,
and the positive Weyl chamber to consist of diagonal Hermitian matrices with non-increasing diagonal entries. Let
$\lambda=\textrm{diag} (\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_n)$, $\lambda_1>\ldots>\lambda_n$, $\sum \lambda_i=0$, be a point in the interior of positive Weyl chamber. The coadjoint action of $SU(n)$ on $\lie{su}(n)^*$ is by conjugation.
Let $M$ be the orbit of coadjoint action of $SU(n)$ on $\lambda$. It is a symplectic manifold with Kostant-Kirillov symplectic form, of dimension $\frac 1 2 n(n-1)$.
The coadjoint action is Hamiltonian with momentum map the inclusion $\Phi:M \hookrightarrow \lie{su}^*(n)$.
The action of $T_{st}$ (subaction of coadjoint action) is also Hamiltonian with momentum map
$\mu:M \rightarrow \lie{t}^*_{st} \cong \bb{R}^{n-1}=\{(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in \lie{t}^*_{st}\cong \bb{R}^n|\,\,\sum x_i=0\}\subset \lie{t}^*_{st}$
sending a matrix in $M$ to its diagonal entries: $\mu([a_{ij}])=(a_{11},\ldots,a_{nn})$.
Denote by $\cc{Q}=\cc{Q}_{\lambda} \subset \bb{R}^{n-1}$ the polytope that is the image of momentum map $\mu$. Left picture on figure \ref{momentumimages} presents this polytope with additional data, so called ``x-ray`` \footnote{The x-ray of $(M,\omega,\phi)$ is the
collection of convex polytopes
$\phi(X)$ over all connected components $X$ of $M^K$ for some subtorus $K$ of $T$ (for more details see \cite{To}).}, for the case $n=3$.
\begin{figure}\label{momentumimages}
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{su3v2.pdf} \hspace{1in} \includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{threedimv4.pdf}
\caption{The x-ray for the standard $T_{st}$ action and the image of the Gelfand-Tsetlin functions for a regular $SU(3)$ orbit}
\label{momentumimages}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The Gelfand-Tsetlin system}\label{Gelfand-TsetlinSystem}
In this subsection we recall the Gelfand-Tsetlin (sometimes spelled Gelfand-Cetlin, or Gelfand-Zetlin) system of action coordinates, which originally appeared in \cite{GS1}. It is related to the classical Gelfand-Tsetlin polytope introduced in \cite{GTs}.
There are many references describing this system, for example \cite{P4}, \cite{GS1}, \cite{K}. Here we concentrate only on the $SU(3)$ case.
For any matrix $A \in M$, and any $k=1,\ldots, n-1$ let $\lambda^{(k)}_1(A) \geq \ldots \geq \lambda^{(k)}_k(A)$ denote the eigenvalues of $k \times k$ top left minor of $A$.
This defines $\frac 1 2 n(n-1)$ continuous, not everywhere smooth functions from $M$ to $\bb{R}$. The eigenvalues depend smoothly on matrix entries but ordering them may violate the smoothness at points where eigenvalues coincide. The system $\Lambda=\{\lambda^{(k)}_j;\;\;1 \leq k \leq n-1,\,1\leq j \leq k\}\colon M \rightarrow \bb{R}^{\frac 1 2 n(n-1)}$ is called the {\bf Gelfand-Tsetlin} system of action coordinates. Let
$$U:=\{A \in M;\,\,\forall_{k}\; \lambda^{(k)}_1(A) > \ldots> \lambda^{(k)}_k(A)\} \subset M.$$
The Gelfand-Tsetlin functions are smooth on $U$ and there they integrate to an action of a torus $T_{GT} \cong (S^1)^{\frac 1 2 n(n-1)}$ called the {\bf Gelfand-Tsetlin action} (\cite{GS1},\cite{P4}). This action is Hamiltonian with momentum map the restriction of $\Lambda$ to $U$. The image $\Lambda(M)$ is called the {\bf Gelfand-Tsetlin polytope} (see right picture in Figure \ref{momentumimages}). We denote it by $\cc{P}=\cc{P}_{\lambda}$.
The standard action of the maximal torus is a subaction of the Gelfand-Tsetlin action. Therefore there is a projection map
$pr: \lie{t}_{GT}^*\cong \bb{R}^{\frac 1 2 n(n-1)} \rightarrow \bb{R}^n\cong \lie{t}_{st}^* $ given by
$$ pr (\{\lambda^{(j)}_l\})=\Bigl( \lambda^{(1)}_1,\,(\lambda^{(2)}_1+\lambda^{(2)}_2-\lambda^{(1)}_1)\,,
\ldots ,\, \sum_i \lambda^{(n-1)}_i\, -\sum_i \lambda^{(n-2)}_i, \sum_i \lambda_i\, -\sum_i \lambda^{(n-1)}_i \Bigr),$$
which maps $\cc{P}$ to $\cc{Q}$. Note that $\mu =pr \circ \Lambda$.
\subsection{The Gelfand-Tsetlin polytope}
The classical mini max principle (see for example Chapter I.4 in \cite{CH}) implies that
\begin{equation*}
\lambda^{(l+1)}_j(A) \geq \lambda^{(l)}_j(A) \geq \lambda^{(l+1)}_{j+1}(A).
\end{equation*}
These inequalities, taken over $l=1,\ldots,n-1$, $j=1,\ldots,l$, (with the convention that $\lambda^{(n)}_{j}(A)=\lambda_j$), cut out a polytope in $\bb{R}^{(1/2)\,n(n-1)}.$ In fact this is exactly the Gelfand-Tsetlin polytope $\cc{P}=\Lambda(M)$ (\cite{GS1},\cite{P4}).
\section{Displacing through Hamiltonian isotopies}\label{displacing}
In this section we prove that certain subsets of the coadjoint orbit are displaceable by means of Hamiltonian isotopies.
\subsection{Displacing fibers of the standard action}
We continue to denote by $M$ a regular $SU(n)$ coadjoint orbit through $(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n)$, $\sum\,\lambda_i=0$. Recall from Section \ref{standardaction} that the standard action of the maximal torus of $SU(n)$ is Hamiltonian, with momentum map $\mu$.
The fibers of $\mu$ above interior points of $\cc{Q}$ are coistoropic submanifolds of dimension $n(n-2)$, (so not Lagrangian except if $n=2$).
\begin{proposition}\label{centralnondisplaceable}
The fiber of $\mu$ above interior point of $\cc{Q}$, $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\neq(0,\ldots,0)$, is displaceable.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For any even permutation $\sigma \in A_n \subset S_n$ its matrix, $P_{\sigma}$ is in $SU(n)$. Therefore conjugating with $P_{\sigma}$ is a Hamiltonian isotopy ($SU(n)$ is connected). Note that the diagonal entries change in the following way under this conjugation:
$$\mu (P_{\sigma}\,A\,P_{\sigma})=\sigma (\mu(A)).$$
Thus $\mu (P_{\sigma}\,A\,P_{\sigma})=\mu(A)$ for all $\sigma \in A_n$ if and only if $a_{11}=\ldots=a_{nn}$.
Therefore for any $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\neq(0,\ldots,0)$, there exists a $\sigma \in A_n$ such that a Hamiltonian isotopy $P_{\sigma}$ displaces the fiber $\mu ^{-1} (x)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Displacing fibers of the Gelfand-Tsetlin system in general case}
In this subsection we will analyze the problem of displacing generic fibers of the Gelfand-Tsetlin system. The fibers above interiors points of $\cc{P}$ are Lagrangian tori $(S^1)^{(1/2)\,n(n-1)}$. The fibers above boundary points which are contained in $U$ are isotropic and of dimension smaller then $\frac 1 2 \dim M$, therefore they are displaceable. The fibers above boundary points not contained in $U$ might be of larger dimension. For example, in $n=3$ case the fiber above the unique not smooth point of $\cc{P}$ (unique $4$-valent vertex) is a Lagrangian sphere $S^3$ (\cite{I}).
Let $\cc{W}=pr ^{-1} ((0,\ldots,0))$ where $pr$ is the projection $pr: \lie{t}_{GT}^* \rightarrow \lie{t}_{st}^* $ satisfying $pr \circ \Lambda=\mu$ defined in Section \ref{Gelfand-TsetlinSystem}.
\begin{proposition}\label{stdnondisplace}
The Gelfand-Tsetlin fiber above any point $x=(x_1, \ldots,x_n)\in \, \cc{P} \setminus \cc{W}$ is displaceable.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Note that this fiber, $\Lambda ^{-1} (x)$, is contained in the fiber $\mu ^{-1} (pr(x))$. Our assumptions guarantee that $pr(x) \neq (0,\ldots,0)$ therefore conjugation with appropriate matrix $P_{\sigma}$ displaces the whole set $\mu ^{-1} (pr (x))$ off itself (see Proposition \ref{centralnondisplaceable}). Thus its subset, $\Lambda ^{-1} (x)$, is displaceable as well.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Displacing fibers of the Gelfand-Tsetlin system in the case $n=3$}
From now on we concentrate on the case $n=3$. First we describe explicitly the Gelfand-Tsetlin polytope for $SU(3)$ coadjoint orbit through a point $\textrm{diag} (a,b,-a-b)$, $a >b$.
The Gelfand-Tsetlin polytope $\cc{P}$
(presented on the Figure \ref{polytope}), consists of points $x=(x_1, x_2,x_3)\in \bb{R}^3\cong \lie{t}^*_{GT}$ satisfying the following inequalities (\cite{GS2}, \cite{P4})
$$a\geq x_1 \geq b,$$
$$b\geq x_2 \geq -a-b,$$
$$x_1\geq x_3 \geq x_2.$$
Denote the facets of $\cc{P}$:\begin{align*}
& \textrm{facet}&&&\textrm{ primitive inward normal}\\
&F_1:&\langle x,e_1\rangle &= a&(-1,0,0)\\
&F_2:&\langle x,-e_1\rangle &= b& (1,0,0)\\
&F_3:&\langle x,e_2\rangle &= b & (0,-1,0)\\
&F_4:&\langle x,-e_2\rangle &= a+b& (0,1,0)\\
&F_5:&\langle x,e_3-e_1\rangle &= 0& (1,0,-1)\\
&F_6:&\langle x,e_2-e_3\rangle &= 0& (0,-1,1)
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{SU3generalGTpolytope.pdf}\caption{ The Gelfand-Tsetlin polytope for regular $SU(3)$ orbit through $(a,b,-a-b)$.}
\label{polytope}
\end{figure}
To displace more Gelfand-Tsetlin fibers we use McDuff's method of probes.
Recall the necessary definitions and lemmas.
\begin{definition}\cite{MD}
Let $w$ be a point of some facet $F$ of a rational polytope $\Delta$ and $\alpha \in \bb{Z}^n$ be integrally transverse to $F$. The {\bf probe } $p_{F,\alpha}(w)=p_{\alpha}(w)$ with the direction $\alpha \in \bb{Z}^n$ and initial point $w \in F$ is the half open line segment consisting of $w$ together with the points in int$\Delta$ that lie on the ray from $w$ in the direction of $\alpha$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\cite[Lemma 2.4]{MD} \label{probelemma} Let $\Delta$ be a smooth moment polytope. Suppose that a point $u \in \textrm{ int }\Delta$ lies on the probe $p_{F,\alpha}(w)$. Then if $w$ lies in the interior of $F$ and $u$ is less then halfway along $p_{F,\alpha}(w)$, the fiber $L_u$ above $u$ is displaceable.
\end{lemma}
The lemma is true for any notion of the length along a line. We will use the affine distance.
In the above lemma $\Delta$ is a smooth polytope, but this condition is not really necessary. The only thing we need is the existence of a Darboux chart on $M$ containing the whole preimage of the probe. This is true in our case. The only non-smooth point of the Gelfand-Tsetlin polytope $\cc{P}$ is the vertex $(b,b,b).$ As noted above, the set $U=\Lambda ^{-1} (\cc{P} \setminus \{(b,b,b)\})$ is equipped with the smooth Gelfand-Tsetlin action. Therefore it is a toric (not compact) manifold and we can apply the above lemma for our polytope $\cc{P}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{fromf1}
The fiber above a point $x \in \textrm{int }\cc{P}$ such that $x_3 \leq b$ and $a>x_1 > \frac{ a+b}{ 2}$ is displaceable by a probe from $F_1$ in the direction $(-1,0,0)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}Note that $(-1,0,0)$ is integrally transverse to $F_1$.
Take $x\in \textrm{int }\cc{P}$ such that $x_3 \leq b$ and $a>x_1 > \frac{ a+b}{ 2}$. Then $w=(a,x_2,x_3)$ is in the interior of the facet $F_1$ and the probe from $w$ in the direction $(-1,0,0)$ is the set $\{(a-t,x_2,x_3);\,t \in [0,a-b)\}$.
As $x_1 > a-\frac{a-b}{2}=\frac {a+b}{ 2}$, the point $(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ is displaceable by Lemma \ref{probelemma}.
\end{proof}
Due to the symmetry of $\cc{P}$ we can similarly show:
\begin{lemma}\label{fromf4}
The fiber above a point $x \in \textrm{int }\cc{P}$ such that $x_3 \geq b$ and $-a-b<x_2 <-\frac{ a}{ 2}$ is displaceable by a probe from $F_4$ in the direction $(0,1,0)$.
\end{lemma}
Note that the fibers above points on the boundary of $\cc{P}$, other then the point $(b,b,b)$, are isotropic tori of dimension less then $3=\frac 1 2 \dim M$, so they are also displaceable. The fiber $\Lambda ^{-1} (b,b,b)$ is a Lagrangian $S^3$ (\cite{I}).
Therefore from Proposition \ref{stdnondisplace} and Lemmas \ref{fromf1}, \ref{fromf4} we deduce:
\begin{corollary}\label{displacing}
The only Gelfand-Tsetlin fibers that can possibly be non-displaceable are the fibers above points $(x_1,-x_1,0) \in \cc{P}$ with
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{cases}
b<x_1\leq \frac{a+b}{2}&\textrm{ if }b>0\\
0\leq x_1 \leq \frac a 2 &\textrm{ if }b=0\\
0<x_1 \leq \frac{a}{2}&\textrm{ if }b<0
\end{cases}
\end{displaymath}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
According to the above observation only fibers above interior points or above $(b,b,b)$ could be non-displaceable. Note that the set $\cc{W}$ in Proposition \ref{stdnondisplace} is
$$\cc{W}=pr ^{-1} (0)=\{(x_1,-x_1,0) \in \cc{P}\}.$$
If $b \geq 0$ then applying Lemma \ref{fromf1} we displace fibers above points $(x_1,-x_1,0)$ with $a>x_1>\frac{a+b}{2}$. If $b\leq 0$, we apply Lemma \ref{fromf4} and displace fibers above points $(x_1,-x_1,0)$ with $a+b>x_1>\frac{a}{2}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The Lagrangian sphere $\Lambda ^{-1} (b,b,b)$ could be non-displaceable only in the case $b=0$ (the case of monotone orbit).
\end{remark}
\subsection{The monotone case}
A symplectic manifold $(M, \omega)$ is called {\bf spherically monotone} if there exists $k>0$ such that for any class $X$ in the image of Hurewicz homomorphism $\pi_2(M) \rightarrow H_2(M)$ have that $$c_1(TM)[X]=k\, \omega(X).$$
Above $c_1(TM)$ denotes the first Chern class.
In this subsection we consider the case of $b=0$, that is $M$ is the $SU(3)$ orbit through $\lambda=(a,0,-a)$ for some $a>0$.
Then $M$ is spherically monotone.
Recall the theorem Entov and Polterovich.
\begin{theorem}\cite[Theorem 2.1]{EP}\label{ep}
Let $M$ be a closed connected rational and spherically monotone symplectic manifold.
Any finite-dimensional Poisson commutative subspace of $C^{\infty}(M)$ has at least one non-displaceable fiber.
\end{theorem}
(In \cite{EP} it is assumed that $M$ is strongly semi-positive. Spherically monotone manifolds are a special class of strongly semi-positive.)
We will consider unnormalized Gelfand-Tsetlin functions. For any matrix $A=[a_{ij}] \in M$ let $b_3(A)=a_{11}$, and let $b_1(A),b_2(A)$ be the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial of the $2 \times 2$ top left minor of $A$, i.e. the characteristic polynomial is $t^2+b_1 t+b_2$. These three functions, smooth on $M$, are sometimes called {\bf unnormalized Gelfand-Tsetlin functions}. They have the same level sets as the Gelfand-Tsetlin functions $(a_1,a_2,a_3)$. Note that functions $b_1$ and $b_2$ are $U(2)$ invariant, so they Poisson commute. Proposition 3.2 in \cite{GS1} gives that all three functions: $b_1$, $b_2$ and $b_3$ Poisson commute.
The subspace of $C^{\infty}(M)$ generated by the functions $b_1$, $b_2$ and $b_3$ is finite-dimensional and Poisson commutative.
Now we start the search of this non-displaceable fiber.
The theorem Entov and Polterovich quoted above proves the existence of non-displaceable fiber of the map $(b_1, b_2,b_3)$. Such a fiber is also a fiber of the Gelfand-Tsetlin system. This proves the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{existence}
For the $SU(3)$ orbit through $(a,0,-a)$, $a>0$
there exists at least one non-displaceable fiber of the Gelfand-Tsetlin system. That is, there exists at least one $p \in \cc{P}$ such that $\Lambda^{-1}(p)$ is non-displaceable.
\end{proposition}
Corollary \ref{displacing} gives that this non-displaceable fiber must be of the form $\Lambda ^{-1} (x_1,-x_1,0)$ for some $0 \leq x_1 \leq \frac a 2 $.
We cannot show that they are non-displaceable, but we can prove
\begin{proposition}
The fibers above points $(x_1,-x_1,0) \in \cc{P}$ with $0 \leq x_1 \leq \frac a 2$ are not displaceable by probes.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Let $$N:=\{(x_1,-x_1,0) \in \cc{P};\,\,0 \leq x_1 \leq \frac a 2\,\}.$$
First notice that these fibers are not displaceable by probes from facets $F_1$, $F_4$ because the distance from any of these facets to $N$ along any probe is at least half of the length of the probe.
The vectors integrally transverse to $F_2$ are of the form $(1, k, l)$ for $k,l \in \bb{Z}$. The line $\{(x_1,-x_1,0)-t(1, k, l);\,t \in \bb{R}\}$ intersects interior of the facet $F_2$ (at a point $(0,-x_1(k+1),-lx_1)$) if and only if
$$x_1>0\textrm{ and }0<l<k+1<\frac{a}{x_1}.$$ The affine distance from $(0,-x_1(k+1),-lx_1)$ to $(x_1,-x_1,0)$ in the direction $(1, k, l)$ is $x_1$. Therefore the probe from $(0,-x_1(k+1),-lx_1)$ in the direction of $(1, k, l)$ can be used to displace the fiber above $(x_1,-x_1,0)$ if and only if the length of the probe is greater then $2x_1$, that is, if $$(0,-x_1(k+1),-lx_1)+2x_1(1, k, l)=(2x_1,(k-1)x_1,lx_1)\in \,int\, \cc{P}.$$ In particular this means that $2>l$ and $l>k-1>0$. There are no integers $k,l$ satisfying these conditions, therefore the fibers above points in $N$ cannot be displaced by probes from the facet $F_2$.
Similarly one can show that they also cannot be displaced by probes from the facet $F_3$.
The vectors integrally transverse to the facet $F_5$ are of the form $(1,k,0)$ or $(0,k,-1)$, $k \in \bb{Z}$, but only the second family can give probes intersecting $N$. The line $\{(x_1,-x_1,0)-t(0,k,-1);\,t \in \bb{R}\}$ intersects the hyperplane $\{e_1=e_3\}$ at a point $(x_1,-x_1-kx_1,x_1)$. This intersection point is in the interior of the facet $F_5$ if and only if
$$x_1>0,\,\,0>-x_1-kx_1>-a,\textrm{ and }x_1>-x_1-kx_1,$$ that is, if
$-1 <k<-1 + \frac{a}{x_1}.$ The distance from $(x_1,-x_1-kx_1,x_1)$ to $(x_1,-x_1,0)$ in the direction $(0,k,-1)$ is $x_1$. Therefore the probe from $(x_1,-x_1-kx_1,x_1)$ in the direction $(0,k,-1)$ can be used to displace the fiber above $(x_1,-x_1,0)$ if and only if
$$(x_1,-x_1,0)+2x_1(0,k,-1)=(x_1,kx_1-x_1,-x_1) \in \,int\, \cc{P}. $$
In particular this means that $k< 0$. There are no integers $k$ satisfying $k< 0$ together with the condition $-1 <k$ from above. Therefore the fibers above points in $N$ cannot be displaced by probes from the facet $F_5$. Similar argument proves that they cannot be displaced by probes from the facet $F_6$.
\end{proof}
Patient reader can check that these fibers also cannot be displaced by ''extended probes'' (see \cite{ABM} for definition).
\subsection{Non-monotone case. Proof of Theorem \ref{main}}
Using Floer theory, without assuming monotonicity,
Nishinou, Nohara and Ueda proved in \cite{NNU} the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \cite[Theorem 12.1]{NNU} \label{fromnnu}
For any $\lambda \in \lie{su}(n)^*$ let $\cc{O}_{\lambda}$ stand for the $SU(n)$ coadjoint orbit through $\lambda$. There exists $u \in Int\, \Lambda(\cc{O}_{\lambda})$ in the interior of the Gelfand-Tsetlin polytope for $\cc{O}_{\lambda}$ such that the fiber $\Lambda ^{-1} (u)$ is non-displaceable.
\end{theorem}
Let $M$ be a regular $SU(3)$ coadjoint orbit that is not monotone, that is an orbit through $\lambda=(a>b>-a-b)$ for some $a,b$ with $b \neq0$. The above theorem proves the existence of non-displaceable Gelfand-Tsetlin fiber. Moreover, computations done in Examples in Section 11 of \cite{NNU} (finding a critical point of the potential funciton), imply that the fiber above $(\frac a 2,- \frac a 2,0)$ if $b<0$, or $(\frac{a+b}{2},-\frac{a+b}{2},0)$ if $b>0$, is non-displaceable.
Below, while proving Theorem \ref{main}, we recover this result, not via potential functions methods of \cite{NNU}, but by displacing other fibers using probes. The advantage of our method is that it also proves uniqueness and displaces the boundary fibers (like the Lagrangian sphere $\Lambda ^{-1} (b,b,b)$).
From Corollary \ref{displacing} we know that the non-displaceable fiber must be of the form $\Lambda ^{-1} (x_1,-x_1,0)$ for some $(x_1,-x_1,0)\in \, int\,\cc{P}$.
The Figure \ref{slices} shows slices of Gelfand-Tsetlin polytope at $x_3=0$ for the cases of $b<0$ and $b>0$, that is, a polytope in $\bb{R}^2$ satisfying $\max (0,b) \leq x_1 \leq a$ and $-a-b \leq x_2 \leq \min(0,b)$. The black bold line segment corresponds to the possibly non-displaceable fibers.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{SliceBNeg.pdf} \hspace{0.3in} \includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{SliceBPos.pdf}
\caption{The slices of the Gelfand-Tsetlin polytope at $x_3=0$ for $b<0$ and $b>0$.}\label{slices}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}\label{fromf3}
If $b<0$ then the fibers above points $(x_1,x_2,0)$ with $0 < x_1 < a$ and $-\frac a 2 <x_2<b$ (shaded region) are displaceable by probes.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The vector $(0,-1,0)$ is integrally transverse to the facet $F_3$. Take any point $(x_1,x_2,0)$ satisfying the above conditions. Then a point $w=(x_1,b, 0)$ is in the interior of $F_3$ and the probe from $w$ in the direction of $(0,-1,0)$ is the set $\{(x_1, b-t, 0);\;t\in[0,a+2b)\}$. Our assumptions imply that $-b<-x_2<\frac a 2$ so
$x_2= b-t$ with $t< b+\frac{a}{2}$. Therefore the point $(x_1,x_2,0)$ is displaceable by probe from $w$.
\end{proof}
If $b=0$ then the point $w=(x,b,0)=(x,0,0)$ is on the boundary of $F_3$ and the probe could not start from $w$
\begin{lemma}\label{fromf2}
If $b>0$ then the fibers above points $(x_1,x_2,0)$ with $b < x_1 < \frac{a+b}{2}$ and $-a-b <x_2<0$ (shaded region) are displaceable by probes.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The vector $(1,0,0)$ is integrally transverse to the facet $F_2$. Take any point $(x_1,x_2,0)$ satisfying the above conditions. Then a point $v=(b,x_2, 0)$ is in the interior of $F_1$ and the probe from $v$ in the direction of $(1,0,0)$ is the set $\{(b+t, x_2, 0);\;t\in[0,a-b)\}$. Our assumptions imply that $x_1= b+t$ with $t< \frac{a-b}{2}$. Therefore the point $(x_1,x_2,0)$ is displaceable by probe from $v$.
\end{proof}
If $b=0$ then the point $v=(0,x_2,0)$ is on the boundary of $F_1$.
\begin{proof}{\it (of Theorem \ref{main})}
The above Lemmas with Theorem \ref{fromnnu} prove Theorem \ref{main}.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
There are a variety of ways to model the presence of secrecy in a communication system. Shannon considered the availability of secret key shared between the transmitter (Alice) and receiver (Bob), using it to apply a one-time pad to the message \cite{Shannon1949}. Wyner introduced the idea of physical-layer security with the wiretap channel and secrecy capacity, exploiting the difference in the channels to Bob and Eve (the eavesdropper) \cite{Wyner1975}. Maurer derived secrecy by assuming that Alice, Bob, and Eve have access to correlated random variables \cite{Maurer1993}. In such models, the measure of security is usually the conditional entropy, or ``equivocation'', of the message; maximum equivocation corresponds to perfect secrecy.
In this work, we replace equivocation with an operationally motivated measure of secrecy. We want to design our coding and encryption schemes so that if Eve tries to reproduce the source sequence, she will suffer a certain level of distortion. More precisely, the measure of secrecy is the minimum average distortion attained by the cleverest (worst-case) eavesdropper. Occasionally, we will refer to Eve's minimum average distortion as the payoff: Alice and Bob want to maximize the payoff over all code designs.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[node distance=1cm,minimum height=7mm,minimum width=14mm,arw/.style={->,>=stealth'}]
\node[coordinate] (source) {};
\node[rectangle,draw,rounded corners] (alice) [right =9mm of source] {Alice};
\node[rectangle,draw,rounded corners] (ch) [right =9mm of alice] {$P_{Y,Z|X}$};
\node[rectangle,draw,rounded corners] (bob) [right =of ch,yshift=8mm] {Bob};
\node[rectangle,draw,rounded corners] (eve) [right =of ch,yshift=-8mm] {Eve};
\node[coordinate] (shat) [right =of bob] {};
\node[coordinate] (t) [right =of eve] {};
\node[rectangle] at ([xshift=4mm,yshift=8.5mm] bob.center) {$i=1,\ldots,n$};
\draw [arw] (source) to node[midway,above,yshift=-1mm]{$S^n$} (alice);
\draw [arw] (alice) to node[midway,above,yshift=-1mm]{$X^n$} (ch);
\draw [arw] (ch.15) to node[pos=0.3,above,yshift=-1mm]{$Y^n$} (bob.west);
\draw [arw] (ch.345) to node[pos=0.3,below]{$Z^n$} (eve.west);
\draw [arw] (bob) to node[midway,above,yshift=-.5mm]{$\widehat{S}_i$} (shat);
\draw [arw] (eve) to node[midway,above,yshift=-1mm]{$T_i$} (t);
\draw [arw] (bob) to node [midway,right,xshift=-2.5mm,yshift=0.5mm] {$\widehat{S}^{i-1}$} (eve);
\draw [dashed] ([xshift=-1cm,yshift=-5mm] eve.center) rectangle ([xshift=1.8cm,yshift=6mm] bob.center);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\emph{Joint source-channel operations.} Bob and Eve produce the sequences $\widehat{S}^n$ and $T^n$, respectively, after they receive the broadcast channel outputs. In the $i$th step, Bob produces $\widehat{S}_i$, and Eve produces $T_i$ based on her observation of $Z^n$ and $\widehat{S}^{i-1}$.}
\label{source_channel_fig}
\end{figure}
This measure of secrecy has been considered previously by Yamamoto in \cite{Yamamoto1997}, but our setup differs from \cite{Yamamoto1997} in a few ways, the most salient of which is ``causal disclosure''. We assume Bob, the legitimate receiver, is producing actions that are revealed publicly (in particular, to Eve) in a causal manner. We might view Eve as an adversary who is trying to predict Bob's current and future actions based on both the actions that she has already witnessed and the output of her wiretap, and subsequently act upon her predictions (see Figure \ref{source_channel_fig}).
To further motivate the causal disclosure feature of our model, consider the effect of removing it; that is, consider Yamamoto's problem in \cite{Yamamoto1997}. Alice must communicate a source sequence losslessly to Bob over a noiseless channel and the secrecy resource is shared secret key. Eve observes the message but is \emph{not} given causal access to Bob's reproduction sequence. As shown in \cite{Schieler}, the solution to this problem is that any positive rate of secret key is enough to cause Eve unconditionally maximal distortion -- we see that secrecy is alarmingly inexpensive. Similarly, if the secrecy resource is physical-layer security instead of shared secret key, it can be shown that a positive secrecy capacity is enough to force maximal distortion. However, with causal disclosure in play a tradeoff between secrecy capacity and payoff emerges. As a side remark, one might observe that causal disclosure is consistent with the spirit of Kerckhoffs's principle \cite{Kerchoff}.
In addition to assuming causal disclosure, we further diverge from \cite{Yamamoto1997} by considering the presence of a wiretap channel instead of shared secret key; the problem of shared secret key with causal disclosure was solved in \cite{Cuff2010}. In \cite{Cuff2010}, it was found that the optimal tradeoff between the rate of secret key and payoff earned is achieved by constructing a message that effectively consists of a fully public part and a fully secure part. More specifically, the optimal encoder publicly reveals a distorted version of the source sequence and uses the secret key to apply a one-time pad to the supplement. With this insight, we use the broadcast channel to effectively create two separate channels -- one public and one secure~--
\newgeometry{top=0.75in,bottom=1in,right=0.75in,left=0.75in} \noindent
as is done in \cite{Csiszar--Korner1978}. However, we modify \cite{Csiszar--Korner1978} by removing the requirement that Eve must decode the public message, thereby rendering the message public only in intention, not in reality. We show that freely giving the ``public'' message away dramatically decreases Eve's distortion; thus, her equivocation of the public message becomes important. Upon using channel coding to transform the broadcast channel into effective public and secure channels, we show that the weak secrecy provided by the channel encoder allows us to use the source code from \cite{Cuff2010} to link the source and channel coding operations together digitally. It turns out that a strong secrecy guarantee would not improve the results. Separation allows us to obtain a lower bound on the achievable payoff. We also provide an example of the lower bound and obtain an upper bound. Most of the proofs are omitted.
Before proceeding, we briefly juxtapose our measure of secrecy with equivocation. Equivocation does not give much insight into the structure of Eve's knowledge and does not depend on the actions that Eve makes. In contrast, looking at Eve's distortion tells us something about the quality of her reconstruction if her aim is to replicate a source sequence and produce actions accordingly. There are other instances in the literature where an operational definition of security is used. For example, in \cite{Merhav--Arikan1999}, Merhav et al. looked at the expected number of guesses needed to correctly identify a message.
\section{Problem Statement}
The system under consideration, shown in Figure \ref{source_channel_fig}, operates on blocks of length $n$.
All alphabets are finite, and both the source and channel are memoryless. The communication flow begins with Alice, who observes a sequence $S^n$, i.i.d. according to $P_S$, and produces an input $X^n$ to the broadcast channel. The memoryless broadcast channel is characterized by $P_{Y,Z|X}$, but since the relevant calculations only involve the marginals $P_{Y|X}$ and $P_{Z|X}$, we need only consider $P_{Y,Z|X}=P_{Y|X}P_{Z|X}$. At one end of the channel, Bob receives $Y^n$ and generates a sequence of actions, $\hat{S}^n$, with the requirement that the block error probability be small. At the other terminal of the channel, Eve receives $Z^n$ and generates $T^n$; in generating $T_i$, she has access to the full $Z^n$ sequence and the past actions of Bob, $\hat{S}^{i-1}$. In essence, we can view Bob and Eve as playing a public game that commences after they receive the channel outputs. In each move, they are allowed to see each other's past moves and produce an estimate of the next source symbol accordingly. Since Bob's reproduction must be almost lossless, his moves are restricted and he does not benefit from knowing Eve's past actions. For similar reasons, revealing $\hat{S}^{i-1}$ to Eve at step $i$ has exactly the same consequences as revealing $S^{i-1}$; henceforth, we consider the causal disclosure to be $S^{i-1}$. A more general version of the game would allow for distortion in Bob's estimate (see \cite{Cuff2010Allerton}), but in this work we focus on lossless communication.
In the next two definitions, refer to Figure \ref{source_channel_fig} for an illustration of the setup.
\begin{defn}
For blocklength $n$, a source-channel code consists of an encoder $f$ and a decoder $g$:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{l}
f:\mathcal{S}^n\rightarrow \mathcal{X}^n \text{ (more generally, }P_{X^n|S^n}\text{)}\\
g: \mathcal{Y}^n\rightarrow \mathcal{S}^n.
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
\end{defn}
Note that we do not restrict the encoder to be deterministic.
For any source-channel code, we can calculate the probability of block error and the payoff earned against the worst-case adversary, as defined in the following:
\begin{defn}
Fix a value function (or, distortion measure) $\pi:\mathcal{S}\times\mathcal{T}\rightarrow [0,\infty)$. We say that a payoff $\Pi$ is achievable if there exists a sequence of source-channel codes such that
\begin{equation}
\label{errdefn}\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}[S^n\neq\hat{S}^n]=0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{paydefn}\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\min_{\{t_i(s^{i-1},z^n)\}_i}\mathbb{E}\left[\frac1n \sum_{i=1}^n\pi(S_i,t_i(S^{i-1},Z^n))\right]\geq\Pi.
\end{equation}
\end{defn}
Eve's average distortion, i.e. the LHS of (\ref{paydefn}), is defined exactly as in rate-distortion theory for separable distortion measures. Although it is not explicit in (\ref{paydefn}), we assume that Eve has full knowledge of the source-channel code and the source distribution $P_S$.
\section{Lower Bound}
The first result is a lower bound on the maximum achievable payoff.
\begin{thm}
\label{innerbnd}
Fix $P_S$, $P_{Y,Z|X}$, and $\pi(s,t)$. A payoff $\Pi$ is achievable if the inequalities
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
I(S;U) &<& I(V;Y) \\
H(S|U) &<& I(W;Y|V)-I(W;Z|V)\\
\Pi &\leq& \min_{t(u)}\mathbb{E}[\pi(S,t(U))]
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
hold for some distribution $P_SP_{U|S}P_VP_{W|V}P_{X|W}P_{Y,Z|X}$.
\end{thm}
Theorem~\ref{innerbnd} is obtained in part by transforming (via channel coding) the noisy broadcast channel into noiseless public and secure channels. However, the result can be strengthened considerably by taking into account Eve's equivocation of the public message. The source-channel code used to achieve Theorem~\ref{innerbnd} remains the same; only the analysis is strengthened. We illustrate and discuss this further in section~\ref{example}, where we give a brief proof sketch. Our main result is the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
\label{improved}
Fix $P_S$, $P_{Y,Z|X}$, and $\pi(s,t)$. A payoff $\Pi$ is achievable if the inequalities
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
I(S;U) &<& I(V;Y) \\
H(S|U) &<& I(W;Y|V)-I(W;Z|V)\\
\Pi &\leq& \alpha \cdot \Pi_{\max} + (1-\alpha) \cdot \min_{t(u)}\mathbb{E}[\pi(S,t(U))]
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
hold for some distribution $P_SP_{U|S}P_VP_{W|V}P_{X|W}P_{Y,Z|X}$, where
$$\Pi_{\max} = \min_t\mathbb{E}[\pi(S,t)]$$ and
$$\alpha=\frac{[I(V;Y)-I(V;Z)]^+}{I(S;U)}.$$
\end{thm}
We obtain the lower bound in Theorem~\ref{improved} by concatenating a source code and a channel code and matching the rates of the two codes. We first describe what constitutes a good channel code, and the secrecy guarantees that come with it.
\subsection{Channel Code}
The channel code is made up of an encoder and decoder as shown in Figure \ref{channel_fig}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[node distance=1cm,minimum height=7mm,minimum width=14mm,arw/.style={->,>=stealth'}]
\node[rectangle,draw,rounded corners] (fc) {$f_c$};
\node[coordinate] (mp) [left =of fc,yshift=2mm] {};
\node[coordinate] (ms) [left =of fc,yshift=-2mm] {};
\node[rectangle,draw,rounded corners] (ch) [right =of fc] {$P_{Y,Z|X}$};
\node[rectangle,draw,rounded corners] (bob) [right =of ch,yshift=6mm] {$g_c$};
\node[coordinate] (eve) [right =of ch,yshift=-6mm] {};
\node[coordinate] (mphat) [right =of bob,yshift=2mm] {};
\node[coordinate] (mshat) [right =of bob,yshift=-2mm] {};
\draw [arw] (mp) to node[midway,above,yshift=-1mm]{$M_p$} (mp -| fc.west);
\draw [arw] (ms) to node[midway,below,yshift=1mm]{$M_s$} (ms -| fc.west);
\draw [arw] (fc) to node[midway,above,yshift=-1mm]{$X^n$} (ch);
\draw [arw] (ch.15) to node[midway,above,yshift=-2mm]{$Y^n$} (bob.west);
\draw [arw] (ch.345) to node[midway,above,yshift=-.8mm]{$Z^n$} (eve.west);
\draw [arw] (bob.east |- mphat) to node[midway,above,yshift=-1mm]{$\widehat{M}_p$} (mphat);
\draw [arw] (bob.east |- mshat) to node[midway,below,yshift=1mm]{$\widehat{M}_s$} (mshat);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Channel coding operations.}
\label{channel_fig}
\end{figure}
The input to the encoder is a pair of messages $(M_p,M_s)$ destined for the channel decoder, with $M_p$ representing a public message and $M_s$ a secure message. The channel decoder outputs the pair $(\widehat{M}_p,\widehat{M}_s)$. We allow the channel encoder to use private randomization.
\begin{defn}
A $(R_p,R_s,n)$ channel code consists of a channel encoder $f_c$ and channel decoder $g_c$:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{l}
f_c:\mathcal{M}_p\times\mathcal{M}_s\rightarrow \mathcal{X}^n \text{ (more generally, }P_{X^n|M_p,M_s}\text{)}\\
g_c:\mathcal{Y}^n \rightarrow \mathcal{M}_p\times\mathcal{M}_s,
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
where $|\mathcal{M}_p|=2^{nR_p}$ and $|\mathcal{M}_s|=2^{nR_s}$.
\end{defn}
Keeping in mind criteria (\ref{errdefn}) and (\ref{paydefn}) and our desire to form public and private channels, we might ask: what constitutes a good channel code? First, the legitimate channel decoder must recover $M_p$ and $M_s$ with vanishing probability of error. Second, we need a guarantee that we have indeed created a private channel. Ideally, we want to guarantee that the \emph{a priori} distribution on $M_s$ matches the \emph{a posteriori} distribution given both $Z^n$ and $M_p$. If this holds, we are assured that even if the adversary is able to view the public channel perfectly (i.e., recover $M_p$), his optimal strategy for determining $M_s$ is to choose a random message according to the a priori distribution $P_{M_s}$. Later we will exploit the adversary's inability to exactly recover $M_p$, but for now we suppose that it is freely available. We turn to the notion of secrecy capacity and cast our requirement in terms of entropy: we want $H(M_s) \approx H(M_s|Z^n,M_p)$, or $I(M_s;Z^n,M_p)\approx0$. More precisely, the \emph{normalized} mutual information $\frac{1}{n}I(M_s;Z^n,M_p)$ should vanish in a good channel code. Although this measure of secrecy is so-called ``weak secrecy'', it turns out that having strong secrecy would not improve the payoff for the source encoder that we use.
We make a further technical requirement (c.f. \cite{Csiszar--Korner1978}) that good channel codes must satisfy for our purposes, considering the particular source encoder that we employ. The channel code must work not only for $(M_p,M_s)$ independent and uniformly distributed, but more generally in the case that, conditioned on $M_p$, $M_s$ is almost uniform. To be precise, we require
\begin{equation}
\label{condunif}\max_{m_p,m_s,m_s'}\frac{\mathbb{P}[M_s=m_s|M_p=m_p]}{\mathbb{P}[M_s=m_s'|M_p=m_p]}\leq 2^{n\cdot\delta_n}
\end{equation}
to hold for some $\delta_n$ such that $\delta_n\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. The source encoder we employ will produce message pairs $(M_p,M_s)$ that satisfy this condition, regardless of the source distribution.
\begin{defn}
The pair of rates $(R_p,R_s)$ is achievable if, for all $(M_p,M_s)$ satisfying (\ref{condunif}) for every $n$, there exists a sequence of $(R_p,R_s,n)$ channel codes such that
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}[(M_p,M_s)\neq(\widehat{M}_p,\widehat{M}_s)]=0
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac1n I(M_s;Z^n,M_p)=0.
\end{equation*}
\end{defn}
The following theorem gives an achievable region, the proof of which comes from modifying the work done in \cite{Csiszar--Korner1978}. The idea is to include enough private randomness in the channel encoder so that the adversary effectively uses his full decoding capabilities to resolve the randomness, leaving no room to additionally decode part of the secret message. The amount of randomness required is the mutual information provided by the adversary's channel.
\begin{thm}
\label{bcc}
The pair $(R_p,R_s)$ is achievable if
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
R_p &<& I(V;Y),\\
R_s &<& I(W;Y|V)-I(W;Z|V)
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
for some $P_VP_{W|V}P_{X|W}P_{YZ|X}$.
\end{thm}
\subsection{Source Code}
A source code consists of a source encoder and decoder. The encoder observes a memoryless source $P_S$ and produces a pair of messages, $(M_p,M_s)$, with $M_p$ representing a public message and $M_s$ a secure message. We allow the source encoder to use private randomization.
\begin{defn}
A $(R_p,R_s,n)$ source code consists of an encoder $f_s$ and a decoder $g_s$:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{l}
f_s:\mathcal{S}^n\rightarrow \mathcal{M}_p\times\mathcal{M}_s \text{ (more generally, }P_{M_p,M_s|S^n}\text{)}\\
g_s:\mathcal{M}_p\times\mathcal{M}_s \rightarrow \mathcal{S}^n,
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
where $|\mathcal{M}_p|=2^{nR_p}$ and $|\mathcal{M}_s|=2^{nR_s}$.
\end{defn}
As shown in Figure \ref{source_fig}, the output of the source encoder is effectively passed through a channel $P_{Z^n|M_p,M_s}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[node distance=1cm,minimum height=7mm,minimum width=14mm,arw/.style={->,>=stealth'}]
\node[coordinate] (source) {};
\node[rectangle,draw,rounded corners] (fs) [right =of source] {$f_s$};
\node[circle,fill=black,minimum size = 1mm,inner sep=0pt] (dummy1) [right =1.5cm of fs.345] {};
\node[circle,fill=black,minimum size = 1mm,inner sep=0pt] (dummy2) [right =1.8cm of fs.15] {};
\node[rectangle,draw,rounded corners] (gs) [right =2.5cm of fs] {$g_s$};
\node[coordinate] (shat) [right =of gs] {};
\node[rectangle,draw,rounded corners] (ch) [below =0.5cm of gs] {$P_{Z^n|M_pM_s}$};
\node[coordinate] (zn) [right =8.5mm of ch] {};
\draw [arw] (source) to node[midway,above,yshift=-1mm]{$S^n$} (fs);
\draw [arw] (fs.15) to node[near start,above,yshift=-1mm]{$M_p$} (fs.15 -| gs.165);
\draw [arw] (fs.345) to node[near start,below,yshift=1mm]{$M_s$} (fs.345 -| gs.195);
\draw [arw] (dummy1) |- (ch.190);
\draw [arw] (dummy2) |- (ch.170);
\draw [arw] (gs) to node[midway,above,yshift=-.5mm]{$\hat{S}^n$} (shat);
\draw [arw] (ch) to node[midway,above,yshift=-1mm]{$Z^n$} (zn);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Source coding operations.}
\label{source_fig}
\end{figure}
In light of the previous subsection, we want to consider sequences of channels $\{P_{Z^n|M_p,M_s}\}_{n=1}^\infty$ that provide weak secrecy when the output of the source encoder satifies (\ref{condunif}).
\begin{defn}
Define $C_S$ to be the set of $\{P_{Z^n|M_p,M_s}\}_{n=1}^\infty$ such that, for all $P_{M_p,M_s}$ satisfying (\ref{condunif}) for every $n$,
\begin{equation*}
\frac1n I(M_s;Z^n|M_p)\rightarrow0.
\end{equation*}
\end{defn}
We can view $C_S$ as the resource of physical-layer security. Notice that a sequence of good channel codes yields a sequence of channels in $C_S$ to the adversary. We now consider what payoff can be achieved if rates are imposed on the messages, and $C_S$ is imposed. By considering the availability of a structure $C_S$ and a noiseless channel from Alice to Bob, we are effectively divorcing the goals of source and channel coding so that each can be considered separately.
\begin{defn}
Fix $P_S$ and $\pi(s,t)$. The triple $(R_p,R_s,\Pi)$ is achievable if there exists a sequence of $(R_p,R_s,n)$ source codes such that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}[S^n\neq\hat{S}^n]=0,
\end{equation}
\vspace{0pt}
\begin{equation}
(M_p,M_s) \text{ satisfies (\ref{condunif}) }\forall n,\vspace{5pt}
\end{equation}
and, for all $\{P_{Z^n|M_p,M_s}\}_{n=1}^\infty\in C_S$,
\vspace{5pt}
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\min_{\{t_i(s^{i-1},z^n)\}_i}\mathbb{E}\left[\frac1n \sum_{i=1}^n\pi(S_i,t_i(S^{i-1},Z^n))\right]\geq\Pi.
\end{equation}
\vspace{3pt}
\end{defn}
We give a region of achievable $(R_p,R_s,\Pi)$. In \cite{Cuff2010}, the region is characterized when the secrecy resource is shared secret key instead of physical-layer security.
\begin{thm}
\label{sourcethm}
Fix $P_S$ and $\pi(s,t)$. Then $(R_p,R_s,\Pi)$ is achievable if the inequalities
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
R_p &>& I(S;U)\\
R_s &>& H(S|U)\\
\Pi &\leq& \min_{t(u)}\mathbb{E}[\pi(S,t(U))]
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
hold for some $P_SP_{U|S}$.
\end{thm}
The lower bound in Theorem~\ref{innerbnd} follows from Theorems~\ref{bcc} and \ref{sourcethm}. The main idea in the proof of Theorem~\ref{sourcethm} is to use the public message to specify a sequence $U^n$ that is correlated with $S^n$, and use the secure message to encode the supplement that is needed to fully specify the source sequence. The source encoder is defined in such a way that, conditioned on the public message $M_p$, the adversary views the source as if it were generated by passing $U^n$ through a memoryless channel $P_{S|U}$. With this perspective, the past $S^{i-1}$ will no longer help the adversary; Eve's best strategy is to choose a function $t$ that maps $U_i$ to $T_i$.
Although we omit the full proof of Theorem~\ref{sourcethm}, we provide the crucial lemma that shows how the weak secrecy provided by a good channel code is used in analyzing the payoff. The result of Lemma~\ref{connect} (below) is that we can view Eve as having full knowledge of $M_p$ and $S^{i-1}$ and no knowledge of $M_s$, which fulfills our goal of creating a secure channel and a public channel. In other words, using channel coding to create physical-layer security in the form of a structure $C_S$ allows us to show that, from Eve's perspective, knowledge of $(Z^n,S^{i-1})$ is no more helpful than $(M_p,S^{i-1})$ in easing the distortion. To parse the statement of the lemma, simply look at the arguments of $t(\cdot)$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{connect}
If $P_{M_p,M_s}$ satisfies (\ref{condunif}) for every $n$, and \\$\{P_{Z^n|M_p,M_s}\}_{n=1}^\infty\in C_S$, then for all $\varepsilon>0$,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\min_{t(i,s^{i-1},z^n)}\mathbb{E}\left[\frac1n \sum_{i=1}^n\pi(S_i,t(i,S^{i-1},Z^n))\right]
}\\ \qquad
&\geq&\min_{t(i,s^{i-1},m_p)}\mathbb{E}\left[\frac1n \sum_{i=1}^n\pi(S_i,t(i,S^{i-1},M_p))\right]-\delta(\varepsilon)
\vspace{-3pt}
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
for sufficiently large $n$, where $\delta(\varepsilon)\rightarrow0$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\varepsilon>0$. Introduce the random variable \\$Q\sim\text{Unif}[1:n]$, independent of all other random variables present. First, we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
I(S_Q;Z^n|M_pS^{Q-1}Q)}\\ \qquad
&=& \frac1n \sum_{i=1}^nI(S_i;Z^n|M_pS^{i-1}) \\
&=& \frac1n I(S^n;Z^n|M_p) \\
&\leq& \frac1n I(M_sS^n;Z^n|M_p) \\
&=& \frac1n I(M_s;Z^n|M_p)+\frac1n I(S^n;Z^n|M_pM_s) \\
&=& \frac1n I(M_s;Z^n|M_p)\\
&\leq& \frac1n I(M_s;Z^n,M_p)\\
&<& \varepsilon
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
for sufficiently large $n$, where the final inequality follows the definition of $C_S$. Next, denote $P=P_{S^QZ^nM_pQ}$ and define the distribution
\begin{equation*}
\overline{P}=P_{M_pS^{Q-1}Q}P_{S_Q|M_pS^{Q-1}Q}P_{Z^n|M_pS^{Q-1}Q}.
\end{equation*}
That is, $\overline{P}$ is the markov chain $S_Q-M_pS^{Q-1}Q-Z^n$. Now, using Pinsker's inequality (see \cite{Cover}), we have
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
\lVert P-\overline{P} \rVert_{TV} &\leq& D(P\Vert \overline{P})^{\frac12}\\
&=& I(S_Q;Z^n|M_pS^{Q-1},Q)^{\frac12} \\
\yesnumber \label{connect1}&<& \sqrt{\varepsilon},
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
where $\lVert P-Q \rVert_{TV}:=\sup_A|P(A)-Q(A)|$ is the variational distance between distributions $P$ and $Q$. Finally,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\min_{t(i,s^{i-1},z^n)}\mathbb{E}\left[\frac1n \sum_{i=1}^n\pi(S_i,t(i,S^{i-1},Z^n))\right]}\\
\yesnumber \label{connect_discussion} &\geq& \min_{t(i,s^{i-1},z^n,m_p)}\mathbb{E}\left[\frac1n \sum_{i=1}^n\pi(S_i,t(i,S^{i-1},Z^n,M_p))\right] \\
&=& \min_{t(i,s^{i-1},z^n,m_p)}\mathbb{E}\left[\pi(S_Q,t(Q,S^{Q-1},Z^n,M_p))\right] \\
\yesnumber \label{connect2}&\geq& \min_{t(i,s^{i-1},z^n,m_p)}\mathbb{E}_{\overline{P}}\left[\pi(S_Q,t(Q,S^{Q-1},Z^n,M_p))\right]-\delta(\varepsilon)\IEEEeqnarraynumspace\\
\yesnumber \label{connect3}&=& \min_{t(i,s^{i-1},m_p)}\mathbb{E}_{\overline{P}}\left[\pi(S_Q,t(Q,S^{Q-1},M_p))\right]-\delta(\varepsilon)\\
\yesnumber \label{connect4}&\geq& \min_{t(i,s^{i-1},m_p)}\mathbb{E}\left[\pi(S_Q,t(Q,S^{Q-1},M_p))\right]-2\delta(\varepsilon)\\
&=& \min_{t(i,s^{i-1},m_p)}\mathbb{E}\left[\frac1n\sum_{i=1}^n\pi(S_i,t(i,S^{i-1},M_p))\right]-2\delta(\varepsilon),
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
for sufficiently large $n$. The justification is as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item (\ref{connect_discussion}): Give Eve $M_p$ for free.
\item (\ref{connect2}): Change the underlying distribution from $P$ to $\overline{P}$ by using (\ref{connect1}) and Lemma~\ref{tv_expect}.
\item (\ref{connect3}): Use Lemma~\ref{suffstat} since $\overline{P}$ is a markov chain.
\item (\ref{connect4}): Change the underlying distribution back to $P$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Used in Lemma~\ref{connect} proof]
\label{suffstat}
Let $X,Y$, and $Z$ be random variables that form a markov chain $X-Y-Z$ and let $g$ be a function on $\mathcal{A} \times \mathcal{Z}$. Define two sets of functions, $F=\{f:\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}\}$ and $F'=\{f:\mathcal{Y}\rightarrow\mathcal{A}\}$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\min_{f\in F}\mathbb{E}[g(f(X,Y),Z)]=\min_{f\in F'}\mathbb{E}[g(f(Y),Z)].
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
Proof omitted.
\begin{lemma}[Used in Lemma~\ref{connect} proof]
\label{tv_expect}
Let $f(x)$ be a bounded function, and $P$ and $Q$ pmfs on $\mathcal{X}$. Then
$$\mathbb{E}_{P}[f(X)]\rightarrow \mathbb{E}_Q[f(X)]\quad\text{as}\quad P\xrightarrow{TV}Q$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{tv_expect}]
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
\IEEEeqnarraymulticol{3}{l}{
\mathbb{E}_{P}[f(X)]-\mathbb{E}_Q[f(X)]}\\
\qquad &=& \sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}} (P(x)-Q(x))f(x)\\
&\leq& f_{\max}\sum_x|P(x)-Q(x)|\\
&=& 2\,f_{\max}\lVert P-Q \rVert_{TV}.
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\section{\label{example} Example}
In this section, we give an analytical expression for the region in Theorem~\ref{innerbnd} when the value function $\pi(s,t)$ is Hamming distance and the broadcast channel is binary symmetric. We first consider the separate regions that we stated for source coding and channel coding (i.e., Theorems~\ref{bcc} and \ref{sourcethm}), then we join the results. Finally, we use the example to illustrate the difference between Theorems~\ref{innerbnd} and \ref{improved}.
Denoting the region in Theorem~\ref{bcc} by $\mathcal{R}$, we have the following.
\begin{thm}
\label{channelex}
For a binary symmetric broadcast channel with $P_{Y|X}=\emph{BSC}(p_1)$, $P_{Z|X}=\emph{BSC}(p_2)$, and $p_1\leq p_2$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{R} \hspace{-1pt}=\hspace{-5pt} \bigcup_{0\leq \gamma \leq \frac12}\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\hspace{-3pt}(R_p,R_s):\\
\hspace{-3pt}R_p< 1-h(\gamma * p_1)\\
\hspace{-3pt}R_s< h(\gamma * p_1)-h(\gamma * p_1)-h(p_1)+h(p_2)\hspace{-2pt}
\end{array}\hspace{-4pt}
\right\}
\end{equation*}
where $h(\cdot)$ is the binary entropy function.
\end{thm}
The source coding achievability region in Theorem~\ref{sourcethm} is given as a union of $(R_p,R_s,\Pi)$ subregions, one subregion for each choice of $P_{U|S}$. However, once $P_{U|S}$ is fixed, $(R_p,R_s,\Pi)$ triples on the boundary satisfy $R_p=H(S)-R_s$, so we restrict our attention to $(R_s,\Pi)$ pairs. According to Theorem~\ref{sourcethm}, the boundary is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{secrpayfunc}
\Pi(R_s)=\max_{\substack{P_{U|S}:\\ H(S|U)=R_s}}\min_{t(u)}\mathbb{E}[\pi(S,t(U))].
\end{equation}
When $\pi(s,t)$ is Hamming distance, we give an analytical expression for (\ref{secrpayfunc}).
\begin{thm}
\label{sourceex}
Fix $P_S$ and let $\pi(s,t)=1_{\{s\neq t\}}$. Define the function $f(R)$ as the linear interpolation of the points $(\log n,\frac{n-1}{n}),n=1,2,\ldots$ and the function $g(R)$ as the constant $1-\max_s P_S(s)$. Then (\ref{secrpayfunc}) is given by
\begin{equation*}
\Pi_H(R_s)=\min(f(R_s),g(R_s)).
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}
We now use Theorems~\ref{channelex} and \ref{sourceex} to give an expression for Theorem~\ref{innerbnd} when the value function is Hamming distance and the broadcast channel is binary symmetric.
\begin{thm}
\label{inner_ex}
With source $P_S$, channels $P_{Y|X}=\emph{BSC}(p_1)$ and $P_{Z|X}=\emph{BSC}(p_2)$, and value function $\pi(s,t)=1_{\{s\neq t\}}$, an achievable payoff is
\begin{equation*}
\Pi=\begin{cases}
\Pi_H(h(\gamma * p_1)-h(\gamma * p_2) - h(p_1)+h(p_2)) \\
\qquad \text{if } h(p_2)-h(p_1) < H(S) < 1-h(p_1)\\
\Pi_H(H(S)) \\
\qquad \text{if } H(S)\leq h(p_2)-h(p_1)
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $\gamma\in[0,\frac12]$ solves $H(S)=1-h(\gamma * p_2) - h(p_1)+h(p_2)$ and $\Pi_H(R_s)$ is as in Theorem~\ref{sourceex}.
\end{thm}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\scalebox{0.58}{
\input{secrecy_plot.pgf}
}
\caption{The result of Thm \ref{inner_ex} with $P_S=\text{Bern}(p)$, $p_1=0$, and $p_2=0.3$. The ``Theorem~\ref{innerbnd}'' curve is directly Thm~\ref{inner_ex} and ``Theorem~\ref{improved}'' is the improvement to Thm~\ref{innerbnd}. ``Unconditional'' is the payoff when Eve only knows $P_S$, while ``No Encoding'' refers to $X^n=S^n$.}
\label{secrecy_plot}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Discussion of Theorem~\ref{improved}}
When we established the lower bound in Theorem~\ref{innerbnd}, we did so with the structure of a public channel and secure channel in mind; however, as mentioned, the public channel may not be truly public. We made the assumption that the adversary is freely given $M_p$; indeed, the proof of Lemma~\ref{connect} illustrates this in (\ref{connect_discussion}), where we suffer a loss in our payoff analysis by including $M_p$ as an input to the adversary's strategy.
We can strengthen the analysis of Theorem~\ref{innerbnd} by taking into account the equivocation of the public message. For blocklength $n$, the equivocation of the public message vanishes at a certain time $k$ due to the adversary's ongoing accumulation of past source symbols $\hat{S}^{k-1}$. Before time $k$, the payoff is $\Pi_{\max} = \min_t\mathbb{E}[\pi(S,t)]$ (i.e., the unconditional payoff). After time $k$, the payoff is as in Theorem~\ref{innerbnd}. Denoting this payoff by $\Pi_1$, we can now achieve (Theorem~\ref{improved})
\begin{equation*}
\Pi_2 = \frac{k}{n} \Pi_{\max} + \left(1-\frac{k}{n}\right)\Pi_1.
\end{equation*}
The ratio $\frac{k}{n}$ is found to be
\begin{equation*}
\frac{k}{n} \approx \frac{[I(V;Y)-I(V;Z)]^+}{I(S;U)}.
\end{equation*}
Figure \ref{secrecy_plot} shows the difference between Theorem~\ref{innerbnd} and Theorem~\ref{improved}, as well as a comparison to the curves that correspond to no encoding and unconditional payoff. Unconditional payoff refers to the distortion that Eve suffers if her only knowledge is the source distribution, and no encoding refers to simply taking the source as the input to the channel and bypassing the encoder. The example is for a Bernoulli source with bias $p$. If we assume that Eve has full knowledge of the public message, then we see that for, say, $p=0.4$, the distortion guaranteed by the weaker theorem is even worse than if no encoding was used. This illustrates the importance of Eve's equivocation of the public message.
\section{Upper Bound}
The upper bound is established by using ideas from the converses in \cite{Cuff2010} and \cite{Csiszar--Korner1978}.
\begin{thm}
\label{outerbnd}
Fix $P_S$, $P_{YZ|X}$, and $\pi(s,t)$. If a payoff $\Pi$ is achievable, then the inequalities
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
H(S) &\leq& I(W;Y)\\
H(S|U) &\leq& [I(W;Y|V)-I(W;Z|V)]^+\\
\Pi &\leq& \min_{t(u)}\mathbb{E}[\pi(S,t(U))]
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
must hold for some distribution\\ $P_SP_{U|S}P_VP_{W|V}P_{X|W}P_{YZ|X}$.
\end{thm}
\smallskip
\section{Conclusion}
\smallskip
By considering source and channel operations separately, we have given results on how well communication systems can perform against a worst-case adversary when the secrecy resource is physical-layer security and the adversary has causal access to the source. We have seen that a guarantee of weak secrecy can be used in conjunction with our operationally-relevant measure of secrecy.
\section{Acknowledgements}
This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grants CCF-1016671, CCF-1116013, and CCF-1017431, and also by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under Grant FA9550-12-1-0196.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
In his book {\it Partial Differential Relations} ~\cite{Gr}, M. Gromov proposed a definition of the blow--up operation in the contact category, see Exercise (c) on page 343. This article discusses this definition as well as related constructions.\\
\noindent Let $M$ be a smooth manifold and $S\stackrel{e}{\hookrightarrow}M$ an embedded submanifold. The normal bundle of $(S,e)$ in $M$ will be denoted by $\nu_M(S)$. Recall that it is defined through the short exact sequence of smooth vector bundles over $S$
$$0\longrightarrow TS\stackrel{e_*}{\longrightarrow} TM|_S\longrightarrow\nu_M(S)\longrightarrow 0.$$
Given a complex vector bundle $E\longrightarrow M$, we denote by $\P(E)$ the fiberwise projectivization of $E$.\\
\noindent Suppose the normal bundle $\nu_M(S)$ is a complex bundle, then we may produce a manifold $\widetilde{M}$, the topological blow--up of $M$ along $S$. It is defined as the connected sum
$$\widetilde{M}:=M\#_S\overline{\P(\nu_M(S)\oplus \mathbb{C})}$$
of the manifolds $M$ and $\P(\nu_M(S)\oplus \mathbb{C})$ with the reversed orientation along $S$. Let $\sigma_0$ be the zero section of $\nu_M(S)$. The submanifold $S$ is embedded in the first factor through $e$ and in the second as the section
\begin{eqnarray*}
s: S & \longrightarrow & \P(\nu_M(S)\oplus \mathbb{C}) \\
p & \longmapsto & \langle(\sigma_0\oplus 1) \rangle.
\end{eqnarray*}
In the category of symplectic manifolds the normal bundle is a complex bundle and the manifold $\widetilde{M}$ can be endowed with a symplectic structure. In this paper we address the question for contact manifolds.\\
\noindent In the above reference, M. Gromov conjectured that a contact blow--up construction exists along a contact submanifold $S$ embedded in a contact manifold $M$ provided a pair of hypotheses are satisfied. These are:\\
\begin{itemize}
\item[H1.] The contact submanifold $(S, \alpha_S=e^*(\alpha))$ is a Boothby--Wang manifold. See Definition \ref{def:bw}. In particular, the Reeb vector field associated to $\alpha_S$ has all its orbits periodic with the same period. Let $W$ be the quotient space of its orbits and $\pi: S \longrightarrow W$ the projection map.\\
\item[H2.] The normal symplectic bundle $\nu_M(S)$ is isomorphic to the pull--back of a symplectic bundle $V \longrightarrow W$ through $\pi$. That is, there exists an isomorphism $\nu_M(S)\cong\pi^*V$ of symplectic bundles.
\end{itemize}
\noindent These two hypotheses allow to give a definition. Nevertheless the contact blow--up will not be a contact structure on the topological blow--up $\widetilde{M}$ of $M$. We will first illustrate a reason for this in a simple example, see Section \ref{sec:pr}. We provide a definition producing a contact structure on a manifold constructed as a different connected sum with $M$. It has the same geometrical properties as the symplectic blow--up. It is this manifold we would rather call the contact blow--up.\\
\noindent Apart from the construction of contact manifolds, the contact blow--up construction is relevant for the existence problem of contact structures on $5$--manifolds. See \cite{CPP}.\\
\noindent The content of the paper is organized as follows. The Section \ref{sec:pr} provides a brief review of the topological blow--up. In Section \ref{sec:bw}, we introduce the classical Boothby--Wang construction \cite{BW}. It will be described with some concrete examples that shall be used later on. Then, three alternative constructions of contact blow--up are introduced:\\
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] The contact blow--up for embedded transverse loops, produced as a surgery operation. This had been introduced in the article \cite{CPP}, it will be reviewed in Section \ref{sec:srgy}.
\item[2.] The contact blow--up defined {\it \`a la Gromov} is the content of Section \ref{sec:Gromov}.
\item[3.] The contact blow--up as a contact quotient is described in Section \ref{sec:quotient}.\\
\end{itemize}
These three constructions are inspired by the three alternative constructions for the symplectic blow--up: the {\it ad hoc} construction with explicit gluings, the description using frame bundles, found in pages 239 and 243 in ~\cite{MS} respectively, and the symplectic cut procedure discussed in ~\cite{Le2}. Finally, Section \ref{sec:un} relates these constructions in the case of transverse loops.\\
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements.} We want to acknowledge K. Niederkr\"uger for useful discussions. In particular for asking us to relate the contact cut and the contact blow--up. This project was partially developed during the AIM Workshop {\it Contact Topology in Higher Dimensions}. The first and third authors are supported by the Spanish National Research Project MTM2010--17389. Second author would like to thank ICTP for offering a visiting position that allowed him to develop this article.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:pr}
\noindent In this section we introduce the basic definitions, explain the topological blow--up procedure and discuss an example.
\begin{definition}
A contact structure on a smooth manifold $M^{2n+1}$ is a maximally non--integrable smooth field $\xi$ of tangent hyperplanes.
\end{definition}
\noindent A contact manifold $(M,\xi)$ is a choice of a contact structure $\xi$ on $M$. The maximal non--integrability can be described in terms of local equations for $\xi$. A smooth field $\xi$ of tangent hyperplanes is maximally non--integrable if and only if for any $p\in M$ there exist an open subset $U\subset M$ containing $p$ and a $1$--form $\alpha\in\Omega^1(U)$ such that $\xi|_U=\ker\alpha$ and $\alpha\wedge d\alpha^n \neq 0$. Equivalently, the form $d \alpha$ is non--degenerate when restricted to $\xi.$ In case the form $\alpha$ can be chosen to be globally defined, i.e. $\alpha\in\Omega^1(M)$, the contact structure $\xi$ is called coorientable. A contact structure is cooriented if a choice of global contact form has been made. \\
\noindent Let $(M, \xi)$ be a cooriented contact manifold with fixed global contact form $\alpha$, i.e. $\alpha\in\Omega^1(M)$ satisfies $\ker \alpha= \xi$, $\alpha\wedge d\alpha^n\neq0$. A smooth submanifold $S \stackrel{e}{\hookrightarrow} M$ is called a \emph{contact submanifold} if the induced distribution $\xi_S=e^*(\xi)$ is a contact structure on $S$.\\
\noindent The notion of a blow--up has its origins in algebraic geometry. First, we define the concept for a
complex vector space. See ~\cite{Ha} for further details.
\begin{definition}\label{def:lnbu}
The blow--up $\widetilde{\mathbb{C}}_0^{n+1}$ of the $n$--dimensional complex vector space $\mathbb{C}^{n+1}$ at the origin is the smooth manifold $\O(-1)=\{([l],p):p\in l\}\subset\mathbb{CP}^n\times\mathbb{C}^{n+1}$ along with the restriction of the projection onto the second factor $\sigma:\O(-1)\longrightarrow\mathbb{C}^{n+1}$.
\end{definition}
\noindent Note that $\sigma$ restricted to $\O(-1)\setminus \{([l],p):p\in l,p\neq0\}$ induces a diffeomorphism onto the image $\mathbb{C}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\}$. The projective space $\sigma^{-1}(\{0\})=\mathbb{CP}^n$ is called the exceptional divisor. The topological blow--up of $M$ along $S$ defined in the previous Section coincides with the previous definition if $S=\{0\}$ is the origin in $M=\mathbb{C}^{n+1}$. More generally, from the definition of $\widetilde{M}$ we can conclude the following
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:tpbl}
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold and $(S,e)$ a submanifold with complex normal bundle. There exists a smooth submanifold $E_S\subset\widetilde{M}$ diffeomorphic to the total space of a projective smooth bundle over $S$ such that, as smooth manifolds, $M\setminus S\cong\widetilde{M}\setminus E_S$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent The topological blow--up can be performed along any complex submanifold $S$ of a complex
manifold $M$. In this case the blown--up manifold $\widetilde{M}$ inherits a canonical complex structure. Analogously, if $(M,\omega)$ is a symplectic manifold and $S$ a symplectic submanifold, the topological blow--up manifold $\widetilde{M}$ can also be endowed with a symplectic structure. In the symplectic case there is no uniqueness, see \cite{MS}.
The topological blow--up could also be performed along a contact submanifold of a contact manifold because the normal bundle is symplectic and hence it is also complex.
\begin{remark} \label{rem:key}
1. Suppose the normal bundle $\nu_M(S)$ splits as a direct sum of isomorphic complex line bundles $L$:
$\nu_M(S)=L\oplus \stackrel{r)}{\cdots} \oplus L$. Then there is a second projection map $\pi_2: \nu_M(S) \longrightarrow \mathbb{CP}^{r-1}$ defined as follows. Given a point $p\in S$, let $s_p\in L_p$ be non--zero vector in the fiber. Then a point $[l_1, \cdots, l_r] \in \nu_M(S)_p$ is mapped to $\pi_2([l_1, \cdots, l_r])=[l_1/s_p, \cdots, l_r/s_p]$. It is simple to verify that the map is well--defined, i.e. independent of the choice of vector $s_p$.\\
\noindent 2. The hypothesis above is satisfied in some cases. For instance, let $S$ be the base locus of a projective, resp. symplectic, Lefschetz pencil. Then $S$ conforms the hypothesis for $r=2$. In such case the fibers of $\pi_2$ are projective, resp. symplectic. This also occurs with contact pencils, see \cite{Pr1}.
\end{remark}
\noindent{\bf Example}: {\it Let $(M^5, \xi)$ be a $5$--dimensional contact manifold and $S$ is a $1$--dimensional contact compact submanifold, i.e. a transverse embedded loop. If we perform a topological blow--up along $S$, the exceptional divisor is $E\cong\S^1 \times \mathbb{CP}^1\cong\S^1\times\S^2$. We are in the hypothesis of the previous Remark: $\nu(S^1)$ is trivial. Therefore we have a projection $\pi_2:\S^1 \times \S^2 \to \S^2$. In the contact case, if we assume that $E$ is a contact submanifold, it is not possible to ensure that the fibers of such projection map are contact: there is no contact distribution on $\S^1\times\S^2$ whose fibers are all transverse to the contact structure, see ~\cite{Gi}.} \\
\noindent In the previous example, the non--transversality of the fibers occurs only because we are using the topological blow--up as our blown--up manifold. We will further argue from different perspectives that the blown--up manifold $\widetilde{M}$ we should consider in contact topology is not the topological blow--up discussed above. Instead, the correct manifold is obtained through a procedure that substitutes $S\cong\S^1$ by the standard contact sphere $\S^3$, not $\S^1\times\S^2$. In such a case, the natural projection map $\pi:\S^3 \longrightarrow \mathbb{CP}^1$ is the Hopf fibration, whose fibers are transverse to the contact structure.\\
\section{Boothby--Wang Constructions}\label{sec:bw}
In this section we explain the construction of a contact manifold from an integral symplectic manifold as developed in ~\cite{BW}. It will be used in understanding the contact structure on the manifold obtained after a contact blow-up.\\
\noindent A symplectic manifold $(W,\omega)$ is called integral if the class $[\omega]$ lies in the image of the map $H^2(M,\mathbb{Z}) \longrightarrow H^2(M,\mathbb{R})$, i.e. the periods of $\omega$ are integers. Such a form $\omega$ is called integral. For instance, a K\"ahler form on a complex compact manifold is integral if and only if the manifold is a smooth projective algebraic variety. In the definition above a circle has length $1$. Note that the lift of $[\omega]$ to $H^2(M,\mathbb{R})$ may not be unique if $H^2(M,\mathbb{Z})$ contains torsion elements.\\
\noindent Given an integral form $\omega\in H^2(M,\mathbb{R})$ there exists a Hermitian complex line bundle $L_{\omega}$ admitting a compatible connection whose curvature is $-i\omega$. See ~\cite{BT} for the details. This leads to the following
\begin{definition} \label{def:bw}
Let $(W,\omega)$ be an integral symplectic manifold. The Boothby--Wang manifold $\S_k(W)$ is the contact manifold whose total space is the unit circle bundle associated to the line bundle $L_{k\omega}$ and its contact structure is defined as the restriction of any connection with curvature $-ik\omega$ to the circle bundle.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{rek:Uniqueness_BW}
The contact structure is independent of the choice of connection. Indeed, the space of choices for a connection as above is an affine space modelled on the vector space of flat connections and hence is contractible. The stability theorem of J. Gray applies to ensure the uniqueness up to contactomorphisms of the contact structures.
\end{remark}
\noindent For the case $k=1$ we will sometimes omit the subindex. Note that the topology of the total space varies with the parameter $k$. The exact relationship
between the topology and the parameter $k$ is the content of the following
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:cov}
Let $(W,\omega)$ be a symplectic manifold. Then the Boothby--Wang manifold $\S_1(W)$ is a $k$--covering of $\S_k(W)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We fix a Hermitian connection on $L$, this induces a Hermitian connection on $L^{\otimes k}$. Define the unitary non--linear map between line bundles
$$L\longrightarrow L^{\otimes k},\quad u\longmapsto u^{\otimes k}.$$
It preserves the connections on the two bundles. There exists a unitary connection--preserving action of $\mathbb{Z}_k$, the cyclic group of order $k$, in $L$ given by
$$\mathbb{Z}_k\times L\longrightarrow L,\quad (c;u)\longmapsto e^{2\pi ic/k}u.$$
This action induces the trivial action in $L^{\otimes k}$ and thus becomes the deck transformation group of a covering between the total spaces of the associated
circle bundles. This map is certainly compatible with the contact structures.
\end{proof}
\noindent{\bf Examples}: 1. Let $L(k;1,\ldots,1)$ be a lens space, i.e. the orbit space of the action
$$\mathbb{Z}_k\times\S^{2n-1}\longrightarrow\S^{2n-1},\quad 1\cdot(z_1,\ldots,z_n)=(e^{2\pi i/k}z_1,e^{2\pi i/k} z_2, \ldots,e^{2\pi i/k} z_n).$$
The lens space naturally inherits a contact structure $\xi_{L}$ from the standard contact structure of $\S^{2n-1}$ induced by the complex tangencies. Lemma \ref{lem:cov} provides a contactomorphism between $\S_k(\mathbb{CP}^{n-1})$ and $(L(k;1,\ldots,1), \xi_{L}).$\\
\noindent 2. Consider the $2$--torus $T^2=\S^1\times\S^1$ and $\tau$ an integral area form with total area one. Then the Boothy--Wang manifolds $\S_k(T^2)$ associated to $(T^2,\tau)$ give rise to quotients of the Heisenberg group by discrete subgroups $\Gamma_k$ and thus provide several examples of contact nilmanifolds different from the 3--torus.\\
\noindent The construction of the contact blow--up will involve the quotient of the product of two Boothby--Wang manifolds. With this in mind, we proceed to describe the Boothby--Wang construction when the base sympletic manifold is a product.
We show that the Boothby--Wang construction and the Cartesian product {\it commute}. In precise terms, let $\S_{(b,a)}(W_1\times W_2)$ be the Boothby--Wang manifold associated to
$$(W_1\times W_2,b\pi_1^*\omega_1+a\pi_2^*\omega_2),$$
then we have the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:bw}
Let $(W_1,\omega_1)$ and $(W_2,\omega_2)$ be symplectic manifolds and $a,b\in\mathbb{Z}$ a pair of coprime integers. Consider the product $\S(W_1)\times\S(W_2)$ of the Boothby--Wang manifolds and the action
$$\xymatrix{
\varphi_{(a,-b)}: \S^1\times\S(W_1)\times\S(W_2)\longrightarrow \S(W_1)\times\S(W_2)\\
(p,q) \longmapsto \theta\cdot(p,q)=(a\theta\cdot p,-b\theta\cdot q)
}$$
Then the space of orbits is a manifold diffeomorphic to $\S_{(b,a)}(W_1\times W_2)$. This space of orbits carries a contact structure induced by a connection with curvature
$$b\pi_1^*\omega_1+a\pi_2^*\omega_2.$$
\noindent and hence is contactomorphic to $S_{(b,a)}(W_1 \times W_2).$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $G=\S^1\times\S^1$ and $H\cong\S^1\subset G$ be the subgroup defined as the image of the embedding
$$\varphi_{(a,-b)}:\S^1\longrightarrow H\subset G,\quad \sigma\longmapsto (a\sigma,-b\sigma).$$
Let $P$ be the $G$--principal bundle with base space $W_1\times W_2$ induced by the $\S^1$--principal bundles $\S_1(W_1)$ and $\S_1(W_2)$. Our aim is to describe $P/H$ as a bundle over $W_1\times W_2$. In general $P\longrightarrow P/H$ is not a $H$--principal bundle but it is the case when both $G$ and $H$ are closed Lie groups and $H$ is
a normal sub-group of $G.$ Actually, they are abelian and since $(a,b)=1$, $P/H$ is also a $G/H$--principal bundle over $W_1\times W_2$. Taking into account the exact group sequence
$$1\longrightarrow \S^1\cong H \longrightarrow G\longrightarrow G/H\cong\S^1\longrightarrow 1$$
where the second morphism is given by multiplication by $(b,a)$, we conclude that the space of orbits $P/H$ is a manifold diffeomorphic to $\S_{(b,a)}(W_1\times W_2)$. The claim about the connection and the associated curvature follows from the short exact sequence
$$0\longrightarrow \mathbb{Z} \stackrel{(a,-b)}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{Z}\oplus\mathbb{Z}\stackrel{(b,a)^t}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{Z}\longrightarrow 0.$$
\noindent Finally, it follows from Remark~\ref{rek:Uniqueness_BW} that the manifolds are, in fact, contactomorphic.
\end{proof}
\noindent There are a few simple cases worth mentioning.\\
\noindent {\bf Examples}: 1. Let $W_1=\{pt.\}$ and $W_2$ arbitrary. Then neither the topology of the resulting space nor the contact structure depend on $b$. Indeed, $\S^1\times\S_1(W_2)/\sim$ is diffeomorphic to
$$\S_{(b,a)}(pt.\times W_2)\cong\S_a(W_2).$$
Analogously, the parameter $a$ is vacuous if $W_2=\{pt.\}$. In particular, $\S^1\times\S^1$ quotiented by any $(a,-b)$ coprime $\S^1$--action is diffeomorphic to $\S^1$.\\
\noindent 2. Let $W_1=W_2=\mathbb{CP}^1$ be symplectic manifolds with the Fubini--Study form. Then the space $\S_{b,a}(\mathbb{CP}^1\times\mathbb{CP}^1)$ is diffeomorphic to $\S^3\times \S^2$ regardless of the values $a,b\in\mathbb{Z}^+$, see ~\cite{WZ} for a proof of this fact. Further, the symplectic structure of the associated line bundle depends only on $a-b$. Note that there is an alternative construction of a contact structure in $\S^3\times \S^2$ using an open book decomposition with $T^*\S^2$ pages and an even power of a Dehn twist as monodromy, however such a procedure may only produce vanishing first Chern class and is thus different from $\S_{b,a}(\mathbb{CP}^1\times\mathbb{CP}^1)$ if $a\neq1$. See ~\cite{Ko} for more.\\
\noindent 3. The previous example can be generalized to construct contact structures on $\S^{2n+1}\times\S^2$. Indeed the result implies that the total space of $\S_{(1,k)}(\mathbb{CP}^n\times\mathbb{CP}^1)$ is a $\S^{2n+1}$--bundle over $\S^2$. The Hopf action is explicit enough for the classifying map to be described as the element $$(n+1)k\in\mathbb{Z}_2\cong\pi_1(SO(2n+2)).$$
Consequently the resulting manifold is diffeomorphic $\S^{2n+1}\times\S^2$ if $n$ is odd or $k$ is even.
\begin{remark}
We would like to remark that it is not known whether the product of any contact manifold with the $2$--sphere admits a contact structure.
\end{remark}
\noindent It will be essential for the contact blow--up construction to be able to extend a connection on a submanifold to a global connection, let us now prove that this is possible under suitable conditions:
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:exten_bw}
Let $S$ be a closed submanifold of $(M^{2n}, \omega)$, possibly with smooth boundary, and $L$ the line bundle associated to $\omega$. Assume that the restriction morphism $H^1(M) \longrightarrow H^1(S)$ is surjective and let $A_S$ be a connection over $L_{|S}$ whose curvature is $-i\omega$. Then, there is a connection $A$ on $L$ with curvature $-i\omega$ such that its restriction to $S$ is $A_S$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $A_0$ be a connection on the line bundle $L\longrightarrow M$ with curvature $-i\omega$. Denote
$i:S \longrightarrow M$, then $A_S - i^*A_0= \beta_S$ is a closed $1$--form
over $S$. In order to complete our argument we need to extend $\beta_S$ to a global closed
$1$--form.\\
\noindent By hypothesis the map $H^1(M) \longrightarrow H^1 (S)$ is a surjection. Therefore there exists a
cohomology class $[\beta]$ on $H^1(M)$, such
that restricted to $S$ coincides with $[\beta_S]$. Its difference over $S$ will be the trivial class on $H^1(S)$, so $
\beta_S-i^* \beta= dH_S$, for some smooth function $H_S:S \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$. We extend
$H_S$ to a global smooth function $H:M \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$.
The form $A_0+\beta+dH$ is the required global connection with curvature $-i\omega$ and extending $A_S$.
\end{proof}
\section{Surgery along transverse loops}\label{sec:srgy}
Let $(M^{2n+1},\xi)$ be a contact manifold. In this section we recall the blow--up construction from Section 5 in ~\cite{CPP}. It is an operation defined in
a neighborhood of a transversely embedded loop. Topologically it consists of a surgery along the loop: the interior of $\S^1\times B^{2n}$ is removed and a tubular neighbourhood of the $(2n-1)$--sphere $B^2\times\S^{2n-1}$ is glued along the common boundary $\S^1\times \S^{2n-1}$. The sphere $\{ 0 \} \times \S^{2n-1} $ whose neighbourhood is attached is called the exceptional divisor. Let us discuss this surgery operation in the contact category.\\
\noindent Consider the manifold $T=\S^1\times(0,1)\times\S^{2n-1}$ with spherical coordinates $(\theta,r,\sigma)$.
Let $\alpha_{std}=(dr\circ i)|_{\S^{2n-1}}$ be the standard contact form for the contact structure
$$\xi=T\S^{2n-1}\cap i(T\S^{2n-1})$$
on the sphere $\S^{2n-1}\subset\mathbb{C}^n$. Define the following two contact forms in $T$:
\begin{equation} \eta=d\theta-r^2\alpha_{std},\quad \lambda=r^2d\theta+\alpha_{std} \label{eq:std}.
\end{equation}
Fix an integer $l\in\mathbb{Z}$ and consider the diffeomorphism
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cccc}
\phi_l:& T & \longrightarrow & T\\ \label{eq:change}
& (\theta,r,z) & \longrightarrow & (\theta,r,e^{2\pi i l\theta}z)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
It pulls--back the contact form $\eta$ to $\overline{\lambda}=(-r^2)\cdot [(l-r^{-2})d\theta+\alpha_{std}]$.\\
\noindent Given a subset $C\subset M$, let $\mathcal{U}(C)$ denote a small neighbourhood of $C$ in $M$. These ingredients suffice to prove the following:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:blow-up}
$($Thm. 5.1 in ~\cite{CPP}$)$ Let $(M^{2n+1}, \xi)$ be a contact manifold. Let $S\subset M$ be a smooth transverse loop in $M$. There exists a manifold $\overline{M}$ satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] There exists a contact structure $\overline{\xi}$ on $\overline{M}$.
\item[-] There exists a codimension--$2$ contact submanifold $E$ inside $\overline{M}$ with trivial normal bundle. The manifold $(E,\overline{\xi})$ is contactomorphic to the standard contact sphere $(\S^{2n-1},\xi)$.
\item[-] The manifolds $(M\setminus \mathcal{U}(S), \xi)$ and $(\overline{M}\setminus E, \overline{\xi})$ are contactomorphic.
\end{itemize}
The manifold $(\overline{M},\overline{\xi})$ will be called the contact surgery blow--up of $M$ along $S$. The contact submanifold $(E,\overline{\xi})$ is called the exceptional divisor.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} By Gray's stability, we may assume that a tubular neighbourhood of the embedded loop is contactomorphic to $\S^1 \times B^{2n}(\varepsilon)$ with the contact form $\eta$ as in (\ref{eq:std}), for some small radius $r\leq \varepsilon$. We enlarge this tubular $\varepsilon$--neighbourhood using the squeezing technique from ~\cite{EKP} to obtain a radius 2 neighbourhood. More precisely, we need the following auxiliary lemma:
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:EKP} {\em (}Proposition 1.24 in \cite{EKP}{\em )} \label{lem:shrink}
Let $k>0$ be a positive integer and $R_0>0$ a radius. Then the following map is a contactomorphism
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi_k: \S^1 \times B^{2n}(R_0) & \longrightarrow & \S^1 \times B^{2n}\left( \frac{R_0}{\sqrt{1+kR_0^2}}\right) \\
(\theta, r, w_1, \ldots, w_n) & \longrightarrow & \left(\theta, \frac{r}{\sqrt{1+kr^2}}, e^{2\pi ik\theta}w_1, \ldots, e^{2\pi ik\theta}w_n\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
and it restricts to the identity at $\S^1 \times \{ 0 \}$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent Consider $R_0=2$ in the lemma above, then we need $k$ large enough to satisfy
$$\frac{2}{\sqrt{1+4k}}<\varepsilon.$$
\noindent We may therefore assume that the tubular neighbourhood for which the standard equation (\ref{eq:std}) holds for $\eta$ has radius $r=2$.
In the annulus corresponding to radius $(3/2,2)$ use $\phi_1$ to induce the contact structure given by $\ker \overline{\lambda}$. Declare $\ker \lambda$ to define the contact structure in the radius area $[0,1/2]$. It is left to find a strictly increasing function interpolating between $r^2$ and $1-r^{-2}$ in the middle region. This can be done, see Figure \ref{fig:h}.
\end{proof}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{h.jpg}
\caption{Interpolation matching $\lambda$ and $\overline{\lambda}$.}\label{fig:h}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{remark}
\noindent The process described in the proof can be modified to include the radius squeezing in the gluing map. It suffices to use $\phi_l$ as gluing map instead of $\phi_1$ in the domain. Indeed, denote $T_\rho=\S^1\times(0,\rho)\times\S^{2n-1}$ and consider the contact structures
$$\xi_0=\ker\{d\theta-r^2\alpha_{std}\},\quad\xi_l=\ker\{(l-r^{-2})d\theta+\alpha_{std}\}.$$
Define the map
$$\varphi: T_2\longmapsto T_{\varepsilon(k)},\quad (\theta,r,z)\longmapsto\left(\theta,\frac{r}{\sqrt{1+kr^2}},z\right),$$
where $\varepsilon(k)$ is the obvious radius in the image. Then the following diagram is commutative in the contact category :
$$\xymatrix{
(T_2,\xi_1)\ar@{->}[d]^{\varphi}\ar@{->}[r]^{\phi_1} & (T_2,\xi_0)\ar@{->}[d]^{\psi_k}\\
(T_{\varepsilon(k)},\xi_l)\ar@{->}[r]^{\phi_l} & (T_{\varepsilon(k)},\xi_0)
}$$
where Lemma \ref{lem:EKP} is performed with parameter $k=l-1$.
\end{remark}
Note that the contactomorphism type of the exceptional divisor is that of the standard sphere, the parameter in the construction allows us to discretely vary the radius of the tubular neighbourhood we are collapsing.
\begin{lemma}
The maps $\phi_l$ and $\phi_k$ are smoothly isotopic if and only if $(k-l)n$ is even.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $t\in\S^1$ be a circle coordinate. Consider the morphism
$$\Psi: \pi_1(SO(2n)) \longrightarrow\pi_0(\operatorname{Diff}(\S^1 \times \S^{2n-1})),\quad \Psi(\gamma_t)(\theta,z)= (\theta, \gamma_{\theta}(z)).$$
If $\gamma_k$ denotes $k$--times the standard circle action on $\S^{2n-1}\subset\mathbb{C}^n$ induced by $\mathbb{C}^*$, then it is clear that $\phi_k$ is realized as $\Psi(\gamma_k)$. Since $\pi_1(SO(2n)) \simeq \mathbb{Z}_2$ and $\gamma_k\simeq k \cdot n$ under this identification, $\gamma_k= \gamma_l$ if and only if $(k-l)n$ is even.\\
\noindent It is left to prove that $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ are not isotopic, for $n$ even. Construct two manifolds $X_0$ and $X_1$ by gluing two copies of the manifold $B^2 \times \S^{2n-1}$ respectively using $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ along the boundary. These manifolds are not diffeomorphic. A sphere is a spin manifold and the product formula for characteristic classes implies that so is $X_0= \S^2 \times \S^{2n-1}$.\\
\noindent The manifold $X_1$ is not spin. This can be seen by using any section $s$ of the twisted bundle $X_1\longrightarrow\S^2$, such $s$ exists because $n\geq 2$. Denote by $\nu(s(\S^2))$ the normal bundle to the section and let $E_1 \longrightarrow \S^2$ be the complex bundle over $\S^2$ such that $\S(E_1)=X_1$. Then $s^*(\nu(s(\S^2)\oplus \mathbb{R})=E_1$. Note that $w(E_1)=1$ if $n$ is odd and
$$w_2([s(\S^2)])=w_2(TX_{|s(\S^2)})=w_2(\nu(s(\S^2))=w_2(s^*(\nu(s(\S^2)\oplus \mathbb{R}))= w(E_1).$$
Hence $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ are not isotopic.
\end{proof}
\noindent In particular, the smooth type of the contact blow--up manifold will depend on the parity of the positive integer fixed for the construction. As for the contact type, it follows from Theorem 1.2 in \cite{EKP} that the maps $\phi_k$ and $\phi_l$ are not contact compactly supported isotopic if $k\neq l$. This does not imply that the contact structures are different, but at least there is no local contactomorphism relating the two contact structures.
\section{Gromov's approach} \label{sec:Gromov}
In this section we develop the contact blow--up along a Boothby--Wang submanifold, as suggested in ~\cite{Gr}.The
existence of a minimum radius for the tubular neighbourhood of the submanifold along which we will perform the blow--up will play an important role. This feature will be revisited in the definition provided in Section \ref{sec:quotient}.\\
\noindent Let us review the definition of the symplectic blow--up, see \cite{MS} for more details.
\subsection{Symplectic blow--up}
Let $(M, \omega)$ be a symplectic manifold and $S$ a symplectic submanifold of codimension $k\geq4$.
Consider the symplectic normal bundle $(\nu_S,\pi)$ of $S$ in $M$ and fix a compatible almost complex structure. The choice of a compatible almost complex structure for a symplectic form induces a metric and the equality
$$U(k)=O(2k)\cap\ Sp(2k,\mathbb{R})$$
implies that the structure group of $\nu_S$ can be considered to be $U(k)$. Thus $\nu_S$ is an associated vector bundle of a $U(k)$--principal bundle $P \longrightarrow S$.\\
\noindent The symplectic blow--up of $M$ along $S$ is obtained by the fiberwise symplectic blow--up of $\nu_S$. Hence we require Definition \ref{def:lnbu} for the case of symplectic vector spaces. Let $(\mathbb{R}^{2k},\omega_0)$ be the standard symplectic vector space and $\omega_{FS}$ the standard Fubini--Study form on complex projective space. We will use the following
\begin{definition}\label{def:sybu}
A symplectic blow--up of $(\mathbb{R}^{2k},\omega_0)$ at the origin with radius $\delta$ is a symplectic manifold $(\widetilde{\mathbb{R}}^{2k}_{\delta}, \widetilde{\omega}_{\delta})$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] $\widetilde{\mathbb{R}}^{2k}_{\delta}\stackrel{\pi}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{R}^{2k}$ is a topological blow--up of $\mathbb{C}^{k}$ at the origin. The symplectic form induced on the exceptional divisor $E\cong\mathbb{CP}^{k-1}$ is $\delta^{\frac{1}{2k}} \cdot \omega_{FS}$.
\item[2.] For any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a symplectomorphism
$$\widetilde{\mathbb{R}}^{2k}_{\delta} \setminus \pi^{-1}(B(\delta+\varepsilon))\cong\mathbb{R}^{2k} \setminus B(\delta+\varepsilon)$$
\item[3.] The unitary group $U(k)$ acts Hamiltonially in $(\widetilde{\mathbb{R}}^{2k}_{\delta}, \widetilde{\omega}_{\delta})$.\\
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\noindent The symplectic blow--up of $(\mathbb{R}^{2k},\omega_0)$ at the origin exist for each $\delta$.
\begin{remark}
Note that the definition depends on $\delta$, this parameter does not appear in Definition \ref{def:lnbu} since any linear homothety at the origin is a complex isomorphism.
\end{remark}
\noindent Let us describe the non--linear symplectic blow--up of $M$ along $S$. Property 3 in the above definition allows us to associate to $P$ a bundle $(\widetilde{\nu}_{S, \delta},\widetilde{\pi})$ over $S$ with fiber $\widetilde{\mathbb{R}}^{2k}_{\delta}$. Let $\beta$ be a connection in $P$, there are induced coupling forms $\alpha$ and $\widetilde{\alpha}_{\delta}$, in $\nu_S$ and $\tilde{\nu}_{S, \delta}$ respectively, restricting to the symplectic form on each fiber and coinciding away from the radius $\delta +\varepsilon$, see Thm. 6.17 in \cite{MS}. Define the forms
\begin{eqnarray*}
\omega_{\nu} & = & \alpha + \pi^* \omega_S \label{eq:la1} \\
\widetilde{\omega}_{\nu} & = & \widetilde{\alpha}_{\delta} + \widetilde{\pi}^* \omega_S \label{eq:la2}
\end{eqnarray*}
on the bundles $\nu_S$ and $\widetilde{\nu}_{S, \delta}$. These are symplectic forms close to the zero section and to the exceptional divisor respectively.\\
\noindent These forms also coincide away from a neighbourhood of $S$ of radius $\delta+\varepsilon$. Let $U_{\delta_0}= P \times_{U(k)} B(\delta_0)$ be a neighbourhood of the zero section of the symplectic normal bundle. By the symplectic neighbourhood theorem there is a neighbourhood $\mathcal{U}(S)$ of the symplectic submanifold $S$ and a symplectomorphism $\Psi: \mathcal{U}(S)\cong\ U_{\delta_0}$. Thus any fiberwise symplectic blow--up on $\nu_S$ with radius $0 \leq \delta+\varepsilon < \delta_0$ can be glued back to the initial manifold $M$ using the symplectomorphism $\Psi$. The resulting manifold is the symplectic blow--up of $M$ along $S$ with radius $\delta$.\\
\noindent Observe that the radius of the tubular neighbourhood of $S$ cannot be estimated a priori. Therefore the symplectic volume of the exceptional divisor cannot be assumed to be arbitrarily large. This will be an obstruction to develop the Gromov's approach in the contact category.\\
\noindent{\bf Example:} Let $V$ be a rank--$2k$ symplectic vector bundle over a symplectic manifold $(W,\omega)$. Then the total space is symplectic as well. Thus, we are able to blow--up the symplectic manifold $V$ along its zero section $W$. In case the symplectic form $\omega$ is of integer class, the symplectic form in the resulting blown--up manifold will be of an integer class if the blow--up radius is $m^{\frac{1}{2k}}$, $m\in\mathbb{N}^*$. We call this a radius $m$ blow--up. \\
\subsection{Definition of Contact Blow--up}
We now define the contact blow--up in terms of the symplectic blow--up. This is the second notion listed in Section \ref{sec:intro}.\\
\noindent Let $(M,\xi)$ be a contact manifold and $(S,\xi_S)$ a contact submanifold. We assume:
\begin{itemize}
\item[H1.] The contact submanifold $S$ is contactomorphic to a Boothy--Wang manifold $\mathbb{S}(W,\omega)$.\\
\item[H2.] Let $\pi:\mathbb{S}(W)\longrightarrow W$ be the circle bundle projection. There exists a symplectic bundle $V$ over $W$ such that, as symplectic bundles $\nu_M(S)\cong V$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent The total space of $V$ carries a symplectic form $\overline{\omega}$ in the same cohomology class of $[\omega]$, under the natural identification of $H^2(V,\mathbb{R})$ with $H^2(W, \mathbb{R})$. As previously explained, there exists a symplectic manifold $(\widetilde{V},\overline{\omega}_W)$ obtained by blowing up $V$ along its zero section $W$. Suppose that the parameter multiplying the class of the exceptional divisor $E$ in the symplectic blow--up is a positive integer, i.e. the symplectic form in $\widetilde{V}$ is integral.\\
\noindent The construction of the contact blow--up is based on the following diagram:
$$\xymatrix{
&\nu_M(S)\cong\pi^*(V) \ar@{->}[d]
&\mathbb{S}(V) \ar@{->}[d]
&\mathbb{S}(\widetilde{V})\supset\mathbb{S}(E)=\mathbb{S}(\widetilde{V})|_E \ar@{->}[d]
\\
&(S,\xi_S)\cong\mathbb{S}(W) \ar@{->}_{\pi}[d]
&(V,\overline{\omega}) \ar@{->}[ld]
&(\widetilde{V},{\overline{\omega}_W})\supset E \ar@{->}[l]
\\
&(W,\omega)}$$
\begin{center}
\small{Diagram 1. Contact Blow--up Setup}
\end{center}
\noindent Each map is a bundle projection. It is essential to understand the relation between the contact manifolds $\S(W),\S(V)$ and $\S(E)$. This is the content of the following:
\begin{lemma}
In the hypotheses above, $\mathbb{S}(W)$ is a contact submanifold of $\mathbb{S}(V)$. There are contactomorphic neighbourhoods $\mathcal{U}(\mathbb{S}(W))$ and $\mathcal{U}(S)$
in $\mathbb{S}(V)$ and $M$ respectively.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The choice of symplectic form on $V$ implies that there exists a symplectic embedding of $W$ in $V$ and therefore $\mathbb{S}(W)$ is contained in $\mathbb{S}(V)$ as a contact submanifold. The tubular neighbourhood theorem states that the normal bundle $\nu_M(S)$ is diffeomorphic to a small neighbourhood of $S$ in $M$, but $\nu_M(S)\cong\pi^*(V)$ so the same situation applies to $\mathbb{S}(W)$ in $\mathbb{S}(V)$. The statements now follow from the contact neighbourhood theorem.\end{proof}
\noindent In consequence, $\mathbb{S}(W)\subset\mathbb{S}(V)$ provides a local model. Thus we only need to perform the blow--up of $V$ along $W$ and study whether the Boothby--Wang structures associated to them allow us to glue back the resulting blown--up model to $M$. This is the content of the following:\\
\begin{proposition} \label{propo:bundle_blow}
Let $S=\S(W)$ be a Boothby--Wang contact submanifold of $\S(V)$. Suppose we symplectically blow--up $W \subset V$ by collapsing a radius $1$ neighbourhood. Then, there is a choice of contact form for $\mathbb{S}(\widetilde{V})$ such that $\mathbb{S}(E)$ is a contact submanifold of $\mathbb{S}(\widetilde{V})$ and the complement of an arbitrary small neighbourhood of $\mathbb{S}(E)$ in $\mathbb{S}(\widetilde{V})$ is contactomorphic to the complement of some neighbourhood of $\mathbb{S}(W)$ in $\mathbb{S}(V)$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent For the sake of a clearer exposition the proof is explained at the end of this subsection.\\
\noindent Suppose we can choose a tubular neighbourhood $\mathcal{U}(\mathbb{S}(W))\subset\mathbb{S}(V)$ with radius larger than $1$ which is contactomorphic to a tubular neighbourhood $\mathcal{U}(S)\subset M$. Then we have the following
\begin{definition}
The contact blow--up of $(M,\xi)$ along $(S,\xi_S)$ is the contact manifold $(M',\xi')$ obtained by removing the neighbourhood $\mathcal{U}(S)$ and gluing along its boundary a small neighbourhood of $\mathbb{S}(E)$ in $\mathbb{S}(\widetilde{V})$.
\end{definition}
\noindent The contact manifold $(M',\xi')$ is contactomorphic to $M$ away from small neighbourhoods of $\mathbb{S}(E)$ and $S$ respectively. The \emph{exceptional divisor} of the contact blow--up is defined to be $\mathbb{S}(E)$, where $E$ is the exceptional divisor of the symplectic blow--up over which it is locally modelled. Observe that for the definition to work we need $S$ to have a tubular neighbourhood of radius at least $1$ inside $M$. \\
\noindent{\bf Example}: 1. The most simple example of contact blow--up is the case of a transverse
loop $K$ in $(M^5, \xi)$. The loop is contactomorphic to $\mathbb{S}(pt)$ and its normal bundle is the pull--back of the
trivial bundle over the point. Thus H1 and H2 are satisfied. The symplectic model corresponds to the blow--up of $\mathbb{C}^2$ at the origin, collapsing a neighbourhood of radius $1$, and therefore $E=\mathbb{CP}^1$. Hence, $\mathbb{S}(E)=\mathbb{S}(\mathbb{CP}^1)$, i.e. the standard contact $3$--sphere. This particular case can be seen, at least topologically, as a surgery along a loop.\\
\noindent 2. In the previous example we may symplectically blow--up with radius $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$. The exceptional divisor is then $\S(\mathbb{CP}^1, k\omega_{\mathbb{CP}^1})$, i.e. the sphere bundle associated to the polarization ${\mathcal{O}} (k)$ of $\mathbb{CP}^1$, which is the lens space $L(k;1)$ with its standard contact structure. Therefore, even the diffeomorphism type of the blown--up contact manifold changes with the blow--up radius $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$.\\
\noindent Note that there is not natural projection map from $\mathbb{S}(E)$, the exceptional
divisor, to the blow--up locus $\mathbb{S}(W)$. In the case of a loop in a
$5$--dimensional manifold, the exceptional divisor for a radius $1$ blow--up is $\S^3$ and the blow--up locus is
the circle $\S^1$. This is a difference with respect to the symplectic and algebraic cases where the
exceptional divisor is a bundle over the submanifold along which the blow--up is performed. It is true though that there is a natural projection $\mathbb{S}(E) \longrightarrow E \longrightarrow W$, but it does not lift to $\mathbb{S}(W)$.
\begin{remark}
The assumption of the integer radius can be fulfilled in certain cases. For instance in the blow--up along a transverse $\S^1$ we can use the Lemma \ref{lem:shrink}. Therefore the construction in this case will have two natural parameters: the integer radius that determines the topology of the exceptional divisor, and the choice of framing in the spirit of the lemma. The above described construction \`a la Gromov does not show in general the appearance of this second positive integer, this is a reason to introduce a third way of defining the blow--up highlighting these two choices.
\end{remark}
\noindent To conclude this subsection we prove the assertion that allowed us to glue the Boothby--Wang construction over the exceptional divisor in the contact blow--up construction.\\
\noindent{\it Proof of Proposition \ref{propo:bundle_blow}}. We need to find an
appropriate connection on the topological Boothby--Wang manifold corresponding to $\widetilde{V}$.\\
\noindent Notice from the construction of the symplectic blow--up as given in \cite{MS}, we know that given a sufficiently small neighbourhood of $E$ in $\widetilde{V}$ it
is possible to choose a symplectic form $\overline{\omega}$ on $\widetilde{V}$ such that
complement of that neighbourhood in $\widetilde{V}$ is symplectomorphic to a small neighbourhood of
$W$ in $V$. Furthermore, observe that the exceptional divisor is just the inverse image
of $W$ contained in $V$ as the zero section under the blow--up projection $\phi:\widetilde{V}\longrightarrow V$.\\
\noindent Now recall from the Definition \ref{def:bw} that the contact structure of
$\mathbb{S}(\widetilde{V})$ is determined by the choice of a connection over the associated
line bundle whose curvature is $-i\overline{\omega}$. So let $A$ be the connection over $L$ that determines the contact structure on $\mathbb{S}(V)$, and denote by $U$ an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of $W$ inside $V$. From the construction of the symplectic form $\overline{\omega}$ on $\widetilde{V}$ we can assume that the map $\phi$ is a symplectomorphism of
$V \setminus U$ and $\phi^{-1}(V \setminus U)$. Therefore the connection $\phi^*(A)$ satisfies the required
properties over $\phi^{-1}(V \setminus U)$. It remains for it to be extended to a
connection all over $\widetilde{V}$ with curvature $-i\overline{\omega}$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:exten_bw} such an extension is possible
provided that the restriction morphism from $H^1(\phi^{-1}(V \setminus U), \mathbb{R})\longrightarrow H^1(\widetilde{V}, \mathbb{R})$ is surjective. It is sufficient to show that
$\pi_1(\widetilde{V}) = \pi_1(\phi^{-1}(V \setminus U))$.\\
\noindent Indeed, observe that $\widetilde{V}$ is homotopic to a $(\mathbb{CP}^{r-1})$--bundle over $W$, with $r \geq 2$, and hence
$\pi_1(\widetilde{V}) = \pi_1 (W)$ holds.
Note that the manifold $\phi^{-1}(V \setminus U)$ is diffeomorphic to $V \setminus U$ and the set $V \setminus U$ is homotopy equivalent to a sphere bundle over $W$ with fibers of dimension greater than $2$. From the long exact sequence of homotopy we conclude that
$$\pi_1(\phi^{-1}(V \setminus U))\cong\pi_1(W).$$
It now follows from Lemma \ref{lem:exten_bw} that
on $\mathbb{S}(\widetilde{V})$ there is a choice of contact form with the required properties. Away from a given small neighbourhood of $\mathbb{S}(E)$ in $\mathbb{S}(\widetilde{V})$ a contact form can be chosen such that it induces a contactomorphism from the complement of such a neighbourhood to the complement of some neighbourhood of $W$ in $V,$ this is because we can choose the symplectic form on $\widetilde{V}$ with the required property. \hfill $\Box$
\section{Blow--up as a quotient} \label{sec:quotient}
In this section we define the contact blow--up of a contact manifold $M$ along a Boothby--Wang contact submanifold $S$ using the notion of contact cuts.
\subsection{Contact cuts}
Given a $\S^1$--action on a manifold $M$, topologically the cut construction is based on collapsing the boundary of a tubular neighborhood of a given submanifold invariant by the action. Basic knowledge on the contact reduction procedure is assumed in the next few paragraphs, see ~\cite{Ge}. Let us recall the construction of a contact cut for a contact $\S^1$--action as developed by E. Lerman:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:contcut} $($Thm. 2.11 in ~\cite{Le1}$)$ Let $(M,\alpha)$ be a contact manifold with a $\S^1$--action preserving $\alpha$ and let
$\mu$ denote its moment map. Suppose that $\S^1$ acts freely on the zero level
set $\mu^{-1}(0)$. Then the set\footnote{The equivalence relation is defined as $m\sim m'\Longrightarrow \mu(m)=\mu(m')=0$ and $m=\theta\cdot m'$ for some $\theta\in\S^1$.}
$$M_{[0,\infty)}:=\{m\in M|\mu(m)\in[0,\infty)\}/\sim$$
is naturally a contact manifold. Moreover, the natural
embedding of the reduced space
$$M_0 := \mu^{-1}(0)/\S^1$$
into $M_{[0,\infty)}$ is contact and the complement
$M_{[0,\infty)}\backslash M_0$ is contactomorphic to the open subset
$$\{m \in M | \mu(m) > 0\}\subset(M,\alpha).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Note that the contact reduction requires the regular value to be $0$, whereas in the symplectic reduction any regular value is licit. This is so because in the contact reduction it is imposed that the orbits of the isotropy subgroup are tangent to the contact structure, see ~\cite{Ge2}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Blow--up procedure}\label{subsec:bl}
Let $(M^{2n+1},\xi)$ be a contact manifold and $(S,\ker{\alpha})$ a codimension--$2k$ contact submanifold. Suppose that $(S,\ker\alpha)\cong\S_a(W)$ for some symplectic manifold $(W,\omega)$, $a\in\mathbb{Z}^+$, and $\nu_S\cong\underline{\mathbb{C}}^k$ as complex bundles over $S$. We will define the {\it contact blow--up of $M$ along $S$}.
\begin{remark}
Any isocontact embedding\footnote{The embedding $e:(M_1,\xi_1) \longrightarrow (M_2, \xi_2)$ is isocontact if $e^*(\xi_2) = \xi_1$.} of a contact $3$--fold in a sphere has trivial normal bundle. This situation does occur: any closed cooriented $3$--fold admits an isocontact embedding into the standard contact $7$--sphere.
\end{remark}
\noindent A tubular neighbourhood of the contact submanifold $S$ is contactomorphic to
$$S_R=S\times B^{2k}(R)\stackrel{sph. coord.}{\twoheadleftarrow} S\times[0,R)\times \S^{2k-1},\quad\mbox{for some }R\in\mathbb{R}^+,$$
with the contact structure given by $\alpha+r^2\alpha_{std}$, where $\alpha_{std}$ is the standard contact form in $\S^{2k-1}$. Let $b\in\mathbb{Z}^+$ and consider the $\S^1$--action
$$\varphi_{(a,-b)}:\S^1\times S\times [0,R)\times\S^{2k-1}\longrightarrow \S(W)\times [0,R)\times\S^{2k-1}$$
$$(\theta,p,r,z)\longmapsto ((a\theta)\cdot p,r,e^{-2\pi ib\theta}z)$$
This action is generated by the field $X=aR_S-bR_{std}$ where $R_S,R_{std}$ are the Reeb vector fields associated to $\alpha$ and $\alpha_{std}$.
\noindent The moment map of the above action is
$$\mu_{(a,b)}:S\times B^{2k}(R)\longrightarrow\mathfrak{g}^*\cong \mathbb{R}$$
$$(p,r,z)\longmapsto a-br^2$$
\noindent The contact cut can only be performed in the pre--image of the regular value $0\in\mathbb{R}$, it is thus a necessary condition that $R^2\geq a/b$. This can always be achieved if $b$ is large enough.
\begin{definition}
Let $S\cong\S_a(W)$ be a contact submanifold of $(M,\xi)$ with fixed trivial normal bundle $S\times B^{2k}(R)$.
Let $b\in\mathbb{Z}^+$ be such that $R^2\geq a/b$. The $(a,b)$--contact blow--up $\widetilde{M}_S$ of $M$ along $S$ is defined to be the contact cut of $M$ for the moment map associated to the circle action $\varphi_{(a,-b)}:$
$$\widetilde{M}_S:=M_{\{\mu_{(a,b)}\leq 0\}}$$
\end{definition}
\noindent The collapsed region $\mu_{(a,b)}^{-1}(0)/\sim$ will be called the {\it exceptional divisor}, it is a contact manifold of dimension $2n-1$. The induced $\S^1$--action in the level set
$$\mu_{(a,b)}^{-1}(0)\cong S\times\{\sqrt{a/b}\}\times\S^{2k-1}$$
coincides with the action $\varphi_{(a,-b)}$ defined in Theorem \ref{thm:bw} with $W_1=W$ and $W_2=\mathbb{CP}^{k-1}$. Thus, the orbit space is
$$\mu_{(a,b)}^{-1}(0)/\S^1\cong\S_{(b,a)}(W\times\mathbb{CP}^{k-1})\cong\S(W)\times\S(\mathbb{CP}^{k-1})/\sim.$$
\begin{remark}
Notice that both the topology and the contact structure of the exceptional divisor strongly depend on the choice of the parameters $a$ and $b$. Consequently, so does $\widetilde{M}_S$.
\end{remark}
\noindent{\bf Example}: 1. In the case of a contact $5$--fold, a transverse circle --the simplest contact submanifold-- is replaced by a (quotient of a) standard contact $3$--sphere, as in Section \ref{sec:srgy}. This new construction of the blow--up along a transverse loop will be compared with the previous ones in the next section.\\
\noindent 2. Consider the contact blow--up along a contact $3$--sphere $\S^3\cong\S(\mathbb{CP}^1)\subset M^{2n+1}$. The topology of the exceptional divisor will depend on the element of the corresponding higher homotopy group, cf. Section \ref{sec:bw}.\\
\noindent 3. If in the previous example $(M,\xi)$ is a $5$--dimensional contact manifold, the exceptional divisor of the $(1,k)$ blow--up is contactomorphic to $\S^3$. In higher dimensions, the exceptional divisor of a $(1,k)$ blow--up along $\S^3$ is diffeomorphic to $\S^2\times\S^{2n-3}$ for $n\geq3$ and $k$ even.
\subsection{Blow--up general normal bundle}
We define the contact blow--up along a contact submanifold with a general normal bundle. The construction will clearly coincide with the previous blow--up in the case of a trivial normal bundle.
\subsubsection{Preliminaries} In smooth topology the smooth structure of a neighbourhood of a submanifold is retained by the normal bundle. The contact geometry nearby a contact submanifold $(S,\xi_S)$ is determined by the normal bundle $\nu_S$ along with a conformally symplectic structure. Such a structure exists because $\nu_S$ can be identified with the symplectic orthogonal $\xi_S^\perp$. The statement of the contact neighbourhood theorem is as follows:
\begin{theorem} $($2.5.15 in ~\cite{Ge}$)$
Let $(S_1,M_1)$ and $(S_2,M_2)$ be contact pairs such that $(S_1,\xi_{S_1})$ is contactomorphic to $(S_2,\xi_{S_1})$. If $\xi_{S_1}^\perp\cong \xi_{S_2}^\perp$ as conformally symplectic bundles, then there exists a contactomorphism between suitable neighbourhoods of $S_1$ and $S_2$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent There exist contact submanifolds with non--trivial normal bundle in a closed contact manifold. Let us provide some examples.\\
\noindent {\bf Examples}: 1. Let $(M,\xi=\ker \alpha)$ be a cooriented contact manifold and $\xi$ itself be non--trivial as an abstract vector bundle. The contact form provides a contact embedding $\alpha:M\longrightarrow\S(T^*M)$ such that the normal bundle of the contact submanifold $M$ is isomorphic to $\xi$.\\
\noindent 2. Let $(V,\omega)$ be an integral symplectic manifold and $W$ a symplectic submanifold with non--trivial normal bundle. For instance, $(W,V)=(\mathbb{CP}^1,\mathbb{CP}^3)$. Then the normal bundle of the contact submanifold $\S(W)$ in $\S(V)$ is also non--trivial.\\
\noindent 3. Let $(M^{2n+1},\xi)$ be a closed cooriented contact manifold. Consider an isocontact embedding
$$(M^{2n+1},\xi)\longrightarrow (\S^{4n+3},\xi_{std}),$$
see ~\cite{Gr} for the existence of such an embedding. Since the tangent bundle of the spheres are stable, it is simple to give sufficient conditions for the normal bundle to be non--trivial, e.g. $M$ not spin.
\begin{remark}
The contact blow--up construction has been used in another context. Given a complex vector bundle $E$ on $M$, the contact submanifold $S\subset M$ is defined as the vanishing set of a section in $H^0(M,E)$. Then $c_1(\nu(S))=PD([S])\neq0$. This occurs for the base locus of contact Lefschetz pencil decompositions of $(M,\xi)$. See ~\cite{CPP}.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Definition} In the blow--up construction for the trivial normal bundle case there are two circle actions. The first one exists on the contact submanifold $S$, since it is a Boothby--Wang manifold, and it is extended to a local neighbourhood. The second circle action is the gauge action provided by the complex structure in the conformally symplectic normal bundle. The latter is still available in the non--trivial normal bundle case, the former can {\it a priori} no longer be extended in a neighbourhood.\\
\noindent We hence require a lifting condition for the circle action on $S$: the appropriate set--up is depicted as in the Diagram 1 in Section \ref{sec:Gromov}:
$$\xymatrix{
&\nu_M(S)\cong\pi^*(V) \ar@{->}[d]
&\mathbb{S}(V) \ar@{->}[d]
\\
&(S,\xi_S)\cong\mathbb{S}_a(W) \ar@{->}_{\pi}[d]
&(V,\overline{\omega}) \ar@{->}[ld]
\\
&(W,\omega)}$$
\noindent where $V$ is a symplectic bundle over a symplectic manifold $W$. Assume $a=1$ for simplicity.\\
\begin{lemma}
In the hypotheses above, the circle action provided by the Boothby--Wang structure can be naturally extended to a neighbourhood of $S$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $W$ is a symplectically embedded submanifold of $V$, $\S(W)$ is a contact submanifold of $\S(V)$. The tubular neighbourhood theorem tells us that the normal bundle $\nu_M(S)$ is diffeomorphic to a small neighbourhood of $S$ in $M$, but after the smooth isomorphism $\nu_M(S)\cong \pi^*(V)$ the same situation applies to $\S(W)$ in $\S(V)$. Since the isomorphism holds at the level of symplectic bundles, the contact tubular neighbourhood theorem ensures that there exists a contactomorphism $\Phi$ between a contact neighbourhood of the zero section in $\nu(S)$ and a contact neighbourhood of $\S(W)$ in $\S(V)$. Consequently, the circle action in $\S(V)$ can be carried along $\Phi$ to a neighbourhood of $S$. \end{proof}
\noindent Let us spell out the moment map of the circle action. We refer to the circle action on the normal bundle induced by its complex structure as the gauge action. This action is the natural $\S^1$--action when working with a contact pair $(S,M)$. Further, the radius coordinate $r\in\mathbb{R}^{\geq0}$ is a global coordinate regardless of the non--triviality of the normal bundle. The remaining action described above will be referred as the Boothby--Wang action. It is the natural action when identifying a neighbourhood of $S$ in $M$ with a neighbourhood of $\S(W)$ in $\S(V)$ via the map $\Phi$ in the proof of the lemma.
\begin{lemma}
The moment map of the $\S^1$--action $\varphi_{(1,-1)}$ is $1-\Phi(r)^2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The moment map of the gauge action is $-r^2$. For the Boothby--Wang one, the circle action realizes the Reeb vector field and thus its moment map is $1$. We express the $r$ coordinate through the contactomorphism $\Phi$ as $\Phi(r)$. Since we are using the action $\varphi_{(1,-1)}$ the statement follows.
\end{proof}
\noindent Recall that the contact cut can be performed if $0$ lies in the image of the moment map.
\begin{remark}
The same argument using a multiple of the gauge action concludes that we may modify the action in order to ensure this: $\Phi$ maps the zero section to $\S(W)$ and thus the values of $1-b^2\Phi(r)^2$ form a decreasing sequence in $b$ that eventually crosses zero, $\mathbb{R}^{\leq0}$ being bounded below.
\end{remark}
\noindent The Boothby--Wang action may as well be arranged to period $a$: the concatenation action is denoted $\varphi_{(a,-b)}$. We are in position to write the
\begin{definition} $($Contact Blow--Up$)$ Let $S\cong\S_a(W)$ be a contact submanifold of $(M,\xi)$. Let $a,b\in\mathbb{Z}^+$ be such that the origin is contained in the image of the moment map $\mu_{(a,b)}$ for the action $\varphi_{(a,-b)}$. The $($a,b$)$--contact blow--up $\widetilde{M}_S$ of $M$ along $S$ is defined to be the contact cut of $M$ for the action $\varphi_{(a,-b)}$, i.e. $\widetilde{M}_S:=M_{\{\mu_{(a,b)}\leq0\}}$.
\end{definition}
\section{Uniqueness for Transverse Loops}\label{sec:un}
In this section we relate the three constructions of the contact blow--up. The construction that can be performed in the most general situation is the one involving the contact cut. It has two degrees of freedom: a pair of positive integers $a$ and $b$. These two parameters relate to previous integers appearing in the first two constructions. Indeed, the parameter $l$ in the contact surgery blow--up corresponds to $b$. For Gromov's construction, the choice of collapsing radius $k \in \mathbb{Z}^+$ gives rise, in the case of transverse loops, to the exceptional divisor $L(k,1)$ and it corresponds to the parameter $a$. It is quite obvious that the diffeomorphism type of the blown--up manifolds is the same regardless of the chosen construction as soon as the parameters coincide as just mentioned. \\
\noindent Let us turn our attention to the contact structure: we restrict ourselves to the case of transverse loops. Denote by $\overline{M}_b$ the surgery contact blow--up defined in Section \ref{sec:srgy} with parameter $b$. The contact blow--up as defined in Section \ref{sec:Gromov} with radius $a$ is denoted by $M'_a$. And $\widetilde{M}_{(a,b)}$ will be the contact--cut blow--up as defined in Section \ref{sec:quotient}, performed with parameters $(a,b)$. Let us show that uniqueness holds in this case, more precisely we prove the following
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:unique}
Let $(M,\xi)$ be a contact manifold. Performing the blow--up along a fixed transverse loop with the three procedures introduced previously, the resulting blown--up manifolds $\overline{M}_1$, $M'_1$ and $\widetilde{M}_{(1,1)}$ endowed with the blown--up contact structures are contactomorphic. Further, given any pair of integers $(a,b)$, the following contactomorphisms hold:
$$\left(\overline{M}_b,\overline{\xi}_b\right)\cong\left(\widetilde{M}_{(1,b)},\widetilde{\xi}_{(1,b)}\right),\quad \left(M'_a,\xi_a'\right)\cong\left(\widetilde{M}_{(a,1)},\widetilde{\xi}_{(a,1)}\right).$$
\end{theorem}
The relation between the different constructions is already hinted in Section \ref{sec:srgy}. Since the exceptional contact divisors coincide and the procedure is of a local nature, i.e. the contact manifold is not altered away from a neighbourhood of the embedded transverse loop, the study should focus on the natural annulus contact fibration. Let us review a few facts.\\
\noindent A contact fibration is a fibration $(M, \xi) \longrightarrow B$ such that the fibers are contact submanifolds. We consider contact fibrations over the disk $f: (V, \xi) \longrightarrow B^2$. The base being contractible, the fibration is trivial and we also assume it to be trivialized. Let us introduce the following
\begin{definition}
Let $(r,\theta)$ be polar coordinates on the disk $B^2$. A trivialized contact fibration over the disk $\pi: F \times B^2 \longrightarrow B^2$ is said to be radial if the contact structure admits the following equation
\begin{equation}
\ker \alpha_0 = \ker \{ \alpha_F + H d\theta\}, \label{eq:radial}
\end{equation}
where $H: F \times B^{2} \longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a smooth function such that $H=O(r^2)$.
\end{definition}
\noindent Notice that for the total space of a radial contact fibration to have an induced contact structure it is required that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial H}{\partial r} >0,\mbox{ for }r>0. \label{eq:contact}
\end{equation}
It is convenient to extend the previous definition in order to include the general situation, where lens spaces may appear as exceptional contact divisors:
\begin{definition}
A trivialized radial contact fibration $\pi: \S^{2n-1} \times B^2 \longrightarrow B^2$ is $\mathbb{Z}_a$--equivariant if the natural diagonal $\mathbb{Z}_a$--action on the fibration preserves the radial contact structure.
\end{definition}
The action in the fiber sphere $\S^{2n-1}$ is generated by an $\frac{2\pi}{a}$--rotation along the Hopf fiber, whereas the action in the base $B^2$ is the standard $\frac{2\pi}{a}$--rotation in the disk. They preserve respectively the standard contact structure in $\S^{2n-1}$ and the $1$--form $d\theta$ in the disk. Hence, the fibration becomes equivariant if the function $H$ is preserved by the action. \\
\noindent Topologically it is fairly straightforward that the blow--up operations we are performing are tantamount to a priori different fillings of the fibration over an annulus to form a manifold lying over the disk -- this being always considered up to a finite action $\mathbb{Z}_a$, for lens spaces fillings. The transition from $\S^1\times B^{2n}$ to $B^2\times\S^{2n-1}$ can be understood in these terms: both fibrations over the annulus --produced by restricting to $r\in (0.5,1)$-- are filled in the origin with a circle and $\S^{2n-1}$ respectively. In the transverse loop case it will be enough to use the following
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:unique}
Let $V$ be a manifold with contact structures $\xi_0$ and $\xi_1$. Assume that there are two smoothly isotopic diffeomorphisms
$$f_0: V \longrightarrow F \times B^2\mbox{ and }f_1: V \longrightarrow F \times B^2,$$
which are contactomorphisms\footnote{A priori, not necessarily contact isotopic.} for $\xi_0$ and $\xi_1$ respectively. Let the two fibrations be radial contact fibrations with common contact fiber $F$ and satisfying that the diffeomorphism
$$f_1 \circ f_0^{-1}: F \times B^2 \longrightarrow F \times B^2$$
is the identity close to the boundary. Then, the contact structures $\xi_0$ are $\xi_1$ are isotopic. \\
\noindent Further, if the fiber is $F\cong\S^{2n-1}$ and the contact fibrations are $\mathbb{Z}_a$--equivariant, the contact structures are isotopic through $\mathbb{Z}_a$--equivariant contactomorphisms.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This can be reduced to the setup with a fibration $F \times B^2$ with two different radial contact structures
\begin{eqnarray*}
\alpha_0 & = & \alpha_F + H_0 d\theta, \\
\alpha_1 & = & \alpha_F + H_1 d\theta,
\end{eqnarray*}
such that the Hamiltonians $H_0$ and $H_1$ coincide close to the boundary. In that setting, we just need to construct a path of functions $H_t: F \times B^2 \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ connecting them, relative to the boundary, satisfying the contact equation (\ref{eq:contact}) and the condition $H_t=O(r^2)$. But this is possible since the space of such functions is convex. \\
\noindent The argument still works in the equivariant case: the only sentence to be added is that the space of equivariant Hamiltonians is also convex.
\end{proof}
\noindent Thus, to conclude uniqueness we study the contact topology of the different blow--up constructions and ensure that the lemma applies.\\
\noindent {\it Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:unique}}: Let us describe the common model fibration that underlies the three constructions in this case. Consider a standard contact neighbourhood $\S^1\times (0,2) \times \S^{2n-1}$ of the given fixed loop and the morphism
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi_{(a,b)}: (\S^1 \times (0,2) \times \S^{2n-1}) & \longrightarrow & \S^1 \times (0,2) \times \S^{2n-1} \\
(\theta, r, z) & \longrightarrow & (a\theta, r, e^{2\pi i b \theta} z).
\end{eqnarray*}
It does generalize the diffeomorphism provided by equation (\ref{eq:change}) that reflects the case $a=1$. If $a$ is greater than $1$, it becomes a $a:1$ covering. The covering transformation is provided by $\mathbb{Z}_a$ acting through:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{Z}_a \times (\S^1 \times (0,2) \times \S^{2n-1}) & \longrightarrow & (\S^1 \times (0,2) \times \S^{2n-1}) \\
(l, (\theta,r, p)) & \longrightarrow & \left(\frac{2\pi l}{a} + \theta, r, e^{2\pi i bl /a}p\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
which is free as long as $(a,b)=1$. To understand the change in the contact structure, note that the pull--back of the standard contact form $\eta= d\theta -r^2 \alpha_{std}$ is given by
$$\lambda= \phi^*_{(a,b)} \eta = (-r^2)\cdot [(b-ar^{-2})d\theta+\alpha_{std}].$$
Denote by $R_0=\left(\frac{b}{a}\right)^{1/2}$ the critical radius where the distribution becomes horizontal. In these coordinates, for any fixed small $\varepsilon>0$, the projection onto the first two factors
$$\pi: \S^1\times (R_0+\varepsilon, 2) \times \S^{2n-1} \longrightarrow \S^1\times (R_0+\varepsilon, 2)$$
provides a radial contact fibration on the annulus and since the function $(ar^{-2}-b)$ is strictly positive in $(R_0+\varepsilon, 2)$, it can be extended to the interior of the disk to a $\mathbb{Z}_a$--equivariant radial contact fibration. In order to glue back the model to the manifold we should quotient the equivariant contact fibration by $\mathbb{Z}_a$, this allows us to use the map $\phi_{(a,b)}$ to insert the model back into the manifold. \\
\noindent It is thus left to verify that the three blow--up procedures provide examples of such an extension for particular values of $(a,b)$. Then Lemma \ref{lem:unique} will apply to provide the uniqueness of the constructions. Note that the contact surgery blow--up construction is by definition a radial contact fibration, with $a=1$, as shown in Section \ref{sec:srgy}. Let us study the two remaining cases.\\
\noindent To understand the proof in Section \ref{sec:Gromov}, let us proceed backwards and instead of applying the Boothby--Wang construction, we produce a contact structure and then quotient the resulting contact manifold by the Reeb $\S^1$--action to study whether it is the correct object. Once the coordinate change $\phi_{(a,b)}$ is performed, the Reeb vector field $\partial_{\theta}$ becomes
$$\phi_{(a,b)}^*\left(\partial_\theta\right) = \frac{1}{a}\left(\partial_\theta -bR_{std}\right).$$
This vector field extends to the interior of the disk fibration and so we may quotient the resulting manifold $B^2 \times \S^{2n-1}$. We obtain the blown--up symplectic ball $\widetilde{B}^{2n}$ as its quotient. We can further quotient by the free $\mathbb{Z}_a$--action to obtain a non--trivial fibration over the disk $B^2$. This proves that a suitable choice of connection leads to an equivariant contact fibration. \\
\noindent There are other choices of connection though. From the principal bundle point of view, a radial contact fibration over the annulus $\S^1 \times (0,2)$ corresponds to a connection on
$$B^2 \times \S^{2n-1} \longrightarrow\widetilde{B}^{2n}.$$
Certainly, after Proposition \ref{propo:bundle_blow} the contact structure is fixed with the choice of a connection. Note that the space of connections is affine and thus, after Gray's stability theorem, the resulting contact structures are contact isotopic for different choices of connections. In conclusion, this second model also provides an extension of the model fibration.\\
\noindent We describe the third procedure also beginning with the resulting contact manifold and giving the pull--back of the action. This contact cut construction is also an equivariant radial contact fibration since the pull--back of the vector field generating the $\S^1$--action, that is $$X=a\partial_\theta-bR_{std},$$
is expressed as $\phi^*_{(a,b)}X= \partial_\theta$ after the coordinate change. There, the contact cut is just an equivariant radial contact fibration, see the proof of Theorem 2.11 in ~\cite{Le1}.
\hfill $\Box$ \\
\begin{remark}
Using Lemma \ref{lem:unique}, we can show that the contact blow--up is unique up to the choice of a trivializing chart of the neighbourhood of the transverse loop. In order to prove the uniqueness of the blow--up along transverse loops, we would need to study the space of isocontact embeddings of the contact manifold $\S^1\times B^{2n}$ in $M$. It is probably false that it is connected, which is the requirement needed to ensure the uniqueness of the blow--up once the parameters $a,b$ are fixed.
\end{remark}
|
\section{Introduction}
As it is well known \cite{Ar,AM,RS-T1,FT}, the most popular canonically
symplectic manifolds are supplied by cotangent spaces $M:=T^{\ast }(P)$ to
some "coordinates"\ phase spaces $P$, which can often possess additional
symmetry properties. If this symmetry can be identified with some Lie group
G$ action on the phase space $P$ and its natural extension on the whole
manifold $M$ proves to be symplectic and even more, Hamiltonian, the
Marsden-Weinstein reduction method \cite{AM,BPS} makes it possible to
construct new Hamiltonian flows on the smaller invariant reduced phase space
$\bar{M}_{\xi }:=M_{\xi }/G_{\xi }$ subject to the group invariant
constraint $p:=\xi \in \mathcal{G}^{\ast }$ for some specially chosen
element $\xi \in \mathcal{G}^{\ast }$, where $p:M\rightarrow \mathcal{G
^{\ast }$ is the related momentum mapping on the symplectic manifold $M$ and
$\mathcal{G}^{\ast }$ is the adjoint space to the Lie algebra $\mathcal{G}$
of the group Lie $G$.
As the corresponding Hamiltonian flows on the reduced phase space $\bar{M
_{\xi }$ possess often very interesting properties important for
applications in many branches of mathematics and physics, their studies were
topics of many researches during the past decades. Being interested in Lax
type flows, we observed that their modern Lie algebraic descriptions by
means of Hamiltonian group actions via the classical
Lie---Poisson---Adler---Kostant---Souriau---Berezin---Kirillov (LPAKSBK)
scheme is actually closely related to the Marsden---Weinstein reduction. In
particular, the LPAKSBK on the adjoint space $\hat{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$ to
the Lie algebra $\hat{\mathcal{G}}$ of a suitably chosen Lie group $G$
follows directly from an application of Marsden---Weinstein reduction to
M=T^{\ast }(P),$ where $P$ is chosen so that there is a naturally related
Hamiltonian group $G$-action on $M.$ Moreover, such classical integrability
theory ingredients as the $R$-structures \cite{S-T} and the related
commutation properties of the related transfer matrices are also naturally
retrieved from the Marsden-Weinstein reduction method within the scheme
specified above. These and some related aspects of this reduction technique
are topics of this investigation.
\section{Loop groups, canonically symplectic manifold and Hamiltonian action}
Consider a complex matrix Lie group $G=SL(\nu ;\mathbb{C}),\nu \in \mathbb{Z
_{+}$, its Lie algebra $\mathcal{G}$, and a related \cite{FT,Ne,RS-T1}
formal loop group $\tilde{G}\subset C^{\infty }(\mathbb{S}^{1};\mathrm{Hol}
\mathbb{C};G))$ of $G$-valued functions on the circle $\mathbb{S}^{1}$,
meromorphically depending on the complex parameter $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$.
Its Lie algebra $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}$ can be viewed as the completion
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mathcal{G}}=\bigcup\limits_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\left\{ \sum_{j=-\infty
}^{n}\tilde{X}_{j}\lambda ^{j}:\ \tilde{X}_{j}\in C^{\infty }(\mathbb{S}^{1}
\mathcal{G}),\ j\leq n\right\} . \label{eq1.1}
\end{equation
Using the standard procedure \cite{FT,BPS} one can construct the centrally
extended current algebra $\hat{\mathcal{G}}:=\tilde{\mathcal{G}}\oplus
\mathbb{C}$, on which the adjoint loop group $\tilde{G}$-action is defined:
for any $g\in \tilde{G},$
\begin{equation}
g:(T,c)\rightarrow (gTg^{-1},c+(g^{-1}g_{x},T)_{-1}). \label{eq1.2}
\end{equation
Here $(T,c)\in \hat{\mathcal{G}}$ \ and $(\cdot ,\cdot )_{-1}:\ \tilde
\mathcal{G}}\times \tilde{\mathcal{G}}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is the
following nondegenerate symmetric scalar product on $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}$:
\begin{equation}
(A,B)_{-1}:=\mathrm{res}\int_{0}^{2\pi }\mathrm{tr}(A(x;\lambda )B(x;\lambda
))=(B,A)_{-1}, \label{eq1.3}
\end{equation
for any $A,B\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}$. The scalar product (\ref{eq1.3}) is
ad-invariant, that is
\begin{equation}
(A,[B,C])_{-1}=([A,B],C)_{-1} \label{eq1.4}
\end{equation
for any elements $A,B$ and $C\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}.$
Define now the canonically symplectic phase space $M:=T^{\ast }(\hat
\mathcal{G}})\simeq (\hat{\mathcal{G}},\hat{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast })$ with the
corresponding Liouville 1-form on $M:$
\begin{equation}
\alpha ^{(1)}(T,c;l,k)=(l,dT)_{-1}+kdc, \label{eq1.5}
\end{equation
whose exterior derivative gives the symplectic structure on the functional
manifold $M$:
\begin{equation}
\omega ^{(2)}(T,c;l,k):=d\alpha ^{(1)}(T,c;l,k)=(dl,\wedge dT)_{-1}+dk\wedge
dc. \label{eq1.6}
\end{equation
Similarly to (\ref{eq1.2}) one can naturally extend the group $\tilde{G}
-action on the whole phase space $M$, having
\begin{equation}
g:(l,k)\rightarrow (glg^{-1}-kg_{x}g^{-1},k) \label{eq1.7}
\end{equation
for any $(l,k)\in \hat{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$ and $g\in \tilde{G}$ as the
corresponding co-adjoint action of the current group $\tilde{G}$ to the
adjoint linear space $\hat{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$The following lemma is
almost evident.
\begin{lemma}
\label{L1.1} The $\tilde{G} $-group action (\ref{eq1.2}) and (\ref{eq1.7})
on the symplectic phase space $M $ is symplectic and Hamiltonian.
\end{lemma}
\noindent \textbf{Proof.} \ It is easy to check that the canonical Liouville
1-form (\ref{eq1.5}) on the manifold $M$ is $\tilde{G}$-invariant:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \notag \\
&&g^{\ast }\alpha
^{(1)}(T,c;l,k)=(glg^{-1}-kg_{x}g^{-1},gdTg^{-1})_{-1}+k(dc+(g^{-1}g_{x},dT)_{-1})=
\notag \\
&=&(glg^{-1},gdTg^{-1})-k(g_{x}g^{-1},gdTg^{-1})_{-1}+kdc+k(g^{-1}g_{x},dT)_{-1}=
\label{eq1.8} \\
&=&(l,g^{-1}gdTg^{-1}g)_{-1}-k(g^{-1}g_{x}g^{-1}g,dT)_{-1}+kdc+k(g^{-1}g_{x},dT)_{-1}=
\notag \\
&=&(l,dT)_{-1}+kdc=\alpha ^{(1)}(T,c;l,k). \notag \\
&& \notag
\end{eqnarray
From (\ref{eq1.8}), owing to the expression (\ref{eq1.6}), one obtains the
symplectic form invariance
\begin{equation}
g^{\ast }\omega ^{(2)}(T,c;l,k)=\omega ^{(2)}(T,c;l,k) \label{eq1.9}
\end{equation
for any element $(T,c;l,k)\in M.$
To define the Hamiltonian $\tilde{G}$-action on the symplectic manifold $M$
we take the group flow $g(t):=\exp (tX)$ for $t\in \mathbb{R}$, $X\in \tilde
\mathcal{G}}$, and find the driven generated vector field
K_{X}:M\rightarrow T(M)$ on the phase space $M$:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&K_{X}(T,c;l,k):= \label{eq1.10} \\
&=&\frac{d}{dt
(g(t)Tg(t)^{-1},c+(g(t)^{-1}g_{x}(t),T)_{-1};g(t)lg(t)^{-1}-kg_{x}(t)g(t)^{-1},k
\bigg|_{t=0}= \notag \\
&=&([X,T],(X_{x},T)_{-1};[X,l]-kX_{x},0), \notag \\
&& \notag
\end{eqnarray
by a Hamiltonian function $H_{X}:M\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ owing to the
canonical relationship $-dH_{X}=i_{K_{X}}\omega ^{(2)}:$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&-dH_{X}=-(\partial H/\partial l,dl)_{-1}-(\partial H_{X}/\partial
T,dT)_{-1}+ \label{eq1.11} \\
&&+\partial H_{X}/\partial k\ dk+\partial H_{X}/\partial c\ dc= \notag \\
&=&([X,l]-kX_{x},dT)_{-1}-(dl,[X,T])_{-1}-(X_{x},T)_{-1}dk. \notag
\end{eqnarray
As a consequence of (\ref{eq1.11}) one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\partial H_{X}/\partial l=[X,T],\ \ \ \ \ \partial H_{X}/\partial
T=kX_{x}-[X,l], \label{eq1.12} \\
&&\partial H_{X}/\partial k=(X_{x},T)_{-1},\ \ \ \ \partial H_{X}/\partial
c=0 \notag
\end{eqnarray
for any point $(T,k;l,c)\in M.$ From (\ref{eq1.12}) it follows that
\begin{equation}
H_{X}=([T,l]-kT_{x},X)_{-1}:=(p(T,c;l,k),X)_{-1}, \label{eq1.13}
\end{equation
is linear with respect to the generator element $X\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}.$
This means that the loop group $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$ action on the
symplectic manifold $M$ is Hamiltonian by definition \cite{AM,PM}.
\triangleright $
The corresponding mapping $p:M\rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast },$
where
\begin{equation}
p(T,c;l,k)=[T,l]-kT_{x}, \label{eq1.14}
\end{equation
is called the momentum mapping \cite{AM,BPS,PM} which can be constrained to
be fixed for further applications to the phase space $M$ in the
Marsden-Weinstein reduction procedure \cite{AM}.
Let us describe in detail the related symplectic structure on the $\xi
-level submanifold
\begin{equation}
M_{\xi }:=\left\{ (T,c;l,k)\in M:\ [T,l]-kT_{x}=\xi \in \tilde{\mathcal{G}
^{\ast }\right\} \label{eq1.15}
\end{equation
for a fixed element $\xi \in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$ As a more natural
case we take that $\xi =0\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$ The corresponding
isotropy group $\tilde{G}_{\xi }=\tilde{G}$, as $\mathrm{Ad}_{g}^{\ast }\xi
\big|_{\xi =0}=0$ holds for any element $g\in \tilde{G}.$ To proceed further
we need some additional properties of the submanifold $M_{\xi }\subset M,$
which we will describe in the next section
\section{Marsden-Weinstein reduction, commuting vector fields and Poisson
bracket}
In this section we will be interested in describing the submanifold $M_{\xi
}\subset {M}$ parameterized by the points of the reduced phase space $\bar{M
_{\xi }:=M_{\xi }/G_{\xi }$. It is known \cite{AM,Ar}, that this
parametrization uniquely determines the points $(\bar{T},\bar{c};\bar{l}
\bar{k})\in M_{\xi }\subset M,$which are invariant with respect to the
appropriate loop group $\tilde{G}$ action (\ref{eq1.2}) and (\ref{eq1.7}).
The last property makes it possible \cite{AM,Ar,BPS,PSP} to define on the
phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi }$ the reduced nondegenerate symplectic structure
on the phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi }$ by means of the appropriate symplectic
structure on the submanifold $M_{\xi }$. Let us consider the point $(\bar{T}
\bar{c};\bar{l},\bar{k})\in M_{\xi },$ where the elements $\bar{T}\in \tilde
\mathcal{G}}$ $,\bar{k}\in \mathbb{C},$ according to the definition (\re
{eq1.15}), satisfy the differential expressions:
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \bar{T},\bar{l}]-\bar{k}\bar{T}_{x}=0,\ \ \ \bar{k}_{x}=0,
\label{eq2.4a}
\end{equation
for all $\ x\in \mathbb{S}^{1}.$ Consider now a Hamiltonian vector field $
\bar{k}d/d\tau ,\tau \in \mathbb{C},$ on the submanifold $M_{\xi },$
generated by the element $X=\bar{l}\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$ owing to
the expressions
\begin{equation}
-\bar{k}\bar{T}_{\tau }=[\bar{l},\bar{T}]=-[\bar{T},\bar{l}]=-\bar{k}\bar{T
_{x},\ \ \ \ -\bar{k}\bar{l}_{\tau }=\bar{k}\bar{l}_{x}. \label{eq2.4}
\end{equation
From (\ref{eq2.4}) it follows that the equality $\frac{d}{d\tau }=\frac{d}{d
}$ holds on the reduced phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi }.$ Let us compute
additionally the evolution of the element $\bar{c}\in \mathbb{C}$ with
respect to this vector field $d/d\tau $ on $\bar{M}_{\xi }:$
\begin{equation}
-\bar{k}\bar{c}_{\tau }=(\bar{l}_{x},\bar{T})_{-1}=-(\bar{l},\bar{T
_{x})_{-1}=-(\bar{l},\bar{k}^{-1}[\bar{T},\bar{l}])_{-1}=\bar{k}^{-1}([\bar{
},\bar{l}],\bar{T})_{-1}=0, \label{eq2.5}
\end{equation
coinciding with the \textit{a priori }assumed condition $d\bar{c}/dx=0$ for
any $x\in \mathbb{S}^{1}.$
Define similarly a vector field $d/dt,$ $t\in \mathbb{C},$ on the reduced
phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi },$ generated by the Lie algebra element $q(\bar{l
)\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}},$ depending on the basis element $\bar{l}\in \tilde
\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$ such \ that
\begin{equation}
\bar{T}_{t}=[q(\bar{l}),\bar{T}],\ \ \ \bar{l}_{t}=[q(\bar{l}),\bar{l}]-\bar
k}\bar{l}_{x},\ \ \ \bar{c}_{t}=(q_{x}(\bar{l}),\bar{T})_{-1},\ \ \ \ \bar{k
_{t}=0. \label{eq2.6}
\end{equation
The latter, in particular, means that the flows $d/dt$ and $d/dx$ on the
reduced phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi }$ possess the countable set $\gamma _{n}
\bar{l}):=\mathrm{tr}\bar{T}^{n}(\bar{l}),$ $n\in \mathbb{Z},$ of
conservation lows, where by definition, the element $\bar{T}(\bar{l})\in
\tilde{\mathcal{G}}$ satisfies for a given element $\bar{l}\in \tilde
\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$ the determining equation
\begin{equation}
-\bar{k}\bar{T}_{x}(\bar{l})=[\bar{l},\bar{T}(\bar{l})] \label{eq2.6a}
\end{equation
for all $x\in \mathbb{S}^{1}.$ From the equations (\ref{eq2.6a}) one easily
finds that upon the reduced phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi }$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\bar{c}_{t}=(q(\bar{l})_{x},\bar{T})_{-1}=\bar{k}^{-1}([q(\bar{l}),\bar{l
]-\bar{l}_{t},\bar{T})_{-1}= \notag \\
&=&\bar{k}^{-1}([q(\bar{l}),\bar{l}],\bar{T})_{-1}-\bar{k}^{-1}(\bar{l}_{t}
\bar{T})=\bar{k}^{-1}([\bar{T},q(\bar{l})],\bar{l})_{-1}- \notag \\
&&-\bar{k}^{-1}(\bar{l}_{t},\bar{T})_{-1}=-\bar{k}^{-1}(\bar{l},\bar{T
_{t})_{-1}-\bar{k}^{-1}(\bar{l}_{t},\bar{T})_{-1}= \notag \\
&&-\bar{k}^{-1}\frac{d}{dt}(\bar{l},\bar{T})_{-1}. \label{eq2.7}
\end{eqnarray
Thus, from the $t$-evolution (\ref{eq2.7}) of the parameter $\bar{c}\in
\mathbb{C}$ one finds that the constraint
\begin{equation}
\bar{c}=-\bar{k}^{-1}(\bar{l},\bar{T})_{-1} \label{eq2.8}
\end{equation
holds on the reduced phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi }$ subject to the vector
field $d/dt$ generated by the element $q(\bar{l})\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}.$
Moreover, as it is easy to observe, these two vector fields $d/d\tau $ and
d/dt$ on the reduced phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi }$ commute:
\begin{equation}
\lbrack d/dt,d/d\tau ]=0. \label{eq2.9}
\end{equation
The latter is very promising, since the condition (\ref{eq2.9}) results in
some differential relationships on the components of the reduced matrix
\bar{l}\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast },$ \ for which the related linear
evolution equation
\begin{equation}
\bar{F}_{x}=\bar{l}\bar{F}, \label{eq2.9a}
\end{equation
augmented with the compatible differential equation
\begin{equation}
\bar{F}_{t}=q(\bar{l})\bar{F} \label{eq2.10}
\end{equation
for the matrix $F\in \tilde{G}$ \ are compatible. These equations (\re
{eq2.9a}) and (\ref{eq2.10}) realize the well known \cit
{FT,No,Ne,RS-T1,PM,BPS} generalized Lax type spectral problem, allowing to
integrate the mentioned above differential relationships by means of either
the inverse scattering or the spectral transform methods \cite{FT,No,Ne,CD}
and algebraic geometry methods \cite{No,Ne}, or their modern generalizations
\cite{RS-T1}.
To make this aim more constructive, it is necessary to describe the
evolution of the vector field $d/dt$ on the reduced phase space $\bar{M
_{\xi }$ in more detail subject to its dependence on the phase space element
$\bar{l}\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$ Taking into account that the
vector fields $d/dt$ and $d/dx$ satisfy the commutation condition (\re
{eq2.9}) on the reduced manifold $M_{\xi }$, we will apply the
Marsden-Weinstein reduction theory to our symplectic manifold $M$ with the
fixed value of the moment mapping $\xi =0$ for computing the basic Poisson
bracket
\begin{equation}
\left\{ (\bar{T},X)_{-1},(\bar{T},Y)_{-1}\right\} _{\xi } \label{eq2.10a}
\end{equation
of the functions $(\bar{T},X)$ and $(\bar{T},Y)$ on the reduced phase space
\bar{M}_{\xi }$ for arbitrary $X,Y\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$ \ It can
be shown \cite{ABT,PSP,BPS} that this Poisson bracket on $\bar{M}_{\xi }$ in
general is
\begin{equation}
\left\{ (\bar{T},X)_{-1},(\bar{T},Y)_{-1}\right\} _{\xi }=\left\{ (\bar{T
,X)_{-1},(\bar{T},Y)_{-1}\right\} \big|_{\bar{M}_{\xi }}-(\xi
,[V_{X},V_{Y}])_{-1}\big|_{\bar{M}_{\xi }}, \label{eq2.11}
\end{equation
where, by definition, the mappings $V_{X},V_{Y}:\bar{M}_{\xi }\rightarrow
\mathcal{\tilde{G}}$ denote the solutions to the following relationship:
\begin{equation}
(\xi ,[Z,V_{X}])_{-1}=K_{Z}(T,X)_{-1},(\xi ,[Z,V_{Y}])_{-1}=K_{Z}(T,Y)_{-1},
\label{eq2.12}
\end{equation
which holds for all $Z\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}.}\ $ The functions $(\bar{T
,X)_{-1},(\bar{T},Y)_{-1}\in \mathcal{D}(\bar{M}_{\xi })$ should be extended
to those on the whole phase space $M$ in such a way that their restrictions
on the submanifold $M_{\xi }\subset M$ \ are $\tilde{G}$-invariant.
To apply the Marsden-Weinstein reduction we will take into account that, by
definition, there exists a group element $g(l)\in \tilde{G}$ such that for
arbitrarily chosen $l\in \tilde{G}$ the expression
\begin{equation}
l=g(l)\bar{l}(l)g(l)^{-1}-\bar{k}{g}_{x}(l)g(l)^{-1} \label{eq2.13}
\end{equation
holds and satisfies the normalization condition $g(\bar{l})=\mathrm{Id}\in
\tilde{G}$. By considering the function
\begin{equation}
f_{X}:=(T,g(l)Xg(l)^{-1})_{-1}, \label{eq2.14}
\end{equation
one can observe that $f_{X}|_{\bar{M}_{\xi }}=(\bar{T},X)_{-1}$ and, by
construction, it is $\tilde{G}$-invariant. The latter means that $f_{X}\in
\mathcal{D}(M_{\xi })$ for any $l\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$ \ In
fact, for any $a\in \tilde{G}_{\xi }=\tilde{G}$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&a\circ f_{X}:=(a\cdot T,g(a\circ l)Xg(a\circ l)^{-1})_{-1}= \label{eq2.15}
\\
&=&(aTa^{-1},ag(l)Xg(l)^{-1}\cdot a^{-1})=(T,g(l)Xg(l)^{-1})_{-1}=f_{X},
\notag
\end{eqnarray
where we made use of the property $g(a\circ l)=a\ g(l),$ $l\in \tilde
\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$ The latter holds owing to the definitions (\re
{eq2.13}) and (\ref{eq1.7}):
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \notag \\
&&a\circ l=ala^{-1}-\bar{k}a_{x}a^{-1}=a(g(l)\bar{l}g(l)^{-1}-\bar{k
g_{x}(l)g(l)^{-1})a^{-1}-\bar{k}a_{x}a^{-1}= \notag \\
&=&ag(l)\bar{l}(ag(l))^{-1}-\bar{k}ag_{x}(l)g(l)^{-1}a^{-1}-\bar{k
a_{x}a^{-1}= \notag \\
&=&ag(l)\bar{l}(ag(l))^{-1}-\bar{k}(ag(l))_{x}(ag(l))^{-1}= \label{2.16} \\
&=&g(a\circ l)\bar{l}g(a\circ l)^{-1}-\bar{k}g_{x}(a\circ l)g(a\circ l)^{-1},
\notag \\
&& \notag
\end{eqnarray
giving rise to relationship $g(a\circ l)=a$ $g(l)$ for any $a\in \tilde{G
_{\xi }$ and $l\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$
Returning to the Poisson bracket (\ref{eq2.11}), we can replace the
functions $(\bar{T},X)_{-1}$ and $(\bar{T},Y)_{-1}\in \mathcal{D}(\bar{M
_{\xi })$ with their $\tilde{G}_{\xi }$-invariant extensions $f_{X}\in
\mathcal{D}(M_{\xi }).$ Before calculating the corresponding Poisson bracket
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \bar{f}_{X},\bar{f}_{Y}\right\} _{\xi }=\left\{ \bar{f}_{X},\bar{f
_{Y}\right\} |_{\bar{M}_{\xi }}-(\xi ,[V_{X},V_{Y}])_{-1}=\left\{ {f}_{X},{f
_{Y}\right\} |_{\bar{M}_{\xi }}-K_{V_{X}}f_{Y}|_{\bar{M}_{\xi }},
\label{eq2.17}
\end{equation
where $K_{V_{X}}:M\rightarrow T(M)$ is the vector field generated on $M$ by
the element $V_{X}\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}},$ we need to calculate the action
K_{Z}f_{Y}$ for any element $Z\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}.$ Similarly to the
calculations from \cite{ABT}, one finds that on the submanifold $M_{\xi }$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&K_{Z}f_{Y}=\frac{d}{d\varepsilon }\left( \exp (\varepsilon Z)T\exp
(-\varepsilon Z),g(\exp (\varepsilon Z)\circ l)Yg(\exp (\varepsilon Z)\circ
l)^{-1}\right) _{-1}|_{\varepsilon =0}= \label{eq2.18} \\
&=&(T,g(l)[g(l)^{-1}g^{\prime }(l)([Z,l]-\bar{k
Z_{x})-g(l)^{-1}Zg(l),Y]g(l)^{-1})_{-1}. \notag
\end{eqnarray
Thus, on the reduced phase space $\bar{M_{\xi }}$ the general expression
\ref{eq2.18}) implies
\begin{equation}
K_{V_{X}}f_{Y}|_{\bar{M}_{\xi }}=(\bar{T},[g^{\prime }(\bar{l})\cdot ([V_{x}
\bar{l}]-\bar{k}\frac{d}{dx}V_{x})-V_{X},Y])_{-1}. \label{eq2.19}
\end{equation
Thus, the Poisson bracket (\ref{eq2.17}), owing to the relationships
\left\{ f_{X},f_{Y}\right\} =-\omega ^{(2)}(K_{V_{X}},K_{V_{Y}})$ and (\re
{eq2.19}), becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left\{ (\bar{T},X),(\bar{T},Y)\right\} _{\xi }= \label{eq2.20} \\
&&\left( \bar{T},[g^{\prime }(\bar{l})(Y),X]+[Y,g^{\prime }(\bar{l
)(X)]\right) _{-1}-\left( \bar{T},[g^{\prime }(\bar{l})([V_{X},\bar{l}]-\bar
k}\frac{d}{dx}V_{X})-V_{X},Y]\right) _{-1}= \notag \\
&=&(\bar{T},[g^{\prime }(\bar{l})(Y),X]+[Y,g^{\prime }(\bar{l})(X)])_{-1},
\notag \\
&& \notag
\end{eqnarray
where we take into account that owing to (\ref{eq2.12}) and (\ref{eq2.19}),
the expression
\begin{equation*}
\left( \bar{T},[g^{\prime }(\bar{l})([V_{X},\bar{l}]-\bar{k}\frac{d}{dx
V_{X})-V_{X},Y]\right) _{-1}=K_{V_{X}}f_{Y}=(\xi ,[K_{V_{X}},V_{Y}])_{-1
\big{|}_{\xi =0}=0.
\end{equation*
Now one can rewrite the Poisson bracket (\ref{eq2.20}) as
\begin{equation}
\left\{ (\bar{T},X),(\bar{T},Y)\right\} _{\xi }=(\bar{T},[X,Y]_{D})_{-1},
\label{eq2.21}
\end{equation
where, by definition, we have introduced the classical $D$-matrix structure
in the Lie algebra $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$:
\begin{equation}
\lbrack X,Y]_{D}:=[D(X),Y]+[X,D(Y)], \label{eq2.22}
\end{equation
where $X,Y\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$ and the linear homomorphism $D
\tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }\rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$ is
defined as
\begin{equation}
D(X):=-g^{\prime }(\bar{l})(X). \label{eq2.23}
\end{equation
The mapping (\ref{eq2.23}) should satisfy \cite{BV} the well known condition
\begin{equation}
(\bar{T},[X,[D(Y),D(Z)]-D[Y,Z]_{D}])_{-1}+(\bar{T},[X,\{(\bar{T},Y),(\bar{T
,Z)\}])+\mathrm{cycles}=0 \label{eq2.24}
\end{equation
for any $X,Y\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$ and $Z\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}.$
Now it is useful to recall that the mapping $g:\tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast
}\rightarrow \tilde{G}$ satisfies the relationship (\ref{eq2.13}), which
implies \cite{ArMe} the following differential expression
\begin{equation}
\lbrack g^{\prime }(\bar{l})(X),\bar{l}]-\bar{k}\frac{d}{dx}g^{\prime }(\bar
l})(X)=X \label{eq2.25}
\end{equation
for any $X\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast },$ \ where $g^{\prime }(\bar{l})
\tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }\rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$ is the
derivative mapping, depending from the chosen reduction ${\mathcal{G}}^{\ast
}\ni {l}\rightarrow \bar{l}\ \in {\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$
The mapping (\ref{eq2.23}) satisfies an additional relationship, which can
be obtained from the group $\tilde{G}$-action on the element $\bar{T}(\bar{l
)\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}:$
\begin{equation}
T(l)=g(l)\bar{T}(\bar{l})g(l)^{-1}, \label{eq2.26}
\end{equation
following naturally from (\ref{eq2.13}). Differentiation of (\ref{eq2.26})
with respect to $l\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$ at the point $l=\bar{l},$
gives rise to the expression
\begin{equation}
T^{\prime }(\bar{l})(X)=[g^{\prime }(\bar{l})(X),\bar{T}(\bar{l})]
\label{eq2.27}
\end{equation
for an arbitrary $X\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$ Moreover, since the
matrix (\ref{eq2.26}) satisfies the relationship (\ref{eq2.6a}), its
differentiation with respect to $\bar{l}\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$
entails the differential expression:
\begin{equation}
\bar{k}\frac{d}{dx}T^{\prime }(\bar{l})(Y)+[\bar{l},T^{\prime }(\bar{l
)(Y)]=[\bar{T}(\bar{l}),Y], \label{eq2.28}
\end{equation
which holds for any $Y\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$. The above results
can be formulated as the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}
The Poisson bracket (\ref{eq2.10a}) on the reduced phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi
}$ represented as a $D$-structure (\ref{eq2.21}) on the linear space $\tilde
\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$, naturally generated by the gauge transformation (\re
{eq2.13}), which reduces the arbitrary element $l\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}
^{\ast }$ to the element $\bar{l}\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast },$ is
uniquely defined on $\bar{M}_{\xi }.$
\end{proposition}
As a consequence of representation (\ref{eq2.21}) we find that there exists
an infinite hierarchy of mutually commuting other functionals with respect
to the Poisson bracket on the phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi }$. The latter
follows from the tensor form of the Poisson bracket (\ref{eq2.10a}) in the
space $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}\otimes \tilde{\mathcal{G}}:$
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \bar{T}(\bar{l})(\lambda )\overset{\otimes }{,}\bar{T}(\bar{l})(\mu
)\right\} _{\xi }=[D(\lambda ,\mu ),\bar{T}(\bar{l})(\lambda )\otimes
\mathbb{I}+\mathbb{I}\otimes \bar{T}(\bar{l})(\mu )] \label{eq2.29a}
\end{equation
which holds for arbitrary $\lambda ,\mu \in \mathbb{C}$ and where $D(\lambda
,\mu ):\tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }\rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$
denotes the tensor form of the $D$-structure $D:\tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast
}\rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$ The trace operation in (\re
{eq2.29a}) causes the Poisson bracket vanish on the phase space $\bar{M
_{\xi }$ for the functionals $\mathrm{tr}\bar{T}(\bar{l})(\lambda )$ and
\mathrm{tr}\bar{T}(\bar{l})(\mu )$ for arbitrary $\lambda ,\mu \in \mathbb{C
.$
\section{Monodromy matrix, associated $R$-structure and Lie-Poisson bracket}
Next we analyze possible forms of the $D$-mapping (\ref{eq2.23}) as a
function on the reduced phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi }.$ Since the parameter
\bar{k}\in \mathbb{C}$ is constant, its value for convenience is set at
\bar{k}=-1.$ Thus, taking into account the definition (\ref{eq2.23}), the
determining $D$-structure equation (\ref{eq2.25}) takes the form:
\begin{equation}
\lbrack D(\bar{l})(Y),\bar{l}]+\frac{d}{dx}D(\bar{l})(Y)+Y=0 \label{eq2.28c}
\end{equation
for any element $Y\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$
Let us consider the linear matrix equation
\begin{equation}
\bar{F}_{x}(x,s;\lambda )=\bar{l}(x;\lambda )\bar{F}(x,s;\lambda ),
\label{eq2.1}
\end{equation
where $\bar{l}(x;\lambda )\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast },\bar{F}\in \tilde{
},$ with Cauchy data at a point $x=s\in \mathbb{S}^{1}:$
\begin{equation}
\bar{F}(x,s;\lambda )\big|_{x=s}=\mathbb{I}. \label{eq2.2}
\end{equation
The corresponding normalized monodromy matrix
\begin{equation}
{\bar{T}(x;\lambda ):=\bar{F}(x+2\pi ,x;\lambda )-\nu ^{-1}\mathbb{I}\mathrm
tr}\bar{F}(x+2\pi ,x;\lambda ),} \label{eq2.2a}
\end{equation
for $x\in \mathbb{S}^{1}$ and arbitrary $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$ satisfies
the differential expression
\begin{equation}
\bar{T}_{x}-[\bar{T},\bar{l}]=0, \label{eq2.3}
\end{equation
exactly coinciding with (\ref{eq2.6a}). Thus, if by means of the co-adjoint
transformation (\ref{eq1.7}) this chosen matrix ${l}\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}
^{\ast }$ will be transformed into the matrix $\bar{l}\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}
^{\ast },$ then the corresponding monodromy matrix of the equation (\re
{eq2.9a}) will transform into the monodromy matrix of the equation (\re
{eq2.1}), which satisfies the expression (\ref{eq2.3}).
Taking into account the differential relationships (\ref{eq2.1}), (\re
{eq2.2}) and (\ref{eq2.3}), one can recalculate the Poisson bracket (\re
{eq2.21}) by means of the identification
\begin{equation}
\bar{T}(\bar{l})(z;\lambda )=\bar{T}(z;\lambda ) \label{eq2.29}
\end{equation
for arbitrary $z\in \mathbb{S}^{1}$ and $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}^{1}.$ It
yields the following tensor expression for the reduced phase space $\ \bar{M
_{\xi }:$
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \label{eq2.30} \\
&&\left\{ \bar{T}(\bar{l})(z;\lambda )\overset{\otimes }{,}\bar{T}(\bar{l
)(z;\mu )\right\} _{\xi }= \notag \\
&=&\int\limits_{z}^{z+2\pi }dx\int\limits_{z}^{z+2\pi }dy\left\{ F(z+2\pi
,x;\lambda )\bar{l}(x;\lambda )F(x,z;\lambda )\overset{\otimes }{,}F(z+2\pi
,y;\mu )\bar{l}(y;\mu )F(y,z;\mu )\right\} _{\xi }= \notag \\
&=&\int\limits_{z}^{z+2\pi }dx\int\limits_{z}^{z+2\pi }dy\left\{ (F(z+2\pi
,x;\lambda )\otimes \mathbb{I})(\bar{l}(x;\lambda )\otimes \mathbb{I
)(F(x,z;\lambda )\otimes \mathbb{I},\right. \notag \\
&&\left. \mathbb{I}\otimes F(z+2\pi ,y;\mu )(\mathbb{I}\otimes \bar{l}(y;\mu
))(\mathbb{I}\otimes F(y,z;\mu ))\right\} _{\xi }= \notag \\
&=&\int\limits_{z}^{z+2\pi }dx\int\limits_{z}^{z+2\pi }dyF(z+2\pi ,x;\lambda
)\otimes F(z+2\pi ,y;\mu )\left\{ \bar{l}(x;\lambda )\overset{\otimes }{,
\bar{l}(y;\mu )\right\} _{\xi }F(x,z;\lambda )\otimes F(y,z;\mu ) \notag \\
&&\int\limits_{z}^{z+2\pi }dx\int\limits_{z}^{z+2\pi }dyF(z+2\pi ,x;\lambda
)\otimes F(z+2\pi ,y;\mu )\bar{\omega}(\lambda ,\mu ;x,y)F(x,z;\lambda
)\otimes F(y,z;\mu ), \notag \\
&&
\end{eqnarray
where $z\in \mathbb{S}^{1}$, $\lambda ,\mu \in \mathbb{C}$ and, by
definition,
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \bar{l}(x;\lambda )\overset{\otimes }{,}\bar{l}(y;\mu )\right\}
_{\xi }:=\bar{\omega}(\lambda ,\mu ;x,y)=\sum\limits_{i,k=0}^{N}\bar{\omega
_{ik}(\lambda ,\mu ;x,y)\partial _{x}^{i}\partial _{y}^{k}\delta (x-y).
\label{eq2.31}
\end{equation
Here the local functional matrices $\bar{\omega}_{ik}(\lambda ,\mu ;x,y)\in
\tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }\otimes \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$ satisfy the
antisymmetry property:
\begin{equation}
P\bar{\omega}_{ik}(\lambda ,\mu ;x,y)P=-\bar{\omega}_{ki}(\mu ,\lambda ;x,y)
\label{eq2.32_1}
\end{equation
for all $i,k=\overline{1,N},$ $x,y\in \mathbb{S}^{1},$ $\lambda ,\mu \in
\mathbb{C}$ and the permutation operator $P:\tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast
}\otimes \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast },$ acts as $PA\otimes BP:=B\otimes A$
for any $A,B\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$ Just as in the calculation
from \cite{FT,Ts,Sk} one obtains from (\ref{eq2.31}) that
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \bar{T}(z;\lambda )\overset{\otimes }{,}\bar{T}(z;\mu )\right\}
_{\xi }=\int\limits_{z}^{z+2\pi }dx\bar{F}(z+2\pi ,x;\lambda )\otimes \bar{F
(z+2\pi ,x;\mu )\bar{\Omega}(\lambda ,\mu ;x)\bar{F}(x,z;\lambda )\otimes
\bar{F}(x,z;\mu ), \label{eq2.31_1}
\end{equation
where the matrix $\bar{\Omega}(\lambda ,\mu ;x)\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast
}\otimes \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$ for all $\lambda ,\mu \in \mathbb{C
,x\in \mathbb{S}^{1},$ depends only on ${\bar{l}\in \mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$
The expression (\ref{eq2.31_1}) allows the very compact representation
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \bar{T}(z;\lambda )\overset{\otimes }{,}\bar{T}(z;\mu )\right\}
_{\xi }=\mathcal{R}(\lambda ,\mu ;z)\bar{T}(z;\lambda )\otimes \bar{T}(z;\mu
)-\bar{T}(z;\lambda )\otimes \bar{T}(z;\mu )\mathcal{R}(\lambda ,\mu ;z),
\label{eq2.34}
\end{equation
if the tensor $\mathcal{R}$-matrix $\mathcal{R}\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}
\otimes \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$ satisfies for $x\in \mathbb{S}^{1}$ and
$\lambda ,\mu \in \mathbb{C}$ the differential relationship
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dx}\mathcal{R}(\lambda ,\mu ;x)+[\mathcal{R}(\lambda ,\mu
;x),l(x;\lambda )\otimes \mathbb{I}+\mathbb{I}\otimes l(x;\mu )]=\Omega
(\lambda ,\mu ;x). \label{eq2.35}
\end{equation
If we define the mapping ${R}:\tilde{\mathcal{G}}\rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal
G}}$ as
\begin{equation}
{R}(Y):=\underset{\mu =0}{\mathrm{res}}\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi }dy\mathcal{R
(\lambda ,\mu ;y)\delta (x-y)Y(y;\mu ) \label{eq2.36}
\end{equation
for any $Y\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$, then the relationship (\re
{eq2.35}) can be easily presented in the following operator form:
\begin{equation}
-(X,\frac{d{R}}{dx}(Y))_{-1}+(\bar{l},[X,Y]_{{R}})=(X,{R}(Y))_{-1},
\label{eq2.37}
\end{equation
which holds for any $X,Y\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}$, where we denoted
\begin{equation}
\lbrack X,Y]_{R}:=[-{R}^{\ast }(x),Y]+[X,R(Y)]. \label{eq2.37a}
\end{equation
The result (\ref{eq2.37}) can be used for rewriting the Poisson bracket (\re
{eq2.34}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \label{eq2.38} \\
&&\left\{ (X,\bar{T}(\bar{l}))_{-1},(Y,\bar{T}(\bar{l}))_{-1}\right\} _{\xi
}= \notag \\
&=&\left( \bar{l},[\bar{F}X\bar{F}_{2\pi },\bar{F}Y\bar{F}_{2\pi
}]_{R}\right) _{-1}-\left( \bar{F}X\bar{F}_{2\pi },\frac{R}{dx}(\bar{F}Y\bar
F}_{2\pi })\right) _{-1}= \notag \\
&=&\left( \bar{l},[\nabla (X,\bar{T})(\bar{l}),\nabla (Y,\bar{T})(\bar{l
)]_{R}\right) _{-1}-\left( \nabla (X,\bar{T})(\bar{l}),\frac{d}{dx}R(\nabla
(Y,\bar{T})(\bar{l}))\right) _{-1}- \notag \\
&&-\left( R^{\ast }(\nabla (X,\bar{T})(\bar{l})),\frac{d}{dx}(\nabla (Y,\bar
T})(\bar{l}))\right) _{-1}, \notag \\
&& \notag
\end{eqnarray
where $\bar{F}:=\bar{F}(\bar{l})(x,y;\lambda ),\ \bar{F}_{2\pi }:=\bar{F}
\bar{l})(y+2\pi ,x;\lambda )\in \tilde{G}$ $,$ $x,y\in \mathbb{S
^{1},\lambda \in \mathbb{C},$ and we defined the gradients $\nabla (X,\bar{T
)(\bar{l})$ and $\nabla (Y,\bar{T})(\bar{l})\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}$ \ in
the standard way as
\begin{equation}
(\nabla f(\bar{l}),Z)_{-1}:=\frac{d}{d\varepsilon }f(\bar{l}+\varepsilon Z
\bigg|_{\varepsilon =0} \label{eq2.39}
\end{equation
for any smooth functional $f\in \mathcal{D}(\tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast })$
and arbitrary $Z\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }.$
It is easy to observe that under the antisymmetry condition $R^{\ast }=-R$
the right-hand side of (\ref{eq2.38}) equals the Lie-Poisson bracket \cit
{FT,RS-T,RS-T1,Ne,BPS} for the functionals $(X,\bar{T})$ and $(Y,\bar{T})\in
\mathcal{D}(\tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }).$ Here the adjoint space $\tilde
\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }=\tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }\oplus \mathbb{C}$ is with
respect to a new commutator structure $[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{R}$ on the centrally
extended Lie algebra $\hat{\mathcal{G}}:$ for any $(X,c),(Y,r)\in \hat
\mathcal{G}}$ with commutator
\begin{eqnarray}
\lbrack (X,c),(Y,r)]_{R} &:&=\left( [X,Y]_{R},(\frac{d}{dx}X,R(Y))_{-1}+
\frac{d}{dx}R(X),Y)_{-1}\right) . \label{eq2.40} \\
&& \notag
\end{eqnarray
In \ (\ref{eq2.40}) the classical $R$-structure on the Lie algebra $\tilde
\mathcal{G}}$ $[X,Y]_{R}:=[R(X),Y]+[X,R(Y)]$ under some conditions on the
mapping $R:\tilde{\mathcal{G}}\rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal{G}}$ \ can
generate on $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}$ a new Lie structure (which it must not).
The above results can be formulated as follows.
\begin{proposition}
\label{P2.1} The Marsden-Weinstein reduced canonical Poisson structure on
the phase space $\bar{M}$ for the monodromy matrix $\bar{T}(\bar{l})\in
\tilde{\mathcal{G}}$ exactly coincides with the corresponding classical
Lie-Poisson AKS-bracket on the centrally extended basis Lie algebra $\hat
\mathcal{G}}$ subject to the $R$-structure (\ref{eq2.40}) when it is
antisymmetric.
\end{proposition}
If the antisymmetry property for the mapping $R:\tilde{\mathcal{G}
\rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal{G}}$ does not hold, the generated Lie-Poisson
type bracket on the functional space $\mathcal{D}(\tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast
})$ can be, owing to (\ref{eq2.38}), defined as follows: for any $f,g\in
\mathcal{D}(\tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast })$ the bracket
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{ f(\bar{l}),g(\bar{l})\right\} _{\xi } &:&=(\bar{l},[\nabla f(\bar{l
),\nabla g(\bar{l})]_{R})_{-1}+\left( \frac{d}{dx}\nabla f(\bar{l}),R(\nabla
g(\bar{l}))\right) _{-1}+\left( \frac{d}{dx}(R\nabla f(\bar{l})),\nabla g
\bar{l})\right) _{-1} \label{eq2.41} \\
&& \notag
\end{eqnarray
where the generalized $R$-structure $[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{R}$ on $\tilde
\mathcal{G}}$ is given by the expression (\ref{eq2.37a}).
\section{$D$-structure and the generalized $R$-structure relationship
analysis.}
As it was stated above, the reduced Poisson bracket on the phase space $\bar
M}_{\xi }$ is
\begin{equation}
\left\{ (X,\bar{T}),(Y,\bar{T})\right\} _{\xi }=(\bar{T},[X,Y]_{D})_{-1},
\label{eq3.1}
\end{equation
where for any $X,Y\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}$ the corresponding $D$-structure
on the Lie algebra $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}$ is defined by the classical
expression (\ref{eq2.22}) and the mapping (\ref{eq2.23}). It is natural to
assume that there exists a relationship between the $D$-structure $D:\tilde
\mathcal{G}}\rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal{G}}$ and the $R$-structure $R:\tilde
\mathcal{G}}\rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal{G}},$ described above in Section 3.
Assume, for brevity, that the $R$-structure (\ref{eq2.36}) is antisymmetric,
that is $R^{\ast }=-R.$ Then it is easy to check that the following
algebraic relationship
\begin{equation}
D(X):=\frac{1}{2}R(\bar{T}X+X\bar{T}) \label{eq3.2}
\end{equation
holds for any $X\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}.$ In fact, the expression (\re
{eq2.34}) is equivalent to the following
\begin{equation}
\left\{ (\bar{T},X),(\bar{T},Y)\right\} _{\xi }=(\bar{T}X,R(\bar{T
Y))_{-1}-(X\bar{T},R(Y\bar{T}))_{-1}. \label{eq3.3}
\end{equation
Now, substituting the expression (\ref{eq3.2}) into (\ref{eq2.21}), one
obtains that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left\{ (\bar{T},X),(\bar{T},Y)\right\} _{\xi }= \label{3.4} \\
&=&\frac{1}{2}(\bar{T},[R(\bar{T}X+X\bar{T}),Y]+[X,R(\bar{T}Y+Y\bar{T
)])_{-1}= \notag \\
&=&\frac{1}{2}([Y,\bar{T}],R(\bar{T}X))_{-1}+\frac{1}{2}([Y,\bar{T}],R(X\bar
T}))_{-1}+ \notag \\
&&+\frac{1}{2}([\bar{T},X],R(\bar{T}Y))_{-1}+\frac{1}{2}([\bar{T}X,R(Y\bar{T
)])_{-1}= \notag \\
&=&\frac{1}{2}(Y\bar{T},R(\bar{T}X))_{-1}-\frac{1}{2}(\bar{T}Y,R(\bar{T
X))_{-1}+ \notag \\
&&+\frac{1}{2}(Y\bar{T},R(X\bar{T}))_{-1}-\frac{1}{2}(\bar{T}Y,R(X\bar{T
))_{-1}+ \notag \\
&&+\frac{1}{2}(\bar{T}X,R(\bar{T}Y))_{-1}-\frac{1}{2}(X\bar{T},R(\bar{T
X))_{-1}+ \notag \\
&&+\frac{1}{2}(\bar{T}X,R(Y\bar{T}))_{-1}-\frac{1}{2}(X\bar{T},R(Y\bar{T
))_{-1}= \notag \\
&=&(\bar{T}X,R(\bar{T}Y))_{-1}-(X\bar{T},R(Y\bar{T}))_{-1}, \notag \\
&& \notag
\end{eqnarray
which coincides exactly with (\ref{eq3.3}).
Rewrite now for convenience the operator relationship (\ref{eq2.28c}) in the
tensor form as
\begin{equation}
(\bar{l}\otimes \mathbb{I})D-D(\mathbb{I}\otimes \bar{l})-\frac{d\ }{dx}D
\mathbb{I}, \label{eq3.5}
\end{equation
where the tensor $D\in \tilde{\mathcal{G}}\otimes \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }
$, owing to the action (\ref{eq3.2}), equals
\begin{equation}
D=\frac{1}{2}(R(\mathbb{I}\otimes \bar{T})+(\mathbb{I}\otimes \bar{T})R).
\label{eq3.6}
\end{equation
Substituting the expression (\ref{eq3.6}) into the equation (\ref{eq3.5})
and taking into account the determining equation (\ref{eq2.35})
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \bar{l}\otimes \mathbb{I}+\mathbb{I}\otimes \bar{l},R]-\frac{d}{dx}R
\bar{\Omega}, \label{eq3.7}
\end{equation
one obtains the relationship for the tensor $\bar{\Omega}\in \tilde{\mathcal
G}}\rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$:
\begin{equation}
2\mathbb{I}\otimes \mathbb{I}-\bar{\Omega}=[R,\mathbb{I}\otimes \bar{T}\bar{
}]+(\mathbb{I}\otimes \bar{T})R(\mathbb{I}\otimes \bar{l})-(\mathbb{I
\otimes \bar{l})R(\mathbb{I}\otimes \bar{T}). \label{eq3.8}
\end{equation
The latter makes two $R$- and $D$-structures on the Lie algebra $\tilde
\mathcal{G}}$ compatible. Observe that the $D$-structure (\ref{eq3.2}) is
not antisymmetric even though the $R$-structure was assumed to be
antisymmetric. Concerning the $D$-structure determining equation (\ref{eq3.5
) one can anticipate that a study of its solutions would describe a set of
nonlinear dynamical systems on the reduced phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi }$
possessing a priori an infinite hierarchy of mutually commuting conservation
laws.
\section{ Example: a fermionic medium and a related quantum exactly solvable
superradiance model}
\subsection{Model description}
We shall demonstrate that the the quantum superradiance properties \cite{AE}
of a generalized model of a one-dimensional many particle charged fermionic
medium, interacting with an external electromagnetic field, can be
completely described by means a quantum Lax type exactly solvable
Hamiltonian system in a specially constructed Fock space.
Consider a Dirac type $N$-particle Hamiltonian operator of a quantum
superradiance model which is expressed as
\begin{equation}
H_{N}:=i\sum_{j=1}^{N}\sigma _{3}^{(j)}\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{j}
\otimes \mathbb{I}\mathbf{-}i\beta \mathbb{I}\mathbf{\otimes }\int_{\mathbb{
}}dx\varepsilon ^{+}\varepsilon _{x}+\alpha \sum_{j=1}^{N}\sigma
_{1}^{(j)}\otimes \mathcal{E}(x_{j}), \label{S1.1}
\end{equation
where $\sigma _{3}^{(j)},\sigma _{1}^{(j)},j=1,\ldots N,$ are the usual
Pauli matrices, $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}_{+}$ is an interaction constant,
0<\beta <1$ is the light speed in the linearly polarized fermionic medium,
\mathcal{E}(x):=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\varepsilon (x) & 0 \\
0 & \varepsilon ^{+}(x
\end{array
\right) $ is the one-mode polarization matrix operator at particle location
x\in \mathbb{R}$\ with quantized electric field bose-operators $\varepsilon
(x),\varepsilon ^{+}(x):\Phi _{B}\rightarrow \Phi _{B}$ acting in the
corresponding Fock space $\Phi _{B}$ and \ satisfying the commutation
relationships
\begin{align}
\lbrack \varepsilon (x),\varepsilon ^{+}(y)]& =\delta (x-y), \label{S1.2} \\
\lbrack \varepsilon (x),\varepsilon (y)]& =0=[\varepsilon
^{+}(x),\varepsilon ^{+}(y)] \notag
\end{align
for all $x,y\in \mathbb{R}.$ We note that throughout the sequel we employ
units for which the standard constants $\hslash =1=c.$
By construction, the $N$-particle Hamiltonian operator \ (\ref{S1.1}) acts
in the Hilbert space $L_{2}^{(as)}(\mathbb{R}^{N};\mathbb{C}^{2})\otimes\Phi
_{B},$ where $L_{2}^{(as)}(\mathbb{R}^{N};\mathbb{C}^{2})$ denotes the
square-integrable antisymmetric vector functions on $\mathbb{R}^{N},N\i
\mathbb{Z}_{+}.$ Correspondingly, the Fock space $\Phi_{B}$ allows the
standard representation as the direct sum
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{B}:=\oplus_{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}}L_{2}^{(s)}(\mathbb{R}^{n};\mathbb{C}),
\label{S1.3}
\end{equation}
where $L_{2}^{(s)}(\mathbb{R}^{n};\mathbb{C})$ denotes the space of
symmetric square-integrable scalar functions on $\mathbb{R}^{n},n\in\mathbb{
}_{+}.$
Similarly, the corresponding fermionic Fock space
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{F}:=\oplus_{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}}L_{2}^{(as)}(\mathbb{R}^{n};\mathbb{C
^{2}), \label{S1.4}
\end{equation}
can be used to represent \cite{BB,Fe,Is,BPS} the Hamiltonian operator (\re
{S1.1}) in the second quantized for
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{H:}=i\int_{\mathbb{R}}dx[\psi_{1}^{+}\psi_{1,x}-\psi_{2}^{+}\psi
_{2,x}-\beta\varepsilon^{+}\varepsilon_{x}+i\alpha(\varepsilon\psi_{2}^{+
\psi_{1}+\varepsilon^{+}\psi_{1}^{+}\psi_{2})], \label{S1.5}
\end{equation}
which acts on the tensored Fock space $\Phi:=\Phi_{F}\otimes\Phi_{B},$ where
$\Phi_{F},$ defined by \ (\ref{S1.4}), can also be representes as
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c}
\Phi_{F}:=\oplus_{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}}\mathrm{span}\left\{ \int_{\mathbb{R
^{n}}dx_{1}dx_{2}...dx_{n}\varphi_{n}^{(m)}(x_{1},x_{2,}...,x_{n})\time
\right. \\
\quad\quad\qquad\times\Pi_{j=m+1}^{n}\psi_{1}^{+}(x_{j})\Pi_{k=1}^{m}\left.
\psi_{2}^{+}(x_{k})\left. |0\right\rangle :0\leq m\leq
n;\varphi_{n}^{(m)}\in L_{2}^{(as)}(\mathbb{R}^{n};\mathbb{C}^{2})\right\} \
\end{array}
\label{S1.6}
\end{equation}
and $\left. |0\right\rangle \in\Phi_{F}$ is the corresponding vacuum state,
satisfying the determining conditions
\begin{equation}
\psi_{1}(x)\left. |0\right\rangle =0=\psi_{2}(x)\left. |0\right\rangle
,\varepsilon(x)\left. |0\right\rangle =0 \label{S1.7}
\end{equation}
for all $x\in\mathbb{R}.$ The creation and annihilation operators $\psi
_{j}(x),\psi_{k}^{+}(y):\Phi_{F}\rightarrow\Phi_{F},j,k=1,2,$ \ satisfy the
anti-commuting
\begin{align}
\{\psi_{j}(x),\psi_{k}^{+}(y)\} & =\delta_{j,k}\delta(x-y), \label{S1.8a} \\
\{\psi_{j}(x),\psi_{k}(y)\} & =0=\{\psi_{j}^{+}(x),\psi_{k}^{+}(y)\} \notag
\end{align}
and commuting
\begin{align}
\lbrack\varepsilon(x),\psi_{j}(y)] & =0=[\varepsilon(x),\psi_{j}^{+}(y)],
\label{S1.8b} \\
\lbrack\varepsilon^{+}(x),\psi_{j}(y)] &
=0=[\varepsilon^{+}(x),\psi_{j}^{+}(y)] \notag
\end{align}
relationships for all $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$.
As we are interested in proving the exact integrability of our quantum
superradiance model, it is necessary to find the corresponding Lax type
representation of the Hamiltonian system
\begin{align}
d\psi _{1}/dt& =i[\mathbf{H,}\psi _{1}]=\psi _{1,x}+i\alpha \varepsilon
^{+}\psi _{2}, \notag \\
d\psi _{2}/dt& =i[\mathbf{H,}\psi _{2}]=-\psi _{2,x}+i\alpha \varepsilon
\psi _{1}, \label{S1.9} \\
d\varepsilon /dt& =i[\mathbf{H,}\varepsilon ]=-\beta \varepsilon
_{x}+i\alpha \psi _{1}^{+}\psi _{2}, \notag
\end{align
generated by the Hamiltonian operator (\ref{S1.5}) as a usual Heisenberg
flow on the quantum operator manifold $\mathbf{M}:=\{(\psi _{1},\psi
_{2},\varepsilon ;\varepsilon ^{+},\psi _{2}^{+},\psi _{1}^{+})\in \mathrm
End}\Phi ^{6}\}$. \ \ The dynamical system \ (\ref{S1.9}) possesses also the
following number operators as conservation laws:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{N}_{F}:=\int_{\mathbb{R}}dx(\psi _{1}^{+}\psi _{1}+\psi _{2}^{+}\psi
_{2}),\mathbf{N}_{B}:=\int_{\mathbb{R}}dx(\varepsilon ^{+}\varepsilon +\psi
_{2}^{+}\psi _{2}), \label{S1.9a}
\end{equation
commuting \ with each other and with the Hamiltonian operator (\ref{S1.5})
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \mathbf{N}_{F},\mathbf{N}_{B}]=0,[\mathbf{H,N}_{F}]=0=[\mathbf{H,N
_{B}]. \label{S1.9b}
\end{equation
The following proposition states that dynamical system \ (\ref{S1.9}) is Lax
type integrable.\bigskip
\begin{proposition}
\label{Prop_S1}The dynamical system \ (\ref{S1.9}) can be linearized by
means of the quantum Lax type spectral proble
\begin{equation}
df/dx=l(x;\lambda )f, \label{S1.10}
\end{equation
where the operator matrix $l(x;\lambda )\in \mathrm{End}\Phi ^{3\text{ }}$i
\begin{equation}
l(x;\lambda ):=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-\frac{i\lambda }{3-\beta } & i\xi _{1}\psi _{1} & i\xi _{2}\psi _{2} \\
i\xi _{1}\psi _{1}^{+} & -\frac{i\lambda }{2\beta } & i\xi _{3}\varepsilon
\\
i\xi _{2}\psi _{2}^{+} & i\xi _{3}\varepsilon ^{+} & \frac{i\lambda (3+\beta
)}{2\beta (3-\beta )
\end{array
\right) \label{S1.11}
\end{equation
for all $x\in \mathbb{R},$ with $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}\ $\ an arbitrary
time-independent spectral parameter, and
\begin{align}
\xi _{1}& :=\xi _{1}(\alpha ,\beta )=-18\alpha \left[ \frac{(9-3\beta
)(\beta +1)}{\beta +3}\right] ^{1/2}\times \notag \\
& \times \left( \frac{12\beta }{\beta +3}\right) ^{1/2}\frac{\beta +3}
2\beta ^{2}+3\beta +3}, \label{S1.12} \\
\xi _{2}& :=\xi _{2}(\alpha ,\beta )=6\alpha (3-3\beta )^{1/2}\left( \frac
12\beta }{\beta +3}\right) ^{1/2}\frac{(9-3\beta )(\beta +1)}{(\beta
-1)(2\beta ^{2}+3\beta +3)}, \notag \\
\xi _{3}& :=\xi _{3}(\alpha ,\beta )=72\alpha \beta \frac{(3(1-\beta ))^{1/2
}{(\beta -1)(2\beta ^{2}+3\beta +3)}\left[ \frac{(9-3\beta )(\beta +1)}
\beta +3}\right] ^{1/2}, \notag
\end{align
are constants depending on the interaction parameter $\alpha \in \mathbb{R
_{+}$ and the light speed in the polarized fermionic medium $0<\beta <1.$
\end{proposition}
The quantum dynamical system (\ref{S1.9}) may be also regarded as an exactly
solvable approximation of the three-level quantum model studied in \cite{Bo}
subject to its superradiance properties. Concerning the studies of such
superradiance Dicke type one-dimensional models, it is necessary to mention
the work \cite{Ru} in which it was shown that the well-known quantum
Bloch--Maxwell dynamical system
\begin{align}
d\psi _{1}/dt& =i[\mathbf{\hat{H},}\psi _{1}]=i\alpha \varepsilon ^{+}\psi
_{2}, \label{S1.13} \\
d\psi _{2}/dt& =i[\mathbf{\hat{H},}\psi _{2}]=i\alpha \varepsilon \psi _{1},
\notag \\
d\varepsilon /dt& =i[\mathbf{\hat{H},}\varepsilon ]=-\beta \varepsilon
_{x}+i\alpha \psi _{1}^{+}\psi _{2}, \notag
\end{align
generated by the the\ reduced quantum Hamiltonian operator
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\hat{H}:}=-i\int_{\mathbb{R}}dx[\beta \varepsilon ^{+}\varepsilon
_{x}-i\alpha (\varepsilon \psi _{2}^{+}\psi _{1}+\varepsilon ^{+}\psi
_{1}^{+}\psi _{2})] \label{S1.14}
\end{equation
in the strongly degenerate Fock space $\Phi $ is also exactly solvable.
Moreover, it possesses the corresponding Lax type operator whose spectral
problem \cite{FT,No,BPS} is defined in the space $\Phi ^{3}.$ But the
important problem of constructing the stable physical vacuum for the
Hamiltonian (\ref{S1.14}) was on the whole not discussed in \cite{Ru}, and
neither was the problem of studying the related thermodynamics of quantum
excitations over it. More interesting quantum one-dimensional models with
the Hamiltonian similar to (\ref{S1.5}) describing the quantum interaction
of just fermionic particles and only bosonic particles with an external
electromagnetic field were studied, respectively, in \cite{WO} and \cite{Ku
. In these investigations, the quantum localized Bethe states were
constructed and analyzed in detail. The corresponding classical version of
the quantum dynamical system (\ref{S1.9}), called the \textit{three-wave
model}, was studied in \cite{No,ZM} and elsewhere.
It is also worth mentioning here that the spectral operator problem (\re
{S1.11}) makes sense only if the light speed inside the polarized fermionic
medium is less than the light speed in a vacuum. This is guaranteed by the
dynamical stability of the quantum Hamiltonian system \ (\ref{S1.9})
following from \ the existence of an additional infinite hierarchy of
conservation laws, suitably determined on the quantum operator phase space
\mathbf{M}.$ Consequently, one can expect that the quantum dynamical system
\ref{S1.9}) also possesses the many-particle localized photonic states in
the Fock space $\Phi ,$ which are called \textit{quantum solitons}, whose
spatial range is inverse to the number of interior particles, and which can
be interpreted as special Dicke type superradiance laser impulses. In
particular, the quantum stability, solitonic formation aspects and
construction of the physical ground state related with the unbounded \textit
a priori} from below Hamiltonian operator (\ref{S1.5}) are of great
importance for physical applications.
In the next subsection we will make use of use of the quantum spectral
problem (\ref{S1.11}) to prove that the quantum dynamical system (\ref{S1.9
) allows the standard $R$-matrix description, which makes it possible to
construct an infinite hierarchy of commuting conservation laws, thereby
ensuring its complete quantum integrability.
\subsection{The quantum $R$-matrix structure}
The spectral problem (\ref{S1.11}) belongs to exactly the same class whose
Lie-algebraic properties were studied in Section\ 4. That means, in
particular, that the system of dynamical equations
\begin{align}
d\psi _{1}/dt& =\psi _{1,x}+i\alpha \varepsilon ^{+}\psi _{2}, \notag \\
d\psi _{2}/dt& =-\psi _{2,x}+i\alpha \varepsilon \psi _{1}, \label{S2} \\
d\varepsilon /dt& =-\beta \varepsilon _{x}+i\alpha \psi _{1}^{+}\psi _{2}
\notag
\end{align
jointly with their adjoint flows determine on an infinite-dimensional
functional manifold $M\subset C^{\infty }(\mathbb{R}/2\pi \mathbb{Z};\mathbb
C}^{6})$ a completely Lax type integrable dynamical system and whose
classical linear spectral \ problem (\ref{S1.10}) entails the corresponding
Poissonian relationships \ (\ref{eq2.34}) between the respectively defined
monodromy matrix \ $T(x;\lambda )\in \mathrm{End}$ $\mathbb{C}^{3}\ $for any
$x\in $ $\mathbb{R}$ and $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}.$ Taking into account the
standard quantization rules \cite{Fa,Sk} one can easily generalize these
Poissonian relationships to the correspondingly defined operator
relationship
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R(\lambda },\mu )T(x;\lambda )\otimes \mathbb{I}=\mathbb{I\otimes
T(x;\mu )\mathcal{R(\lambda },\mu )\ \label{S2a}
\end{equation
for some scalar $\mathcal{R}$-matrix $\mathcal{R(\lambda },\mu )\in \mathbb{
}^{3}\otimes \mathbb{C}^{3}$ between quantum monodromy operators
T(x;\lambda )$ and $T(x;\mu )$ $\in \mathrm{End}\ \Phi ^{3},$ acting already
in the Fock space $\mathrm{\ }\ \Phi ^{3}.$ To realize this scheme, we first
consider the following generalized quantum operator Cauchy problem for the
spectral equation (\ref{S1.10}) subject to the periodic conditions $l(x+2\pi
;\lambda )=l(x;\lambda )\in \mathrm{End}\ \Phi ^{3}$ for all $x\in $
\mathbb{R}$ and $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}:
\begin{equation}
dF(x,y;\lambda )/dx=\vdots l(x;\lambda )F(x,y;\lambda )\vdots , \label{S3}
\end{equation
where $F(x,y;\lambda )\in \mathrm{End}\ \Phi ^{3}$ is the corresponding
fundamental transition operator matrix satisfying
\begin{equation}
\left. F(x,y;\lambda )\right\vert _{y=x}=\mathbb{I}, \label{S3.2}
\end{equation
and the operation $\vdots \cdot \vdots $ arranges operators $\psi _{j,}\psi
_{j}^{+},j=\overline{1,2},$ $\varepsilon $ and $\varepsilon ^{+},$ via the
standard normal ordering \cite{Sk,BB} that does not change the position of
any other operators; for instance, $\vdots A\psi _{1}^{+}\psi
_{2}\varepsilon ^{+}B\vdots $\ $=\psi _{1}^{+}\varepsilon ^{+}AB\psi _{2}$
for any $A,B\in \mathrm{End}\ \Phi .$
Construct now the operator products
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{\hat{F}}(x,y|\lambda ,\mu ):=\tilde{F}(x,y;\lambda )\overset
\thickapprox }{F}(x,y;\mu ), \label{S3.3}
\end{equation
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{\check{F}}(x,y|\lambda ,\mu ):=\overset{\thickapprox }{F}(x,y;\mu
\tilde{F}(x,y;\lambda ),
\end{equation*
where
\begin{align}
\tilde{F}(x,y;\lambda )& :=F(x,y;\lambda )\otimes \mathbb{I} \label{S3.4} \\
\overset{\thickapprox }{F}(x,y;\mu )& :=\mathbb{I}\otimes F(x,y;\mu ) \notag
\end{align
are for all $x,y\in \mathbb{R}$ $,$ $\lambda ,\mu \in \mathbb{C},$ the
corresponding tensor products of operators acting in the space $\Phi
^{3}\otimes \Phi ^{3}.$ The following proposition is crucial \cit
{Sk,BPS,MBPS} for the further analysis of integrability of\textbf{\ }th
\textbf{\ }quantum dynamical system (\ref{S1.9}) and is proved by a direct
computation.\medskip
\begin{proposition}
\noindent \label{Prop_S2} \textit{The operator expressions (\ref{S3.3})
satisfy the following differential relationships:
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\mathcal{\hat{F}}(x,y|\lambda ,\mu )& =\vdots
\mathcal{\hat{L}(}x;\lambda ,\mu )\mathcal{\hat{F}}(x,y|\lambda ,\mu )\vdots
, \label{S3.5} \\
\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\mathcal{\check{F}}(x,y|\lambda ,\mu )& =\vdots
\overset{\smallsmile }{\mathcal{L}}\mathcal{(}x;\lambda ,\mu )\mathcal
\check{F}}(x,y|\lambda ,\mu )\vdots , \notag
\end{align
where the matrice
\begin{align}
\mathcal{\hat{L}(}x;\lambda ,\mu )& =\tilde{l}(\text{ }x;\lambda )+\overset
\approx }{l}(x;\mu )-\alpha \hat{\bigtriangleup}(x;\lambda ,\mu ),
\label{S3.6} \\
\overset{\smallsmile }{\mathcal{L}}\mathcal{(}x;\lambda ,\mu )& =\tilde{l}
\text{ }x;\lambda )+\overset{\approx }{l}(x;\mu )-\alpha \check
\bigtriangleup}(x;\lambda ,\mu ), \notag
\end{align
and $\hat{\bigtriangleup}(x;\lambda ,\mu ),\check{\bigtriangleup}(x;\lambda
,\mu )$ satisfy the algebraic relationship $P\hat{\bigtriangleup}(x;\lambda
,\mu )P=\check{\bigtriangleup}(x;\lambda ,\mu )$ \ for all $x\in \mathbb{R},$
$\lambda ,\mu \in \mathbb{C},$ where $P\in \mathrm{End}\ \Phi ^{3}\otimes
\Phi ^{3}$\ is the standard transmutation operator in the space $\Phi
^{3}\otimes \Phi ^{3},$ that is $P(a\otimes b):=b\otimes a$ for any vectors
a,b\in \Phi ^{3}.$}
\end{proposition}
Using Proposition \ref{Prop_S1} one can easily verify that there exists a
scalar $\mathcal{R}$-matrix $\mathcal{R(\lambda },\mathcal{\mu )},$
\mathcal{R\in }\mathrm{End}\mathbb{C}^{9},$ such that
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R(\lambda },\mu )\mathcal{\hat{L}(}x;\lambda ,\mu )=\overset
\smallsmile }{\mathcal{L}}\mathcal{(}x;\lambda ,\mu )\mathcal{R(\lambda
,\mu ) \label{S3.7}
\end{equation
holds for all $\lambda ,\mu \in \mathbb{C}$ and $x\in \mathbb{R}.$ This,
owing to the equations \ (\ref{S3.5}), implies the main functional
Yang--Baxter type \cite{Fa,Sk,Ku,MBPS} operator relationshi
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R(\lambda },\mu )\mathcal{\hat{F}}(x,y|\lambda ,\mu )=\mathcal
\check{F}}(x,y|\lambda ,\mu )\mathcal{R(\lambda },\mu ) \label{S3.8}
\end{equation
is satisfied for any $x,y\in \mathbb{R}$ and $\lambda ,\mu \in \mathbb{C},$
where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R(\lambda },\mu )=(\lambda -\mu )P-i\alpha \mathbb{I}\mathbf{\ }
\label{S3.9}
\end{equation
is the corresponding the quantum $\mathcal{R}$-operator. Recalling now that
periodicity condition, from (\ref{S3.8}) one easily deduces by means of the
trace-operation that the monodromy operator matrix $T(x;\lambda ):=F(x+2\pi
,x;\lambda )$ satisfies the algebraic expression
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R(\lambda },\mu )T(x;\lambda )\otimes \mathbb{I}=\mathbb{I\otimes
T(x;\mu )\mathcal{R(\lambda },\mu ), \label{s3.9a}
\end{equation
giving rise, for all $x\in $ $\mathbb{R}$ and $\lambda ,\mu \in $ $\mathbb{C
,\ \ $to the following commutation relationship
\begin{equation}
\left[ \mathrm{tr}T(x;\lambda ),\mathrm{tr}T(x;\mu )\right] =0.
\label{S3.11}
\end{equation
Actually, it follows from (\ref{S3.8}) that
\begin{align}
\mathrm{tr}(T(x;\lambda )\otimes T(x;\mu ))& =\mathrm{tr}(\mathcal{R
^{-1}T(x;\mu )\otimes T(x;\lambda ))= \label{S3.12} \\
& =\mathrm{tr}(T(x;\mu )\otimes T(x;\lambda )). \notag
\end{align
Taking into account that $\mathrm{tr}(A\otimes B)=\mathrm{tr}A\cdot \mathrm
tr}B$ for any operators $A,B\in \mathrm{End}\ \Phi ^{3},$ one easily obtains
(\ref{S3.11}) from (\ref{S3.12}). Consequently, the $\lambda -$dependent
operator functional
\begin{equation}
\gamma (\lambda ):=\mathrm{tr}T(x,\lambda )\cong \sum_{j\in \mathbb{Z
_{+}}\gamma _{j}\lambda ^{-j}, \label{S3.13}
\end{equation
as $\left\vert \lambda \right\vert \rightarrow \infty $ generates an
infinite hierarchy of commuting conservation laws $\gamma _{j}:\Phi
\rightarrow \Phi ,j\in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$ $:
\begin{equation}
\left[ \gamma _{j},\gamma _{k}\right] =0 \label{S3.14}
\end{equation
for all $j,k\in \mathbb{Z}_{+},$ where, in particular,
\begin{align}
\gamma _{1}& =\mathbf{N}_{F}=\int_{\mathbb{R}}dx(\psi _{1}^{+}\psi _{1}+\psi
_{2}^{+}\psi _{2}),\text{ \ }\gamma _{2}=\mathbf{N}_{B}=\int_{\mathbb{R
}dx(\varepsilon ^{+}\varepsilon +\psi _{2}^{+}\psi _{2}), \label{S3.15} \\
\gamma _{3}& =\mathbf{P}=i\int_{\mathbb{R}}dx(\psi _{1}^{+}\psi _{1,x}+\psi
_{2}^{+}\psi _{2,x}+\varepsilon ^{+}\varepsilon _{x}),\text{ } \notag \\
\gamma _{4}& =\mathbf{H}=i\int_{\mathbb{R}}dx\left[ \psi _{1}^{+}\psi
_{1,x}-\psi _{2}^{+}\psi _{2,x}-\varepsilon ^{+}\varepsilon _{x}+i\alpha
(\varepsilon \psi _{2}^{+}\psi _{1}+\psi _{1}^{+}\psi _{2}\varepsilon ^{+}
\right] . \notag
\end{align
Since the operator functional $\gamma _{4}=\mathbf{H}$ is the Hamiltonian
operator for the dynamical system (\ref{S1.9}), from (\ref{S3.14}) one
obtains
\begin{equation}
\left[ \mathbf{H},\gamma _{j}\right] =0 \label{S3.16}
\end{equation
for all $j\in $ $\mathbb{Z}_{+}$; that is, all of functionals $\gamma
_{j}:\Phi \rightarrow \Phi ,j\in \mathbb{Z}_{+},$ are conservation laws.
Moreover, making use of the exact operator relationships (\ref{S3.8}) one
can easily construct the physically stable quantum states $|(N,M)>\in \Phi $
for all $N,M\in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$ upon redefining the Fock vacuum $\left.
|0\right\rangle \in \Phi ,$ which is nonphysical for the dynamical system
\ref{S1.9}), governed by the unbounded from below Hamiltonian operator (\re
{S1.5}). Following a renormalization scheme similar to those developed in
\cite{Fa,YK,MBPS}, one can construct a new physically stable vacuum
\begin{equation}
\left. |(0)\right\rangle _{phys}:=\prod\limits_{q\leq \mu _{j}\leq
Q}B^{+}(\mu _{j})\left. |0\right\rangle \label{S3.17}
\end{equation
by means of the new commuting to each other "creation" operators $B^{+}(\mu
):\Phi \rightarrow \Phi ,\mu \in \mathbb{C},$ generated by suitable
components of the monodromy operator matrix $T(x;\mu ):\Phi ^{3}\rightarrow
\Phi ^{3},$ $x\in \mathbb{R},$ whose commutation relationships with the
Hamiltonian operator (\ref{S1.5})
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \mathbf{H,}B^{+}(\mu )]=S(\mu ;\alpha ,\beta )B^{+}(\mu )
\label{S3.18}
\end{equation
are parameterized by the two-particle scalar scattering factor $S(\mu
;\alpha ,\beta ),\mu \in \mathbb{C},$ and where values $q<Q\in \mathbb{R}$
are to be determined \cite{Fa} from the condition that quantum excitations
over the physical vacuum \ (\ref{S3.17}) have positive energy. Since the
physical vacuum (\ref{S3.17}) is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian operator
\ref{S1.5}), the corresponding quantum eigenstates of the excitations can be
represented as
\begin{equation}
\left. |(\mu )\right\rangle :=B^{+}(\mu )\left. |(0)\right\rangle _{phys}
\label{S3.19}
\end{equation
for some $\mu \in \mathbb{R}$ and the new energy level can be taken into
account in the renormalized Hamiltonian operator (\ref{S1.5}) by means of
the chemical potentials $a_{F},a_{B}\in \mathbb{R}:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{H}_{a}:=\mathbf{H}-a_{F}\mathbf{N}_{F}-a_{B}\mathbf{N}_{B},
\label{S3.20}
\end{equation
which should be determined from the conditions
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{H}_{a}\left. |(0)\right\rangle _{phys}=0,\;\left\langle (\mu
)|\right. \mathbf{H}_{a}\left. |(\mu )\right\rangle >0 \label{S3.21}
\end{equation
for any $\mu \in \mathbb{R}.$ The physical vacuum state and quantum
Hamiltonian renormalization construction described above make it possible to
study the properties of superradiance quantum photonic impulse structures
generated by interaction of the charged fermionic medium with an external
electromagnetic field. Owing to the existence of quantum periodic
eigenstates over the physically stable vacuum, one can also investigate the
related thermodynamic properties of the model and analyze the generated
superradiance photonic structures, which are important for explaining many
\cite{AE} existing experiments.
\section{Conclusion}
We have considered the standard canonically symplectic phase space
M:=T^{\ast }(\tilde{\mathcal{G}})$, generated by the centrally extended
basis manifold to be an affine loop Lie algebra $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}$ on the
circle $\mathbb{S}^{1}.$ Subject to the standard Hamiltonian Lie algebra
\tilde{\mathcal{G}}$-action on $M,$ with respect which the symplectic
structure on $M$ is invariant, constructed the corresponding momentum
mapping and carried out the standard Marsden-Weinstein reduction of the
manifold $M$ upon the reduced phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi }$ endowed with the
reduced Poisson bracket $\left\{ \cdot ,\cdot \right\} _{\xi }$. The latter
allows to construct on the phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi }$ commuting to each
other vector fields which are equivalent to some nonlinear dynamical systems
possessing an infinite hierarchy of commuting conservation laws. Moreover,
these mentioned commuting vector fields on $\bar{M}_{\xi }$ realize exactly
their corresponding Lax type representations.
Presented detailed analysis of commutation properties for the related flows
on the basis manifold makes it possible to define a suitable $D$-structure
on the Lie algebra $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}$, deeply related with the
corresponding classical $R$-structure on $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}$, generated by
the reduced Poisson bracket on the phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi }$. As a
bi-product of our analysis we stated that these $R$- and $D$-structures are
completely equivalent to a suitably generalized classical
Lie-Poisson-Adler-Kostant-Symes-Kirillov-Berezin structure on the adjoint
space $\hat{\mathcal{G}}^{\ast }$. We derived also the determining equation
for the $D$-structure, classifying the generalized Lax type integrable
nonlinear dynamical systems on the reduced phase space $\bar{M}_{\xi }$,
whose respectively defined $R$-structures are not necessary both
antisymmetric and local, as it was before described in \cite{ArMe,ABT} by
means of an other approach. It is worth also to mention that the reduction
scheme devised in this work can be applied also to the centrally extended
algebra of pseudo-differential operators and affine loop algebras on the
circle $\mathbb{S}^{1}.$
As an example of the physical Hamiltonian system whose exact solvability can
be stated by means of a related $R$-structure, we have proposed a new
generalized superradiance model, describing a one-dimensional many particle
charged fermionic medium interacting with an external electromagnetic field.
Its operator structure allows to calculate by means of the $R$-matrix
approach diverse superradiance effects, which are closely related to the
formation of the bound quantum solitonic states and their stability. The
existence of these states is established by suitable applying the physical
vacuum renormalization subject to which all quantum excitations are of
positive energy. This procedure, based on the determining operator
relationships (\ref{S3.8}), enables one to describe the thermodynamic
properties of the quantum dynamical system over the stable physical vacuum.
In addition, it facilitates analysis of the corresponding thermodynamic
states of the resulting quantum photonic system and its superradiance
properties. Our work indicates that a more detailed investigation of these
and related topics is in order, which we plan to undertake elsewhere.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Authors are cordially thankful to Prof. D. Blackmore (NJIT, NJ USA) for
interest in the work, fruitful discussions and valuable remarks.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
String theory is expected to be a consistent theory of
quantum gravity. In this respect, it is interesting to note that
a generic feature of all known string
theories is that besides the graviton, there exist
two additional massless excitations,
the Kalb-Ramond field $B_{\mu\nu}$ and the dilaton $\phi$.
At leading order, the dynamics of these fields is governed
by the extension of the Einstein-Hilbert action
\eq{
\label{stringaction}
S=-{1\over 2\kappa^2}
\int
\hspace{-0.75pt}
d^nx \hspace{1pt}\sqrt{-G}\hspace{1pt} e^{-2\phi}\Bigl(R-{\textstyle{1\over 12}} \hspace{0.5pt} H^2
+4 \hspace{0.25pt} (\partial \phi)^2
\Bigr) \hspace{0.5pt},
}
which has two types of local symmetries. Namely, it is invariant
under diffeomorphisms of the space-time
coordinates, and under gauge transformation of the Kalb-Ramond field.
Note also, this action is a valid approximation for solutions with large radii.
Employing T-duality \cite{Shelton:2005cf},
methods of generalized geometry \cite{Grana:2008yw,Coimbra:2011nw,Berman:2012vc}
and double field theory \cite{Siegel:1993th,Hull:2009mi,Hohm:2010jy,Aldazabal:2011nj},
it has become clear
during the last years
that also
a non-geometric frame exists, where the degrees of
freedom are described by a metric on the co-tangent bundle,
by a dilaton and by a (quasi-)symplectic structure $\beta^{ab}$.
The latter gives rise to
so-called non-geometric $Q$- and $R$-fluxes. In particular,
the $R$-flux has been argued to be related to a
non-associative structure
\cite{Bouwknegt:2004ap,Blumenhagen:2010hj,Lust:2010iy,Blumenhagen:2011ph,Mylonas:2012pg}.
However, in contrast to the well-established
non-commutative behavior of open strings \cite{Seiberg:1999vs}, the
generalization to closed strings is more complex,
as in a gravitational theory
the non-commutativity parameter is expected to be dynamical.
Since in the non-geometric frame, apart from the dilaton,
one deals with just a metric and a (quasi-)symplectic structure,
it is natural to expect that both local symmetries
of the string action can be given a description in terms
of a (generalized) differential geometry. Starting
from so-called double field theory, this question
has already been approached
in an interesting way
in
\cite{Andriot:2012wx,Andriot:2012an} (see also \cite{Andriot:2011uh}).
However, the action derived in \cite{Andriot:2012wx,Andriot:2012an}
is not manifestly
invariant under both local symmetries.
It is the objective of this letter
to construct such a manifestly bi-invariant action for the non-geometric
string. The appropriate mathematical framework for this turns out to be
the theory of Lie and Courant algebroids
\cite{Halmagyi:2008dr, Blumenhagen:2012pc}, which we
will mention only briefly.
More details on the underlying mathematical structure
of Lie algebroids
and the details of the computations will appear in
\cite{BDPR2012}.
Here, we present the main steps of a construction
of an Einstein-Hilbert type action, which is manifestly
invariant under both usual diffeomorphisms and
what we call $\beta$-diffeomorphisms.
This bi-invariant action turns out to be closely related to the action
derived for non-geometric fluxes using double field
theory \cite{Andriot:2012wx,Andriot:2012an}.
Remarkably, relations familiar
from the Seiberg-Witten limit for D-branes in a two-form background
also appear in this closed-string framework.
\section{$\beta$-diffeomorphisms}
As mentioned in the introduction,
in addition to the dilaton, we consider
the co-tangent bundle T$^\star$M of a manifold with metric
$\hat g= \hat g^{ab}\, e_a\otimes e_b$ and
an invertible anti-symmetric bi-vector
$\hat\beta ={1\over 2} \hat\beta^{ab} e_a \wedge e_b=\hat\beta^{ab} e_a \otimes
e_b$, where our notation is $e_a=\partial_a$ and
$e^a=dx^a$. Note that $\hat\beta$ can
be thought of as a \mbox{(quasi-)}symplectic structure giving rise
to a \mbox{(quasi-)}Poisson structure $\{f,g\}=\hat\beta^{ab}\,\partial_a f\, \partial_b g$,
with Jacobi-identity
${\rm Jac}(f,g,h)=\hat\Theta^{abc}\, \partial_a f\, \partial_b g\, \partial_c h$.
The $R$-flux is defined as
$ \hat\Theta^{abc} =3\,\hat\beta^{[a|m}\partial_m\hat\beta^{|bc]}$,
where the \mbox{(anti-)}symmetrization of indices contains a factor of $(1/n!)$.
Moreover, $\hat\beta$ provides a natural (anchor)
map $\beta^\sharp :{\rm T}^\star {\rm M}\to {\rm TM}$
via $\beta^\sharp e^a=\hat\beta^{am} e_m$. As we will see, it is essential
that $\hat\beta$ is invertible, which is however the generic situation.
On the other hand,
that means we can only describe backgrounds for which that requirement is satisfied.
Compared to the standard differential geometry calculus, here, not only the tangent
bundle but also the co-tangent bundle plays an important
role.
This suggests that the former principle of diffeomorphism
covariance of gravity, the equivalence principle,
should be extended by a second class of diffeomorphisms.
Recall, that in the former case, infinitesimal
diffeomorphisms $x^a\to x^a+\xi^a(x)$ are given by
the Lie derivative $\delta_\xi X=L_\xi X$, which
acts as the Lie bracket on vector fields and as the
anti-commutator of the insertion map and the exterior differential on forms.
For the second class, that is infinitesimal transformations
parametrized by the components of a one-form $\hat\xi=\hat \xi_a dx^a$, we note the following.
The bracket, generalizing the commutator of vector fields
to forms, is the so-called Koszul-bracket defined as
\eq{\label{kos}
\bigl[ \hspace{0.5pt} \hat\xi,\eta \bigr]_{\rm K}=L_{\beta^\sharp\hat\xi}\,\eta-\iota_{\beta^\sharp\eta}d\hat\xi\, ,
}
where $\iota$ denotes the insertion map.
In addition, let us define the action of a one-form on a function $\phi$
by the anchor map:
\eq{
dx^a (\phi) := \beta^{\sharp}(dx^a)(\phi)= \hat\beta^{am}\partial_m \phi =:
D^a \phi\, .
}
Now, we can proceed as in ordinary differential geometry and define tensors
by their infinitesimal transformation properties.
In particular, a scalar field $\phi$ is called a $\beta$-scalar if it transforms as
\eq{
\hat\delta_{\hat\xi} \phi= \mathcal{L}_{\hat\xi} \phi=\hat\xi(\phi)= \hat\xi_m\,
D^m\phi\, ,
}
and a one-form $\eta$ is a $\beta$-one-form if
\eq{
\hat\delta_{\hat\xi} \eta &=
\mathcal{L}_{\hat\xi}\eta=\bigl[\hat\xi,\eta\bigr]_{\rm K} \\
&= \left(\hat\xi_m D^m\eta_a - \eta_mD^m\hat\xi_a+\hat\xi_m\eta_n\,\hat Q_a{}^{mn}\right)e^a \,,
}
with $\hat Q_c{}^{ab} = \partial_c\hat\beta^{ab}$.
The transformation properties of general $\beta$-tensors are
then determined by requiring the Leibniz rule
of $\delta_{\hat\xi}$ for tensor products and contractions, which
implies for instance that a $\beta$-vector field $X=X^a e_a$ transforms as
\eq{ \label{vectorvar}
\hat\delta_{\hat\xi} X&= \mathcal{L}_{\hat\xi} X\\
&=\left(\hat\xi_mD^mX^a+X^mD^a\hat\xi_m-X^m\hat\xi_n\,\hat Q_m{}^{na}\right)e_a\,.
}
To continue, we have to fix the nature of the
metric $\hat g^{ab}$ and the anti-symmetric bi-vector $\hat\beta^{ab}$. The former should be
a tensor with respect to both diffeomorphisms and $\beta$-diffeomorphisms,
while we require the latter only to be a tensor under diffeomorphisms.
As will become clear below, it should transform
under $\beta$-diffeomorphisms non-covariantly
\eq{
\label{betarule}
\hat\delta_{\hat\xi} \hat \beta :=&\hspace{2pt} \Lie_{\hat\xi} \hat \beta + \hat\beta^{am}\hat\beta^{bn} \left(\partial_m \hat\xi_n -\partial_n \hat\xi_m \right) e_a \otimes e_b \\
=& \hspace{2pt}\hat\xi_m\, \hat\Theta^{mab}\, e_a\otimes e_b\, .
}
Moreover, the variation with respect to $\hat\xi$ should commute
with partial derivatives, i.e. $[\hat\delta_{\hat\xi},\partial_a] = 0$.
The Lie brackets of infinitesimal diffeomorphisms and
$\beta$-diffeomorphisms are
\eq{
\bigl[\delta_{\xi_1},\delta_{\xi_2}\bigr]&=\delta_{[\xi_1,\xi_2]}\, , \\
\bigl[\hspace{0.5pt}\hat\delta_{\hat\xi},\delta_{\eta} \bigr]&=
\delta_{{\cal L}_{\hat\xi}\eta}\, , \\
\bigl[\hspace{0.5pt}\hat\delta_{\hat\xi_1},\hat\delta_{\hat\xi_2}\bigr]&=\hat\delta_{[\hat\xi_1,\hat\xi_2]_{\rm
K}} +\delta_{(\iota_{\hat\xi_1} \iota_{\hat\xi_2} \hat\Theta)} \, .
}
Ordinary differential geometry is based on the covariantization
of the partial derivative of tensors, however, because of
\eq{
\hat\delta_{\hat\xi} (\partial_a \phi)=\Lie_{\hat\xi} (\partial_a \phi)
+ (D^m\phi)(\partial_a \hat\xi_m-\partial_m \hat\xi_a)\, ,
}
under a $\beta$-diffeomorphism
the partial derivative of a scalar does not transform as a $\beta$-vector.
But, on the other hand, we have defined the transformation of $\hat\beta$ in
eq.~\eqref{betarule} such that the derivative
$D^a\phi$ transforms precisely as a $\beta$-vector, i.e.
$\hat\delta_{\hat\xi} (D^a\phi)=\Lie_{\hat\xi} (D^a \phi)$.
Finally, using one of the Bianchi identities derived in
\cite{Blumenhagen:2012pc,Andriot:2012wx}, we find
that the $R$-flux is also a $\beta$-tensor, that is
$\hat\delta_{\hat\xi}\hat\Theta^{abc} = \Lie_{\hat\xi} \hat\Theta^{abc}$.
\section{Covariant derivative, torsion and curvature}
As established in the last section, the role played by $\partial_a$
in usual gravity theories is now taken by the derivative $D^a$.
Following the same steps as in standard differential geometry, we
then define the covariantization of $D^a$ as
\eq{
\hat\nabla^a X^b=D^a X^b - \hat\Gamma_c{}^{ab}\, X^c \;,
}
and the action on forms reads
$\hat\nabla^a \eta_b=D^a \eta_b + \hat\Gamma_b{}^{ac}\, \eta_c$.
Demanding that the covariant derivative
is a $\beta$-tensor requires that the $\beta$-connection
cancels the anomalous transformation of the first term,
leading to
\eq{ \label{anomalous}
\hat\Delta_{\hat\xi} \bigl(\hat\Gamma_c{}^{ab}\bigr) = D^a\bigl( D^b \hat\xi_c - \hat\xi_m \hat Q_c{}^{mb}\bigr) \, ,
}
with $\hat\Delta_{\hat\xi}=\delta_{\hat\xi}-\Lie_{\hat\xi}$.
Under usual diffeomorphisms, $\hat\Gamma_c{}^{ab}$ needs to transform
anomalously as
\eq{ \label{anomalousb}
\Delta_{\xi}(\hat\Gamma_c{}^{ab}) = -D^a\left( \partial_c \xi^b \right) \, .
}
Taking the commutator of two covariant derivatives defines the $\beta$-torsion
\eq{
\bigl[\hat\nabla^a,\hat\nabla^b\bigr]\phi=- \hat T_c{}^{ab}\, D^c \phi \,,
}
which can be expressed as
\eq{
\hat T_c{}^{ab}=\hat\Gamma_c{}^{ab}-\hat\Gamma_c{}^{ba}-\hat{\cal Q}_c{}^{ab} \, ,
}
with $\hat{\cal Q}_c{}^{ab}=\hat{Q}_c{}^{ab}+ \hat\Theta^{abm} \hat\beta_{mc}$.
By construction, this is a usual tensor and a $\beta$-tensor.
The curvature is defined by
\eq{
\bigl[\hat\nabla^a,\hat\nabla^b\bigr]\, X^c= -\hat R_m{}^{cab}\, X^m
- \hat T_m{}^{ab}\, \hat\nabla^m X^c\, ,
}
leading to
\eq{
\hat R_m{}^{cab} =D^a \hat\Gamma_m{}^{bc}&-D^b \hat\Gamma_m{}^{ac}
+\hat\Gamma_n{}^{bc}\, \hat\Gamma_m{}^{an}
- \hat\Gamma_n{}^{ac}\, \hat\Gamma_m{}^{bn}
-\hat{\cal Q}_n{}^{ab}\, \hat\Gamma_m{}^{nc}\, .
}
The metric-compatible and torsion-free Levi-Civita connection
takes the form
\eq{
\label{LCconnect}
\hat\Gamma_c{}^{ab}=\tilde\Gamma_c{}^{ab}-\hat g_{cq} \hspace{0.5pt}
\hat g^{p(a|} \hat{\cal Q}_p{}^{|b)q}
+{1\over 2} \hat{\cal Q}_c{}^{ab}\, ,
}
with
\eq{
\tilde\Gamma_c{}^{ab}={1\over 2} \hspace{0.5pt} \hat g_{cp}\left(
D^a \hat g^{bp} + D^b \hat g^{ap} - D^p \hat g^{ab}\right)\, .
}
Note that one can check explicitly that \eqref{LCconnect}
has the right anomalous transformation behavior under diffeomorphisms
\eqref{anomalousb} and $\beta$-diffeomorphisms \eqref{anomalous}.
For vanishing torsion, the Ricci tensor
$\hat R^{ab}=\hat R_m{}^{amb}$ is symmetric and reads
\eq{
\hat R^{ab}=D^m \hat\Gamma_m{}^{ba}-D^b \hat\Gamma_m{}^{ma}
&+\hat\Gamma_n{}^{ba}\, \hat\Gamma_m{}^{mn}
- \hat\Gamma_n{}^{ma}\, \hat\Gamma_m{}^{nb}\, .
}
The Ricci scalar $\hat R=\hat g_{ab} \hat R^{ab}$ can be expanded as
\eq{
\label{Rexpand}
\hat R=-\Bigl[ \hspace{14pt} & D^a D^b \hat g_{ab}
- D^a\left( \hat g_{ab} \, \hat g^{mn}\, D^b \hat g_{mn} \right)\\[0.1cm]
-\hspace{1.5pt}&{1\over 4} \hat g_{ab}\Bigl( D^a \hat g_{mn}\, D^b \hat g^{mn}
-2 D^a \hat g_{mn}\, D^m \hat g^{nb} - \hat g_{mn}\, \hat g_{pq}\, D^a \hat g^{mn}\, D^b \hat
g^{pq}\Bigr)\\[0.1cm]
+\hspace{1.5pt}&{1\over 4}\, \hat g_{ab}\, \hat g_{mn} \, \hat g^{pq}\, \hat{\cal Q}_p{}^{ma} \hat{\cal Q}_q{}^{nb}
+{1\over 2} \hat g_{ab}\, \hat{\cal Q}_m{}^{nb}\, \hat{\cal Q}_n{}^{ma}
+ \hat g_{ab}\, \hat{\cal Q}_m{}^{ma}\, \hat{\cal Q}_n{}^{nb} \\
+\hspace{1.5pt}&2 D^a \left( \hat g_{ab} \, \hat{\cal Q}_m{}^{mb} \right)
- \hat g_{ab}\, \hat g_{mn}\, D^a \hat g^{pn} \, \hat{\cal Q}_p{}^{bm}
+ \hat g_{ab} \,\hat g^{mn}\, D^a \hat g_{mn} \, \hat{\cal
Q}_p{}^{bp}\hspace{10pt}\Bigr] ,
}
which is the same expression as in \cite{Andriot:2012an}
if one substitutes $\hat{\cal Q}_a{}^{bc}\leftrightarrow {Q}_a{}^{bc}$.
\section{Bi-invariant action}
After having defined a covariant curvature, we can now move forward
and construct a bi-invariant action for the fields
$(\hat g,\hat\beta,\phi)$, where the dilaton $\phi$
is chosen to be a scalar under both transformations.
Since by construction $\hat\Theta^{abc}$ is a tensor,
the following combination
\eq{
\hat{\cal L}=e^{-2\phi} \left( \hat R -{1\over 12} \hat\Theta^{abc}\, \hat\Theta_{abc}
+4\hspace{0.5pt} \hat g_{ab}\, D^a\phi D^b \phi\right)
}
behaves as a scalar under both types of diffeomorphisms.
Our aim is now to construct a bi-invariant action
\eq{
\hat S=-{1\over 2\kappa^2} \int d^nx\, \mu(\hat g, \hat \beta)\, \hat{\cal L}\, ,
}
where $\mu$ denotes an appropriate measure.
An obvious first choice would be $\mu=\sqrt{-\hat g}$,
however, using that $\hat g^{ab}$ is a $\beta$-tensor we find
\eq{
\hat\delta_{\hat\xi} (\sqrt{-\hat g}\, \hat {\cal L})=
\partial_k\left( \sqrt{-\hat g}\, \hat {\cal L}\, \hat
\xi_m\,\right)\hat\beta^{mk}
- \sqrt{-\hat g}\, \hat {\cal L}\, \hat \xi_m\, \partial_k
\hat\beta^{mk} &\, ,
}
so that the sign in front of the last term does not complete
the desired total derivative. Furthermore, one can show that
the resulting action is not invariant
under usual diffeomorphisms either.
But because of the relation $\delta_{\hat\xi} |\hat \beta^{-1}| = 2 |\hat \beta^{-1}| \hat\xi_m\,
\partial_k \hat\beta^{mk} + \hat\xi_m \hat\beta^{mk} \partial_k |\hat \beta^{-1}|$ for the absolute value of
\raisebox{0pt}[\ht\strutbox][0pt]{$\det( \hat\beta^{-1})$},
the missing terms can be accounted for by modifying the
measure to $\mu=\sqrt{-\hat g}\, |\hat \beta^{-1}|$.
Analogously, this new measure also ensures the diffeomorphism invariance
of the action. Note that $|\hat \beta^{-1}|={\rm Pf}(\beta^{-1})^2\ge 0$.
Thus, we have succeeded in constructing the bi-invariant action
\eq{
\label{finalaction}
\hat S=-{1\over 2\kappa^2} &\int d^nx\, \sqrt{-\hat g}\: \bigl|\hat \beta^{-1}\bigr|\: e^{-2\phi}
\, \Bigl( \hat R -{1\over 12} \hat\Theta^{abc}\, \hat\Theta_{abc}
+4\hspace{1pt} \hat g_{ab}\, D^a\phi D^b \phi\Bigr)\, ,
}
whose form closely resembles the universal part of the
low-energy effective action of string theory \eqref{stringaction}.
We call this theory {\it symplectic gravity}
with a dilaton.
The equations of motion are derived by varying the action
\eqref{finalaction} with respect to the metric, the
(\mbox{quasi-)}symplectic structure and the dilaton.
Since $\hat\beta^{ab}$ appears also through the $D^a$ derivative, this is
a non-trivial computation.
Employing the relation
\eq{
\sqrt{-\hat g}\: \bigl|\hat \beta^{-1}\bigr| \: \hat\nabla^m X_m
=\partial_k \Bigl( \sqrt{-\hat g}\: \bigl|\hat \beta^{-1}\bigr|\, \hat\beta^{mk}\,
X_m\Bigr)\, ,
}
we obtain the three independent equations
\eq{
\label{eom}
&0= \hat R^{ab} + 2 \hat\nabla^a \hat\nabla^b \phi - \tfrac{1}{4} \hat\Theta^{amn} \hat\Theta^b{}_{mn} \,, \\
&0 = -\tfrac{1}{2} \hat\nabla_m \hat\nabla^m \phi + (\hat\nabla_m \phi)(\hat\nabla^m \phi) - \tfrac{1}{24}
\hat\Theta^{mnr} \hat\Theta_{mnr} \,, \\[0.5mm]
&0= -\tfrac{1}{2} \hat\nabla^m \hat\Theta_m{}^{ab} + (\hat\nabla^m \phi)\hat\Theta_m{}^{ab} \,.
}
These feature the same form as the usual string-frame equations of motion
derived from the action \eqref{stringaction}.
A more detailed derivation will be presented in \cite{BDPR2012}.
Finally, a natural guess for the action of the massless bosonic states
in the Ramond-Ramond sector is
\eq{
\label{RRaction}
\hat {\cal L}^{RR}= -\sum_n {1\over 2\, n!}\; \hat g_{a_1 b_1}\ldots
\hat g_{a_n b_n}\; \hat F^{a_1\ldots a_n}\, \hat F^{b_1\ldots b_n} \, ,
}
where $\hat F^{a_1\ldots a_n} = n\hspace{1pt} \hat\nabla^{[a_1} \hat C^{a_2\ldots a_n]}+\mathcal O(\hat\Theta)$ and
$n$ is even (odd) for type IIA(B) theories.
\section{Relations to string theory}
Generalized geometry and double field
theory suggest that
the relation between the geometric and non-geometric
fields is given by
\eq{
\label{relation_dft}
\tilde g &=\hphantom{-}(G+ B)^{-1}\, G\, (G-B)^{-1} \;, \\
\tilde\beta &=- (G+B)^{-1}\, B\, (G- B)^{-1}\;.
}
However,
starting from the action \eqref{stringaction} and
inserting this transformation,
the computation in \cite{Andriot:2012wx,Andriot:2012an} shows that
one does not find eq.~\eqref{finalaction}.
But, observing that the relation between the fields
$(G,B)$ and $(\tilde g,\tilde\beta)$ is formally the same
as the one appearing in the study of D-branes
in a two-form flux backgrounds, a second natural possibility
arises.
In particular,
in the Seiberg-Witten limit \cite{Seiberg:1999vs}, i.e. where
a fluxed brane theory is effectively described
by a non-commutative gauge theory, the relation between
the two sets of fields reads
\eq{
\label{redefine}
B=\hat\beta^{-1} \, ,\qquad
G = -\hat\beta^{-1}\, \hat g\, \hat\beta^{-1} \; .
}
(Note that we are not taking a true limit $G\to 0$, that is
we are not neglecting any terms from the action.)
Now,
a straightforward though tedious computation to be presented
in detail in \cite{BDPR2012} shows
that indeed the two actions \eqref{stringaction} and \eqref{finalaction}
are related via this field redefinition, i.e.
\eq{
S\bigl(G(\hat g,\hat\beta),B(\hat g,\hat\beta),\phi\bigr)=\hat S\bigl(\hat g,\hat\beta,\phi\bigr)\, .
}
As an immediate consequence, the action which appeared
in \cite{Andriot:2012wx,Andriot:2012an}
and eq.~\eqref{finalaction}
are related via the field redefinition
$\hat\beta =\tilde\beta - \tilde g\, \tilde\beta^{-1} \tilde g$
and $\hat g = \tilde g - \tilde g\, \tilde\beta^{-1} \tilde g\,
\tilde\beta^{-1} \tilde g$.
Let us provide more arguments for the relation
among the actions.
Instead of the infinitesimal variations $\delta_{\xi}$ and
\raisebox{0pt}[\ht\strutbox][0pt]{$\hat\delta_{\hat \xi}$}, consider $\delta_{\xi}$ and
the linear combination
\raisebox{0pt}[\ht\strutbox][0pt]{$ \check\delta_{\hat \xi} X=L_{(\beta^\sharp\hat\xi )} X - \hat\delta_{\hat\xi} X$},
where
$X$ is assumed to be tensor
with respect to diffeomorphisms
but not necessarily with respect to $\beta$-diffeomorphisms.
We then find
\eq{
\check\delta_{\hat\xi} \hat g^{ab}&=
-2\,\hat\beta^{(a|m}\, (\partial_m \hat\xi_n-\partial_n \hat\xi_m
)\, \hat g^{n|b)} \, ,\\
\check\delta_{\hat \xi} \hat \beta^{ab}&=
-\hat \beta^{am} (\partial_m \hat\xi_n-\partial_n \hat\xi_m
)\, \hat \beta^{nb}\, .
}
Using
then
the transformation \eqref{redefine}, we can compute the resulting
infinitesimal transformations
\raisebox{0mm}[0mm][0pt]{$\check\delta_{\hat \xi} G_{ab}=0$}
and \raisebox{0pt}[\ht\strutbox][0pt]{$\check\delta_{\hat \xi} B_{ab}=(\partial_m \hat\xi_n-\partial_n \hat\xi_m)$},
which is precisely the gauge transformation of the Kalb-Ramond
field $B$. Thus, also the local symmetries map correctly
under \eqref{redefine}.
Finally, employing \eqref{redefine} we can translate the $\alpha'$-corrections to \eqref{stringaction} into the non-geometric frame.
This provides an expansion in the derivative $D^a$, and thus \eqref{finalaction} is a valid approximation for solutions with large radii $\hat g^{ab}\sim \hat r\gg 1$.
At second order, this expansion reads
\begin{align}
\nonumber
&\hat S^{(1)} = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}
\,\frac{\alpha'}{4}
\int d^{26}x\, \sqrt{-|\hat g|}\, \bigl|\hat\beta^{-1}\bigr|\, e^{-2\phi}
\Bigl( \hat R^{abcd}\, \hat R_{abcd}
-{\textstyle {1\over 2}} \hat R^{abcd}\, \hat \Theta_{abm}
\hat\Theta_{cd}{}^m \\
& \hspace{150pt}
+ {\textstyle{1\over 24}} \hat \Theta_{abc} \hat \Theta^{a}{}_{mn} \hat \Theta^{bm}{}_p
\hat \Theta^{cnp}
-{\textstyle {1\over 8}} \hspace{1pt} (\hat\Theta^2)_{ab} (\hat\Theta^2)^{ab} \Bigr) \,.
\end{align}
\section{Conclusions}
We close with some comments on open questions and future directions.
It would be interesting to study
solutions to the equations of motion \eqref{eom}
of the novel symplectic gravity action.
In particular, we expect
analogues of the elementary string and the
solitonic five-brane solution.
It would also be interesting to compute
next to leading order terms in the action and
to include space-time fermions, as well as to
study the up-lift of symplectic gravity to M-theory.
The presence of a dynamical (quasi-)Poisson structure and
the appearance of the Seiberg-Witten limit in relating
the non-geometric frame to the geometric one suggests
that it might be possible to perform a deformation
quantization of the classical symplectic gravity action.
If that is feasible, we expect the non-associative structures
observed in \cite{Blumenhagen:2010hj,Lust:2010iy}
to play an essential role.
\vspace{4pt}
\paragraph*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Dieter L\"ust for discussions. R.B. and F.R. thank
the Simons Center for Geometry and Physics for hospitality.
E.P. was partially supported
by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) under the VICI grant 680-47-603,
as well as by the Padova University Project CPDA105015/10
and by the MIUR-FIRB grant RBFR10QS5J.
\baselineskip=1.6pt
|
\section{Introduction}
The success of effective field theories for studying physical systems comes from the fact that they allow to capture in a single picture the universal long distance (low energy) properties of models that are instead intrinsically different at much shorter scales. Since cosmological problems are often characterized by well separated scales, the language of effective field theories provides a powerful tool for the study of cosmological evolution, in particular inflationary and dark energy dynamics.
Most of the works on cosmological evolution that are based on effective theories can be broadly classified in two different categories, depending on whether they aim to describe the full (effective) action \cite{Weinberg:2008hq,Burgess:2009ea,Barbon:2009ya,Park:2010cw,Bloomfield:2011np,Burgess:2012dz} or, conversely, focus on the dynamics of the perturbations around some background \cite{Creminelli:2006xe,Matarrese:2007wc, Cheung:2007st,Cheung:2007sv,Creminelli:2008wc,Senatore:2009cf,Bartolo:2010bj,Baumann:2010rc,Bartolo:2010di,Senatore:2010wk,Bartolo:2010im,Creminelli:2010qf,
Creminelli:2011rh,Pietroni:2011iz,LopezNacir:2011kk,Senatore:2012nq,Pimentel:2012tw,Senatore:2012wy,Achucarro:2012yr,Carrasco:2012cv,Hertzberg:2012qn,Nacir:2012rm,Gubitosi:2012hu,Gwyn:2012mw}. The formalism we develop in this work pertains to the former class but, as we will see, gives a general and straightforward effective expansion for cosmological fluid perturbations on a Friedmann-Lema\^{i}tre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric (and may also be extended to other backgrounds).
There has recently been a renewed interest in the understanding of fluid dynamics from an effective field theory point of view \cite{Dubovsky:2005xd,Endlich:2010hf,Dubovsky:2011sj,Nicolis:2011cs,Nicolis:2011ey,Dubovsky:2011sk,Torrieri:2011ne,Hoyos:2012dh}.
This general approach is based on the identification of the relevant long-distance degrees of freedom and their symmetries, possibly including spacetime symmetries such as Galileo, Poincar\'e, or diffeomorphism invariance. The dynamics is organized in a systematic derivative expansion that makes the theory predictive at low energies.
This formalism (or variations of it) has already been applied to describe some aspects of perfect fluids and superfluids \cite{Nicolis:2011cs,Nicolis:2011ey,Dubovsky:2011sk,Hoyos:2012dh}. However, although fluids are ubiquitous in cosmology, the cosmological applications of this framework have been, to the best of our knowledge, largely neglected\footnote{See however \cite{Blas:2012vn} for an application of this formalism to a Lorentz violating dark matter model.}. In this work we describe the basic set-up for perfect fluids, adopting the general principles of effective field theory to describe long-distance relativistic dynamics in cosmology and their interplay with metric perturbations.
Neglecting chemical potentials, we consider perfect (dissipationless) fluids that carry no conserved charge. We thus focus on \textit{minimal} fluids that involve only three degrees of freedom associated with the position in space of a fluid element. These degrees of freedom can be identified with comoving coordinates and, as we will see, the symmetries of the fluid determine the operators that appear in the action. In particular, perfect fluids are invariant under internal spatial diffeomorphisms that preserve the volume. As a result, the relativistic dynamics is fully described at lowest order in derivatives by a single operator. By construction, these fluids support both longitudinal (compressional) and transverse (vortices) excitations, each with its own dynamics. We discuss perturbation theory for a fluid with an arbitrary equation of state, and describe the coupling to scalar, vector and tensor metric perturbations. Vector metric perturbations mix with vortices, while adiabatic perturbations correspond to the compressional modes of the fluid. Our formalism can cover and extends other frameworks (e.g. $P(X)$ theories, where the dynamics of fluid vortices is instead absent).
Following the formulation developed in \cite{Dubovsky:2005xd, Endlich:2010hf, Dubovsky:2011sj, Nicolis:2011cs}, which can be connected to earlier works \cite{Leutwyler:1996er,Andersson:2006nr,Brown:1992kc,Comer:1993sp,Comer:1994tw,bookcarter}, we extend the effective theory of perfect fluids to generic metric backgrounds in Section~\ref{effective}. We then focus on the FLRW case in Section~\ref{flrw}, and move on to discuss matter and metric perturbations in Sections~\ref{perturb1} and \ref{metricp}. Adiabatic perturbations are introduced in Section~\ref{genad}; and the conclusions and future work directions are presented in \ref{conclusions}. In the Appendix \ref{appa} we review perfect fluids in the context of relativistic hydrodynamics. In the Appendix~\ref{appEulerLagrange} we comment on the relation between Eulerian and Lagrangian formulations for fluids, which we both use through the text. We discuss vorticity conservation using ADM variables \cite{Arnowitt:1962hi} in Appendix \ref{vorticitymetric}.
\section{The effective theory of perfect fluids} \label{effective}
In this section we will closely follow the formulation of perfect fluids of \cite{Dubovsky:2005xd, Endlich:2010hf, Dubovsky:2011sj, Nicolis:2011cs} which recasts in the modern language of the effective field theories some earlier results of the pull-back approach \cite{Andersson:2006nr,Brown:1992kc,Comer:1993sp,Comer:1994tw,bookcarter} which is based on the action formalism pioneered in \cite{Taub:1954zz,Carter:carter}.
A perfect fluid is described by a functional of three spacetime scalar functions $\Phi^{a}\in \mathbb{R}$ with $a\in\{1,2,3\}$\,, that define, at any time, an isomorphism between the three-dimensional coordinate space of an observer $\mathcal{O}$ and a continuum of points $\mathcal{F}$ (the fluid) \cite{Dubovsky:2005xd,Andersson:2006nr}. These functions $\Phi^a$ label a generic fluid element\footnote{We are focusing on \textit{mechanical} fluids that at each point in space are fully described by three degrees of freedom. See Appendix \ref{appEulerLagrange} for more details and the relation between these fluids and the continuum limit of relativistic uncharged point-like particles.} in $\mathcal{F}$, whereas the map $\Phi^a\longrightarrow x^i(\tau,\Phi)$ gives the position in real space of the fluid element $\Phi$ at a given time $\tau$.
In other words, $x^i=x^i(\tau,\Phi)$ is the trajectory of the fluid element $\Phi$. This corresponds to a Lagrangian description of the dynamics, see Figure \ref{isomor}. Vice versa, the inverse map $x^i\longrightarrow \Phi^a(\tau,x)$ returns the fluid element $\Phi$ that is sitting in $x$ at the time $\tau$, providing an Eulerian description of the dynamics. In a stationary background state, the isomorphism can be chosen such that $\Phi^a(\tau,x^i)=x^a$.
Since both $\mathcal{O}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ are isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^3$, there is always a change of spacetime coordinates $\mathcal{O}\rightarrow\mathcal{\tilde O}$ such that $x^i\mapsto \tilde x^i=\Phi^i(\tau,x^j)$ so that $\Phi^a$ can be naturally interpreted as the comoving coordinates of the fluid.
This means that their variation along the fluid four-velocity $u^\mu=dx^\mu/d\eta$ (being $\eta$ the proper time) is zero
\begin{equation}
\label{fluidvelocity}
u^\mu \partial_\mu \Phi^a(x,\tau)=0\,,\qquad u^\mu u_\mu=-1\,.
\end{equation}
As we will see next, these two conditions characterize completely the fluid four-velocity, once the symmetry properties of the system have been chosen. Indeed, the whole structure of the effective theory is fully determined by the symmetries of the fluid.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 0 435 265 100 clip, width=12cm]{fluid_plot.pdf}
\caption{\label{isomor} {\small The map between $\Phi$ and $x$ coordinates is depicted. At any given (conformal) time $\tau$\,, a fluid element labelled by $\Phi$ occupies a position given by $x(\tau,\Phi)$. If the inverse function is considered, any spacetime point $(\tau,x)$ is mapped to a fluid element $\Phi$. In this picture, the $\Phi$ coordinates are scalar fields of spacetime.}}
\end{figure}
Since the fluid must be homogeneous and isotropic, the internal coordinates have to satisfy the symmetries
\begin{align}
\label{homogeneity}
\Phi^a \longrightarrow &\Phi^a+c^a\\
\label{isotropy}
\Phi^a \longrightarrow & R^a_b\Phi^b\,,\qquad R\in SO(3)
\end{align}
where $c^a$ and the matrix of elements $R^a_b$ are constant in space and time. In a homogeneous and isotropic model of the universe, even though the background solution $\Phi^a(x^i,t)=x^a$, which represents the ground state of the system, spontaneously breaks spatial translations and rotations, the diagonal combination of internal (acting on $\Phi$) and space (acting on $x$) symmetries is left unbroken \cite{Dubovsky:2005xd}. These diagonal symmetries ensure that the perturbations (or in other words, the excitations of the fluid) $\pi^a=\Phi^a-x^a$ propagate in a homogeneous and isotropic background.
In addition, we demand invariance under volume preserving spatial diffeomorphisms
\begin{equation}
\label{diffs}
\Phi^a\longrightarrow f^a(\Phi)\,, \qquad \det\left(\frac{\partial f^a}{\partial \Phi^b}\right)=1
\end{equation}
that distinguish a perfect fluid from a gel (or jelly), which is a homogeneous and isotropic solid \cite{Dubovsky:2005xd}. It is clear that the spatial volume preserving diffeomorphisms \eq{diffs} include the symmetry transformations \eq{homogeneity} and \eq{isotropy}, but we have highlighted the latter two because of their clear geometrical meaning.
The low energy effective theory for a perfect fluid is given by a Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}$ organized in a derivative expansion. Since the dynamics is invariant under spacetime diffeomorphisms and the transformations (\ref{homogeneity}), (\ref{isotropy}) and (\ref{diffs}), the lowest order Lagrangian must be a function of the determinant of the matrix $B$, whose elements are given by \cite{Leutwyler:1996er,Dubovsky:2005xd}
\begin{align} \label{bmatrix}
B^{ab}\equiv g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu \Phi^a \partial_\nu \Phi^{b}\,.
\end{align}
The effective action that describes the low energy dynamics of the fluid is then
\begin{align} \label{action}
S_m[\Phi]=\int d^4x \sqrt{-g}\,\mathcal{L}_m
\end{align}
where the Lagrangian (density) is a function of the determinant of $B$
\begin{align}
\label{lagrangian}
\mathcal{L}_m =& F(b) \\
\label{smallb}
b\equiv & \sqrt{\det B}
\end{align}
that encodes the long distance properties of the fluid. We are implicitly assuming that there are no extra symmetries that could forbid any possible Lagrangian $F(b)$. Otherwise, the low energy Lagrangian would start at the next order in derivatives: $g(b)u^\mu \partial_\mu b$, where $g(b)$ is an arbitrary function of $b$ \cite{Dubovsky:2011sj}. However, this term can be recast into a higher derivative term by a field redefinition \cite{Dubovsky:2011sj}. In the following we will consider only the lowest order Lagrangian (\ref{lagrangian}).
The equations of motion that come from (\ref{lagrangian}) are
\begin{equation} \label{eom}
\partial_\mu\left[\sqrt{-g}\, g^{\mu\nu}\, b\ F_b\,\,(B^{-1})^{cd}\partial_\nu\Phi^d\right]=0
\end{equation}
where $F_b$ denotes the derivative of $F(b)$ with respect to $b$.
The gravitational energy-momentum tensor of the system is
\begin{equation} \label{emt}
T_{\mu\nu}=-\frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta S_m}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}=g_{\mu\nu}F-b\,F_b (B^{-1})^{cd}\partial_\mu \Phi^c \partial_\nu \Phi^d\,.
\end{equation}
This corresponds to the energy-momentum tensor of a perfect fluid
\begin{equation} \label{pf}
T_{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)u_\mu u_\nu+p g_{\mu\nu}
\end{equation}
whose components can be easily identified. The conditions \eq{fluidvelocity} determine the fluid four-velocity, which is \cite{Dubovsky:2005xd}
\begin{align}
u^\mu=-\frac{1}{6b\,{\sqrt{-g}}}\epsilon^{\mu\alpha\beta\gamma}\epsilon_{abc}\partial_\alpha\Phi^a\partial_\beta\Phi^b\partial_\gamma\Phi^c\,.
\end{align}
Contracting $T^{\mu\nu}$ with $u^\mu u^\nu$ (and recalling that $u^2=-1$) one gets, in agreement with early works on the action formalism for perfect fluids \cite{Taub:1954zz,Carter:carter}, that
\begin{equation} \label{rho}
\rho=-F
\end{equation}
and therefore the fluid is not only perfect but also {\it isentropic} \cite{Brown:1992kc}.
For a physical interpretation of $\mathcal{L}_{m}=-\rho$ see Appendix \ref{appEulerLagrange}.
Finally, from the trace $T_\mu^\mu$ we also obtain the pressure
\begin{equation} \label{trace}
\rho+p=-b\,F_b\,.
\end{equation}
The fluid is thus {\it barotropic} because the pressure depends only on the energy density given that $p$ and $\rho$ are both functions of $b$ only.
We also find that
\begin{equation}
h_{\mu\nu}\equiv (B^{-1})^{ab}\partial_\mu \Phi^a \partial_\nu \Phi^b=g_{\mu\nu}+ u_\mu u_\nu
\end{equation}
is the standard projector on hypersurfaces orthogonal to the four-velocity of the fluid.
Notice that for dust (pressureless matter) $p=0$ and so $F\propto b$, while for radiation $\rho=3p$ and $F\propto b^{4/3}$. In general, the relation between the background energy density and pressure is, as usual, given by the equation of state, which is defined as
\begin{align}
{\bar p}=w \bar{\rho}
\end{align}
and therefore using \eq{rho} and \eq{trace} this gives
\begin{align} \label{wminus1}
w=-1+\bar{b}\frac{\bar F_b}{\bar F}=-1+\overline{\frac{d \log F}{d \log b}}\,.
\end{align}
The current\footnote{We fix the normalization of $\mathcal{J}^\mu$ such that the temperature in (\ref{temp}) matches the standard thermodynamics normalization, $T=(\partial\rho/\partial s)$.}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{J}^\mu=-b\, u^\mu
\end{align}
is covariantly and identically (i.e. off-shell) conserved
\begin{align}
\mathcal{J}^\mu_{\,\,\,;\,\mu}=0
\end{align}
and it is identified with the entropy current \cite{Torrieri:2011ne,Dubovsky:2011sj}. The comoving entropy density $\mathcal{J}^\mu u_\mu=s$ becomes
\begin{align}
\label{helm}
s=b=\frac{\rho+p}{T}
\end{align} where $T$ is the fluid temperature, given by
\begin{align}
\label{temp}
T=-F_b\,.
\end{align}
Starting from the entropy current $\mathcal{J}^\mu$ it is possible to construct infinitely many other currents $\mathcal{K}^\mu_{(f)}=f(\Phi)\mathcal{J}^\mu$ \cite{Comer:1993sp} which are identically conserved, $\mathcal{K}^\mu_{(f)\,;\,\mu}=0$, because $\Phi$ are comoving coordinates satisfying the equation (\ref{fluidvelocity}). These currents do not define an independent flow since they are all \textit{aligned} with the entropy current (and thus the fluid four-velocity). Therefore, the associated charge transfer occurs only along the direction of mechanical fluid displacement. To each of these currents $\mathcal{K}^\mu_{(f)}$ one can associate a chemical potential $\mu_f$ generalizing the equation (\ref{helm}) to $\rho+p=Ts+\mu_f n_f$, including the contribution from the comoving charge density $n_f$. In this work we focus on fluids that carry none of these comoving charges, except for the entropy; so all chemical potentials vanish whereas $T\neq0$. While the approximation of vanishing chemical potentials is a good one for many cosmological applications, finite charge densities can be easily incorporated by allowing non-vanishing chemical potentials \cite{Comer:1993sp,Dubovsky:2011sj}.
The invariance under spatial diffeomorphisms (\ref{diffs}) gives rise, via Noether's theorem, to another set of infinite (on-shell) conserved currents \cite{Dubovsky:2005xd}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{J}^\mu_{(\varepsilon)}=-b F_b\, (B^{-1})^{cd} \partial^\mu\Phi^d \varepsilon^c(\Phi)\qquad \mathcal{J}^\mu_{(\varepsilon)\,\,\,;\,\mu}=0
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon^a(\Phi)$ is an arbitrary transverse function of $\Phi$
\begin{equation}
\label{epsilondiff}
\partial_a \varepsilon^a(\Phi)=\frac{\partial\varepsilon^a}{\partial\Phi^a}=0\,.
\end{equation}
This constraint, generically solved by $\varepsilon^a(\Phi)=\epsilon_{abc}\partial_b f_c(\Phi)$, ensures that $\Phi^a\rightarrow \Phi^a+\varepsilon^a(\Phi)$ is an infinitesimal volume preserving diffeomorphism.
In the Appendix~\ref{vorticitymetric} we explicitly construct the associated conserved charges and comment on their relation with the vorticity conservation.
\section{Effective perfect fluids in FLRW}
\label{flrw}
We have seen that the perfect fluid form of the energy-momentum tensor \eq{emt} comes from imposing the conditions of homogeneity, isotropy and invariance of the action under volume preserving diffeomorphisms of the internal coordinates. In cosmology, the first two assumptions directly lead to the FLRW metric. In fact, the FLRW metric is a purely geometric consequence of requiring that the universe appears homogeneous and isotropic to free falling observers \cite{Weinberg:100595,Weinberg:1102255}. For simplicity we assume from now on that the background metric of the universe is of flat FLRW type and work with conformal time $\tau$,
\begin{align} \label{unpfrw}
ds^2=-a^2(\tau)(d\tau^2+\delta_{ij}dx^idx^j)\,.
\end{align}
The usual equations of motion that govern the background cosmology in the metric \eq{unpfrw} simply read:
\begin{align} \label{fried}
\mathcal H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}a^2\bar\rho_T\qquad
\dot\mathcal H=-\frac{4\pi G}{3}a^2(\bar\rho_T+3\bar p_T)
\end{align}
where $\mathcal H=\dot a/a$\,. Newton's gravitational constant is denoted by $G$ and the quantities $\bar\rho_T$ and $\bar p_T$ represent the total background energy density and pressure if several fluids are present. Let us point out that if there are several fluids that only interact among themselves through gravity, each of them satisfies the following Friedmann equation for the background
\begin{align} \label{cons}
\dot{\bar\rho}_\alpha+3(1+w_\alpha)\mathcal H\bar\rho_\alpha=0\,.
\end{align}
From the equations \eq{fried} and the expressions \eq{rho} and \eq{trace} one sees that all self-accelerating solutions (which require $w_T <-1/3$) have to satisfy the condition
\begin{align}
3\bar{b} \bar F_{Tb}<2\bar F_T
\end{align}
where $F_T$ is the function \eq{lagrangian} that describes the total energy density of the fluid admixture. Notice also that \eq{wminus1} implies that a perfect fluid will have an equation of state that is close to that of a cosmological constant ($w\simeq -1$) if $|d \log F/d \log b|\ll 1$.
Given the FLRW metric (\ref{unpfrw}), the matrix \eq{bmatrix} reads
\begin{equation}
\label{bmatrixfrw}
B=\frac{1}{a^2}(\partial\Phi)^T \left(\mbox{${\mathbb I}$}- v\otimes v \right)\partial \Phi
\end{equation}
where $\mbox{${\mathbb I}$}$ is the identity matrix, $v\otimes v$ is a matrix of elements $v^i v^j$, and we have defined
\begin{align}
\label{velo}
(\partial\Phi)_i^a\equiv\partial_i \Phi^a\,,\qquad v \equiv-(\partial\Phi^T)^{-1}\dot\Phi
\end{align}
where the dots denote derivatives with respect to conformal time $\tau$.
Recalling that the total time derivative of $\Phi$ vanishes, i.e.
\begin{align} \label{vsolver}
\frac{d\Phi^a}{d\tau}=\frac{\partial\Phi^a}{\partial \tau}+\frac{\partial \Phi^a}{\partial x^j}v^j=0
\end{align}
one recognizes $v$ in \eq{velo} as the (Lagrangian) velocity
\begin{align}
v^i=\dot x^i
\end{align}
In the language of fluid dynamics, the equation (\ref{vsolver}) means that the material (or convective) derivative of $\Phi$ is zero, which is nothing else than the statement that the label of a fluid element does not change along its trajectory, accordingly with the interpretation of $\Phi$ as the comoving coordinates.
This is equivalent to the first of the conditions \eq{fluidvelocity}. In fact, from the definition of the four-velocity, $u^\mu=dx^\mu/d\eta$, we get, consistently with equation \eq{vsolver},
\begin{align}
\label{gammavel}
u^0=\frac{d\tau}{d\eta}=\frac{1}{a}\gamma\qquad u^i=\frac{dx^i}{d\eta}=\frac{dx^i}{d\tau}\frac{d\tau}{d\eta}=\frac{1}{a}\gamma v^i
\end{align}
where $\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-v^2}$.
The (square root of the) determinant and the inverse of \eq{bmatrixfrw} are then given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eqforb}
b=\frac{1}{a^3}\det(\partial\Phi)\sqrt{1-v^2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{Binverse}
B^{-1}=a^2\partial\Phi^{-1}\left( \mbox{${\mathbb I}$}+\frac{1}{1-v^2} v\otimes v \right)(\partial\Phi^T)^{-1}\,.
\end{equation}
The equilibrium solution of the fluid in the FLRW background is given by $\Phi^i=x^i$ and therefore
\begin{equation}
\bar{B}^{ij}=\frac{1}{a^2}\delta^{ij}\qquad \bar{b}=\frac{1}{a^3}\qquad \bar{v}^i=0\,.
\end{equation}
Moreover, the conserved currents can be explicitly expressed in a simple form
\begin{align}
\mathcal{J}^0_{(\varepsilon)}=& (\rho+p)\varepsilon^a(\Phi) \frac{\partial x^i}{\partial\Phi^a} \frac{v^i}{1-v^2}\\
\mathcal{J}^i_{(\varepsilon)}=& (\rho+p)\varepsilon^a(\Phi)\frac{\partial x^j}{\partial\Phi^a}\left(\delta_j^i+\frac{v^i v^j}{1-v^2}\right)\,,
\end{align}
which is suitable for a Lagrangian formulation (see appendix \ref{appEulerLagrange}) of the conserved charges
\begin{equation}
\label{Qepsilon}
Q_{(\varepsilon)}=-\int d^3x\, a^3\mathcal{J}^\mu_{(\varepsilon)} n_\mu=\int \frac{d^3\Phi}{b}(\rho+p)\varepsilon^a(\Phi) \frac{\partial x^i}{\partial\Phi^a} u_i
\end{equation}
where $n^\mu$ is the unit normal vector to constant time hypersurfaces.
As expected, the background carries, apart from the entropy, no charges: $\bar{n}_\mu \bar{\mathcal{J}}^\mu_{(\varepsilon)}=0$.
The ground state configuration is thus neutral but supports charge excitations.
Notice that among the various solutions of the transversality constraint (\ref{epsilondiff}) there exists a class \cite{Dubovsky:2005xd}, $\varepsilon^a(\Phi)=\alpha_c \epsilon_{abc}\partial_b \delta^3(\Phi-\tilde{\Phi})$ with $\tilde\Phi$ and $\alpha_c$ arbitrary constants, such that the integral in (\ref{Qepsilon}) gives rise to
a time independent exact 2-form $\Omega$ (living in the internal three-dimensional $\Phi$-space):
\begin{equation}
\label{vorticityforms}
\Omega=dV \qquad V=\left(\frac{\rho+p}{b}\right)u_i \frac{\partial x^i}{\partial \Phi^a}d\Phi^a\qquad
\dot\Omega=\dot Q=0\,.
\end{equation}
The conserved charges associated to this class of solutions of (\ref{epsilondiff}) are nothing but the coordinates of the dual 1-form: $\star\Omega=Q_a d\Phi^a$.
In turn, the circulation $\mathcal{V}$ defined as the \textit{flux} of $Q$ over an arbitrary surface $\mathcal{S}$ in the internal $\Phi$-space
\begin{equation}
\label{vorticitydef}
\mathcal{V} \equiv \int_{\mathcal{S}} \Omega=\oint_{\partial\mathcal{S}} V_a d\Phi^a = \oint_{\Gamma=x(\tau,\partial\mathcal{S})} \left(\frac{\rho+p}{b}\right) u_i dx^i
\end{equation}
is conserved on-shell
\begin{equation}
\dot{\mathcal{V}}=0\,.
\end{equation}
This result represents the generalization to FLRW metrics of the standard non relativistic Kelvin's circulation theorem. Notice that the factor $(\rho+p)/b$ reduces to $m n/s$ in the non relativistic limit for a system of particles of equal mass $m$ and number density $n$, where $s=b$ is the entropy density (as discussed in the previous section).
\section{Perturbations}
\label{perturb1}
In this section we present the basic set-up for the study of fluid perturbations within this formalism. We will now focus on fluid perturbations alone and include metric fluctuations in Section \ref{metricp}. For simplicity, we assume that there is a single fluid, since the generalization to an arbitrary number of non-interacting components is straightforward. The starting point is the background state\footnote{There actually exist infinitely many background states $\Phi^i=\lambda x^i$ defined by the constant (in space and time) parameter $\lambda$ which fixes the background value of $\bar{b}=\lambda^3/a^3$.
Instead of keeping track of all the various factors of $\lambda$ by expanding around one of these vacua, e.g. by using $\Phi^i=\lambda(x^i+\pi^i_{(\lambda)})$, we simply work with $\lambda=1$ and recover the general expressions valid also for $\lambda\neq 1$ by expressing the physical results in terms of the corresponding generic background values $\bar{b}$, $\bar{\rho}=-F(\bar{b})$, $\bar{F}_{b}=F_b(\bar{b})$, etc. For example, two fluids described by the same function $F$ but different backgrounds $\bar{b}$'s, depending on the values of the $\lambda$'s, will support perturbations with different speeds of sound which, nevertheless, are still expressed by (\ref{sound}) that is just evaluated into different background values.},
$ \Phi^i(\tau,x)=x^i$, to which we add small independent fluctuations $\pi^a$ in each space direction
\begin{align} \label{lcoord}
\Phi^a=x^a+\pi^a\,.
\end{align}
The natural expansion parameters are $\dot\pi$ and $\partial \pi$.
Physically, this means that the actual fluid cannot be described only using the background comoving coordinates because there are small inhomogeneities at each point which effectively break the symmetry properties of the system. Recalling the introduction in Section \ref{effective}, this assignment of coordinates corresponds to switching from the isomorphism between the system of coordinates $\mathcal{O}$ and the unperturbed background fluid $\mathcal F$, to another one in which the target space is now the actual imperfect fluid.
We have
\begin{equation} \label{wth}
\partial\Phi=\mbox{${\mathbb I}$}+\partial\pi\qquad \dot\Phi=\dot\pi\qquad \det \partial\Phi=1+\partial_i \pi^i-\frac{1}{2}\partial_i\pi^j \partial_j\pi^i+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_i \pi^i)^2+\ldots
\end{equation}
and expanding the determinant of the matrix $B$ up to second order in $\pi$ we get
\begin{equation} \label{bseries}
b=\bar{b}\left(1+\partial_i\pi^i-\frac{1}{2}\dot\pi^2-\frac{1}{2}\partial_i\pi^k\partial_k\pi^i+\frac{1}{2}\partial_i\pi^i \partial_j\pi^j+\ldots\right)
\end{equation}
where $\bar{b}=a^{-3}$.
Therefore, after eliminating total derivatives, the action for the perturbations is
\begin{align} \label{act}
S_\pi=\int d^4x\, \sqrt{-g}\,\left(\mathcal{L}_\pi^{(2)}+\ldots\right)
\end{align}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{pert}
\mathcal{L_\pi}^{(2)}=-\frac{\bar b\bar{F_b}}{2}\left(\dot\pi^2 -c_s^2(\partial_i\pi^i)^2\right)
\end{equation}
being the quadratic part of the Lagrangian for perturbations, where we have defined the speed of sound:
\begin{equation} \label{sound}
c_s^2=\bar{b}\frac{\bar{F}_{bb}}{\bar{F}_b}\,.
\end{equation}
In the case of dust $c_s=0$, whereas for radiation the speed of sound reaches, as expected, the value $c_s^2=1/3$. The no-ghost condition is simply $\bar{b}\bar{F}_b<0$\,. Recalling (\ref{trace}), this inequality is equivalent to $\bar{\rho}+\bar{p}>0$. Imposing also that $c_s^2\geq0$ gives in turn $\bar{F}_{bb}\leq0$.
Notice that at this level, neglecting metric fluctuations, the dynamics of the perturbations (as well as that of the background) is entirely given in terms of $\bar{F}$, $\bar{F}_b$ and $\bar{F}_{bb}$. Higher order derivatives enter only in the self-interaction terms.
Let us also point out that the contribution of $\mathcal L_\pi^{(1)}$ to the action, the linear piece of the Lagrangian $\mathcal L_\pi$, vanishes because it gives rise to a total derivative that we can omit in \eq{act}, since the background solution depends just on time by construction.
It is straightforward to link the four-velocity of the fluid to the $\pi$ fields that we have introduced in \eq{lcoord}. This can be done at any desired order in $\pi$ by solving iteratively the equations \eq{fluidvelocity}, which are sufficient to determine the four-velocity up to a sign. At second order in $\pi$ (and choosing $u^0$ to be positive) the result is
\begin{align} \label{5vel}
u^0=\frac{1}{a}\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\dot\pi^2\right) \qquad u^i=\frac{1}{a}\left(-\dot\pi^i+\dot\pi^k\partial_k\pi^i\right)\,.
\end{align}
Notice that $v$, as defined in \eq{velo}, can be expanded as
\begin{align}
v=-(\mbox{${\mathbb I}$}-\partial\pi)\dot\pi+\ldots
\end{align}
which is consistent with the expression $v^i=a\, u^i$\,, by comparison with \eq{5vel}. From the last expression we recover \eq{5vel} by neglecting $\gamma$, which is irrelevant up to third order in $\pi$.
In the following, we shall discuss the transverse and longitudinal modes of the Lagrangian (\ref{pert}) by decomposing the coordinate perturbation:
\begin{equation} \label{comps}
\pi=\pi_L +\pi_\perp\qquad \nabla\cdot \pi_\perp=0\qquad \nabla\times\pi_L=0\,
\end{equation}
such that the second order Lagrangian for $\pi$ can be written as
\begin{align} \label{hpert}
\mathcal{L_\pi}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}(\bar{\rho}+\bar{p})\left(\dot\pi_\perp^2+\dot\pi_L^2-c_s^2(\nabla\cdot\pi_L)^2\right)\,.
\end{align}
The generalization to $N$ fluids with different density functions $F_\alpha$ $(\alpha=1,\ldots,N)$ is simple. Each fluid will be described by internal coordinates $\Phi_\alpha^a$ which can be perturbed independently using different $\pi_\alpha^i$\,. If we assume that the fluids do not interact directly among themselves, which means that the Lagrangian does not contain terms mixing different sets of $\Phi_\alpha$ coordinates, the generalization of \eq{hpert} is just
\begin{align} \label{hpertN}
\mathcal{L_\pi}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}\,\bar\rho_T\sum_{\alpha=1}^N (1+w_\alpha)\Omega_\alpha \left(\dot\pi_{\alpha\perp}^2+\dot\pi_{\alpha L}^2-c_{\alpha s}^2(\nabla\cdot\pi_{\alpha L})^2\right)
\end{align}
where we define the relative background energy density of each fluid as the following time function: $\Omega_\alpha=\bar{\rho}_\alpha/\bar{\rho}_T$\,. As we will see later, when we introduce metric perturbations, the specific case in which the $\pi_{\alpha L}$ are the same for two or more fluids is of particular interest because it describes adiabatic perturbations between those species.
We end this section writing the equations of motion for transverse\footnote{The equation~(\ref{eomtransverse}) corresponds to the equation of vorticity conservation, see equation (\ref{vorticityforms}). In fact, at this order in $\pi$, we have $\star\Omega=-\nabla \times (a^4(\bar{\rho}+\bar{p})\dot{\pi}_{\perp})$.}
\begin{equation} \label{eomtransverse}
\frac{d}{d\tau}\left(a^4(\bar\rho_\alpha+\bar p_\alpha) \dot\pi_{\alpha \perp}^i \right)=0
\end{equation}
and longitudinal modes
\begin{align} \label{eomlong}
\ddot\pi_{\alpha L}^i+(1-3\,c_{\alpha A}^2)\mathcal H\dot\pi_{\alpha L}^i -c_{\alpha s}^2\partial_i(\nabla\cdot\pi_{\alpha L})=0 \qquad {i=\{1,2,3\}}\qquad \alpha=1,\ldots,N\,.
\end{align}
In this equation $c_{\alpha A}^2$ represents the standard {\it adiabatic} speed of sound of the fluid with label $\alpha$, which for this type of fluids is simply the ratio between the time variation of the background pressure and energy density:
\begin{align} \label{adiab}
\dot{\bar p}_\alpha = c_{\alpha A}^2\,\dot{\bar\rho}_\alpha\,.
\end{align}
In general, the adiabatic speed of sound is defined in hydrodynamics as the derivative of the pressure with respect to the density. In our case:
\begin{align}
c_{\alpha A}^2\equiv\left. \frac{d p_\alpha}{d \rho_\alpha}\right|_{b=\bar{b}}\,.
\end{align}
This definition reduces to \eq{adiab} for a fluid given by \eq{lagrangian}. Using the equations (\ref{rho}) and (\ref{trace}), it is straightforward to check that, in this case, the adiabatic speed of sound $c_{\alpha A}^2$ actually coincides with the speed of sound $c_{\alpha s}^2$ that we introduced in (\ref{sound}):
\begin{align} \label{equalsound}
c_{\alpha A}^2=c_{\alpha s}^2
\end{align}
for any fluid of the form \eq{lagrangian}. This shows that the only possible speed of sound of a perfect fluid defined by the Lagrangian (\ref{lagrangian}) is adiabatic. As we will see later, the longitudinal modes, which (in absence of metric perturbations) are given by the evolution equation \eq{eomlong}, are intrinsically related to the adiabatic modes of the fluid.
If we use the expression (\ref{bseries}) to expand at first order the energy density and the pressure of a fluid defined by \eq{lagrangian}, we find that the corresponding perturbations are
\begin{align} \label{matteronly}
\delta_M \rho =(\bar\rho+\bar p)\, \nabla \cdot\pi_L \qquad \delta_M p= (\bar\rho+\bar p)\,\frac{\bar{b}\,\bar{F}_{bb}}{\bar F_b}\, \nabla\cdot\pi_L
\end{align}
in agreement with \eq{equalsound}. In these formulas we have introduced the subscript $_M$ to indicate that these are the perturbations coming exclusively from the variation of the matter part of the action \eq{action}. In the next section we include metric fluctuations to achieve a complete description of the perturbations. The equations \eq{matteronly} will turn out to be modified by a correction coming from the metric inhomogeneities; see equation \eq{mattmet}.
\section{Including metric perturbations} \label{metricp}
Assuming that the theory of gravity is General Relativity\footnote{The formalism can also be applied to theories of modified gravity.} (GR) the full action takes the form
\begin{align} \label{fulla}
S=S_{EH}+S_m
\end{align}
where the first piece is the usual Einstein-Hilbert action
\begin{align}\label{EH}
S_{EH}=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\int d^4 x\sqrt{-g} R
\end{align}
and the second one is the matter part of $S$, which for each perfect fluid of the type we have been studying is given by \eq{action}.
Let us now focus on $S_m$\,, with the aim of finding the terms that constitute the direct interaction between metric and matter perturbations. A straightforward way of doing this at any desired order is to expand the action $S_m$ using a functional series. We expand first with respect to the metric variations taking an arbitrary matter configuration
\begin{align}\label{expansion}
S_m[\varphi, g_{\mu\nu}+\delta g_{\mu\nu}] =& S_m[\varphi, g_{\mu\nu}]+\frac{1}{2}\int d^4x \sqrt{-g}\,T^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}(x)+\ldots
\end{align}
where $\varphi$ globally represents all matter fields (e.g. dark matter, dark energy, etc) and $T^{\mu\nu}$ is the gravitational energy-momentum tensor.
Expanding now the equation \eq{expansion} around a matter background we end up with the following action for the matter-gravity coupling at linear order in metric perturbations (but all orders in the matter fields)
\begin{equation} \label{contains}
S_m\supset\frac{1}{2}\int d^4x \sqrt{-g}\,\delta_M T^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}(x)
\end{equation}
where $\delta_M T^{\mu\nu}$ is the variation of $T^{\mu\nu}$ induced by the matter perturbations. The computation of the matter-metric mixing terms is then very simple provided that we know the form of the energy-momentum tensor. In particular, for a perfect fluid \eq{lagrangian}, this is just given by \eq{pf}. We will now see in detail how this works in the conformal Newtonian gauge.
In the following part of this section we focus only on scalar perturbations that mix with longitudinal modes.
Vector and tensor metric perturbations will be discussed in Section \ref{vectorperturb}.
In the conformal Newtonian gauge the perturbed FLRW metric is then diagonal:
\begin{align} \label{conformal}
ds^2=a^2\left(-(1+2\psi)d\tau^2+(1-2\phi)\delta_{ij}dx^idx^j\right)
\end{align}
If the universe did not contain any imperfect fluids at all, we would have $\psi=\phi$ at linear order in the equations of motion. However, we want to include the more general possibility that some fluids with anisotropic stress could also be present and therefore we will treat these two potentials as distinct variables. This, for instance, happens at very early times when the anisotropic stress of neutrinos cannot be neglected.
Let us consider the energy momentum tensor of some species in their rest frame. Using that $u^2=-1$\,, we find the following expression for the (lowest order in metric fluctuations) coupling between matter and metric perturbations (of scalar type)
\begin{align} \label{mixednew}
\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\,\delta_M T^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}=-a^4(\psi\,\delta_M\rho+3\phi\,\delta_M p)
\end{align}
where the fluctuations in the energy density and the pressure include all orders. Notice that for a perfect fluid defined by \eq{lagrangian} this coupling gives the following contribution to the action for fluctuations at first order in the metric perturbations
\begin{align} \label{mixact}
S_m\supset-\int d^4x\, a^4(\psi+3c_s^2\phi)\bar{\rho}\,\delta_M
\end{align}
where $\delta_M\equiv \delta_M\rho/\bar{\rho}$ denotes the intrinsic (not metric) relative energy density perturbation at all orders and $c_s^2$ is given by \eq{sound}. For linear matter perturbations of such a fluid we can use \eq{matteronly} and therefore the mixing between matter and metric perturbations is
\begin{equation} \label{mixt}
S_m\supset S_{m-g}^{(2)}=-\int d^4x\, a^4(\bar\rho+\bar p)(\psi+3c_s^2\phi)\,\partial_i\pi^i_L
\end{equation}
which shows that metric fluctuations and transverse modes do not couple at this order.
As a check of these results, we perform an explicit independent calculation by writing the square root $b$ and $\sqrt{-g}$ in the perturbed metric \eq{conformal}. The matrix $B$ has coefficients
\begin{align}
a^2B^{ij}=-(1+2\psi)^{-1}\dot\Phi^i\dot\Phi^j+(1-2\phi)^{-1}\partial_k\Phi^i\partial_k\Phi^j
\end{align}
and the square root of its determinant is
\begin{equation}
\label{b_metricperturbed}
b=\frac{1}{a^3}\frac{1}{(1-2\phi)^{3/2}}\det(\partial\Phi)\sqrt{1-\frac{1-2\phi}{1+2\psi}v^2}
\end{equation}
where we recall that the definition of the coordinate velocity is \eq{velo} and $\det(\partial\Phi)$ is still given by \eq{wth}.
In addition, the metric determinant is
\begin{align}\label{deternewt}\sqrt{-g}=a^4\sqrt{(1+2\psi)(1-2\phi)^3}\end{align}
so that the mixing term at linear order in the metric perturbations is
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{-g}\mathcal{L}_m\supset a^4\,(\psi-3\phi)\,\delta F+3a^4\,\phi\,\delta(b F_b)
\end{equation}
which, using \eq{rho} and \eq{trace}, is in agreement with the formulas above.
We can easily compute all (metric and matter) second order terms that come from the matter action \eq{action} by simply doing a Taylor series expansion. The result is
\begin{align}\nonumber \label{mstaylor}
S_m^{(2)}= \,&\frac{1}{2}\int d^4x\, a^4\,(1+w)\,\bar\rho\,\left[ \dot\pi^2-c_s^2(\partial_i\pi^i_L)^2 - 2(\psi+3c_s^2\phi)\,\partial_i\pi^i_L\right]\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\int d^4x\,a^4\,\bar\rho \left[\psi^2+3(w-3(1+w)c_s^2)\phi^2-6w\phi\,\psi\right]\,.
\end{align}
The first line in this expression corresponds to the mixing term \eq{mixt} that we have just computed plus the piece that comes from \eq{hpert}, which is the purely matter part of the action that we already obtained by neglecting metric perturbations. The second line of \eq{mstaylor} is the contribution of the matter action \eq{action} to the action of the metric fluctuations. In order to get the full action for perturbations at second order we have to complete the metric part by perturbing the Einstein-Hilbert action \eq{EH}. This can be found, for any gauge, in \cite{Mukhanov:1990me}.
The generalization of \eq{mstaylor} to $N$ fluids of this kind, interacting only via gravity, is straightforward. We just have to sum the individual actions of the different components. Then, we can easily write down the equations of motion for the transverse and longitudinal modes of each component. The transverse modes are unaffected by the scalar metric perturbations at this order and their equations of motion are still given by \eq{eomtransverse}:
\begin{equation} \label{eomtransverse2}
\frac{d}{d\tau}\left(a^4(\bar\rho_\alpha+\bar p_\alpha) \dot\pi_{\alpha\perp} \right)=0 \qquad \alpha=1, \ldots, N\,.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the equation \eq{eomlong} for the longitudinal modes gains a contribution from the metric perturbation, becoming:
\begin{align} \label{elongnew}
\ddot{\pi}_{\alpha L}+\mathcal{H}(1-3c_{s_\alpha}^2)\dot\pi_{\alpha L}-c_{s_\alpha}^2\nabla(\nabla\cdot \pi_{\alpha L})-\nabla\psi-3c_{s_\alpha}^2\nabla\phi=0 \qquad \alpha=1, \ldots, N\,.
\end{align}
The expressions in \eq{matteronly} for the density and pressure perturbations get modified when metric fluctuations are included. Concretely, they are replaced by\footnote{This expression for the energy density reminds of the Zel'dovich approximation, $\delta\rho\sim\nabla\cdot\pi$, in Newtonian Lagrangian perturbation theory (see for example \cite{Bernardeau:2001qr}), with $\pi$ playing the role of the displacement field. The extra metric perturbation term $\phi$ in \eq{mattmet} comes from our relativistic formulation.}
\begin{align} \label{mattmet}
\delta \rho_\alpha =(\bar{\rho}_\alpha+\bar{p}_\alpha)(\nabla\cdot\pi_\alpha+3\phi) \qquad \delta p_\alpha=c_{\alpha s}^2\,\delta\rho_\alpha
\end{align}
with the speed of sound squared $c_{\alpha s}^2$ defined exactly as before, in \eq{sound}. Notice that both the density and pressure perturbations gain a term that depends on the metric potential $\phi$. In particular, for the total (matter plus metric) density perturbation of each fluid we write
\begin{align} \label{decomp}
\delta\rho_\alpha=\delta_M\rho_\alpha+3(\bar\rho_\alpha+\bar p_\alpha)\phi
\end{align}
where the matter part $\delta_M\rho_\alpha$ is given by the first expression of \eq{matteronly}.
The four-velocities of the fluids also change with respect to \eq{5vel} due to the effect of the metric perturbations. The equations \eq{fluidvelocity} are both still valid and we can again find the four-velocity solving them iteratively. Alternatively, proceeding in the same way that we have used to obtain \eq{gammavel} we get
\begin{align}
u^0=\frac{1}{a}\,\tilde\gamma\qquad u^i=\frac{1}{a}\,\tilde\gamma\, v^i \qquad
\tilde\gamma^{-2}\equiv(1+2\psi)-(1-2\phi) v^2
\end{align}
where the coordinate velocity is still given by
\begin{align} \label{vgen}
v^i=\frac{d x^i}{d\tau}=-\dot\pi^i+\dot\pi^k\partial_k\pi^i+\ldots
\end{align}
which is the same that we would derive from \eq{5vel} (where metric perturbations are set to zero). This happens because $v^i$ is the solution of \eq{vsolver}, which is the same with or without metric perturbations. Expanding $\tilde\gamma$ at second order in perturbations we get
\begin{align} \label{cuadvelex}
u^0=\frac{1}{a}\left(1-\psi+\frac{3}{2}\psi^2+\frac{1}{2}v^2+\ldots\right) \qquad u^i=\frac{1}{a}\left(1-\psi+\ldots\right)v^i\,.
\end{align}
Let us point out that the expression \eq{cuadvelex} for $u^i$ differs (at second order) from the one found in the review \cite{Malik:2008im} and other related papers in the literature.
In the next section, we will use the equation \eq{elongnew} to understand adiabatic modes. In order to do so, we will need to replace $\phi$ and $\psi$ by their expressions in terms of pure matter perturbations. The difference between the two metric potentials is given, at first order, by the total anisotropic stress of the fluid system. If all its components are perfect, the metric potentials are equal at first order. Any difference between the metric potentials will then be due to imperfect components. Another useful piece of information is the (general relativistic) Poisson equation, which allows to express the Laplacian squared of $\phi$ as a function of the density and velocity perturbations. This equation can be derived by combining the $0-0$ and $0-i$ Einstein equations (see for instance \cite{Baumann:2010rc}) or from the variation of the second order perturbed action \eq{fulla} with respect to a metric degree of freedom that is later set to zero in the conformal Newtonian gauge \cite{Mukhanov:1990me}. The Poisson equation reads:
\begin{align} \label{psnf}
\nabla^4\phi=\frac{3}{2}\mathcal H^2\sum_{\alpha=1}^N\Omega_\alpha\left(\nabla^2\delta_\alpha-3\left(1+w_\alpha\right)\mathcal H \theta_\alpha\right)
\end{align}
where we sum over all fluid species and $\theta_\alpha$ is the standard notation for the divergence of the velocity perturbation $v_\alpha$ \cite{Ma:1995ey}\,, as given in \eq{vgen}:
\begin{align} \label{theta}
\theta_\alpha=\nabla\cdot v_\alpha=-\nabla\cdot \dot{\pi}_\alpha+\ldots
\end{align}
Since for a perfect fluid, $\delta_\alpha$ is given by \eq{mattmet}, it turns out that the right-hand side of \eq{psnf} contains a contribution that depends on the spatial metric perturbation $\phi$. Hence the expression \eq{psnf} becomes a partial differential equation for $\phi$ with second and fourth order derivatives. We will use such a form of the Poisson equation in Section \ref{genad} when discussing adiabatic perturbations, see equation~(\ref{adiab3}).
Before moving to the description of adiabatic modes, it is interesting and useful to see how the equations of motion and \eq{eomtransverse2} and \eq{elongnew} are related to the standard continuity and Euler equations for generic fluids that have the following general form in the conformal Newtonian gauge \cite{Ma:1995ey}:
\begin{align} \label{continuity}
\dot\delta_\alpha &= -(1+w_\alpha)(\theta_\alpha-3\dot\phi)-3\left(\frac{\delta P_\alpha}{\delta \rho_\alpha}-w_\alpha\right)\mathcal H\delta_\alpha\\ \label{euler}
\dot\theta_\alpha &=-\left(1-3w_\alpha\right)\mathcal H\theta_\alpha -\frac{\dot{w_\alpha}}{1+w_\alpha}\theta_\alpha-\frac{1}{1+w_\alpha}\frac{\delta P_\alpha}{\delta \rho_\alpha}\,\nabla^2 \delta_\alpha-\nabla^2\psi+\nabla^2\sigma_\alpha\,.
\end{align}
Notice that for these fluids, i.e. described by (\ref{lagrangian}), the Euler equation (\ref{euler}) with $\sigma_\alpha=0$ is precisely the divergence of (\ref{elongnew}), while the continuity equation (\ref{continuity}) is just an identity.
This follows from the fact that the velocity perturbations $\theta_\alpha$ in (\ref{theta}) are the time derivative of the longitudinal modes $\nabla\cdot\pi_\alpha$ rather than independent variables.
\subsection{Vector and tensor metric perturbations}
\label{vectorperturb}
We have derived the equations of motion \eq{eomtransverse2} and \eq{elongnew} for an ensemble of $N$ non-interacting fluids, each with its own $\pi_\alpha$ field, assuming only scalar metric perturbations. However, since $\pi_{\alpha\perp}$ can be written for each fluid as the curl of a vector potential, we can expect its dynamics to be affected by metric vector perturbations. For the longitudinal component $\pi_{\alpha L}$ this cannot occur because it has zero curl and hence it can be expressed as the gradient of a single scalar degree of freedom, which then couples only to $\phi$ and $\psi$ as we have already seen.
The perturbed FLRW metric in the Poisson gauge \cite{Bertschinger:1993xt,Bruni:1996im} generalizes the conformal Newtonian gauge \eq{conformal} to include vector and tensor degrees of freedom:
\begin{align} \label{poissongauge}
ds^2=a^2\left(-(1+2\psi)d\tau^2+2\nu^i \,d\tau dx^i+\left[(1-2\phi)\delta_{ij}+\chi_{ij}\right]dx^idx^j\right)
\end{align}
where $\nu$ and $\chi$ are respectively pure vector and tensor perturbations that satisfy
\begin{align}
\partial_k \nu^k=0\qquad\partial_k\chi_{kj}=0\qquad \chi_{jj}=0\,.
\end{align}
Applying \eq{contains} to the full set of metric perturbations (transverse) $\nu$ vector and (transverse and traceless) $\chi$ tensor metric degrees of freedom we find
\begin{align}
\label{allperturbations}
\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\delta_M T^{\mu\nu}\delta g_{\mu\nu}= & a^4\left[-(\psi\,\delta_M\rho+3\phi\,\delta_M p)+a(\bar\rho+\bar p)\nu^i \delta_M u^i \right]\\
=&-a^4(\bar\rho+\bar p)\left[(\psi+3c_s^2\phi)\,\partial_i \pi^i_L +\dot{\pi}^i_T \nu^i\right]+\mbox{(total derivative)}
\end{align}
where tensor perturbations do not appear because of the tracelessness condition. This confirms the known result that tensor metric perturbations do not couple, at the lowest order in perturbation theory, to perfect fluids.
On the other hand, the transverse modes (vortices) mix with the vector metric perturbations. The equations \eq{eomtransverse2} get now replaced by a conservation equation of the linear combination $(\nu^i-\dot{\pi}_T)$
\begin{align} \label{vecttrans}
\frac{d}{d\tau}\left(a^4(\bar\rho_\alpha+\bar p_\alpha) \left(\nu^i-\dot\pi^i_{\alpha\perp}\right) \right)=0 \qquad \alpha=1, \ldots, N
\end{align}
where, as before, the index $\alpha$ lists the different perfect fluids from 1 to $N$.
This equation is nothing but the conservation of the charges associated with the vorticity, see (\ref{Qperturb}).
It corresponds also to the separate conservation of the three-momentum for each fluid \cite{Malik:2008im,Bardeen:1980kt}:
\begin{align} \label{mcon}
\delta \dot q^j_\alpha+4\mathcal H\delta q^j_\alpha=0\qquad \alpha=1, \ldots, N
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\delta q^i_\alpha\equiv(\bar\rho_\alpha+\bar p_\alpha)(\nu^i-\dot\pi^i_{\alpha\perp}) \qquad \alpha=1, \ldots, N
\end{align}
are the three-momenta of the fluids. Notice that, if the fluids were not perfect, the right-hand side of \eq{mcon} (or equivalently \eq{vecttrans}) would have an anisotropic stress source term. The equation \eq{mcon} tells us that in absence of such a term, the three-momentum decays due to the Hubble expansion.
The equation for the evolution of the vector metric perturbations is \cite{Bardeen:1980kt}
\begin{align}
\nabla^2\nu^i=6\mathcal H^2\sum_\alpha(1+w_\alpha)(\nu^i-\dot\pi^i_{\alpha\perp})
\end{align}
consistent with the redshift of the three-momenta at large scales.
For completeness we include the equation for tensor modes, which in absence of any source of anisotropic stress reads:
\begin{align}
\nabla^2\chi_{ij}=\ddot\chi_{ij}+2\mathcal H\dot\chi_{ij}\,.
\end{align}
As it is well known, these modes do not couple to any fluid degree of freedom if there is no anisotropic stress.
\section{Adiabatic modes} \label{genad}
Adiabatic perturbations correspond to modes associated with equal time shifts. They are therefore constructed by perturbing any homogeneous (intensive) fluid variable $\mathcal I_j$ in the following way
\begin{align} \label{adiabm}
\bar{\mathcal{I}}_j(\tau)\rightarrow \mathcal{I}_j(\tau,x)=\bar{\mathcal{I}}_j(\tau+\hat{\pi}(\tau,x))=\bar{\mathcal{I}}_j(\tau)+\hat{\pi}(\tau,x)\dot{\bar{\mathcal{I}}}_j+\ldots
\end{align}
using the same $\hat\pi$ for all $\mathcal I_j$\,, where the subscript $_j$ lists any intensive variable pertaining to the fluid. Therefore, we say that two intensive fluid variables $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ are adiabatically related if their perturbations can be constructed from the same time shift $\hat\pi$. If we focus on the energy density $\rho$ and the pressure $p$ of any fluid, at first order in $\hat\pi$ this implies
\begin{align} \label{vels}
c_{ A}^2=c_{ s}^2\,.
\end{align}
Moreover, for several fluids, we have that adiabatic density modes satisfy
\begin{align}
\frac{\delta\rho_\alpha}{\dot{\bar{\rho}}_\alpha}=\frac{\delta\rho_\beta}{\dot{\bar{\rho}}_\beta}
\end{align}
for any pair of fluids $\alpha$ and $\beta$ interacting only through gravity. Describing the perturbations as in \eq{lcoord},
we get that the adiabatic mode is nothing but a common longitudinal degree of freedom
\begin{align} \label{timeshi}
\hat\pi=\frac{\delta\rho_\alpha}{\dot{\bar{\rho}}_\alpha}=\frac{\delta p_\alpha}{\dot{\bar{p}}_\alpha}=-\frac{1}{3\mathcal{H}}\left(\nabla\cdot\pi+3\phi\right)\quad \forall \alpha\,.
\end{align}
In other words, the condition of adiabatic modes translates into ``flavour'' (or species) independence of the longitudinal modes
\begin{equation} \label{adbc}
\pi_{\alpha L}=\pi_{\beta L}\,.
\end{equation}
In the next subsection we show how this result extends to imperfect fluids that have vanishing non-adiabatic pressure perturbations.
For convenience, we use the curvature perturbation on uniform density hypersurfaces, which is defined to be \cite{Bardeen:1983qw}
\begin{align} \label{zbard}
\zeta_\alpha=-\phi-\mathcal H\frac{\delta\rho_\alpha}{\dot{\bar{\rho}}_\alpha}\,.
\end{align}
Remarkably, in our case this is just one third of the divergence of $\pi_\alpha$
\begin{align} \label{zeta}
\zeta_\alpha=\frac{1}{3}\nabla\cdot\pi_\alpha
\end{align}
and taking its derivative with respect to conformal time, we get the following relation with the divergence of the velocity (at first order in $\pi$):
\begin{align} \label{rvz}
\theta_\alpha+3\dot\zeta_\alpha=0\,.
\end{align}
Defining the entropy perturbation between two species in the usual way \cite{Kodama:1985bj}
\begin{align}
S_{\alpha\beta}=3(\zeta_\alpha-\zeta_\beta)
\end{align}
we see that for the kind of fluids that we consider, the entropy perturbation among two species is zero if the coordinate perturbations $\pi_\alpha$ $(\alpha=1,2$) of the two fluids differ by at most a divergenceless three-vector. This is exactly the condition \eq{adbc} for adiabatic modes that we have found before.
\subsection{Adiabatic modes for imperfect fluids}
Let us recall that for more general (imperfect) fluids\footnote{For a study of cosmological perturbations of imperfect fluids, in particular in connection to scalar fields, see \cite{Sawicki:2012re}.} entropy modes may come as well from an intrinsic non-adiabatic pressure perturbation. The total pressure perturbation of any species can be decomposed as
\begin{align} \label{nadpress}
\delta P_\alpha=\delta P_{\alpha (nad)}+c_{\alpha A}^2\delta\rho_\alpha
\end{align}
where the second term is the product of the density perturbation and the usual adiabatic speed of sound.
For perfect fluids like the ones we have studied in this work, $\delta P_{\alpha(nad)}$ (the non-adiabatic part of the pressure perturbation) is zero. However, when a fluid has other internal degrees of freedom different from the $\Phi$ coordinates\footnote{See Appendix \ref{appa} for the general form of the energy-momentum tensor in this case.}, an intrinsic non-adiabatic pressure will typically arise.
Nevertheless, there exists an interesting class of imperfect fluids that have vanishing non-adiabatic pressure perturbations. They fail to be perfect only because they have anisotropic stress $\sigma$
\begin{align}
\sum_\alpha(\bar\rho_\alpha+\bar p_\alpha)\nabla^2\sigma_\alpha=\sum_{i, j}\partial_i\partial_j T^i_j-\frac{1}{3}\sum_k\nabla^2T^k_k\,,
\end{align}
that enters in the Einstein equations for the scalar potentials
\begin{align} \label{adiab4}
\nabla^4(\psi-\phi)=\frac{9}{2}\mathcal{H}^2\sum_{\alpha}\Omega_\alpha (1+w_\alpha)\nabla^2\sigma_\alpha\,.
\end{align}
At early times, neutrinos fall into this class of fluids: $\sigma_\nu\neq0$ while $\delta P_{\nu (nad)}=0$.
As we are going to see next, in an adiabatic mode, the expressions that occur for the density and velocity perturbations of perfect fluids are also valid at first order in $\pi$ for imperfect fluids of that kind. From the equation (\ref{cons}) we know that $\delta_\alpha/(1+w_\alpha)$ is a species independent ratio for all fluids involved in an adiabatic mode. Since the definition (\ref{zbard}) can be written as $\delta_\alpha/(1+w_\alpha)=3(\zeta_\alpha+\phi)$ we have that
\begin{align} \label{adiabmo}
\zeta_\alpha =\zeta_\beta
\end{align}
for any two fluids in an adiabatic mode. Moreover, if at least one perfect fluid is present, we have, thanks to equation \eq{mattmet}, $3\zeta=\nabla\cdot \pi$.
For imperfect fluids with vanishing non-adiabatic pressure:
\begin{align}
\label{thetaflavor}
\frac{d}{d\tau}\left(\frac{\delta_\alpha}{1+w_\alpha}\right)=\frac{\dot\delta_\alpha}{1+w_\alpha}+3\mathcal H(c_{\alpha A}^2-w_\alpha)\frac{\delta_\alpha}{1+w_\alpha}=3\dot\phi-\theta_\alpha
\end{align}
where we have used the continuity equation~\eq{continuity} in the last equality. We thus find that in this case the velocity perturbations are also flavor independent
\begin{equation}
\delta P_{\alpha (nad)}=0 \Longrightarrow \theta_\alpha=\theta_\beta=-3\dot\zeta
\end{equation}
for any two fluids sharing an adiabatic mode. Again, if at least one perfect fluid is present, then $\theta$ is proportional to the time derivative of the longitudinal mode: $\theta=-\nabla\cdot \dot\pi$.
Effectively, in an adiabatic mode, the energy density and the velocity of an imperfect fluid with adiabatic speed of sound are like those of a perfect fluid\footnote{See \cite{Ballesteros:2010ks} for how to generalize the standard adiabatic conditions for fluids with non-adiabatic sound speed.}.
\subsection{Superhorizon perturbations}
We now describe adiabatic modes in further depth using the variable $\zeta$ introduced in \eq{zeta}. Since adiabatic modes are particularly important for the study of initial conditions in the early universe and at those times the anisotropic stress of neutrinos cannot be neglected, we are led to consider the generic situation in which the metric potentials $\phi$ and $\psi$ can be different from each other, even at first order in the equations.
Armed with the knowledge of the previous sections, we can write the Poisson equation \eq{psnf} in the following way:
\begin{align}
\label{adiab3}
(\nabla^2-M^2)\nabla^2\phi &=M^2\left(\nabla^2\zeta+3\mathcal H\dot{\zeta}\right)
\end{align}
where we introduce the ``effective mass'' (squared)
\begin{align}
M^2 =\frac{9}{2}\mathcal{H}^2\sum_{\alpha}\Omega_\alpha (1+w_\alpha) \qquad
\end{align}
in which the sum extends over all (perfect and imperfect) fluids that are present in the system.
According to the Euler equation \eq{euler}, for fluids with anisotropic stress but zero non-adiabatic pressure, the divergence of the equation \eq{elongnew} must be replaced by
\begin{align} \label{elongnewanis}
\ddot{\zeta_\alpha}+(1-3c_{s_\alpha}^2)\mathcal H\dot\zeta_\alpha-c_{s_\alpha}^2\nabla^2\zeta_\alpha-\frac{1}{3}\nabla^2\psi-c_{s_\alpha}^2\nabla^2\phi+\frac{1}{3}\nabla^2\sigma_\alpha=0
\end{align}
which, together with equations (\ref{adiab3}) and (\ref{adiab4}), form a close system for the perturbations.
If photons (which have $c_s^2=1/3$ and $\sigma_\gamma=0$) are present, recalling that for adiabatic modes the equation \eq{adiabmo} holds, we obtain that the equation (\ref{elongnewanis}) implies
\begin{align}
\label{firsteq}
\ddot\zeta-\frac{1}{3}\nabla^2\left(\zeta+\psi+\phi\right)= & 0\\
\label{secondeq}
(1-3c_{s_\alpha}^2)\left[\mathcal H\dot\zeta+\frac{1}{3}\nabla^2\left(\zeta+\phi\right)\right]+\frac{1}{3}\nabla^2\sigma_\alpha= & 0\,.
\end{align}
These two equations are actually valid only approximately. The same happens for the condition \eq{adiabmo}, which strictly holds just in the limit of large scales, $\nabla/\mathcal H\rightarrow 0$.
At early times, when the universe is radiation dominated and the anisotropic stress of neutrinos cannot be neglected, the equation \eq{secondeq} implies that $\nabla^2\sigma_\nu=0$\,. Using the equation (\ref{adiab4}), one would then na\"ively conclude that for an adiabatic mode $\nabla^4(\psi-\phi)=0$\,. These two last conclusions have to be understood as approximately valid expressions in the limit $\nabla/\mathcal H\rightarrow 0$. Otherwise they would imply trivial solutions for $\sigma_\nu$ and the difference of the metric potentials \cite{Ma:1995ey}. In the limit of very large wavelengths, the Poisson equation \eq{adiab3} simplifies to
\begin{align} \label{poissapp}
-\nabla^2\phi =& 3\mathcal H\dot\zeta +\nabla^2\zeta\,.
\end{align}
If we plug \eq{poissapp} into \eq{secondeq} (which assumes adiabaticity), we obtain $\nabla^2\sigma_\alpha=0$, without having made any assumption about $c_{s_\alpha}^2$. This means that the approximation $\nabla^2\sigma_\nu=0$ that we have found for adiabatic modes is valid at very large scales (and early times, with the universe being radiation dominated). Therefore, as we have anticipated, we conclude that adiabatic modes can only be defined at very large scales and, strictly speaking, there are no exact adiabatic modes.
Notice that if the perturbations are regular for very large wavelengths, the Poisson equation helps us to write (\ref{elongnewanis}) in the following way
\begin{equation}
\label{zetafinal}
\ddot{\zeta}+\frac{1}{3}\nabla^2\zeta+2\mathcal H\dot\zeta=\frac{3}{2}\mathcal H^2\sum_\alpha\Omega_\alpha(1+w_\alpha) \sigma_\alpha
\end{equation}
which is a simple equation for $\zeta$ where no metric perturbations appear explicitly. If the condition of regularity at large distances wouldn't apply, the whole equation \eq{zetafinal} takes an overall extra $\nabla^2$ operator on both sides.
To conclude this section, let us recall and show that, as it is expected, the curvature perturbation on uniform density hypersurfaces $\zeta$ coincides with (minus) the comoving curvature perturbation $\cal R$ in the limit of very large scales. The definition of $\cal R$ is (see e.g. \cite{Weinberg:1102255}):
\begin{align} \label{comovcp}
{\cal R}\equiv \phi-\mathcal H \tilde\upsilon
\end{align}
where $\tilde\upsilon$ is a scalar potential that gives the longitudinal part of the fluid coordinate velocity, i.e. $\dot\pi_L=-\nabla \tilde\upsilon$\,. Taking the Laplacian of \eq{comovcp} and using \eq{zeta} we get
\begin{align} \label{rela}
\nabla^2{\cal R}=\nabla^2\phi+3\mathcal H\dot\zeta
\end{align}
For perturbations of very large wavelength, we can use \eq{poissapp} to eliminate the time derivative of $\zeta$ in \eq{rela}, obtaining
\begin{align}
{\cal R}+\zeta=0
\end{align}
assuming again regularity of the fluctuations at very large distances.
\section{Conclusions and Outlook}
\label{conclusions}
We have shown how to obtain the fundamental equations for the cosmological evolution of perfect fluids from symmetries and action principles.
Although we have chosen to focus our analysis on the case of a FLRW metric (and its perturbations) in General Relativity and non-interacting fluids, the method is of ample generality and can be easily applied to other geometries, theories of modified gravity and can be extended to describe systems which do not interact only via gravity. The formalism presented allows a straightforward description of the dynamics of the expansion both at the background and perturbation level, allowing us e.g. to easily recover standard results of fluid perturbation theory \cite{Mukhanov:1990me,Ma:1995ey,Bardeen:1980kt,Kodama:1985bj}.
The method is based on an effective theory which is an expansion in spacetime derivatives of three scalar fields.
The condition of invariance under spacetime diffeomorphisms and internal volume preserving spatial diffeomorphisms is sufficient to characterize completely the formal structure of the theory. At the lowest order in derivatives, the action for perfect fluids is given by just an arbitrary function $F$ of a single operator that takes the form of a determinant because of symmetry requirements.
Identifying the various thermodynamical quantities, it turns out that $F$ is minus the energy density and is a function of the entropy density. Its first and second derivatives are enough to characterize the pressure, the temperature and the speed of sound of the fluid. Higher order derivatives enter in the self-interactions of the perturbations. Different types of fluids can thus be described by adequate choices of the functional dependence of the energy density on the entropy density. Standard cold dark matter and radiation, just to mention two simple important examples, are easily described by specific power functions.
Considering the high precision of ongoing (e.g. \cite{Ade:2011ah}) and upcoming (e.g \cite{Laureijs:2011mu}) observations, the need for an accurate theoretical understanding of the Universe's content is more important than ever. In order to interpret the data appropriately, a framework that describes the cosmological dynamics of the matter (energy-momentum tensor) in wide generality can be a leap forward. A natural and widely popular approach has been that of using general fluids (perfect or not) \cite{Hu:1998kj} in a phenomenological and quite ad-hoc fashion to fit different types of data. As an important example, many of the studies that try to determine the properties of dark energy are based on the choice of a fluid with a (possibly time-varying) equation of state close to $-1$ and some model dependent assumptions for its perturbation properties.
Conversely, the flexibility of the formalism presented here can be relevant for model comparison and parameter estimation since the physical properties of a perfect fluid are encoded in a single function that defines the action. Instead of the common phenomenological approach of fitting several parameters like relative densities, equations of state and speed of sounds of an ensemble of fluids, one could directly work with the functions $F$'s that define the fluids. Therefore, we think that the framework presented in this paper can provide a first step towards a different useful approach in which the search is focused on functions $F$ that fully describe the energy momentum tensor.
The interaction terms between matter (at any order) and metric (at first order) perturbations can be easily extracted from the gravitational energy-momentum tensor. This is the case for scalar modes but also for vector and tensor ones, see equations (\ref{mixact}) and (\ref{allperturbations}). The knowledge of the function $F$ and its first two derivatives is enough to describe perfect fluids at first order in perturbations around the background solutions. Higher derivatives of $F$ will appear at the next orders in matter perturbations, which can be easily incorporated by using the simple structure of (\ref{mixact}) and (\ref{allperturbations}).
The longitudinal (compressional) modes are found to be intimately related to the adiabatic modes at early times, $\zeta=\nabla\cdot\pi/3$, while the Goldstone boson $\hat\pi$ of the associated time shifts contains a piece that depends on the metric perturbations, $\hat\pi=-(\zeta+\phi)/\mathcal H$. We have shown that the equations that govern the evolution of adiabatic modes \eq{firsteq}-\eq{zetafinal} remain true even for non-perfect fluids which have vanishing non-adiabatic pressure (such as neutrinos at early times) provided that at least one fluid species, e.g. photons, can be described by a perfect fluid.
Transverse modes (vortices) mix with the vector metric perturbations and evolve accordingly to the dilution of vorticity under Hubble expansion.
There are several directions that are worth exploring in further depth. Among these, we find particularly interesting the possibility of adding more symmetry such that the system is more constrained and predictive. Conversely, demanding less restrictive symmetries would allow to draw more general conclusions.
Below we discuss two such examples that are relevant for almost de Sitter expansions.
\subsubsection*{More symmetry: scale invariance}
\label{moresym}
The condition of almost de~Sitter expansion, either at early times (inflation) or at late times (dark energy), is $w\simeq -1$, that is $\bar{b}\bar{F}_b/\bar{F}\ll1$, see equation (\ref{wminus1}). It corresponds to the condition that the action is weakly depending on $b$, suggesting the idea of adding extra (approximate) symmetries that could suppress $F(b)$-type of actions\footnote{However it is important to stress that if the would-be leading term $F$ in the derivative expansion is suppressed, then next order terms in the derivative expansion should generically be taken into account.}.
An example of such a symmetry is provided by internal scale transformations
\begin{equation}
\label{scaleinvariance}
\Phi^a\rightarrow e^{\lambda}\Phi^a\,,\qquad b\rightarrow e^{3\lambda} b\,.
\end{equation}
Notice that the choice $F(b)=\kappa \ln b$ gives an action that is invariant only up to shifting the cosmological constant, $F(b)\rightarrow F(b)+3\kappa\lambda$. The dynamics associated with such an action would thus be symmetric under (\ref{scaleinvariance}) only if $\kappa\ll1$ or if gravity is switched-off.
Other symmetries may also be invoked to sort the desired Lagrangian $F(b)$ among all possible choices.
An interesting case is e.g. Weyl symmetry
\begin{equation}
\label{weyl}
g_{\mu\nu}(x)\rightarrow e^{2\omega}g_{\mu\nu}(x)\qquad \Phi^a(x) \rightarrow \Phi^a(x)
\end{equation}
where $\omega$ is an arbitrary function of the spacetime coordinates. $\Phi$ has vanishing scaling dimension, in agreement with the fact that the identically conserved entropy current must have scaling dimension $3$.
Scale transformations (and the full conformal symmetry) is a subgroup of Weyl~$\times$~Diffeomorphisms.
Under Weyl transformations $b\rightarrow e^{-3\omega}b$ and thus the action is invariant when $F(b)\propto b^{4/3}$ which corresponds to the equation of state $p=\frac{1}{3}\rho$ of radiation. Such a fluid has indeed vanishing $T_\mu^\mu$ from the conservation of dilation current.
Notice that the diagonal (internal and spacetime) scale transformation $\lambda=\omega\Delta=$constant
\begin{equation}
\label{diagonalscale}
g_{\mu\nu}(x)\rightarrow e^{2\omega}g_{\mu\nu}(x)\qquad \Phi^a(x) \rightarrow e^{\omega\Delta}\Phi^a(x)
\end{equation}
that gives $b\rightarrow e^{-3(1-\Delta)\omega}b$ leaves the action invariant when $\Delta\neq1$ and $F(b)$ is a homogeneous function of rank $4/[3(1-\Delta)]$. Radiation and matter are selected requiring invariance under (\ref{diagonalscale}) with $\Delta=0$ and $\Delta=-1/3$ respectively.
\subsubsection*{Less symmetry: solids}
It is interesting to consider the possibility of reducing the symmetry of the system by demoting the volume-preserving internal diffeomorphisms (\ref{diffs}) to be an approximate symmetry. This would correspond to a homogeneous and isotropic solid, i.e. a jelly, with very small transverse speed of sound $c_T^2\ll 1$.
For a jelly the dynamics is still invariant under translations (\ref{homogeneity}) and rotations (\ref{isotropy}) and the action depends not only on $b$ but also on the traces of $B$ and $B^2$
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}=F(b,\mbox{Tr }B, \mbox{Tr }B^2)\,.
\end{equation}
Assuming e.g. $\mathcal{L}=F(b)+\epsilon\mbox{Tr} B$ one generates a $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)$ speed of sound for the transverse modes $\pi_\perp$. This could be useful within inflationary models when trying to quantize the perfect fluid since it allows to damp the wild quantum transverse fluctuations around the classical vacuum $\Phi^i=x^i$ \cite{Endlich:2010hf}.
\subsubsection*{Note added} After completion of this manuscript, a related work treating the effective theory of solids for inflation appeared \cite{solidinflation}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Ruth Durrer, Leonardo Senatore and Filippo Vernizzi for useful comments/suggestions; Claudia Hagedorn, Massimo Pietroni and Antonio Riotto for reading a preliminary version of the text. We also thank Lorenzo Mercolli for discussions.
B.B. is supported in part by the ERC Advanced Grant no.~267985, ``Electroweak Symmetry Breaking, Flavour and Dark Matter: One Solution for Three Mysteries'' (DaMeSyFla). B.B. thanks the Aspen Center for Physics for warm hospitality where part of this work was completed. The Aspen Center for Physics is supported by the National Science Foundation Grant No. 1066293.
|
\section{Introduction}
The last 15 years has a seen a rapid growth in interest concerning the modeling of Bose-Einstein condensates. The body of literature concerning this subject is too vast to consider here, but a simplified description of the field would include the study of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation
\begin{equation}
i\partial_{t}\psi = -\frac{1}{2}\partial^{2}_{x}\psi +\alpha |\psi|^{2}\psi + V(x)\psi,
\label{locgp}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha = \pm 1$, with $+1$ corresponding to repulsive interactions between particles in the condensate, and $-1$ corresponding to attractive interactions. The function $\psi$ represents an approximation to the wave function used to describe the probability density for the location of particles in the condensate.
The validity of this equation as an approximation to the many-particle formulation of the problem has been established in \cite{lieb}. However, an assumption of a pairwise $\delta$-function interaction among particles is used to derive \eqref{locgp}. This clearly cannot capture all of the physics in the problem since each particle in the condensate exerts forces that act at a distance. Thus the next order of approximation to the many-particle formulation would be to include a more general interaction potential simulating nonlocal interactions between particles. This is done in \cite{decon} by studying the modified one-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii equation
\begin{equation}
i\partial_{t}\psi = -\frac{1}{2}\partial^{2}_{x}\psi +\alpha\psi(x)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}R(x-y;\epsilon)|\psi|^{2}(y)dy + V(x)\psi,
\label{nlocgp}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon > 0$, and $R(x;\epsilon) = \frac{1}{\epsilon}\zeta(\frac{x}{\epsilon})$, with $\zeta(x)$ being a positive, even function such that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^{+}} R(x;\epsilon) = \delta(x) \nonumber
\end{equation}
in the sense of distributions. In \cite{decon}, $\epsilon$ is called the nonlocality parameter. The authors of \cite{decon} assume that the condensate is trapped in both a harmonic confining potential and an external standing-wave potential. While in \cite{decon} a three-dimensional version of \eqref{nlocgp} is derived, the presence of the standing-wave potential allows the reduction to a one-dimensional model ({\it cf.}~ \cite{olshan}).
Nonlocal models like \eqref{nlocgp} are also called Hartree-Fock equations. These have been extensively studied in the case that $\zeta(x) = 1/|x|$, {\it i.e.} in modeling Coulombic interactions between particles ({\it cf.}~ \cite{gini}, \cite{hart}). Recent literature on the formation of dipolar condensates has introduced nonsingular nonlocalities characterized by cubic decay ({\it cf.}~ \cite{sinha}, \cite{kevre}). These nonlocalities with cubic decay fit into the class studied in this paper. Other models with a varying nonlocality parameter have appeared in the optics literature \cite{trillo}. The analysis of the well-posedness and convergence of nonlocal, nonlinear Schr\"{o}dinger type models to local ones can be found in \cite{cao1} and \cite{cao2}, though the models examined in those papers are different from those studied in this paper.
The authors of \cite{decon}, working with the potential $V(x) = V_{0}\sin^{2}(kx)$, derived the traveling-wave solutions
\begin{equation}
\psi(x,t) = r_{sol}(x)e^{i\theta(x)-i\omega t},
\label{sol}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
r_{sol}^{2}(x)= & B - \displaystyle{\frac{V_{0}}{\alpha \beta(k;\epsilon)}}\sin^{2}(kx), \nonumber \\
\tan(\theta(x))= & \displaystyle{\sqrt{1-\displaystyle{\frac{V_{0}}{\alpha B \beta(k;\epsilon)}}}}\tan(kx), \nonumber \\
\omega(k)= & \displaystyle{\frac{V_{0}+k^2}{2}} + \alpha B - \displaystyle{\frac{V_{0}}{2\beta(k;\epsilon)}}, \nonumber \\
\beta(k;\epsilon)= & \displaystyle{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}} R(x;\epsilon) \cos(2kx) dx, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with $B$ a constant called the offset size. Defining $A = \frac{-V_{0}}{\alpha \beta(k;\epsilon)}$, the traveling-wave solution can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\psi(x,t) = \left(\sqrt{B}\cos(kx) + i\sqrt{B+A}\sin(kx) \right)e^{-i\omega t}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
which shows the spatial component of \eqref{sol} is periodic with period $2\pi/k$. The coefficients appearing in $\psi(x,t)$ must satisfy the restrictions
\[
B \geq \max\{-A,0\}, ~ \alpha = \pm 1, ~ \beta(k;\epsilon) \neq 0.
\]
Setting $\alpha$ and $k$ equal to one, and taking $B=1$, which in \cite{decon} is described as large, and $V_{0}=-1$, the authors of \cite{decon} study the stability of \eqref{sol} by numerical simulations using $\zeta(x) = e^{-x^2}$ and $V(x)=V_{0}\sin^{2}(kx)$. The authors report results which numerically demonstrate that for the local case, {\it i.e.} when $\epsilon = 0$, \eqref{sol} is stable with respect to perturbations due to roundoff error in the numerical simulation. However, their results also suggest that \eqref{sol} is unstable when the nonlocality parameter $\epsilon$ is positive, and that the instability emerges at a fixed time in their simulations, independent of the value of $\epsilon$. The authors of \cite{decon} also study the effect of changing the convolution kernel, and they report that the results are similar to those for the case $\zeta(x)=e^{-x^{2}}$.
It is conjectured in \cite{decon} that a beyond-all-orders phenomena may be responsible for the behavior exhibited in their numerics. As pointed out in \cite{decon}, if the behavior exhibited in their numerics is accurate and truly independent of the choice of interaction potential, then \eqref{nlocgp} cannot be viewed as a valid generalization of \eqref{locgp}. That is to say, no matter how small one makes the nonlocal interaction term, the results of \cite{decon} seem to imply that one cannot approach the local behavior. This is described as a lack of {\it asymptotic equivalence of stability} (AES) in \cite{decon}.
The purpose of this paper is to address both the issue of whether or not \eqref{nlocgp} is AES to \eqref{locgp} and under what conditions \eqref{sol} is a stable solution of Equation \eqref{nlocgp}. To do this, we first fix some notation and introduce the spaces in which we work. Let $S_{T}$ denote the circle of circumference $T$. Introduce the space $L^{2}(S_{T})$ which is the completion of the continuous $T$-periodic functions in the norm
\begin{equation}
\gnorm{f}_{L^{2}(S_{T})} = \left(\int_{S_{T}}|f(x)|^{2}dx \right)^{1/2} = \left(\int^{T/2}_{-T/2}|f(x)|^{2}dx\right)^{1/2}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
In practice the integral $\int_{S_{T}}|f(x)|^{2}dx$ could be evaluated over any interval of width $T$ since $f$ is a $T$-periodic function. Note, throughout the remainder of the text $\gnorm{\cdot}_{L^{2}(S_{T})}$ is abbreviated by $\norm{\cdot}$. We define the norm, denoted as $\gnorm{\cdot}_{2,v}$, of the product space $L^{2}_{2}(S_{T}) = L^{2}(S_{T}) \times L^{2}(S_{T})$, via
\[
\gnorm{\left(\begin{array}{c}f \\ g \end{array}\right)}^{2}_{2,v} = \gnorm{f}^{2}_{2} + \gnorm{g}^{2}_{2}.
\]
For operators $\mathcal{B}$ that map $L^{2}(S_{T})$ to itself, we denote the norm of $\mathcal{B}$ via
\[
\norm{\mathcal{B}} = \sup_{\norm{f}=1} \norm{\mathcal{B}f}.
\]
The norms $\gnorm{\mathcal{B}}_{2,v}$ are defined in an identical way. The Sobolev spaces $H_{s}(S_{T})$ are defined as follows:
\[
H_{s}\left(S_{T}\right) = \left\{f \in L^{2}(S_{T}): \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}\left<j\right>^{s}|\hat{f}_{j}|^{2} <\infty \right\}, \nonumber
\]
where
\[
\left<j\right> = \left(1+\frac{4\pi^2j^{2}}{T^{2}}\right),
\]
and the terms $\hat{f}_{n}$ come from the Fourier series of $f(x)$, which is
\begin{equation}
f(x) = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \hat{f}_{j} e_{j}(x), \nonumber
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
e_{j}(x) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\displaystyle{\frac{1}{T}} & j=0 \\
\\
\displaystyle{\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}}e^{-\displaystyle{2\pi i j x/T}} & j \neq 0
\end{array}
\right.
\label{fs}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\hat{f}_{j} = \int_{-T/2}^{T/2} f(x) e^{*}_{j}(x) dx, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $e^{*}_{j}$ denotes the complex conjugate of $e_{j}$. The product space $H_{s}(S_{T})\times H_{s}(S_{T})$ is denoted by $H^{2}_{s}(S_{T})$. Finally, define the Fourier transform of $h(x) \in L^{2}(\mathbb{R})$, say $\hat{h}(\tilde{s})$, by
\begin{equation}
\hat{h}(\tilde{s}) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-i\tilde{s}x}h(x) dx. \nonumber
\end{equation}
To address the issue of AES, we first prove the local-well posedness, in $H_{s}(S_{T})$ for $s>1/2$, and global-well posedness of \eqref{nlocgp} over the space $H_{1}(S_{T})$ based on the following assumptions.
\begin{itemize}
\item[$H1$:] The potential $V(x)$ is a smooth, $T$-periodic function,
\item[$H2$:] $\zeta(x) \geq 0$,
\item[$H3$:] $\zeta(x) \in L^{1}(\mathbb{R})$ with $\gnorm{\zeta}_{L^{1}(\mathbb{R})}=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\zeta(x)dx = 1$,
\item[$H4$:] $x\zeta(x) \in L^{1}(\mathbb{R})$, and
\item[$H5$:] $|\hat{\zeta}(\tilde{s})| \leq (1+|\tilde{s}|)^{-1/2-\tilde{\epsilon}}$, where $\tilde{\epsilon}>0$.
\end{itemize}
Note that the maximum of $\hat{\zeta}$ could be chosen larger than one without affecting our results. We make this choice in order for a cleaner presentation. Using the local and global-well posedness results, we prove
\begin{thm}
\label{aes}
Let $\alpha =1$. Assuming the hypotheses $H1-H5$, choose constant $C>0$ such that $\opHnormo{\psi_{0,\epsilon}}\leq C$ for $\epsilon \geq 0$ where $\psi_{0,\epsilon}(x)$ is an initial condition for \eqref{nlocgp} and $\psi_{0,0}(x)$ is an initial condition for \eqref{locgp}. Let $\psi_{0,\epsilon} \rightarrow \psi_{0,0}$ in the $H_{1}(S_{T})$ norm as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0^{+}$. Let $\psi(x,t)$ and $\psi_{\epsilon}(x,t)$ be the unique T-periodic solutions to \eqref{locgp} and \eqref{nlocgp} respectively for the given initial conditions. Then there exists a constant $C_{u}>0$ and a function $\varrho(\tilde{T};\epsilon,\epsilon^{'})$, where $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow \epsilon^{'}}\varrho(\tilde{T};\epsilon,\epsilon^{'}) = 0$ for $\epsilon,\epsilon^{'}\geq 0$, such that, for any finite $\tilde{T}>0$, we have the bound
\[
\gnorm{\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t) - \psi(\cdot,t)}_{L^{\infty}(S_{T})} \leq \left(\gnorm{\psi_{0,\epsilon}- \psi_{0,0}}_{H_{1}(S_{T})} + 3C_{u}\tilde{T}\varrho(\tilde{T};\epsilon,0)\right)e^{3C^{2}_{u}\tilde{T}}
\]
for $t\in[0,\tilde{T}]$.
\end{thm}
Thus, on any finite interval of time, as one lets the nonlocality parameter approach zero, the solution to \eqref{nlocgp} converges uniformly in space to the solution of \eqref{locgp}. This shows that AES is a common feature for a large class of potentials and nonlocal, repulsive interactions. Therefore the results in \cite{decon} are likely due to artifacts of their numerical computations, as opposed to being inherent to the equation.
As to the stability of \eqref{sol}, we first need to define the notion of stability to be established ({\it cf.} \cite{gss}). Let $\psi(x,t)$ denote a solution to either \eqref{locgp} or \eqref{nlocgp} with initial condition $\psi(x,0)$. Writing \eqref{sol} as $\phi_{\omega}(x)e^{-i\omega t}$, we say that $\eqref{sol}$ is orbitally stable in $H_{1}(S_{T})$, if for any $\rho>0$, there is a $\delta>0$ such that if $\left|\left|\psi_{0}(x) - \phi_{\omega}(x)\right|\right|_{H_{1}(S_{T})} < \delta$ then
\[
\sup_{t>0}\inf_{c \in [0,2 \pi)}\left|\left|\psi(x,t) - \phi_{\omega}(x)e^{ic}\right|\right|_{H_{1}(S_{T})} < \rho.
\]
The other notion of stability we use is that of spectral stability. First, separate \eqref{locgp} or \eqref{nlocgp} into real and imaginary parts. Denote the linearization of either of these systems around \eqref{sol} as $JL$. Using the scaling $x\rightarrow kx$, $JL$ has terms that are $2\pi$-periodic functions. Let $\sigma(JL)$ denote the spectrum of $JL$ computed over the space $H^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi n})$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$. In effect, we are computing the impact of perturbing \eqref{sol} by $2\pi n$-periodic perturbations, or $2\pi n/k$-periodic perturbations in the unscaled coordinate. We say \eqref{sol} is spectrally stable if for $\lambda \in \sigma(JL)$, $\mbox{Re}(\lambda) \leq 0$. Note, more details are provided in Section 3. Also, given that the nonlinear problem is Hamiltonian, the condition of spectral stability reduces to having spectrum only on the imaginary line, {\it i.e.} $\mbox{Re}(\lambda)=0$. With these definitions in hand, we prove the following three theorems. Throughout these remaining theorems we assume that
\begin{itemize}
\item[$H1^{'}$:] $V(x)=V_{0}\sin^{2}(kx)$,
\item[$H2^{'}$:] $\zeta(x)\geq0$, $\zeta(x)$ is even, and $\gnorm{\zeta}_{L^{1}(\mathbb{R})}=1$,
\item[$H3^{'}$:] $\hat{\zeta}> 0$, and
\item[$H4^{'}$:] $\hat{\zeta}(\tilde{s}) \leq (1+|\tilde{s}|)^{-1/2-\tilde{\epsilon}}$, with $\tilde{\epsilon}>0$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{thm}
Let $\alpha=1$. Assuming the Hypotheses $H1^{'}-H4^{'}$, for any values of $k$ and the nonlocality parameter $\epsilon$, and for perturbations of period $\frac{2\pi n}{k}$, where $n\in \mathbb{N}$, the solution \eqref{sol} is spectrally stable for sufficiently large offset size $B$, $V_{0}<0$, and $|V_{0}|$ sufficiently small.
\label{specsta}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
\label{orbsta}
Let $\alpha=1$. Fix the nonlocality parameter $\epsilon$ and the value $k$. Assuming the Hypotheses $H1^{'}-H4^{'}$, for offset parameter $B$ sufficiently large, $V_{0}<0$, and $|V_{0}|$ sufficiently small, the solution \eqref{sol} of the nonlocal Gross-Pitaevskii equation \eqref{nlocgp} is orbitally stable with respect to perturbations with periods $T=\frac{2\pi n}{k}$, where $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
\label{unstab}
Let $\alpha =1$. Assuming the Hypotheses $H1^{'}-H4^{'}$, with $A=\frac{-V_{0}}{\alpha \beta(k;\epsilon)}$, if $A \geq 2.46 k^2$, then for offset size $B$ and $\epsilon$ sufficiently small, \eqref{sol} is spectrally unstable with respect to perturbations of period $\frac{2\pi n}{k}$, where $n\in \mathbb{N}$.
\end{thm}
The content of these three theorems shows that the role of a small nonlocality parameter is dependent upon the other parameters in the problem, particularly the offset size $B$. Theorems \ref{specsta} and \ref{orbsta} are proven by showing that if $B$ is sufficiently large, then the operator $L$ is positive semi-definite. Then, using Krein signature arguments found in \cite{hara}, we get both spectral and orbital stability. Thus, introducing small nonlocality should not effect the stability of \eqref{sol}, while Theorem \ref{unstab} shows that if $B$ is too small, then even removing the nonlocality parameter does not stabilize the solution. In contrast, as is shown later, we can always get a spectrally stable problem by letting $\epsilon \rightarrow \infty$ for any choice of the other parameters. Thus it appears that while a small amount of nonlocality does not affect stability, large amounts do.
The above theorems do not allow for arbitrary choices of parameters since each theorem requires $|V_{0}|$ to be small, which ensures that $L$ remains positive semi-definite. We cannot at this time provide explicit bounds on how large $|V_{0}|$ can be such that Theorems \ref{specsta} and \ref{orbsta} remain true since we cannot control the spectra of $JL$ for $V_{0}\neq 0$. Therefore, we must treat the parameter values used in \cite{decon} as outside the scope of what is proved in this paper. We provide numerical experiments in order to make conjectures about the stability of \eqref{sol}. First, we use the above theorems to calibrate our numerics by picking parameter values that can reasonably be believed to satisfy the constraints of Theorems \ref{orbsta} and \ref{unstab}. Our numerics behave as the theory predicts. Second, we present numerical experiments using the parameter values found in \cite{decon}, and from this we conjecture that in fact \eqref{sol} should be stable for the parameter values chosen. As mentioned above, these are $B=1$, $V_{0}=-1$, $k=1$, and $\alpha=1$.
As in \cite{decon}, a pseudo-spectral method is used for the spatial variable, while a standard Runge-Kutta method is used for time evolution. The most likely explanation for the discrepancy between the results reported here and those of \cite{decon} is the way in which the convolution is handled. In this paper, no approximation is made in the integral or to the convolution kernel. However, in \cite{decon}, it appears an approximation is made to the kernel which introduces an error that appears difficult for the pseudo-spectral method to resolve. In private communications, the authors of \cite{decon} have been made aware of these discrepancies. They have encouraged the explanation for them in this manuscript.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we present the proof of the AES of \eqref{locgp} and \eqref{nlocgp}. In Section 3, we find the linearization around \eqref{sol}, and we establish some basic results about the convolution kernel that are used later. In Section 4, Theorems \ref{specsta} and \ref{orbsta} are proved, while in Section 5, Theorem \ref{unstab} is proved. Finally, Section 6 presents the numerical results.
\section{Asymptotic Equivalence of Stability}
We proceed in the following fashion. In order to make the presentation self-contained, we first establish the local-in-time well-posedness of the nonlocal Gross-Pitaevskii equation from which we obtain a local-in-time form of AES. We then establish the continuity in $\epsilon$ of solutions to \eqref{nlocgp}. Finally, we establish the global-in-time well posedness of \eqref{nlocgp} which allows us to prove Theorem \ref{aes}. Note, we use Hypotheses $H1-H5$ throughout the remainder of the section.
We begin by establishing some basic lemmas concerning the convolution kernel $R$. We show, using the assumptions stated for Theorem \ref{aes}, that the Fourier transform of the convolution kernel is Lipschitz continuous in $\epsilon$.
\begin{lem}
One has
\begin{equation}
|\hat{R}(\tilde{s};\epsilon) - \hat{R}(\tilde{s};\epsilon^{'})| \leq |\epsilon - \epsilon^{'}| |\tilde{s}|\gnorm{x \zeta(x)}_{L^{1}(\mathbb{R})}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
\label{convcont}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
With
\begin{equation}
\hat{R}(\tilde{s};\epsilon) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-i \tilde{s} x}R(x;\epsilon) dx, \nonumber
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}
\hat{R}(\tilde{s};\epsilon) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-i \epsilon \tilde{s} x}\zeta(x) dx. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Using the Mean-Value Theorem, one gets
\[
|\hat{R}(\tilde{s};\epsilon) - \hat{R}(\tilde{s};\epsilon^{'})| \leq |\epsilon - \epsilon^{'}| |\tilde{s}| \gnorm{
\cdot \zeta(\cdot)}_{L^{1}(\mathbb{R})}.
\]
Thus the result is shown. Using Hypothesis $H4$, which amounts to assuming $\gnorm{\cdot \zeta(\cdot)}_{L^{1}(\mathbb{R})} < \infty$, we also have that the bound is meaningful.
\end{proof}
Let $R_{\epsilon}(\cdot) = R(\cdot,\epsilon)$. We then show
\begin{lem}
Given Hypotheses $H3$ and $H5$, for $f \in L^{2}(S_{T})$,
\begin{equation}
R_{\epsilon} \ast f = R_{\epsilon} \ast \left(\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \hat{f}_{j} e_{j}(x) \right) = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \hat{f}_{j}\hat{R_{\epsilon}}\left(\frac{2\pi j}{T}\right) e_{j}(x). \nonumber
\end{equation}
\label{convcompute}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
First we note that
\[
\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}|\hat{f}_{j}| |R_{\epsilon} \ast e_{j}| \leq \left|\left|f \right|\right|_{2}\left(\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}\hat{R_{\epsilon}}^{2}\left(\frac{2\pi j}{T}\right)\right)^{1/2} < \infty,
\]
since for $j\neq 0$
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\epsilon}\ast e_{j}(x) = & \displaystyle{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}}R(y-x;\epsilon)\frac{e^{-i2\pi jy/T}}{\sqrt{T}}dy \nonumber \\
= & e_{j}(x) \displaystyle{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}} R(\tilde{y};\epsilon)e^{-i(2\pi j\tilde{y})/T} d\tilde{y}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
$R_{\epsilon}\ast e_{0}(x)=\hat{R_{\epsilon}}(0)e_{0}(x)$, and $\hat{R_{\epsilon}}(\tilde{s}) \leq (1+\epsilon|\tilde{s}|)^{-1/2-\tilde{\epsilon}}$ by Hypothesis $H5$. By Hypothesis $H3$, $\gnorm{ R_{\epsilon}(x)}_{L^{1}(\mathbb{R})} = 1$ , and by a corollary to the Dominated Convergence Theorem (\cite{foll}, Theorem 2.25) one has
\[
R_{\epsilon} \ast \left(\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \hat{f}_{j} e_{j}(x) \right) = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \hat{f}_{j} R_{\epsilon}\ast e_{j}(x),
\]
or
\[
R_{\epsilon} \ast f = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \hat{f}_{j}\hat{R_{\epsilon}}\left(\frac{2\pi j}{T}\right) e_{j}(x),
\]
and the result is shown.
\end{proof}
From the previous lemma, one gets
\begin{lem}
Let $s>\frac{1}{2}$. One has that
\begin{equation}
\opHnorm{R_{\epsilon}\ast|f|^2} \leq \opHnorm{f}^2. \nonumber
\end{equation}
\label{hsconv}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By definition, one has
\begin{equation}
\opHnorm{R_{\epsilon}\ast|f|^2}^{2} = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}(1+\frac{4\pi^{2}}{T^{2}}j^{2})^{s}|(R_{\epsilon}\ast|f|^{2})^{\wedge}_{j}|^{2}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Let $|f|^{2} = \sum_{j} \hat{q}_{j} e_{j}(x)$, where $e_{j}(x)$ is as in \eqref{fs}, so that the Fourier series of $R_{\epsilon}\ast|f|^{2}$, using Lemma \ref{convcompute}, is
\begin{equation}
R_{\epsilon}\ast|f|^{2}(x) = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}\hat{q}_{j} \hat{R_{\epsilon}}\left(\frac{2 \pi j}{T}\right)e_{j}(x).
\label{confs}
\end{equation}
Hence,
\begin{equation}
|(R_{\epsilon}\ast|f|^{2})^{\wedge}_{j}| = \left|\hat{q}_{j} \hat{R_{\epsilon}}\left(\frac{2\pi j}{T}\right)\right| \leq |\hat{q}_{j}| = |(|f|^{2})^{\wedge}_{j}|, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and therefore
\begin{equation}
\opHnorm{R_{\epsilon}\ast|f|^2} \leq \opHnorm{|f|^2} \leq \opHnorm{f}^{2}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where the last inequality comes from the fact that $H_{s}(S_{T})$ is an algebra for $s> 1/2$ \cite{foll}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Local-in-Time Well Posedness of the Nonlocal Gross-Pitaevskii Equation and a Weak AES Theorem}
For the small-time argument, with initial condition $\psi_{0,\epsilon}(x)$, we rewrite \eqref{nlocgp} in the Duhamel form
\begin{equation}
\psi_{\epsilon}(x,t) = e^{-iL_{sa}t}\psi_{0,\epsilon}(x) - i\alpha \int^{t}_{0}e^{-iL_{sa}(t-t^{'})}\psi_{\epsilon}(x,t^{'})R_{\epsilon}\ast|\psi_{\epsilon}(x,t^{'})|^{2} dt^{'},
\label{duh}
\end{equation}
where $L_{sa}= -\frac{1}{2}\partial^{2}_{x} + V(x)$, with $V(x)$ assumed to be, by Hypothesis $H1$, a smooth $T$-periodic function. As for controlling $e^{-iL_{sa}t}$, since the operator $-iL_{sa}$ is skew-adjoint, by Stone's theorem \cite{eng}, $e^{-iL_{sa}t}$ is a unitary operator from $L_{2}\left(S_{T}\right)$ to itself. One also has that
\[
\left(e^{-iL_{sa}t} f(x) \right)^{\wedge}_{j} = e^{-i\hat{L}_{sa}(j)t}\hat{f}_{j},
\]
where $\hat{L}_{sa}(j)$ denotes the symbol of $L_{sa}$. Since $L_{sa}$ is self-adjoint, $\hat{L}_{sa}(j)$ is strictly real, and so one has the bound
\[
\opHnorm{e^{-iL_{sa}t} f} \leq \opHnorm{f},
\]
since $|e^{-i\hat{L}_{sa}(j)t}| = 1$ for all $j$.
Throughout the remainder of the section, we assume $L_{sa}$ is acting on the space $H_{s}(S_{T})$ where $s>1/2$. Using Lemma \ref{hsconv}, and defining $G_{\epsilon}(\psi)$ by,
\[
G_{\epsilon}(\psi) = e^{-iL_{sa}t}\psi_{0,\epsilon}(x) - i\alpha \int^{t}_{0}e^{-iL_{sa}(t-t^{'})}\psi(x,t^{'})R_{\epsilon}\ast|\psi(x,t^{'})|^{2} dt^{'},
\]
one has for $s>1/2$
\[
\sup_{t\in[0,\tilde{T}]}\opHnorm{G_{\epsilon}(\psi)} \leq \opHnorm{\psi_{0,\epsilon}} + \tilde{T} \left(\sup_{t\in[0,\tilde{T}]}\opHnorm{\psi}\right)^{3}.
\]
We then choose constant $C>0$ such that
\[
\opHnorm{\psi_{0,\epsilon}} \leq C,
\]
for $\epsilon \geq 0$, with $C$ independent of $\epsilon$. We define the metric space $B_{r}$, for $r > C$, by
\[
B_{r} = \left \{\psi(x,t) \in L^{\infty}(H_{s}(S_{T});[0,\tilde{T}]): \sup_{t\in[0,\tilde{T}]}\opHnorm{\psi} \leq r\right\},
\]
where
\[
L^{\infty}(H_{s}(S_{T});[0,\tilde{T}]) = \left\{ \psi(x,t) \in H_{s}(S_{T}) ~ \forall t\in[0,\tilde{T}] : \sup_{t\in[0,\tilde{T}]}\opHnorm{\psi} < \infty \right\}.
\]
The map $G_{\epsilon}$ takes $B_{r}$ to $B_{r}$ for $\tilde{T}\leq \frac{r-C}{r^{3}}$. It is straightforward to show, again using Lemma \ref{hsconv}, that $G_{\epsilon}$ is a contraction for $\tilde{T}< \frac{1}{3r^{2}}$, and therefore, using the Banach Fixed Point Theorem \cite{tao}, one has local well posedness for initial condition $\opHnorm{\psi_{0,\epsilon}(x)} \leq C$, $s>1/2$, on the space $B_{r}$ for
\[
\tilde{T} < \min \left\{\frac{r-C}{r^{3}},\frac{1}{3r^{2}} \right\}.
\]
From the local well-posedness result, we now prove
\begin{lem}
One has that $\gnorm{\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)}_{H_{s}(S_{T})}$, $\gnorm{\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)}_{L^{\infty}(S_{T})}$, and $\gnorm{\psi^{2}_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)}_{L^{\infty}(S_{T})}$ are continuous functions of time for $t\in[0,\tilde{T}]$. Further, the Fourier coefficients of $\psi_{\epsilon}(x,t)$ and $\psi^{2}_{\epsilon}(x,t)$ are continuous functions of time for $t\in[0,\tilde{T}]$.
\label{fourierlemma}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $t,\tilde{t} \in [0,\tilde{T}]$, and $\epsilon \geq 0$. Letting $\psi_{\epsilon}(x,t)$ denote the solution for initial condition $\psi_{0,\epsilon}(x)$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\opHnorm{\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t) - \psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,\tilde{t})} & \leq & \opHnorm{\left(e^{-iL_{sa}t}-e^{-iL_{sa}\tilde{t}} \right) \psi_{0,\epsilon}} + \nonumber \\
& & \opHnorm{\int_{\tilde{t}}^{t} e^{-iL_{sa}(t-t^{'})}\mathcal{N}(\psi_{\epsilon}) dt^{'}} \nonumber \\
& & \opHnorm{\int_{0}^{\tilde{t}}(e^{-iL_{sa}(t-t^{'})} - e^{-iL_{sa}(\tilde{t}-t^{'})})\mathcal{N}(\psi_{\epsilon}) dt^{'}} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where
\[
\mathcal{N}(\psi_{\epsilon}) = \psi_{\epsilon}(x,t^{'})R_{\epsilon}\ast|\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t^{'})|^{2}(x).
\]
For the first term, we have that
\[
\opHnorm{\left(e^{-iL_{sa}t}-e^{-iL_{sa}\tilde{t}} \right) \psi_{0,\epsilon}}^{2} \leq \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}\left<j\right>^{s}\left|e^{-i\hat{L}_{sa}(j)t}-e^{-i\hat{L}_{sa}(j)\tilde{t}}\right|^{2}\left|\hat{\psi}_{0,\epsilon}(j)\right|^{2}.
\]
Using the Dominated Convergence Theorem shows that this term then vanishes as $t\rightarrow \tilde{t}$ or vice versa. The local well posedness result and Lemma \ref{hsconv} ensures that
\[
\opHnorm{\mathcal{N}(\psi_{\epsilon})} \leq r^{3},
\]
so we have
\[
\opHnorm{\displaystyle{\int_{\tilde{t}}^{t} e^{-iL_{sa}(t-t^{'})}\mathcal{N}(\psi_{\epsilon})} dt^{'}} \leq r^{3}|t-\tilde{t}|.
\]
Using a dominated convergence argument shows that the remaining term must also vanish as $t\rightarrow \tilde{t}$. Thus we have shown that $\opHnorm{\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)}$ is a continuous function in $t$ for $t\in[0,\tilde{T}]$. By a Sobolev embedding \cite{foll}, we also have that $\gnorm{\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)}_{L^{\infty}(S_{T})}$ is continuous in $t$ and bounded above by $r$. Given that
\[
\gnorm{\psi^{2}_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t) - \psi^{2}_{\epsilon}(\cdot,\tilde{t})}_{L^{\infty}(S_{T})} \leq 2r\gnorm{\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t) - \psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,\tilde{t})}_{L^{\infty}(S_{T})},
\]
we then see that $\gnorm{\psi^{2}_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)}_{L^{\infty}(S_{T})}$ is continuous as well. This result then immediately gives that the Fourier coefficients of $\psi_{\epsilon}(x,t)$ and $\psi^{2}_{\epsilon}(x,t)$ are also continuous in time since
\begin{eqnarray}
\left|\hat{\psi}_{\epsilon}(j,t) - \hat{\psi}_{\epsilon}(j,\tilde{t})\right| &\leq & \sqrt{T} \gnorm{\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)-\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,\tilde{t})}_{L^{\infty}(S_{T})}, \nonumber \\
\left|\hat{\psi^{2}_{\epsilon}}(j,t) - \hat{\psi^{2}_{\epsilon}}(j,\tilde{t})\right| &\leq & \sqrt{T} \gnorm{\psi^{2}_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)-\psi^{2}_{\epsilon}(\cdot,\tilde{t})}_{L^{\infty}(S_{T})}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
for $j\neq 0$. The $j=0$ case is treated identically, so the result is proved.
\end{proof}
Taking $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon^{'}$ to be nonnegative, we now choose the initial conditions to be continuous in $\epsilon$ with respect to the $\opHnorm{\cdot}$-norm, {\it i.e.}
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow \epsilon^{'}} \opHnorm{\psi_{0,\epsilon} - \psi_{0,\epsilon^{'}}}=0.
\label{contofics}
\end{equation}
We then prove
\begin{lem}
For $\epsilon \geq 0$, $t\in[0,\tilde{T}]$, and $s>1/2$, if the initial condition $\psi_{0,\epsilon}$ is continuous in $\epsilon$ with respect to the $\opHnorm{\cdot}$-norm, the solution $\psi_{\epsilon}(x,t)$ is continuous in $\epsilon$ with respect to the $\opHnorm{\cdot}$-norm, {\it i.e.}
\[
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow \epsilon^{'}} \opHnorm{\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t) - \psi_{\epsilon^{'}}(\cdot,t)}=0.
\]
\label{duhcont}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Choosing $\epsilon,\epsilon^{'} \geq 0$, one has that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rl}
\opHnorm{\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}(\cdot,t)-\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)} \leq & \opHnorm{\psi_{0,\epsilon^{'}}-\psi_{0,\epsilon}}\\
&\\
& + \displaystyle{\int_{0}^{t}}\opHnorm{\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}R_{\epsilon^{'}}\ast\left|\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}\right|^{2} - \psi_{\epsilon}R_{\epsilon}\ast\left|\psi_{\epsilon}\right|^{2}}dt^{'}.
\end{array} \nonumber
\end{equation}
In the last term of the above inequality, the convolutions depend on the different values of $\epsilon$. Thus
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rl}
\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}R_{\epsilon^{'}}\ast\left|\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}\right|^{2} - \psi_{\epsilon}R_{\epsilon}\ast\left|\psi_{\epsilon}\right|^{2} = & (\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}-\psi_{\epsilon})R(\cdot;\epsilon^{'})\ast\left|\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}\right|^{2} \\
& \\
& + \psi_{\epsilon}(R(\cdot;\epsilon^{'})-R(\cdot;\epsilon))\ast\left|\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}\right|^{2} \\
& \\
& + \psi_{\epsilon}R(\cdot,\epsilon)\ast(\left|\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}\right|^{2}-\left|\psi_{\epsilon}\right|^{2}).
\end{array} \nonumber
\end{equation}
For $t\in[0,\tilde{T}]$, using the local-in-time well posedness result, the following inequality
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rl}
\opHnorm{\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}R_{\epsilon^{'}}\ast\left|\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}\right|^{2} - \psi_{\epsilon}R_{\epsilon}\ast\left|\psi_{\epsilon}\right|^{2}} \leq & 3r^{2}\opHnorm{\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}-\psi_{\epsilon}} \\
& \\
& + r\opHnorm{(R_{\epsilon^{'}}-R_{\epsilon})\ast\left|\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}\right|^{2}} \\
\end{array} \nonumber
\end{equation}
holds. To control the last term in this inequality, set (as in Lemma \ref{hsconv})
\[
\left|\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}(x,t)\right|^{2} = \sum_{j} \hat{q}_{j}(t)e_{j}(x),
\]
from which one gets that
\[
(R(\cdot;\epsilon^{'})-R(\cdot;\epsilon))\ast\left|\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}(\cdot,t)\right|^{2} = \sum_{j}\hat{q}_{j}(t)\left(\hat{R}\left(\frac{2\pi j}{T};\epsilon^{'}\right)-\hat{R}\left(\frac{2\pi j}{T};\epsilon\right)\right)e_{j}(x).
\]
From the local-in-time well posedness result
\[
\opHnorm{\psi^{2}_{\epsilon^{'}}(\cdot,t)}\leq r^{2},
\]
so that using Lemma \ref{convcont}, one gets the pointwise estimate
\[
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow \epsilon^{'}} \left|\hat{q}_{j}(t)\right|\left| \hat{R}\left(\frac{2\pi j}{T};\epsilon^{'}\right)-\hat{R}\left(\frac{2\pi j}{T};\epsilon\right)\right| = 0,
\]
where the index $j$ is arbitrary. Using Hypothesis $H5$, $\hat{R}(\cdot;\epsilon)$ is uniformly bounded in $j$, so the terms
\[
\left|\hat{q}_{j}(t)\right|\left| \hat{R}\left(\frac{2\pi j}{T};\epsilon^{'}\right)-\hat{R}\left(\frac{2\pi j}{T};\epsilon\right)\right|
\]
are uniformly bounded for all $j$. Using the Dominated Convergence Theorem, one sees that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow \epsilon^{'}}\opHnorm{(R(\cdot;\epsilon^{'})-R(\cdot;\epsilon))\ast\left|\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}(\cdot,t)\right|^{2}} = 0.
\label{conv_continu}
\end{equation}
Then
\[
\opHnorm{\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}(\cdot,t)-\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)} \leq \tilde{A}(\tilde{T},\epsilon,\epsilon^{'})+ 3r^{2}\int_{0}^{t}\opHnorm{\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}(\cdot,t^{'})-\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t^{'})} dt^{'},
\]
where
\[
\tilde{A}(\tilde{T},\epsilon,\epsilon^{'}) = \opHnorm{\psi_{0,\epsilon^{'}}-\psi_{0,\epsilon}} + r\tilde{T}\sup_{t\in[0,\tilde{T}]}\tilde{C}(t;\epsilon,\epsilon^{'}),
\]
with
\begin{equation}
\tilde{C}(t;\epsilon,\epsilon^{'}) = \opHnorm{(R(\cdot;\epsilon^{'})-R(\cdot;\epsilon))\ast\left|\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}(\cdot,t)\right|^{2}}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
The term $\opHnorm{\psi_{0,\epsilon^{'}}-\psi_{0,\epsilon}}$ vanishes as $\epsilon \rightarrow \epsilon^{'}$ by assumption (see \eqref{contofics}). Further, since, as shown in Lemma \ref{fourierlemma}, the coefficients $\hat{q}_{j}(t)$ are continuous in time, this makes the term $\tilde{C}(t;\epsilon,\epsilon^{'})$ continuous in time since it is a uniform sum of continuous functions. Thus, the supremum is attained at some time $t^{\ast}$, and since \eqref{conv_continu} holds for any $t\in[0,\tilde{T}]$, one has that
\[
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow \epsilon^{'}} \varrho(\tilde{T};\epsilon,\epsilon')= 0,
\]
where $ \varrho(\tilde{T};\epsilon,\epsilon') = \sup_{t\in[0,\tilde{T}]}\tilde{C}(t;\epsilon,\epsilon^{'})$. Therefore,
\[
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow \epsilon^{'}} \tilde{A}(\tilde{T},\epsilon,\epsilon^{'}) = 0.
\]
We know from Lemma \ref{fourierlemma} that $\opHnorm{\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}(\cdot,t)-\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)}$ is a continuous function in $t$ for $t\in[0,\tilde{T}]$. Using Gronwall's inequality \cite{tao}, one gets
\[
\opHnorm{\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}(\cdot,t)-\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)} \leq \tilde{A}(\tilde{T},\epsilon,\epsilon^{'})e^{3r^{2}t},
\]
and the result is therefore proved.
\end{proof}
Since $s>1/2$, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\gnorm{\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}(\cdot,t)-\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)}_{L^{\infty}(S_{T})} \leq \opHnorm{\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}(\cdot,t)-\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and thus
\begin{equation}
\gnorm{\psi_{\epsilon^{'}}(\cdot,t)-\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)}_{L^{\infty}(S_{T})} \leq \tilde{A}(\tilde{T},\epsilon,\epsilon^{'})e^{3r^{2}t} \nonumber.
\end{equation}
Therefore the lemma establishes that \eqref{nlocgp} is local in time AES to \eqref{locgp}. Further, once a global-in-time well posedness result holds for \eqref{nlocgp} (which amounts to establishing a uniform bound on $r$ for all time), the above lemma immediately furnishes a global in time AES result.
\subsection{Global-in-Time Well Posedness and the AES Theorem}
As established in \cite{decon}, \eqref{nlocgp} has at least two conserved quantities: the $L_{2}(S_{T})$ norm and the Hamiltonian
\[
\mathcal{H}(\psi) = \frac{1}{2}\int_{S_{T}}( |\psi_{x}|^{2} + 2V(x)|\psi|^{2} + \alpha |\psi|^{2}R_{\epsilon}\ast |\psi|^{2})dx.
\]
We choose $\psi(x,\cdot) \in H_{1}(S_{T})$. Following the argument in \cite{linar}, with $R_{\epsilon}$ positive by Hypothesis $H2$, $\alpha = 1$, and $\psi_{\epsilon}(x,t)$ a solution to \eqref{nlocgp} on time interval $t\in[0,\tilde{T}]$, with initial condition $\psi_{\epsilon,0}(x) \in H_{1}(S_{T})$, then one has that
\[
\begin{array}{rl}
\gnorm{\partial_{x}\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)}^{2}_{L^{2}(S_{T})} & \leq 2|\mathcal{H}(\psi_{\epsilon}(x,t))| + 2\displaystyle{\int_{S_{T}}}|V(x)||\psi_{\epsilon}(x,t)|^{2}dx \\
&\\
& \leq 2|\mathcal{H}(\psi_{\epsilon,0})|+2\gnorm{V}_{L^{\infty}(S_{T})}\gnorm{\psi_{\epsilon,0}}^{2}_{L^{2}(S_{T})}.
\end{array}
\]
Using Young's inequality, one has
\[
\int_{S_{T}} |\psi_{\epsilon,0}|^{2}R_{\epsilon}\ast|\psi_{\epsilon,0}|^{2}dx \leq \gnorm{\psi_{\epsilon,0}}^{2}_{L^{\infty}(S_{T})} \gnorm{\psi_{\epsilon,0}}^{2}_{L^{2}(S_{T})} \leq \gnorm{\psi_{\epsilon,0}}^{4}_{H_{1}(S_{T})}.
\]
Thus the assumptions guarantee that $|\mathcal{H}(\psi_{\epsilon,0})|<\infty$. Since the $L^{2}(S_{T})$ norm is also conserved, there exists a constant $\tilde{M}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\sup_{t\in[0,\tilde{T}]} \gnorm{\psi_{\epsilon}(\cdot,t)}_{H_{1}(S_{T})} \leq C_{u}.
\label{globalcontrol}
\end{equation}
This bound is independent of $t$. If we now try to iterate our local-in-time well posedness argument onto a time interval $[\tilde{T}-\bar{\epsilon},\tilde{\tilde{T}})$, where $0< \bar{\epsilon}\ll1$ is chosen so that the intervals $[0,\tilde{T})$ and $[\tilde{T}-\bar{\epsilon},\tilde{\tilde{T}})$ overlap, then for the new interval we may let $C_{u}$ take the role of the value $C$. We must work on a ball $B_{\tilde{r}}$ with $\tilde{r} > C_{u}$ and
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\tilde{T}} < \min\left\{\frac{\tilde{r}-C_{u}}{\tilde{r}^{3}},\frac{1}{3\tilde{r}^{2}} \right\}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Since the inequality \eqref{globalcontrol} is independent of time, one can repeat the derivation of \eqref{globalcontrol} on the time interval $[0,\tilde{\tilde{T}})$ and obtain the same bound. Thus one can iterate the local argument such that the value of $\tilde{r}$ need not increase, and thus the width of the new intervals can be set to a fixed value. This establishes for the repulsive case a global existence of solutions to \eqref{nlocgp} in $H_{1}(S_{T})$ for $\epsilon \geq 0$. As argued above, one can immediately extend the argument in Lemma \ref{duhcont} so that one has a global AES theorem.
\section{Stability: The Linearization and Its Properties }
Having established Theorem \ref{aes}, we turn to analyzing the stability of \eqref{sol}. Note, throughout the remainder of the paper we assume Hypotheses $H1^{'}-H4^{'}$ as listed in the Introduction. Writing \eqref{sol} as $\psi(x,t) = \phi_{\omega}(x)e^{-i\omega t}$, and introducing the transformation $\tau = \omega t$, we see that $\phi_{\omega}$ is a stationary solution of the equation
\begin{equation}
i \psi_{\tau} = -\frac{1}{2}\partial^{2}_{x}\psi + \alpha \psi \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} R(x-y;\epsilon)|\psi(y,t)|^{2}dy + V(x)\psi - \omega \psi.
\label{tgp}
\end{equation}
With $\psi(x,\tau) = u(x,\tau) + i v(x,\tau)$, we rewrite \eqref{tgp} as
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
u \\
v
\end{array}
\right)_{\tau} = J \left\{
\tilde{L}_{0}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
u \\
v
\end{array}
\right)
+ \alpha \left(
\begin{array}{c}
u R_{\epsilon}\ast (u^2 + v^2) \\
v R_{\epsilon}\ast (u^2 + v^2)
\end{array}
\right)
\right\}, \label{realandimagpart}
\end{equation}
where
\[ J = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{array}
\right),
\]
\[
\tilde{L}_{0} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
L_{0} & 0 \\
0 & L_{0}
\end{array}
\right),
\]
and $L_{0}= -\frac{1}{2}\partial^{2}_{x} + V(x) - \omega$. Note, \eqref{realandimagpart} is posed over $H^{2}_{1}(S_{2\pi/k})$, but the global-well posedness result established in the last section carries over without issue. We set $V(x)=V_{0}\sin^{2}(kx)$ from Hypothesis $H1^{'}$. Letting
\[
u_{\omega}(x) =\phi_{\omega,r}(x) = \sqrt{B}\cos(x), ~ v_{\omega}(x) = \phi_{\omega,i}(x)= \sqrt{B+A} \sin(x),
\]
and equating $u = u_{\omega} + \tilde{\epsilon} w(x,\tau)$ and $v = v_{\omega} + \tilde{\epsilon} z(x,\tau)$, and collecting all $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon})$ terms, we get the linearized system
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
w \\
z
\end{array}
\right)_{\tau} = J \left\{
\tilde{L}_{0}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
w \\
z
\end{array}
\right)
+ \alpha \left(
\begin{array}{c}
w R_{\epsilon}\ast (u_{\omega}^2 + v_{\omega}^2) + 2 u_{\omega} R_{\epsilon} \ast (u_{\omega} w + v_{\omega} z) \\
z R_{\epsilon}\ast (u_{\omega}^2 + v_{\omega}^2) + 2 v_{\omega} R_{\epsilon} \ast (u_{\omega} w + v_{\omega} z)
\end{array}
\right)
\right\}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
With $A = -\displaystyle{\frac{V_{0}}{\alpha \beta(k;\epsilon)}}$, we have
\begin{equation}
R_{\epsilon}\ast (u_{\omega}^2 + v_{\omega}^2) = R_{\epsilon} \ast (B + A\sin^{2}(kx)) = B + A R_{\epsilon} \ast \left(\frac{1-\cos(2kx)}{2} \right). \nonumber
\end{equation}
Thus, since $R_{\epsilon}$ is an even function by Hypothesis $H2^{'}$, we write
\begin{equation}
R_{\epsilon}\ast (u_{\omega}^2 + v_{\omega}^2) = B + A\left(\frac{1-\beta(k;\epsilon)}{2} +\beta(k;\epsilon)\sin^{2}(kx)\right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
and we have, for $\alpha = 1$,
\begin{equation}
L_{0} + R_{\epsilon}\ast (u_{\omega}^2 + v_{\omega}^2) = -\frac{1}{2}\left(\partial^{2}_{x} + k^2 \right). \nonumber
\end{equation}
Introducing the transformation $x \rightarrow kx$, so that the potential and \eqref{sol} are now $2\pi$-periodic functions, and defining
\begin{equation}
L_{c} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-\frac{k^{2}}{2}(\partial^{2}_{x}+1) & 0 \\
0 & -\frac{k^{2}}{2}(\partial^{2}_{x}+1),
\end{array} \right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
we rewrite the linearized system with $\alpha =1$ as
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
w \\
z
\end{array}
\right)_{\tau} = J \left\{
L_{c}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
w \\
z
\end{array}
\right)
+2 \left(
\begin{array}{c}
u_{\omega} R_{k,\epsilon} \ast (u_{\omega} w + v_{\omega} z) \\
v_{\omega} R_{k,\epsilon} \ast (u_{\omega} w + v_{\omega} z)
\end{array}
\right)
\right\}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $R_{k,\epsilon}(x) = R_{k}(x;\epsilon) = \displaystyle{\frac{1}{k}}R\left(\displaystyle{\frac{x}{k}};\epsilon\right)$. Defining
\begin{equation}
\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
R_{k,\epsilon}\ast & 0 \\
0 & R_{k,\epsilon}\ast
\end{array} \right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
and letting
\begin{equation}
D = \sqrt{1 + \frac{A}{B}},
\label{defofd}
\end{equation}
we can rewrite the linearized system as
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
w \\
z
\end{array}
\right)_{\tau} = JL \left(
\begin{array}{c}
w \\
z
\end{array}
\right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
with the operator $L$ given by
\begin{equation}
L =
L_{c}+2 B \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos(x) & 0 \\
0 & D \sin(x)
\end{array}
\right) \bar{R}_{k,\epsilon}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos(x) & D \sin(x) \\
\cos(x) & D \sin(x)
\end{array}
\right).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Using separation of variables, {\it i.e.} $w(x,\tau) = w(x) e^{\lambda \tau}$ and $v(x,\tau) = v(x) e^{\lambda \tau}$, formally gives us an eigenvalue problem. We now study the spectrum of $JL$ over $H^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi n}) \subset L^{2}_{2}(S_{T})$. Note, the fact we are working over the space $H^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi n})$ reflects the fact that we have separated the perturbations of the exact solution into real and imaginary parts.
\subsection{The Eigenvalue Problem on $S_{2\pi n}$}
We wish to solve the spectral problem
\begin{equation}
JL \left(\begin{array}{c}w \\ z \end{array}\right) = \lambda \left(\begin{array}{c}w \\ z \end{array}\right), ~ w(x + 2\pi n) = w(x), ~ z(x+2\pi n) = z(x), \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $n \in \mathbb{N}$. As will be shown after this section, the operator $JL$ on the domain $\mbox{D}(JL) = H^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi n}) \subset L^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi n})$ has a compact resolvent operator. Therefore the spectrum, $\sigma(JL)$, of the operator $JL$ is discrete, and solving the eigenvalue problem is sufficient to determine the spectrum. To find the spectrum of $JL$, we note that an arbitrary $2 \pi n$-periodic function, $f(x)$, can be decomposed as
\begin{equation}
f(x) = \displaystyle{\sum_{m} \hat{f}_{m} e^{-i\frac{m}{n} x}}= \displaystyle{\sum_{m}\hat{f}_{m} e^{-i\frac{\tilde{m}n - r}{n} x}} = \displaystyle{\sum_{r=0}^{n-1}\tilde{f}_{r}(x)e^{i\frac{r}{n}x}},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{f}_{r}(x)$ is a $2\pi$-periodic function, and $m \equiv r \mbox{mod} ~ n$. Therefore, one can apply a similar decomposition to $w$ and $z$ so that
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{array}{c}w(x) \\ z(x) \end{array}\right) = \sum^{n-1}_{r=0} \left(\begin{array}{c}w_{r}(x) \\ z_{r}(x) \end{array}\right)e^{i\frac{r}{n}x}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
One can show, for real $\mu$, that
\begin{equation}
JL(e^{i\mu x} \cdot) = e^{i\mu x} JL_{\mu} \nonumber
\end{equation}
where the operator $L_{\mu}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
L_{\mu} = \left\{L_{c,\mu}+2 B \left( \begin{array}{cc} \cos(x) & 0 \\ 0 & D \sin(x) \end{array} \right) \bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu} \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\cos(x) & D \sin(x) \\ \cos(x) & D \sin(x) \end{array} \right) \right\}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
L_{c,\mu} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} -\frac{k^{2}}{2}((\partial_{x}+ i\mu)^{2}+1) & 0 \\ 0 & -\frac{k^{2}}{2}((\partial_{x}+i\mu)^{2}+1),\end{array} \right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu} = \left(\begin{array}{cc} R_{k,\epsilon,\mu}\ast & 0 \\ 0 & R_{k,\epsilon,\mu}\ast \end{array}
\right). \nonumber
\end{equation}
Here
\begin{equation}
R_{k,\epsilon,\mu}(x) = R_{k,\mu}(x;\epsilon) = \frac{1}{k}R\left(\frac{x}{k};\epsilon\right)e^{-i\mu x}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Thus one has for any eigenvalue $\lambda$ that
\begin{equation}
(JL-\lambda)\left(\begin{array}{c}w(x) \\ z(x) \end{array}\right) = \sum_{r=0}^{n-1}e^{i\frac{r}{n}x}\left(JL_{\frac{r}{n}}-\lambda\right) \left(\begin{array}{c}w_{r}(x) \\ z_{r}(x) \end{array}\right) = 0. \nonumber
\end{equation}
The term $(JL_{\frac{r}{n}}-\lambda) \left(\begin{array}{c}w_{r}(x) \\ z_{r}(x) \end{array}\right)$ is a $2\pi$ periodic function. Since none of the functions share a common period shorter than $2\pi n$, the equality
\begin{equation}
\left(JL_{\frac{r}{n}}-\lambda\right) \left(\begin{array}{c}w_{r}(x) \\ z_{r}(x) \end{array}\right) = 0\nonumber
\end{equation}
must hold for each value of $r$. This shows that one can decompose the spectrum of $JL$ on $H^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi n})$ as a union of the spectra of the operators $JL_{\frac{r}{n}}$ posed on $H^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi})$, {\it i.e.} one can write
\begin{equation}
\sigma(JL) = \bigcup^{n-1}_{r=0} \sigma(JL_{r/n}). \nonumber
\end{equation}
Note, one cannot rely on standard Floquet theory since the spectral problem is not an ordinary differential equation. In the succeeding sections we study the problem $JL_{\mu}$ on $S_{2\pi}$, with $\mu \in [0,1)$, in order to deal with arbitrary values of $r/n$.
\subsection{Basic Results about the Convolution Kernel and Linearization}
We prove a number of technical lemmas concerning the convolution and linearization that are used throughout the remainder of the paper.
\begin{lem}
Given Hypotheses $H2^{'}$ and $H4^{'}$, the operator $\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu}:L^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi})\rightarrow L^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi})$ is compact. Further, $\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu}$ is continuous in $\mu$, $\mu\in[0,1]$, with respect to the $\gnorm{\cdot}_{2,v}$-norm.
\label{propsaboutr}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Using the same arguments as in Lemma \ref{convcompute}, one finds the Fourier series representation of $\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu}$, which we denote as $\hat{\bar{R}}_{k,\epsilon,\mu}$, as
\begin{equation}
\hat{\bar{R}}_{k,\epsilon,\mu} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Lambda_{k,\epsilon,\mu} & 0 \\
0 & \Lambda_{k,\epsilon,\mu}
\end{array}
\right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda_{k,\epsilon,\mu}$ is diagonal and $\left(\Lambda_{k,\epsilon,\mu} \right)_{jj} = \hat{R}_{k,\epsilon}(j-\mu)$. Since in Hypothesis $H2^{'}$ we assume $R_{k,\epsilon} \in L^{1}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$, by the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma \cite{foll}, we have
\begin{equation}
\lim_{|j| \rightarrow \infty}\left(\Lambda_{k,\epsilon,\mu} \right)_{jj} = 0. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Defining
\begin{equation}
R^{N}_{k,\epsilon,\mu} f = \sum_{j=-N}^{N} \hat{f}_{j}\hat{R}_{k,\epsilon}(j-\mu) e_{j}(x), \nonumber
\end{equation}
we see that for $\gnorm{f}_{L^{2}(S_{2\pi})}=1$
\begin{equation}
\norm{R_{k,\epsilon,\mu} \ast f - R^{N}_{k,\epsilon,\mu}f} \leq \left(\sum_{|j|>N} |\hat{R}_{k,\epsilon}(j-\mu)|^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
Since we assume in Hypothesis $H4^{'}$ that $|\hat{\zeta}|\leq (1+|\tilde{s}|)^{-1/2-\tilde{\epsilon}}$, the above sum decays to zero as $N \rightarrow \infty$, and the operator $R_{k,\epsilon,\mu}\ast$ is a uniform limit of finite rank operators. Therefore, so is $\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu}$, and $\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu}$ must then be compact.
To prove the last part of the lemma, we note that for $\mu,\mu^{'} \in [0,1]$
\[
\hat{R}_{k,\epsilon}(j-\mu) - \hat{R}_{k,\epsilon}(j-\mu^{'}) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} R_{k}(x;\epsilon)e^{-ijx}\left(e^{i\mu x} -e^{i\mu^{'}x}\right)dx,
\]
so using Hypothesis $H2^{'}$ and the Dominated Convergence Theorem shows that $\hat{R}_{k,\epsilon}(j-\mu) \rightarrow \hat{R}_{k,\epsilon}(j-\mu^{'})$ as $\mu \rightarrow \mu^{'}$, or $\hat{R}_{k,\epsilon}(j-\mu)$ is continuous in $\mu$. Likewise, we have, using Hypothesis $H4^{'}$,
\[
\norm{R_{k,\epsilon,\mu}\ast - R_{k,\epsilon,\mu^{'}}\ast}^{2} \leq 2\tilde{S}(\mu) + 2\tilde{S}(\mu^{'})
\]
where
\[
\tilde{S}(\mu) = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{1}{\left(1+|k\epsilon(j-\mu)| \right)^{1+2\tilde{\epsilon}}}.
\]
For $\mu\in[0,1]$, one has
\[
\tilde{S}(\mu) \leq \sum_{j=-\infty}^{0} \frac{1}{\left(1+|k\epsilon j| \right)^{1+2\tilde{\epsilon}}} + \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{\left(1+|k\epsilon (j-1)| \right)^{1+2\tilde{\epsilon}}},
\]
so using a dominated convergence argument, one gets $\norm{R_{k,\epsilon,\mu}\ast - R_{k,\epsilon,\mu^{'}}\ast}\rightarrow 0$ as $\mu\rightarrow \mu^{'}$. Thus $\gnorm{\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu}-\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu^{'}}}_{2,v}\rightarrow 0$ as $\mu\rightarrow \mu^{'}$, so $\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu}$ is continuous in $\mu$.
\end{proof}
From the previous lemma one gets
\begin{lem}
The operator $L_{\mu}$ has a compact resolvent on $L^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi})$.
\label{compresolv}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Given that $L_{\mu} = L_{c,\mu} +2 K(\epsilon;\mu;D)$, where
\begin{equation}
K(\epsilon;\mu;D) = B \left( \begin{array}{cc} \cos(x) & 0 \\ 0 & D \sin(x) \end{array} \right) \bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu} \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\cos(x) & D \sin(x) \\ \cos(x) & D \sin(x) \end{array} \right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
one has that $K$, where we have suppressed the dependence on $\epsilon$ and $D$, is compact since it is the product of bounded and compact operators. Further, a straightforward application of Fourier series shows that $L_{c,\mu}$ has compact resolvent on $L^{2}(S_{2\pi})$. Let $\lambda$ be a complex number with nonzero imaginary part. Then
\begin{equation}
I+\left(L_{c,\mu}-\lambda\right)^{-1}K = \left(L_{c,\mu}-\lambda \right)^{-1}\left(L_{\mu}-\lambda\right).
\label{identrelat}
\end{equation}
The operator $I+\left(L_{c,\mu}-\lambda\right)^{-1}K$ is Fredholm since $\left(L_{c,\mu}-\lambda\right)^{-1}K$ is compact. The right-hand side of \eqref{identrelat} has a trivial kernel since $L_{\mu}$ is self-adjoint. Thus the left-hand side of \eqref{identrelat} also has a trivial kernel, which implies that $I+\left(L_{c,\mu}-\lambda\right)^{-1}K$ has a bounded inverse \cite{lax}. Therefore, from
\begin{equation}
\left(L_{\mu}-\lambda\right)^{-1} =\left( I+\left(L_{c,\mu}-\lambda\right)^{-1}K\right)^{-1} \left(L_{c,\mu}-\lambda \right)^{-1}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
one sees that $\left(L_{\mu}-\lambda\right)^{-1}$ is the product of a bounded and a compact operator, and is therefore itself compact.
\end{proof}
\noindent Assuming that $\lambda$ is in the resolvent of $JL_{\mu}$, and using that
\begin{equation}
\left(JL_{\mu} - \lambda \right)^{-1} = -\left(L_{\mu}-\gamma \right)^{-1}J\left(I-(\gamma J-\lambda)\left(L_{\mu}-\gamma \right)^{-1}J\right)^{-1}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is in the resolvent of $L_{\mu}$, one sees that $JL_{\mu}$ has a compact resolvent on $L^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi})$ since $\left(JL_{\mu} - \lambda \right)^{-1}$ is the product of compact and bounded operators.
We now need to establish some limiting behavior of the operator $\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu}$ as the nonlocality parameter $\epsilon$ becomes large. We prove:
\begin{lem}
Given Hypothesis $H4^{'}$, for $\mu \neq 0$, $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow \infty} \norm{R_{k,\epsilon,\mu}\ast} = 0.$
\label{decayofrs}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
One has
\begin{equation}
\hat{R}_{k,\epsilon}(j-\mu) = \displaystyle{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}} R_{k}(x;\epsilon)e^{-i(j-\mu)x} dx = \displaystyle{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}} \zeta(x) e^{-ik\epsilon(j-\mu)x} dx = \hat{\zeta}(k\epsilon(j-\mu)). \nonumber
\end{equation}
Examining the $L^{2}(S_{2\pi})$ norm of the operator $R_{k,\epsilon,\mu}\ast$, one gets
\begin{equation}
\norm{R_{k,\epsilon,\mu}\ast}^{2} \leq \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \left|\hat{\zeta}(k\epsilon(j-\mu)) \right|^{2}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Note, the sum is convergent by Hypothesis $H4^{'}$. For a given value of the nonlocality parameter $\epsilon$ and an arbitrarily chosen value of $\delta$, choose $\tilde{N}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{|j|>\tilde{N}} \left|\hat{\zeta}(k\epsilon(j-\mu)) \right|^{2} < \frac{\delta}{2}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Next, choose $\epsilon$ large enough such that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=-\tilde{N}}^{\tilde{N}} \left|\hat{\zeta}(k\epsilon(j-\mu)) \right|^{2} < \frac{\delta}{2}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
The second assumption does not alter the first since choosing a large $\epsilon$ value corresponds to choosing a larger value of $\tilde{N}$. Thus, for $\mu \neq 0$,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow \infty} \norm{R_{k,\epsilon,\mu}\ast} = 0, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and $\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu} \rightarrow 0$ uniformly in norm as $\epsilon \rightarrow \infty$.
\end{proof}
We finally prove that the resolvents of $JL_{\mu}$ and $JL_{0}$ converge in the $L^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi})$-norm. This is used to show, in effect, that the spectra of one operator is a perturbation in $\mu$ of the other.
\begin{lem}
Suppose there exists $\mu^{\ast}\in (0,1)$ such that $\lambda$ is in the resolvent of $JL_{\mu}$ for $0\leq\mu<\mu^{\ast}$. Further suppose that $(JL_{c,0}-\lambda)^{-1}$ exists. Then $(JL_{\mu}-\lambda)^{-1}$ converges to $(JL_{0}-\lambda)^{-1}$ in the $L^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi})$-norm as $\mu\rightarrow 0^{+}$.
\label{convresolv}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Define the operator $\tilde{R}_{\mu}(\lambda) = (JL_{\mu}-\lambda)^{-1}$. Then we have that
\[
\gnorm{\tilde{R}_{\mu}(\lambda) - \tilde{R}_{0}(\lambda)}_{2,v} \leq \gnorm{\tilde{R}_{0}(\lambda)}_{2,v}\gnorm{I - \left(J(L_{\mu}-L_{0})\tilde{R}_{0}(\lambda)+I \right)^{-1}}_{2,v}
\]
We have that
\[
L_{\mu} - L_{0} = \tilde{L}_{c}(\mu) + \tilde{V}_{1} \left(\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu}-\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,0} \right)\tilde{V}_{2},
\]
where $\tilde{L}_{c}(\mu) = L_{c,\mu}-L_{c,0}$, and $\tilde{V}_{1}$ and $\tilde{V}_{2}$ are such that $2K(\epsilon;\mu;D) = \tilde{V}_{1} \bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu}\tilde{V}_{2}$. Using the fact that $\tilde{V}_{1}$ and $\tilde{V}_{2}$ are bounded in $L^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi})$ and Lemma \ref{propsaboutr},
\[
\lim_{\mu \rightarrow 0^{+}} \gnorm{ \tilde{V}_{1} \left(\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu}-\bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,0} \right)\tilde{V}_{2}}_{2,v} = 0.
\]
Defining $\tilde{R}_{0,c}(\lambda)=(JL_{c,0}-\lambda)^{-1}$, we rewrite $\tilde{R}_{0}(\lambda)$ so that
\[
\tilde{R}_{0}(\lambda) = \tilde{R}_{0,c}(\lambda)\left(I + 2JK(\epsilon;0;D)\tilde{R}_{0,c}(\lambda)\right)^{-1}.
\]
We then get that
\[
\gnorm{J\tilde{L}_{c}(\mu)\tilde{R}_{0}(\lambda)}_{2,v}\leq \gnorm{\tilde{L}_{c}(\mu) \tilde{R}_{0,c}(\lambda)}_{2,v}\gnorm{\left(I + 2JK(0)\tilde{R}_{0,c}(\lambda)\right)^{-1}}_{2,v},
\]
where $K(0)=K(\epsilon;0;D)$. The operator $\tilde{L}_{c}(\mu)\tilde{R}_{0,c}(\lambda) = \tilde{L}_{c}(\mu) \left(JL_{c,0} - \lambda \right)^{-1}$ is a constant coefficient operator. Thus, using the Fourier transform, it is straightforward to show it is bounded and must vanish in the $\gnorm{\cdot}_{2,v}$-norm as $\mu \rightarrow 0^{+}$. Thus we have that
\[
\lim_{\mu\rightarrow 0^{+}} \gnorm{J(L_{\mu}-L_{0})\tilde{R}_{0}(\lambda)}_{2,v}=0.
\]
Taking $\mu$ sufficiently small so that $\gnorm{J(L_{\mu}-L_{0})\tilde{R}_{0}(\lambda)}_{2,v} < 1$, we have that
\[
\gnorm{I - \left(J(L_{\mu}-L_{0})\tilde{R}_{0}(\lambda)+I \right)^{-1}}_{2,v} \leq \frac{\gnorm{J(L_{\mu}-L_{0})\tilde{R}_{0}(\lambda) }_{2,v}}{1-\gnorm{J(L_{\mu}-L_{0})\tilde{R}_{0}(\lambda) }_{2,v}},
\]
which shows that
\[
\lim_{\mu \rightarrow 0^{+}}\gnorm{\tilde{R}_{\mu}(\lambda) - \tilde{R}_{0}(\lambda)}_{2,v} = 0.
\]
\end{proof}
\section{Stability for Small Potential and Large Offset Size}
\subsection{Computation of the Spectrum with $V_{0}=0$}
In this section, we compute the spectrum of $JL$ over $H^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi n})$, with $V_{0}=0$ or $D=1$ (see \eqref{defofd}). As explained earlier, this is done by computing the spectrum of the operators $JL_{r/n}$ over $H^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi})$, $r\in\left\{0,\cdots,n-1 \right\}$. To do this, we notice that we can treat $JL_{\mu}$ as a constant coefficient operator with a compact perturbation. For the remainder of the section, we assume $\mu \neq 0$ so that the compact perturbation decays uniformly to zero as $\epsilon \rightarrow \infty$. The $\mu=0$ case is covered by noting that $J(L_{\mu}-L_{0})$ is a relatively compact perturbation of $JL_{0}$, which we note was used to prove Lemma \ref{convresolv}. Therefore one can find the eigenvalues of $JL_{0}$ by taking limits of the eigenvalues of $JL_{\mu}$.
Using the Fourier transform, we compute the spectrum and eigenfunctions of $JL_{c,\mu}$ explicitly. One has
\begin{equation}
\sigma(JL_{c,\mu}) = \left\{\pm \frac{i}{2}k^2 \left|(n-\mu)^2-1\right|: n \in \mathbb{Z} \right\}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and for $n \neq 0, 1$, the corresponding eigenfunctions for the eigenvalues on the positive imaginary axis are
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
i
\end{array}
\right) e^{-inx},
\label{pkr}
\end{equation}
while for $n = 0~ \mbox{or} ~1$,
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
-i
\end{array}
\right) e^{-inx}.
\label{nkr}
\end{equation}
Taking conjugates and letting $x \rightarrow -x$ gives the corresponding eigenfunctions for the eigenvalues on the negative imaginary axis.
The eigenvalue problem for the operator $JL_{\mu}$ and eigenvalue $\lambda_{n}$ is of course to find nontrivial $\varphi_{n}\in H^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi})$ such that
\begin{equation}
(JL_{\mu} - \lambda_{n})\varphi_{n} = 0. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We write, as in Lemma \ref{compresolv},
\begin{equation}
(L_{c,\mu} + 2K(\epsilon;1) + \lambda_{n} J)\varphi_{n} = 0, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and let $\lambda_{n} = \lambda_{\infty}(n) + \lambda_{p}(n)$, where $\lambda_{\infty}(n)$ is an eigenvalue of $\sigma(JL_{c,\mu})$, and $\lambda_{p}(n)$ is a perturbation of $\lambda_{\infty}(n)$ that will be determined exactly. We have
\begin{equation}
(L_{c,\mu}+\lambda_{\infty}(n)J + 2K(\epsilon;1) + \lambda_{p}(n) J)\varphi_{n} = 0.
\label{eval}
\end{equation}
Let
\begin{equation}
L^{\infty}_{c,\mu,n} = L_{c,\mu}+\lambda_{\infty}(n)J, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
T(\epsilon;n) = 2K(\epsilon;1) + \lambda_{p}(n) J. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Define $P_{n}$ to be the projection onto the null space of $L^{\infty}_{c,\mu,n}$. Since $L^{\infty}_{c,\mu,n}$ is self adjoint, we use a Lyupanov-Schmidt reduction \cite{hale} to rewrite \eqref{eval} as
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_{n} + M(n) (\phi_{n} + \xi_{n}) & = 0 \label{lsr1}\\
P_{n} T(\epsilon;n) (\phi_{n} + \xi_{n}) & = 0 \label{lsr2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\varphi_{n} = \phi_{n} + \xi_{n}$, $\phi_{n}$ is in the null space of $L^{\infty}_{c,\mu,n}$, and
\begin{equation}
M(n) = (L^{\infty}_{c,\mu,n})^{-1}(I-P_{n})T(\epsilon;n). \nonumber
\end{equation}
At this point, the equations \eqref{lsr1} and \eqref{lsr2} are the same as the original eigenvalue problem. No added assumptions or constraints have been made. Therefore solving \eqref{lsr1} and \eqref{lsr2} is equivalent to solving the original eigenvalue problem.
Rewriting \eqref{lsr1} as
\[
(I+M(n))\xi_{n} = -M(n)\phi_{n},
\]
we may formally write
\[
\xi_{n} = -(I+M(n))^{-1}M(n) \phi_{n} = (-M(n) + M^{2}(n) - \cdots)\phi_{n}.
\]
Though this expansion is valid for sufficiently large $\epsilon$ (see Lemma \ref{decayofrs}), it is more important as a motivation to look at the terms $M^{k}(n)\phi_{n}$. For example, let $n=0$ or $1$, with $\lambda_{\infty}(n)$ on the positive imaginary axis, so that $\phi_{n}$ is given by \eqref{nkr}. For $D=1$,
\[
T(\epsilon;n) =
2 B \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos(x) & 0 \\
0 & \sin(x)
\end{array}
\right) \bar{R}_{k,\epsilon,\mu} \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos(x) & \sin(x) \\
\cos(x) & \sin(x)
\end{array}
\right) + \lambda_{p}(n)J,
\]
so that
\[
T(\epsilon;n) \phi_{n} = (B\hat{r}_{n+1}-i\lambda_{p}(n))\phi_{n} + B\hat{r}_{n+1}\tilde{\phi}_{n},
\]
where
\[
\tilde{\phi}_{n} =
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
i
\end{array}
\right)e^{-i(n+2)x},
\]
and
\[
\hat{r}_{n} = \hat{R}_{k,\epsilon}(n-\mu).
\]
Note, we suppress the parameters $\epsilon$ and $\mu$ in $\hat{r}_{n}$ for the sake of clarity in the presentation. Thus $(I-P_{n})T(\epsilon;n)\phi_{n}=B\hat{r}_{n+1}\tilde{\phi}_{n}$, and
\[
L^{\infty}_{c,\mu,n} \tilde{\phi}_{n} = \left(\frac{k^{2}}{2}((n+2-\mu)^2-1) +i\lambda_{\infty}(n) \right)\tilde{\phi}_{n}.
\]
Hence, for $n=0$,
\[
M(0)\phi_{0} = \frac{B\hat{r}_{1}}{k^{2}(\mu-1)^{2}}\tilde{\phi}_{0},
\]
and for $n=1$,
\[
M(1)\phi_{1} = \frac{B\hat{r}_{2}}{k^{2}(\mu-2)^{2}}\tilde{\phi}_{1}.
\]
We consider $M(n)\tilde{\phi}_{n}$ for $n = 0$ or $1$. We see that
\[
T(\epsilon;n)\tilde{\phi}_{n} = \hat{r}_{n+1}B\phi_{n} + (\hat{r}_{n+1}B+i\lambda_{p}(n))\tilde{\phi}_{n},
\]
and hence for $n=0$, we obtain
\[
M(0)\tilde{\phi}_{0} = \frac{\hat{r}_{1}B+i\lambda_{p}(0)}{k^{2}(\mu-1)^{2}}\tilde{\phi}_{0}.
\]
For $n=1$, we have
\[
M(1)\tilde{\phi}_{1} = \frac{\hat{r}_{2}B+i\lambda_{p}(1)}{k^{2}(\mu-2)^{2}}\tilde{\phi}_{1}.
\]
Define the constants $\gamma_{n}$ and $\delta_{n}$ such that $M(n)\phi_{n}=\gamma_{n}\tilde{\phi}_{n}$ and $M(n)\tilde{\phi}_{n}=\delta_{n}\tilde{\phi}_{n}$. Therefore, equating
\[
\xi_{n} = -\frac{\gamma_{n}}{1+\delta_{n}} \tilde{\phi}_{n}
\]
gives a solution of \eqref{lsr1}.
Using \eqref{lsr2}, one obtains
\[
\left<T(\epsilon;n)\phi_{n},\phi_{n}\right> -\frac{\gamma_{n}}{1+\delta_{n}} \left<T(\epsilon;n)\tilde{\phi}_{n},\phi_{n} \right>= 0.
\]
From the work above, since $\norm{\phi_{n}}>0$, we see this reduces to
\[
(B\hat{r}_{n+1}-i\lambda_{p}(n)) - \frac{B\hat{r}_{n+1}\gamma_{n}}{1+\delta_{n}} = 0.
\]
Writing
\[
\delta_{n} = \displaystyle{\frac{B\hat{r}_{n+1}+i\lambda_{p}(n)}{c_{n}(\mu)}},
\]
where $c_{0}=k^{2}(\mu-1)^{2}$ and $c_{1}=k^{2}(\mu-2)^{2}$, we see that we want to solve the quadratic equation
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{2}_{p}(n) -ic_{n}(\mu)\lambda_{p}(n) +c_{n}(\mu)B\hat{r}_{n+1}= 0.
\label{quad}
\end{equation}
Let $\lambda_{p}(n)=\lambda^{(r)}_{p}(n)+i\lambda^{(i)}_{p}(n)$, where $\lambda^{(r)}_{p}(n)$ and $\lambda^{(i)}_{p}(n)$ are real values. Therefore, by separating into real and imaginary parts, \eqref{quad} becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda^{(r)}_{p}(2\lambda^{(i)}_{p}-c_{n}(\mu)) & = 0 \nonumber \\
(\lambda^{(r)}_{p})^2 - (\lambda^{(i)}_{p})^2 +c_{n}(\mu)\lambda^{(i)}_{p} + c_{n}(\mu)B\hat{r}_{n+1} & = 0. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
If we assume $\lambda^{(r)}_{p}(n)\neq 0$, we have $\lambda^{(i)}_{p}(n) = \displaystyle{\frac{c_{n}}{2}}$, which implies
\[
(\lambda^{(r)}_{p})^2 = -\frac{c^{2}_{n}}{4} - c_{n}(\mu)B\hat{r}_{n+1}.
\]
The right-hand side of the above expression is always negative by construction, since $\hat{r}_{n+1}>0$. Thus $\lambda^{(r)}_{p}(n)=0$, so that $\lambda_{p}(n)=i\lambda^{(i)}_{p}(n)$. Therefore we have
\[
\lambda_{p}(n) = \frac{i}{2}\left(c_{n}(\mu) - \left(c^{2}_{n}(\mu) + 4c_{n}(\mu)B\hat{r}_{n+1} \right)^{1/2}\right).
\]
Since we know, as shown in Lemma \ref{decayofrs}, that $\hat{r}_{n} \rightarrow 0$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow \infty$, and we need $\lambda_{p}(n)\rightarrow 0$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow \infty$, this determines the correct sign when solving the quadratic equation in $\lambda^{(i)}_{p}(n)$. With this choice of $\lambda_{p}(n)$, we see $\delta_{n} > 0$, so $1+\delta_{n} > 0$, and the choice of $\xi_{n}$ is well defined.
For the case that $n \neq 0$ or $1$, proceeding in a fashion identical to that above, one shows that
\[
M(n) \phi_{n} = \gamma_{n} \tilde{\phi}_{n},
\]
and
\[
M(n) \tilde{\phi}_{n} = \delta_{n} \tilde{\phi}_{n}.
\]
Here
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\phi}_{n} =
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
-i
\end{array}
\right)e^{-i(n-2)x}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{n} = \frac{B\hat{r}_{n-1}}{c_{n}(\mu)}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\delta_{n} = \frac{B\hat{r}_{n-1}-i\lambda_{p}(n)}{c_{n}(\mu)}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $c_{n}(\mu)=k^2(n-\mu-1)^2$.
We again equate $\xi_{n} = -\displaystyle{\frac{\gamma_{n}}{1+\delta_{n}}}\tilde{\phi}_{n}$, which solves \eqref{lsr1}, and from \eqref{lsr2} one gets a characteristic equation for $\lambda_{p}(n)$ which is
\[
\lambda_{p}^{2} + ic_{n}(\mu)\lambda_{p} + c_{n}(\mu)B\hat{r}_{n-1} = 0.
\]
Finally,
\[
\lambda_{p}(n) = \frac{i}{2}\left(-c_{n}(\mu) + \left(c^{2}_{n}(\mu) + 4c_{n}(\mu)B\hat{r}_{n-1} \right)^{1/2} \right).
\]
Given that the operator $2K(\epsilon;\mu;1)$ is not symmetric with respect to conjugation followed by equating $x$ to $-x$, we must repeat the above computations except now with the expansions around the eigenvalues along the negative imaginary axis. The process is identical to that above, and we only list the results. For $n = 0$ or $1$, we have
\[
\lambda_{p}(n) = \frac{i}{2} \left(-c_{n}(\mu) + \left(c^{2}_{n}(\mu) + 4c_{n}(\mu)B\hat{r}_{n-1} \right)^{1/2} \right),
\]
where $c_{n}(\mu)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
c_{n}(\mu) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
k^2(\mu+1)^2, & n=0, \\
\\
k^2\mu^2, & n=1.
\end{array}
\right. \nonumber
\end{equation}
The corresponding eigenfunctions are
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{n} =
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
i
\end{array}
\right)e^{-inx} - \frac{\gamma_{n}}{1+\delta_{n}}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
-i
\end{array}
\right)e^{-i(n-2)x}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_{n} = \displaystyle{\frac{B\hat{r}_{n-1}}{c_{n}(\mu)}}$ and $\delta_{n}=\displaystyle{\frac{B\hat{r}_{n-1}-i\lambda_{p}}{c_{n}(\mu)}}$.
Likewise, for $n\neq 0, 1$, we have
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{p}(n) = \frac{i}{2} \left(c_{n}(\mu) - \left(c^{2}_{n}(\mu) + 4c_{n}(\mu)B\hat{r}_{n+1} \right)^{1/2} \right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
with $c_{n}(\mu) = k^2(n-\mu+1)^2$. The corresponding eigenfunctions are
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{n} =
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
-i
\end{array}
\right)e^{-inx} - \frac{\gamma_{n}}{1+\delta_{n}}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
i
\end{array}
\right)e^{-i(n+2)x}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with $\gamma_{n} = \displaystyle{\frac{B\hat{r}_{n+1}}{c_{n}(\mu)}}$ and $\delta_{n}=\displaystyle{\frac{B\hat{r}_{n+1}+i\lambda_{p}}{c_{n}(\mu)}}$.
The only issue remaining is whether we have captured the entire spectrum of $JL_{\mu}$ for each value of $\epsilon \in [0,\infty)$. However, every eigenvalue is a perturbation of an eigenvalue in the constant coefficient case, which has only simple eigenvalues in its spectrum since $JL_{c,\mu}$ is a skew-adjoint operator with compact resolvent. Hence we have not missed any eigenvalues due to multiplicity. Thus we have computed $\sigma(JL_{\mu})$ for $V_{0}=0$.
\subsection{Krein Signature}
For a purely imaginary semisimple eigenvalue $\lambda \in \sigma(JL_{\mu})$ with eigenvector $\varphi$, the Krein signature of $\lambda$ is defined as $\mbox{sgn}(\left<L_{\mu}\varphi,\varphi\right>)$ \cite{bjorn}. Let
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{n}(B,\mu,\epsilon,k) = \frac{\gamma_{n}}{1+\delta_{n}}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
which, for the eigenvalues that represent perturbations of eigenvalues on the positive imaginary axis, is given by
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{n} = \frac{B\hat{r}_{n\pm 1}}{\frac{c_{n}}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{c^{2}_{n} + 4c_{n}B\hat{r}_{n\pm1}}}{2}+B\hat{r}_{n\pm1}}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where the $+$ in $\pm$ corresponds to choosing $n=0,1$ and the $-$ corresponds to $n \neq 0,1$. A similar expression can be derived for the eigenvalues starting on the negative imaginary axis.
Given the definition for $\alpha_{n}$, it is straightforward to show for $D=1$ and $\varphi_{n} = \phi_{n}+\xi_{n}$, that
\begin{eqnarray}
\left<L_{\mu}\varphi_{n},\varphi_{n}\right> & = & 2\pi k^2\left(\left(n-\mu \right)^2-1 + \alpha_{n}^2\left(\left(n\pm2-\mu\right)^2-1\right) \right) \nonumber \\
& &+ 4\pi B\hat{r}_{n\pm1}(1-\alpha_{n})^2.\label{ks}
\end{eqnarray}
Along the positive imaginary axis, one again lets the $-$ of $\pm$ correspond to the case $n \neq 0, 1$, while we take $+$ for $n=0, 1$. This relationship is reversed on the negative imaginary axis. Thus we see, starting on the positive imaginary axis, for $n\neq 0$, $1$, $2$, or $3$, all the terms in \eqref{ks} are positive. For $n=2$ or $3$, we note that $0\leq \alpha_{n} < 1$, thus
\begin{equation}
\left(n-\mu \right)^2-1 + \alpha_{n}^2\left(\left(n-2-\mu\right)^2-1\right) > 4\left(n-\mu -1\right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
which is positive for $n=2$ or $3$, $\mu \in [0,1)$.
Likewise, along the negative imaginary axis, for $n\neq 0$, $1$, $-2$, or $-1$, all terms are positive. For $n=-1$ or $-2$, we have
\begin{equation}
\left(n-\mu \right)^2-1 + \alpha_{n}^2\left(\left(n+2-\mu\right)^2-1\right) > -4\left(n-\mu +1\right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
so that the eigenvalues corresponding to $n=-1$ and $-2$ on the negative imaginary axis have positive Krein signature.
However, for $n=0$ or $1$ on either part of the imaginary axis, if we let $B \rightarrow 0^{+}$, $\alpha_{n} \rightarrow 0$. Therefore we see that for sufficiently small $B$, with all other parameters fixed, the eigenvalues $\lambda_{\infty}(n) + \lambda_{p}(n)$ for $n=0$ or $1$ have negative Krein signature. On the other hand, fixing all other parameters except $B$, if we allow the offset size $B$ to become arbitrarily large, then $\alpha_{n} \rightarrow 1$ and
\begin{equation}
\lim_{B \rightarrow \infty }\left(n-\mu \right)^2-1 + \alpha_{n}^2\left(\left(n\pm2-\mu\right)^2-1\right) = 2(n-\mu \pm 1)^2. \label{lblim}
\end{equation}
Hence it is possible for eigenvalues to pass through the origin or switch Krein signature.
Being more careful, we focus on the eigenvalues with potentially negative Krein signature, which are
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{+}(1) = i\frac{k}{2}(2-\mu)\left(2k-\left(k^{2}(2-\mu)^{2}+4B\hat{r}_{2}\right)^{1/2} \right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{-}(0) = i\frac{k}{2}(1+\mu)\left(-2k+\left(k^{2}(1+\mu)^{2}+4B\hat{r}_{-1}\right)^{1/2} \right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{-}(1) = i\frac{k\mu}{2}\left(-2k+\left(k^{2}\mu^{2}+4B\hat{r}_{0}\right)^{1/2} \right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{+}(0) = i\frac{k(1-\mu)}{2}\left(2k-\left(k^{2}(1-\mu)^{2}+4B\hat{r}_{1}\right)^{1/2} \right). \nonumber
\end{equation}
One sees that for given $k$ and $\epsilon$, one can find a sufficiently large value of $B$ such that none of these four eigenvalues pass through the origin for $\mu \in (0,1)$. Noting that $\hat{r}_{n}=\hat{R}_{k,\epsilon}(n-\mu)>0$ by Hypothesis $H3^{'}$, and since $\hat{R}_{k,\epsilon}(n-\mu)$ is continuous in $\mu$ (see Lemma \ref{propsaboutr}), we define $\tilde{r}_{n}=\min_{\mu\in[0,1]}\hat{R}_{k,\epsilon}(n-\mu)$. We define the parameter $B^{\ast}$ to be
\[
B^{\ast} = \max\left\{\frac{3k^{2}}{4\tilde{r}_{2}},\frac{3k^{2}}{4\tilde{r}_{-1}} ,\frac{k^{2}}{\tilde{r}_{0}},\frac{k^{2}}{\tilde{r}_{1}} \right\}.
\]
If $B > B^{\ast}$, then all four eigenvalues cannot pass through the origin for $\mu \in (0,1)$. Setting $\mu = \frac{1}{2}$, one has from \eqref{lblim} that each of the four eigenvalues must have positive Krein signature for $B > B^{*}$.
We now apply a theorem of \cite{hara} which states that
\begin{equation}
k_{r} + k_{c} + k^{-}_{i} = n(L_{\mu}),
\label{kreincondition}
\end{equation}
where $k_{r}$ is the number of eigenvalues of $JL_{\mu}$ on the positive real axis, $k_{c}$ is the number of eigenvalues with real part, $k^{-}_{i}$ is the number of imaginary eigenvalues with negative Krein signature, and $n(L_{\mu})$ is the number of negative eigenvalues of $L_{\mu}$. In order to apply this theorem, one needs to show that the operator $JL_{\mu}$ satisfies Assumptions $2.1a-d$ in \cite{hara}. Given that $JL_{\mu}=JL_{\mu,c} + 2JK$, where $JK$ is compact, and that the reciprocals of the eigenvalues of $JL_{\mu,c}$ are square summable, then showing all four assumptions hold for $JL_{\mu}$ is straightforward. For $\mu =1/2$, $k_{r}=k_{c}=k^{-}_{i}=0$, and thus $n(L_{1/2})=0$. Since the operator $L_{\mu}$ remains invertible for $\mu \in (0,1)$, which means no eigenvalue passes through the origin, then $n(L_{\mu})=0$ for $\mu \in (0,1)$. This establishes that every eigenvalue of $JL_{\mu}$ has positive Krein signature.
\subsection{Spectral and Orbital Stability for Small Potential Height}
As shown above, for $B$ sufficiently large, $V_{0}=0$, and $\mu \in (0,1)$, there are no eigenvalues of negative Krein signature, which by \eqref{kreincondition} implies that the operator $L_{\mu}$ is positive definite. Thus a standard perturbation argument guarantees that for small enough $V_{0}$, no eigenvalue of $L_{\mu}$ crosses through the origin, and thus we must have $n(L_{\mu}) = 0$. Using \eqref{kreincondition} again shows that \eqref{sol} is spectrally stable for a given $\mu$ with sufficiently small potential height.
In the case that $\mu = 0$, $V_{0} = 0$, one has by continuity of the spectrum with respect to the parameter $\mu$ that every eigenvalue of $JL_{0}$ must be on the imaginary axis. However, for any value of $V_{0}$, there is an eigenvalue at the origin, with eigenvector
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{nu} = \left(\begin{array}{r}D\sin(x) \\ -\cos(x) \end{array} \right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
due to the phase symmetry which generates \eqref{sol}. Thus \eqref{kreincondition} cannot be applied. Likewise, there is a generalized eigenvector of $JL_{0}$ at the origin,
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{gn} = \left(\begin{array}{r} D\cos(x) \\ \sin(x) \end{array} \right). \nonumber
\end{equation}
Using the work above, one formally sees that the eigenvalues at the origin correspond to the eigenvalues $\lambda^{-}_{1}$ and $\lambda^{-}_{-1}$ colliding at the origin for $\mu=0$. We now prove that the generalized kernel of $JL_{0}$ consists only of $\varphi_{mu}$ and $\varphi_{gn}$. First define the projection operator (\cite{kato},Theorem 6.17)
\[
P_{\mu} = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{\Gamma} \left(JL_{\mu} - \lambda \right)^{-1}d\lambda,
\]
where $\Gamma$ is a closed, bounded contour in the complex plane such that $\Gamma \cap \sigma(JL_{\mu})=\emptyset$ and the origin is inside $\Gamma$. We further suppose that $\lambda^{-}_{1}$ and $\lambda^{-}_{-1}$ are the only eigenvalues of $JL_{\mu}$ inside $\Gamma$ for $\mu$ sufficiently small. Since $JL_{0}$ has a compact resolvent, it has discrete eigenvalues that accumulate only at infinity. Therefore, we can also choose $\Gamma$ such that $\Gamma \cap \sigma(JL_{0})=\emptyset$ and so that $\Gamma$ contains only a finite, counting multiplicity, number of the eigenvalues of $JL_{0}$. Thus the projection $P_{0}$ is well-defined and finite-dimensional. We then have
\[
\gnorm{P_{\mu}-P_{0}}_{2,v} \leq \sup_{\lambda \in \Gamma} \gnorm{\left(JL_{\mu} - \lambda \right)^{-1} - \left(JL_{0} - \lambda \right)^{-1}}_{2,v}.
\]
Since $\gnorm{\left(JL_{\mu} - \lambda \right)^{-1} - \left(JL_{0} - \lambda \right)^{-1}}_{2,v}$ is continuous in $\lambda$, on $\Gamma$, which is compact, the supremum is attained. We further restrict $\Gamma$ such that $\Gamma\cap \sigma(JL_{c,0})=\emptyset$. Using Lemma \ref{convresolv} then gives
\[
\lim_{\mu \rightarrow 0^{+}} \gnorm{P_{\mu}-P_{0}}_{2,v} = 0.
\]
Since $P_{\mu}$ and $P_{0}$ are projection operators, we then have (\cite{kato}, pg. 156) that
\[
\mbox{dim}(\mbox{Ran}(P_{\mu}))=\mbox{dim}(\mbox{Ran}(P_{0})),
\]
where $\mbox{Ran}(P_{\mu})$ denotes the range of $P_{\mu}$. By construction $\mbox{dim}(\mbox{Ran}(P_{\mu}))=2$, and thus $\mbox{dim}(\mbox{Ran}(P_{0}))=2$. The dimension of $\mbox{Ran}(P_{0})$ counts the algebraic multiplicity of an eigenvalue (see \cite{kato}, pg. 181), and so we see that the generalized kernel of $JL_{0}$ can only consist of $\varphi_{nu}$ and $\varphi_{gn}$.
Since $L_{0}$ is self adjoint and has a compact resolvent (see Lemma \ref{compresolv}), it cannot have a generalized eigenvalue at the origin for any $V_{0}$. At $D=1$ ({\it i.e.} $V_{0}=0$), it is straightforward to show that
\begin{equation}
L_{0}\varphi_{gn} = 2B \varphi_{gn}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Thus, for $V_{0}=0$ and $B>0$, the operator $L_{0}$ has a simple eigenvalue at the origin and otherwise has only positive eigenvalues. Since the eigenvector at the origin persists for any $V_{0}<0$, every nonzero eigenvalue of $L_{0}$ remains positive for small values of $V_{0}$. This implies that $n(L_{0})=0$ for $V_{0}<0$ and $|V_{0}|$ sufficiently small. If $n(L_{0})=0$, one concludes spectral stability for small potential height by way of the following argument. If $JL_{0}\varphi = \lambda \varphi$, $\lambda \neq 0$, then
\begin{equation}
\left<L_{0}\varphi,\varphi \right> = -\lambda\left<J\varphi,\varphi \right>, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and $\left<L_{0}\varphi,\varphi \right> > 0$ since $\varphi$ is not in the kernel of $L_{0}$ by assumption. $\left<J\varphi,\varphi \right>$ is strictly imaginary and nonzero. Thus $\lambda$ is strictly imaginary. We have now shown that the spectrum of $JL$ on $\mbox{D}(JL) = H^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi n}) \subset L^{2}_{2}(S_{2\pi n})$, which is decomposed as
\begin{equation}
\sigma(JL) = \bigcup^{n-1}_{r=0} \sigma(JL_{r/n}), \nonumber
\end{equation}
is strictly imaginary for small potential height $V_{0}$ since $\sigma(JL_{r/n})$ is strictly imaginary and there are a finite number of values $r$.
As for orbital stability, again consider \eqref{sol} in the form $\psi(x,t) = \phi_{\omega}(x)e^{-i\omega t}$. In other words, the solution is generated by the phase symmetry of the Hamiltonian problem \eqref{nlocgp} (see Section 2 for the explicit form of the Hamiltonian). Returning to the original scaling whereby $V(x)$ is a $\frac{2\pi}{k}$ periodic function, with $\phi_{\omega}(x)$ a $\frac{2\pi}{k}$-periodic function, we pose the stability problem on $H^{2}_{1}(S_{T})$, where $T = \frac{2\pi n}{k}$, with $n\in \mathbb{N}$. Thus we are working with \eqref{realandimagpart}.
Then, again, we note that one has the conservation of the quantity
\[
I(f,g) = \frac{1}{2}\int_{-\pi n/k}^{\pi n/k} \left(f^{2}(x) + g^{2}(x)\right)dx.
\]
If we denote the Hamiltonian as $\mathcal{H}(\psi_{r},\psi_{i})$, one has that $\phi_{\omega}=\phi_{\omega,r}+i\phi_{\omega,i}$ is a critical point of $E(f,g)$, where
\begin{equation}
E(f,g) = \mathcal{H}(f,g) - \omega I(f,g). \nonumber
\end{equation}
One has $L=\mathcal{H}''(\phi_{\omega,r},\phi_{\omega,i})-\omega$, where the primes denote variational derivatives. In the given scaling, $\mu \in [0,k)$, so that a perturbation of period $\frac{2 \pi n}{k}$ corresponds to $\mu = \frac{k}{n}$. In this case, we showed that $L$ is positive semi-definite on $H^{2}_{2}(S_{T})\subset L^{2}_{2}(S_{T})$. One can forgo the requirement that the function $d(\omega)=E(\phi_{\omega,r},\phi_{\omega,i})$ be convex (see \cite{gss}) and conclude orbital stability in the space $H_{1}(S_{T})$ by combining the stable two dimensional real solution into a complex function.
\section{Spectral Instability for Small Offset Size}
In contrast to the approach above, we equate the offset size $B$ to zero, for given $\mu$ and $\epsilon$. We obtain the linearization
\begin{equation}
J\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
L^{+}_{\mu} & 0 \\
0 & L^{-}_{\mu}
\end{array}
\right) ,
\nonumber
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
L^{+}_{\mu} = -\frac{k^{2}}{2}\left(\left(\partial_{x}+i\mu\right)^{2}+1\right), \nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
L^{-}_{\mu} = -\frac{k^{2}}{2}\left(\left(\partial_{x}+i\mu\right)^{2}+1\right) + 2A\sin(x)R_{k,\epsilon,\mu}\ast(\sin(x) \cdot). \nonumber
\end{equation}
We introduced the scaling $x\rightarrow kx$, so that $\mu\in[0,1)$. The linearized problem is in ``canonical form" (see \cite{hara}), and one has the following theorem from \cite{hara}.
\begin{thm}\cite{hara}
Let $n(L^{+}_{\mu})$ and $n(L^{-}_{\mu})$ denote the number of negative eigenvalues of the given operators. With $k_{r}$ the number of real eigenvalues of the canonical system, one has
\[
k_{r} \geq \left|n(L^{+}_{\mu}) - n(L^{-}_{\mu}) \right|.
\]
\end{thm}
For $A$ small or $\epsilon$ large, the problem is spectrally stable since the problem is a small perturbation of the constant coefficient case. Further, one has $n(L^{+}_{\mu})=2$. However, with $\epsilon = 0$, $L^{-}_{0}$ is a special case of Hill's equation \cite{mag}. We can use the standard spectral theory for Hill's equation, from which the spectrum of $L^{-}$ ({\it i.e.} the $\mu$ independent operator) is in the bands $[\gamma_{0},\gamma'_{1}] \cup [\gamma'_{2},\gamma_{1}]\cup \cdots$, where $\gamma_{j}$ is an eigenvalue of $L^{-}_{0}$ and $\gamma'_{j}$ is an eigenvalue for $\mu=\frac{1}{2}$, with the eigenvalues for all other values of $\mu$ filling in the bands continuously. If we can establish that $L^{-}_{0}$ is positive definite, the same must hold for $L^{-}_{\mu}$, and we will have then shown instability for all values of $\mu$.
Therefore, setting $\mu, ~ \epsilon=0$, we examine the quadratic form $\left<L^{-}_{0} f,f \right>$. Let
\[
f(x) = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}\hat{f}_{j}e_{j}(x),
\]
with $e_{j}(x)$ from \eqref{fs} where $T=2\pi$. One has
\begin{equation}
\left<L^{-}_{0} f,f \right> = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{k^{2}(j^{2}-1)}{2}\left|\hat{f}_{j} \right|^{2} + \frac{A}{2}\left|\hat{f}_{j}-\hat{f}_{j+2}\right|^{2}.
\label{qfsum}
\end{equation}
There is one negative direction corresponding to the $j=0$ mode. Thus, we let $f = a e_{0} + b g(x)$, where $|a|^{2}+|b|^{2}=1$, and $g(x)$ is orthogonal to $e_{0}(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}$. It is straightforward to show that
\[
L^{-}_{0}e_{0} = \frac{1}{2\pi}\left(\frac{-k^2}{2}+2A\sin^{2}(x) \right) = (-\frac{k^2}{2}+A)e_{0} - \frac{A}{\sqrt{2\pi}}(e_{2}+e_{-2}).
\]
Therefore,
\[
\left<L^{-}_{0} f, f \right> = |a|^{2}(-\frac{k^2}{2}+A) + |b|^{2}\left<L^{-}_{0}g,g \right> - \frac{2A}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\mbox{Re}\left(a^{\ast}b(\hat{g}_{2}+\hat{g}_{-2}) \right),
\]
and
\begin{equation}
\left<L^{-}_{0}f,f \right> \geq |a|^{2}(-\frac{k^2}{2}+A) + |b|^{2}\left<L^{-}_{0}g,g \right> - \frac{2A}{\sqrt{2\pi}}|a||b||\hat{g}_{2}+\hat{g}_{-2}|. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Assume $A\geq\frac{k^2}{2}$, and define $c = -\frac{k^2}{2}+A$. We rewrite the above inequality as
\begin{equation}
\left<L^{-}_{0}f,f \right> \geq \left(|a|\sqrt{c} - \frac{A}{\sqrt{2\pi c}}|b||\hat{g}_{2}+\hat{g}_{-2}| \right)^{2} + |b|^{2}\left<L^{-}_{0}g,g \right> - \frac{A^{2}}{2\pi c}|b|^{2}|\hat{g}_{2}+\hat{g}_{-2}|^{2}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
which leads us to examine
\begin{equation}
\left<L^{-}_{0}g,g \right> - \frac{A^{2}}{2\pi c} |\hat{g}_{2}+\hat{g}_{-2}|^{2}.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
With $\hat{g}_{0}=0$, we take those terms in $\eqref{qfsum}$ that involve only terms in $\hat{g}_{2}$ and $\hat{g}_{-2}$, which reduces our efforts to analyzing
\begin{equation}
\frac{3k^{2}+A}{2}\left(|\hat{g}_{-2}|^{2} + |\hat{g}_{2}|^{2}\right) - \frac{A^{2}}{2\pi c}|\hat{g}_{2}+\hat{g}_{-2}|^{2}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Using Young's inequality, $|\hat{g}_{2}+\hat{g}_{-2}|^{2}\leq 2\left(|\hat{g}_{-2}|^{2} + |\hat{g}_{2}|^{2}\right)$. It follows that if we can satisfy the inequality
\begin{equation}
\frac{3k^{2}+A}{2} - \frac{A^{2}}{\pi c} > 0,
\label{Acond}
\end{equation}
we prove that $\left<L^{-}_{0}g,g \right> > 0$, and the problem is unstable. A straightforward computation shows that \eqref{Acond} is satisfied if
\begin{equation}
A \geq \frac{2\left(-1+\sqrt{4-\frac{6}{\pi}}\right)}{1-\frac{2}{\pi}}k^2 \approx 2.4533k^2 . \nonumber
\end{equation}
For the sake of presentation we write the instability condition as $A \geq 2.46 k^2$.
\section{Numerics}
In this section, we present numerical results applied to situations for which we expect our theoretical results to apply. Then, after calibrating our numerics in this sense, we present numerical experiments that correspond to the work in \cite{decon}.
For all the results shown, a filtered pseudo-spectral method \cite{guo} is used for the spatial variable, while MATLAB's ODE45 function was used for the integration in time. The specific filtering function used is $\sigma(x)=e^{\alpha x^{2\gamma}}$, where $\alpha = \log(\mbox{eps})$, with eps denoting machine precision, and $\gamma = 4$. Again see \cite{guo} for more details and analysis.
For the figures in this paper, 128 modes on the domain $[0,8\pi]$ were used in the pseudo-spectral approximation; higher mode runs were tested and gave identical results to those using 128 modes. In each figure, a perturbation of the form
\begin{equation}
\nu m(x)e^{i\theta(x)} \nonumber
\end{equation}
was added to the initial condition $\phi_{\omega}(x)$. The function $m(x)$ is a randomly generated, $8 \pi$ periodic function, normalized so that $\left|\left|m(x)\right|\right|_{2}=1$, while $\nu$ is typically $.01$. However, in certain cases consider $\nu=.1$, and where this is the case, it is noted. Finally, given the identities derived for the convolution in this paper, the convolution integral turns into a simple term by term multiplication of two vectors in the pseudo-spectral method. Thus no approximations to the integral or kernel are made. As in \cite{decon}, we convolve against $\phi(x) = e^{-x^{2}}$. In every figure, $\alpha$ and $k$ are one.
Figure \ref{fig:B_small} shows the results for $B=.01$, $V_{0}=-2.46$, with nonlocality parameter $\epsilon=0$. As expected from Theorem 4, we see an instability emerge with these parameter values with the random perturbation to the initial condition as explained previously. In contrast, Figure \ref{fig:B_big} shows the case $B=1$, $V_{0}=-.01$, with nonlocality parameter $\epsilon = .01$, $\nu = .01$. The numerics behave as the Theorems 2 and 3 predict. We have confidence that the numerical results are accurate and correspond to the existing theory.
Figures \ref{fig:B_big_nu_small} and \ref{fig:B_big_nu_big} show the results for the case $B=1$, $V_{0}=-1$, $\epsilon=.01$, $\nu = .01$ and $.1$. This is a direct comparison to the work in \cite{decon}. As can be seen from the figures, the underlying solution appears to be robust to perturbations, even with a nonzero nonlocality parameter. This contradicts the results of \cite{decon}, and seems to imply that \eqref{sol} is stable in this parameter regime.
\section{Conclusion}
We have shown that for a large class of kernels, $R(x,\epsilon)$, used to represent long range nonlocal interactions in a Gross-Pitaevskii equation, if one lets the range of nonlocality go to zero, {\it i.e.} $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, then in a rigorous sense, the wavefunction for the nonlocal problem approaches the wavefunction for the local problem. This result holds for any smooth periodic trapping potential $V(x)$. Thus we have demonstrated that generalizing a local model to a nonlocal one can be done in a straightforward way, thus expanding the modeling potential of Gross-Pitaevskii equations. Likewise, we have established the stability properties of a particular class of solutions to a nonlocal Gross-Pitaevskii equation. The theory and numerical experiments predict that when the offset size $B$ is large these solutions are stable. It is therefore possible that under the right conditions these solutions could be observed as wavefunctions describing a Bose-Einstein condensate.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The author would like to thank M. Ablowitz, B. Deconinck, A. Rey, and H. Segur for reading through earlier versions of this manuscript and for their insightful advice and comments. The author would especially like to thank the authors of \cite{decon}, B. Deconinck and J.N. Kutz, for their encouragement, interest, and endorsement of the results in this work which was expressed through private communications. The author finally would like to thank the reviewer for helping to make this a significantly better paper.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!hp]
\subfloat[$B=.01$, $V_{0}=-2.46$, $\epsilon=0$, $\nu=.01$]{\label{fig:B_small}\includegraphics[scale=.4]{B_small}}
\subfloat[$B=1$, $V_{0}=-.01$, $\epsilon=.01$, $\nu=.01$]{\label{fig:B_big}\includegraphics[scale=.4]{B_large_pert_small}}
\caption{Confirmation of Theorems 2 and 3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!hp]
\subfloat[$B=1$, $V_{0}=-1$, $\epsilon=.01$, $\nu=.01$]{\label{fig:B_big_nu_small}\includegraphics[scale=.4]{B_large_Poten_large_pert_small}}
\subfloat[$B=1$, $V_{0}=-1$, $\epsilon=.01$, $\nu=.1$]{\label{fig:B_big_nu_big}\includegraphics[scale=.4]{B_large_Poten_large_pert_large}}
\caption{Numerical Predictions for Large Offset Size and Potential Height}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\pagebreak
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Network calculations aiming to reproduce isotopic abundances observed
in stars, or predictions of isotope productions in nuclear power
plants require good knowledge of nuclear level densities and
$\gamma$-ray transition rates for many nuclei and over a large range
of excitation energies to calculate the relevant cross sections.
Up to a certain excitation energy, it is feasible to perform
spectroscopic measurements on all individual nuclear excited states
and to determine at least some of their properties.
But at higher excitation energies, the spacing between nuclear levels
may become very small, which does not allow to resolve all individual
levels.
A continuing effort has since long been devoted both in experiment and
theory to the study of level densities and $\gamma$-ray strengths
function also in this region of quasi-continuum.
Despite these efforts, the amount of available experimental data is
relatively small.
Therefore, network calculations often have to rely on models to
compensate for the lack of measured values, and models are difficult
to validate without experimental data to compare with.
The nuclear physics group at the University of Oslo has performed many
experiments using the Oslo method to determine nuclear level densities
and $\gamma$-ray strength functions of many isotopes throughout the
nuclear
chart~\cite{Chankova06,Lar07,Algin08,Agvaanluvsan09,Syed09a,Nyhus10}.
In the present work, the Oslo method has been used for the first time
on a nucleus produced in a $(p,\alpha)$ reaction to determine the
level density and the $\gamma$-ray strength function of \tsup{43}Sc.
Previously published data for \tsup{45}Sc~\cite{Lar07}, produced in
the (\tsup{3}He,\tsup{3}He$^\prime$) reaction, allow the comparison of
two relatively light isotopes with $\Delta A=2$.
In the next section, the experimental setup and the analysis procedure
are described, followed by a discussion of the experimental results in
sections~\ref{sec:nld} and \ref{sec:strength}.
In section~\ref{sec:summary}, we conclude with a summary.
\section{Experiment and Data Analysis}
\label{sec:setup}
The experiment was performed at the cyclotron laboratory of the
University of Oslo.
A proton beam with an energy of $\unit[32]{MeV}$ impinged on a Ti
target of $\unit[3]{mg/cm^2}$ thickness with an enrichment of
$\unit[86]{\%}$ \tsup{46}Ti.
The main impurities were \tsup{48}Ti ($\unit[10.6]{\%}$), \tsup{47}Ti
($\unit[1.6]{\%}$), \tsup{50}Ti ($\unit[1.0]{\%}$), and \tsup{49}Ti
($\unit[0.8]{\%}$).
Eight silicon $\Delta E-E$ particle telescopes with a total geometric
efficiency of about $\unit[1.3]{\%}$ were placed in forward direction
at $\unit[5]{cm}$ distance behind the target at an angle of
$\unit[45]{^\circ}$ with respect to the beam axis.
The target was surrounded by the $\gamma$-ray detector array CACTUS,
consisting of 28 collimated NaI(Tl) scintillator crystals covering
about $\unit[15]{\%}$ of $4\pi$.
Using the specific energy losses in the thin ($\unit[140]{\upmu m}$)
$\Delta E$ and the thick ($\unit[1500]{\upmu m}$) $E$ particle
detectors, $\alpha$ ejectiles were identified to select the
\tsup{46}Ti$(p,\alpha)$\tsup{43}Sc reaction channel.
From the known $Q$-values, the reaction kinematics and the energy
losses in the materials passed by the $\alpha$ particles, the initial
excitation energies $E_i$ of the \tsup{43}Sc nuclei could be
reconstructed with an accuracy of about $\unit[700]{keV}$ FWHM.
The difference in total energy deposit in the Si detectors between
\tsup{43}Sc (produced from the main target component, \tsup{46}Ti) and
\tsup{45}Sc (produced from the main impurity, \tsup{48}Ti) in the
respective $(p,\alpha)$ reactions is only about $\unit[0.5]{MeV}$ for
the ground states.
With the present experimental setup, it is not possible to separate
the reactions on the two target components and a certain level of
background from \tsup{45}Sc cannot be removed from the spectra for
\tsup{43}Sc.
From the amount of impurities in the target, one would expect
that the contribution from these impurities should not exceed
$\approx 14\%$. This assumption is supported by $(p,t)$ data from
the same experiment (see Fig.~2 in Ref.~\cite{Lar2012}). Here, it is
clear that the main impurity is stemming from $(p,t)$\tsup{46}Ti, which
is of the order of $10\%$. In addition, from calculations of
differential cross sections at $\unit[45]{^\circ}$ for the
$(p,\alpha)$\tsup{43,45}Sc reactions, and from the cross-section data of
Ref.~\cite{AbouZeid1980}, we find no significant difference
in neither the absolute value nor the shape of the estimated $\alpha$
spectra. Therefore, it seems reasonable to believe that the background
from \tsup{45}Sc in the present data is of the same order as the
amount of \tsup{48}Ti in the target.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig0.pdf}
\caption{(color online)
Alpha spectra from the \tsup{46}Ti($p,\alpha$)\tsup{43}Sc reaction:
Oslo data from one particle telescope (black solid line),
data from Abou-Zeid \textit{et al.} scaled a factor of 10
(blue, dashed line, from
Ref.~\cite{AbouZeid1980}), and the Abou-Zeid data folded with
a Gaussian of 700 keV FWHM, and scaled by a factor of 40 (red line).}
\label{fig:alphaspectra}
\end{figure}
A comparison with the \tsup{43}Sc $\alpha$-particle spectrum from
Ref.~\cite{AbouZeid1980}, folded with the present detector resolution,
shows very good agreement for $\alpha$ energies above $\approx 22$ MeV,
see Fig.~\ref{fig:alphaspectra}.
This further indicates that the contribution from \tsup{45}Sc is rather small.
We observe deviations between our data and the Abou-Zeid data for
$E_{\alpha} < 21$ MeV. In particular, this is so for the peaks centered at
$\approx 21.6$ MeV and $\approx 19.5$ MeV in our data, and the peak at
$\approx 20.7$ MeV in the Abou-Zeid data. The former ones are coming by
the $^{16}$O($p,\alpha$)$^{13}$N reaction, as the Ti target had a
layer of TiO$_{2}$ on the surface. However, there is no obvious reason
for the difference of the latter peak. Possibly, the different beam
energy and scattering angle (our data cover angles between
$\approx 43-47^{\circ}$) could account for the observed deviation.
As a consequence of the \tsup{45}Sc contribution,
some smoothing effects on the extracted quantities are expected.
The excited \tsup{43}Sc nuclei will emit cascades of $\gamma$ rays to
decay to their ground states.
The spectra of these $\gamma$-ray energies $E_\gamma$ were measured in
coincidence with the $\alpha$ particles, and a matrix $E_i$
vs. $E_{\gamma}$ was constructed after correcting for the NaI response
function as described in \cite{Sch00}.
This matrix of unfolded $\gamma$-ray spectra was normalized such that
for each initial excitation energy $E_i$, the integral over all
$\gamma$-ray energies measured in coincidence with this excitation
energy equaled the average $\gamma$-ray multiplicity observed in this
excitation energy bin.
The average multiplicity was determined as $\langle M\rangle =
E_i/\langle E_\gamma \rangle$ with the average $\gamma$-ray energy
$\langle E_\gamma \rangle$ for the excitation energy bin
$E_i$~\cite{Rekstad1983}.
The first-generation method \cite{Gut87} was then applied on this
matrix to extract a matrix $P$ containing the spectrum of primary
$\gamma$-ray energies for each initial excitation energy bin $E_i$.
A fundamental assumption for the first-generation method is that the
$\gamma$-ray spectrum emitted from each excitation energy bin is
independent of how the states in this bin were populated -- by
$\gamma$ decay from higher excited states or by population in the
$(p,\alpha)$ reaction.
From the matrix $P$, both the shape of the level density $\rho(E_f)$
and the shape of the $\gamma$-ray strength function $f(E_\gamma)$ can
be extracted as described in \cite{Sch00}.
As explained there, this extraction can only be performed if the
$\gamma$-ray strength function only depends on the $\gamma$-ray
energy, but not on the excitation energy (the generalized Brink-Axel
hypothesis \cite{Brink1955,Axel1962}), and the transition probability
from an initial state $i$ to a final state $f$ (with excitation
energies $E_i$ and $E_f$, respectively) can be factorized into the
level density at the final state, $\rho(E_f)$, and the $\gamma$
transmission coefficient, ${\cal T}(E_i-E_f)$.
Furthermore it is assumed in the following that dipole radiation is
predominant and that one can write ${\cal T}(E_\gamma) = 2\pi
f(E_\gamma) E_\gamma^3$.
The results obtained at this point are only the functional forms of
$\rho$ and $f$ in the sense that the matrix $P$ can be equally fitted
to other pairs of $\rho'$ and $f'$ obtained by the transformations:
\begin{linenomath}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:tansformations}
\rho'(E_f) &= A \exp(\alpha E_f) \rho(E_f) \\
f'(E_\gamma) &= B \exp(\alpha E_\gamma) f(E_\gamma)
\end{align}
\end{linenomath}
for any positive values of $A$, $B$, and any value of
$\alpha$~\cite{Sch00}.
To determine appropriate values for these coefficients, the level
density and the $\gamma$-ray strength function must be normalized
using data from other sources.
The parameters $A$ and $\alpha$ were determined using two level
density values:
One of them is the counted level density from discrete-line
spectroscopy at low excitation energy, where it has been assumed that
all levels have been observed (green region in Fig.~\ref{fig:nld}).
The second one is the level density derived from resonance spacings at
average energy $E_n$, slightly above a particle separation energy.
This value is extrapolated to lower excitation energies using a scaled
back-shifted Fermi gas (BSFG) model~\cite{EgiBuc05} to bridge the gap
between the maximum energy for which $\rho(E_f)$ can be determined in
the experiment and $E_n$ (red line and region in Fig.~\ref{fig:nld}).
While no neutron resonance data are available for \tsup{43}Sc, some
information on proton resonances is tabulated in~\cite{Sukh0x}.
To perform the normalization, it has been assumed that the tentative
spin assignments in~\cite{Sukh0x} are correct, and that the
distribution of unknown spin-parity values equals the distribution of
known spin-parity values.
The normalization point for the level density has then been obtained
by counting the levels in the excitation energy region around
$E_n=\unit[7]{MeV}$.
The BSFG parameters for the extrapolation are the same as used for
\tsup{45}Sc in~\cite{Lar07}: the level density parameter was
$a=\unit[4.94]{MeV^{-1}}$, the back-shift parameter
$E_1=\unit[-2.55]{MeV}$.
In addition, the curve was scaled with a factor $\eta=0.585$ to match
the level density normalization point for \tsup{43}Sc as obtained from
the proton resonance data.
This particular BSFG parametrization was chosen to allow a comparison
with the data for \tsup{45}Sc from Ref.~\cite{Lar07}.
A third normalization point is necessary to fix the parameter $B$ for
the $\gamma$-ray strength function scale.
If available, data on the average total radiative width could be used
for this purpose~\cite{Voi01,Gut05}.
Such data are, however, not available for \tsup{43}Sc.
Therefore, estimated $\gamma$-ray strength function values for
\tsup{46}Sc have been used in exactly the same way as for \tsup{45}Sc
in \cite{Lar07}:
the normalization value is the sum of the $E1$ and $M1$ strength
function values for \tsup{46}Sc from Ref.~\cite{KopeckyUhl1995}.
The use of the \tsup{46}Sc value is justified if it is assumed that
the $\gamma$-ray strength functions for \tsup{43}Sc and \tsup{46}Sc
(and \tsup{45}Sc) are not very different in scale.
\section{Nuclear Level Density}
\label{sec:nld}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{(color online)
Experimental level density for \tsup{43}Sc.
The experimental curve (blue steps) is normalized to discrete
levels (green steps, fitted in green region) and to proton
resonance spacings (cyan diamond) extrapolated using a BSFG model
(red line, fitted in the red region).}
\label{fig:nld}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:nld} shows the level density curve obtained for
\tsup{43}Sc after the normalization as described in the previous
section.
The level density normalization point at $E_n=\unit[7]{MeV}$ is
$\rho(E_n)=\unit[375]{MeV^{-1}}$ with an estimated uncertainty of
$\Delta \rho(E_n)=\unit[100]{MeV^{-1}}$.
The uncertainties for the experimental data points in this figure are
estimated mainly based on the number of counts in the $E_i$
vs. $E_\gamma$ matrices (see~\cite{Sch00}).
They do, in particular, not include the uncertainty from the
normalization.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{(color online)
Level density comparison.
The experimental level density for \tsup{43}Sc (blue steps) is
compared to the experimental level density of \tsup{45}Sc (red
steps) \cite{Lar07} and to combinatorial model calculations for
these two nuclei (blue and red lines for \tsup{43}Sc and
\tsup{45}Sc, respectively) see text. In addition, BSFG
calculations are included \tsup{43}Sc and \tsup{45}Sc(blue and red
dashed lines, respectively).}
\label{fig:nld_compare}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:nld_compare}, the experimental level density is
compared to the previously published level density curve for
\tsup{45}Sc \cite{Lar07}.
It appears that, in logarithmic scale, the two level density curves
are more or less parallel to each other: the level density for
\tsup{45}Sc is larger by a factor of about 2 for a large excitation
energy range.
A similar behavior has been found in heavier nuclei:
near closed shells, the level density of nuclei of the same element
with masses $A$ and $(A+2)$ differs
significantly~\cite{Siem2009,Chankova06,Syed09a}.
For mid-shell nuclei, on the other hand, the level density of $\Delta
A=2$ neighbors of the same element is very similar or almost identical
in scale~\cite{Agvaanluvsan04,Guttormsen03}.
It is not obvious where this increase by a factor 2 between $A=43$ and
$A=45$ originates from.
In case of spherical nuclei with pronounced $N = 20$ and $N = 28$
shell gaps, only a few active particles in the $f_{7/2}$ orbitals
would be responsible for the number of levels, namely 1~$\pi$ and
2~$\nu$ for \tsup{43}Sc, and 1~$\pi$ and 4~$\nu$ for \tsup{45}Sc.
In this picture, one could expect many more configurations at one and
the same excitation energy for \tsup{45}Sc compared to \tsup{43}Sc.
However, both isotopes have an $I^\pi=3/2^+$ state just above the
$7/2^-$ ground state, indicating that the $d_{3/2}$ hole orbital is
close to the $f_{7/2}$, which can be explained by a quadrupole
deformation of $\epsilon_2 \approx 0.23$ as shown in the Nilsson
single particle scheme of Ref.~\cite{Lar07}.
These calculations show a rather uniform distribution of $\Omega^\pi$
Nilsson orbitals, and one could expect very similar level densities
for \tsup{45}Sc and \tsup{43}Sc.
On the other hand, it is well established that \tsup{45}Sc exhibits
coexistence of prolate and weakly oblate (nearly spherical) rotational
bands~\cite{Bednarczyk1997}.
Since the level density includes all types of configurations with
various spins and parities, one has to expect contributions from both
shapes, where the near-spherical shape might drive towards a large
level density ratio and the deformed shape towards a small level
density ratio between \tsup{43}Sc and \tsup{45}Sc.
The situation is complex and it is difficult to present simple
arguments to explain the experimentally observed level density ratio
of $\approx 2$.
Figure~\ref{fig:nld_compare} includes calculations of level densities
for \tsup{43}Sc and \tsup{45}Sc using the phenomenological BSFG model.
For these curves, the global parametrization from \cite{ko08} was
used (which is different from the parameters used for the
normalization in Sec.~\ref{sec:setup} and Fig.~\ref{fig:nld}).
This parametrization includes shell effects via nuclear masses, which
enter the calculation of the level density parameter $a$.
The resulting ratio of level densities is $1.5$ at
$E_x=\unit[3]{MeV}$, slightly smaller than the ratio of $2$ seen in
experiment.
Generally, the two BSFG calculations tend to underestimate the level
density below $E_x=\unit[6]{MeV}$.
Figure~\ref{fig:nld_compare} also includes theoretical level density
curves derived from calculations using the combinatorial HFM model
described in Ref.~\cite{gorhil08}.
These theoretical level densities were retrieved from
Ref.~\cite{RIPL3}.
As explained in Ref.~\cite{gorhil08}, a meaningful comparison of the
theoretical predictions $\rho_{\rm HFM}$ with the experimental data
$\rho_{\rm exp}$ requires a normalization of $\rho_{\rm HFM}$ to the
level density value used to normalize the experimental level densities
at a given energy $E_{n}$.
Following the normalization recipe of Ref.~\cite{ko08}, we thus
determine for both of \tsup{43}Sc and \tsup{45}Sc a normalization
parameter $c$ such that
\begin{linenomath}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:norm_theo}
\rho_{\rm HFM}(E_n) \times \exp(c \sqrt{E_n})=\rho_{\rm exp}(E_n)
\mbox{,}
\end{equation}
\end{linenomath}
\noindent and then plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:nld_compare} the normalized
values, i.e.
\begin{linenomath}
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\rm HFM}(E_x) \times \exp(c \sqrt{E_x})
\end{equation}
\end{linenomath}
as a function of $E_x$.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ldddd}
\tcol{Nucleus} & \tcol{$E_n$} & \tcol{$\rho(E_n)$} & \tcol{$\rho_{\rm HFM}(E_n)$} & \tcol{$c$} \\
& \tcol{(MeV)} & \tcol{(MeV$^{-1}$)} & \tcol{(MeV$^{-1}$)} & \\
\hline
\tsup{43}Sc & 7.0 & 375 & 1022 & -0.379 \\
\tsup{45}Sc & 9.904 & 3701 & 11470 & -0.359 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\caption{Microscopical model normalization parameters. The values for the level density
normalization energy, $E_n$, and density value, $\rho(E_n)$, for \tsup{45}Sc are from
Ref.~\cite{Lar07}, and the values for $\rho_{\rm HFM}$ were interpolated
from \cite{RIPL3}.}
\label{tab:norm_hfm}
\end{table}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:nld_compare}, we chose zero pairing shift and
obtained values for $c$ from eq.~\eqref{eq:norm_theo} as listed in
Table~\ref{tab:norm_hfm}.
The normalized HFM curves nearly reproduce the parallel trend of the
level density curves and the ratio between them with a significant
increase of the \tsup{45}Sc level densities with respect to that of
\tsup{43}Sc, but they underestimate the level densities for both
nuclei.
The main qualitative differences between the HFM calculation and
experimental data are at excitation energies below $\unit[1.5]{MeV}$,
where the calculation does neither reproduce the level densities as
obtained from discrete level counting nor their ratio, and in the
excitation energy range between around $1.5$ and $\unit[4]{MeV}$ where
the model predicts a local increase in the level density for both
nuclei which is not seen in experiment.
At excitation energies below $\unit[2]{MeV}$, the HFM curves show more
structure than the experimental curves.
One possible explanation is the experimental energy resolution.
Another possibility to explain this mismatch is the too approximate
treatment of the coupling between particle-hole and vibrational
excitations implemented in the combinatorial HFM model.
To check this hypothesis, we tested a simplistic model to mimic a more
realistic particle-vibration coupling resulting in a spreading of the
coupled states by an arbitrarily chosen energy of the order of a few
hundred keV.
The HFM curves obtained using such a simplistic treatment show, as
expected, less structure and better agreement with the shape of the
experimental data.
The tested modifications are, however, completely arbitrary and have
to be investigated and refined in future work before including them in
the general HFM calculations.
\section{Gamma-Ray Strength Function}
\label{sec:strength}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{(color online)
Gamma-ray strength function for \tsup{43}Sc.
The experimental curve (blue steps) is shown together with the
$\gamma$-ray strength function for \tsup{45}Sc (red steps).
The normalization data point from \tsup{46}Sc is also shown
(cyan diamond).
}
\label{fig:strength}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:strength} shows the experimental curves of the
$\gamma$-ray strength function for \tsup{43}Sc, together with the
experimental data for \tsup{45}Sc~\cite{Lar07}.
As for the level density, the uncertainties for the experimental data
points are estimated mainly based on the number of counts in the $E_i$
vs. $E_\gamma$ matrices.
The similarity of the shapes of the measured $\gamma$-ray strength
functions of the $\Delta A=2$ neighbors is astonishing.
A common feature of the curves is that they both show a minimum at
around $\unit[3.5]{MeV}$ and an increase of the $\gamma$-ray strength
function for lower $\gamma$-ray energies.
Similar behavior has been observed in other nuclei and using
different experimental approaches \cite{Syed09b,
Voinov2004,Gut05,Voinov2010}.
A possible explanation for the case of light nuclei is the typically
low level density at low excitation energy, in particular the scarcity
of higher-spin states, and the dominance of $E1$ radiation.
For a higher-spin state -- which can be populated in the
particle-induced reaction --, the de-excitation then needs multiple,
smaller-energy steps to reach one of the available low-spin states at
low excitation energy~\cite{Larsen2011}.
Phenomenological models describing such $\gamma$-ray strength
functions shows that the increased $\gamma$-ray strength for low
$E_\gamma$ may have important effects on radiative neutron capture
cross sections and thus on r-process nucleosynthesis
calculations~\cite{LarsenGoriely2010}.
\section{Summary}
\label{sec:summary}
The nuclear level density and the $\gamma$-ray strength function of
\tsup{43}Sc have been determined experimentally using the Oslo method.
There is an almost constant factor between the level densities of
\tsup{43}Sc and \tsup{45}Sc, a behavior similar to what has been
observed in heavier nuclei in the vicinity of shell closures.
The parallel evolution of the level densities of the two $\Delta A=2$
isotope neighbors can be nearly reproduced within a combinatorial
model for a large excitation energy range.
The $\gamma$-ray strength function for \tsup{43}Sc is surprisingly
similar to the one of \tsup{45}Sc, and it shows an increase at low
$\gamma$-ray energy which cannot be explained theoretically as of yet.
|
\section{Introduction}
The strong-field process of high harmonic generation (\textsc{hhg}) provides a source of coherent femtosecond and attosecond pulses in the extreme ultraviolet (\textsc{xuv}) with a wide variety of applications \cite{Krausz2009}. It has allowed the study of photoionization of atoms and molecules with attosecond resolution \cite{Schultze2010,Kluender2011probing}, revealing unexpected features, in particular near resonances \cite{Haessler2009ion,Caillat2011molbit}. One would expect that such resonances also affect the \textsc{hhg} process itself, since the final step of the conventional semi-classical model \cite{Schafer1993,Corkum1993Plasma} is photo-recombination, \textit{i.e.} the inverse process of photo-ionization \cite{Le2009QRS,Frolov2010Potentialbarrier,Frolov2011analytic}. However, few experiments have shown evidence of resonance effects \cite{Toma1999,Sheehy1999,Woerner2009,Higuet2011cooper,Shiner2011Xe}, until recently when \textsc{hhg} was demonstrated from ablation plasmas produced on solid targets \cite{Ganeev2007}. This technique allows using a wide variety of ionic targets for \textsc{hhg}, including some with very strong radiative transitions. Enhancement of single harmonics resonant with such transitions has resulted in conversion efficiencies of $\sim10^{-4}$ \cite{Suzuki2006Anomalous,Ganeev2006Strong}, far exceeding the typical value of $\sim10^{-5}$ obtained in neutral gases \cite{Hergott2002Extreme}.
This resonance-enhancement is currently a hot topic of both applied and fundamental interest. However, so far, only the spectral intensity of high harmonics from resonant plasmas has been experimentally characterized and the important question whether they offer a route to intense XUV femtosecond or attosecond pulses remains unanswered. More fundamentally, theories describing the still scarcely explored role of resonances, and thus atomic structure, in strong-field processes \cite{Strelkov2010,Tudorovskaya2011resonance,Milosevic2007resonant,Milosevic2010,Redkin2010,Elouga2008Correlation,Kulagin2009,Frolov2010Potentialbarrier}, would greatly benefit from advanced experimental characterization of the emission as a benchmark. As yet, it was shown that the resonance-enhancement effect vanishes when shifting the harmonic energy off the resonance \cite{Suzuki2006Anomalous,Ganeev2006Strong,Ganeev2012twocolortin}. Furthermore, the xuv yield was found to decrease with increasing ellipticity of the driving laser\cite{Suzuki2006Anomalous}, suggesting electron recollision as a crucial part of the enhancement mechanism. The ellipticity dependence is, however, much slower than for rare gas media \cite{Budil1993ellipticity}.
In this article, we report measurements of both the femtosecond and attosecond structure of \textsc{hhg} from tin ablation plasma, where harmonic 17 (H17) of an \hbox{$\approx800$-nm} laser is tuned into resonance with the \hbox{4d$^{10}$5s$^2$5p $^2$P$_{3/2} \leftrightarrow$ 4d$^{9}$5s$^2$5p$^2$~($^1$D)$^2$D$_{5/2}$} transition in Sn$^+$ with energy $\epsilon_\mathrm{res}=26.27\:$eV. We find a femtosecond envelope that does not correspond to a slowly-decaying plasma emission but is indeed slightly shorter than the driving laser pulse. However, the harmonic relative phase, which governs the attosecond structure, is significantly perturbed by the resonance. In resonant conditions, the phase locking between the resonant and the neighbouring orders is lost, \textit{i.e.} their relative phase varies significantly within the harmonic spectral width. We develop a model based on the numerical solution of the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation (TDSE) that reproduces the experimentally observed strong phase perturbations, both on the attosecond and the femtosecond scales. Furthermore, we clearly link these effects to the resonance by means of an analytically calculated recombination dipole matrix element.
\section{Experimental study}
Our experimental setup is similar to the one in \cite{Elouga2011chrome}. The \mbox{20-Hz}, \mbox{50-mJ} Ti:sapphire laser is split into two beams before compression: a $\approx 300$-ps pre-pulse is loosely focused to $\sim10^{10}\:$W$\:$cm$^{-2}$ intensity onto the solid tin target at normal incidence, creating an ablation plume of $\lesssim1\:$mm length. The second beam is delayed by $80\:$ns and then compressed to $\tau_\mathrm{IR}=55\:$fs duration, before being focused ($f/50$) to $I_\mathrm{IR}^\mathrm{pump}\lesssim 1\times10^{14}$W$\:$cm$^{-2}$ (estimated by measuring the attochirp of the harmonic emission from an argon gas jet in the same experimental conditions \cite{Mairesse2003Attosecond}) into the plasma plume, propagating at a distance of $\approx 300\:$\textmu m parallel to the target surface. The annular far-field profile of the \textsc{hhg} driving beam allows blocking it with an iris $\approx1\:$m downstream, while the harmonics pass on-axis. The generated harmonics are detected by photo-ionizing argon atoms in a magnetic bottle electron spectrometer (\textsc{mbes}). Here, a weak \textsc{ir} probe beam ($I_\mathrm{IR}^\mathrm{probe}\sim10^{11}\:$W$\:$cm$^{-2}$) can be overlaid, leading to two-photon \textsc{xuv}$\pm$\textsc{ir} ionization. Thus, between the odd-order harmonic peaks, even-order sidebands (SBs) appear in the photo-electron spectrum \cite{Bouhal1997}, which serve as the nonlinear signal for the temporal characterization. In these very challenging experiments, the signal-to-noise ratio was limited by the relatively small number of pre-pulses (few thousands) that the tin target could withstand before deterioration and drop in harmonic signal \cite{Elouga2011chrome}.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\flushright
\includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{Fig-spectra}
\caption{\label{Fig:spectra} Spectra obtained by photoionizing Ar gas with high harmonics generated in tin plasma for the `detuned' (a) and `resonant' (b) cases, in presence of the \textsc{ir} probe beam. We corrected for the ionization cross-section such that the quantity shown is proportional to the \textsc{xuv} spectral intensity, except for the presence of SBs, that \emph{only} appear in the photoelectron spectrum. The $0.16\:$eV wide red line marks the resonance and the dashed line marks the exact position of H17. The inset in panel (a) shows the theoretical photoionization cross section of Sn$^+$ \cite{Ganeev2012twocolortin}, on the same energy scale as the \textsc{hhg} spectrum.}
\vspace{-12pt}
\end{figure}
Two separate measurement runs with the laser central wavelengths $\lambda_\mathrm{L}=793\:$nm and 796 nm were made, corresponding to detunings of H17 from the resonant wavelength $\lambda_\mathrm{res}=ch/\epsilon_\mathrm{res}$ of $\vert\lambda_\mathrm{res}-\lambda_\mathrm{IR}/17\vert/\lambda_\mathrm{res}
=7.5\times10^{-3}$ and $1.13\times10^{-2}$, respectively. While this difference is small, it shifts the H17 photon energy by $0.1\:$eV, which is significant compared to the $0.2\:$-eV typical width of a harmonic line and the $\approx0.16\:$-eV resonance width \cite{Ganeev2012twocolortin}. The relative positions of H17 and the resonance for the two driving wavelengths are marked in figure \ref{Fig:spectra}: for $\lambda_\mathrm{L}=796\:$nm, H17 is closer to the exact resonance than for $793\:$nm, and for the sake of brevity, we will in the following use the oversimplified terms of \emph{`resonant'} and \emph{`detuned'} case, respectively. Note that we expect the resonance to play a role in the emission of H17 in both cases. We do not consider the AC Stark shift of $\epsilon_\mathrm{res}$ which is expected to be small at our laser intensities \cite{Ganeev2012twocolortin}. \sh{A possible small blue-shift of $\lambda_\mathrm{L}$ due to a time-dependent electron density during the driving pulse is also neglected. No such blue-shift, or other significant phase distortions have been observed in \textsc{spider} measurements of the driving laser pulses after propagation through the plasma plume.} Note finally the array of 4d $\leftrightarrow$ 5p transitions around 26 eV (see inset in figure \ref{Fig:spectra}a). The above-mentioned transition to the ($^1$D)$^2$D$_{5/2}$ autoionizing (AI) state is expected to play the dominant role because of its \emph{gf}-value exceeding those of the others by a factor $>3.5$ \cite{Ganeev2012twocolortin}.
The distinct difference in resonance conditions is evident in the \textsc{hhg} spectra shown in figure \ref{Fig:spectra}. The laser focusing geometry, pulse energies and durations were kept the same in both runs, which ensures equal intensities for the pre-pulse and driving pulse, as well as equal phase matching conditions, assuming similar spatial beam quality. However, H17 shows significantly stronger enhancement in the `resonant' case, while H13 and H15 are of essentially the same intensities in both cases. In the `detuned' case, varying the generation conditions and in particular increasing the \textsc{hhg} driving intensity did not allow us to increase the H17 relative intensity. We thus attribute the difference to the driving laser wavelength.
The enhancement observed in figure \ref{Fig:spectra}(b) is smaller than that reported in \cite{Suzuki2006Anomalous}. This may be due to the different macroscopic plasma medium conditions, caused by our relatively large ($\approx300\:$\textmu m) distance of the driving beam from the target (so as to avoid high electron density gradients that diffract the \textsc{ir} light, hampering the blocking of the driving beam), and smaller pre-pulse spot size resulting in a shorter generating medium.
\subsection{Femtosecond characterization}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\flushright
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig-temporal_modif}
\caption{\label{Fig:temporal} Temporal characterization of the harmonic emission from tin plasma plume. (a)/(b) Measured data (circles) with 5-point Savitzky-Golay smoothing, from low resolution \textsc{xuv}-\textsc{ir} cross-correlations for SBs 14/18 in the `resonant' case. The gray shaded area is an intensity auto-correlation of the \textsc{ir} laser pulse. (c) Attosecond pulse profile (gray shaded area), in the `detuned' case, reconstructed from the \textsc{rabbit} scan shown in figure \ref{Fig:rabitt}b,c, taking into account harmonics 13 to 19. The dashed line is the \textsc{ir} driving field modulus.}
\vspace{-12pt}
\end{figure}
In a first step, low-resolution ($3.3\:$fs delay steps) \textsc{xuv}-\textsc{ir} cross-correlation scans were performed to measure the \textsc{xuv} pulse envelopes. The SB intensity $I_\mathrm{SB}(\tau)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty I_\mathrm{\textsc{xuv}}(t) f[I_\mathrm{\textsc{ir}}(t-\tau)]\:\rmd t$ provides a cross-correlation of the \textsc{xuv} and the \textsc{ir} pulses, with temporal intensities $I_\mathrm{\textsc{xuv}}(t)$ and $I_\mathrm{\textsc{ir}}(t)$, respectively \cite{Bouhal1997}. The function $f[I_\mathrm{\textsc{ir}}]$ is well approximated by a power law $\propto {I_\mathrm{\textsc{ir}}}^\alpha$ at low \textsc{ir} intensity; in our experimental conditions, we find $\alpha\approx0.8$ \cite{Haessler2012femtosecondplasma}. Figures \ref{Fig:temporal}(a) and (b) show the intensities of the SBs 14 and 18 as a function of the \textsc{xuv}-\textsc{ir} delay $\tau$ in the `resonant' case. Given the high intensity contrast of H13 vs. H15 and H17 vs. H19, these two SBs essentially compare the durations of H13 and H17, $\it{i.e.}$ a non-resonant with a resonant harmonic. Within the experimental precision, both cross-correlation traces have the same shape and width ($\tau_\mathrm{SB}=(80\pm10)\:$fs FWHM) as the intensity auto-correlation of the 55-fs laser pulse (measured using a standard second-order auto-correlator). Data from the `detuned' case show a very similar behaviour \cite{Haessler2012femtosecondplasma}.
The harmonic duration, $\tau_\mathrm{XUV}$, can be estimated by assuming Gaussian intensity profiles, such that $\tau_\mathrm{XUV}=({\tau_\mathrm{SB}}^2-{\tau_\mathrm{IR}}^2 /\alpha )^{1/2}$ \cite{Bouhal1997}. We then find $\tau_\mathrm{XUV}=(50\pm15)\:$fs for both H13 and H17. For a 55-fs driving pulse, this is fairly long, especially for harmonics close to the cutoff. A likely reason is that \textsc{hhg} was saturated before the driving pulse peak. Indeed, the observed \textsc{hhg} cutoff at H19 suggest an effective driving intensity of $\gtrsim6\times10^{13}\:$W$\:$cm$^{-2}$, which is already higher than the barrier suppression intensity \cite{Ilkov1992} for the ionization of Sn$^+$ ($I_\mathrm{p}=14.6\:$eV).
\subsection{Attosecond characterization}
In order to access the attosecond sub-structure of the \textsc{hhg} emission, the \textsc{xuv}-\textsc{ir} cross-correlation scans have been repeated varying $\tau$ with sub-laser-cycle resolution (0.15-fs delay steps) over $\approx7\:$fs around the peak overlap. The \textsc{ir} probe beam intensity has been reduced by a factor $\approx2$ to completely suppress higher than first-order SBs \cite{Swoboda2009intensity}. This is an implementation of the \textsc{rabbit} technique \cite{Paul2001Observation}:
the high resolution in $\tau$ allows observing oscillations of the SB intensities with twice the \textsc{ir} laser frequency, $\omega_\mathrm{L}$, as a result of interference between the two quantum paths involving absorption of the neighbouring harmonic photons and either absorption or emission of an \textsc{ir} photon.
From the phase of this oscillation in each SB $q$, the relative phase, $\Delta\varphi_{q}$, of two neighbouring harmonic orders ($q-1$) and ($q+1$) can be extracted. This yields an approximation to the \textsc{xuv} group delay (GD) $\left.\partial \varphi/\partial\omega \right\vert_{q\omega_\mathrm{L}}\approx \Delta\varphi_{q}/2\omega_\mathrm{L}$, where $\omega_\mathrm{L}$ is the laser frequency.
More precisely, since we are not dealing with discrete harmonic lines, one can write the $\tau$-dependent sideband intensity spectrum as $S\hspace{-.4mm}B(\omega,\tau)=\vert A(\omega+\omega_\mathrm{L})\exp[\rmi\omega_\mathrm{L}\tau] + A(\omega-\omega_\mathrm{L})\exp[-\rmi\omega_\mathrm{L}\tau] \vert^2$, where $A(\omega)$ is the harmonic complex spectral amplitude. The integration over $\omega$ of the SB line, as usually done in experiments (the convolution with the probe-\textsc{ir} spectrum ($0.05\:$eV FWHM) and with the spectrometer resolution ($0.25\:$eV FWHM) in any case washes out the $\omega$-dependence of the $2\omega_\mathrm{L}$-oscillation \textit{within} the SB line), thus gives access to a mean value of the harmonic phase difference \emph{if the latter does not vary significantly over the harmonic spectral width:} the two harmonic orders are then said to be locked in phase. A significant variation would result in a disappearance of the $2\omega_\mathrm{L}$-oscillation: this has never been observed in any media, be it atomic gases \cite{Paul2001Observation,Mairesse2003Attosecond}, molecular gases \cite{Boutu2008Coherent,Haessler2010tomo} or non-resonant plasmas \cite{Elouga2011chrome}. Such a disappearance would correspond to significant variations of the individual attosecond pulses throughout the emitted pulse train \cite{Varju2005,Varju2005Reconstruction}.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\flushright
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig-rabitt_4}
\caption{\label{Fig:rabitt} Results of \textsc{rabbit} measurements. Squared modulus of the Fourier-transformed oscillating SB signals in the `detuned' (a) and `resonant' (b) cases. The phase at the peaks near $2\omega_\mathrm{L}$ gives the GDs, shown in (c) for the `detuned' ($\blacklozenge$) and `resonant' cases ($\opensquare$). Errors are the standard deviation of the phase within the FWHM of the $2\omega_\mathrm{L}$-peak. Red dots and dashed line show GDs extracted from numerical simulations for the `detuned' case (see text) under a driving intensity of 6.5$\times10^{13}\:$W$\:$cm$^{-2}$. Solid line shows an SFA-calculation \cite{Mairesse2003Attosecond} for this intensity and the ionization potential of Sn$^+$.}
\vspace{-12pt}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{Fig:rabitt}(a) and (b) show the squared Fourier transform of the $\tau$-dependent integrated SB intensities from \textsc{rabbit} scans for the `detuned' and `resonant' case, respectively. In the `detuned' case, the $2\omega_\mathrm{L}$-oscillation is detected with reasonable contrast on all observable SBs. In the `resonant' case, we find a striking peculiarity of the two SBs (16 and 18) surrounding the resonant H17: though present in the photoelectron spectrum and of similar amplitude as in the `detuned' case (see figure \ref{Fig:spectra}), they \emph{do not} oscillate at $2\omega_\mathrm{L}$. This oscillation is detected with good contrast on all other SBs to which the resonant H17 does not contribute, demonstrating that interferometric stability was sufficient. The strong intensity difference between H17 and H15, that leads to a reduced interference contrast, is the same between H15 and H13 and does not prevent observation of the $2\omega_\mathrm{L}$-oscillations of SB14. We thus attribute this suppression to the closer proximity of H17 to the exact resonance.
From the SBs with detectable $2\omega_\mathrm{L}$-oscillation, the GDs shown in figure \ref{Fig:rabitt}(c) are obtained. For SB12 and SB14, the measured GDs in the `resonant' and `detuned' cases agree well within the experimental precision, underlining that the experimental conditions have been equal, except for the small laser wavelength shift that tunes H17 into resonance. This also shows that, despite the reduced signal-to-noise ratio, leading sometimes to small shifts of the $2\omega_\mathrm{L}$-peak positions, the measured phases are reliable. The GDs at SB12 and SB14 also agree well with those predicted by the strong field approximation (SFA) for the short trajectory class and a driving intensity of $6.5\times10^{13}\:$W$\:$cm$^{-2}$ (solid line in figure \ref{Fig:rabitt}(c)). For SB16 and SB18, we can only extract GDs for the `detuned' case. For SB16, we find a striking increase of the GD by $350\:$as as compared to the SFA prediction. As we will show, this strong phase distortion is a result of the nearby resonance. For SB18, the measured GD is much closer to the SFA prediction again, even though a big instability for this specific SB was observed in the different data sets.
Finally, for SB20 we only obtain a good SB oscillation contrast in the `resonant' case and for a single \textsc{rabbit} scan. The extracted GD carries a rather large error due to the low signal-to-noise ratio and may not be reliable. We will thus not discuss it further and show it only for completeness.
In figure \ref{Fig:temporal}(c), we show the average attosecond pulses in the train reconstructed through a Fourier transform from the measured GDs and intensities of harmonics 13 to 19 in the `detuned' case. The rather big attochirp together with the phase jump between H15 and H17 (corresponding to the GD shift of SB16) distorts the pulse shape to a double peak per half cycle.
\section{Theoretical study and discussion}
In order to interpret our experimental observations, we made simulations based on the numerical solution of the 3D-TDSE for a single active electron in a model ionic potential, modulated by a strong laser field. The potential (similar to the one shown as a black line in figure \ref{Fig:4steps}; see details in~\cite{Strelkov2010,Ganeev2012twocolortin}) has a quasi-stationary state modeling the ($^1$D)$^2$D$_{5/2}$ AI state that we expect to dominate the resonance-enhancement effect. Namely, we reproduce the ionization and the AI state energy, the width and (less accurately) the oscillator strength of the ground--AI state transition in real Sn$^+$. The laser pulse has a $\cos^2$-intensity-envelope with a duration of $55\:$fs FWHM.
The computed time dependent expectation value of the dipole acceleration gives the harmonic spectrum in amplitude and phase.
In order to partly simulate the macroscopic effects, and in particular to select the shortest quantum path contribution, we perform a coherent summation of the numerical spectra over the laser intensity (steps of 2x10$^{12}$ W/cm$^2$), thus calculating an on-axis XUV signal from a thin target~\cite{Platonenko1998hhgreview,Balcou1997phasematching}. In this signal, the shortest trajectory contribution dominates~\cite{Platonenko1998hhgreview} because phases of longer trajectories contributions vary rapidly with the laser intensity~\cite{Balcou1997phasematching}.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\columnwidth]{4-steps-stefan}
\caption{\label{Fig:4steps} Illustration of the role of the AI state in resonant HHG. See text for details.}
\vspace{-12pt}
\end{figure}
As it was suggested in~\cite{Strelkov2010} and further studied in~\cite{Ganeev2012twocolortin,Tudorovskaya2011resonance}, the role of the resonance with the AI state can be understood within the four-step HHG model \sh{illustrated in} figure~\ref{Fig:4steps}. After (tunnel) ionization (step 1) and acceleration in the laser field (step 2), the electron can recombine to the ground state and emit \textsc{xuv} (step $3^{*}$ in the three-step model~\cite{Schafer1993,Corkum1993Plasma}); however, if the energy of the \sh{returning} electron is close to that of the AI state, the electron can be captured \sh{such that the} system finds itself in the AI state (step 3) and \sh{only} then relaxes to the ground state, emitting \textsc{xuv} (step 4). Thus, the phase of the resonant harmonic is defined by the phase accumulated during the free-electronic motion \emph{and} during recapturing of the electron. The calculation results presented below show that the latter is very sensitive to the detuning from the resonance.
Group delays were found from the numerical spectrum by taking the phases at the exact harmonic frequencies, $(2q\pm1)\omega_\mathrm{L}$ and calculating the phase differences
$\Delta\varphi_{q}$ and thus the GDs $\Delta\varphi_{q}/2\omega_\mathrm{L}$.
The robustness of the extraction of GDs from the TDSE solutions has been verified by comparing to two additional methods: (ii) After selecting in the spectral domain only two neighbouring harmonics, $(2q\pm1)$, we make an inverse Fourier-transform back to the time domain, where we obtain a train of attosecond pulses. The temporal position of the first attosecond pulse peak after the driving pulse maximum gives the GD at SB $q$. (iii) Selecting in the spectral domain only single harmonic peaks,
inverse-Fourier-transforming to the time domain and multiplying by $\exp[\rmi q w_\mathrm{L} t]$, we find the q-th harmonic complex slowly varying envelope, $a_q(t)$. The harmonic temporal intensity and phase are then $\vert a_q(t)\vert^2$ and $\arg[a_q(t)]$, respectively. We then calculate the GDs from the time averaged relative phases of neighbouring harmonics. The results of these three methods agree to within $\pm60\:$as.
In figure \ref{Fig:rabitt}c, we show the so obtained GDs in the `detuned' case for a laser peak intensity of $I_0=6.5\times10^{13}\:$W~cm$^{-2}$. Very satisfactory agreement is obtained with the measured values. In particular at SB16, the obtained GD shift of $\approx500\:$as with respect to the SFA reproduces well the experimental one.
This shift is quite robust in the simulations for different peak intensities, $I_0$, as well as in all our measurements. In contrast, the GD at SB18 turns out to be very sensitive to $I_0$ in the simulations and for some values, large shifts are obtained. We have also observed such shifts for SB18 in a few measurements (not shown).
The contrast of the $2\omega_\mathrm{L}$-oscillations of the different SBs was evaluated by integrating the above expression of $S\hspace{-.4mm}B(\omega,\tau)$ over the spectral width. In the `resonant' case, the contrast values for SB12 to SB20 are respectively: 0.69, 0.62, 0.08, 0.13, 0.45. In qualitative agreement with the experiments, the calculated contrast for SBs 16 and 18 is strongly reduced. Moreover, it is significantly lower in the resonant than in the detuned case, while being approximately the same for the other sidebands.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\columnwidth]{Fig-matrixelement}
\caption{\label{Fig:me} Phase and squared modulus of the recombination dipole matrix element $\langle \hat{x}\rangle_\mathrm{c-g}$ as a function of the emitted \textsc{XUV} photon energy (i.e. the difference of the continuum- and ground-state energy). The $0.2\:$eV wide blue and yellow lines mark the spectral position and approximate width of H17 for the detuned and resonant case, respectively. H15 and H19 are around $23.4\:$eV and $29.6\:$eV, respectively.}
\vspace{-12pt}
\end{figure}
The above results can be understood by deriving analytically the wavefunctions (both in the discrete and continuous spectrum) in a 1D double-barrier well potential in the absence of laser field. Details will be reported elsewhere \cite{Khokhlova2011poster}. With these solutions, we calculate the dipole matrix element, $\langle\hat{x}\rangle_\mathrm{c-g}$, of the continuum--ground-state transition, which plays a central role in the resonant HHG emission \cite{Le2009QRS,Strelkov2010,Frolov2010Potentialbarrier,Frolov2011analytic}. The phase of this matrix element, shown in figure \ref{Fig:me}, jumps rapidly by $2.65\:$rad at the exact resonance position, $\epsilon_\mathrm{res}=26.27\:$eV. In both the `detuned' and `resonant' cases, H17 is still on the ``blue'' side of this jump, whereas H15 is on the ``red'' side. The recombination matrix element thus adds an additional phase difference of $\Delta\varphi_{16}^\mathrm{c-g}\approx2.2\:$rad between H15 and H17, and thus shifts the GD at SB16 by $\Delta\varphi_{16}^\mathrm{c-g}/2\omega_\mathrm{L}=460\:$as. This is in very satisfactory agreement with the GD-shifts observed in the experiment and the numerical model.
Note that the dispersion of the HHG medium around the resonance leads to a phase distortion with sharp excursions of opposite sign on either side of the resonance, qualitatively different from the step-like phase induced by $\langle\hat{x}\rangle_\mathrm{c-g}$. If this propagation-induced phase were important, the corresponding group delay shift at SB16 would have to be accompanied by a similar shift \emph{with opposite sign} at SB18. Our experimental GDs are thus compatible with $\langle\hat{x}\rangle_\mathrm{c-g}$ being the dominant source of phase distortions.
The matrix element phase can also qualitatively explain the suppression of the \textsc{rabbit}-oscillations in the `resonant' case. As visible in figure \ref{Fig:me}, in the `detuned' case, it varies very little within the width of H17, while in the `resonant' case, the onset of the rapid phase jump causes a much stronger phase variation within the width of H17. This will contribute to the observed suppression of the \textsc{rabbit}-oscillation contrast on the sidebands surrounding H17. The first order of the phase variation (linear component) corresponds to a delay of H17 with respect to the other harmonics. For the `resonant' case, the delay predicted by $\langle\hat{x}\rangle_\mathrm{c-g}$ is $1.5\:$fs, which agrees well with the numerical TDSE solution. Unfortunately, this small value cannot be resolved in our experimental cross-correlations. With H17 exactly on resonance ($\lambda_\mathrm{L}=802\:$nm), $\langle\hat{x}\rangle_\mathrm{c-g}$ predicts a delay of $8\:$fs, which would certainly be measurable.
Other effects could also contribute to the reduction of the contrast of the \textsc{rabbit}-oscillation.
For example, the resonant H17 wavefront could be spatially distorted, which would average out the relative phases of harmonic and probe beams in the \textsc{mbes} sensitive volume. Such a distortion, affecting only the resonant harmonic, could be caused by the dispersion around the resonance frequency if there were strong gradients of the Sn$^+$-density in the \textsc{hhg} medium. But, as discussed above, the propagation-induced phase distortions seem negligible in our generation conditions due presumably to low plasma densities.
\section{Conclusion}
In conclusion, our study gives an affirmative answer to the practical question of whether resonance-enhanced HHG is indeed a source of intense ultrashort XUV pulses. The enhanced harmonic order has the same femtosecond duration as the non-resonant ones. On the attosecond time-scale however, we find significant distortions of the phase of the near-resonant harmonic. Our results suggest the detuning from the resonance as an effective handle controlling the resonant harmonic phase.
From a more fundamental viewpoint, previous studies of the HHG phase properties focused mainly on the phase accumulated by the quasi-free electron in the continuum, or on the recombination step as a probe of molecular structure and dynamics \cite{Haessler2011tutorial,Salieres2012tomoreview}. This article presents experimental evidence of the dramatic influence of the recombination step on the phase of resonant harmonics from an atomic target.
\sh{
We have shown that the recombination dipole matrix element alone can describe the origin of the phase distortions observed in our experiments. This confirms the four-step picture \cite{Strelkov2010} illustrated in figure \ref{Fig:4steps}, where the resonance comes into play only as an intermediate state in recombination, but not as an initial state as in the model proposed in \cite{Milosevic2007resonant}. It is possible to factor out this recombination dipole matrix element from the expression for the radiating dipole in the description of HHG \cite{Le2009QRS,Frolov2011analytic}. This is the basis for the so called `self-probing' schemes to extract structural and dynamic information about the generating system from intensity, phase and polarization measurement of high harmonics \cite{Haessler2011tutorial,Salieres2012tomoreview}. Our results thus suggest the possibility of devising `self-probing' schemes for atomic resonances based on the advanced characterization of resonance-enhanced high harmonics. In particular, the rapid phase variation responsible for the intriguing suppression of the \textsc{rabitt} oscillations may encode characteristic features of the involved AI state. To gain further insight, the phase within the spectral width of the resonant harmonic could be measured by \textsc{xfrog} \cite{Mauritsson2004xfrog}, \textsc{xuv-spider} \cite{Mairesse2005HHSPIDER} or the \textsc{frog-crab} \cite{Mairesse2005} method, and the resonant harmonic could be spatially characterized ~\cite{Gautier2008}.
}
\ack
We thank M. Lein and D. Milo\v{s}evi\'{c} for fruitful discussions and T. Auguste for SFA calculations. We acknowledge financial support through the European grants EU-FP7-IEF-MUSCULAR and EU-FP7-ATTOFEL, the French ANR-09-BLAN-0031-01, the Minist\`ere du d\'eveloppement \'economique, de l'innovation et de l'exportation du Qu\'ebec, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the Presidential Council on Grants of the Russian Federation (MD-6596.2012.2), as well as the `Dynasty' foundation.
\section*{References}
\bibliographystyle{iopart-num}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Introduction}
In recent years, the cold atomic systems have become a powerful tool to realize strongly-correlated systems, including N-flavor Hubbard model on different lattices. Such systems consisting of several flavors of interacting fermions can be realized as different hyperfine states of alkali atoms \cite{Honerkamp2004} or nuclear spin states of ytterbium \cite{Cazalilla09, Fukuhara2009, Taie2010} or alkaline-earth atoms \cite{CWu03, Gorshkov10, Tey2010}. A model Hamiltonian to describe such systems is the N-flavor fermionic Hubbard model \cite{Honerkamp2004, Xu2010, Gorshkov10}
\begin{eqnarray}
H = - t \sum_{\langle jk \rangle}\sum_{\alpha} \left[ c^{\alpha\dagger}_j c^{\alpha}_k + {\rm H.c.} \right] + U \sum_{j}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}n^{\alpha}_j n^{\beta}_j,~
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha,~\beta$ run over the different flavors, $\langle jk \rangle$ runs over pairs of nearest neighbors on the lattice, and $j$ runs over all lattice sites.
The most common case is when $N=2$, which corresponds to the usual spin-$1/2$ Hubbard model. If we focus on the half-filling condition, i.e., when each site is occupied by exactly one fermion, the system undergoes metal-to-Mott insulator phase transition for sufficiently large repulsion $U$. In experiments on cold atoms, the Mott insulating state of fermions have recently been observed at the low temperature compared with the Fermi temperature. \cite{Robert08, Schneider2008} In the large $U$ regime, it is generally accepted that the ground state is well-captured by the usual anti-ferromagnetic (AFM) Heisenberg model and the charge degrees of freedom are completely frozen out. However, in the regime where $U$ is not sufficiently large compared with the hopping strength $t$, the ground state is not well-understood. It is possible that the strong charge fluctuations play important role for stabilizing ``gapless'' spin liquid phases in this regime.\cite{ringxch,LeeandLee05,HYYang2010}
For the more general case with $N > 2$, \cite{Affleck1988, Read1989, Read1990, Harada2003, Naoki2007, Beach2009, Hermele2009, Hermele2011, Cai2012} if we focus on certain fillings, the Mott insulating states will also emerge. In this case, the spin order is not understood even in the large $U$ limit in which we can only focus on the Heisenberg-like (two-site exchange) Hamiltonian
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{2} = J\sum_{\langle jk \rangle} P_{jk} ,~
\end{eqnarray}
where $P_{jk}$ is so-called two-site exchange operator, which permutes the fermions between two nearest-neighbor sites as $P_{jk} | \alpha,~ \beta \rangle = | \beta,~ \alpha \rangle$, where the $\alpha,~\beta$ represent the spin states at sites $j$ and $k$. For $N =3$, there has been numerical evidence on such SU(3) Heisenberg model on a triangular lattice suggesting three-sublattice ordered ground state in this regime. \cite{Bauer2012}
The situation becomes more complex if $t/U\sim O(1)$, since in this regime the two-site exchange Hamiltonian is not sufficient to capture the essential physics and higher ordered contributions such as ring exchanges should be taken into account. In this paper, we focus on this regime and consider the SU(3) ring-exchange model on the triangular lattice. Motivated by the perturbative studies of the SU(3) Hubbard model at $1/3$ filling, we include the ``FM`` three-site ring exchanges and the ``AFM`` four-site ring exchanges in the model whose Hamiltonian is given in Eq.~(\ref{SU(3)_H}). With the interplay between the ring exchanges, we conjecture that the Quantum spin liquid (QSL) states \cite{LeeNagaosaWen,Balents_nature} can arise due to the strong frustration.
In this work, we first study the ordered phases using the site-factorized ansatz.\cite{Lauchli2006} We find that the phase diagram contains the three-sublattice ordered phase, similar to the phase found in Ref.~\onlinecite{Bauer2012}, and the FM state. We further study this model using slave-fermion trial states. After performing numerical full optimization of the trial energy, we consider the three ansatz states such as the uniform zero-flux and $\pi$-flux gapless (Fermi-surface) spin liquid state and the trimer (plaquette) state. Furthermore, we consider several pairing instabilities and find that there is a pairing instability of the zero-flux spin liquid state toward a $f$-wave (nodal) spin liquid state; there is a pairing instability of the uniform $\pi$-flux spin liquid state toward a interesting exotic $s$-wave spin liquid state with two flavors of fermions paired up while one flavor of fermions remains gapless.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{Sec:model} we define explicitly the model Hamiltonian we will study in the paper. In Sec.~\ref{Subsec:site_factor} we use the site-factorized ansatz to study the ordered states in this ring-exchange model. In Sec.~\ref{Subsec:MFcalc} we use the slave-fermion representation to rephrase the SU(3) Hamiltonian in terms of the three-flavor fermionic Hamiltonian and perform the fermionic mean-field treatment of the model. We further study the possible pairing instability in the spin liquids regime. In Sec.~\ref{Sec:Discussion} we conclude with some discussions.
\section{SU(3) Model with ring exchange terms}\label{Sec:model}
The model Hamiltonian we consider is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{SU(3)_H}
\nonumber H_{SU(3)} = && J \sum_{\linepic} P_{12} - K_{3} \sum_{\triangpic} \left[ P_{123} +{\rm H.c.} \right] \\
&& + K_4 \sum_{\rhombpic} \left[ P_{1234} + {\rm H.c.} \right],~~~~
\end{eqnarray}
with $~\linepic~$ running over all the bonds on the lattice;$~\triangpic~$ running over all the triangles, up- and down-triangles, on the lattice, while $\langle 123 \rangle$ are the sites on the triangles labeled counterclockwise;$\rhombpic~~$ running over all the rhombi ( for one site, there are three rhombi associated with it--blue, green and yellow shaded rhombi, see Fig.~\ref{triangular_lattice}) and $\langle 1234 \rangle$ are the sites on a rhombus labeled counterclockwise. $P_{12}$ is the nearest-neighbor two-site exchange operator, $P_{123}$ is the three-site spin ring exchange operator, which permutes the fermions on the triangles as $P_{jkl} |\alpha, \beta, \gamma \rangle = |\gamma, \alpha, \beta \rangle$, and $P_{1234}$ is the four-site spin ring exchange operator, with $P_{jklm} |\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \eta \rangle = | \eta, \alpha, \beta, \gamma \rangle$, Fig.~\ref{triangular_lattice}. The couplings $J$, $K_3$, and $K_4$ can be obtained from perturbative analysis of SU(3) Hubbard model at $1/3$ filling and the leading-order terms are
\begin{eqnarray}
&& J=\frac{2t^2}{U}, \\
&& K_3 = \frac{6t^3}{U^2}, \\
&& K_4 = \frac{20 t^4}{U^3}.
\end{eqnarray}
Without the ring exchange terms, previous studies of the site-factorized ansatz on the triangular lattice predicted a three-sublattice ordered state \cite{Papanicolaou1988, Tsunetsugu2006, Lauchli2006} which was recently confirmed by Density Matrix Renormalization Group (DMRG) and infinite Projected Entangled-Pair States (iPEPS) analysis \cite{Bauer2012}.
Recently, Ref.~\onlinecite{Bieri2012} did variational studies on the SU(3) model with three-site ring exchange, and they found the FM state and the three-sublattice ordered state in the regime of FM three-site ring exchanges. On the AFM side of the three-site ring exchanges, they found an interesting $d_x + i d_y$ spin liquid state with a gapless parton Fermi surface.
However, the situation is not clear if both the three-site and four-site ring exchange terms are included. In this section, we will focus on the regime where the three-site ring exchange is FM and the four-site ring exchange is AFM, motivated by the perturbative studies of SU(3) Hubbard model. In order to study the ordered phases, below in Sec.~\ref{Subsec:site_factor}, we first present our studies using the site-factorized states. Later in Sec.~\ref{Subsec:MFcalc} we will present our studies using the slave-fermion trial states.
\subsection{Site-factorized state studies}\label{Subsec:site_factor}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{triangular_lattice.eps}
\caption{The triangular lattice showing the vectors $\vec{e}_{\nu=1,2,3}$ used in the text. The three different colored regions represent the three rhombi associated with the site at the vector center and we label each site counterclockwise from 1 to 4. The angle $\theta$ between each vector $\vec{e}$ is $2 \pi/3$.
}
\label{triangular_lattice}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{site_factored_pdg.eps}
\caption{
The phase diagram using the site-factorized states. The red crosses represent the three-sublattice ordered states with each on-site vector, Eq.~(\ref{site-factorized-vect}), mutually orthogonal to each other and the closed blue circles represent the FM state. The dashed line is the exact boundary between the two phases, see texts. The boundary between the FM state and the three-sublattice ordered state can be determined analytically (see text) and consistent with the numerical studies. We note that this model contains a four-sublattice ordered state for strong four-site ring exchange, roughly when $K_4/J >1.4$. In such state, the numerical site-factorized states indeed show a four-sublattice periodicity. However, the four-sublattice ordered state is hard to be characterized analytically.
}
\label{site_factorized_pdg}
\end{figure}
In this subsection, we consider the site-factorized state \cite{Lauchli2006} defined as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{site-factorized-vect}
|s \rangle = \prod_{j} | \mathcal{X}_j \rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
| \mathcal{X}_j \rangle \equiv a_{j} | x \rangle_{j} + b_{j} | y\rangle_{j} + c_j | z \rangle_{j},
\end{eqnarray}
where we fix the overall phase by setting the phase of $a_j$ to be zero such that $a_j \in~\mathbb{R}$ and $b_j,~c_j~\in~\mathbb{C}$ and $|a_j|^2 + |b_j|^2 + |c_j|^2 =1$. Above, we used the usual time-reversal invariant basis of the SU(3) fundamental representation \cite{Lauchli2006}, defined as
\begin{equation}\label{xyz_transf}
\begin{array}{ccc}
|x \rangle = \frac{i | 1 \rangle - i | -1 \rangle}{\sqrt{2}}; & |y\rangle =\frac{|1 \rangle + | -1 \rangle}{\sqrt{2}}; & |z \rangle =-i | 0 \rangle,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
with $|S^z = \pm 1 \rangle \equiv |\pm1\rangle$ and $|S^z = 0\rangle \equiv |0\rangle$. According to the parametrization of the $|\mathcal{X}_j\rangle$ vector along with the constraint, at each site there are $4$ independent parameters. For a lattice with $N\times N$ sites, there are $4N^2$ independent parameters for the site-factorized state. We numerically calculate the optimized (lowest) site-factorized state energy, $E_{sf} = \langle s| H_{SU(3)} |s \rangle$, on a $3\times3$, and on a $6\times6$ triangular lattice with periodic boundary condition using the gradient descent method. In the site-factorized state studies, we find the energies of the optimal states do not change upon the system size.
The phase diagram is shown in Fig.~\ref{site_factorized_pdg}. The red crosses represent the states with three-sublattice order with sublattices labeled as $A,~B,$ and $C$. The three-sublatticed states are characterized with each on-site vector ($|\mathcal{X}_{j\in A}\rangle, |\mathcal{X}_{j \in B}\rangle,$ and $|\mathcal{X}_{j \in C}\rangle$) mutually orthogonal to each other and the closed blue circles represent the FM state. We only show the phase diagram of magnetic ordered states up to parameter regime of $O(K_3/J)\sim O(K_4/J)\sim 1$, because the quantum fluctuations would become more important upon increasing the strength of the ring exchanges, and the magnetic ordered phases are more likely to be destroyed. The conjecture is confirmed by the linear flavor wave theory calculation discussed in the discussion, Sec.~\ref{Sec:Discussion}. We note that this model shows four-sublattice ordered state with strong four-site ring exchange, roughly when $K_4/J > 1.4$. In the regime, the numerical values of the site-factorized states show a four-sublattice periodicity. However, the four-sublattice ordered state is hard to be characterized analytically.\cite{Mark:helical_state, Toth2010} In addition, we also numerically check $4\times 4$ triangular lattice and find the four-sublattice ordered state, but its energy is higher than the three-sublattice ordered state in the present parameter regime, which is consistent with our studies on $6\times 6$ system.
The boundary between the three-sublattice order and the ferromangetic phase can be understood analytically. The three-sublattice state is a state with each on-site vector mutually orthogonal to each other. The state vector for the three-sublattice state has the form $|\psi \rangle_{u} = |x\rangle_{j\in A} \otimes |y\rangle_{k\in B} \otimes |z\rangle_{l \in C}$ with $j,~k,~l$ around a triangle. Since the state vector at each site is orthogonal to each other, the energy is $\langle H_{SU(3)} \rangle_{3-sub} = 0$. On the other hand, the state vectors of a FM phase are aligned with each other, say $|z\rangle$ for all sites. The energy in the FM phase is $\langle H_{SU(3)} \rangle_{FM} = 3 J - 4 K_3 + 6 K_4$. The boundary between these two phases can be determined analytically from the condition $3J - 4 K_3 + 6 K_4 = 0$. For $K_4 = 0$, the transition point is at $3/4$, which is consistent with our numerical studies.
\subsection{Slave-fermion trial states and energetics}\label{Subsec:MFcalc}
In this subsection, we follow the approach similar to the one outlined in Ref.~\onlinecite{Serbyn2011} for the spin $S = 1$. We write the spin operators in terms of three flavors of fermionic spinons, $f^{\alpha}$,
\begin{equation}\label{Rep:flavor}
\begin{array}{lr}
S^{\alpha}_j = - i \sum_{\beta, \gamma} \epsilon^{\alpha \beta \gamma} f^{\beta \dagger}_j f^{\gamma}_{j},&~~~~~ \sum_{\alpha}f^{\alpha \dagger}_{j} f^{\alpha}_{j} = 1,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
with $\alpha,~\beta,~\gamma \in \{x, y, z\}$ and $j$ is the site label. We note that the fermionic spinon $f$ is different to the electron $c$ in the Hubbard model. Conceptually, we are focusing on the insulating side of the metal-to-Mott insulator phase transition, in which the charge degrees of freedom are localized. In the mean field level, one assumes that the spinons do not interact with one another and are hopping freely on the 2D lattice. The mean field Hamiltonian would have the spinons hopping in zero magnetic field, and the ground state would correspond to filling up a spinon Fermi sea. In doing this one has artificially enlarged the Hilbert space, since the spinon hopping Hamiltonian allows for unoccupied and doubly-occupied sites, which have no meaning in terms of the spin model of interest. It is thus necessary to project back down into the physical Hilbert space for the spin model, restricting the spinons to single occupancy.
The fermion representation $\{f^x, f^y, f^z\}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Rep:flavor}) can be related to the usual fermion representation $\{f_{+1}, f_{-1}, f_{0}\}$, where $ f_{\pm 1}$ carry $S^z$ quantum number $\pm 1$ and $f_{0}$ carries $S^z$ quantum number $0$, based on Eq.~(\ref{xyz_transf}):
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ccc}
f^x = \frac{-i}{\sqrt{2}}\left[f_{+1} - f_{-1}\right],& f^y = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[f_{+1} + f_{-1}\right],
& f^z = i f_0.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
In $\{f_{\pm1}, f_{0}\}$ basis, the spin operator can be represented as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& S^{+} \equiv S^x + i S^y = \sqrt{2} \left( f^\dagger_{+1} f_0 + f^\dagger_0 f_{-1}\right),\\
&& S^z = f^\dagger_{+1} f_{+1} - f^\dagger_{-1} f_{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
The exchange operators in terms of fermions are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&P_{jk} = \sum_{\alpha \beta} f^{\alpha \dagger}_{j} f^{\beta}_{j} f^{\beta \dagger}_{k} f^{\alpha}_{k},\\
&& P_{jkl} = \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma} f^{\alpha \dagger}_{j} f^{\beta}_{j} f^{\beta \dagger}_{k} f^{\gamma}_{k} f^{\gamma \dagger}_{l} f^{\alpha}_{l}, \\
&& P_{jklm} =\sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma \eta} f^{\alpha \dagger}_{j} f^{\beta}_{j} f^{\beta \dagger}_{k} f^{\gamma}_{k} f^{\gamma \dagger}_{l} f^{\eta}_{l} f^{\eta \dagger}_{m} f^{\alpha}_{m},~
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \eta = x,~y,~z$.
The Hamiltonian, Eq.~(\ref{SU(3)_H}), can be re-expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber H_{SU(3)} =&& J \sum_{\linepic} \sum_{\alpha \beta} f^{\alpha \dagger}_{1} f^{\beta}_{1} f^{\beta \dagger}_{2} f^{\alpha}_{2} - \\
\nonumber && \hspace{-0.5cm} - K_3 \sum_{\triangpic} \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma} \bigg{[} f^{\alpha\dagger}_1 f^{\beta}_{1} f^{\beta \dagger}_{2} f^{\gamma}_2 f^{\gamma \dagger}_3 f^{\alpha}_{3} + {\rm H.c.} \bigg{]} + \\
&&\hspace{-1cm} + K_4 \sum_{\rhombpic}\sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma \eta} \bigg{[} f^{\alpha \dagger}_1 f^{\beta}_1 f^{\beta \dagger}_2 f^{\gamma}_2 f^{\gamma \dagger}_3 f^{\eta}_3 f^{\eta \dagger}_4 f^{\alpha}_4 + {\rm H.c.} \bigg{]}.~~~~~~
\end{eqnarray}
Below, we will calculate the trial energies using the slave fermion trial states. We start from the case without considering pairing instability. We find that the main competing states are what we call the ``trimer'' state, the uniform $\pi$-flux spin liquid state, and the zero-flux spin liquid state. Later, focusing on the regime in which spin liquid states are the optimal slave-fermion states, we consider the possible pairing instabilities. We find that there is a possible pairing instability of the zero-flux spin liquid state toward a $f$-wave (nodal) spin liquid state and a pairing instability of the $\pi$-flux spin liquid state toward an exotic $s$-wave spin liquid state with two flavors of fermions paired up while one flavor of fermions remains gapless.
\subsubsection{Without pairing instability}\label{Subsubsec:nopairing}
In this section, we focus on the non-magnetic trial states. When we perform numerical calculations, we relax the constraint of the fermion number for each flavor to be
\begin{eqnarray}\label{constraint}
\langle f^{\alpha \dagger}_j f^{\alpha}_j \rangle_{trial}= \frac{1}{3}.
\end{eqnarray}
A convenient formulation of the mean field is to consider a general SU(3)-rotation invariant trial Hamiltonian
\begin{eqnarray}\label{MF_H:nopairing}
\nonumber H_{trial} = && - \sum_{\langle jk \rangle}\sum_{\alpha} \left[ t_{jk}e^{- i \theta_{jk}} f^{\alpha \dagger}_{j} f^{\alpha}_{k} + {\rm H.c.} \right] -\\
&& -\sum_{j}\sum_{\alpha} \mu_{j}f^{\alpha \dagger}_{j} f^{\alpha}_j,~
\end{eqnarray}
with $t_{jk}$ being the hopping amplitude, $\theta_{jk}$ being the phase of the hopping $t_{jk}$ in different mean-field ansatz states, and $\mu_j$ being the chemical potential which can be used to satisfy the constraint, Eq.~(\ref{constraint}). With the trial Hamiltonian above, we can find the ground state and use it as a trial wave function for the Hamiltonian $H_{SU(3)}$, Eq.~(\ref{SU(3)_H}). After performing ``complete'' Wick contractions and ignoring the constant pure density terms, the trial energy can be expressed as
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{MF_energy:nopairing}
\nonumber E_{MF} = && -J \sum_{\linepic} \bigg{|} \sum_{\alpha} \chi^{\alpha}_{12} \bigg{|}^2 - \\
\nonumber && - K_3 \sum_{\triangpic} \bigg{\{}\bigg{[} \sum_{\alpha} \chi^{\alpha}_{12} \chi^{\alpha}_{23} \chi^{\alpha}_{31} - \sum_{\alpha \beta} \bigg{(} n^{\alpha}_{1} \chi^{\alpha}_{23} \chi^{\beta}_{32} + n^{\alpha}_{2} \chi^{\alpha}_{31} \chi^{\beta}_{13} + n^{\alpha}_{3} \chi^{\alpha}_{12} \chi^{\beta}_{21} \bigg{)} + \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma} \chi^{\alpha}_{13} \chi^{\beta}_{32} \chi^{\gamma}_{21} \bigg{]} + {\rm H.c.} \bigg{\}} + \\
\nonumber && + K_4 \sum_{\rhombpic} \bigg{\{} \bigg{[} \sum_{\alpha} \bigg{(} n^\alpha_2 \chi^{\alpha}_{13} \chi^{\alpha}_{34} \chi^{\alpha}_{41} + n^\alpha_4 \chi^{\alpha}_{12} \chi^{\alpha}_{23} \chi^{\alpha}_{31} \bigg{)} - \\
\nonumber && \hspace{1.5cm} - \sum_{\alpha \beta} \bigg{(} n^\alpha_1 n^\alpha_2 \chi^\alpha_{34} \chi^{\beta}_{43} + n^\alpha_1 n^\alpha_4 \chi^{\alpha}_{23} \chi^{\beta}_{32} + n^{\alpha}_3 n^{\alpha}_4 \chi^{\alpha}_{12} \chi^{\beta}_{21} +n^{\alpha}_{2} n^{\alpha}_{3} \chi^{\alpha}_{41} \chi^{\beta}_{14} + n^{\alpha}_2 \chi^{\alpha}_{31} n^{\beta}_{4} \chi^{\beta}_{13} + \chi^{\alpha}_{12} \chi^{\alpha}_{34} \chi^{\beta}_{23} \chi^{\beta}_{41} \bigg{)} + \\
\nonumber && \hspace{1.5cm}+ \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma} \bigg{(} \chi^{\alpha}_{12} \chi^{\alpha}_{34} \chi^{\beta}_{21} \chi^{\gamma}_{43} + \chi^{\alpha}_{23} \chi^{\alpha}_{41} \chi^{\beta}_{32} \chi^{\gamma}_{14} + n^{\alpha}_{2} \chi^{\alpha}_{31} \chi^{\beta}_{14} \chi^{\gamma}_{43} + n^{\alpha}_{4} \chi^{\alpha}_{13} \chi^{\beta}_{21} \chi^{\gamma}_{32} \bigg{)} - \\
&& \hspace{1.5cm} - \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma \eta} \chi^{\alpha}_{14} \chi^{\beta}_{43} \chi^{\gamma}_{32} \chi^{\eta}_{21} \bigg{]} + {\rm H.c.} \bigg{\}}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
Above we defined $( \chi_{jk}^\alpha)^* \equiv \langle f^{\alpha \dagger}_j f^{\alpha}_k \rangle_{trial}$.
The slave-fermion trial states which conserve the translational symmetry we consider in this work are the uniform zero-flux state and uniform $\pi$-flux state, which represents the spin liquid states with uniform $\phi=\theta_{jk}=0$ and $\phi=\theta_{jk}=\pi$ respectively for all nearest $<jk>$. The fermions in both of these trial states hop isotropically on the lattice, $t_{jk} \simeq t$, and therefore the expectation values of $\chi_{jk}$ are expected to be isotropic, $\chi^{\alpha}_{jk} \simeq \chi^{\alpha} = const$. Below we list the numerical values of the energy per site in the two states
\begin{eqnarray}
&& E^{MF}_{\phi=0} = -0.7672 J + 0.4482 K_3 -0.4521 K_4, \label{MF_zeroflux:num_val}\\
&& E^{MF}_{\phi=\pi} = -0.4395 J +0.8352 K_3 - 0.7949 K_4. \label{MF_piflux:num_val}
\end{eqnarray}
We can observe that the optimal translationally invariant slave-fermion state favors $\phi=0$ state when $K_3 >0$ and $\phi=\pi$ state when $K_3 <0$. The distinguishability between these two uniform-flux spin liquid states can be related to the origin of the $K_3$ which arises from the third-order perturbation of the SU(3)Hubbard model at $1/3$ filling. However, $K_4$ does not distinguish these two uniform-flux (U(1)) spin liquid states from this perspective.
Besides the translationally invariant state, we also consider what we call the ``trimer'' state. Fig.~\ref{trimer} shows one example of the configuration of such a state in which the non-zero $t_{jk}$ form non-overlapping trimer covering of the lattice. These states break translational invariance, and any trimer covering produces such a state. Such states can have lower Heisenberg exchange energy. The occupied bonds attain the maximal expectation value which is found analytically $|\chi^{\alpha}_{jk}|_{max} = n^{\alpha}_j = 1/3$. Their contribution can be sufficient to produce the lowest total energy and such states are expected to be the lowest-energy states with $K_3 = 0$ and $K_4 = 0$.
\begin{eqnarray}
E^{MF}_{trimer} = - J + 0.5926K_3 - 0.3704 K_4.~\label{MF_trimer:num_val}
\end{eqnarray}
The energies of different slave-fermion trial states are functions of $K_3/J$ and $K_4/J$ and it is expected that different optimal trial state is realized in different parameter regime. In order to clearly show the cross between the energies of different mean-field ansatz states as functions of $K_3/J$ and $K_4/J$, we plot Eqs.~(\ref{MF_zeroflux:num_val})-(\ref{MF_trimer:num_val}) with $J \equiv 1$ in the limit of either $K_3=0$ or $K_4 =0$.
Figure~\ref{Plots4diff_MF_E} shows the energies of different mean-field states as a function of $K_3/J$ with $K_4 =0$ and as a function of $K_4/J$ with $K_3 =0$. For the former, Fig.~\ref{Plots4diff_MF_K4=0} clearly shows that at $K_3,~K_4 = 0$ the trimer state is the lowest energy state followed by the uniform zero-flux state and $\pi$-flux state. When $K_3$ is gradually increased, the energy line of the zero-flux state crosses that of the trimer state and the zero-flux state becomes the lowest energy state at $K_3/J \sim 1.61$. On the other hand, for the latter, Fig.~\ref{Plots4diff_MF_K3=0} shows that the energy line of $\pi$-flux state first crosses that of the zero-flux state at $K_4/J\simeq 0.96$ and then crosses that of trimer state. The zero-flux state becomes the lowest energy state at $K_4/J \simeq 1.32$. For a complete phase diagram, we numerically determine the ground states in the $K_3-K_4$ parameter regimes and the result is summarized in the mean-field phase diagram, Fig.~\ref{MFSL_pdg}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Trimer.eps}
\caption{Illustration of the trimer state. In slave fermion picture, the fermionic spinons only hop around each triangular plaquette and we can focus on each triangle separately.}
\label{trimer}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\subfigure[]{\label{Plots4diff_MF_K4=0} \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{MFenergyplot1.eps}}
\subfigure[]{\label{Plots4diff_MF_K3=0}\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{MFenergyplot2.eps}}
\caption{(a) Illustration of energies of different slave-fermion trial states as a function of $K_3$ with $K_4 =0$ and $J\equiv 1$ (b) Illustration of energies of different slave-fermion trial states as a function of $K_4$ with $K_3=0$. When $K_3 = 0$ and $K_4 =0$, the optimal state is the trimer state followed by the zero-flux spin liquid state and the $\pi$-flux spin liquid state. When $K_3$ increases while $K_4 =0$, the zero-flux spin liquid state becomes the lowest-energy state at $(K_3 >1.61, K_4=0)$ as shown in (a). On the other hand, when $K_4$ increases while $K_3 =0$, the energy line of $\pi$-flux spin liquid state first crosses the energy line of the zero-flux spin liquid at $(K_3 =0, K_4\simeq0.96)$ and then crosses the energy line of trimer state to become the lowest energy state at $(K_3 =0, K_4\simeq 1.32)$. For general cases, the complete mean-field phase diagram is shown in Fig.~\ref{MFSL_pdg} }
\label{Plots4diff_MF_E}
\end{figure}
In order to check if the mean-field ansatz states we considered are sufficient to describe the physics in this model, we perform numerically ``full optimization'' of the mean-field energy, Eq.~(\ref{MF_energy:nopairing}), on a triangular lattice with $100 \times 100$ 3-site unit cells, by treating $\chi_{jk}$-s and $\theta_{jk}$-s as varying variables. In the numerical optimization, there are in total $18$ variables, $9$ $\chi_{jk}$ and $9$ $\theta_{jk}$, and we take $t_{jk} =1$, $\mu^{\alpha}_j = \mu$. Numerics suggest that the above trial states are the three optimal states.
Before leaving this section, we want to remark that the trimer state is a singlet state around a triangular plaquette, and we can write down the exact singlet wave function in a closed form as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{trimer:wf}
|\psi_{trimer}\rangle = \sum_{\alpha, \beta, \gamma}\frac{\epsilon^{\alpha \beta \gamma}}{\sqrt{6}} | \alpha, \beta, \gamma \rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\alpha=x,y,z$. With the trimer wave function, we can calculate the energy per site
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{E}_{\psi_{trimer}} = -\frac{1}{3} J -\frac{4}{27}K_3 + \frac{2}{9} K_4.
\end{eqnarray}
For $K_3 =0$ and $K_4=0$, the exact trimer state energy is very close to the variational energy of U(1) spin liquid which is $-0.34 J$\cite{Bieri2012}, but much higher than the three-sublattice order state energy obtained by DMRG which is roughly $-0.678 J$. \cite{Bauer2012} However, such a plaquette state can be stabilized with finite $K_3$ before reaching the FM state. To see this, we can compare the energy of the FM state as shown analytically in the end of Sec.~\ref{Subsec:site_factor} with that of the exact trimer state energy. Knowing the energy of the FM state, $E_{FM} = 3J - 4K_3+6K_4$, we can see that the trimer state indeed has the lower energy than that of the FM state when $K_3 < 45/52+3K_4/2\simeq 0.86+1.5 K_4$ with $J\equiv1$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{MF_pdg.eps}
\caption{ The phase diagram of the mean-field ansatzes. The lines are the tentative boundaries between different phases. We note that the zero-flux and $\pi$-flux spin liquid states are both U(1) Fermi-surface spin liquid states. The difference is that the zero-flux spin liquid state only possesses a single Fermi pocket in the center while the $\pi$-flux spin liquid state possesses two Fermi pockets near the hexagonal Brillouin zone. The exact wave function of the trimer state can be written down explicitly, Eq.~(\ref{trimer:wf}), and we can calculate the corresponding energy exactly.
}
\label{MFSL_pdg}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{With pairing instability}\label{Subsubsec:pairing}
So far, we have ignored the possible pairing instabilities in the Fermi surface spin liquid states discussed above. Here we want to address this issue. We now know that besides the trimer state, there are actually two spin liquid states--zero-flux spin liquid state and $\pi$-flux spin liquid state. Both of these spin liquid states are gapless and contain a single or multiple parton Fermi surfaces. Focusing on these regimes, we take the pairing mechanism into consideration and the trial Hamiltonian becomes
\begin{eqnarray}\label{MF_H:pairing}
\nonumber H_{trial}&=&-\sum_{\langle j k \rangle} \sum_{\alpha, \beta} \bigg{[} \bigg{(} t_{jk}^\phi \delta^{\alpha \beta} f^{\alpha \dagger}_j f^{\beta}_k + \Delta^{\alpha\beta}_{jk} f^{\alpha\dagger}_j f^{\beta \dagger}_k \bigg{)} +{\rm H.c.} \bigg{]}\\
&& -\sum_{j}\sum_{\alpha}\mu_j f^{\alpha\dagger}_jf^{\alpha}_k,~
\end{eqnarray}
with the constraint, $n^{\alpha}_j = \langle f^{\alpha\dagger}_j f^{\alpha}_j\rangle = 1/3$ and $t^\phi_{jk} = \pm t_{jk}$ for flux $\phi=0/\pi$. For clarity, from now on we will replace the bond labeling $\langle j k \rangle$ by $({\bf r}, {\bf r} + \vec{e}_{\nu})$, with ${\bf r}$ running over all lattice sites and $\vec{e}_{\nu = 1,~2,~3}$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{triangular_lattice}. We abbreviated the sum over all $\vec{e}_{\nu = 1,~2,~3}$ as $\vec{e}$.
In these regimes, the optimal state are uniform flux states which suggests uniform trial hopping amplitude $t_{jk} \simeq t \equiv 1$ and the uniform expectation values of hopping functions, $\langle f^{\alpha\dagger}({\bf r})f^{\beta}({\bf r}+{\vec{e}}_\nu )\rangle =\delta^{\alpha \beta} \chi^{\alpha *} (\vec{e}_\nu).$ Furthermore, in these regimes, the hopping functions, $\chi^\alpha(\vec{e}_\nu)$, should be real and are numerically confirmed. Below, we consider two pairing cases: Case (1) corresponds to pairing within the same flavor of fermions. This requires the orbital angular momentum quantum number to be $l=1,~3,~...$ corresponding to $p_x + i p_y$, $f$-wave, ...pairing states; Case (2) corresponds to BCS-type pairing with different flavor of fermions. This pairing requires $l = 0,~2,~...$ corresponding to $s$-wave, $d_x + i d_y$,... pairing states.\cite{Serbyn2011, Bieri2012} Below, we discuss the mathematical set up for each case separately.\\
{\it Case (1): pairing ansatz with $\Delta^{\alpha \beta} = \delta^{\alpha \beta} \Delta^{\alpha}$}.\\
The pairing functions we consider are $\langle f^{\alpha}({\bf r})f^{\beta}({\bf r}+\vec{e}_\nu)\rangle = \delta^{\alpha \beta} \Delta^{\alpha}(\vec{e}_\nu).$ By symmetry arguments, the model conserves spatial rotational symmetry and as already explained above, the angular momentum of pairing functions should be odd, $\mathit{l} = 1,~3,~....$ corresponding to $p_x + i p_y$, $f$-wave pairing,..... The ansatz can be further simplified to be $\chi^{\alpha}(\vec{e}_1) = \chi^{\alpha}(\vec{e}_2)=\chi^{\alpha}(\vec{e}_3)\equiv \chi^{\alpha},~\label{rotinv_chi}$ and $\Delta^{\alpha}(\vec{e}_3)=\Delta^{\alpha}(\vec{e}_2)e^{i \mathit{l} \cdot \theta} =\Delta^{\alpha}(\vec{e}_1)e^{i \mathit{l} \cdot 2 \theta}\equiv \Delta^{\alpha} e^{i \mathit{l}\cdot 2 \theta}$, where $\theta$ is $2 \pi/3$ shown in Fig.~\ref{triangular_lattice}. In addition, because the vectors $\vec{f} = \{ f^{x}, f^{y}, f^{z} \}$ and $\vec{f^{\dagger}} = \{ f^{x\dagger}, f^{y \dagger}, f^{z \dagger} \}$ transform as a three-dimensional vectors under spin rotation, we expect $\chi^x = \chi^y=\chi^z\equiv \chi$ and $\Delta^{x}=\Delta^{y}=\Delta^{z}\equiv \Delta$. In this pairing scheme, the $SU(3)$ is broken down to $SO(3)$. It is straightforward to diagonalize the mean-field Hamiltonian
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{trial} = \sum_{\alpha}\sum_{{\bf k}\in {\bf B.Z.}} E_{\alpha}({\bf k})a^{\alpha \dagger}({\bf k})a^{\alpha}({\bf k}),~\end{eqnarray}
where $a^\alpha ({\bf k})$ are Bogoliubov quasiparticles satisfying the transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{pmatrix}
f^{\alpha}({\bf k})\\
f^{\alpha\dagger}(-{\bf k})
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
u^{\alpha}_{{\bf k}} & - v^\alpha_{{\bf k}}\\
v^{\alpha *}_{{\bf k}} & u^{\alpha *}_{{\bf k}}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
a^{\alpha}({\bf k})\\
a^{\alpha\dagger}({\bf k})
\end{pmatrix},~
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber && |u^{\alpha}_{\bf k}|^2 = \frac{1}{2} \left[ 1+ \frac{\xi_{\alpha}({\bf k})}{E_{\alpha}({\bf k})} \right], \\
&& |v^{\alpha}_{\bf k}|^2 = \frac{1}{2} \left[ 1 - \frac{\xi_{\alpha}({\bf k})}{E_{\alpha}({\bf k})}\right].\label{BCS_uv}
\end{eqnarray}
The ground state can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{MF_GS}
| GS \rangle = \prod_{\alpha=x,y,z} \prod_{{\bf k}} \left[ u^{\alpha}_{{\bf k}} + v^{\alpha}_{{\bf k}}f^{\alpha \dagger}({\bf k})f^{\alpha\dagger}(-{\bf k})\right]|vac \rangle,~
\end{eqnarray}
where we define
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \xi_{\alpha}({\bf k})\equiv - \sum_{{\vec{e}}} 2 \cos({\bf k}\cdot {\vec{e}}) - \mu,~\label{BCS_xi}\\
&& \tilde{\Delta}_{\alpha}({\bf k})\equiv \sum_{{\vec{e}}} i \Delta \sin({\bf k}\cdot {\vec{e}}),~\\
&& E_{\alpha}({\bf k})=\sqrt{(\xi_{\alpha}({\bf k})/2)^2+|\tilde{\Delta}_{\alpha}({\bf k})|^2}.~
\end{eqnarray}
We can see there are three degenerate bands in this case.\\
{\it Case (2):pairing ansatz with} $\Delta^{\alpha \alpha}=0,~\Delta^{\alpha\beta}|_{\alpha \not= \beta} \not= 0$.\\
We consider the pairing function of the form, $\langle f^{\alpha}({\bf r})f^{\beta}({\bf r} + \vec{e}_{\nu})\rangle_{\alpha \not= \beta} =\Delta^{\alpha \beta}(\vec{e}_{\nu})$. It seems there are three pairing functions we need to consider, $\Delta^{xy}$, $\Delta^{yz}$, and $\Delta^{zx}$, but in this SU(3) symmetric model, we can perform a global gauge transformation to make $\Delta^{yz},~\Delta^{zx} = 0$ as long as the length of the vector formed by $\Delta$s is conserved, $|\Delta^{xy}|^2 + |\Delta^{yz}|^2 + |\Delta^{zx}|^2 = \Delta^2 =$ constant. \cite{Honerkamp_BCS, Honerkamp2004, He2006, Cherng2007, Chung2010, OHara2011} If this pairing state is energetically favored, there is always one flavor of gapless fermions in this SU(3) system which we choose to be $f^z$.
From now on, we will set $\Delta^{yz} = \Delta^{zx} = 0$ and $\Delta^{xy} = \sqrt{3} \Delta$. In this gauge choice, the symmetry breaking process is more apparent. The symmetry breaking is $SU(3) \rightarrow SU(2) \otimes U(1)$. The $SU(2)$ symmetry is generated by the psudo-spin doublet $f^{x}$ and $f^{y}$ and the $U(1)$ is generated by the gapless $f^z$ fermion. After Bogoliubov transformation, the ground state is
\begin{eqnarray}
|GS \rangle = && \prod_{{\bf k}} [ u^{xy}_{{\bf k}} + v^{xy}_{{\bf k}} f^{x \dagger}({\bf k}) f^{y \dagger}(-{\bf k}) ] |vac\rangle \otimes \\
&& \otimes \sum_{\xi^z_{{\bf k}} <0} f^{z \dagger}({\bf k}) | vac \rangle, \label{freefz}
\end{eqnarray}
where the second part, Eq.~(\ref{freefz}), is the wave function of the free $f^z$ fermion, and $u^{xy}_k$ and $v^{xy}_k$ have the same expression as in Eq.~(\ref{BCS_uv}) with $\xi^{x}({\bf k})=\xi^{y}({\bf k}) = \xi^{z}({\bf k})\equiv \xi({\bf k})$ the same to Eq.~(\ref{BCS_xi}) and
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \tilde{\Delta}^{xy}({\bf k}) \equiv \sum_{\vec{e}} \sqrt{3} \Delta \cos({\bf k} \cdot \vec{e}),\\
&& E^{xy}({\bf k}) = \sqrt{(\xi({\bf k}))^2 + | \tilde{\Delta}^{xy}({\bf k}) |^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
We can see in the SU(3)-symmetric point, the energy bands always show one gapless branch corresponding to one flavor of gapless fermions.
With the two pairing ansatzes above, we focus on the regimes of the zero-flux spin liquid state and the $\pi$-flux spin liquid state in Fig.~\ref{MFSL_pdg}. We again perform full Wick contractions and ignore the pure constant density terms. The trial energy expression after Wick contractions is too complex to write out explicitly. We test all different pairing ansatzes above and numerically calculate the trial energies with the optimal pairing functions $\Delta$ in the uniform-flux spin liquids regime on the triangular lattice with $300 \times 300$ sites.
The result is summarized in Fig.~\ref{pairing_pdg}. We find that roughly in the regime where the FM three-site ring exchanges slightly dominant, the zero-flux spin liquid state (gapless spin liquid with parton Fermi surface) has the pairing instability toward a $f$-wave gapless (nodal) spin liquid. When the four-site ring exchange $K_4$ is strong enough, the pairing instability can be suppressed and the optimal state is the zero-flux spin liquid with Fermi surfaces. However, when we keep increasing $K_4$, the optimal state becomes the uniform $\pi$-flux spin liquid state. Interestingly, in the $\pi$-flux spin liquid state, roughly when the four-site ring exchanges dominant, such a $\pi$-flux spin liquid state has the pairing instability toward an exotic $s$-wave spin liquid state with $f^x$ pair with $f^y$, which forms a psudo-spin singlet, while $f^z$ remains gapless. We note that we numerically find no pairing instability of the uniform spin liquid states toward $p_x + i p_y$ spin liquid states or $d_x + i d_y$ spin liquid states in the focusing regime where $K_3, K_4 >0$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{pairing_pdg.eps}
\caption{The mean-field phase diagram with pairing instability. The lines are the tentative boundaries between different states. We note that the line separating the $\pi$-flux and zero-flux spin liquid states and the line between zero-flux and trimer state are the same as shown in Fig.~\ref{MFSL_pdg}. Compared with Fig.~\ref{MFSL_pdg}, the phase diagram shows that the zero-flux spin liquid state has a possible pairing instability toward a $f$-wave gapless (nodal) spin liquid state, and the $\pi$-flux spin liquid state has a possible pairing instability toward a $s$-wave spin liquid state with two flavors of fermions paired up while one flavor of fermions remain gapless.
}
\label{pairing_pdg}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}\label{Sec:Discussion}
We study the SU(3) ring-exchange model with ``FM`` three site ring exchanges and ``AFM`` four-site ring exchanges. We first use the site-factorized ansatz to study the model and find the three-sublattice ordered states, FM states in a large regime of $K_3-K_4$ parameter regime.
In the slave-fermion trial states studies, we find the main competing states are the trimer state, uniform $\pi$-flux spin liquid state and the zero-flux spin liquid. The trimer state is strongly suppressed by increasing the strength of the ring exchanges. We also find that the zero-flux state has a possible pairing instability toward a $f$-wave gapless (nodal) spin liquid and the $\pi$-flux spin liquid state has a pairing instability toward an exotic $s$-wave spin liquid state with $f^x$ pairing with $f^y$ fermions while $f^z$ fermions remain gapless.
We note that it is not legitimate to compare the phase diagram obtained from the site-factorized state studies, Fig.~\ref{site_factorized_pdg}, with those obtained from the mean-field slave-fermion trial state studies, Figs.~\ref{MFSL_pdg}-\ref{pairing_pdg}. It is more appropriate to compare the energetics of the site-factorized states with those of the Gutzwiller-projected states, which can be obtained by performing Variational Monte Carlo (VMC) studies and Gutzwiller projection on the mean-field states we obtain in this paper, \cite{WenPSG} which is beyond the scope of the paper. Besides, in the slave-fermion trial states studies, we only focus on the non-magnetic trial states and fix the number density of each flavor to be equal, $n^{\alpha}_j = \langle f^{\alpha\dagger}_j f^{\alpha}_j \rangle =1/3$. In principle, we can also consider the magnetic ordered states by making the number density of each flavor per site different as, for example, $\langle f^{z\dagger}_j f^{z}_j\rangle = 1$, and $\langle f^{x\dagger}_j f^{x}_j\rangle=0=\langle f^{y\dagger}_j f^{y}_j\rangle$. However, similar to the previous discussion, we still need to perform Gutzwiller projection on all these fermionic mean-field states (magnetic ordered states and non-magnetic states) in order to compare the energies of different states even within the slave-fermion trial studies.
For further clarifying in which regime the spin liquid states are more robust and qualitatively relate the phase diagrams of the site-factorized studies and mean-field slave-fermion trial state studies, Fig.~\ref{site_factorized_pdg} and Figs.~\ref{MFSL_pdg}-\ref{pairing_pdg}, we follow Ref.~\onlinecite{Bauer2012} to perform linear flavor wave theory (LFWT), an extension of spin wave theory to SU(N) model, on the three-sublattice ordered state. \cite{Tsunetsugu2006, note:LFWT} We find that the energy per site after taking the quantum fluctuations into account is
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{3-sub}|_{LFWT} \simeq -0.6295 J + 0.5462 K_3 + 0.2568 K_4,~~~
\end{eqnarray}
which is consistent with the result in Ref.~\onlinecite{Bauer2012} at $K_3,~K_4\rightarrow 0$. We can see that even though the quantum fluctuations lower the (two-site exchange) Heisenberg energy from $0$ to $-0.63 J$, the ring exchange energies increase. At strong $K_3$ and $K_4$, it is expected that quantum fluctuations eventually destroy the three-sublattice ordered state. On the other hand, since FM state in Fig.~\ref{site_factorized_pdg} is an exact eigenstate of the SU(3)-ring exchange Hamiltonian, the FM is a much stable phase and the interesting quantum spin liquid states are unlikely to arise in the FM regime. Therefore, in this SU(3)-ring exchange model, we expect that the interesting quantum spin liquid states can arise in the large $K_3$, $K_4$ parameter regime of the three-sublattice ordered state.
The gapless spin liquid states have different properties and can be distinguished, at least in the mean-field picture. For clarity, below we will consider specifically the spin correlations, $\langle \vec{S}_j \cdot \vec{S}_k \rangle_{conn}$ and the (nematic) correlations of diagonal elements of tranceless quandrupolar tensor, $\langle \mathcal{Q}^{\alpha \alpha}_j \mathcal{Q}^{\alpha}_k \rangle_{conn} $ with $\mathcal{Q}^{\alpha \beta}_{j} = (S^\alpha_j S^\beta_j + S^{\beta}_j S^{\alpha}_j )/2 - 2\delta^{\alpha \beta}/3$. Above we defined the connected correlations $\langle \mathcal{O}^{\dagger}_j \mathcal{O}_k\rangle_{conn} \equiv \langle \mathcal{O}_j \mathcal{O}_k\rangle - \langle \mathcal{O}^{\dagger}_j \rangle \langle \mathcal{O}_k \rangle$, with $\mathcal{O}_j = \vec{S}_j$ or $\mathcal{Q}_j$. Before jumping into the discussions of the properties of different spin liquid states, we first note that the correlation functions of the diagonal elements of the quadrupolar tensor can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \mathcal{Q}^{\alpha \alpha}_j \mathcal{Q}^{\alpha \alpha}_k \rangle_{conn} = \frac{4}{9}- \left|\langle f^{\alpha \dagger}_j f^{\alpha}_k \rangle \right|^2,~
\end{eqnarray}
where above we used the identity, $\mathcal{Q}^{\alpha \beta}_j = \delta^{\alpha \beta} - f^{\alpha \dagger}_j f^{\alpha}_j$ with the constraint $\sum_\alpha f^{\alpha\dagger}_j f^{\alpha}_j =1$.\cite{Bieri2012} We can see the first constant is universal for different spin liquid states, but the second contribution is qualitatively different in different spin liquid states can be used for characterizing different spin liquid state. For simplicity of discussion, we define $\langle \mathcal{Q}^{\alpha \alpha}_j \mathcal{Q}^{\alpha \alpha}_k \rangle_{-}$. We will also discuss the thermal properties of each spin liquid state.\\
{\it Properties of uniform-flux (U(1)) spin liquid states:} The uniform zero-flux and $\pi$-flux spin liquid states are both U(1) (Fermi-surface) spin liquid states. The zero-flux spin liquid possesses a single parton Fermi pocket in the center and the $\pi$-flux spin liquid possesses two parton Fermi pockets near the hexagonal Brillouin zone. In these two different U(1) spin liquid states,
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber \langle \vec{S}_j \cdot \vec{S}_k \rangle^{mf}_{conn} &\sim& \langle \mathcal{Q}^{\alpha \alpha}_j \mathcal{Q}^{\alpha \alpha}_k \rangle^{mf}_{-} \sim\\
& \sim& \frac{1+ \cos{[(\bf{k}_{FR} - \bf{k}_{FL})\cdot(\bf{r}_k - \bf{r}_j)]}}{|\bf{r}_k - \bf{r}_j|^3},
\end{eqnarray}
where the $\bf{k}_{FR/L}$ represent the momenta of the right patch and the left patch of the Fermi surface for an observable direction. Since the two Fermi surface spin liquid states have different geometric information of Fermi surfaces, the corresponding wave vectors are quantitatively different and can be detected by studying the corresponding spin structure factors. Since the uniform-flux spin liquid states have gapless parton Fermi surface(s), we expect to see linear-temperature dependent specific heat $(C_v \propto T)$ and thermal conductivity $(\kappa \propto T)$.\\
{\it Properties of $f$-wave gapless (nodal) spin liquid state}: This spin liquid state possesses gapless nodal points. Interestingly, even though the pairing break the original SU(3) symmetry, the SO(3) rotational symmetry related to the spin rotation is still preserved (because of the fact that $\vec{f}$ and $\vec{f}^\dagger$ with $\vec{f} \equiv (f^x, f^y, f^z)$ transform as three-dimensional vectors). As far as the low-energy physics is concerned, this spin liquid state possesses
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \vec{S}_j \cdot \vec{S}_k \rangle^{mf}_{conn} &\sim& \langle \mathcal{Q}^{\alpha \alpha}_j \mathcal{Q}^{\alpha \alpha}_k \rangle^{mf}_{-} \sim \frac{1 + \cos[\bf{k}_c \cdot (\bf {r}_k - {\bf r}_j)]}{|\bf{r}_k - \bf{r}_j|^4},~~~~~~
\end{eqnarray}
with ${\bf k}_c$ being the vectors connecting different Dirac points and we ignore all the pre-factors of each term in the above equation. Since this spin liquid state contains gapless nodal points, it should possess square-temperature specific heat ($C_v \propto T^2$).
{\it Properties of the exotic $s$-wave spin liquid state}: This spin liquid state possesses {\it short-ranged } spin correlations due to the superconducting gap in the $x$-$y$ channel. In order to detect the gaplessness of such a spin liquid state, we can measure the correlation functions of different diagonal elements of the quadrupolar tensor. For example, the $\mathcal{Q}^{zz}$ correlation will show the power-law behavior
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \mathcal{Q}^{zz}_j \mathcal{Q}^{zz}_k \rangle^{mf}_- \sim \frac{1 + \cos[ ( \bf{k}^z_{FR} - \bf{k}^z_{FL})\cdot (\bf{r}_k - \bf{r}_j )]}{|\bf{r}_k - \bf{r}_j |^3},
\end{eqnarray}
with $\bf{k}^z_{FR/L}$ being the momenta of the right patch and the left patch of the $f^z$ Fermi surface. But the correlations related to $\mathcal{Q}^{xx}$ and $\mathcal{Q}^{yy}$ exponentially decay. As for the thermal properties, we expect to see $C_v\propto T$ and $\kappa\propto T$ due to the gapless $f^z$ parton Fermi surface.
From the perspective of numerics, since there have been DMRG and iPEPS studies on the SU(3) Heisenberg model of three-flavor fermions on the triangular lattice which found the three-sublattice ordered state. \cite{Bauer2012} We suggest possibly the interesting zero-flux spin liquid state be also detected in the DMRG and iPEPS studies on the SU(3) ring-exchange model.
From the view of cold atom experiments. Recently, the cold atom experiment demonstrated a method to be able to add an artificial tunable gauge potential to the system. \cite{Struck2012} With the tunable gauge potential, it may be possible to tune the sign of the three-site ring exchanges from FM to AFM. In that case, for strong four-site ring exchange, the main competing states are still the zero-flux and $\pi$-flux spin liquid states, with the trial energies similar to Eqs~(\ref{MF_zeroflux:num_val})-(\ref{MF_piflux:num_val}) with $K_3 <0$. However, for small $K_4$, the main competing slave-fermion trial states are the uniform $\pi/3$-flux spin liquid state with the trial energy, $E^{MF}_{\phi=\pi/3}\simeq -0.8992 J + 0.8343 K_3 +0.02443 K_4$, and the $\pi$-flux spin liquid state. It may be interesting to explore the regime with AFM three-site ring exchange with $K_4 \sim 0$ and it may be possible to see a phase transition between these two spin liquid states by manipulating the artificial gauge potential in experiment.
Another interesting theoretical outlook is how the phase diagram, Fig.~\ref{pairing_pdg}, evolves if we perturb the model away from the SU(3)-symmetric point. In this way, the model can be connected to other models \cite{Serbyn2011, Xu2012, Bieri2012} which can explain the gapless spin-1 spin liquids possibly realized in Ba$_3$NiSb$_2$O$_9$ \cite{Cheng_spin1SL} or other theoretical spin-1 models. \cite{Papanicolaou1988, Bhattacharjee2006, Tsunetsugu2006, Ng2010, Grover2011}
In the present model studies, we treat the parameters $J$, $K_3$, and $K_4$ as three independent parameters. However, from the perspective of the perturbation studies on the Hubbard-to-Mott insulator transition, as pointed out in the beginning, the parameters $J$, $K_3$, and $K_4$ are actually not independent to each other. According to the mean-field phase diagram, Fig.~\ref{MFSL_pdg}, the interesting gapless spin liquid states are more likely to arise in the parameter regime with $K_3/J$, $K_4/J$ of the order one or greater, which means the system on the insulating side is closer to the transition point. In this regime, the perturbation theory breaks and higher order terms need to be included, which not only makes the theoretical analysis out of control but also points out the possibility that the experimental realization of the interesting gapless spin liquid states is out of reach. In order to have a well-controlled theoretical analysis to get access to such interesting gapless spin liquid states and to possibly shad light on the experimental realization in the cold atom systems, we would like to study a Fermi-Hubbard-type model on a two-leg ladder system with on-site or more extended repulsion in the future, similar to the analysis outlined in Ref.~\onlinecite{Lai10}.
\acknowledgments
The author would like to thank deeply Olexei I. Motrunich for his suggestions and critically read the initial manuscript. The author thanks Kun Yang, Yuan-Ming Lu, Gang Chen, Maksym Serbyn, Samuel Bieri, and Frederic Mila for helpful discussion. The author is supported by National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR-1004545 and DMR-0907145. The author also would like to thank KITP where the research is completed and is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF PHY11-25915.
|
\section{Introduction}
In 1996, Heath-Brown \cite{He1} showed that for sufficiently large prime numbers $p$, the Heilbronn sum $\sum_{(x\mod p)} \exp(2\pi i \frac{a x^p}{p^2}) $ is bounded above by $Cp^\frac{11}{12}$ when $a$ is not divisible by $p$, so that Weyl's criterion implies the uniform distribution of the sequence $\{x^p \mod p^2: x \mod p\}$ (here $C$ denotes an absolute constant). The novelty of his approach was to reduce the problem (after an application of Cauchy-Schwarz and a suitable change of variables) to counting the number of solutions to a polynomial congruence modulo $p$ and then to achieve a non-trivial count by a modification of Stepanov's method appearing in the proof of the Riemann hypothesis for a curve over a finite field \cite{St, Bo}. Coincidentally, in 1992, Mit'kin \cite{Mi} had considered just this counting question for two polynomials (one of which happened to be the one used in \cite{He1}). Moreover, he used the same methods and obtained the same bound of \cite{He1}. Our focus is to consider generalisations of this counting problem.
For a prime number $p\geq 3$, we consider polynomials $F(x)$ having rational coefficients with denominators coprime to $p$ and with degree $d$. Let $N_{p}(F)$ denote the number of solutions to the congruence $F(x) \equiv 0 \mod p$. We are interested in bounds for $N_{p}(F)$ with $p$ sufficiently large when the degree $d$ has size proportional to $p$. It is clear that in this generality one cannot say better than the trivial bound $N_{p}(F) \ll p$. Indeed if $F(x) = x^p -x$, then $N_p(F) = p$ and moreover for any $a \not\equiv 0 \mod p$, $N_p(F-a)=0$. A much deeper example can be found in the theory of elliptic curves. Consider the Legendre elliptic curve over ${\mathbb F}_p$ for $p>3$, given by $y^2 = x(x-1)(x-\lambda)$ with $\lambda \neq 0,1$. Let $H_p(\lambda) = \sum_{n=0}^{D} \binom{D}{n}^{2}\lambda^n$ with $D=\frac{p-1}{2}$, be the Hasse-Deuring invariant. Finally let $a_p(\lambda) = N-p+1$ where $N$ counts the number of ${\mathbb F}_p$-rational points on the curve. Then it is known (Igusa \cite{Ig58}, Dwork \cite{Dw62}) that $a_p(\lambda) \equiv (-1)^D H_p(\lambda) \mod p$. It therefore follows that the number of solutions to the polynomial congruence $H_p(\lambda) \equiv A \mod p$, for any fixed A is essentially the same as the number of isomorphism classes of such elliptic curves satisfying the condition $a_p(\lambda)\equiv (-1)^D A \mod p$. The Hasse estimates imply that there are no solutions if $|A|> 2\sqrt{p}$. On the other hand, if $|A| < 2\sqrt{p}$, Deuring showed that the number of such classes is essentially the Kronecker class number $H(\lambda^2 -4p)$ of an imaginary quadratic field. It can then be shown that for $|A|< 2\sqrt{p}$, (see for example \cite{Le87} for details)
\[
N_p(H_p) \ll \sqrt{p}\log p (\log \log p)^2 .
\]
There is also a lower bound of the form $\gg \frac{\sqrt{p}}{\log p}$ for $|A| < \sqrt{p}$ with a bounded number of possible exceptions.
Returning to methods from transcendence theory, Mit'kin \cite{Mi} and Heath-Brown \cite{He1} constructed two polynomials $F$ with $ d = p-1$ such that for all $a \mod p$ the corresponding $N_{p}(F - a)$ is bounded above by $Cp^{\frac{2}{3}}$ with estimates uniform in $a$. The polynomial considered by both authors was the truncated logarithm
\begin{equation*}\label{eq0}
L(x) = x + \frac{x^2}{2} + \cdots + \frac{x^{p-1}}{p-1}.
\end{equation*}
The truncated logarithm is not special in this regard and Mit'kin established the same asymptotic bound for the truncated exponential $$E(x) = 1 + x + \frac{x^2}{2!} + \cdots + \frac{x^{p-1}}{(p-1)!}.$$ For the proof, one constructs an auxiliary polynomial $\Phi$ (not vanishing identically) in several variables with relatively low degree in each variable, but with a high order of vanishing at each root of $F(x)$ in the prime field. Then, $N_{p}(F)$ is bounded by the degree of $\Phi$ divided by the order of vanishing.
To create $\Phi$ with high order of vanishing at the selected points, Leibniz' rule is used so that the higher derivatives of $\Phi$ are forced to vanish at most of the roots of the original polynomial. In the case of the truncated logarithm and exponential, this is achieved using the fact that each satisfies a differential equation of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\{x(1-x)\}^n f^{(n)}(x) \equiv a_n(x) + b_n(x)(x^p - x) + c_n(x)f(x) \mod p,
\end{equation}
for each $n=1,2,3,...$, where $a_n(x)$, $b_n(x)$ and $c_n(x)$ denote polynomials, of low degree relative to $n$, with integer coefficients (for the moment, we will be intentionally imprecise about what is meant by ``low degree"). Then since $f(x)$ is constant at our points of interest (and obviously as is $x^{p} -x$), the values taken by these (weighted) higher derivatives of $f(x)$ are those taken by certain polynomials of low degree. It is then not difficult to determine that construction of $\Phi$ amounts to finding a nontrivial solution to a system of linear equations. After this construction, one has to verify that when the variables in $\Phi$ are specialised for the problem under consideration, the resulting new polynomial, which is now of one variable, does not vanish identically (see Section 2 for some details).
It is interesting to note that $L$ is obtained by truncating a $G$-function, while $E$ is a truncation of an $E$-function (both types of functions were introduced by Siegel \cite{Siegel}; see the notes by Beukers \cite{Beukers} for recent results). Also the Hasse invariant $H_p$ above is a truncation of the hypergeometric function $_{2}F_{1}(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1;x)$. It is then a natural question to ask if perhaps there is a much larger class of such polynomials $F$ for which there is a non-trivial estimate for $N_{p}(F)$. To this end, one could consider either $E$- or $G$-functions with rational Taylor coefficients but it is not clear how one should truncate these in a natural way. We illustrate this with the following example: let
\[
r(x) = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{2^{k}x^{2k +1}}{1\cdot3\cdot5\cdot ... \cdot(2k+1)},
\]
and let $R(x)$ be the polynomial obtained by truncating $r(x)$ with $0\leq k\leq \frac{p-3}{2}$. This polynomial satisfies a differential equation similar to \eqref{eq0} and we can show that $N_{p}(R) \ll p^{\frac{2}{3}}$ (we omit the details). Now consider instead the series
\[
\sqrt{x}r(\sqrt{x})=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{2^{k}x^{k +1}}{1\cdot3\cdot5\cdot ... \cdot(2k+1)}.
\]
The polynomial associated with it should still be naturally truncated at $\frac{p-3}{2}$ (determined by the vanishing of the denominators of the coefficients) but now the highest power of $x$ is too small so that we lack a formula of the type \eqref{eq0} involving $x^p -x$.
Our purpose in this note is extending the class of polynomials with high degree that have $o(p)$ roots as $p$ grows without bound, but which are obtained by truncating suitable functions that satisfy a higher order differential equation. We observe that the methods of \cite{Mi} and \cite{He1} can be modified to accomplish this for truncations of polylogarithms and polyexponentials, for which we obtain an upper bound much weaker than a power saving in $p$. In general, the difficulty is twofold: the higher order derivatives depend on lower order derivatives (which are obviously non-constant at the roots of the polynomial) and the non-vanishing property requires, in essence, an algebraic independence involving the polynomial and its derivatives.
Our result, when applied to truncations of polylogarithms, may be stated as follows:
\begin{theorem1} Let $k \in \mathbb{N}$, and let $L_k$ denote the truncated polylogarithm $$L_k(x) = \sum_{i=1}^{p-1} \frac{x^i}{i^k}.$$ Then for $k\geq 2$ \begin{equation*} N_{p}(L_k) \ll_{k} \frac{p}{\log p}.\end{equation*}
\end{theorem1}
Our analogous result for polyexponentials is similar:
\begin{theorem2} Let $k \in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$, and let $E_k$ denote the truncated polyexponential $$E_k(x) = \sum_{i=1}^{p-1} \frac{x^i}{i! i^k}.$$ Then for $k\geq 1$ \begin{equation*} N_{p}(E_k) \ll_k \frac{p}{\sqrt{\log p}}. \end{equation*} \end{theorem2}
\begin{rem}The weakness in the results above are primarily due to the fact that we use an inductive method for $L_k$ and $E_k$. In employing a modification of the methods in \cite{Mi} and \cite{He1}, we are unable to control sufficiently the degrees of some polynomials that appear as coefficients involving $L_1,...,L_{k-1}$ and $E_0,...,E_{k-1}$, respectively so that some of the degrees grow exponentially.
\end{rem}
Finally, we consider the analogous question for the Bessel function
\[
J_0(x) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^n\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{2n}}{(n!)^2},
\]
for which we are able to save a power of $p$. Here we were unable to adapt the methods used above involving algebraic independence and so appeal to Siegel's original argument \cite{Siegel} showing the algebraic independence of $J_{0}(x)$ and $J'_{0}(x)$ over the complex numbers. The argument can be applied with suitable modifications provided that the degree of the auxiliary polynomial in each variable is sufficiently small relative to $p$; this is a consequence of tame ramification, i.e., the ramification index at a point is relatively prime to $p$, which allows expansion of algebraic elements as a Puiseux series. This technique is not possible in general, as noted by Chevalley \cite{Ch}, as Puiseux series do not account for Artin-Schreier extensions.
For the truncation of the Bessel function, we assume that $p\geq 3$ and let
\[
J_{0,p}(x) = \sum_{n=0}^{\frac{p + 1}{2}} \frac{(-1)^n \left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{2n}}{(n!)^2}.
\]
Our result for the truncated Bessel function may then be stated as follows:
\begin{theorem3} For the Bessel function $J_0(x)$, one has $N_p(J_{0,p}) \ll p^{\frac{8}{9}}$.
\end{theorem3}
The proof of Theorem 3 works equally well for the truncation of Bessel functions of higher order
\[
J_\lambda(x) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^n\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{2n+\lambda}}{n!(n+\lambda)!},
\]
provided that $\lambda$ is small relative to $p$.
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent{{\bf Acknowledgments.}} \\
Both authors thank Roger Heath-Brown for bringing their attention to the Hasse invariant and the corresponding comments.
\noindent AG thanks Alan Adolphson, Enrico Bombieri and Nick Katz for discussions over a period of time on the topics of this paper, and acknowledges support from the Vaughan Fund at OSU.
\noindent KW also thanks the Department of Mathematics at Oklahoma State University for their support during the writing of this paper.
\vskip 0.2in
\section{Review of the Mit'kin/Heath-Brown construction.}
Here, we give the details of the basic mechanics of Stepanov's method as applied in \cite{Mi} and \cite{He1} to the case of $L(x)$ (the method for $E(x)$ is similar). One first constructs a polynomial $$\Phi(x,y,z) = \sum_{a,b,c} \lambda_{a,b,c} x^a y^b z^c \in \mathbb{F}_p[X,Y,Z]$$ with $$\deg_X \Phi \leq A, \; \deg_Y \Phi \leq B, \; \text{ and } \deg_Z \Phi \leq C;$$ and, furthermore, with the requirement that $\Psi(x)=\Phi(x,f(x),x^p)$ is not identically zero, but vanishes at each root of $L(x)$ in $\mathbb{F}_p$ with order at least $D$. This would guarantee that $$D N_0 \leq \deg \Psi(x) \leq A + (p-1)B + pC,$$ and thus yield a bound on $N_0$. By differentiating $\Psi(x)$ with use of \eqref{eq1} and observing that all terms of the form $x^p - x$ may be discarded, one finds that it is enough to require
\begin{equation} \label{eq3}
D(A+2D+C)< ABC
\end{equation}
to guarantee the vanishing of $\Psi(x)$ at the zeros of $L(x)$ while maintaining that $\Phi(x,y,z)$ not vanish identically. The left-hand side of \eqref{eq3} simply reflects that we are arranging $\Psi^{(n)}(x)$ to vanish for $n < D$ at the roots of $L(x)$: the multiplier $D$ occurs because $\{\Psi^{(n)}(x)\}_{n=0}^{D-1}$ yields $D$ polynomials with coefficients that are linear forms in the coefficients of $\Phi$, and the term $A+2D+C$ represents a bound on the degree of the polynomials appearing in each higher derivative of $\Psi(x)$, which was obtained by use of \eqref{eq1}. On the right-hand side, the term $ABC$ is a consequence of the number of coefficients appearing in $\Phi$.
The second part of the argument is deeper and reflects the transcendental nature of the power series giving rise to the polynomial. One has to show that $\Psi(x)$ itself is not identically zero, and the arguments in \cite{Mi} and \cite{He1} are essentially the same on this, using the observation that $\Psi(x)$ will not vanish identically if it does not also vanish modulo $x^p$. This has the effect of putting restrictions on the parameters $A$, $B$ and $C$ above, namely that they cannot be chosen too small. Writing $$\Phi(x,y,z) = \sum_c F_c(x,y) z^c,$$ it is enough to show that the smallest $c$ in this sum for which $F_c(x,y)$ is nonzero satisfies $x^p \nmid F_c(x,L(x))$. This is Lemma 3 in \cite{He1}, and is established using Leibniz' rule, the binomial theorem, and an inductive argument. For $L(x)$, it is then enough to set $A = \lfloor p^{2/3} \rfloor$, $B = C = \lfloor p^{1/3} \rfloor$, and $D = \lfloor \frac{1}{3} p^{2/3} \rfloor$.
\section{Proof of Theorem 1.\ }
\subsection{Construction of the auxiliary polynomial \ }\
We first establish a series of lemmas on $L_k(x)$. Our first lemma establishes that $L_k(x)$ satisfies a simple differential equation in terms of $L_1(x),...,L_{k-1}(x)$.
\begin{lemma1} The truncated $k$th polylogarithm $L_k(x)$ satisfies \begin{equation}\label{eq4} \{x(1-x)\}^n L_k^{(n)}(x) = a_{k,n}(x) + b_{k,n}(x)(x^p - x) + \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} c_{k,n,i}(x)L_i(x)\end{equation} for each $n=1,2,3,...$, where each $a_{k,n}(x)$, $b_{k,n}(x)$ and $c_{k,n,i}(x)$, with $i=1,..., k-1$ are polynomials with integer coefficients of degree at most $n+1$, $n-1$, and $n$, respectively. \end{lemma1}
\begin{proof}That this is true for $L_1(x) = L(x)$ is Lemma 1 of \cite{He1}. For $k>1$ and $n=1$, one has \begin{equation*} x(1-x)L_k'(x) = (1-x) L_{k-1}(x),\end{equation*} so one may set $a_{k,1}(x) = 0$, $b_{k,1}(x) = 0$, $c_{k,1,i}(x) = 0$ for $i=1,...,k-2$, and $c_{k,1,k-1}(x)=1-x$.
Assume that \eqref{eq4} has been verified for $k > 1$ and some $n \geq 1$. Differentiating \eqref{eq4} and multiplying by $x(x-1)$ yields a left-hand side equal to \begin{equation*} \{x(1-x)\}^{n+1} L_k^{(n+1)}(x)+ n(1-2x)\{x(1-x)\}^n L_k^{(n)}(x), \end{equation*} and for the right-hand side one obtains \begin{align*} & x(1-x) a_{k,n}'(x) + x(1-x)b_{k,n}'(x)(x^p - x) + \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} x(1-x)c_{k,n,i}'(x)L_i(x) \\& - x(1-x)b_{k,n}(x) + \sum_{i=1}^{k-2} (1-x)c_{k,n,i+1}(x)L_i(x) + c_{k,n,1}(x)(x^p - x). \end{align*} Therefore one may set \begin{equation*} a_{k,n+1}(x) = x(1-x)\{a_{k,n}'(x) - b_{k,n}(x)\} - n(1-2x)a_{k,n}(x),\end{equation*} \begin{equation*} b_{k,n+1}(x) = x(1-x)b_{k,n}'(x) + c_{k,n,1}(x)- n(1-2x)b_{k,n}(x),\end{equation*} \begin{equation*} c_{k,n+1,i}(x) = x(1-x)c_{k,n,i}'(x)+ (1-x)c_{k,n,i+1}(x) - n(1-2x)c_{k,n,i}(x) \end{equation*} for $i=1,...,k-2$, and \begin{equation*} c_{k,n+1,k-1}(x) = x(1-x)c_{k,n,k-1}'(x)-n(1-2x)c_{k,n,k-1}(x). \end{equation*} By the inductive argument, these polynomials possess integer coefficients and satisfy the required bounds on degrees. \end{proof}
Our second lemma, regarding a product of the functions $L_1(x),...,L_k(x)$, is essentially an application of Leibniz' rule, which allows us to bound the degree of the coefficients for terms appearing in higher derivatives. This will motivate our definition of the auxiliary polynomial.
\begin{lemma2} Let $a,c_1,...,c_k$ be nonnegative integers. The derivative $$\{x(1-x)\}^n\frac{d^n}{dx^n}\{x^{a}L_1(x)^{c_1} \cdots L_k(x)^{c_k}\},$$ if not identically zero, is equal to a sum of polynomials of the form \begin{equation*} p(x) q_1(x) \cdots q_l(x) L_1(x)^{d_1} \cdots L_k(x)^{d_k}\end{equation*} modulo $x^p - x$ with integer coefficients, where \begin{equation*} \sum_{i=1}^k id_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^k ic_i, \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} 0 \leq l \leq \min\left(\sum_{i=1}^k c_k,n\right), \end{equation*} and $p(x),q_1(x),...,q_l(x)$ are polynomials where \begin{equation*}\deg q_{i}(x) \leq g_i + 1,\; i=1,...,l,\end{equation*} and \begin{equation*} \deg p(x) = a + n - \sum_{i=1}^l g_i. \end{equation*} \end{lemma2}
In the proof of Theorem 1, we will need to use the fact that the auxiliary polynomial we define does not vanish identically, and this is precisely why the sum $\sum_{i=1}^k ic_i$ appears. In the case of $k=1$, this is unimportant, as powers of $L_1(x)$ simply decrease. For general $k$, the same is not necessarily true: as in Lemma 1, powers of $L_j(x)$ ($j \leq k$) are exchanged for powers of $L_1(x),...,L_{j-1}(x)$.
\begin{proof} The case of $k=1$ follows as in \cite{He1}: By Lemma 1, one may write \begin{equation*} \{x(1-x)\}^m L_1^{(m)}(x)=a_{1,m}(x) + b_{1,m}(x)(x^p - x)\end{equation*} where the degrees of $a_{1,m}(x)$ and $b_{1,m}(x)$ are less than $m+1$ and $m-1$, respectively, and all coefficients are integers. Successive application of this property implies that $$\{x(1-x)\}^{n-r}\frac{d^{n-r}}{dx^{n-r}}(x^{a}) \{x(1-x)\}^{r}\frac{d^{r}}{dx^{r}}(L_1(x)^{c_1})$$ either vanishes or is a sum of polynomials of the form \begin{equation*} p(x) q_1(x) \cdots q_l(x) L_1(x)^{c_1 - l}\end{equation*} modulo $x^p - x$ with integer coefficients, where $0 \leq l \leq \min \{c_1,n\}$ and $p(x),q_1(x),...,q_l(x)$ are certain polynomials. We let each of the polynomials $q_1(x),...,q_l(x)$ equal $a_{1,m}(x)$ for some $m$ by Leibniz' rule, and therefore the sum of their degrees is at most $r+l$; in fact, we may thus define $g_1,...,g_l$ so that $\deg q_i \leq g_i + 1$ for each $i=1,...,l$ and \begin{equation*} \sum_{i=1}^l (g_i + 1) = \left(\sum_{i=1}^l g_i \right) + l \leq r + l. \end{equation*} The polynomial $p(x)$ will simply represent $\{x(1-x)\}^{n-r}\frac{d^{n-r}}{dx^{n-r}}(x^{a})$, and is thus a polynomial of degree $n-r+a$. As \begin{equation*}\{x(1-x)\}^n\frac{d^n}{dx^n}\{x^{a}L_1(x)^{c_1}\}=\sum_{r=0}^n \binom{n}{r} \{x(1-x)\}^{n-r}\frac{d^{n-r}}{dx^{n-r}}(x^{a}) \{x(1-x)\}^{r}\frac{d^{r}}{dx^{r}}(L_1(x)^{c_1}), \end{equation*} the result then follows for the case of $k=1$.
If $k > 1$, a similar argument applies: Setting $r_1,...,r_k$ nonnegative with $r = r_1 + \cdots r_k$, Lemma 1 yields that \begin{equation*} \{x(1-x)\}^{n-r}\frac{d^{n-r}}{dx^{n-r}}(x^{a}) \{x(1-x)\}^{r_1}\frac{d^{r_1}}{dx^{r_1}}(L_1(x)^{c_1})\cdots \{x(1-x)\}^{r_k}\frac{d^{r_k}}{dx^{r_k}}(L_1(x)^{c_1}) \end{equation*} may be written as a sum of polynomials of the form \begin{equation*} p(x) q_1(x),...,q_l(x) L_1(x)^{d_1} \cdots L_k(x)^{d_k} \end{equation*} modulo $x^p - x$ with integer coefficients, where $p(x),q_1(x),...,q_l(x)$ are certain polynomials. In this case, \eqref{eq4} has been applied to derivatives of $L_1(x),...,L_k(x)$ according to Leibniz' rule and gives $\sum_{i=1}^k id_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^k ic_i$. As in the case of $k=1$, $p(x)$ represents $\{x(1-x)\}^{n-r}\frac{d^{n-r}}{dx^{n-r}}(x^{a})$, and either vanishes or is a polynomial of degree $n-r+a$. Furthermore, Lemma 1 implies that the polynomials $q_i(x)$ may have degree bounded by $g_i$ rather than $g_i+1$, depending on whether $q_i(x)$ occurs as a coefficient of a polylogarithm; the bounds occurring in the case of $k=1$ are thus again valid, and the result follows. \end{proof}
Finally, in order to prove the nonvanishing of the auxiliary polynomial, we will need to prove that at least one of its coefficients does not vanish. Our third lemma identifies a nonvanishing term in a higher derivative of a product of the functions $L_1(x),...,L_k(x)$. We introduce the following notation: For a polynomial $f$, possibly of multiple variables, let $a(f)$ denote the degree of $f$ in its first variable. If $f$ is a polynomial in $k+1$ variables $z,x_1,...,x_k$, let $\tilde{f}(x):=f(x,L_1(x),...,L_k(x))$ and $Sf(x):= \{x(1-x)\}^{a(f) + 1} \tilde{f}^{(a(f)+1)}(x)$; furthermore, let $c(f)$ denote the largest sum $\sum_{i=1}^k ic_i$ of powers $(c_1,...,c_k)$ appearing as a product $g(z) x_1^{c_1} \cdots x_k^{c_k}$ in the expression for $f$.
Let us now define a class of functions that will be useful for the proof of Theorem 1.
\begin{definition} Let $\mathcal{S}$ denote the class of polynomials $f$ in $k+1$ variables with coefficients in $\mathbb{F}_p$ and $\max\{a(f),1\} \cdot 4^{c(f)} < p -1$. \end{definition}
Such a polynomial $f$ will appear in our auxiliary polynomial, which will not vanish $\mod x^p$.
\begin{lemma3} Suppose that \emph{(1)} $f \in \mathcal{S}$ and \emph{(2)} $0 < \max_i \deg_{x_i} f < p$. Then $$Sf(x) = G_f(x,L_1(x),...,L_k(x))\mod x^p$$ where $G_f \in \mathcal{S}$ does not vanish identically; in particular, $x^p \nmid \tilde{f}(x)$.\end{lemma3}
\begin{proof} Let $x_1^{c_1} \cdots x_k^{c_k}$ be the product in $f$ for which (1) the quantity \begin{equation*}2c_1 + 3 c_2 + \cdots + (k+1)c_k \end{equation*} is largest, and (2) for all other terms $x_1^{c_1'} \cdots x_k^{c_k'}$ in $f$ with $\sum_{i=1}^k (i+1)c_i = \sum_{i=1}^k (i+1)c_i'$, it holds that $c_r' > c_r$ implies $c_s > c_s'$ for some $s > r$. Let $g(z)$ denote the coefficient of $x_1^{c_1} \cdots x_k^{c_k}$.
If $c_1 \neq 0$, then by choice of $g(z)x_1^{c_1} \cdots x_k^{c_k}$ it follows from Lemma 1 that the term in $Sf(x)$ containing the exact product $L_1(x)^{c_1 - 1} L_2(x)^{c_2} \cdots L_k(x)^{c_k}$ is obtained from only \begin{equation}\label{eq7} (1-x)^{a(f) + 1} \frac{d^{a(f) + 1}}{dx^{a(f) + 1}} (g(x)L_1(x)^{c_1})L_2(x)^{c_2} \cdots L_k(x)^{c_k}.\end{equation} By the proof of Lemma 5 of \cite{He1}, the component of the coefficient of \begin{equation}\label{eq8} x^{a(g)}L_1(x)^{c_1 - 1} L_2(x)^{c_2} \cdots L_k(x)^{c_k}\end{equation} in $Sf(x)$ obtained from \eqref{eq7} is nonzero. As this is the only contribution to the coefficient of \eqref{eq8}, it follows that the coefficient of $$x^{a(g)+a(f)+1}L_1(x)^{c_1 - 1} L_2(x)^{c_2} \cdots L_k(x)^{c_k}$$ in $Sf(x)$ is nonzero.
Suppose then that $c_1 = c_2 = ... = c_{j-1} = 0$ and $c_j \neq 0$. The function $L_j(x)$ satisfies \begin{equation}\label{eq9} x^{l}L_j^{(l)}(x) = (-1)^{l-1}(l-1)!L_{j-1}(x) + g_{j,l}(x), \end{equation} where, as in Lemma 1, the function $g_{j,l}(x)$ is a linear combination of $L_1(x)$,...,$L_{j-2}(x)$, $x^p-x$, and $1$, with coefficients equal to polynomials of low degree in $x$. As in the previous case, the term in $Sf(x)$ containing the exact product \begin{equation*} L_{j-1}(x)L_j(x)^{c_j - 1}L_{j+1}(x)^{c_{j+1}}\cdots L_k(x)^{c_k} \end{equation*} is obtained from only \begin{equation*} x^{a(f) + 1} \frac{d^{a(f) + 1}}{dx^{a(f) + 1}}(g(x)L_j(x)^{c_j})L_{j+1}(x)^{c_{j+1}}\cdots L_k(x)^{c_k} .\end{equation*} By Leibniz' rule, we may write \begin{align}\label{eq11} &\frac{d^{a(f) + 1}}{dx^{a(f) + 1}}(x^{a(g)}L_j(x)^{c_j}) \\&\notag= \sum_{l=0}^{a(f) + 1} \binom{a(f) + 1}{l} \frac{d^l}{dx^l}(x^{a(g)})\frac{d^{a(f) + 1 - l}}{dx^{a(f) + 1 - l}}(L_j(x)^{c_j}). \end{align} Furthermore, we have \begin{align}\label{eq12}& \frac{d^{a(f) + 1 - l}}{dx^{a(f) + 1 - l}}(L_j(x)^{c_j}) \\&\notag= \sum_{l_1,...,l_{c_j}} \binom{a(f) + 1 - l}{l_1,...,l_{c_j}} L_j^{(l_1)}(x) \cdots L_j^{(l_{c_j})}(x), \end{align} where $\sum_{r=1}^{c_j} l_r = a(f) + 1 - l$. It follows from \eqref{eq9}, \eqref{eq11} and \eqref{eq12} that the coefficient of \\$x^{a(g)}L_{j-1}(x)L_j(x)^{c_j - 1}L_{j+1}(x)^{c_{j+1}}\cdots L_k(x)^{c_k}$ in $Sf(x)$ is equal to $$c_j \sum_{l=0}^a \binom{a(f) + 1}{l} \frac{a(g)!}{(a(g) - l)!} (-1)^{a(f) - l}(a(f) - l)!.$$ As $c_j < p$, it follows as in the proof of Lemma 5 of \cite{He1} that this sum is nonzero in $\mathbb{F}_p$. Again, the coefficient of $x^{a(g)+a(f)+1}L_1(x)^{c_1 - 1} L_2(x)^{c_2} \cdots L_k(x)^{c_k}$ in $Sf(x)$ is nonzero.
The existence of $G_f$ has thus been established. By Lemma 1 and Leibniz' rule, it follows that that $a\left(G_f\right) \leq 3a(f) +2$ and $c\left(G_f\right) \leq c(f) - 1$. Therefore \begin{align*} \max \left\{a\left(G_f\right),1\right\}\cdot 4^{c\left(G_f\right)} &\leq \max\{3a(f) +2,1\}\cdot 4^{c(f) - 1}\\& = \max\left\{\frac{1}{4}(3a(f) +2),\frac{1}{4}\right\}\cdot 4^{c(f)}\\& \leq \max\{a(f),1\} \cdot 4^{c(f)} < p - 1. \end{align*} Suppose that $c(f) = 0$; then it is obvious by definition of $\mathcal{S}$ that $x^p \nmid \tilde{f}(x)$. If $c(f) > 0$, suppose that $x^p | \tilde{f}(x)$; then $x^p | \tilde{f}^{(a(f)+1)}(x)$, and thus $x^p | Sf(x)$. It follows that $$G_f(x,L_1(x),...,L_k(x)) \equiv Sf(x) \equiv 0 \mod x^p,$$ which contradicts the induction hypothesis. \end{proof}
We are now prepared to present the proof of Theorem 1.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem 1] Let us define
\begin{equation*} \Phi_k(x_{-1},x_0,x_1,...,x_k) = \sum_{a,b,c_1,...,c_k \geq 0} \lambda_{a,b,c_1,...,c_k} x_{-1}^{a} x_0^{b} x_1^{c_1}\cdots x_k^{c_k}. \end{equation*}
Put
\begin{equation*}\Psi_k(x) = \Phi_k(x,x^p,L_1(x),L_2(x),...,L_k(x)),\end{equation*}
so that \begin{equation*} \Psi_k(x) = \sum_{a,b,c_1,...,c_k \geq 0} \lambda_{a,b,c_1,...,c_k} x^{a} x^{pb} L_1(x)^{c_1} \cdots L_k(x)^{c_k}. \end{equation*}
Our goal is to retrieve an expression for the higher derivatives of $\Psi_k(x)$ modulo $x^p - x$ in terms of $L_1(x)$, $L_2(x)$,..., $L_{k-1}(x)$, with coefficients equal to polynomials of low degree in $x$.
Let \begin{equation*} \deg_{x_{-1}} \Phi_k < A \text{ and } \deg_{x_0} \Phi_k < B. \end{equation*} Furthermore, let us require that the largest sum $\sum_{i=1}^k ic_i$ of $(c_1,...,c_k)$ with $c_i \geq 0$ appearing together as a product of powers of $x_1,...,x_k$ in $\Phi_k$ is at most $C$. We wish to select the coefficients of $\Phi_k$ appropriately to guarantee that $\Psi_k^{(n)}(x)$ vanishes at almost all zeros of $L_k(x)$ for all $n < D$, with $D$ to be chosen (\emph{caveat lector}: the labelling used here is somewhat different from that appearing in \cite{He1}). By appropriate selection of $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$, it will suffice to require that \begin{enumerate}[(i)] \item $\{x(1-x)\}^{n}\Psi_k^{(n)}(x)|_{x=\alpha} = 0$ for each $n < D$ and zero $\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_p$ of $L_k(x)$; and
\item $\Psi_k$ does not vanish identically as a polynomial. \end{enumerate}
Let $S(C,k)$ denote the number of possible values of $(c_1,...,c_k)$. The function $\Phi_k$ will thus have $AB \cdot S(C,k)$ unknowns $\lambda_{a,b,c_1,...,c_k}$ that we must select, as in the right-hand side of \eqref{eq3}. A term of the form $x^{a} x^{pb} L_1(x)^{c_1} \cdots L_k(x)^{c_k}$ appearing in the expression of $\Psi_k$ satisfies \begin{equation*} \frac{d^n}{dx^n}\{x^{a} x^{pb} L_1(x)^{c_1} \cdots L_k(x)^{c_k}\} = x^{bp} \frac{d^n}{dx^n}\{x^{a}L_1(x)^{c_1} \cdots L_k(x)^{c_k}\}. \end{equation*} The polynomial $\{x(1-x)\}^n \frac{d^n}{dx^n}(x^{a})$ is either identically zero or of degree equal to $a+n$, and we have $x^{bp} \equiv x^b \; \text{mod}\; x^p - x$. By Lemma 2, we may therefore write \begin{align}\label{eq10}\notag \{x(1&-x)\}^{n} \Psi_k^{(n)}(x) \\&\equiv \sum_{\substack{ d_1,...,d_k \\ d_1 + \cdots + d_k < C}} f(x;k,d_1,...,d_k,n)L_1(x)^{d_1} \cdots L_k(x)^{d_k}\;\;\mod\; x^p - x \end{align} in $\mathbb{F}_p[x]$, where $\deg_x f(x;k,d_1,...,d_k,n) < A + B + 2n$ for each $d_1,...,d_k$ and $n < D$. As we are considering only the zeros of $L_k(x)$ in $\mathbb{F}_p$, we may disregard all terms in \eqref{eq10} where $d_k$ is nonzero, as well as any terms in $\{x(1-x)\}^{n}\Psi_k^{(n)}$ where $x^p - x$ appears. Therefore our system of coefficients for $\Psi_k^{(n)}$ is in number at most $(A+B + 2D)\cdot S(C,k-1)$. Also, the coefficients of $\Psi_k^{(n)}$ are linear forms in the coefficients of $\Phi_k$. As we are considering all $n < D$, there are $D$ such systems of coefficients. Provided that \begin{equation*} D(A+B + 2D) \cdot S(C,k-1) < AB \cdot S(C,k), \end{equation*} there will exist a nontrivial choice of coefficients of $\Phi_k$ for which $\Psi_k^{(n)}$ vanishes at the zeros of $L_k(x)$ for $n < D$ (excepting $0$ and $1$). This concludes the proof of (i).
For the proof of (ii), we must verify that $\Psi_k(x)$ does not vanish identically with this choice of coefficients. We may write \begin{equation*} \Phi_k(x_{-1},x_0,x_1,...,x_k) = \sum_b f_b(x_{-1},x_1,...,x_k) x_0^b. \end{equation*} Let $b_0$ be the smallest value of $b$ so that $f_b(x_{-1},x_1,...,x_k) \neq 0$. Such a $b_0$ exists because $\Phi_k$ is not identically zero by selection of coefficients in the first step of the proof. If $\Psi_k$ were identically zero, then $\tilde{f}_{b_0}(x)$ would be divisible by $x^p$, which is not possible by Lemma 3 if $f_{b_0} \in \mathcal{S}$. It is enough, then, for us to choose $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$ to satisfy \begin{enumerate} \item $D(A+B + 2D) \cdot S(C,k-1) < AB \cdot S(C,k)$, and \item $A \cdot 4^C < p -1$. \end{enumerate}
We let $A = D =(\log p)^2$ and $C = \varepsilon \log p$, where $\varepsilon$ is chosen suitably small so that condition (2) is satisfied. As $S(C,k) = \frac{C^k}{(k!)^2} + O(C^{k-1}),$ we may let $B = R \log p$ for sufficiently large $R$. We then have $$N_{p}(L_{k}) \ll(A + pB + (p-1)C)/D \ll p/\log p .$$ This latter follows from the discussion in Section 2 and using the fact that the contributions of $L_1(x),...,L_k(x)$ to the degree of $\Psi_k$ as a polynomial in a single variable appear as products $L_1(x)^{c_1} \cdots L_k(x)^{c_k}$ that satisfy $$\sum_{i=1}^k c_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^k ic_i \leq C.$$ \end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem 2.\ }
As with $L_k(x)$, we require a few preliminary results on $E_k(x)$.
\begin{lemma4} The truncated $k$th polyexponential $E_k(x)$ satisfies \begin{equation}\label{eq13} x^n E_k^{(n)}(x) = a_{k,n}(x) + b_{k,n}(x)(x^p - x) + c_{k,n,0}(x)E_0(x)+ \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} c_{k,n,i}(x)E_i(x)\end{equation} for each $n=1,2,3,...$, where each $a_{k,n}(x)$, $b_{k,n}(x)$ and $c_{k,n,i}(x)$, with $i=0,..., k-1$ are polynomials with integer coefficients of degree at most $n$, $n-1$, and $n$, respectively. \end{lemma4}
\begin{proof} The case of $E_0(x) = E(x)$ is Lemma 2 of \cite{Mi}. If $k >1$, we have \begin{equation*} xE_k'(x) = E_{k-1}(x), \end{equation*} so one may set $a_{k,1}(x) = 0$, $b_{k,1}(x) = 0$, $c_{k,1,i}(x) = 0$ for $i=0,...,k-2$, and $c_{k,1,k-1}(x) = 1$. For the inductive step, differentiating \eqref{eq13} and multiplying by $x$ gives a left-hand side equal to \begin{equation*} nx^n E_k^{(n)}(x) + x^{n+1}E_k^{(n+1)}(x). \end{equation*} For the right-hand side, we obtain \begin{align*} & xa_{k,n}'(x) + xb_{k,n}'(x)(x^p - x) - xb_{k,n}(x) + xc_{k,n,0}'(x)E_0(x) \\& + c_{k,n,0}(x)(xE_0(x) + (x^p - x) + x) + \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} xc_{k,n,i}'(x)E_i(x) + \sum_{i=0}^{k-2} c_{k,n,i+1}(x)(E_i(x) - 1). \end{align*} Therefore one may set \begin{equation*} a_{k,n+1}(x) = xa_{k,n}'(x)+xb_{k,n}(x)+xc_{k,n,0}(x) + \sum_{i=0}^{k-2} c_{k,n,i+1}(x) - na_{k,n}(x),\end{equation*} \begin{equation*} b_{k,n+1}(x) = xb_{k,n}'(x) + c_{k,n,0}(x)-nb_{k,n}(x),\end{equation*} \begin{equation*} c_{k,n+1,0}(x) = xc_{k,n,0}(x) + c_{k,n,1}(x) - nc_{k,n,0}(x), \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} c_{k,n+1,i}(x) = xc_{k,n,i}'(x) + c_{k,n,i+1}(x)-nc_{k,n,i}(x) \end{equation*}for $i=1,...,k-2$, and \begin{equation*} c_{k,n+1,k-1}(x) = xc_{k,n,k-1}'(x)- nc_{k,n,i}(x). \end{equation*} By the inductive argument, these polynomials possess integer coefficients and satisfy the required bounds on degrees. \end{proof}
\begin{lemma5} Let $a,c_0,...,c_k$ be nonnegative integers. The derivative $$x^n\frac{d^n}{dx^n}\{x^{a}E_0(x)^{c_0} \cdots E_k(x)^{c_k}\},$$ if not identically zero, is equal to a sum of polynomials of the form \begin{equation*} p(x) q_1(x) \cdots q_l(x) E_0(x)^{d_0} \cdots E_k(x)^{d_k}\end{equation*} modulo $x^p - x$ with integer coefficients, where \begin{equation*} \sum_{i=1}^k id_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^k ic_i, \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} 0 \leq l \leq \min\left(\sum_{i=0}^k c_k,n\right), \end{equation*} and $p(x),q_1(x),...,q_l(x)$ are polynomials where \begin{equation*}\deg q_{i}(x) \leq g_i,\; i=1,...,l,\end{equation*} and \begin{equation*} \deg p(x) = a + n - \sum_{i=1}^l g_i. \end{equation*} \end{lemma5}
\begin{proof} This follows from Lemma 4; the proof is similar to that of Lemma 2. \end{proof}
If $f$ is a polynomial in $k+2$ variables $z,x_0,...,x_k$, let $$\tilde{f}(x) := f(x, E_0(x), E_1(x),..., E_k(x))$$ and $Tf(x) := x^{a(f) + 1} \tilde{f}^{(a(f)+1)}(x)$. Also, let $d_i(f)$ denote the degree of $f$ in $x_i$ for each $i=0,1,...,k$, and let $c(f)$ denote the largest sum $\sum_{i=1}^k ic_i$ of powers $(c_1,...,c_k)$ appearing as a product $g(z,x_0) x_1^{c_1} \cdots x_k^{c_k}$ in the expression for $f$.
Let us now define a class of functions for $E_k(x)$ analogous to the class $\mathcal{S}$ for $L_k(x)$.
\begin{definition} Let $\mathcal{T}$ denote the class of polynomials $f$ in $k+1$ variables with coefficients in $\mathbb{F}_p$ and $(a(f)+1)\cdot (d_0(f)+a(f)+2) \cdot 6^{c(f)} < p -1$. \end{definition}
\begin{lemma6} Suppose that \emph{(1)} $f \in \mathcal{T}$ and \emph{(2)} $0 < \max_i \deg_{x_i} f < p$. Then $$Tf(x) = H_f(x,E_0(x),E_1(x),...,E_k(x))\text{ mod }x^p$$ where $H_f \in \mathcal{T}$ does not vanish identically; in particular, $x^p \nmid \tilde{f}(x)$. \end{lemma6}
\begin{proof} Suppose first that none of $x_1,...,x_k$ appear in the expression for $f$. In this case we may write $f = \sum_{i=0}^{d_1} g_i(z)x_0^i$. If $Tf(x) \equiv 0 \text{ mod } x^p$, then $x^{p - (a(f) + 1)} \mid \tilde{f}^{(a(f)+1)}$(x). By the proof of Lemma 4 of \cite{Mi}, this is impossible.
Otherwise, let $g(z,x_0)x_1^{c_1} \cdots x_k^{c_k}$ be the component of $f$ for which (1) the quantity $\sum_{i=1}^k (i+1) c_i$ is largest, and (2) for all other terms $h(z,x_0)x_1^{c_1'} \cdots x_k^{c_k'}$ in $f$ with $\sum_{i=1}^k (i+1)c_i = \sum_{i=1}^k (i+1)c_i'$, it holds that $c_r' > c_r$ $(r \geq 1)$ implies $c_s > c_s'$ for some $s > r$ $(s \geq 1)$. If $c_1 \neq 0$, then by choice of $g(z,x_0)x_1^{c_1} \cdots x_k^{c_k}$ it follows from Lemma 4 and $x^n E_0^{(n)}(x) \equiv x^n E_0(x)\text{ mod } x^p$ $(n \geq 1)$ that the term in $Tf(x)$ containing the exact product $E_1(x)^{c_1 - 1} E_2(x)^{c_2} \cdots E_k(x)^{c_k}$ is obtained from only \begin{equation}\label{eq14}x^{a(f) + 1} \frac{d^{a(f) + 1}}{dx^{a(f) + 1}} (g(x,E_0(x))E_1(x)^{c_1})E_2(x)^{c_2} \cdots E_k(x)^{c_k}.\end{equation} Let $g(x,E_0(x)) = \sum_{i=0}^{c_0} g_i(x)E_0(x)^i$, and let $a$ be the degree of $g_{c_0}(x)$ in $x$. As $xE_1'(x)= E_0(x)-1$ and $x^{a(f)} E_0^{a(f)}(x) \equiv x^{a(f)} E_0(x)\text{ mod } x^p$, the coefficient of $$x^{a+a(f)}E_0(x)^{c_0+1}E_1(x)^{c_1 - 1} E_2(x)^{c_2} \cdots E_k(x)^{c_k}$$ obtained from \eqref{eq14} is equal to $$\sum_{k_1,...,k_{c_0}} \binom{a(f)}{k_1,...,k_{c_0}} = c_0^{a(f)} \not\equiv 0 \text{ mod } p.$$
Suppose then that $c_1 = c_2 = ... = c_{j-1} = 0$ and $c_j \neq 0$. As in the previous case, the term in $Tf(x)$ containing the exact product \begin{equation*} \label{eq15} E_{j-1}(x)E_j(x)^{c_j - 1}E_{j+1}(x)^{c_{j+1}}\cdots E_k(x)^{c_k} \end{equation*} is obtained from only \begin{equation} x^{a(f) + 1} \frac{d^{a(f) + 1}}{dx^{a(f) + 1}}(g(x,E_0(x))E_j(x)^{c_j})E_{j+1}(x)^{c_{j+1}}\cdots E_k(x)^{c_k}.\end{equation} Once again, as $xE_j'(x)= E_{j-1}(x)-1$ and $x^{a(f)} E_0^{a(f)}(x) \equiv x^{a(f)} E_0(x)\text{ mod } x^p$, the coefficient of $$x^{a+a(f)}E_0(x)^{c_0}E_{j-1}(x)E_j(x)^{c_j-1}E_{j+1}(x)^{c_{j+1}}\cdots E_k(x)^{c_k}$$ obtained from \eqref{eq15} is nonzero.
The existence of $H_f$ has thus been established. By Lemma 1 and Leibniz' rule, it follows that that $a(H_f) \leq 2a(f) +1$, $d_0(H_f) \leq d_0(f) + a(f) + 1$, and $c\left(H_f\right) \leq c(f) - 1$. Therefore \begin{align*} (a(H_f) + 1)\cdot(d_0(H_f)+a(H_f)+2) \cdot 6^{c\left(H_f\right)} &\leq (2a(f) + 2) \cdot (d_0(f) + 3a(f)+4) \cdot 6^{c(f) - 1} \\& =(a(f) + 1) \cdot \frac{1}{3}(d_0(f)+ 3a(f)+4) \cdot 6^{c(f)} \\& \leq (a(f) + 1)\cdot (d_0(f)+a(f)+2) \cdot 6^{c(f)} \\&< p-1.\end{align*} The remainder of the proof follows as in Lemma 3. \end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem 2] As with $L_k(x)$, it is necessary to construct an auxiliary polynomial $\Phi_k$, but the proof mirrors that of Theorem 1. In fact, with $C$ as the bound on $\sum_{i=1}^k ic_i$ and $E$ as the bound on the degree in $E_0(x)$ for $\Phi_k$, our desired bounds are \begin{enumerate} \item $D(A+B +D) \cdot (E+D) \cdot S(C,k-1) < ABE \cdot S(C,k)$, and \item $(A+1) \cdot (E+A+2) \cdot 6^C < p -1$, \end{enumerate} where (2) is necessary to account for the fact that $E_0(x)$ does not vanish in its derivatives. We let $A=D=(\log p)^{2}$, $E = (\log p)^{\frac{3}{2}}$, and $C = \varepsilon \log p$, where $\varepsilon$ is chosen suitably small so that condition (2) is satisfied. As $S(C,k) = \frac{C^k}{(k!)^2} + O(C^{k-1}),$ we may let $B = R (\log p)^{\frac{3}{2}}$ for sufficiently large $R$. We then have $$N_{p}(E_{k}) \ll(A + pB + (p-1)(E+C)/D \ll p/\sqrt{\log p} .$$\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem 3.\ }
The truncated Bessel function $J_{0,p}(x)$ satisfies the differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{eqA1}
J_{0,p}''(x)+\frac{1}{x}J_{0,p}'(x) + J_{0,p}(x) \equiv 0 \mod x^p,
\end{equation}
and furthermore satisfies
\[
xJ_{0,p}''(x)+J_{0,p}'(x) + xJ_{0,p}(x) = \frac{(-1)^{\frac{p+1}{2}}}{2^{p+1}\left(\left(\frac{p+1}{2}\right)!\right)^2}x^2(x^p - x) + \frac{(-1)^{\frac{p+1}{2}}}{2^{p+1}\left(\left(\frac{p+1}{2}\right)!\right)^2}x^3.
\]
For the proof of Theorem 3, we require a preliminary lemma, which establishes a form of transcendence for the truncated Bessel function.
\begin{lemma7} Suppose that $n \in \mathbb{N}$ with $n^2 < p$. The function $J_{0,p}(x)$ is not a solution to any nonzero equation \begin{equation} \label{eq16} a_n(x)T^n + a_{n-1}(x)T^{n-1} + \cdots + a_0(x) \equiv 0 \mod x^p \end{equation} with $a_0(x),...,a_n(x) \in \overline{\mathbb{F}}_p[x]$ and $\max_i \deg a_i(x) < n$. \end{lemma7}
\begin{proof} Suppose that $y = J_{0,p}(x)$ is a solution to an equation \eqref{eq16} as in the statement of the Lemma. Let $z \in \overline{\mathbb{F}_p(x)}$ be a solution to the equation \begin{equation*} f(T)= a_n(x)T^n + a_{n-1}(x)T^{n-1} + \cdots + a_0(x)= 0. \end{equation*} As $n < p$, it follows that the extension $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p(x)(z)|\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p(x)$ is tamely ramified. Thus (see, for example, \cite{Ch}) $z$ admits an expression at $x=0$ of the form $$z = \sum_{k=0}^\infty b_k x^{r_k}$$ with $r_0 < r_1 < \cdots$ rational exponents. Therefore the expression $y - z = g(x) \;\text{mod}\;x^p$ is a well-defined Puiseux series. Furthermore with $\alpha_1,...,\alpha_n$ the roots of $f(T)$, we have \begin{equation*} \prod_{i=1}^n (y - \alpha_i) \equiv 0 \mod x^p, \end{equation*} from which we conclude that for some $z = \alpha_i$, \begin{equation*} y - z \equiv 0 \mod x^{\lfloor \frac{p}{n}\rfloor}.\end{equation*} It follows from \eqref{eqA1} that \begin{equation} \label{eq999} x^2 z'' +xz' + x^2 z \equiv x^2 y'' +xy' + x^2 y \equiv 0 \mod x^{\lfloor \frac{p}{n} \rfloor}. \end{equation} As $\max_i \deg a_i(x) < n$ and the ramification index of any point is bounded by the degree of the extension, it follows that the degree of $z$ at any point, whether as a pole or zero, cannot be greater than $n^2$. Thus we may write an expression for $z$ at a branch of infinity as $$z = \sum_{k=0}^\infty c_k x^{s_k}$$ with $s_0 > s_1 > \cdots$ rational exponents, $-n^2 \leq s_0 \leq n^2$, and $c_0 \neq 0$. As $n^3 < p$, application of \eqref{eq999} yields that $c_0 = 0$, a contradiction. \end{proof}
We are now prepared to give a proof of Theorem 3.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem 3] The first step proceeds as in the proofs of Theorems 1 and 2, with the construction of an auxiliary polynomial, which in this case is a function of four variables. With $y = J_{0,p}(x)$, we set $\Psi(x) = \Phi(x,x^p,y,y'),$ where in this case we require that the total degree of $\Phi$ as a function of its third and fourth variables be at most $C$. As the number of nonnegative integer solutions to the inequality $x_1 + x_2 \leq C$ is simply $\frac{(C+1)(C+2)}{2}$, we obtain a now familiar bound: \begin{equation*} D(A + B + 2D) < AB\cdot \frac{(C+2)}{2}.\end{equation*}
For the second step of the proof, we suppose that there exists a nonzero polynomial $P(x_1,x_2)$ with coefficients in $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p[x]$ of degree at most $s$ and total degree in $x_1$ and $x_2$ at most $t$ that satisfies \begin{equation} \label{eq20} P(y,y') \equiv 0 \mod x^p. \end{equation} Also, let \begin{equation} \label{eq21} P^*(x_1,x_2) = P_x(x_1,x_2) + x_2 P_{x_1}(x_1,x_2) - (x_1 + \frac{1}{x}x_2)P_{x_2}(x_1,x_2).\end{equation} By the differential equation \eqref{eqA1} for $y$, we have by \eqref{eq21} that \begin{equation*} \frac{d}{dx}P(y,y') \equiv P^*(y,y') \mod x^p, \end{equation*} from which it follows that \begin{equation} \label{eq23} P^*(y,y') \equiv 0 \mod x^p.\end{equation} Let $R(y)$ denote the resultant of $P(y,x_2)$ and $xP^*(y,x_2)$ as polynomials in the second variable. By \eqref{eq20} and \eqref{eq23}, we have for suitable polynomials $u$ and $v$ (in $x_2$ and the coefficients of $P(y,x_2)$ and $xP^*(y,x_2)$) that $$R(y) = uP(y,x_2) + vxP^*(y,x_2) \equiv 0 \mod x^p.$$ The resultant $R(y)$ is a polynomial in $y$ with coefficients in $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p[x]$; as the total degree of each of $P(y,x_2)$ and $xP^*(y,x_2)$ is at most $t$, it follows by definition of the resultant that \begin{equation*} \deg_y R(y) \leq \deg_y P(y,x_2) \cdot \deg_{x_2} xP^*(y,x_2) + \deg_y xP^*(y,x_2) \cdot \deg_{x_2} P(y,x_2) \leq 2t^2. \end{equation*} Similarly, the degree in $x$ of each coefficient in $R(y)$ is bounded from above by $2(s+1)t$. Therefore if $n$ is chosen with $\max\{2t^2,2(s+1)t\} < n$ and $n^3 < p$, the conditions of Lemma 7 will be satisfied. It follows that $R(y) \equiv 0 \;\text{mod}\;x^p$. Furthermore, as the degree in $x$ of each of the coefficients of $R(y)$ is less than $p$, it follows that $R(y)$ vanishes identically as a polynomial in $y$.
We may assume that $t > 0$. After division by common factors of the coefficients of $P(x_1,x_2)$, we may assume that $P(x_1,x_2)$ is primitive in the sense of Gauss' lemma; as this only reduces the degree in $x$ of the coefficients, this does not interfere with the bounds required by the previous part of this proof. If $P(x_1,x_2)$ were reducible modulo $x^p$ in $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p[x][x_1,x_2]$, then we could write \begin{equation}\label{eq24} P(x_1,x_2) \equiv f(x_1,x_2)g(x_1,x_2) \mod x^p,\end{equation} Any term in the product $f(x_1,x_2)g(x_1,x_2)$ containing a power of $x$ at least $p$ would originate from the product of powers $x^a$ and $x^b$ in $f$ and $g$, respectively, where one of $a$ or $b$ is at least $\frac{p}{2}$. Suppose without loss of generality that $a \geq \frac{p}{2}$. By setting the coefficient of $x^a$ in $f$ equal to zero, we again obtain \eqref{eq24}, as the degree $s$ of $P(x_1,x_2)$ in $x$ satisfies $s < \frac{n}{2t} < \frac{p}{2}$, and thus the term $x^a$ did not contribute to any nonzero term in $P(x_1,x_2)$. Therefore $P(x_1,x_2)$ would be reducible in $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p[x][x_1,x_2]$ and by Gauss' lemma would thus be reducible in $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p(x)[x_1,x_2]$.
Let us assume then that $P(x_1,x_2)$ is an irreducible polynomial. By the previous argument, it follows that $P(x_1,x_2)$ is irreducible modulo $x^p$. As $R(y)$ vanishes identically, it follows that $P$ and $xP^*$ are not coprime as polynomials in $x_2$. By irreducibility of $P$, it follows that $$xP^*(x_1,x_2) = T(x_1,x_2)P(x_1,x_2)$$ for some polynomial $T(x_1,x_2)$ with coefficients in $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p(x)$. As the elements of $xP^*$ of a particular total degree in $x_1$ and $x_2$ derive from precisely those of the same total degree in $P$, it follows that $T$ has zero total degree in $x_1$ and $x_2$, and that $T=T(x)$ is an element of the rational function field $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p(x)$. Let $H$ be the sum of terms in $P$ of highest total degree in $x_1$ and $x_2$. It follows that $$H^*(x_1,x_2) = \frac{T(x)}{x} H(x_1,x_2).$$ As in Siegel's argument \cite{Siegel}, it follows that there exists a nonzero solution $w$ to the differential equation \begin{equation} \label{eq25} w'' + \frac{1}{x} w' + w = 0 \end{equation} with $H\left(1,\frac{w'}{w}\right)= 0$. In particular, $u =\frac{w'}{w}$ is algebraic over $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p(x)$ of degree at most $t < p$. Thus the extension $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p(x)(u)|\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p(x)$ is tamely ramified.
The function $u$ satisfies the Riccati differential equation \begin{equation} \label{eq26} u' + u^2 + \frac{1}{x}u = - 1. \end{equation} As ramification is tame in $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p(x)(u)|\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p(x)$, we may write the Puiseux series for $u$ at a branch of infinity; as in Siegel's argument, we obtain by \eqref{eq26} that \begin{equation} \label{eq27} u = \pm 1 - \frac{1}{2x} + \cdots. \end{equation} Thus any branch of $u$ at infinity is regular and unramified. By \eqref{eq25}, the function $w$ is regular at all points $x \neq 0, \infty$, and thus branches of $u$ may only occur at zero or infinity. As infinity is not a branch point of $u$, it follows that zero is also not a branch point of $u$. Therefore $u$ is an element of $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p(x)$. Similarly, expanding $u$ as a Laurent series at $x=0$ yields by \eqref{eq26} that $u$ is regular at zero. As $u$ is a rational function of $x$, the function $w$ has finitely many zeros, say $x_1,...,x_h$, and we may write \begin{equation} \label{eq28} u = \pm 1 + \sum_{k=1}^h \frac{1}{x - x_k}.\end{equation} By \eqref{eq27} and \eqref{eq28}, it follows that $h = -\frac{1}{2}$, a contradiction.
Our conditions on $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$, and $n$ in analogy to Theorems 1 and 2 may thus be written as \begin{enumerate} \item $n^3 < p$, \item $\max\{2(A+1)C,2C^2\} < n$, and \item $D(A+B+2D) < AB\cdot \frac{(C+2)}{2}.$ \end{enumerate} We set $n = \lfloor \frac{1}{2}p^{\frac{1}{3}} \rfloor$, which satisfies (1). For (2), we set $A = \lfloor \frac{1}{5}p^{\frac{2}{9}}\rfloor$ and $C = \lfloor p^{\frac{1}{9}}\rfloor$. For (3), we set $D = \lfloor p^{\frac{2}{9}}\rfloor$ and $B = \lfloor 23p^{\frac{1}{9}}\rfloor$. Therefore $$N_{p}(y) \ll(A + pB + (p-1)C)/D \ll p^{\frac{8}{9}} .$$
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction and Motivation}
\label{sec:Motive}
\begin{quotation}
``After decades of political stagnation... new winds of hope were felt in the Middle East, accompanied by a new catchword making the rounds in the American media, `Arab Spring'... The age of the old patriarchs, it appeared, was nearing its end. And the new media - satellite television, mobile phones, the Internet - were often regarded as having precipitated this development by undermining governments' hegemonic control over the flow of information.''
\end{quotation}
\paragraph{} When Albrecht Hofheinz wrote these words he was referring to modest advancements being made in democracy and political liberalization in a handful of Middle Eastern countries in 2005 \citep{Hofheinz05}. He did not foresee the events sparked by Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation on December 17, 2010 that ultimately led to the Arab Spring revolutions. Nevertheless, his analysis of new media and their impact on Arab society are eerily prescient, especially considering that in 2005 social media was either in its infancy or completely non-existent\footnote{Facebook was launched in 2004 and was still an invitation-only service in 2005 \citep{Phillips07}. Youtube was founded in early 2005 \citep{Youtube} and Twitter was not founded until the spring of 2006 \citep{Picard11}.}. He concludes,
\begin{quotation}
``The Internet is one factor that in tandem with others (satellite TV, youth culture, and the `globalization' of consumer products, social networks, and ideational configurations) is creating a dynamic of change that is helping to erode the legitimacy of traditional authority structures in family, society, culture/religion, and also the state, and thus creating pressure for reform.''
\end{quotation}
\paragraph{} Consistent with \citet{Hofheinz05}, the predominant view is that the Internet and social media played a critical role in the Arab Spring of 2010-2011 \citep{HowardEtAl11, LotanEtAl11, Alterman11, BBC11, KhamisVaughn11, Pollock11, Saletan11, Shirky11, Stepanova11, ZhuoEtAl11}. Although most of these opinions are based on anecdotal evidence, some rigorous work has been done attempting to determine a link between social media and protests using, for example, Twitter data \citep{HowardEtAl11, LotanEtAl11}. Needless to say, many questions remain, for example:
\begin{enumerate}
\item How can a small number of active social media users and relatively low Internet penetration\footnote{According to \citet{HowardEtAl11} approximately 25\% of Tunisians and 10\% of Egyptians had used the Internet at least once prior to the Arab Spring.} have a dramatic effect on the stability of a regime?,
\item How is it that regimes manage to seem so stable until the revolution is underway?,
\item Why did the January 28 - February 1, 2011, Internet shutdown in Egypt not have a greater inhibitory effect on protests?, and
\item Why is it that some regimes fall in a matter of weeks, others fight to a stalemate, and still others survive relatively unscathed?
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{} Answering these four questions, among others, using a consistent and unified approach is not trivial given the complexity of the situations in Arab Spring countries. Adding to the difficulty of such a task is the impossibility of running counter-factual experiments to verify conclusions. However, the goal of this paper is to show how mathematical modelling can be useful in this situation. It should be noted that models of opinion/norm formation \citep{CentolaEtAl05}, conflict \citep{AtkinsonEtAl11,Kress12}, and even revolution \citep{Kuran91} already exist. However, these models either do not apply specifically to the Arab Spring revolutions or are highly complex. Furthermore, although complex models may in principle be able to offer a more complete description, they also have limitations. More detailed models typically require additional assumptions and the calibration of a large number of parameters. This makes complex models analytically intractable, difficult to interpret, and computationally expensive to simulate. In this paper we attempt to create a simple model that is nevertheless able to capture essential features of Arab-Spring-type revolutions, and also can be used to explore possible answers to the questions raised above.
\paragraph{} We develop our model in Section \ref{sec:Intro} and provide an elementary mathematical analysis in Section \ref{sec:Analysis}. This is followed by Section \ref{sec:Interp} which expands on the interpretation of our model by considering various case studies. This section also explains how our model can help to find answers to the four questions posed above. Section \ref{sec:Tunis} first describes the Arab Spring events in Tunisia, applying our model with parameters that are fixed for the lifetime of the revolution. Next we consider the Egyptian revolution in Section \ref{sec:Egypt}, where we allow model parameters to evolve over the course of the revolution in order to incorporate external influences. Finally, Section \ref{sec:Other} briefly discusses how our model can be applied to several other states, including Iran, China, and Somalia. The paper is concluded in Section \ref{sec:Conc} with a summary of our findings and a discussion of future work.
\section{Simple Compartmental Model}
\label{sec:Intro}
\paragraph{} In order to facilitate the development, interpretation, and analysis of our model we begin by stating it and defining the terminology used in Section \ref{sec:StateModel}. Section \ref{sec:InterpJustModel} then provides the interpretation and justification of each model term and parameter introduced in Section \ref{sec:StateModel}.
\subsection{Statement of the Model}
\label{sec:StateModel}
\paragraph{} The function $r(t)$ represents the fraction of \emph{protesters} or \emph{revolutionaries} in the population at time $t$. The model which we use to describe the dynamics of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt is given by a single differential equation for $r(t)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ODE}
\dot{r} = \underbrace{c_1\mbox{ } v(r;\alpha)\mbox{ } (1-r)}_{g(r)} - \underbrace{c_2\mbox{ } p(r;\beta)\mbox{ } r}_{d(r)},
\end{equation}
where parameters $\alpha,\beta\in(0,1)$ and $c_1,c_2>0$, where $\dot{x}$ denotes the time derivative of $x$, and where the functions $g,d:[0,1]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^+$ are called the \emph{growth} and \emph{decay} terms, respectively, since they model the growth and decay of the fraction of protesters.
\paragraph{} Subject to the \emph{visibility term}
$$
v(r;\alpha) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1 & \mbox{if } r > 1 - \alpha\\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
$$
the growth term is proportional to $(1-r)$. We call the proportionality constant, $c_1$, and the parameter, $\alpha$, the \emph{enthusiasm} and \emph{visibility} of the protesters, respectively. The visibility term is modelled as a step function, which shuts off the growth term when the fraction of protesters is below the \emph{visibility threshold} $1-\alpha$: in our model the fraction of protesters can only grow when the protest movement is sufficiently large to be visible to the general population. Similarly, subject to the \emph{policing term}
$$
p(r;\beta) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1 & \mbox{if } r < \beta\\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
$$
the decay term is proportional to $r$. We call the proportionality constant, $c_2$, and the threshold parameter, $\beta$, the \emph{policing capacity} and \emph{policing efficiency}, respectively. The policing term is also modelled as a step function: it shuts down the decay term when the fraction of protesters is above the policing capacity threshold, $\beta$. The visibility and policing terms are illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:VP}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{3in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{V}
\caption{Visibility term, $v(r;\alpha)$}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{3in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{P}
\caption{Policing term, $p(r;\beta)$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Visibility ($v(r;\alpha)$) and policing ($p(r;\beta)$) terms.}
\label{fig:VP}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{} We observe from equation \eqref{eq:ODE} and Figure \ref{fig:VP} that if $r=0$ or $r=1$ then $\dot{r}=0$, regardless of the values chosen for the parameters. We say that $r=0$ and $r=1$ are the equilibria of \emph{total state control} and of the \emph{realized revolution}, respectively. In what follows it will be shown how this model can describe the dynamics of a revolutionary transition from a small initial group of protesters ($r\approx0$) to a full-blown revolution ($r\approx1$). This is a simple model for revolutionary transitions, parametrized by the four parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, $c_1$, and $c_2$.
\paragraph{} Now that we have established the terminology for our model we are able to provide a detailed interpretation and justification in Section \ref{sec:InterpJustModel}. This will allow us to proceed with Sections \ref{sec:Analysis} and \ref{sec:Interp}, which provide the mathematical analysis of our model and application of the model to various case studies, respectively.
\subsection{Interpretation and Justification of the Model}
\label{sec:InterpJustModel}
\paragraph{} Here we explain and justify the model of \eqref{eq:ODE} which describes the process by which citizens engage in revolution, with the specific goal of gaining insight into the effect of enhanced communications technologies \citep{HowardEtAl11, LotanEtAl11}. In order to arrive at a simple model some simplifying assumptions are necessary. First, our model is developed for describing rapid revolutionary transitions on a short time scale (of the order of months), and neglects demographic and other long-term effects. Second, we assume that the regime is very unpopular and that all individuals would privately like to see the regime changed. The second assumption allows us to divide the population into two compartments: the population participating/not participating in the revolution. From the first assumption, the sum of both compartments is a constant and the dynamics of one compartment completely determines the dynamics of the other, so it suffices to consider a one-compartment model, see Figure \ref{fig:Compartments}. We choose to keep track of the population participating in the revolution as a fraction of the total population, $r(t)$. Note that the fraction of the population available to join the revolution at time $t$ is $1-r(t)$, by the second assumption. We also note that the first assumption is applied again in Sections \ref{sec:Tunis}-\ref{sec:Egypt} to identify reasonable values for the protester's enthusiasm ($c_1$) and the regime's policing efficiency ($c_2$). It remains to justify our choice of functional form for $g(r)$ and $d(r)$ in \eqref{eq:ODE}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{Compartments}
\caption{Simple compartmental model for the dynamics of a revolution.}
\label{fig:Compartments}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{} We assume that the regime is capable of arresting/dispersing protesters at a rate proportional to the size of the revolution, $r$, provided that the number of protesters does not exceed the regime's finite policing capacity, $\beta$. Provided that no new protesters join the revolution ($v=0$) and that the number of protesters does not exceed the regime's policing capacity ($p=1$), this corresponds to exponential decay in the number of protesters with the timescale determined by the policing efficiency, $c_2$. We make the further simplifying assumption that the regime loses all ability to punish protesters once the number of protesters exceeds the regime's policing capacity. These assumptions determine the form of $p(r;\beta)$ as a switching function.
\paragraph{} Dictatorial regimes are known to keep tight control on the flow of political information through state control of the media and through censorship, and for a good reason \citep{CentolaEtAl05,Dunn11,BBC11,KhamisVaughn11,Kuran91}: if political protests are kept hidden from the general population, protest movements have little chance of growing. We model this effect by the visibility term, $v(r;\alpha)$, and we make the simple assumption that the visibility term can be modelled as a step function. As soon as the fraction of protesters reaches the visibility threshold, $1-\alpha$, and is large enough to be visible to the general population, the revolution is assumed to grow with a growth term proportional to $1-r$. Note that we call $\alpha$ the visibility and $1-\alpha$ the visibility threshold: for large visibility, e.g. $\alpha=0.96$, the visibility threshold is low, $1-\alpha=0.04$, so the general population will become aware of the political protest movement as soon as it has spread to 4\% of the population. One of the goals of this paper is to investigate how the increased presence of Internet, social media, satellite television, and cell phones may enhance the spread of revolutionary movements. Indeed, these effects may significantly loosen the control of the regime over the flow of politically sensitive information, and in our model the influence of new media can be taken into account by an increased visibility parameter, $\alpha$. Note also that, provided the revolution is visible ($v=1$) and exceeds the policing capacity ($p=0$), the growth rate is proportional to $1-r$ with the timescale determined by the protesters' enthusiasm, $c_1$.
\paragraph{} As a secondary motivation for the step-function form of $v(r;\alpha)$ one can also consider the following. Given the policing limitations of the regime, the decision of individuals whether or not to act is a collective action problem \citep{Kuran91}. Thus, the case can be made that the most important factor for individuals deciding to join a revolution is the \emph{perceived size} of the revolution. If individuals perceive participation in a revolution to be below a certain threshold they will refuse to join the revolution and risk punishment, despite their desire to see the regime fall. Conversely, above this threshold an individual's desire to see the regime fall overpowers their fear of government reprisal.
\paragraph{} Due to the simplicity of our four-parameter model it is unable to capture singular one-time events such as the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi on December 17, 2010. Although these types of events could be modelled stochastically, to keep our model as simple as possible we introduce the concept of \emph{shocks}. A shock is an event external to our model which nevertheless has an effect on the fraction of revolutionaries ($r$) either directly, or indirectly via a change in the parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, $c_1$, or $c_2$. Specifically, we consider direct shocks that produce an instantaneous jump in $r$, denoted $\Delta r$, and indirect shocks that trigger an instantaneous or continuous change in one or more parameters of the model. A shock of this type to $\alpha$, for example, would be specified by defining $\alpha(t)$. for simplicity we restrict our attention to instant or linear changes in parameters.
\paragraph{} In Section \ref{sec:Interp} we will discuss how our model can be applied in the case studies of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, and the situations in Iran, China, and Somalia. Before embarking on this study, however, Section \ref{sec:Analysis} provides a mathematical analysis of our model. We find that the parameter space of the model can essentially be divided into four regions, which we name regions II, III0, IIIe, and III1 (see Figure \ref{fig:Summary}), and which we will interpret in terms of the dynamic stability of the model solutions in those parameter regions. In anticipation of the case studies of Section \ref{sec:Interp}, Figure \ref{sec:Analysis} gives a conceptual indication of how the cases of Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, China, and Somalia can be described by our model using parameter choices in specific parts of the parameter space.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5in]{ParamSpace2}
\caption{Division of $\alpha-\beta$ parameter space into regions II, IIIe, III0, and III1. Conceptual summary of case studies of Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, China, and Somalia.}
\label{fig:Summary}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{} The assumptions made in developing our model are crude, but as illustrated by the analysis and case studies presented below, they apply sufficiently well to some of the Arab Spring revolutions that they can be used to formulate a simple model that captures some essential features of these revolutions. In particular, we emphasize that our model focuses specifically on the types of rapid transitions that have characterized the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and that all individuals would privately like to see the regime change. It is clear that there are countries for which these assumptions and the resulting model do not apply, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:Conc} on future work.
\section{Elementary Mathematical Analysis of the Model}
\label{sec:Analysis}
\paragraph{} The mathematical analysis of the dynamics of the model given in \eqref{eq:ODE} breaks down into three distinct cases characterized by regions in the $\alpha-\beta$ plane: $\alpha + \beta = 1$, $\alpha + \beta <1$, and $\alpha + \beta > 1$, which are summarized in Figures \ref{fig:I}, \ref{fig:II}, and \ref{fig:III}, respectively. An interpretation for these cases is given at the end of this section and in subsequent sections.
\paragraph{Region I: $\alpha+\beta=1$}
\paragraph{} When $r<\beta=1-\alpha$ we have $v(r;\alpha)=0$ and $p(r;\beta)=1$, so $r=0$ is a locally asymptotically stable equilibrium with basin of attraction $(0,\beta)$. Similarly, when $r>\beta=1-\alpha$ we have $v(r;\alpha)=1$ and $p(r;\beta)=0$, so $r=1$ is also a locally asymptotically stable equilibrium with basin of attraction $(1-\alpha,1)$. Finally, because $v(1-\alpha;\alpha)=p(\beta;\beta)=0$ it follows that $r=\beta=1-\alpha$ is a locally unstable equilibrium.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{I}
\caption{Region I with $\alpha+\beta=1$. Closed (open) circles represent locally asymptotically stable (unstable) equilibria. Left (right) arrows indicate regions where $\dot{r}<0$ ($\dot{r}>0$).}
\label{fig:I}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Region II: $\alpha + \beta<1$}
\paragraph{} As above, $r=0$ and $r=1$ are locally asymptotically stable equilibria with basins of attraction $(0,\beta)$ and $(1-\alpha,1)$, respectively. When $r\in[\beta,1-\alpha]$ we have $v(r;\alpha)=p(r;\beta)=0$, so all $r\in(\beta,1-\alpha)$ are locally stable equilibria and $r\in\{\beta,1-\alpha\}$ are unstable equilibria.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{II}
\caption{Region II with $\alpha + \beta <1$. Closed (open) circles represent locally asymptotically stable (unstable) equilibria. The thick line in $(\beta,1-\alpha)$ indicates stable equilibria. Left (right) arrows indicate regions where $\dot{r}<0$ ($\dot{r}>0$).}
\label{fig:II}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Region III: $\alpha + \beta >1$}
\paragraph{} Analogously to the previous two cases, we have the locally asymptotically stable equilibria $r=0$ and $r=1$ with basins of attraction $(0,1-\alpha]$ and $[\beta,1)$, respectively. Restricting our attention to the interval $(1-\alpha,\beta)$ and solving the algebraic equation $\dot{r}=0$ gives $r = \frac{c_1}{c_1+c_2}$. We define $c^*=\frac{c_1}{c_1+c_2}$ and observe that our analysis breaks down into a further three sub-cases.
\paragraph{Region IIIe:} If $\frac{c_1}{c_1+c_2}\in(1-\alpha,\beta)$ then there exists a third equilibrium $r=\frac{c_1}{c_1+c_2}$ and this equilibrium is locally asymptotically stable with basin of attraction $(1-\alpha,\beta)$.
\paragraph{Region III0:} If $\frac{c_1}{c_1+c_2}<1-\alpha$ then the region $(1-\alpha,\beta)$ lies in the basin of attraction of $r=0$.
\paragraph{Region III1:} If $\frac{c_1}{c_1+c_2}>\beta$ then the region $(1-\alpha,\beta)$ lies in the basin of attraction of $r=1$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{4in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{IIIe}
\caption{Region IIIe with $\alpha+\beta>1$ and $c^*\in(1-\alpha,\beta)$}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[t]{4in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{III0}
\caption{Region III0 with $\alpha+\beta>1$ and $c^*<1-\alpha$}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[t]{4in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{III1}
\caption{Region III1 with $\alpha+\beta>1$ and $c^*>\beta$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Regions IIIe, III0 and III1. Closed (open) circles represent locally asymptotically stable (unstable) equilibria. Left (right) arrows indicate regions where $\dot{r}<0$ ($\dot{r}>0$).}
\label{fig:III}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{} The above results are summarized in Figure \ref{fig:Summary}, which illustrates the relationship between regions II, IIIe, III0, and III1 in the $\alpha-\beta$ plane. Region I, because it is one-dimensional, is unlikely to manifest itself and so we mostly disregard it in what follows. For the remaining regions we now introduce terminology to ease future discussion. States with parameters in region II have uncountably many stable equilibria. These equilibria occur because the policing capacity of the regime is too low to clear the protesters and the visibility is too low to attract new protesters. We therefore interpret region II as corresponding to a \emph{failed state}. Regions III0, IIIe, and III1 differ only in the stability of the interval $(1-\alpha,\beta)$. For region III0 the interval $(1-\alpha,\beta)$ lies in the basin of attraction of total state control ($r=0$). Because of the contribution of $(1-\alpha,\beta)$ to the stability of the regime, we refer to region III0 as a \emph{stable police state}. Analogously, we refer to region III1 as an \emph{unstable police state}. Region IIIe introduces an intermediate state, $r=c^*$, which lies between the equilibria of total state control ($r=0$) and of the realized revolution ($r=1$). We therefore refer to $r=c^*$ as the equilibrium of \emph{civil unrest} and to region IIIe as a \emph{meta-stable police state}.
\paragraph{} Solutions to the model with parameters in the failed state (region II) are relatively straightforward, because for any value of $r\in[0,1]$ at most one of the visibility ($v(r;\alpha)$) or policing ($p(r;\beta)$) terms is ``switched on''. Behaviour of solutions with parameters in the stable police state, meta-stable police state, and unstable police state (regions III0, IIIe, and III1, respectively) are less obvious, because for parameters in these regions we have $v(r;\alpha)=1$ and $p(r;\beta)=1$ whenever $r\in(1-\alpha, \beta)$. Therefore, in order to facilitate the interpretation of our model, the case studies of Section \ref{sec:Interp} will provide sample time traces of solutions to our model for parameters in regions III0, IIIe, and III1.
\section{Interpretation}
\label{sec:Interp}
\paragraph{} Section \ref{sec:Analysis} provided a mathematical analysis for our model. However, before we proceed with the case studies of Tunisia and Egypt it will be useful to identify some reasonable values for the protesters' enthusiasm ($c_1$) and the policing efficiency of the regime ($c_2$). Since we have assumed that the revolutions occur as rapid transitions over a on a short time scale (on the order of months), we take as our guide the observed time scales in the revolutions we want to model. In the absence of government repression ($p=0$) and with visibility ($v=1$) we assume that the revolution would spread to 90\% of the population within one month for the types of revolutions we want to study\footnote{There were 29 days between Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation on December 17, 2010, and Ben Ali's resignation in Tunisia on January 14, 2011 and 18 days between the January 25, 2011, Tahrir Square protests and Mubarak's resignation in Egypt on February 11, 2011 \citep{HowardEtAl11, BBC11, Alterman11}. Of course, there is no way to determine (a) the exact start date for the revolutions in Egypt or Tunisia, (b) how many people had joined these revolutions by the fall of the regimes, or (c) how these revolutions would have proceeded in the absence of government repression. Nevertheless, spread of support of the revolution to 90\% of the population in one month seems to be at least within the correct order of magnitude.}. Measuring time in months and solving the equation $\dot{r} = c_1(1-r)$ with conditions $r(0)=0$ and $r(1) = 0.9$ implies
$$c_1 = \log(10)\approx2.30.$$
Similarly, in the absence of new revolutionary recruits ($v=0$) and with perfect policing capacity of the regime ($p=1$) we assume that to clear $90\%$ of revolutionaries would take one day\footnote{Again, this is only a crude order-of-magnitude estimate based on the fact that Egyptian forces managed to clear Tahrir Square in approximately 24 hours after the January 25th protests began \citep{BBC11}.}. Again measuring time in months and solving $\dot{r}=-c_2r$ with $r(0)=r_0$ and $r(\frac{1}{30}) = 0.1\mbox{ }r_0$ implies
$$c_2 = 30\log(10)\approx 69.1.$$
\paragraph{} We are now prepared to consider how our model might be applied to the two Arab Spring revolutions of Tunisia (Section \ref{sec:Tunis}) and Egypt (Section \ref{sec:Egypt}). We also consider how the situations in Iran, China, and Somalia might fit into the framework developed above (Section \ref{sec:Other}). Sections \ref{sec:Tunis}-\ref{sec:Other} together provide examples of regimes fitting each of the parameter regions of our model: the failed, stable police, meta-stable police, and unstable polices states, as was summarized in Figure \ref{fig:Summary}. Furthermore, by the end of Section \ref{sec:Other} we will have seen how our model might be applied to address the four questions posed in Section \ref{sec:Motive}.
\subsection{Case Study: Tunisia}
\label{sec:Tunis}
\paragraph{} The Arab Spring had its first manifestation in the Jasmine Revolution of Tunisia where the Internet, and in particular social media (i.e Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc...), is credited as a catalyst facilitating regime change \citep{HowardEtAl11, Pollock11, Stepanova11}. Below, we apply the above model in an attempt to better understand how social media may have influenced the revolution.
\paragraph{} Internet, social media, satellite TV, and cell phone communications technologies may empower protesters by enhancing their
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\arabic{enumi})}
\item capacity for organization and coordination \citep{Beckett11, BBC11, Pollock11},
\item ability to assess the current public support for the revolution \citep{Alterman11, BBC11, KhamisVaughn11, Pollock11, Saletan11, ZhuoEtAl11}, and
\item awareness of the nature and severity of government repression \citep{BBC11, Schneider11}.
\end{enumerate}
These and related effects enter into our model via the visibility ($\alpha$) and enthusiasm ($c_1$) parameters in the growth term of the model. Thus, before considering how our model might be applied to the specific circumstances of the Tunisian revolution, we elaborate on the three points brought up above.
\paragraph{} As we discussed in Section \ref{sec:Intro}, the decision of whether or not to protest is largely a coordination problem \citep{Kuran91}. If individuals protest individually then the state is capable of severe retaliation, however, if individuals protest in sufficient numbers then the state loses its ability to punish. This realization lead activists to use the Internet to coordinate the initial protests in Tunis \citep{BBC11, Pollock11}. Once protests were underway, technologies such as SMS and Twitter messaging were used between co-revolutionaries, for example by communicating which streets were the most/least obstructed by security forces \citep{BBC11}. This enhances the speed with which revolutionaries mobilize, and in the context of our model this corresponds to an increased enthusiasm of the revolutionaries ($c_1$). Social media and the Internet also contributed to the relatively leaderless way in which the Tunisian revolution developed. Contrasting to revolutions with a more hierarchical leadership structure, a leaderless revolution is difficult if not impossible to disrupt by targeting only a handful of individuals \citep{Beckett11, BBC11}. This also corresponds to an increased $c_1$.
\paragraph{} In our model growth of the revolution is subject to the visibility switching term, $v(r;\alpha)$. The revolution can only grow when it is visible, i.e. when $r>1-\alpha$. Through censorship dictatorial regimes attempt to control protests by ensuring that they remain virtually invisible to the general population. In other words, in order to prevent growth of small protests into larger movements the regime will attempt to keep the visibility ($\alpha$) low, and the visibility threshold ($1-\alpha$) high. As a consequence, the general population remains unaware of, and hence incapable of joining, small protests. The Internet, social media, satellite TV, and cell phones all work towards increasing $\alpha$ by disrupting the regime's monopoly on the distribution of information. In Tunisia the Internet and social media created a virtual space where Tunisians could express their true opinions with minimal censorial oversight or fear of reprisal \citep{BBC11, KhamisVaughn11, Pollock11}. Critically, this new interconnectivity allowed Tunisians to better gage the true level of support for regime change. Together with cell phones, social media sites vastly sped up the speed with which information travelled, allowing Tunisians - and the entire world - to follow the revolution with unprecedented detail and speed \citep{LotanEtAl11, Saletan11, ZhuoEtAl11}. Traditonal media lent its credibility to this new wellspring of information by corroborating and then rebroadcasting stories relating to the size of the revolution and the regime's brutal response \citep{Alterman11}.
\paragraph{} Awareness of the brutality and severity of the government's reaction may increase both the visibility of protesters, $\alpha$, as well as their enthusiasm, $c_1$. The enthusiasm for the revolution may be directly affected by increasing resentment of the regime. In contrast, the effect on $\alpha$ is likely to be through a secondary chanel. Specifically, otherwise apolitical individuals are induced to join the revolution \citep{BBC11, Schneider11}, presumably by lowering their personal thresholds for participation.
\paragraph{} We now have an idea of how the Internet, social media, satellite TV, and cell phones might influence the parameters of our model, specifically the visibility ($\alpha$) and enthusiasm ($c_1$) parameters in the growth term. Next we present a simplified timeline of major events during the Tunisian revolution \citep{BlightEtAl12, HowardEtAl11, BBC11,Rifai11}.
\begin{itemize}
\item December 17, 2010: Mohamed Bouazizi self-immolates in the city of Sidi Bouzid.
\item December 18, 2010: Protests erupt in Sidi Bouzid. Protesters begin recording and uploading videos of the protests and police response to the Internet.
\item December 22, 2010: Houcine Falhi commits suicide by electrocution in the midst of a demonstration in Sidi Bouzid.
\item December 27 - 28, 2010: Protests break out in the capital, Tunis. President Ben Ali denounces protests in televised address.
\item January 5, 2011: Mohamed Bouazizi dies from burn injuries.
\item January 14 - 15, 2011: Ben Ali resigns and flees to Saudi Arabia. Interim government formed.
\item January 17 - 24, 2011: Protests continue increasing in size to 40,000 - 100,000 individuals.
\item Februrary 27, 2011: Protest of at least 100,000 Tunisians forces Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi to resign.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{} Our model can now be applied to show how an increase in $\alpha$ and/or $c_1$ might increase the likelihood of a successful revolution. Given the many decades of stability within Tunisia before the revolution, we assume that the situation pre-Internet is best described by parameters in the stable police state (region III0, $c^*<1-\alpha$). To see clearly how increasing visibility ($\alpha$) or enthusiasm ($c_1$) of protesters then affects the dynamics of our model we now consider varying these parameters separately at first, starting with $\alpha$. At first an increasing $\alpha$ leaves the basin of attraction of the total state control equilibrium ($r=0$) unchanged, and hence, has no impact on the overall stability of the regime. However, once $\alpha > 1 - c^*$ the regime passes from the stable police state (region III0) to the meta-stable police state (region IIIe), the basin of attraction for total state control equilibrium shrinks from $(0,\beta)$ to $(0,1-\alpha]$, and the locally asymptotically stable civil unrest equilibrium ($r=c^*$) is created with basin of attraction $(1-\alpha,\beta)$, see Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaAlpha}. The size of the perturbation required to leave the basin of attraction of the total state control equilibrium has thus been decreased. As $\alpha$ continues to increase, the basin of attraction of the civil unrest equilibrium grows. Depending on the value of $\beta$ and $c^*$, $\alpha$ may be able to grow to the point that a revolution succeeding, i.e. leaving the basin of attraction of the civil unrest equilibrium for that of the realized revolution ($r=1$), requires a smaller perturbation than the revolution being crushed, i.e. leaving the civil unrest equilibrium for the basin of attraction of total state control, see Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaAlpha}. So, increasing $\alpha$ (a) first moves us into the meta-stable police state (region IIIe), thus decreasing the size of the perturbation needed to leave total state control ($r=0$), and then (b) decreases the relative likelihood of a revolution dying out (returning to $r=0$ from $r=c^*$) as opposed to succeeding (leaving $r=c^*$ for $r=1$).
\paragraph{} Again starting from a stable police state (region III0), we consider the effect of increasing enthusiasm of protesters ($c_1$), see Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaC1}. For $c_1<\beta$ the effect of increasing $c_1$ is qualitatively similar to increasing $\alpha$. Specifically, increasing $c_1$ has no effect on the basin of attraction of total state control ($r=0$) until $c^*>1-\alpha$ ($\alpha>1-c^*$) at which point the regime moves from the stable police state (region III0) to the meta-stable police state (region IIIe), with effects as described above. As $c_1$ increases with $c^*$ in the region $(1-\alpha,\beta)$, the equilibrium of civil unrest ($r=c^*$) moves farther from the basin of attraction of total state control and closer to the basin of attraction of the realized revolution ($r=1$). The effects are, again, as above. Further increasing $c_1$ such that $c^*$ surpasses $\beta$ produces the qualitatively distinct effect of moving from the meta-stable police state (region IIIe) to the unstable police state (region III1). The equilibrium of civil unrest disappears and the basin of attraction of the realized revolution is extended from $(\beta,1)$ to $(1-\alpha,1)$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.75in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.75in]{III0alpha}\\
\includegraphics[width=2.75in]{IIIealpha1}\\
\includegraphics[width=2.75in]{IIIealpha2}\\
\caption{Increasing $\alpha$: While $\alpha<1-c^*$, increasing $\alpha$ has no effect on the basin of attraction of either $r=0$ or $r=1$. Once $\alpha>1-c^*$, $r=c^*$ becomes a locally asymptotically stable equilibrium, thus reducing the size of a perturbation required to leave the basin of attraction of $r=0$. Finally, as $\alpha$ becomes large enough the perturbation needed to return to $r=0$ from $r=c^*$ becomes larger than the one required to proceed from $r=c^*$ to $r=1$, and the perturbation required to leave the basin of attraction of $r=0$ becomes increasingly small.}
\label{fig:TunisiaAlpha}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{5mm}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.75in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.75in]{III0c1}\\
\includegraphics[width=2.75in]{IIIealpha1}\\
\includegraphics[width=2.75in]{III1c1}\\
\caption{Increasing $c_1$: Increasing $c_1$ has no effect on the basin of attraction of either $r=0$ or $r=1$ until $\alpha>1-c^*$, when $r=c^*$ becomes a locally asymptotically stable equilibrium. As $c^*$ approaches $\beta$ the equilibrium $r=c^*$ becomes farther from (closer to) to the basin of attraction of $r=0$ ($r=1$). As a result, the size of a perturbation required to leave $r=c^*$ for $r=0$ ($r=1$) increases (decreases) as $c^*$ increases. Finally, as $c^*>\beta$ the equilibrium $r=c^*$ disappears and the basin of attraction of $r=1$ becomes $(1-\alpha,1)$. }
\label{fig:TunisiaC1}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The effect of increasing $\alpha$ and $c_1$ on the existence and stability of equilibria.}
\label{fig:TunisiaLine}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{} Another way to visualize the information presented in Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaLine} is to plot time traces of solutions to \eqref{eq:ODE} for different choices of parameters. The perturbations mentioned above, which are required to move from the basin of attraction of one equilibrium to another, are delivered by shocks to the fraction of revolutionaries ($\Delta r$). Specifically, although one shock of sufficient magnitude would perturb a solution from total state control ($r=0$) to the basin of attraction of the realized revolution ($r=1$), we choose to consider a scenario with two smaller shocks. This is because the probability of a shock likely decreases rapidly with the its magnitude, and therefore, we are significantly more likely to encounter two smaller shocks as opposed to one large shock. In fact, the two shocks are chosen to coincide with the self-immolation (December 17, 2010) and death (January 5, 2011) of Mohamed Bouazizi which, respectively, set in motion the Tunisian revolution and immediately preceded a spike in online conversations about freedom and revolution \citep{HowardEtAl11} in the lead-up to the resignation of President Ben Ali (January 14, 2011). Using this time scale, Ben Ali resigns at $t=\frac{29}{30}$. In keeping with the calculations done at the beginning of Section \ref{sec:Interp}, we choose $c_2=30\log(10)\approx69.1$. Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeAlpha} shows the effect of increasing $\alpha$ by solving \eqref{eq:ODE} with
$$\alpha=\{0.96,0.98\},\mbox{ } \beta\in\{0.05,0.06\}, c_1=2.30 \mbox{ }(c^*\approx 0.0322), \mbox{ }r(0)=0,$$
and subject to shocks $\Delta r_1 = 0.021$ and $\Delta r_2=0.021$ occurring on December 17, 2010, ($t=\frac{1}{30}$) and January 5, 2011, ($t=\frac{20}{30}$), respectively. Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeC1} demonstrates the effect of increasing $c_1$ by solving \eqref{eq:ODE} with
$$\alpha=0.96,\mbox{ } \beta=0.06, \mbox{ }c_1\in\{2.30, 3.26, 4.02, 4.80\}\mbox{ } (c^*\in\{0.0322,0.0451,0.0550, 0.0650\}),$$
and subject to shocks $\Delta r_3=0.041$ and $\Delta r_4=0.01$ occurring on December 17, 2010, ($t=\frac{1}{30}$) and January 5, 2011, ($t=\frac{20}{30}$), respectively.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{3in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{TunisTimeAlphaLow}
\caption{Stable police state (region III0) with $\alpha=0.96$.}
\label{fig:TunisiaTimeAlphaA}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{3in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{TunisTimeAlphaHigh}
\caption{Meta-stable police state (region IIIe) with $\alpha=0.98$}
\label{fig:TunisiaTimeAlphaB}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The effect of increasing $\alpha$ on the behaviour of solutions to \eqref{eq:ODE} with $\beta\in\{0.05,0.06\}$, $c_1=2.30$, $c_2=30\log(10)$, and subject to shocks $\Delta r_1 = \Delta r_2=0.021$ occurring at $t = \frac{1}{30}$ (December 17, 2010) and $t=\frac{20}{30}$ (January 5, 2011). Panel (b) with $\beta=0.05$ corresponds qualitatively to Figure 2 of \citet{HowardEtAl11}.}
\label{fig:TunisiaTimeAlpha}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{} As with Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaAlpha}, Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeAlpha} illustrates how the dynamics of the model change as $\alpha$ increases. Because solutions shown in Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeAlphaA} have parameters in the stable police state (region III0), leaving the basin of attraction of total state control ($r=0$) requires a shock $\Delta r>\beta$. Thus, the solutions in Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeAlphaA} decaying to total state control is consistent with $\Delta r_1=\Delta r_2 = 0.021<\beta$ for both $\beta=0.05$ and $\beta = 0.06$. Increasing the visibility from $\alpha=0.96$ to $\alpha = 0.98$ decreases the basin of attraction of total state control and yields Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeAlphaB}. In this case, the shock $\Delta r_1$ is sufficient to move solutions from total state control to the basin of attraction of civil unrest ($r=c^*$). However, as we saw in Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaAlpha}, for a second shock to perturb the solution from civil unrest to the basin of attraction of the realized revolution ($r=1$) requires $\Delta r> \beta- c^*$. This is the case for $\beta = 0.05$ but not $\beta = 0.06$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[h]{3in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{TunisTimeC1Low}
\caption{Stable police state (III0) with $c_1=2.30$.}
\label{fig:TunisiaTimeC1A}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{5mm}
\begin{subfigure}[h]{3in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{TunisTimeC1Med1}
\caption{Meta-stable police state (IIIe) with $c_1=3.26$.}
\label{fig:TunisiaTimeC1B}
\end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}[h]{3in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{TunisTimeC1Med2}
\caption{Meta-stable police state (IIIe) with $c_1=4.02$.}
\label{fig:TunisiaTimeC1C}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{5mm}
\begin{subfigure}[h]{3in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{TunisTimeC1High}
\caption{Unstable police state (III1) with $c_1=4.80$}
\label{fig:TunisiaTimeC1D}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The effect of increasing $c_1$ on the behaviour of solutions to \eqref{eq:ODE} with $\alpha=0.96$, $\beta=0.06$, $c_2=30\log(10)$, and subject to shocks $\Delta r_3=0.041$ and $\Delta r_4=0.01$ occurring at $t = \frac{1}{30}$ (December 17, 2010) and $t=\frac{20}{30}$ (January 5, 2011). Panel (c) corresponds qualitatively to Figure 2 of \citet{HowardEtAl11}.}
\label{fig:TunisiaTimeC1}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{} Similar to Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaLine}, Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeC1} illustrates how the dynamics of the model change as $c_1$ increases. Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeC1A} shares the same parameters as Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeAlphaA} and shows solutions in the stable police state (region III0) for which the two shocks, now taken with strength $\Delta r_3 = 0.041$ and $\Delta r_4=0.01$, are insufficient to leave the basin of attraction of total state control ($r=0$). As the enthusiasm of protesters increases from $c_1=2.30$ ($c^*=0.0322$) to $c_1=3.26$ ($c^*=0.0451$) we go from a stable police state to a meta-stable police state (region IIIe). This situation is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeC1B}, where $\Delta r_3 = 0.041$ is now sufficient to move the solution from total state control to the basin of attraction of civil unrest ($r=c^*$), however, $\Delta r_4$ is still too small relative to $\beta-c^*$ to perturb the solution from civil unrest to the basin of attraction of the realized revolution ($r=1$), i.e. $\Delta r_4 < \beta - c^*$. Continuing to increase the enthusiasm parameter to $c_1 = 4.02$ ($c^* = 0.0550$) maintains parameters in the meta-stable police state. Here the magnitude of a shock needed to leave total state control for the basin of attraction of civil unrest remains unchanged, whereas the magnitude of a shock needed to perturb a solution from civil unrest to the basin of attraction of the realized revolution is decreased. This is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeC1C}, where $\Delta r_4$ is now sufficient to propel the solution from civil unrest to the basin of attraction of the realized revolution. Finally, Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeC1D} shows the situation where further increased enthusiasm, $c_1=4.80$ ($c^*=0.0650$), has moved parameters from a meta-stable police state to an unstable police state (region III1). Observe that for the unstable police state the shock $\Delta r_3$ is sufficient on its own to move the solution from total state control to the basin of attraction of the realized revolution.
\paragraph{} We summarize findings from Figures \ref{fig:TunisiaLine}-\ref{fig:TunisiaTimeC1} by observing that (a) an increase in visibility ($\alpha$) decreases the size of shock needed to leave total state control ($r=0$) for the basin of attraction of civil unrest ($r=c^*$), and (b) an increase in enthusiasm ($c_1$) decreases the size of the shock needed to leave civil unrest for the basin of attraction of the realized revolution $(r=1)$. Indeed, for sufficiently high $c_1$ ($c^*$) no second shock is needed at all. When considering a revolution, however, we must consider effects of both visibility and enthusiasm simultaneously, because as discussed above we expect the Internet and social media to increase both $\alpha$ and $c_1$.
\paragraph{} When comparing the plots in Figures \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeAlphaB} and \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeC1C} to data presented in Figure 2 of \citet{HowardEtAl11}\footnote{This figure is captioned ``Percent of Tunisian Blogs With Posts on Politics, By Keyword''.} we find a qualitative match. Howard's Figure 2 shows an initial increase in posts related to the economy following Mohamed Bouazizi's self immolation starting on December 17, 2010, which is sustained until Mohamed Bouazizi's death on January 5, 2011, when we see the start of a second increase in posts related to Ben Ali. This second increase peaks on January 14, 2011, when Ben Ali resigns. \citet{HowardEtAl11} observes that street protests continued well after the departure of Ben Ali until at least the resignation of Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi on February 27, 2011. This appears consistent with the behaviour in Figures \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeAlphaB} and \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeC1C} where we see an initial spike leading to sustained engagement and a second spike leading to full-on revolution that continues to gain momentum well after the January 14, 2011, ($t=1$) resignation of Ben Ali.
\paragraph{} Now that we have a better understanding of how adoption of the Internet and social media may factor into our model, let us consider aspects of the Jasmine revolution that we can investigate using our model by addressing the following two questions.
\begin{enumerate}
\item How can a small number of active social media users and relatively low Internet penetration have a dramatic effect on the stability of a regime?, and
\item How is it that regimes manage to seem so stable until the revolution is underway?
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{}\emph{Question 1:} To explain how only a small number of social media users can have a significant impact on the likelihood of a full-blown revolution, consider the effect of the Internet and social media usage solely on visibility ($\alpha$). In the example of Figure \ref{fig:TunisiaTimeAlpha} a small increase from $\alpha=0.96$ to $\alpha=0.98$ reduces the size of shock in $r$ necessary to leave total state control ($r=0$) from $\Delta r = 0.04$ to $\Delta r = 0.02$. If shocks occur distributed according to some probability distribution, then it is reasonable to assume that shocks of sufficient magnitude to mobilize large fractions of the population lie in the tail of this distribution. For many reasonable probability distributions satisfying this criterion, halving the size of shock necessary to trigger a revolution more (and potentially much more) than doubles the likelihood of a revolution occurring in any given amount of time. Compounding this phenomenon is how, when $\alpha$ initially increases beyond $1 - c^*$, the basin of attraction of total state control ($r=0$) shrinks from $(0,\beta)$ to $(0,1-\alpha]$ in a discontinuous fashion. So, a small increase in $\alpha$ can have a very large impact on the expected amount of time one has to wait until a revolution is triggered.
\paragraph{}\emph{Question 2:} Increasing either enthusiasm ($c_1$) or visibility ($\alpha$) eventually decreases the size of the basin of attraction of total state control ($r=0$). This undermines the regime by decreasing the size of shock necessary to trigger a revolution. However, since (a) $r=0$ always remains a locally asymptotically stable equilibrium, (b) large shocks are exceedingly rare, and (c) determining the exact values of the parameters in a model like ours is very difficult, the exact size of shock necessary to trigger a revolution is impossible to determine until such a shock occurs. It follows that for someone observing a regime before and after the adoption of social media there would be few, if any, outward signs of instability: the regime appears stable until it isn't.
\subsection{Case Study: Egypt}
\label{sec:Egypt}
\paragraph{} In applying our model to the Tunisian case study we included no factors external to the model, other than shocks to the number of protesters, $r$. This was sufficient to produce a qualitative match between the development of the Tunisian revolution and the model. In the case of the Egyptian revolution, however, there are certain singular events not captured by our model that would have a significant effect on the parameters of the model. For example,
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\alph{enumi})}
\item news of a successful revolution in Tunisia likely raised the enthusiasm ($c_1$) and visibility ($\alpha$) parameters in Egypt by causing Egyptians to discuss and re-evaluate the strengths (and weaknesses) of the regime, the discontent of the general population, and their chances of success \citep{BBC11, Pollock11, ZhuoEtAl11},
\item the intervention of the Egyptian military on behalf of protesters in Tahrir Square \citep{BBC11, Said12} likely lowered policing capacity ($\beta$) and efficiency ($c_2$) directly by immediately curtailing the regime's policing capacity, and
\item the January 28 - February 1, 2011 Internet disruptions \citep{Dunn11, HowardEtAl11, BBC11} lowered the visibility ($\alpha$) temporarily.
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{} This suggests to consider changes in the model parameters during the course of the revolution. First we establish the following rough timeline \citep{BlightEtAl12, Dunn11, BBC11, HowardEtAl11, Pollock11, Said12}.
\begin{itemize}
\item December 17, 2010: Mohamed Bouazizi self-immolates in Tunisia.
\item January 14 - 15, 2011: Ben Ali flees Tunisia and an interim government is established.
\item January 25, 2011: Day of Protest in Tahrir Square, Egypt.
\item January 26, 2011: Police clear Tahrir Square.
\item January 28, 2011: Protesters occupy Tahrir Square, Mubarak addresses nation, major Internet disruptions begin.
\item February 1, 2011: President Obama withdraws support for Mubarak regime, army refuses to act against protesters, major Internet disruptions end.
\item February 2, 2011: State vandals and thugs attack protesters in Tahrir Square, army officers intervene on behalf of protesters.
\item February 11, 2011: Mubarak resigns.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{} We now outline a possible interpretation for the revolution in Egypt according to our model. The events of January 14-15 likely increased both $\alpha$ and $c_1$ but not by enough to move Egypt from a stable (region III0) to a meta-stable (region IIIe) police state. Because the initial shock of the Day of Protest on January 25 is of insufficient magnitude to perturb the system from total state control ($r=0$) to the basin of attraction of the realized revolution ($r=1$), i.e. the magnitude of the shock is less than $\beta$, Egyptian police are able to clear Tahrir Square. Nevertheless, this initial protest is sufficiently large to generate considerable coverage on both social and traditional media \citep{Alterman11, HowardEtAl11, ZhuoEtAl11}. An increased awareness in the general population of the current level of dissatisfaction with the regime through increased consultation of Internet and satellite TV sources then resulted in a further increase of $\alpha$. In addition, protesters' initial success leads to increased enthusiasm and experience which may increase $c_1$. At some point between January 25 and 28 Egypt becomes a meta-stable police state and the revolution converges to the equilibrium of civil unrest ($r=c^*$). Meanwhile, Internet disruptions between January 28 and February 1 temporarily suppress $\alpha$. Finally, the decisions made by the army in favor of the protesters on February 1-2 lower both $\beta$ and $c_2$. Egypt then becomes an unstable police state (region III1) and the revolution proceeds to completion without the need of a second shock. We illustrate this scenario in Figure \ref{fig:Egypt} where $t=0$ is taken to be January 14, $r(0)=0$, parameters\footnote{Parameters are chosen so that they conform with the scenario presented above, but their precise values are chosen rather arbitrarily within these constraints for this proof-of-concept scenario analysis. We do not make any attempt to model the time-dependence of the parameters explicitly.} are given in Table \ref{tab:EgyptParam} and in equations \eqref{eq:EgyptParamA}-\eqref{eq:EgyptParamD}, and the initial shock occurs on January 25 ($t=\frac{11}{30}$) with $\Delta r = 0.05$.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llllc}
Date & Time (t) & Event & Parameters Affected & Region\\
\hline
Jan. 14-15 & $0$ to $\frac{1}{30}$ & $\cdot$ Ben Ali resigns and an & $\cdot$ Set $\alpha$ and $c_1$ to & III0\\
&& \hspace{2mm} interim government is & \hspace{2mm} $\alpha = 0.96$ and $c_1=2.30$\\
&& \hspace{2mm} formed in Tunisia& $\cdot$ Initially $\beta = 0.06$ and\\
&&& \hspace{2mm} $c_2 = 69.1$\\
Jan. 25 & $\frac{11}{30}$ & $\cdot$ Day of Protest in Tahrir Square & $\cdot$ Shock to $r$ of $\Delta r= 0.05$ & III0\\
Jan. 25-28 & $\frac{11}{40}$ to $\frac{14}{30}$ & $\cdot$ Lead up to Jan. 28 protest & $\cdot$ Increase $\alpha$ and $c_1$ & III0 - IIIe\\
&&& \hspace{2mm} (linearly) to $\alpha = 0.98$\\
&&& \hspace{2mm} and $c_1 = 3.26$\\
Jan. 28 - Feb. 2 & $\frac{14}{40}$ to $\frac{19}{30}$ & $\cdot$ Temporary Internet & $\cdot$ Suppress\footnotemark $\alpha$ from & IIIe \\
&& \hspace{2mm} disruptions & \hspace{2mm} $\alpha=0.98$ to $\alpha=0.96$\\
Feb. 1-2 & $\frac{18}{30}$ to $\frac{19}{30}$ & $\cdot$ Army intervenes on behalf & $\cdot$ Decrease\footnotemark[7] $\beta$ and $c_2$ to & IIIe - III1\\
&&\hspace{2mm} of protesters & \hspace{2mm} $\beta = 0.04$ and $c_2 = 50.0$
\end{tabular}
\caption{Significant events during the Egyptian revolution and their impact on parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, $c_1$, and $c_2$. The parameter profiles as a function of time are described in the text and are plotted in Figure \ref{fig:Egypt}.}
\label{tab:EgyptParam}
\end{table}
\footnotetext[7]{Transitions are assumed to occur linearly over the period of one day.}
\newpage
\paragraph{} The parameter profiles are given as a function of time by
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:EgyptParam}
\begin{align}
\alpha(t) &= \left\{ \begin{array}{lrl} 0.96 & 0\leq t<\frac{11}{30} & \mbox{Prior to Jan. 25}\\
0.96\frac{14-30t}{3} + 0.98\frac{30t-11}{3} & \frac{11}{30} \leq t < \frac{14}{30} & \mbox{Jan. 25-28}\\
0.98(15-30t) + 0.96(30t-14) & \frac{14}{30} \leq t <\frac{15}{30} & \mbox{Jan. 28-29}\\
0.96 & \frac{15}{30}\leq t<\frac{18}{30} & \mbox{Jan. 29 - Feb. 1}\\
0.96(19-30t) + 0.98(30t-18) & \frac{18}{30}\leq t<\frac{19}{30} & \mbox{Feb. 1-2}\\
0.98 & t\geq \frac{19}{30} & \mbox{Feb. 2 onwards} \end{array} \right.,
\label{eq:EgyptParamA}\\
c_1(t) &= \left\{ \begin{array}{lrl} 2.30 & 0\leq t<\frac{11}{30}& \mbox{Prior to Jan. 25}\\
2.30\frac{14-30t}{3} + 3.26\frac{30t-11}{3} & \frac{11}{30} \leq t < \frac{14}{30}& \mbox{Jan. 25-28}\\
3.26 & t\geq \frac{14}{30} & \mbox{Jan. 28 onwards} \end{array} \right.,\\
\beta(t) &= \left\{ \begin{array}{lrl} 0.06 & 0\leq t<\frac{18}{30} & \mbox{Prior to Feb. 1}\\
0.06(19-30t) + 0.04(30t-18) & \frac{18}{30} \leq t < \frac{19}{30} & \mbox{Feb. 1 - 2}\\
0.04 & t\geq \frac{19}{30} & \mbox{Feb. 2 onwards} \end{array} \right., \mbox{ and}\\
c_2(t) &= \left\{ \begin{array}{lrl} 69.1 & 0\leq t<\frac{18}{30} & \mbox{Prior to Feb. 1}\\
69.1(19-30t) + 50.0(30t-18) & \frac{18}{30} \leq t < \frac{19}{30} & \mbox{Feb. 1 - 2}\\
50.0 & t\geq \frac{19}{30} & \mbox{Feb. 2 onwards} \end{array} \right..
\label{eq:EgyptParamD}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6in]{Egypt}
\caption{A possible scenario modelling the Egyptian revolution using dynamic parameters and an initial shock. The model solution corresponds qualitatively to Figure 4 of \citet{HowardEtAl11}.}
\label{fig:Egypt}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{} As in the previous case study of Tunisia, the model scenario illustrated by Figure \ref{fig:Egypt} agrees qualitatively with observed data, in particular the data presented in Figure 4 of \citet{HowardEtAl11}\footnote{This figure is captioned ``Logged Number of Tweets on \#egypt, by Location''.}, which shows rapid growth in Tweets related to the Egyptian revolution culminating in a spike of Twitter activity on January 25. After this spike, activity declines and then stabilizes between January 25 and January 28. Finally, after restrictions on the Internet are lifted on February 1 there is rapid growth in Twitter activity until Mubarak resigns on February 11. Figure \ref{fig:Egypt} shows that our model is again capable of generating behaviour observed in \citet{HowardEtAl11}.
\paragraph{} We take this opportunity to address the third question posed in Section \ref{sec:Motive},
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{2}
\item Why did the January 28 - February 1 Internet shutdown in Egypt not have a greater inhibitory effect on protests?
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{}\emph{Question 3:} In our model, attempting to suppress a revolution by reducing its visibility ($\alpha$) will only be successful if the regime can make the visibility threshold ($1-\alpha$) greater than the current size of the revolution. Figure \ref{fig:Egypt} illustrates the scenario where the regime fails in its attempt to suppress a revolution because it does not manage to sufficiently decrease visibility of protesters. Thus, the January 28 - February 1 Internet shutdown had little effect on the ongoing protests because the protests had become sufficiently large that individuals no longer needed the Internet to be aware of them. We make the additional observation that, with respect to the example of Figure \ref{fig:Egypt}, increasing $\beta$ might prevent the transition from a meta-stable police state (region IIIe) to an unstable police state (region III1), but would not prevent the transition from a stable police state (region III0) to a meta-stable police state. As such, according to our model, the regime is not able to regain total state control ($r=0$) by increasing its policing capacity, $\beta$. The only other option open to the regime to suppress the revolution would be to decrease $c^*$ by increasing its policing efficiency ($c_2$). Increasing policing efficiency rapidly is difficult, however, because improving training of security forces, intelligence, investments in infrastructure and crowd control, etc... take a significant amount of time. Moreover, as we discussed in Section \ref{sec:Tunis} attempting to increase policing efficiency by use of police brutality risks being exposed by new media, thus inducing otherwise apolitical individuals to join the revolution \citep{BBC11, Schneider11}.
\paragraph{} Sections \ref{sec:Tunis} and \ref{sec:Egypt} have presented ways in which our model can be applied to the revolutions of Tunisia and Egypt. These two case studies have shown how our model, taking into account only the visibility of protesters and policing capacity of the regime, can produce results that are qualitatively consistent with observations and data presented in \citet{HowardEtAl11}. This indicates that the visibility of protesters and policing capacity of the regime may be essential factors for the dynamics of the Arab Spring revolutions. Since the visibility of protesters is primarily affected by media and communications technologies, it follows that through the case studies presented above our model supports the view that the inernet and social media played a critical role in the Arab Spring 2010-2011 \citep{HowardEtAl11, LotanEtAl11, Alterman11, BBC11, KhamisVaughn11, Pollock11, Saletan11, Shirky11, Stepanova11, ZhuoEtAl11}.
\subsection{Case Studies: Iran, China, and Somalia}
\label{sec:Other}
\paragraph{} Above we posed the question
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{3}
\item Why is it that some regimes fall in a matter of weeks, others fight to a stalemate, and still others survive relatively unscathed?
\end{enumerate}
In our previous discussions we have seen that when a regime is subject to a shock the outcome depends on the balance between the four parameters in our model: the visibility ($\alpha$) and enthusiasm ($c_1$) of protesters, and the capacity ($\beta$) and efficiency ($c_2$) of the police. We further explore this point by considering the cases of Iran, China, and Somalia.
\paragraph{}\emph{Question 4:} The protests following Iran's 2009 election, dubbed the ``Green Revolution'', were ultimately put down by the regime despite widespread use of social media technology. In particular, \citet{BurnsEltham09} emphasize the response of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and paramilitary force, the Basij, which unleashed a brutal crackdown in part by using Twitter to ``hunt down and target Iranian pro-democracy activists''. Unfortunately, this result was partly caused by Haystack, a poorly vetted anti-censorship software promoted by the US government, which
\begin{quote}
``not only failed at its goal of hiding messages from governments but also made it, in the words of one analyst, `possible for an adversary to specifically pinpoint individual users.' '' \citep{Shirky11}
\end{quote}
The large amount of resources that were available to the Iranian regime is consistent with a large value of $\beta$. The ability of the regime to harness social media to suppress protests, and to mobilize a well equipped and motivated security force is consistent with a large $c_2$. Moreover, since at the time of the Green Revolution social media was still in its infancy\footnote{Facebook was launched in 2004 and was still an invitation-only service in 2005\citep{Phillips07}. Youtube was founded in early 2005 \citep{Youtube} and Twitter was not founded until the spring of 2006 \citep{Picard11}.}, $\alpha$ and $c_1$ were unlikely to have felt the full impact of these new communications technologies. Contributing to the lower values of $\alpha$ and $c_1$ relative to the two case studies presented above, is the lack of both experience with and prior examples of protests. When $c_1$ is small and $c_2$ is large, $c^*$ is small. So, in our model a 2009-era Iran with small $c^*$ and $\alpha$, and large $\beta$, specifically $c^*<1-\alpha<\beta$, is a stable police state (region III0), which is consistent with the failure of the Green Revolution. In the future, more sophisticated methods for evading government detection and identification may increase $c_1$ at the expense of $c_2$. Continued growth in Internet availability will increase $\alpha$ by increasing visibility, while economic sanctions may increase $\alpha$ by stoking dissatisfaction with the regime. Examples of successful revolutions in the Arab world and contact/support from successful revolutionaries from abroad will also increase $\alpha$ and $c_1$. If these factors manage to out pace the evolution of the regime's police forces (including their technological abilities) then it can be expected that Iran may pass into the meta-stable (region IIIe) or unstable (region III1) police state regions in the future. A subsequent shock, perhaps due to another highly contested election, may then trigger a revolution.
\paragraph{} While the current regime in China differs from the pre-revolutionary regimes in Tunisia and Egypt in many aspects, it is interesting to consider how our model may apply to China in terms of the influence of state control on the media and the Internet, and police control of dissident opinion. The number of ``mass group incidents'' reported annually in China has been rising consistently for at least two decades \citep{Wedeman09}. Being constantly subject to low but rising levels of protest may correspond to the civil unrest equilibrium ($r=c^*$) in region IIIe of our model, which we have called the meta-stable police state region. In our model rising levels of protest would correspond to rising $c^*$, where in this particular case, an increasing $c^*$ would seem to be the result of an increase in the enthusiasm ($c_1$) of protesters and not a decrease in the efficiency of the regime ($c_2$), except perhaps in terms of Internet censorship. Previously, we argued that regimes in the meta-stable police state were potentially at an increased risk of revolution depending on the balance of $\alpha$, $c^*$, and $\beta$. Specifically, we stated that increasing $c_1$, and hence $c^*$, decreases (increases) the magnitude of shock needed to go from $r=c^*$ to the basin of attraction of $r=1$ ($r=0$), see Figure \ref{fig:China}. A continued rise of $c^*$ (via increasing $c_1$) and a sudden or systematic rise in $\alpha$ through Internet and social media exposure in China may eventually result in increasing the chance of a successful revolution. How soon this would occur is not possible to say, since we are unable to determine accurately the magnitudes of $1-\alpha$, $c^*$, and $\beta$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{China}
\caption{Effect of increasing $c^*$ when $\alpha+\beta>1$ and $\frac{c_1}{c_1+c_2}=c^*>1-\alpha$ (region IIIe). Increasing $c_1$ causes $c^*$ to increase as well. For small $c_1$ ($c^*$) we see small numbers of protests that do not endanger the regime. Growing $c_1$ ($c^*$) causes the size/number of protests to increase. Eventually, for large $c_1$ ($c^*$) the regime becomes endangered as the probability of a shock sufficient to trigger a full-scale revolution becomes significant.}
\label{fig:China}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{} Finally, we consider the case of Somalia, which is widely considered to have been a failed state for more than 20 years. During this period the country has seen the rise and fall of many local authorities and attempts at re-establishing a national government \citep{Menkhaus07}. The failed state region (region II) features low $\alpha$ (weak media) and low $\beta$ (weak government). Low visibility ($\alpha$) prevents individuals from joining any popular movements and low policing capacity ($\beta$) prevents the government from reigning in existing movements. This results mathematically in an uncountable number of equilibria contained in a subinterval of $[0,1]$, and is consistent with the slow and erratic rise and fall of local militia and a succession of weak central governments. Our model predicts that a successful national state could arise from either (a) improving policing capacity of the transitional government (increasing $\beta$), or (b) increasing social cohesion and the capacity of the media in Somalia (increasing $\alpha$). Interestingly, due to the lack of central authority, as well as permanent infrastructure, Somalia has developed a sophisticated and affordable telecommunications sector \citep{Feldman07}, which may mean that an increased $\alpha$ is not unrealistic.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
\label{sec:Conc}
\paragraph{} We began this paper by asking four questions related to the revolutions of the Arab Spring.
\begin{enumerate}
\item How can a small number of active social media users and relatively low Internet penetration have a dramatic effect on the stability of a regime?,
\item How is it that regimes manages to seem so stable until the revolution is underway?,
\item Why did the January 28 - February 1 Internet shutdown in Egypt not have a greater inhibitory effect on protests?, and
\item Why is it that some regimes fall in a matter of weeks, others fight to a stalemate, and still others survive relatively unscathed?
\end{enumerate}
We then established a simple one-compartment model that described the dynamics of a revolution sweeping through a population that is near-unanimous in its intrinsic dislike of the current dictatorial regime. Despite the crudeness of our model, we are able to identify four main parameter regions that correspond to realistic situations in such countries: stable police state, meta-stable police state, unstable police state, and failed state. These regions capture, at least qualitatively, a wide range of scenarios observed in the context of revolutionary movements in countries ruled by dictatorial regimes. We examined two scenarios in detail, Tunisia and Egypt. In the case of Tunisia we assumed that parameters were fixed for the lifetime of the revolution and explored the effect of different parameter regimes on the dynamics of the revolution. In contrast, for Egypt we had to assume that parameters evolved with the revolution due to the importance of singular external events that were outside the scope of the basic model. In both cases, our results qualitatively matched data describing frequency of Twitter and Blog posts by subject, as presented in \citet{HowardEtAl11}. Finally, we briefly discussed how our model may further be able to describe aspects of the situation in 2009 Iran, and present-day China and Somalia. We summarized these findings in Figure \ref{fig:Summary}.
\paragraph{} From the Tunisian case study we concluded that the emergence of a small number of social media users and a low Internet penetration rate may have a large effect on the likelihood of a revolution. This effect occurs because even a small increase in visibility or enthusiasm of revolutionaries can significantly decrease the basin of attraction of total state control. This effect is further magnified by the nonlinear relationship between the magnitude and likelihood of shocks that a regime is subject to. This phenomenon, together with the difficulty in establishing the parameters of models like ours, also explains why regimes manage to appear stable until the revolution is underway. The Egyptian case study proposed a scenario which explains the limited impact of Internet shutdown on protests. Essentially, by the time the Internet shutdown was fully implemented the revolution was sufficiently large that individuals' awareness was not impeded. Finally, our review of Iran, China, and Somalia illustrates how our model is flexible enough to capture many different situations present in the world today. This allows us to conclude that, despite the crudeness of our model, it is nevertheless valuable as a qualitative and conceptual tool. It also indicates that our basic modelling assumptions appear to capture essential components of the dynamics of revolutions in dictatorial regimes.
\paragraph{} The simplicity of our model also leaves much room for further work. The adoption of a one-compartmental model has required the assumption of a homogeneous population. One extension would be to expand the model to include additional compartments that take into account the heterogeneous nature of the population. For example, Internet and social media use in the Arab world is highly concentrated among the youth \citep{HowardEtAl11}, thus youth communicate between each other differently than they communicate with their elders, or than elders communicate amongst themselves. We could therefore extend our model by adding a compartment that explicitly takes into consideration the youth component of the revolutionary movement. Similarly, we have assumed that the entire population desires regime change. This may not be a good assumption in some cases. For example, in Syria the government has deep rooted support from Alawite, Christian, and other minorities totalling approximately 25\% of the population \citep{Holliday11}. So, our model could be amended to include a separate compartment to explicitly model populations that are likely to stay loyal to the regime until it is defeated. Such a model may also be more suitable for describing past events in Libya and Bahrain. Another approach to improving this model is to be more careful when choosing functional forms for the growth and decay terms in \eqref{eq:ODE}. One might do this, for example, by studying the relationship between the micro-level threshold behaviour of individuals \citep{CentolaEtAl05, Kuran91} and the macro-level behaviour of the growth term. Finally, since externalities, such as support or advice for protesters from foreign sources, are thought to be important \citep{HowardEtAl11, ZhuoEtAl11} it may be advisable to model these external influences explicitly.
\paragraph{} Computational power has improved drastically over the past few decades to the point of enabling highly detailed and sophisticated models. However, this is not to say that there is no longer a role for simple models. Simple models have the advantages of relying on fewer assumptions about individual and communal behaviour. They also admit a complete and rigorous mathematical analysis. For simple models, it is frequently possible to characterize the entire parameter space and fully understand the behaviour of the model under all parameter regimes. Despite their simplicity, these models nevertheless enable a conceptual and qualitative understanding of the phenomenon in question as long as they capture essential processes in the dynamics of the events under study. Simple models, therefore, remain valuable for establishing a basic framework that can aid in understanding complex phenomena.
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
Originally, non-Gaussian states
were studied in quantum optics due to some non-classical properties: photon antibunching, quadrature or amplitude-squared
squeezing, oscillations of the photon-number distribution. More generally, non-classicality was defined as the non-existence
of the $P$ representation as a well-behaved function. A review
of the efforts made on these lines of research can be found
in Ref.\cite{1}. In the pure state case there exists a connection between non-classicality and the non-Gaussian charater
of the density operator. Indeed, Cahill \cite{Cah} proved that the only
pure states that are classical are the coherent ones: all other classical states are mixtures. Therefore, all pure non-Gaussian states are non-classical. On the other hand, according to Hudson's theorem \cite{Hud}, all pure states
with negative Wigner function are non-Gaussian.
Signatures of non-classicality
could be thus identified through the negativity of the Wigner
function. It was shown that this holds for mixed non-Gaussian states as well \cite{KZ}.
Interest in the non-Gaussian states has recently emerged
in quantum information processing.
It was realized that non-Gaussian resources and operations could be more performant in some quantum protocols such as teleportation \cite{Opat,Paris1,Il} and cloning \cite{Cerf1}. To understand to what extent non-Gaussianity could be a resource in such cases, some distance-type measures of this property were proposed \cite{P2,P3} following one of the patterns
\begin{equation}
\delta[\hat \rho] \sim {d}^2(\hat \rho, {\hat \rho}_G) \qquad {\rm or} \qquad \delta[\hat \rho]:={d}(\hat \rho, {\hat \rho}_G), \label{1}
\end{equation}
where ${\hat \rho}_G$ is the Gaussian state having the same average displacement and covariance matrix as the given
state $\hat \rho$.
In Refs.\cite{P2,P3,P33}, Genoni
{\em et al.} employed as distance $d$ the
Hilbert-Schmidt metric and the relative entropy: they defined the
Hilbert-Schmidt measure of non-Gaussianity \cite{P2},
\begin{equation}
\delta_{HS}[\hat \rho]:=\frac{{d}^2_{HS}(\hat \rho, {\hat \rho}_G)}
{2\,{\rm Tr} (\hat \rho^2)}\, , \label{hs}
\end{equation}
as well as the relative entropy of non-Gaussianity \cite{P3},
\begin{equation}\delta_{RE}[\hat \rho]:={\cal S}(\hat \rho|
{\hat \rho}_G):={\rm Tr}(\hat \rho\ln {\hat \rho})
-{\rm Tr}(\hat \rho\ln {\hat \rho}_G). \label{re}
\end{equation}
Interestingly, non-Gaussianity in terms of relative entropy \cite{P3} was experimentally measured for single-photon added coherent states \cite{P4}.
Another approach to non-Gaussianity was based on $Q$ function and lead to a measure expressed by the difference between the classical (Wehrl) entropies of the Gaussian state ${\hat \rho}_G$ and the given non-Gaussian state $\hat \rho$ \cite{Simon}.
In this paper we introduce a measure of non-Gaussianity
of a single-mode state $\hat \rho$ in terms of its Bures distance to the Gaussian state ${\hat \rho}_G$ having the same first-
and second-order moments of the canonical quadrature operators.
In other words, our definition is of the type \ (\ref{1}) and uses a well-known metric related to the fidelity between two quantum states \cite{Uhl}. Fidelity-based metrics have proven to be fruitful in quantum optics and quantum information as measures of nonclassicality \cite{PTH02}, entanglement \cite{PTH,PTHa,PTHb},
and polarization \cite{Bj,Bja,lu,OC,IGPT}. We also intend to compare the three above-mentioned distance-type measures in analyzing
the non-Gaussianity for a definite class of one-mode states.
The plan of our paper is as follows. In Sec. 2 we introduce and examine the Bures degree of non-Gaussianity. We insist on its advantageous form for pure states and for mixed ones
that are diagonal in the Fock basis. Section 3 investigates an interesting mixed state of this type which is important
for experiments: a thermal state with $M$ added photons.
We here give a compact analytic form of $\delta_{HS}$, while
$\delta_{RE}$ and $\delta_{F}$ are expressed in terms of two series
which have to be summed numerically. Section 4 is devoted to
a discussion of our numerical results, making a comparison
between the three above-mentioned non-Gaussianity measures and analyzing their consistency.
\section{Bures measure of non-Gaussianity}
Following the definition\ (\ref{1}) one can take advantage of the
distinguishability properties possessed by the distance ${d}$ in order to get reliable values for non-Gaussianity. For further convenience we write down the previously defined degrees \cite{P2,P3}. On the one hand, Eq.\ (\ref{hs}) gives an easily computable
expression:
\begin{equation}
\delta_{HS}[\hat \rho]=\frac{{\rm Tr } [(\hat \rho-\hat \rho_G)^2]}{2 {\rm Tr } (\hat \rho^2)}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\frac{{\rm Tr } (\hat \rho_G^2)-2 {\rm Tr} (\hat \rho_G \hat \rho)}{{\rm Tr } (\hat \rho^2)}\right]. \label{hs1}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, despite its not being a true distance,
the relative entropy is acceptable and used as a measure of distinguishability between two quantum states. Moreover, recall that
the relative entropy of non-Gaussianity, Eq.\ (\ref{re}),
reduces to
\begin{equation}
\delta_{RE}[\hat \rho]={\cal S}(\hat \rho_G)-{\cal S}(\hat \rho),
\label{re1}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal S}(\hat \rho):=-{\rm Tr}(\hat \rho\ln {\hat \rho})$
is the von Neumann entropy of the state $\hat \rho$.
Invariance properties of the degrees \ (\ref{hs1}) and \ (\ref{re1})
were discussed in detail in Refs.\cite{P2,P3,P33}.
We now define a fidelity-based degree of non-Gaussianity
\begin{equation}
\delta_{F}[\hat \rho]:=\frac{1}{2}\;{d}^2_{B}(\hat \rho, {\hat \rho}_G)=1-\sqrt{{\cal F}(\hat \rho,\hat \rho_G )}. \label{bu}
\end{equation}
The explicit expression of the fidelity between the states
$\hat \rho_1$ and $\hat \rho_2$ was written by Uhlmann \cite{Uhl}:
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}(\hat \rho_1, \hat \rho_2 )=\left\{{\rm Tr}
[(\sqrt{\hat \rho_1}\hat \rho_2 \sqrt{\hat \rho_1})^{1/2}]\right\}^2.\label{F}
\end{equation}
As seen in Eq.\ (\ref{bu}), fidelity is tightly related to the Bures
metric ${d}_{B}$ introduced in Ref.\cite{Bu} on mathematical grounds. Several general properties of our definition\ (\ref{bu}) are listed below as arising from well-known beneficial features of the fidelity \cite{BZ}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The property of the fidelity to vary between $0$ and $1$ implies:
\begin{equation}
\delta_{F}[\hat \rho]=0, \quad {\rm iff} \;\; \hat \rho\;\;
{\rm is}\;\; {\rm Gaussian}, \label{p1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
0<\delta_{F}[\hat \rho] \leq 1,\quad {\rm otherwise}. \label{p11}
\end{equation}
\item
If at least one of the states is pure, Eq.\ (\ref{F}) reduces to the usual transition probability ${\rm Tr}(\hat \rho_1 \,\hat \rho_2)$.
Correspondingly, the Bures degree of non-Gaussianity\ (\ref{bu})
of a pure state $|\Psi \rangle \langle \Psi|$ is
\begin{equation}
\delta_{F}[|\Psi\rangle\langle \Psi|]= 1-\sqrt{\langle \Psi|\hat \rho_G|\Psi \rangle}. \label{pure}
\end{equation}
\item
As shown in Refs.\cite{P2,P3,P33}, when $\hat U$ are the unitary operators of the metaplectic representation on the Hilbert space
of states, then
$ \hat \rho^{\prime}=\hat U \hat \rho \hat U^{\dag} \Longrightarrow (\hat \rho^{\prime})_G=\hat U \hat \rho_G \hat U^{\dag}$
and, therefore, according to the invariance of the fidelity under unitary transformations we obtain the identity
\begin{equation}
\delta_{F}[\hat U \hat \rho \hat U^{\dag}]=\delta_{F}[\hat \rho].
\label{p2}
\end{equation}
It follows that $\delta_{F}[\hat \rho]$ does not depend on
one-mode squeezing and displacement operations.
\item
The multiplicativity property of the fidelity has an interesting consequence on our definition\ (\ref{bu}) for a two-mode product
state $\hat \rho_1\otimes \hat \rho_2$. Indeed, if $\hat \rho_2$
is a Gaussian state, we get
${\cal F}(\hat \rho_1 \otimes \hat \rho_2, (\hat \rho_1)_G \otimes \hat \rho_2)=
{\cal F}(\hat \rho_1, (\hat \rho_1)_G)$ and therefore
\begin{equation}
\delta_{F}[\hat \rho_1 \otimes \hat \rho_2]=\delta_{F}[\hat \rho_1].\label{p3}
\end{equation}
\item
For commuting density operators, $[\hat \rho_1,\hat \rho_2]=\hat 0$,
Eq.\ (\ref{F}) simplifies to
\begin{equation}{\cal F}(\hat \rho_1, \hat \rho_2)=[{\rm Tr}({\hat \rho_1}^{1/2}
{\hat \rho_2}^{1/2})]^2. \label{p4}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
Let us now remark that the properties\ (\ref{p1}) and\ (\ref{p11}) justify the interpretation of $\delta_{F}[\hat \rho] $ as a degree of non-Gaussianity. At the same time, properties \ (\ref{p1}),\ (\ref{p2}), and\ (\ref{p3}) of $\delta_{F}[\hat \rho] $ are shared by the non-Gaussianity measures\ (\ref{hs1}) and\ (\ref{re1}) as well \cite{P33}. Note that we do not discuss here the evolution of the
non-Gaussianity of a state under a completely positive map which is expected to be a monotonic one in the cases of the relative-entropy- and fidelity-based degrees \cite{BZ}.
How well these measures discriminate between quantum states in order to be declared good measures of non-Gaussiannity is a complicated question which was already invoked when discussing distance-type measures of non-classicality \cite{PTH02} or entanglement \cite{PTH}. It is desirable that, for a specific family of non-Gaussian states, any distance-type
degree has a monotonic behaviour with respect to the continuous parameters defining the set of states. In the case of one-mode states,
we adopt as a
reasonable criterion to verify the appropriateness of the non-Gaussianity measures \ (\ref{hs1}),\ (\ref{re1}), and\ (\ref{bu}), their monotonic behaviour with respect to the average photon number
of the state $\langle \hat N\rangle$. Another property that one could expect for the three measures is their consistency, namely, their quality to induce the same ordering of non-Gaussianity when considering a specific set of states. It was already shown that relative entropy and Hilbert-Schmidt measures display different ordering for Schr\"odinger cat-like states \cite{P33}. However, conclusions on such important aspects of distance-type degrees
of non-Gaussianity cannot be drawn in general, but only for special sets of states. This happens because obtaining compact analytic results is a task that requires diagonalization of the density operator $\hat \rho$ followed by the exact summation of the corresponding power series. Evaluation of $\delta_{HS}[\hat \rho]$ seems to be easier than that of both $\delta_{RE}[\hat \rho]$
and $\delta_{F}[\hat \rho]$. As a matter of fact,
Uhlmann's expression\ (\ref{F}) is not easy to calculate even on finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. We refer the reader to a recent paper of two of us \cite{PT2012} where the state of the art in evaluating fidelity in the continuous-variable settings is presented.
However, there are some important sets of states for which we can get explicit and relevant results.
In the following we concentrate on such two computable cases.
First, for pure states, Eq.\ (\ref{pure}) shows that $\delta_{F}$ is state-dependent. This is equally true for $\delta_{HS}$:
\begin{equation}\delta_{HS}[|\Psi\rangle\langle \Psi|]
=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\Tr (\hat \rho_G^2)
-2 \langle\Psi|\hat \rho_G|\Psi\rangle\right]. \label{hsp}
\end{equation}
Indeed, in order to evaluate $\delta_{F}$ and $\delta_{HS}$, we need
to determine the reference Gaussian density operator $\hat \rho_G$ and its expectation value in the pure state $|\Psi \rangle\langle \Psi|$. By contrast, the entropic non-Gaussianity measure\ (\ref{re1})
of any pure state is a unique function of a single variable, namely, the determinant of the $2\times 2$ covariance matrix of the state,
$\Delta:=\det (\cal V)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{RE}[|\Psi \rangle\langle \Psi|]=\left( \sqrt{\Delta}+
\frac{1}{2} \right)\ln{\left (\sqrt{\Delta}+\frac{1}{2}\right)}
-\left( \sqrt{\Delta}-
\frac{1}{2} \right)\ln{\left (\sqrt{\Delta}-\frac{1}{2} \right)}. \nonumber\\
\label{rep}
\end{eqnarray}
It is worth mentioning, however, that the Fock states are the only
pure states for which both the Bures and Hilbert-Schmidt degrees
of non-Gaussianity\ (\ref{pure}) and\ (\ref{hsp}) depend solely
on the parameter $\Delta$. Let us consider a number state
$|M \rangle\langle M|$. The associated Gaussian state ${\hat \rho}_G$ is a thermal one with the mean occupancy $\langle \hat N \rangle=M$.
Equations\ (\ref{pure}) and\ (\ref{hsp}) give, respectively,
the formulae:
\begin{equation}
\delta_{F}[|M\rangle\langle M|]=1-\sqrt{\frac{M^{M}}
{(M+1)^{M+1}}}, \label{MB}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\delta_{HS}[|M\rangle\langle M|]=\frac{M+1}{2M+1}-\frac{M^{M}}
{(M+1)^{M+1}}, \label{MHS}
\end{equation}
with $\sqrt{\Delta}=M+\frac{1}{2}$. Note that Eq.\ (\ref{MHS})
was already derived in Ref.\cite{P2}. Owing to the invariance
property\ (\ref{p2}), the expression\ (\ref{MB}) coincides with
the Bures degree of non-Gaussianity of squeezed or/and displaced number states.
Second, for any mixed Fock-diagonal state,
\begin{equation}
\hat \rho=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty} p_l \,
|l\rangle \langle l| \quad {\rm with} \quad
\sum_{l=0}^{\infty} p_l=1, \label{diag}
\end{equation}
the Gaussian reference state $\hat \rho_G$ is a thermal state
with the same mean occupancy $\langle \hat N \rangle=\sum_l l\,p_l$. We denote $\sigma:=\langle \hat N \rangle/(\langle \hat N \rangle+1)$ and write its spectral expansion:
\begin{equation}
\hat \rho_G=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty} s_l \,
|l\rangle \langle l| \quad {\rm with} \quad
s_l =\frac{1}{\langle \hat N \rangle+1}\, \sigma^l. \label{diag1}
\end{equation}
The corresponding Hilbert-Schmidt and entropic non-Gaussianity
measures were written in Refs.\cite{P2,P3}. For further use,
we cast the Hilbert-Schmidt measure\ (\ref{hs1}) into a slightly modified form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{HS}[\hat \rho]&=&\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\frac{\sum_{l}(s_l^2-2 s_l\,p_l) }{\sum_{l}p_l^2}\right]\nonumber\\ &&=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\frac{1}{\sum_{l}p_l^2}\left(\frac{1}{2\langle \hat N
\rangle+1}-\frac{2}{\langle \hat N \rangle+1}
{\cal G}_{\hat \rho}(\sigma) \right) \right]. \label{hs2}
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have used the purity of the thermal state $\hat \rho_G$ arising from Eq.\ (\ref{diag1}), while
${\cal G}_{\hat \rho}(y):=\sum_{l} p_l\, y^l$ is the generating function of the photon-number distribution of the given state
$\hat \rho$. The relative entropy of non-Gaussianity,
Eq.\ (\ref{re}), simplifies to:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{RE}[\hat \rho]&=&\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(p_l\, \ln{p_l}
-s_l\,\ln{s_l})\nonumber\\ && =\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}p_l\ln{p_l}
+(\langle \hat N \rangle+1)\ln (\langle \hat N \rangle+1)
-\langle \hat N \rangle\ln (\langle \hat N \rangle). \label{re2}
\end{eqnarray}
In the last line we have used the von Neumann entropy of a thermal state. In this special case we notice the commutation relation
$[\hat \rho,\hat \rho_G]=\hat 0$,
which allows us the use of Eq.\ (\ref{p4}) to get
\begin{equation}
\delta_{F}[\hat \rho]=1-\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\sqrt{ p_l\, s_l}.
\label{diag2}
\end{equation}
Note that some important mixed non-Gaussian states have the structure\ (\ref{diag}): phase-averaged coherent states and various
excitations on a thermal state of the type $\hat \rho \sim (\hat a^{\dag})^k \hat a^l \hat \rho_{th}
(\hat a^{\dag})^l \hat a^k $. Here $\hat a$ and $\hat a^{\dag}$ are the amplitude operators of the field mode.
\section{An example: Photon-added thermal states}
In general, the states with added photons are non-classical and non-Gaussian. We choose here to analyze an $M$-photon-added thermal state \cite{AT,JL} as an interesting example of a Fock-diagonal state whose non-classicality was recently investigated in ingenious
experiments \cite{bel,bel1,Kis}. Its density operator is
\begin{equation}
\hat \rho^{(M)}=\frac{1}{M!\, (\bar n+1)^M}\, (\hat a^\dagger )^M\, \hat \rho_{th}\, \hat a^M. \label{PATS}
\end{equation}
Here $M$ is the number of added photons and $\hat \rho_{th}$ is a thermal state whose mean number of photons is denoted by $\bar n$:
\begin{equation}
\hat \rho_{th}=(1-x)\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\, x^l \, |l\rangle \langle l| \quad {\rm with} \quad
x:=\frac{\bar n}{\bar{n}+1}. \label{diag3}
\end{equation}
Accordingly, the density operator $\hat \rho^{(M)}$,
Eq.\ (\ref{PATS}), has the following eigenvalues:
\begin{eqnarray}
p_l:=(\hat \rho^{(M)})_{ll}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
l\\ M
\end{array}
\right)(1-x)^{M+1}{x}^{l-M}, \qquad (l=0,1,2,3,...). \label{pl}
\end{eqnarray}
The mean occupancy is simply
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \hat N \rangle=\bar n (M+1)+M, \label{mo}
\end{eqnarray}
such that the photon-number probabilities of the associated thermal state read:
\begin{eqnarray}
s_l:=(\hat \rho_G^{(M)})_{ll}=\frac{[\bar n (M+1)+M]^l}
{[(M+1)(\bar n+1)]^{l+1}}\, , \qquad (l=0,1,2,3,...). \label{sl}
\end{eqnarray}
The generating function
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal G}_{\hat \rho}(y)
:=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty} p_l\, y^l ={y^M}{(1-x)^{M+1}}
\sum_{l=M}^{\infty} \left(
\begin{array}{c}
l\\ M
\end{array}
\right) (x y)^{l-M} \label{gf}
\end{eqnarray}
has a compact form:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal G}_{\hat \rho}(y)={y^M}\left(\frac{1-x}{1-x y}\right)^{M+1}
\label{gf1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, the Hilbert-Schmidt scalar product of the states
$\hat \rho^{(M)}$ and $\hat \rho_G^{(M)}$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\Tr \left[\hat \rho^{(M)} \hat \rho_G^{(M)}\right]
=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\, p_l\, s_l
=\frac{{\langle \hat N \rangle}^M}{(\langle \hat N
\rangle+\bar n+1)^{M+1}}. \label{rg}
\end{eqnarray}
We have still to evaluate the purity of the state
$\hat \rho^{(M)}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Tr \left[(\hat \rho^{(M)})^2\right]=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\, {p_l}^2
=(1-x)^{2(M+1)}\sum_{l=M}^{\infty} \left(
\begin{array}{c}
l\\ M
\end{array}
\right)^2 x^{2(l-M)}. \label{pl2}
\end{eqnarray}
A change of the summation index in Eq.\ (\ref{pl2}) leads us to
a closed-form result proportional to a Gauss hypergeometric function, Eq.\ (\ref{a1}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\Tr \left[(\hat \rho^{(M)})^2\right]
=(1-x)^{2(M+1)}{_{2}F_{1}}(M+1, M+1; 1 ; x^2). \label{pl3}
\end{eqnarray}
By applying the linear transformation\ (\ref{a2}), we eventually get
the purity as a function of the ratio $x$, in terms of
a Legendre polynomial\ (\ref{a3}):
\begin{eqnarray}\Tr \left[(\hat \rho^{(M)})^2\right]
=\left(\frac{1-x}{1+x}\right)^{M+1}
{\cal P}_M\left(\frac{1+x^2}{1-x^2}\right). \label{pl4}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the Legendre polynomial in Eq.\ (\ref{pl4}) is strictly positive because its argument is at least equal to 1.
Insertion of Eqs.\ (\ref{rg}) and \ (\ref{pl4})
into Eq.\ (\ref{hs1}) yields the compact formula
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{HS}[\hat \rho^{(M)}]&=&\frac{1}{2}+
\left(\frac{1+x}{1-x}\right)^{M+1}\frac{1}{{\cal P}_M\left(\frac{1+x^2}{1-x^2}\right)}
\left[\frac{1}{4\langle \hat N \rangle+2}-\frac{{\langle \hat N \rangle}^M}{(\langle \hat N
\rangle+\bar n+1)^{M+1}}\right],\nonumber \\
\label{hsf}
\end{eqnarray}
with the mean occupancy $\langle \hat N \rangle$ given by
Eq.\ (\ref{mo}).
The situation is different for both the entropic and Bures
non-Gaussianity measures. Making use of the photon-number
probabilities\ (\ref{pl}) and\ (\ref{sl}) in Eqs.\ (\ref{re2})
and\ (\ref{diag2}), we established noncompact formulae for the relative entropy and the Bures degree of non-Gaussianity.
Each of their expressions includes a power series which has to be summed numerically. We further computed numerically these two expressions as one-parameter functions of a single variable for several values of the parameter.
Long ago, Agarwal and Tara \cite{AT} examined the non-classicality
of the state\ (\ref{PATS}) by writing its non-positive
$P$ representation and Mandel's $Q$-factor. Non-Gaussianity of this state was recently evaluated in Ref.\cite{Simon} by employing the Wehrl entropy-measure and found to be equal to the non-Gaussianity
of the number state $|M\rangle \langle M|$, being thus independent
of the thermal mean occupancy $\bar n$. This is a consequence
of an invariance property
of the Wehrl entropy under a uniform phase-space scaling
of the $Q$ function
of the state.
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
On physical grounds, we expect that a good measure
of non-Gaussianity has a monotonic behaviour
with respect to the mean photon number $\langle \hat N\rangle$ and,
in turn, to the parameters entering its expression. It is quite clear that the non-Gaussianity measures\ (\ref{hsf}),\ (\ref{re2}),
and\ (\ref{diag2}) depend on the thermal mean occupancy $\bar n$, unlike the Wehrl-entropy measure \cite{Simon}.
Our analytic formula, Eq.\ (\ref{hsf}), led us to accurate values
for the Hilbert-Schmidt degree of non-Gaussianity.
In Fig. 1 we plot the three distance-type measures as functions of the parameter $x$ for several values of the number $M$ of added photons. It is interesting that the three measures of non-Gaussianity
$\delta_{HS}$, $\delta_{RE}$, and $\delta_F$ decrease monotonically with $x$. We did not find any extrema of these functions in contrast with Figs. 3 and 4
in Ref.\cite{Simon}.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{hs-x.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{entr-rel-x.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{bures-x.eps}
\caption{Dependence of the distance-type non-Gaussianity on the thermal
parameter $x$ for $M$-photon-added thermal states with $M=1,3,5,10$ (from bottom to top). }
\label{fig-1}
\end{figure*}
The variation of non-Gaussianity with the number $M$ of added photons
is shown in Fig. 2 for several values of the thermal mean occupancy.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{hs-exact-M.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{entr-rel-M.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{bures-M.eps}
\caption{Dependence of the distance-type non-Gaussianity on the number of added photons. All the plots start from origin. We have used $\bar n=0.1, 1, 2, 5$ (from top to bottom)}
\label{fig-2}
\end{figure*}
Besides showing a monotonic dependence on both parameters $\bar n$
and $M$, Figs. 1 and 2 seem to display a consistent
relation between the three non-Gaussianity measures involved.
To better outline this aspect and inspired by Ref.\cite{P33},
we plot in Fig. 3 their mutual dependences
when the parameter $x$ varies on its domain $x \in [0,1]$ at the same
values of the number $M$ of added photons as in Fig.1. We can see
that consistency is not present for all values of the parameters, especially in the dependence $\delta_F-\delta_{HS}$.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{RE-HS.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{bures-hs.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{bures-RE.eps}
\caption{Mutual dependence of the distance-type non-Gaussianity measures \ (\ref{hsf}),\ (\ref{re2}) and\ (\ref{diag2}) for
$M=1,3,5,10$ (from top to bottom). We have used $\bar n\in[0,1]$. }
\label{fig-3}
\end{figure*}
To conclude, in this paper we have introduced the Bures degree
of non-Gaussianity built with Uhlmann's fidelity between the given state and its associated Gaussian one.
We have then investigated the behaviour of three distance-type measures of non-Gaussianity for an $M$-photon-added thermal state as functions of the variables $M$ and $\bar n$. We have found
adequate monotonic dependences of $\delta_{HS}$, $\delta_{RE}$,
and $\delta_F$ on both parameters $M$ and $\bar n$. This is displayed by Figs. 1 (as a function of the thermal mean occupancy) and 2 (as a function of the number of added photons).
Although very different as geometric significance, the three measures seem to give consistent results by inducing the same ordering of non-Gaussianity. Figure 3 shows a very good consistency between
$\delta_{RE}$ and $\delta_{HS}$ (left plot) and between $\delta_F$ and $\delta_{RE}$ (right plot). We also notice that the plots corresponding to different numbers $M$ of added photons are
very close for all mutual dependences.
\ack{This work was supported by the Romanian National Authority
for Scientific Research through Grant IDEI-1012/2011 for the University of Bucharest.}
|
\section{\label{sec:level1}First-level heading}
Under-coordinated water molecules refer to those with fewer than the ideal four neighbors as in the bulk of water \cite{kuhne13}. They occur in terminated hydrogen-bonded networks, in the skin of a large volume of water and in the gaseous state, and exhibit even more fascinating behavior than fully-coordinated ones \cite{liu96,ludwig01,michaelides07,turi05,verlet05,hammer04,gregory97,keutsch01,perez12}. For example, water droplets encapsulated in hydrophobic nanopores \citep{lakhanpal53,li12} and ultrathin water films on graphite, silica, and some metals \cite{michaelides07,xu10,miranda98,mcbride11,hodgson09,meng04,wang09} behave like ice at room temperature, i.e. such under-coordinated water molecules melt at a temperature higher than the melting point of water in bulk. (Empirically, the melting point is the temperature at which the vibration amplitude of an atom is increased abruptly to more than $3\%$ of its diameter \cite{omar93,lindemann10}.) More interestingly, the monolayer film of water is hydrophobic \cite{wang09,james11}.
\\
\indent
Molecular under-coordination enlarges the O1s core-level shift and causes a blue-shift of the H-O phonon frequency ($\omega_H$) of bulk water. The O1s level energy is 536.6 eV in the bulk of water \cite{winter07}, 538.1 eV in the surface of water and 539.8 eV in gaseous molecules \cite{abu09}. The $\omega_H$ phonon frequency has a peak centered at 3200 $cm^{-1}$ for the bulk, 3475 and 3450 $cm^{-1}$ for the surfaces of water and ice \cite{kahan07} and 3650 $cm^{-1}$ for gaseous molecules \cite{ceponkus12,shen06,buch04}. Such abnormal behaviors of electronic binding energy and phonon stiffness of under-coordinated water molecules are associated with a $5.9\%$ expansion of the surface O--O distance at room temperature \cite{liu96,abu08,wilson01,wilson02,lenz10}. In addition, the volume of water molecules confined to 5.1 and 2.8 nm TiO$_2$ pores increase by 4 and $7.5\%$, respectively, with respect to that in bulk \cite{solveyra13}.
\\
\indent
Achieving a consistent understanding of these anomalies caused by molecular under-coordination remains a great challenge. In this article, we meet this challenge with a union of Goldschmidt, Feibelman and Paulings' (GFP) “under-coordination-induced atomic radius contraction” \cite{pauling47,goldschmidt27,feibelman96}, Anderson's ``strong localization'' \cite{abrahams79}, and our “O:H-O hydrogen bond” approach \cite{sun12}. Based on this framework, we show that under-coordination-induced GFP H-O bond contraction and the inter-electron-pair Coulomb repulsion dictate the observed attributes of enlarged O1s core-level and Raman frequency shifts, volume expansion, charge entrapment and polarization, as well as the “ice-like and hydrophobicity” nature of such water molecules at room temperature \cite{suppinfo}.
\\
\indent
Fig.\ref{fig1} illustrates the basic structural unit of the segmented ``O$^{\delta -}$:H$^{\delta +}$-O$^{\delta -}$" hydrogen bond (O:H-O will be used for simplicity) between under-coordinated water molecues \cite{sun12,suppinfo}. The ``:'' represents the electron lone pair of the sp$^3$-hybridized oxygen. $\delta$ is a fraction that denotes the polarity of the H-O polar-covalent bond and is determined by the difference in electronegativity of O and H. The hydrogen bond comprises both the O:H van der Waals (vdW) bond and the H-O polar-covalent bond, as opposed to either of them alone. The H-O bond is much shorter, stronger, and stiffer (0.1 nm, 4.0 eV, 3000 $cm^{-1}$) than the O:H bond (0.2 nm, 0.1 eV, 200 $cm^{-1}$)\cite{sunPRLrev}. The bond energy characterizes the bond strength while the vibration frequency characterizes the bond stiffness. In addition to the short-range interactions within the O:H and the H-O segments, Coulomb repulsion between the bonding electron pair ``-'' and the nonbonding electron lone pair ``:'' (the pair of dots on O in Fig.\ref{fig1}) is of vital importance to the relaxation of the O:H-O bond angle-length-stiffness under external stimulus \cite{sun12,sunPRLrev}.
\\
\indent
In combination with the forces of Coulomb repulsion ($f_q$) and resistance to deformation ($f_{rx}$), each of the force $f_{dx}$ ($x = L$ represents the O:H and $x = H$ the H-O bond) can drive the hydrogen bond to relax. The two oxygen atoms involved in the O:H-O bond will move in the same direction simultaneously, but by different amounts with respect to the H atom that serves as the point of reference (Fig.\ref{fig1}).
\vspace{-0.8em}
\begin{figure}[!hbtp]
\includegraphics[width=2.8in,trim=150 230 250 160, clip]{fig_1}
\caption{Forces of inter-electron-pair (pairing dots) Coulomb repulsion $f_q$, restoring of deformation $f_{rx}$, and under-coordination-induced bond contraction $f_{dx}$ as well as the direction and degree of displacement for each O atom (in red) with respect to the H atom as the coordination origin. Subscript $L$ and $H$ represents the O:H and the H-O segment of the O:H-O hydrogen bond, respectively.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-0.5em}
According to Goldschmidt \cite{goldschmidt27}, Feibelman \cite{feibelman96} and Pauling \cite{pauling47}, the radius of an atom shrinks once its coordination number (CN) is reduced. If the atomic CN is reduced relative to the standard of 12 in the bulk (for an $fcc$ structure) to 8, 6, 4, and 2, the radius will contract by 3, 4, 12, and 30$\%$, respectively \cite{goldschmidt27,feibelman96}. Furthermore, the bond contraction will be associated with a deepening of the inter-atomic potential well, or an increase of the bond energy \cite{sun07}, according to the general rule of energy minimization during the spontaneous process of relaxation. In other words, bonds between under-coordinated atoms become shorter and stronger. Such a bond order-length-strength (BOLS) correlation is formulated as follows \cite{sun07}:
\vspace{-1.0em}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
C_z = \frac{d_z}{d_b} = 2 \left[1+ \exp(\frac{12-z}{8z}) \right]^{-1} \\
C_z^{-m} = \frac{E_z}{E_b}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\vspace{-0.2em}
\noindent
where $m$ ($= 4$ for water \cite{zhao07}) relates the bond energy $E_z$ change with the bond length $d_z$. The subscript $z$ denotes the number of neighbors that an atom has, and $b$ denotes an atom in the bulk. Fig.\ref{fig2a} illustrates the coefficients of the bond contraction $(C_z - 1)$ \cite{sun07} and \ref{fig2b} the potential-well deepening $(C_z^{-m} - 1)$ due to bond contraction.
\floatsetup[figure]{style=plain,subcapbesideposition=top}
\begin{figure*}[!hbtp]
\sidesubfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=2.1in, trim=35 25 60 80, clip]{fig_2a}\label{fig2a}}
\sidesubfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=2.1in, trim=35 25 120 50, clip]{fig_2b}\label{fig2b}}
\vspace{-0.8em}
\caption{BOLS corelation and nonbonding electron polarization (NEP, P) \cite{sun10,sun07}. (a) Bond order (CN) loss shortens and stengthens the bond, which causes core electron densification and entrapment ($T$) or potential well deepening. The binding energy of the core and bonding electrons will shift as the potential-well deepens. The densely entrapped core electrons in turn polarize the weakly bound nonbonding (lone pair) electrons ($P$), raising their energy closer to Fermi energy E$_f$.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure*}
On the other hand, bond order (CN) loss causes a localization of electrons, according to Anderson \cite{abrahams79}. The bond contraction raises the local density of electrons in the core bands and electrons shared in the bonds. The electron binding energy in the core band will shift accordingly as the potential-well deepens (called entrapment, T). The densification and entrapment of the core and bonding electrons in turn polarize the nonbonding electrons (lone pair in this case), raising their energy closer to $E_F$, see Fig.\ref{fig2b} \cite{sun10}.
However, molecular clusters, surface skins, and ultrathin films of water may not follow the BOLS precisely. An isolation of each H$_2$O molecule by the surrounding four lone pairs differentiates water’s response to the under-coordination effect from other materials. The binding energy difference between the O:H and H-O and the presence of the inter-electron-pair repulsion define the H-O covalent bond to be the ``master'' that contracts to a smaller degree than which Eq.\ref{eq1} predicts. The contraction of the H-O bond lengthens and softens the ``slave'' O:H bond by the repulsion.
Because of the difference in stiffness between the O:H and the H-O segments \cite{sun12}, the softer O:H segment always relaxes more in length than the stiffer H-O covalent bond does: $|\Delta d_L|$$>$$|\Delta d_H|$. Meanwhile, the repulsion further polarizes the electron pairs during relaxation, which increases the viscosity of water.
The relatively weaker O:H interaction contributes insignificantly to the Hamiltonian and its related properties, such as the core-level shift. However, the O:H bond length-stiffness relaxation determines the vibration frequency of the O:H phonons ($\omega_L$$<$300 cm$^{-1}$) \cite {sun12} and the energy for freezing a water molecule from a liquid state and the surface tension of liquid water \cite{zhao07}.
The stiffening of the H-O bond increases the O1s core level shift, $\Delta E_{1s}$, elevates the critical temperature $T_C$ for phase transition, and increases the H-O phonon frequency $\omega_H$ according to the following relations \cite{sun04,sun05,sun06}:
\vspace{-1.0em}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq2}
\left.
\begin{array}{l}
T_c \\
\Delta E_{1s} \\
\Delta \omega_x
\end{array}
\right\}
\propto
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
E_H\\
E_H\\
\frac{\sqrt{E_x}}{d_x} = \sqrt{Y_x d_x}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\vspace{-0.2em}
\noindent
E$_x$ is the cohesive energy of the respective bond ($x=L$ or $H$). Theoretical reproduction of the critical temperature $T_C$ for ice VII-VIII phase transition under compression confirmed that the H-O bond energy determines the $T_C$ \cite{sun12}. The shift of the O1s binding energy from that of an isolated oxygen atom is also proportional to the H-O bond energy \cite{sun04}. Furthermore, the phonon frequency shift is proportional to the square root of the bond stiffness, which is the product of the Young's modulus ($Y_x \propto E_x d_x^{-3}$) and the bond length \cite{sun12,sunPRLrev}.
The slight shortening of the H-O covalent bond and the significant lengthening of the O:H interaction result in the O:H-O bond elongation and molecular volume expansion. Further polarization and an increase in the elasticity and viscosity of the molecules will occur. For a molecular cluster of a given size, the BOLS effect becomes more significant as one moves away from the center. The smaller the molecular cluster, the stronger the BOLS effect will be, because of the higher fraction of under-coordinated molecules. Therefore, we expect that molecular clusters, ultrathin films, and the skin of the bulk of water could form an ice-like, low-density phase that is stiffer, hydrophobic, and thermally more stable compared to the bulk liquid.
In order to verify our hypotheses and predictions as discussed above, we calculated the angle-length-stiffness relaxation dynamics of the O:H-O bond and the total binding energy of water clusters as a function of the number of molecules $N$. Structural optimizations of (H$_2$O)$_N$ clusters were performed using Perdew and Wangs' Dmol3 code (PW) \cite{perdew92} based on the general gradient approximation (GGA) and the dispersion-corrected OBS(PW) method \cite{ortmann06}, with the inclusion of hydrogen bonding and vdW interactions. The all-electron method was used to approximate the wave functions with a double numeric and polarization basis sets. The self-consistency threshold of total energy was set at $10^{-6}$ Hartree. In the structural optimization, the tolerance limits for the energy, force, and displacement were set at $10^{-5}$ Hartree, 0.002 Hartree/$\AA$ and $0.005 \AA$, respectively. Harmonic vibrational frequencies were computed by diagonalizing the mass-weighted Hessian matrix \cite{wilson80}.
\begin{figure}[!hbtp]
\includegraphics[width=2.8in, trim=0 0 0 15, clip]{fig_3}
\vspace{-0.6em}
\caption{Cluster size dependence of the O:H-O segmental lengths in the (H$_2$O)$_N$ clusters. The bond length was optimized using the PW \cite{perdew92} and the OBS(PW) \cite{ortmann06} methods. $N=6$ gives the three``cage'', ``book'', and ``prism'' hexamer structures, all with nearly identical binding energy \cite{perez12}.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ref{fig3} shows the segment lengths of the O:H-O as a function of (H$_2$O)$_N$ cluster size ($N$). Results optmized using the PW and the OBS algorithms exhibit the same trend of $N$-dependence. This comparison confirms that: 1) molecular CN-reduction shortens the H-O bond and lengthens the O:H, and 2) the shortening (lengthening) of the H-O bond is always coupled with the lengthening (shortening) of the O:H, independent of the algorithm.
As the $N$ is reduced from 24 (an approximation of the number of molecules in bulk water) to two (a dimer), the H-O bond contracts by $4\%$ from 0.101 nm to 0.097 nm and the O:H bond expands by $17\%$ from 0.158 to 0.185 nm, according to the OBS derivatives. This gives a $13\%$ expansion of O--O distance, which is a significant amount for the dimer. The O:H and H-O length profiles are non-monotonic because of different effective CNs in different structures \cite{suppinfo}. The monotonic O:H and H-O relaxation profiles for $N$$\leq$6 will be discussed in the subsequent sections without influencing the generality of conclusions.
\floatsetup[figure]{style=plain,subcapbesideposition=top}
\begin{figure}[!hbtp]
\sidesubfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=1.6in, height=2.0in, trim=0 0 0 20, clip]{fig_4a}\label{fig4a}}\\
\sidesubfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=3.0in, height=1.6in, keepaspectratio]{fig_4b}\label{fig4b}}
\caption{(a) Size dependence of the phonon spectra of (H$_2$O)$_N$ clusters ($N \leq 6$). (b) The calculated (solid line) $\omega_H$ blue-shift has a similar trend as the measured frequencies (scattered data) of the H-O phonons of (H$_2$O)$_N$, shown as Exp-1 \cite{cross37}, Exp-2 \cite{qsun09}, Exp-3 \cite{ceponkus12}, and Exp-4 \cite{hirabayashi06}. Measurements of the $\omega_L$ redshift are not presently available due to experimental limitations.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ref{fig4a} shows the $N$ dependence of the (H$_2$O)$_N$ vibration spectra. As expected, the stiffer $\omega_H$ ($>2700$ $cm^{-1}$) experiences a blue-shift while the softer $\omega_L$ undergoes a red-shift as the $N$ is reduced. The $\omega_L$ shifts from 250 to 180 $cm^{-1}$ as the (H$_2$O)$_6$ becomes a dimer (H$_2$O)$_2$. The O:H-O bending mode (400-1000 $cm^{-1}$) shifts slightly but the H-O-H bending mode ($\approx$ 1600 $cm^{-1}$) remains the same. The calculated $\omega_H$ blue-shift in Fig.\ref{fig4b} agrees with that measured in molecular clusters \cite{ceponkus12,buch04,qsun09,hirabayashi06,pradzynski12} and in ice and water surfaces \cite{kahan07} (see Fig.S1 and S2 \cite{suppinfo}). This consistency validates our predictions regarding the under-coordination-induced asymmetric phonon relaxation dynamics of water molecules.
\\
\indent
Fig.\ref{fig5a} plots the $N$-dependence of the O--O distance derived from Fig.\ref{fig3}. According to our calculations, the O--O distance expands by $8\%$, when the $N$ is reduced from 20 to 3, which is compatible to the value of $5.9\%$ measured in the water surface at $25^\circ C$ \cite{wilson02}. The polarization enhancement of the under-coordinated water molecules \cite{gregory97,yang10} is related to the O--O distance because of the charge conservation of the molecules. As it has been discovered using an ultra-fast liquid jet vacuum ultra-violet photoelectron spectroscopy \cite{siefermann10}, the dissociation energy for an electron in solution changes from a bulk value of 3.3 eV to 1.6 eV at the water surface. The dissociation energy, as a proxy of work function and surface polarization, decreases further with molecule cluster size (Fig.S3 in \cite{suppinfo}). These findings verify our predictions on the under-coordination-induced volume expansion and polarization of water molecules. \\
\indent
The polarization of molecules caused by both under-coordination and inter-electron-pair repulsion enhances the elasticity and the viscosity of the skin of water. The high elasticity and the high density of surface dipoles form the essential conditions for the hydrophobicity of a contacting interface \cite{sun09}. Therefore, given our established understanding of high elasticity and polarization in under-coordinated water molecules, it is now clear why the monolayer film of water is hydrophobic \cite{wang09}.
\floatsetup[figure]{style=plain,subcapbesideposition=top}
\begin{figure}[!hbtp]
\sidesubfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=3in, height=1.8in, trim=0 0 0 20, clip, keepaspectratio]{fig_5a}\label{fig5a}}\\
\sidesubfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=3.3in, height=1.8in, keepaspectratio]{fig_5b}\label{fig5b}}
\caption{$N$-dependence of (a) the O--O distance, (b) the melting point, $T_{mN}$, (to $N = 2$ for dimers) and the O1s core-level shift (to $N=1$ for gas monomers) of (H$_2$O)$_N$ clusters based on numerically derived values of $\left(\frac{d_{HN}}{d_{HB}}\right)$ and Eq.\ref{eq2}.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ref{fig5b} shows the predicted $N$-dependence of the melting point ($T_{mN}$) elevation and the O1s energy shift ($\Delta E_{1sN}$). According to Eq.\ref{eq2}, both $T_{mN}$ and $\Delta E_{1sN}$ are proportional to the H-O bond energy in the form of: $\frac{T_{mN}}{T_{mB}}= \frac{\Delta E_{1sN}}{\Delta E_{1sB}} = \frac{E_{HN}}{E_{HB}}=\left(\frac{d_{HN}}{d_{HB}}\right)^{-4}$. Subscript $B$ denotes the bulk. One can derive from the plots that when the $N$ is reduced from a value of infinitely large to two, the $T_{mN}$ will increase by $12\%$ from 273 K to 305 K. It is now clear why the ultrathin water films \cite{michaelides07,xu10,miranda98,mcbride11,hodgson09,meng04,wang09} or water droplets encapsulated in hydrophobic nanopores \cite{lakhanpal53,li12} behave like ice at room temperature. The expected O1s energy shift ($C_z^{-4}-1$) of water clusters also agrees with the trend of the measurements (see Fig.S4 \cite{suppinfo}). For instance, the O1s core level shifts from 538.2 to 538.6 eV and to 539.8 eV, when the water cluster size is reduced from $N = 200$ to 40 and to free water molecules \cite{abu09,bjorneholm99}.
\\
\indent
A hybridization of the GFP H-O bond contraction \cite{pauling47,goldschmidt27,feibelman96,sun07}, Anderson localization \cite{abrahams79,sun10}, and the segmented hydrogen bond premise \cite{sun12,sunPRLrev} has enabled clarification of the observed anomalous behavior of under-coordinated water molecules. Agreement between numerical calculations and experimental observations has verified our hypothesis and predictions:
\\
\indent
i) GFP contraction of the H-O bond and O:H elongation dictate the unusual behaviour of water molecules in the nanoscale O:H-O networks and in the skin of water.
\\
\indent
ii )The shortening of the H-O bond raises the density of the core and bonding electrons in the under-coordinated molecules, which in turn polarizes the nonbonding electron lone pairs on oxygen.
\\
\indent
iii) The stiffening of the H-O bond increases the O1s core-level shift, causes the blue-shift of the H-O phonon frequency, and elavates the melting point of water molecular clusters, surface skins, and ultrathin films of water.
\\
\indent
iv) Under-coordinated water molecules could form an ice-like, low-density phase that is hydrophobic, stiffer, and thermally more stable than the bulk water \cite{liu96,ludwig01}.
Special thanks to Philip Ball, Yi Sun, Buddhudu Srinivasa and John Colligon for their comments and expertise. Financial support from NSF China (Nos.: 21273191, 1033003, 90922025) is gratefully acknowledged.
|
\section{Classes of Functions of Bounded Generalized Variation}
In 1881 Jordan \cite{Jo} introduced a class of functions of bounded
variation and applied it to the theory of Fourier series. Hereafter this
notion was generalized by many authors (quadratic variation, $\Phi
-variation, $\Lambda $-variation ets., see \cite{Ch,Wi,W,M}). In two
dimensional case the class BV of functions of bounded variation was
introduced by Hardy \cite{Ha}.
For an interval $T=[a,b]\subset R$ we denote by $T^d=[a,b]^d$ the
d-dimensional cube in $R^d$.
Consider a function $f\left( x\right) $ defined on $T^{d}$ and a collection
of intervals
\begin{equation*}
J^{k}=\left( a^{k},b^{k}\right) \subset T,\qquad k=1,2,\ldots d.
\end{equation*}
For $d=1$ we set
\begin{equation*}
f\left( J^{1}\right) :=f\left( b^{1}\right) -f\left( a^{1}\right) .
\end{equation*
If for any function of $d-1$ variables the expression $f\left( J^{1}\times
\cdots \times J^{d-1}\right) $ is already defined, then for a function of $d$
variables the \textit{mixed difference} is defined as follows:
\begin{equation*}
f\left( J^{1}\times \cdots \times J^{d}\right) :=f\left( J^{1}\times \cdots
\times J^{d-1},b^{d}\right) -f\left( J^{1}\times \cdots \times
J^{d-1},a^{d}\right) .
\end{equation*}
Let $E=\{I_{k}\}$ be a collection of nonoverlapping intervals from $T$
ordered in arbitrary way and let $\Omega=\Omega(T) $ be the set of all such
collections $E$. We denote by $\Omega _{n}=\Omega_{n}(T)$ set of all
collections of $n$ nonoverlapping intervals $I_{k}\subset T.$
For sequences of positive numbers
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda ^{j}=\{\lambda _{n}^{j}\}_{n=1}^{\infty },\quad
\lim_{n\to\infty}\lambda^j_n=\infty,\quad j=1,2,\ldots ,d,
\end{equation*}
and for a function $f(x)$, $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_d)\in T^d$ the $\left( \Lambda
^{1},\ldots ,\Lambda ^{d}\right) $-\textit{variation of $f$ with respect to
the index set }$D:=\{1,2,...,d\}$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \Lambda ^{1},\ldots ,\Lambda ^{d}\right\} V^{D}\left( f,T^{d}\right)
:=\sup\limits_{\{I_{i_{j}}^{j}\}\in \Omega }\ \sum\limits_{i_{1},...,i_{d}
\frac{\left\vert f\left( I_{i_{1}}^{1}\times \cdots \times
I_{i_{d}}^{d}\right) \right\vert }{\lambda^1 _{i_{1}}\cdots \lambda^d
_{i_{d}}}.
\end{equation*}
For an index set $\alpha =\{j_{1},...,j_{p}\}\subset D$ and any $x=\left(
x_{1},...,x_{d}\right) \in R^{d}$ we set ${\widetilde{\alpha }}:=D\setminus
\alpha $ and denote by $x_{\alpha }$ the vector of $R^{p}$ consisting of
components $x_{j},j\in \alpha $, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
x_{\alpha }=\left( x_{j_{1}},...,x_{j_{p}}\right) \in R^{p}.
\end{equation*}
By
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \Lambda ^{j_{1}},...,\Lambda ^{j_{p}}\right\} V^{{\alpha }}\left(
f,x_{\widetilde{\alpha }},T^d\right) \quad \text {and}\quad f\left(
I_{i_{j_{1}}}^{1}\times \cdots \times I_{i_{j_{p}}}^{p},x_{\widetilde{\alpha
}}\right)
\end{equation*}
we denote respectively the $\left( \Lambda ^{j_{1}},...,\Lambda
^{j_{p}}\right) $-variation over the $p$-dimensional cube $T^{p}$ and mixed
difference of $f$ as a function of variables $x_{^{j_{1}}},...,x_{j_{p}}$
with fixed values $x_{^{\widetilde{\alpha }}}$ of other variables. The
\left( \Lambda ^{j_{1}},...,\Lambda ^{j_{p}}\right) $\textit{-variation of }
f$\textit{\ with respect to the index set} ${\alpha }$ is defined as
follows:
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \Lambda ^{j_{1}},...,\Lambda ^{j_{p}}\right\} V^{{\alpha }}\left(
f,T^{p}\right) =\sup\limits_{x_{^{{\widetilde{\alpha }}}}\in T^{d-p}}\left\{
\Lambda ^{j_{1}},...,\Lambda ^{j_{p}}}\right\}V^{{\alpha }}\left( f,x_{^
\widetilde{\alpha }}},T^{d}\right) .
\end{equation*}
\begin{definition}
We say that the function $f$ has total Bounded $\left( \Lambda
^{1},...,\Lambda ^{d}\right) $-variation on $T^{d}$ and write $f\in \left\{
\Lambda ^{1},...,\Lambda ^{d}\right\}BV\left( T^{d}\right) $, if
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \Lambda ^{1},...,\Lambda ^{d}\right\}
V(f,T^{d}):=\sum\limits_{\alpha \subset D}\left\{ \Lambda ^{1},...,\Lambda
^{d}\right\}V^{{\alpha }}\left( f,T^{d}\right) <\infty .
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
We say that the function $f$ is continuous in $\left( \Lambda
^{1},...,\Lambda ^{d}\right) $-variation on $T^{d}$ and write $f\in C\left\{
\Lambda ^{1},...,\Lambda ^{d}\right\} V\left( T^{d}\right) $, i
\begin{equation*}
\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty }\left\{ \Lambda ^{j_{1}},...,\Lambda
^{j_{k-1}},\Lambda _{n}^{j_{k}},\Lambda ^{j_{k+1}},...,\Lambda
^{j_{p}}\right\} V^{{\alpha }}\left( f,T^{d}\right) =0,\qquad k=1,2,\ldots ,p
\end{equation*
for any $\alpha \subset D,\ \alpha :=\{j_{1},...,j_{p}\}$, where $\Lambda
_{n}^{j_{k}}:=\left\{ \lambda _{s}^{j_{k}}\right\} _{s=n}^{\infty }$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
We say that the function $f$ has Bounded Partial $\left( \Lambda
^{1},...,\Lambda ^{d}\right) $-variation and write $f\in P\left\{ \Lambda
^{1},...,\Lambda ^{d}\right\} BV\left( T^{d}\right) $ if
\begin{equation*}
P\left\{ \Lambda ^{1},...,\Lambda ^{d}\right\}
V(f,T^{d}):=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d}\Lambda ^{i}V^{\{i\}}\left( f,T^{d}\right)
<\infty .
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
In the case $\Lambda ^{1}=\cdots =\Lambda ^{d}=\Lambda $ we set
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Lambda BV(T^{d}):= &&\{\Lambda ^{1},...,\Lambda ^{d}\}BV(T^{d}), \\
C\Lambda V(T^{d}):= &&C\{\Lambda ^{1},...,\Lambda ^{d}\}V(T^{d}), \\
P\Lambda BV(T^{d}):= &&P\{\Lambda ^{1},...,\Lambda ^{d}\}BV(T^{d}).
\end{eqnarray*
If $\lambda _{n}\equiv 1$ (or if $0<c<\lambda _{n}<C<\infty ,\ n=1,2,\ldots
) the classes $\Lambda BV$ and $P\Lambda BV$ coincide with the Hardy class
BV$ and $PBV$ respectively. Hence it is reasonable to assume that $\lambda
_{n}\rightarrow \infty $ .
When $\lambda _{n}=n$ for all $n=1,2\ldots $ we say \textit{Harmonic
Variation} instead of $\Lambda $-variation and write $H$ instead of
\Lambda, i.e. $ $HBV$, $PHBV$, $CHV$, ets.
For two variable functions Dyachenko and Waterman \cite{DW} introduced
another class of functions of generalized bounded variation.
Denoting by $\Gamma $ the the set of finite collections of nonoverlapping
rectangles $A_{k}:=\left[ \alpha _{k},\beta _{k}\right] \times \left[ \gamma
_{k},\delta _{k}\right] \subset T^{2}$, for a function $f(x,y), \ x,y\in T$,
we set
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda ^{\ast }V\left( f,T^{2}\right) :=\sup_{\{A_{k}\}\in \Gamma
}\sum\limits_{k}\frac{\left\vert f\left( A_{k}\right) \right\vert }{\lambda
_{k}}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{definition}[Dyachenko, Waterman]
We say that $f\in \Lambda ^{\ast }BV\left( T^{2}\right) $ if
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda V(f,T^{2}):=\Lambda V_{1}(f,T^{2})+\Lambda V_{2}(f,T^{2})+\Lambda
^{\ast }V\left( f,T^{2}\right) <\infty .
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
In this paper we introduce a new classes of functions of generalized bounded
variation and investigate the convergence of Fourier series of function of
that classes.
For the sequence $\Lambda =\{\lambda _{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty }$ we denot
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda ^{\#}V_{s}\left( f,T^{d}\right) :=\sup\limits_{\left\{ x^{i}{\left\{
s\right\} }\right\} \subset T^{d-1}}\sup\limits_{\left\{ I_{i}^{s}\right\}
\in \Omega }\sum\limits_{i}\frac{\left\vert f\left( I_{i}^{s},x^{i}{\left\{
s\right\} }\right) \right\vert }{\lambda _{i}},
\end{equation*
where
\begin{equation}
x^{i}{\left\{ s\right\} }:=\left( x_{1}^{i},\ldots
,x_{s-1}^{i},x_{s+1}^{i},\ldots ,x_{d}^{i}\right) \quad \text{for}\quad
x^{i}:=\left( x_{1}^{i},\ldots ,x_{d}^{i}\right) . \label{xis}
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}
\label{def5} We say that the function $f$ belongs to the class $\Lambda
^{\#}BV\left( T^{d}\right) $, i
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda ^{\#}V\left( f,T^{d}\right) :=\sum\limits_{s=1}^{d}\Lambda
^{\#}V_{s}\left( f,T^{d}\right) <\infty .
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
The notion of $\Lambda $-variation was introduced by Waterman \cite{W} in
one dimensional case, by Sahakian \cite{Saha} in two dimensional case and by
Sablin \cite{Sab} in the case of higher dimensions. The notion of bounded
partial variation (class $PBV$) was introduced by Goginava in \cite{GoJAT}.
These classes of functions of generalized bounded variation play an
important role in the theory Fourier series.
\begin{remark}
It is not hard to see that $\Lambda ^{\#}BV\left( T^{d}\right)\subset
P\Lambda BV\left(T^{d}\right)$ for any $d>1$ and $\Lambda ^{\ast}BV\left(
T^{2}\right)\subset \Lambda ^{\#}BV\left( T^{2}\right) $.
\end{remark}
We prove that the following theorem is true.
\begin{theorem}
\label{t1} Let $d\geq 2$ and $T=(t_{1},t_{2})\subset R$. If
\begin{equation}
\Lambda =\left\{ \lambda _{n}\right\} \quad \text{with}\quad \lambda _{n}
\frac{n}{\log ^{d-1}\left( n+1\right) },\quad n=1,2,\ldots , \label{Lambda}
\end{equation
then
\begin{equation}
HV\left( f,T^{d}\right) \leq M\left( d\right) \Lambda ^{\#}V\left(
f,T^{d}\right) . \label{embed}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We have to prove that for any $\alpha :=\{j_{1},...,j_{p}\}\subset D
\begin{equation} \label{main1}
\sup_{\{I_{i_{j}}^{j}\}\in \Omega }\sum_{i_{1},\ldots ,i_{p}}\frac
\left\vert f\left( I_{i_{1}}^{1}\times \cdots \times I_{i_{p}}^{p},x_
\widetilde{\alpha }}\right) \right\vert }{i_{1}\cdots i_{p}} \leq M\left(
d\right) \sum\limits_{s=1}^{d}\Lambda ^{\#}V_{s}\left( f, T^{d}\right)
\end{equation}
To this end, observe that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sum_{i_{1},\ldots ,\,i_{p}}\frac{\left\vert f\left( I_{i_{1}}^{1}\times
\cdots \times I_{i_{p}}^{p},x_{\widetilde{\alpha }}\right) \right\vert }
i_{1}\cdots i_{p}} \label{sum} \\
&=&\sum_{\sigma }\sum_{i_{\sigma (1)}\leq \cdots \leq i_{\sigma (p)}}\frac
\left\vert f\left( I_{i_{1}}^{1}\times \cdots \times I_{i_{p}}^{p},x_
\widetilde{\alpha }}\right) \right\vert }{i_{1}\cdots i_{p}}, \notag
\end{eqnarray
where the sum is taken over all rearrangements $\sigma =\{\sigma
(k)\}_{k=1}^{p}$ of the set $\{1,2,\ldots ,p\}$.
Next, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sum_{i_{1}\leq \cdots \leq i_{p}}\frac{\left\vert f\left(
I_{i_{1}}^{1}\times \cdots \times I_{i_{p}}^{p},x_{\widetilde{\alpha
}\right) \right\vert }{i_{1}\cdots i_{p}} \label{rear} \\
&=&\sum\limits_{i_{p}}\frac{1}{i_{p}}\sum_{i_{1}\leq \cdots \leq i_{p}}\frac
\left\vert f\left( I_{i_{1}}^{1}\times \cdots \times I_{i_{p}}^{p},x_
\widetilde{\alpha }}\right) \right\vert }{i_{1}\cdots i_{p-1}}. \notag
\end{eqnarray
Taking into account that for the fixed $i_{p}\left( i_{1}\leq \cdots \leq
i_{p}\right) $ there exists $x_{1}^{i_{p}},\ldots ,x_{p-1}^{i_{p}}\in T$
such that
\begin{equation*}
{\left\vert f\left( I_{i_{1}}^{1}\times \cdots \times I_{i_{p}}^{p},x_
\widetilde{\alpha }}\right) \right\vert }\leq 2^{d}\left\vert f\left(
I_{i_{p}}^{p},x_{1}^{i_{p}},\ldots ,x_{p-1}^{i_{p}},x_{\widetilde{\alpha
}\right) \right\vert
\end{equation*}
from (\ref{rear}) we obtai
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sum_{i_{1}\leq \cdots \leq i_{p}}\frac{\left\vert f\left(
I_{i_{1}}^{1}\times \cdots \times I_{i_{p}}^{p},x_{\widetilde{\alpha
}\right) \right\vert }{i_{1}\cdots i_{p}} \\
&\leq &2^{d}\sum\limits_{i_{p}}\frac{\left\vert f\left(
I_{i_{p}}^{p},x_{1}^{i_{p}},\ldots ,x_{p-1}^{i_{p}},x_{\widetilde{\alpha
}\right) \right\vert }{i_{p}}\sum_{i_{1}\leq \cdots \leq i_{p}}\frac{1}
i_{1}\cdots i_{p-1}} \\
&\leq &M\left( d\right) \sum\limits_{i_{p}}\frac{\log ^{d-1}\left(
i_{p}+1\right) }{i_{p}}\left\vert f\left( I_{i_{p}}^{p},x_{1}^{i_{p}},\ldots
,x_{p-1}^{i_{p}},x_{\widetilde{\alpha }}\right) \right\vert \\
&\leq &M\left( d\right) \Lambda ^{\#}V_{i_{p}}\left( f,T^{d}\right) \leq
M\left( d\right) \Lambda ^{\#}V\left( f,T^{d}\right) .
\end{eqnarray*
Similarly one can obtain bounds for other summands in the right hind side of
(\ref{sum}), which imply (\ref{embed}). Theorem \ref{t1} is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
If the sequence $\Lambda$ is defined by (\ref{Lambda}), then
\Lambda^\#BV(T^d)\subset HBV(T^d)$.
\end{corollary}
Now, we denote
\begin{equation} \label{Delta}
\Delta:=\{\delta=(\delta_1,\ldots,\delta_d):\delta_i=\pm1, \ i=1,2,\ldots,d\}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation*}
\pi_{\varepsilon\delta}(x):=(x_1,\,
x_1+\varepsilon\delta_1)\times\cdots\times (x_d,\, x_d+\varepsilon\delta_d),
\end{equation*}
for $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_d)\in R^d$ and $\varepsilon>0$. We set
\pi_{\delta}(x):=\pi_{\varepsilon\delta}(x)$, if $\varepsilon=1$.
For a function $f$ defined in some neighbourhood of a point $x$ and
\delta\in \Delta$ we set
\begin{equation} \label{lim}
f_\delta(x):=\lim_{t\in \pi_\delta(x),\ t\to x} f(t),
\end{equation}
if the last limit exists.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th2} Suppose $f\in \Lambda ^{\#}BV\left( T^{d}\right)$ for some
sequence $\Lambda=\{\lambda_n\}$.
a) If the limit $f_\delta(x)$ exists for some $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_d)\in T^d$
and some $\delta=(\delta_1,\ldots,\delta_d)\in \Delta$, then
\begin{equation} \label{th2a}
\lim\limits_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\Lambda ^{\#}V\left(
f,\pi_{\varepsilon\delta}(x)\right) =0.
\end{equation}
b) If $f$ is continuous on some compact $K\subset T^{d}$, then
\begin{equation} \label{th2b}
\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\Lambda ^{\#}V\left( f, \left
x_{1}-\varepsilon ,x_{1}+\varepsilon \right] \times\cdots\times \left
x_{d}-\varepsilon ,x_{d}+\varepsilon \right] \right) =0
\end{equation}
uniformly with respect to $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_d)\in K$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
According to Definition \ref{def5}, we need to prove that
\begin{equation}
\lim\limits_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\Lambda ^{\#}V_{s}\left( f,\pi
_{\varepsilon \delta }(x)\right) =0 \label{th2as}
\end{equation
for any $s=1,2,\ldots ,d$. Without loss of generality we can assume that
s=1 $ and $\delta _{i}=1$ for $i=1,2,\ldots ,d$. Assume to the contrary that
(\ref{th2as}) does not holds:
\begin{equation*}
\lim\limits_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\Lambda ^{\#}V_{1}\left( f,\pi
_{\varepsilon \delta }(x)\right) \neq 0.
\end{equation*
Then there exists a number $\alpha $ such that
\begin{equation}
\Lambda ^{\#}V_{1}\left( f,\pi _{\varepsilon \delta }(x)\right) >\alpha >0
\label{alpha}
\end{equation
for any $\varepsilon >0$.
Using induction on $k=1,2,\ldots$, we construct positive numbers
\varepsilon_k$ and the sequences of collections of non-overlapping intervals
\begin{equation} \label{intervals}
I_{i}^{1}\subset \left(x_{1}+\varepsilon_{k+1},x_{1}+\varepsilon_k
\right),\quad i=n_k+1,...,n_{k+1}
\end{equation}
and vectors
\begin{equation} \label{vectors}
\beta^ i=(\beta^i_1,\ldots,\beta^i_d)\in \pi_{\varepsilon_k\delta}(x),\quad
i=n_{k}+1,...,n_{k+1}
\end{equation}
as follows. By (\ref{alpha}), for a fixed number $\varepsilon_1>0$ we find a
collection of non-overlapping intervals
\begin{equation*}
I_{i}^{1}\subset \left(x_1,x_{1}+\varepsilon_1 \right),\quad i=1,...,n_{1}
\end{equation*}
and vectors
\begin{equation*}
\beta^ i=(\beta^i_1,\ldots,\beta^i_d)\in \pi_{\varepsilon_1\delta}(x),\quad
i=1,...,n_{1}
\end{equation*}
such that
\begin{equation} \label{alpha1}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_{1}}\frac{\left\vert f\left(
I_{i}^{1};\beta^i_2,\ldots,\beta^i_d\right) \right\vert }{\lambda _{i}
>\alpha.
\end{equation}
Now, suppose the number $\varepsilon _{k}$, intervals (\ref{intervals}) and
the vectors (\ref{vectors}) for some $k=1,2\ldots $ are constructed . Since
the limit $f_{\delta }(x)$ exists, we can choose $\varepsilon _{k+1}$
satisfying
\begin{equation}
0<\varepsilon _{k+1}<\varepsilon _{k},\qquad \left( x_{1},x_{1}+\varepsilon
_{k+1}\right) \bigcap \left( \bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{n_{k}}I_{i}^{1}\right)
=\emptyset \label{intervals1}
\end{equation
and
\begin{equation}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_{k}}\frac{\left\vert f\left( J_{i}^{1};\gamma
_{2}^{i},\ldots ,\gamma _{d}^{i}\right) \right\vert }{\lambda _{i}}<\frac
\alpha }{2} \label{alpha1}
\end{equation
for any collection of non-overlapping intervals
\begin{equation*}
J_{i}^{1}\subset \left( x_{1},x_{1}+\varepsilon _{k+1}\right) ,\quad
i=1,...,n_{k}
\end{equation*
and for any vectors
\begin{equation*}
\gamma ^{i}=(\gamma _{1}^{i},\ldots ,\gamma _{d}^{i})\in \pi _{\varepsilon
_{k+1}\delta }(x),\quad i=1,...,n_{k}.
\end{equation*
Further, according to (\ref{alpha}) there is a collection of non-overlapping
intervals
\begin{equation}
J_{i}^{1}\subset \left( x_{1},x_{1}+\varepsilon _{k+1}\right) ,\quad
i=1,...,n_{k+1} \label{intervals2}
\end{equation
and vectors
\begin{equation*}
\gamma ^{i}=(\gamma _{1}^{i},\ldots ,\gamma _{d}^{i})\in \pi _{\varepsilon
_{k+1}\delta }(x),\quad i=1,...,n_{k+1}
\end{equation*
such that
\begin{equation}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_{k+1}}\frac{\left\vert f\left( J_{i}^{1};\gamma
_{2}^{i},\ldots ,\gamma _{d}^{i}\right) \right\vert }{\lambda _{i}}>\alpha .
\label{alpha2}
\end{equation
Now, denoting
\begin{equation}
I_{i}^{1}=J_{i}^{1},\beta ^{i}=\gamma ^{i}\quad \text{for}\quad
i=n_{k}+1,\ldots ,n_{k+1}, \label{intervals3}
\end{equation
from (\ref{alpha1}) and (\ref{alpha2}) we get
\begin{equation}
\sum\limits_{i=n_{k}+1}^{n_{k+1}}\frac{\left\vert f\left( I_{i}^{1};\beta
_{2}^{i},\ldots ,\beta _{d}^{i}\right) \right\vert }{\lambda _{i}}>\frac
\alpha }{2}. \label{alpha3}
\end{equation
Intervals (\ref{intervals}) and vectors (\ref{vectors}) for $k=1,2,\ldots $,
are constructed.
By (\ref{intervals1}), (\ref{intervals2}) and (\ref{intervals3}), the
intervals $I^1_i$ are non-overlapping for $i=1,2,\ldots$, while according to
(\ref{alpha3}),
\begin{equation*}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{\left\vert f\left(
I_{i}^{1};\beta^i_2,\ldots,\beta^i_d\right) \right\vert} {\lambda _{i}
=\infty.
\end{equation*}
Consequently, $\Lambda ^{\#}V_1\left( f,T^d\right)=\infty$. This
contradiction completes proof of the statement a) of Theorem \ref{th2}.
To prove statement b), observe that a) obviously implies (\ref{th2b}) for
any point $x\in T^d$, where $f$ is continuous. Hence, we have to prove that
\ref{th2b}) holds uniformly with respect to $x\in K$, provided that $f$ is
continuous on the compact $K\subset T^d$.
To this end let us assume to the contrary that (\ref{th2b}) does not hold
uniformly on $K$. Then there exist $\delta >0$ and sequences
\begin{equation*}
x^i=(x^i_{1},\ldots x^i_d)\in K \ \text{and}\ \varepsilon _{i}>0, \quad
i=1,2,\ldots \quad \text{with}\quad \varepsilon _{i}\rightarrow 0
\end{equation*}
such tha
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda ^{\#}V\left( f;\left[ x_{1}^{i }-\varepsilon _{i},x_{1}^{i
}+\varepsilon _{i}\right] \times\cdots\times \left[ x_{d}^{i
}-\varepsilon_{i},x_{d}^{i }+\varepsilon _{i}\right] \right) \geq \delta >
\text{.}
\end{equation*
Since $K$ is compact we can assume without loss of generality that $x^{ i
}\rightarrow x$ for some $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_d)\in K$. Then obviously for each
\varepsilon >0$ there is a number $i(\varepsilon)$ such tha
\begin{equation*}
\left[ x_{j}^{i }-\varepsilon _{i},x_{j}^{i }+\varepsilon _{i}\right]
\subset \left[ x_{j}-\varepsilon ,x_{j}+\varepsilon \right],\quad
j=1,\ldots,d \quad\text{for}\quad i>i\left( \varepsilon \right).
\end{equation*
Consequently
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda ^{\#}V\left( f;\left[ x_{1}-\varepsilon ,x_{1}+\varepsilon \right]
\times\cdots\times \left[ x_{d}-\varepsilon,x_{d}+\varepsilon\right]
\right)\geq \delta >0,
\end{equation*
for any $\varepsilon >0$, which is a contradiction.
Theorem \ref{th2} is proved.
\end{proof}
Next, we define
\begin{equation*}
v_{s}^{\#}\left( f,n\right) :=\sup_{\{x^{i}\}_{i=1}^{n}\subset
T^d}\sup\limits_{\{I_{i}^{s}\}_{i=1}^{n}\in \Omega
_{n}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\left\vert f\left( I_{i}^{s},x^i\{s\} \right)
\right\vert ,\quad s=1,...,d,\quad n=1,2,\ldots,
\end{equation*}
where $x^i\{s\}$ is as in (\ref{xis}). The following theorem holds.
\begin{theorem}
\label{v(n)}If the function $f(x),\ x\in T^d$ satisfies the condition
\begin{equation*}
\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty }\frac{v_{s}^{\#}\left( f,n\right) \log
^{d-1}\left( n+1\right) }{n^{2}}<\infty ,\qquad \ s=1,2,...,d,
\end{equation*
then $f\in \left\{ \frac{n}{\log ^{d-1}\left( n+1\right) }\right\}
^{\#}BV\left( T^{d}\right) .$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $s=1,\dots ,d$ be fixed. The for any collection of intervals $
\{I_{i}^{s}\}_{i=1}^{n}\in \Omega _{n}}$ and a sequence of vectors $
\{x^{i}\}_{i=1}^{n}\in T^{d}}$, using Abel's partial summation we obtai
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}\frac{\left\vert f\left( I_{j}^{s},x^{j}{\{s\}
\right) \right\vert \log ^{d-1}\left( j+1\right) }{j} \label{v} \\
&=&\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n-1}\left( \frac{\log ^{d-1}\left( j+1\right) }{j}
\frac{\log ^{d-1}\left( j+2\right) }{j+1}\right)
\sum\limits_{k=1}^{j}\left\vert f\left( I_{k}^{s},x^{k}{\left\{ s\right\}
\right) \right\vert \notag \\
&&+\frac{\log ^{d-1}\left( n+1\right) }{n}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}\left\vert
f\left( I_{j}^{s},x^{j}{\left\{ s\right\} }\right) \right\vert \notag \\
&\leq &\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n-1}\left( \frac{\log ^{d-1}\left( j+1\right) }{j}
\frac{\log ^{d-1}\left( j+2\right) }{j+1}\right) v_{s}^{\#}\left( f,j\right)
\notag \\
&&+\frac{\log ^{d-1}\left( n+1\right) }{n}v_{s}^{\#}\left( f,n\right) .
\notag
\end{eqnarray
Using the inequality
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{\log ^{d-1}\left( n+1\right) }{n}v_{s}^{\#}\left( f,n\right)
\label{v0} \\
&\leq &\sum\limits_{j=n}^{\infty }\left( \frac{\log ^{d-1}\left( j+1\right)
}{j}-\frac{\log ^{d-1}\left( j+2\right) }{j+1}\right) v_{s}^{\#}\left(
f,j\right) , \notag
\end{eqnarray
from (\ref{v}) we ge
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \frac{n}{\log ^{d-1}\left( n+1\right) }\right\} ^{\#}V_{s}\left(
f,T^{d}\right) \leq c\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty }\frac{v_{s}^{\#}\left(
f,n\right) \log ^{d-1}\left( n+1\right) }{n^{2}}<\infty . \label{v1}
\end{equation}
Theorem \ref{v(n)} is proved.
\end{proof}
\section{\protect\medskip Convergence of multiple Fourier series}
We suppose throughout this section, that $T=[0,2\pi )$ and $T^{d}=[0,2\pi
)^{d}$, $d\ge2$, stands for the $d$-dimensional torus.
We denote by $C(T^{d})$ the space of continuous and $2\pi $-periodic with
respect to each variable functions with the norm
\begin{equation*}
\Vert f\Vert _{C}:=\sup_{\left( x_{1},\ldots ,\,x_{d}\right) \in
T^{d}}|f(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{d})|.
\end{equation*}
The Fourier series of the function $f\in L^{1}\left( T^{d}\right) $ with
respect to the trigonometric system is the series
\begin{equation*}
Sf\left( x_{1},...,x_{d}\right) :=\sum_{n_{1},...,n_{d}=-\infty }^{+\infty
\widehat{f}\left( n_{1},....,n_{d}\right) e^{i\left( n_{1}x_{1}+\cdots
+n_{d}x_{d}\right) },
\end{equation*
where
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{f}\left( n_{1},....,n_{d}\right) =\frac{1}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^{d}
\int_{T^{d}}f(x^{1},...,x^{d})e^{-i\left( n_{1}x_{1}+\cdots
+n_{d}x_{d}\right) }dx_{1}\cdots dx_{d}
\end{equation*
are the Fourier coefficients of $f$.
In this paper we consider convergence of \textbf{only rectangular partial
sums} (convergence in the sense of Pringsheim) of $d$-dimensional Fourier
series. Recall that the rectangular partial sums are defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&S_{N_{1},...,N_{d}}f\left( x_{1},...,x_{d}\right) \\
&&:=\sum_{n_{1}=-N_{1}}^{N_{1}}\cdots \sum_{n_{d}=-N_{d}}^{N_{d}}\widehat{f
\left( n_{1},....,n_{d}\right) e^{i\left( n_{1}x^{1}+\cdots
+n_{d}x^{d}\right) }.
\end{eqnarray*}
We say that the point $x\in T^d$ is \textit{a regular point} of a function
f $, if the limit $f_\delta(x)$ defined by (\ref{lim}) exists for any
\delta\in\Delta$ (see(\ref{Delta})). For the regular point $x$ we denot
\begin{equation}
f^{\ast }\left(x\right) :=\frac{1}{2^{d}}\sum_ {\delta\in\Delta}
f_\delta\left(x\right) . \label{limit}
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}
We say that the class of functions $V \subset L^{1}(T^{d})$ is a class of
convergence on $T^{d}$, if for any function $f\in V $
1) the Fourier series of $f$ converges to $f^{\ast }({x})$ at any regular
point ${x}\in T^{d}$,
2) the convergence is uniform on a compact $K\subset T^{d}$, if $f$ is
continuous on $K$.
\end{definition}
The well known Dirichlet-Jordan theorem (see \cite{Zy}) states that the
Fourier series of a function $f(x), \ x\in T$ of bounded variation converges
at every point $x$ to the value $\left[ f\left( x+0\right)
+f\left(x-0\right) \right] /2$. If $f$ is in addition continuous on $T$,
then the Fourier series converges uniformly on $T$.
Hardy \cite{Ha} generalized the Dirichlet-Jordan theorem to the double
Fourier series and proved that $BV$ is a class of convergence on $T^{2}$.
The following theorem was proved by Waterman (for $d=1$) and Sahakian (for
d=2$).
\begin{Sah}[Waterman \protect\cite{W}, Sahakian \protect\cite{Saha}]
If $d=1$ or $d=2$, then the class $HBV\left( T^{d}\right) $ is a class of
convergence on $T^{d}$.
\end{Sah}
In \cite{Bakh1} Bakhvalov proved that the class $HBV$ is not a class of
convergence on $T^{d}$, if $d>2$. On the other hand, he proved the following
theorem.
\begin{Bakh}[Bakhvalov \protect\cite{Bakh1}]
\label{B} The class $CHV\left( T^{d}\right) $ is a class of convergence on
T^{d}$ for any $d=1,2,\ldots $
\end{Bakh}
Convergence of spherical and other partial sums of double Fourier series of
functions of bounded $\Lambda $-variation was investigated in deatails by
Dyachenko \cite{D1,D2}.
In \cite{GogSah,GogSah2} Goginava and Sahakian investigated convergence of
multiple Fourier series of functions of bounded partial $\Lambda$-variation.
In particular, the following theorem was proved.
\begin{Goginava-Sahakian}
\bigskip a) If and $\Lambda =\left\{ \lambda _{n}\right\} _{n=1}^{\infty }$
with
\begin{equation*}
\lambda _{n}=\frac{n}{\log ^{d-1+\varepsilon }(n+1)},\qquad n=1,2,\ldots
,\quad d>1,
\end{equation*
for some $\varepsilon >0$, then the class $P\Lambda BV\left( T^{d}\right) $
is a class of convergence on $T^{d}$.\newline
\medskip b) If $\Lambda =\left\{ \lambda _{n}\right\} _{n=1}^{\infty }$ with
\begin{equation*}
\lambda _{n}=\frac{n}{\log ^{d-1}(n+1)},\qquad n=1,2,\ldots ,\quad d>1,
\end{equation*
then the class $P\Lambda BV\left( T^{d}\right) $ is not a class of
convergence on $T^{d}$.
\end{Goginava-Sahakian}
In \cite{DW}, Dyachenko and Waterman proved that the class $\Lambda ^{\ast
}BV(T^{2})$ is a class convergence on $T^{2}$ for $\Lambda =\{\lambda _{n}\}$
with $\lambda _{n}=\frac{n}{\ln \left( n+1\right) }$, $n=1,2,\ldots $
The main result of the present paper is the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{main} a) If $\Lambda =\left\{ \lambda _{n}\right\} _{n=1}^{\infty }$
with
\begin{equation} \label{Lambdaa}
\lambda _{n}=\frac{n}{\log ^{d-1}(n+1)},\qquad n=1,2,\ldots,\quad d>1,
\end{equation
then the class $\Lambda ^{\#}BV\left( T^{d}\right) $ is a class of
convergence on $T^d$.
b)If $\Lambda =\left\{ \lambda _{n}\right\} _{n=1}^{\infty }$ with
\begin{equation} \label{Lambdab}
\lambda_n :=\left\{ \frac{n\xi _{n}}{\log ^{d-1}\left( n+1\right) }\right\}
,\quad n=1,2,\ldots\quad d>1,
\end{equation}
where $\xi _{n}\to \infty$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$, then there exists a
continuous function $f\in \Lambda ^{\#}BV\left( T^{d}\right) $ such that the
cubical partial sums of $d$-dimensional Fourier series of $f$ diverge
unboundedly at $\left( 0,...,0\right) \in T^{d}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \protect\ref{main}]
The proof of the part a) is based on the following statement, that in the
case $d=2$ is proved by Sahakian (see formulaes (33) and (35) in \cite{Saha
). For an arbitrary $d>2$ the proof is similar.
\begin{Sahakian}
Suppose $f\in HV\left( T^{d}\right)$ and $x\in T^d$. If the limit
f_\delta(x)$ exists for any $\delta\in \Delta$, then for any $\varepsilon >0$
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert S_{n_{1},...,n_{d}}f\left( x\right) -f^\ast\left( x\right)
\right\vert \leq M\left( d\right) \sum_{\delta \in \Delta}HV\left(
f;\pi_{\varepsilon\delta}(x) \right) +o\left( 1\right),
\end{equation*}
as $n_i\to\infty,\ i=1,2,\ldots,d$.
Moreover, the quantity $o(1)$ tends to $0$ uniformly on a compact $K$, if $f$
is continuous on $K$.
\end{Sahakian}
Now, if the sequence $\Lambda=\{\lambda_n\}$ is defined by (\ref{Lambdaa})
and $f\in \Lambda^{\#}BV\left( T^{d}\right)$, then Lemma S and Theorem \re
{t1} imply that for any $\varepsilon >0$
\begin{equation} \label{ps}
\left\vert S_{n_{1},...,n_{d}}f\left( x\right) -f^\ast\left( x\right)
\right\vert \leq M\left( d\right) \sum_{\delta \in \Delta}\Lambda
^{\#}V\left( f;\pi_{\varepsilon\delta} (x)\right) +o\left(1\right),
\end{equation}
which combined with Theorem \ref{th2} completes the proof of a).
To prove part b) suppose that $\Lambda =\{\lambda _{n}\}$ is a sequence
defined by (\ref{Lambdab}). It is not hard to see that the class
C(T^{d})\cap \Lambda ^{\#}BV\left(T^{d}\right) $ is a Banach space with the
norm
\begin{equation*}
\Vert f\Vert _{\Lambda ^{\#}BV}:=\Vert f\Vert _{C}+\Lambda ^{\#}BV(f).
\end{equation*}
Denoting
\begin{equation*}
A_{i_{1},\ldots ,i_{d}}:=\left[ \frac{\pi i_{1}}{N+1/2},\frac{\pi \left(
i_{1}+1\right) }{N+1/2}\right) \times \cdots \times \left[ \frac{\pi i_{d}}
N+1/2},\frac{\pi \left( i_{d}+1\right) }{N+1/2}\right),
\end{equation*
we consider the following functions
\begin{equation*}
g_{N}\left( x_{1},\ldots ,x_{d}\right)
:=\sum\limits_{i_{1},...,i_{d}=1}^{N-1}1_{A_{i_{1},\ldots ,i_{d}}}\left(
x_{1},\ldots ,x_{d}\right) \prod\limits_{s=1}^{d}\sin \left( N+1/2\right)
x_{s},
\end{equation*
for $N=2,3,\ldots$, where $1_{A}\left( x_{1},\ldots ,x_{d}\right) $ is the
characteristic function of a set $A\subset T^{d}$.
It is easy to check tha
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ \frac{n\xi _{n}}{\log ^{d-1}\left( n+1\right) }\right\}
^{\#}V_{s}\left( g_{N}\right) \leq c\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N-1}\frac{\log
^{d-1}\left( i+1\right) }{i\xi _{i}}=o\left( \log ^{d}N\right)
\end{equation*
and hence
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert g_{N}\right\Vert _{\Lambda ^{\#}BV}=o\left( \log ^{d}N\right)
=\eta _{N}\log ^{d}N,
\end{equation*
where $\eta _{N}\rightarrow 0$ as $N\rightarrow \infty $. Now, setting
\begin{equation*}
f_{N}:=\frac{g_{N}}{\eta _{N}\log ^{d}N},\quad N=2,3,\ldots ,
\end{equation*
we obtain that $f_{N}\in \Lambda ^{\#}BV\left( T^{d}\right) $ and
\begin{equation}
\sup\limits_{N}\left\Vert f_{N}\right\Vert _{\Lambda ^{\#}BV}<\infty .
\label{norm}
\end{equation
Now, for the cubical partial sums of the d-dimensional Fourier series of
f_{N}$ at $\left( 0,...,0\right) \in T^{d}$ we have that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\pi ^{d}S_{N,\cdots ,N}f_{N}\left( 0,\cdots ,0\right) \label{low} \\
&=&\frac{1}{\eta _{N}\log ^{d}N}\sum\limits_{i_{1},...,i_{d}=1}^{N-1}\in
\limits_{A_{i_{1},\cdots ,\,i_{d}}}\prod\limits_{s=1}^{d}\frac{\sin
^{2}\left( N+1/2\right) x_{s}}{2\sin \left( x_{s}/2\right) }dx_{1}\cdots
dx_{d} \notag \\
&\geq &\frac{c}{\eta _{N}\log ^{d}N}\sum\limits_{i_{1},...,i_{d}=1}^{N-1
\frac{1}{i_{1}\cdots i_{d}}\geq \frac{c}{\eta _{N}}\rightarrow \infty \notag
\end{eqnarray
as $N\rightarrow \infty $. Applying the Banach-Steinhaus Theorem, from (\re
{norm}) and (\ref{low}) we conclude that there exists a continuous function
f\in \Lambda ^{\#}BV\left( T^{d}\right) $ such that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{N}|S_{N,\cdots ,N}f(0,\cdots ,0)|=\infty .
\end{equation*
Theorem \ref{main} is proved.
\end{proof}
The next theorem follows from Theorems \ref{v(n)} and \ref{main}.
\begin{theorem}
For any $d>1$ the class of functions $f(x),\ x\in T^d$ satisfying the
following condition
\begin{equation*}
\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty }\frac{v_{s}^{\#}\left( f,n\right) \log
^{d-1}\left( n+1\right) }{n^{2}}<\infty ,~\ \ s=1,...,d,
\end{equation*}
is a class of convergence.
\end{theorem}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
The spin group $\widetilde{S}_n$ is a double cover of the symmetric
group $S_n$.
In the seminal paper \cite{S} Schur generalized Frobenius theory and determined
all irreducible projective characters
of the symmetric group $S_n$ by introducing a new family of
symmetric functions later known as Schur Q-functions. These
symmetric functions play the same role for the spin group $\widetilde{S}_n$ as Schur functions do for
the symmetric group $S_n$. Schur showed further that though
the projective character values are for the most part given by Schur Q-functions, a significant portion
was provided by special spin modules and Clifford algebras.
After the classical work of Frobenius and Schur, irreducible characters of the general wreath products
${\Gamma}_n=\Gamma\wr S_n$ were constructed by Specht in his dissertation \cite{Sp}. The generalized symmetric groups
were also studied by Osima in \cite{O}, and Zelevinsky \cite{Ze} investigated the Hopf algebra structure of the
Grothendieck groups for all ${\Gamma}_n$.
During the last several decades there has been a resurgence of activities on the spin group.
Stembridge \cite{St} gave a combinatorial definition of Schur Q-functions, Sergeev
\cite{Ser} found that the hyperoctahedral group of the symmetric group has a similar character
theory, J\'ozefiak \cite{Jo} gave a modern account of Schur's work using superalgebras,
Nazarov \cite{Na} constructed all irreducible representations of the spin group,
Hoffman and Humphreys \cite{HH} also used Zelevinsky's method to study the
double covering groups $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$, and the second author \cite{J} provided a vertex operator approach to Schur Q-functions as well as projective character values.
Breakthroughs were also made on modular projective representations of the symmetric groups \cite{BK} \cite{K} (see also \cite{Be}).
On the other hand, recognizing the deep connection with the McKay correspondence, I. Frenkel, Jing and Wang \cite{FJW}
generalized the first part of Schur's work and determined all irreducible characters of
the spin wreath product $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$
of a finite group $\Gamma$
and the symmetric group $S_n$.
When $\Gamma$ is a finite cyclic group, they are double covering groups of the generalized
symmetric groups, which include hyperoctahedral groups as special cases
when $\Gamma$ is of order 2.
In Schur's original work on $\widetilde{S}_n$, the projective characters of $S_n$ are parameterized by strict partitions. Again in the wreath products, the projective representations are in one to one correspondence to strict partition valued
functions or strict colored partitions.
It is well-known that the
projective character table of $\Gamma_n$ consists of the character values
on the so-called split conjugacy classes which can be divided
into two subsets: the {\it even} conjugacy classes corresponding to partition valued functions with
odd integer parts and the {\it odd} conjugacy classes corresponding to odd partition
valued functions with distinct parts.
In \cite{FJW} the authors determined all irreducible characters of spin wreath products by vertex operator calculus
and also showed that the character values at all odd conjugacy classes
are given by matrix coefficients of products of twisted vertex operators, thus solved
a big chunk of the character table.
It seems that the character values on odd strict colored partitions are beyond the reach of vertex operators. Later in \cite{AM} \cite{MJ} spin characters for
generalized symmetric groups were also considered using combinatorial methods and
certain basic spin character values were computed. However the character values on
odd strict partition valued functions are still unknown, as the method associated with the McKay correspondence and vertex representations seems
not suitable for computing this part of the character table. Knowledge of this
will be useful in representation theory
as they include practically all double coverings of Weyl groups of classical types.
Spin character values have been studied in the physics literature as well. In \cite{RW1} it was observed that {plethysms} play an important role in determining characters for spin characters of SO$(n, \mathbb C)$ and
the spin group $\widetilde{S}_n$. This was later generalized to spin groups associated to orthogonal and symplectic Weyl groups \cite{RW2} and new algorithms were developed for computing the spin character values of Weyl groups.
The purpose of this paper is to obtain the missing part of the
character table of spin wreath products $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ for
the cases of an abelian group $\Gamma$. We construct all irreducible
characters by certain induced representations of Young subgroups of
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ using the Mackey-Wigner method of little groups
(cf. \cite{Serre}).
Then we compute the
spin character tables of the wreath products
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$.
In particular this includes, in principle, the
irreducible spin character values of Weyl groups of all classical types.
In the viewpoint of the new form of the McKay correspondence \cite{FJW} the problem of determining all
spin wreath products
$\mathbb Z_{r+1}\wr \widetilde{S}_n$
amounts to a realization of the twisted affine Lie algebra
$A_r^{(1)}[-1]$. On the other hand, Ariki \cite{A} has shown that the Grothendieck group of the category of
modules for the cyclotomic Hecke algebra $H_q(\mathbb Z_{r+1}\wr S_n)$ realizes the dual canonical basis
for the quantum affine Lie algebra $U_q(A_r^{(1)})$, which in turn gives
the decomposition matrix for the modular representations of the symmetric groups
by the Lascoux-Leclerc-Thibon algorithm
\cite{LLT}. These are partly the reasons that we study spin representations of
generalized symmetric groups in this paper, besides historic interest.
The paper is organized as follows. In the first two sections we discuss the basic notions
of the wreath products and the Grothendieck group of projective representations of the
wreath products. The twisted products of two spin modules are thoroughly reviewed and
special attention is paid to the case of cyclic groups. In section three we first
recall the basic spin representations and then use the Mackey-Wigner method of little groups
to decompose the orbits of Young subgroups. We construct all spin irreducible representations
indexed by strict partition valued functions, and then we show that the character values
are sparsely zero and the non-zero values are
given according to how the partitions are supported on various conjugacy classes.
\section{The spin wreath products $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ .}\label{sec:1}
\subsection{The spin group $\widetilde{S}_n$.}
The spin group $\widetilde{S}_n$ is the finite group generated by
$z$ and $t_i, ~(i=1, \cdots, n-1)$ with the defining relations:
\begin{align}\label{eq:def4spin}
& z^2=1, \ \ t_i^2=(t_it_{i+1})^3=z,\\
& t_it_j=zt_jt_i, \ \ |i-j|>1,\\
& zt_i=t_iz.
\end{align}
The group $\widetilde{S}_n$ is a central extension of $S_n$ by the cyclic
group $\mathbb{Z}_2$, as the map $\theta_n$ sending
$t_i$ to the transposition $(i,i+1)$ and $z$ to 1
is a homomorphism from $\widetilde{S}_n$ to $S_n$. In fact
Schur \cite{S} has shown that the spin group $\widetilde{S}_n$ is
one of the two non-trivial double covers of the symmetric group $S_n$ ($n\geq 4$ but $n\neq 6$).
We recall the Conway cycle presentation for $\widetilde{S}_n$ \cite{Ws}.
For each $k\in \{1, \cdots , n\}$, let $x_k=t_kt_{k+1}\cdots t_n
\cdots t_{k+1}t_k\in \widetilde{S}_{n+1}$ . For distinct integers $ i_1,
\cdots, i_m \in \{1, 2, \cdots,
n\}$, we define the cycle $[i_{1}i_{2}\cdots i_{m}]$ by
\begin{equation}
[i_{1}i_{2}\cdots i_{m}]=\left\{\begin{array}{lc}
z, &\mbox{if} ~m=1, \\
x_{i_{1}}x_{i_{m}}x_{i_{m-1}}\cdots x_{i_{1}}, &\ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{if} ~
1<m\leq n.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that $\theta_n([i_{1}i_{2}\cdots
i_{m}])=(i_{1}i_{2}\cdots i_{m})$, $\theta_{n+1}(x_i)=(i,n+1)$. Therefore
each element of $\widetilde{S}_n$ is of the form
$$z^p[i_1 \cdots i_m][j_1\cdots j_k]\cdots,$$
where $\{i_1 \cdots i_m\}$, $\{j_1 \cdots
j_k\}$, $\cdots$ is a partition of the set $\{1,2,\cdots,n \}$ and
$p\in \mathbb{Z}_2$.
Let $\lambda=(\lambda_1, \cdots, \lambda_l)$ be a partition of the
positive integer $n$.
We identify $\lambda$ with its Ferrers diagram which
is formed by the array of $n$ dots having $l$ left-justified rows with row $i$
containing
$\la_i$ dots for $1\leq i\leq l.$
A Young tableau $T_{\lambda}$ of shape $\lambda$ is a numbering of the dots of
the Ferrers diagram by $1,2,\cdots, |\lambda|$. For such a
tableau $T_{\lambda}$ of shape $\lambda$ with the numbering
$a_{ij}$ for the $(i, j)$-dot,
we define the element $t_{\lambda}=[a_{11}\cdots
a_{1\lambda_1}][a_{21}\cdots a_{2\lambda_2}]\cdots [a_{l1} \cdots
a_{l\lambda_l}]$ of $\widetilde{S}_n$. We also denote its image in $S_n$ by
\begin{equation*}
\sigma_{\lambda}
=\theta_n(t_{\lambda})=\prod_{i=1}^l(a_{i1}\cdots a_{i\lambda_i})\in S_n.
\end{equation*}
\subsection{The spin group $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$.}
We will mainly consider the case of the cyclic group
$\Gamma=\langle a|a^{r+1}=1\rangle\simeq \mathbb Z_{r+1}$. But for the most part of this section
we allow $\Gamma$ to be a general finite group. We
denote by $\Gamma_*$ the set of
conjugacy classes of $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^*=\{\gamma_i|~
i=0,\cdots,r\}$ the set of irreducible characters of $\Gamma$ with
$\gamma_0$ being the trivial character.
Let $\zeta_c$ be the order of the centralizer of an element in the class $c\in
\Gamma_*$, then the order of $c$ is $|\Gamma|/\zeta_c$. When $\Gamma=\mathbb Z_{r+1}$,
$\zeta_c=r+1$ and $|c|=1$ for any $c\in\Gamma_*$.
For $n\in\mathbb Z_+$, let $\Gamma^n$ be the direct product $\Gamma\times\cdots\times
\Gamma$, where $\Gamma^0=1$. The spin group
$\widetilde{S}_n$ acts on $\Gamma^n$ via the permutation action of $S_n$, thus
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
t_{\la}(g_1,\cdots,g_n)=&(g_{\sigma_{\la}^{-1}(1)},\cdots,g_{\sigma_{\la}^{-1}(n)}),\\
z(g_1,\cdots,g_n)=&(g_1,\cdots,g_n).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The spin wreath product $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$
is the semi-direct product
$$\widetilde{\Gamma}_n=\Gamma^n\ltimes \widetilde{S}_n=\{(g,t)|g=(g_1,\cdots,g_n)\in\Gamma^n, t\in\widetilde{S}_n\}$$
with the multiplication
$$(g,t)\cdot(h,s)=(gt(h),ts).$$
Similarly, $\Gamma_n$ is
defined to be the semi-direct product of $\Gamma^n$ by $S_n$. It
is known that $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ is a central extension of
$\Gamma_n$ by $\mathbb{Z}_2$, thus
$|\widetilde{\Gamma}_n|=2n!|\Gamma|^n.$
Let $d$ be the {\it parity} homomorphism from the spin group $\widetilde{S}_n$ to the
group $\mathbb{Z}_2$ by
\begin{equation}
d(t_i)=1~(i=1,\cdots,n-1),\ \ \ \ d(z)=0.
\end{equation}
Similarly, we define a {\em parity} for
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ by
\begin{equation}
d(g,t_i)=1 ~(i=1,\cdots,n-1),\ \ \ d(g,z)=0.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Partition valued functions.}
We recall some basic notions of partitions to describe conjugacy classes
of $\Gamma_n$.
Let $\la=(\la_1,\la_2,\cdots,\la_l)$ be a partition of $n$ with
$\lambda_1 \geq\cdots\geq \lambda_l\geq 1.$ We denote by $l=l(\la)$
the length of the partition $\la$ and set
$|\la|=\la_1+\cdots+\la_l.$ Sometimes we write
$\la=(1^{m_1}2^{m_2}3^{m_3}\cdots)$, where $m_i$ is the multiplicity of $i$ among
the parts of $\la$.
Given a
finite set $X$, let
$\rho=(\rho(x))_{x\in X}$ be a family of partitions indexed by
$X$, we denote by $l(\rho)=\sum_{x\in X}l(\rho(x))$ the length
of $\rho$ and by $||\rho||=\sum_{x\in
X}|\rho(x)|$ the sum of parts of $\rho$, and then
$\rho=(\rho(x))_{x\in X}$ is called a {\it partition valued function}
on $X.$ Let $ \mathcal
{P}(X)$ be the set of all partitions indexed by $X$ and
$\mathcal{P}_n(X)$ the set of all partitions in $\mathcal {P}(X)$
such that $||\rho||=n.$ For two partition valued functions
$\rho=(\rho(x))_{x\in X}$ and $\sigma=(\sigma(x))_{x\in X}$,
we define the {\it union} of $\rho\cup\sigma$ to be the
partition valued function given by $(\rho\cup\sigma)(x)=\rho(x)\cup\sigma(x)$.
Here the union of two ordinary partitions is taken to be the juxtaposition of
two partitions with their parts rearranged.
Subsequently, $||\rho\cup\sigma||=||\rho||+||\sigma||$
and $l(\rho\cup\sigma)=l(\rho)+l(\sigma)$. A partition valued function is said to be
{\it decomposable} if it is a (non-trivial) union of two or more partition valued functions.
A partition $\la=(\la_1,\la_2,\cdots,\la_l)$ is called {\em
{strict}} if $\la_i\neq \la_j$ for $i\neq j$. We denote by $\mathcal {SP}(X)$ the set of
partition valued functions $(\rho(x))_{x\in X}$ in $ \mathcal
{P}(X)$ where each partition $\rho(x)$ is strict. Let $\mathcal
{OP}(X)$ be the set of partition valued functions $(\rho(x))_{x\in
X}$ in $ \mathcal {P}(X)$ such that all parts of the partitions
$\rho(x)$ are odd integers.
For each partition $\la$ we define the {\em parity} $d(\la)=|\la|-l(\la)$.
Similarly, for a partition valued function $\rho=(\rho(x))_{x\in
X}$, we define $d(\rho)= ||\rho||-l(\rho)$. Then $\rho$ is {\it even} (or {\it odd}) if
$d(\rho)$ is even (or odd). We let ${\mathcal{P}}_n^0(X)$ (or ${\mathcal{P}}_n^1(X)$) to be the collection
of even (or odd) partition valued functions on $X$.
As convention we set $\mathcal {SP}_n^i(X)=\mathcal
{P}_n^i(X)\cap \mathcal {SP}(X)$ and $\mathcal {OP}_n(X)=\mathcal
{P}_n(X)\cap \mathcal {OP}(X)$ for $i\in \{0,1\}$. For simplicity,
$\mathcal{P}(X)$ will be simply written as $\mathcal {P}$ when $X$
consists of a single element. Similarly we have notations
such as $\mathcal {OP}$, $\mathcal {SP}$, $\mathcal {OP}_n$ and $\mathcal
{SP}_n^i$.
\subsection{Split conjugacy classes of $\Gamma^n\ltimes S_{\mu}$.}
We first recall the parametrization of conjugacy classes of $\Gamma_n$ by partition valued functions. For
an element $(g, \sigma)\in \Gamma_n$, write the permutation $\sigma$ as
a product of disjoint cycles. For each cycle
$(i_1i_2\cdots i_k)$ inside $\sigma$, we associate the cycle-product $g_{i_k}g_{i_{k-1}}\cdots
g_{i_1}\in \Gamma$. Now for each conjugacy class $c$ let $m_k(c)$ be the multiplicity of $k$
such that the cycle product $\in c$. The resulted partition valued function $\rho\in\mathcal P(\Gamma_*)$, where $\rho(c)=(1^{m_1(c)}2^{m_1(c)}\cdots)$,
determines the conjugacy class of $(g, \sigma)$ completely \cite{M}.
For a partition $\mu$ of $n$
we define the Young subgroup of $S_n$ to be
$$S_{\{1,\cdots,\mu_1\}}\times \cdots\times S_{\{\mu_1+\cdots+\mu_{s-1}+1, \cdots, \mu_1+\cdots+\mu_s\}},$$
which will be abbreviated as $S_{\mu_1}\times\cdots\times S_{\mu_s}$. Similarly $\Gamma^n \ltimes (S_{\mu_1} \times S_{\mu_2}\times
\cdots \times S_{\mu_s})\simeq \Gamma_{\mu_1}\times\cdots \times\Gamma_{\mu_s}:=\Gamma_{\mu}$ is a subgroup of $ \Gamma_n$, also
called the Young subgroup of $\Gamma_n$ associated to $\mu$.
Now we discuss the parametrization of conjugacy classes
generated by Young subgroups. Let $x=(g,\omega)$ be an
element of the Young subgroup
$\Gamma_{\mu_1}\times \Gamma_{\mu_2}\times\cdots \times
\Gamma_{\mu_s}$,
where $x=x_1\cdots x_s$ and $x_i=(g^{(i)},\sigma_i)\in \Gamma_{\mu_i}$.
Let $\rho^i$ be the partition valued function on $\Gamma_*$ given by the congugacy class of $x_i$, thus $||\rho^i||=\mu_i$. We remark that if $x_i$ is viewed as an element of $\Gamma_n$, then the conjugacy class of $x_i$ corresponds to the
partition valued function $\rho^i\cup (1^{n-\mu_i})$. Then
$\rho=\rho^1\cup \rho^2\cup \cdots \cup \rho^s$
will be the partition valued function of $(g, \omega)$.
In this way we define a bijection $\phi$ from the decomposable
partition valued functions $\rho=\rho^1\cup\cdots\cup\rho^s$ such that $||\rho^i||=\mu_i$ to the conjugacy classes of
$x=(g,\omega)$ in $\Gamma_{\mu_1}\times
\Gamma_{\mu_2}\times\cdots \times \Gamma_{\mu_s}$.
For
$\rho=(\rho(c))_{c\in\Gamma_*}\in \mathcal {P}_n(\Gamma_*)$, let $C_{\rho}$ be the corresponding conjugacy class in $\Gamma_n$. Let $c^0,\cdots,c^r$ be the conjugacy classes
of $\Gamma$, here $c^0=\{1\}$, the trivial class. Let
$T_{\rho(c^i)}$ be the standard Young tableau such that the numbers $
\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}|\rho(c^j)|+1,\cdots,\sum_{j=1}^{i}|\rho(c^j)|$ are
placed in the Young diagram of shape
$\rho(c^i)=(\rho(c^i)_1,\cdots,\rho(c^i)_l)$ from the left to the right and
from the first row to
the last row. Then we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:preimage}
\begin{split}t_{\rho(c^i)}=&[a_{i-1}+1,\cdots,
a_{i-1}+\rho(c^i)_1]\cdots \\
&[a_{i-1}+\rho(c^i)_1+\cdots+\rho(c^i)_{l-1},\cdots, a_{i-1}+|\rho(c^i)|],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $a_{i-1}=\sum_{j=0}^{i-1}|\rho(c^j)|$. Finally, we define $t_{\rho}=t_{\rho(c^0)}t_{\rho(c^1)}\cdots
t_{\rho(c^r)}$ in $\widetilde{S}_n$. For any permutation $\sigma\in S_n$,
we also define $t_{\rho}^{\sigma}$ to be the
element obtained from $t_{\rho}$ by
permuting the natural numbering by $\sigma$. Thus the general element of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ is of
the form $(g,z^pt^{\sigma}_{\rho})$, where $\rho$ is the type of the
conjugacy class of $(g,z^pt^{\sigma}_{\rho})$ and $\sigma\in S_n$.
An element $\widetilde{x}\in\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ is called
{\em non-split} if $\widetilde{x}$ is conjugate to $z\widetilde{x}$.
Otherwise $\widetilde{x}$ is said to be {\em split}. A conjugacy
class of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ is called split if its elements are
split. Correspondingly an element $x\in\Gamma_n$ is called split if
$\theta^{-1}_n(x)$ is split. Therefore a conjugacy class $C_{\rho}$
of $\Gamma_n$ splits if and only if the preimage
$\theta_n^{-1}(C_{\rho})\triangleq D_{\rho}$ splits into two
conjugacy classes in $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$. Read has proved that
the preimage
$\theta_n^{-1}(C_{\rho})$ splits into two conjugacy classes in
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ if and only if $\rho\in \mathcal
{OP}_n(\Gamma_*)$ or $\rho\in \mathcal {SP}_n^1(\Gamma_*)$
(cf. \cite{FJW}).
For each split
conjugacy class $C_{\rho}$ in $\Gamma_n$, we define the conjugacy
class $D_{\rho}^{+}$ in $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ to be the conjugacy
class containing the element $(g,t_{\rho})$ and define
$D_{\rho}^{-}=zD_{\rho}^{+}$, then $ D_{\rho}=D_{\rho}^{+}\cup
D_{\rho}^{-}$.
For a partition $\la=(1^{m_1}2^{m_2}3^{m_3}\cdots)$ of $n$, we denote by
$z_{\la}=\prod_{i\geq 1}i^{m_i}m_i!$ the order of the centralizer of
an element with cycle type $\la$ in $S_{n}.$
For each partition valued function
$\rho=(\rho(c))_{c\in\Gamma_*}$, we find that
\begin{equation}
Z_{\rho}=\prod_{c\in\Gamma_*}z_{\rho(c)}\zeta_c^{l(\rho(c))}
\end{equation} is the order of the centralizer of an element of
conjugacy type $\rho=(\rho(c))_{c\in\Gamma_*}$ in $\Gamma_n$. Correspondingly
the order of the centralizer of an element of conjugacy type $\rho$ in $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1}
\widetilde{Z}_{\rho}=\left\{ \begin{aligned}
2Z_{\rho}, & \ \ \ C_{\rho} ~\hbox{is split,} \\
Z_{\rho},& \ \ \ C_{\rho} ~\hbox{is non-split.}
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
Following the usual definition \cite{S}
a representation $\pi$ of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ is called {\em
spin} if $\pi(z)=-1$. In particular, the character values of a
spin representation are determined by its values on the split
classes, since in that case,
$Tr(\pi(z\widetilde{x}))=-Tr(\pi(\widetilde{x}))=0$ whenever
$\widetilde{x}$ and $z\widetilde{x}$ are conjugate in
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$.
Let $(-1)^d$ be the sign representation of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$:
$\widetilde{x}\longrightarrow (-1)^{d(\widetilde{x})}.$ When $(-1)^d\pi\simeq\pi$ we call
$\pi$ a {\em double spin} representation of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$. If
$\pi^{'}=(-1)^d\pi\ncong \pi,$ then $\pi^{'}$ and $\pi$ are called
a pair of {\em associate spin} representations of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$.
\section{Twisted Grothendieck groups}
In this section we recall some fundamental facts about supermodules, spin super functions and the irreducible spin
characters of $\widetilde{S}_n$, then we study the spin
representations of $\Gamma^n \ltimes \widetilde{S}_{\mu}$, which is a double cover
of $\Gamma_{\mu}$.
\subsection{Supermodules}
Let $\mathbb{C}[\widetilde{\Gamma}_n]$ be the group algebra of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n,$ then $\mathscr{A}_n=\mathbb{C}[\widetilde{\Gamma}_n]/(1+z)$ becomes a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded algebra by setting
$deg(t_{i})=1,(i=1,\cdots,n-1)$. A $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$-module $V$ is called a {\it spin module}
if $z$ acts as $-id_V$, then $V$ can also be viewed as
an $\mathscr{A}_n$-module. Conversely any $\mathscr{A}_n$-module
is also a spin module of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$. If $V=V_0\oplus V_1$ and $\mathscr{A}_n^iV_j\subset V_{i+j}$,
where $\mathscr{A}_n^i$ is the $i$th homogeneous subspace, then $V$ is called a supermodule.
It is well-known that complex simple superalgebras have only two types \cite{Jo}:
(1) Type $M$. The superalgebra $M(r|s)$ is equal to the matrix algebra $Mat(r+s, r+s)$, where
the matrices are partitioned as $2\times 2$ block matrices so that the main diagonals are $r\times r$ and $s\times s$ sub-matrices. The subspace $M(r|s)_0$ consists of diagonal block matrices, and the
subspace $M(r|s)_1$ is equal to the space of off-diagonal block matrices.
(2) Type $Q$. The superalgebra $Q(n)$ is the subalgebra of $M(n|n)$ formed by block matrices
with both equal diagonal block matrices and skew diagonal block matrices.
Furthermore, $\mathscr{A}_n$ is semisimple, so it is a direct product of finitely many simple superalgebras.
A supermodule is said to be of type $M$ (or $Q$) if it is a multiple of one minimal left superideal of $M(r|s)$
(or $Q(n)$).
Subsequently any finite dimensional $\mathbb{C}[\Gamma_n]$-supermodule is
isomorphic to a direct sum of simple supermodules of type $M$ or type $Q$.
If $V$ is a double spin irreducible $\mathbb C[\widetilde{\Gamma}_n]$-module,
then $V$ is already an $\mathscr{A}_n$-supermodule by the inherited action.
If $V$ is an irreducible associate spin $\mathbb C[\widetilde{\Gamma}_n]$-module, then
$D(V)=V\oplus V'$ becomes an irreducible $\mathscr{A}_n$-supermodule where
$D(V)_0=\{(v, v)|v\in V\}$, $D(V)_1=\{(v, -v)|v\in V\}$ and
the action is induced from that of the ordinary module, i.e.
$g^{(i)}(u, v)=(g^{(i)}u, (-1)^ig^{(i)}v)$ for $g^{(i)}\in\mathscr{A}_n^{(i)}$, the degree
$i$-subspace of $\mathscr{A}_n^{(i)}$.
In the following we will use supermodules to compute irreducible characters.
The underlying principle is that an irreducible (spin) supermodule of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$
remains irreducible as an (spin) module when it is of type $M$ or decomposes into two
irreducible (spin) modules when it is of type $Q$, and any
irreducible spin module can be realized in this way.
\subsection{The space $ {R}^-(\widetilde{\Gamma}_n)$}
A spin class function on $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ is a class function
from $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ to $\mathbb{C}$ such that
$f(zx)=-f(x)$, thus spin class functions vanish on non-split
conjugacy classes. A spin {\it super} class function on
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ is a spin class function $f$ on
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ such that $f$ vanishes further on odd strict
conjugacy classes. Let $ {R}^{-}(\widetilde{\Gamma}_n)$ be the
$\mathbb{C}$-span of spin
super class functions on
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$.
The twisted product $\widetilde{\Gamma}_l\tilde{\times}\widetilde{\Gamma}_m$ is
equal to $\widetilde{\Gamma}_l\times\widetilde{\Gamma}_m$ as a set but with
the multiplication
$$(t,t^{'})(s,s^{'})=(tsz^{d(t^{'})d(s)},t^{'}s^{'}),$$
where $s,t\in \widetilde{\Gamma}_l,$ $s^{'},t^{'}\in
\widetilde{\Gamma}_m$ are homogeneous. We define the spin direct
product \cite{FJW} of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_l$ and $\widetilde{\Gamma}_m$ by
\begin{equation}\label{s_n}
\widetilde{\Gamma}_l \hat{\times}\widetilde{\Gamma}_m=\widetilde{\Gamma}_l\tilde{\times}\widetilde{\Gamma}_m/\{(1,1),(z,z)\}
\end{equation}
which can be embedded into the spin group $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{l+m}$ canonically by letting
\begin{equation}
(t_i^{'},1)\longmapsto t_i,\ \ \ \ (1,t_j^{''})\longmapsto t_{l+j},
\end{equation}
where $t_i^{'}\in \widetilde{\Gamma}_l \,(i=1,\cdots,l-1), t_j^{''}\in \widetilde{\Gamma}_m
\,(j=1,\cdots,m-1)$. We identify $\widetilde{\Gamma}_l\hat{\times}\widetilde{\Gamma}_m$
with its image in $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{l+m}$ and regard it as a subgroup of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{l+m}$.
We remarked earlier that we would study spin modules via supermodules \cite{Jo}. The following exposition
of twisted Grothendieck rings of supermodules follows \cite{FJW} closely. For two spin supermodules $U$ and $V$ of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{l}$ and $\widetilde{\Gamma}_m$, we define the
super (outer)-tensor product $U{\hat{\otimes}} V$
by
$$(t,s)(u{\hat{\otimes}
} v)=(-1)^{d(s)d(u)}(tu{\hat{\otimes}} sv),$$
where $s$ and $u$ are homogeneous elements. Then $U\hat{\otimes}V$ is a spin
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_l\hat{\times}\widetilde{\Gamma}_m$-supermodule.
Moreover, let $U$ and $V$ be irreducible supermodules for $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{l}$ and $\widetilde{\Gamma}_m$ respectively, then
(1) if both $U$ and $V$ are of type $M$, then $U\hat{\otimes} V$ is a simple $\widetilde{\Gamma}_l\hat{\times}\widetilde{\Gamma}_m$
-supermodule of type $M;$
(2) if $U$ and $V$ are of different types, then $U\hat{\otimes }V$ is a simple
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_l\hat{\times}\widetilde{\Gamma}_m$-supermodule of type $Q;$
(3) if both $U$ and $V$ are of type $Q$,
then $U\hat{\otimes} V\simeq N\oplus N$ for some simple $\widetilde{\Gamma}_l\hat{\times}\widetilde{\Gamma}_m$-supermodules $N$ of type $M.$
The irreducible summands in case (3) are more subtle as ordinary irreducible modules. In fact we have the following
result. First of all, if $V$ is an irreducible double spin module, then $V$ is {\it a priori}
an irreducible supermodule
of type M (we still use the same symbol for the supermodule). If $V$ is an irreducible associate spin module, then $D(V)=V\oplus V'$ is an irreducible supermodule
of type Q. The following result is mostly from \cite{Jo}.
\begin{prop}\label{tensorprod}
Let $f_1$ and $f_2$ be the spin characters afforded by an irreducible
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_m$-module $V_1$ and an $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$-module $V_2$ respectively.
(i) If both $V_i$ are double spin, then the tensor product $V_1\hat{\otimes}V_2$ is
irreducible both as a supermodule and as an ordinary module
for $\widetilde{\Gamma}_m\hat{\times}\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$.
(ii) If $V_1$ is double spin and $V_2$ is associate spin,
then the tensor product $V_1\hat{\otimes}D(V_2)$ is irreducible as a $\widetilde{\Gamma}_m\hat{\times}\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$-supermodule and decomposes
into $V_1\circledast V_2\oplus (V_1\circledast V_2)'$ as an ordinary module, where $(V_1\circledast V_2)'$
is the associated module of the irreducible module $V_1\circledast V_2$.
(iii) If both $V_i$ are associate spin,
then the tensor product $D(V_1)\hat{\otimes}D(V_2)$ decomposes
into $W\oplus W$, where $W$ is an irreducible $\widetilde{\Gamma}_m\hat{\times}\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$-supermodule
of type M. Set $W=V_1\circledast V_2$ when it is viewed as an ordinary irreducible module
(up to isomorphism), then the character $f_1\circledast f_2$ of the irreducible summand $V_1\circledast V_2$ satisfies that
\begin{align*}
f_1\circledast f_2(x_1, x_2)=\begin{cases} 2(\sqrt{-1})^{d(x_1)d(x_2)}f_1(x_1)f_2(x_2) & \mbox{both $f_i$ are associate spin,}\\
f_1(x_1)f_2(x_2) & \mbox{otherwise,}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
where $x_1\in\widetilde{\Gamma}_m$, $x_2\in\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$.
\begin{proof} The statements on tensor products of supermodules are clear.
The relationship between supermodules and modules are proved in \cite{Jo}.
The last relation about characters follows from
analysis of basic spin characters, see \cite{Jo} or
\cite{J} for details. Another treatment can be found in
\cite{St} for the special case of $\widetilde{S}_n$.
\end{proof}
The starred tensor product $V_1\circledast V_2$ is essentially
Schur's tensor product of spin modules \cite{S}. We can generalize the starred tensor product
$V_1\circledast\cdots\circledast V_s$ for multiple
modules. Let $f_i$ ($i=1, \cdots, k$) be the character of the irreducible
associate spin module $V_i$, which comes from an irreducible supermodule of type Q. Let
$f_j$ ($j=k+1, \cdots, s$) be the character of the irreducible
associate spin module $V_j$, which comes from an irreducible supermodule of type M. We define $f_1\circledast\cdots \circledast f_s$
to be the character of the irreducible component $V_1\circledast\cdots \circledast V_s$ (as an ordinary
module) in the super tensor
product
\[
D(V_1)\hat{\otimes}\cdots \hat{\otimes}D(V_k)\hat{\otimes} V_{k+1}\hat{\otimes}\cdots \hat{\otimes}V_s.
\]
Note that $V_1\circledast\cdots \circledast V_s$ is only defined up to isomorphism. See \cite{K}
for a similar discussion for supermodules.
Using induction on $k$ we also have
\begin{equation}\label{eqf}
f_1\circledast\cdots\circledast f_s({x}_1\cdots {x}_s)
=2^{[\frac{k}2]} (\sqrt{-1})^{[\frac{k}2]d(x_1)\cdots d(x_k)}f_1({x}_1)\cdots f_s({x}_s)
\end{equation}
where $x_i\in\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu_i}$ and $[a]$ denotes the maximum integer
$\leq a$.
The twisted Grothendieck group $R^{-}({\Gamma})=\bigoplus_{n\geq 0} R^{-}(\widetilde{\Gamma}_n)$
has an associative algebra structure. The multiplication
is defined as follows.
Let $f\in R^{-}(\widetilde{\Gamma}_l)$, $g\in R^{-}(\widetilde{\Gamma}_m) $.
Then $f\times g$ is an element of $R^{-}(\widetilde{\Gamma}_l\hat{\times} \widetilde{\Gamma}_m)$
and we define
$$f\circ g=\mbox{Ind}_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_l\hat{\times}\widetilde{\Gamma}_m}^{\widetilde{\Gamma}_{l+m}}(f\times g)$$
which is an element of $R^{-}(\widetilde{\Gamma}_{l+m})$. This gives a bilinear multiplication
on $R^{-}({\Gamma})$. It follows from \cite{FJW} that $R^{-}({\Gamma})$ becomes a graded associative $\mathbb{C}$-algebra.
The irreducible spin super characters of
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ form a $\mathbb{C}$-basis of
$R^{-}(\widetilde{\Gamma}_n)$. For two simple supermodules $\phi, \varphi\in
R^{-}(\widetilde{\Gamma}_n)$, the standard
inner product can also be used for supermodules and we have that \cite{FJW}
\begin{equation}
\langle\phi,\varphi\rangle=\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
1 ~& \hbox{if $\phi\simeq\varphi$ is type $M$},\\
2 ~ & \hbox{if $\phi\simeq\varphi$ is type $Q$}~,~~~~\\
0 ~& \hbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
For a simple supermodule $V$ we define
\begin{equation}
\dot{c}=c(V)=\left\{\begin{array}{lc}0 ~&
\hbox{if $V$ is type $M$},\\
1~ &\hbox{if $V$ is type $Q$},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
and then we extend the definition to multiple copies of $V$
by $c(V^{\oplus n})=c(V)$.
Let $f_{i}$ $(i=1,\cdots, s)$ be the spin characters of irreducible $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu_i}$-modules $V_i$.
Assume that $k$ of them are associate spin modules, say, $V_1, \cdots, V_k$ are associate spin and
$V_{k+1}, \cdots, V_s$ are double spin modules. Then $D(V_1), \cdots, D(V_k)$ are irreducible supermodules
of type Q, and $V_{k+1}, \cdots, V_s$ are irreducible supermodules of type M.
Let $f_1\circ\cdots\circ f_s$ be the induced character of $f=f_1\circledast\cdots\circledast f_s$ from $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}$ to $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$. For later applications we determine the restriction $\mbox{Res}_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}}(f_1\circ\cdots\circ f_s)$.
We denote by $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}\backslash \widetilde{\Gamma}_{n}/\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}$
the collection of the double cosets $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}t\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}$,
and set $(\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu})_t=t\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}t^{-1}\cap\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}$ for any double coset
representative $t$. By Mackey's decomposition theorem, we have
$$\mbox{Res}_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}}(f_1\circ\cdots\circ f_s)=\bigoplus_{t\in \widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}\backslash \widetilde{\Gamma}_{n}/\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}}
\mbox{Ind}_{(\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu})_{t}}^{\widetilde{\Gamma}_{n}}(f^t),$$
where $f^t(\tilde{x})=f(t^{-1}\tilde{x}t)$.
From Frobenius reciprocity it follows that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\begin{split}\langle f_1\circ\cdots\circ f_s,f_1\circ\cdots\circ f_s\rangle=&\langle f,\mbox{Res}_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}}(f_1\circ\cdots\circ f_s)\rangle\\
=&\sum_{t\in \widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}\backslash\widetilde{\Gamma}_{n}/\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}}\langle \mbox{Res}_{(\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu})_t}(f),f^t\rangle_{(\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu})_t}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By definition $f=f_1\circledast\cdots\circledast f_s$ is an irreducible spin
character. If $f_1\circ\cdots\circ f_s$ is a spin $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$-irreducible character, then
we have $\langle \mbox{Res}_{(\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu})_t}(f),f^t\rangle_{(\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu})_t}=0$ for $t\neq 1$
(nontrivial double coset). In fact when $t=1$,
one has $\langle \mbox{Res}_{(\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu})_t}(f),f^t\rangle_{(\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu})_t}
=\langle f, f\rangle_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}}=1$,
and $\langle f_1\circ\cdots\circ f_s, f_1\circ\cdots\circ f_s\rangle=1$.
Therefore in this case we have
\begin{equation}\label{Inner}
\begin{split}
& \langle f_1\circ\cdots\circ f_s, f_1\circ\cdots\circ f_s\rangle_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_{n}}
=\langle f, f\rangle_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}}\\
=&2^{k-\dot{c}}\frac{1}{|\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}|}\sum_{\tilde{x}\in \widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}}
f_1(\tilde{x}_1)\cdots f_s(\tilde{x}_s)\overline{f_1(\tilde{x}_1)\cdots f_s(\tilde{x}_s)},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{x}=\tilde{x}_1\cdots \tilde{x}_s$ and $\tilde{x}_i\in
\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu_i} (i=1,\cdots,s)$.
\subsection{Irreducible spin representations of $\widetilde{S}_n$}
To compute irreducible characters of
$\widetilde{S}_n$, Schur \cite{S} introduced the symmetric functions
$Q_{\nu}\in\mathbb Q[p_1, p_3, \ldots]$, where $\nu\in\mathcal{SP}_n$ and $p_k=
\sum_{i\geq 1}x_i^k$ is the $k$th power sum symmetric function.
For $l=l(\nu)\leq n$, the Schur $Q$-function $Q_{\nu}$ is given by
$$Q_{\nu}(x_1, \cdots, x_n
=2^{l}\sum_{\alpha\in S_n/S_{n-l}}x_{\alpha(1)}^{\nu_1}\cdots
x_{\alpha(n)}^{\nu_n} \prod_{\nu_i>\nu_j}\frac{x_{\alpha(i)}+x_{\alpha(j)}}{x_{\alpha(i)}-x_{\alpha(j)}},
$$
where $\nu_m=0$ for $m>l(\nu)$.
Schur showed that
for each $\nu\in \mathcal {SP}_n$ there corresponds a unique irreducible (double) spin
character $\Delta_{\nu}$ if $n-l(\nu)$ is even or a pair of irreducible (associate) spin characters $\Delta_{\nu}^{+}$
and $\Delta_{\nu}^{-}$ if $n-l(\nu)$ is odd.
The spin character values $\{\Delta^{\la}_{\nu}|\la\in\mathcal
{OP}_n\}$
are determined by
\begin{equation}\label{Q}
Q_{\nu}=\sum_{\la\in\mathcal {OP}_n}2^{\frac{l({\nu})+l(\la)+\bar{d}(\nu)}{2}}
z_{\la}^{-1}\Delta_{\nu}^{\la}p_{\la},
\end{equation}
where $p_{\la}=p_{\la_1}p_{\la_2}\cdots p_{\lambda_l}$
are the power sum symmetric functions, $(\Delta_{\nu}^+)^{\la}=\Delta_{\nu}^{\la}$ for odd $n-l(\nu)$ and
\begin{equation*}
\bar{d}(\nu)=\left\{ \begin{aligned}
0\ \ \ & \hbox{~when~} d(\nu) \hbox{~is ~even}, \\
1 \ \ \ & \hbox{~when~} d(\nu) \hbox{~is ~odd}.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
\begin{theorem}(Schur \cite{S}) For each ${\nu}=({\nu}_1,\cdots, {\nu}_l)\in \mathcal
{SP}_n (n\geq 4)$, the corresponding irreducible spin characters of $\widetilde{S}_n$ are determined as follows.
(i) If $n-l$ is even,
there is a unique (double) spin irreducible character
$\Delta_{\nu}$ whose character values $\Delta^{\la}_{\nu}\, (\la\in\mathcal {OP}_n)$
are given by (\ref{Q})
and $\Delta^{\mu}_{\nu}=0$ for $\mu\notin\mathcal {OP}_n.$
(ii) If $n-l$ is odd,
there are two irreducible (associate) spin characters
$\Delta_{\nu}^{+},~\Delta_{\nu}^{-}$. The character values $(\Delta_{\nu}^{+})^{\la}$
are given by (\ref{Q}) for $\la\in\mathcal {OP}_n$,
and for other classes they are given by
$$
(\Delta_{\nu}^{+})^{\nu}=(\sqrt{-1})^{(n-l({\nu})+1)/2}\sqrt{{\nu}_1\cdots {\nu}_l/2},$$
and
$(\Delta_{\nu}^{+})^{\mu}=0$ for $\mu\neq {\nu}\in \mathcal {SP}^1_n$.
Moreover, $(\Delta_{\nu}^{-})^{\mu}=(\Delta_{\nu}^{+})^{\mu}$ for $\mu$ even
and $(\Delta_{\nu}^{-})^{\mu}=-(\Delta_{\nu}^{+})^{\mu}$ for $\mu$ odd.
\end{theorem}
For an iterative method to compute the spin characters of $\widetilde{S}_n$ and
an explicit character table up to degree 13, see \cite{Mo}.
Let $V_i$ be the
$i$th irreducible $\Gamma$-module affording the character $\gamma_i$, $i\in\{0, 1, \ldots, r\}$. Let $\Omega=\mathcal P_n(l\leq r+1)$, the set of partitions of $n$ with lengths $\leq r+1$.
Now take distinct integers $i_1,\ldots,i_s$ from $\{0,1, \ldots,r\}$, a partition
$\mu=({\mu_1}, \ldots, {\mu_s})\in\Omega$, and let $W$ be a spin
supermodule of $\widetilde{S}_{\mu}$. Then
the tensor product $V_{i_1}^{\otimes
\mu_1}\otimes\cdots \otimes
V_{i_s}^{\otimes \mu_s}\otimes W$ becomes a spin $ \Gamma^n \ltimes
\widetilde{S}_{\mu}$-supermodule under the action
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&(g,z^pt_{\rho})\cdot(v_1\otimes\cdots\otimes v_n \otimes w)\\
=&(g_1v_{\sigma_{\rho}^{-1}(1)}\otimes\cdots\otimes
g_nv_{\sigma_{\rho}^{-1}(n)})\otimes (z^pt_{\rho}w),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $(g, z^pt_{\rho})\in\Gamma^n\ltimes \widetilde{S}_n$, $v_1\otimes\cdots\otimes v_n \in V_{i_1}^{\otimes
\mu_1}\otimes\cdots \otimes V_{i_s}^{\otimes \mu_s}$, and $w\in W$.
In particular, when $s=1$ the module $V_i^{\otimes n}\otimes W$ is a spin supermodule
of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$.
\section{Irreducible spin character tables of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$.}
In this section we will construct the irreducible spin modules of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$.
By the general theory of spin characters \cite{FJW} it
is enough to focus on strict partition valued
functions of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{n}$. We will show that essentially only one special class of conjugacy classes (corresponding to odd strict partition valued
functions) can support nonzero irreducible character values.
\subsection{The irreducible spin supermodules of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$}
For $j_1, \cdots,
j_n\in \{0,\cdots,r\}$ and $\Gamma=\mathbb Z_{r+1}$,
let $\gamma=\gamma_{j_1}\otimes\gamma_{j_2}\otimes\cdots\otimes\gamma_{j_n}$.
Then $\gamma$ is an irreducible character of $\Gamma^n$ through the usual tensor product
action.
Since
$\Gamma^n$ is abelian, they form a group $X=Hom(\Gamma^n, \mathbb{C}^{*})$ under multiplication. The group
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ acts on $X$ by
$$(\widetilde{x}\cdot\gamma)(g)=\gamma(\widetilde{x}\cdot g) ~~~~\ \ \ \hbox{for}~ \widetilde{x}\in \widetilde{\Gamma}_n, ~\gamma\in X, ~g\in \Gamma^n.$$
In particular the subgroup $\widetilde{S}_n$ acts on $X$. We introduce the {\em class orbits} for the action
of $\widetilde{S}_n$ on $X$. For a partition $\mu\in \Omega=\mathcal{P}_n(l\leq r+1)$ and distinct integers $i_1,\cdots,i_s$ from $\{0,1,\cdots,r\}$ (thus $s$ must be smaller than $r+1$), we denote by $I$ the set of the sequences
$\lfloor i_1, i_2, \cdots, i_s \rfloor$ such that $s=l(\mu)\leq r+1$. For such $\mu=(\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_s)\in\Omega$ and a sequence
$\lfloor i_1, i_2, \cdots, i_s \rfloor\in I$,
we associate a $\widetilde{S}_n$-orbit of $X$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\mathcal {O}(\gamma_{i_1}^{\otimes \mu_1}\otimes
\gamma_{i_2}^{\otimes \mu_2}\otimes \cdots \otimes
\gamma_{i_s}^{\otimes\mu_s})\\
=&\{\gamma_{j_1}\otimes\gamma_{j_2}\otimes\cdots\otimes\gamma_{j_n}|
\hbox{~there ~are~} \mu_k \hbox{~indices~equal~to~} i_k \}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
With fixed $\mu$, the set of these orbits is called a {\em class orbit} with
type $\mu=(\mu_1, \cdots , \mu_s)$. For simplicity, we denote
by $\Phi_{\mu}$ the {\em class orbit } as follows:
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\mu}\triangleq \{\mathcal {O}(\gamma_{i_1}^{\otimes
\mu_1}\otimes \gamma_{i_2}^{\otimes \mu_2}\otimes \cdots \otimes
\gamma_{i_s}^{\otimes \mu_s})~|~ \lfloor i_1, i_2, \cdots,
i_s\rfloor \in I\}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, we say that an irreducible character
$\gamma_{j_1}\otimes\gamma_{j_2}\otimes\cdots\otimes\gamma_{j_n}$
has type $\mu=(\mu_1, \mu_2, \cdots , \mu_s)$ if it is contained in
an orbit $\mathcal {O}(\gamma_{i_1}^{\otimes \mu_1}\otimes
\gamma_{i_2}^{\otimes \mu_2}\otimes \cdots \otimes
\gamma_{i_s}^{\otimes \mu_s})$.
\begin{lem}
(1) For $\mu\in\Omega$, the number of the class orbits $\Phi_{\mu}$ is equal to
$|\Omega|.$
(2) For a partition $\mu=(\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_s)\in
\Omega,$ each {\em class orbit} $\Phi_{\mu}$ contains $K_{\mu}$
orbits, where
\begin{equation}K_{\mu}=
\begin{bmatrix}1\\r+1\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}1\\r\end{bmatrix}
\cdots
\begin{bmatrix}1\\r+1-s+1\end{bmatrix}=\frac{(r+1)!}{(r+1-s)!}.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
For a sequence $\lfloor i_1, i_2, \cdots, i_s\rfloor \in I$,
$\gamma_{i_1}^{\otimes \mu_1}\otimes \gamma_{i_2}^{\otimes
\mu_2}\otimes \cdots \otimes \gamma_{i_s}^{\otimes\mu_s}$ is a
representative of the $\widetilde{S}_n$-orbit $\mathcal {O}(\gamma_{i_1}^{\otimes
\mu_1}\otimes \gamma_{i_2}^{\otimes \mu_2}\otimes \cdots \otimes
\gamma_{i_s}^{\otimes\mu_s})$ in $X.$ For simplicity, we set
$\gamma_i^{\mu}\triangleq \gamma_{i_1}^{\otimes \mu_1}\otimes
\gamma_{i_2}^{\otimes \mu_2}\otimes \cdots \otimes
\gamma_{i_s}^{\otimes\mu_s}$. For a
partition $\mu \in \Omega$, let $T_{\mu}=\{z^pt_{\rho}\in \widetilde{S}_n | z^p t_{\rho} \cdot
\gamma_{i}^{\mu}= \gamma_{i}^{\mu}\}$, then
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
T_{\mu}\simeq\widetilde{S}_{\mu_1} \hat{\times} \widetilde{S}_{\mu_2}
\hat{\times} \cdots \hat{\times}\widetilde{ S}_{\mu_s}=\widetilde{S}_{\mu}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, if we set
$ \widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}:=\Gamma^n\ltimes T_{\mu}\simeq\Gamma^n \ltimes \widetilde{S}_{\mu},$ then it
can be viewed as a subgroup of
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_n.$
We now use the Mackey-Wigner method of little groups (cf. \cite{Serre}) to construct the
irreducible spin characters of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n.$
In the following we will let $\pi_{\nu}$ be an irreducible spin
$\widetilde{S}_{\mu}$-module corresponding to $s$ strict partitions
$\nu^1, \cdots, \nu^s$ such that $|\nu^i|=\mu_i$ and $\chi_{\nu}$ be the spin character
afforded by $\pi_{\nu}$. For abelian groups
we may simply use the same letter to denote a representation as well as its character.
Now fix $i:=(i_1, \cdots, i_{s})$, a combination from $\{0, \cdots, r\}$ and let
$\widehat{\pi}_{\nu}$ be the irreducible spin module of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}$ obtained by composing $\pi_{\nu}$
with the canonical projection
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}\longrightarrow \widetilde{S}_{\mu}$. Then $\gamma^{\mu}_i\otimes\widehat{\pi}_{\nu}$
is an irreducible spin module of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}$. Finally we
define
$$\label{theta}\Theta_{\mu, i}^{\nu}\triangleq
\mbox{Ind}_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}}^{\widetilde{\Gamma}_n}(\gamma_i^{\mu}\otimes
\chi_{\widehat{\pi}_{\nu}}). $$
By the Mackey-Wigner method it is clear that $\Theta_{\mu, i}^{\nu}$ is an irreducible spin character
and any irreducible spin character is of this form (also see \cite{FJW} for a direct argument).
We will simply write $\Theta_{\mu, i}^{\nu}$ by
$\Theta_{i}^{\nu}$, where $\nu\in\mathcal{SP}_n(\Gamma_*)$, as it is
an induced character from the Young subgroup $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}$ and $\mu_j=|\nu^j|, j=1, \cdots, r+1$.
Here and later we allow some $\nu^j$ to be empty, thus even if
$\nu\in\mathcal{SP}_n(\Gamma_*)$ we often write out only the non-empty
partitions, so the associated weight partition $\mu$ with
$\mu_j=|\nu^j|$ is a partition with length $l(\mu)\leq r+1$.
\subsection{The irreducible spin super character table of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$}
When $n<4$, the spin group $\widetilde{S}_n$ is a direct product of $\mathbb Z_2$ and $S_n$, so we will assume
$n\geq 4$ throughout this section.
Let $(g,\sigma)\in \Gamma_n$, where $\sigma$ has type $\rho=(\rho(c))_{c\in \Gamma_{*}}$.
The preimage elements are then $(g,z^pt_{\rho})$, $p=0, 1$ (see (\ref{eq:preimage})).
These two elements are representatives of the conjugacy classes $D_{\rho}^+$ and $D_{\rho}^-$ respectively.
\begin{prop}\label{prop1} Let $\nu=(\nu^1, \cdots, \nu^s)\in \mathcal{SP}_n(\Gamma_{*})$
with $|\nu^j|=\mu_j$ and let $i=(i_1, \cdots, i_s)\in I$,
then for $\rho=(\rho^1, \cdots, \rho^s)\in\mathcal{P}_n(\Gamma_{*})$
such that $|\rho^j|=\mu_j$, the character values of $\Theta_{i}^{\nu}$
at the conjugacy classes $D_{\rho}^{\pm}$ are given by
\begin{equation}\Theta_{i}^{\nu}(D_{\rho}^{\pm})=\pm K_{\rho}\prod_{j=1}^s\big(\prod_{c\in
\Gamma_{*}}\gamma_{i_j}^{l(\rho^{j}(c))}\big)\cdot
\chi_{\nu}(t_{\rho}),
\end{equation}
where $K_{\rho}$ is the number of left cosets $T$ of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}$ in $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$
such that $(g,z^pt_{\rho})T=T.$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Since two elements of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ are conjugate if and only if they have the same
type. So for each transversal $t$ of the left coset of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}$ in $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$,
both $(g,z^pt_{\rho})$ and $t^{-1}(g,z^pt_{\rho})t$ have the same type $\rho$. Let $V_{i_j}(j=1,\cdots,s)$
be a $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$-module affording the character $\gamma_{i_j}\in \Gamma^{*}$. We will compute the
character $\gamma_i^{\mu}\otimes \chi_{\widehat{\pi}_{\nu}}$ of the representation $V^{\otimes\mu_1}_{i_1}
\otimes\cdots\otimes V^{\otimes\mu_s}_{i_s}\otimes W.$
If $\tilde{x}\in \widetilde{\Gamma}_m$ and $\tilde{y}\in \widetilde{\Gamma}_{n-m}$ then $\tilde{x}$ acts
on the first $m$ factors of $V^{\otimes\mu_1}_{i_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes V^{\otimes\mu_s}_{i_s}$ and $\tilde{y}$
on the last $n-m$ factors, it is clear that
\begin{equation}
\gamma_i^{\mu}\otimes \chi_{\widehat{\pi}_{\nu}}(\tilde{x}\hat{\times} \tilde{y})=\gamma_i^{\mu}
\otimes\chi_{\widehat{\pi}_{\nu}}(\tilde{x})\cdot\gamma_i^{\mu}\otimes\chi_{\widehat{\pi}_{\nu}}(\tilde{y}).
\end{equation}
Therefore it is enough to compute $\gamma_i^{\mu}\otimes \chi_{\widehat{\pi}_{\nu}}(g,z^pt_{\rho})$
when $t_{\rho}=[1,\cdots,\mu_1]$ $\cdots[\mu_1+\cdots+\mu_{s-1}+1,\cdots,n]$
is an $(\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_s)$-cycle. For this purpose, let $e_{i_j}$ be a basis of $V_{i_j}$(as $\Gamma$
is a cyclic group) and let $ge_{i_j}=\gamma_{i_j}(g)e_{i_j}, \gamma_{i_j}(g)\in \mathbb{C}$.
As $t_{\rho}\cdot\gamma_i^{\mu}=\gamma_i^{\mu}$
for $t_{\rho}\in \widetilde{S}_{\mu}$, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&(g,z^pt_{\rho})(e_{i_1}^{\otimes \mu_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes e_{i_s}^{\otimes\mu_s}\otimes w)\\
=&g_1(e_{i_1})\otimes\cdots\otimes g_{\mu_1}(e_{i_1})\otimes\cdots \\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \cdots\otimes g_{\mu_1+\cdots+\mu_{s-1}+1}(e_{i_s})\otimes\cdots\otimes g_{\mu_1+\cdots+\mu_s}(e_{i_s})\otimes z^pt_{\rho}(w)\\
=&\gamma_{i_1}(g_{\mu_1}\cdots g_{1})\cdots \gamma_{i_s}( g_n \cdots g_{n-\mu_s})
(e_{i_1}^{\otimes \mu_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes e_{i_s}^{\otimes\mu_s}\otimes z^pt_{\rho}(w))\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
If for each $j\in \{1,\cdots,s\}$, the cycle-product
$g_{\Sigma_{k=0}^{j}\mu_k}\cdot\dots\cdot
g_{\Sigma_{k=0}^{j-1}\mu_k+2}\cdot g_{\Sigma_{k=0}^{j-1}\mu_{k}+1}$
$(\mu_0=0)$ lies in $c\in \Gamma_{*}$, then we have
$$\gamma_i^{\mu}\otimes \chi_{\widehat{\pi}_{\nu}}
(g,z^pt_{\rho})=\prod_{j=1}^s\big(\prod_{c\in\Gamma_{*}}\gamma_{i_j}(c)^{l(\rho^j(c))}\big)\chi_{\nu}(z^pt_{\rho}).$$
Subsequently
\begin{equation} \label{Q1}
\begin{split}
\Theta_{i}^{\nu}(D_{\rho}^{\pm})=&\pm \sum_{\widetilde{x}\in\widetilde{\Gamma}_n}
\frac{1}{|\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}|}\gamma_i^{\mu}\otimes\chi_{\widehat{\pi}_{\nu}}(\widetilde{x}^{-1}(g,t_{\rho})\widetilde{x})\\
=&\pm K_{\rho}\prod_{j=1}^s\big(\prod_{c\in\Gamma_{*}}\gamma_{i_j}(c)^{l(\rho^j(c))}\big)\chi_{\nu}(t_{\rho}).
\end{split}
\end{equation
\end{proof}
For $j=1,\cdots,s$, let $\nu^j$ be a partition valued function on $\Gamma_{*}$ and denote
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\nu^j
=((\nu^j_{1},\cdots,\nu^j_{j_1}),
\cdots,(\nu^j_{j_1+\cdots+j_{k-1}+1},\cdots,
\nu^j_{{j_1+\cdots+j_{k-1}+j_k}}))
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in $ \mathcal{P}_{\mu_j}(\Gamma_{*})$, where $|\nu^j|=\mu_j$ and $j_1+j_2+\cdots+j_k=l(\nu^j)$. Then
$\nu=\nu^1\cup\cdots\cup\nu^s$ is a partition valued function in $\mathcal{P}_n(\Gamma_{*})$.
For each $c\in\Gamma_{*}$ and a partition $\lambda\in\mathcal P$, we
define the characteristic
partition $c^{\lambda}\in
\mathcal{P}(\Gamma_{*})$ by
$$c^{\lambda}(c)=\lambda, \ \ c^{\lambda}(c^{'})={\emptyset }, ~\hbox{for}~ c^{'}\neq c.$$
Let $c^{(\tilde{\nu}^j)}:=c_{i_0}^{(\nu^j_{1})}\cup c_{i_1}^{(\nu^j_{2})}\cup\cdots\cup c_{i_{l(\nu^j)}}^{(\nu^j_{l(\nu^j)})}
$, then this union is a characteristic partition valued function in
$\mathcal{P}_{\mu_j}(\Gamma_{*})$ supported only at $c_{i_0},c_{i_1},\cdots,c_{i_{l(\nu^j)}}$.
Thus
$$\tilde{\nu}:=c^{(\tilde{\nu}^1)}\cup\cdots\cup c^{(\tilde{\nu}^s)}$$
is a {\it characteristic
partition-valued function} in $\mathcal{P}_{n}(\Gamma_{*})$. Let
$\bar{\nu}=(\bar{\nu}^1,\cdots,\bar{\nu}^s)
=\bigcup_{j=1}^s(\bigcup_{c\in \Gamma_{*}} \nu^j(c))$, where
$\bar{\nu}^j=\bigcup_{c\in \Gamma_{*}} \nu^j(c)$ is a partition of
$\mu_j$. For $\nu, \xi\in \mathcal{P}_n(\Gamma_{*})$, we say they
are in the same class
if $\bar{\nu}$ and $\bar{\xi}$ have the same partition parts,
and denote by $\bar{\nu}$ (or $\bar{\xi}$) the type of this class. We denote by $[\tilde{\nu}]$ the set
of characteristic partition valued functions with type $\bar{\nu}$. It is easy to see that the cardinality
of $[\tilde{\nu}]$ is $|\Gamma_{*}|^{l(\nu)}$.
For $(g,\sigma)\in \Gamma_n$, if its corresponding partition valued function is $\nu$, then the cycle type of the permutation $\sigma$ is the type of class $[\tilde{\nu}]$.
For $\mu=(\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_s)\in\Omega$, let $\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}$
be an irreducible spin character of $\widetilde{S}_{\mu_j}$
corresponding to a strict partition $\bar{\nu}^j$ of $\mu_j$. Suppose that there are $k$ associate spin and $s-k$
double spin characters in $\{\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^1},\cdots,\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^s}\}$.
We denote by $\chi_{\nu}$ the character of the starred tensor product $\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^1}\circledast\cdots\circledast\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^s}$ when it is a double spin irreducible module.
When the irreducible component $\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^1}\circledast\cdots \circledast\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^s}$ is an
associate spin module, we choose $\chi_{\nu}^{+}$ to be the irreducible character
such that the basic spin character $\chi_{(\bar{\nu}^j_i)}$
( here each part $\bar{\nu}^j_i$ of the partition $\bar{\nu}^j$ corresponds a basic spin character $\chi_{(\bar{\nu}^j_i)}$)
appears with positive multiplicity in $Res(\chi_{\bar{\nu}^j}^{+})|_{\widetilde{S}_{\bar{\nu}^j_i}}$
for each $\bar{\nu}^j_i$.
Then the associated character is denoted by $\chi_{\nu}^{-}$.
Correspondingly the induced character $\Theta_{i}^{\nu}=\mbox{Ind}_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}}^{\widetilde{\Gamma}_n}
(\gamma_i^{\mu}\otimes\chi_{\nu})
$
is a double spin character when $n-l(\nu)$ is even and $(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}=\mbox{Ind}_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}}^{\widetilde{\Gamma}_n}
(\gamma_i^{\mu}\otimes\chi_{\nu}^{\pm})$ are
associate spin characters when $n-l(\nu)$ is odd.
Let $t_{\nu}=t_{\nu^1}\cdots t_{\nu^s}\in \widetilde{S}_{\mu}$ such that $t_{\nu^i}\in \widetilde{S}_{\mu_i}$ for $i\in \{1,\cdots,s\}$. If each $\nu^i\in \mathcal{SP}^1_{\mu_i}(\Gamma_{*})$ and $s$ is odd, then we have (cf. (\ref{eqf}))
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
\begin{split}
(\chi_{\nu})^{\pm}(t_{\nu})=&\pm\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^1}\circledast \cdots\circledast \Delta_{\bar{\nu}^s}(t_{\nu})\\
=&\pm(2\sqrt{-1})^{\frac{s-1}{2}}\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^1}(t_{\nu^1})\cdots\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^s}(t_{\nu^s})\\
=&\pm2^{\frac{s-1}{2}}\cdot(\sqrt{-1})^{\frac{n-l(\nu)+2s-1}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{\la_1\cdots\la_{l}}{2^s}}\\
=&\pm(\sqrt{-1})^{\frac{n-l(\nu)+2s-1}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{\la_1\cdots\la_{l}}{2}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $(\la_1,\cdots,\la_l)$ is the type of $\nu$. Hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq4}
\begin{split}
(\chi_{\nu})^{\pm}(t_{\nu})\overline{(\chi_{\nu})^{\pm}(t_{\nu})} =
\frac{\la_1\cdots \la_{l}}{2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{prop}\label{p3} Let $\mu=(\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_s)\in \Omega$, $\la=(\la_1,\cdots,\la_l)$ be the type of $\nu=\nu^1\cup\cdots\cup\nu^s$
and $i\in I$.
If $s$ is odd and each $\nu^j$ is in $\mathcal{SP}_{\mu_j}^1(\Gamma_{*})$, then there are two associate
irreducible spin characters $(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}$
of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$. For $\rho\in \mathcal{SP}^1_n(\Gamma_{*})$, the characters $(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}$ are given according to
(i) when $\rho=\rho^1\cup\cdots\cup\rho^s\in [\tilde{\nu}]$, then
$$(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(D^{+}_{\rho})=\pm K_{\rho}
\prod_{j=1}^s(\prod_{c\in\Gamma_{*}}\gamma_{i_j}(c)^{l(\rho^j(c))})(\sqrt{-1})^{\frac{n-l(\la)+2s-1}{2}}
\sqrt{\frac{\la_1\cdots \la_{l}}{2}},$$
where $K_{\rho}$ is the
number of left cosets $T$ of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}$ in
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ such that $(g,t_{\rho})T=T$.
(ii) when $\rho\notin [\tilde{\nu}]$, one has $(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}({\rho})=0.$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} The first assertion follows from Proposition
\ref{prop1} and equation (\ref{eq3}). As for the second statement,
by the standard inner product we have
\begin{align}\label{1}\nonumber
&\langle (\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm},(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}\rangle \\
=&(\sum_{\rho\in \mathcal{OP}_n(\Gamma_{*})}
+\sum_{\rho\in \mathcal{SP}^1_n(\Gamma_{*})})\frac{1}{\widetilde{Z}_{\rho}}(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)\overline{(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)}.
\end{align}
Recall that $(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{+}\oplus(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{-}$ can be regarded as the character of an irreducible supermodule of type $Q$.
Hence by the inner product of super characters and the fact that $(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{+}(\rho)=(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{-}(\rho)$ when $\rho\in \mathcal{OP}_n(\Gamma_{*})$. It is easy to see that
\begin{equation}\label{3}
\sum_{\rho\in
\mathcal{OP}_n(\Gamma_{*})}\frac{1}{\widetilde{Z}_{\rho}}
(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)\overline{(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)}=1/2,
\end{equation}
so the second summand in (\ref{1}) should
also be equal to $\frac{1}{2}$. On the other hand, by equation (\ref{Inner}) it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{2}
\begin{split}
& \sum_{\rho\in \mathcal{SP}^1_n(\Gamma_{*})}
\frac{1}{\widetilde{Z}_{\rho}}(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)\overline{(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)}\\
=&\sum_{\rho\in
\mathcal{SP}^1_n(\Gamma_{*})}\frac{1}{\widetilde{Z}_{\rho}}
(\gamma_i^{\mu}\otimes\chi_{\widehat{\pi}_{\nu}}^{\pm})(\rho)
\overline{(\gamma_i^{\mu}\otimes\chi_{\widehat{\pi}_{\nu}}^{\pm})(\rho)} \ \ (\hbox{by}~ (\ref{Inner}))\\
\geq&\sum_{\rho\in [\tilde{\nu}]}\frac{2}{\widetilde{Z}_{\rho}}
(\gamma_i^{\mu}\otimes\chi_{\widehat{\pi}_{\nu}}^{\pm})(D^{+}_{\rho})
\overline{(\gamma_i^{\mu}\otimes\chi_{\widehat{\pi}_{\nu}}^{\pm})(D^{+}_{\rho})}
\ \ (\hbox{as}~ D_{\rho}^{-}=zD_{\rho}^{+})\\
\geq&\sum_{\rho\in[\tilde{\nu}]}\frac{\chi_{\nu}^{\pm}(t_{\rho})\overline{\chi_{\nu}^{\pm}(t_{\rho})}}{\prod_{j=1}^s(\prod_{c\in\Gamma_{*}}z_{\rho^j(c)}\zeta_c^{l(\rho^j(c))})}
\ \
(\hbox{as}~ |\gamma_{i_j}(c)|^2=1)\\
\geq&\sum_{\rho\in[\tilde{\nu}]}\frac{1}{\la_1\cdots\la_l\cdot(r+1)^{l(\rho)}}
\cdot\frac{\la_1\cdots\la_l}{2} \ \ (\hbox{by} ~ (\ref{eq4}) ) \\
\geq&\frac{1}{2}\ \ (\hbox{as}~ |[\widetilde{\nu}]|=(r+1)^{l(\rho)}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{1}), (\ref{3}) and (\ref{2}) we have that
\begin{align*}
\frac12&=\sum_{\rho\in \mathcal{SP}^1_n(\Gamma_{*})}\frac{1}{\widetilde{Z}_{\rho}}(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)
\overline{(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)}\\
&\geq \sum_{\rho\in [\tilde{\nu}]}\frac{1}{\widetilde{Z}_{\rho}}(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)\overline{(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)}\geq\frac12
\end{align*}
which forces $(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}({\rho})=0$ if
$\rho\notin [\tilde{\nu}]$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example} Consider $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{13}$ with $\Gamma=\langle a|a^3=1\rangle$. Let $\Gamma^{*}=\{\gamma_0,\gamma_1,\gamma_2\}$ and
$\Gamma_{*}=\{c^0,c^1,c^2\}$, where $\gamma_i(c^j)=w^{ij}$, and $w=-\frac12+\frac{\sqrt{-3}}2$.
The irreducible characters of $\Gamma^{13}$ are classified into $|\mathcal{P}_{13}|$ orbits
under the action of $S_{13}$. Here $\mathcal{P}_{13}$ is the set of partitions of $13$.
We list some of these class orbits and compute the associated spin characters as follows.
The first class orbit is $\Phi_{(13)}=\{\mathcal{O}(\gamma_{i}^{\otimes 13})=\{\gamma_{i}^{\otimes 13}\}|i=0,1,2\},$ then
$$T_{(13)}=\{z^pt_{\rho}\in \widetilde{S}_{13}|z^pt_{\rho}\cdot \gamma_{i}^{\otimes 13}=\gamma_{i}^{\otimes 13}\}\simeq \widetilde{S}_{13}
,\ \ \widetilde{\Gamma}_{(13)}=\Gamma^{13}\ltimes T_{(13)}=\widetilde{\Gamma}_{13}.$$
For $i=1, \nu=((5,4,3,1)_c)_{c\in\Gamma_{*}}\in \mathcal{SP}^1_{13}({\Gamma_{*}})$ and
$\rho=((54)_{c^0},(31)_{c^2})\in[\widetilde{\nu}]$
(i.e. there are one 5-cycle and one 4-cycle such that their cycle-products lie in $c^0$,
the same is true for $(31)_{c^2}$), the type of the class $[\tilde{\nu}]$ is $\la=(5,4,3,1)$. Then
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&(\gamma_{1}^{\otimes 13}\otimes\Delta_{\bar{\nu}}^{\pm})(D_{\rho}^{+})\\
=& \gamma_1(c^0)^{l(\rho(c^0))}\cdot\gamma_1(c^2)^{l(\rho(c^2))}\cdot\Delta_{\bar{\nu}}^{\pm}(t_{\rho})\\
=&\pm1\cdot (w^2)^2\cdot (\sqrt{-1})^{\frac{13-4+2-1}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{5\times4\times3\times1}{2}}\\
=& \pm\sqrt{-30}w.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and $(\gamma_{1}^{\otimes 13}\otimes\Delta_{\bar{\nu}}^{\pm})(\rho)=0$ if $\rho\notin[\widetilde{\nu}].$ As
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\rho\in[\tilde{\nu}]}\frac{2}{\widetilde{Z}_{\rho}}(\gamma_{1}^{\otimes 13}
\otimes\Delta_{\bar{\nu}}^{\pm})(D_{\rho}^{+})\overline{(\gamma_{1}^{\otimes
13}\otimes\Delta_{\bar{\nu}}^{\pm})
(D_{\rho}^{+})}\\
=& \sum_{\rho\in[\tilde{\nu}]}\frac{2}{2Z_{\rho}}\cdot \frac{(\pm\sqrt{-30}w)\cdot(\pm\overline{\sqrt{-30}w})}{z_{(5,4)}\zeta_{c^0}^2z_{(3,1)}\zeta_{c^2}^2}\\
=&|\Gamma_{*}|^4\cdot\frac{30}{5\cdot4\cdot3^2\cdot3\cdot1\cdot 3^2}\ \ (\hbox{as} \ \ \zeta_c=|\Gamma|=3)\\
=&\frac{1}{2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The second class orbit is
$\Phi_{(5,4,4)}=\{\mathcal{O}(\gamma_{i}^{\otimes5}\otimes
\gamma_{j}^{\otimes 4}\otimes\gamma_{k}^{\otimes 4})|i,j,k=0,1,2\},$
$$T_{(5,4,4)}=\{z^pt_{\rho}\in \widetilde{S}_{13}|z^pt_{\rho}\cdot \gamma_{i}^{\otimes5}
\otimes\gamma_{j}^{\otimes 4}\otimes\gamma_{k}^{\otimes 4}=\gamma_{i}^{\otimes5}\otimes\gamma_{j}^{\otimes 4}
\otimes\gamma_{k}^{\otimes 4}\}\simeq \widetilde{S}_5\hat{\times}\widetilde{S}_4\hat{\times}\widetilde{S}_4,$$
$$\widetilde{\Gamma}_{(5,4,4)}=\Gamma^{13}\ltimes (\widetilde{S}_5\hat{\times}
\widetilde{S}_4\hat{\times}\widetilde{S}_4)
=\widetilde{\Gamma}_5\hat{\times}\widetilde{\Gamma}_4\hat{\times}\widetilde{\Gamma}_4.$$
For $i=2, j=1,k=0$ and $\bar{\nu}=((3,2),(4),(4))$, let
$\chi_{\nu}^{\pm}:=\pm\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^1}\circledast
\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^2}\circledast\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^3}$. For
$\rho=\rho^1\cup\rho^2\cup\rho^3=((3)_{c^1},(2)_{c^2})\cup((4)_{c^2})\cup((4)_{c^1})\in
\mathcal{SP}^1_{13}(\Gamma_{*})$, then
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\gamma_{2}^{\otimes 5}\otimes \gamma_{1}^{\otimes 4}\otimes\gamma_{0}^{\otimes 4}
\otimes\chi_{\nu}^{\pm}(D_\rho^{+})\\
=&\gamma_2(c^1)^{l(\rho^1(c^1))}\cdot\gamma_2(c^2)^{l(\rho^1(c^2))}\cdot\gamma_1(c^2)^{l(\rho^2(c^2))}\cdot\gamma_0(c^1)^{l(\rho^3(c^1))}\chi_{\nu}^{\pm}(D_\rho^{+})\\
=&\pm w^2\cdot w^4\cdot w^2\cdot w^0\cdot(\sqrt{-1})^{\frac{13-4+6-1}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{3\times2\times4\times4}{2}}\\
=&\mp4\sqrt{-3}w^2,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and $\gamma_{2}^{\otimes 5}\otimes \gamma_{1}^{\otimes 4}\otimes \gamma_{0}^{\otimes 4}
\otimes\chi_{\nu}^{\pm}\uparrow_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_{(5,4,4)}}^{\widetilde{\Gamma}_n}(\rho)=0$
if $\rho\notin[\widetilde{\nu}]$. We see that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\begin{split}
& \sum_{\rho\in[\tilde{\nu}]}\frac{2}{\widetilde{Z}_{\rho}}\gamma_{2}^{\otimes 5}\otimes \gamma_{1}^{\otimes 4}\otimes \gamma_{0}^{\otimes 4}\otimes\chi_{\nu}^{\pm}(D_{\rho}^{+})\overline{\gamma_{2}^{\otimes 5}\otimes \gamma_{1}^{\otimes 4}\otimes \gamma_{0}^{\otimes 4}\otimes\chi_{\nu}^{\pm}(D_{\rho}^{+})}\\
=&|\Gamma_{*}|^4\cdot\frac{1}{3\cdot2\cdot4\cdot4\cdot3^4}\cdot
|\mp4\sqrt{-3}w^2|^2\\
=&\frac{1}{2},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the type of the class $[\tilde{\nu}]$ is $\la=(4,4,3,2)$.
\end{example}
\begin{prop}
Let $\mu=(\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_s)\in \Omega$, $i\in I$, and $\nu=\nu^1\cup\cdots\cup\nu^s\in\mathcal{SP}^0_n(\Gamma_{*})$ such that
each $\nu^i\in \mathcal{SP}^0_{\mu_i}(\Gamma_{*})$. Then there is an irreducible double spin character $\Theta_{i}^{\nu}$ of $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$. Moreover,
(i) when $\rho=\rho^1\cup\cdots\cup\rho^s\in \mathcal{ OP}_n(\Gamma_{*})$ and $||\rho^i||=\mu_i$,
$$\Theta_{i}^{\nu}(D^{+}_{\rho})=
\prod_{j=1}^s(\prod_{c\in\Gamma_{*}}\gamma_{i_j}(c)^{l(\rho^j(c))})\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(t_{\rho^j})K_{\rho},$$
the values $\Theta_{i}^{\nu}(D_{\rho}^{+})$ are determined by the wreath product
Schur Q-functions (see \cite{FJW}).
(ii) otherwise, one has $\Theta_{i}^{\nu}(\rho)=0$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
(i) The expression of $\Theta_{i}^{\nu}(D_{\rho}^{+})$ follows from Proposition \ref{prop1} and equation (\ref{eqf})
(the case of $k=0$). Moreover, if $\rho^i\in \mathcal{OP}_{\mu_i}(\Gamma_{*})$ then $\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^i}(t_{\rho^i})$ is determined by Schur Q-functions as in $(\ref{Q})$, hence the values $\Theta_{i}^{\nu}(D_{\rho}^{+})$ are determined by wreath products of
Schur Q-functions.
(ii) If $\rho$ can not be decomposed as $\rho^1\cup\cdots\cup\rho^s$ such that $||\rho^i||=\mu_i$,
then by the theory of induced characters it is easy to see that $\Theta_{i}^{\nu}({\rho})=0$. As $\nu\in \mathcal{SP}^0_n(\Gamma_{*})$, the corresponding
irreducible character $\Theta_{i}^{\nu}$ is a double spin character. Thus it can be regarded as an
irreducible super character
of type $M$. Hence
$$<\Theta_{i}^{\nu},\Theta_{i}^{\nu}>_{\widetilde{\Gamma}_n}=1
=<\Theta_{i}^{\nu},\Theta_{i}^{\nu}>_{\mathcal{OP}_n(\Gamma_{*})}$$
which forces $\Theta_{i}^{\nu}({\rho})=0$ for
all $\rho=\rho^1\cup\cdots\cup\rho^s\in \mathcal{SP}_n^1(\Gamma_{*})$.
\end{proof}
For $\nu=\nu^1\cup\cdots\cup\nu^s\in \mathcal{SP}_n(\Gamma_{*})$,
let $J=\{j_1,\cdots,j_{k}\}$ be a maximal proper subset of
$\{1,\cdots,s\}$ such that $\nu^{i}$ is in
$\mathcal{SP}^1_{\mu_{i}}(\Gamma_{*})$ for $i\in
\{j_1,\cdots,j_{k}\}$. Let $J^{'}$ be the complement of $J$ in
$\{1,\cdots,s\}$. For $\rho=\rho^1\cup\cdots\cup\rho^s\in
\mathcal{SP}_n^1(\Gamma_{*})$, one sees that if
$\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^i}(t_{\rho^i})\neq 0$ then $\rho^i$
must be in $[\tilde{\nu}^i]$ for $i\in J$, and $\rho^i$ must be in
$\mathcal{OSP}_{\mu_i}(\Gamma_{*}):=\mathcal{OP}_{\mu_i}(\Gamma_{*})\cap
\mathcal{SP}_{\mu_i}(\Gamma_{*})$ for $i\in J^{'}$. So we have the
following results.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\nu=\nu^1\cup\cdots\cup\nu^s\in \mathcal{SP}^1_n(\Gamma_{*})$ and $i\in I$. Let
$\mu=(\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_s)\in \Omega$ be the weight partition
with $\mu_i=|\nu^i|$.
The character values of $(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}$ are computed as follows.
(i) When $\rho=\rho^1\cup\cdots\cup\rho^s \in\mathcal{SP}^1_n(\Gamma_{*})$ satisfies $\rho^i\in [\tilde{\nu}^i]$ for $i\in J$ and $\rho^i\in\mathcal{OSP}_{\mu_i}(\Gamma_{*})$ for $i\in J^{'}$, then
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\begin{split}(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(D^{+}_{\rho})
=&\pm (\sqrt{-1})^{\frac{\sum_{j\in J}(\mu_j-l(\nu^j))+2|J|-1}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{\prod_{j\in
J}(\prod_{c\in\Gamma_{*}}\nu^j(c))}{2}}\cdot\\
&\prod_{j=1}^s(\prod_{c\in\Gamma_{*}}\gamma_{i_j}(c)^{l(\rho^j(c))})\cdot\prod_{j\in
J^{'}}\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(t_{\rho^j})\cdot K_{\rho},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $K_{\rho}$ is the number of left cosets $T$ of
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}$ in $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ such that
$(g,t_{\rho})T=T$, and the value of $\prod_{j\in
J^{'}}\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(t_{\rho^j})$ is determined by the wreath
products of Schur Q-functions (see \cite{FJW}).
(ii) $(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)=0$, otherwise.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The first assertion follows from
(\ref{Q1}), (\ref{eq3}) and Proposition \ref{p3}.
Now we consider the second part. For
$\nu=\nu^1\cup\cdots\cup\nu^s\in \mathcal{SP}^1_n(\Gamma_{*})$, let us
assume that
$\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^1},\cdots,\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^{2m-1}}$ are associate spin and $\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^{2m}},\cdots,\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^s}$ are double spin. Then by (\ref{eq3}) and the second equation
of (\ref{2}), we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2}
\begin{split}
& \sum_{\rho\in \mathcal{SP}^1_n(\Gamma_{*})}\frac{1}{\widetilde{Z}_{\rho}}(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)\overline{(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)}\\
=&\sum_{\rho\in
\mathcal{SP}_n^1(\Gamma_{*})}\frac{2^{2(m-1)}}{\widetilde{Z}_{\rho}}
\big|\prod\limits_{j=1}^s(\prod\limits_{c\in\Gamma_{*}}\gamma_{i_j}(c)^{l(\rho^j(c))})\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(\rho^j)\big|^2\\
=&\sum_{\rho=\rho^1\cup\cdots \cup\rho^s\in
\mathcal{SP}_n^1(\Gamma_{*})}
\frac{2^{2(m-1)}}{\widetilde{Z}_{\rho}}
\big|\prod\limits_{j=1}^s\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(\rho^j)\big|^2 \ \ (\hbox{as} \ \ |\gamma_{i_j}(c)|^2=1)\\
\geq&\sum_{\rho^j\in[\tilde{\nu}^j]:j\in J;\rho^j\in
\mathcal{SP}_{\mu_j}(\Gamma_{*}):j\in J^{'}}2^{2m-3}
(\prod\limits_{j=1}^{s}\frac{1}{Z_{\rho^j}}\big|\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(\rho^j)\big|^2)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
For each $j\in J$,
$\frac{1}{Z_{\rho^j}}|\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(\rho^j)|^{2}=\frac{|\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(\bar{\rho}^j)|^2}{z_{\bar{\rho}^j}
(r+1)^{l(\bar{\rho}^j)}}$ just depends on the type of $\rho^j$. Therefore, they have the same value for any $\rho^j\in [\widetilde{\nu}^j]$. Because they
have the same type $\bar{\nu}^j$,
$\prod_{j=1}^{2m-1}\frac{1}{Z_{\rho^j}}|\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(\rho^j)|^{2}$
is a constant for different $\rho^1\cup\cdots\cup \rho^{2m-1}\in
[\tilde{\nu}^1]\cup\cdots\cup
[\tilde{\nu}^{2m-1}]$, then the last expression in
(\ref{eq:2}) satisfies that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\geq2^{2m-3}(\sum_{\rho^j\in[\tilde{\nu}^j]:j\in
J}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{2m-1}\frac{\big|\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(\rho^j)\big|^2}{Z_{\rho^j}})
(\sum_{\rho^j\in \mathcal{OSP}_{\mu_j}(\Gamma_{*}):j\in
J^{'}}\prod\limits_{j=2m}^{s}\frac{\big|\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(\rho^j)\big|^2}{Z_{\rho^j}}
)\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In the above we have used
$\mathcal{OSP}_{\mu_j}(\Gamma_{*}):=\mathcal{OP}_{\mu_j}(\Gamma_{*})\cap\mathcal{SP}_{\mu_j}(\Gamma_{*})$, and then
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\rho^j\in \mathcal{OSP}_{\mu_j}(\Gamma_{*}):j\in
J^{'}}\prod\limits_{j=2m}^{s}\frac{\big|\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(\rho^j)\big|^2}{Z_{\rho^j}}\\
=&\sum_{\rho^j\in
\mathcal{OSP}_{\mu_j}(\Gamma_{*}):j\in J^{'}}\prod\limits_{j=2m}^s
\frac{|\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^{j}}(D_{\rho^{j}})|^2}
{\prod\limits_{c\in\Gamma_{*}}z_{\rho^j(c)}\zeta_{c}^{l(\rho^j(c))}}\\
=&\sum_{\bar{\rho}^j\in \mathcal{OP}_{\mu_j}}
\prod_{j=2m}^{s}\frac{|\Gamma_{*}|^{l(\rho^j)}|\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(z^pt_{\rho^j})|^2}{z_{\bar{\rho}^j}(r+1)^{l(\rho^j)}}\\
=&\prod_{j=2m}^{s}\big(\sum_{\bar{\rho}^j\in \mathcal{OP}_{\mu_j}}
\frac{|\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(z^pt_{\rho^j})|^2}{z_{\bar{\rho}^j}}\big)\\
=&\prod_{j=2m}^s<\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j},\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}>_{\widetilde{S}_{\mu_j}} \ \ (\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j} \hbox{~is~double})\\
=&1.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Subsequently, equation (\ref{eq:2})
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\geq2^{2m-3}(\sum_{\rho^j\in[\tilde{\nu}^j]:j\in
J}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{2m-1}\frac{\big|\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^j}(\rho^j)\big|^2}{Z_{\rho^j}})\\
&\geq\sum_{\rho^j\in [\tilde{\nu}^j]:j\in J}
\frac{2^{2(m-1)}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{2m-1}|\Delta_{\bar{\nu}^{j}}(D^{+}_{\rho^{j}})|^2}
{\prod\limits_{j=1}^{2m-1}(\prod_{c\in\Gamma_{*}}z_{\rho^j(c)}\zeta_c^{l(\rho^j(c))})} \ \ (D_{\rho^j}^{-}=zD_{\rho^j}^{+})\\
&\geq2^{2(m-1)}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{2m-1}\frac{|\Gamma_{*}|^{l(\rho^j)}\big|\sqrt{{\prod_{c\in\Gamma_{*}}\nu^{j}(c)}/{2}}\big|^2}
{\prod_{c\in\Gamma_{*}}\nu^j(c)(r+1)^{l(\rho^j(c))}}\\
&\geq\frac{1}{2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We have pointed out that
$
\sum_{\rho\in
\mathcal{SP}^1_n(\Gamma_{*})}\frac{1}{\widetilde{Z}_{\rho}}
(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)\overline{(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)}=1/2,
$
which forces $(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(\rho)=0$ if $\rho^i\notin
[\tilde{\nu}^i]$ for $i\in J$ or
$\rho^i\notin\mathcal{OSP}_{\mu_i}(\Gamma_{*})$ for $i\in J^{'}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
For $\mu\in\Omega$, $i\in I$ and let $\nu=((\mu_1),(\mu_2),\cdots,(\mu_s))\in \mathcal{SP}^1_n(\Gamma_{*})$. Suppose all $\mu_j$
are even integers,
then for
$\rho=\rho^1\cup\cdots\cup\rho^s\in \mathcal{SP}^1_n{(\Gamma_{*})}$, the values of the irreducible spin characters $(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}$ at the conjugacy classes
$D_{\rho}^{+}$ are given by
\begin{equation}\nonumber
(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(D_{\rho}^{+})= \left\{\begin{array}{lc}
\pm(\sqrt{-1})^{\frac{n+s-1}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{\mu_1\cdots\mu_s}{2}}
\prod\limits_{k=1}^s\gamma_{i_k}(c^{j_k})K_{\rho},&\rho^i=c_{j_i}^{(\mu_i)}, \\
0,&otherwise,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $K_{\rho}$ is the number of left cosets $T$ of
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\mu}$ in $\widetilde{\Gamma}_n$ such that
$(g,t_{\rho})T=T$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} We just need to check
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(D_{\rho}^{+})&=
\pm(\sqrt{-1})^{\frac{n}{2}}2^{\frac{s-1}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{\mu_1}{2}}\cdots\sqrt{\frac{\mu_s}{2}}
\prod\limits_{k=1}^s\gamma_{i_k}(c^{j_k})K_{\rho}\\
&=\pm(\sqrt{-1})^{\frac{n}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{\mu_1\cdots\mu_s}{2}}
\prod\limits_{k=1}^s\gamma_{i_k}(c^{j_k})K_{\rho}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
In particular, when $\nu=(n)$ (i.e. $s=1$) and $\rho\in \mathcal{SP}^1_n(\Gamma_{*})$ (also see Corollary 4.5 in \cite{FJW})
\begin{equation}\nonumber
(\Theta_{i}^{\nu})^{\pm}(D_{\rho}^{+})= \left\{\begin{array}{lc}
\pm(\sqrt{-1})^{\frac{n}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{n}{2}}\gamma_i(c), &\rho=c^{(n)}, \\
0,&otherwise.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\medskip
{\small\noindent{\bf Acknowledgments}
The second named author
gratefully acknowledges the partial support of the Max-Planck Institute for Mathematics in Bonn,
Simons Foundation
and NSFC
during this work.
}
\bibliographystyle{spmpsci}
|
\section{Introduction}
We call the potentials that are exactly zero beyond a certain distance
strictly finite-range (SFR) potentials. The conventional nuclear potentials
are in principle not SFR potentials, but in practice, if the radial
Schr\"odinger equation is solved numerically as is usual, a cutoff at a finite
range is implied. Indeed, beyond this range $R_{\rm max}$ the numerical
solution is to be matched at a finite distance
$r=R_{\rm match}(\ge R_{\rm max})$ with the exact solution of the
free-particle (or of the Coulomb) problem.
For instance, the most often quoted Woods--Saxon (WS) potential goes to zero
in infinity, but, in numerical calculations, cut-off WS (CWS) potentials
are used invariably. A disadvantage of the CWS potential is that
the positions of the resonance poles do depend on the cutoff distance
\cite{[Sa08]}, which is an unphysical parameter of the calculation.
To avoid this, a new form was introduced by Salamon and Vertse (SV)
\cite{[Sa08]}, which contains two terms, with one range parameter for each,
and a relative strength of the two terms. The SV potential goes to zero
smoothly. Its parameters can be adjusted so as to get a good fit to the WS
shape except in the tail region, where they are necessarily different.
There is another motivation of using SFR potentials.
It has been observed recently by Sahu and Sahu
\cite{[SS12]} that a faster approach of the nuclear potential to zero
improves the barrier behavior of the interaction potential between heavy ions.
They modified the form of the SV potential by introducing a diffuseness
parameter $a_s$ to one of its terms.
Here we shall refer to this potential as SS potential.
The SS potential was found to describe the elastic scattering and
the fusion below the Coulomb barrier with the same parameters, while a WS
form requires two different sets for these two processes \cite{[SS12]}.
However, the asymptotic density of the matter of nuclei is exponential,
and the nucleon-nucleon interaction has a Yukawa tail. This physically
substantiates the numerically untractable exponential falloff of the
WS potential, and casts some doubt on the use of the convenient
tails of the SV and SS potentials. In this paper we will examine
the effect of the unphysical tail behavior of the SV potential, and further
study the trajectories of the $S$-matrix poles.
The SV potential is a special case of the SS potential with $a_s=1$,
and we extend the studies to $a_s\not=1$. In fact, for very light
nuclei the derivative term in the SV potential can be omitted,
and the SS form becomes identical to an SV form, which has a single
parameter, the range $\rho_0$.
In this work we consider nucleon potential problems. Since we disregard
the Coulomb interaction, we can say that we deal with neutrons.
We perform bound-state and resonance calculations, with an eye to scattering
problems, but we need no absorptive terms. We shall study the cases
of light nuclei with mass number $A_T<20$ as well as
nuclei with much larger $A_T$ values. Light nuclei are important
in fusion reactions taking place in the Sun.
The nucleon optical potential of light nuclei is an ingredient of the
description of the reactions producing the nuclides
used in positron emission tomography
(PET) \footnote{The standard reactions producing the most important positron
emitters are $^{14}$N$(p,\alpha)^{11}$C, $^{13}$C$(p,n)^{13}$N,
$^{15}$N$(p,n)^{15}$O and $^{18}$O$(p,n)^{18}$F.}.
\section{Functional forms of the potentials considered}
The real term of the optical potential is almost exclusively of CWS
form, and the spin-orbit part contains the derivative of
a CWS form.
The CWS potential can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{WSpot}
V^{\rm CWS}(r,R,a,R_{\rm max})=-V_0f^{\rm CWS}(r,R,a,R_{\rm max})~,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{vagottWS}
f^{\rm CWS}(r,R,a,R_{\rm max})=
\left(1+e^{\frac{r-R}{a}}\right)^{-1}~\theta(R_{\rm max}-r)~,
\end{equation}
where the Heaviside step function $\theta(x)$ is unity for positive $x$
and zero otherwise. The CWS form factor $f^{\rm CWS}(r,R,a,R_{\rm max})$
has two physical parameters, the radius $R$ and the diffuseness $a$.
The third parameter, the cutoff radius $R_{\rm max}$, should have
no physical significance, but, due to the jump at the finite $R_{\rm max}$,
its derivative does not exist there, and that has implications.
It was shown earlier~\cite{[Sa08]} that the positions of broad resonances in a
CWS potential do depend on the value of the cutoff radius $R_{\rm max}$.
Certain sections of the pole trajectories (mainly the starting regions)
have been found to be sensitive to the value of
$R_{\rm max}$~\cite{[Ra11],[Da12]}. Thus the cutoff radius
$R_{\rm max}$ is an important, though non-physical, parameter of
the CWS form.
The SV potential~\cite{[Sa08]} recommended by two of us
instead of the CWS potential has the form \cite{[Ra11]}
\begin{equation}
\label{SVpot}
V^{\rm SV}(r)=-V_0 f^{\rm SV}(r,c,\rho_0,\rho_1)~,
\end{equation}
in which $V_0\ge 0$ and $f^{\rm SV}(r,c,\rho_0,\rho_1)$ is
a linear combination of the function
\begin{equation}
\label{distrib}
f(r,\rho)=
e^{\frac{r^2}{r^2-\rho^2}} ~ \theta(\rho-r)~,
\end{equation}
and a term containing the derivative, with respect to $r$, of the first factor,
\begin{equation}
\label{SVder}
f^\prime(r,\rho)=-\frac{2 r \rho ^2}{(r^2-\rho^2)^2}
e^{\frac{{r^2}}{r^2-\rho^2}}~\theta(\rho-r)~.
\end{equation}
Note that the function in Eq.~(\ref{distrib}) is a variant of the well-known
functions of compact support, $C^\infty$, defined in the book by Bremmermann
\cite{[Br65]} and sometimes called {\it bump functions}.
The radial factor thus contains three adjustable parameters,
\begin{equation}
\label{newcent4}
f^{\rm SV}(r,c,\rho_0,\rho_1)=f(r,\rho_0) - c f^\prime (r,\rho_1)~,
\end{equation}
in which $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$ need not be the same, and, for the second term
to be attractive, the coefficient $c$ is non-negative.
The potential $V^{\rm SV}(r)$ goes to zero smoothly, and, if $\rho_0>\rho_1$,
it vanishes at $\rho_0$; furthermore, for $r\ge\rho_0$, it is zero,
together with all its derivatives. Thus the SV potential has the attractive
mathematical property that its derivative exists in the whole
$r\in (0,\infty)$ region. A drawback is, however, that it is not analytic
because at $\rho_0$ the Taylor series is not equal to the function.
Nevertheless, it has turned out to be useful in quantum electrodynamics, too,
as a compactly supported smooth regulator function \cite{[Na13]}.
The formula of the SS potential \cite{[SS12]} is analogous to
Eq.~(\ref{newcent4}):
\begin{equation}
\label{SSform}
f^{\rm SS}(r,c,\rho_0,\rho_1,a_s)=f(r,\rho_0) - c f^\prime (r,\rho_1,a_s)~,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{SSder}
f^\prime(r,\rho_1,a_s)=-\frac{2 r \rho_1 ^2}{(r^2-\rho_1^2)^2}
e^{\frac{a_s{r^2}}{r^2-\rho_1^2}}~~\theta(\rho_1-r)~,
\end{equation}
with $a_s$ being the extra diffuseness parameter.
When $a_s=1$, the SS form coincides with the SV potential~(\ref{SVpot}).
By using $a_s \ne 1$, one naturally has more freedom in choosing the shape
of the potential. With the usual choice $\rho_0>\rho_1$, the range of the
SS potential is also $\rho_0$. The SS form has the same attractive
mathematical features as the SV potential.
Let us return for a while to the original SV form.
If we want the shape of the SV form to be similar to the WS shape as much as
possible, we should fit its parameters to the CWS shape $f^{\rm CWS}$.
To this end, we can minimize
\begin{equation}
\label{Delta}
\int_{0}^{\rho_{0}}\left[f^{\rm SV}(r,c,\rho_0,\rho_1)
-f^{\rm CWS}(r,R,a,R_{\rm max})\right]^2dr~.
\end{equation}
The integration in Eq.~(\ref{Delta}) can be performed by a quadrature of
$m$ equidistant mesh-points $r_i=i h$ over the range of the integration,
so that what is minimized is
\begin{equation}
\label{Deltas}
\Delta(\rho_0,\rho_1,c)=\sum_{i=1}^{m}
\big[f^{\rm SV}(r_i,c,\rho_0,\rho_1)-f^{\rm CWS}(r_i,R,a,R_{\rm max})\big]^2~.
\end{equation}
\section{Global parameter sets for optical potentials}
In this section we construct SV potentials that approximate the real parts
of some well-known global nucleon optical model potentials, and test
their performance. The real parts of all global potentials are
of CWS shape. Their geometrical shapes are generally fixed, and their
energy dependence is restricted to the strength parameters.
The spin-orbit part for a particle with spin $s=\frac{1}{2}\hbar$ is:
\begin{equation}
\label{spinorb}
V_{\rm so}^{\rm CWS}(r,R_{\rm so},a_{\rm so},R_{\rm max})
=V_{\rm so}^{\rm CWS}h_{\rm CWS}(r,R_{\rm so},a_{\rm so},R_{\rm max})~2(
{\bf l}\cdot {\bf s})~,
\end{equation}
with a radial form
\begin{equation}
\label{spinorbr}
h_{\rm CWS}(r,R,a,R_{\rm max})=-\frac{1}{r} f^\prime_{\rm CWS}
(r,R,a,R_{\rm max})~,
\end{equation}
in which the derivative of the central potential,
\begin{equation}
\label{derspinorb}
f^\prime_{\rm CWS}(r,R,a,R_{\rm max})=-\frac{e^{\frac{r-R}{a}}}{a
\left[1+e^{\frac{r-R}{a}}\right]^2}~\theta(R_{\rm max}-r)~,
\end{equation}
appears.
The spin-orbit term of the SV potential may be defined analogously:
\begin{equation}
\label{spinorbsv}
V_{\rm so}^{\rm SV}(r,c,\rho_0,\rho_1)=V_{\rm so}^{\rm SV}
h_{\rm SV}(r,c,\rho_0,\rho_1)~2({\bf l}\cdot{\bf s})~,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{spinorbrsv}
h_{\rm SV}(r,c,\rho_0,\rho_1)=-\frac{1}{r}f^\prime_{\rm SV}(r,c,\rho_0,\rho_1)~.
\end{equation}
The mass-number dependence of the global potentials is borne generally
by the radii such that
$R_{\alpha}=r_{\alpha,0}A_T^{1/3}$, where $\alpha$ labels any of the
potential terms.
Classical nucleon potential sets were given by Perey~\cite{[Pe63]} and by
Becchetti and Greenlees~\cite{[BeGe]} long time ago, and they are relied on
in recent studies~\cite{[Li12]} as well. A recent attempt for the
derivation of a new $\alpha$-nucleus potential was made by Mohr and
coworkers \cite{[Mo13]}. In this work, however we restrict
ourselves to the Perey and Becchetti--Greenlees parameters for simplicity.
To construct global SV potentials, we search for the minimum of the squared
deviations in Eq.~(\ref{Delta}) as a function of the mass number $A_T$ and
calculate the best-fit SV parameters as a function of $A_T$. For medium-heavy
and heavy nuclei, the SV potential reproduces the CWS shape quite well,
and its $A_T$ dependence is regular. The mixing coefficient $c$ decreases
with decreasing $A_T$ as seen in Fig.~\ref{c1atdep}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics*[scale=0.4, bb=0 40 750 550]{c1pbr.eps}
\caption{Dependence of the mixing coefficient $c$ on the target mass-number
$A_T$ for two global parameter sets.}
\label{c1atdep}
\end{figure}
In the region of light nuclei, however, the best-fit SV form has a strange,
irregular shape. We can avoid this by requiring that the derivative of
the SV form be similar to the derivative of the WS shape:
\begin{equation}
\label{Deltad}
\Delta(\rho_0,\rho_1,c)=\sum_{i=1}^m\left[f^{\rm SV}(r_i,c,\rho_0,\rho_1)
-f^{\rm CWS}(r_i)\right]^2+\lambda\left[{f^{{\rm SV}}}'(r_i,c,\rho_0,\rho_1)
-{f^{{\rm CWS}}}'(r_i)\right]^2~.
\end{equation}
The Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ was determined empirically. (Here we
suppressed the parameters of the CWS potential, which were kept fixed.)
With a value of $\lambda=25$ fm$^2$, the fitted SV potential became reasonably
smooth and similar to the CWS shape we want to approximate.
The range $\rho_0$ of the SV potential scales with $A_T^{1/3}$, while
the difference $\rho_0-\rho_1$ is proportional to the diffuseness $a$
of the CWS potential. The parameters of the
Perey potential~\cite{[Pe63]} are $r_0=1.25$ fm, and $a=0.65$ fm, and
the best-fit SV parameters are
$\rho_0=1.85A_T^{1/3}$ fm, $\rho_0-\rho_1=3.2a$, $c=-0.051+0.0051A_T
-3.9\times 10^{-6}A_T^2$,
thus for small $A_T$, $c$ becomes very small.
For the Becchetti--Greenlees~\cite{[BeGe]} geometry ($r_0=1.17$ fm and
$a=0.75$ fm), the best-fit SV parameters relate to the CWS parameters
very similarly, namely their values are
$\rho_0=1.86A_T^{1/3}$ fm, $\rho_0-\rho_1=2.8a$, $c=-0.055+0.003A_T-7.0
\times 10^{-7}A_T^2$.
As a light system, let us consider $^{18}$F+$n$. For the
Perey geometry, the best-fit SV parameters are $\rho_0=5.084$ fm,
$\rho_1=3.244$ fm, and $c=0.040$, while for the Becchetti--Greenlees
geometry, we get $\rho_0=4.957$ fm, $\rho_1=2.728$ fm, and
$c=0.011$. This again shows that for light nuclei $c$ is practically zero,
and it is reasonable to take $c=0$.
\begin{figure}[bht]
\includegraphics*[scale=0.4, bb=0 40 750 550]{a18.eps}
\caption{Radial shapes of Perey's WS and the SV ($c=0$) potentials and
their derivatives for $^{18}$F+$n$. Derivatives appear in the
spin-orbit terms in Eqs.~(\ref{spinorbr}) and (\ref{spinorbrsv}).}
\label{a18}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{a18} we compare the shape of Perey's WS potential and its
derivative with the SV potential (with $c=0$) and its derivative for the
$^{18}$F+$n$ system. The WS parameters are listed in Table~\ref{compare}. The
ratio $\rho_0/A_T^{1/3}$ is almost constant with a value of $\sim 1.6r_0$.
One can see that the radial shape of the WS potential is approximated
reasonably well by the first term of the SV form with a single adjustable
parameter, $\rho_0$. Now $\rho_0$ must play the role of both the radius and
the diffuseness of the WS potential.
Of course, the SV curves deviate most from the WS curves at large distances.
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\caption{Geometrical parameters of the WS and the SV potentials for $^{13}$N,
$^{15}$O and $^{18}$F. All distances are in units of fm.}
\begin{tabular}{rcccccccc}
\hline\hline
$A_T$ && $r_0\!=\!R/A_T^{1/3}$ & $R$ && $a$ && $\rho_0/A_T^{1/3}$ &
$\rho_0$\\
\hline
$^{13}$N && 1.25 & 2.94 && 0.65 && 2.037 & 4.79 \\
$^{15}$O && 1.25 & 3.08 && 0.65 && 2.031 & 5.01 \\
$^{18}$F && 1.25 & 3.28 && 0.65 && 2.022 & 5.30 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{compare}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Single-particle energies for light nuclei}
It is interesting to see how the differences between the potentials influence
the single-particle energies. In Table~\ref{spf18} we show the neutron
single-particle energies $\epsilon_{nlj}$ calculated for the core nucleus
$^{18}$F, with Perey's WS geometry ($V_0^{\rm CWS}=60$ MeV, $r_0=1.25$ fm,
$a=0.65$ fm, $R_{\rm max}=15$ fm, and $V_{\rm so}^{\rm CWS}=28$ MeV). For the
fitted SV potential we used two values for the spin-orbit strength.
In the first case
the spin-orbit term (\ref{spinorbsv}) was used with
$V_{\rm so}^{\rm SV}=V_{\rm so}^{\rm CWS}=28$ MeV. But, as is seen in
Fig.~\ref{a18}, the shape of the derivative differs somewhat from that
of the standard form. Therefore, to achieve similar spin-orbit splitting,
in the second case we used a bit stronger ($V_{\rm so}^{\rm SV}=30$ MeV) value
for the spin-orbit strength.
\begin{table}[bh]
\begin{center}
\caption{$^{18}$F+$n$ single-particle energies (in MeV) in the CWS potential
and in the fitted SV potential with one central term.}
\label{spf18}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline\hline
$i=\{n,l,j\}$&$\epsilon_i$(CWS)&\multicolumn{3}{c}{$\epsilon_i$(SV)}\\
\cline{3-5}
& & $V^{\rm SV}_{\rm so}=28$ MeV
&& $V^{\rm SV}_{\rm so}=30$ MeV\\
\hline\hline
$0s_{1/2}$&$-38.926$& $-38.119$ && $-38.119$\\
$0p_{3/2}$&$-23.998$& $-23.568$ && $-23.611$\\
$0p_{1/2}$&$-22.067$& $-21.729$ && $-21.640$\\
$0d_{5/2}$&$-8.985$& $-8.962$ && $-9.049$\\
$1s_{1/2}$&$-7.697$& $-7.699$ && $-7.699$\\
$0d_{3/2}$&$-5.779$& $-5.901$ && $-5.770$\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
One can see that, with the larger spin-orbit strength, the SV energies
are pretty close to the CWS energies. The differences are largest for the
deepest orbits. Similar behaviors were found for the other two residual nuclei.
In Table~\ref{core13} we present the calculated single-particle energies
for $^{13}$N+$n$, in which the d$_{3/2}$ orbit is very close to the threshold.
We can conclude that for light nuclei the one-term SV potential is
a good phenomenological form, which reproduces the spectra obtained
with the conventional WS potentials, although the shape of its derivative is
somewhat different from that of the CWS potential.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{$^{13}$N+$n$ single-particle energies (in MeV) in the CWS potential
and in the corresponding SV potential with one central term and
$V^{\rm SV}_{\rm so}=30$ MeV.}
\label{core13}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline\hline
$i=\{n,l,j\}$&$\epsilon_i$ (CWS)&$\epsilon_i$ (SV)\\
\hline\hline
$0s_{1/2}$&$-35.045$&$-36.746$ \\
$0p_{3/2}$&$-18.620$&$-20.368$ \\
$0p_{1/2}$&$-16.318$&$-17.958$ \\
$0d_{5/2}$&$-3.067$&$-4.247$ \\
$1s_{1/2}$&$-3.400$&$-3.400$ \\
$0d_{3/2}$&$-0.003$&$-0.548$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The wave functions produced by the two potentials are most conveniently
compared through the neutron densities
\begin{equation}
\label{density}
\rho(r)=\sum_i v_i^2\left[\frac{u_i(r)}{r}\right]^2~,
\end{equation}
where $i=\{n_{i},l_{i},j_{i}\}$ runs over the occupied orbits, $u_i(r)$ denotes
the single-particle radial wave functions, and $v_i^2$ is the occupation
number. It is assumed that the lowest-lying orbits are fully occupied, i.e.,
$v_i^2=2j_i+1$. In Fig. \ref{denshape} we compare the neutron
densities calculated for the nucleus $^{18}$F in CWS and in SV potentials.
The difference between the two densities is largest at the peak of
the densities produced by the two deeply bound orbits, where the energies
are deeper in the CWS potential. In the surface, where the CWS and
SV potentials do differ appreciably, the two densities do not differ
significantly. For $r>4$ fm, the two curves can hardly be distinguished
because the tail of the density is mostly determined by the
single-particle energies being close to the Fermi level, which are very similar
in the two potentials.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics*[scale=0.4, bb=0 40 750 550]{density.eps}
\caption{Radial shapes of the neutron densities for the nucleus $^{18}$F
in CWS and in SV potentials.}
\label{denshape}
\end{figure}
\section{The CWS potential imitated by the SS form}
The SS modification only matters for heavier systems, and we consider
$^{208}$Pb+$n$. First we show the effect of $a_s\not=1$ on a potential
whose SV parameters $\rho_0$, $\rho_1$ and $c$ were adjusted to the CWS
shape~\cite{[Ra11],[Da12]}. In Fig.~\ref{sswspb} we can see that $a_s>1$
smooths the SV potential in the region around $\rho_1$, where the SV
curve shows a bend, while $a_s<1$ sharpens the bend, and even
an extra minimum shows up. Such an extra minimum (a pocket) was needed
for the description of $\alpha$ decay from Ra isotopes in Ref.~\cite{[De13]}.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\includegraphics*[scale=0.4, bb=0 40 750 550]{ssws.eps}
\caption{Radial shapes of the CWS and SS potentials with different $a_s$
values for $^{208}$Pb+$n$.}
\label{sswspb}
\end{figure}
To determine the SS form that approximates the CWS potential best, we should
fit all the four parameters of the SS potential simultaneously.
We minimized the function
\begin{equation}
\label{Deltad1}
\Delta(\rho_0,\rho_1,a_s,c)
=\sum_{i=1}^m\left[f^{\rm SS}(r_i,c,\rho_0,\rho_1,a_s)
-f^{\rm CWS}(r_i)\right]^2
+\lambda\left[{f^{\rm SS}}'(r_i,c,\rho_0,\rho_1,a_s)
-{f^{\rm CWS}}'(r_i)\right]^2~,
\end{equation}
with $\lambda=25$ fm$^2$. The two potentials are shown in Fig.~\ref{fittedss}, and
the parameters are given in the caption.
The agreement is remarkable in spite of the SS potential having a minimum.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics*[scale=0.4, bb=0 40 750 550]{ourpotfit.eps}
\caption{Best-fit SS shape to the CWS shape for $^{208}$Pb+$n$.
WS parameters: $r_0=1.27$ fm, $a=0.7$ fm. SS parameters:
$\rho_0=10.75$ fm, $\rho_1=8.94$ fm, $c=1.528$, $a_s=1.4$.}
\label{fittedss}
\end{figure}
\section{Pole trajectories in SFR potentials}
Having indicated some practical aspects of using SFR potentials in
nuclear problems, we now discuss the problem of pole trajectories.
We remind the reader that it is the pole trajectories, especially
in the region of broad resonances, that make the use of truncated
potentials dangerous. Pole trajectories can be labeled conveniently
by $n$, the number of nodes of the wave function defined where the
pole belongs to a bound (or anti-bound) state. However, the trajectories can be
found more easily at the other extreme, where the potential strength is nearly
zero (at the ``starting point''). Here the states are resonances
with complex radial wave functions, whose real as well as imaginary
parts have infinite numbers of zeros. Orbits with low $n$ values are
important in nuclear structure calculations and in low-energy nucleon
scattering. In heavy-ion reactions larger $n$ values occur.
In the present work we restrict ourselves to the s-wave case. Analytical
results are available for the square-well potential in the work of
Nussenzweig \cite{[Nu59]} as was discussed by some of us recently
\cite{[Da12]}. Since, however, we are concerned with less special potentials,
which cannot be treated analytically, we re-consider approximate analytical
formulae for the starting points of the trajectories given in the literature.
We are interested in where these are valid and how they can be treated
numerically.
\subsection{Formulae for the starting points}
The $l=0$ states in the SFR potential
\begin{equation}
\label{newpot}
V(r)=V_0~\theta({\cal R}-r)[({\cal R}-r)^\sigma +\ldots]~
\end{equation}
are discussed by R. G. Newton in his book~\cite{[Ne82]} [see Eq.~(12.98)
on p.~361 there]. Here $\sigma>0$, $\theta(x)$ denotes the
Heaviside step function, and the square bracket contains a truncated
expansion in terms of ${\cal R}-r$. In Eq.~(12.102) on p. 362 Newton gives
the real and imaginary parts of the starting point $k_n=k_n^R -{\rm i} k_n^I$
of the trajectory of the $n$th pole of the $S$-matrix as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{rek}
k_n^R= \frac{n\pi}{\cal R}+O(1)~,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{imk}
k_n^I= \frac{\sigma+2}{2{\cal R}}\ln (n) +O(1)~.
\end{equation}
The starting point of the pole trajectory is in the fourth quadrant of the
$k$-plane, and, by definition, it belongs to $V_0=0$. Equations~(\ref{rek}),
(\ref{imk}) are especially useful for large $n$ values, where the $O(1)$
terms in the equations can be neglected, but it is interesting to see
how they are fulfilled for lower $n$.
Eq.~(\ref{rek}) depends linearly on $n$ with a slope
\begin{equation}
\label{exslope}
A_1=\frac{\pi}{\cal R}~.
\end{equation}
Regge pointed out \cite{[Re58]} that a relation similar to Eq.~(\ref{rek}) is
valid for the moduli of the starting wave number values:
\begin{equation}
\label{absk}
|k_n|= \frac{n\pi}{\cal R}+O(1)=A_1 n+O(1)~.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Test with Newton's potential}
For a potential of the form of (\ref{newpot}), the asymptotic expressions
(\ref{rek}),(\ref{imk}) and (\ref{absk}) offer convenient tests of our
numerical procedure for very large $n$ values.
Inaccuracies may come from approximating $V_0=0$ by a small finite value,
from truncation errors in the numerical integration of the differential
equation, and from rounding errors throughout the numerical calculations.
We reduced the rounding errors by using extended precision floating-point
arithmetics. We used Ixaru's method \cite{[Ix84]} for the numerical integration
of the radial equation, and we calculated the position of the pole of the
$S$-matrix using the computer code ANTI \cite{[anti]}.
We chose a potential of the form of Eq.~(\ref{newpot}) with $\sigma=1$:
\begin{equation}
\label{ournewpot}
V(r)=-V_0~\theta({\cal R}-r)({\cal R}-r)~,
\end{equation}
which is attractive if $V_0>0$, and chose $V_0=0.005$ MeV
and ${\cal R}=10$ fm.
We calculated the starting values $k_n$ for the $n=1,\ldots,98$ trajectories,
and fitted the $k_n^R$ values by a first order polynomial of $n$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{firstpol}
y(n)=a_0+a_1 n~.
\end{equation}
Since in Eq.~(\ref{rek}) we have an unknown $O(1)$ term (the actual value of
this is reflected by $a_0$),
we applied a lower cut value $n_s$ in our data and performed the fitting for a
number of $n\in \{n_s,n_s+1,\ldots,n_u\}$ with $n_u=98$ fixed and $n_s$ varied.
We can thus estimate the value of $a_1$ for each $n_s$ and compare it with
$A_1=\pi/{\cal R}=0.31416$ fm$^{-1}$ obtained from Eq.~(\ref{exslope}). In
Fig.~\ref{c1} the ordinate shows the deduced slope, with the horizontal line
$A_1=\pi/10$ fm$^{-1}$, to which the fitted values of $a_1$ should converge for
large $n_s$.
The dashed line connects the $a_1$ values resulting from the fit to
$k_{n_s}^R$.
It is seen that the estimate for the
range has 3 accurate digits even for $n_s=1$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics*[scale=0.4, bb=0 40 750 550]{c1newton.eps}
\caption{Dependence of the slope of the fitted line on the lower cut value
of the node number $n_s$ for a potential in Eq.~(\ref{ournewpot})
with a range of ${\cal R}=10$ fm.}
\label{c1}
\end{figure}
To check the validity of Eq.~(\ref{absk}), we fitted a linear function to
the moduli of the starting wave number values calculated, and
followed a procedure similar to that for $k^R_n$.
The dotted line in Fig.~\ref{c1} shows the slopes obtained as a function of
$n_s$. Now the fitted slope $a_1$ approaches the horizontal line from below
and yields an estimate of similar accuracy.
The results of these tests show that the small final value of $V_0$
we use provides a reasonable estimate for the starting value of the
pole trajectory.
To check Eq.~(\ref{imk}) for the imaginary part of $k_n$, we introduce
the variable $x=\ln (n)$ and fit $k_n^I=a_1x+a_0$
for the same sets of $n=n_s,\ldots,98$ points, with $n_s=1,\ldots,97$.
From the slope $a_1$ obtained, we can calculate $\sigma=2a_1{\cal R}-2$
as a function of $n_s$ using the actual value of ${\cal R}$.
Figure~\ref{sigmans} shows that this $\sigma$ converges
to 1 as it should, but rather slowly.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics*[scale=0.4, bb=0 40 750 550]{newtonsigma.eps}
\caption{Convergence of the fitted $\sigma$ to the exact value (dotted line)
obtained by using the lower cut value of the node number $n_s$ for a potential
of Eq.~(\ref{ournewpot}).}
\label{sigmans}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Cut--off Woods-Saxon form}
The trajectories of the $S$-matrix poles were calculated for two SFR potentials
for a heavy nucleus $^{208}$Pb in Refs.~\cite{[Ra11],[Da12]}.
Certain features found in Ref.~\cite{[Da12]} indicate that the
relationship~(\ref{rek}) might hold for the CWS and even for the
SV potentials.
The asymptotic behavior of the CWS potential for $r<R_{\rm max}$ may be
approximated by a Taylor series around $r={\cal R}=R_{\rm max}$ cut after the
first term:
\begin{equation}
\label{taylorWS}
-V_0f^{\rm CWS}(r,R,a,R_{\rm max})\approx {D}+(R_{\rm max}-r)\frac{D}{a}~,
\end{equation}
where $D=-V_0e^{(R-R_{\rm max})/a}$.
The second term corresponds to a $\sigma=1$ version of Newton's potential
studied before, but now we have an additional first term, which does not depend
on $r$. Thus not even an approximation to the CWS potential has exactly the
form of Eq.~(\ref{newpot}). But, with the usual choice of
$R_{\rm max}\ge R+6 a$, the value of the constant $|D|\le 0.0025\times V_0$,
thus the first term is not very large.
Since for a heavy nucleus, a crucial difference has been observed between
the pole trajectories of the continuous SV potential and the discontinuous
CWS potential~\cite{[Ra11],[Da12]}, here we extend these calculations
to light nuclei and to the SS potential.
For $^{208}$Pb, it has been found~\cite{[Da12]} that the starting points
of the $l=0$ resonant trajectories follow Newton's rule in Eq.~(\ref{rek})
approximately if the $n$ value is not very small even though the asymptotic
behavior of the potential~(\ref{taylorWS}) differs slightly from
Eq.~(\ref{newpot}). Figure~\ref{wstraj} shows the trajectories of a few poles
of the $^{18}$F+$n$ system in the CWS well with parameters $r_0=1.25$ fm,
$a=0.65$ fm, and $R_{\rm max}=15$ fm. The results are similar to those for
$^{208}$Pb even in that there is a loop in the $n=1$ trajectory but nowhere
else. Figure~\ref{f18cws} shows the straight line fitted to $k_n^R$ for
node numbers $n=1,\ldots,8$. From its slope Eq.~(\ref{exslope}) predicts
${\cal R}=14.67$ fm, which agrees reasonably well with the cutoff radius
used, $R_{\rm max}=15$ fm ($|D|=1.4 \times 10^{-8}V_0$).
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics*[scale=0.4, bb=0 30 750 550]{n1-8l0wsf18ktraj.eps}
\caption{Pole trajectories for a CWS potential with $R_{\rm max}=15$ fm for
$l=0$ and $n=1,\ldots,8$ for $^{18}$F. The full circles denote the starting
points of the trajectories with $V_0=0.005$ MeV.}
\label{wstraj}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics*[scale=0.4, bb=0 40 750 550]{dkdnf18ws.eps}
\caption{The line is the linear function fitted to the $k_n^R$ values (dots)
of the pole trajectories with node numbers $n=1,\ldots,8$ for a CWS potential
for $^{18}$F. These values correspond to the abscissae of the full circles in
Fig. \ref{wstraj}. The fit results in a range ${\cal R}=14.67$ fm.}
\label{f18cws}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics*[scale=0.4, bb=0 40 750 550]{c1wsr10a18.eps}
\caption{Dependence of the slope of the fitted line on the lower cut value
of the node number $n_s$ ($n_s=1,\dots,n_u-1$, and $n_u=48$) for a CWS potential with $R_{\rm max}=10$ fm.}
\label{c1ws}
\end{figure}
We studied the behavior of the trajectories further by setting the cutoff
radius shorter, $R_{\rm max}=10$ fm ($|D|=3.2\times 10^{-5}V_0$).
In Fig.~\ref{c1ws} we examine the validity of Eqs.~(\ref{rek}) and (\ref{absk})
for the CWS potential by a test similar to that shown in Fig.~\ref{c1}.
Now the two curves do not converge smoothly into a constant.
The agreement of the slope $a_1$ with the exact value
is reduced to 2 decimal digits, and, as a function of $n$, it oscillates around
$\pi/R_{\rm max}$. Thus we can still state that Eqs.~(\ref{rek}) and
(\ref{absk}) are approximately satisfied by a CWS potential as well.
The relationship for the imaginary part, Eq.~(\ref{imk}), however, is not
satisfied at all. There is no region where the deduced
$\sigma$ would be more or less constant.
It looks that Eq.~(\ref{taylorWS}) is too approximate to cause Eq.~(\ref{imk})
to be fulfilled.
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics*[scale=0.4, bb=0 30 750 550]{n1-5l0f18svktraj.eps}
\caption{Pole trajectories for a SV potential with $\rho_0=5.3$ fm for $l=0$
and $n=1,\ldots,5$ for $^{18}$F. The full circles denote the $k_n$ points
calculated with $V_0=0.005$ MeV.}
\label{svtraj}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Pole trajectories in SV and in SS potentials}
The pole trajectories for the SV potential behave absolutely regularly, with
no loops and ripples (Fig.~\ref{svtraj}), in contrast to the CWS potential.
The starting values $k_n^R$ can be fitted very well by a straight line as
seen in Fig.~\ref{sv18slope}. From its slope and Eq.~(\ref{rek}) one
can derive ${\cal R}=5.17$ fm, which is just a bit less than the value of the
range parameter $\rho_0=5.3$ fm. Similar behavior was found before for
$^{208}$Pb in Ref.~\cite{[Da12]}. We conclude that the relation in
Eq.~(\ref{rek}) is fulfilled approximately for SV and SS potentials in spite
of their asymptotic behavior being different from Eq.~(\ref{newpot}). Thus
Eq.~(\ref{rek}) is still useful for estimating the pole positions.
Remember that the SV and SS potentials the Taylor expansion at
$\rho_0$ is not equal to the function, because all derivatives are zero at that point.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics*[scale=0.4, bb=0 30 750 550]{18fsvslope.eps}
\caption{Fit to the $k_n^R$ values of the full circles in Fig.~\ref{svtraj},
with node numbers $n=1,\ldots,5$ for a single-term SV potential for $^{18}$F.
The range deduced from the slope $a_1$ is ${\cal R}=5.17$ fm.}
\label{sv18slope}
\end{figure}
For two-term SV potentials ($c\ne0$), the starting values of the pole
trajectories were studied in Ref.~\cite{[Ra11]} for $^{16}$O and
for $^{208}$Pb \footnote{In Ref.~\cite{[Ra11]} it was conjectured that, for
low node numbers, the $k_n^R-k_{n-1}^R$ is determined
by ${1\over 2}(\rho_0+\rho_1)$. Later it turned out that this result was
just an accident. The starting point depends only on
$\rho_0$, where the potential vanishes.}.
Now these studies may be extended to the SS potentials of various $a_s$.
If the SS potential obeyed Newton's relation (\ref{newpot}),
the starting regions should be independent of $a_s$ and should coincide
with the SV trajectory.
Since, however, Eq.~(\ref{newpot}) does not hold even for the SV potential,
we expect a dependence.
We consider a heavy core, where the derivative term is important: the case of
$^{208}$Pb+$n$. We choose $l=0$, analyze the SV potential that
approximates the CWS potential of parameters $R=7.525$ fm and $a=0.7$ fm
($\rho_0=10.963$ fm, $\rho_1=8.328$ fm, and $c=0.997$),
and repeat the calculation for SS potentials of $a_s=0.6$ and 1.6
(Fig.~\ref{sstraj}). One can see that the three curves belonging to the same
$n$ do not coincide, and nor do their starting points, but they slightly
depend on $a_s$. This weak dependence may be
attributed to departures from Eqs.~(\ref{rek}) and (\ref{imk}) for
low $n$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics*[scale=0.4, bb=0 30 750 550]{n1-2as06-16ktraj.eps}
\caption{Pole trajectories in SS potentials with different $a_s$ values. The
value $a_s=1.0$ corresponds to the SV potential. The full circles denote
the $k_n$ values calculated with $V_0=0.005$ MeV.}
\label{sstraj}
\end{figure}
We calculated the starting $k_n$ values for the best-fit SS shape to the same
CWS shape for $^{208}$Pb+$n$.
(WS parameters: $r_0=1.27$ fm, $a=0.7$ fm. SS parameters:
$\rho_0=10.75$ fm, $\rho_1=8.94$ fm, $c=1.528$, $a_s=1.4$).
Although we know that the SS potential does not follow Newton's
form [Eq.~(\ref{newpot})], we can still fit our $k_n$ values by first-order
polynomials of the variable $n$ and $\ln(n)$, respectively, to check
the validity of Eqs.~(\ref{rek}), (\ref{absk}) and (\ref{imk}).
Equations~(\ref{rek}) and (\ref{absk}) seem to be valid approximately in the
$n$-range shown in Fig.~\ref{ssa1} for $a_s\ge 1$. For $\sigma=0.6$, which
produced a pocket in Fig.~\ref{sswspb}, the relation breaks down beyond
$n_s\approx 12$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics*[scale=0.4, bb=0 30 750 550]{ssa1pb.eps}
\caption{Slope $a_1$ of the straight line fitted to the starting $k_n$
values ($n_s=1,\dots,n_u-1$, and $~n_u=20$) for SS potentials of different $a_s$, with $a_s=1.0$ belonging
to the SV potential; $A_1=\pi/11$ fm$^{-1}$. Slopes belonging to $a_s=1.0$ and $a_s=1.6$ are hardly distinguishable in the given scale.}
\label{ssa1}
\end{figure}
Test calculations show that the $k_n^I$ values weakly depend on $a_s$, and the
$\sigma$, defined by Eq.~(\ref{imk}), does not seem to converge. That is
not surprising as neither the SV nor the SS potential satisfies
Eq.~(\ref{newpot}). Just as for the SV potential, the $k_n^I$ values show
an almost linear slow increase with $n$. This offers practical recipes
for finding suitable starting values in searches for $S$-matrix poles.
\section{Conclusion}
The conventional nuclear potentials
do not tend to zero at finite distances, but are set to zero artificially.
Consequently, they have unpleasant mathematical and numerical properties,
which cause appreciable errors in broad resonances. Their SFR substitutes
have pleasant mathematical and
numerical properties, but their tails are unphysical. Here we
examined the properties of a family of SFR potentials related to
the WS potential, with an emphasis on the effect of the tail and on
the pole trajectories belonging to broad resonances.
We concentrated on the SV potential, which consists of a term
$\exp[(r^2/(r^2-\rho_0^2)]$
($r<\rho_0$) and a term like the derivative
of that but with a different parameter $\rho_1$ ($\le\rho_0$).
We constructed parameters that fit
the real parts of the global Perey--Perey and Becchetti--Greenlees
optical potentials best.
The best-fit range $\rho_0$ of the SV potential is found to scale by
$A_T^{1/3}$ for both geometries, and
the difference of the two ranges, $\rho_0-\rho_1$, is positive and
it is three to four times of the diffuseness of the WS potential.
The admixture of the derivative term tends to zero with decreasing mass number.
In fact, it was found that, for light nuclei, the phenomenological neutron
potential can be approximated reasonably well by a single-term SV potential,
and the single-particle energies and densities calculated in the cut-off
WS potential are also reproduced. In this case the form factor of the potential
has a single parameter, its range $\rho_0$. The tail of the density is pretty
reasonable since it is determined primarily by the energies, and those are
reproduced well by the SV potential.
The new potential form (SS) introduced by Sahu and Sahu
\cite{[SS12]} can be considered as a generalization of the SV form.
The extra diffuseness parameter may smooth or roughen the potential
in the region around $\rho_1$ depending on whether $a_s>1$ or $a_s<1$.
The range of the SFR potentials determines approximately the starting points
of the pole trajectories belonging to potential strength zero.
The problem of the $S$-matrix poles becomes ill-defined in a potential with
strength $V_0\approx 0$, thus it is important to see whether the computer code
is able to solve the problem for small $V_0$. A check is provided
by potentials of the form of
$-V_0(R-r)$ ($r\le R$),
for which these starting points are approximately determined apart from
an additive constant. This check has shown that our calculations are
remarkably accurate.
It is more surprising that even though the CWS and the SV potentials are very
different in the neighborhood of the cutoff, the pole trajectories of
the SV potentials bear out some of the properties of those of
the
$-V_0(R-r)$
potentials, especially for large node numbers.
For some low values of the node number, the CWS trajectory shows strange
shapes, while the SS and SV potentials behave absolutely regularly.
The pole trajectories of the SS potential depend weakly on the extra
diffuseness parameter.
In conclusion, the present results are reassuring concerning the use of the
SFR potentials. The starting points of the pole trajectories seem to have
some approximate universality properties, which can be used to estimate
the values of these starting points.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work was partially supported by the ENIAC CSI No. 120209 project and by the T\'AMOP-4.2.2.C-11/1/KONV-2012-0001 project.
The later project has been supported by the European Union, co-financed by
the European Social Fund.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Int}
Let $k$ be an arbitrary field and $A=(a_{ij})$ an $m \times n$
matrix with non negative integer entries $a_{ij}$ and with non-zero
columns. Let $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ and $k[t_1,\ldots,t_m]$ be two
polynomial rings over $k$. Denote by $x^b$ the monomial $x_1^{b_1}
\cdots x_n^{b_n}$, where $b=(b_1,\ldots,b_n)\in \N^n$. A {\it
binomial} $f$ in $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ is a difference of two
monomials, i.e., $f=x^b-x^c$ for some $b,c\in\N^n$. An ideal
generated by binomials is called a {\it binomial ideal}. Consider
$\varphi$ the graded homomorphism of $k$-algebras
$$\varphi\colon k[x_1,\ldots,x_n] \rightarrow k[t_1,\ldots,t_m] \,
\mbox{ induced by }\, \varphi(x_i)=t^{a_i},
$$
where $a_i$ is the $i${\it-th} column of $A$. The polynomial rings
are graded by assigning $\deg(t_i) = 1$ and
$\deg(x_j)=\deg(t^{a_j})$ for every $i,j$. The kernel of $\varphi$,
denoted by $P_A$, is called the {\it toric ideal\/} associated to
$A$. It is well-known that $P_A$ is a prime graded binomial ideal
with ${\rm ht}(P_A) = n - {\rm rank}(A)$ (see for example
\cite{Stur1, monalg}).
$P_A$ is a {\it complete intersection} if $\mu(P_A) = {\rm
ht}(P_A)$, where $\mu(P_A)$ denotes the minimal number of generators
of $P_A$. Equivalently, $P_A$ is a complete intersection if and only
if there exists a set of homogeneous binomials $f_1,\ldots,f_r \in
k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ such that $r = {\rm ht}(P_A)$ and
$P_A=(f_1,\ldots,f_r)$.
Complete intersection toric ideals were first studied by Herzog in
\cite{He3}. After that, they have been extensively studied by
several authors; see for example \cite{stcib-algorithm,
BGsimplicial, morales-thoma} and the references
there. It is well known, see e.g. \cite{F-M-S-2} or \cite{SSS}, that
the problem of deciding whether a toric ideal is a complete
intersection belongs to the complexity class $\mathcal{NP}$.
Let $G$ be a simple undirected graph, i.e., an undirected graph
without multiple edges or loops. Set $V(G) = \{v_1, \ldots, v_m\}$
its vertex set, $E(G) = \{e_1,\ldots, e_n\}$ its edge set, and $A_G$
its incidence matrix. The toric ideal associated to $A_G$ is denoted
by $P_G$. It is a prime homogeneous binomial ideal called the {\it
toric ideal of $G$}. The image of $\varphi$ is denoted by $k[G]$ and
called the {\it edge algebra of $G$}. If we denote by $b(G)$ the
number of connected components of $G$ which are bipartite, then
${\rm rank}(A_G) = m - b(G)$ (see \cite{Vil2}) which implies that
${\rm ht}(P_G) = n - m + b(G)$. We say that $G$ is a {\it complete
intersection} if the corresponding toric ideal $P_G$ is a complete
intersection.
In this work we study the complete intersection property of graphs
from both an algorithmic and a combinatorial point of view.
The complete intersection property for bipartite graphs has been
extensively studied; see for example \cite{luisa-tor, GRV, Ring,
accota-gv,katzman,aron-jac}. It is worth mentioning that Gitler,
Reyes and Villarreal proved in \cite{Ring} that a bipartite graph is
a complete intersection if and only if it is a ring graph. Since
ring graphs are obviously planar, they could derive that every
complete intersection bipartite graph is planar, which was
previously proved by Katzman \cite{katzman} without using the notion
of ring graph. When graphs are not necessarily bipartite there is
some recent work by Tatakis and Thoma \cite{Tatakis-Thoma}, in the
last section we make use of some of their technical results. For
directed graphs, the complete intersection property has also been
widely studied, see for example \cite{GRVega, Ring, Morfismos}.
In this work, our graphs are undirected and not necessarily
bipartite. In this general setting, the problem requires a different
approach. Indeed, Figure \ref{fig1} shows an example of a ring graph
whose toric ideal is not a complete intersection. Moreover, there
exist complete intersection graphs which are not ring graphs; Figure
\ref{fig2} shows a complete intersection graph which is not even
planar.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1} {
\begin{pspicture}(0,-0.89)(3.42,0.89)
\psdots[dotsize=0.07](0.66,0.07) \psdots[dotsize=0.07](0.6,-0.65)
\psdots[dotsize=0.07](0.08,-0.33)
\psline[linewidth=0.01cm](0.08,-0.33)(0.62,0.07)
\psline[linewidth=0.01cm](0.66,0.11)(0.62,-0.67)
\psline[linewidth=0.01cm](0.62,-0.67)(0.06,-0.33)
\psline[linewidth=0.01cm](0.68,0.11)(1.6,0.09)
\psdots[dotsize=0.07](1.6,0.09) \psdots[dotsize=0.07](1.12,0.79)
\psdots[dotsize=0.07](1.96,0.79) \psdots[dotsize=0.07](2.82,0.07)
\psdots[dotsize=0.07](2.42,-0.79) \psdots[dotsize=0.07](3.32,-0.77)
\psline[linewidth=0.01cm](1.12,0.79)(1.58,0.13)
\psline[linewidth=0.01cm](1.1,0.79)(1.94,0.79)
\psline[linewidth=0.01cm](1.94,0.79)(1.58,0.11)
\psline[linewidth=0.01cm](1.6,0.11)(2.84,0.09)
\psline[linewidth=0.01cm](2.82,0.09)(2.44,-0.77)
\psline[linewidth=0.01cm](2.44,-0.77)(3.34,-0.77)
\psline[linewidth=0.01cm](3.3,-0.77)(2.82,0.11)
\end{pspicture}
}
\vskip-.2cm
\caption{Ring graph which is not a complete
intersection}\label{fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\unitlength}{.02cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(0,45)(0,45)
\put(10,70){\oval(140,40)[t]}
\put(60,60){\oval(40,60)[r]}
\put(15,30){\oval(150,40)[lb]}
\put(60,40){\oval(60,60)[r]}
\put(-60,70){\line(0,-1){40}}
\put(-60,70){\line(0,-1){40}}
\put(20,70){\line(0,-1){40}}
\put(-20,70){\line(0,-1){40}}
\put(-60,70){\line(1,0){80}}
\put(-60,70){\circle*{4}}
\put(-20,70){\circle*{4}}
\put(20,70){\circle*{4}}
\put(-60,30){\line(1,0){80}}
\put(-60,30){\circle*{4}}
\put(-20,30){\circle*{4}}
\put(20,30){\circle*{4}}
\put(20,30){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(20,70){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(60,30){\circle*{4}}
\put(60,70){\circle*{4}}
\put(60,30){\line(0,1){40}}
\put(15,10){\line(1,0){50}}
\end{picture}
\vspace{.5cm} \caption{Non planar graph which is a complete
intersection}\label{fig2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The main results of this work are Theorem \ref{principal}, Theorem
\ref{teoremaestructura} and Theorem \ref{ultimo}. The first one
yields a polynomial time algorithm which receives as input a simple
undirected graph $G$ and returns {\sc True} if $G$ is a complete
intersection or {\sc False} other\-wise. Moreover, whenever $G$ is a
complete intersection, the algorithm provides without any extra
effort a minimal set of generators of $P_G$. As a consequence of
this algorithm we obtain that the problem of determining whether a
graph $G$ is a complete intersection belongs to the complexity class
$\mathcal P$. Given a connected graph $G$, we get a partition of $G$
into two disjoint induced subgraphs $C$ and $R$ such that $V(C) =
V(C_1) \bigsqcup \cdots \bigsqcup V(C_s)$ where $C_1,\ldots,C_s$ are
odd primitive cycles, and $R$ is bipartite. In this context, Theorem
\ref{teoremaestructura} gives necessary conditions for a graph to be
a complete intersection by characterizing when $C$ is a complete
intersection. Using this result, when $C$ is connected and $R$ is
$2$-connected, Theorem \ref{ultimo} characterizes the complete
intersection property on $G$ by determining all possible edges
connecting $C$ and $R$.
In Section \ref{sec2}, we collect some results concerning general
toric ideals that will be useful in the sequel. The main result in
this section is Proposition \ref{subconj2}, which deals with the
problem of when the complete intersection property is preserved by
elimination of variables. For toric ideals associated to graphs,
Proposition \ref{subconj2} states that any induced subgraph of a
complete intersection graph also has this property. This is Theorem
\ref{induce-CI} in Section \ref{sec3}, which allows us to obtain in
Theorem \ref{2cases} an upper bound for the number of edges of a
complete intersection graph in terms of the number of vertices,
improving all previously known bounds (see Corollary
\ref{cotasuperior}). An immediate consequence of Theorem
\ref{2cases} is that a complete intersection graph either has a
vertex of degree $\leq 2$, or is $3$-regular (see Corollary
\ref{2situaciones}). Section \ref{sec4} is devoted to designing
Algorithm CI-graph, a polynomial time algorithm for checking whether
a graph is a complete intersection. This algorithm is a direct
consequence of Theorem \ref{principal} and works as follows:
vertices of degree $1$ are removed, also vertices of degree $2$ are
removed after checking certain conditions; if these conditions are
not satisfied, the algorithm returns {\sc False}; otherwise, we
iterate this process until we get either a trivial graph or a graph
in which every vertex has degree $\geq 3$. If there is a vertex of
degree $> 3$, the algorithm returns {\sc False}. Otherwise we use
the characterization of complete intersection $3$-regular graphs
given in Theorem \ref{todosgradomayor2}. Finally, we use Theorem
\ref{fs} to check if $G$ is a complete intersection. Section
\ref{sec5} deals with the problem of finding forbidden subgraphs in
a complete intersection graph. The main result is Theorem
\ref{notheta}, where we prove that odd theta graphs whose base
vertices are not adjacent, and also even theta graphs, are forbidden
subgraphs of a complete intersection graph (see Definition
\ref{thetadefinition} for a definition of even and odd theta
graphs). To prove this, we use Lemma \ref{2subgrafos} and
Proposition \ref{contraccion}, two technical results concerning the
vertices of degree $2$ in a complete intersection graph. In Section
\ref{sec7} we apply the previous results in order to obtain the
above mentioned Theorem \ref{teoremaestructura} and Theorem
\ref{ultimo} together with their normal versions; Corollary
\ref{teoremaestructuranormal} and Corollary \ref{ultimonormal}.
\section{Complete Intersection toric ideals} \label{sec2}
In this section, $A$ denotes an $m \times n$ matrix with non-zero
columns $a_1,\ldots,a_n \in \N^m$ and $P_A \subset
k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ is the toric ideal of $A$, which is the kernel of
the $k$-algebra homomorphism $\varphi: k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]
\longrightarrow k[t_1,\ldots,t_m]$ induced by $\varphi(x_i) =
t^{a_i}$.
\begin{Definition}Let $T$ be a subset of $\{t_1,\ldots,t_m\}$. We define
$T_{\varphi^{-1}}$ as the set $\{x_i \, \vert \, \varphi(x_i) \in
k[T]\}$.
\end{Definition}
We have that $P_A \cap k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$ is the toric ideal
associated to the matrix whose columns are the $i$-th columns of
$A$ such that $x_i \in T_{\varphi^{-1}}$; see
\cite[Proposition 4.13(a)]{Stur1}.
\begin{Lemma}\label{subconj1}
Let $\mathfrak B$ be a set of generators of $P_A$ consisting of
binomials, then $\mathfrak B \cap k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$ is a set of
generators of $P_A \cap k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$. Moreover, if
$\mathfrak B$ is minimal, then $\mathfrak B \cap
k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$ is minimal.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{demo}Our proof begins the observation that whenever $f = x^{\alpha} - x^{\beta} \in
P_A$, then $x^{\alpha} \in k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$ if and only if
$x^{\beta} \in k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$, by the definition of
$T_{\varphi^{-1}}$. Now let $g$ be a binomial in $P_A \cap
k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$. Since $g \in P_A$, then $g = \sum_{f_i \in
\mathfrak B} g_i\, f_i$ with $g_i \in k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$. Consider
the morphism $\psi$ defined by $\psi(x_i) = x_i$ if $x_i \in
T_{\varphi^{-1}}$, and $\psi(x_i) = 0$ otherwise. Then for every
$f_i \in \mathfrak B$, we get that $\psi(f_i)= f_i$ if $f_i \in
k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$ or $\psi(f_i) = 0$ otherwise. Thus, $$g =
\psi(g) = \sum_{f_i \in \mathfrak B} \psi(g_i)\, \psi(f_i) =
\sum_{f_i \in \mathfrak B \cap k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]} \psi(g_i)\,
f_i.$$ Hence, $\mathfrak B \cap k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$ generates $P_A
\cap k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$. Moreover, $\mathfrak B \cap
k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$ is minimal whenever $\mathfrak B$ is. \QED
\end{demo}
\begin{Proposition}\label{subconj2}If
$P_A$ is a complete intersection, then $P_A \cap
k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$ is a complete intersection.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{demo}Let $\mathfrak B$ be a minimal set of generators of $P_A$
consisting of binomials, then $\mathfrak B$ is a regular sequence.
Hence, by Lemma \ref{subconj1}, the set $\mathfrak B \cap
k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$ is a regular sequence which generates $P_A
\cap k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$ and the result follows. \QED
\end{demo}
\smallskip
Note that Proposition \ref{subconj2} provides a new proof of
\cite[Theorem 4.1]{KMT} for the particular case of a toric ideal.
In the following sections we will use Theorem 1.1 in \cite{HSh},
which is a reformulation of \cite[Theorem 2.9]{Fisher-Shapiro}. For
presenting this result we have to introduce first some definitions.
Let $B$ be an integral matrix, $B$ is called {\it mixed} if every
row of $B$ has a positive and a negative entry. $B$ is said to be
{\it dominating} if it does not contain any square mixed submatrix.
$\Delta_t(B)$ denotes the greatest common divisor of every $t \times
t$ minor of $B$ where $t \leq {\rm rank}(B)$.
\begin{Theorem}(\cite[Theorem 1.1]{HSh}, \cite[Theorem 2.9]{Fisher-Shapiro})
\label{fs} Let $P_A$ be a toric ideal of height $r$ and $g_i =
x^{\alpha_i} - x^{\beta_i} \in P_A$ with
$\gcd (x^{\alpha_i}, x^{\beta_i}) = 1$ for $1 \leq i \leq r$ .
If $B$ denotes the $r \times n$ matrix whose $i$-th row is $\alpha_i
- \beta_i$ for $1 \leq i \leq r$, then
\begin{center} $P_A = (g_1,\ldots,g_r) \,
\Longleftrightarrow \, B$ is dominating and $\Delta_r(B) = 1$.
\end{center} \end{Theorem}
The following result, whose proof is straightforward, will be useful
to prove that certain matrices are dominating.
\begin{Lemma}\label{dominating}Let $B$ be an $r \times n$ matrix
with column vectors $c_1,\ldots,c_n \in \Z^r$ such that $c_i$ has
only one nonzero entry for some $1 \leq i \leq n$, and denote by
$B'$ the $r \times n-1$ matrix with column vectors
$c_1,\ldots,c_{i-1},c_{i+1},\ldots,c_n$. Then, $B$ is dominating if
and only if $B'$ is dominating.
\end{Lemma}
\section{An upper bound for the number of edges in a complete intersection graph} \label{sec3}
We begin this section by setting up some notation and terminology
about graphs. For unexplained terminology and results on graphs we
refer to \cite{diestel, Harary}.
A {\it walk} $w$ connecting $u, v \in V(G)$ is a finite sequence of
vertices $w = (u=v_{i_0}, v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_q} = v)$ such that
$\{v_{i_{j-1}},v_{i_j}\} \in E(G)$ for every $1 \leq j \leq q$. If
$v_{i_j} \neq v_{i_k}$ for every $0 \leq j < k \leq q$ then $w$ is
called a {\it path}. The vertex set of the walk $w$ is $V(w) :=
\{v_{i_0},\ldots,v_{i_{q}}\}$ and its edge set is $E(w) :=
\{\{v_{i_{j-1}},v_{i_j}\}\,\vert\, 1 \leq j \leq q\}$. The {\it
length of the walk} is the number $q$ of edges in the walk. An {\it
even} (respectively {\it odd}) {\it walk} is a walk of even
(respectively odd) length. A walk is {\it closed} if $u = v$. A {\it
cycle} is a closed walk with $v_{i_k} \neq v_{i_j}$ for every $1
\leq k < j \leq q$. A cycle is {\it primitive} if
$\{v_{i_k},v_{i_j}\} \notin E(G)$ for every $1 \leq k < k+1 < j \leq
q$.
For a walk $w = (u=v_{i_0}, v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_q} = v)$ we denote
by $-w$ the {\it inverse walk} $(v =
v_{i_{q}},\ldots,\,v_{i_1},\,v_{i_0} = u)$. Let $w_1,\ldots,w_r$ be
walks such that $w_i$ connects $u_i, u_{i+1}$ for every $i \in
\{1,\ldots,r\}$, then $(w_1,\ldots,w_r)$ denotes the walk connecting
$u_1, u_{r+1}$ obtained by sticking the walks $w_1,\ldots,\,w_{r-1}$
and $w_r$ together.
Given an even closed walk, $w =
(v_{i_0},\ldots, v_{i_{2q}} = v_{i_0})$ where $e_{k_j} =
\{v_{i_{j-1}}, v_{i_j}\}$ for $1 \leq j \leq 2q$, we denote by $B_w$
the binomial
$$B_w := \prod_{l = 1}^q x_{k_{2l-1}}- \prod_{l = 1}^q x_{k_{2l}}.$$
Villarreal \cite[Proposition 3.1]{Vi3} proved that $P_G$ is
generated by these binomials, i.e., $P_G = (\{B_w \, \vert \, w$ is
an even closed walk$\})$. Hibi and Ohsugi \cite[Lemma 3.2]{OH2}
improved this result by giving a necessary condition for a binomial
in $P_G$ to be primitive. Recall that $x^{\alpha} - x^{\beta} \in
P_G$ is {\it primitive} if there exists no other binomial
$x^{\alpha'} - x^{\beta'} \in P_G$ such that $x^{\alpha'} \mid
x^{\alpha}$ and $x^{\beta'} \mid x^{\beta}$. Whenever a binomial
belongs to a minimal set of generators of $P_G$, then it is
necessarily primitive (see \cite{Stur1}); thus the set of all
primitive binomials of $P_G$, which is called the {\it Graver basis
of} $P_G$, is a set of generators for $P_G$.
\begin{Lemma} \cite[Lemma 3.2]{OH2} \label{primitivo} If $B_w$ is primitive, then
one of these holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item $w$ is an even cycle,
\item $w = (C_1, C_2)$ where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are odd cycles
having exactly a vertex in common, or
\item $w = (C_1, w_1, C_2, -w_2)$ where $C_1, C_2$ are
vertex disjoint odd cycles and $w_1, w_2$ are walks connecting a
vertex $v_1 \in V(C_1)$ and a vertex $v_2 \in V(C_2)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Lemma}
For a complete characterization of primitive binomials and a description of all
minimal sets of generators of $P_G$ formed by binomials we refer the
reader to \cite{Reyes-Tatakis-Thoma}.
Now we aim to prove that the complete intersection is hereditary,
i.e., if a graph is a complete intersection then every induced
subgraph also is. Let us first recall the definition of induced
subgraph.
\begin{Definition}Let $G$ be a graph, $G'$ is an {\it induced subgraph of $G$} if
$V(G') \subset V(G)$ and \begin{center} $E(G') = \{e \in E(G)\,
\vert\, e \subset V(G')\}$.
\end{center} If $V' \subset V(G)$, we will denote by $[V']$ the induced subgraph of $G$ with
vertex set $V'$. Let $v_1,\ldots,v_s$ be vertices of $G$, the
induced subgraph $[V(G) \setminus \{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}]$ will also be
denoted by $G \setminus \{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}.$
\end{Definition}
For an induced subgraph $G'$, if we denote $T := \{t_i \, \vert \,
v_i \in V(G')\}$, then $T_{\varphi^{-1}} = \{x_i \, \vert\, e_i \in
E(G')\}$ and $P_{G'}=P_G \cap k[T_{\varphi^{-1}}]$. Hence, by Lemma
\ref{subconj1} and Proposition \ref{subconj2} we deduce the
following results.
\begin{Proposition} \label{generadoresinducido}
Let $G'$ be an induced subgraph of $G$. If $P_G =
(B_{w_1},\ldots,B_{w_s})$ for some even closed walks
$w_1,\ldots,w_s$ in $G$, then $P_{G'} = (B_{w_i}\,\vert\, V(w_i)
\subset V(G'),\, 1 \leq i \leq s)$.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{Theorem}\label{induce-CI}
Let $G'$ be an induced subgraph of $G$. If $G$ is a complete
intersection, then so is $G'$.
\end{Theorem}
A different proof of Theorem \ref{induce-CI} exists also in
\cite[Theorem 3.1]{Tatakis-Thoma}.
\smallskip These results are not true in general if we drop the
assumption that $G'$ is induced, as the example in Figure \ref{fig3}
shows.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{.04cm}
\begin{picture}(150,65)(20,10)
\put(20,75){$G$}
\put(20,70){\circle*{3}}
\put(20,70){\line(0,-1){60}}
\put(20,70){\line(2,-1){40}}
\put(20,10){\circle*{3}}
\put(20,10){\line(2,1){40}}
\put(40,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(40,50){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(62,40){$e$}
\put(60,50){\line(0,-1){20}}
\put(60,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(80,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(40,30){\circle*{3}}
\put(40,30){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(40,30){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(80,30){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(60,30){\circle*{3}}
\put(80,30){\circle*{3}}
\put(120,75){$G'$}
\put(120,70){\circle*{3}}
\put(120,70){\line(0,-1){60}}
\put(120,70){\line(2,-1){40}}
\put(120,10){\circle*{3}}
\put(120,10){\line(2,1){40}}
\put(140,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(140,50){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(160,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(180,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(140,30){\circle*{3}}
\put(140,30){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(140,30){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(180,30){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(160,30){\circle*{3}}
\put(180,30){\circle*{3}}
\end{picture}
\caption{$G'$ is a subgraph of $G$, both are bipartite but $G$ is a
ring graph and $G'$ is not. Thus $G$ is a complete intersection and
$G'$ is not.}\label{fig3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
An almost immediate consequence of Theorem \ref{induce-CI} is that a
graph is a complete intersection if and only if all its connected
components are complete intersections. This allows us to reduce our
study to connected graphs.
\begin{Corollary}\label{conexo}Let $G$ be a graph with connected components
$G_1,\ldots,G_s$. Then, $G$ is a complete intersection if and only
if so are $G_1,\ldots,G_s$.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{demo}One implication follows by Theorem \ref{induce-CI},
because $G_i$ is an induced subgraph of $G$ for $1 \leq i \leq s$.
Assume now that $G_1,\ldots,G_s$ are complete intersections and let
$\mathfrak B_i$ be a minimal set of generators of $P_{G_i}$ for $1
\leq i \leq s$. Since $P_G = (\{B_w \,\vert \, w$ is an even closed
walk$\})$ and every even closed walk is necessarily contained in a
connected component of $G$, it is evident that $P_G = \langle
\mathfrak B_1 \cup \cdots \cup \mathfrak B_s \rangle$. Moreover, we
have that ${\rm ht}(P_G) = {\rm ht}(P_{G_1}) + \cdots + {\rm
ht}(P_{G_s})$, and the result follows. \QED
\end{demo}
For a vertex $v \in V(G)$, the {\it neighborhood of $v$} is the set
of vertices which are adjacent to $v$, i.e., $N_G(v) := \{u \in
V(G)\, \vert \, \{u,v\} \in E(G) \}$. The cardinality of this set is
called the {\it degree of} $v$ and is denoted by ${\rm deg}_G(v)$,
or ${\rm deg}(v)$ when $G$ is understood. $G$ is $k$-regular if
every vertex of $G$ has degree $k$.
The following result provides an upper bound for the number of edges
of complete intersection graphs. This gives the taste that they can
not be very dense.
\begin{Theorem}\label{2cases}
Let $G$ be a complete intersection connected graph, then:
\begin{itemize}
\item $2\, |E(G)| + 4 \leq 4\, |V(G)| - \sum_{v \in V(G)} b(G \setminus \{v\})$ if $G$ is bipartite.
\item $2\, |E(G)| \leq 3\, |V(G)| - \sum_{v \in V(G)} b(G \setminus \{v\})$ if $G$ is not bipartite.
\end{itemize}
In both cases equality is attained if and only if $P_G$ is generated
by quadrics.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{demo}Let $\{B_{w_1},\ldots,B_{w_r}\}$ be a minimal set of generators of
$P_G$, where $w_i$ is an even closed walk for every $1 \leq i \leq
r$. By Proposition \ref{generadoresinducido}, for every $v \in V(G)$
we have that $P_{G \setminus \{v\}} = ( B_{w_i} \,\vert\, v \not\in
V(w_i),\, 1 \leq i \leq r)$ and by Lemma \ref{primitivo}, it follows
that $\vert V(w_i) \vert \geq 4$ and $\vert V(w_i) \vert = 4$ if and
only if $w_i$ is a cycle of length $4$, which is equivalent to
$B_{w_i}$ is a quadric.
Therefore,
$$4 \mu(P_G) \leq \sum_{v\in V(G)} \mu(P_G) - \mu(P_{G \setminus
\{v\}})$$ and equality holds if and only if $P_G$ is generated by
quadrics. Now suppose that $G$ is a complete intersection then, by
Theorem \ref{induce-CI}, $G \setminus \{v\}$ is a complete
intersection for every $v \in V(G)$. Hence, $$4 {\rm ht}(P_G) \leq
\sum_{v\in V(G)} \left( \mu(P_G) - \mu(P_{G \setminus \{v\}})
\right) = \sum_{v\in V(G)} \left({\rm ht}(P_G) - {\rm
ht}(P_{G\setminus \{v\}} )\right) = $$
$$= \sum_{v\in V(G)} ({\rm deg}(v) - 1 + b(G) - b(G \setminus
\{v\})) = 2n - m + b(G)\, m - \sum_{v\in V(G)} b(G \setminus
\{v\}).$$ If $G$ is bipartite, then $b(G) = 1,\, {\rm ht}(P_G) = n -
m + 1$ and $2n + 4 \leq 4m - \sum_{v\in V(G)} b(G \setminus \{v\}),$
and if $G$ is not bipartite, then $b(G) = 0,\, {\rm ht}(P_G) = n -
m$ and $2n \leq 3m - \sum_{v\in V(G)} b(G \setminus \{v\}).$
In both cases equality is attained if and only if
$P_G$ is generated by quadrics.\QED
\end{demo}
\bigskip
Katzman in {\rm \cite[Corollary 3.8]{katzman}} proved that $|E(G)| +
4 \leq 2 \, |V(G)|$ for a complete intersection connected bipartite
graph. Independently, from a result of {\rm Fischer, Morris} and
{\rm Shapiro} {\rm \cite[Corollary 3.4]{F-M-S-2}} one can deduce
that if $G$ is a complete intersection connected graph, then $|E(G)|
+ 4 \leq 2 \, |V(G)|$ if $G$ is bipartite and $|E(G)| + 2 \leq 2 \,
|V(G)|$ if $G$ is non bipartite. The following result improves these
bounds.
\begin{Corollary}\label{cotasuperior}Let $G$ be a complete intersection connected graph, then
\begin{itemize}
\item $2\, |E(G)| + 4 \leq 3\, |V(G)|$ if $G$ is bipartite, and
\item $2\, |E(G)| \leq 3\, |V(G)|$ if $G$ is not bipartite.
\end{itemize}
\end{Corollary}
\begin{demo}It is a consequence of Theorem \ref{2cases} and that if
$G$ is bipartite, then $b(G \setminus \{v\}) \geq 1$ for every $v
\in V(G)$. \QED
\end{demo}
This section ends with two more consequences of Theorem
\ref{2cases}.
\begin{Corollary}\label{2situaciones}
Let $G$ be a complete intersection graph, then either
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=1cm]
\item[{\rm (a)}] there exists a vertex of degree $\leq 2$, or
\item[{\rm (b)}] $G$ is $3$-regular, $b(G \setminus \{v\}) = 0$ for every $v \in V(G)$
and $P_G$ is generated by quadrics.
\end{itemize}
\end{Corollary}
\begin{demo}Assume that $G$ is a connected graph and every vertex has degree $\geq
3$. Then $2n = \sum_{v \in V(G)}{\rm deg}(v) \geq 3m$; hence by
Corollary \ref{cotasuperior}, $G$ is not bipartite and $2n = 3m$.
Thus, $G$ is $3$-regular and by Theorem \ref{2cases} this can only
happen if (b) holds. \QED
\end{demo}
\bigskip We denote by $\mK_m$ the complete graph with $m$ vertices
and by $\mK_{m_1,m_2}$ the complete bipartite graph with partitions
of sizes $m_1$ and $m_2$.
\begin{Corollary}\label{subgraphK23}
If $G$ is a complete intersection, then it does not contain
$\mK_{2,3}$ as a subgraph.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{demo}Assume that $G$ contains $\mK_{2,3}$ as a subgraph and denote by $H$
the induced subgraph of $G$ with $5$ vertices containing $\mK_{2,3}$
as a subgraph. If $H = \mK_{2,3}$ then $2 |E(H)| + 4 = 16
> 15 = 3 |V(H)|$. If $E(H) = E(\mK_{2,3}) \cup \{e_1,\ldots,e_s\}$, we
have that $H$ is not bipartite and if $s = 1$ and $e_1 =
\{v_1,\,v_2\} \subset V(H)$, then $b(H \setminus \{v_i\}) \geq 1$
for $i = 1,2$. So
$$2 \, \vert E(H) \vert \, = 12 + 2s > 15 + 2(s-2) \geq 3 \, \vert V(H) \vert - \sum_{v \in V(H)}
b(H \setminus \{v\}).$$ In both cases, one gets that $H$ is not a
complete intersection by Theorem \ref{2cases} and Corollary
\ref{cotasuperior}. Furthermore, by Theorem \ref{induce-CI} one
concludes that $G$ is not a complete intersection. \QED
\end{demo}
\section{The algorithm} \label{sec4}
The aim of this section is to provide {\rm Algorithm CI-graph}, an
algorithm for checking whether a graph is a complete intersection.
This algorithm follows as a consequence of Theorem \ref{principal},
which is the main result of this section.
By Corollary \ref{2situaciones} we have that a complete intersection
graph either has a vertex of degree $\leq 2$ or is $3$-regular. This
section begins with a thorough study of $3$-regular complete
intersection graphs. It will turn out in Theorem
\ref{todosgradomayor2} that a $3$-regular graph is a complete
intersection if and only if it is an odd band or an even M\"obius
band. To prove this we need some definitions and a technical lemma.
Theorem \ref{todosgradomayor2} will be essential for proving Theorem
\ref{principal}.
\begin{Definition}
A {\it chain} is a graph $G$ with $V(G)=\{a_1,\ldots, a_r,
b_1,\ldots, b_r\}$ and edges $\{a_i, a_{i+1}\}$,$\{b_i, b_{i+1}\}$
and $\{a_j, b_j\}$ for $1 \leq i < r,\, 1 \leq j \leq r$.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Definition}
Let $G$ be a graph with a subgraph $H$ such that $V(G) = V(H)$ and
$H$ is a chain. If $E(G) = E(H)\, \cup \, \{\{a_1, a_r\},\{b_1,
b_r\}\}$ we say that $G$ is a {\it band}. If $E(G) = E(H)\, \cup \,
\{\{a_1, b_r\},\{a_r, b_1\}\}$ we say that $G$ is a {\it
M\"obius-band}. In addition if $r$ is odd, we say that $G$ is an
{\it odd M\"obius-band} $($or {\it odd band}$)$ and if $r$ is even,
we say that $G$ is an {\it even M\"obius-band} $(${\it or even
band}$)$.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Lemma}\label{3vecinos}Let $G$ be a complete intersection connected
$3$-regular graph. Then, either $G = \mK_4$ or for every $v \in
V(G)$ there exists a chain subgraph $H$ of $G$ with $6$ vertices,
such that $v \in V(H)$ and ${\rm deg}_H(v) = 3$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{demo}Firstly note that $P_G$ is generated by quadrics and $b(G \setminus \{v\}) = 0$ for
every $v \in V(G)$ by Corollary \ref{2situaciones}; in particular,
$G$ is not bipartite. Let $\mathfrak B :=
\{B_{w_1},\ldots,B_{w_r}\}$ be a minimal set of generators of $P_G$
where $w_i$ is a length four cycle for $1 \leq i \leq r$. Take $v
\in V(G)$ and denote by $u_1, u_2, u_3$ its neighbors. From one
hand, we have that $${\rm ht}(P_G) - {\rm ht}(P_{G \setminus \{v\}})
= {\rm deg}(v) - 1 + b(G) - b(G \setminus \{v\}) = 2,$$ and by
Proposition \ref{generadoresinducido} and Theorem \ref{induce-CI},
$P_{G \setminus \{v\}}$ is a complete intersection minimally
generated by $\{B_{w_i} \, \vert \, v \notin V(w_i)\}$; thus $|
\{w_i \, \vert\, v\in V(w_i),\, 1 \leq i \leq r\} | = 2$, and we can
assume that $v \in V(w_1) \cap V(w_2)$. From the other hand,
$|N_G(u_i) \cap N_G(u_j)| \leq 2$ for every $1 \leq i < j \leq 3$;
otherwise $\mK_{2,3}$ is a subgraph of $G$, which is impossible by
Corollary \ref{subgraphK23}. Thus we can assume that $w_1 = (v, u_1,
v_1, u_2, v)$ and $w_2 = (v, u_2, v_2, u_3, v)$ for some $v_1, v_2
\in V(G).$ Since $w_1$ and $w_2$ are length $4$ cycles and
$\mK_{2,3}$ is not a subgraph of $G$, we see that $v_1 \neq v_2$.
If $v_1 = u_3$ or $v_2 = u_1$, then $G = \mK_4$. Otherwise there is
a chain subgraph $H$ of $G$ with $V(H) = \{v, u_1, u_2, u_3, v_1,
v_2\}$ and ${\rm deg}_H(v) = 3$. \QED
\end{demo}
\bigskip
\begin{Theorem}\label{todosgradomayor2}Let $G$ be a $3$-regular graph.
Then, $G$ is a complete intersection if and only if the connected
components of $G$ are odd bands or even M\"obius bands.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{demo}By Corollary \ref{conexo}, we can assume that $G$ is
connected.
$(\Rightarrow)$ Since $\mK_4$ is an even M\"obius band we will
assume $G \neq \mK_4$. By Corollary \ref{2situaciones} we get that
$G$ is a $3$-regular graph with $b(G \setminus \{v\}) = 0$ for every
$v \in V(G)$ and by Lemma \ref{3vecinos} there exists a subgraph
$H'$ of $G$ which is a chain with $6$ vertices. Choose $H$ a chain
subgraph of $G$ maximal with respect to $\vert V(H)\vert$; then
$V(H)=\{a_1,\ldots,a_r,b_1,\ldots,b_r\}$ for some $r \geq 3$.
Applying Lemma \ref{3vecinos} with $v = a_r$, we get that there
exist $a_{r+1}, b_{r+1} \in V(G)$ such that $\{a_r,
a_{r+1}\},\,\{b_r, b_{r+1}\}$ and $\{a_{r+1}, b_{r+1}\} \in E(G)$.
We will prove that $\{a_1, b_1\} = \{a_{r+1}, b_{r+1}\}$.
By the maximality of $H$ either $a_{r+1}$ or $b_{r+1}$ belong to
$V(H)$. We assume that $a_{r+1} \in V(H)$, then
$a_{r+1} = a_1$ or $a_{r+1} = b_1$. If $a_{r+1} = a_1$, by Lemma \ref{3vecinos},
one can conclude that $b_{r+1} = b_1$
because $\{a_1, b_{r+1}\},\, \{b_r, b_{r+1}\}
\in E(G)$ and $a_2 \neq a_r$. If $a_{r+1} = b_1$, since $\{b_1,
b_{r+1}\},\, \{b_r, b_{r+1}\} \in E(G)$, one can conclude that
either $b_{r+1} = a_1$ or $b_{r+1} = b_2$ and $r = 3$. Furthermore,
if $b_{r+1} = b_2$ and $r = 3$ then there is a $\mK_{2,3}$ subgraph
with vertices $a_1, a_2, a_3, b_1, b_2$ and this is not possible by
Corollary \ref{subgraphK23}.
Therefore we have proved that $H$ is either a band or a M\"obius
band and $G$ is $3$-regular and connected, then $G = H$. Finally,
$G$ can be neither an even band nor an odd M\"obius band, because
both are bipartite and by Corollary \ref{cotasuperior} $G$ is not
bipartite.
$(\Leftarrow)$ Denote $e_i := \{a_i, b_i\}$ for $1 \leq i \leq r$,\,
$e_{r+i} := \{a_i, a_{i+1}\}$ and $e_{2r + i} := \{b_i, b_{i+1}\}$
for $1 \leq i < r$. If $G$ is an odd band, we set $e_{2r} := \{a_1,
a_r\}$ and $e_{3r} := \{b_1, b_r\}$ and if $G$ is an even M\"obius
band, we set $e_{2r} := \{a_1, b_r\}$ and $e_{3r} := \{a_r, b_1\}$.
In both cases $G$ is not bipartite, furthermore $G$ has $3r$ edges
and $2r$ vertices, then ${\rm ht}(P_G) = r$.
Let $w_i$ be the length 4 cycle $w_i := (a_i, b_i, b_{i+1}, a_{i+1},
a_i)$ for $1 \leq i \leq r-1$. If $G$ is an odd band, we denote $w_r
:= (a_1, b_1, b_r, a_r, a_1)$ and if $G$ is an even M\"obius band we
denote $w_r := (a_1, b_1, a_r, b_r, a_1)$. In both cases we have
that $B_{w_i} = x_i x_{i+1} - x_{r+i} x_{2r+i}$ for $1 \leq i < r$
and $B_{w_r} = x_1 x_r - x_{2r} x_{3r}$. We denote by
$\{e_1,\ldots,e_{3r}\}$ the canonical basis of $\Z^r$, $\gamma_i :=
e_i + e_{i+1} - e_{r+i} - e_{2r+i}$ for $1 \leq i < r$, $\gamma_r =
e_1 + e_r - e_{2r} - e_{3r}$ and $B$ the $r \times 3r$ matrix whose
rows are $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_r$. Then $\Delta_r(B) = 1$. Let
$B'$ be the $r \times r$ submatrix of $B$ consisting of its
first $r$ columns. Since every entry of $B'$ is nonnegative we get that
$B'$ is dominating. Furthermore, for every $j > r$ the $j$-th column
of $B$ has only one nonzero entry whose value is $-1$, then by Lemma
\ref{dominating} B is dominating. By Theorem \ref{fs} we can
conclude that $G$ is a complete intersection. \QED
\end{demo}
\bigskip The proof above gives more, whenever $G$ is an odd band or
an even M\"obius band we have obtained a minimal set of generators
of the ideal.
\begin{Corollary}Let $G$ be an odd band,
then $P_G = (B_{w_1},\ldots,B_{w_r}),$ where $w_i := (a_i, b_i, b_{i+1},
a_{i+1}, a_i)$ for $1 \leq i \leq r-1$ and $w_r := (a_1, b_1, b_r,
a_r, a_1)$.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{Corollary}Let $G$ be an even M\"obius band,
then
$P_G = (B_{w_1},\ldots,B_{w_r})$, where $w_i := (a_i, b_i, b_{i+1},
a_{i+1}, a_i)$ for $1 \leq i \leq r-1$ and $w_r := (a_1, b_1, a_r,
b_r, a_1)$.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{.03cm}
\begin{picture}(-280,100)(185,0)
\put(-50,70){\oval(160,40)[t]}
\put(-50,30){\oval(160,40)[b]}
\put(-130,70){\circle*{4}}
\put(-90,70){\line(0,-1){40}}
\put(-10,70){\line(0,-1){40}}
\put(-50,70){\line(0,-1){40}}
\put(-130,70){\line(1,0){120}}
\put(-130,70){\line(0,-1){40}}
\put(-90,70){\circle*{4}}
\put(-50,70){\circle*{4}}
\put(-10,70){\circle*{4}}
\put(-130,30){\circle*{4}}
\put(-130,30){\line(1,0){120}}
\put(-90,30){\circle*{4}}
\put(-50,30){\circle*{4}}
\put(-10,30){\circle*{4}}
\put(-10,30){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(-10,70){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(30,30){\circle*{4}}
\put(30,70){\circle*{4}}
\put(30,30){\line(0,1){40}}
\put(-47,98){$w_5$}
\put(-115,45){$w_1$}
\put(-75,45){$w_2$}
\put(-35,45){$w_3$}
\put(5,45){$w_4$}
\thicklines
\put(-50,70){\oval(170,46)[t]}
\put(-50,33){\oval(170,50)[b]}
\put(-45,93){\vector(-1,0){10}}
\put(-55,8){\vector(1,0){10}}
\put(-135,70){\vector(0,-1){20}}
\put(-135,30){\line(0,1){40}}
\put(35,30){\line(0,1){40}}
\put(35,30){\vector(0,1){20}}
\put(-127,33){\line(1,0){34}}
\put(-127,33){\vector(1,0){17}}
\put(-93,33){\line(0,1){34}}
\put(-93,33){\vector(0,1){17}}
\put(-93,67){\line(-1,0){34}}
\put(-93,67){\vector(-1,0){17}}
\put(-127,67){\line(0,-1){34}}
\put(-127,67){\vector(0,-1){17}}
\put(-87,33){\line(1,0){34}}
\put(-87,33){\vector(1,0){17}}
\put(-53,33){\line(0,1){34}}
\put(-53,33){\vector(0,1){17}}
\put(-53,67){\line(-1,0){34}}
\put(-53,67){\vector(-1,0){17}}
\put(-87,67){\line(0,-1){34}}
\put(-87,67){\vector(0,-1){17}}
\put(-47,33){\line(1,0){34}}
\put(-47,33){\vector(1,0){17}}
\put(-13,33){\line(0,1){34}}
\put(-13,33){\vector(0,1){17}}
\put(-13,67){\line(-1,0){34}}
\put(-13,67){\vector(-1,0){17}}
\put(-47,67){\line(0,-1){34}}
\put(-47,67){\vector(0,-1){17}}
\put(-7,33){\line(1,0){34}}
\put(-7,33){\vector(1,0){17}}
\put(27,33){\line(0,1){34}}
\put(27,33){\vector(0,1){17}}
\put(27,67){\line(-1,0){34}}
\put(27,67){\vector(-1,0){17}}
\put(-7,67){\line(0,-1){34}}
\put(-7,67){\vector(0,-1){17}}
\put(130,70){\oval(140,40)[t]}
\put(180,60){\oval(40,60)[r]}
\put(135,30){\oval(150,40)[lb]}
\put(180,40){\oval(60,60)[r]}
\put(60,70){\line(0,-1){40}}
\put(60,70){\line(0,-1){40}}
\put(140,70){\line(0,-1){40}}
\put(100,70){\line(0,-1){40}}
\put(60,70){\line(1,0){80}}
\put(60,70){\circle*{4}}
\put(100,70){\circle*{4}}
\put(140,70){\circle*{4}}
\put(60,30){\line(1,0){80}}
\put(60,30){\circle*{4}}
\put(100,30){\circle*{4}}
\put(140,30){\circle*{4}}
\put(140,30){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(140,70){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(180,30){\circle*{4}}
\put(180,70){\circle*{4}}
\put(180,30){\line(0,1){40}}
\put(135,10){\line(1,0){50}}
{\thicklines
\put(75,45){$w_1$}
\put(115,45){$w_2$}
\put(155,45){$w_3$}
\put(135,8){\line(1,0){50}}
\put(115,8){\vector(1,0){25}}
\put(165,92){\vector(-1,0){25}}
\put(150,96){$w_4$}
\put(129,70){\oval(144,44)[t]}
\put(182,60){\oval(38,64)[r]}
\put(134,30){\oval(154,44)[lb]}
\put(182,40){\oval(58,64)[r]}
\put(57,70){\line(0,-1){40}}
\put(57,70){\vector(0,-1){20}}
\put(183,28){\line(0,1){44}}
\put(183,72){\vector(0,-1){22}}
\put(63,33){\line(1,0){34}}
\put(63,33){\vector(1,0){17}}
\put(97,33){\line(0,1){34}}
\put(97,33){\vector(0,1){17}}
\put(97,67){\line(-1,0){34}}
\put(97,67){\vector(-1,0){17}}
\put(63,67){\line(0,-1){34}}
\put(63,67){\vector(0,-1){17}}
\put(103,33){\line(1,0){34}}
\put(103,33){\vector(1,0){17}}
\put(137,33){\line(0,1){34}}
\put(137,33){\vector(0,1){17}}
\put(137,67){\line(-1,0){34}}
\put(137,67){\vector(-1,0){17}}
\put(103,67){\line(0,-1){34}}
\put(103,67){\vector(0,-1){17}}
\put(143,33){\line(1,0){34}}
\put(143,33){\vector(1,0){17}}
\put(177,33){\line(0,1){34}}
\put(177,33){\vector(0,1){17}}
\put(177,67){\line(-1,0){34}}
\put(177,67){\vector(-1,0){17}}
\put(143,67){\line(0,-1){34}}
\put(143,67){\vector(0,-1){17}}
\thinlines }
\end{picture}
\end{center}\caption{An odd band, an even M\"obius band and the even closed walks corresponding
to a minimal set of generators of each.} \label{evenMobiusband}
\end{figure}
\begin{Remark}Since every even M\"obius band except $\mK_4$ is not
planar, {\rm Theorem \ref{todosgradomayor2}} provides an infinite
family of non planar complete intersection graphs. Both {\rm
Katzman} {\rm \cite{katzman}} and {\rm Gitler, Reyes and Villarreal}
{\rm \cite{Ring}} proved that whenever $G$ is a bipartite complete
intersection then it is planar. As one can see this result is no
longer true if we drop the assumption that $G$ is bipartite. This
was first realized by {\rm Katzman} {\rm \cite[Remark
3.9]{katzman}}, who provided a M\"obius band with $8$ vertices as an
example of a complete intersection non planar graph. Later {\rm
Tatakis and Thoma} {\rm \cite{Tatakis-Thoma}} provided another
example which is not a M\"obius band.
\end{Remark}
We are thus led to the main result of this section.
\begin{Theorem}\label{principal}Let $G$ be a graph without isolated vertices. Then,
$G$ is a complete intersection if and only if one of the following
holds
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\exists\, v \in V(G)$ of degree $1$ and $G \setminus
\{v\}$ is a complete intersection.
\item $\exists\, v \in V(G)$ of degree $2$ such that $b(G \setminus \{v\}) =
b(G) + 1$ and ${G \setminus \{v\}}$ is a complete intersection.
\item $\exists\, v \in V(G)$ of degree $2$ such that $b(G \setminus \{v\}) =
b(G)$, $G \setminus \{v\}$ is a complete intersection and exists a
shortest even closed walk $w$ with
\begin{center}$V(w) = \{v\} \cup N_G(v) \cup \{u \in V(G) \, \vert
\, b(G \setminus \{u,v\}) > b(G \setminus \{u\})\},$ \end{center}
such that
\begin{center} $P_G = P_{G \setminus \{v\}} \cdot k[x_1,\ldots,x_n] +
(B_w).$\end{center}
\item The connected
components of $G$ are odd bands or even M\"obius bands.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Theorem}
\begin{demo}Our proof starts with the observation that if $v \in V(G)$
has degree $1$, then $b(G \setminus \{v\}) = b(G)$ and if it has
degree $2$, then $b(G \setminus \{v\}) - b(G) \in \{0,1\}$. Thus,
the proof falls naturally in the following four cases:
$\begin{array}{rl}$(a)$&$ there exists $v \in V(G)$ such that ${\rm
deg}(v) = 1, \\$(b)$&$ there exists $v \in V(G)$ such that ${\rm
deg}(v) = 2$ and $b(G \setminus \{v\}) = b(G) + 1, \\$(c)$&$ there
exists $v \in V(G)$ such that ${\rm deg}(v) = 2$ and $b(G \setminus
\{v\}) = b(G)$ or $\\$(d)$&$ ${\rm deg}(v) > 2$ for every $v \in
V(G).
\end{array}$
We observe that $J := P_{G \setminus \{v\}} \cdot k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$
is a prime ideal and $J \subset P_G$. If (a) or (b) holds, then
${\rm ht}(P_{G \setminus \{v\}}) = {\rm ht}(P_G)$, this yields $P_G
= J$ and $G$ is a complete intersection if and only if $G \setminus
\{v\}$ is a complete intersection.
If (c) holds, then ${\rm ht}(P_G) = {\rm ht}(P_{G \setminus \{v\}})
+ 1$. If $G \setminus \{v\}$ is a complete intersection and there
exists an even closed walk $w$ in $G$ such that $P_G = J + (B_w)$,
then $G$ is evidently a complete intersection. Suppose that $G$ is a
complete intersection and let $w_1,\ldots,w_r$ be even closed walks
in $G$ such that $P_G = (B_{w_1},\ldots,B_{w_r})$ with $r = {\rm
ht}(P_G)$. By Proposition \ref{generadoresinducido} and Theorem
\ref{induce-CI}, we have that $P_{G \setminus \{v\}}$ is a complete
intersection minimally generated by $\{B_{w_i} \, \vert \, v \notin
V(w_i)\}$. Since ${\rm ht}(P_{G \setminus \{v\}}) = r - 1$, there
exists a unique $i \in \{1,\ldots,r\}$ such that $v \in V(w_i)$ and
$P_G = J + (B_{w_i}).$ It is obvious that $N_G(v) := \{v_1,v_2\}
\subset V(w_i)$ because $v \in V(w_i)$, ${\rm deg}(v) = 2$ and
$B_{w_i}$ is primitive. Now, again by Proposition
\ref{generadoresinducido} and Theorem \ref{induce-CI}, for every $u
\in V(G) \setminus \{v, v_1, v_2\}$, we have that $u \in V(w_i)$ if
and only if $\{B_{w_j}\, \vert \, u \notin V(w_j)\} = \{B_{w_j}\,
\vert \, v,u \notin V(w_j)\}$, or equivalently if $\mu(P_{G
\setminus \{u\}}) = \mu(P_{G \setminus \{u,v\}}) \Leftrightarrow
{\rm ht}(P_{G \setminus \{u\}}) = {\rm ht}(P_{G \setminus
\{u,v\}})$. Since ${\rm deg}_{G \setminus \{u\}}(v) = 2$, this is
equivalent to $b(G \setminus \{u,v\})
> b(G \setminus \{u\})$.
Finally, if (d) holds, Corollary \ref{2situaciones} and Theorem
\ref{todosgradomayor2} complete the proof. \QED
\end{demo}
\smallskip
This theorem yields Algorithm CI-graph, see Figure \ref{algoritmo},
an algorithm to determine if a graph is a complete intersection.
This method begins by removing all the vertices of degree $1$ and
$2$ iteratively. Whenever we remove a vertex $v$ of degree $2$, we
check whether $b(G) = b(G \setminus \{v\})$. In the positive case,
we construct a set $W \subset V(G)$ and look for an even closed walk
$w$ such that $V(w) = W$. If such a walk does not exist, then $G$ is
not a complete intersection, otherwise we take $w$ a shortest even
walk such that $V(w) = W$ and define the binomial $B_w$; one can
obtain such an even walk in polynomial time by means of the
algorithm proposed in \cite{LaPauPapa}. Once we have removed every
vertex of degree $\leq 2$, either we get a trivial graph or we reach
a graph $G'$ where every vertex has degree $> 2$. If there exists a
connected component of $G'$ which is neither an odd band nor an even
M\"obius band, then $G$ is not a complete intersection. Otherwise we
can construct a set of $r = {\rm ht}(P_G)$ binomials
$\{B_{w_1},\ldots,B_{w_r}\} \subset P_G$, and $G$ is a complete
intersection if and only if $P_G = (B_{w_1},\ldots,B_{w_r})$. For
checking this equality we use Theorem \ref{fs}. It is worth pointing
out that in \cite{F-M-S} the authors give a polynomial algorithm to
decide if a matrix is dominating; thus one can check if the equality
$P_G = (B_{w_1},\ldots,B_{w_r})$ holds in polynomial time.
\medskip As a direct consequence of this algorithm we have the
following result.
\begin{Corollary}The problem of determining whether a graph is a
complete intersection is in the complexity class $\mathcal P$.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{demo}Counting the number of connected components of a graph and deciding
whether a graph is bipartite, and thus computing $b(H)$, can be done
in polynomial time for every graph $H$. To prove the result it only
remains to prove that, given a connected graph $H$, one can decide
if $H$ is either an odd band or an even M\"obius band in polynomial
time. For this purpose we propose a polynomial time algorithm that
returns {\sc True} if $H$ is an odd band or an even M\"obius band,
or {\sc False} otherwise. If $H$ has $4$ vertices then we return
{\sc True} if and only if $H = \mK_4$. If $H$ has more than $4$
vertices, the algorithm lies on the fact if $H$ is an odd band or an
even M\"obius band with $V(H) = \{a_1,\ldots,a_r,b_1,\ldots,b_r\}$
and edges $\{a_i,a_{i+1}\}, \{b_i,b_{i+1}\}$ for all $i \in
\{1,\ldots,r-1\}$, $\{a_i,b_i\}$ for all $i \in \{1,\ldots,r\}$;
then $b(H \setminus \{a_i,b_i\}) = 1$ for all $i \in
\{1,\ldots,r\}$, $b(H \setminus \{a_i,a_{i+1}\}) = 0$ for every $i
\in \{1,\ldots,r-1\}$; moreover $b(H \setminus \{a_1,a_r\}) = 0$ if
$H$ is an odd band, and $b(H \setminus \{a_1,b_r\}) = 0$ if $H$ is
an even M\"obius band. The algorithm receives as input the graph
$H$, if $H$ is not $3$-regular or $H$ is bipartite, we return {\sc
False}. Otherwise we take $a_1 \in V(H)$ an arbitrary vertex and
denote $N_H(a_1) := \{w_1,w_2,w_3\}$. We compute $c_i := b(H
\setminus \{a_1,w_i\})$ for all $i \in \{1,2,3\}$ and assume that
$c_1 \geq c_2 \geq c_3$. If $c_2 \geq 1$ or $c_1 = 0$, then we
return {\sc False}. Otherwise we set $b_1 := w_1$. Now we take $a_2
\in N_H(a_1)$, such that $a_2 \notin H_1 := \{a_1,b_1\}$ and iterate
this process until we get that $V(H) =
\{a_1,\ldots,a_r,b_1,\ldots,b_r\}$, $\{a_i,a_{i+1}\} \in E(H)$ for
all $i \in \{1,\ldots,r-1\}$ and $\{a_i,b_i\} \in E(H)$ for all $i
\in \{1,\ldots,r\}$. Thus, we return {\sc True} if and only if
$\{b_i,b_{i+1}\} \in E(H)$ for all $i \in \{1,\ldots,r-1\}$. \qed
\end{demo}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|p{10cm}|}
\hline
$$\begin{array}{l} \mbox{\bf Algorithm CI-graph } \end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cl}
\ \mbox{Input:} & G \mbox{ a simple graph.} \\
\ \mbox{Output:} & \mbox{{\sc True} if } G \mbox{ is a complete intersection or {\sc False} otherwise} \\
\end{array}
$$
\medskip
{
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE $H := G$; $\mathfrak B := \emptyset$
\WHILE {$\exists\, v \in V(H)$ with ${\rm deg}_{H}(v) \leq 2$}
\IF {${\rm deg}_{H}(v) = 2$ and $b(H \setminus \{v\}) = b(H)$}
\STATE $W := \{v\} \cup N_{H}(v) \cup \{u \in V(H) \ \vert \ b(H
\setminus \{u,v\}) > b(H \setminus \{u\})\}$
\IF {not exists an even closed walk such that $V(w) = W$}
\RETURN {\sc False}
\ENDIF
\STATE Let $w$ be a shortest even closed walk with $V(w) = W$.
\STATE $\mathfrak B := \mathfrak B \cup \{B_w\}$
\ENDIF
\STATE {$H := H \setminus \{v\}$}
\ENDWHILE
\STATE Let $H_1,\ldots,H_s$ be the connected components of $H$
\IF {exists $i$ such that $H_i$ is not odd band or even M\"obius band }
\RETURN {\sc False}
\ENDIF
\STATE Let $\mathfrak B_i$ be a minimal set of generators of
$P_{H_i}$ for $1 \leq i \leq s$.
\IF {$P_G = \langle \mathfrak B \cup \mathfrak B_1 \cup \cdots \cup
\mathfrak B_s \rangle$}
\RETURN {\sc True}
\ENDIF
\RETURN {\sc False}
\end{algorithmic}
}
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Pseudo-code for checking whether a graph is a complete
intersection. It returns {\sc True} if $G$ is a complete
intersection and {\sc False} otherwise.} \label{algoritmo}
\end{figure}
\bigskip
Let us illustrate how Algorithm CI-graph works with an example.
\begin{Example}\label{ejemploutil}Let us prove that the graph $G$ in {\rm Figure
\ref{fig5}} is not a complete intersection.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1.2}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-1)(3,1)
{\tiny \psdots[dotsize=0.1](0.15,0.3) \rput(0.15,0.43){$v_2$}
\psdots[dotsize=0.1](0.2,-0.9) \rput(0.2,-1.1){$v_1$}
\psdots[dotsize=0.1](1,-0.3) \rput(1.1,-0.5){$v_3$}
\psdots[dotsize=0.1](1.8,-0.28) \rput(1.75,-0.45){$v_4$}
\psdots[dotsize=0.1](2.6,-0.95) \rput(2.8,-0.95){$v_5$}
\psdots[dotsize=0.1](2.6,0.3) \rput(2.8,0.3){$v_6$}
\psdots[dotsize=0.1](1.4,0.9) \rput(1.4,1){$v_7$}}
\psline[linewidth=0.02cm](0.12,0.3)(1,-0.28)
\psline[linewidth=0.02cm](1,-0.28)(1.80,-0.26)
\psline[linewidth=0.02cm](1.8,-0.26)(2.62,0.3)
\psline[linewidth=0.02cm](2.6,0.3)(2.6,-0.9)
\psline[linewidth=0.02cm](2.6,-1)(1.76,-0.25)
\psline[linewidth=0.02cm](1,-0.28)(0.2,-0.9)
\psline[linewidth=0.02cm](0.2,-0.9)(0.18,0.28)
\psline[linewidth=0.02cm](1,-0.28)(1.4,0.9)
\psline[linewidth=0.02cm](1.42,0.9)(2.6,0.3) {\tiny
\rput(0,-0.155){$e_1$} \rput(0.7,0.1){$e_2$}
\rput(0.75,-0.75){$e_3$} \rput(1.4,-0.15){$e_4$}
\rput(2.1,-0.7){$e_5$} \rput(2.3,-0.1){$e_7$} \rput(2.8,-0.2){$e_6$}
\rput(2,.7){$e_8$} \rput(1.1,.5){$e_9$}}
\end{pspicture}
}
\end{center}
\caption{A non complete intersection graph.} \label{fig5}
\end{figure}
Firstly, we observe that ${\rm deg}_G(v_7) = 2$ and $b(G) = 0 = b(G
\setminus \{v_7\})$. We set $W_1 := \{v_7\} \cup N_G(v_7) \cup \{u
\in V(G) \, \vert\, b(G \setminus \{u,v_7\}) > b(G \setminus
\{u\})\} = \{v_3,v_4,v_6,v_7\}$. We construct $w_1$ a shortest even
closed walk with $V(w_1) = W_1$. Thus $w_1$ is the length four cycle
$w_1 = (v_7, v_3, v_4, v_6, v_7)$ and $B_{w_1} = x_4 x_8 - x_7 x_9$.
Now we consider the graph $H := G \setminus \{v_7\}$ and observe
that ${\rm deg}_H(v_1) = 2$ and $b(H) = 0 = b(H \setminus \{v_1\})$.
We set $W_2 := \{v_1\} \cup N_H(v_1) \cup \{u \in V(H) \, \vert\,
b(H \setminus \{u,v_1\}) > b(H \setminus \{u\})\} = V(H)$. We
construct $w_2$ a shortest even closed walk with $V(w_2) = W_2$.
Then $w_2 = (C_1, \mP_1, C_2, -\mP_1)$ where $C_1 :=
(v_3,v_1,v_2,v_3)$ and $C_2 := (v_4,v_5,v_6,v_4)$ are odd cycles and
$\mP_1$ is the length one path $\mP_1 := (v_3,v_4)$; thus $B_{w_2} =
x_1 x_4^2 x_6 - x_2 x_3 x_5 x_7$.
Hence, we consider the graph $H' := H \setminus \{v_1\}$. We observe
that every $u \in V(H'),\, u \neq v_4$ either has degree $1$ or has
degree $2$ and $b(H') \neq b(H' \setminus \{u\})$. Thus, one can
remove one by one every vertex of $H'$ until getting a trivial
graph.
Then, we have that $G$ is a complete intersection if and only if
$P_G = (B_{w_1}, B_{w_2})$. We denote by $B$ the $2 \times 9$
matrix $B := \left( \begin{array}{ccccccccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & -1 \\
1 & -1 & -1 & 2 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)$, then
$\Delta_2(B) = 1$ and it has a square mixed submatrix $B' := \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & -1 \\
2 & -1 \end{array} \right)$. Thus $P_G$ is not a complete
intersection.
\end{Example}
\section{Theta graphs and complete intersections} \label{sec5}
This section is devoted to prove that if $G$ is a complete
intersection and there are three paths $\mP_1,\mP_2$ and $\mP_3$ of the
same parity connecting $x, y \in V(G)$ that only meet at their ends,
i.e., $V(\mP_i) \cap V(\mP_j) = \{x,y\}$ for $1 \leq i < j \leq 3$,
then $\mP_1,\mP_2$ and $\mP_3$ are all odd paths and $\{x,y\} \in
E(G)$. We will prove this result in Theorem \ref{notheta}. To prove
this we will first introduce two results concerning the vertices of
degree $2$ in a complete intersection graph, namely Lemma
\ref{2subgrafos} and Proposition \ref{contraccion}. The first one is
a technical lemma which will very useful in the sequel. The second
one describes an operation in $G$ that leads to another graph $G'$
with less vertices and edges than $G$ and $G'$ is a complete
intersection whenever $G$ is.
\begin{Lemma}\label{2subgrafos}Let $v$ be a vertex of degree $2$ and $H_1, H_2$ two
induced subgraphs such that $v \in V(H_i),\, {\rm deg}_{H_i}(v) = 2$
and $b(H_i \setminus \{v\}) = b(H_i)$ for $i = 1,2$. If $G$ is a
complete intersection, then $b(H \setminus \{v\}) = b(H)$, where $H
:= [V(H_1) \cap V(H_2)]$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{demo}Let $\{B_{w_1},\ldots,B_{w_r}\}$ be a minimal set of generators
of $P_G$ where $w_j$ is an even closed walk for $1 \leq j \leq r$.
For every $G' \in \{G,H_1,H_2,H\}$, by Proposition
\ref{generadoresinducido} and Theorem \ref{induce-CI}, we have that
$G'$ and $G' \setminus \{v\}$ are complete intersections minimally
generated by $\{B_{w_i} \, \vert \, V(w_i) \subset V(G')\}$ and
$\{B_{w_i} \, \vert \, v \notin V(w_i) \subset V(G')\}$,
respectively. Thus, $$1 + b(G') - b(G' \setminus \{v\}) = {\rm
deg}_{G'}(v) - 1 + b(G') - b(G' \setminus \{v\}) = $$ $$= {\rm
ht}(P_{G'}) - {\rm ht}(P_{G' \setminus \{v\}}) = |\{i\, \vert \, v
\in V(w_i) \subset V(G')\}|.$$ In particular, for $i = 1,2$ we have
that there exists a unique $j_i \in \{1,\ldots,r\}$ such that $v \in
V(w_{j_i}) \subset V(H_i)$. We claim that $j_1 = j_2$, indeed $v \in
V(w_{j_1}) \cap V(w_{j_2})$ and $1 \geq 1 + b(G) - b(G \setminus
\{v\}) = |\{i \, \vert \, v \in V(w_i)\}|.$ Thus, $V(w_{j_1})
\subset V(H_1) \cap V(H_2) = V(H)$ and we can conclude that $1 +
b(H) - b(H \setminus \{v\}) = |\{j \, \vert\, v \in V(w_j) \subset
V(H) \}| = 1,$ and $b(H) = b(H \setminus \{v\})$.\QED
\end{demo}
\bigskip
The second result concerns an operation in a graph, which is called
the contraction of a graph in a vertex of degree $2$. We will prove
that if $G$ is a complete intersection, the contraction of $G$ in a
vertex of degree $2$ preserves the property of being a complete
intersection.
\begin{Definition}
Let $G$ be a graph with a vertex $v$ of degree $2$ which does not
belong to a triangle, i.e., $N_G(v) = \{u_1,u_2\}$ and $\{u_1,u_2\}
\notin E(G)$. We define the {\it contraction of $G$ in $v$} as the
graph $G_v^c$ obtained by contracting the two edges incident to $v$.
More precisely, $G^c_v$ is the graph with
$$V(G^c_v) := (V(G) \, \setminus \, \{v,u_1,u_2\}) \cup \{u\} \ {\rm and}$$
$$E(G^c_v) := E(G \setminus \{v,u_1,u_2\}) \cup \ \bigg\{
\{u, x\} \, \mid \, \{u_1,x\} {\rm \ or \ } \{u_2,x\} \in E(G) {\rm
\ and\ } x \neq v\bigg\}.$$
\end{Definition}
\begin{Proposition}\label{contraccion}Let $G$ be a graph with a vertex $v$ of degree
$2$ which does not belong to a triangle. If
$G$ is a complete intersection, then so is $G_v^c$.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{demo}For every even (respect. odd) closed walk $w = (z_1,\ldots,z_r =
z_1)$ in $G$, we define $\widehat{w}$ as the even (respect. odd)
closed walk in $G_v^c$ constructed as follows. Assume that $z_1
\notin \{v,u_1,u_2\}$, for every $i \in \{2,\ldots,r-1\}$ such that
$z_i = v$, then $z_{i-1},z_{i+1} \in \{u_1,u_2\}$ and we set
$\widehat{w} := (z_1,\ldots,z_{i-2},u,z_{i+2},\ldots,z_r = x_1)$ and
whenever $z_i \in \{u_1,u_2\}$ with $z_{i-1} \neq v$, $z_{i+1} \neq
v$ then we set $\widehat{w} :=
(z_1,\ldots,z_{i-1},u,z_{i+1},\ldots,z_r = z_1)$. Note that it might
happen that $w$ passes by $u_1, u_2$ or $v$ more than once.
Moreover, for every closed walk $w'$ in $G_v^c$ one can find another
$w$ in $G$ such that $w' = \widehat{w}$.
We have that $G$ is bipartite if and only if so is $G_v^c$, indeed
$V_1, V_2$ is a bipartition for $G$ with
$u_1 \in V_1$ if and only if $V_1', V_2'$ is a bipartition for
$G_v^c$, where $u \in V_1'$, $V_1 \setminus \{u_1,u_2\} = V_1'
\setminus \{u\}$ and $V_2 \setminus \{v\} = V_2'$. Moreover, since
$|V(G_v^c)| = m - 2$ and $|E(G_v^c)| = n - |N_G(u_1) \cap N_G(u_2)|
- 1$, we have that
$$ {\rm ht}(P_{G_v^c}) = {\rm ht}(P_G) - |N_G(u_1) \cap N_G(u_2)| +
1.$$ Moreover $|N_G(u_1) \cap N_G(u_2)| \leq 2$, otherwise $G$ has a
subgraph $\mathcal K_{2,3}$, which is not possible by Corollary
\ref{subgraphK23}. This proof falls naturally into two parts.
If $N_G(u_1) \cap N_G(u_2) = \{v\}$. Assume that $e_{n-1} = \{u_1,
v\},\, e_n = \{u_2, v\}$ and set $e_i' := e_i$ if $e_i \in E(G_v^c)$
and $e_i' := \{u,z\}$ if either $e_i = \{u_1,z\}$ or $e_i =
\{u_2,z\}$ for every $1 \leq i \leq n-2$; then $E(G_v^c) =
\{e_1',\ldots,e_{n-2}'\}$.
Consider now the morphism $\psi: k[x_1,\ldots,x_n] \longrightarrow
k[x_1,\ldots,x_{n-2}]$ induced by $x_{n-1} \mapsto 1$\,, $x_{n}
\mapsto 1$\, and $x_i \mapsto x_i$ for every $i \in
\{1,\ldots,n-2\}$. It is easy to check that for every even closed
walk $w$ in $G$, then $\psi(B_w) = B_{\widehat{w}}$. This implies
that $\psi(P_G) = P_{G_v^c}$. Since ${\rm ht}(P_G) = {\rm
ht}(P_{G_v^c})$, we get that $G_v^c$ is a complete intersection
because if $\mathfrak B$ is a set of generators of $P_G$ then
$\psi(\mathfrak B)$ is a set of generators of $P_{G_v^c}$.
Secondly consider the case where $N_G(u_1) \cap N_G(u_2) = \{v,
z\}$. Suppose that $e_{n-3} = \{u_1, z\}$, $e_{n-2} = \{u_2, z\}$,
$e_{n-1} = \{u_2, v\}$ and $e_n = \{u_1, v\}$ and set $e_i' := e_i$
if $e_i \in E(G_v^c)$, $e_i' := \{u, t\}$ if either $e_i = \{u_1,
t\}$ or $e_i = \{u_2, t\}$ for all $i \in \{1,\ldots,n-4\}$ and
$e_{n-3}' := \{u,z\}$; then $E(G_v^c) = \{e_1',\ldots,e_{n-3}'\}$.
Consider now the morphism $\psi: k[x_1,\ldots,x_n] \longrightarrow
k[x_1,\ldots,x_{n-3}]$ defined by $x_{n-2} \mapsto x_{n-3}$\,,
$x_{n-1} \mapsto 1$\,, $x_{n} \mapsto 1$\, and $x_i \mapsto x_i$ for
every $i \in \{1,\ldots,n-3\}$. Proceeding as before, we get that
$\psi(P_G) = P_{G_v^c}$.
Suppose that $G$ is a complete intersection and consider the cycle
$w := (v, u_1, z, u_2, v)$, then the quadric $B_w := x_{n-2} x_{n}
- x_{n-3} x_{n-1} \in P_G$. Since $P_G$ is a homogeneous ideal
which does not contain any linear form, we get that there exists a
minimal set of generators $\mathfrak B$ of $P_G$ such that
$\mathfrak B = \{B_{w_1},\ldots,B_{w_r}, B_w\}$ for some even closed
walks $w_1,\ldots,w_r$ in $G$ and then $r + 1 = {\rm ht}(P_G)$.
Since $\psi(P_G) = P_{G_v^c}$ and $\psi(B_w) = 0$, it follows that
$\{\psi(B_{w_1}), \psi(B_{w_2}), \ldots, \psi(B_{w_r})\}$ generates
$P_{G_v^c}$ and ${\rm ht}(P_{G_v^c}) = r$, thus it is a complete
intersection. \QED
\end{demo}
\bigskip
The converse of Proposition \ref{contraccion} is not true in
general, as one can see in Figure \ref{fig4}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{.04cm}
\begin{picture}(150,65)(20,10)
\put(50,65){$G$}
\put(12,65){\footnotesize $v$}
\put(12,5){\footnotesize $u_2$}
\put(20,70){\circle*{3}}
\put(20,70){\line(0,-1){60}}
\put(20,70){\line(2,-1){40}}
\put(20,10){\circle*{3}}
\put(20,10){\line(2,1){40}}
\put(40,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(60,53){\footnotesize $u_1$}
\put(40,50){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(60,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(80,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(40,30){\circle*{3}}
\put(40,30){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(40,30){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(80,30){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(60,30){\circle*{3}}
\put(80,30){\circle*{3}}
\put(150,65){$G_v^c$}
\put(160,53){\footnotesize $u$}
\put(140,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(140,50){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(160,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(160,50){\line(0,-1){20}}
\put(180,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(140,30){\circle*{3}}
\put(140,30){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(140,30){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(180,30){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(160,30){\circle*{3}}
\put(180,30){\circle*{3}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{$G$ is bipartite but it is not a ring graph, hence it is
not a complete intersection. Nevertheless, $v$ is a vertex of degree
$2$ which does not belong to a triangle and $G_v^c$ is a complete
intersection.} \label{fig4}
\end{figure}
Now we introduce the concept of theta graph and use the previous
results to prove Theorem \ref{notheta}, which asserts that odd theta
graph whose base vertices are not adjacent, and also even theta
graphs, are forbidden subgraphs in a complete intersection graph.
This is the main result of this section.
\begin{Definition}\label{thetadefinition}A {\it theta graph} $T$ with {\it base vertices} $x, y$
is a graph with $V(T) := V(\mP_1) \cup V(\mP_2) \cup V(\mP_3)$, where
$\mP_1, \mP_2$ and $\mP_3$ are three paths of length $\geq 2$
connecting $x$ and $y$ such that $V({\mP}_i) \cap V({\mP}_j)=\{x,y\}$
for $1 \leq i < j \leq 3$. If $\mP_1, \mP_2$ and $\mP_3$ are all even
$($respect. odd$)$ paths, then $T$ is called an {\it even}
$($respect. {\it odd}$)$ {\it theta graph}.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Remark}Theta graphs are sometimes defined in the literature
to have $E(T) = E(\mP_1) \cup E(\mP_2) \cup E(\mP_3).$ However, from
our definition we have $E(\mP_1) \cup E(\mP_2) \cup E(\mP_3) \subset
E(T)$; this is, it might have edges connecting a vertex in $\mP_i$
and a vertex in $\mP_j$ with $1 \leq i < j \leq 3$ or even connecting
two vertices $a_i,a_j$ of $\mP_k = (x = a_0, a_1, \ldots, a_{r-1},
a_r = y)$ with $0 \leq i < i+1 < j \leq r$ and $1 \leq k \leq 3$.
\end{Remark}
To prove Theorem \ref{notheta} we need a lemma, whose proof is
almost immediate.
\begin{Lemma}\label{verticeciclopar}Let $v$ be a vertex of degree $2$ and $C$ an even cycle
such that $v \in V(C)$. Then, $G$ is bipartite $\Longleftrightarrow
G \setminus \{v\}$ is bipartite.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{demo}Let $u_1, u_2$ be the neighbors of $v$, then $u_1, u_2 \in V(C)$.
Hence, if $V_1, V_2$ is a bipartition for $G \setminus \{v\}$ and
$u_1 \in V_1$, then necessarily $u_2 \in V_1$, so $V_1, V_2 \cup
\{v\}$ is a bipartition for $G$. The other implication is obvious.
\QED
\end{demo}
\bigskip
\begin{Theorem}\label{notheta}Neither odd theta graphs whose base vertices
are not adjacent nor even theta graphs are complete intersections.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{demo}Suppose that there exists an even theta graph or an odd theta
graph whose base vertices are not adjacent which is a complete
intersection. Let $G$ be the smallest graph with respect to $|V(G)|$
with this property, we denote by $x,y$ the base vertices of $G$ and
$\mP_1, \mP_2, \mP_3$ the three even or odd paths connecting $x$ and
$y$ such that $V(\mP_i) \cap V(\mP_j) = \{x,y\}$ for $1 \leq i < j
\leq 3$.
If $G$ is $3$-regular, then one can write $N_G(x) = \{u_1,u_2,u_3\}$
with $u_i \in V(\mP_i)$ and we claim that $b(G \setminus \{u_i\}) =
b(G \setminus \{x,u_i\})$ for $1 \leq i \leq 3$. Indeed, we can
suppose that $i = 1$, then $x$ has degree $2$ in $G \setminus
\{u_1\}$ and belongs to the even cycle $(\mP_2, -\mP_3)$; then by
Lemma \ref{verticeciclopar} we have that $b(G \setminus \{u_1\}) =
b(G \setminus \{x,u_1\})$. On the other hand, since $G$ is a
complete intersection $3$-regular graph, it is an odd band or an
even M\"obius band. Thus one can write $V(G) =
\{a_1,\ldots,a_r,b_1,\ldots,b_r\}$ and assume that $x = a_i$ for
some $1 \leq i \leq r$. Then $b(G \setminus \{b_i\}) = 0$ and $b(G
\setminus \{x,b_i\}) = 1$, which is a contradiction.
Then, by Corollary \ref{2situaciones} there exists $v \in V(G)$ of
degree $2$ and we will assume that $v \in V(\mP_3)$. Then we consider
$C_i := (\mP_i, -\mP_3)$ and $H_i := [V(C_i)]$ for $i = 1,2$. Since
$C_i$ is an even cycle and $v \in V(C_i)$, it follows by Lemma
\ref{verticeciclopar} that $b(H_i) = b(H_i \setminus \{v\})$ for $i
= 1,2$. Thus by Lemma \ref{2subgrafos}, $b(H) = b(H \setminus
\{v\})$ where $H := [V(H_1) \cap V(H_2)] = [V(\mP_3)]$, let us prove
that this is not possible. We denote $\mP_3 := (x = a_0, a_1, \ldots,
a_r = y)$, then $v = a_i$ for some $1 \leq i < r$.
If $r = 2$, then $v = a_1$. Moreover, if $\{a_0,a_2\} \in E(G)$ we
have that $b(H) = 0 \neq 1 = b(H \setminus \{v\})$ and if
$\{a_0,a_2\} \notin E(G)$ we have that $b(H) = 1 \neq 2 = b(H
\setminus \{v\})$.
If $r = 3$, then $G$ is an odd theta graph and $\{x, y\} \notin
E(G)$, we can assume that $v = a_1$, then if $\{a_0,a_2\} \in E(G)$
we have that $b(H) = 0 \neq 1 = b(H \setminus \{v\})$ and if
$\{a_0,a_2\} \notin E(G)$ we have that $b(H) = 1 \neq 2 = b(H
\setminus \{v\})$.
If $r \geq 4$, let us prove that $\{a_{i-1},a_{i+1}\} \in E(G)$.
Assume that $\{a_{i-1},a_{i+1}\} \notin E(G)$ and consider $G_v^c$,
which is an even or odd theta graph. By Proposition
\ref{contraccion}, $G_v^c$ is a complete intersection and
$|V(G_v^c)| < |V(G)|$. This contradicts the minimality of $G$ unless
if $G_v^c$ is an odd theta graph whose base vertices are adjacent.
This can only happen if $v = a_1$ and $\{a_2,y\} \in E(G)$, or $v =
a_r$ and $\{a_{r-1},x\} \in E(G)$. Without loss of generality we can
assume that $v = a_1$ and $\{a_2,y\} \in E(G)$. Then, the induced
subgraph $G' := [V(\mP_1) \cup V(\mP_2) \cup V(\mP_3')]$ with $\mP_3' =
(x, a_1, a_2, y)$ is an odd theta graph whose base vertices $x,y$
are not adjacent and is a complete intersection, but this is not
possible by the minimality of $G$. Thus, $\{a_{i-1},a_{i+1}\} \in
E(G)$.
Since $\{a_{i-1},a_{i+1}\} \in E(G)$, then $b(H) = 0$; let us see
that $H \setminus \{v\}$ is bipartite and $b(H \setminus \{v\}) =
1$. Indeed, suppose that $H \setminus \{v\}$ is not bipartite, we
denote $a_j' := a_j$ for $1 \leq j \leq i-1$, $a_j' := a_{j+1}$ for
$i \leq j < r$. Since $\{a_j',a_{j+1}'\} \in E(H \setminus \{v\})$
for $1 \leq j < r$, there exists $1 \leq j < k < r$ such that
$\{a_j',a_k'\} \in E(H)$ and $j \equiv k\ ({\rm mod}\, 2)$. We
separate three cases:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=.8cm] \item[(a)] if $k < i$, then
$\{a_j, a_k\} \in E(H)$.
\item[(b)] if $j \geq i$, then
$\{a_{j+1}, a_{k+1}\} \in E(H)$
\item[(c)] $j < i \leq k$, then $\{a_j, a_{k+1}\} \in
E(H)$.
\end{itemize}
If (a) holds, we denote $\mP_3' = (x = a_0,\ldots, a_j, a_k,\ldots,
a_{i-1}, a_{i+1},\ldots, a_r = y)$. If (b) holds, we denote $\mP_3' =
(x = a_0,\ldots, a_{i-1}, a_{i+1},\ldots, a_{j+1}, a_{k+1},\ldots,
a_r = y)$. If (c) holds, we denote $\mP_3' = (x = a_0,\ldots, a_j,
a_{k+1},\ldots, a_r = y)$. In the three cases $\mP_3'$ is an walk of
the same parity of $\mP_3$ connecting $x$ and $y$ with $V(\mP_3')
\subsetneq V(\mP_3)$, but this contradicts again the minimality of
$G$.\QED
\end{demo}
\section{Structure theorems for complete intersection graphs} \label{sec7}
The goal of this section is to prove two structure theorems for
complete intersection connected graphs; namely Theorem
\ref{teoremaestructura} and Theorem \ref{ultimo}. Given a graph, it
can be partitioned into
two induced subgraphs $C$ and $R$, such that $V(C) = V(C_1)
\bigsqcup \cdots \bigsqcup V(C_s)$ where $C_1,\ldots,C_s$ are odd
primitive cycles and $R$ is a bipartite graph. Note that this
partition might not be unique and when $G$ is bipartite, one has
that $C$ is the empty graph. Whenever we have a partition with these
properties we write $G = [C; R]$. In order to characterize the
complete intersection property on $G$, we propose to characterize
when $C$ and $R$ are complete intersections, and then determine the
admissible edges connecting $C$ and $R$. Since $R$ is a bipartite
graph it turns out that it is a complete intersection if and only if
it is a ring graph (see \cite[Corollary 3.3]{Ring}). Theorem
\ref{teoremaestructura} will give necessary conditions for a
connected graph to be a complete intersection by determining when
$C$ is a complete intersection. Finally, if $C$ is connected and $R$
is $2$-connected, Theorem \ref{ultimo} characterizes the complete
intersection property by obtaining all possible edges connecting $C$
and $R$.
\smallskip Let us start with this proposition.
\begin{Proposition}\label{3impares}Let $G$ be a complete intersection connected graph,
then there are at most two vertex disjoint odd cycles in $G$.
\end{Proposition}
We need the following technical result which is included in the
proof of \cite[Theorem 5.3]{Tatakis-Thoma}. Recall that a {\it
block} is a maximal connected subgraph $B$ of $G$ such that if one
removes any of its vertices it is still connected. A graph is {\it
$2$-connected} if it only has one block and more than $2$ vertices.
\begin{Lemma}\label{tt} Let $G$ be a complete intersection
$2$-connected graph and let $C_1, C_2$ be two odd cycles in
$G$.\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=1cm] \item[{\rm (a)}] If $V(C_1)
\cap V(C_2) = \{v\}$, then there exists an $e \in E(G)$ such that
$v \notin e$ and $e \cap V(C_i) \not= \emptyset$ for $i \in
\{1,2\}$.
\item[\rm (b)] If $C_1$ and $C_2$ are vertex disjoint, then there exist
$e_1, e_2 \in E(G)$ such that $e_1 \cap e_2 = \emptyset$ and $e_i
\cap V(C_j) \not= \emptyset$ for $i,j \in \{1,2\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Lemma}
\demos Assume that $G$ is a complete intersection with three vertex
disjoint odd cycles and let $G'$ be the smallest connected induced
subgraph with this property. We denote by $C_1 = (a_1,\ldots,
a_{r_1}, a_1)$, $C_2 = (b_1,\ldots, b_{r_2}, b_1)$ and $C_3 =
(c_1,\ldots, c_{r_3}, c_1)$ three vertex disjoint odd primitive
cycles of $G'$. By \cite[Theorem 4.2]{Tatakis-Thoma}, $G'$ has
either one or two non bipartite blocks and the proof falls naturally
in two cases.
If $G'$ has only one non bipartite block, then $C_1, C_2$ and $C_3$
belong to it and, by Lemma \ref{tt}, for every $1 \leq i < j \leq 3$
there exist two edges connecting a vertex of $C_i$ and a vertex of
$C_j$; thus $G' = [V(C_1) \cup V(C_2) \cup V(C_3)]$. $G'$ can not be
a band or a M\"obius band because there are three vertex disjoint
odd primitive cycles, then there exists a vertex $z \in V(G')$ of
degree $2$. Suppose that $z \in V(C_3)$ and denote by $H_i :=
[V(C_i) \cup V(C_3)]$ for $i = 1,2$. We have that $H_i \setminus
\{z\}$ is connected and $V(C_i) \subset V(H_i \setminus \{z\})$,
then $b(H_i) = b(H_i
\setminus \{z\}) = 0$ for $i = 1,2$. By Lemma \ref{2subgrafos} we
have that $b(H) = b(H \setminus \{z\})$ where $H := [V(H_1) \cap
V(H_2)] = [V(C_3)]$. However, $C_3$ is an odd primitive cycle, then
$b(H) = 0$ and $b(H \setminus \{z\}) = 1$, which is a contradiction.
If $G'$ has two non bipartite blocks, then two of the odd cycles
belong to the same block of $G'$, say $C_1$ and $C_2$. By Lemma
\ref{tt}, $C_1$ and $C_2$ are connected by at least two edges.
Moreover, $C_3$ is not in the same block of $C_1$ and $C_2$. Then we
set $G_1 := [V(C_1) \cup V(C_2)]$ and take $\mP$ a path in $G'$ of
minimum length connecting a vertex of $C_3$ and a vertex of $G_1$.
By the minimality of $G'$ we have that $G' = [V(G_1) \cup V(\mP) \cup
V(C_3)]$. Moreover, we can assume that there exists $s \geq 0$ such
that $\mP = (c_1 = u_0, u_1,\ldots, u_s, a_1)$; since $\mP$ has
minimum length one can deduce that $u_i \notin V(G_1) \cup V(C_3)$
for $1 \leq i \leq s$, $\{c_j,u_i\} \notin E(G')$ for every $1 \leq
j \leq r_3$, $i > 1$ and $\{a_j,u_i\} \notin E(G')$ for every $1
\leq j \leq r_1$, $i < s$.
Firstly assume that ${\rm deg}_{G'}(c_j) = 2$ for every $j > 1$ and
take $u := c_2$. We set $\mP'$ the shortest path in $G'$ connecting
$c_1$ with a vertex of $C_2$. Then, we can assume that $\mP' = (c_1 =
v_0, v_1,\ldots, v_t = b_1)$ and have that
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=.8cm]
\item[(a)] $v_i = u_i$ for $0 \leq i \leq s$, $v_i \in V(C_1)$ for $s < i \leq t-1$
and $v_t \in V(C_2)$,
\item[(b)] $\{v_i, v_j\} \notin E(G')$ for $0 \leq i < i+1 < j \leq
t$.
\end{itemize}
Now we set $H_1 := [V(C_1) \cup V(\mP)
\cup V(C_3)] $ and $H_2 := [V(C_2) \cup V(\mP') \cup V(C_3)]$;
clearly $b(H_i) = b(H_i \setminus \{u\}) = 0$ for $i = 1,2$.
However, if we set $H := [V(H_1) \cap V(H_2)] = [V(C_3) \cup
\{v_1,\ldots,v_{t-1}\}]$, then $V(C_3) \subset V(H)$, ${\rm
deg}_H(c_1) = 3,\, {\rm deg}_H(v_{t-1}) = 1$ and ${\rm deg}_H(v) =
2$ for the rest of vertices of $H$. Thus $b(H) = 0$ and $b(H
\setminus \{u\}) = 1$, which contradicts Lemma \ref{2subgrafos}.
So assume that ${\rm deg}_{G'}(c_j) > 2$ for some $j > 1$ and let us
see that $s = 0$; i.e., $\{a_1,c_1\} \in E(G')$. Indeed, if $s \geq
1$, by the minimality of $G'$ we have that $\{u_1,c_j\} \in E(G')$,
but then there exists an odd primitive cycle $C'$ such that $u_1 \in
V(C') \subset V(C_3) \cup \{u_1\}$, which contradicts the minimality
of $G'$. Thus, $s = 0$, $\{c_1,a_1\} \in E(G')$ and if $\{c_k,a_i\}
\in E(G')$ then $i = 1$ because $G'$ has two blocks. Let $C_3'$ be
an odd primitive cycle such that $a_1 \in V(C_3') \subset V(C_3)
\cup \{a_1\}$ and take $u \in V(C_3'),\, u \neq a_1$. We set $\mP'$
the shortest path in $G'$ connecting $a_1$ with a vertex of $C_2$.
Then, we can assume that $\mP' = (a_1 = v_0, v_1,\ldots,v_t = b_1)$
and we have that
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=.8cm]
\item[(a)] $v_i \in V(C_1)$ for $0 \leq i \leq t-1$
\item[(b)] $\{v_i, v_j\} \notin E(G')$ for $0 \leq i < i+1 < j \leq
t$.
\end{itemize}
Now we set $H_1 := [V(C_1) \cup V(C_3')] $ and $H_2 := [V(C_2) \cup
V(\mP') \cup V(C_3')]$; and have that $u$ has degree $2$ in $[V(H_1)
\cup V(H_2)]$ and clearly ${\rm deg}_{H_i}(u) = 2$, $b(H_i) = b(H_i
\setminus \{u\}) = 0$ and ${\rm deg}_{H_i}(u) = 2$ for $i = 1,2$.
However, if we set $H := [V(H_1) \cap V(H_2)] = [V(C_3') \cup
\{v_1,\ldots,v_{t-1}\}]$, then $V(C_3') \subset V(H)$, ${\rm
deg}_H(a_1) = 3,\, {\rm deg}_H(v_{t-1}) = 1$ and ${\rm deg}_H(v) =
2$ for the rest of vertices of $H$. Thus $b(H) = 0$ and $b(H
\setminus \{u\}) = 1$, which again contradicts Lemma
\ref{2subgrafos}. \QED
\bigskip
Now that we know that there are at most two vertex disjoint odd
primitive cycles in a complete intersection connected graph, let us
determine how two such cycles can be connected.
\begin{Definition} A graph $G$ is called an {\it odd partial
band} if there exist two vertex disjoint odd primitive cycles
$C_1=(a_1,\ldots,a_{r_1}, a_1)$ and $C_2=(b_1,\ldots, b_{r_2}, b_1)$
such that $V(G) = V(C_1) \cup V(C_2)$ and $$E(G) = E(C_1) \cup
E(C_2) \cup \{\{a_{j_1},b_{k_1}\},\ldots,\{a_{j_s},b_{k_s}\}\},$$
where $s \geq 1,\ 1 \leq j_1 \leq \cdots \leq j_s \leq r_1$, $1 \leq
k_1 \leq \cdots \leq k_s \leq r_2$ and $j_i \equiv k_i\ ({\rm mod}\
2)$ (see {\rm Figure \ref{opb}}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{.7} {
\begin{pspicture}(2,0)(6.5,4)
\psarc[linewidth=0.04](4.27,1.7){2.4}{20}{160}
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](1.96,2.44)(6.5,2.46)
\psarc[linewidth=0.04](4.34,2.64){2.8}{214.1597}{324.61972}
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](2.02,1.04)(6.62,1.04)
\psdots[dotsize=0.16](2.04,1.04) \psdots[dotsize=0.16](6.58,1.04)
\psdots[dotsize=0.16](3.18,1.06) \psdots[dotsize=0.16](4.26,1.02)
\psdots[dotsize=0.16](5.38,1.02) \psdots[dotsize=0.16](1.94,2.44)
\psdots[dotsize=0.16](2.66,2.44) \psdots[dotsize=0.16](3.48,2.44)
\psdots[dotsize=0.16](4.28,2.44) \psdots[dotsize=0.16](6.48,2.48)
\psdots[dotsize=0.16](5.06,2.44) \psdots[dotsize=0.16](5.78,2.46)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](1.92,2.42)(2.04,1.04)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](2.04,1.04)(3.48,2.44)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](3.2,1.08)(5.78,2.48)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](5.78,2.48)(5.38,1.06)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](6.48,2.5)(6.56,1.02)
\rput(1.75,2.65){$a_1$} \rput(2.9,2.65){$a_2$}
\rput(3.5876563,2.65){$a_3$} \rput(4.3009377,2.65){$a_4$}
\rput(5.0895314,2.65){$a_5$}
\rput(5.6,2.65){$a_6$} \rput(6.75,2.65){$a_7$}
\rput(1.966875,0.81){$b_1$} \rput(3.1585937,0.79){$b_2$}
\rput(4.2876563,0.75){$b_3$} \rput(5.4409375,0.73){$b_4$}
\rput(6.7095313,0.71){$b_5$}
\end{pspicture}
} \caption{An odd partial band}\label{opb}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{Definition}
\medskip
\begin{Proposition}\label{oddpartilband}Let $G$ be a connected
graph with $V(G) = V(C_1) \cup V(C_2)$ where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are two
vertex disjoint odd primitive cycles. Then, $G$ is a complete
intersection if and only if $G$ is an odd partial band.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{demo}$(\Rightarrow)$ We will proceed by induction on $|V(G)|$.
If $|V(G)| = 6$, i.e., $C_1$ and $C_2$ are triangles, the number of
edges has to be less or equal to $9$, because $2 |E(G)| \leq 3
|V(G)| = 18$ by Corollary \ref{cotasuperior}. If $7 \leq |E(G)| \leq
8$, then one see at once that $G$ is always an odd partial band. If
$|E(G)| = 9$, then $G$ is an odd partial band unless if one can
write $C_1 := (a_1, a_2, a_3, a_1)$,\, $C_2 := (b_1,b_2,b_3,b_1)$
and $E(G) = E(C_1) \cup E(C_2) \cup \{e_1,e_2,e_3\}$ where $e_1 =
\{a_1,b_1\}, e_2 = \{a_1,b_3\}$ and
\begin{enumerate
\item[(a)] $e_3 = \{a_1,b_2\}$, or
\item[(b)] $e_3 = \{a_2,b_2\}$.
\end{enumerate}
If (a) holds, then ${\rm deg}(a_2) = 2$ and setting $H_i :=
[\{a_1,a_2,a_3,b_i,b_3\}]$ we observe that $b(H_i) = b(H_i \setminus
\{a_2\})$ for $i = 1,2$. However, setting $H := [V(H_1) \cap V(H_2)]
= [\{a_1,a_2,a_3,b_3\}]$, one gets that $b(H) = 0$ and $b(H
\setminus \{a_2\}) = 1$; which contradicts Lemma \ref{2subgrafos}.
If (b) holds, then $G$ has a subgraph $\mK_{2,3}$ with vertices
$\{a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2,b_3\}$, a contradiction to Corollary
\ref{subgraphK23}.
Assume now that $|V(G)| > 6$. Note that $G$ cannot be an even
M\"obius band because $G$ has two vertex disjoint odd primitive
cycles. Thus, if ${\rm deg}(v) > 2$ for every $v \in V(G)$, then $G$
is an odd band, which in particular is an odd partial band.
If every $x \in V(G)$ with ${\rm deg}(x) = 2$ belongs to a triangle,
then we can assume that ${\rm deg}(y) \geq 3$ for every $y \in
V(C_1)$, $C_1$ is not a triangle and $C_2$ is a triangle. Then
$|V(C_1)| \geq 5$, so $2\, |E(G)| = \sum_{v \in V(G)} {\rm deg}(v) =
\sum_{v \in V(C_1)} {\rm deg}(v) + \sum_{v \in V(C_2)} {\rm deg}(v)
\geq 3\, |V(C_1)| + 2\, |V(C_2)| + 5
> 3 |V(G)|$, a contradiction to Corollary \ref{cotasuperior}.
We can suppose that there exists $x \in V(G)$ of degree $2$ which
does not belong to a triangle, we assume that $x \in V(C_1)$. Then,
we consider $G_x^c$ and we have that $V(G_x^c) =
\{a_1',\ldots,a_{r_1-2}',b_1,\ldots,b_{r_2}\}$, where $C_1' :=
(a_1',\ldots,a_{r_1-2}',a_1')$ and $C_2 := (b_1,\ldots,b_{r_2},b_1)$
are odd primitive cycles. Then there exists $2 \leq i \leq r_1 - 1$
such that $x = a_i$,\, $C_1 = (a_1,\ldots,a_{r_1},a_1)$ and
\begin{center} $\{a_j',b_k\} \in E(G_x^c) \Longleftrightarrow \left\{ \begin{array}{cccl} \{a_j,b_k\} \in
E(G) &$ and $& j \leq i-1, &$ or $\\ \{a_{j+2},b_k\} \in E(G) &$
and $& j \geq i-1. \end{array} \right.$ \end{center} By induction
hypothesis $G_x^c$ is an odd partial band. Thus for every
$\{a_i,b_j\} \in E(G)$ then $i \equiv j\, ({\rm mod}\, 2)$, and for
every $\{a_{i_1}, b_{j_1}\},\, \{a_{i_2}, b_{j_2}\} \in E(G)$ such
that $i_1 \neq i-1$ or $i_2 \neq i+1$, if $i_1 < i_2$, then $j_1
\leq j_2$. Then, $G$ is an odd partial band unless if there exist
two edges $\{a_{i-1},b_{j_1}\},\, \{a_{i+1},b_{j_2}\} \in E(G)$ with
$j_1 > j_2$.
If there exist two adjacent vertices in $C_1$ of degree $2$, then we
take $x = a_i$ one of these two vertices and there can not exist
$\{a_{i-1},b_{j_1}\},\, \{a_{i+1},b_{j_2}\} \in E(G)$ because either
${\rm deg}(a_{i-1}) = 2$ or ${\rm deg}(a_{i+1}) = 2$; hence $G$ is
an odd partial band.
If we are not in the previous situation, then there are at least
three vertices of degree $\geq 3$ in $C_1$. Take $x = a_i \in
V(C_1)$ a vertex of degree $2$ and assume that there exist two edges
$\{a_{i-1},b_{j_1}\},\, \{a_{i+1},b_{j_2}\} \in E(G)$ with $j_1 >
j_2$, let us prove that $G$ is not a complete intersection. Set $u
:= b_{j_2+1}$, we claim that ${\rm deg}(u) = 2$. Indeed $\{a_{i-1},
u\},\,\{a_{i+1}, u\} \not\in E(G)$ because $j_2 + 1 \not\equiv j_2
\equiv i-1 \equiv i+1 \, ({\rm mod}\, 2)$, $\{a_k, u\} \notin E(G)$
if $k < i-1$ because $\{a_{i+1},b_{j_2}\} \in E(G)$ and $j_2 < j_2 +
1$; furthermore $\{a_k, u\} \notin E(G)$ if $k > i+1$ because
$\{a_{i-1},b_{j_1}\} \in E(G)$ and $j_2 + 1 < j_1$.
Take $i' \notin \{i-1, i+1\}$ such that ${\rm deg}(a_{i'}) \geq 3$,
we will assume that $i' < i-1$ and set $j' := {\rm max}\{j \, \vert
\, \{a_{i'},b_j\} \in E(G)\}$. Then necessarily $i' \equiv j' \,
({\rm mod}\, 2)$ and $j' \leq j_2$. Now we consider the even cycle
$$w_1 :=
(b_{j'}, b_{j'+1},\ldots,b_{j_1}, a_{i-1},
a_{i-2},\ldots,a_{i'},b_{j'})$$ and the even closed walk
$$w_2 :=
(b_{j'}, b_{j'-1},\ldots,b_1, b_{r_2},\ldots,b_{j_2}, a_{i+1},
a_{i+2},\ldots, a_{r_1}, a_1,\ldots,a_{i'}, b_{j'}),$$ which
consists on an even cycle if $j' \neq j_2$ or two odd cycles with
the vertex $b_{j_2}$ in common if $j' = j_2$. For $i = 1,2$ we
denote $H_i := [V(w_i)]$, clearly ${\rm deg}_{H_i}(u) = 2$ and
$b(H_i) = b(H_i \setminus \{u\})$. Let us prove that $b(H) \neq b(H
\setminus \{u\})$ where $H := [V(H_1) \cap V(H_2)] = [ \{a_{i'},
b_{j'}, b_{j_2},\ldots, b_{j_1}\}]$. Indeed, if $j' < j_2 - 1$, then
the vertices $a_{i'}, b_{j'}$ joined by an edge form a connected
component of $H$ , thus $b(H) = 2$ and $b(H \setminus \{v\}) = 3$,
and if $j' = j_2$ or $j' = j_2 - 1$, then $b(H) = 1$ and $b(H
\setminus \{v\}) = 2$. In both cases this is a contradiction to
Lemma \ref{2subgrafos}.
$(\Leftarrow)$ If $G$ is an odd partial band, then ${\rm ht}(P_G) =
s$. We set $e_i := \{a_{j_i}, b_{k_i}\}$ for $1 \leq i \leq s$,
$e_{s+i} := \{a_i, a_{i+1}\}$ for $1 \leq i < r_1$, $e_{s + r_1} :=
\{a_1, a_{r_1}\}$, $e_{s + r_1 + i} := \{b_i, b_{i+1}\}$ for $1 \leq
i < r_2$ and $e_{s + r_1 + r_2} := \{b_1, b_{r_2}\}$.
For every $i \in \{1,\ldots,s-1\}$, let $w_i$ be the even primitive
cycle
$$w_i := (b_{k_i},a_{j_i},a_{j_i +
1},\ldots,a_{j_{i+1}},b_{k_{i+1}}, b_{k_{i+1} - 1},\ldots,
b_{k_{i}})$$ and $w_s := (b_{k_s}, a_{j_s}, a_{j_s + 1},\ldots,
a_{r_1}, a_1, \ldots, a_{j_1}, b_{k_1},\ldots, b_1, b_{r_2},\ldots,
b_{k_s})$.
For every $i \in \{1,\ldots,s\}$ if we write $B_{w_i} = x^{\alpha_i}
- x^{\beta_i}$ with $\alpha_i, \beta_i \in \N^{s+ r_1 + r_2}$, then
$x_i \mid x^{\alpha_i}$. Moreover, for every $1 \leq i < s$,
$x_{i+1} \mid x^{\alpha_i}$ if $j_{i+1} - j_i$ is odd and $x_{i+1}
\mid x^{\beta_i}$ otherwise, and $x_1 \mid x^{\alpha_s}$ if $r_1 -
j_s + j_1$ is odd and $x_1 \mid x^{\beta_s}$ otherwise.
We denote by $B$ the $s \times (s + r_1 + r_2)$ matrix whose $i$-th
row is $\alpha_i - \beta_i$. Note that $\Delta_s(B) = 1$ and for
every $j > s$, the $j$-th column of $B$ has only one nonzero entry
that can be either $+1$ or $-1$. Hence, by Lemma \ref{dominating},
$B$ is dominating if and only if $B'$ is dominating, where $B'$ is
the $s \times s$ submatrix consisting on the first $s$ columns of
$B$. If we denote $B' := (b_{i,j})_{1 \leq i, j \leq s}$, then
$b_{i,j} \neq 0$ if and only if $j - i \in \{0, 1\}$ or $i = s$ and
$j = 1$; thus if there exists a square submatrix $C$ of $B'$ which
is mixed, then $C = B'$ necessarily. Let us see that $B'$ is not
mixed; indeed, $r_1$ is odd and, if we denote by $l_1 = j_2 - j_1,\,
l_2 = j_3 - j_2,\ldots,\,l_{s-1} = j_s - j_{s-1}$ and $l_s = r_1 -
j_s + j_1$; then $r_1 = l_1 + \cdots + l_s$; thus there exists $1
\leq i \leq s$ such that $l_i$ is odd. Then the two nonzero entries
in the $i$-th row of $B'$ are positive and $B'$ is not mixed.
Following Theorem \ref{fs} we can conclude that $P_G$ is a complete
intersection minimally generated by $\{B_{w_1},\ldots,B_{w_s}\}$.
\QED
\end{demo}
\smallskip Now we can state the following structure theorem for
complete intersection graphs.
\begin{Theorem}\label{teoremaestructura}Let $G = [C; R]$ be a complete intersection connected
graph. Then,
\begin{itemize}
\item $R$ is a ring graph
\item $C$ is either the empty graph, an odd primitive cycle, an odd partial band or $C$ has two connected
components which are odd primitive cycles.
\end{itemize}
\end{Theorem}
\begin{demo}This result is a consequence of the fact that the complete
intersection property is hereditary (Theorem \ref{induce-CI}), which
allows us to claim that if $G = [C;R]$ is a complete intersection
graph, then both $R$ and $C$ are complete intersection graphs. Thus,
by Corollary 3.3 in \cite{Ring} it follows that $R$ is a ring graph
and by Proposition \ref{3impares} and Proposition
\ref{oddpartilband} it follows that $C$ is either the empty graph,
an odd primitive cycle, an odd partial band or $C$ has two connected
components which are odd primitive cycles. \QED
\end{demo}
\smallskip
The converse of this statement is not true in general, as the graph
in Figure \ref{figcontraej} shows.
\begin{Example}\label{contraej} Let $G = [C;R]$ be the graph in {\rm Figure
\ref{figcontraej}}, where $C = [\{v_1,v_2,v_3\}]$ is an odd
primitive cycle and $R = [\{v_4,v_5,v_6,v_7\}]$ is a bipartite ring
graph. $R$ is a ring graph and $C$ is a complete intersection,
nevertheless $G$ is not a complete intersection because it contains
$[V(R) \cup \{v_3\}]$, which is $\mK_{2,3}$, as a subgraph; see
Corollary \ref{subgraphK23}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1} {
\begin{pspicture}(2,-0.6)(5,2)
\psframe[linewidth=0.04,dimen=outer](4,-0.25)(5,0.75)
\psdots[dotsize=0.12](4,0.75) \psdots[dotsize=0.12](5,0.75)
\psdots[dotsize=0.12](4,-0.25) \psdots[dotsize=0.12](5,-0.25)
\psdots[dotsize=0.12](2,1.75) \psdots[dotsize=0.12](3,1.25)
\psdots[dotsize=0.12](2,0.75)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](2,0.75)(2,1.75)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](2,0.75)(3,1.25)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](2,1.75)(3,1.25)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](3,1.25)(4,-0.25)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](3,1.25)(5,0.75)
\rput(2,2){\small $v_1$} \rput(2,0.5){\small $v_2$}
\rput(3,1.5){\small $v_3$} \rput(3.8,0.8){\small $v_4$}
\rput(3.9,-0.4){\small $v_5$} \rput(5.2,-0.4){\small $v_6$}
\rput(5.2,0.8){\small $v_7$}
\end{pspicture}
} \caption{Non complete intersection graph satisfying the conditions
in Theorem \ref{teoremaestructura}.}\label{figcontraej}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{Example}
Under the hypotheses that $R$ is $2$-connected and $C$ is connected,
one has the characterization given in Proposition
\ref{propestructura}. In particular, this proposition states that
there are either $1$ or $2$ vertices in $R$ such that every edge
connecting $R$ and $C$ is incident to one of these vertices. To
state Proposition \ref{propestructura} we need a definition.
\begin{Definition}$G$ is a {\it $1$-clique-sum} of two graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ if it is obtained by
identifying a vertex $v_1$ of $G_1$ and a vertex $v_2$ of $G_2$.
Analogously, a {\it $2$-clique-sum} of $G_1$ and $G_2$ is obtained
by identifying an edge $e_1$ of $G_1$ and an edge $e_2$ of $G_2$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1.1} {
\begin{pspicture}(-4,-0.6)(13.762813,1.16375)
\psframe[linewidth=0.04,dimen=outer](2,1)(1,0)
\psdots[dotsize=0.12](1,0) \psdots[dotsize=0.12](2,1)
\psdots[dotsize=0.12](2,0) \psdots[dotsize=0.12](1,1)
\psdots[dotsize=0.12](-1,0) \psdots[dotsize=0.12](-1,1)
\psdots[dotsize=0.12](0,0.5)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](-1,0)(-1,1)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](-1,0)(0,0.5)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](0,0.5)(-1,1)
\psframe[linewidth=0.04,dimen=outer](4,-0.25)(5,0.75)
\psdots[dotsize=0.12](4,0.75) \psdots[dotsize=0.12](5,0.75)
\psdots[dotsize=0.12](4,-0.25) \psdots[dotsize=0.12](5,-0.25)
\psdots[dotsize=0.12](3,0.25) \psdots[dotsize=0.12](3,1.25)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](3,0.25)(3,1.25)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](3,0.25)(4,0.75)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](3,1.25)(4,0.75)
\psframe[linewidth=0.04,dimen=outer](7,1)(8,0)
\psdots[dotsize=0.12](7,1) \psdots[dotsize=0.12](7,0)
\psdots[dotsize=0.12](8,0) \psdots[dotsize=0.12](8,1)
\psdots[dotsize=0.12](6,0.5) \psline[linewidth=0.04cm](7,1)(6,0.5)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](7,1)(7,0)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](7,0)(6,0.5) \rput(-0.5,-0.3){\footnotesize
$G_1$} \rput(1.5,-0.3){\footnotesize $G_2$}
\rput(4,-.5){\footnotesize $G_3$} \rput(7.2,-0.5){\footnotesize
$G_4$}
\end{pspicture}
} \caption{The graph $G_3$ is a $1$-clique-sum of $G_1$ and $G_2$,
whereas $G_4$ is a $2$-clique-sum of $G_1$ and $G_2$}\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{Definition}
\begin{Proposition}\label{propestructura}Let $G = [C;R]$ be a connected graph such that
$R$ is $2$-connected and $C$ is connected. Then, $G$ is a complete
intersection if and only if $R$ is a ring graph and either there
exists $u_1 \in V(R)$ such that $G$ is a $1$-clique-sum of $R$ and
$[V(C) \cup \{u_1\}]$, with $[V(C) \cup \{u_1\}]$ a complete
intersection, or there exist two adjacent vertices $u_1, u_2 \in
V(R)$ such that $G$ is a $2$-clique-sum of $R$ and $[V(C) \cup
\{u_1,u_2\}]$, with $[V(C) \cup \{u_1,u_2\}]$ a complete
intersection.
\end{Proposition}
This result is an immediate consequence of Lemma
\ref{2verticesvecinos} and Lemma \ref{12sumas}.
\begin{Lemma}\label{2verticesvecinos}Let $G = [C; R]$
connected graph such that $R$ is $2$-connected and $C$ is connected.
If $G$ is a complete intersection, then either there exists a vertex
$u_1 \in V(R)$ such that $G$ is a $1$-clique-sum of $R$ and $[V(C)
\cup \{u_1\}]$, or there exist two adjacent vertices $u_1,u_2 \in
V(R)$ such that $G$ is a $2$-clique-sum of $R$ and $[V(C) \cup
\{u_1,u_2\}]$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{demo}Assume that $G = [C;R]$ is a complete intersection where $R$
is $2$-connected and $C$ is connected. By Theorem
\ref{teoremaestructura}, $C$ is either the empty graph, an odd
primitive cycle or an odd partial band and $R$ is a $2$-connected
ring graph.
Suppose that there exist two edges $e_1 = \{u_1, v_1\}$, $e_2 =
\{u_2, v_2\}$ such that $u_1 \neq u_2,\, u_1, u_2 \in V(R)$, $v_1,
v_2 \in V(C)$ and $u_1$ and $u_2$ are not adjacent. Let $\mP_1$ and
$\mP_2$ be two paths in $R$ connecting $u_1$ and $u_2$ such that
$V(\mP_1) \cap V(\mP_2) = \{u_1,u_2\}$ and $|V(\mP_1) \cup V(\mP_2)|$ is
minimal. Hence, the induced subgraph $[V(\mP_i)]$ is a path graph for
$i = 1,2$. Since $R$ is bipartite, both $\mP_1$ and $\mP_2$ have the
same parity.
First assume that $\mP_1$ and $\mP_2$ are even paths. If $v_1 = v_2$,
then we set $\mP_3 := (u_1,v_1,u_2)$ and $\mP_1,\,\mP_2$ and $\mP_3$ are
all even paths connecting $u_1$ and $u_2$; but this contradicts
Theorem \ref{notheta}. If $v_1 \neq v_2$, whenever there exists an
even path $\mP_3'$ in $C$ connecting $v_1, v_2$ we define $\mP_3 :=
(u_1, v_1, \mP_3', v_2, u_2)$, then $\mP_1,\,\mP_2$ and $\mP_3$ are all
even paths connecting $u_1$ and $u_2$; but this is not possible by
Theorem \ref{notheta}. It is easy to check that there exists such an
even path $\mP_3'$ unless if $C$ is an odd partial band consisting of
two odd primitive cycles $C_1 = (a_1,\ldots,a_{r_1},a_1)$ and $C_2 =
(b_1,\ldots,b_{r_2},b_2)$ such that $E(C) = E(C_1) \cup E(C_2) \cup
\{\{a_1,b_1\}\}$ and $\{a_1,b_1\} = \{v_1,v_2\}$. In this situation,
we set $G' := [V(C) \cup V(\mP_1) \cup V(\mP_2)]$ and we have that
$G'$ is a complete intersection and ${\rm deg}_{G'}(a_1) \geq 4$,
then by Corollary \ref{2situaciones} there exists a $v \in V(G')$ of
degree $2$. If $v \in V(C)$, we can assume that $v \in V(C_1)$ and
set $H_1 := [V(C_1) \cup V(\mP_1) \cup \{b_1\}]$, then $b(H_1) =
b(H_1 \setminus \{v\}) = 0$ because $(u_1,\mP_1,u_2,v_2,v_1,u_1)$
is an odd cycle in $H_1 \setminus \{v\}$. Since $b(C) = b(C \setminus \{v\}) =
0$, it follows by Lemma \ref{2subgrafos}
that $b(H) = b(H \setminus \{v\})$ where $H = [V(C) \cap V(H_1)] =
[V(C_1) \cup \{b_1\}]$. Nevertheless, $b(H) = 0$ because $V(C_1)
\subset V(H)$ and $b(H \setminus \{v\}) = 1$ because $H \setminus
\{v\}$ is acyclic, so there is a contradiction. If $v \in V(\mP_1)
\cup V(\mP_2)$, we can assume that $v \in V(\mP_1)$ and we set $H_1 :=
[V(\mP_1)\cup V(C_1) \cup \{b_1\}]$ and $H_2 := [V(\mP_1) \cup
V(\mP_2)]$, then $b(H_1) = b(H_1 \setminus \{v\}) = 0$ and $b(H_2) =
b(H_2 \setminus \{v\}) = 1$. Then by Lemma \ref{2subgrafos}, it
follows that $b(H) = b(H \setminus \{v\})$ where $H = [V(H_1) \cap
V(H_2)] = [V(\mP_1)]$. Never\-theless, $b(H) = 1$ and $b(H \setminus
\{v\}) = 2$ because $H$ is a path graph and ${\rm deg}_H(v) = 2$, so
there is a contradiction.
Assume now that $\mP_1$ and $\mP_2$ are odd paths. If $v_1 \neq
v_2$, then one can easily find an odd path $\mP_3'$ in $C$
connecting $v_1, v_2$. Therefore, if we set $\mP_3 := (u_1, v_1,
\mP_3', v_2, u_2)$, then $\mP_1, \mP_2$ and $\mP_3$ are all odd
paths connecting $u_1$ and $u_2$; but this is not possible by
Theorem \ref{notheta}. It only suffices to consider the case in
which $v_1 = v_2$. Since $v_1 \in V(C)$, we see that $v_1$ belongs
to the odd primitive cycle $C' = C_1$ or $C' = C_2$ and we set $G'
:= [V(C') \cup V(\mP_1) \cup V(\mP_2)]$. We claim that every vertex
of $C'$ different from $v_1$ has degree $2$. Otherwise there exists
$v' \in V(C'),\ v' \neq v_1$ and $u \in V(\mP_1) \cup V(\mP_2)$ such
that $\{u,v'\} \in E(G')$, we will assume that $u \in V(\mP_1)$.
Then, as we proved before, $\{u,u_1\},\, \{u,u_2\} \in E(R)$. Hence
$(u_1,\mP_2,u_2,u,u_1)$ is an odd cycle in $R$, but this is not
possible because $R$ is bipartite. So we take $v$ any vertex of $C'$
different from $v_1$ and $H_i := [V(\mP_i) \cup V(C')]$ for $i =
1,2$. Then $C_i := (u_1, \mP_i, u_2, v_1, u_1)$ is an odd cycle with
$v \notin V(C_i) \subset V(H_i)$, which gives $b(H_i) = b(H_i
\setminus \{v\}) = 0$. Then by Lemma \ref{2subgrafos}, it follows
that $b(H) = b(H \setminus \{v\})$ where $H = [V(H_1) \cap V(H_2)]
= [V(C') \cup \{u_1, u_2\}]$. Nevertheless, since $H \setminus
\{v\}$ is acyclic and $V(C) \subset V(H)$, we have that $b(H) = 0$
and $b(H \setminus \{v\}) = 1$, a contradiction.
To sum up, we have proved that whenever $\{u_1,v_1\}, \{u_2,\,v_2\}
\in E(G)$ with $v_1, v_2 \in V(C)$, $u_1, u_2 \in V(R)$ and $u_1
\neq u_2$, then $\{u_1, u_2\} \in E(G)$. If there exist three
different vertices $u_1, u_2, u_3 \in E(G)$ such that $\{u_i,\,v_i\}
\in E(G')$ for some $v_1, v_2, v_3 \in V(C)$, then $u_1, u_2, u_3$
form a triangle in $R$, but this is not possible because $R$ is
bipartite, and the lemma follows. \QED
\end{demo}
\begin{Lemma}\label{12sumas}Let $G$ be a $1$-clique-sum or a $2$-clique-sum of a
graph $H$ and a bipartite ring graph $R$. Then, $G$ is a complete
intersection $\Longleftrightarrow H$ is a complete intersection.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{demo}One implication is obvious because $H$ is an induced subgraph of $G$.
Since bipartite ring graphs are constructed by performing
$1$-clique-sums and $2$-clique-sums of even primitive cycles and
edges, we only have to prove that $G$ is a complete intersection
when it is a $1$-clique-sum or a $2$-clique-sum of a complete
intersection graph $H$ and $K$, where $K$ is either an even
primitive cycle or an edge. If $K$ is an edge $e = \{v_1,v_2\}$ and
$G$ is a $1$-clique-sum of $H$ and $K$, then either ${\rm
deg}_G(v_1) = 1$ or ${\rm deg}_G(v_2) = 1$ and, by Theorem
\ref{principal}, $G$ is a complete intersection. So assume that $K$
is an even primitive cycle $C$. Let $\mathfrak B =
\{B_{w_1},\ldots,B_{w_r}\}$ a minimal set of generators of $P_H$
where $r = {\rm ht}(P_H)$ and consider $\mathfrak B' := \mathfrak B
\cup \{B_C\}$. If we prove that $\mathfrak B'$ generates $P_G$, then
$G$ is a complete intersection because ${\rm ht}(P_G) = {\rm
ht}(P_H) + 1$. We write $B_{w_i} := x^{\alpha_i} - x^{\beta_i}$ for
$i = 1,\ldots,r$ and call $B$ the matrix whose $i$-th row is
$\gamma_i := \alpha_i - \beta_i$, then $B$ is dominating and
$\Delta_r(B) = 1$. We also write $B_{C} := x^{\alpha} - x^{\beta}$
and $B'$ the matrix obtained by adding a new row $\gamma := \alpha -
\beta$ to $B$, let us see that $B'$ is dominating and
$\Delta_{r+1}(B') = 1$. Indeed, $C$ is a cycle which involves at
most one edge of $H$, then by Lemma \ref{dominating} $B'$ is also
dominating and $\gamma$ has only $+1$ and $-1$ in the entries
corresponding to edges in $E(C)$, then $\Delta_{r+1}(B') =
\Delta_r(B) = 1$, which proves the lemma. \QED
\end{demo}
\smallskip
Next we deal with the problems of characterizing when $[V(C) \cup
\{u_1\}]$ is a complete intersection, with $u_1 \in V(R)$, and when
$[V(C) \cup \{u_1,u_2\}]$ is a complete intersection, where $u_1,u_2
\in V(R)$ are adjacent vertices. By Theorem \ref{induce-CI}, when
either $[V(C) \cup \{u_1\}]$ or $[V(C) \cup \{u_1,u_2\}]$ is a
complete intersection, one has that so is $C$ and then, by Theorem
\ref{teoremaestructura}, $C$ is either an odd primitive cycle or an
odd partial band because $C$ is connected. Thus, we will study the
complete intersection property on the following graphs:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $[V(C) \cup \{u_1\}]$, where $C$ is an odd primitive cycle,
\item $[V(C) \cup \{u_1,u_2\}]$, where $u_1,u_2$ are adjacent vertices and $C$ is an odd primitive
cycle,
\item $[V(C) \cup \{u_1\}]$, where $C$ is an odd partial band, and
\item $[V(C) \cup \{u_1,u_2\}]$, where $u_1,u_2$ are adjacent vertices and $C$ is an odd partial band.
\end{enumerate}
The following four lemmas study all these situations. Let us start
with one definition.
\begin{Definition}
An {\it odd partial wheel} $W$ consists of an odd primitive cycle
$C$, a vertex $x \notin V(C)$ and at least one edge connecting $x$
and $C$. The vertex $x$ is called the {\it central vertex of} $W$,
and $C$ is called the {\it principal cycle of} $W$.
Moreover $W$ is a {\it CI-odd-partial-wheel} if $C =
(z_1,\ldots,z_r,z_1)$ and $N_W(x) =\{z_1,z_{s_2}, \ldots,z_{s_k}\}$,
where $k \geq 1$, $1 < s_2 < \cdots < s_{k-1} < s_k$,
$s_3,\ldots,s_k$ are odd and either $s_2 = 2$ or $s_2$ is odd (see
{\rm Figure \ref{opw}}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{.6} {
\begin{pspicture}(0,-2.385)(12,2.8)
\pscircle[linewidth=0.04,dimen=outer](2.35,-0.035){2.35}
\psdots[dotsize=0.2](2.3,2.315) \psdots[dotsize=0.2](1.18,-2.085)
\psdots[dotsize=0.2](3.74,-1.925) \psdots[dotsize=0.2](4.6,-0.645)
\psdots[dotsize=0.2](3.92,1.655) \psdots[dotsize=0.2](0.84,1.715)
\psdots[dotsize=0.2](0.1,-0.645) \psdots[dotsize=0.2](2.4,0.115)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](2.28,2.355)(2.38,0.155)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](2.42,0.155)(4.56,-0.625)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](2.38,0.135)(0.84,1.675)
\rput(2.3,2.6){\Large $z_1$} \rput(0.8,-2.2){\Large $z_5$}
\rput(4,-2.2){\Large $z_4$} \rput(5,-0.8){\Large $z_3$}
\rput(4.3,1.8){\Large $z_2$} \rput(0.4,1.8){\Large $z_7$}
\rput(-.3,-0.8) {\Large $z_6$}
\pscircle[linewidth=0.04,dimen=outer](9.35,-0.035){2.35}
\psdots[dotsize=0.2](9.3,2.315) \psdots[dotsize=0.2](8.18,-2.085)
\psdots[dotsize=0.2](10.74,-1.925) \psdots[dotsize=0.2](11.6,-0.645)
\psdots[dotsize=0.2](10.92,1.655) \psdots[dotsize=0.2](7.84,1.715)
\psdots[dotsize=0.2](7.1,-0.645) \psdots[dotsize=0.2](9.4,0.115)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](9.28,2.355)(9.38,0.155)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](9.42,0.155)(11.56,-0.625)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](9.38,0.135)(7.84,1.675)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](9.4,0.115)(10.9,1.675)
\rput(9.3,2.6){\Large $z_1$} \rput(7.8,-2.2){\Large $z_5$}
\rput(10.9,-2.2){\Large $z_4$} \rput(12,-0.8){\Large $z_3$}
\rput(11.3,1.8){\Large $z_2$} \rput(7.4,1.8){\Large $z_7$}
\rput(6.7,-0.8) {\Large $z_6$}
\end{pspicture}
} \caption{Two CI-odd-partial-wheels}\label{opw}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{Definition}
\begin{Lemma}\label{partialwheel}
Let $W$ be an odd partial wheel. $W$ is a complete intersection if
and only if $W$ is a CI-odd-partial-wheel.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{demo}
Let $x$ be the central vertex and $C$ the principal cycle of $W$, we
denote $r := |V(C)|$.
$(\Rightarrow)$ We proceed by induction on $r$, if $r = 3$ then $W$
is always a CI-odd-partial-wheel. If $r \geq 5$ and ${\rm deg}(x)
\leq 2$ then evidently $W$ is a CI-odd-partial-wheel. So we can
assume that ${\rm deg}_{W}(x) \geq 3$, then there exists $v \in
V(C)$ such that ${\rm deg}_W(v) = 2$, otherwise ${\rm deg}_W(x) = r
> 3$ and this contradicts Corollary \ref{2situaciones}. Thus we
consider $W' := W_v^c$, which is a complete intersection odd partial
wheel and, by induction hypothesis, it is a CI-odd-partial-wheel.
Hence $W'$ has a central vertex $x$ and a principal cycle $C' =
(z_1',\ldots,z_{r-2}')$ such that $N_{W'}(x) =
\{z_1',z_{t_1}',\ldots,z_{t_k}'\}$ where $1 < t_1 < \cdots t_k \leq
r-2$, with $t_2,\ldots,t_k$ odd and $t_1 = 2$ or $t_1$ is odd. Thus
$C = (z_1,\ldots,z_r,z_1)$ and there exists $l \in \{2,\ldots,r-1\}$
such that \begin{center} $\{x,z_i'\} \in E(W') \Longleftrightarrow
\left\{ \begin{array}{cccl} \{x,z_i\} \in E(W) & $ and $ & i \leq
l-1,&$ or $\\ \{x,z_{i+2}\} \in E(W) &$ and $ &i \geq l-1.
\end{array} \right.$
\end{center} If $\{x,z_1\} \notin E(W)$ then we set $y_i := z_{i+2}$ for $1
\leq i \leq r-2$, $y_1 = z_{r-1}$ and $y_2 = z_r$ and have that $W$
is a CI-odd-partial-wheel. If $l \neq 3$ or $\{x,z_4\} \notin E(W)$,
then $W$ also is a CI-odd-partial-wheel. So it remains to study when
$\{x,z_1\},\,\{x,z_4\}$ and $l = 3$, we firstly assume that
$\{x,z_2\} \in E(W)$. If ${\rm deg}_W(x) = 3$, then we set $y_i :=
z_{i+1}$ for $1 \leq i < r$ and $y_r := z_1$ and have that $C =
(y_1,\ldots,y_r,y_1)$ with $N_W(x) = \{y_1,y_3,y_r\}$; thus it is a
CI-odd-partial-wheel. If $N_W(x) = \{z_1,z_2,z_4,z_r\}$, then
setting $y_1 = z_r$, $y_i = z_{i-1}$ for $2 \leq i \leq r$ we have
that $N_W(x) = \{y_1,y_2,y_3,y_5\}$ and $W$ is a
CI-odd-partial-wheel. If ${\rm deg}_W(x) \geq 4$ and $N_W(x) \neq
\{z_1,z_2,z_4,z_r\}$, then we take $j = {\rm min}\{ i >
4\,\vert\,z_i \in N_W(x)\}$ and there are two odd cycles $C_1 :=
(z_1,z_2,x,z_1)$ and $C_2 := (z_4,\ldots,z_j,x,z_4)$ because $j$ is
odd, but there is no edge connecting $C_1$ and $C_2$ and this is
impossible by Lemma \ref{tt}.
Now we assume that $l = 3$ and $\{x,z_2\} \notin E(W)$. If ${\rm
deg}_W(x) = 3$ and $\{x,z_j\} \in E(W)$ for $j = 5$ or $j = r$, then
$W$ is a CI-odd-partial-wheel. Indeed, if $j = r$ we set $y_1 :=
z_r$, $y_i = z_{i-1}$ for $2 \leq i \leq r$, then $N_W(x) =
\{y_1,y_2,y_5\}$ and $W$ is a CI-odd-partial-wheel. If $j = 5$ one
can proceed analogously.
If ${\rm deg}_W(x) \geq 3$ and we are not in the previous
situations, then ${\rm deg}_G(z_2) = 2$ and there exist $5 \leq j_1
\leq j_2 \leq r$ such that $z_{j_1}, z_{j_2} \in N_W(x)$, $(j_1,j_2)
\neq (5,5)$ and $(j_1,j_2) \neq (r,r)$. Since $j_1$ and $j_2$ are
odd, we consider the two even cycles $C_1 :=
(z_1,\ldots,z_{j_1},x,z_1)$ and $C_2 :=
(z_{j_2},\ldots,z_r,z_1,\ldots,z_4,x,z_{j_2})$. Set $H_i :=
[V(C_i)]$ for $i = 1,2$, then $b(H_i) = b(H_i \setminus \{z_2\})$,
however if one takes $H := [V(H_1) \cap V(H_2)]$, then $b(H) = 0$
and $b(H \setminus \{z_2\}) = 1$, which contradicts Lemma
\ref{2subgrafos}.
$(\Leftarrow)$ We write $C = (z_1,\ldots,z_r,z_1)$ and $N_W(x) =
\{z_1,z_{s_2},\ldots,z_{s_k}\}$ where $s_1 := 1 < s_2 < \cdots <
s_k$, $s_3,\ldots,s_k$ are odd and either $s_2 = 2$ or $s_2$ is odd.
If $s_2$ is odd, we set $\overline{W}$ the odd partial wheel with
principal cycle $C' = (z_1',\ldots,z_{r+2}',z_1')$, central vertex
$x'$ and $\{x',z_i'\} \in E(\overline{W})$ if and only if $\{x,z_i\}
\in E(W)$. Clearly ${\rm deg}_{\overline W}(z_{r+1}') = {\rm
deg}_{\overline W}(z_{r+2}') = 2$ and $W =
\overline{W}_{z_{r+1}'}^c$, so if we prove that $\overline{W}$ is a
complete intersection, then by Proposition \ref{contraccion} so is
$W$. We set $R := \overline{W} \setminus \{z_{r+2}'\}$ and have that
$b(\overline{W}) = 0$ and $b(R) = 1$, then by Theorem
\ref{principal}, $\overline{W}$ is a complete intersection if and
only if so is $R$. Since $R$ is a bipartite ring graph, we conclude
that $R$, $\overline{W}$ and $W$ are complete intersections.
Suppose now that $s_2 = 2$, we denote $e_i = \{x,z_{s_i}\}$ for $1
\leq i \leq k$, $e_{k+i} = \{z_i, z_{i+1}\}$ and $e_{k+r} =
\{z_1,z_r\}$. $W$ has $r + 1$ vertices and $r + k$ edges; thus ${\rm
ht}(P_W) = k - 1$. Consider the even cycles $C_1 :=
(x,z_{s_k},z_{s_k+1},\ldots,z_r, z_1,z_2,x)$, $C_2 :=
(x,z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_{s_3},x)$ and $C_i := (x, z_{s_i}, z_{s_i +
1},\ldots,z_{s_{i+1}}, x)$ for $3 \leq i \leq k-1$; then
$$B_{C_1} = x_k x_{k+1} x_{k + s_k + 1} \cdots x_{k + r - 1} -
x_2 x_{k + s_k} \cdots x_{k + r},$$ $$B_{C_2} = x_1 x_{k+2} \cdots
x_{k + s_3 - 1} - x_3 x_{k+1} \cdots x_{k + s_3 - 2}, {\rm \ and}$$
$$B_{C_i} = x_i x_{k + s_i + 1} \cdots x_{k + s_{i+1} - 1} -
x_{i+1} x_{k + s_i} \cdots x_{k + s_{i+1} - 2} {\rm \ for \ } 3
\leq i \leq k-1,$$ let us prove that $P_W =
(B_{C_1},\ldots,B_{C_{k-1}}).$ We set $B_{C_i} = x^{\alpha_i} -
x^{\beta_i}$ and $\gamma_i := \alpha_i - \beta_i$ for $1 \leq i \leq
k-1$; then, $$\gamma_1 := - e_2 + e_k + e_{k+1} - e_{k + s_k} + e_{k
+ s_k + 1} - \cdots + e_{k + r - 1} - e_{k + r} \in \Z^{k+r},$$
$$\gamma_2 := e_1 - e_3 - e_{k+1} + e_{k+2} - \cdots - e_{k + s_3 -
2} + e_{k + s_3 - 1} \in \Z^{k+r}, {\rm \ and}$$
$$\gamma_i := e_i - e_{i+1} - e_{k + s_i} + e_{k+s_i+1} - e_{k+s_i+2} + \cdots -
e_{k + s_{i+1} - 2} + e_{k + s_{i+1} -1} \in \Z^{k + r}$$ for $3
\leq i \leq k-1$, and denote by $B$ the $(k - 1) \times (k + r)$
matrix whose $i$-th row is $\gamma_i$. It is evident that
$\Delta_{k-1}(B) = 1$ and for every $j \in \{1,2,k+2,\ldots,k+r\}$
the $j$-th column of $B$ has only one nonzero entry; thus by Lemma
\ref{dominating} $B$ is dominating if and only if $B'$ is dominating
where $B'$ is the $k-1 \times k-1$ matrix consisting of the columns
$3,4,\ldots,k+1$ of $B$. $B'$ has exactly two nonzero entries in
each row and in each column and both nonzero entries in the first
row of $B'$ are positive. Hence, $B'$ is dominating. Therefore we
conclude that $W$ is a complete intersection and $P_W =
(B_{C_1},\ldots,B_{C_{k-1}})$.
\QED
\end{demo}
\begin{Definition}A connected graph $G$ is called a {\it CI-double-wheel}
if its vertex set is $V(G) = V(C) \cup \{b_1,b_2\}$, where $C =
(a_1,\ldots,a_r,a_1)$ is an odd primitive cycle and $E(G) = E(C)
\cup \left\{ \{b_1,b_2\}, \{b_1,a_{j_1}\}, \ldots,\{b_1,a_{j_s}\},
\{b_2,a_{k_1}\},\ldots, \{b_2,a_{k_t}\} \right\},$ for some $s,t
\geq 1$, $1 \leq j_1 < \cdots < j_s \leq k_1 < \cdots < k_t \leq r$
and $j_1,\ldots,j_s,k_1,\ldots,k_t$ are odd (see {\rm Figure
\ref{doubwheel}}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{.8} {
\begin{pspicture}(0,-2)(3.7,1.8)
\psarc[linewidth=0.03](1.8,0.085){1.73}{0.0}{180.0}
\psline[linewidth=0.03cm](0.09,0.095)(3.51,0.135)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](0.07,0.075) \psdots[dotsize=0.14](0.71,0.115)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](1.31,0.135) \psdots[dotsize=0.14](1.87,0.135)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](2.51,0.155) \psdots[dotsize=0.14](2.99,0.155)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](3.51,0.155) \psdots[dotsize=0.14](0.89,-1.745)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](2.53,-1.705)
\psline[linewidth=0.03cm](0.89,-1.725)(2.49,-1.685)
\psline[linewidth=0.03cm](0.05,0.075)(0.87,-1.765)
\psline[linewidth=0.03cm](1.27,0.155)(0.91,-1.725)
\psline[linewidth=0.03cm](1.33,0.135)(2.51,-1.705)
\psline[linewidth=0.03cm](2.53,-1.685)(3.47,0.215)
\rput(-0.2,.3){$a_1$} \rput(0.7,.4){$a_2$} \rput(1.3,.4){$a_3$}
\rput(1.85,.4){$a_4$} \rput(2.5,.4){$a_5$} \rput(3,.4){$a_6$}
\rput(3.7,.3){$a_7$} \rput(0.9,-2){$b_1$} \rput(2.5,-2){$b_2$}
\end{pspicture}
} \caption{A CI-double-wheel}\label{doubwheel}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{Definition}
\begin{Lemma}\label{doublewheel}Let $G$ be a connected graph with $V(G) = V(C) \cup \{b_1,b_2\}$
where $C$ is an odd primitive cycle, $\{b_1, b_2\} \in E(G)$ and
${\rm deg}_G(b_1), {\rm deg}_G(b_2) \geq 2$. Then, $G$ is a complete
intersection if and only if $G$ is a CI-double-wheel.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{demo}($\Rightarrow)$ We proceed by induction on $r := |V(C)|$. If $r = 3$, then by
Corollary \ref{cotasuperior} it has $\leq 7$ edges. If every vertex
of $C$ has degree $\geq 3$, then $G$ has a subgraph $\mK_{2,3}$,
which contradicts Corollary \ref{subgraphK23}. Thus one can write
$V(G) = V(C) \cup \{b_1,b_2\}$, where $C = (a_1,a_2,a_3,a_1)$, ${\rm
deg}_G(a_2) = {\rm deg}_G(b_2) = 2$ and ${\rm deg}_G(b_1) \leq 3$,
thus $G$ is a CI-double wheel. Assume now that $r \geq 5$, we claim
that there exists a vertex of degree $2$ in $C$. Indeed, if ${\rm
deg}_G(v) \geq 3$ for every $v \in V(C)$, then we have that $4r + 2
\leq 2 |E(G)| \leq 3 |V(G)| = 3r + 6$, which contradicts Corollary
\ref{cotasuperior}. Therefore we take $v \in V(C)$ of degree $2$ and
consider $G' := G_v^c$, which is a CI-double wheel by induction
hypothesis. Thus $V(G') = V(C') \cup \{b_1,b_2\}$, where $C' =
(a_1',\ldots,a_{r-2}',a_1')$ is an odd primitive cycle and $E(G') =
E(C') \cup \left\{ \{b_1,b_2\}, \{b_1, a_{j_1}'\}, \ldots, \{b_1,
a_{j_s}'\}, \{b_2,a_{k_1}'\},\ldots,\{b_2,a_{k_t}'\}\right\}$ with
$1 \leq j_1 < \cdots < j_s \leq k_1 < \cdots < k_t \leq r$ and
$j_1,\ldots,j_s,k_1,\ldots,k_t$ are odd. Moreover, there exists $l
\in \{2,\ldots,r-1\}$ such that
\begin{center} $\{b_i,a_j'\}
\in E(G') \Longleftrightarrow \left\{ \begin{array}{cccl}
\{b_i,a_j\} \in E(G) & $ and $ & j \leq l - 1,&$ or $\\
\{b_i,a_{j+2}\} \in E(G) &$ and $ &j \geq l - 1.
\end{array} \right.$
\end{center}
If $\{b_1,a_{l+1}\} \notin E(G)$, $\{b_2,a_{l-1}\} \notin E(G)$ or
${\rm deg}(b_1) = {\rm deg}(b_2) = 2$, then $G$ is a CI-double
wheel. Therefore if $G$ is not a CI-double-wheel one can assume that
$\{b_1,a_{l+1}\}, \{b_2,a_{l-1}\} \in E(G)$ and ${\rm deg}(b_1) >
2$. Thus, $l - 1 = j_s = k_1,\ldots,k_t$ are odd and
$\{b_1,a_{j_1}\}, \{b_1,a_{l + 1}\}, \{b_2,a_{l - 1}\} \in E(G)$.
We separate two cases, if $b_2$ has degree $> 2$ then
$\{b_2,a_{k_t}'\} \in E(G')$ and $\{b_2,a_{k_t + 2}\} \in E(G)$,
then there exist three even paths
$$\mP_1 := (a_{l-1},a_l,a_{l+1}),\, \mP_2 :=
(a_{l-1},a_{l-2},\ldots,a_{j_1},b_1,a_{l+1}) {\rm\ and}$$ $$\mP_3 :=
(a_{l-1},b_2,a_{k_t+2},a_{k_t+1},\ldots,a_{l+1})$$ connecting
$a_{l-1}$ and $a_{l+1}$ and $V(\mP_i) \cap V(\mP_j) =
\{a_{l-1},a_{l+1}\}$ for $1 \leq i < j \leq 3$, which is not
possible by Theorem \ref{notheta}. If $b_2$ has degree $2$ and $j_1
= l-1$, then $G$ is a CI-double-wheel. Hence we assume that $b_2$
has degree $2$ and $j_1 < l-1$ and we consider the even cycles $C_1
:= (b_1,b_2,a_{l-1},a_l,\ldots,a_r,a_1,\ldots,a_{j_1},b_1)$ and $C_2
:= (b_1,b_2,a_{l-1},a_{l-2},\ldots,a_1,a_r,\ldots,a_{l+1},b_1)$, and
set $H_i := [V(C_i)]$, then $b(H_i) = b(H_i \setminus \{b_2\}) = 1$.
However setting $H := [V(C_1) \cap V(C_2)] =
[\{a_1,\ldots,a_{j_1},a_{l-1},a_{l+1},\ldots,a_r,b_1,b_2\}]$, if
$\{b_1,a_{l-1}\} \notin E(G)$, then $b(H) = 0$ because $H$ is
connected and the odd cycle $C_3 :=
(b_1,a_{l+1},\ldots,a_r,a_1,\ldots,a_{j_1},b_1)$ is in $H$, and $b(H
\setminus \{b_2\}) = 1$ because $a_{l-1}$ is an isolated vertex in
$H \setminus \{b_2\}$. It only remains to consider the situation in
which $\{b_1,a_{l-1}\} \in E(G)$; in this case $G$ is a
$2$-connected graph, there are two odd cycles $C_3 =
(b_1,a_{l-1},b_2,b_1)$ and $C_4 =
(b_1,a_{l+1},\ldots,a_r,a_1,\ldots,a_{j_1},b_1)$ with a vertex in
common and there is no edge connecting them, a contradiction to
Lemma \ref{tt}.
$(\Leftarrow)$ Denote by $G'$ the graph obtained by adding a new
vertex $b_3$ and two edges $\{b_1,b_3\}$ and $\{b_2,b_3\}$, then
$G'$ is an odd partial band and by Proposition \ref{oddpartilband}
$G'$ is a complete intersection. Furthermore, $G = G' \setminus
\{b_3\}$, then $G$ is a complete intersection. \QED
\end{demo}
\begin{Definition}A {\it CI-vertex-band} is a graph $G$
with vertices $V(C_1) \cup V(C_2) \cup \{c\}$, where $C_1 =
(a_1,\ldots,a_r,a_1)$ and $C_2 = (b_1,\ldots,b_s,b_1)$ are vertex
disjoint odd primitive cycles and $$E(G) = E(C_1) \cup E(C_2) \cup
\left\{ \{a_1,b_1\},\{a_1,b_{i_2}\} \ldots \{a_1,b_{i_k}\}, \{c,
a_2\}, \{c, a_r\} \right\},$$ for some $k \geq 1$, $i_2 < \cdots <
i_k \leq s$ and $i_2,\ldots,i_k$ are odd (see {\rm Figure
\ref{vertexb}}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{.8} {
\begin{pspicture}(0.5,-1.8)(7.3,1.7)
\pscircle[linewidth=0.04,dimen=outer](1.7371875,-0.1328125){1.53}
\pscircle[linewidth=0.04,dimen=outer](5.6371875,-0.1528125){1.45}
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](3.2671876,-0.0828125)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](2.0671875,1.3371875)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](0.3671875,0.5571875)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](0.6671875,-1.2228125)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](2.1071875,-1.5628124)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](4.1871877,-0.0828125)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](4.4871874,0.6371875)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](5.0271873,1.1371875)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](6.1471877,1.1571875)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](7.0471873,-0.1828125)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](6.3871875,-1.3428125)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](4.7071877,-1.2228125)
\psdots[dotsize=0.14](1.4671875,-0.1028125)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](2.0271876,1.3571875)(1.4671875,-0.0428125)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](1.4671875,-0.1428125)(2.1071875,-1.5828125)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](3.2871876,-0.0628125)(4.1671877,-0.0828125)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](3.2671876,-0.0828125)(4.9671874,1.1771874)
\psline[linewidth=0.04cm](3.2471876,-0.0828125)(4.6871877,-1.2028126)
\rput(3.0,0){$a_1$} \rput(2.1732812,1.5){$a_2$}
\rput(0.22578125,.8){$a_3$} \rput(0.41453126,-1.4){$a_4$}
\rput(2.2889063,-1.8){$a_5$} \rput(4.5,-0.0328125){$b_1$}
\rput(4.8,0.7071875){$b_2$} \rput(5.1626563,1.5){$b_3$}
\rput(6.6314063,1.2){$b_4$} \rput(7.3,-0.0328125){$b_5$}
\rput(6.730781,-1.4328125){$b_6$} \rput(4.6296873,-1.4128125){$b_7$}
\rput(1.3751563,0.1){$c$}
\end{pspicture}
} \caption{A CI-vertex-band}\label{vertexb}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{Definition}
\begin{Lemma}\label{civertexband}Let $G$ be a connected graph with $V(G) = V(C) \cup
\{c\}$ where $C$ is an odd partial band. Then, $G$ is a complete
intersection if and only if ${\rm deg}_G(c) = 1$ or $G$ is a
CI-vertex-band.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{demo}($\Rightarrow$) We denote by $C_1$ and $C_2$ the two vertex
disjoint odd primitive cycles such that $V(C) = V(C_1) \cup V(C_2)$.
We first aim to prove that $c$ has degree $\leq 2$. For this purpose
we will prove that if $v \in V(C)$ has degree $2$ and does not
belong to a triangle, then ${\rm deg}_G(c) = {\rm deg}_{G_v^c}(c)$.
Suppose that ${\rm deg}_G(c) > {\rm deg}_{G_v^c}(c)$, this means
that $N_G(v) = \{v_1,v_2\}$ and $\{v_1,c\}, \{v_2,c\} \in E(G)$.
Then we consider $H := [\{v,v_1,v_2,c\}]$ and have that $v \in V(H)
\cap V(C)$, $b(H) = b(H \setminus \{v\}) = 1$, $b(C) = b(C \setminus
\{v\}) = 0$. However, considering $H' := [V(H) \cap V(C)] =
[\{v,v_1,v_2\}]$, then $b(H' \setminus \{v\}) = b(H') + 1$, which
contradicts Lemma \ref{2subgrafos}.
Suppose that ${\rm deg}_G(c) \geq 3$. For every $v \in V(C)$ of
degree $2$ which does not belong to a triangle we consider $G_c^v$
and we repeat this until we get a graph $G'$ in which every vertex
of degree $2$ belongs to a triangle, then we have proved that ${\rm
deg}_G(c) = {\rm deg}_{G'}(c)$. Note that $V(G') = V(C') \cup \{c\}$
where $C'$ is an odd partial wheel with primitive cycles $C_1'$ and
$C_2'$. Since $G'$ has an odd number of vertices, we have that it
cannot be a band or a M\"obius band and there exists a $v \in V(G')$
of degree $2$, say $v \in V(C_1')$. By construction $C_1'$ has to be
a triangle, let us prove that $C_2'$ is also a triangle. Suppose
that $C_2'$ is not a triangle, then $s := |V(C_2')| \geq 5$ and
${\rm deg}_{G'}(u) \geq 3$ for every $u \in V(C_2')$, which implies
that $|E(G')| \geq 2s + 3$ and $|V(G')| = s + 4$ and by Corollary
\ref{cotasuperior} we have that $2 |E(G')| \leq 3 |V(G')|$; thus $s
= 5$ and $|E(G')| = 13$. This means that ${\rm deg}_{G'}(z) = 3$ for
every $z \in V(C_2')$ and $\{c,u\} \notin E(G')$ for every $u \in
V(C_1')$. By symmetry, one can assume that $C_1' = (a_1,a_2,a_3)$,
$C_2' = (b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4,b_5,b_1)$ and $E(G') = E(C_1') \cup E(C_2')
\cup \{\{a_1,b_1\}\} \cup E$, where $E$ is one of these:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=.8cm]
\item[{\rm (a)}] $E = \{\{b_2,c\}, \{b_3,c\}, \{b_4,c\}, \{b_5,c\} \},$
\item[{\rm (b)}] $E = \{\{b_2,a_1\}, \{b_3,c\}, \{b_4,c\}, \{b_5,c\} \},$
\item[{\rm (c)}] $E = \{\{b_2,a_2\}, \{b_3,c\}, \{b_4,c\}, \{b_5,c\} \},$
\item[{\rm (d)}] $E = \{\{b_2,c\}, \{b_3,a_1\}, \{b_4,c\}, \{b_5,c\} \},$ or
\item[{\rm (e)}] $E = \{\{b_2,c\}, \{b_3,a_2\}, \{b_4,c\}, \{b_5,c\} \}.$
\end{itemize}
If (a) occurs we set $H_i := [V(C_1') \cup \{c,b_1,b_{i-1},b_i\}]$
and have that $b(H_i) = b(H_i \setminus \{a_2\}) = 0$ for $i = 3,5$;
however if one sets $H := [V(H_3) \cap V(H_5)] = [V(C_1') \cup
\{c,b_1\}]$, then $b(H) = 1$ and $b(H \setminus \{a_2\}) = 2$, which
is impossible by Lemma \ref{2subgrafos}. If (b) or (c) holds, we set
$\mathcal P_1 := (b_3,b_4,b_5)$, $\mathcal P_2 := (b_3,c,b_5)$, in
(b) we also set $\mathcal P_3 := (b_3,b_2,a_1,b_1,b_5)$ and in (c)
we also set $\mathcal P_3 := (b_3,b_2,a_2,a_3,a_1,b_1,b_5)$; in both
situations we have three even paths connecting $b_3$ and $b_5$, but
this is not possible by Theorem \ref{notheta}. In the last two cases
we set $\mathcal P_1 := (b_3,b_2,b_1)$, $\mathcal P_2 :=
(b_3,b_4,c,b_5,b_1)$, in (d) we also set $\mathcal P_3 :=
(b_3,a_1,b_1)$ and in (e) we also set $\mathcal P_3 :=
(b_3,a_2,a_3,a_1,b_1)$; but this is not possible again by Theorem
\ref{notheta}.
So assume now that both $C_1'$ and $C_2'$ are triangles and ${\rm
deg}_{G'}(c) \geq 3$, then necessarily ${\rm deg}_{G'}(c) = 3$ and
$E(C') = E(C_1') \cup E(C_2') \cup \{\{a_1,b_1\}\}$, otherwise $2
|E(G')| > 3 |V(G')|$. Then one can write $C_1' = (a_1,a_2,a_3,a_1)$,
$C_2' = (b_1,b_2,b_3,b_1)$ and $N_{G'}(c)$ is one of these:
\begin{itemize}
\item $N_{G'}(c) = \{b_1,b_2,b_3\},$
\item $N_{G'}(c) = \{a_1,b_1,b_2\},$
\item $N_{G'}(c) = \{a_2,b_1,b_2\},$
\item $N_{G'}(c) = \{a_1,b_2,b_3\}$, or
\item $N_{G'}(c) = \{a_2,b_2,b_3\}.$
\end{itemize}
We set $u := a_3$, $H_1 := C'$ and $H_2 := G' \setminus \{b_3\}$ in
the first three cases and $H_2 := G' \setminus \{b_1\}$ in the last
two. In all of them $b(H_1) = b(H_1 \setminus \{u\}) = 0$, $b(H_2) =
b(H_2 \setminus \{u\}) = 0$. However, $b(H) \neq b(H \setminus
\{u\})$ where $H := [V(H_1) \cap V(H_2)]$, a contradiction to Lemma
\ref{2subgrafos}. Thus ${\rm deg}_G(c) \leq 2$.
If ${\rm deg}_G(c) = 2$, since $b(G) = b(G \setminus \{c\}) = 0$, by
Theorem \ref{principal} we get that $P_G = P_{C} \cdot
k[x_1,\ldots,x_n] + (B_w)$, where $w$ is an even closed walk with
$$V(w) = \{c\} \cup N_G(c) \cup \{v \in V(G) \, \vert \, b(G
\setminus \{v\}) < b(C \setminus \{v\})\}.$$ We assume that $C_1 =
(a_1,\ldots,a_r,a_1)$ and $C_2 = (b_1,\ldots,b_s,b_1)$ and that
$\{a_1,b_1\} \in E(C)$. Moreover, if $v \in V(w)$ and $v \notin
N_G(c) \cup \{c\}$, then $v \in \{a_1,b_1\}$ because $b(C \setminus
\{a_j\}) = b(C \setminus \{b_j\}) = 0$ for all $j \geq 2$. Therefore
we can suppose that $a_1 \in V(w)$ and $a_1 \notin N_G(c)$; thus
$b(G \setminus \{a_1\}) = 0$ and $b(C \setminus \{a_1\}) = 1$. Since
$b(C \setminus \{a_1\}) = 1$, we can assume that $E(C) = E(C_1) \cup
E(C_2) \cup \{\{a_1,b_1\},\{a_1,b_{j_2}\},\ldots,\{a_1,b_{j_k}\}\}$
for some $k \geq 1$, and $j_2,\ldots,j_k$ are odd because $C$ is an
odd partial band. Moreover, since $b(G \setminus \{a_1\}) = 0$ it
follows that $N_G(c) = \{a_i,b_j\}$ for some $1 < i \leq r$, $1 \leq
j \leq s$ or $N_G(c) = \{a_i,a_j\}$ for some $1 < i < j \leq r$ and
$i \not\equiv j \ ({\rm mod}\ 2)$. If $N_G(c) = \{a_i,a_j\}$, then
$b_1 \notin V(w)$ because $b(G \setminus \{b_1\}) = b(C \setminus
\{b_1\})$. Additionally, if $N_G(c) = \{a_i,b_j\}$ for some $1 < i
\leq r$, $1 \leq j \leq s$, since $G$ can not be $2$-connected by
Lemma \ref{tt}, we get that $j = 1$ and $\{a_1,b_1\}$ is the only
edge connecting $C_1$ and $C_2$. Putting all together, we can assume
that one of these occurs:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=1cm]
\item[{\rm (a)}] $V(w) = \{c,a_1,a_i,b_1\}$, where
$N_G(c) = \{a_i,b_1\}$ with $1 < i \leq r$ and $E(C) = E(C_1) \cup
E(C_2) \cup \{\{a_1,b_1\}\}$, or
\item[{\rm (b)}] $V(w) = \{c,a_1,a_i,a_j\}$, where
$N_G(c) = \{a_i,a_j\}$ with $1 < i < j \leq r$,\, $i \not\equiv j\
({\rm mod}\ 2)$ and $E(C) = E(C_1) \cup E(C_2) \cup
\{\{a_1,b_1\},\{a_1,b_{j_2}\},\ldots,\{a_1,b_{j_k}\}\}$ for some $k
\geq 1$, and $j_2,\ldots,j_k$ are odd.
\end{itemize}
In both cases $w$ is a length $4$ cycle by Lemma \ref{primitivo}. In
(a) we have that $w = (c, a_i, a_1, b_1)$, and we can assume that $i
= 2$. We proved in Proposition \ref{oddpartilband} that $P_C =
(B_{w'})$ where $w' = (a_1,\ldots,a_r,a_1,b_1,\ldots,b_s,b_1,a_1)$;
thus $P_G = (B_{w},B_{w'})$. However this is not possible because
denoting $e_1$ and $e_2$ the edges $\{a_1,b_1\}$ and $\{a_1,a_2\}$,
then $(B_{w},B_{w'}) \subsetneq J := (x_1,x_2)$ and $2 = {\rm
ht}(P_G) < {\rm ht}(J) = 2$. Finally, if (b) occurs we have that $w
= (c, a_i, a_1, a_j)$, which implies that $i = 2$, $j = r$.
Therefore $G$ is a CI-vertex-band.
$(\Leftarrow)$ If ${\rm deg}_G(c) = 1$, $G$ is a complete
intersection if and only if so is $C$ and $C$ is an odd partial
band, which is a complete intersection by Proposition
\ref{oddpartilband}.
If $G$ is a CI-vertex-band with $V(G) = V(C) \cup \{c\}$, where $C$
consists of two odd vertex disjoint cycles $C_1
= (a_1,\ldots,a_r,a_1)$ and $C_2 = (b_1,\ldots,b_s,b_1)$ and $E(G) =
E(C_1) \cup E(C_2) \cup \left\{ \{a_1,b_{i_1}\}, \ldots
,\{a_1,b_{i_k}\}, \{c, a_2\}, \{c, a_r\} \right\}$ where $1 =
b_{i_1} < \cdots < b_{i_k}$ and $b_{i_1},\ldots,b_{i_k}$ are odd.
Let us prove that $P_G = P_C \cdot k[x_1,\ldots,x_n] + (B_w)$ where
$w = (c,a_r,a_1,a_2,c)$.
We have that ${\rm ht}(P_G) = k + 1$, we set $e_j := \{a_{1},
b_{i_j}\}$ for $1 \leq i \leq k$, $e_{k+j} := \{a_j, a_{j+1}\}$ for
$1 \leq j < r$, $e_{k + r} := \{a_1, a_{r}\}$, $e_{k + r + j} :=
\{b_j, b_{j + 1}\}$ for $1 \leq j < s$ and $e_{k + r + s} := \{b_1,
b_{s}\}$, $e_{k+r+s+1} := \{c, a_2\}$ and $e_{k+r+s+2} := \{c,
a_r\}$.
For every $j \in \{1,\ldots,k-1\}$, let $w_j$ be the even primitive
cycle
$$w_j := (b_{i_j}, a_{1}, b_{i_{j+1}}, b_{i_{j+1} - 1},\ldots,
b_{i_j})$$ and $w_k := (b_{i_k}, a_1,C_1, a_1, b_{1}, b_{s},\ldots,
b_{i_k})$.
If we denote $B_{w_j} = x^{\alpha_j} - x^{\beta_j}$ with $\alpha_j,
\beta_j \in \N^{k + r + s + 2}$ for every $j \in \{1,\ldots,k\}$ and
we let $B$ be the $k \times (k + r + s + 2)$ matrix whose $j$-th row
is $\alpha_j - \beta_j$; then we proved in Proposition
\ref{oddpartilband} that $B$ is dominating and $\Delta_k(B) = 1$.
We denote by $B'$ the matrix obtained by adding to $B$ the row
$e_{k+1} - e_{k + r} - e_{k+r+s+1} + e_{k+r+s+2} \in \Z^{k+r+s+2}$.
Then $\Delta_{k+1}(B') = 1$ because $\Delta_k(B) = 1$, if we prove
that $B'$ is dominating then $P_G = (B_{w_1},\ldots,B_{w_k}, B_{w})$
and it is a complete intersection. Since the columns $k+r+s+1$ and
$k+r+s+2$ have only one nonzero entry, if we denote by $B''$ the
matrix obtained by removing these two columns from $B'$, by Lemma
\ref{dominating} we get that $B'$ is dominating if and only if so is
$B''$. Assume that $B''$ has a mixed square submatrix $D$, since $B$
is dominating then the last row of $B''$ is in $D$, moreover
the columns $k+1$ and $k+r$ of $B''$ have to be in $D$ because
these are the only two nonzero entries in the last row of $B''$.
Furthermore the columns $k+1$ and $k+r$ of $B''$ have only two
nonzero entries, which are those in the rows $k$ and $k+1$ and the
entries in the row $k$ are both negative. So, if we remove the last
row of $D$ and the column $k+1$ we get $D'$ another square matrix of
$B''$ which is mixed; but $D'$ is also a submatrix of $B$; which it
is a contradiction. \QED
\end{demo}
\begin{Lemma}\label{2oddring}Let $G$ be a connected graph with $V(G) = V(C) \cup
\{c_1,c_2\}$ where $C$ is an odd partial band, $\{c_1,c_2\} \in
E(G)$ and $c_1, c_2$ have degree $\geq 2$. Then, $G$ is a complete
intersection if and only if $G$ is a $2$-clique-sum of $C$ and a
length $4$ cycle $C$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{demo}$(\Rightarrow)$ For $i = 1,2$ we have that $G_i := G \setminus \{c_i\}$ is a
complete intersection, then by Lemma \ref{civertexband} either ${\rm
deg}_{G_i}(c_{3-i}) = 1$ or $G_i$ is a CI-vertex-band. Firstly
assume that $G_1$ and $G_2$ are CI-vertex-bands and denote $C_1 =
(a_1,\ldots,a_r,a_1)$ and $C_2 = (b_1,\ldots,b_s,b_1)$ with
$\{a_1,b_1\} \in E(G)$ the two odd primitive cycles such that $V(C)
= V(C_1) \cup V(C_2)$.
If $\{c_i,a_j\} \in E(G)$ for $i = 1,2$, $j
= 2,r$, then $G$ has a subgraph $\mathcal K_{2,3}$ with vertices
$\{c_1,c_2,a_1,a_2,a_r\}$ and this is not possible. If one has that
$\{c_1,a_r\}, \{c_1,a_2\}, \{c_2,b_s\}, \{c_2,b_2\} \in E(G)$, then
there are three even paths connecting $c_1$ and $a_1$, namely
$\mathcal P_1 := (c_1,a_2,a_1)$, $\mathcal P_2 := (c_1,a_r,a_1)$ and
$\mathcal P_3 := (c_1,c_2,b_2,b_1,a_1)$ and this is not possible by
Theorem \ref{notheta}. So assume now that ${\rm deg}_G(c_1) = 2$ and
$G_1$ is a CI-vertex-band; then $P_G = P_{G_1} \cdot
k[x_1,\ldots,x_n] + (B_w)$ where $w$ is an even closed walk with
$V(w) = \{c_1\} \cup N_G(c_1) \cup \{u \in V(G)\, \vert \, b(G
\setminus \{u\}) < b(G \setminus \{u,c_1\})\}$. Since $c_1, c_2 \in
V(w)$, we get that $a_2$ or $a_r \in V(w)$, say $a_2 \in V(w)$. But
$b(G \setminus \{c_1, a_2\}) = 0$, so $a_2 \in N_G(c_1)$ and $V(w) =
\{c_1,c_2,a_2,b_1\}$, but such a closed walk does not exist.
Then we have proved that ${\rm deg}_G(c_1) = {\rm deg}_G(c_2) = 2$
and there exist $u_1, u_2 \in V(C)$ such that $\{c_1,u_1\},
\{c_2,u_2\} \in E(G)$. Then by Theorem \ref{principal}, $P_G = P_{G
\setminus \{c_2\}} \cdot k[x_1,\ldots,x_n] + (B_w)$ where $w$ is an
even closed walk with $V(w) = \{c_2\} \cup N_G(c_2) \cup \{u \in
V(G)\, \vert \, b(G \setminus \{u\}) < b(G \setminus \{u,c_2\})\}$.
Then, $w = (u_1,c_1,c_2,u_2,v_1,\ldots,v_t,u_1)$ for some $t \geq 0$
and $b(G \setminus \{v_i\}) < b(G \setminus \{v_i,c_2\})$ for $1
\leq i \leq t$. Nevertheless, $b(G \setminus \{z,c_2\}) \geq 1$ if
and only if $z = u_1$ or $z = a_1$ and ${\rm deg}_C(a_i) = 2$ for
every $i \geq 2$ or $z = b_1$ and ${\rm deg}_C(b_i) = 2$ for every
$i \geq 2$. Then $\{c_1,c_2,u_1,u_2\} \subset V(w) \subset
\{c_1,c_2,u_1,u_2,a_1,b_1\}$. If $|V(w)| = 6$, then we can assume
that $u_1 = a_2$, $u_2 = b_2$ and $\{a_1,b_1\}$ is the only edge
connecting $C_1$ and $C_2$ but this contradicts Lemma \ref{tt}. If
$|V(w)| = 5$, then $w$ is not an even cycle and by Lemma
\ref{primitivo}, $u_1 = u_2$; however, if $u_1 \in V(C_1)$, then
$b(G \setminus \{b_1,c_2\}) = b(G \setminus \{b_1\})$ and $b_1
\notin V(w)$, which is a contradiction. Then $|V(w)| = 4$, $w$ is a
cycle and $\{u_1,u_2\} \in E(G)$; so $G$ is a $2$-clique-sum of $C$
and the length $4$ cycle $(c_1,c_2,u_2,u_1,c_1)$.
$(\Leftarrow)$ It follows directly from Lemma \ref{12sumas} and
Proposition \ref{oddpartilband}.
\QED
\end{demo}
\bigskip
Now we can state and prove the following characterization theorem,
which allows us to list all families of complete intersection graphs
$G = [C;R]$ such that $R$ is $2$-connected and $C$ is connected.
\begin{Theorem}\label{ultimo}Let $G = [C; R]$ be a connected graph. If $R$ is $2$-connected
and $C$ is connected, then $G$ is a complete intersection if and
only if $G$ is one of the following graphs:
\begin{itemize
\item[{\rm (a)}] a bipartite ring graph,
\item[{\rm (b)}] a $1$-clique-sum of a bipartite ring graph and either
\begin{itemize} \item[{\rm (b.1)}] a CI-odd-partial-wheel, \item[{\rm (b.2)}] a $1$-clique-sum of an odd partial band and an
edge, or
\item[{\rm (b.3)}] a CI-vertex-band,
\end{itemize}
\item[{\rm (c)}] a $2$-clique-sum of a bipartite ring graph and either \begin{itemize} \item[{\rm (c.1)}] a CI-double-wheel, or
\item[{\rm (c.2)}]an odd partial band. \end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{Theorem}
\begin{demo}$(\Rightarrow)$ Since $G$ is connected, by Theorem \ref{teoremaestructura}
we have that $R$ is a bipartite ring graph and $C$ is either the
empty graph, an odd primitive cycle or an odd partial band. If $C$
is the empty graph, then $G = R$ is a bipartite ring graph.
Otherwise, by Proposition \ref{propestructura}, either
\begin{itemize} \item[(1)] there exists a $b_1 \in V(R)$ such that $[V(C) \cup
\{b_1\}]$ is a complete intersection, or \item[(2)] there exist two
adjacent vertices $b_1,b_2 \in V(R)$ such that $[V(C) \cup
\{b_1,b_2\}]$ is a complete intersection. \end{itemize} Assume (1)
holds, if $C$ is an odd primitive cycle, by Lemma \ref{partialwheel}
we obtain (b.1), and if $C$ is an odd partial band, by Lemma
\ref{civertexband} we obtain (b.2) or (b.3). Assume now that (2)
holds, if $C$ is an odd primitive cycle, by Lemma \ref{doublewheel}
we have (c.1), and if $C$ is an odd partial band, by Lemma
\ref{2oddring} we have (c.2).
$(\Leftarrow)$ It follows from Lemmas \ref{12sumas},
\ref{partialwheel}, \ref{doublewheel}, \ref{civertexband} and
\ref{2oddring}. \QED
\end{demo}
\bigskip Simis, Vasconcelos and Villarreal \cite{SVV} characterized the normality of $k[G]$ in the
following way.
\begin{Theorem}\label{ho} If $G$ is connected, then $k[G]$ is normal if
and only if every two vertex disjoint odd cycles are connected by an
edge.
\end{Theorem}
\medskip
From this description, one deduces that if a graph $G = [C; R]$
verifies that $k[G]$ is normal, then $C$ is connected. Moreover, $G$
cannot have a CI-vertex-band as induced subgraph.
\medskip
Thus, we can conclude the following results, which are the normal
versions of Theorem \ref{teoremaestructura} and Theorem
\ref{ultimo}.
\begin{Corollary}\label{teoremaestructuranormal}Let $G = [C; R]$ be a connected graph
such that $k[G]$ is normal. If $G$ is a complete intersection, then
\begin{itemize}
\item $R$ is a bipartite ring graph, and
\item $C$ is either the empty graph,
an odd primitive cycle or an odd partial band.
\end{itemize}
\end{Corollary}
\medskip
\begin{Corollary}\label{ultimonormal}Let $G = [C; R]$ be a connected graph such that $k[G]$ normal.
If $R$ is $2$-connected, then $G$ is a complete intersection if and
only if $G$ is one of the following graphs:
\begin{enumerate
\item[{\rm (a)}] a bipartite ring graph,
\item[{\rm (b)}] a $1$-clique-sum of a bipartite ring graph and either
\begin{itemize} \item[{\rm (b.1)}] a CI-odd-partial-wheel, or \item[{\rm (b.2)}] a $1$-clique-sum of an odd partial band and an
edge,
\end{itemize}
\item[{\rm (c)}] a $2$-clique-sum of a bipartite ring graph and either \begin{itemize} \item[{\rm (c.1)}] a CI-double-wheel, or
\item[{\rm (c.2)}] an odd partial band. \end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Corollary}
|
\section{Problem Statement}
The simulation begins with the reactive gas at rest with the initial condition
$\rho_0=p_0=Y_0=1$ and $\mathbf{v_0}=0$.
The domain lies in $x \in [-3,57]$ and $y \in [-3,12]$ and reflecting slip walls
are present on all walls except the exit $x=57$.
The heat addition is limited to a circle of radius $R=2$ centered at the origin.
The simulation uses a heat of reaction $q=15$, specific heat ratio $\gamma=1.4$,
activation energy $E=13.8$, and pre-exponential factor $B=35$.
Heat is added between $t_a=0.5$ and $t_b=5.25$.
The Parallel Adaptive Wavelet-Collocation Method
(PAWCM) is used to capture the wide range of scales that are present
\cite{Kevlahan2005, Vasilyev2000}.
The PAWCM combines second generation wavelets with a prescribed
error threshold parameter $\epsilon$ to determine which grid points
are necessary in order to achieve a prescribed level of accuracy.
The hyperbolic solver developed for the PAWCM is used to maintain
numerical stability and reduce spurious oscillations across jump
discontinuities~\cite{Regele2009}.
The effective grid resolution for the simulation is $15360\times3072$.
Figure \ref{fig:2D_j9} demonstrates the indirect detonation initiation
process by presenting a series of snapshots of temperature contours
corresponding to the same events shown in the video.
Heat is deposited in a circle in the bottom left hand corner
from $0.5\le t \le 5.25$. The rapid deposition of heat creates compression waves
that propagate away from the initially heated region.
Before $t=2$, the reactants inside the deposition region are
consumed in a chemical explosion, which adds additional heat to the deposition
region.
It is difficult to discern from the contour at $t=2$, but the interface
between the burning and reactive gas forms a rippled surface. It is thought that
this is a result of the Darrieus-Landau instability at the burning gas interface
because once the reactants are consumed the growth of surface fluctuations ceases.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{figures/legend3}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.465\textwidth]{figures/T020_j9-crop_t-red} &
\includegraphics[width=0.465\textwidth]{figures/T140_j9-crop_t-red} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.465\textwidth]{figures/T035_j9-crop_t-red} &
\includegraphics[width=0.465\textwidth]{figures/T160_j9-crop_t-red} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.465\textwidth]{figures/T050_j9-crop_t-red} &
\includegraphics[width=0.465\textwidth]{figures/T180_j9-crop_t-red} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.465\textwidth]{figures/T070_j9-crop_t-red} &
\includegraphics[width=0.465\textwidth]{figures/T200_j9-crop_t-red} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.465\textwidth]{figures/T100_j9-crop_t-red} &
\includegraphics[width=0.465\textwidth]{figures/T220_j9-crop_t-red} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.465\textwidth]{figures/T120_j9-crop_t-red} &
\includegraphics[width=0.465\textwidth]{figures/T240_j9-crop_t-red} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{figures/axesbottom2} &
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{figures/axesbottom2}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Sequence of temperature contours demonstrate the multidimensional indirect
detonation formation process for times $2\le t \le 24$.}
\label{fig:2D_j9}
\end{figure}
At some point shortly after $t=2$ when the compression waves first reflect off
the left and bottom walls the compression waves become fully discontinuous shock
waves. The reflected and transmitted shocks form Mach stems that propagate in
the positive $x$- and $y$-directions. The reflected waves impinge on the
burnt-unburnt gas interface and induce Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities, which then
increase the fluctuation magnitude at the material interface. This can be initially
observed in the $t=3.5$ contour.
At about $t=2.5$, a second explosion occurs in the lower left corner
when the shock waves reflect off the bottom and left walls and
raise the pressure in that region in a duration short enough
that the temperature rises with pressure. The reactive gas explodes once it has
reached a sufficient temperature.
In the $t=5$ frame, the original outward propagating shock wave has reflected off the
left and bottom walls and the Mach stems are clearly visible in the temperature
contour. On the left wall, the leading edge of the shock wave is just about to
reflect off the upper wall, starting in the upper left corner.
When reflection occurs on the upper boundary, a hot spot appears in the upper
left-hand corner of the channel, characterized by substantial local inertial
confinement. This hot spot releases heat and generates compression waves that
propagate away from the hot spot location.
At $t=7$, Fig.~\ref{fig:2D_j9} shows the reflected wave re-enters the reacted region and
is refracted, which induces an additional longitudinal component to the wave direction.
The transverse waves compress and heat previously unreacted fuel pockets, which ignite
and help produce additional longitudinal waves, as well as sustaining the transverse
waves the reverberate off the top and bottom walls.
Kelvin-Helmholtz roll-up instabilities are clearly visible in frames $t=[10, 12, 14]$
at the burnt-unburnt gas interface with a fairly high level of detail. The
existence of such a detailed interface serves as an indicator that any numerical
diffusion present in the algorithm has been minimized to the point that these
features are possible to capture.
At about $t=14$ the heat release rate by the preheated gas begins to escalate.
This acceleration in
heat release can be observed in the temperature contour sequence as the rapid
consumption of fuel starting at $t=14$ and ending at $t=24$ with the formation of
the over-driven detonation wave emerging from the lead shock front.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
J.D.R. would like to thank Guillaume Blanquart for the use of his computational
resources to perform this simulation.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Suppose that $B=\{B(t), t\ge 0\}$ is a fractional Brownian motion with Hurst parameter $H=\frac 1{2k}$, where $k$ is an odd number. It has been proved by Nualart and Ortiz-Latorre in \cite{NualartOrtiz2008} that sequence of sums
\[
W_n(t)=\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{nt}} \left( B(j/n)-B((j-1)/n) \right) ^{k}
\]
converges in law to a Brownian motion $W=\{W(t), t\ge 0 \}$, with variance $\sigma^2_kt$, independent of $B$. The Brownian motion $W$ is called the $k$-signed variation of $B$. In the particular case $k=3$, the variance, denoted by $\kappa^2t$, is given in formula (\ref{kap_def}) below. A detailed analysis of the signed cubic variation of $B$ has been recently developed by Swanson in \cite{Swanson2011a}, considering this variation as a class of sequences of processes.
In the present paper, we take $H = 1/6$ and consider the case of the signed cubic variation. We are interested in the convergence in distribution of the sequence of two-dimensional processes $\{W_{a_n}(t), W_{b_n}(t)\}$, where $\{a_n\}$ and $\{b_n\}$ are two strictly increasing sequences of natural numbers converging to infinity. Under some conditions, the limit of this sequence is a two-dimensional Gaussian process $X^\rho$, independent of $B$, whose components are Brownian motions with variance $\kappa^2t$, and with covariance $\int_0 ^t \rho(s) ds$ for some function $\rho$. The proof of this result is based on Theorem \ref{NuPe} (see Section 2.3 below), which implies that for a sequence of vectors whose components belong to a fixed Wiener chaos and each component converges in law to a Gaussian distribution, the convergence to a multidimensional Gaussian distribution follows from the convergence of the covariance matrix. This theorem can be found in the recent monograph by Nourdin and Peccati \cite{NuPe} (see Theorem 6.2.3) devoted to the normal approximation using Malliavin calculus combined with Stein's method. Theorem \ref{NuPe} has been first proved by Peccati and Tudor in \cite{PeccatiTudor2005}, by means of stochastic calculus techniques, and Nualart and Ortiz-Latorre provide in \cite{NualartOrtiz2008} an alternative proof based on Malliavin calculus and on the use of characteristic functions.
The covariance function $\rho$ depends on the asymptotic behavior of the sequences $\{a_n\}$ and $\{b_n\}$. Our main results are the following. We set $L_n =\frac{b_n} {a_n}$ and we assume that $L_n\rightarrow L\in [0,\infty]$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $L=0$ of $L=\infty$, then $\rho(s)=0$ for all $s$, and the components of $X^\rho$ are independent Brownian motions.
\item[(ii)] Suppose that $L_n=L\in(0,\infty)$ for all but finitely many $n$. Then, $L$ is a rational number, and $\rho(s)$ is a constant which depends on $L$.
\item[(iii)] If $L_n \not=L \in(0,\infty)$ for all but finitely many $n$ and the greatest common divisor of $a_n$ and $b_n$ converges to infinity, then, again $\rho(s)$ is a constant which depends on $L$.
\item[(iv)] If $L\in(0,\infty)$ and there exists $k\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $b_n-a_n =k$ mod $a_n$ for all $n$, then $\rho(s)$ is not constant, and depends on $L$ and $k$.
\end{itemize}
In the cases (ii)-(iv), an explicit value of $\rho(s)$ is given.
Our article is inspired by the relationship between higher (signed) variations of fractional Brownian motions and ``change of variable'' formulas for stochastic integrals with respect to these processes (see \cite{BS,NR}). These results imply that approximations to variations of fractional Brownian motion have a direct relationship with numerical stochastic integration with respect to these processes. We hope that our study will shed light on the convergence and stability of numerical approximations to stochastic integrals, and perhaps will be relevant outside the narrow context of the present article. Additionally, we find the diversity of results presented in (i)-(iv) interesting from the purely intellectual point of view, irrespective of their potential applications.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce some preliminary material that will be used in the paper. We present in this section some estimates for the covariance between two increments of the fractional Brownian motion, and we study the properties of a function $f_L(x)$, fundamental for our paper. Section 3 contains the main results and proofs, and in Section 4 we discuss some concrete examples.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{S:prelim}
If $x\in\mathbb{R}$, then $\flr{x}$ denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to $x$, and $\ceil{x}$ denotes the least integer greater than or equal to $x$. Note that $\flr{x} \le x < \flr{x} + 1$, $\ceil{x} - 1 < x \le \ceil{x}$, and $\ceil{x}=\flr{x}+1_{\mathbb{Z}^c}(x)$, for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$. Also note that for all $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ and all $x\in\mathbb{R}$, we have $x<n$ if and only if $\flr{x}<n$, and $n<x$ if and only if $n <\ceil{x}$.
The Skorohod space of c\`adl\`ag functions from $[0,\infty)$ to $\mathbb{R}^d$ will be denoted by $D_{\mathbb{R}^d}[0,\infty)$, and convergence in law will be denoted by the symbol $\Rightarrow$.
Let $B=B^{1/6}$ be a two-sided fractional Brownian motion with Hurst parameter $H=1/6$. That is, $\{B(t):t\in\mathbb{R}\}$ is a centered Gaussian process with covariance function
\[
R(s,t) = E[B(s)B(t)]
= \frac12(|t|^{1/3} + |s|^{1/3} - |t - s|^{1/3}),
\]
for $s,t\in\mathbb{R}$.
Let $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $t_j=t_{j,n}=j/n$ and $\Delta B_j=\Delta B_{j,n} = B(t_j)-B(t_{j-1})$. If $k\in\mathbb{N}$, then we shall denote $(\Delta B_j)^k$ by $\Delta B_j^k$. Let $W_n(t) = \sum_{j=1}^{\flr{nt}}\Delta B_j^3$. The signed cubic variation of $B$ is defined in \cite{Swanson2011a} as a class of sequences of processes, each of which is equivalent, in a certain sense, to the sequence $\{W_n\}$. The relevant fact for our present purposes is that the sequence $\{W_n\}$ converges in law to a Brownian motion independent of $B$. This was proven in \cite{NualartOrtiz2008}, and the statement of the theorem is the following.
\begin{thm}\label{T:cub_var}
As $n\to\infty$, $(B,W_n)\Rightarrow(B,\kappa W)$ in $D_{\mathbb{R}^2}[0,\infty)$, where
\begin{equation}\label{kap_def}
\kappa^2 = \frac34\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}
(|m + 1|^{1/3} + |m - 1|^{1/3} - 2|m|^{1/3})^3,
\end{equation}
and $W$ is a standard Brownian motion, independent of $B$.
\end{thm}
Since we are interested in the joint convergence of subsequences of $\{W_n\}$, we will be primarily concerned with the covariance of increments of this process, which can be expressed in terms of the covariance of increments of $B$. For this reason, let us define
\begin{equation}\label{Phi_def}
\begin{split}
\Phi(s,t,u,v) &= 2E[(B(t) - B(s))(B(v) - B(u))]\\
&= 2(R(t,v) - R(t,u) - R(s,v) + R(s,u))\\
&= t^{1/3} + v^{1/3} - |t - v|^{1/3}
- t^{1/3} - u^{1/3} + |t - u|^{1/3}\\
&\quad - s^{1/3} - v^{1/3} + |s - v|^{1/3}
+ s^{1/3} + u^{1/3} - |s - u|^{1/3}\\
&= |t - u|^{1/3} + |s - v|^{1/3}
- |s - u|^{1/3} - |t - v|^{1/3},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for $s,t,u,v\in\mathbb{R}$. Note that
\begin{align}
\Phi(s,t,u,v) &= \Phi(u,v,s,t),\label{Phi_symmetry}\\
\Phi(s,t,u,v) &= \Phi(t,t+v-u,v,v+t-s),\label{Phi_swap}\\
\Phi(s+c,t+c,u+c,v+c) &= \Phi(s,t,u,v),\label{Phi_translation}\\
\Phi(cs,ct,cu,cv) &= |c|^{1/3}\Phi(s,t,u,v),\label{Phi_scaling}
\end{align}
for all $c\ge0$.
\subsection{Estimates for the function $\Phi$}\label{S:Phi}
As a first, coarse estimate of $\Phi$, note that if $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$, then
\begin{equation}
||x|^{1/3} - |y|^{1/3}| \le ||x| - |y||^{1/3} \le |x - y|^{1/3}.
\label{algebra}
\end{equation}
Thus,
\[
|\Phi(s,t,u,v)| \le ||t - u|^{1/3} - |s - u|^{1/3}|
+ ||s - v|^{1/3} - |t - v|^{1/3}|
\le 2|t - s|^{1/3}.
\]
By \eqref{Phi_symmetry},
\[
|\Phi(s,t,u,v)| \le 2|v - u|^{1/3},
\]
and it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{basic_est}
|\Phi(s,t,u,v)| \le 2(|t - s| \wedge |v - u|)^{1/3},
\end{equation}
for all $s,t,u,v\in\mathbb{R}$.
When more refined estimates are needed, we will rely on the following integral representations of $\Phi$. If $u<v<s<t$, then
\begin{align}
\Phi(s,t,u,v) &= (t - u)^{1/3} + (s - v)^{1/3}
- (s - u)^{1/3} - (t - v)^{1/3}\notag\\
&= \frac13\int_s^t (y - u)^{-2/3}\,dy
- \frac13\int_s^t (y - v)^{-2/3}\,dy\notag\\
&= -\frac29\int_s^t\int_u^v (y - x)^{-5/3}\,dx\,dy\notag\\
&= -\frac29\int_0^{t-s}\int_0^{v-u}
(s - v + x + y)^{-5/3}\,dx\,dy < 0.\label{int_rep1}
\end{align}
Also, if $u<s<t<v$, then
\begin{align}
\Phi(s,t,u,v) &= (t - u)^{1/3} - (s - v)^{1/3}
- (s - u)^{1/3} + (t - v)^{1/3}\notag\\
&= \frac13\int_s^t (y - u)^{-2/3}\,dy
+ \frac13\int_s^t (y - v)^{-2/3}\,dy\notag\\
&= \frac13\int_s^t
((v - y)^{-2/3} + (y - u)^{-2/3})\,dy > 0.\label{int_rep3}
\end{align}
We will use these integral representations to generate several different estimates in Lemma \ref{L:fine_est} below.
\begin{lemma}\label{L:fine_est}
If $u<v<s<t$, then
\begin{align}
|\Phi(s,t,u,v)| &\le \frac29\,(t - s)(v - u)(s - v)^{-5/3},
\label{fine_est1}\\
|\Phi(s,t,u,v)| &\le (t - s)^{1/4}(v - u)^{11/12}(s - v)^{-5/6},
\label{fine_est2}\\
|\Phi(s,t,u,v)| &\le (t - s)^{11/12}(v - u)^{1/4}(s - v)^{-5/6}.
\label{fine_est3}
\end{align}
If $u<s<t<v$, then
\begin{equation}
|\Phi(s,t,u,v)| \le \frac13\,(t - s)((v - t)^{-2/3} + (s - u)^{-2/3}).
\label{fine_est7}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof.} Suppose $u<v<s<t$. Inequality \eqref{fine_est1} follows directly from \eqref{int_rep1}. By \eqref{int_rep1} and Lemma \ref{L:inequ} (see the Appendix),
\begin{align*}
|\Phi(s,t,u,v)| &\le \frac29(s - v)^{-5/6}
\int_0^{v-u} x^{-1/12}\,dx\int_0^{t-s} y^{-3/4}\,dy\\
&= \frac29(s - v)^{-5/6} \cdot \frac{12}{11}(v - u)^{11/12}
\cdot 4(t - s)^{1/4},
\end{align*}
and this proves \eqref{fine_est2}. Similarly,
\begin{align*}
|\Phi(s,t,u,v)| &\le \frac29(s - v)^{-5/6}
\int_0^{v-u} x^{-3/4}\,dx\int_0^{t-s} y^{-11/12}\,dy\\
&= \frac29(s - v)^{-5/6} \cdot 4(v - u)^{1/4}
\cdot \frac{12}{11}(t - s)^{11/12},
\end{align*}
proving \eqref{fine_est3}. Finally, \eqref{fine_est7} follows directly from \eqref{int_rep3}. \hfill $\Box$
\medskip
Let $a=\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ and $b=\{b_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ be strictly increasing sequences in $\mathbb{N}$, and let $L_n=b_n/a_n$. We define
\begin{equation} \label{Phi}
\Phi_n^{a,b}(j,k) = \Phi\left({
\frac{j-1}{a_n}, \frac j{a_n},
\frac{k-1}{b_n}, \frac k{b_n}
}\right)
= E[\Delta B_{j,a_n}\Delta B_{k,b_n}],
\end{equation}
for $j,k\in\mathbb{Z}$. When $a$ and $b$ are understood, we will simply write $\Phi_n$ instead of $\Phi_n^{a,b}$. By \eqref{Phi_symmetry}, we have $\Phi_n^{a,b}(j,k)=\Phi_n^{b,a}(k,j)$. Note that by \eqref{basic_est},
\begin{equation} \label{eq2}
|\Phi_n^{a,b}(j,k)|^3 \le 8(a_n^{-1} \wedge b_n^{-1}),
\end{equation}
for any $a,b,n,j,k$. Applying Lemma \ref{L:fine_est} gives us Lemma \ref{L:Phi_fine}.
\begin{lemma}\label{L:Phi_fine}
If $\frac j{a_n} < \frac {k-1}{b_n}$, then
\begin{align}
|\Phi_n^{a,b}(j,k)| &\le \frac29\, a_n^{-1}b_n^{-1}\left(\frac{k-1}{b_n} -\frac j {a_n} \right)^{-5/3},
\label{Phi_fine4}\\
|\Phi_n^{a,b}(j,k)| &\le a_n^{-1/4}b_n^{-11/12}\left(\frac{k-1}{b_n} -\frac j {a_n} \right)^{-5/6},
\label{Phi_fine5}\\
|\Phi_n^{a,b}(j,k)| &\le a_n^{-11/12}b_n^{-1/4}\left(\frac{k-1}{b_n} -\frac j {a_n} \right)^{-5/6}.
\label{Phi_fine6}
\end{align}
If $ \frac{k - 1}{b_n} < \frac{j - 1}{a_n}$ and $ \frac j{a_n} < \frac k{b_n}$,
then
\begin{equation}\label{Phi_fine7}
|\Phi_n^{a,b}(j,k)| \le \frac13\,a_n^{-1}
\left({\left({\frac k{b_n} - \frac j{a_n}}\right)^{-2/3}
+ \left({\frac{j - 1}{a_n} - \frac{k - 1}{b_n}}\right)^{-2/3}
}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{The function $f_L$}\label{S:fmL}
An important function in our analysis is constructed as follows. If $m\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $L\in(0,\infty)$, define $f_{m,L}\in C[0,1]$ by
\begin{equation}\label{f_def}
\begin{split}
f_{m,L}(x) &= 8(E[(B(x + 1) - B(x))(B(m + L) - B(m))])^3\\
&= \Phi(x, x + 1, m, m + L)^3\\
&= (|x - m + 1|^{1/3} + |x - m - L|^{1/3}
- |x - m|^{1/3} - |x - m + 1 - L|^{1/3})^3.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Although $f_{m,L}(x)$ is defined only for $x\in[0,1]$, the above formula for $\Phi(x, x + 1, m, m + L)^3$ can be extended to all $x$ using \eqref{Phi_translation}. We have
\begin{equation}\label{Phi-f_relation}
\Phi(x, x + 1, m, m + L)^3
= f_{m - \flr{x}, L}(x - \flr{x}),
\end{equation}
for any $m\in\mathbb{Z}$, $L\in(0,\infty)$, and $x\in\mathbb{R}$. Note that by \eqref{basic_est},
\begin{equation}\label{f_basic}
\|f_{m,L}\|_\infty \le 8,
\end{equation}
for any $m\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $L\in(0,\infty)$. Also, by \eqref{Phi}, \eqref{Phi_scaling}, \eqref{Phi_swap}, and \eqref{Phi-f_relation},
\begin{multline}\label{Phinfrel}
\Phi_n^{a,b}(j,k)^3
= \frac1{b_n}\Phi((j - 1)L_n, jL_n, k - 1, k)^3\\
= \frac1{b_n}\Phi(jL_n, jL_n + 1, k, k + L_n)^3
= \frac1{b_n}f_{k - \flr{jL_n},L_n}(jL_n - \flr{jL_n}).
\end{multline}
\begin{lemma}\label{L:fkLconv}
The series $\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}f_{m,L}$ is absolutely convergent in $C[0,1]$ with the uniform norm.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof.} Fix $L\in(0,\infty)$. Let $m\in\mathbb{Z}$ with $m<-L$. Then for any $x\in[0,1]$, we have $m < m+L < x<x+1$. Hence, by \eqref{fine_est3},
\begin{multline*}
|f_{m,L}(x)| = |\Phi(x,x+1,m,m+L)|^3\\
\le L^{3/4}(x - m - L)^{-5/2}
\le L^{3/4}(- m - L)^{-5/2}
= L^{3/4}|m + L|^{-5/2}.
\end{multline*}
Thus, $\|f_{m,L}\|_\infty\le L^{3/4}|m + L
|^{-5/2}$.
Next, let $m\in\mathbb{Z}$ with $m>2$. Then for any $x\in[0,1]$, we have $x<x+1<m<m+L$. Hence, by \eqref{Phi_symmetry} and \eqref{fine_est2},
\[
|f_{m,L}(x)| = |\Phi(x,x+1,m,m+L)|^3
\le L^{3/4}(m - x - 1)^{-5/2}
\le L^{3/4}|m - 2|^{-5/2}.
\]
Thus, $\|f_{m,L}\|_\infty\le L^{3/4}|m - 2|^{-5/2}$.
Therefore, using \eqref{f_basic},
\[
\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}\|f_{m,L}\|_\infty
\le L^{3/4}\sum_{m=-\infty}^{\ceil{-L}-1}|m + L|^{-5/2}
+ 8(3 - \ceil{-L})
+ L^{3/4}\sum_{m=3}^\infty |m - 2|^{-5/2} < \infty,
\]
which shows that the series is absolutely convergent. \hfill $\Box$
\medskip
By Lemma \ref{L:fkLconv}, we may define $f_L=\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}f_{m,L} \in C[0,1]$. Let us also define $\widehat f_{m,L}:\mathbb{R} \to\mathbb{R}$ by $\widehat f_{m,L}(x)=f_{m,L}(x-\flr{x})$ and $\widehat f_L:\mathbb{R} \to\mathbb{R}$ by $\widehat f_L(x) =f_L(x-\flr{x})$. By Lemma \ref{L:fkLconv}, $\widehat f_L=\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}\widehat f_{m,L}$, and this series is absolutely and uniformly convergent on all of $\mathbb{R}$.
In Lemma \ref{L:f_misc}, we catalog several properties of these functions that we will need later.
\begin{lemma}\label{L:f_misc}
The following relations hold:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $|f_{m,L}(x) - f_{m,L'}(x)| \le 24|L - L'|^{1/3}$ for all $m$, $L$, $L'$ and $x$,
\item if $L\in\mathbb{N}$, then $f_L(x)=f_L(1-x)$ for all $x$,
\item $f_1(1/2) < 0.1$, and
\item $f_1(0) > 6.6$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof.} Let $m\in\mathbb{Z}$, $L,L'\in(0,\infty)$, and $x\in[0,1]$. By \eqref{f_basic}, we have
\begin{multline*}
\left|f_{m,L}(x) - f_{m,L'}(x)\right|\\
= \left|f_{m,L}(x)^{1/3} - f_{m,L'}(x)^{1/3}\right|
\cdot \left|f_{m,L}(x)^{2/3} + f_{m,L}(x)^{1/3}f_{m,L'}(x)^{1/3}
+ f_{m,L'}(x)^{2/3}\right|\\
\le 12\left|f_{m,L}(x)^{1/3} - f_{m,L'}(x)^{1/3}\right|.
\end{multline*}
Also, by \eqref{f_def} and \eqref{algebra},
\begin{multline*}
|f_{m,L}(x)^{1/3} - f_{m,L'}(x)^{1/3}|\\
= ||x - m - L'|^{1/3} - |x - m - L|^{1/3}
- |x - m + 1 - L'|^{1/3} + |x - m + 1 - L|^{1/3}|\\
\le 2|L - L'|^{1/3}.
\end{multline*}
Hence,
\[
|f_{m,L}(x) - f_{m,L'}(x)| \le 24|L - L'|^{1/3},
\]
and this proves (i).
For (ii), let $L\in\mathbb{N}$. For each $m\in\mathbb{Z}$, define $\widetilde m=2-L-m$. Then, for all $x\in[0,1]$,
\begin{align*}
f_{m,L}(1 - x) &= (|x + m - 2|^{1/3} + |x + m + L - 1|^{1/3}
- |x + m - 1|^{1/3} - |x + m - 2 + L|^{1/3})^3\\
&= (|x - \widetilde m - L|^{1/3} + |x - \widetilde m + 1|^{1/3}
- |x - \widetilde m - L + 1|^{1/3} - |x - \widetilde m|^{1/3})^3\\
&= f_{\widetilde m,L}(x).
\end{align*}
Since $f_L=\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}f_{m,L}$ and $m\mapsto\widetilde m$ is a bijection from $\mathbb{Z}$ to $\mathbb{Z}$, this proves (ii).
By \eqref{f_def}, \eqref{int_rep1}, and \eqref{fine_est1}, if $m <x-1$, then $f_{m,1}(x)<0$ and $|f_{m,1}(x)| \le \frac29(x-m-1)^{-5}$. Similarly, using \eqref{Phi_symmetry}, \eqref{int_rep1}, and \eqref{fine_est1}, if $m>x+1$, then $f_{m,1}(x) <0$ and $|f_{m,1}(x)| \le \frac29(m-x-1)^{-5}$. It follows that
\[
f_1(1/2) = \sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}f_{m,1}(1/2)
< f_{0,1}(1/2) + f_{1,1}(1/2)
= (3^{1/3} - 1)^3.
\]
Since $3<24389/8000=(29/20)^3$, this gives $f_1(1/2) < (9/20)^3 = 729/8000<0.1$, proving (iii).
It also follows that
\begin{align*}
f_1(0) &= \sum_{m=-1}^1 f_{m,1}(0)
- \sum_{\substack{m\in\mathbb{Z}\\|m|\ge2}} |f_{m,1}(0)|\\
&= 8 - 2(2 - 2^{1/3})^3
- \sum_{\substack{m\in\mathbb{Z}\\|m|\ge2}} |f_{m,1}(0)|\\
&\ge 8 - 2(2 - 2^{1/3})^3
- \frac29\sum_{\substack{m\in\mathbb{Z}\\|m|\ge2}} ||m| - 1|^{-5}\\
&= 8 - 2(2 - 2^{1/3})^3
- \frac49\sum_{m=1}^\infty m^{-5}.
\end{align*}
By Lemma \ref{L:numeric},
\[
\sum_{m=1}^\infty m^{-5} = 1 + \sum_{m=2}^\infty m^{-5}
\le \frac54.
\]
Thus, since $2>125/64=(5/4)^3$, we have
\[
f_1(0) > \frac{67}9 - 2\left({2 - \frac54}\right)^3
= \frac{1901}{288} > \frac{1900.8}{288}
= 6.6,
\]
and this proves (iv). \hfill $\Box$
\subsection{Convergence in law of random vectors in a fixed Wiener chaos}
We denote by $\mathcal{H}(B)$ the closed linear subspace of $L^2(\Omega)$ generated by the family of random variables $\{B(t), t\ge 0\}$. For each integer $q\ge 1$, we denote by $\mathcal{H}_q$ the $q$-Wiener chaos defined as the subspace of $L^2(\Omega)$ spanned by the random variables $\{h_q(F), F\in \mathcal{H}(B), E(F^2)=1\}$, where
\[
h_q(x) = (-1)^q e^{x^2/2}\frac {d^q}{dx^q}(e^{-x^2/2})
\]
is the $q$th Hermite polynomial. Notice that $\mathcal{H}_1 =\mathcal{H}(B)$.
We finish this section with a result on the convergence of vectors whose components belong to a fixed Wiener chaos (see Theorem 6.2.3 in \cite{NuPe}).
\begin{thm} \label{NuPe}
Let $d\ge 2$ and $q_1, \dots, q_d \ge 1$ be some fixed integers. Consider the sequence of vectors
$F_n=(F_{1,n}, \dots, F_{d,n})$, where for each $i=1,\dots, d$, each component $F_{i,n}$ belongs to the Wiener chaos $\mathcal{H}_{q_i}$. Suppose that
\[
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} E[F_{i,n} F_{j,n}]=C(i,j), \quad 1\le i,j \le d,
\]
where $C$ is a symmetric non-negative definite matrix. Then, the following two conditions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $F_n$ converges in law to a $d$-dimensional Gaussian distribution $N(0,C)$.
\item[(ii)] For each $1\le i \le d$, $F_{i,n}$ converges in law to $N(0,C(i,i))$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\section{Main results and proofs}
Recall from Section \ref{S:prelim} that $W_n(t) = \sum_{j=1}^{\flr{nt}} \Delta B_j^3$, and that $(B,W_n)\Rightarrow(B,\kappa W)$, where $W$ is a Brownian motion. We wish to investigate the joint convergence in law of $(B, W_{a_n}, W_{b_n})$, where $\{W_{a_n}\}$ and $\{W_{b_n}\}$ are two different subsequences of $\{W_n\}$. Our first theorem, Theorem \ref{T:main1}, reduces this to an investigation of the asymptotic covariance.
\begin{thm}\label{T:main1}
Let $\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ and $\{b_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ be strictly increasing sequences in $\mathbb{N}$. Let $\rho\in C[0,\infty)$, and suppose that
\begin{equation}\label{main1}
\lim_{n\to\infty}E[W_{a_n}(s)W_{b_n}(t)]
= \int_0^{s\wedge t}\rho(x)\,dx,
\end{equation}
for all $0\le s,t<\infty$. Then $\|\rho\|_\infty\le\kappa^2$, and we may define
\begin{equation}\label{main1a}
\sigma(t) = \kappa\begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt{1 - |\kappa^{-2}\rho(t)|^2} &\kappa^{-2}\rho(t)\\
0 &1
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Let $W$ be a standard, 2-dimensional Brownian motion, independent of $B$, and define
\begin{equation}\label{main1b}
X^\rho(t) = \int_0^t \sigma(s)\,dW(s).
\end{equation}
Then $(B,W_{a_n},W_{b_n})\to(B,X^\rho)$ in law in $D_{\mathbb{R}^3}[0,
\infty)$ as $n\to\infty$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rmk}
We know from \cite{NualartOrtiz2008} that $E|W_n(t)-W_n(s)|^2\to\kappa^2|t-s|$. Thus, if \eqref{main1} is satisfied for some continuous $\rho$, then by H\"older's inequality,
\[
\int_s^t\rho(x)\,dx = \lim_{n\to\infty}
E[(W_{a_n}(t) - W_{a_n}(s))(W_{b_n}(t) - W_{b_n}(s))]
\le \kappa^2(t - s),
\]
for all $s<t$. Since $\rho$ is continuous, this implies $\|\rho\|_{\infty}\le \kappa^2$, so that $\sigma(t)$ is well-defined by \eqref{main1a}. \hfill $\Box$
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}\label{R:main}
For any $j=1,\dots, n$, the random variable $\Delta B_j^3$ can be expressed as
\[
\Delta B_j^3= n^{-1/2}h_3(n^{1/6} \Delta B_j) + 3 n^{-1/3} \Delta B_j,
\]
where $h_3(x)= x^3-3x$ is the third Hermite polynomial. Define
\begin{equation} \label{wt}
\widetilde W_n(t)=W_n(t)-3n^{-1/3}B(\flr{nt}/n)=\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{nt}} n^{-1/2}h_3(n^{1/6}\Delta B_j).
\end{equation}
Then, for any $p\ge 2$ and any $t\ge 0$,
\begin{equation} \label{lim}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \sup_{0\le s \le t}E[| \widetilde W_n(s)-W_n(s)|^p]=0.
\end{equation}
\hfill $\Box$
\end{rmk}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{T:main1}.} Taking into account (\ref{lim}), it suffices to establish the desired limit theorem for the sequence of processes $X_n= (X^1_n, X^2_n, X^3_n) := (B, \widetilde W_{a_n}, \widetilde W_{b_n})$.
We know (see, for instance, \cite{NualartOrtiz2008}) that this sequence is tight in $(D_{\mathbb{R}}[0,\infty))^3$. It is well-known (see Lemma 2.2 in \cite{Nourdin2010}, for example) that since the limit processes are continuous, this implies the sequence is tight in $D_{\mathbb{R}^3} [0,\infty)$. Thus to show the convergence in law it suffices to establish the convergence in law of the finite dimensional distributions. Consider a finite set of times $0\le t_1 <t_2< \cdots <t_M$ and the $3M$-dimensional random vector $ (X_n(t_1), \dots, X_n(t_M))$. This sequence of vectors satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The components $X_n^i(t_j)$, $1\le i\le 3$, $1\le j \le M$, belong to the third Wiener chaos if $i=2,3$ and to the first Wiener chaos if $i=1$.
\item The first component $X_n^1(t_j)=B(t_j)$ is Gaussian with a fixed law.
On the other hand, we know from \cite{NualartOrtiz2008} that the other two components $X_n^2(t_j)= \widetilde W_{a_n}(t_j)$ and $X_n^3(t_j)= \widetilde W_{b_n}(t_j)$ converge in law as $n$ tends to infinity to a Gaussian distribution with variance $\kappa^2 t_j$, which coincides with the common law of $X^{\rho,1}(t_j)$ and $X^{\rho,2}(t_j)$.
\end{enumerate}
Set $X=(B, X^{\rho,1}, X^{\rho,2})$. Then, by Theorem \ref{NuPe}, in order to show that
\[
(X_n(t_1), \dots, X_n(t_M)) \Rightarrow (X(t_1), \dots, X(t_M)),
\]
it suffices to show that for any $i\not =k$ and for any $s,t \ge 0$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq1}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} E[X_n^i(s) X_n^k(t)]=E[X^i(s)X^k(t)].
\end{equation}
If $i=1$ and $k=2,3$, then $E[X^i(s)X^k(t)]=0$ and (\ref{eq1}) has been proved in \cite{NualartOrtiz2008}. For $i=2$ and $k=3$, then, taking into account (\ref{lim}) and using our assumption (\ref{main1}) we obtain
\[
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} E[X_n^2(s) X_n^3(t)]=
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} E[W_{a_n}(s)W_{b_n}(t)]=
\int_0^{s\wedge t} \rho(u) du = E[X^2(s)X^3(t)],
\]
and the proof is complete.
\hfill $\Box$
\medskip
Our first main result concerns the simplest of the situations we consider, where $\{W_{a_n}\}$ and $\{W_{b_n}\}$ are subsequences such that $b_n/a_n$ converges to either $0$ or $\infty$.
\begin{thm}\label{T:main2'}
Let $\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ and $\{b_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ be strictly increasing sequences in $\mathbb{N}$. Let $L_n=b_n/a_n$ and suppose that $L_n\to L\in\{0,\infty\}$. Then
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}
E[(W_{a_n}(t) - W_{a_n}(s))(W_{b_n}(t) - W_{b_n}(s))] = 0,
\]
for all $0\le s\le t$.
\end{thm}
\noindent{\bf Proof.}
From (\ref{lim}), it suffices to show that
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}
E[(\widetilde W_{a_n}(t) - \widetilde W_{a_n}(s))
(\widetilde W_{b_n}(t) - \widetilde W_{b_n}(s))] = 0,
\]
where $\widetilde W$ has been defined in (\ref{wt}). By interchanging the roles of $\{a_n\}$ and $\{b_n\}$ if necessary, we may assume that $L=0$. Fix $0\le s\le t$ and note that
\begin{align*}
E[(\widetilde W_{a_n}(t) - \widetilde W_{a_n}(s))&(\widetilde W_{b_n}(t) - \widetilde W_{b_n}(s))]\\
&= \sum_{j=\flr{a_ns}+1}^{\flr{a_nt}}\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+1}^{\flr{b_nt}}
n^{-1}E[h_3(n^{1/6}\Delta B_{j,a_n})h_3(n^{1/6}\Delta B_{k,b_n})]\\
&= \sum_{j=\flr{a_ns}+1}^{\flr{a_nt}}\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+1}^{\flr{b_nt}}
n^{-1}3!(E[n^{1/6}\Delta B_{j,a_n}n^{1/6}\Delta B_{k,b_n}])^3\\
&= 3!\sum_{j=\flr{a_ns}+1}^{\flr{a_nt}}\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+1}^{\flr{b_nt}}
(E[\Delta B_{j,a_n}\Delta B_{k,b_n}])^3\\
&= \frac34\sum_{j=\flr{a_ns}+1}^{\flr{a_nt}}\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+1}^{\flr{b_nt}}
\Phi_n(j,k)^3,
\end{align*}
where $\Phi_n(j,k)=\Phi_n^{a,b}(j,k)$ has been introduced in (\ref{Phi}). Note that in the second equality above, we have used the fact that if $X$ and $Y$ are jointly Gaussian, each with mean zero and variance one, then $E[h_q(X)h_q(Y)]=q!(E[XY])^q$. See \cite[Lemma 1.1.1]{Nualart2006}.
Define
\[
S_n := \frac34\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_nt}}\sum_{k=1}^{\flr{b_nt}}
|\Phi_n(j,k)|^3
\ge |E[(\widetilde W_{a_n}(t) - \widetilde W_{a_n}(s))
(\widetilde W_{b_n}(t) - \widetilde W_{b_n}(s))]|,
\]
so that it will suffice to show that $S_n\to0$ as $n\to\infty$.
For each fixed $k\in\{1,\ldots,\flr{b_nt}\}$, consider the following sets of indices:
\begin{align*}
A^k_1 &= \left\{1 \le j \le \flr{a_nt}:
\frac{j-1}{a_n} \le \frac{k-1}{b_n}\right\},\\
A^k_2 &= \left\{1 \le j \le \flr{a_nt}:
\frac{k-1}{b_n} < \frac{j-1}{a_n} < \frac j{a_n} < \frac k{b_n}\right\},\\
A^k_3 &= \left\{1 \le j \le \flr{a_nt}:
\frac k{b_n} \le \frac j{a_n}\right\}.
\end{align*}
It is easily verified that $\bigcup_\ell A^k_\ell=\{1,\ldots,\flr{a_nt}\}$, $A^k_1\cap A^k_2=\emptyset$, and $A^k_2\cap A^k_3=\emptyset$. Also, if $L_n<1$, then $A^k_1\cap A^k_3=\emptyset$. Thus, for $n$ sufficiently large, $\{A^k_1, A^k_2, A^k_3\}$ is a partition of $\{1,\ldots,\flr{a_nt}\}$, and we may write
\[
S_n = S_n^{(1)} + S_n^{(2)} + S_n^{(3)},
\]
where
\[
S_n^{(i)} = \sum_{k=1}^{\flr{b_nt}}\sum_{j\in A_i}|\Phi_n(j,k)|^3.
\]
Note that $(j-1)/a_n\le(k-1)/b_n$ if and only if $j\le\flr{(k-1)/L_n}+1$, and $j/a_n<(k-1)/b_n$ if and only if $j<\ceil{(k-1)/L_n}$. Also note that for $n$ sufficiently large, $\flr{(k-1)/L_n}+1\le\flr{a_nt}$. Thus, by \eqref{eq2} and \eqref{Phi_fine6},
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j\in A_1}|\Phi_n(j,k)|^3
&= \sum_{j=1}^{\ceil{(k-1)/L_n}-3}|\Phi_n(j,k)|^3
+ \sum_{j=\ceil{(k-1)/L_n}-2}^{\flr{(k-1)/L_n}+1}|\Phi_n(j,k)|^3\\
&\le \sum_{j=1}^{\ceil{(k-1)/L_n}-3}
a_n^{-11/4}b_n^{-3/4}\left({
\frac{k-1}{b_n} - \frac j{a_n}}\right)^{-5/2}
+ 32(a_n^{-1}\wedge b_n^{-1})\\
&\le a_n^{-1/4}b_n^{-3/4}\sum_{j=1}^{\ceil{(k-1)/L_n}-3}
\left({\frac{k-1}{L_n} - j}\right)^{-5/2}
+ 32a_n^{-1}.
\end{align*}
Using Lemma \ref{L:numeric}, we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j\in A_1}|\Phi_n(j,k)|^3
&\le \frac23a_n^{-1/4}b_n^{-3/4}\left({
\frac{k-1}{L_n} - \ceil{\frac{k-1}{L_n}} + 2}\right)^{-3/2}
+ 32a_n^{-1}\\
&\le \frac23a_n^{-1/4}b_n^{-3/4} + 32a_n^{-1},
\end{align*}
giving
\[
0 \le S_n^{(1)} \le b_nt\left({
\frac23a_n^{-1/4}b_n^{-3/4} + 32a_n^{-1}}\right)
\le t\left({\frac23L_n^{1/4} + 32L_n}\right)
\to 0,
\]
as $n\to\infty$.
For $S_n^{(3)}$, note that $k/b_n\le j/a_n$ if and only if $\ceil{k/L_n}\le j$. Also, $k/b_n<(j-1)/a_n$ if and only if $j>\flr{k/L_n}+1$. Since $\Phi_n^{a,b}(j,k) =\Phi_n^{b,a}(k,j)$, we apply \eqref{Phi_fine5} with $j,k$ and $a,b$ interchanged. Using also \eqref{eq2}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j\in A_3}|\Phi_n(j,k)|^3
&= \sum_{j=\ceil{k/L_n}}^{\flr{k/L_n}+3}|\Phi_n(j,k)|^3
+ \sum_{j=\flr{k/L_n}+4}^{\flr{a_nt}}|\Phi_n(j,k)|^3\\
&\le 32(a_n^{-1}\wedge b_n^{-1})
+ \sum_{j=\flr{k/L_n}+4}^{\flr{a_nt}}
a_n^{-11/4}b_n^{-3/4}\left({
\frac{j-1}{a_n} - \frac k{b_n}}\right)^{-5/2}\\
&\le 32a_n^{-1}
+ a_n^{-1/4}b_n^{-3/4}\sum_{j=\flr{k/L_n}+4}^{\flr{a_nt}}
\left({j - 1 - \frac k{L_n}}\right)^{-5/2}.
\end{align*}
By Lemma \ref{L:numeric}, we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j\in A_3}|\Phi_n(j,k)|^3
&\le 32a_n^{-1}
+ \frac23a_n^{-1/4}b_n^{-3/4}\left({
\flr{\frac k{L_n}} + 2 - \frac k{L_n}}\right)^{-3/2}\\
&\le 32a_n^{-1} + \frac23a_n^{-1/4}b_n^{-3/4},
\end{align*}
giving, as above, $S_n^{(3)}\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$.
Finally, for $S_n^{(2)}$, note that for sufficiently large $n$, we have $L_n < 1$, which implies $b_n^{-1} - a_n^{-1}>0$, giving
\[
\left({\frac k{b_n} - \frac j{a_n}}\right)^{-2/3}
< \left({\frac {k-1}{b_n} - \frac {j-1}{a_n}}\right)^{-2/3}
= \left({\frac {j-1}{a_n} - \frac {k-1}{b_n}}\right)^{-2/3}.
\]
Hence, by \eqref{Phi_fine7},
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j\in A_2}|\Phi_n(j,k)|^3
&= \sum_{j=\flr{(k-1)/L_n}+2}^{\ceil{k/L_n}-1}|\Phi_n(j,k)|^3\\
&\le 16(a_n^{-1}\wedge b_n^{-1})
+ \frac8{27}a_n^{-3}\sum_{j=\flr{(k-1)/L_n}+4}^{\ceil{k/L_n}-1}
\left({\frac {j-1}{a_n} - \frac {k-1}{b_n}}\right)^{-2}\\
&\le 16a_n^{-1}
+ a_n^{-1}\sum_{j=\flr{(k-1)/L_n}+4}^{\ceil{k/L_n}-1}
\left({j - 1 - \frac{k-1}{L_n}}\right)^{-2}.
\end{align*}
By Lemma \ref{L:numeric}, we have
\[
\sum_{j\in A_2}|\Phi_n(j,k)|^3
\le 16a_n^{-1} + a_n^{-1}\left({
\flr{\frac{k-1}{L_n}} + 2 - \frac{k-1}{L_n}}\right)^{-1}
\le 17a_n^{-1},
\]
giving, as above, $S_n^{(2)}\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$. \hfill $\Box$
\medskip
To use Theorem \ref{T:main1}, we must verify hypothesis \eqref{main1}. Our next lemma, Lemma \ref{L:main1}, simplifies this task, allowing us to check \eqref{main1} only when $s=t$.
\begin{lemma}\label{L:main1}
Let $\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ and $\{b_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ be strictly increasing sequences in $\mathbb{N}$. Let $L_n=b_n/a_n$ and suppose that $L_n\to L\in[0,\infty]$. Then
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}E[W_{a_n}(s)(W_{b_n}(t) - W_{b_n}(s))]
= \lim_{n\to\infty}E[(W_{a_n}(t) - W_{a_n}(s))W_{b_n}(s)] = 0,
\]
for any $0\le s<t$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof.} By interchanging the roles of $\{a_n\}$ and $\{b_n\}$ if necessary, we may assume that $L_n\to L\in(0,\infty]$. From (\ref{lim}), it suffices to show
\begin{equation}\label{E:main1.01}
\lim_{n\to\infty}E[\widetilde W_{a_n}(s)(\widetilde W_{b_n}(t) - \widetilde W_{b_n}(s))] = 0,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{E:main1.02}
\lim_{n\to\infty}E[(\widetilde W_{a_n}(t) - \widetilde W_{a_n}(s))\widetilde W_{b_n}(s)] = 0,
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde W$ has been defined in (\ref{wt}). We begin by proving \eqref{E:main1.01}.
As in the proof of Theorem \ref{T:main2'}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{main1.4}
E[\widetilde W_{a_n}(s)(\widetilde W_{b_n}(t) - \widetilde W_{b_n}(s))]
= \frac34\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_ns}}\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+1}^{\flr{b_nt}}
\Phi_n(j,k)^3.
\end{equation}
We claim that for all $i\ge0$,
\begin{equation}\label{main1.3}
\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+1}^{\flr{b_nt}}
\Phi_n(\flr{a_ns}-i,k)^3 \to 0,
\end{equation}
as $n\to\infty$. By \eqref{eq2}, it is enough to show that
\[
\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+3}^{\flr{b_nt}}
\Phi_n(\flr{a_ns}-i,k)^3 \to 0.
\]
For this, fix $n$ and let $j=\flr{a_ns}-i$. Note that since $\flr{x}\le x<\flr{x}+1$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{main1.2}
\frac j{a_n} \le \frac{a_ns - i}{a_n} \le s = \frac{b_ns}{b_n}
< \frac{\flr{b_ns} + 1}{b_n} \le \frac{k - 2}{b_n},
\end{equation}
for any $k\ge\flr{b_ns}+3$. Hence, by \eqref{Phi_fine5} we have
\begin{equation}\label{main1.6}
|\Phi_n(j,k)| \le a_n^{-1/4}b_n^{-11/12}
\left({\frac{k - 1}{b_n} - \frac j{a_n}}\right)^{-5/6}.
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{main1.2}, this gives
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+3}^{\flr{b_nt}}
|\Phi_n(\flr{a_ns}-i,k)|^3
&\le a_n^{-3/4}b_n^{-11/4}\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+3}^{\flr{b_nt}}
\left({\frac{k - 1}{b_n}
- \frac{\flr{b_ns} + 1}{b_n}}\right)^{-5/2}\\
&= a_n^{-3/4}b_n^{-1/4}\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+3}^{\flr{b_nt}}
(k - \flr{b_ns} - 2)^{-5/2}\\
&\le a_n^{-3/4}b_n^{-1/4}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} k^{-5/2}
\to 0,
\end{align*}
as $n\to\infty$, and this prove \eqref{main1.3}.
Now, since $b_n/a_n\to L\in(0,\infty]$, there exists an integer $\ell\ge 2$ such that $b_n/a_n\ge1/(\ell-1)$ for all $n$. We next claim that for all $i\ge0$,
\begin{equation}\label{main1.5}
\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_ns}-\ell}
\Phi_n(j,\flr{b_ns}+i)^3 \to 0,
\end{equation}
as $n\to\infty$. Again, fix $n$ and let $k=\flr{b_ns}+i$. Then, for all $j\le\flr{a_ns}-\ell$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{main1.7}
\frac j{a_n} < \frac{\flr{a_ns} - \ell + 1}{a_n}
\le s - \frac{\ell - 1}{a_n} \le s - \frac1{b_n}
= \frac{b_ns - 1}{b_n} < \frac{\flr{b_ns}}{b_n}
= \frac{k - i}{b_n} \le \frac{k - 1}{b_n}.
\end{equation}
Since $j/a_n<(k-1)/b_n$, from \eqref{Phi_fine6} we conclude
\[
|\Phi_n(j,k)| \le a_n^{-11/12}b_n^{-1/4}
\left({\frac{k - 1}{b_n} - \frac j{a_n}}\right)^{-5/6}.
\]
Using \eqref{main1.7}, this gives
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_ns}-\ell} |\Phi_n(j,\flr{b_ns}+i)|^3
&\le a_n^{-11/4}b_n^{-3/4}\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_ns}-\ell}
\left({\frac{\flr{a_ns} - \ell + 1}{a_n}
- \frac j{a_n}}\right)^{-5/2}\\
&= a_n^{-1/4}b_n^{-3/4}\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_ns}-\ell}
(\flr{a_ns} - \ell + 1 - j)^{-5/2}\\
&\le a_n^{-1/4}b_n^{-3/4}\sum_{j=1}^\infty j^{-5/2}
\to 0,
\end{align*}
as $n\to\infty$, and this proves \eqref{main1.5}.
Finally, \eqref{E:main1.01} will be proved once we show that the double sum in \eqref{main1.4} converges to zero. Let us write
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_ns}}
\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+1}^{\flr{b_nt}} \Phi_n(j,k)^3
&= \sum_{i=0}^{\ell-1}\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+1}^{\flr{b_nt}}
\Phi_n(\flr{a_ns}-i,k)^3
+ \sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_ns}-\ell}
\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+1}^{\flr{b_nt}} \Phi_n(j,k)^3\\
&= \sum_{i=0}^{\ell-1}\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+1}^{\flr{b_nt}}
\Phi_n(\flr{a_ns}-i,k)^3
+ \sum_{i=1}^3\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_ns}-\ell}
\Phi_n(j,\flr{b_ns}+i)^3\\
&\qquad + \sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_ns}-\ell}
\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+4}^{\flr{b_nt}} \Phi_n(j,k)^3.
\end{align*}
By \eqref{main1.3} and \eqref{main1.5}, the first two double sums above converge to zero. Hence, it will suffice to show that
\[
\varepsilon_n := \sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_ns}-\ell}
\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+4}^{\flr{b_nt}} \Phi_n(j,k)^3 \to 0,
\]
as $n\to\infty$.
As before, for all $j\le\flr{a_ns}-\ell$ and all $k\ge\flr{b_ns}+4$, we have
\[
\frac j{a_n} \le s - \frac\ell{a_n} < \frac{b_ns - 1}{b_n}
\le \frac{\flr{b_ns}}{b_n} \le \frac{k - 4}{b_n},
\]
and the estimate (\ref{Phi_fine4}) implies
\[
|\Phi_n(j,k)| \le \frac29a_n^{-1}b_n^{-1}
\left({\frac{k-1}{b_n} - \frac j{a_n}}\right)^{-5/3},
\]
so that
\begin{align*}
|\varepsilon_n| &\le a_n^{-3}b_n^{-3}\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_ns}-\ell}
\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+4}^{\flr{b_nt}}
\left({\frac{k-1}{b_n} - \frac j{a_n}}\right)^{-5}\\
&= a_n^2b_n^{-3}\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+4}^{\flr{b_nt}}
\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_ns}-\ell}
\left({\frac{(k-1)a_n}{b_n} - j}\right)^{-5}.
\end{align*}
To apply Lemma \ref{L:numeric}, we check that
\[
\flr{a_ns} - \ell + 1 < a_ns + \frac{a_n}{b_n}
= \frac{(b_ns + 1)a_n}{b_n}
< \frac{(\flr{b_ns} + 2)a_n}{b_n}
< \frac{(k - 1)a_n}{b_n}.
\]
Thus,
\begin{align*}
|\varepsilon_n| &\le a_n^2b_n^{-3}\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+4}^{\flr{b_nt}}
\left({\frac{(k-1)a_n}{b_n}
- (\flr{a_ns} - \ell + 1)}\right)^{-4}\\
&= a_n^{-2}b_n\sum_{k=\flr{b_ns}+4}^{\flr{b_nt}}\left({k - 1
- \frac{(\flr{a_ns} - \ell + 1)b_n}{a_n}}\right)^{-4}.
\end{align*}
To apply Lemma \ref{L:numeric} once again, we check that
\[
1 + \frac{(\flr{a_ns} - \ell + 1)b_n}{a_n}
< 1 + \frac{\flr{a_ns}b_n}{a_n}
\le 1 + b_ns < \flr{b_ns} + 3,
\]
so that
\begin{align*}
|\varepsilon_n| &\le a_n^{-2}b_n\left({\flr{b_ns} + 2
- \frac{(\flr{a_ns} - \ell + 1)b_n}{a_n}}\right)^{-3}\\
&= a_n^{-2}b_n^{-2}\left({\frac{\flr{b_ns} + 2}{b_n}
- \frac{\flr{a_ns} - \ell + 1}{a_n}}\right)^{-3}.
\end{align*}
Recalling that $\ell\ge 2$, this gives
\[
|\varepsilon_n| < a_n^{-2}b_n^{-2}\left({\frac{b_ns + 1}{b_n}
- \frac{a_ns - 1}{a_n}}\right)^{-3}
= a_n^{-2}b_n^{-2}\left({\frac1{a_n} + \frac1{b_n}}\right)^{-3}.
\]
Finally, by Lemma \ref{L:inequ}, we have
\[
|\varepsilon_n| \le a_n^{-2}b_n^{-2}\left({\frac1{a_n}}\right)^{-3/2}
\left({\frac1{b_n}}\right)^{-3/2}
= a_n^{-1/2}b_n^{-1/2} \to 0,
\]
as $n\to\infty$, and this concludes the proof of \eqref{E:main1.01}.
For \eqref{E:main1.02}, note that
\begin{multline*}
E[(\widetilde W_{a_n}(t) - \widetilde W_{a_n}(s))\widetilde W_{b_n}(s)]
= E[\widetilde W_{a_n}(t)\widetilde W_{b_n}(t)]
- E[\widetilde W_{a_n}(s)\widetilde W_{b_n}(s)]\\
- E[(\widetilde W_{a_n}(t) - \widetilde W_{a_n}(s))(\widetilde W_{b_n}(t) - \widetilde W_{b_n}(s))]
- E[\widetilde W_{a_n}(s)(\widetilde W_{b_n}(t) - \widetilde W_{b_n}(s))].
\end{multline*}
By Theorem \ref{T:main2'} and Remark \ref{R:main}, the first three expectations on the right-hand side tend to zero; and by \eqref{E:main1.01}, the fourth expectation on the right-hand side tends to zero. This proves \eqref{E:main1.02} and completes the proof of the lemma. \hfill $\Box$
\medskip
As a consequence of Theorem \ref{T:main1}, Lemma \ref{L:main1}, and Theorem \ref{T:main2'} we obtain the following limit result in the case $L\in \{0,\infty\}$.
\begin{cor}\label{C:main3'}
Let $\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ and $\{b_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ be strictly increasing sequences in $\mathbb{N}$. Let $L_n=b_n/a_n$ and suppose that $L_n\to L\in\{0,\infty\}$. Then $(B,W_{a_n},W_{b_n}) \to (B,\kappa W^1, \kappa W^2)$ in $D_{\mathbb{R}^3}[0,\infty)$ as $n\to\infty$, where $W^1$ and $W^2$ are independent, standard one-dimensional Brownian motions.
\end{cor}
When $\{W_{a_n}\}$ and $\{W_{b_n}\}$ are such that $b_n/a_n \to L \in(0,\infty)$, the situation is much more delicate than in Theorem \ref{T:main2'}. We show that the function $\rho(t)$ is non zero, and in some cases it is not constant.
\begin{thm}\label{T:main2}
Let $\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ and $\{b_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ be strictly increasing sequences in $\mathbb{N}$. Let $L_n=b_n/a_n$ and suppose that $L_n\to L\in(0,\infty)$. Let $I=\{n:L_n=L\}$ and $c_n=\gcd(a_n,b_n)$.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If $I^c$ is finite, then $L\in\mathbb{Q}$ and, for all $t\ge0$,
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}E[W_{a_n}(t)W_{b_n}(t)]
= \frac{3t}{4p}\sum_{j=1}^q f_L(j/q),
\]
where $L=p/q$ and $p,q\in\mathbb{N}$ are relatively prime.
\item If $I$ is finite, then
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}E[W_{a_n}(1)W_{b_n}(1)]
= \frac3{4L}\int_0^1 f_L(x)\,dx.
\]
\item If $I$ is finite and $c_n\to\infty$, then
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}E[W_{a_n}(t)W_{b_n}(t)]
= \frac{3t}{4L}\int_0^1 f_L(x)\,dx,
\]
for all $t\ge0$.
\item If there exists $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $b_n=k\mod a_n$ for all $n$, then
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}E[W_{a_n}(t)W_{b_n}(t)]
= \frac3{4L}\int_0^t \widehat f_L(kx)\,dx,
\]
for all $t\ge0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{rmk}
In Theorem \ref{T:main2} (iv), we assume that there exists $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $b_n=k\mod a_n$ for all $n$. Note that this implies $k/c_n$ is an integer for all $n$. In particular, $\{c_n\}$ is a bounded sequence of integers. Moreover, since $\{c_n\}$ is bounded, this implies that $I$ is finite. Comparing Parts (ii) and (iv) of Theorem \ref{T:main2}, it follows that
\[
\frac3{4L}\int_0^1 \widehat f_L(kx)\,dx
= \frac3{4L}\int_0^1 f_L(x)\,dx,
\]
for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$. In fact, more can be said. Letting $y=kx$, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac3{4L}\int_0^t \widehat f_L(kx)\,dx
&= \frac3{4Lk}\int_0^{kt} \widehat f_L(y)\,dy\\
&= \frac3{4Lk}\bigg(\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{kt}}
\int_{j-1}^j \widehat f_L(x)\,dx\bigg)
+ \int_{\flr{kt}}^{kt} \widehat f_L(x)\,dx\bigg)\\
&= \frac3{4Lk}\bigg(\flr{kt}\int_0^1 f_L(x)\,dx
+ \int_0^{kt-\flr{kt}} f_L(x)\,dx\bigg)\\
&= \frac3{4L}\bigg(\frac{\flr{kt}}k\int_0^1 f_L(x)\,dx
+ \frac1k\int_0^{kt-\flr{kt}} f_L(x)\,dx\bigg).
\end{align*}
Hence,
\[
\frac3{4L}\int_0^t \widehat f_L(kx)\,dx
= \frac{3t}{4L}\int_0^1 f_L(x)\,dx,
\]
whenever $kt\in\mathbb{N}$. \hfill $\Box$
\end{rmk}
\noindent \textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{T:main2}.} Let $\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ and $\{b_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ be strictly increasing sequences in $\mathbb{N}$. Let $L_n=b_n/a_n$ and suppose that $L_n\to L\in(0,\infty)$. Recall $\widetilde W_n(t)=W_n(t)-3n^{-1/3}B(\flr{nt}/n)$, and note that it will suffice to prove the corresponding limits for $\widetilde W$ rather than $W$.
Fix $t\in[0,1]$. Since $W_n(t)=0$ if $\flr{nt}=0$, we may assume $t>0$ and $n$ is sufficiently large so that $\flr{a_nt}>0$ and $\flr{b_nt}>0$. As in \eqref{main1.4}, we have
\[
S_n(t) := E[\widetilde W_{a_n}(t)\widetilde W_{b_n}(t)]
= \frac34\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_nt}}\sum_{k=1}^{\flr{b_nt}}
\Phi_n(j,k)^3.
\]
Making the change of index $m=k-\flr{jL_n}$, we then have
\[
S_n(t) = \frac34\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_nt}}
\sum_{m=1-\flr{jL_n}}^{\flr{b_nt}-\flr{jL_n}}
\Phi_n(j,m + \flr{jL_n})^3.
\]
Note that by \eqref{Phinfrel},
\begin{equation}\label{main2.2}
\Phi_n(j,m + \flr{jL_n})^3
= \frac1{b_n}f_{m,L_n}(jL_n - \flr{jL_n}).
\end{equation}
If $1\le j\le\flr{a_nt}$, then
\begin{align*}
m \le \flr{b_nt} - \flr{jL_n}
&\iff \flr{jL_n} < \flr{b_nt} - m + 1\\
&\iff jL_n < \flr{b_nt} - m + 1\\
&\iff j < \frac{\flr{b_nt} - m + 1}{L_n}\\
&\iff j < \ceil{\frac{\flr{b_nt} - m + 1}{L_n}},
\end{align*}
and also
\begin{align*}
m \ge 1 - \flr{jL_n} &\iff \flr{jL_n} \ge 1 - m\\
&\iff jL_n \ge 1 - m\\
&\iff j \ge \frac{1 - m}{L_n}\\
&\iff j \ge \ceil{\frac{1 - m}{L_n}}.
\end{align*}
Hence, when we reverse the order of summation, we obtain
\[
S_n(t) = \frac34\sum_{m=1-\flr{\flr{a_nt}L_n}}^{\flr{b_nt}-\flr{L_n}}
\sum_{j=\ell_{m,n}}^{u_{m,n}}
\Phi_n(j,m + \flr{jL_n})^3,
\]
where
\begin{align}
\ell_{m,n} &= \ceil{\frac{1 - m}{L_n}} \vee 1,\label{ell_def}\\
u_{m,n} &= \left({\ceil{\frac{\flr{b_nt} - m + 1}{L_n}} - 1}\right)
\wedge \flr{a_nt}.\label{u_def}
\end{align}
Let us define
\[
\beta(m,n) = \sum_{j=\ell_{m,n}}^{u_{m,n}}
\Phi_n(j,m + \flr{jL_n})^3,
\]
so that we may write
\[
S_n(t) = \frac34\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}
\beta(m,n){\bf 1}_{[1 - \flr{\flr{a_nt}L_n},\flr{b_nt} - \flr{L_n}]}(m).
\]
We wish to apply dominated convergence to this sum.
Choose an integer $M\ge2$ such that $L_n\le M$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Define
\[
C_m = \begin{cases}
8 &\text{if $|m| \le M$},\\
27(|m| - M)^{-3} &\text{if $|m| > M$}.
\end{cases}
\]
We claim that $|\beta(m,n)|\le C_mt$ for all $m$ and $n$. Once we prove this claim, we may use dominated convergence to conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{main2.1}
\lim_{n\to\infty} S_n(t) = \frac34\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\beta(m,n),
\end{equation}
provided the limit on the right-hand side exists for each fixed $m$.
To prove the claim, first note that $1\le\ell_{m,n}\le u_{m,n}\le \flr{a_nt}$, so that
\[
|\beta(m,n)| \le \sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_nt}}
|\Phi_n(j,m + \flr{jL_n})|^3.
\]
Thus, by \eqref{eq2}, we have $|\beta(m,n)| \le 8(a_n^{-1}\wedge b_n^{-1})\flr{a_nt} \le 8t$ for all $m$ and $n$. We therefore need only consider $|m|>M$.
First suppose $m>M$. Then
\[
\frac{m + \flr{jL_n} - 1}{b_n}
> \frac{m + jL_n - 2}{b_n}
> \frac{jL_n}{b_n} = \frac{j}{a_n}.
\]
Hence, by \eqref{Phi}, \eqref{Phi_symmetry}, and \eqref{int_rep1},
\begin{align*}
|\Phi_n(j,m + \flr{jL_n})|
&= \bigg|\frac29\int_0^{a_n^{-1}}\int_0^{b_n^{-1}}
\left({\frac{m + \flr{jL_n} - 1}{b_n} - \frac j{a_n}
+ x + y}\right)^{-5/3}\,dx\,dy\bigg|\\
&\le \int_0^{a_n^{-1}}\int_0^{b_n^{-1}}
\left({\frac{m + jL_n - 2}{b_n} - \frac j{a_n}
+ y}\right)^{-5/3}\,dx\,dy\\
&= \int_0^{a_n^{-1}}\int_0^{b_n^{-1}}
\left({\frac{m - 2}{b_n} + y}\right)^{-5/3}\,dx\,dy.
\end{align*}
By Lemma \ref{L:inequ},
\[
|\Phi_n(j,m + \flr{jL_n})|
\le \int_0^{a_n^{-1}}\int_0^{b_n^{-1}}
\left({\frac{m - 2}{b_n}}\right)^{-1}y^{-2/3}\,dx\,dy
= 3a_n^{-1/3}(m - 2)^{-1}.
\]
Thus, $|\beta(m,n)| \le 27a_n^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_nt}}(m - 2)^{-3}
\leq 27t(m - 2)^{-3} \le C_mt$.
Next, suppose $m<-M$. Then
\[
\frac{m + \flr{jL_n}}{b_n} \le \frac{m + jL_n}{b_n}
< \frac{-L_n + jL_n}{b_n} = \frac{j - 1}{a_n}.
\]
Hence, by \eqref{Phi} and \eqref{int_rep1},
\begin{align*}
|\Phi_n(j,m + \flr{jL_n})|
&= \bigg|\frac29\int_0^{a_n^{-1}}\int_0^{b_n^{-1}}
\left({\frac{j - 1}{a_n} - \frac{m + \flr{jL_n}}{b_n}
+ x + y}\right)^{-5/3}\,dx\,dy\bigg|\\
&\le \int_0^{a_n^{-1}}\int_0^{b_n^{-1}}
\left({\frac{j - 1}{a_n} - \frac{m + jL_n}{b_n}
+ y}\right)^{-5/3}\,dx\,dy\\
&= \int_0^{a_n^{-1}}\int_0^{b_n^{-1}}
\left({-\frac 1{a_n} - \frac m{b_n}
+ y}\right)^{-5/3}\,dx\,dy.
\end{align*}
By Lemma \ref{L:inequ},
\begin{multline*}
|\Phi_n(j,m + \flr{jL_n})|
\le \int_0^{a_n^{-1}}\int_0^{b_n^{-1}}
\left({-\frac 1{a_n} - \frac m{b_n}}\right)^{-1}
y^{-2/3}\,dx\,dy\\
= 3a_n^{-1/3}(-L_n - m)^{-1}
= 3a_n^{-1/3}(|m| - L_n)^{-1}
\le 3a_n^{-1/3}(|m| - M)^{-1}.
\end{multline*}
Thus, $|\beta(m,n)| \le 27a_n^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_nt}}(|m| - M)^{-3} \le C_mt$. This proves our claim and establishes \eqref{main2.1}, provided the limit on the right-hand side exists for each fixed $m$.
Recalling \eqref{f_def}, let us now define
\begin{equation}\label{main2.9}
\widetilde\beta(m,n) = \frac1{L_na_n}\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_nt}}
f_{m,L}(jL_n - \flr{jL_n}).
\end{equation}
We will first show that
\begin{equation}\label{main2.3}
\lim_{n\to\infty} |\widetilde\beta(m,n) - \beta(m,n)| = 0,
\end{equation}
for each fixed $m\in\mathbb{Z}$. Since $1\le\ell_{m,n}\le u_{m,n}\le\flr{a_nt}$, we have $(\widetilde\beta-\beta)(m,n) = A_{m,n} + B_{m,n}$, where
\begin{align*}
A_{m,n} &= \frac1{L_na_n}\sum_{j=1}^{\ell_{m,n}-1}
f_{m,L}(jL_n - \flr{jL_n})
+ \frac1{L_na_n}\sum_{j=u_{m,n}+1}^{\flr{a_nt}}
f_{m,L}(jL_n - \flr{jL_n}),\\
B_{m,n} &= \sum_{j=\ell_{m,n}}^{u_{m,n}}
\left({\frac1{L_na_n}f_{m,L}(jL_n - \flr{jL_n})
- \Phi_n(j,m + \flr{jL_n})^3}\right).
\end{align*}
By \eqref{f_basic}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{main2.5}
|f_{m,L}(x)| \le 8 \quad \text{for all $m$, $L$, and $x$}.
\end{equation}
Thus,
\[
|A_{m,n}| \le \frac8{b_n}(\ell_{m,n} - 1 + \flr{a_nt} - u_{m,n}).
\]
From \eqref{ell_def}, we see that $\limsup_{n\to\infty}\ell_{m,n}< \infty$. From \eqref{u_def}, we have
\begin{align*}
u_{m,n}
&\ge \left({\frac{\flr{b_nt} - m + 1}{L_n} - 1}\right)
\wedge \flr{a_nt}\\
&= \flr{a_nt} + \left({\left({
\frac{\flr{b_nt} - m + 1}{L_n} - 1 - \flr{a_nt}
}\right)\wedge 0}\right)\\
&= \flr{a_nt} - \left({\left({
\flr{a_nt} - \frac{\flr{b_nt}}{L_n} + \frac{m - 1}{L_n} + 1
}\right)\vee 0}\right).
\end{align*}
Since
\[
\flr{a_nt} - \frac{\flr{b_nt}}{L_n}
< a_nt - \frac{b_nt - 1}{L_n} = \frac1{L_n},
\]
this gives
\[
\flr{a_nt} - u_{m,n} \le {\left({
\frac m{L_n} + 1
}\right)\vee 0},
\]
and this shows that $\limsup_{n\to\infty}(\flr{a_nt}-u_{m,n})<\infty$. Hence, $A_{m,n}\to0$ as $n\to\infty$.
For $B_{m,n}$, we may use \eqref{main2.2} to write
\[
B_{m,n} = \frac1{b_n}\sum_{j=\ell_{m,n}}^{u_{m,n}}
(f_{m,L} - f_{m,L_n})(jL_n - \flr{jL_n}).
\]
By Lemma \ref{L:f_misc} (i),
\[
|f_{m,L}(x) - f_{m,L_n}(x)| \le 24|L_n - L|^{1/3},
\]
for all $x$. This gives
\[
|B_{m,n}| \le \frac{24}{b_n}\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_nt}}|L_n - L|^{1/3}
\le \frac{24t}{L_n}|L_n - L|^{1/3} \to 0,
\]
as $n\to\infty$, and we have proved \eqref{main2.3}.
Finally, we calculate $\lim_{n\to\infty}\widetilde\beta(m,n)$. We begin by rewriting $\widetilde\beta(m,n)$ in the following way. For each $n$, choose $p_n,q_n,c_n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $a_n=c_nq_n$, $b_n=c_np_n$, and $p_n$ and $q_n$ are relatively prime. In general, if $p\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $q\in\mathbb{N}$, then let $[p]_q$ denote the unique integer such that $0\le[p]_q<q$ and $p\equiv[p]_q\mod q$. Note that
\[
[p]_q = q\left({\frac pq - \flr{\frac pq}}\right).
\]
Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{main2.8}
jL_n - \flr{jL_n}
= \frac{jb_n}{a_n} - \flr{\frac{jb_n}{a_n}}
= \frac{jp_n}{q_n} - \flr{\frac{jp_n}{q_n}}
= \frac1{q_n}[jp_n]_{q_n}.
\end{equation}
Hence, by \eqref{main2.9},
\begin{align*}
\widetilde\beta(m,n) &= \frac1{L_na_n}\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_nt}}
f_{m,L}([jp_n]_{q_n}/q_n)\\
&= \frac1{L_nc_nq_n}\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{c_nq_nt}}
f_{m,L}([jp_n]_{q_n}/q_n).
\end{align*}
Let $\alpha_n,r_n$ be the unique integers such that $\flr{c_nq_nt}=\alpha_n q_n+r_n$ and $0 \le r_n < q_n$. Note that $\alpha_n \ge 0$ and $r_n =[\flr{c_nq_nt}]_{q_n}$. Since $h\in\mathbb{Z}$ implies $[p+hq]_q=[p]_q$, we have
\begin{align*}
\widetilde\beta(m,n) &= \frac1{L_nc_nq_n}\bigg(
\sum_{h=0}^{\alpha_n-1}\sum_{j=1}^{q_n}
f_{m,L}([(j + hq_n)p_n]_{q_n}/q_n)
+ \sum_{j=1}^{r_n} f_{m,L}([(j + \alpha_n q_n)p_n]_{q_n}/q_n)
\bigg)\\
&= \frac{\alpha_n}{c_n}\frac1{L_nq_n}
\sum_{j=1}^{q_n} f_{m,L}([jp_n]_{q_n}/q_n)
+ \frac1{L_na_n}\sum_{j=1}^{r_n} f_{m,L}([jp_n]_{q_n}/q_n).
\end{align*}
Also note that if $p$ and $q$ are relatively prime, then
\[
\{[jp]_q: 1 \le j \le q\} = \{0,1,2,\ldots,q-1\}.
\]
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{main2.6}
\widetilde\beta(m,n) = \frac{\alpha_n}{c_n}
\frac1{L_nq_n}\sum_{j=0}^{q_n-1} f_{m,L}(j/q_n)
+ \frac1{L_na_n}\sum_{j=1}^{r_n} f_{m,L}([jp_n]_{q_n}/q_n).
\end{equation}
Now let $I=\{n:L_n=L\}$. First assume $I$ is finite and $t=1$. Then $r_n=0$ and $\alpha_n=c_n$, so that
\[
\widetilde\beta(m,n) = \frac1{L_nq_n}\sum_{j=0}^{q_n-1} f_{m,L}(j/q_n).
\]
We first prove that $\lim_{n\to\infty}q_n=\infty$. Let $M>0$ be arbitrary. Let $S =\{p/q: p\in\mathbb{Z},q\in\mathbb{N},q\le M\}$. Choose $\varepsilon>0$ small enough so that $S\cap(L-\varepsilon,L+\varepsilon)\subset\{L\}$. Choose $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$ large enough so that $I\subset\{1,\ldots,n_0\}$, and also $|L_n-L|<\varepsilon$ for all $n>n_0$. Let $n>n_0$ be arbitrary. Then
\[
\frac{p_n}{q_n} = \frac{b_n}{a_n} = L_n
\in (L - \varepsilon, L + \varepsilon) \setminus \{L\}.
\]
Hence, $p_n/q_n\notin S$, which implies $q_n>M$, and this shows that $\lim_{n\to\infty}q_n=\infty$.
Since $f_{m,L}$ is continuous, it now follows that
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\widetilde\beta(m,n)
&= \lim_{n\to\infty}
\frac1{L_nq_n}\sum_{j=0}^{q_n-1} f_{m,L}(j/q_n)\\
&= \frac1L\int_0^1 f_{m,L}(x)\,dx.
\end{align*}
By \eqref{main2.1} and \eqref{main2.3}, we therefore have
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty} S_n(1) = \frac34\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}
\frac1L\int_0^1 f_{m,L}(x)\,dx.
\]
By Lemma \ref{L:fkLconv}, we may interchange the summation and integration, and this proves Part (ii) of the theorem.
Next, assume $I^c$ is finite and $t>0$. In this case, there exists $n_0$ such that $L_n=L$ for all $n\ge n_0$. In particular, $L\in\mathbb{Q}$, so we may write $L=p/q$, where $p,q\in\mathbb{N}$ are relatively prime. In this case, $q_n=q$ for all $n\ge n_0$. Therefore, by \eqref{main2.6}, for all $n\ge n_0$,
\[
\widetilde\beta(m,n) = \frac{\alpha_n}{c_n}
\frac1{L_nq}\sum_{j=0}^{q-1} f_{m,L}(j/q) + \varepsilon_n,
\]
where, by \eqref{main2.5},
\begin{equation}\label{main2.7}
|\varepsilon_n|
= \bigg|\frac1{L_na_n}\sum_{j=1}^{r_n} f_{m,L}([jp]_q/q)\bigg|
\le \frac{8r_n}{L_na_n}
< \frac{8q}{L_na_n} \to 0,
\end{equation}
as $n\to\infty$. Also,
\[
\left|{\frac{\alpha_n}{c_n} - t}\right|
= \left|{\frac{\flr{c_nqt} - c_nqt - {r_n}}{c_nq}}\right|
\le \frac{1 + q}{a_n} \to 0,
\]
as $n\to\infty$. Thus,
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}\widetilde\beta(m,n)
= \frac t{Lq}\sum_{j=0}^{q-1} f_{m,L}(j/q).
\]
As above, using \eqref{main2.1} and \eqref{main2.3}, we have
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}S_n(t)
= \frac{3t}{4Lq}\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{j=0}^{q-1} f_{m,L}(j/q)
= \frac{3t}{4p}\sum_{j=0}^{q-1}\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}} f_{m,L}(j/q).
\]
Since $f_{m,L}(1)=f_{m-1,L}(0)$, we may write
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}S_n(t)
= \frac{3t}{4p}\sum_{j=1}^q\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}} f_{m,L}(j/q)
= \frac{3t}{4p}\sum_{j=1}^q f_L(j/q),
\]
and this proves Part (i) of the theorem.
Next, assume $I$ is finite and $c_n\to\infty$. Note that
\[
r_n = [\flr{a_nt}]_{q_n} = q_n\left({
\frac{\flr{a_nt}}{q_n} - \flr{\frac{\flr{a_nt}}{q_n}}
}\right).
\]
Thus,
\[
\alpha_n = \frac{\flr{a_nt} - r_n}{q_n}
= \flr{\frac{\flr{a_nt}}{q_n}}.
\]
It follows that $\alpha_n\le a_nt/q_n = c_nt$, and also
\[
\alpha_n > \frac{\flr{a_nt}}{q_n} - 1
> \frac{a_nt - 1}{q_n} - 1
= c_nt - \frac1{q_n} - 1.
\]
Hence,
\[
t - \left({\frac1{a_n} + \frac1{c_n}}\right)
< \frac{\alpha_n}{c_n} \le t.
\]
Since both $c_n\to\infty$ and $a_n\to\infty$, this shows that $\alpha_n/c_n \to t$ as $n\to\infty$.
Also, as in \eqref{main2.7},
\[
\bigg|\frac1{L_na_n}\sum_{j=1}^{r_n} f_{m,L}([jp]_q/q)\bigg|
< \frac{8q_n}{L_na_n}
= \frac8{L_nc_n} \to 0,
\]
as $n\to\infty$. Therefore, using \eqref{main2.6} and the argument immediately following \eqref{main2.6}, we have
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}\widetilde\beta(m,n) = \frac tL\int_0^1 f_{m,L}(x)\,dx.
\]
By \eqref{main2.1} and \eqref{main2.3}, we therefore have
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty} S_n(t) = \frac{3t}4\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}
\frac1L\int_0^1 f_{m,L}(x)\,dx.
\]
By Lemma \ref{L:fkLconv}, we may interchange the summation and integration, and this proves Part (iii) of the theorem.
Finally, assume there exists $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $b_n=k\mod a_n$ for all $n$. As in \eqref{main2.8}, we may write $jL_n-\flr{jL_n} = [jb_n]_{a_n}/a_n$. Hence, by \eqref{main2.9},
\[
\widetilde\beta(m,n) = \frac1{L_na_n}\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_nt}}
f_{m,L}([jb_n]_{a_n}/a_n).
\]
For $n$ sufficiently large, $k<a_n$, so that
\[
k = [b_n - a_n]_{a_n}
= a_n\left({
\frac{b_n-a_n}{a_n} - \flr{\frac{b_n-a_n}{a_n}}
}\right).
\]
Define $k_n=(b_n-k)/a_n$. Then $b_n = k_na_n+k$ and
\[
k_n = \frac{b_n}{a_n} - \left({
\frac{b_n-a_n}{a_n} - \flr{\frac{b_n-a_n}{a_n}}
}\right)
= 1 + \flr{\frac{b_n-a_n}{a_n}} \in \mathbb{N}.
\]
Thus,
\[
[jb_n]_{a_n} = [j(k_na_n + k)]_{a_n} = [jk]_{a_n}
= a_n\left({
\frac{jk}{a_n} - \flr{\frac{jk}{a_n}}
}\right),
\]
giving
\[
\widetilde\beta(m,n) = \frac1{L_na_n}\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_nt}}
\widehat f_{m,L}(jk/a_n).
\]
Since $a_n\to\infty$ and $\widehat f_{m,L}$ is continuous, we have
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}\widetilde\beta(m,n)
= \frac1L\int_0^t \widehat f_{m,L}(kx)\,dx.
\]
By \eqref{main2.1} and \eqref{main2.3}, we therefore have
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty} S_n(t) = \frac34\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}
\frac1L\int_0^t \widehat f_{m,L}(kx)\,dx.
\]
By Lemma \ref{L:fkLconv}, we may interchange the summation and integration, and this proves Part (iv) of the theorem. \hfill $\Box$
\medskip
As a consequence of Theorem \ref{T:main2} we can establish the following result on the convergence in distribution of the sequence $(B, W_{a_n} , W_{b_n})$.
\begin{cor}\label{C:main3}
Let $\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ and $\{b_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ be strictly increasing sequences in $\mathbb{N}$. Let $L_n=b_n/a_n$ and suppose that $L_n\to L\in(0,\infty)$. Let $I=\{n:L_n=L\}$ and $c_n=\gcd(a_n,b_n)$. Given $\rho\in C[0,\infty)$, let $\sigma$ be given by \eqref{main1a} and $X^\rho$ by \eqref{main1b}.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If $I^c$ is finite, then $(B,W_{a_n},W_{b_n}) \Rightarrow (B,X^\rho)$ in $D_{\mathbb{R}^3}[0,\infty)$ as $n\to\infty$, where
\begin{equation}\label{main2i}
\rho(t) = \frac3{4p}\sum_{j=1}^q f_L(j/q),
\end{equation}
for all $t\ge0$. Here, $L\in\mathbb{Q}$ and $p$ and $q$ are determined by $L=p/q$, where $p,q\in\mathbb{N}$ are relatively prime.
\item If $I$ is finite and $c_n\to\infty$, then $(B,W_{a_n},W_{b_n}) \to (B,X^\rho)$ in law in $D_{\mathbb{R}^3}[0,\infty)$ as $n\to\infty$, where
\[
\rho(t) = \frac3{4L}\int_0^1 f_L(x)\,dx,
\]
for all $t\ge0$.
\item If there exists $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $b_n=k\mod a_n$ for all $n$, then $(B,W_{a_n},W_{b_n}) \to (B,X^\rho)$ in law in $D_{\mathbb{R}^3}[0,\infty)$ as $n\to\infty$, where
\[
\rho(t) = \frac3{4L}\widehat f_L(kt),
\]
for all $t\ge0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\noindent{\bf Proof.} First assume $I^c$ is finite. Let $0\le s\le t<\infty$. Let $\rho$ be given by \eqref{main2i}. By Theorem \ref{T:main2} and Remark \ref{R:main},
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}E[\widetilde W_{a_n}(s)\widetilde W_{b_n}(s)]
= \int_0^s \rho(u)\,du.
\]
By Lemma \ref{L:main1}, this gives
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}E[\widetilde W_{a_n}(s)\widetilde W_{b_n}(t)]
= \int_0^s \rho(u)\,du.
\]
Part (i) of the theorem now follows from Theorem \ref{T:main1} and Remark \ref{R:main}. The proofs of Parts (ii) and (iii) are similar. \hfill $\Box$
\section{Remarks and examples}
Let $\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ and $\{b_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ be strictly increasing
sequences in $\mathbb{N}$. For each $t>0$, let
\[
\gamma^{a,b}(t) = \lim_{n\to\infty}
\frac{E[W_{a_n}(t)W_{b_n}(t)]}{\kappa^2 t},
\]
provided this limit exists. Then $\gamma^{a,b}(t)$ is the asymptotic correlation
of $W_{a_n}(t)$ and $W_{b_n}(t)$ as $n\to\infty$. Under the hypotheses of Corollary \ref{C:main3}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ga_rho}
\gamma^{a,b}(t) = \frac1{\kappa^2t}\int_0^t \rho(x)\,dx.
\end{equation}
Note that $\gamma^{a,b}$ is a constant function if and only $\rho$ is constant, as in Corollary \ref{C:main3} (i) and (ii). Also note that, since $\widehat f_L(k\,\cdot)$ is not a constant function by Lemma \ref{L:f_misc}, Corollary \ref{C:main3} (iii) shows that there are circumstances under which $\gamma^{a,b}$ is not constant.
\begin{expl} \label{ex4.1}
If $a_n=b_n=n$ for all $n$, then $E[W_{a_n}(t)W_{b_n}(t)]\to\kappa^2t$ as $n\to \infty$, so that $\gamma^{a,b}\equiv1$. By \eqref{kap_def} and \eqref{f_def}, we observe that
\begin{equation}\label{ka_f1}
\kappa^2 = \frac34\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}} f_{m,1}(0) = \frac34 f_1(0).
\end{equation}
Equivalently, we may write
\[
\kappa^2 = 6\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}(E[(B(1) - B(0))(B(m + 1) - B(m))])^3.
\]
For $L\in\mathbb{N}$, let us define
\[
\kappa_L^2 = \frac6L\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}
(E[(B(1) - B(0))(B(m + L) - B(m))])^3.
\]
Then using \eqref{Phi_def}, \eqref{f_def}, and Lemma \ref{L:f_misc} (ii), we have
\[
\kappa_L^2 = \frac3{4L}\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}
\Phi(0,1,m,m+L)^3 = \frac3{4L}f_L(0) = \frac3{4L}f_L(1).
\]
If $a_n=n$ and $b_n=Ln$, then using Theorem \ref{T:main2} (i) with $p=L $ and $q=1$, as well as Lemma \ref{L:f_misc} (ii) and \eqref{f_def}, we obtain $\lim_{n\to\infty} E[W_n(t) W_{Ln}(t)] = \kappa_L^2t$, giving $\gamma^{a,b}(t) \equiv\kappa_L^2/\kappa^2$.
Numerical calculations suggest that, in this family of examples, $\gamma^{a,b}$ decreases fairly quickly with $L$. For example, when $L=2$, we have $\gamma^{a,b} \approx0.201928$, and when $L=5$, we have $\gamma^{a,b}\approx0.043837$. \hfill $\Box$
\end{expl}
The scaling property of fBm manifests itself in the present investigation via the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{L:scaling}
Let $\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ and $\{b_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ be strictly increasing sequences in $\mathbb{N}$, and $r\in(0,\infty)$. Assume $a_n^*= ra_n$ and $b_n^*=rb_n$ are integers for all $n$. Fix $t>0$. Then
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty} E[W_{a_n}(rt)W_{b_n}(rt)]
= r\lim_{n\to\infty} E[W_{a_n^*}(t)W_{b_n^*}(t)],
\]
provided that one of the two limits exist.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof.} Recall $\widetilde W_n(t)=W_n(t)-3n^{-1/3}B(\flr{nt}/n)$, and note that it will suffice to prove the lemma for $\widetilde W$ rather than $W$. As in \eqref{main1.4}, we have
\[
E[\widetilde W_{a_n}(rt)\widetilde W_{b_n}(rt)]
= \frac34\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_nrt}}\sum_{k=1}^{\flr{b_nrt}}
\Phi_n^{a,b}(j,k)^3.
\]
Note that $\Phi_n^{a^*,b^*}=r^{-1/3}\Phi_n^{a,b}$. Thus,
\begin{multline*}
E[\widetilde W_{a_n}(rt)\widetilde W_{b_n}(rt)]
= \frac{3r}4\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_nrt}}\sum_{k=1}^{\flr{b_nrt}}
\Phi_n^{a^*,b^*}(j,k)^3\\
= \frac{3r}4\sum_{j=1}^{\flr{a_n^*t}}\sum_{k=1}^{\flr{b_n^*t}}
\Phi_n^{a^*,b^*}(j,k)^3
= rE[\widetilde W_{a_n^*}(t)\widetilde W_{b_n^*}(t)].
\end{multline*}
Letting $n\to\infty$ completes the proof. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{expl}
At first glance, Lemma \ref{L:scaling} may seem to suggest that $\gamma^{a,b}$ should always be the constant function $\gamma^{a,b}(t)\equiv\kappa^{-2}E[W_{a_n}(1) W_{b_n}(1)]$. But, of course, we know this to be false from Corollary \ref{C:main3} (iii). A simple example illustrating this is the following.
Fix $L,k\in\mathbb{N}$. Let $a_n=n$ and $b_n=Ln+k$. Note that
\[
L_n = \frac{b_n}{a_n} = L + \frac kn \to L,
\]
as $n\to\infty$. By Corollary \ref{C:main3} (iii), \eqref{ga_rho}, and \eqref{ka_f1},
\begin{equation}\label{ga_n+k}
\gamma^{a,b}(t) = \frac1{Lf_1(0)t}\int_0^t \widehat f_L(kx)\,dx.
\end{equation}
Lemma \ref{L:f_misc} shows that this is not a constant function, at least when $L=1$. In this example, Lemma \ref{L:scaling} implies that for $r\in\mathbb{N}$,
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty} E[W_n(rt)W_{Ln+k}(rt)]
= r\lim_{n\to\infty} E[W_{rn}(t)W_{rLn+rk}(t)].
\]
This does not contradict \eqref{ga_n+k}, since $\{(W_{rn},W_{rLn+rk})\}_{n=1}^\infty$ is not a subsequence of $\{(W_n,W_{Ln+k})\}_{n=1}^\infty$. Rather, it is a subsequence of $\{(W_n,W_{Ln+rk})\}_{n=1}^\infty$. Hence, Lemma \ref{L:scaling}
is, in this case, illustrating the equality,
\[
\int_0^{rt} \widehat f_L(kx)\,dx
= r\int_0^t \widehat f_L(rkx)\,dx,
\]
which is easily verified by a simple change of variable.
Another interesting feature illustrated here is the following. If we fix $L=1$, then we have a family of examples indexed by $k$ that all share the same limiting ratio, $L$, yet produce different asymptotic correlation functions. Indeed, if it were the case that $\widehat f_1(k_1\,\cdot) = \widehat f_1(k_2\, \cdot)$ for some $k_1<k_2$, then we would have $\widehat f_1(1/2)=\widehat f_1(k_1^n/2k_2^n)$ for all $n$, and by continuity, $\widehat f_1(1/2)=\widehat f_1(0)$, contradicting Lemma \ref{L:f_misc}.
Note that, by the continuity of $f_L$, we have $\gamma^{a,b}(t)\to f_L(0)/(Lf_1(0))$ as $t\downarrow 0$. Numerical calculations for the case $L=k=1$ suggest that $\gamma_{a,b}$ is a positive function with $\gamma^{a,b}(0.8) \approx 0.0750475$, so that the asymptotic correlation between $W_n(t)$ and $W_{n+1}(t)$ varies dramatically with $t$.
\hfill $\Box$
\end{expl}
\begin{expl} \label{ex4.2}
As an example illustrating Corollary \ref{C:main3} (ii), let $L\in\mathbb{N}$ and consider $a_n=n^2$ and $b_n=Ln^2+n$. Then $L_n=b_n/a_n=L+1/n\to L$. Since $c_n =\gcd(a_n,b_n)= n$, Corollary \ref{C:main3} (ii), \eqref{ga_rho}, and \eqref{ka_f1} give
\[
\gamma^{a,b}(t) \equiv \frac1{Lf_1(0)}\int_0^1 f_L(x)\,dx.
\]
Numerical calculations suggest that for $L=1$ and $L=2$, $\gamma^{a,b} \approx 0.101932$ and $\gamma^{a,b} \approx 0.0468229$, respectively. Note that these numbers are several times smaller than the corresponding numbers for the sequences $a_n=n^2$ and $b_n=Ln^2$, which are covered by Example \ref{ex4.1}.
\hfill $\Box$
\end{expl}
\begin{expl}
Our penultimate example illustrates a situation where $c_n=\gcd(a_n,b_n)$ is constant, yet the asymptotic correlation $\gamma^{a,b}$ does not exist.
Fix $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Let $a_n=kn^2$ and
\[
b_n = \begin{cases}
kn^2 + 2k &\text{if $n$ is odd},\\
kn^2 + k &\text{if $n$ is even}.
\end{cases}
\]
Then $c_n=\gcd(a_n,b_n)=k$ for all $n$. By Theorem \ref{T:main2} (iv),
\[
\lim_{\substack{n\to\infty\\n\text{ odd}}}
E[W_{a_n}(t)W_{b_n}(t)] = \lim_{m\to\infty}
E[W_{k(2m+1)^2}(t)W_{k(2m+1)^2+2k}(t)]
= \frac34\int_0^t \widehat f_1(2kx)\,dx.
\]
On the other hand,
\[
\lim_{\substack{n\to\infty\\n\text{ even}}}
E[W_{a_n}(t)W_{b_n}(t)] = \lim_{m\to\infty}
E[W_{4km^2}(t)W_{4km^2+k}(t)]
= \frac34\int_0^t \widehat f_1(kx)\,dx.
\]
Since these are different functions, the sequence $(W_{a_n},W_{b_n})$ does
not converge and $\gamma^{a,b}$ does not exist.
\hfill $\Box$
\end{expl}
\begin{expl}
Finally, we collect what might be called some non-examples, a few cases which are not covered by our present results. The first is $a_n=n^2$ and $b_n=(n+1)^2$. In this case, $L_n\to 1$, but $\gcd(a_n,b_n)=1$ for all $n$, and $b_n-a_n=2n+1 \mod a_n$. By Theorem \ref{T:main2} (ii), we know that $\gamma^{a,b}(1)$ exists, but the existence and value of $\gamma^{a,b}(t)$ for $t\ne1$ is not covered by our results.
The second non-example is $a_n=2n$ and $b_n=3n+1$. In this case, $L_n\to 3/2$, but $\gcd(a_n,b_n) \le 2$ for all $n$, and $b_n-a_n=n+1\mod a_n$. Again our results fail to give a complete picture of the function $\gamma^{a,b}$.
Our last non-example is the following. Let $\alpha\in(1,2)$ be an irrational number whose decimal expansion contains only the digits 1, 3, 7, and 9. In other words, $\alpha=1 + \sum_{j=1}^\infty c_j10^{-j}$, where $c_j\in\{1,3,7,9\}$ for all $j$. Let $s_n=\sum_{j=1}^n c_j10^{-j}$, and define $a_n=10^n$ and $b_n=10^n(1+s_n)$. In this case, $L_n\to\alpha$, but $\gcd(a_n,b_n)=1$ for all $n$, and $b_n-a_n=10^ns_n\mod a_n$. Again our results tell us only the existence and value of $\gamma^{a,b}(1)$.
There are, of course, many examples such as these which are not covered by Theorem \ref{T:main2}. Developing a more general set of results that describe the asymptotic behavior of the correlation of $W_{a_n}(t)$ and $W_{b_n}(t)$ in these examples is an open problem to be studied in subsequent work. \hfill $\Box$
\end{expl}
\section{Appendix}
In this section we include a couple of technical results that are used along the paper.
\begin{lemma}\label{L:inequ}
If $a_j$ and $p_j$ are positive real numbers, then
\[
\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^n a_j\bigg)^{-\sum_{j=1}^n p_j}
\le \prod_{j=1}^n a_j^{-p_j}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof.} For every $k=1,\dots, n$ we have
\[
\left(\sum_{j=1}^n a_j \right) ^{-p_k} \le a_k^{-p_k},
\]
and the desired result follows by taking the product of these terms in $k$. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{lemma}\label{L:numeric}
Let $a,b\in\mathbb{Z}$ with $a\le b$. Let $C \in \mathbb{R}$ and $p>1$. If $b+1<C$, then
\[
\sum_{j=a}^b (C - j)^{-p} \le \frac1{p-1}(C-(b+1))^{-(p-1)}.
\]
If $C<a-1$, then
\[
\sum_{k=a}^b (k - C)^{-p} \le \frac1{p-1}(a - 1 - C)^{-(p-1)}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof.} If $b+1<C$, then
\begin{multline*}
\frac1{p-1}(C-(b+1))^{-(p-1)}
\ge \frac1{p-1}((C-(b+1))^{-(p-1)} - (C-a)^{-(p-1)})\\
= \int_a^{b+1} (C - x)^{-p}\,dx
= \sum_{j=a}^b \int_j^{j+1} (C - x)^{-p}\,dx
\ge \sum_{j=a}^b (C - j)^{-p}.
\end{multline*}
If $C<a-1$, then
\begin{multline*}
\frac1{p-1}(a - 1 - C)^{-(p-1)}
\ge \frac1{p-1}((a-1-C)^{-(p-1)} - (b-C)^{-(p-1)})\\
= \int_{a-1}^b (x - C)^{-p}\,dx
= \sum_{k=a}^b \int_{k-1}^k (x - C)^{-p}\,dx
\ge \sum_{k=a}^b (k - C)^{-p}.
\end{multline*}
\hfill $\Box$
|
\section*{Introduction} \label{s:intro}
Adopting the terminology of \cite{Sko}, an {\it $X$-graph} is a regular 4-valent graph together with a splitting of the 4 half-edges at each vertex into two pairs. A choice of such splitting will be called {\it crossing structure} or {\it $X$-structure} and the half-edges at vertex in the same pair will be called {\it opposite}.
An embedding (or immersion) of a 4-valent graph into a surface induces the crossing structure at every vertex when the opposite half-edges are embedded as physically opposite lines at the vertex. Thus an embedded 4-valent graph naturally becomes an $X$-graph. An {\it $X$-embedding} of an $X$-graph into a surface is an embedding of the graph into a surface such that the induced crossing structure coincides with the given $X$-structure on the $X$-graph.
Here is an example.
$$\parbox{2in}{\tt $X$-structure:\\ four half-edges $A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2$ at the vertex are split into pairs $(A_1,A_2)$ and $(B_1,B_2)$.}\hspace{1cm}
\risS{-20}{cros}{\put(-3,41){$A_1$}\put(40,41){$B_1$}
\put(-10,-6){$B_2$}\put(40,-5){$A_2$}
\put(-10,-20){\tt $X$-embedding}}{40}{0}{0}\hspace{3cm}
\risS{-20}{cros1}{\put(-3,41){$A_1$}\put(40,41){$A_2$}
\put(-10,-6){$B_2$}\put(40,-5){$B_1$}
\put(-18,-20){\tt non $X$-embedding}}{40}{35}{45}
$$
From now on in figures we always assume that the crossing structure at a vertex is induced from the plane of a picture.
\medskip
{\bf Vassiliev's conjecture \cite{Va} (Manturov's theorem \cite{Man}.)}
{\it An $X$-graph is $X$-planar if and only if it does not contain two cycles
without common edges and with exactly one crossing vertex. A crossing vertex is a vertex which belongs to both cycles and is passed by each cycle according the crossing structure.}\\
Note that it might be other common vertices where the two cycles make a turn and do not go through along the crossing structure.
In an expository note \cite{Sko} A.~Skopenkov posted a problem (Problem 2) of defining
\rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-graphs and generalizing Manturov's theorem to them. This paper suggests an answer.
Informally, a \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-graph is a graph with a cyclic order of half-edges at each vertex considered up to reversing the order. For vertices of valency 4, this structure is equivalent to the crossing structure. An embedding of a graph into a surface induces the \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-structure from one of two possible local orientations of the surface around the vertex. This allows us to speak about \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-embeddings od \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-graphs.
Again on figures we assume that the \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-structure is given by a counterclockwise (clockwise) cyclic order.
The formal definitions are given in Section \ref{s:def}. The formulation of our main theorem essentially repeated the Manturov's theorem. It is given in Section \ref{s:mth}. Section \ref{s:al} is devoted to auxiliary lemmas needed for the proof.
\bigskip
This work has been done as a part of the Summer 2012 undergraduate research working group
\begin{center}\verb#http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~chmutov/wor-gr-su12/wor-gr.htm#
\end{center}
``Knots and Graphs"
at the Ohio State University. The author is grateful to all participants of the group for valuable discussions and to the OSU Honors Program Research Fund for the financial support. Special thanks go to Sergei Chmutov, the supervisor of the group, whose generous support and guidance made this paper possible.
\section{Definitions} \label{s:def}
We use the standard graph theoretical notations from \cite{B,MT}.
\begin{defn}\rm
An \emph{unoriented cyclic order} on a finite set $S$ of cardinality $n$ is a bijection $X:S\to V(C_n)$, where $C_n$ is the cycle graph with $n$ vertices.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}\rm
A \emph{\rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-graph} is an abstract graph together with an unoriented cyclic order $X_a$ on the half-edges emanating from each vertex $a$. The unoriented cyclic order $X_a$ is called the {\it \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-structure} at $a$.
\end{defn}
A \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-structure is weaker than a usual oriented cyclic order of half-edges which is called the {\it rotation system} in \cite{MT} corresponding to embeddings of the graph into an oriented surface. On the other hand a \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-structure is stronger than an $X$-structure of opposite edges. For example, for a 6-valent vertex $a$, the \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-structure determines not only the opposite half-edge to a given half-edge as a half-edge mapped to the opposite vertex of the hexagon $C_6$, but also a pair of neighboring adjacent half-edges and a pair of remaining half-edges at ``distance" 2 in $C_6$. For a 4-valent vertex the \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-structure coincides with the $X$-structure.
\begin{defn}\rm
A \emph{\rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-embedding} of a \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-graph into a surface (not necessarily orientable) is an embedding of the graph in the usual sense, with the following additional constraint: If two half-edges around a vertex map to adjacent points in the cycle graph, they must be adjacent on the surface, i.e. they must belong to the same face.
\end{defn}
Here is an example of a \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-embedding and non \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-embedding of a 6-vertex with the \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-structure given by the cyclic order $(A,B,C,D,E,F)$ into a plane.
$$\risS{-20}{v6-1}{\put(-3,35){$A$}\put(12,43){$B$}\put(35,35){$C$}
\put(-5,7){$F$}\put(20,-8){$E$}\put(40,10){$D$}
\put(-10,-20){\tt \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-embedding}}{40}{0}{0}\hspace{4cm}
\risS{-20}{v6-2}{\put(0,40){$A$}\put(28,43){$E$}\put(40,17){$C$}
\put(-8,17){$F$}\put(10,-8){$B$}\put(30,-3){$D$}
\put(-18,-20){\tt non \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-embedding}}{40}{33}{47}
$$
\begin{defn}\rm
A \emph{crossing} between two edgewise disjoint cycles $A$ and $B$ is a common vertex $a$ which is passed by the cycle $A$ along the edges $(A_1,A_2)$ and by the cylce $B$ along the edges $(B_1,B_2)$ in such a way that the vertices $X_a(A_1)$, $X_a(A_2)$, $X_a(B_1)$, and $X_a(B_2)$ are alternate in the corresponding cycle graph $C_n$, that is they appear in the cyclic order
$(X_a(A_1), X_a(B_1), X_a(A_2), X_a(B_2))$ in $C_n$.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}\rm
A \emph{Vassiliev obstruct} is a pair of edgewise disjoint cycles with exactly one crossing.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}\rm
The \emph{expansion} of a 6-vertex in a \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-graph is three 4-vertices with $X$-structures, arranged in either of the two ways shown.
$$\risS{-20}{v6-1}{}{40}{0}{0}
\quad\risS{-5}{tor}{}{30}{0}{0}\quad
\risS{-28}{v4-3}{}{50}{33}{47}\hspace{1.5cm}\mbox{\tt or}\hspace{1.5cm}
\risS{-20}{v6-1}{}{40}{0}{0}
\quad\risS{-5}{tor}{}{30}{0}{0}\quad
\risS{-28}{v4-3a}{}{50}{33}{47}
$$
Remember that \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-structure here is induced from the plane of the figure.
The \emph{expansion} of a \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-graph in which all vertices have order 4 or 6 is the $X$-graph generated by replacing each 6-vertex with its expansion. Note that the expansion of a graph is not uniquely defined. However, our results depend only on the existence of an expansion for any \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-graph in which all vertices have order 4 or 6, not its uniqueness.
\end{defn}
\section{Main result} \label{s:mth}
\begin{thm}
A \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-graph in which each vertex is of order 4 or 6 has a \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-embedding into the plane if and only if it does not contain a Vassiliev obstruct.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Obviously no \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-graph containing a Vassiliev obstruct is \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-planar. It is therefore sufficient to show that any non-\rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-planar \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-graph with all vertices of order 4 or 6 contains a Vassiliev obstruct. Suppose $G$ is such a graph, and let $G'$ be its expansion. Then by Lemma \ref{le1}, $G'$ is non-$X$-planar. By Manturov's theorem \cite{Man,Sko}, $G'$ contains a Vassiliev obstruct. By Lemma \ref{le2}, $G$ contains a Vassiliev obstruct.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\rm
The number of crossings between two cycles in the definition of a Vassiliev obstruct should be counted with multiplicities. For example, in the following graph the vertex appears twice as
a crossing of cycle $A$ with the figure-eight cycle $(B_1,B_2)$. Thus its multiplicity is 2. Therefore the cycles do not represent a Vassiliev obstruct.
$$\risS{-20}{mult}{\put(-8,50){$A$}\put(16,55){$B_1$}
\put(1,2){$B_2$}}{40}{45}{20}
$$
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\rm
In view of the recent paper \cite{Ad} 4-and 6-valent \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-graphs might be useful in knot theory as well.
\end{rem}
\section{Auxiliary lemmas} \label{s:al}
\begin{lemma}\label{le1}
Let $G$ be a \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-graph in which all vertices have order 4 or 6, and let $G'$ be the expansion of $G$ considered as an $X$-graph. Then if $G'$ has an $X$-embedding into the plane, $G$ also has a \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-embedding into the plane.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Suppose $G'$ has an X-embedding in the plane.
In a usual way, instead of speaking of embeddings into the plane we can speak about embeddings into a sphere.
Then for any 6-vertex in $a\in G$, consider the corresponding cycle of length 3 in $G'$. In the embedding of $G'$, this cycle is a closed loop dividing the sphere into an inside and an outside regions. At each of the three vertices on the loop, the two edges which are not part of the cycle must either both be pointing inward or both be pointing outward. (If one points inward and the other outward, it is not an X-embedding.) Suppose that there is one pair pointing in and two pairs pointing out. Then make the following transformation on the embedding of $G'$, which does not change the $X$-structure.
$$\risS{-20}{le1-1}{}{80}{0}{0}
\quad\risS{25}{tor}{}{30}{0}{0}\quad
\risS{-20}{le1-2}{}{80}{100}{30}
$$
Repeat this process for every expanded 6-vertex, producing an embedding of $G'$ in which every expanded 6-vertex either has nothing inside or nothing outside of it. Then to each such cycle, apply the transformation
$$\risS{-20}{le1-3}{}{80}{0}{0}
\quad\risS{15}{tor}{}{30}{0}{0}\quad
\risS{0}{le1-4}{}{40}{50}{20}
$$
producing a \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-embedding of $G$ into the sphere, and thus into the plane as well.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{le2}
Let $G$ be a \rb{-3pt}{\Huge $*$}-graph in which all vertices have order 4 or 6, and let $G'$ be the expansion of $G$. Then if $G'$ has a Vassiliev obstruct, $G$ also has a Vassiliev obstruct.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Since all of the vertices in $G$ and $G'$ have even order, the edges making up the complement to a Vassiliev obstruct can be partitioned into edgewise disjoint cycles. Thus the Vassiliev obstruct can be redefined as a partition of the edges of the graph into cycles, two of which have exactly one crossing. Note that such a partition assigns to each 4-vertex one of three possible structures:
$$\risS{-20}{st1}{}{40}{0}{0}\hspace{2cm}
\risS{-20}{st2}{}{40}{0}{0}\hspace{2cm}
\risS{-20}{st3}{}{40}{25}{25}
$$
depending on the passage of the cycles though the vertex.
\medskip
For such a structure on $G'$, call a 4-vertex in an expanded 6-vertex ``closed'' if it pairs together the edges joining it to the other two vertices in the expanded 6-vertex, ``crossing'' if it pairs together opposite edges, and ``open'' otherwise:
$$\risS{-28}{v4-3}{\put(-20,-12){\tt Expanded 6-vertex}}{50}{33}{47}
\hspace{5cm}
\risS{-28}{cr-op-cl}{\put(-80,-12){\tt Its cycle structure. Case (10)
below.}
\put(31,37){\tt crossing}\put(32,22.5){\tt closed}
\put(-10,32.5){\tt open}}{50}{33}{47}
$$
An expanded 6-vertex must therefore have one of the following structures:
\begin{enumerate}
\item{all vertices open}
\item{all vertices closed}
\item{all vertices crossing}
\item{two open, one closed}
\item{two open, one crossing}
\item{two closed, one open}
\item{two closed, one crossing}
\item{two crossing, one open}
\item{two crossing, one closed}
\item{one crossing, one open, one closed}
\end{enumerate}
To get a Vassiliev obstruct in $G$ from a Vassiliev obstruct in $G'$, perform the following transformation to the cycle structure of each expanded 6-vertex, splitting into cases according to the 10 possibilities previously listed:
\begin{enumerate}
\item{all vertices open}
$$\risS{-15}{op-op-op-1}{}{50}{0}{0}
\qquad\risS{15}{tor}{}{30}{0}{0}\qquad
\risS{-15}{op-op-op-2}{}{50}{30}{10}
$$
\item{all vertices closed}
$$\risS{-15}{cl-cl-cl-1}{}{50}{0}{0}
\qquad\risS{15}{tor}{}{30}{0}{0}\qquad
\risS{-15}{cl-cl-cl-2}{}{50}{30}{10}
$$
\item{all vertices crossing}
$$\risS{-15}{cr-cr-cr-1}{}{50}{0}{0}
\qquad\risS{15}{tor}{}{30}{0}{0}\qquad
\risS{-15}{cr-cr-cr-2}{}{50}{30}{10}
$$
\item{two open, one closed}
$$\risS{-15}{op-op-cl-1}{}{50}{0}{0}
\qquad\risS{15}{tor}{}{30}{0}{0}\qquad
\risS{-15}{op-op-cl-2}{}{50}{30}{10}
$$
\item{two open, one crossing}
$$\risS{-15}{op-op-cr-1}{}{50}{0}{0}
\qquad\risS{15}{tor}{}{30}{0}{0}\qquad
\risS{-15}{op-op-cr-2}{}{50}{30}{10}
$$
\item{two closed, one open}
$$\risS{-15}{cl-cl-op-1}{}{50}{0}{0}
\qquad\risS{15}{tor}{}{30}{0}{0}\qquad
\risS{-15}{cl-cl-cl-2}{}{50}{30}{10}
$$
\item{two closed, one crossing}
$$\risS{-15}{cl-cl-cr-1}{}{50}{0}{0}
\qquad\risS{15}{tor}{}{30}{0}{0}\qquad
\risS{-15}{cl-cl-cl-2}{}{50}{30}{10}
$$
\item{two crossing, one open}
$$\risS{-15}{cr-cr-op-1}{}{50}{0}{0}
\qquad\risS{15}{tor}{}{30}{0}{0}\qquad
\risS{-15}{cr-cr-op-2}{}{50}{30}{10}
$$
\item{two crossing, one closed}
$$\risS{-15}{cr-cr-cl-1}{}{50}{0}{0}
\qquad\risS{15}{tor}{}{30}{0}{0}\qquad
\risS{-15}{op-op-cl-2}{}{50}{30}{10}
$$
\item{one crossing, one open, one closed}
$$\risS{-15}{cr-op-cl}{}{50}{0}{0}
\qquad\risS{15}{tor}{}{30}{0}{0}\qquad
\risS{-15}{cr-op-cl-2}{}{50}{45}{15}
$$
\end{enumerate}
The result of this transformation is a partition of edges of the graph $G$ into cycles, as depicted in the figures on the right-hand side. We claim that among these cycles of $G$ there are two with one crossing.
Indeed in cases 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10, the transformation preserves the cycle segments and crossings. In case 2, a cycle is lost, but it has no crossings so it cannot be one of the two cycles with one crossing. In case 7, a crossing is lost, but it is a self-crossing so it does not affect the presence of a Vassiliev obstruct. In case 9, two crossings are lost, but since there are two of them they cannot be between the two cycles with one crossing. Thus a Vassiliev obstruct in $G'$ gives a Vassiliev obstruct in $G$.
\end{proof}
\bigskip\bigskip
|
\section{Introduction}
Observations of stars in the solar neighbourhood show an increase of the
velocity dispersion (the random motion) proportional
to $t^{0.3\dots 0.6}$, where $t$ is the stellar age (Wielen 1977; Holmberg, Nordstr\"om \& Andersen 2007).
This effect can be interpreted as a
heating of the Galactic disc with time.
However, it is unclear what is the cause of this heating. Several mechanisms have been proposed:
Massive black holes in the galactic halo as a source of heating were
investigated by \cite{lo85}, \cite{wf90}, \cite{rl93} and \cite{hf02},
but seem to be
excluded by observations. \cite{atb03} considered
massive clumps of dark matter as a possible heating agent. Giant molecular
clouds were found to cause mostly vertical heating by \cite{l84} and later
\cite{hf02}. \cite{cs85} and \cite{c87} show that transient spiral waves
heat efficiently in the Galactic plane. Lastly, \cite{qhf93} and \cite{vw99} simulate
merging with small satellites and find both radial and vertical heating. This
last mechanism is discussed in this paper. It should be mentioned, however, that
radial mixing may influence the age-velocity dispersion relation significantly
(Sch\"onrich \& Binney 2009; Sellwood \& Binney 2001; Ro\v{s}kar et al. 2008).
The merging of galaxies can be divided into three categories according to their mass ratios.
Major mergers with mass ratios 1:1 to 1:3 of the total galaxy masses usually destroy discs
and result in an early type remnant \citep[][and references therein]{njb06}. Minor mergers
with mass ratios 1:3 to 1:10 of the total galaxy masses destroy a thin disc \citep{pbk10}.
The minor merger events are discussed in the context of the formation of thick discs
\citep{vh08,vh09} and substructure in the halo \citep{n02,pbk10}. The third category is the merging
of satellite galaxies (or dark matter clumps) with
smaller mass ratios. These merger or interaction events can be characterized as a
perturbation of the primary galaxy and it is more convenient to quantify the mass ratio in units
of the disc mass of the primary. In this context the survival of a thin disc over 10 Gyr in a
$\Lambda\rmn{CDM}$ universe lead to serious constraints on the clumpiness of the DM halo \citep{atb03}.
\cite{h08} compared the efficiency of the disc by
satellite galaxy mergers of different authors and argued that it scales with the square of the
satellite mass. This is consistent with the interpretation heating by dynamical friction during
each disc crossing event. As a consequence, the upper mass end of the perturbers are most
efficient and determine the survival of a thin disc. Kazantzidis et al. (2008, 2009) performed a
comprehensive study of the impact of DM subhaloes on a Milky Way like disc galaxy in a
realistic cosmological context. They investigated the resulting substructures and kinematic
features in disc and halo.
In numerical simulations the long-term (or secular) dynamical evolution of a thin galactic disc
is very sensitive to the spatial resolution, the level of numerical noise, and the dynamical
feedback with the DM halo. A live dark matter halo is important for two reasons. \cite{vw99}
have shown that the reaction of the disc on the perturbation of a satellite
galaxy is significantly higher with a live halo compared to a rigid dark matter potential.
Secondly, dynamical friction in the dark matter is important for the orbital evolution and thus
energy loss of satellites with masses exceeding $\sim 10^8~\msun$. This is exactly the mass range
dominating the heating rate of the disc by satellite galaxies. Additionally, the mass of the dark
matter particle must not be too large in order to avoid numerical heating of the disc. In
most simulations the disc is represented by less than 1 million particles leading to a significant
thickening of the disc by numerical two-body relaxation, which is much stronger in direct $N$-body
codes and Tree codes compared to particle mesh-codes. In \cite{vw99} and in \cite{hc06}
the numerical heating of the unperturbed disc was
shown explicitly. \cite{vw99} used a differential method to quantify the
dynamical heating of infalling satellites. This may underestimate the heating rate, since a
more realistic thinner, dynamically cooler, disc is more sensitive to perturbations. On the other
hand, the feedback on the satellite galaxy may be larger by the stronger disc shocking event.
Particle-mesh codes are predestined for the simulation of collisionless systems such as
galaxies, because two-body relaxation is strongly suppressed by the partial decoupling of the
point-like structure in orbital motion of the particles and the gravitational potential based on
the grid. \cite{k07} have shown that the growth of global mode perturbations
are easily damped out by noise due to an insufficient particle number. If the excitation of spiral
structure or bar-like perturbations are an important mechanism for the energy transfer from
the satellite to the disc, then a very high resolution well above 1 million particles is needed to
reproduce a realistic heating rate.
Improving the resolution of discs in vertical direction has always been
a challenge.
There is, indeed, a further problem which is inherent in any numerical
technique that is used for the simulation of disc galaxies. Stellar discs
have relaxation times larger than a Hubble time, i.\,e. they are collisionless
systems. This implies that in simulations the thickness of an unperturbed
disc indicates how well the code would model a collisionless gravitating
system.
The term ``unperturbed'' denotes the absence of perturbations such as
stellar bars, spiral arms, or molecular clouds.
One often notes, in simulations, that discs become thicker with time.
This is caused
by the graininess of the particle distribution and the limited spatial
resolution. We refer to this effect as ``numerical heating''.
For two decades {\sc Superbox} is used as a successful tool to simulate
the dynamics of isolated and interacting galaxies.
A first description was given by Bien, Fuchs \& Wielen (1991),
together with a consideration of the direct $N$-body technique and a
tree-code. For a more detailed discussion the reader is referred to \cite{f00}.
We also mention Fellhauer's lecture notes \citep{fln08}.
The code was evolving from the conventional particle-mesh technique
\citep[see, e.\,g.,][]{he88}
by applying grids and sub-grids in regions of high particle
density. The advantage of {\sc Superbox} is that the code can run on any
workstation or PC, giving reliable results. The code thus proves to be a
serious alternative to direct $N$-body schemes and tree-codes.
Initially, \cite{mb93} applied {\sc Superbox} to compare
numerical experiments to observations of the high-velocity encounter of
NGC 4782/4783. They found a convincing description of the morphological and
kinematical structure, and estimated the time elapsed since the closest
approach of the two interacting galaxies. This was the beginning
of a series of research projects using {\sc Superbox} as a tool. We note
as examples the dynamical evolution of a satellite ga\-la\-xy
\citep{kk98}, the decay of dwarf ga\-la\-xies in dark
matter haloes \citep{p02}, and dynamical friction, compare
\cite{p04} and \cite{jp05}. It should be mentioned that
\cite{s03} studied the inspiral of a black hole to the Galactic
centre, and \cite{k07} considered unstable modes in a
disc. \cite{f08} published on the dynamics of the
Bootes dwarf galaxy. \cite{p08} investigated the tidal
evolution of dwarfs of the Local Group. Most recently, a study was
made on the dynamical friction of massive objects in galactic centres by \cite{j11}.
Our list is by far not complete.
So far, {\sc Superbox} was not able to adapt the sub-grids to discs.
A higher resolution in vertical direction can be
achieved by introducing flattened grids, see \cite{b08}. This
new feature and the application to dynamical heating of galactic
discs are the main topics of the present paper. The improved code
is called {\sc Superbox-10}.
As {\sc Superbox}, {\sc Superbox-10} is rather free of numerical heating.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{0.0cm}
~
\hspace{-0.80cm}
\includegraphics[width=80.00mm,height=73.06mm]{Fig1d.ps}
~
\vspace{0.25cm}
\caption{Projection of a simplified galaxy model in a 3D box. Shown are the basic parameters $R_{\rmn{core}}$,
$R_{\rmn{out}}$ and $R_{\rmn{sys}}$.}
\label{label1}
\end{figure}
Below we first describe {\sc Superbox} in detail and then extend to {\sc Superbox-10}.
It follows a discussion of the parallelised version which results in a significant speed-up.
Then our test of improved vertical resolution is described. As an important
application we consider disc heating by satellite galaxies. In particular, we address
the ratio of radial and vertical velocity dispersion and the transfer of energy and
angular momentum. Special attention is given to the interaction of the infalling
satellite with the dark matter halo.
In a conference proceedings publication \citep{b08} we presented preliminary results
on an improved version of {\sc Superbox} with increased vertical resolution of the disc:
Negligible disc thickening of an isolated disc after 2.5 Gyr. The present paper should be seen
as a pilot study for high resolution simulations of disc heating by satellite galaxy mergers.
Two new aspects are presented: (1) No correction for numerical heating is needed and we
can measure the heating rate directly. Dynamical friction in the dark matter halo is included
automatically. (2) We analyse for the first time additionally the transfer of angular momentum.
This is important for understanding the physical processes responsible for the disc heating.
For this pilot study we select a satellite with a relatively high mass on eccentric orbits, which is
destroyed after a few disc crossing events.
\section[]{A review of {\sc Superbox}}
\subsection{Basic concepts}
The conventional particle-mesh technique considers a set of massive particles,
often called ``superstars'', in a three-dimensional Cartesian grid (``box'') consisting
of $N \times N \times N$ cells which represents a relevant part of the universe.
In this section, the length of each cell is the unity.
We suppose that $\rho_{a,b,c}$ is the mean density in the cell with indices
$a$, $b$, $c$ which are integers running from 0 to $N-1$. Then the potential
can be obtained by solving Poisson's equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:poisson}
\Phi_{a,b,c} = G \sum_{\xi = 0}^{N-1} \sum_{\eta = 0}^{N-1} \sum_{\zeta = 0}^{N-1}
\rho_{\xi,\eta,\zeta} H_{\xi-a,\eta-b,\zeta-c}
\end{equation}
Here, $H_{\xi-a,\eta-b,\zeta-c}$ (i.\,e. Green's function) is the inverse distance
between the points having indices $a$, $b$, $c$ and $\xi$, $\eta$, $\zeta$, namely
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:greens}
H_{\xi-a,\eta-b,\zeta-c} = [(\xi-a)^2 + (\eta-b)^2 + (\zeta-c)^2]^{-1/2}
\end{equation}
We note that the term $G \rho_{\xi,\eta,\zeta} H_{\xi-a,\eta-b,\zeta-c}$
accounts for the contribution of the cell $\xi$, $\eta$, $\zeta$ to the
cell $a$, $b$, $c$. Thus $\Phi_{a,b,c}$ gives the correct potential
assigned to cell $a$, $b$, $c$. The evaluation of all $N \times N \times N$ values
$\Phi_{a,b,c}$ takes a time proportional to the number of cells squared,
$(N \times N \times N)^2$.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{0.0cm}
~
\hspace{-1.0cm}
\includegraphics[width=90.00mm,height=82.19mm]{Fig2f.ps}
~
\vspace{0.25cm}
\caption{The five grids of {\sc Superbox}. Grid 1 has the highest resolution
and resolves the core. Grid 1, grid 2 and grid 3 move through the local universe,
defined by grid 4 and grid 5.}
\label{label2}
\end{figure}
The direct convolution can be replaced by discrete Fourier transforms where $N$
is supposed to be a power of 2. First $\rho_{a,b,c}$ and $H_{a,b,c}$ are
transformed, resulting in
\begin{equation}
\hat{\rho}_{k,l,m} = \sum_{a = 0}^{N-1} \sum_{b = 0}^{N-1} \sum_{c = 0}^{N-1}
\rho_{a,b,c} \exp[-i{2\pi \over N}(ka+lb+mc)]
\end{equation}
and $\hat{H}_{k,l,m}$, analogously. The potential is then obtained by the
inverse transformation of the product $\hat{\rho}_{k,l,m} \hat{H}_{k,l,m}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_{a,b,c} = \nonumber\\
{G \over N^3} \sum_{k = 0}^{N-1} \sum_{l = 0}^{N-1} \sum_{m = 0}^{N-1}
\hat{\rho}_{k,l,m} \hat{H}_{k,l,m} \exp[+i{2\pi \over N}(ka+lb+mc)]
\end{eqnarray}
The procedure can dramatically be accelerated when a Fast Fourier Transform
(FFT) is applied. The computing time is then roughly proportional to
$N^3\log N$.
The potential, as derived so far by Fourier transforms, is correct for
periodic systems only. The exact potential of isolated systems can be obtained
by doubling the number of cells in each coordinate direction, i.\,e. a
grid is considered which contains $2N \times 2N \times 2N$ cells.
A rigorous proof can be found in the paper by \cite{eb79}.
As before,
the $N \times N \times N$ sub-grid contains the particles (``active region'').
The remaining space is left empty. Likewise, $H$ is extended over the
$2N \times 2N \times 2N$ cells such that it satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:symmetry}
H_{2N-a,b,c} = H_{2N-a,2N-b,c} \nonumber\\
= H_{2N-a,b,2N-c} = H_{2N-a,2N-b,2N-c} = H_{a,2N-b,c} \nonumber\\
= H_{a,2N-b,2N-c} = H_{a,b,2N-c} = H_{a,b,c}
\end{eqnarray}
for $0 \leq a,b,c \leq N$. Having transformed the extended functions
$\rho$ and $H$, the correct potential $\Phi$ can be found in the active
grid. Outside, $\Phi$ is unphysical.
Numerical differentiation of the potential with respect to the coordinates
leads for each particle $j$ to the acceleration $(a_{x})_j$, $(a_{y})_j$,
$(a_{z})_j$. The leap-frog scheme is applied to integrate the
equations of motions. In $x$-direction the algorithm reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{x}_j(t+ \Delta t/2) &=& \dot{x}_j(t- \Delta t/2) + \Delta t (a_{x})_j \nonumber \\
x_j(t+ \Delta t) &=& x_j(t) + \Delta t \dot{x}_j(t+ \Delta t/2)
\end{eqnarray}
where $t$ is the time and $\Delta t$ denotes the constant integration step.
The particle-mesh technique holds some subtle twists.
For instance for $H_{a,b,c}$ it suffices a $(N+1) \times (N+1) \times (N+1)$
grid. From the symmetry conditions (\ref{eq:symmetry}) follows that the function is then
known on the whole $2N \times 2N \times 2N$ grid. The sub-grid is overwritten
by $\hat{H}$ which shows similar symmetries. $\hat{H}$ is calculated only once,
since it is fixed over the integration period. For each integration step the grid
containing the density $\rho$ is overwritten by the Fourier transform $(\hat{\rho}$
which, in turn, is overwritten by $\hat{\rho}\hat{H}$). This product is finally
overwritten by $\Phi$. The advantages of the method are obvious.
The conventional particle-mesh technique was
orders of magnitude faster than direct $N$-body codes at the time. This allows the
integration of a large number of particles. Thus, statistical noise is extremely
low. Particles leaving the outermost grid are lost. The user should thus carefully consider the number of
particles involved in the computation.
The greatest disadvantage, however, is the low spatial resolution in regions
of higher particle densities, e.\,g. the cores of spherical galaxies. An
improvement is {\sc Superbox} which treats the particles self-consistently
in a nested system of grids. Here, the term ``self-consistent'' means that
all particles have masses which define the total potential. For simplicity,
we consider a spherical galaxy of radius $R_{\rmn{out}}$. Fig. 1 shows how the
particles are subdivided into a central region (``core'') where the distance
$r$ from the centre is $< R_{\rmn{core}}$ and a region with
$R_{\rmn{core}} < r < R_{\rmn{out}}$. The local universe.is
given by $R_{\rmn{sys}}$.
As shown in Fig. 2 {\sc Superbox} utilises five grids. They all have the same number
of cells, $N^3$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Grid 1 has the highest resolution and resolves the core which contains
all particles with $< R_{\rmn{core}}$.
\item Grid 2 contains the core, too, but the resolution is intermediate.
\item Grid 3 is equal to grid 2, but contains only particles with
$R_{\rmn{core}} < r < R_{\rmn{out}}$.
\item Grid 4 is the fixed global grid. It contains only particles inside
$R_{\rmn{out}}$.
\item Grid 5 is equal to grid 4 with all particles outside $R_{\rmn{out}}$.
\end{enumerate}
As the galaxy moves, grid 1, grid 2 and grid 3 move through the local universe
(i.\,e. grid 4 and grid 5, respectively). This is done by centreing the inner and intermediate
grids on the density maximum of the galaxy in question. Alternatively, the centre of mass
can be considered. Particles outside $R_{\rmn{sys}}$
are lost, compare the discussion above. The code is not restricted to one galaxy. Since the potentials, and
thus the accelerations, are additive, all galaxies are treated sequentially
in the same five grids. The corresponding five total potentials are $\Phi_1$,
$\Phi_2$, $\Phi_3$, $\Phi_4$, and $\Phi_5$
\begin{enumerate}
\item For a particle with $r < R_{\rmn{core}}$, the correct potential is
$\Phi_1 + \Phi_3 + \Phi_5$.
\item For a particle with, $R_{\rmn{core}} < r < R_{\rmn{out}}$ the sum
$\Phi_2 + \Phi_3 + \Phi_5$ is taken.
\item When the particle is outside $R_{\rmn{out}}$ then $\Phi_4$
and $\Phi_5$ are used.
\end{enumerate}
In principle, number and type of the galaxies is arbitrary.
Two features should be emphasized. A particle at the point $(x,y,z)$
is assigned to the cell with indices
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:cell}
a=\left[\gamma ~x + {N \over 2}\right],
~ b=\left[\gamma ~y + {N \over 2}\right],
~ c=\left[\gamma ~z + {N \over 2}\right]
\end{equation}
where $[~]$ denotes the nearest integer function. The factor $\gamma$ enhances (or shrinks)
an area. If $\gamma = 10$ is assigned to grid 1, the resolution increases by a factor of 10.
Inside the cell with indices $i, ~ j, ~ k$, let the particle's coordinates be $\Delta x$,
$\Delta y$, and $\Delta z$. Then its acceleration, e.\,g. in $x$-direction is found by the expression
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:diff}
a_x = \nonumber\\
{\Phi_{i+1,j,k} - \Phi_{i-1,j,k} \over 2 l_x} \nonumber\\
+{\Phi_{i+1,j,k} + \Phi_{i-1,j,k} - 2 \Phi_{i,j,k} \over l_x^2} \Delta x \nonumber\\
+{\Phi_{i+1,j+1,k} - \Phi_{i-1,j+1,k} + \Phi_{i-1,j-1,k} - \Phi_{i+1,j-1,k} \over 4 l_x l_y} \Delta y \nonumber\\
+{\Phi_{i+1,j,k+1} - \Phi_{i-1,j,k+1} + \Phi_{i-1,j,k-1} - \Phi_{i+1,j,k-1} \over 4 l_x l_z} \Delta z
\end{eqnarray}
where $l_x = l_y = l_z$ is the length of the cell.
This scheme requires two empty cells at each boundary, i. e.,
only $N-4$ cells per dimension are considered.
We note that in {\sc Superbox}, the
three lengths are equal. When all velocities are updated by applying these accelerations, then new positions
of the particles are calculated. After that, a new integration cycle starts.
\subsection[]{Extensions to {\sc Superbox-10}}
For version 10, {\sc Superbox}'s original {\sc Fortran 77} code has been ported to
{\sc Fortran 95} and arranged into several modules, to make future extension easier.
\subsubsection{Individual masses}
The conventional particle-mesh technique considers only a single mass for all particles.
In {\sc Superbox-10}, an individual mass can be assigned to each particle. In practice,
however, the particles of each subgroup (i.\,e. halo, disc, etc.) carry identical mass.
\subsubsection{Improved vertical resolution}
{\sc Superbox} poorly resolves stellar discs in vertical direction. {\sc Superbox-10}
overcomes this shortcoming. We explain the basic idea by taking the example of a
disc-bulge-halo galaxy. First,
the potential of the disc-bulge-halo galaxy is calculated. The intermediate grids
grid 2 and grid 3 are flattened along the corresponding $z§$-axis. When, for instance,
the flattening is $q = 1/4$ the resolution is improved by a factor of 4.
As a consequence, equations \ref{eqn:greens}, \ref{eqn:cell} and \ref{eqn:diff}
need to be changed.
Yet, there is
a restriction to $q$. In order to cover grid 1 and at least two cells of grid 4 (and 5,
respectively), $q$ should not be smaller than
\begin{equation}
q_{\rmn{crit}} = \max\left({R_\rmn{core} \over R_\rmn{out}},{4 \over
{N-4}}{R_\rmn{sys} \over R_\rmn{out}} \right)
\end{equation}
Otherwise, spurious results are obtained. If more than one galaxy is considered, $q < 1$
applies only to the first galaxy.
\cite{b08} simulated a disc-bulge halo galaxy using {\sc Superbox-10}.
The authors made a comparison with a code based on the TREE-GRAPE scheme \citep{fu05}.
For 2{,}577{,}235 particles the CPU time turned out to be about three days on a single
GRAPE6a board. The CPU time of {\sc Superbox-10} (which is still called {\sc Superbox}
in that paper) on a customary PC is of the same order. This result shows impressively
the efficiency of the code. \cite{b08} came to the conclusion that the extended code
\begin{enumerate}
\item is very fast,
\item does not produce noticeable numerical disc heating, and
\item allows an improved vertical resolution.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Parallelisation}
The computationally most intensive part of {\sc Superbox-10} is the
calculation of the potential using the Fast Fourier Transform.
The non-parallelised version of {\sc Superbox-10} applies the 1D-FFT routine \mbox{\sc realft},
taken from {\it Numerical Recipes} \citep{p92}. The 3D-FFT is calculated
by doing $N\times N$ 1D transforms in each direction.
In the parallelised version, this scheme has been replaced by a 3D-FFT
from the {\sc fftw} library (version 2.1.5), see \cite{fj05}.
This routine divides the 3D array into slices
along one dimension and distributes these slices among multiple processors.
The processors then jointly calculate the 3D-FFT, using the Message Passing
Interface to communicate.
The modular design of {\sc Superbox-10} allows us to replace
the FFT routine without changing much of the rest of the code. The non-parallelised
FFT is still available.
In the following we introduce the fraction $f = t_{\rmn{FFT}}/t_{\rmn{tot}}$ in order
to analyse the non-parallelised version in more detail.
Here $t_{\rmn{FFT}}$ is the time spend in the FFT routine per integration step
and $t_{\rmn{tot}}$ is the total time used for the integration step.
According to
Amdahl's law \citep{a67}, the maximum achievable speed-up by improving the FFT is then given by
\begin{equation}
S_{\rmn{max}} = \frac{1}{1 - f}
\end{equation}
Table~\ref{tbl:timediv_old} lists $f$, $S_{\rmn{max}}$ and the
speed-up $S$ achieved in benchmarks.
The values depend on the grid size $N$ as well as on the particle
number $n$. For $n \ga N^3$, the integration of the
particles' orbits starts to dominate over the potential calculation.
Thus, the higher $N$, the greater the expected speed-up will be.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Maximum and achieved speed-up, $S_{\rmn{max}}$ and $S$, as function of grid
size $N$ and particle number $n$. $f =t_{\rmn{FFT}}/t_{\rmn{tot}}$, see text.}
\label{tbl:timediv_old}
\begin{tabular}{@{}cccccc}
\hline
$N$ & $n$ & $f$ & $S_{\rmn{max}}$ & $S$ & $S/S_{\rmn{max}}$ \\\hline
64 & 500k & 0.62 & 2.61 & 2.48 & 0.95\\\hline
128 & 500k & 0.92 & 12.58 & 8.96 & 0.71\\
& 2M & 0.74 & 3.80 & 3.26 & 0.86\\\hline
256 & 500k & 0.99 & 71.56 & 23.49 & 0.33\\
& 2M & 0.95 & 20.20 & 11.90 & 0.59\\
& 10M & 0.78 & 4.48 & 4.05 & 0.90\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Benchmarks were run on the Titan cluster at the Astronomisches Rechen-Institut,
which has 32 nodes, each containing a Xeon 3.2 Ghz dual core CPU and a nVidia GeForce 9800 GTX
Graphics Processing Unit (GPU).
However, we used only one core per CPU in order to
have more memory available, allowing for higher grid sizes. The GPUs
are currently not used by {\sc Superbox-10}, but a version suitable
for GPUs is in preparation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{speed-up.eps}
\caption{Speed-up $S$ compared to non-parallelised {\sc Superbox} as function
of the number of processors for varying $N^3$, the number of grid cells, and particle number $n$.}
\label{fig:speed-up}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:speed-up} shows the measured speed-up $S$ as function of the
number of processes in comparison to the
non-parallelised version of {\sc Superbox} with the old FFT when
varying both the grid cell number $N$ and the particle number $n$.
The application of {\sc FFTW} alone already results in
a speed-up between 1.8 and 2.4. In cases where the curves reach their
maximum ($N = 256$ for $n = 10\times10^6$ and $N = 128$ for all $n$)
the speed-up lies between $0.7$ and $0.9~S_{\rmn{max}}$.
In the remaining two cases ($N = 256$ for $n = 0.5\times10^6$ and $n = 2\times10^6$)
it lies between $0.3$ and $0.6~S_{\max}$. When more processors are applied
one can expect a further increase.
The fact that the speed-up almost reaches $S_{\rmn{max}}$ shows that
there is only a small overhead due to communication between the
nodes. Thus, from the values of $S_{\rmn{max}}$ in Table~\ref{tbl:timediv_old} we can formulate the following
rule of thumb: When using $p$ processors and
a grid of size $N^3$, the number of particles should not be greater
than $4 N^3 / p$. Conversely, when simulating $n$ particles with a grid
of size $N^3$, no more than $4 N^3/n$ processors should be used.
\section{Models}
In this section we will describe the models used in our simulations of isolated
disc-bulge-halo galaxies (section \ref{sec:isosim}) and merging of galaxies with satellites
(section \ref{sec:mergesim}).
\subsection{Galaxy model}
Our galaxy model consists of a disc, a bulge and a dark matter halo component.
The density profile of the disc is exponential in
radial and isothermal in vertical direction for $R<R_{\max}$ and $|z|<z_{\max}$:
\begin{equation}
\varrho(R,z) = \varrho_0~e^{-R/h}~\rmn{sech}^2(z/z_0)
\end{equation}
The disc has a scale length $h = 2.5~\rmn{kpc}$ and a thickness $z_0 = 0.6~\rmn{kpc}$.
The profile is cut off at $R_{\rmn{max}} = 10~h$ and $z_{\rmn{max}} = 10~z_0$.
This excludes $0.05$ per cent of the mass an infinite profile would have.
At $R = 8~\rmn{kpc}$ the Toomre parameter has a value of $Q = 2$.
Both bulge and halo have a cropped Hernquist profile \citep{h90}
\begin{equation}
\varrho(r) = \varrho_0~\frac{a^4}{r(r+a)^3}
\end{equation}
with scale radius $a$ and cutoff radius $r_c$.
The scale radius of the bulge is $a = 0.5~\rmn{kpc}$ and is cut off at $r_c = 14~a$.
The halo's scale radius is $a = 16.8~\rmn{kpc}$ and it is cut off at $r_c = 5~a$.
We emphasize that both bulge and halo are represented by live particles.
The importance of treating the dark matter halo of galaxies as a live component, i.e.,
dynamically evolving and in mutual interaction with the baryonic component, has been
stressed in self-consistent $N$-body simulations of isolated disc galaxies
(e.g., Athanassoula 2002; Dubinski, Berentzen \& Shlosman 2009).
The angular momentum exchange between
the disc and dark matter halo in such cases is mediated by dynamical resonances.
These processes cannot be resolved when using a static, e.g., analytic
prescription for the halo potential.
The model has been implemented with the programme
{\sc MaGaLie} \citep{b01}. We extended {\sc MaGaLie} to allow for up to
10 million particles.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{The three components of our galaxy model and the satellite.
Shown are the number of particles $n$, the
total mass $M$ and the mass per particle $m$.}
\label{tbl:gal_param}
\begin{tabular}{@{}c|ccc}
\hline
& $n~[10^6]$ & $M~[10^{10}~\msun]$ & $m~[10^3~\msun]$ \\
\hline
disc & 5.19 & 4.82 & 9.30 \\
bulge & 2.30 & 2.14 & 9.30 \\
halo & 2.15 & 20.0 & 93.0 \\
\hline
satellite & 0.50 & 0.54 & 10.08 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The particle numbers and masses of the three components are listed in Table~\ref{tbl:gal_param}.
In order to reduce the total number of particles,
the particles of the halo are chosen to be ten times as massive as those of disc and bulge
This does not pose a problem though, because they are still light enough not to
cause numerical heating.
Initially, the model is not completely in equilibrium. Therefore,
it is evolved in isolation with high resolution ($N = 256$, $q = 0.25$)
until it reaches equilibrium. This resolution is high enough not to introduce
any numerical heating.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{rot-curve.eps}
\caption{The disc's mean rotational velocity $\langle v_{\Phi}\rangle$,
radial velocity dispersion $\sigma_R$, and vertical velocity dispersion $\sigma_z$.
Also shown is the circular velocity $v_c$. Note that the galaxy has already
reached equilibrium.}
\label{fig:rot-curve}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:rot-curve} shows the disc's mean rotational velocity
$\langle v_{\Phi}\rangle$ and its velocity dispersions $\sigma_R$ and $\sigma_z$ in
radial and vertical direction after this initial relaxation. Also shown is
the circular velocity $v_c$. The stellar disc has a flat
rotation curve and an exponentially decreasing velocity dispersion.
\subsection{Satellite model}
The satellite for the merger simulations has a Plummer
profile
\begin{equation}
\rho(r) = \frac{3M}{4\pi a^3}\left(1 + \frac{r^2}{a^2}\right)^{-\frac{5}{2}}
\end{equation}
with mass $M = 5.4\times10^9~\msun = 0.11\times M_{\rmn{disc}}$ and scale radius $a = 1.5~\rmn{kpc}$.
Its profile is cut off at $r_c = 10~a$. It consists of $5\times10^5$ particles (see
Table~\ref{tbl:gal_param}).
Like the galaxy, it is first evolved in isolation.
\section{Isolated galaxy models}
\label{sec:isosim}
\cite{b08} showed that {\sc Superbox} intrinsically has a very low level of
numerical heating. We discuss now in detail the dependence of the numerical
heating on the vertical flattening factor $q$. To that end we simulate the
previously discussed disc-bulge-halo galaxy model in isolation with various
resolutions and measure the change in vertical thickness of the disc component.
\subsection{Simulation parameters}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Vertical resolution in parsec for various combinations of $q$ and $N$.
Note that $R_{\rmn{out}} = 28~\rmn{kpc}$.
The radial resolution is independent
of $q$ and has the same value as the vertical resolution for $q=1$.}
\label{tbl:vert_res}
\begin{tabular}{@{}c|cccc}
\hline
$q\backslash N$ & 64 & 128 & 256 & 512 \\
\hline
1 & 933 & 452 & 222 & 110\\
1/2 & 467 & 226 & 111 & 55\\
1/4 & 233 & 113 & 56 & 28\\
1/8 & - & 56 & 27 & 14\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
In all simulations, the grids have
$R_{\rmn{core}} = 3.5~\rmn{kpc}$, $R_{\rmn{out}} = 28~\rmn{kpc}$
and $R_{\rmn{sys}} = 105~\rmn{kpc}$.
Depending on the number of cells $N^3$ and flattening parameter $q$, the
simulations have vertical resolutions listed in Table~\ref{tbl:vert_res}. The radial
resolution for a certain $N=N_0$ has the same value as the vertical resolution
for $N=N_0$ and $q=1$.
We run low-resolution simulations with $N=64$ and $q=1,~0.5,~0.25$. The radial
resolution is 933 pc and the vertical resolution amounts to 933, 467 and 233 pc, respectively.
These simulations are compared to a medium-resolution simulation ($N=128$, $q=0.25$)
where the radial resolution is 452 pc and the vertical resolution is 113 pc.
Additionally, a comparison to the initial, relaxed, system is made.
A time step of $0.4~\rmn{Myr}$ is used and the length of the integration corresponds to
1 Gyr.
\subsection{Results}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{z.stddev.eps}
\caption{Standard deviation of the $z$-coordinate of disc particles as function of $R$
for varying $N$ and $q$ at $t = 1~\rmn{Gyr}$, together with the initial curve. The values are
calculated in radial bins of equal particle numbers.}
\label{fig:z.stddev}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:z.stddev} shows the root mean square (RMS) of the $z$-coordinate
of all disc particles, $\sqrt{\langle z^2\rangle}$, as a function of radial distance $R$.
We used radial bins of equal particle numbers. The RMS can be
taken as a measure of the thickness of the disc.
The low-resolution simulation ($N=64$, $q=1$) over-estimates the
thickness significantly. The maximum deviation from
the initial thickness is about 16 per cent.
Flattening the intermediate grid by a factor of 4, brings the
thickness down to within about 4 per cent of the initial values, without increasing the
computation time. The medium-resolution simulation ($N=128$, $q=0.25$) deviates at
most $\approx 1.6$ per cent from the initial values, but is closer than $1$ per cent for most
of the radial range.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{z.stddev.comp.eps}
\caption{Standard deviation of the $z$-coordinate of disc particles as function of $R$
for varying $N$ and $q$ at $t = 1~\rmn{Gyr}$, together with the initial curve. The values are
calculated in radial bins of equal particle numbers.}
\label{fig:z.stddev.comp}
\end{figure}
To demonstrate the effect of flattening, Figure~\ref{fig:z.stddev.comp} directly
compares two simulations with the same vertical resolution -- $N=128$ with $q = 0.25$
and $N=256$ with $q=0.25$ -- corresponding to a vertical cell length of about 112 pc.
As a reference the case of $N=128$ without flattening is
also shown. As can be seen, introducing flattening in the case of medium resolution
diminishes thickness, down to about the same value as in the case of high resolution.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{zprofa.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{zprofb.eps}
\caption{Volume density $\rho$ as function of $z$ (averaged over the radial range
$7.5~\rmn{kpc}\le R\le 8.5~\rmn{kpc}$) for varying $N$ and $q$ at $t = 1~\rmn{Gyr}$.
The solid line shows the initial values. {\bf (a)} Whole range. {\bf (b)} Right tail.}
\label{fig:zprof}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:zprof} displays the vertical density profile averaged
over the radial interval $7.5~\rmn{kpc} \le R \le 8.5~\rmn{kpc}$.
The initial profile (solid line) and the profile of the medium-resolution simulation
(dash-dotted line) are almost identical. In the case of the
low-resolution simulations (dashed line), the profile is
significantly widened for $|z|>1~\rmn{kpc}$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:zprof}~(b)). This is a
sign of numerical heating. Reducing $q$ brings the profile closer to the initial
one. For $q=0.25$, deviations are only visible beyond 2 kpc.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{z.stddev.evo.eps}
\caption{Standard deviation of the $z$-coordinate of disc particles as function of
time for varying grid size $N$ and flattening $q$.
The standard deviation is calculated in a region around $R = 8~\rmn{kpc}$. The solid line
shows the initial value.}
\label{fig:z.stddev.evo}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:z.stddev.evo} shows the time evolution of the RMS
for varying grid size $N$ and flattening factor $q$ in the region around $R = 8~\rmn{kpc}$.
In the first 200 Myr, the model adapts to the new grid structure, which causes a
change in the RMS. After that, the RMS increases slightly with time in the case of the
low-resolution simulations. It reaches values that
are $8.7$ per cent ($q=1$), $3.6$ per cent ($q=0.5$) and $2.4$ per cent ($q=0.25$) greater
than the initial
value. In the medium-resolution simulation however, it remains stable at a deviation of
about $0.9$ per cent.
\section{Merger simulations}
\label{sec:mergesim}
One application that benefits from the increased z-resolution
is the study of the dynamical heating of galactic discs
caused by the merging with satellite galaxies. We simulate the merging
of a small satellite with a disc-bulge-halo galaxy for varying initial
positions and velocities of the satellite.
\subsection{Simulation parameters}
All satellites are initially at a distance of $R_{\rmn{A}}=25~\rmn{kpc}$ from the
centre of the galaxy and have a velocity of either $115~\kms$ or $81.3~\kms$.
If all the mass of the galaxy inside $R_{\rmn{A}}$ were concentrated in a
point mass, these velocities would result in elliptical orbits with apocentre distance
$R_{\rmn{A}}$ and eccentricities
$\epsilon = 0.56$ and $\epsilon = 0.78$, respectively. Here, the eccentricity is defined
as
\[ \epsilon = {\sqrt{a^2-b^2} \over a}\]
with semi-major axis $a$ and semi-minor axis $b$. In the two-body problem,
the pericentre distance of these orbits would be $R_{\rmn{P}} \approx 7~\rmn{kpc}$ and
$R_{\rmn{P}} \approx 3~\rmn{kpc}$, respectively.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Satellite parameters $\epsilon$ (eccentricity), $v$ (velocity), $R_{\rmn{A}}$ (apocentre),
$R_{\rmn{P}}$ (pericentre) and $i$ (orbital inclination).}
\label{tab:satparam}
\begin{tabular}{@{}c|cccc}
\hline
$\epsilon$ & $v~[\rmn{km}/\rmn{s}]$ & $R_{\rmn{A}}~[\rmn{kpc}]$ & $R_{\rmn{P}}~[\rmn{kpc}]$ & $i~[\rmn{\degr}]$ \\\hline
$0.56$ & $115$ & 25 & 7.05 & 0, 10, $\dots$, 180\\
$0.78$ & $81.3$ & 25 & 3.08 & 0, 10, $\dots$, 120\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
In addition to the eccentricity, we vary the orbital inclination $i$ relative to the plane
of the disc between $0\degr$ and
$180\degr$ for $\epsilon = 0.56$ in steps of $10\degr$, and likewise between $0\degr$ and $120\degr$ for $\epsilon=0.78$.
For $i < 90\degr$ the satellite is on a prograde orbit as compared to the galactic rotation,
while for $i > 90\degr$ the orbit is retrograde. For $i=90\degr$ the satellite's initial velocity
is perpendicular to the bulk motion of the disc.
Table~\ref{tab:satparam} summarises these parameters.
As shown in the previous section, a grid cell number of $N=128$ with flattening
factor $q=0.25$ causes no significant numerical heating. We adopt these
values for our merger simulations.
All simulations run for 1 Gyr. After that, the satellites are completely dissolved.
As a control, the galaxy model is also evolved in isolation.
At the end of the simulation, the plane of the disc is tilted by a few degrees.
In the following, the data are evaluated in a coordinate system where $x$
and $y$ define the galactic plane and $z$ is perpendicular to it.
\subsection{Vertical profile}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{merge-zprof.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{merge-zprof-inner.eps}
\caption{Volume density of the disc in the region $7.5~\rmn{kpc}\le R\le 8.5~\rmn{kpc}$
after the merging ($t=1~\rmn{Gyr}$) as function of $z$ for different satellite orbital inclinations $i$.
All satellites show have initial orbital eccentricity $\epsilon = 0.56$. The solid line corresponds
to the isolated simulation, i.e., without satellite.
{\bf (a)} Whole range. {\bf (b)} Inner part.}
\label{fig:merge-zprof}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:merge-zprof} shows the vertical density profile of the disc
after merging. Only satellites with significant effect on the disc
are shown ($e = 0.56$, $i = 0\degr\dots 30\degr$).
Compared to the isolated simulation (i.e. without satellite), the central density is decreased
by a factor of 2 at the most ($i = 20\degr$).
In the inner part ($|z|<1~\rmn{kpc})$, the original $\rmn{sech}^2(z/z_0)$ profile
remains a good fit, albeit with a greater thickness $z_0$. The isolated galaxy has
$z_0 = 0.6~\rmn{kpc}$, while for $i = 20\degr$ the thickness is increased to
$0.8~\rmn{kpc}$.
In the outer part, however, the density is increased as compared to a $\rmn{sech}^2(z/z_0)$ law.
While the thickness of $0.8~\rmn{kpc}$ corresponds to a scale height of $0.4~\rmn{kpc}$,
the outer part is better fitted by an exponential function with scale height $\approx 0.65~\rmn{kpc}$.
\cite{hc06} provide a formula for the increase of the thickness of the disc caused by cold
dark matter subhaloes, which should also be applicable to satellite mergers.
In our notation their formula is given by
\[ \Delta z_0 \approx 8 h \left(\frac{M_{\rmn{sat}}}{M_{\rmn{disc}}}\right)^2 \approx 0.25~\rmn{kpc}~\rmn{.}\]
This is compatible with an increase of $\Delta z_0\ga 0.2~\rmn{kpc}$ in the case of $i = 20\degr$
as described above.
\subsection{Heat increase}
We define the total heat in the disc as the kinetic energy of random motion
\begin{equation}
E_{\rmn{heat}} = \sum_i {1 \over 2} m_i \left|\mathbf{v}_i-\overline{\mathbf{v}}_c\left(R_i\right)\right|^2
\end{equation}
where the sum goes over all particles in the disc, $m_i$ is the mass of the $i$th particle,
$\mathbf{v}_i$ is the velocity of the $i$th particle,
and $\overline{\mathbf{v}}_c\left(R_i\right)$ is the mean circular velocity at the radial
distance $R_i$ of the $i$th particle. $\bmath{v}_c$ is first calculated in radial
bins of equal particle numbers and then interpolated to the individual distances $R_i$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{heat.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{sigma.eps}
\caption{{\bf (a)} Total heat of the disc after merging ($t=1~\rmn{Gyr}$) as a
function of satellite's orbital inclination $i$ for varying eccentricity $\epsilon$.
$E_{\rmn{heat}}$ is measured in units of the heat of the isolated galaxy,
$E_{\rmn{heat, iso}}$, at $t=1~\rmn{Gyr}$.
{\bf (b)} Squared total velocity dispersion at $t = 1~\rmn{Gyr}$ in the region around 8 kpc as a
function of orbital inclination $i$ and for varying eccentricity $\epsilon$.
$\sigma_{\rmn{tot}}^2$ is measured in units of the squared total velocity dispersion of the
isolated galaxy.}
\label{fig:heat}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:heat} (a) shows $E_{\rmn{heat}}$
in units of the heat in the isolated disc $E_{\rmn{heat,iso}}$ at the end of the simulation
(i.e. at $t = 1~\rmn{Gyr}$).
$E_{\rmn{heat,iso}}$ increases only by $0.18$ per cent as compared to the initial value,
demonstrating
that our simulations are free of numerical heating. Figure~\ref{fig:heat} (b) displays
the same for the square of the total velocity dispersion in the solar neighbourhood.
The heating efficiency of
the satellite depends on its orbital inclination as well as on its orbital eccentricity.
For low inclinations, satellites on less elliptical orbits heat more effectively than
those on more elliptical ones. For $i > 40\degr$, however, satellites on orbits
with $\epsilon = 0.78$ are more effective.
Prograde satellites heat the most with an maximum increase of 22 per cent, while
retrograde ones only have a small effect of about 2 per cent. These results
are consistent with those obtained by \cite{vw99}.
Observations show that the velocity dispersion in the solar neighbourhood
increases from about 30 $\kms$ to about 60 $\kms$ in 8 Gyr
approximately proportional to $\sqrt{t}$ \citep[see, e.g.,][]{hf02}.
This means, that the specific heat
increases linearly by about $1350~\rmn{km}^2~\rmn{s}^{-2}$. If we assume that
the heat increase is completely due to satellite mergers, then the required
merger rate $n$ is
\begin{equation}
\nu = \frac{1}{\Delta h}\times \frac{1350}{8}\frac{\rmn{km}^2}{\rmn{s}^2~\rmn{Gyr}}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta h$ is the specific heat increase imparted by a single merger.
In our simulations,
we found that for low inclinations the heat increase is approximately uniform
over the whole disc (except for the bulge-dominated inner part) and lies
between 100 and 1000 $\rmn{km}^2~\rmn{s}^{-2}$ per merger. For high inclinations, the
heat increase is mainly due to flaring of the outer parts of the disc ($R > 15~\rmn{kpc}$),
while the solar neighbourhood is basically unaffected. Only considering low
inclinations, the required merger rate then lies between $\nu=0.17$ and $\nu=1.69$ mergers per Gyr,
depending on inclination and eccentricity of the orbit.
\subsection{Velocity dispersion ratio}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{sigrat.eps}
\caption{Velocity dispersion ratio $\sigma_z/\sigma_R$ at $t = 1~\rmn{Gyr}$ in the
region around 8 kpc as function of orbital inclination $i$ and for varying eccentricity $\epsilon$.}
\label{fig:sigrat}
\end{figure}
Observations show that the current ratio of the radial and vertical velocity dispersions
in the solar neighbourhood, $\sigma_z/\sigma_R$, is approximately $0.5\pm 0.1$ and
increases slightly with stellar age, $\propto t^{0.16}$ \citep{h07}.
Figure~\ref{fig:sigrat} shows this ratio after
merging as a function of orbital inclination $i$.
The satellites with low prograde orbits decrease the ratio to at most about 0.4, i.e.,
they heat more efficiently in radial than in vertical direction. In one case ($i=20\degr$,
$\epsilon=0.56$) there is an increase to approximately 0.6.
For inclinations above $30\degr$ the ratio remains mostly unchanged in the solar neighbourhood.
\subsection{Energy and angular momentum transfer}
An interesting question is where the initial energy and angular momentum of the
satellite end up in the final system.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{energy-transf.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{ekin-transf.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{epot-transf.eps}
\caption{Change in total (a), kinetic (b) and potential (c) energy of the four
components with respect to the initial energies as a function of orbital inclination $i$.
The energy change is measured in units of the total energy of the isolated galaxy.
Only the data for $\epsilon = 0.56$ is shown.}
\label{fig:energy-transf}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:energy-transf} shows the change in energy of the various components.
The energy is
measured in units where the total energy of the isolated galaxy is $-1$. ``Satellite'' designates
those particles that once made up the satellite, but now
are distributed over the whole system.
The initial galaxy-satellite system is not in equilibrium.
As a consequence of virialisation, both the satellite and the halo gain
kinetic and lose potential energy. This results in a deeper potential well
in the centre, which reduces the potential energy of bulge and disc.
During its in-spiral, the satellite transfers part of its kinetic energy
to the halo particles. This is due to dynamical friction.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{angmom-transf.eps}
\caption{Change in total angular momentum of the four components with respect to the initial
angular momenta as a function of orbital inclination $i$. The change is measured in units
of the total angular momentum of the isolated galaxy. Only the data for $\epsilon = 0.56$ is shown.}
\label{fig:angmom-transf}
\end{figure}
This effect can also be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:angmom-transf},
which shows the change in angular momentum as a function of inclination, measured
in units of the total angular momentum of the isolated galaxy. The angular
momentum of the bulge barely changes. This is not surprising since the satellites are already
mostly destroyed before reaching the inner part of the galaxy.
Our data reveal that the radial distribution of angular momentum in the disc changes:
the disc slows down and expands. Its {\em total}
angular momentum, however, remains approximately nearly constant. It only increases slightly for
satellites on prograde orbits and decreases slightly for satellites on retrograde orbits.
The satellite's initial orbital angular momentum is $0.31$ in
these units. Accordingly, it loses between 15 per cent and 20 per cent of its angular momentum.
Of that, about 80 per cent goes into the halo, while the rest is imparted onto the disc.
\subsection{Comparison with higher resolution}
To ensure that the choice of resolution does not influence the results we
simulate a case with $\epsilon = 0.56$ and $i = 0\degr$, and higher resolution.
We choose $N=256$ and $q=0.125$, as this is the highest possible resolution
one can achieve on our present hardware.
We calculate the Fourier transform of the density distribution of the disc
at the end of the simulation in order
to find possible perturbations caused by low resolution. The $m$th complex
Fourier coefficient is given by
\[
\tilde{A}_m(R_i) = \frac{1}{S_i} \sum_j M_j e^{-im\varphi_j}
\]
where $R_i$ and $S_i$ are the central radius and area of the $i$th bin, the index
$j$ runs over all particles in bin $i$, and $M_j$ and $\varphi_j$ are the mass and
polar angle of the $j$th particle. The amplitude of $\tilde{A}_m$ is denoted by
$A_m$ and the phase by $\theta_m$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{modes.eps}
\caption{Amplitudes of the first and second spiral mode as a function of radius
at the end of the simulation.}
\label{fig:modes}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{phases.eps}
\caption{Phase of the first mode as a function of radius
at the end of the simulation.}
\label{fig:phases}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:modes}
shows the amplitudes of the first and second mode normalised by the mean density,
while Figure~\ref{fig:phases} displays the phase of the first mode.
The two resolutions result in a roughly similar distribution in Fourier space.
There are no strong perturbations in amplitude caused by the lower resolution.
Neither is the pattern speed affected significantly.
\section[]{Conclusions}
{\sc Superbox} is a particle-mesh code where additional grids and sub-grids are
applied to regions of high particle density. This strategy turns out to be very efficient
since the code can run on any workstation or PC. Nevertheless, the code has its
limitations. For instance, stellar discs are poorly resolved in vertical
direction. We overcome this problem by introducing flattened grids. This is one
of the features of the new code {\sc Superbox-10} where, in addition, an individual
mass can be assigned to each particles.
We found that the computationally most intensive part of the code is the FFT.
We parallelised it using the library {\sc fftw}. This resulted in a
speed-up of 2 to 24, depending on grid size $N$ and the number of particles $n$.
We created a galaxy model with an exponential disc, a bulge with a Hernquist
profile and a dark matter halo, also with a Hernquist profile. The model was
realised using the program {\sc MaGaLie}.
The model was first simulated in isolation. These simulations show that flattening
the intermediate grid is an efficient means to reduce numerical heating in the simulation.
We also simulated the merging of the galaxy with small satellites in order to analyse the
proposed disc heating due to the interaction.
We find that satellites on prograde orbits with low eccentricity
and inclination heat the disc most efficiently. If the heat increase in
the solar neighbourhood were to be explained by that type of satellite mergers alone, a
rate between 0.2 and 1.7 mergers per Gyr would be
required. The detailed analysis of energy and angular momentum re-distribution shows that
most of the satellites energy and angular momentum is transfered to the dark matter halo.
This shows that the halo plays an important role even in 50:1 mergers. This confirms,
that simulations of such processes should represent the halo by live particles and not by
a fixed background potential. The presented pilot study of high-resolution simulations of
disc heating by merging satellite galaxies serves as a starting point for an extended
parameter study to quantify the heating rate in a cosmological context.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Markus Hartmann und Ingo Berentzen for
numerous and fruitful discussions.
This work was supported by Sonderforschungsbereich SFB 881 ``The Milky Way System''
(subproject A1) of the German Research Foundation (DFG).
The computer hardware used for the simulations was supported by project ``GRACE''
I/80 041-043 of the Volkswagen Foundation and by the Ministry of Science, Research
and the Arts of Baden-W\"urttemberg.
|
\section{Introduction}
Motivated by type-III geometric situations in which an arbitrary group of diffeomorphisms acts on a manifold,
Connes-Moscovici~\cite{CM:TGNTQF} introduced the notion of a twisted spectral triple. This is a modification of the definition of an ordinary
spectral triple $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$, where the boundedness condition on commutators $[D,a]$, $a \in \Ca{A}$, is replaced by the
boundedness of twisted commutators defined in terms of an automorphism $\sigma$ of the algebra $\Ca{A}$. Examples include conformal
deformation of spectral triples~(\cite{CM:TGNTQF}), Dolbeaut spectral
triple over the noncommutative torus~(\cite{CT:GBTNC2T}, see also~\cite{FK:GBTNC2TGCS}), and the conformal Dirac spectral triple $( C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G,
L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\ \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g})_{\sigma}$, where $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}$ is the Dirac operator acting on spinors and $G$ is a group of conformal
diffeomorphisms~(\cite{CM:TGNTQF}). (We refer to Section~\ref{sec:TwistedST} for a review of these definitions and examples.)
As shown by Connes-Moscovici~\cite{CM:TGNTQF}, the datum of a twisted spectral
$(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)_{\sigma}$ gives rise to an index map $\op{ind}_{D,\sigma}:K_{0}(\Ca{A})\rightarrow \Z$, where $K_{0}(\Ca{A})$ is the
K-theory of $\Ca{A}$. Furthermore, this is computed by pairing $K_{0}(\Ca{A})$ with a Connes-Chern character that lies in
ordinary cyclic cohomology (see~\cite{CM:TGNTQF}). The question that naturally arises is whether the framework for the local index
formula in noncommutative geometry of Connes-Moscovici~\cite{CM:LIFNCG} can be extended to the setting of twisted
spectral triples, i.e., whether the
Connes-Chern character can be represented by a version of the CM cocycle for twisted spectral triples.
Moscovici~\cite{Mo:LIFTST} devised an Ansatz for a local index formula for twisted spectral triples and showed the Ansatz is verified in the case of an ordinary spectral triple twisted by scaling automorphisms. An example of such a twisted spectral triple is given by a conformal Dirac spectral
triple $( C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^{n})\rtimes G, L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\ \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g})_{\sigma}$ associated to the round sphere $\mathbb{S}^{n}$ and a group $G$ of similarities
(i.e., a parabolic subgroup of $\op{PO}(n+1,1)$ fixing a point). Whether Moscovici's Ansatz holds for other twisted
spectral triples remains an open question to date.
By the Ferrand-Obata theorem, the group of conformal diffeomorphisms of a compact manifold $M^n$ is compact, unless $M^n$ is conformally equivalent to the round sphere
$\mathbb{S}^{n}$. Using this fact Moscovici~\cite[Remark~3.8]{Mo:LIFTST} observed that, in the non-conformally-flat case, the conformal Dirac spectral triple
$(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G,
L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\ \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g})_\sigma$ is equivalent to the conformal deformation of an (ordinary) equivariant Dirac
spectral triple $( C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\ \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar g})$, where $\bar{g}$ is a $G$-invariant
metric. As a result, the Connes-Chern character of $( C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\ \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g})_\sigma$ is represented by the CM cocycle of that equivariant Dirac spectral
triple.
The aim of this paper is threefold. First, after a review of the main definition and properties of twisted spectral
triples, we give a geometric definition of the index map of a twisted spectral triple in terms of twisted connections on
finitely generated projective modules (Proposition~\ref{thm.IndexTwisted-connection}). This description parallels the description for
ordinary spectral triples given in~\cite{Mo:EIPDNCG}.
Second, in the non-conformally-flat case, we compute the Connes-Chern character of the conformal Dirac spectral triple $( C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G,
L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\ \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g})_\sigma$ in terms of universal polynomials of the curvature of $M$ (see
Theorem~\ref{thm:Connes-Chern-conformal-DiracST} for the precise statement). This is done by using Moscovici's
observation and computing the CM cocycle of the equivariant Dirac spectral triple. In particular, at level of Hochschild
cohomology, the Connes-Chern character agrees with Connes's fundamental class $[M/G]$.
The computation of the CM cocycle of the equivariant Dirac spectral triple can be deduced from results of
Chern-Hu~\cite{CH:ECCIDO}. Chern-Hu's arguments rely on the equivariant asymptotic Clifford pseudodifferential calculus of~\cite{LYZ:TAMS}, where it was developed to give a new proof the local equivariant index
theorem by Patodi~\cite{Pa:BAMS}, Donnelly-Patodi~\cite{DP:T} and Gilkey~\cite{Gi:LNPAM} (see also~\cite{Bi:ASITPA2,
BV:BSMF, LYZ:TAMS, LM:DMJ}).
The third aim of this paper is to give a new proof of the local equivariant index
theorem which, as an immediate byproduct, yields an elementary calculation of the CM cocycle of an equivariant Dirac spectral triple. Recall that,
given a compact spin Riemannian manifold $(M^{n},g)$ ($n$ even) and a smooth isometry $\phi$ preserving
the spin structure and acting on $L^{2}$-spinors by the unitary operator $U_{\phi}$, the local equivariant index
theorem establishes that, for all $f \in C^{\infty}(M)$,
\begin{equation}
\op{Str} \left[ fe^{-t\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}}U_{\phi}\right ] = \int_{M^{\phi}}f\omega + \op{O}(t) \qquad \text{as $t \rightarrow
0^{+}$},
\label{eq:Intro.LEIT}
\end{equation}where $M^{\phi}$ is the fixed-point set of $\phi$ and the form $\omega$ is a universal polynomial in
$\phi'$ and the curvatures of $M^{\phi}$ and its normal bundle (see Section~\ref{sec:proof-key-thm} for the precise statement). This result implies the equivariant index theorem of
Atiyah-Segal-Singer~\cite{AS:IEO2, AS:IEO3}, which is a fundamental generalization of Lefschetz's fixed-point formula to elliptic complexes and isometries with non-isolated fixed-points.
The original proofs of the local equivariant index theorem by Patodi, Donnelly-Patodi and Gilkey involved Riemannian
invariant theory. We refer to~\cite{Bi:ASITPA2, BV:BSMF, LYZ:TAMS, LM:DMJ} for more analytical treatments. Our
approach is an equivariant version of the approach of~\cite{Po:CMP} to the proof of the local index theorem and the computation of the CM cocycle of a
(non-equivariant) Dirac spectral triple. Namely, it combines the rescaling of Getzler~\cite{Ge:SPLASIT} with an
equivariant version of the approach to the heat kernel asymptotic of Greiner~\cite{Gr:AEHE}.
In order to compute the CM cocycle of an equivariant Dirac spectral triple we really need a differentiable version of
the local equivariant index theorem, that is, a version of the asymptotic~(\ref{eq:Intro.LEIT}), where the function $f$
is replaced by a differential operator. As it is based on the representation of the heat kernel as the kernel of a Volterra \psido, Greiner's
approach to the heat kernel asymptotic immediately produces differentiable heat kernel asymptotics. Furthermore,
these asymptotics are straightforward consequences of Taylor's formula and elementary properties of Volterra \psidos.
There is no difficulty to extend Greiner's approach to the equivariant setting by working in tubular coordinates (see Section~\ref{sec.volterra}).
In the equivariant setting too, differentiable asymptotics are produced as consequences of Taylor's formula and elementary properties of Volterra
\psidos. In particular, no use is made of the stationary phase method.
Once the differentiable equivariant heat kernel asymptotics are established, we may apply the approach
of~\cite{Po:CMP}. As observed~\cite{Po:CMP}, the rescaling of Getzler~\cite{Ge:SPLASIT} naturally defines a filtration on Volterra
\psidos. Thereby this defines a new notion of order for these operators, which is called Getzler order.
The convergence of the supertrace stated in~(\ref{eq:Intro.LEIT}) then follows from elementary considerations on Getzler
orders of Volterra \psidos\ (see Lemma~\ref{lem:AS.approximation-asymptotic-kernel}).
Notice that in the proof of the
local equivariant index theorem there is a tension between between the tubular coordinates in which the equivariant heat kernel asymptotics are derived and the normal
coordinates in which the Getzler's rescaling is performed. In our approach, this tension is taken care of by means of an
elementary application of the change of variable formula for symbols of pseudodifferential operators.
The arguments of our approach are fairly general and produce a differentiable version of the local equivariant
index theorem. As a result, a straightforward elaboration of those arguments enables us to compute the CM cocycle of an
equivariant Dirac spectral triple (see Section~\ref{sec:proof-key-thm}). It is believed that this approach to
the local equivariant index theorem and the computation of the CM cocycle of an equivariant Dirac spectral triple could be used in various geometric situations. Therefore, this
should be a useful tool to reformulate the equivariant index theorem and the Lefschetz fixed-point formula in various new geometric settings.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:spectral-triples}, we review the local index formula in noncommutative geometry. In
Section~\ref{sec:TwistedST}, we review some important examples of twisted spectral triple, including the conformal Dirac spectral triple.
In Section~\ref{sec:index-map}, we give a geometric description of the index map of a twisted spectral triple. In Section~\ref{sec:Connes-Chern}, we
review the construction of the Connes-Chern character of a twisted spectral triple. In Section~\ref{sec:Connes-Chern-conformal}, we compute the
Connes-Chern character of the conformal Dirac spectral triple. In Section~\ref{sec.volterra}, we review the Volterra calculus and
the pseudodifferential representation of the heat kernel. In Section~\ref{sec:Equivariant-heat-kernel-asymptotics}, we derive equivariant heat kernel
asymptotics. In Section~\ref{sec:proof-key-thm}, we prove the local equivariant index theorem and complete our computation of the Connes-Chern character of the conformal
Dirac spectral triple.
\section{Spectral Triples and Connes-Chern Character}\label{sec:spectral-triples}
In this section, we recall the framework for the Connes-Chern character and CM cocycle of an ordinary spectral
triple.
\begin{definition}
A spectral triple $(\Ca{A}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, D)$ consists of the following data:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A $\Z_2$-graded Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}^+\oplus \mathcal{H}^-$.
\item An involutive unital algebra $\mathcal{A}$ represented by bounded operators on $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ preserving its $\Z_{2}$-grading.
\item A selfadjoint unbounded operator $D$ on $\mathcal{H}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $D$ maps $\op{dom} D\cap \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{\pm}$ to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{\mp}$.
\item The resolvent $(D+i)^{-1}$ is a compact operator.
\item $a (\op{dom} D) \subset \op{dom} D$ and $[D, a]$ is bounded for all $a \in \Ca{A}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
In the sequel, we shall further assume that the algebra $\Ca{A}$ is closed under holomorphic functional calculus. The
paradigm of a spectral triple is given by a Dirac spectral triple,
\begin{equation*}
\left( C^{\infty}(M), L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}), \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}\right),
\end{equation*}where $(M^{n},g)$ is a compact spin Riemannian manifold ($n$ even) and $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}$ is its Dirac operator
acting on the spinor bundle $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}$.
The datum of a spectral triple $(\Ca{A}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, D)$ defines an additive index map,
\begin{gather*}
\op{ind}_{D}:K_{0}(\Ca{A})\longrightarrow \Z,\\
\op{ind}_{D}[e]:= \op{ind} D_{e} \qquad \forall e \in M_{q}(\Ca{A}), \
e^{2}=e^{*}=e,
\end{gather*}where $D_{e}$ is the operator $e(D\otimes 1) :e(\op{dom} D)^{q}\rightarrow e\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{q}$. This is a selfadjoint
Fredholm operator. With respect to the orthogonal splitting $e\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{q}=e (\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{+})^{q}\oplus e (\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{-})^{q}$ it
takes the form,
\begin{equation*}
D_{e}=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & D^{-}_{e} \\
D_{e}^{+} & 0
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad D_{e}^{\pm}:e(\op{dom} D\cap \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{\pm})^{q}\rightarrow e(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{\mp})^{q}.
\end{equation*} We then define the index $\op{ind} D_{e}$ to be the usual Fredholm index $\op{ind} D_{e}^{+}$. This is an invariant
of the $K$-theory class of $e$. Moreover, the selfadjointness of $D_{e}$ implies that
$(D_{e}^{+})^{*}=D_{e}^{-}$. Thus,
\begin{equation}
\op{ind} D_{e}= \op{ind} D_{e}^{+}=-\op{ind} D_{e}^{-}=\dim \ker D_{e}^{+}-\dim \ker D_{e}^{-}.
\label{eq:ST.indexDe}
\end{equation}Notice also that the index map can be equivalently described in terms of connections on finitely projective modules
(see~\cite{Mo:EIPDNCG}).
The index map is computed by pairing the $K$-theory of $\Ca{A}$ with a cyclic cohomology class $\op{Ch}(\Ca{A},D)$, called the Connes-Chern
character~(\cite{Co:NCDG, Co:NCG}). (We refer to~\cite{Co:NCG} for background on cyclic cohomology and its pairing with
$K$-theory.)
In order to define the Connes-Chern character of the spectral triple $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$, we need to further assume that it is
$p^{+}$-summable for some $p\geq 1$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\mu_{k}(D^{-1})=\op{O}(k^{-\frac{1}{p}}) \quad \text{as $k\rightarrow \infty$},
\label{eq:ST.p-summability}
\end{equation}where $\mu_{k}(D^{-1})$ is the $(k+1)$-th eigenvalue of $|D|^{-1}$ counted with multiplicity.
Given any integer $k>\frac{p-1}{2}$, the Connes-Chern character $\op{Ch}(\Ca{A},D)$ is represented by the cyclic cocycle,
\begin{equation}
\tau_{2k}^{D}(a^{0},\cdots, a^{2k}):= \frac{1}{2}\frac{k!}{(2k)!}\op{Str} \left\{D^{-1}[D, a^0]\cdots D^{-1}[D, a^{2k}]\right\}, \quad a^{j}\in \Ca{A},
\label{eq:Connes-Chern}
\end{equation}where $\op{Str}$ is the supertrace on $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}^{1}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$, i.e., $\op{Str}[T]:=\ensuremath{\op{Tr}}[\gamma T]$, where
$\gamma:=\op{id}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{+}}-\op{id}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{-}}$ is the $\Z_{2}$-grading operator. Moreover, the class of $\tau_{2k}^{D}$
in the periodic cyclic cohomology $\op{HP}^{{\text{ev}}}(\Ca{A})$ is independent of the value of $k>\frac{p-1}{2}$.
The definition~(\ref{eq:Connes-Chern}) of the cocycle $\tau_{2k}$ involves the usual (super)trace, which is not a local functional. As
a result this cocycle is difficult to compute in practice (see, e.g.,~\cite{BF:APDOIT}). To remedy this
Connes-Moscovici~\cite{CM:LIFNCG} constructed a (periodic) representative of the Connes-Chern character, the so-called CM cocycle,
whose components are given by formulas that are local in the sense that they involve an analogue of the noncommutative residue trace of
Guillemin~\cite{Gu:NPWF} and Wodzicki~\cite{Wo:LISA}. We shall now review the main facts of the construction of the CM
cocycle in~\cite{CM:LIFNCG}.
Consider the unbounded derivation of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\delta(T):=[|D|,T], \qquad \op{dom} \delta:=\left\{T \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}); [|D|,T]\in
\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})\right\}.
\label{eq:ST.delta}
\end{equation}The spectral triple $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$ is said to be \emph{regular} when
$a$ and $[D,a]$ are contained in $\bigcap_{j\geq 0} \op{dom} \delta^{j}$ for all $a \in \Ca{A}$. Assuming $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$ to be regular,
we denote by $\Ca{B}$ the sub-algebra of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$ generated by the grading operator
$\gamma$ and the operators $\delta^{j}(a)$ and $\delta^{j}([D,a])$ where $a \in \Ca{A}$, $j\geq 0$.
In addition, we say that $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$ has a \emph{simple} and \emph{discrete dimension spectrum} when
there exists a discrete subset $\Sigma \subset \C$ such that, for every $b \in \Ca{B}$, the zeta function
$\zeta_{b}(z):=\ensuremath{\op{Tr}} [b|D|^{-z}]$ has a meromorphic extension to $\C$ in such way to be holomorphic outside $\Sigma$ and
to have at worst simple pole singularities on $\Sigma$.
From now on we assume that $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$ is regular and has a simple and discrete dimension spectrum. This enables us to construct a class of pseudo differential operators for the spectral triple
$(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$ as follows. Let $\Psi^{q}_{D}(\Ca{A})$, $q\in \C$, be the space of unbounded operators $P$ on
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ such that the domain of $P$ contains $\cap_{s\in \R} \op{dom} |D|^{s}$ and $P$ has an asymptotic expansion of the form,
\begin{equation}
P\simeq \sum_{j \geq 0} b_{j}D^{q-j}, \qquad b_{j} \in \Ca{B},
\label{eq:ST.PsiDOs1}
\end{equation}in the sense that, for all $N\in \N$ and $s \in \R$,
\begin{equation}
|D|^{s-q+N}\biggl( P -\sum_{j<N}b_{j}D^{q-j}\biggr)|D|^{-s}\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}).
\label{eq:ST.PsiDOs2}
\end{equation}
As shown in~\cite{CM:LIFNCG} it holds that $\Psi^{q_{1}}_{D}(\Ca{A})\Psi^{q_{2}}_{D}(\Ca{A}) \subset \Psi^{q_{1}+q_{2}}_{D}(\Ca{A})$, so that
$\Psi^{*}_{D}(\Ca{A})=\cup_{q\in \C}\Psi^{q}_{D}(\Ca{A})$ is an algebra. In addition, for all $P \in \Psi^{q}_{D}(\Ca{A})$, $q
\in \C$, the function $z \rightarrow \ensuremath{\op{Tr}} \left[P|D|^{-z}\right]$ has a
meromorphic extension to the entire complex plane with at worst simple pole singularities contained in $q + \Sigma$. We
then set
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\Xint-} P:= \ensuremath{\op{Res}}_{z=0} \ensuremath{\op{Tr}} \left[P|D|^{-2z}\right] \qquad \forall P \in \Psi^{*}_{D}(\Ca{A}).
\label{eq:ST.residual-trace}
\end{equation}As it turns out, this defines a linear trace on the algebra $\Psi^{*}_{D}(\Ca{A})$ (see~\cite{CM:LIFNCG}). Notice that the
residual trace $\ensuremath{\Xint-}$ is local in the sense that it vanishes on all operators $P\in \Psi^{q}_{D}(\Ca{A})$ with $\Re q<-p$, since those operators are trace-class.
For instance, a Dirac spectral triple $\left( C^{\infty}(M), L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}), \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}\right)$ is $n^{+}$-summable
and regular (with $n=\dim M$), and it has a discrete dimension spectrum contained in $\{k\in \N; \ k \leq n\}$.
Moreover, each space $\Psi^{q}_{D}(\Ca{A})$, $q \in \C$, is contained in the space of classical \psidos\ of order $q$ and
the residual trace $\ensuremath{\Xint-}$ agrees with the noncommutative residue trace of Guillemin~\cite{Gu:NPWF} and Wodzicki~\cite{Wo:LISA}.
In the sequel, for $P \in \Psi^{*}_{D}(\Ca{A})$ we denote by $P^{[j]}$, $j \geq 0$, the $j$-th iterated commutator of $P$ with
$D^{2}$, that is,
\begin{equation}
P^{[j]}= \overbrace{[D^{2},[D^{2},\cdots [D^{2},}^{\textrm{$j$ times}}P]\cdots ]].
\label{eq:ST.iterated-commutators-D2}
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}[{\cite{CM:LIFNCG}}]\label{thm:LIFNCG}
Suppose that the spectral triple $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$ is $p^{+}$-summable, regular and has a
simple and discrete dimension spectrum.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The following formulas define an even periodic cyclic cocycle $\varphi^{\textup{CM}}=(\varphi_{2k})_{k\geq
0}$ on the algebra $\Ca{A}$:
\begin{gather}
\varphi_{0}(a^{0}) = \ensuremath{\op{Res}}_{z=0} \Gamma(z)\op{Str} \left [ a^{0}(|D|^{-z}+\Pi_{0})\right] \quad (k=0) ,
\label{eq:ST.CM-cocycle1}\\
\varphi_{2k}(a^{0},\cdots, a^{2k})=
\sum_{\alpha}c_{k,\alpha}\ensuremath{\Xint-} \gamma a^0 \left[D,a^1\right]^{[\alpha_{1}]} \cdots
\left[D,a^{2k}\right]^{[\alpha_{2k}]} |D|^{-2(|\alpha|+k)} \quad (k\geq 1),
\label{eq:ST.CM-cocycle2}
\end{gather}where $\Pi_{0}$ is the orthogonal projection onto $\ker D$ and
\begin{equation}
c_{k,\alpha}:=\frac{ (-1)^{|\alpha|}\Gamma(|\alpha|+k)}{\alpha!(\alpha_{1}+1) \cdots (\alpha_{1}+\cdots
+\alpha_{2k}+ 2k)}.
\label{eq:ST-ckalpha}
\end{equation}
\item The CM cocycle $\varphi^{\textup{CM}}$ represents the Connes-Chern character $\op{Ch}(\Ca{A},D)$ in
periodic cyclic cohomology, and hence
\begin{equation}
\op{ind}_{D}[e]=\acou{\varphi^{\textup{CM}}}{e} \qquad \forall e \in K_{0}(\Ca{A}).
\label{eq:ST.local-index-formula}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}
For a Dirac spectral triple $\left( C^{\infty}(M), L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),
\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}\right)$, the CM cocycle $\varphi^{\textup{CM}}=(\varphi_{2k})_{k\geq
0}$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_{2k}(f^{0},\cdots,f^{2k})= \frac{(2i\pi)^{-\frac{n}{2}}}{(2k)!}\int_{M} f^{0}df^{1}\wedge \cdots \wedge
df^{2k}\wedge \hat{A}\left(R^{TM}\right), \quad f^{j}\in C^{\infty}(M),
\end{equation*}where $\hat{A}\left(R^{TM}\right):={\det}^{\frac12}\left(\frac{R^{TM}/2}{\sinh(R^{TM}/2)}\right)$
is the $\hat{A}$-form of the Riemann curvature of $(M,g)$ (see~\cite[Remark~II.1]{CM:LIFNCG},
\cite{Po:CMP}). As a result, the index formula~(\ref{eq:ST.local-index-formula}) gives back the
index theorem for Dirac operators of Atiyah-Singer~(\cite{AS:IEO1, AS:IEO3}).
\end{example}
\section{Twisted Spectral Triples. Examples}\label{sec:TwistedST}
In this section, we review some main definitions and examples regarding twisted spectral triples.
Twisted spectral triples were introduced in~\cite{CM:TGNTQF}. Their definition is similar to that of an ordinary spectral triple, except for some ``twist'' given
by the condition (3)(c) below.
\begin{definition}\label{TwistedSpectralTriple}
A twisted spectral triple $(\Ca{A}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, D)_{\sigma}$ consists of the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A $\Z_2$-graded Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}^+\oplus \mathcal{H}^-$.
\item An involutive unital algebra $\mathcal{A}$ represented by bounded operators on $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ preserving its $\Z_{2}$-grading and
equipped with a $*$-automorphism $\sigma:\Ca{A}\rightarrow \Ca{A}$.
\item A selfadjoint unbounded operator $D$ on $\mathcal{H}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $D$ maps $\op{dom} D\cap \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{\pm}$ to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{\mp}$.
\item The resolvent $(D+i)^{-1}$ is a compact operator.
\item $a (\op{dom} D) \subset \op{dom} D$ and $[D, a]_{\sigma}:=Da-\sigma(a)D$ is bounded for all $a \in \Ca{A}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
An important class of examples of twisted spectral triples arises from the conformal deformation of an ordinary
spectral triple $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$. Let $h$ be a selfadjoint element of $\Ca{A}$ such that $e^{h}\in \Ca{A}$ (this condition is
automatically satisfied if $\Ca{A}$ is closed under holomorphic functional calculus).
If we think of $D$ as providing us with
the inverse of the metric of $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$, then it stems for reason to define a conformal deformation of this metric
as being provided by the operator,
\begin{equation}
D_{h}:=e^{-\frac{h}{2}}De^{-\frac{h}{2}}.
\label{eq:TwistedST.conformal-deformationD}
\end{equation}
As it turns out, $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D_{h})$ is not a spectral triple in general, but it can be turned into a
\emph{twisted} spectral triple. Namely, we have
\begin{proposition}[\cite{CM:TGNTQF}] Let $\sigma_{h}:\Ca{A}\rightarrow \Ca{A}$ be the automorphism defined by
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{h}(a):= e^{-h}a e^{h} \qquad \forall a \in \Ca{A}.
\label{eq:TwistedST.sigmah}
\end{equation}Then $\left(\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{H}, D_{h}\right)_{\sigma_{h}}$ is a twisted spectral triple.
\end{proposition}
We also can obtain a twisted spectral triple by twisting $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$ by scaling automorphisms~(\cite{Mo:LIFTST}).
A \emph{scaling automorphism} of $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$ is a unitary operator $U\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$ such that
\begin{equation*}
U\Ca{A} U^{*}=\Ca{A} \qquad \text{and} \qquad UDU^{*}=\lambda(U)D \quad \text{with $\lambda(U)>0$}.
\end{equation*}Denote by $G$ the group of scaling automorphisms of the spectral triple $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$. Observe that the
map $U\rightarrow \lambda(U)$ is a character of $G$. We refer to Remark~\ref{rmk:scaling-automorphisms-sphere} for
geometric examples of scaling automorphisms.
In the sequel, we denote by $\Ca{A}\rtimes G$ be the (discrete) crossed-algebra of $\Ca{A}$ and $G$ and we represent it as the sub-algebra of
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$ generated by operators of the form $aU$ with $a\in \Ca{A}$ and $U\in G$.
\begin{proposition}[\cite{Mo:LIFTST}] \label{prop:TwistedST.scaling}
Let $\sigma:\Ca{A}\rtimes G\rightarrow
\Ca{A}\rtimes G$ be the automorphism defined by
\begin{equation*}
\sigma(aU):= \lambda(U)^{-1}aU \qquad \forall a \in \Ca{A} \ \forall U\in G .
\end{equation*}Then $\left(\mathcal{A}\rtimes G, \mathcal{H}, D\right)_{\sigma}$ is a twisted spectral triple.
\end{proposition}
Another interesting example of twisted spectral is the twisted spectral triple of Connes-Tretkoff~\cite{CT:GBTNC2T} over the
noncommutative torus $\Ca{A}_{\theta}$, $\theta \in \R\setminus \Q$ (see also~\cite{FK:GBTNC2TGCS}). Recall that $\Ca{A}_{\theta}$ is the algebra,
\begin{equation*}
\Ca{A}_{\theta}=\left\{ \sum a_{m,n}U^{m}V^{n}; \ (a_{m,n})\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}(\Z^{2})\right\},
\end{equation*}where $U$ and $V$ are unitaries of $L^{2}(S^{1})$ such that $VU=e^{2i\pi \theta}UV$ and $ \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}(\Z^{2})$
is the space of rapid decay sequences $(a_{m,n})_{m,n\in \Z}$ with complex entries.
The (anti-)Cauchy-Riemann operator $\partial:\Ca{A}_{\theta}\rightarrow \Ca{A}_{\theta}$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\partial=\delta_{1}+i\delta_{2},
\end{equation*}where $\delta_{j}:\Ca{A}_{\theta} \rightarrow \Ca{A}_{\theta}$, $j=1,2$, are the canonical derivations defined by
\begin{equation*}
\delta_{1}(U)=U, \qquad \delta_{2}(V)=V, \qquad \delta_{1}(V)=\delta_{2}(U)=0.
\end{equation*}In addition, we denote by $\tau: \Ca{A}_{\theta}\rightarrow \C$ the unique normalized trace of
$\Ca{A}_{\theta}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
\tau\left( \sum a_{m,n}U^{m}V^{n}\right)=a_{00}.
\end{equation*}
Let $\Ca{A}_{\theta}^{1,0}$ be the subspace of $\Ca{A}_{\theta}$ spanned by ``holomorphic 1-forms'' $a\partial b$, where
$a$ and $b$ range over $\Ca{A}_{\theta}$. We denote by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}$ the Hilbert space obtained as the completion of $\Ca{A}_{\theta}^{1,0}$ with
respect to the inner product
\begin{equation*}
\acou{a_{1}\partial b_{1}}{a_{2}\partial b_{2}}=\tau\left( a_{2}^{*}a_{1}(\partial b_{1})(\partial
b_{2})^{*}\right), \qquad a^{j},b^{j}\in \Ca{A}_{\theta}.
\end{equation*}
Let $h\in \Ca{A}_{\theta}$, $h^{*}=h$, and let $\varphi:\Ca{A}_{\theta}\rightarrow \C$ be the functional defined by
\begin{equation*}
\varphi(a):= \tau\left( a e^{-2h}\right) \qquad \forall a \in \Ca{A}_{\theta}.
\end{equation*}We denote by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\varphi}$ be the Hilbert space obtained as the completion of $\Ca{A}_{\theta}$ with
respect to the inner product,
\begin{equation*}
\acou{a}{b}_{\varphi}:= \varphi(b^{*}a)=\tau\left( b^{*}a e^{-2h}\right), \qquad a,b \in \Ca{A}_{\theta}.
\end{equation*}
In addition, we let $\partial_{\varphi}:\op{dom} \partial_{\varphi}\subset \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\varphi}\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}$ be the
closed extension of $\partial$ with respect to the inner products of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\varphi}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}$. We denote by
$\partial_{\varphi}^{*}$ its adjoint; this an operator from $\op{dom} \partial_{\varphi}\subset\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}$ to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\varphi}$.
Then on the Hilbert space $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}:=\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}_{\varphi}\oplus \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{1,0}$ we can form the twisted Dolbeault-Dirac operator,
\begin{equation*}
D_{\varphi}=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \partial_{\varphi}^{*} \\
\partial_{\varphi} & 0
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \op{dom} D=\op{dom} \partial_{\varphi} \oplus \op{dom} \partial_{\varphi}^{*}.
\end{equation*}
Let $\Ca{A}_{\theta}^{\textup{op}}$ be the opposite algebra of $\Ca{A}_{\theta}$, i.e., the algebra $\Ca{A}_{\theta}$ with product
$a\cdot^{\textup{op}}b:=ba$, $a,b\in \Ca{A}_{\theta}$. We equip $\Ca{A}_{\theta}$ with the automorphism
$\sigma_{h}:\Ca{A}_{\theta}^{\textup{op}}\rightarrow \Ca{A}_{\theta}^{\textup{op}}$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
\sigma_{h}(a):=e^{-h}ae^{h} \qquad \forall a \in \Ca{A}_{\theta}^{\textup{op}}.
\end{equation*}Furthermore, we represent the elements of $\Ca{A}_{\theta}^{\textup{op}}$ as bounded operators on $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ by means
of the representation $\pi^{\textup{op}}_{h}:\Ca{A}_{\theta}^{\textup{op}}\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
\pi^{\textup{op}}_{h}(a)\xi:= \xi \sigma(a) \qquad \forall a \in \Ca{A}_{\theta}^{\textup{op}} \ \forall \xi \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{proposition}[\cite{CT:GBTNC2T}] The triple ${\displaystyle \left( \Ca{A}_{\theta}^{\textup{op}}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},
D_{\varphi}\right)_{\sigma_{h}}}$
is a twisted spectral triple.
\end{proposition}
The main focus of this paper is the twisted spectral triple in conformal geometry constructed by
Connes-Moscovici~\cite{CM:TGNTQF}. The remainder of this section is devoted to a review of its construction.
Let $(M^{n},g)$ be a compact spin oriented Riemannian manifold ($n$ even). We shall denote by
$\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}:C^{\infty}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})\rightarrow C^{\infty}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ its Dirac operator acting on the sections of the spinor bundle
$\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}=\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}^{+}\oplus \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}^{-}$. We also denote by $L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ the corresponding Hilbert space of $L^{2}$-spinors.
Let $G$ be the identity component of the group of conformal
diffeomorphisms of $M$ that preserves the orientation and the spin structure. If $\phi:M\rightarrow M$ is such a
diffeomorphism, then there is a unique function $h_{\phi}\in C^{\infty}(M,\R)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\phi_{*}g=e^{2h_{\phi}}g.
\label{eq:TwistedST.conformal-factor}
\end{equation}In addition, $\phi$ uniquely lifts to a unitary vector bundle isomorphism $\phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}:\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}} \rightarrow
\phi_{*}\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}$, i.e., a unitary section of $\op{Hom}(\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}, \phi_{*}\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ (see~\cite{BG:SODVM}).
We then let $U_{\phi}:L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})\rightarrow L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ be the bounded operator defined by
\begin{equation}
U_{\phi}u(x) = \phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}\left( u\circ \phi^{-1}(x)\right) \qquad \forall u \in L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})\ \forall x \in M.
\label{eq:TwistedST.Vphi}
\end{equation}
The map $\phi \rightarrow U_{\phi}$ is a representation of $G$ in $L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$, but this is not a unitary
representation. In order to get a unitary representation we need to take into account the Jacobian $|\phi'(x)|$ of
$\phi \in G$. This is achieved by considering the unitary operator $V_{\phi}:L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})\rightarrow
L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ defined by
\begin{equation}
V_{\phi}=e^{\frac{1}{2}n h_{\phi}}U_{\phi}, \qquad \phi \in G.
\label{eq:TwistedST.Uphi}
\end{equation}Then $\phi \rightarrow V_{\phi}$ is a unitary representation of $G$ in $L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$. This enables
us to realize the crossed-product algebra $\Ca{A}:=C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G$ as the sub-algebra of
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}\left(L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})\right)$ generated by operators of the form
$fV_{\phi}$ with $f\in C^{\infty}(M)$ and $\phi\in G$.
The conformal invariance of the Dirac operator~(\cite{Hi:HS}) implies that
\begin{equation*}
V_{\phi}\;\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}V_{\phi}^{*}= e^{-\frac{h_{\phi}}{2}}\,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g} e^{-\frac{h_{\phi}}{2}} \qquad \forall \phi \in G.
\end{equation*}In addition, consider the automorphism
$\sigma:C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G \rightarrow C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G$
defined by
\begin{equation}
\sigma(fV_{\phi}):=e^{h_{\phi}}fV_{\phi} \qquad \forall f \in C^{\infty}(M) \ \forall \phi \in G.
\label{eq:TwistedST.automorphism-conformal-DiracST}
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}[\cite{CM:TGNTQF}]\label{prop:TwistedST.automorphism-conformal-DiracST}
The triple ${\displaystyle \left( C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}), \,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}\right)_{\sigma}}$ is a twisted
spectral triple.
\end{proposition}
In the sequel, we shall refer to ${\displaystyle \left( C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}), \,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}\right)_{\sigma}}$ as the \emph{conformal Dirac spectral triple}.
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:scaling-automorphisms-sphere}
Suppose now that $(M,g)$ is the round sphere $(\mathbb{S}^{n},g_0)$. Then $G$ agrees with the identity connected component $\op{PO}(n+1,1)_0$ acting by
M\"obius transformations. If we restrict ourselves to the parabolic subgroup $P\subset G$ fixing the North Pole, then
$P$ is a group of similarities and acts on the spectral triple $(C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^{n}),
L^{2}_{g_0}(\mathbb{S}^{n},\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g_0})$ by scaling automorphisms.
\end{remark}
\section{The Index Map of a Twisted Spectral Triple}\label{sec:index-map}
In this section, we give a geometric description of the index map of a twisted spectral triple in terms of twisted
connections on finitely generated projective modules.
Let $(\Ca{A}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}, D)_{\sigma}$ be a twisted spectral triple. As observed in~\cite{CM:TGNTQF}, the datum of $(\Ca{A}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},
D)_{\sigma}$ gives rise to a well-defined additive index map,
\begin{gather}
\op{ind}_{D,\sigma}:K_{0}(\Ca{A})\longrightarrow \Z, \nonumber \\
\op{ind}_{D,\sigma}[e]:=\op{ind} D_{e,\sigma} \qquad \forall e\in
M_q(\Ca{A}), \ e^2=e. \label{eq:IndexTST.De}
\end{gather}where $D_{e,\sigma}$ is the operator $\sigma(e)(D\otimes 1_{q}): e(\op{dom} D)^q \rightarrow \sigma(e)\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^q$.
The operator $D_{e,\sigma}$ is Fredholm, and with respect to the splittings $e\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{q}=e (\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{+})^{q}\oplus e (\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{-})^{q}$ and
$\sigma(e)\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{q}=\sigma(e) (\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{+})^{q}\oplus \sigma(e) (\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{-})^{q}$ it takes the form,
\begin{equation*}
D_{e,\sigma}=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & D_{e,\sigma}^{-} \\
D_{e,\sigma}^{+} & 0
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad D_{e,\sigma}^{\pm}:e(\op{dom} D\cap \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{\pm})^{q}\rightarrow \sigma(e)(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{\mp})^{q}.
\end{equation*}In general, $D_{e,\sigma}$ is not selfadjoint (unless $\sigma(e)=e^{*}$), so we define its index by
\begin{equation*}
\op{ind} D_{e,\sigma}:= \frac{1}{2} \left( \op{ind} D^{+}_{e,\sigma}-\op{ind} D^{-}_{e,\sigma}\right),
\end{equation*}where $\op{ind} D^{\pm}_{e,\sigma}$ is the usual Fredholm index of $D^{\pm}_{e,\sigma}$. In view
of~(\ref{eq:ST.indexDe}), when $\sigma=\op{id}$ this definition of the index map agrees with that given in Section~\ref{sec:spectral-triples}.
We shall now give a more geometric description of the above index map (compare~\cite{Mo:EIPDNCG}). Let $\Ca{E}$ be a finitely generated projective
right-module, i.e., $\Ca{E}=e\Ca{A}^{q}$ with $e \in M_{q}(\Ca{A})$, $e^{2}=e$. Set $\Ca{E}^{\sigma}:=\sigma(e)\Ca{A}^q$ and let
$\sigma^{\Ca{E}}:\Ca{E}\rightarrow \Ca{E}^{\sigma}$ be the $\Ca{A}$-module map defined by
\begin{equation*}
\sigma^{\Ca{E}}(\xi)=(\sigma(\xi_{j})) \qquad \forall \xi=(\xi_{j})\in \Ca{E}.
\end{equation*}Notice that both $\Ca{E}$ and $\Ca{E}^{\sigma}$ inherit a Hermitian structure from the canonical Hermitian
structure of $\Ca{A}^{q}$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
(\xi,\eta)= \sum \xi_{j}^{*}\eta_{j} \qquad \text{for all $\xi=(\xi_{j})$ and $\eta=(\eta_{j})$ in $\Ca{A}^{q}$}.
\end{equation*}
Following~\cite{CM:TGNTQF} we consider the space of twisted 1-forms,
\begin{equation*}
\Omega^1_{D,\sigma}=\left\{\Sigma a_i[D, b_i]_{\sigma}: a_i, b_i \in\Ca{A} \right\}.
\end{equation*}This is naturally an $(\Ca{A},\Ca{A})$-bimodule, since
\begin{equation*}
a^{2}(a^{1}[D,b^{1}]_{\sigma})b^{2}= a^{2}a^{1}[D,b^{1}b^{2}]_{\sigma}-a^{2}a^{1}\sigma(b^{1})[D,b^{2}]_{\sigma}
\qquad \forall a^{j}, b^{j} \in \Ca{A}.
\end{equation*}
In addition, consider the linear map $d_{\sigma}:\Ca{A} \rightarrow \Omega^1_{D,\sigma}$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
d_{\sigma}a:= [D,a]_{\sigma} \qquad \forall a \in \Ca{A}.
\end{equation*}This is a $\sigma$-derivation, in the sense that
\begin{equation*}
d_{\sigma}(ab)=(d_{\sigma}a)b+\sigma(a)d_{\sigma}b\qquad \forall a, b \in \Ca{A}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{definition}
A $\sigma$-connection on $\Ca{E}$ is a $\C$-linear map $\nabla: \Ca{E}\rightarrow \Ca{E}^{\sigma}\otimes_{\Ca{A}}\Omega^1_{D,\sigma}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\nabla(\xi a)=(\nabla\xi) a+\sigma^{\Ca{E}}(\xi)\otimes d_{\sigma}a \qquad \forall \xi\in\Ca{E} \ \forall a\in\Ca{A}.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
An example of $\sigma$-connection is the \emph{Grassmannian $\sigma$-connection} $\nabla_{0}$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
\nabla_{0}\xi= \sigma(e)(d_{\sigma}\xi_{j}) \qquad \forall \xi=(\xi_{j})\in \Ca{E}.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, the space of $\sigma$-connections is an affine space modeled on $\op{Hom}_{\Ca{A}}(\Ca{E},\Ca{E}^{\sigma})$.
Let $\nabla$ be a $\sigma$-connection on $\Ca{E}$. Using $\nabla$ we can twist $D$ into a new operator as follows.
Recall that $\Ca{A}$ naturally acts on $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and this action preserves
$\op{dom} D$. We denote by $\Ca{E} \otimes_{\Ca{A}}\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ the Hilbert space obtained by completing the algebraic tensor product with respect to
the inner product,
\begin{equation*}
\acou{\xi_{1}\otimes \eta_{1}}{\xi_{2}\otimes \eta_{2}}= \acou{\eta_{1}}{(\xi_{1},\xi_{2})\eta_{2}} \qquad \forall
\xi_{j}\in \Ca{E} \ \forall \eta_{j} \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}.
\end{equation*}We similarly define the Hilbert spaces $\Ca{E}^{\sigma}\otimes_{\Ca{A}}\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\Ca{E} \otimes_{\Ca{A}} \op{dom} D$,
where $\op{dom} D$ is equipped with its (Hilbertian) graph norm $\|\xi\|_{D}:=\sqrt{\|\xi\|^{2}+\|D\xi\|^{2}}$, $\xi \in
\op{dom} D$.
\begin{definition}
The operator $D_{\Ca{E},\nabla}: \op{dom} D \otimes_{\Ca{A}}\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} \rightarrow \Ca{E}^{\sigma}\otimes_{\Ca{A}}\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
D_{\Ca{E}, \nabla}(\xi\otimes\eta): =\sigma^{\Ca{E}}(\xi)\otimes D\eta+(\nabla\xi)\eta \qquad \forall\xi\in\Ca{E} \
\forall \eta\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},
\end{equation*}where $(\nabla\xi)\eta $ has the following meaning: if $\nabla\xi=\sum \xi_j\otimes\omega_j\in
\Ca{E}^{\sigma}\otimes \Omega_{D,\sigma}^{1}$, then
\begin{equation*}
(\nabla\xi)\eta:=\sum \xi_j\otimes\omega_j(\eta)\in\Ca{E}^{\sigma}\otimes_{\Ca{A}}\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
In case $\nabla$ is the Grassmannian $\sigma$-connection $\nabla_{0}$, the operator $D_{\Ca{E},\nabla_{0}}$ agrees with the operator
$D_{e}$ considered in~(\ref{eq:IndexTST.De}). Recall that this operator is Fredholm. Moreover, if $\nabla_{1}$ and $\nabla_{2}$ are two $\sigma$-connections, then
they differ by an element $T\in \op{Hom}_{\Ca{A}}(\Ca{E},\Ca{E}^{\sigma})$, and hence $ D_{\Ca{E},\nabla_{1}}$ and $D_{\Ca{E},\nabla_{2}}$
differ by $T\otimes 1_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}$ which is a bounded operator from $\Ca{E} \otimes_{\Ca{A}}\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ to $\Ca{E}^{\sigma}\otimes_{\Ca{A}}\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
It then follows that all the operators $D_{\Ca{E},\nabla}$ are Fredholm.
In addition, with respect to the splitting $\Ca{E} \otimes_{\Ca{A}}\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}= (\Ca{E} \otimes_{\Ca{A}}\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{+}) \oplus (\Ca{E}
\otimes_{\Ca{A}}\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{-})$ and the similar splitting for $\Ca{E} \otimes_{\Ca{A}}\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, the operator $D_{\Ca{E},\nabla}$ takes the
form,
\begin{equation*}
D_{\Ca{E},\nabla}= \begin{pmatrix}
0 & D_{\Ca{E},\nabla}^{-} \\
D_{\Ca{E},\nabla}^{+} & 0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation*}where $D_{\Ca{E},\nabla}^{\pm}$ maps $\Ca{E} \otimes_{\Ca{A}}(\op{dom} D\cap \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{\pm})$ to $\Ca{E}^{\sigma}
\otimes_{\Ca{A}}\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{\mp}$. We then define the index of $D_{\Ca{E},\nabla}$ as
\begin{equation*}
\op{ind} D_{\Ca{E},\nabla} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \op{ind} D_{\Ca{E},\nabla}^{+} - \op{ind} D_{\Ca{E},\nabla}^{-}\right).
\end{equation*}where $\op{ind} D_{\Ca{E},\nabla}^{\pm}$ is the usual Fredholm index of $D_{\Ca{E},\nabla}^{\pm}$.
When $\nabla$ is the Grassmannian $\sigma$-connection we recover the index~(\ref{eq:IndexTST.De}). Moreover, as $D_{\Ca{E},\nabla}^{\pm}$
depends on the datum of the $\sigma$-connection $\nabla$ only up to a bounded operator from $\Ca{E}
\otimes_{\Ca{A}}\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{\pm}$ to $\Ca{E}^{\sigma}\otimes_{\Ca{A}}\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^{\mp}$, its Fredholm index is actually independent of that
datum. Therefore, we arrive at the following statement.
\begin{proposition}\label{thm.IndexTwisted-connection}
For any $\sigma$-connection on $\Ca{E}$,
\begin{equation*}
\op{ind}_{D,\sigma}[\Ca{E}]= \op{ind} D_{\Ca{E},\nabla}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\section{The Connes-Chern Character of a Twisted Spectral Triple}\label{sec:Connes-Chern}
In this section, we recall the construction of the Connes-Chern character of a twisted spectral triple.
As for ordinary spectral triples, the index map of the twisted triple $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)_{\sigma}$ can be computed by pairing
$K_{0}(\Ca{A})$ with some cyclic cohomology class. More precisely, we have
\begin{theorem}[\cite{CM:TGNTQF}] Assume that $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)_{\sigma}$ is $p^{+}$-summable in the sense of~(\ref{eq:ST.p-summability}).
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any integer $k>\frac{1}{2}(p-1)$, the following formula defines a cyclic cocycle on $\Ca{A}$,
\begin{equation}
\tau_{2k}^{D,\sigma}(a^{0},\cdots, a^{2k}):= \frac{1}{2}\frac{k!}{(2k)!}\op{Str} \left\{ D^{-1}[D,
a^0]_{\sigma}\cdots D^{-1}[D, a^{2k}]_{\sigma}\right\}, \quad a^{j}\in \Ca{A}.
\label{eq:Connes-Chern-twisted}
\end{equation}
\item The class of $ \tau_{2k}^{D,\sigma}$ in the periodic cyclic cohomology $\op{HP}^{{\text{ev}}}(\Ca{A})$ is independent of $k$.
\item For all $e \in K_{0}(\Ca{A})$,
\begin{equation*}
\op{ind}_{D,\sigma}[e]=\acou{ \tau_{2k}^{D,\sigma}}{e}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{definition}
The class of $\tau_{2k}^{D,\sigma}$ in $\op{HP}^{{\text{ev}}}(\Ca{A})$ is denoted $\op{Ch}(\Ca{A},D)_{\sigma}$ and is called the
Connes-Chern character of $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)_{\sigma}$.
\end{definition}
For instance, suppose that $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}})_{\sigma}$ is the conformal deformation of some $p^{+}$-summable ordinary spectral
triple $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$, i.e., $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}})_{\sigma}=(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D_{h})_{\sigma_{h}}$ for some $h\in \Ca{A}$,
$h^{*}=h$, where $D_{h}=e^{-\frac{h}{2}}De^{-\frac{h}{2}}$ and $\sigma_{h}(a)=e^{-h}ae^{h}$. Then we can check that
\begin{align*}
\tau_{2k}^{D_{h},\sigma_{h}}(a^{0},\cdots, a^{2k})& = \frac{1}{2}\frac{k!}{(2k)!}\op{Str} \left\{ D^{-1}[D,
\sigma_{\frac{h}{2}}(a^0)]\cdots D^{-1}[D, \sigma_{\frac{h}{2}}(a^{2k})]\right\}\\
&= \tau_{2k}^{D}(\sigma_{\frac{h}{2}}(a^{0}),\cdots, \sigma_{\frac{h}{2}}(a^{2k})),
\end{align*}where $\tau_{2k}^{D}$ is the cocycle~(\ref{eq:Connes-Chern}) that defines the ordinary Connes-Chern character of
$(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$. This shows that $\tau_{2k}^{D_{h},\sigma_{h}}$ and $\tau_{2k}^{D}$ are homotopically equivalent,
and hence define the same class in the cyclic cohomology. Therefore, we obtain
\begin{proposition}[\cite{CM:TGNTQF}] \label{prop:Index.Connes-Chern-confornally-perturbed}
For all $h \in \Ca{A}$, $h^{*}=h$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\op{Ch}(\Ca{A},e^{-\frac{h}{2}}De^{-\frac{h}{2}})_{\sigma_{h}}=\op{Ch}(\Ca{A},D)\in \op{HP}^{{\text{ev}}}(\Ca{A}).
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
The natural question that arises is to find a local representative for the Connes-Chern character
$\op{Ch}(\Ca{A},D)_{\sigma}$, i.e., an analogue of the CM cocycle~(\ref{eq:ST.CM-cocycle1}--(\ref{eq:ST.CM-cocycle2}) (see~\cite{CM:TGNTQF}). Moscovici~\cite{Mo:LIFTST}
devised an Ansatz for such a local representative and proved that the Ansatz is verified in the case
of an ordinary spectral triple $(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$ twisted by scaling automorphisms (cf.~Proposition~\ref{prop:TwistedST.scaling}), provided that
$(\Ca{A},\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},D)$ is regular and has simple and discrete dimension spectrum. To date this is the only example of twisted spectral triple known to
verify Moscovici's Ansatz.
\section{The Connes-Chern Character of the Conformal Dirac Spectral Triple}\label{sec:Connes-Chern-conformal}
Our aim in this section is to give a geometric expression for the Connes-Chern character of the conformal Dirac spectral
triple, the construction of which was recalled in Section~\ref{sec:TwistedST}.
Throughout this section we shall use the same notation as in Section~\ref{sec:TwistedST}. In particular, $(M^{n},g)$
is a closed spin oriented Riemannian manifold ($n$ even) with Dirac operator
$\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}:C^{\infty}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})\rightarrow C^{\infty}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$, where $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}=\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}^{+}\oplus \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}^{-}$ is the spinor bundle of
$M$. We also denote by $L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ the corresponding Hilbert space of $L^{2}$-spinors.
In addition, $G$ is the identity component of the group of conformal diffeomorphisms of $M$ that preserve the orientation and the spin structure.
Using the automorphism $\sigma$ of $\Ca{A}$ defined by~(\ref{eq:TwistedST.automorphism-conformal-DiracST}),
Proposition~\ref{prop:TwistedST.automorphism-conformal-DiracST} asserts that
$(\Ca{A},L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g})_{\sigma}$ is a twisted spectral triple.
By Ferrand-Obata Theorem~\cite{Fe:ACTRM} (see also~\cite{Sc:OCCRAG}) there are two main possibilities for $G$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] $M$ is conformally equivalent to the sphere $\mathbb{S}^{n}$ and $G$ is isomorphic to $\op{PSO}(n+1,1)$.
\item[(b)] $M$ is not conformally flat and $G$ is compact with respect to the compact-open topology.
\end{enumerate}
In this paper, we shall focus on the non-(conformally-)flat case exclusively. \emph{Henceforth we assume throughout the
rest of this section that $(M^{n},g)$ is closed and not conformally equivalent to $\mathbb{S}^{n}$}. Notice that, as
$M$ is compact, this means that, either $M$ is not simply connected, or its Weyl curvature tensor of $g$ is not
identically zero (see~\cite{Ku:CFSL}).
As pointed out by Moscovici~\cite[Remark~3.8]{Mo:LIFTST}, in the non conformally flat case the conformal Dirac spectral triple is unitarily equivalent to the conformal perturbation of
an equivariant Dirac spectral triple, and hence the Connes-Chern character of the conformal spectral triple is
represented by the CM cocycle of the equivariant Dirac spectral triple. We shall describe this equivalence in full
details and use it to compute the Connes-Chern character of the conformal Dirac spectral triple.
As the group $G$ is compact, it admits a Haar measure $d\lambda(\phi)$, using which we can exhibit a $G$-invariant metric $\bar{g}$ in
the conformal class of $g$. Namely,
\begin{equation}
\bar{g}:=\int_{G}\phi_{*}g\, d\lambda(\phi) =\left( \int_{M}
e^{2h_{\phi}}\, d\lambda(\phi)\right)g=e^{2h}g,
\label{eq:Conformal.invariant-metric}
\end{equation}where $h:= \frac{1}{2}\log \left( \int_{M}
e^{2h_{\phi}}\, d\lambda(\phi)\right)$. If $\phi \in G$, then the equality $\phi_{*}\bar{g}=\bar{g}$ implies that
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{*}g=\phi_{*}(e^{2h}\bar{g})=e^{2h\circ \phi^{-1}}\bar{g}=e^{2h\circ \phi^{-1}-2h}g.
\end{equation*}Comparing this to~(\ref{eq:TwistedST.conformal-factor}) then shows that
\begin{equation}
h_{\phi}=h\circ \phi^{-1}-h \qquad \forall \phi \in G.
\label{eq:Comformal.hphi}
\end{equation}
For $\phi\in G$ we denote by $U_{\phi}:L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})\rightarrow L_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ the operator defined
by~(\ref{eq:TwistedST.Vphi}) using the metric $\bar{g}$. As the metric $\bar{g}$ is $G$-invariant, this operator is actually unitary, and hence $\phi
\rightarrow U_{\phi}$ is a unitary representation of $G$ on $L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$. This enables us to represent the
crossed-product algebra $C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G$ in $L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ as the subalgebra of
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}\left(L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})\right)$ generated by operators of the form $fU_{\phi}$ with $f\in
C^{\infty}(M)$ and $\phi \in G$.
Let $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}:L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})\rightarrow L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ be the Dirac operator associated to the
metric $\bar{g}$. The $G$-invariance of $\bar{g}$ and the fact that $G$ preserves the spin structure imply that
\begin{equation}
[\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},U_{\phi}]=0 \qquad \forall \phi \in G.
\label{eq:Conformal.commutation-D-Vphi}
\end{equation}
Combining this property with the fact that $(C^{\infty}(M),L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}})$ is an (ordinary)
spectral triple, we can easily check that $(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}})$
too is a spectral triple. Both spectral triples are $n^{+}$-summable. Furthermore, we have
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:TwistedST.regularity-dim-spectrum-equivariantDST}
The spectral triple $(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}})$ is regular and has
simple and discrete dimension spectrum.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider the derivation $\delta(T):=[|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|,T]$ as defined in~(\ref{eq:ST.delta}). Let $f\in C^{\infty}(M)$ and
$\phi\in G$. As~(\ref{eq:Conformal.commutation-D-Vphi}) shows that $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}$ commutes with $U_{\phi}$, we see that, for all $j \in \N$,
\begin{equation}
\delta^{j}(fU_{\phi})=\delta^{j}(f)U_{\phi} \quad \text{and} \quad
\delta^{j}([\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},fU_{\phi}])=\delta^{j}([\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},f])U_{\phi}=\delta^{j}(c(df))U_{\phi},
\label{eq:Conformal.deltaj-fVphi}
\end{equation}where $c(df)$ is the action on $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}$ of the differential $df$ by Clifford multiplication; this is a
section of $\ensuremath{\op{End}}\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}$.
Notice that $\delta^{j}(f)$ and $\delta^{j}(c(df))$ are contained in the algebra $\Psi^{0}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ of zeroth order \psidos\
on $M$ acting on the sections of $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}$. Therefore~(\ref{eq:Conformal.deltaj-fVphi}) shows that $\delta^{j}(fU_{\phi})$ and
$\delta^{j}([\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},fU_{\phi}])$ are bounded operators. Thus $fU_{\phi}$ and $[\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},fU_{\phi}]$
are contained in $\op{dom} \delta^{j}$ for all $j \in \N$. This proves that the spectral triple $(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes
G, L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}})$ is regular.
Let us denote by $\Ca{B}$ the sub-algebra of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}(L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}))$ generated by the grading operator
$\gamma:=\op{id}_{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}^{+}}-\op{id}_{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}^{-}}$ and the operators $\delta^{j}(fU_{\phi})$ and
$\delta^{j}([\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},fU_{\phi}])$ as above. It follows from~(\ref{eq:Conformal.deltaj-fVphi}) and the previous discussion that $\Ca{B}$
is spanned by operators of the form,
\begin{equation*}
P_{0}U_{\phi_{0}}P_{1}U_{\phi_{1}}\cdots P_{k}U_{\phi_{k}}, \qquad P_{j}\in \Psi^{0}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}), \ \phi_{j}\in G.
\end{equation*}In fact, as
$U_{\phi_{j}}P_{j+1}U_{\phi_{j+1}}=(\phi_{j})_{*}P_{j+1}U_{\phi_{j}}U_{\phi_{j+1}}=(\phi_{j})_{*}P_{j+1}U_{\phi_{j}\circ \phi_{j+1}}$, we see that any operator of the
above form can actually be put in the form $PU_{\phi}$ with $P\in \Psi^{0}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ and $\phi\in G$. That is, the
algebra $\Ca{B}$ is contained in the crossed-product algebra $\Psi^{0}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})\rtimes G$.
If $P\in \Psi^{0}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ and $\phi\in G$, then the result of~\cite{Da:ENCR} shows that the function
$\ensuremath{\op{Tr}}\left[PU_{\phi}|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-z}\right]= \ensuremath{\op{Tr}}\left[P(\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}^{2})^{-\frac{z}{2}}U_{\phi}\right]$ has a
meromorphic extension to $\C$ with at worst simple pole singularities on $\Sigma:=\left\{k \in \Z; \ k\leq n\right\}$.
This shows that the spectral triple $(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes
G, L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}})$ has a discrete and simple dimension spectrum. The proof is thus complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Consider the space $\Psi^{q}_{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}}(C^{\infty}(M))$, $q \in \C$, as
defined in~(\ref{eq:ST.PsiDOs1})--(\ref{eq:ST.PsiDOs2}). By arguing as in the proof above, it can be shown that
$\Psi^{q}_{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}}(C^{\infty}(M))$ is contained in the crossed-product $\Psi^{q}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})\rtimes
G$, where $\Psi^{q}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ is the space of \psidos\ of order $q$ on $M$ acting on the sections of $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}$. Moreover, the
residual trace~(\ref{eq:ST.residual-trace}) on $\Psi^{\bullet}_{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}}(C^{\infty}(M))$ agrees with the noncommutative residue trace
on $\Psi^{\bullet}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})\rtimes G$ constructed in~\cite{Da:ENCR}.
\end{remark}
As the function $h$ in~(\ref{eq:Conformal.invariant-metric}) is real-valued, and hence is a selfadjoint element of $C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G$,
we can form the conformally deformed twisted spectral triple,
\begin{equation*}
(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}), e^{-\frac{h}{2}}\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}e^{-\frac{h}{2}})_{\sigma_{h}},
\end{equation*}
where the automorphism $\sigma_{h}$ is defined as in~(\ref{eq:TwistedST.sigmah}).
Observe that, as $\bar{g}=e^{2h}g$ the multiplication operator by $e^{\frac{1}{2}nh}$
gives rise to a unitary operator from $L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ to $L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$, since, for all $ u \in
L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$,
\begin{equation*}
\int_{M}|u(x)|^{2}d\op{vol}_{\bar{g}}(x)= \int_{M}|u(x)|^{2}e^{nh(x)}d\op{vol}_{g}(x)=
\int_{M}|e^{\frac{1}{2}nh(x)}u(x)|^{2}d\op{vol}_{g}(x),
\end{equation*}where $|\cdot|$ is the Hermitian metric of $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}$. Notice also that the conformal invariance of the Dirac
operator~(\cite{Hi:HS}) implies that
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}=\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{e^{2h}g}=e^{-\frac{1}{2}(n+1)h}\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}e^{\frac{1}{2}(n-1)h}=e^{-\frac{1}{2}nh}(e^{-\frac{h}{2}}\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}e^{-\frac{h}{2}})e^{\frac{1}{2}nh}.
\end{equation*}
Let $\phi \in G$. Combining the very definitions~(\ref{eq:TwistedST.Vphi})--(\ref{eq:TwistedST.Uphi}) of $U_{\phi}$ and $V_{\phi}$
with~(\ref{eq:Comformal.hphi}) we see that
\begin{equation*}
V_{\phi}=e^{\frac{1}{2}nh_{\phi}} U_{\phi}= e^{\frac{n}{2}(h\circ
\phi^{-1}-h)}U_{\phi}=e^{-\frac{1}{2}nh}U_{\phi}e^{\frac{1}{2}nh}.
\end{equation*}Using the definitions of the automorphisms $\sigma_{h}$ and $\sigma$ in~(\ref{eq:TwistedST.sigmah}) and~(\ref{eq:TwistedST.automorphism-conformal-DiracST})
we also get
\begin{equation*}
\sigma(V_{\phi})=
e^{h_{\phi}}V_{\phi}=e^{(\frac{1}{2}n+1)h_{\phi}}U_{\phi}=e^{-(\frac{1}{2}n+1)h}U_{\phi}e^{(\frac{1}{2}n+1)h}=e^{-\frac{1}{2}nh}\sigma_{h}(U_{\phi})e^{\frac{1}{2}nh}.
\end{equation*}
This implies that the multiplication operator by $e^{\frac{1}{2}nh}$ intertwines the representations of
$C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G$ in $L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ and $L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$, and under this intertwining the automorphism
$\sigma$ agrees with $\sigma_{h}$. Therefore, we obtain
\begin{proposition}
The multiplication operator by $e^{\frac{1}{2}nh}$
gives rise to a unitary equivalence,
\begin{equation*}
\left(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}\right)_{\sigma} \simeq
\left(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}), e^{-\frac{h}{2}}\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}e^{-\frac{h}{2}}\right)_{\sigma_{h}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
This implies that the twisted spectral triples $(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g})_{\sigma}$ and
$(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}), e^{-\frac{h}{2}}\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}e^{-\frac{h}{2}})_{\sigma_{h}}$ have the same
Connes-Chern character. As it follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:Index.Connes-Chern-confornally-perturbed} that
the latter twisted spectral triple has the same Connes-Chern character as
the ordinary spectral triple $(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}), \,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}})$, we deduce
that so does the Connes-Chern character of $(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G,
L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g})_{\sigma}$.
Moreover, thanks to Proposition~\ref{prop:TwistedST.regularity-dim-spectrum-equivariantDST} the
spectral triple $(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G,
L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}})$ satisfies the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:LIFNCG}. That is, its Connes-Chern character is represented by the CM cocycle
$\varphi^{\textup{CM}}$ defined by~(\ref{eq:ST.CM-cocycle1})--(\ref{eq:ST.CM-cocycle2}). Therefore, we obtain
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:ReduceToCM}
The Connes-Chern character of $(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\,
\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g})_{\sigma}$ is represented by the CM cocycle of $(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G,
L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}})$.
\end{proposition}
We are thus reduced to determining the CM cocycle of the equivariant Dirac spectral triple $(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G,
L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}})$. To this end we need to introduce some notation.
Let $\phi \in G$ and denote by $M^{\phi}$ its
fixed-point set. Since $\phi$ preserves the orientation and the metric $\bar{g}$, it is a disconnected unions $M_{a}^{\phi}$
of submanifolds of even dimension $a=0,2,\cdots, n$ (see Section~\ref{sec:Equivariant-heat-kernel-asymptotics}). Therefore, we may treat $M^{\phi}$ as if it
were a manifold.
We let $\Ca{N}^{\phi}=(TM^{\phi})^{\perp}$ be the normal
bundle of $M^{\phi}$, which we regard as a vector bundle over $M^{\phi}$. We denote by $\phi^{\Ca{N}}$ the isometric vector bundle isomorphism
induces on $\Ca{N}^{\phi}$ by $\phi'$. Notice that the eigenvalues of $\phi^{\Ca{N}}$ are either $-1$ (which has even multiplicity), or complex conjugates $e^{\pm i
\theta}$, $\theta \in (0,\pi)$, with same multiplicity (see Section~\ref{sec:Equivariant-heat-kernel-asymptotics}).
Let $R^{TM}$ be the curvature of $(M,\bar{g})$, seen as a section of $\Lambda^{2}T^{*}M \otimes \ensuremath{\op{End}} (TM)$.
As the Levi-Civita connection $\nabla^{TM}$ is preserved by $\phi$, it preserves the splitting
$TM_{|M^{\phi}}=TM^{\phi}\oplus \Ca{N}^{\phi}$ over $M^{\phi}$, and hence it induces connections $\nabla^{TM^{\phi}}$ and
$\nabla^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}$ on $TM^{\phi}$ and $\Ca{N}^{\phi}$, so that
\begin{equation*}
\nabla^{TM}_{|TM^{\phi}}=\nabla^{TM^{\phi}}\oplus \nabla^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}} \qquad \textup{on $M^{\phi}$}.
\end{equation*}Notice that $\nabla^{TM^{\phi}}$ is the Levi-Civita connection of $TM^{\phi}$.
Let $R^{TM^{\phi}}$ and $R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}$ be the respective curvatures of $\nabla^{TM^{\phi}}$ and
$\nabla^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}$. Define
\begin{equation}
\hat{A}(R^{TM^{\phi}}):= {\det}^{\frac{1}{2}} \left(\frac{R^{TM^{\phi}}/2}{\sinh(R^{TM^{\phi}}/2)}\right)
\quad \text{and} \quad
\nu_{\phi}\left(R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}\right):={\det}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(1- \phi^{\Ca{N}}e^{-R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}}\right),
\label{eq:Conformal.characteristic-forms}
\end{equation}where ${\det}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(1- \phi^{\Ca{N}}e^{-R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}}\right)$ is defined in the same way as
in~\cite[Section 6.3]{BGV:HKDO}.
In the sequel, if $f$ is a smooth function on $M$ we shall denote by $d'f$ the component of the differential $df$ in $T^{*}M^{\phi}_{a}$, i.e.,
$d'f=df_{|TM^{\phi}_{a}}$. In addition, we shall orient $M^{\phi}_{a}$ like in~\cite[Prop.~6.14]{BGV:HKDO}, so that the
$\phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}$ gives rise to a section of $\Lambda^{b}(\Ca{N}^{\phi})^{*}$ which is positive with respect to the orientation of
$\Ca{N}^{\phi}$ defined by the orientations of $M$ and $M^{\phi}$.
The following is the key technical result in the computation of the Connes-Chern character of the twisted spectral
triple $(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G,
L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g})_{\sigma}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{thm:Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}
Let $\phi \in G$ and consider a differential operator of the form,
\begin{equation*}
P_{k,\alpha}=f^{0}[\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},f^{1}]^{[\alpha_{1}]}\cdots [\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},f^{2k}]^{[\alpha_{2k}]}, \qquad
f^{j} \in C^{\infty}(M),
\end{equation*}where the notation is the same as in~(\ref{eq:ST.iterated-commutators-D2}). Then, as $t \rightarrow 0^{+}$,
\begin{equation}
\op{Str}\left[P_{k,\alpha}e^{-t\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}^{2}}U_{\phi}\right] =
\left\{
\begin{array}
{ll}
{\displaystyle (-i)^{\frac{n}{2}}t^{-k}\sum_{a} (2\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}
\int_{M^{\phi}_{a}} \omega_{k}+ \op{O}\left(t^{-k+1}\right)} & \text{if $\alpha =0$}, \\
{\displaystyle \op{O}\left(t^{-(|\alpha|+k)+1}\right) } & \text{if $\alpha \neq 0$},
\end{array}\right. \label{eq:Connes-Chern.Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}
\end{equation}
where we have set
\begin{equation*}
\omega_{k}:=\hat{A}(R^{TM^{\phi}})\wedge \nu_{\phi}\left(R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}\right) \wedge f^{0}d'f^{1} \wedge \cdots \wedge
d'f^{2k}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
The asymptotics~(\ref{eq:Connes-Chern.Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}) are proved in~\cite{CH:ECCIDO}: see Corollary~3.16 of~\cite{CH:ECCIDO} for the case $\alpha=0$ and
Theorem~2 of~\cite{CH:ECCIDO} for the case $\alpha \neq 0$. The approach in~\cite{CH:ECCIDO} uses an equivariant version of
the Clifford asymptotic pseudodifferential calculus of~\cite{Yu:AMS}. This equivariant Clifford asymptotic
pseudodifferential calculus was developed in~\cite{LYZ:TAMS} to give a new proof of the local equivariant index
theorem~(\cite{Pa:BAMS, DP:T, Gi:LNPAM}).
In Section~\ref{sec:proof-key-thm}, we will give a new, and fairly elementary, proof of the local equivariant
index theorem. The arguments will be based on an equivariant version of the approach of~\cite{Po:CMP} to the proof of the local index theorem.
As an immediate by-product of this proof, we will get a proof of Proposition~\ref{thm:Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}. It is believed that this approach to the
local equivariant index theorem and the CM cocycle of an equivariant Dirac spectral triple should hold in
various geometric settings.
We shall now explain how Proposition~\ref{thm:Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm} enables us to determine the Connes-Chern character of
$(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{g}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g})_{\sigma}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Connes-Chern-conformal-DiracST}
The Connes-Chern
character $\op{Ch}(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, \, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g})_{\sigma}$ is represented by the periodic cyclic cocycle
$\varphi=(\varphi_{2k})_{k\geq 0}$ on $C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G$ given by
\begin{multline}
\varphi_{2k}(f^{0}U_{\phi_{0}}, \cdots, f^{2k}U_{\phi_{2k}})= \\
\frac{(-i)^{\frac{n}{2}}}{(2k)!}\sum_{a} (2\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}\int_{M^{\phi_{(k)}}_{a}} \hat{A}(R^{TM^{\phi_{(k)}}})\wedge
\nu_{\phi_{(k)}}\left(R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi_{(k)}}}\right) \wedge f^{0}d'\tilde{f}^{1} \wedge \cdots \wedge
d'\tilde{f}^{2k},
\label{eq:Conformal.CM-cocycle}
\end{multline}where $\phi_{(k)}:=\phi_{0}\circ \cdots \circ \phi_{2k}$ and $\tilde{f}^{j}:=f^{j}\circ \phi_{0}^{-1}\circ \cdots \circ \phi_{j-1}^{-1}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It follows from Proposition \ref{prop:ReduceToCM} that the Connes-Chern character $\op{Ch}(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G,
\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_g)_{\sigma}$ is represented by the CM cocycle $\varphi^{\textup{CM}}=(\varphi_{2k})$ of the spectral triple $(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, L^{2}_{\bar{g}}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}),\, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}})$.
By~(\ref{eq:ST.CM-cocycle1})--(\ref{eq:ST.CM-cocycle2}) the components $\varphi_{2k}$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{0}(f^{0}U_{\phi_{0}}) = \ensuremath{\op{Res}}_{z=0} \Gamma(z)\op{Str} \left [ f^{0}U_{\phi_{0}}(|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2z}+\Pi_{0})\right] ,
\label{eq:ST.CM-cocycle-EquivDirac1}\\
\end{equation}
\begin{multline}
\varphi_{2k}(f^{0}U_{\phi_{0}},\cdots, f^{2k}U_{\phi_{2k}})= \\
\sum_{\alpha}c_{k,\alpha}\ensuremath{\Xint-} \gamma f^{0}U_{\phi_{0}}
\left[\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},f^{1}U_{\phi_{1}}\right]^{[\alpha_{1}]} \cdots
\left[\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},f^{2k}U_{\phi_{2k}}\right]^{[\alpha_{2k}]} |\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2(|\alpha|+k)} \quad (k\geq 1),
\label{eq:ST.CM-cocycle-EquivDirac2}
\end{multline}where $\Pi_{0}$ is the orthogonal projection onto $\ker \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}$ and $c_{k,\alpha}$ is defined
as in~(\ref{eq:ST-ckalpha}).
Using the fact that $U_{\phi_{0}}$ commutes with $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}$ (cf.\ Eq.~(\ref{eq:Conformal.commutation-D-Vphi})) we see that
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{0}(f^{0}U_{\phi_{0}}) = \ensuremath{\op{Res}}_{z=0} \Gamma(z) \op{Str} \left[ f_{0}|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2z}U_{\phi_{0}}\right] +
\op{Str} \left [ f^{0}\Pi_{0}U_{\phi_{0}}\right].
\label{eq:ST.CM-cocycle-EquivDirac1a}
\end{equation} Likewise, for $k\geq 1$, using~(\ref{eq:Conformal.commutation-D-Vphi}) and arguing as in the proof of
Proposition~\ref{prop:TwistedST.regularity-dim-spectrum-equivariantDST} we deduce that
\begin{multline*}
f^{0}U_{\phi_{0}}
\left[\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},f^{1}U_{\phi_{1}}\right]^{[\alpha_{1}]} \cdots
\left[\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},f^{2k}U_{\phi_{2k}}\right]^{[\alpha_{2k}]} |\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2(|\alpha|+k)}\\ =
f^{0}\left[\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},\tilde{f}^{1}\right]^{[\alpha_{1}]} \cdots
\left[\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},\tilde{f}^{2k}\right]^{[\alpha_{2k}]}
|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2(|\alpha|+k)}U_{\phi_{(k)}},
\end{multline*}where $\phi_{(k)}:=\phi_{0}\circ \cdots \circ \phi_{2k}$ and $\tilde{f}^{j}:=f^{j}\circ
\phi_{0}^{-1}\circ \cdots \circ \phi_{j-1}^{-1}$.
Set $P_{k,\alpha}=f^{0}[\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},\tilde{f}^{1}]^{[\alpha_{1}]} \cdots
[\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}},\tilde{f}^{2k}]^{[\alpha_{2k}]}$. Then from~(\ref{eq:ST.residual-trace}) we get
\begin{align}
\varphi_{2k}(f^{0}U_{\phi_{0}},\cdots, f^{2k}U_{\phi_{2k}}) & =
\sum c_{k,\alpha} \ensuremath{\op{Res}}_{z=0} \op{Str} \left[
P_{k,\alpha}|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2(|\alpha|+k)}U_{\phi_{(k)}}|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2z}\right] \nonumber \\
& = \sum c_{k,\alpha} \Gamma(|\alpha|+k)^{-1}\ensuremath{\op{Res}}_{z=|\alpha|+k} \Gamma(z)\op{Str} \left[
P_{k,\alpha}|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2z}U_{\phi_{(k)}}\right].
\label{eq:ST.CM-cocycle-EquivDirac2a}
\end{align
By Mellin's formula
$\Gamma(z)|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2z}=\int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}(1-\Pi_{0})e^{-t\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}^{2}}dt$, so we see that,
for $\Re z \gg 1$,
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma(z) \op{Str} \left[ P_{k,\alpha}|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2z}U_{\phi_{(k)}}\right] = \int_{0}^{\infty}t^{z-1}\op{Str}
\left[P_{k,\alpha}(1-\Pi_{0})e^{-t\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}^{2}}U_{\phi_{(k)}}\right]dt,
\end{equation*}with the convention that $P_{k,\alpha}=f^{0}$ and $\phi_{(k)}=\phi_{0}$ when $k=0$ and $\alpha=0$. In
other words, $\Gamma(z) \op{Str} \left[ P_{k,\alpha}|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2z}U_{\phi_{(k)}}\right]$ is the Mellin transform of
the function,
\begin{equation*}
\theta_{\alpha,k}(t)=\op{Str} \left[P_{k,\alpha}(1-\Pi_{0})e^{-t\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}^{2}}U_{\phi_{(k)}}\right]=
\op{Str} \left[P_{k,\alpha}e^{-t\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}^{2}}U_{\phi_{(k)}}\right]- \op{Str}\left[
P_{k,\alpha}\Pi_{0}U_{\phi_{(k)}}\right], \quad t>0.
\end{equation*}
The poles of the Mellin transform of a function $\theta(t)$, $t>0$, are intimately related to the behavior of
$\theta(t)$ as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$ (see, e.g., \cite[Proposition 5.1]{GS:ZEFAPSO}). In particular, the residue at $z=|\alpha|+k$ of
$\Gamma(z) \op{Str} \left[ P_{k,\alpha}|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2z}U_{\phi_{(k)}}\right]$ is equal to the coefficient of
$t^{-(|\alpha|+k)}$ in the asymptotic of $\theta_{k,\alpha}(t)$ as $t\rightarrow 0$. Therefore, using Proposition~\ref{thm:Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm} we
deduce that
\begin{gather}
\ensuremath{\op{Res}}_{z=0} \Gamma(z) \op{Str} \left[ f^{0}|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2z}U_{\phi_{0}}\right] = (-i)^{\frac{n}{2}}\sum_{a} (2\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}
\int_{M^{\phi_{0}}_{a}} \omega_{0}
\, - \, \op{Str}\left[ f^{0}\Pi_{0}U_{\phi_{0}}\right],
\label{eq:CCConformal.residue-zetaf0}\\
\ensuremath{\op{Res}}_{z=k} \Gamma(z)\op{Str} \left[
P_{k,0}|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2z}U_{\phi_{(k)}}\right] = (-i)^{\frac{n}{2}}\sum_{a} (2\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}
\int_{M^{\phi_{(k)}}_{a}} \omega_{k} \qquad (k\geq 1),
\label{eq:CCConformal.residue-zetaPk0} \\
\ensuremath{\op{Res}}_{z=|\alpha|+k} \Gamma(z)\op{Str} \left[
P_{k,\alpha}|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2z}U_{\phi_{(k)}}\right]=0 \qquad (k\geq 1, \ \alpha \neq 0),
\label{eq:CCConformal.residue-zetaPkalpha}
\end{gather}where $\omega_{k}:=\hat{A}(R^{TM^{\phi_{(k)}}})\wedge \nu_{\phi_{(k)}}\left(R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi_{(k)}}}\right) \wedge f^{0}d'\tilde{f}^{1} \wedge \cdots \wedge
d'\tilde{f}^{2k}$.
Combining~(\ref{eq:CCConformal.residue-zetaf0}) with~(\ref{eq:ST.CM-cocycle-EquivDirac1}) and~(\ref{eq:ST.CM-cocycle-EquivDirac1a}) gives
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_{0}(f^{0}U_{\phi_{0}}) = (-i)^{\frac{n}{2}}\sum_{a} (2\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}
\int_{M^{\phi_{(k)}}_{a}} \omega_{0}.
\end{equation*}Similarly, for $k \geq 1$, by combining
(\ref{eq:CCConformal.residue-zetaPk0})--(\ref{eq:CCConformal.residue-zetaPkalpha}) with~(\ref{eq:ST.CM-cocycle-EquivDirac2})
and~(\ref{eq:ST.CM-cocycle-EquivDirac2a}) we get
\begin{align*}
\varphi_{2k}(f^{0}U_{\phi_{0}}, \cdots, f^{2k}U_{\phi_{2k}}) &= c_{k,0}\Gamma(k)^{-1} \ensuremath{\op{Res}}_{z=k} \Gamma(z)\op{Str} \left[
P_{k,0}|\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{\bar{g}}|^{-2z}U_{\phi_{(k)}}\right]\\ & = \frac{(-i)^{\frac{n}{2}}}{(2k)!}\sum_{a} (2\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}
\int_{M^{\phi_{(k)}}_{a}} \omega_{k}.
\end{align*}The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
To understand the formula~(\ref{eq:Conformal.CM-cocycle}) it is worth looking at the top-degree component
$\varphi_{n}$. Observe that for $k=\frac{1}{2}n$ the r.h.s.~of~(\ref{eq:Conformal.CM-cocycle}) reduces to an integral
over $M_{n}^{\phi_{(n)}}$ and this submanifold is empty unless $\phi_{(n)}=\op{id}$. Thus,
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_{n}(f^{0}U_{\phi_{0}}, \cdots, f^{n}U_{\phi_{n}})= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll} {\displaystyle \frac{(2i\pi)^{-\frac{n}{2}}}{n!} \int_{M}
f^{0}d\tilde{f}^{1} \wedge \cdots \wedge d\tilde{f}^{n} } & \text{if $\phi_{0}\circ \cdots \circ
\phi_{n}=\op{id}$},\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}That is, $\varphi_{n}$ agrees with the transverse fundamental cyclic cocycle introduced by
Connes~\cite{Co:CCTFF}.
In addition, the proof of the 2nd part of Theorem~\ref{thm:LIFNCG} amounts to show that the cocycle $\tau_{p}^{D}$ in~(\ref{eq:Connes-Chern}) and the CM cocycle are
cohomologous in periodic cyclic cohomology (assuming the spectral triple to be $p^{+}$-summable with $p$ even). The
proof of this result actually shows that $\tau_{p}^{D}$ and the cocycle $\varphi_{p}$ differ by a Hochschild
coboundary (see~\cite[Lemma~7.8 and Appendix~C]{Hi:RITCM}). Therefore, we arrive at the following statement (compare~\cite[Proposition~3.7]{Mo:LIFTST}).
\begin{proposition}
In Hochschild cohomology, the Connes-Chern character $\op{Ch}(C^{\infty}(M)\rtimes G, \, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g})_{\sigma}$ agrees with Connes' transverse fundamental class
$[M/G]$.
\end{proposition}
\section{Volterra Pseudodifferential Calculus and Heat Kernels}
\label{sec.volterra}
In this section, we recall the main definitions and properties of the Volterra pseudodifferential calculus and its
relationship with the heat kernel of an elliptic operator. The pseudodifferential representation of the heat kernel appeared in~\cite{Gr:AEHE},
but some of the ideas can be traced back to Hadamard~\cite{Ha:LCPLPDE}. The presentation here follows closely that
of~\cite{BGS:HECRM}.
Let $(M^{n},g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold and $E$ a Hermitian vector bundle over $M$. The metrics of $M$ and $E$
naturally define a continuous inner product on the space $L^{2}(M,E)$ of the $L^{2}$-sections of $E$. In addition, we let
$L:C^{\infty}(M,E)\rightarrow C^{\infty}(M,E)$ be a selfadjoint 2nd
order differential operator whose principal symbol is positive-definite. In particular, $L$ is elliptic.
The operator $L$ generates a continuous heat semigroup $[0,\infty)\ni t \rightarrow e^{-tL}\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}(L^{2}(M,E))$. Standard
ellipticity theory shows that the heat semigroup further induces a continuous semigroup $[0,\infty)\ni t \rightarrow
e^{-tL}\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}(C^{\infty}(M,E))$. In particular, for all $u \in C^{\infty}(M,E)$, as $t\to0^+$
\begin{equation}
e^{-tL}u\longrightarrow u \qquad \text{and} \qquad \frac{d}{dt}e^{-tL}u\longrightarrow-L u \qquad \text{in
$C^{\infty}(M,E)$}.
\label{eq:Heat-inverse.semi-group-functions}
\end{equation}
In the sequel, we shall make some notation abuse by also denoting by $E$ the vector bundle over $M\times \R$ whose fiber at
$(x,t)\in M\times \R$ is $E_{x}$ (i.e., the pullback by the projection $(x,t)\rightarrow x$). The heat operator
$L +\partial_{t}$ then acts on the sections of this vector bundle over $M\times \R$.
As it is well known the heat semigroup enables us to invert heat operator
$L +\partial_{t}$. More precisely, the continuity of the
heat semi-group ensures us that we define a continuous operator $Q_{0}$ from $C^{\infty}_{c}(M\times \R,E)$ to
$C^{\infty}(M\times \R,E)$ by \begin{equation}
Q_{0}u(\cdot ,s):=\int_{0}^\infty e^{-tL} u(\cdot ,s-t)dt \qquad \forall u \in C^{\infty}_{c}(M\times \R,E).
\label{eq:volterra.inverse-heat-operator}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, using~(\ref{eq:Heat-inverse.semi-group-functions}) we obtain
\begin{proposition}[\cite{Gr:AEHE, BGS:HECRM}]
For all $u \in C_{c}^{\infty}(M\times \R,E)$,
\begin{equation}
Q_{0}(L+\partial_{s})u=(L+\partial_{s})Q_{0}u=u.
\label{eq:Heat.inverse-heat-equation}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
In other words, the operator $Q_{0}$ inverts the heat operator $L+\partial_{t}$ on smooth sections of $E$ over
$M\times \R$.
Let us denote by $E\boxtimes E^{*}$ the vector bundle over $M\times M\times \R$ whose fiber at $(x,y,t)\in M\times
M\times \R$ is $\op{Hom}(E_{y},E_{x})$. We define the heat kernel $k_{t}(x,y)$, $t>0$, as the smooth section of
$E\boxtimes E^{*}$ over $M\times M\times (0,\infty)$ such that
\begin{equation}
e^{-tL}u(x)=\int_{M}k_{t}(x,y)u(y)|dy| \qquad \forall u \in L^{2}(M,E),
\label{eq:Heat.heat-kernel-smooth-function}
\end{equation}where $|dy|$ is the Riemannian density defined by $g$ on $M$. That is, $k_{t}(x,y)|dy|$ is the Schwartz
kernel of $e^{-tL}$.
The operator $Q_{0}$ is intimately related to the heat kernel. Indeed, let $k_{Q_{0}}(x,s,y,t)\in C^{\infty}(M_{x}\times
\R_{s},E)\hotimes \ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}'(M_{y}\times \R_{t},E)$ be the kernel of $Q_{0}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
Q_{0}u(x,s)=\acou{k_{Q_{0}}(x,s,y,t)}{u(y,t)} \qquad \forall u \in C^{\infty}_{c}(M\times \R,E).
\end{equation*}
Then, at the level of kernels,~(\ref{eq:Heat.inverse-heat-equation}) means that
\begin{equation}
k_{Q_{0}}(x,s,y,t)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
k_{s-t}(x,y) & \text{for $s-t>0$}, \\
0 & \text{for $s-t<0$}.
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq:Heat.KQ0-heat-kernel}
\end{equation}Thus $Q_{0}$ has the Volterra property in the following sense.
\begin{definition}[\cite{Pi:COPDTV}]\label{def:Volterra-property}
A continuous linear operator $Q:C^{\infty}_{c}(M\times \R,E)\rightarrow C^{\infty}(M\times \R,E)$ satisfies the Volterra property when there is $K_{Q}(x,y,t)$ in
$C^{\infty}(M\times \R,E)\hotimes\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}'(M,E)$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $Q$ has kernel $k_{Q}(x,s,y,t)=K_{Q}(x,y,s-t)$.
\item[(ii)] $K_{Q}(x,y,t)=0$ on the region $t<0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
The property (i) means that $Q$ is time-translation invariant and $K_{Q}(x,y,t)=k_{Q}(x,t,y,0)$. The property (ii)
implies that the value of $Qu(x,t)$ at a given time $t=t_{0}$ do not depend on the values of $u(x,t)$ at future times
$t>t_{0}$, i.e., $Q$ satisfies the causality principle.
\end{remark}
The Volterra \psido\ calculus aims at constructing a class of \psidos\ which is a natural receptacle for the inverse of the heat
operator. The idea is to modify the classical \psido\ calculus in order to take into account:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] The aforementioned Volterra property.
\item[(ii)] The parabolic homogeneity of the heat operator $L+ \partial_{t}$, i.e., the homogeneity with respect
to the dilations,
\begin{equation*}
\lambda.(\xi,\tau):=(\lambda\xi,\lambda^{2}\tau) \qquad \forall (\xi,\tau)\in \R^{n+1} \ \forall \lambda \in
\R^{*}.
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
In the sequel, for $G\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}'(\R^{n+1})$ and $\lambda\neq 0$, we denote by $G_{\lambda}$ the distribution in
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}'(\R^{n+1})$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\acou{G_{\lambda}( \xi,\tau)}{u(\xi,\tau)} := |\lambda|^{-(n+2)}
\acou{G(\xi,\tau)} {u(\lambda^{-1}\xi, \lambda^{-2}\tau)} \quad \forall u \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}(\R^{n+1}).
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}%
A distribution $ G\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}'(\R^{n+1})$ is (parabolic)
homogeneous of degree $m$, $m\in \Z$, when
\begin{equation*}
G_{\lambda}=\lambda^m G \qquad \forall \lambda \in \R\setminus 0.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
In addition, we denote by $\C_{-}$ the complex halfplane $\{\Im \tau <0\}$ with closure $\overline{\C_{-}}$.
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Prop.~1.9]{BGS:HECRM}}] \label{lem:volterra.volterra-extension}
Let $q(\xi,\tau)\in C^\infty((\R^{n}\times\R)\setminus0)$ be a parabolic homogeneous
symbol of degree $m$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $q(\xi,\tau)$ extends to a continuous function on $(\R^{n}\times\overline{\C_{-}})\setminus0$ in
such way to be holomorphic w.r.t.~the variable $\tau$ when restricted to $\C_{-}$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent Then there is a unique $G\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}'(\R^{n+1})$ agreeing with $q$ on $\R^{n+1}\setminus 0$ and such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(ii)] $G$ is homogeneous of degree $m$.
\item[(iii)] The inverse Fourier transform $\check G(x,t)$ vanishes for $t<0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}[See~\cite{BGS:HECRM}]\label{eq:Heat.homogeneity-inverse-Fourier}
The homogeneity of $q$ and $G$ implies that $G$ has the following homogeneity property:
\begin{equation*}
\check{G}_{\lambda}=|\lambda|^{-(n+2)}\lambda^{-m}G \qquad \forall \lambda \in \R^{*}.
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}
Let $U$ be an open subset of $\R^{n}$. We define Volterra symbols and Volterra \psidos\ on
$U\times\R^{n+1}\setminus 0$ as follows.
\begin{definition}
$S_{\op v}^m(U\times\R^{n+1})$, $m\in\Z$, consists of smooth functions $q(x,\xi,\tau)$ on
$U\times\R^n\times\R$ with an asymptotic expansion $q(x,\xi,\tau) \sim \sum_{j\geq 0} q_{m-j}(x,\xi,\tau)$, where
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] $q_{l}(x,\xi,\tau)\in C^{\infty}(U\times[(\R^n\times\R)\setminus0])$ is a homogeneous Volterra symbol of degree~$l$,
i.e. $q_{l}$ is parabolic homogeneous of degree $l$ and satisfies the
property (i) in Lemma~\ref{lem:volterra.volterra-extension} with respect to the last $n+1$ variables. \smallskip
\item[-] The sign $\sim$ means that, for all compacts $K\subset U$, integers $N$ and $k$ and multi-orders $\alpha$
and $\beta$, there is a constant $C_{NK\alpha\beta
k}>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\biggl|\partial^{\alpha}_{x}\partial^{\beta}_{\xi} \partial^k_{\tau}\biggl(q-\sum_{j< N}
q_{m-j}\biggr)(x,\xi,\tau) \biggr|
\leq C_{NK\alpha\beta k} (|\xi|+|\tau|^{1/2})^{m-N-|\beta|-2k}, \qquad
\label{eq:volterra.asymptotic-symbols}
\end{equation}
for all $(x,\xi,\tau)\in K\times \R^n\times\R$ with $|\xi|+|\tau|^{\frac12}\geq 1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
In the sequel, for a symbol $q(x,\xi,\tau)\in S^m_{\op v}(U\times\R)$ we denote by $q(x,D_{x},D_{t})$ the operator from
$C^{\infty}_{c}(U\times \R)$ to $C^{\infty}(U\times \R)$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
q(x,D_{x},D_{t})u(x,t):= (2\pi)^{-(n+1)}\iint e^{i(x\cdot \xi +t\tau)}q(x,\xi,\tau)\hat{u}(\xi,\tau)d\xi d\tau \quad \forall u
\in C^{\infty}_{c}(U\times \R).
\end{equation*}
\begin{definition}\label{def:volterra.PsiDO}
$\pvdo^m(U\times\R)$, $m\in\Z$, consists of continuous linear operators
$Q$ from $C_{c}^\infty(U_{x}\times\R_{t})$ to $C^\infty(U_{x}\times\R_{t})$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $Q$ has the Volterra property in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:Volterra-property}.
\item[(ii)] $Q$ can be put in the form,
\begin{equation}
Q=q(x,D_{x},D_{t})+R,
\label{eq:Heat.Volterra-PsiDO-symbol-R}
\end{equation}
for some symbol $q(x,\xi,\tau)\in S^m_{\op v}(U\times\R)$ and some smoothing operator $R$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
If $Q\in \pvdo^m(U\times\R)$, then there is a unique $K_{Q}(x,y,t)\in C^{\infty}(U,\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}'(U\times\R))$ such that
\begin{equation*}
Qu(x,s)=\acou{K_{Q}(x,y,s-t)}{u(y,t)}\qquad \forall u \in C^{\infty}(U\times\R).
\end{equation*}In fact, if we put $Q$ in the form~(\ref{eq:Heat.Volterra-PsiDO-symbol-R}) and we denote by $k_{R}(x,s,y,t)$ the Schwartz kernel of the
smoothing operator $R$ as defined in~(\ref{eq:Heat.heat-kernel-smooth-function}), then
\begin{equation*}
K_{Q}(x,y,t)=\check{q}(x,x-y,t)+k_{R}(x,0,y,-t).
\end{equation*}By abuse of language, we shall call $K_{Q}(x,y,t)$ the \emph{kernel} of $Q$ (although the actual
Schwartz kernel is $k_{Q}(x,s,y,t):=K_{Q}(x,y,s-t)$).
\begin{example}\label{ex:heat-inverse.diff-op}
Let $P$ be a differential operator of order $2$ on $U$ with principal symbol $p_{2}(x,\xi)$. Then
the operator $P+\partial_{t}$ is a Volterra \psido\ of order $2$ with principal symbol
$p_{2}(x,\xi)+i\tau$. In particular, if $p_{2}(x,\xi)>0$ for all $(x,\xi)\in U\times (\R^{n}\!\setminus\! 0)$, then
$p_{2}(x,\xi)+i\tau\neq 0$ for all $(x,\xi,\tau)\in U\times[(\R^n\times \overline{\C_{-}}\setminus 0)]$.
\end{example}
Other examples of Volterra \psidos\ are given by the following.
\begin{definition}\label{def:volterra.homogeneous-PsiDO}
Let $q_{m}(x,\xi,\tau) \in C^\infty(U\times(\R^{n+1}\setminus 0))$ be a homogeneous Volterra
symbol of order $m$ and let $G_{m}(x,\xi,\tau)\in C^\infty\left(U,\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}'(\R^{n+1})\right)$ denote its unique homogeneous extension given by
Lemma~\ref{lem:volterra.volterra-extension}. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] $\check q_{m}(x,y,t)$ is the inverse Fourier transform of $G_{m}(x,\xi,\tau)$
w.r.t.~the last $n+1$ variables.
\item[-] The operator $q_{m}(x,D_{x},D_{t}):C^{\infty}_{c}(U\times\R)\rightarrow C^{\infty}(U\times\R)$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
q_{m}(x,D_{x},D_{t})u(x,s):=\acou{\check{q}_{m}(x,x-y,s-t)}{u(y,t)} \qquad \forall u\in C^{\infty}_{c}(U\times \R).
\label{eq:Heat.homogeneous-Volterra-PsiDOs}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
It follows from the proof of~\cite[Prop.~1.9]{BGS:HECRM} that the
homogeneous extension $G_{m}(x,\xi,\tau)$ depends smoothly on $x$, i.e., it belongs to
$C^\infty\left(U,\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}'(\R^{n+1})\right)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
The operator $q_{m}(x,D_{x},D_{t})$ is a Volterra \psido\ of order $m$ with symbol $q\sim q_{m}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Sketch of Proof]
Set $Q=q_{m}(x,D_{x},D_{t})$. Since $\check{q}_{m}(x,y,t)$ belongs to $C^\infty\left(U,\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}'(\R^{n+1})\right)$, it follows from~(\ref{eq:Heat.homogeneous-Volterra-PsiDOs}) that
the operator $q_{m}(x,D_{x},D_{t})$ is continuous and satisfies the Volterra property.
Denote by $G_{m}(x,\xi,\tau)$ is the unique homogeneous extension of $q_{m}(x,\xi,\tau)$ given by
Lemma~\ref{lem:volterra.volterra-extension}. In addition, let $\varphi \in C^{\infty}_{c}(\R^{n+1})$ be such that $\varphi(\xi,\tau)=1$ near $(\xi,\tau)=(0,0)$. Then the symbol $\tilde{q}_{m}(x,\xi,\tau):=\left(1-\varphi(\xi,\tau)\right)q_{m}(x,\xi,\tau)$ lies
in $S_{\op
v}^m(U\times\R^{n+1})$ and we have
\begin{equation*}
K_{Q}(x,y,t)=(\tilde{q}_{m})^{\vee}(x,y,t)+(\varphi G_{m})^{\vee}(x,y,t),
\end{equation*}Observe that $(\varphi G_{m})^{\vee}(x,y,t)$ is smooth since this is the inverse Fourier transform of a
compactly supported function. Thus $Q$ agrees with $\tilde{q}_{m}(x,D_{x},D_{t})$ up to a smoothing operator, and
hence is a Volterra \psido\ of order $m$. Furthermore, it has symbol $\tilde{q}_{m}\sim q_{m}$. The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}[\cite{Gr:AEHE, Pi:COPDTV, BGS:HECRM}]\label{prop:Volterra-properties} The following properties hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Pseudolocality}. For any $Q\in \pvdo^{m}(U\times\R)$, the kernel $K_{Q}(x,y,t)$ is smooth on $\{(x,y,t)\in
M\times M\times \R; \ x\neq y \ \text{or} \ t \neq 0\}$.\smallskip
\item \emph{Proper Support}. For any $Q\in \pvdo^{m}(U\times\R)$ there exists $Q'\in \pvdo^{m}(U\times\R)$ such that
$Q'$ is properly
supported and $Q-Q'$ is a smoothing operator.\smallskip
\item \emph{Composition}. Let $Q_{j}\in \pvdo^{m_{j}}(U\times\R)$, $j=1,2$, have symbol $q_{j}$
and suppose that $Q_{1}$ or $Q_{2}$ is properly supported.
Then $Q_{1}Q_{2}$ lies in $\pvdo^{m_{1}+m_{2}}(U\times\R)$
and has symbol $q_{1}\#q_{2} \sim \sum \frac{1}{\alpha!}
\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}q_{1} D_{\xi}^\alpha q_{2}$.\smallskip
\item \emph{Parametrices}. Any $Q\in \pvdo^{m}(U\times\R)$ admits a parametrix
in $\pvdo^{-m}(U\times\R)$ if and only if its principal symbol is nowhere vanishing on
$U\times[(\R^n\times \overline{\C_{-}})\setminus 0]$.\smallskip
\item \emph{Diffeomorphism Invariance}. Let $\phi$ be
a diffeomorphism from $U$ onto an open
subset $V$ of $\R^n$. Then for any $Q \in \pvdo^{m}(U\times\R)$ the operator
$(\phi\oplus \op{id}_{\R})_{*}Q$ is contained in $\pvdo^{m}(V\times\R)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
Most properties of Volterra \psidos\ can be proved in the same way as with classical \psidos\ or by observing that Volterra
\psidos\ are \psidos\ of type $(\frac{1}{2},0)$ in the sense of~\cite{Ho:ALPDO3}. One important exception is the asymptotic completeness, i.e., given
homogeneous Volterra symbols $q_{m-j}$ of degree $m-j$, $j=0,1,\cdots$, there is a Volterra \psidos\ with
symbol $q\sim \sum q_{m-j}$. This property is a crucial ingredient in the parametrix construction. The point is that
the Volterra property is not preserved by the multiplications by cut-off functions involved in the standard proof of the asymptotic completeness
for classical \psidos\ (see~\cite{Po:JAM} for a discussion on this point).
\end{remark}
As usual with \psidos, the asymptotic expansion~(\ref{eq:volterra.asymptotic-symbols}) for the symbol of a \psido\ can be translated in terms of an asymptotic expansion
for the kernel of the \psido. For Volterra \psidos\ we have:
\begin{proposition}[\cite{Gr:AEHE, Pi:COPDTV, BGS:HECRM}]\label{prop:Heat.asymptotic-kernels}
Let $Q\in \pvdo^{m}(U\times\R)$ and let $q\sim \sum_{j\geq 0}q_{m-j}$ be its symbol. Then, for all $N\in
\N_{0}$, there is $J\in \N$ such that
\begin{equation}
K_{Q}(x,y,t)= \sum_{j\leq J}\check{q}_{m-j}(x,x-y,t) \ \bmod C^{N}(U\timesU\times\R).
\label{eq:Heat.asymptotic-kernels}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}[Sketch of Proof] As Volterra \psidos\ are \psidos\ of type $(\frac{1}{2},0)$, the kernel of a Volterra
\psido\ of order $\leq -(n+2+2N)$ is $C^{N}$ (see~\cite{Ho:ALPDO3}). Let us choose $J$ so that $m-J\leq -(n+1+2N)$, then
$Q-\sum_{j\leq J} q_{m-j}(x,D_{x},D_{t})$ is a Volterra \psidos\ with symbol $q^{J}\sim \sum_{j\geq
J+1}q_{m-j}$, and hence it has order $m-J-1\leq -(n+2+2N)$. Therefore, its kernel is $C^{N}$. This proves the result.
\end{proof}
The invariance property in Proposition~\ref{prop:Volterra-properties} enables us to define Volterra \psidos\ on the
manifold $M\times \R$ and acting on the sections of the vector bundle $E$ (seen as a vector bundle over $M\times \R$).
All the aforementioned properties hold \emph{verbatim} in this
context. We shall denote by $\pvdo^{m}(M\times \R,E)$ the space of Volterra \psidos\ of order $m$ on $M\times \R$.
If $Q\in \pvdo^{m}(M\times \R,E)$, then there is a unique $K_{Q}(x,y,t)\in C^{\infty}(M\times \R)\hotimes \ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}'(M,E)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
Qu(x,s)=\acou{K_{Q}(x,y,s-t)}{u(y,t)} \qquad \forall u \in C^{\infty}_{c}(M\times \R,E).
\end{equation*}We shall refer to $K_{Q}(x,y,t)$ as the kernel of $Q$.
Proposition~\ref{prop:Volterra-properties} ensures us that $K_{Q}(x,y,t)$ is smooth for $t\neq 0$. Therefore, on $M\times M\times \R^{*}$ we
may regard $K_{Q}(x,y,t)$ as a smooth function section of $E\boxtimes E^{*}$ over $M\times M\times \R^{*}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\acou{K_{Q}(x,y,t)}{u(y,t)} =\int_{M\times \R}K_{Q}(x,y,t)u(y,t)|dy|dt \qquad \forall u \in
C^{\infty}_{c}(M\times \R^{*},E),
\end{equation*}where in the l.h.s.~$K_{Q}(x,y,t)$ is meant as an element of
$C^{\infty}(M\times \R)\hotimes \ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}'(M,E)$ and in the r.h.s.~it is meant as a smooth section of $E\boxtimes E^{*}$.
It follows from Example~\ref{ex:heat-inverse.diff-op} and Proposition~\ref{prop:Volterra-properties} that the heat operator $L+\partial_{t}$ admits a (properly
supported) parametrix in
$\pvdo^{-2}(M\times \R,E)$. Comparing such a parametrix with the inverse $Q_{0}=(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}$ defined
by~(\ref{eq:volterra.inverse-heat-operator}) and using~(\ref{eq:Heat.KQ0-heat-kernel}) we obtain
\begin{proposition}[\cite{Gr:AEHE, Pi:COPDTV},
{\cite[pp.~363-362]{BGS:HECRM}}]\label{thm:Heat.inverse-heat-operator-PsiDO} The operator
$(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}$ defined by~(\ref{eq:volterra.inverse-heat-operator}) is a Volterra \psido\ of
order~$-2$. Moreover,
\begin{equation}
k_{t}(x,y)=K_{(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x,y,t) \qquad \forall t>0.
\label{eq:Heat.K-heat-inverse-heat-kernel}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
This result provides us with a representation of the heat kernel as the (Volterra) kernel of a Volterra \psido. Combining it
with~(\ref{eq:Heat.asymptotic-kernels}) enables us to get a precise description of the asymptotic of $k_{t}(x,x)$ as $t \rightarrow 0^{+}$
(see~\cite{Gr:AEHE, BGS:HECRM}; see also the next section).
More generally, we have
\begin{proposition}\label{thm:Heat.P-inverse-heat-operator-PsiDO} Let $P:C^{\infty}(M,E) \rightarrow C^{\infty}(M,E)$ be a differential operator of order $m$. For $t>0$
denote by $h_{t}(x,y)$ the kernel of $Pe^{-tL}$ defined as in~(\ref{eq:Heat.heat-kernel-smooth-function}). Then
\begin{equation*}
h_{t}(x,y)=K_{P(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x,y,t) \qquad \forall t>0.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We have
$h_{t}(x,y)=P_{x}k_{t}(x,y)=P_{x}K_{(L+\partial_{s})^{-1}}(x,y,t)=K_{P(L+\partial_{s})^{-1}}(x,y,t)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The operator $P(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}$ is a Volterra \psido\ of order $m-2$.
\end{remark}
\section{Equivariant Heat Kernel Asymptotics}
\label{sec:Equivariant-heat-kernel-asymptotics}
In this section we keep the same notation as in the previous section. In addition, we let $\phi:M\rightarrow M$ be an
isometric diffeomorphism of $(M,g)$ which lifts to a unitary vector bundle isomorphism $\phi^{E}:E \rightarrow
\phi_{*}E$, i.e., a unitary section of $\op{Hom}(E,\phi_{*}E)$. Then $\phi$ defines a unitary operator $U_{\phi}:L^{2}(M,E)\rightarrow L^{2}(M,E)$ by
\begin{equation*}
U_{\phi}u(x)=\phi^{E}\left(\phi^{-1}(x)\right)\!u\left(\phi^{-1}(x)\right) \qquad \forall u \in L^{2}(M,E).
\end{equation*}
Our aim in this section is to derive short-time asymptotic for equivariant traces $\ensuremath{\op{Tr}} \left [
Pe^{-tL}U_{\phi}\right]$, where $P:C^{\infty}(M,E)\rightarrow C^{\infty}(M,E)$ is any differential operator.
For $t>0$ denote by $h_{t}(x,y)$ the kernel of $Pe^{-tL}$ as defined in~(\ref{eq:Heat.heat-kernel-smooth-function}). Observe that the kernel of
$Pe^{-tL}U_{\phi}$ is $h_{t}(x,\phi(y))\phi^{E}(x)$, and hence
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\op{Tr}} \left [ Pe^{-tL}U_{\phi}\right] = \int_{M} \op{tr}_{E} \left [h_{t}(x,\phi(x)) \phi^{E}(x)\right]|dx|=
\int_{M} \op{tr}_{E}\left [ \phi^{E}(x)h_{t}(x,\phi(x))\right]|dx|.
\label{eq:Heat.equivariant-trace-formula}
\end{equation}We are thus led to look for the short-time behavior of $h_{t}(x,\phi(x))$. Since by Proposition~\ref{thm:Heat.P-inverse-heat-operator-PsiDO}
we can represent $h_{t}(x,y)$ as the kernel of a Volterra \psido, we shall more generally study the small time behavior
of $K_{Q}(x,\phi(x),t)$, where $Q \in \pvdo^{m}(M\times \R)$, $m \in \Z$.
In the sequel, we denote by $M^{\phi}$ the fixed-point
set of $\phi$, and for $a =0,\cdots, n$, we let $M_a^{\phi}$ be the subset of $M^{\phi}$ consisting fixed-point $x$ at which $\phi'(x)-1$ has rank $n-a$, i.e.,
the eigenvalue $1$ of $\phi'(x)$ has multiplicity $a$.
Therefore, we have the disjoint-sum decomposition,
\begin{equation*}
M^{\phi}=\bigsqcup_{0\leq a \leq n}M_a^{\phi}.
\end{equation*}
In addition, we pick some $\epsilon_{0}\in (0,\rho_{0})$, where $\rho_{0}$ is the injectivity radius of $(M,g)$.
Let $x_{0}$ be a point in some component $M_a^{\phi}$. Denote by $B_{x_{0}}(\epsilon_0)$ the ball of radius $\epsilon_0$ around the origin in
$T_{x_{0}}M$. Then $\exp_{x_{0}}$ induces a diffeomorphism from $B_{x_{0}}(\epsilon_0)$ onto an open neighborhood
$U_{\epsilon_0}$ of $x_{0}$ in $M$. Moreover, as $\phi$ is an isometry, for all $X\in B_{x_{0}}(\epsilon_0)$, we have
\begin{equation}
\phi\left(\exp_{x_{0}}(X)\right)=\exp_{\phi(x_{0})}(\phi'(x_{0})X)=\exp_{x_{0}}(\phi'(x_{0})X).
\label{eq:Heat.action-phi-Nphi}
\end{equation}Thus under $\exp_{x_{0}|B_{x_{0}}(\epsilon_0)}$ the diffeomorphism $\phi$ corresponds to $\phi'(x_{0})$, and
hence $M^{\phi}\cap U_{\epsilon_0}$ is identified with $B_{x_{0}}^{\phi}(\epsilon_0):=B_{x_{0}}(\epsilon_0)\cap \ker (\phi'(x_{0})-1)$.
Incidentally, the tangent bundle $TM^{\phi}_{|M^{\phi}\cap U_{\epsilon_0}}$ and the normal bundle
$\left(TM^{\phi})^{\bot}\right)_{|M^{\phi}\cap U_{\epsilon_0}}$ are identified with $B_{x_{0}}^{\phi}(\epsilon_0)\times
\ker (\phi'(x_{0})-1)$ and $B_{x_{0}}^{\phi}(\epsilon_0)\times
\ker (\phi'(x_{0})-1)^{\bot}$ respectively. Notice also that when $k=0$ this shows that $x_{0}$ is an isolated
fixed-point.
It follows from this that each component $M_a^{\phi}$ is a (closed) submanifold of dimension $a$ of $M$ and over $M_a^{\phi}$
the set $\Ca{N}^{\phi}:=\sqcup_{x\in
M^{\phi}}\ker (\phi'(x)-1)^{\bot}$ can be organized as a smooth vector bundle. We denote by $\pi:\Ca{N}^{\phi}\rightarrow
M^{\phi}$ the corresponding canonical map. We shall refer to $\Ca{N}^{\phi}$ as the normal bundle of $M^{\phi}$.
Notice that $\phi'$ induces (over each component $M_a^{\phi}$) an isometric vector bundle isomorphism of $\Ca{N}^{\phi}$ onto
itself.
As it is well known, using $\Ca{N}^{\phi}$ we can construct a tubular neighborhood of $M^{\phi}$ as follows. Let
$\Ca{N}^{\phi}(\epsilon_0)$ be the ball bundle of $\Ca{N}^{\phi}$ of radius $\epsilon_0$ around the zero-section. Then the map
$\Ca{N}^{\phi}(\epsilon_0)\ni X \rightarrow \exp_{\pi(x)}(X)$ is a homeomorphism from $\Ca{N}^{\phi}(\epsilon_0)$ onto an open tubular neighborhood $V_{\epsilon_0}$ of
$M^{\phi}$ in $M$. Moreover, if $M_a^{\phi}$ is a connected component of $M^{\phi}$, then this maps induces a
diffeomorphism from $\Ca{N}^{\phi}(\epsilon_0)_{|M_a^{\phi}}$ onto its image.
Let us fix some $\epsilon\in (0,\epsilon_{0})$ and let $(x,t)\in M^{\phi}\times (0,\infty)$. Observe that, in view of~(\ref{eq:Heat.action-phi-Nphi}), for
all $v \in N_{x}^{\phi}(\epsilon)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
K_{Q}\left(\exp_{x}v,\exp_{x}(\phi'(x)v),t\right)=K_{Q}\left(\exp_{x}v, \phi(\exp_{x}v),t\right).
\end{equation*}For $x \in M^{\phi}$ and $t>0$ set
\begin{equation*}
I_{Q}(x,t):=\phi^{E}(x)^{-1}\int_{N_{x}^{\phi}(\epsilon)} \phi^{E}\left(\exp_{x}v\right) K_{Q}\left(\exp_{x}v,
\exp_{x}(\phi'(x)v),t\right)|dv| .
\end{equation*}
This defines a smooth section of $\ensuremath{\op{End}} E$ over $M^{\phi}\times (0,\infty)$, since $\phi^{E}(x)\in \ensuremath{\op{End}} E_{x}$ for all
$x \in M^{\phi}$.
In the sequel, we say that a function $f(t)$ is $\op{O}(t^{\infty})$ as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$ when $f(t)$ is $\op{O}(t^{N})$
for all $N\in \N$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Heat-localization}
As $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$,
\begin{equation*}
\int_{M}\op{tr}_{E}\left[\phi^{E}(x)K_{Q}(x,\phi(x),t)\right]|dx|=\int_{M^{\phi}}\op{tr}_{E}\left[\phi^{E}(x)I_{Q}(x,t)\right]|dx| +\op{O}(t^{\infty}).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If we regard $K_{Q}(x,y,t)$ as a distributional section of $E\boxtimes E^{*}$ over $M\times M\times \R$, then Proposition~\ref{prop:Volterra-properties} tells us that
$K_{Q}(x,y,t)$ is smooth on $\{(x,y,t)\in M\times M\times \R; \ x\neq y\}$. Incidentally,
$K_{Q}\left(x,\phi(x),t\right)$ is smooth on $(M\setminus M^{\phi})\times \R$. Let $N\in \N$. Since $K_{Q}(x,y,t)=0$ for $t<0$,
we see that $\partial^{N}_{t}K_{Q}(x,\phi(x),0)=0$ for all $x\in M\setminus M^{\phi}$. The Taylor formula at $t=0$ then
implies that, uniformly on compact subsets of $M\setminus M^{\phi}$,
\begin{equation*}
K_{Q}\left(x,\phi(x),t\right)=\op{O}(t^{N}) \quad \text{as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$}.
\end{equation*}
As $M$ is compact and $V_{\epsilon}$ is an open neighborhood of $M^{\phi}$, the complement $M\setminus V_{\epsilon}$ is a
compact subset of $M\setminus M^{\phi}$. Thus,
\begin{multline*}
\int_{M}\op{tr}_{E}\left[\phi^{E}(x)K_{Q}(x,\phi(x),t)\right] |dx| =
\int_{V_{\epsilon}}\op{tr}_{E}\left[\phi^{E}(x)K_{Q}(x,\phi(x),t)\right] |dx| +\op{O}(t^{N}) \\
= \int_{M^{\phi}}\left( \int_{\Ca{N}^{\phi}_{x}(\epsilon)}
\op{tr}_{E}\left[\phi^{E}(\exp_{x}(v))K_{Q}\left(\exp_{x}(v),\phi(\exp_{x}(v)),t\right)\right] |dv|\right)|dx| + \op{O}(t^{N})\\
= \int_{M^{\phi}}\op{tr}_{E}\left[\phi^{E}(x)I_{Q}(x,t)\right] |dx| +\op{O}(t^{N}).
\end{multline*}This proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
Thanks to this lemma we are led to study the small-time behavior of $I_{Q}(x,t)$. Notice this is a purely local
issue and $I_{Q}(x,t)$ depends on $\epsilon$ only up to $\op{O}(t^{\infty})$ near $t=0$. Therefore, upon choosing
$\epsilon_{0}$ small enough so that there is a local trivialization of $E$ over the tubular neighborhood
$V_{\epsilon_{0}}$, we may assume that $E$ is a trivial vector bundle.
Given a fixed-point $x_{0}$ in a
component $M_a^{\phi}$, consider some local coordinates $x=(x^{1},\cdots, x^{a})$ around
$x_{0}$. Setting $b=n-a$, we may further assume that
over the range of the domain of the local coordinates there is an orthonormal frame $e_{1}(x), \cdots, e_{b}(x)$ of
$\Ca{N}^{\phi}$. This defines fiber coordinates $v=(v^{1},\cdots, v^{b})$. Composing with the map $\Ca{N}^{\phi}(\epsilon_{0})\ni
(x,v)\rightarrow \exp_{x}v$ we then get local coordinates $x^{1},\cdots, x^{a},v^{1},\cdots ,v^{b}$ for $M$ near
the fixed-point $x_{0}$. We shall refer to this type of coordinates as \emph{tubular coordinates}.
Let $q(x,v;\xi,\nu;\tau)\sim \sum_{j\geq 0}q_{m-j}(x,v;\xi,\nu;\tau)$ be the symbol $Q$ in these tubular coordinates.
We denote by $K_{Q}(x,v;y,w;t)$ the kernel of $Q$ in these coordinates. In the local coordinates
$x^{1},\cdots, x^{a}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{IQIntKer}
I_{Q}(x,t)=\int_{|v|<\epsilon}\phi^{E}(x,0)^{-1}\phi^{E}(x,v)K_{Q}(x,v;x,\phi'(x)v;t)dv,
\end{equation}where $\phi^{E}(x,v)$ is $\phi^{E}$ in the tubular coordinates $(x,v)$.
In the sequel we denote by $U$ the range of the coordinates $x=(x^{1},\cdots, x^{a})$ and by $B(\epsilon_{0})$ (resp.,
$B(\epsilon)$) the open ball about the origin in $\R^{b}$ with radius $\epsilon_{0}$ (resp., $\epsilon$). Notice that the range of $v=(v^{1},\cdots
, v^{b})$ is $B(\epsilon_{0})$. In addition, for $j=0,1,\ldots$ we set
\begin{equation}
q^{E}_{m-j}(x,v;\xi,\nu;\tau):=\phi^{E}(x,0)^{-1}\phi^{E}(x,v)q_{m-j}(x,v;\xi,\nu;\tau).
\label{eq:Equivariant.twisted-symbol}
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Heat.asymptotic-IQ-symbols}
As $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$ and uniformly on compact subsets of $U$,
\begin{equation*}
I_{Q}(x,t)\sim \sum_{j\geq 0} \int_{|v|<\epsilon}(q^{E}_{m-j})^{\vee}\left(x,v;0,(1-\phi'(x))v;t\right)dv.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $N \in \N_{0}$. By Proposition~\ref{prop:Heat.asymptotic-kernels} there is $J\in \N$ such that $K_{Q}-\sum_{j\leq
J}\check{q}_{m-j}$ is $C^{N}$. Set
\begin{equation*}
R_{N}(x,v,t):=K_{Q}(x,v;x,\phi'(x)v;t)-\sum_{j\leq J}\check{q}_{m-j}\left(x,v;0,(1-\phi'(x))v;t\right).
\end{equation*}Then $R_{N}(x,v,t)$ is $C^{N}$ on $U\times B(\epsilon_{0})\times \R$.
Moreover $R_{N}(x,v,t)=0$ for $t<0$, since $K_{Q}(x,v;y,w;t)$ and all the $\check{q}_{m-j}(x,v;y,w;t)$ vanish for
$t<0$. This implies that $\partial^{j}R_{N}(x,v,0)=0$ for all $j\leq N$. Applying Taylor's formula at $t=0$ to
$R_{N}(x,v,t)$ then shows that, as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$ and uniformly on compact subsets of $U\times B(\epsilon_{0})$,
the function
$R_{N}(x,v,t)$ is $\op{O}(t^{N})$, that is,
\begin{equation*}
K_{Q}(x,v;x,\phi'(x)v;t)=\sum_{j\leq J}\check{q}_{m-j}\left(x,v;0,(1-\phi'(x))v;t\right) + \op{O}(t^{N}).
\end{equation*}Therefore, uniformly on compact subsets of $U$,
\begin{equation*}
I_{Q}(x,t)= \sum_{j\leq J}
\int_{|v|<\epsilon}(q^{E}_{m-j})^{\vee}\left(x,v;0,(1-\phi'(x))v;t\right)dv +\op{O}(t^{N}).
\end{equation*}This gives the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Heat.asymptotic-Isymbol}
As $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$ and uniformly on compact subsets of $U$,
\begin{multline}
\int_{|v|<\epsilon}(q^{E}_{m-j})^{\vee}\left(x,v;0,(1-\phi'(x))v;t\right)dv\\ \sim \!\!\!
\sum_{\substack{|\alpha|+j+m+n \\ \text{even}}} \! t^{\frac{j-(m+a+2)+|\alpha|}{2}}
\int_{\R^{b}} \frac{v^{\alpha}}{\alpha!}\left(\partial_{v}^{\alpha}q_{m-j}^{E}\right)^{\vee}\left(x,0;0,(1-\phi'(x))v;1\right)dv.
\label{eq:Heat.int-checkqj-epsilon}
\end{multline}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $h(x,v,w,t)$ be the function on $U\times B(\epsilon_{0})\times \left[(\R^{b}\times \R)\setminus
0\right]$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
h(x,v,w,t):=(q^{E}_{m-j})^{\vee}\left(x,v;0,(1-\phi'(x))w;t\right)dv.
\end{equation*}We observe that $h(x,v,w,t)$ is smooth on $U\times B(\epsilon_{0})\times (\R^{b}\setminus 0)\times
\R$ and vanishes for $t<0$. Moreover, the homogeneity of $\check{q}_{m-j}$ in the sense
of~(\ref{eq:Heat.homogeneity-inverse-Fourier}) implies that
\begin{equation}
h(x,v,\lambda w,\lambda^{2}t)=|\lambda|^{-(n+2)}\lambda^{j-m}h(x,v,w,t) \qquad \forall \lambda \in \R^{*}.
\label{eq:Heat.homogeneity-h}
\end{equation}
Setting $k=j-(m+n+2)$, this implies that, for all $t>0$,
\begin{equation}
\int_{|v|<\epsilon}h(x,v,v,t)dv = t^{\frac{b}{2}}\int_{B\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{t}}\right)}
h(x,\sqrt{t}v,\sqrt{t}v,t)dv
= t^{\frac{k+b}{2}} \int_{B\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{t}}\right)}h(x,\sqrt{t}v,v,1)dv.
\label{eq:Heat.int-h-rescaling}
\end{equation}
Let $N\in \N$. By Taylor's formula,
\begin{equation}
h(x,\sqrt{t}v,v,1)=\sum_{|\alpha|<N}\frac{t^{\frac{|\alpha|}{2}}}{\alpha!}\frac{v^{\alpha}}{\alpha !}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,0,v,1)+t^{\frac{N}{2}}R_{N}(x,\sqrt{t}v,v),
\label{eq:Heat.Taylor-expansion-h}
\end{equation}where $R_{N}(x,v,w)$ is the function on $U\times B(\epsilon_{0})\times \R^{b}$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
R_{N}(x,v,w)=\sum_{|\alpha|=N}\int_{0}^{1}(1-s)^{N-1}w^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,sv,w,1)ds.
\end{equation*}
Let $K$ be a compact subset of $U$. As $w^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,v,w,t)$ is smooth on $U\times B(\epsilon_{0})\times (\R^{b}\setminus 0)\times
\R$ and vanishes for $t<0$, we see that $w^{\alpha}\partial_{t}^{l}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,v,w,0)=0$ for all $l\in
\N_{0}$. Therefore, using once more Taylor's formula around $t=0$ shows that, for any $l\in \N_{0}$, there is a constant $C_{K\alpha l}>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
|w^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,v,w,t)|\leq C_{kl\alpha}|t|^{l} \qquad \forall
(x,v,w,t)\in K\times B(\epsilon)\times S^{l-1}\times (0,1).
\end{equation*}
In addition, the homogeneity of $h(x,v,w,t)$ implies that, when $w\neq 0$,
\begin{equation*}
w^{\alpha}\partial_{v}h(x,v,w,1)=w^{\alpha}|w|^{k}\partial_{v}h(x,v,|w|^{-1}w,|w|^{-2}).
\end{equation*}Thus,
\begin{equation*}
\left |w^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,v,w,1)\right|\leq C_{kl\alpha } |w|^{k+|\alpha|-2l} \quad
\forall (x,v,w)\in K\times B(\epsilon) \times (\R^{b}\setminus 0).
\end{equation*}
The above estimate shows that $w^{\alpha}\partial_{v}h(x,v,w,1)$ has rapid decay in $w$ uniformly with respect to $x$ and $v$, as
$x$ ranges over $K$ and $v$ ranges over $B(\epsilon)$. Incidentally, both $w^{\alpha}\partial_{v}h(x,v,w,1)$ and
$R_{N}(x,v,w)$ are uniformly bounded on $K\times B(\epsilon)\times \R^{b}$. It then follows that there is a
constant $C_{KN}>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
|R_{N}(x,\sqrt{t}v,v)|\leq C_{KN} \qquad \forall (x,v)\in K\times B(\epsilon).
\end{equation*}
Therefore, integrating both sides of~(\ref{eq:Heat.Taylor-expansion-h}) with respect to $v$ over $B\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{t}}\right)$
we see that, as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$ and uniformly on $K$,
\begin{equation*}
\int_{B\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{t}}\right)}h(x,\sqrt{t}v,v,1)dv
= \sum_{|\alpha|<N}t^{\frac{|\alpha|}{2}}\int_{B\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{t}}\right)}
\frac{v^{\alpha}}{\alpha !}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,0,v,1)dv + \op{O}(t^{\frac{N-l}{2}}).
\end{equation*}
Together with~(\ref{eq:Heat.int-h-rescaling}) this proves that, as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$ and uniformly on $K$,
\begin{equation}
\int_{|v|<\epsilon}h(x,v,v,t)dv \sim\sum t^{\frac{k+b+|\alpha|}{2}}\int_{B\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{t}}\right)}
\frac{v^{\alpha}}{\alpha !}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,0,v,1)dv.
\label{eq:Heat.int-h-asymptotic-epsilon}
\end{equation}
We observe that $k+b= j-(m+a+2)$. Moreover, as mentioned above, the function $w^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,0,w,1)$ has rapid decay uniformly with respect to $x$, as
$x$ ranges over $K$. Therefore, as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$ and uniformly on $K$,
\begin{equation}
\int_{B\left(\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{t}}\right)}
v^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,0,v,1)dv = \int_{\R^{b}}v^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,0,v,1)dv+\op{O}(t^{\infty}).
\label{eq:Heat.asymptotic-partial-h-epsilon}
\end{equation}
In addition, the homogeneity property~(\ref{eq:Heat.homogeneity-h}) for $\lambda=-1$ gives
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\R^{b}}v^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,0,v,1)dv =
\int_{\R^{b}}(-v)^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,0,-v,(-1)^{2}1)dv
=(-1)^{|\alpha|+j-m}\int_{\R^{b}}v^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,0,v,1)dv.
\end{equation*}Thus $\int_{\R^{b}}v^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,0,v,1)dv=0$ whenever
$|\alpha|+j-m$ is odd.
Combining this with~(\ref{eq:Heat.int-h-asymptotic-epsilon}) and (\ref{eq:Heat.asymptotic-partial-h-epsilon}) shows that, as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$ and uniformly on $K$,
\begin{equation*}
\int_{|v|<\epsilon}h(x,v,v,t)dv \sim \!\!\! \!\!\! \sum_{\substack{|\alpha|+j-m \\ \text{even}}} \! t^{\frac{j-(m+a+2)+|\alpha|}{2}} \int_{\R^{b}}
\frac{v^{\alpha}}{\alpha !}\partial_{v}^{\alpha}h(x,0,v,1)dv.
\end{equation*}This proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
Combining Lemma~\ref{lem:Heat.asymptotic-IQ-symbols} and Lemma~\ref{lem:Heat.asymptotic-Isymbol} we see that, as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$ and uniformly on compact subsets of $U$,
\begin{equation}
I_{Q}(x,t) \sim \!\!\! \!\!\! \sum_{\substack{|\alpha|+j-m \\ \text{even}}} \! t^{\frac{j-(m+a+2)+|\alpha|}{2}}
\int_{\R^{b}} \frac{v^{\alpha}}{\alpha!}\left(\partial_{v}^{\alpha}q^{E}_{m-j}\right)^{\vee}\left(x,0;0,(1-\phi'(x))v;1\right)dv.
\label{eq:IQ}
\end{equation}
If $|\alpha|+j-m$ is
even, then $\frac{-(m+a+2)+j+|\alpha|}{2}$ is an integer and is greater than $-\frac{m+a}{2}-1$, i.e., it is greater than
or equal to $-\left[\frac{m+a}{2}\right]-1$. We actually have an equality when $j=|\alpha|=0$ and $m$ is even and
when $|\alpha|+j=1$ and $m$ is odd. Therefore, grouping together all the terms with same powers of $t$, we can rewrite the above
asymptotic in the form,
\begin{equation*}
I_{Q}(x,t)\sim \sum_{j \geq 0}t^{-\left(\frac{a}{2}+\left[\frac{m}{2}\right]+1\right)+j}I_{Q}^{(j)}(x),
\end{equation*}where
\begin{equation}
I_{Q}^{(j)}(x):=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m-2\left[\frac{m}{2}\right]+2j} \int
\frac{v^{\alpha}}{\alpha!}\left(\partial_{v}^{\alpha}q^{E}_{2\left[\frac{m}{2}\right]-2j+|\alpha|}\right)^{\vee}\left(x,0;0,(1-\phi'(x))v;1\right)dv.
\label{eq:Heat.IQj}
\end{equation}Therefore, we obtain
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:Heat.asymptotic-IQ}
Let $Q\in \pvdo^{m}(M\times \R,E)$, $m \in \Z$. Uniformly on each component $M_a^{\phi}$,
\begin{equation}
I_{Q}(x,t)\sim \sum_{j \geq 0} t^{-\left(\frac{a}{2}+\left[\frac{m}{2}\right]+1\right)+j}I_{Q}^{(j)}(x) \qquad
\text{as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$},
\label{eq:Heat.asymptotic-IQ} \end{equation}where $I_{Q}^{(j)}(x)$ is the section of $\ensuremath{\op{End}} E$ over $M^{\phi}$ defined
by~(\ref{eq:Heat.IQj}) in terms of the symbol of $Q$ in local tubular coordinates over which $E$ is trivial.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
On $M_a^{\phi}$ the leading term in~(\ref{eq:Heat.asymptotic-IQ}) is
$t^{-\left(\frac{m+a}{2}+1\right)}I_{Q}^{(0)}(x)$, where $I_{Q}^{(0)}(x)$ depends only on the
principal symbol of $Q$. Namely,
\begin{equation*}
I_{Q}^{(0)}(x)=\int_{\R^{b}} (q_{m}^{E})^{\vee}(x,0;0,(1-\phi'(x))v;1)dv=|1-\phi'(x)|^{-1}\int_{\R^{b}}
\check{q}_{m}(x,0;0,v;1)dv.
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The asymptotic~(\ref{eq:Heat.asymptotic-IQ}) is expressed in terms of the symbol of $Q$ in tubular coordinates.
However, we usually start with a symbol in some local coordinates before passing to tubular coordinates. We determine
the symbol in the tubular coordinates by applying the change of variable
formula for symbols for the change of variable $\psi(x,v)=\exp_{x}(v)$ (see, e.g.,~\cite{Ho:ALPDO3}).
\end{remark}
We are now in a position to prove the main result of this section.
\begin{proposition}\label{TraceOfHeatKernelVB}
Let $P:C^{\infty}(M,E)\rightarrow C^{\infty}(M,E)$ be a differential operator of order $m$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Uniformly on each component $M^{\phi}_{a}$,
\begin{equation}
I_{P(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x,t)\sim \sum_{j \geq 0}
t^{-\left(\frac{a}{2}+\left[\frac{m}{2}\right]\right)+j}I_{P(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}}^{(j)}(x) \qquad
\text{as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$},
\label{eq:Heat.asymptotic-IQE}
\end{equation}where $I_{P(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}}^{(j)}(x)$ is the section of $\ensuremath{\op{End}} E$ over $M^{\phi}$ defined
by~(\ref{eq:Heat.IQj}) in terms of the symbol of $P(L +\partial_{t})^{-1}$ in any tubular coordinates over
which $E$ is trivial. \smallskip
\item As $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$,
\begin{align*}
\ensuremath{\op{Tr}} \left [
Pe^{-tL}U_{\phi}\right] & = \int_{M^{\phi}}\op{tr}_{E}\left[ \phi^{E}(x)I_{P(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x,t)\right]|dx|+\op{O}(t^{\infty})\\
&\sim \sum_{0\leq a\leq n} \sum_{j \geq 0} t^{-\left(\frac{a}{2}+\left[\frac{m}{2}\right]\right)+j}
\int_{M_a^{\phi}}\op{tr}_{E}\left[ \phi^{E}(x)I_{P(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}}^{(j)}(x)\right] |dx|.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first part is an immediate consequence of
Proposition~\ref{prop:Heat.asymptotic-IQ}, since $P(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}$ is a Volterra \psido\ of
order $m-2$. Combining Proposition~\ref{thm:Heat.P-inverse-heat-operator-PsiDO} and~(\ref{eq:Heat.equivariant-trace-formula}) shows that
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{\op{Tr}} \left [ Pe^{-tL}U_{\phi}\right]= \int_{M} \op{tr}_{E} \left[ \phi^{E}(x)
K_{P(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x,\phi(x),t)\right].
\end{equation*}The 2nd part then follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:Heat-localization} and the first part. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:Heat.computation-Ij-inverse-heat-operator}
The formula (\ref{eq:Heat.IQj}) expresses the coefficients $I_{P (L+\partial_{t})^{-1}}^{(j)}(x)$ in terms of
the homogeneous components of the symbol of $P(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}$. Therefore, in order to compute them at a given point
$x_{0}\in M^{\phi}$, we may replace $P(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}$ by $PQ$, where $Q$ is Volterra \psido\ parametrix
of $L+\partial_{t}$ defined near $x_{0}$. In particular,
\begin{equation*}
I_{P(L+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x_{0},t)=I_{PQ}(x_{0},t)+\op{O}(t^{\infty}).
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}
\section{The Local Equivariant Index Theorem}
\label{sec:proof-key-thm}
In this section, we shall give a new proof of the local equivariant index theorem of Patodi~\cite{Pa:BAMS},
Donnelly-Patodi~\cite{DP:T} and Gilkey~\cite{Gi:LNPAM}. As an immediate by-product of this proof, we will get a proof
of Proposition~\ref{thm:Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}, which is the key technical result in the computation of the
Connes-Chern character of the conformal Dirac twisted spectral triple in Section~\ref{sec:Connes-Chern-conformal}.
Let $(M^{n}, g)$ be an even dimensional compact spin oriented Riemannian manifold. As before we denote by
$\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}:C^{\infty}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})\rightarrow C^{\infty}(M,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ the Dirac operator acting on the spinor bundle $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}=\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}^{+}\oplus \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}^{-}$. In
addition, we let $\phi:M\rightarrow M$ be a smooth isometry of $(M,g)$ preserving the orientation
and the spin structure and which lies in the identity component of the group of all such diffeomorphisms. Then $\phi \in G$ has a unique lift to a unitary vector bundle isomorphism
$\phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}: \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}\rightarrow \phi_{*}\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}$.
As in the previous section, we shall denote by $M^{\phi}$ the fixed-point set of $\phi$ and
by $\Ca{N}^{\phi}$ the normal bundle of $M^{\phi}$. We also denote by $R^{TM^{\phi}}$ and $R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}$ the respective curvatures
of the connections on $M^{\phi}$ and $\Ca{N}^{\phi}$ induced by the Levi-Civita connection of $M$. Moreover, we orient
$M^{\phi}$ and $\Ca{N}^{\phi}$ in the same way as in Section~\ref{sec:Equivariant-heat-kernel-asymptotics}. In particular, $\phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}$ defines a positive
section of $\Lambda^{n-a}(\Ca{N}^{\phi})^{*}$ over each component $M_{a}^{\phi}$.
Our aim is to give a new proof of the following.
\begin{theorem}[Local Equivariant Index Theorem]\label{thm:LEIT.local-equiv.-index-thm}
Let $f \in C^{\infty}(M)$. As $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$,
\begin{equation}
\op{Str} \left[f e^{-t\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{{g}}^{2}}U_{\phi}\right] = (-i)^{\frac{n}{2}}\sum_{a} (2\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}
\int_{M^{\phi}_{a}}f(x) \hat{A}(R^{TM^{\phi}})\wedge \nu_{\phi}\left(R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}\right)+ \op{O}(t),
\label{eq:LEIT.local-equiv.-index-thm}
\end{equation}where $\hat{A}(R^{TM^{\phi}})$ and $\nu_{\phi}\left(R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}\right)$ are defined as in~(\ref{eq:Conformal.characteristic-forms}).
\end{theorem}
This result is originally due to Patodi~\cite{Pa:BAMS}, Donnelly-Patodi~\cite{DP:T} and Gilkey~\cite{Gi:LNPAM}. Their arguments
partly involved Riemannian invariant theory. More analytical proofs were later provided by Bismut~\cite{Bi:ASITPA2},
Berline-Vergne~\cite{BV:BSMF, BGV:HKDO} and Lafferty-Yu-Zhang~\cite{LYZ:TAMS}. We also mention that Liu-Ma~\cite{LM:DMJ} proved a
version of this result for families of Dirac operators.
Let us briefly recall how the local equivariant index theorem implies the equivariant index theorem of
Atiyah-Segal-Singer~\cite{AS:IEO2, AS:IEO3}. The equivariant index of $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}$ at $\phi$ (a.k.a.\ the generalized Lefschetz number of
$\phi$) is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\op{ind} \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}(\phi):= \ensuremath{\op{Tr}} U_{\phi|\ker \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}^{+}}- \ensuremath{\op{Tr}} U_{\phi|\ker \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}^{-}}.
\end{equation*}By the equivariant version of the McKean-Singer formula~(see, e.g., \cite[Prop.~6.3]{BGV:HKDO}), it holds that
\begin{equation*}
\op{ind} \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}(\phi)= \op{Str} \left[e^{-t\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{{g}}^{2}}U_{\phi}\right]\qquad \forall t>0.
\end{equation*}Therefore, from the local equivariant index theorem we obtain
\begin{theorem}[Equivariant Index Theorem~\cite{AS:IEO2, AS:IEO3}] We have
\begin{equation*}
\op{ind} \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}(\phi)= (-i)^{\frac{n}{2}}\sum_{a} (2\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}
\int_{M^{\phi}_{a}}\hat{A}(R^{TM^{\phi}})\wedge \nu_{\phi}\left(R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}\right).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
We refer to~\cite{BGV:HKDO} for an interpretation of this formula in terms of equivariant characteristic classes.
We shall give a new proof of the local equivariant index theorem by combining the results of the previous section with
the approach of~\cite{Po:CMP} to the proof of the local index theorem. As we shall see, a straightforward elaboration
of the arguments of this proof will provide us with a proof of Proposition~\ref{thm:Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}.
Notice that the asymptotic~(\ref{eq:LEIT.local-equiv.-index-thm}) accounts only for the case $k=0$ of
Proposition~\ref{thm:Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}. Therefore, in order to prove
Proposition~\ref{thm:Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm} we need some kind of differentiable version of
the local equivariant index theorem, where in the asymptotic~(\ref{eq:LEIT.local-equiv.-index-thm}) the function $f$ is replaced by
a differential operator.
In the sequel, for a top-degree form $\omega \in C^{\infty}(M^{\phi}_{a},\Lambda^{a}_{\C}T^{*}M_{a}^{\phi})$ we shall
denote by $|\omega|^{(a)}$ its Berezin integral, i.e., its inner-product with the volume form of $M^{\phi}_{a}$.
A preliminary step in the proof in all the proofs of the local equivariant index theorem is to observe we are really
dealing with a pointwise asymptotic. In our setup this amounts to
\begin{theorem}[Local Equivariant Index Theorem, Pointwise Version]\label{thm:LEIT.local-equiv.-index-thm-pointwise}
Let $x_{0}\in M^{\phi}$. Then, as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\op{Str} \left[ \phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}(x_{0})I_{(\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}^{2}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x_{0},t)\right]= (-i)^{\frac{n}{2}} (2\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}
\biggl|\hat{A}(R^{TM^{\phi}})\wedge \nu_{\phi}\left(R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}\right)\biggr|^{(a)}(x_0)+\op{O}(t).
\label{eq:LEIT.local-equiv.-index-thm-pointwise}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
This results is actually an equivalent reformulation of Theorem~\ref{thm:LEIT.local-equiv.-index-thm}, for we have
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:LEIT.equivalence-LEITMs}
Theorem~\ref{thm:LEIT.local-equiv.-index-thm} and Theorem~\ref{thm:LEIT.local-equiv.-index-thm-pointwise} are equivalent.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $j=0,1,\ldots$ and $x \in M^{\phi}$ set $A_{j}(x)=\op{Str}\left[ \phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}(x)I_{(\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}^{2}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}^{(j)}(x)\right]$.
It follows from Proposition~\ref{TraceOfHeatKernelVB} that, as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$, it holds that
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] For all $f \in C^{\infty}(M)$,
\begin{equation*}
\op{Str} \left[f e^{-t\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{{g}}^{2}}U_{\phi}\right] \sim \sum_{0\leq a\leq n} \sum_{j \geq 0} t^{-\frac{a}{2}+j}
\int_{M_a^{\phi}}f(x)A_{j}(x) |dx|.
\end{equation*}
\item[-] For all $x\in M^{\phi}_{a}$, $a=0,2,\cdots ,n$,
\begin{equation*}
\op{Str} \left[ \phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}(x)I_{(\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}^{2}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x,t)\right]\sim \sum_{j \geq 0}
t^{-\frac{a}{2}+j}A_{j}(x).
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
It then follows that both asymptotics~(\ref{eq:LEIT.local-equiv.-index-thm})
and~(\ref{eq:LEIT.local-equiv.-index-thm-pointwise}) are equivalent to the following: for all $x\in
M^{\phi}_{a}$, $a=0,2,\ldots, n$,
it holds that
\begin{equation*}
A_{0}(x)=\cdots = A_{\frac{a}{2}-1}(x)=0 \quad\text{and } \quad
A_{\frac{a}{2}}(x)= (-i)^{\frac{n}{2}} (2\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}
\biggl|\hat{A}(R^{TM^{\phi}})\wedge \nu_{\phi}\left(R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}\right)\biggr|^{(a)}(x).
\end{equation*}Whence the lemma.
\end{proof}
We are thus reduced to proving the asymptotic~(\ref{eq:LEIT.local-equiv.-index-thm-pointwise}) for any given point $x_{0}\in M^{\phi}_{a}$. In view of
Remark~\ref{rem:Heat.computation-Ij-inverse-heat-operator}, given any Volterra \psido\ parametrix $Q$ defined near $x_{0}$, we have
\begin{equation}
I_{(\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}^{2}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x_{0},t)=I_{Q}(x_{0},t) +\op{O}(t^{\infty}).
\label{eq:LIT.IQ-approximation}
\end{equation}As a result we may replace the Dirac operator $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}$ by any differential operator that agrees with
$\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}$ in any given local chart near $x_{0}$. In other words, this enables us to localize the problem and replace
$\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_g$ by an operator on $\R^{n}$ and acting on the trivial bundle with fiber $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}_{n}$, the spinor space of $\R^{n}$.
We proceed as follows. Let $e_{1},\ldots,e_{n}$ be an oriented orthonormal basis of $T_{x_{0}}M$ such that
$e_{1},\ldots, e_{a}$ span $T_{x_{0}}M^{\phi}$ and $e_{a+1},\ldots, e_{n}$ span $\Ca{N}^{\phi}_{x_{0}}$. This provides us
with normal coordinates $(x^{1},\cdots, x^{n})\rightarrow \exp_{x_{0}}\left(x^{1}e_{1}+\cdots +x^{n}e_{n}\right)$.
Moreover using parallel translation enables us to construct a synchronous local oriented tangent frame $e_{1}(x),\ldots,e_{n}(x)$ such that $e_{1}(x),
\ldots, e_{a}(x)$ form an oriented frame of $TM_{a}^{\phi}$ and $e_{a+1}(x),\ldots, e_{n}(x)$ form an (oriented) frame $\Ca{N}^{\phi}$ (when both frames are restricted to $M^\phi$). This gives rise to trivializations of the tangent and spinor bundles. Using these coordinates and
trivialization, we let $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}$ be a Dirac operator on $\R^{n}$ acting on the
trivial bundle with fiber $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}_{n}$ associated to a metric which agrees with the metric $g$ near $x=0$. Incidentally,
$\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}$ agrees with $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}$ near $x=0$.
Notice that $e_{j}(x)=\partial_{j}$ at $x=0$. Moreover, the coefficients $g_{ij}(x)$ of the metric and the
coefficients $\omega_{ikl}:=\acou{\nabla_i^{TM}e_k}{e_l}$ of the Levi-Civita connection satisfy
\begin{equation}
g_{ij}(x)=\delta_{ij}+\op{O}(|x|^{2}), \qquad \omega_{ikl}(x)= -\frac12
R_{ijkl}x^j
+\op{O}(|x|^{2}),
\label{eq:AS-asymptotic-geometric-data}
\end{equation}
where $R_{ijkl}:=\acou{R^{TM}(0)(\partial_{i},\partial_{j})\partial_{k}}{\partial_{l}}$ are the coefficients of the
curvature tensor at $x=0$ (see, e.g, \cite[Chap.~1]{BGV:HKDO}).
In order to simplify notation we shall denote by $\phi'$ the endomorphism $\phi'(0)$ of $\R^{n}$. We shall use similar
notation for $\phi^{\Ca{N}}(0)$ and $\phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}(0)$, where the former is regarded as the element of $\op{SO}(b)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\phi'=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \phi^{\Ca{N}}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Let $\Lambda(n)=\Lambda^{*}_{\C}\R^{n}$ be the complexified exterior algebra of $\R^{n}$
We shall use the following gradings on $\Lambda(n)$,
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda(n)=\bigoplus_{1\leq j \leq n}\Lambda^{j}(n)=\bigoplus_{\substack{1\leq k \leq a\\
1\leq l\leq b}}\Lambda^{k,l}(n),
\end{equation*}where $\Lambda^{j}(n)$ is the space of forms of degree $j$ and $\Lambda^{k,l}(n)$ is the span of forms
$dx^{i_{1}}\wedge \cdots \wedge d^{i_{k+l}}$ with $1\leq i_{1}<\cdots <i_{k}\leq a$ and $a+1\leq i_{k+1}<\cdots
<i_{k+l}\leq n$. Given a form $\omega \in \Lambda(n)$ we shall denote by $\omega^{(j)}$ (resp., $\omega^{(k,l)}$) its
component in $\Lambda^{j}(n)$ (resp., $\Lambda^{k,l}(n)$).
Let $\op{Cl}(n)$ be the complexified Clifford algebra of $\R^{n}$ (seen as a subalgebra of $\ensuremath{\op{End}} \Lambda(n)$) and
denote by $c:\Lambda(n)\rightarrow \op{Cl}(n)$ the linear isomorphism given by Clifford multiplication. Composing with the
spinor representation $\op{Cl}(n)\rightarrow \ensuremath{\op{End}} \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}_{n}$ (which is an algebra isomorphism since $n$ is even), we get a
linear isomorphism $c:\Lambda(n)\rightarrow \ensuremath{\op{End}} \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}_{n}$. We denote by $\sigma: \ensuremath{\op{End}} \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}_{n}\rightarrow \Lambda(n)$
its inverse. Recall that, although $c$ and $\sigma$ are not isomorphisms of algebras, we observe that if $\omega_{j}\in
\Lambda^{k_{j},l_{j}}(n)$, $j=1,2$, then
\begin{equation}
\sigma\left[ c(\omega_{1})c(\omega_{2})\right]=\omega_{1} \wedge \omega_{2}\qquad \bmod
\bigoplus_{(k,l)\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{K}}} \Lambda^{k,l}(n) ,
\label{eq:SymbolQuantization}
\end{equation}where $\ensuremath{\mathcal{K}}$ consists of all pairs $(k,l)$ such that, either $k\leq k_{1}+k_{2}-2$ and $l\leq l_{1}+l_{2}$, or
$k\leq k_{1}+k_{2}$ and $l\leq l_{1}+l_{2}-2$.
In the sequel, for a form $\omega\in \Lambda(n)$, we shall simply denote by $|\omega|^{(a,0)}$ the Berezin integral
$|\omega^{(*,0)}|^{(a)}$ of its component $\omega^{(*,0)}$ in $\Lambda^{*,0}(n)$. That is, $|\omega|^{(a,0)}$ is the
inner product of $\omega$ with $dx^{1}\wedge \cdots \wedge dx^{a}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lm:ActionOnSpinorBundle}
Let $A\in\ensuremath{\op{End}}\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}_{n}$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\op{Str}[\phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}A]=(-2i)^{\frac{n}{2}}2^{-\frac{b}{2}}{\det}^{\frac12}\left(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}\right)|\sigma(A)|^{(a,0)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}It follows from~\cite[Thm.~1.8]{Ge:POSASIT} (see also~\cite[Prop.~3.21]{BGV:HKDO}) that
\begin{equation}
\op{Str}[\phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}A]dx^{1}\wedge \cdots \wedge dx^{n}=(-2i)^{\frac{n}{2}}\sigma[\phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}A]^{(n)}.
\label{eq:LEIT.supertrace-symbol}
\end{equation}
As $\phi^{\Ca{N}}$ is an element of $\op{SO}(b)$ there is an oriented orthonormal basis $\{v_{a+1},\ldots, v_{n}\}$ of $\{0\}^a \times \R^b$ such for
$j=\frac{a}{2}+1,\ldots,\frac{n}{2}$ the subspace $\op{Span}\{v_{2j-1},v_{2j}\}$ is invariant under $\phi^{\Ca{N}}$ and the matrix of $\phi^{\Ca{N}}$ with respect to the basis $\{v_{2j-1},v_{2j}\}$ is a rotation matrix of the form,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos \theta_{j} & -\sin \theta_{j} \\
\sin \theta_{j} & \cos \theta_{j}
\end{pmatrix}= \exp
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -\theta_{j} \\
\theta_{j} & 0
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad 0<\theta_{j}\leq \pi.
\end{equation*}
Using~\cite[Eqs.~(3.4)--(3.5)]{BGV:HKDO} we then see that
\begin{equation}
\phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}= \prod_{\frac{a}{2}<j\leq \frac{n}{2}}\left( \cos\left(\frac{\theta_{j}}{2}\right) +
\sin\left(\frac{\theta_{j}}{2}\right)c(v^{2j-1})c(v^{2j})\right),
\label{eq:LEIT.phiS}
\end{equation}where $\{v^{a+1},\ldots,v^{n}\}$ is the basis of $\Lambda^{0,1}(n)$ that is dual to $\{v_{a+1}, \cdots, v_{n}\}$.
It follows from~(\ref{eq:LEIT.phiS}) that $\sigma(\phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}})$ is an element of $\Lambda^{0,*}(n)$ and we have
\begin{equation*}
\sigma[\phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}]^{(0,b)}=\prod_{\frac{a}{2}<j\leq \frac{n}{2}} \sin\left(\frac{\theta_{j}}{2}\right)v^{a+1}\wedge \cdots
\wedge v^{n}= 2^{-\frac{b}{2}} {\det}^{\frac{1}{2}}(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}})dx^{a+1}\wedge \cdots \wedge dx^{n},
\end{equation*}where we have used the equality $2\sin^{2}\theta=
\begin{vmatrix}
1-\cos \theta & \sin \theta \\
-\sin \theta & 1-\cos \theta
\end{vmatrix}$. Combining this with~(\ref{eq:LEIT.supertrace-symbol}) and using~(\ref{eq:SymbolQuantization}) we deduce that
\begin{equation*}
\op{Str}[\phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}A]dx^{1}\wedge \cdots \wedge dx^{n}=(-2i)^{\frac{n}{2}}2^{-\frac{b}{2}}
{\det}^{\frac{1}{2}}(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}) dx^{a+1}\wedge \cdots \wedge dx^{n}\wedge \sigma[A]^{(a,0)}.
\end{equation*}Contracting both sides of the equality with $dx^{1}\wedge \cdots \wedge dx^{n}$ then
proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
Let $Q\in \pvdo^{-2}(\R^{n}\times \R, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}_{n})$ be a parametrix for $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}+\partial_{t}$. Using~(\ref{eq:LIT.IQ-approximation}) and
Lemma~\ref{lm:ActionOnSpinorBundle} we get
\begin{align}\label{eq:ActionOnBundle}
\op{Str}\left[ \phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}(x_{0})I_{(\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}+\partial_{t})^{-1}} (x_{0},t)\right] & = \op{Str}\left[ \phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}I_{Q}
(0,t)\right] +\op{O}(t^{\infty}) \nonumber \\
&= (-2i)^{\frac{n}{2}}2^{-\frac{b}{2}}{\det}^{\frac12}\left(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}\right)|\sigma[I_{Q}(0, t)]|^{(a,0)} +\op{O}(t^{\infty}).
\end{align}
We shall determine the small-time behavior of $\sigma[I_{Q}(0, t)]|^{(a,0)}$ by using considerations on Getzler orders of
Volterra \psidos\ in the sense of~\cite{Po:CMP}. This notion is intimately related to the rescaling of
Getzler~\cite{Ge:SPLASIT}, which is motivated by the following assignment of degrees:
\begin{equation}
\deg \partial_{j} =\deg c(dx^j)=1, \qquad \deg \partial_{t}=2, \qquad \deg x^j=-1 .
\label{eq:AS-Getzler-order}
\end{equation}
As observed in \cite{Po:CMP} this degree assignment gives rise to a new filtration on Volterra \psidos.
Let $Q\in \Psi_{\op{v}}^{m'}(\R^{n}\times\R, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}_n)$ have symbol $q(x,\xi,\tau) \sim \sum_{r\geq m'} q_{m'-r}(x, \xi, \tau)$.
Taking components in each subspace
$\Lambda^j T_{\C}^{*}\R^{n}$ and using Taylor expansions at $x=0$ we get asymptotic expansions of symbols,
\begin{equation}
\sigma[q(x, \xi, \tau)] \sim \sum_{j,r} \sigma[q_{m'-r}(x, \xi, \tau)]^{(j)} \\
\sim \sum_{j,r,\alpha}
\frac{x^{\alpha}}{\alpha!} \sigma[\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_v^{\beta}q_{m'-r}(0,\xi, \tau)]^{(j)},
\label{eq:AS.Getzler-asymptotic}
\end{equation}The last asymptotic is meant in the following sense: for $j=0,\cdots, n$ and all $N\in \N$, as
$x\rightarrow 0$ and $|\xi|+|\tau|^{\frac{1}{2}}\rightarrow \infty$, we have
\begin{equation}
\sigma[q(x, \xi, \tau)]^{(j)}-\sum_{r+|\alpha|=N+j}\frac{x^{\alpha}}{\alpha!}
\sigma[\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_v^{\beta}q_{m'-r}(0,\xi, \tau)]^{(j)} =\op{O}\left(
\|\xi,\tau\|^{m'}\left(|x|+\|\xi,\tau\|^{-1}\right)^{N}\right),
\label{eq:AS.Getzler-asymptotic-def}
\end{equation}where we have set $\|\xi,\tau\|:=|\xi|+|\tau|^{\frac{1}{2}}$, and there are similar asymptotics for all
$\partial_{\xi}^{\beta}\partial_{\tau}^{k}$-derivatives (upon replacing the exponent $m'$ by $m'-|\beta|-k$).
In addition, the degrees' assignment~(\ref{eq:AS-Getzler-order}) leads us to define (Getzler-)rescaling operators $\delta_{\lambda}^{*}$, $\lambda \in \R$, on Volterra symbols
with differential-form coefficients by
\begin{equation*}
\delta_{\lambda}^{*}q(x,\xi,\tau):=\lambda^{j}q(\lambda^{-1} x,\lambda\xi,\lambda^2 \tau) \qquad \forall
q\in \ensuremath{S_{\textup{v}}}^{*}(\R^{n}\times \R^{n}\times \R)\otimes \Lambda^{j}(n).
\end{equation*}
Notice that in~(\ref{eq:AS.Getzler-asymptotic}) each symbol $ x^{\alpha}
\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\sigma[q_{m'-r}(0,\xi, \tau)]^{(j)}$ is homogeneous of degree $\mu:=m'-r+j-|\alpha|$ with respect to this
rescaling. We shall say that such a symbol is \emph{Getzler homogeneous} of degree $\mu$.
Moreover, the asymptotics~(\ref{eq:AS.Getzler-asymptotic}) imply that, in the sense of~(\ref{eq:AS.Getzler-asymptotic-def}), we have
\begin{equation*}
\sigma[q(x, \xi, \tau)] \sim \sum_{\mu\leq m}q_{(\mu)}(x, \xi, \tau),
\end{equation*}where $q_{(\mu)}(x, \xi, \tau)$ is the Getzler-homogeneous symbol of degree $\mu$ given by
\begin{equation}
q_{(\mu)}(x, \xi, \tau):= \!\!\!\! \sum_{m'-r+j-|\alpha|=\mu} \!\!\!\! \frac{x^{\alpha}}{\alpha!}
\sigma[\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_v^{\beta}q_{m'-r}(0,\xi, \tau)]^{(j)},
\label{eq:index.asymptotic-symbol}
\end{equation}and $m$ is the greatest integer $\mu$ such that $q_{(\mu)}\neq 0$.
Alternatively, in terms of the
rescaling operators $\delta_{\lambda}^{*}$, for all $(x,\xi,\tau)\in \R^{n}\times \R^{n}\times \R$, $(\xi,\tau)\neq 0$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\delta_{\lambda}^{*}\sigma[q(x, \xi, \tau)] \sim \sum_{\mu\leq m}\lambda^{\mu}q_{(\mu)}(x, \xi, \tau) \qquad
\text{as $\lambda \rightarrow 0$}.
\end{equation*}We observe that the homogeneous symbols $q_{(\mu)}(x,\xi,\tau)$ are uniquely determined by the above
asymptotic. In particular, the leading Getzler-homogeneous symbol $q_{(m)}(x,\xi,\tau)$ is uniquely determined by
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\lambda}^{*}\sigma[q(x, \xi, \tau)]=\lambda^{m} q_{(m)}(x,\xi,\tau)+\op{O}(\lambda^{m-1}).
\label{eq:Ge.leading-deltal}
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}[\cite{Po:CMP}]\label{def:getzler.model-operator}
Using~(\ref{eq:index.asymptotic-symbol}) we make the following definitions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The integer $m$ is called the Getzler order of $Q$,
\item The symbol $q_{(m)}$ is called the principal Getzler-homogeneous symbol of $Q$,
\item The operator $Q_{(m)}=q_{(m)}(x,D_{x}, D_{t})$ is called the model operator of $Q$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
As the Getzler-homogeneous symbol $q_{(m)}(x,\xi,\tau)$ is linear combination of homogeneous Volterra symbols with
coefficients in $\Lambda(n)$, we may define the operator $q_{(m)}(x,D_{x}, D_{t})$ as in~(\ref{eq:Heat.homogeneous-Volterra-PsiDOs}). Notice also that
$Q_{(m)}$ is an element of $\pvdo^{*}(\R^{n}\times \R)\otimes \Lambda(n)$, rather than an actual operator.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
As the symbol $ \sigma[\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_v^{\beta}q_{m'-r}(0,\xi, \tau)]^{(j)}$ is
Getzler-homogeneous degree $m'-r+j-|\alpha|\leq m'+n$, we see that the Getzler order of $Q$ is always~$\leq
m+n$.
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
It follows from~(\ref{eq:AS-asymptotic-geometric-data}) spinor covariant derivative $ \nabla_{i}^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}= \partial_{i}+ \frac14 \omega_{ikl}(x)c(e^k)c(e^l)$
has Getzler order 1 and its model operator is
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{i (1)}^\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}} :=\partial_{i}-\frac14 R_{ij}x^j , \qquad \text{where}\
R_{ij}:=\sum_{k<l} R_{ijkl}^{TM}(0) dx^k \wedge dx^l.
\label{eq:AS.model-spin-connection}
\end{equation}
\end{example}
In the sequel, we shall often look at symbols or operators up to terms that have lower Getzler order. For this reason,
it would be convenient to use the notation $\op{O}_{G}(m)$ to denote any remainder term (symbol or operator) of Getzler
order $\leq m$.
Notice that in view of~(\ref{eq:Ge.leading-deltal}) a Volterra symbol $q\in \ensuremath{S_{\textup{v}}}^{*}(\R^{n}\times \R^{n}\times \R)\otimes
\Lambda^{*}(n)$ is $\op{O}_{G}(m)$ if and only if, for all $(x,\xi,\tau)\in \R^{n}\times \R^{n}\times \R$, $(\xi,\tau)\neq 0$,
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\lambda}^{*}q(x,\xi,\tau)= \op{O}(\lambda^{m}) \qquad \text{as $\lambda \rightarrow 0$}.
\label{eq:Ge.rescaling-OG(m)}
\end{equation}Moreover, two Volterra symbols have Getzler order $m$ and same leading Getzler-homogeneous symbol if and
only if they agree modulo $\op{O}_{G}(m-1)$.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Po:CMP}]\label{lem:index.top-total-order-symbol-composition}
For $j=1,2$ let $Q_{j}\in \Psi^{*}_{\op{v}}(\R^{n}\times\R, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}_n)$ have Getzler order $m_{j}$
and model
operator $Q_{(m_{j})}$ and assume that either $Q_{1}$ or $Q_{2}$ is properly supported. Then
\begin{equation}
\sigma\left[Q_{1}Q_{2}\right]= Q_{(m_{1})} Q_{(m_{2})} +\op{O}_{G}(m_{1}+m_{2}-1).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{example}
By Lichnerowicz Formula,
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}^{2}= -g^{ij}(\nabla_{i}^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}\nabla_{j}^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}} -\Gamma_{ij}^k
\nabla_{k}^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}) + \frac{\kappa}4,
\label{eq:AS.lichnerowicz-bis}
\end{equation}
where the $\Gamma_{ij}^k$ are the Christoffel symbols of the metric and $\kappa$ is the scalar curvature. Therefore,
combining Lemma~\ref{lem:index.top-total-order-symbol-composition} with~(\ref{eq:AS-asymptotic-geometric-data})
and~(\ref{eq:AS.model-spin-connection}) we see that $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}^{2}$ has Getzler order $2$ and its model operator is the harmonic oscillator,
\begin{equation}
H_{R}:=- \sum_{i=1}^n (\partial_{i}-\frac14 R_{ij}x^j)^{2}.
\end{equation}
\end{example}
In the sequel, it would be convenient to introduce the variables $x'=(x^{1},\cdots, x^{a})$ and $x''=(x^{a+1},\cdots,
x^{n})$, so that $x=(x',x'')$. When using these variables we shall denote by $q(x',x'';\xi',\xi'';\tau)$ and
$K_{Q}(x',x'';y',y'';t)$ the symbol and kernel of any given $Q\in \pvdo^{*}(\R^{n}\times
\R,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}_{n})\otimes\Lambda(n)$. We then define
\begin{equation}
I_{Q}(x',t):=\int_{\R^{b}} K_{Q}(x', x''; 0, \phi^{\Ca{N}}x''; t)dx'', \qquad x'\in \R^{a}.
\label{IQonRn}
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:AS.approximation-asymptotic-kernel}
Let $Q\in \Psi_{\op{v}}^{*}(\R^{n}\times\R, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}})$ have Getzler order $m$ and model operator
$Q_{(m)}$. Then,
as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\sigma[I_{Q}(0,t)]^{(j)}= \op{O}(t^{\frac{j-m-a-1}2})$ if $m-j$ is odd.
\item $\sigma[I_{Q}(0,t)]^{(j)}= t^{\frac{j-m-a}2-1}
I_{Q_{(m)}}(0,1)^{(j)} + \op{O}(t^{\frac{j-m-a}2}) $ if $m-j$ is even.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, for $m=-2$ and $j=a$ we get
\begin{equation}
\sigma[I_{Q}(0,t)]^{(a,0)}=I_{Q_{(-2)}}(0,1)^{(a,0)} + \op{O}(t).
\label{eq:AS-convergence-symbol-KQ}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $q(x, \xi, \tau)\sim \sum_{k\leq m'} q_{k}(x, \xi, \tau)$ be the symbol of $Q$ and denote by $q_{(m)}(x,\xi, \tau)$ its principal
Getzler homogeneous symbol. Recall that Proposition~\ref{prop:Heat.asymptotic-IQ} provides us with an asymptotic for $I_{Q}(x,t)$ in terms of the symbol of $Q$ in
tubular coordinates. We shall use the tubular coordinates $(x',v)\in \R^{a}\times \R^{b}$ given by the change of
variable,
\begin{equation*}
x=\psi(x',v):=\exp_{x'}\left(v_{1}e_{a+1}(x')+\cdots+ v_{b}e_{n}(x')\right), \qquad (x',v)\in \R^{a}\times \R^{b},
\end{equation*}where on the far right-hand side we have identified $x'$ with $(x',0)\in\R^{n}$.
Notice that, as the original coordinates are normal coordinates, for all $v \in \R^{b}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\psi(0,v)=\exp_{x}\left(v_{1}\partial_{a+1}+\cdots+
v_{b}\partial_{n}\right)=(0,v) .
\label{eq:ProfProp.tubular-coordinates-normal}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, in the sequel, upon identifying $\R^{n}$ and $\R^{a}\times \R^{b}$, it will be convenient to regard functions on $\R^{n}\times
\R^{n}\times \R$ as functions on $\R^{a}\times \R^{b}\times \R^{a}\times \R^{b}\times \R$.
Let $\tilde{q}(x', v;\xi',\nu;\tau)\sim \sum_{k\leq m'} \tilde{q}_{k}(x', v;\xi',\nu;\tau)$ be the symbol of $Q$ in the tubular
coordinates, i.e., $\tilde{q}(x', v;\xi',\nu;\tau)$ is the symbol of $\psi^{*}Q$. As in the tubular coordinates, the
derivative
$\phi'$ is constant along the fibers of $\Ca{N}^{\phi}$, we see that
$\phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}$ too is fiberwise constant. Incidentally, in the notation of~(\ref{eq:Equivariant.twisted-symbol}) the symbols $\tilde{q}^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}_{k}$ and
$\tilde{q}_{k}$ agree for all $k\leq m'$. Bearing this mind, Proposition~\ref{prop:Heat.asymptotic-IQ} shows that, as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$,
\begin{equation}
\sigma[I_{Q}(0,t)]^{(j)}\sim \sum_{\substack{|\alpha|-k\text{ even} \\ k\leq m'}} t^{\frac{|\alpha|-(k+a+2)}{2}}
\int_{\R^{b}}\frac{v^{\alpha}}{\alpha !}\left(\partial_v^{\alpha}\sigma[\tilde{q}_{k}]^{(j)}\right)^{\vee}(0, 0;0,
(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}(0))v;1)dv.
\label{eq:sigmaIQ}
\end{equation}
Using~(\ref{eq:ProfProp.tubular-coordinates-normal}), the change of variable formula for symbols~(\cite[Thm.~18.1.17]{Ho:ALPDO3}) gives
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{q}_{k}(0,v;\xi',\nu;\tau) = \sum_{\substack{l-|\beta|+|\gamma|=k\\ 2|\gamma|\leq |\beta|}}
a_{\alpha\beta}(0,v)\xi^{\gamma}D_{\xi}^{\beta}q_{k}\left(0,v;\xi',\nu;\tau\right)
\end{equation*}where the $a_{\beta\gamma}(x',v)$ are some smooth functions such that $a_{\beta\gamma}(x)=1$ when
$\beta=\gamma=0$.
Thus,
\begin{gather}
\sigma[I_{Q}(0,t)]^{(j)}\sim \sum_{\substack{|\alpha|-l+|\beta|-|\gamma|\text{ even} \\ l\leq m', \ 2|\gamma|\leq
|\beta|}} t^{\frac{|\alpha|-l+|\beta|-|\gamma|-(a+2)}{2}} I^{(j)}_{l\alpha\beta\gamma},
\label{eq:ProofProp.asymptotic-sigmaIQj}
\\
I^{(j)}_{l\alpha\beta\gamma}:= \int_{\R^{b}}a_{\alpha\beta}(0,v) \frac{v^{\alpha}}{\alpha!}
\left(\partial_v^{\alpha}\sigma[\xi^{\gamma}D_{\xi}^{\beta}q_{l}]^{(j)}\right)^{\vee}(0,0;0,
(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}(0))v;1)dv.\nonumber
\end{gather}
Notice that the symbol $v^{\alpha}\partial_v^{\alpha}\sigma[q_{l}]^{(j)}(0,0;\xi',\nu;\tau)$
is Getzler homogeneous of degree $l+j-|\alpha|$. Therefore, it must be zero if $l+j-|\alpha|>m$, since otherwise $Q$
would have Getzler order~$>m$. This implies that in~(\ref{eq:ProofProp.asymptotic-sigmaIQj}) all the coefficients $I^{(j)}_{l\alpha\beta\gamma}$ with
$l+j-|\alpha|>m$ must be zero.
Furthermore, the condition $2|\gamma|\leq |\beta|$ and implies that
$|\beta|-|\gamma|\leq -\frac{1}{2}|\beta|$, and hence $|\beta|-|\gamma|\leq - 1$ unless $\beta=\gamma=0$. Therefore,
if $l+j-|\alpha|\leq m$ and $2|\gamma|\leq |\beta|$, then $t^{\frac{1}{2}(|\alpha|-l+|\beta|-|\gamma|-(a+2))}$ is
$\op{O}(t^{\frac{1}{2}(j-m-(a+2))})$ and even is $\op{o}(t^{\frac{1}{2}(j-m-(a+2))})$ if we further have $l+j-|\alpha|< m$ or
$(\beta,\gamma)\neq (0,0)$.
Observe that the asymptotic~(\ref{eq:ProofProp.asymptotic-sigmaIQj}) contains only integer powers of $t$ (non-negative or negative). Therefore, from
the observations above we deduce that if $m-j$ is odd, then all the (non-zero) terms in~(\ref{eq:ProofProp.asymptotic-sigmaIQj}) are
$\op{O}(t^{\frac{1}{2}(j-m-(a+1))})$, and hence
\begin{equation*}
\sigma[I_{Q}(0,t)]^{(j)} =\op{O}\left(t^{\frac{1}{2}(j-m-(a+1))}\right).
\end{equation*}
Likewise, if $m-j$ is even, then all the terms in~(\ref{eq:ProofProp.asymptotic-sigmaIQj}) with $l+j-|\alpha|\neq m$ or with $l-|\alpha|=m-j $ and
$(\beta,\gamma)\neq (0,0)$ are $\op{O}(t^{\frac{1}{2}(j-m-a)})$. Thus,
\begin{equation}
\sigma[I_{Q}(0,t)]^{(j)}= t^{\frac{j-(m+a+2)}2}
\sum_{l-|\alpha|=m-j} I^{(j)}_{l\alpha00} + \op{O}(t^{\frac{j-(m+a)}2}).
\label{middle}
\end{equation}
To complete the proof it remains to identify the coefficient of $t^{\frac{j-(m+a+2)}2}$ in~(\ref{middle}) with
$I_{Q_{(m)}}(0,1)^{(j)}$. To this end observe that the formula~(\ref{eq:index.asymptotic-symbol}) for $q_{(m)}$ at $x'=0$ gives
\begin{equation*}
q_{(m)}(0,v;\xi,\nu;\tau)^{(j)}=\sum_{k+j-|\alpha|=m} \frac{v^{\alpha}}{\alpha!}
\partial_{v}^{\alpha}\left(\sigma[q_{k}]^{(j)}\right)(0,0;\xi,\nu;\tau).
\end{equation*}Thus,
\begin{align*}
I_{Q_{(m)}}(0,1)^{(j)}= & \sum_{k-|\alpha|=m-j}
\int_{\R^{b}}\frac{v^{\beta}}{\beta!}\left(\partial_v^{\beta}\sigma[q_{m-j+|\alpha|}]^{(j)}\right)^{\vee}\left(0,0;0,(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}(0))v;1\right)dv\\
= & \sum_{l-|\alpha|=m-j} I^{(j)}_{l\alpha00}.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
In the sequel, we shall use the following ``curvature forms'':
\begin{equation*}
R':=(R_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq a} \qquad \text{and} \qquad R'':=(R_{a+i,a+j})_{1\leq i,j\leq b}.
\end{equation*}
Notice that the components in $\Lambda^{*,0}(n)$ of $R'$ and $R''$ are $R^{TM^{\phi}}(0)$ and $R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}(0)$ respectively.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:GetzlerOrderParametrix} Let $Q\in \pdo^{-2}(\R^{n}\times \R, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}_{n})$ be a parametrix for
$\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}^{2}+\partial_{t}$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $Q$ has Getzler order~$-2$ and its model operator is $(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}$.
\item For all $t>0$,
\begin{equation}
I_{(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(0,t)=\frac{(4\pi t)^{-\frac{a}{2}}}{
{\det}^{\frac12}\left(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}\right)}
{\det}^{\frac12}\left(\frac{tR'/2}{\sinh(tR'/2)}\right) {\det}^{-\frac12} \left(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}e^{-tR''}\right) .
\label{eq:ProofProp.IHR}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first part is contained in~\cite[Lemma 5]{Po:CMP}. The formula for $ I_{(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(0,t)$ is
obtained exactly like in~\cite[p.\ 459]{LM:DMJ}. For reader's convenience we mention the main details of the computation.
The kernel of $(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}$ can determined from the arguments of~\cite{Ge:SPLASIT}. More
precisely, let $A\in \mathfrak{so}_{n}(\R)$ and set $B=A^{t}A$. Consider the harmonic oscillators,
\begin{equation*}
H_{A}:=-\sum_{1\leq i\leq n}(\partial_{i}+\sqrt{-1} A_{ij}x^{j})^2 \quad \text{and} \quad H_{B}:=-\sum_{1\leq i\leq n}\partial_{i}^{2}
+\frac{1}{4}\acou{Bx}{x}.
\end{equation*}In particular substituting $A=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-1} R$ in the formula for $H_{A}$ gives $H_{R}$. In addition, define
\begin{equation*}
X:= \sqrt{-1} \sum_{i,j} A_{ij}x^{i}\partial_{j} = \sqrt{-1} \sum_{i<j}A_{ij}(x^{i}\partial_{j}-x^{j}\partial_{i}).
\end{equation*}Notice that $H_{A}=H_{B}+X$. Observe also that, as $X$ is linear combination of the infinitesimal rotations
$x^{i}\partial_{j}-x^{j}\partial_{i}$, the $O(n)$-invariance of $H_{B}$ implies that $[H_{B},X]=0$. Thus,
\begin{equation}
e^{-tH_{A}}=e^{-tX}e^{-tH_{B}} \qquad \forall t\geq 0.
\label{eq:ProofProp.commutationHB-X}
\end{equation}
The heat kernel of $H_{B}$ is determined by Melher's formula in its version of~\cite{Ge:SPLASIT}. We get
\begin{gather}
K_{(H_{B}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x,y,t)= (4\pi t)^{-\frac{n}{2}} {\det}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \frac{t\sqrt{B}}{\sinh
(t\sqrt{B})}\right) \exp \left( -\frac{1}{4t}\Theta_{B}(x,y,t)\right), \qquad t>0,
\label{eq:ProofProp.MelherHB}\\
\Theta_{B}(x,y,t):= \biggl\langle\frac{t\sqrt{B}}{\tanh (t\sqrt{B})}x,x \biggr \rangle +
\biggl\langle\frac{t\sqrt{B}}{\tanh (t\sqrt{B})}y,y \biggr \rangle
-2\biggl\langle\frac{t\sqrt{B}}{\sinh (t\sqrt{B})}x,y \biggr \rangle , \nonumber
\end{gather}where $\sqrt{B}$ is any square root of $B$ (e.g., $\sqrt{B}=\sqrt{-1} A$). Notice that the r.h.s.\ of~(\ref{eq:ProofProp.MelherHB}) is
actually an analytic function of $(\sqrt{B})^{2}$.
Observe that for $t\in \R$ the matrix $e^{-t\sqrt{-1}A}$ is an element of $\op{O}(n)$, since in a suitable
orthonormal basis it can
be written as a block diagonal of $2\times 2$ rotation matrices (with purely imaginary angles). Moreover, the family of
operators $u\rightarrow u(e^{-t\sqrt{-1}A})$, $t\in \R$, is a one-parameter group of operators on $L^{2}(\R^{n})$ with
infinitesimal generator $X$, so it agrees with $e^{-tX}$ for $t>0$.
Combining this with~(\ref{eq:ProofProp.commutationHB-X}) and~(\ref{eq:ProofProp.MelherHB}) then gives
\begin{gather*}
K_{(H_{A}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x,y,t)= (4\pi t)^{-\frac{n}{2}} {\det}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \frac{t\sqrt{B}}{\sinh
(t \sqrt{B})}\right) \exp \left( -\frac{1}{4t}\Theta_{A}(x,y,t)\right),\\
\Theta_{A}(x,y,t):= \biggl\langle\frac{t\sqrt{B}}{\tanh (t\sqrt{B})}x,x \biggr \rangle +
\biggl\langle\frac{t\sqrt{B}}{\tanh (t\sqrt{B})}y,y \biggr \rangle
-2\biggl\langle\frac{t\sqrt{B}}{\sinh (t\sqrt{B})}e^{- t\sqrt{-1} A}x,y \biggr \rangle,
\end{gather*}where we have used the fact that $e^{- t\sqrt{-1} A}$ is an orthogonal matrix.
Substituting $A=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-1} R$ and $\sqrt{B}=\frac{1}{2}R$ then gives the kernel of
$(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}$. We obtain
\begin{gather}
K_{(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x,y,t)= (4\pi t)^{-\frac{n}{2}} {\det}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \frac{tR/2}{\sinh (
tR/2)}\right) \exp \left( -\frac{1}{4t}\Theta_{R}(x,y,t)\right), \quad t>0,
\label{eq:ProofProp.MelherHR} \\
\Theta_{R}(x,y,t):= \biggl\langle\frac{tR/2}{\tanh (tR/2)}x,x \biggr \rangle +
\biggl\langle\frac{tR/2}{\tanh (tR/2)}y,y \biggr \rangle
-2\biggl\langle\frac{tR/2}{\sinh (tR/2)}e^{tR/2}x,y \biggr \rangle. \nonumber
\end{gather}
We are ready to compute $I_{(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(0,t)$. From~(\ref{IQonRn}) and~(\ref{eq:ProofProp.MelherHR}) we get
\begin{equation}
I_{(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(0,t)=(4\pi t)^{-\frac{n}{2}} {\det}^{\frac{1}{2}}\left( \frac{ tR/2}{\sinh
(tR/2)}\right) \int_{\R^b} \exp \left( -\frac{1}{4t}\Theta(v,t)\right)dv,
\label{eq:ProofProp.IHR-Theta}
\end{equation}where $\Theta(v,t):= \Theta_{R}(v,\phi^{\Ca{N}} v,t)$. Set $\mathscr{A}=\frac{1}{2}tR''$. As
$[\phi^{\Ca{N}}, \mathscr{A}]=0$, we see that
\begin{align*}
\Theta(v,t) & = \biggl\langle\frac{\mathscr{A}}{\tanh \mathscr{A}}v,v \biggr \rangle +
\biggl\langle\frac{\mathscr{A}}{\tanh \mathscr{A}}\phi^{\Ca{N}} v, \phi^{\Ca{N}} v \biggr \rangle
-2\biggl\langle\frac{\mathscr{A}}{\sinh \mathscr{A}}e^{\mathscr{A}}v,\phi^{\Ca{N}} v \biggr \rangle \\
& = 2 \biggl\langle\frac{\mathscr{A}}{\sinh \mathscr{A}}\left(\cosh \mathscr{A}- \left(\phi^{\Ca{N} }\right)^{-1}e^{\mathscr{A}}\right)v, v \biggr \rangle .
\end{align*}Observe that
\begin{align*}
\left(\cosh \mathscr{A}- \left(\phi^{\Ca{N} }\right)^{-1}e^{\mathscr{A}}\right)+\left(\cosh \mathscr{A}-
\left(\phi^{\Ca{N} }\right)^{-1}e^{\mathscr{A}}\right)^{T} & = e^{\mathscr{A}}+e^{-\mathscr{A}}- \left(\phi^{\Ca{N} }\right)^{-1}e^{\mathscr{A}}-\phi^{\Ca{N}} e^{-\mathscr{A}}\\ & =
e^{\mathscr{A}}\left(1- \left(\phi^{\Ca{N} }\right)^{-1}\right)(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}} e^{-2\mathscr{A}}).
\end{align*}Therefore, using the formula for the integral of a Gaussian function and its extension to
Gaussian functions associated to form-valued symmetric matrices, we get
\begin{align*}
\int_{\R^b} \exp \left( -\frac{1}{4t}\Theta(v,t)\right)dv = & \int_{\R^b} \exp \left( -\frac{1}{4t}
\biggl\langle\frac{\mathscr{A}}{\sinh \mathscr{A}}e^{\mathscr{A}}\left(1- \left(\phi^{\Ca{N} }\right)^{-1}\right)(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}} e^{-2\mathscr{A}}) v, v \biggr \rangle \right)dv\\
= & (4\pi)^{\frac{b}{2}}{\det}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \left(\frac{\mathscr{A}}{\sinh \mathscr{A}}\right) {\det}^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\left[e^{\mathscr{A}}\left(1- \left(\phi^{\Ca{N} }\right)^{-1}\right)\right]{\det}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}} e^{-2\mathscr{A}}).
\end{align*}
Observe that ${\det}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \left[e^{\mathscr{A}}\left(1- \left(\phi^{\Ca{N} }\right)^{-1}\right)\right]={\det}^{-\frac{1}{2}} (1-\phi^{\Ca{N}})$, so
using~(\ref{eq:ProofProp.IHR-Theta}) we get
\begin{equation*}
I_{(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(0,t)={(4\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}}{
{\det}^{-\frac12}\left(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}\right)}
{\det}^{\frac12}\left(\frac{tR'/2}{\sinh(tR'/2)}\right) {\det}^{-\frac12} \left(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}} e^{-tR''}\right).
\end{equation*}This proves~(\ref{eq:ProofProp.IHR}) and completes the proof.
\end{proof}
Let $Q\in \pdo^{-2}(\R^{n}\times \R, \ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}_{n})$ be a parametrix for $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}^{2}+\partial_{t}$. The first part of
Lemma~\ref{lem:GetzlerOrderParametrix} says that $Q$ has Getzler order~$-2$ and its model operator is $(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}$. Therefore,
using~(\ref{eq:ActionOnBundle}) and Lemma~\ref{lm:ActionOnSpinorBundle} we get
\begin{align}
\op{Str}\left[ \phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}(x_{0})I_{(\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}+\partial_{t})^{-1}} (x_{0},t)\right] & =
(-2i)^{\frac{n}{2}}2^{-\frac{b}{2}}{\det}^{\frac12}\left(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}\right)|\sigma[I_{Q}(0, t)]|^{(a,0)}
+\op{O}(t^{\infty}) \nonumber \\
& = (-2i)^{\frac{n}{2}}2^{-\frac{b}{2}}{\det}^{\frac12}\left(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}\right)
\left| I_{(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(0,1)\right|^{(a,0)}.
\label{eq:LEIT.reduction-model}
\end{align}
As the components in $\Lambda^{*,0}(n)$ of the curvatures $R'$ and $R''$ are $R^{TM^{\phi}}(0)$ and $R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}(0)$
respectively, from~(\ref{eq:ProofProp.IHR}) we get
\begin{align*}
I_{(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(0,1)^{(a,0)} & = \frac{(4\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}}{
{\det}^{\frac12}\left(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}\right)} \left[
{\det}^{\frac12}\biggl(\frac{R^{TM^{\phi}}(0)/2}{\sinh(R^{TM^{\phi}}(0)/2)}\biggr) {\det}^{-\frac12}
\left(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}e^{-tR^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}(0)}\right)\right]^{(a,0)}\\
&= \frac{(4\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}}{
{\det}^{\frac12}\left(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}\right)} \left[ \hat{A}(R^{TM^{\phi}}(0))\wedge
\nu_{\phi}\left(R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}(0)\right)\right]^{(a,0)}.
\end{align*}
Combining this with~(\ref{eq:LEIT.reduction-model}) then gives
\begin{equation*}
\op{Str}\left[ \phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}(x_{0})I_{(\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}+\partial_{t})^{-1}} (x_{0},t)\right] = (-i)^{\frac{n}{2}}
(2\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}} \biggl|\hat{A}(R^{TM^{\phi}}(0))\wedge
\nu_{\phi}\left(R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}(0)\right)\biggr|^{(a,0)}+ \op{O}(t),
\end{equation*}This proves~(\ref{eq:LEIT.local-equiv.-index-thm-pointwise}) and completes the proof of the local equivariant index theorem.
Let us now indicate how the previous arguments enables us to prove
Proposition~\ref{thm:Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{thm:Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}]
Let $f^{0},f^{1},\ldots,f^{k}$ be smooth
functions on $M$ and set \[
P_{k,\alpha}:=f^{0}[\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g},f^{1}]^{[\alpha_{1}]}\cdots [\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g},f^{2k}]^{[\alpha_{2k}]},
\]
where the notation is the same as in~(\ref{eq:ST.iterated-commutators-D2}).
We would like to prove an asymptotic of the form~(\ref{eq:Connes-Chern.Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}) for $\op{Str}
\left[P_{k,\alpha}e^{-t\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}^{2}}U_{\phi}\right]$ as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$.
Since Proposition~\ref{TraceOfHeatKernelVB} provides us with full asymptotics for $\op{Str}
\left[P_{k,\alpha}e^{-t\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}^{2}}U_{\phi}\right]$ and $I_{P_{k,\alpha}(\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}^{2}_{g}+\partial_{t})}(x,t)$, arguing as
in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:LEIT.equivalence-LEITMs} shows that in order to prove~(\ref{eq:Connes-Chern.Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}) it is enough to show that
\begin{equation}
\op{Str} \left[ \phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}(x_{0})I_{P_{k,\alpha}(\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}^{2}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x_{0},t)\right]= \left\{
\begin{array}
{ll}
{\displaystyle (-i)^{\frac{n}{2}}t^{-k}(2\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}
|\omega_{k}(x_{0})|^{(a)}+ \op{O}\left(t^{-k+1}\right)} & \text{if $\alpha =0$}, \\
{\displaystyle \op{O}\left(t^{-(|\alpha|+k)+1}\right) } & \text{if $\alpha \neq 0$},
\end{array}\right. \label{eq:LEIT.Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}
\end{equation}where $\omega_{k}:=\hat{A}(R^{TM^{\phi}})\wedge \nu_{\phi}\left(R^{\Ca{N}^{\phi}}\right) \wedge f^{0}d'f^{1} \wedge \cdots \wedge
d'f^{2k}$.
Let $Q \in \pvdo^{-2}(\R^{n}\times \R,\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}_{n})$ be a Volterra parametrix for $\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}^{2}+\partial_{t}$. Then,
exactly like in~(\ref{eq:LIT.IQ-approximation}) and~(\ref{eq:ActionOnBundle}), we have
\begin{align}
\op{Str} \left[ \phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}(x_{0})I_{P_{k,\alpha}(\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}^{2}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x_{0},t)\right] & =
\op{Str} \left[ \phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}I_{P_{k,\alpha}Q}(0,t)\right]+\op{O}(t^{\infty})\\
& = (-2i)^{\frac{n}{2}}2^{-\frac{b}{2}}{\det}^{\frac12}\left(1-\phi^{\Ca{N}}\right)|\sigma[I_{P_{k,\alpha}Q}(0, t)]|^{(a,0)} +\op{O}(t^{\infty}).
\label{eq:LIT.IPkaQ-approximation}
\end{align}
Notice that $P_{k,\alpha}=f^{0}c(df^{1})^{[\alpha_{1}]}\cdots c(df^{2k})^{[\alpha_{2k}]}$. Assume that $\alpha =0$. Then
$P_{k,0}$ has Getzler order $2k$ and model operator $\Pi_{(2k)}:=f^{0}(0)df^{1}(0)\wedge \cdots \wedge
df^{2k}(0)$. Thus by Lemma~\ref{lem:index.top-total-order-symbol-composition} and Lemma~\ref{lem:GetzlerOrderParametrix} the operator
$P_{k,\alpha}Q$ has Getzler order $2k-2$ and model
operator $\Pi_{(2k)}(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}$. Applying Lemma~\ref{lm:ActionOnSpinorBundle} we then see that, as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$,
\begin{align*}
\sigma[I_{P_{k,0}Q}(0,t)]^{(a,0)} & = t^{-k}
I_{\Pi_{(2k)}(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(0,1)^{(a,0)} + \op{O}(t^{-k+1})
\\
& =t^{-k}\left[ \Pi_{(2k)} \wedge I_{(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(0,1)\right]^{(a,0)}+ \op{O}(t^{-k+1}).
\end{align*}Combining this with~(\ref{eq:LIT.IPkaQ-approximation}) and the formula~(\ref{eq:ProofProp.IHR}) for $I_{(H_{R}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(0,t)$ we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\op{Str} \left[ \phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}(x_{0})I_{P_{k,\alpha}(\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}^{2}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x_{0},t)\right] =
(-i)^{\frac{n}{2}}t^{-k}(2\pi)^{-\frac{a}{2}}
|\omega_{k}(0)|^{(a,0)}+ \op{O}\left(t^{-k+1}\right),
\end{equation*}which is the asymptotic~(\ref{eq:LEIT.Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}) in the case $\alpha=0$.
Suppose that $\alpha \neq 0$. Then Lemma~\ref{lem:index.top-total-order-symbol-composition} implies that
\begin{equation*}
\sigma[P_{k,\alpha}]=f^{0}(0)[H_{R},df^{1}(0)]^{[\alpha_{1}]}\cdots
[H_{R},df^{2k}(0)]^{[\alpha_{2k}]}+\op{O}_{G}(2k+2|\alpha|-1)=\op{O}_{G}(2k+2|\alpha|-1).
\end{equation*}Thus, $P_{k,\alpha}$ has Getzler order~$\leq 2k+2|\alpha|-1$, and hence $P_{k,\alpha}Q$ has Getzler
order~$\leq 2k+2|\alpha|-3$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:index.top-total-order-symbol-composition}. It then follows from Lemma~\ref{lm:ActionOnSpinorBundle} that
$\sigma[I_{P_{k,\alpha} Q}(0,t)]^{(a,0)}=\op{O}\left(t^{-(|\alpha|+k)+1}\right)$, and so using~(\ref{eq:LIT.IPkaQ-approximation}) we immediately see that
\begin{equation*}
\op{Str} \left[ \phi^{\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!\!\;S}}}(x_{0})I_{P_{k,\alpha}(\ensuremath{{/\!\!\!\!D}}}%{/{\!\!\!\!D}_{g}^{2}+\partial_{t})^{-1}}(x_{0},t)\right]
=\op{O}\left(t^{-(|\alpha|+k)+1}\right) .
\end{equation*}This completes the proofs of~(\ref{eq:LEIT.Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}) and Proposition~\ref{thm:Pka-local-equivariant-index-thm}.
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank Xiaonan Ma and Bai-Ling Wang for useful discussions related to the subject matter of
this paper. They also would like to thank the following institutions for their hospitality during the during the
preparation of this manuscript: Mathematical Science Center of Tsinghua University, Research Institute of Mathematical Sciences of Kyoto
University, and University Paris 6 (RP), Seoul National University (HW), Australian National University, Chern
Institute of Mathematics of Nankai University, and Fudan University (RP+HW).
|
\section{Introduction}
Graphene's intriguing physics~\cite{RevModPhys.81.109,
RevModPhys.83.407,
RevModPhys.83.1193,
RevModPhys.84.1067} is intimately related to the chiral symmetry,
a fundamental feature of the honeycomb lattice.
The symmetry is defined by the anticommutation relation, $\{\mathcal{H},\Gamma\}=0$,
with the chiral operator $\Gamma$ acts as
\begin{gather}
\Gamma c_{i}\Gamma=+c_{i}(-c_{i})\quad\mbox{for}\quad i\in\bullet(\circ),\qquad
\Gamma^{2}=1,
\end{gather}
where $\bullet$ and $\circ$ respectively denote the two sublattices.
The symmetry guarantees~\cite{PhysRevB.74.205414,2011JPhCS.334a2004H} the topological stability of the doubled Dirac cones,
an example of Nielsen-Ninomiya
theorem~\cite{1981NuPhB.185...20N,1981NuPhB.193..173N},
as well as the degeneracy of the $n=0$ Landau level (LL),
which accommodates Aharonov-Casher's argument~\cite{PhysRevA.19.2461}.
A remarkable phenomenon in the latter is the delta-function-like density of states (DOS)
for the $n=0$ LL even in the presence of ripples with wavelengths
exceeding a few lattice constants~\cite{PhysRevLett.103.156804}.
These properties are expected to be inherited
by multilayer graphene~\cite{PhysRevLett.96.086805,PhysRevLett.97.266801,
PhysRevB.78.245416},
since the leading hopping matrix elements, $\gamma_{0},\gamma_{1}$ and $\gamma_{3}$, conserves the bipartite lattice structure,
and hence the chiral symmetry.
Indeed, a recent theory~\cite{PhysRevB.85.165410}
predicts that AB-staked bilayer graphene retains
the anomaly in DOS, which even extends to the case of
a perpendicular electric field that in fact breaks the chiral symmetry.
Then an interesting question is how the chiral symmetry affects the many-body problem in multilayer graphene.
Many-body effects have been extensively studied~\cite{RevModPhys.84.1067,
PhysRevLett.96.256602,
PhysRevB.74.075422,
PhysRevB.74.161407,
PhysRevB.74.195429,
PhysRevLett.98.016803,
PhysRevB.75.165411,
PhysRevLett.99.196802,
PhysRevB.80.235417,
PhysRevLett.103.216801,
PhysRevB.74.161403,
PhysRevB.77.041407,
PhysRevLett.101.097601,
PhysRevB.79.165402,
PhysRevLett.103.266804,
2009EL.....8558005V,
PhysRevB.81.041401,
PhysRevB.81.041402,
PhysRevB.81.075407,
PhysRevB.81.155451,
PhysRevLett.104.156803,
PhysRevB.82.115431,
PhysRevB.82.201408,
PhysRevB.84.235449,
PhysRevB.85.245451,
PhysRevB.77.155416,
PhysRevB.82.035409}
from the beginning of the graphene research due to interests
that include the gap opening in the central
LL~\cite{PhysRevLett.96.136806,PhysRevLett.99.106802,PhysRevLett.108.106804,
2012NatPh...8..550Y}
and the unconventional insulating $\nu=0$ state~\cite{PhysRevLett.100.206801}.
So far, the role of the chiral symmetry in the many-body problem
has been studied in the context of the lattice gauge theory,
where monolayer graphene without magnetic fields is discussed,
mainly based on the continuum model~\cite{PhysRevLett.102.026802,
PhysRevB.79.165425,
PhysRevB.82.121403}.
In the present work, we consider multilayer graphenes in magnetic fields,
and investigate the many-body problem in terms of the chiral symmetry.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{.35\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{hcdl_mc-bulk15x15pvo0.5go0.5l10-2.eps}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{.6\linewidth}
\label{fig:charge}
\caption{Layer-by-layer charge distribution
in the chiral condensates for an ABC stack of 10 graphene sheets.
$\gamma_{1}/\gamma_{0}=0.5$,
where only the electrons in the zero-energy LL is shown.
The filled (empty) circles, triangles and squares
correspond to $|G_{+(-)}\rangle$
for $\phi=3/15^{2}, 2/15^{2}$ and $1/15^{2}$, respectively.
}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\section{Ground states}
We consider spinless electrons in multilayer graphenes in a magnetic field,
for which the kinetic energy is
\begin{gather}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm kin}
=-\sum_{\langle ij\rangle}\gamma_{ij}e^{i\theta_{ij}}c^{\dagger}_{i}c_{j}
+{\rm H.c.},
\end{gather}
where $\gamma_{ij}$ is
the electron hopping between sites $\langle ij\rangle$.
For the nearest-neighbor in-plane sites $\gamma_{ij}=\gamma_{0}$,
while for the inter-layer vertical hopping $\gamma_{ij}=\gamma_{1}$.
The magnetic field is included as the Peierls phase $\theta_{ij}$
such that magnetic flux per elementary hexagon equals to
$\phi=\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{\hexagon}\theta_{ij}$
in units of the magnetic flux quantum $h/e$.
In the string gauge~\cite{PhysRevLett.83.2246},
the magnetic flux reads $\phi=n/N_{c}$
with an integer $n$ and the number of unit cells, $N_{c}$.
Since the $\gamma_{0}$-$\gamma_{1}$ model preserves
the chiral symmetry, one can construct a zero-energy multiplet,
$\psi=(\psi_{+},\psi_{-})$ with
$\psi_{\pm}=(\psi_{1\pm},\cdots,\psi_{M_{\pm}\pm})$,
where $\psi_{m\pm}$'s denote $M_{\pm}$-fold degenerate
eigenstates of $\Gamma$ corresponding to chirality $\pm1$,
i.e., $\Gamma\psi_{m\pm}=\pm\psi_{m\pm}$.
For a $N_{l}$-layer bulk system with a magnetic flux $\phi=n/N_{c}$
$(n=1,2,\cdots)$,
the degeneracy reads $M_{+}=M_{-}=nN_{l}$.
It should be noted that the zero modes with chirality $+$ or $-$
are localized on sublattice $\bullet$ or $\circ$, respectively.
Especially for ABC-stacked multilayers,
the zero modes show sublattiece-selected charge accumulation
towards the top or bottom layer,
which decays rapidly away from the
surface~\cite{PhysRevB.73.245426,PhysRevB.81.125304,hatsugai-unpub}.
The surface states are analogous to the zigzag edge states
in the ribbon structure~\cite{1996JPSJ...65.1920F}
and should be observed experimentally as local density of states near zero energy
with a scanning tunneling microscope.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}{.3\linewidth}
(a) AB-stacked bilayer\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{mbe2_mc-bulk15x15p3vo0.5go0.5l2f.eps}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{.3\linewidth}
(b) ABC-stacked trilayer\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{mbe2_mc-bulk15x15p3vo0.5go0.5l3f.eps}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{.3\linewidth}
(c) ABA-stacked trilayer\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{mbe2_aba-bulk15x15p3vo0.5go0.5f.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{fig:energy-spectra}
Energy spectra of AB-stacked bilayer graphene (a),
ABC-stacked trilayer graphene (b) and ABA-stacked trilayer graphene (c),
plotted against the total chirality, $\chi$.
Results for $N_{c}=15^{2}$, $\phi=3/15^{2}$, $\gamma_{1}/\gamma_{0}=0.5$,
$V_{1}/V_{0}=0.5$ are shown.
}
\end{figure}
For a half-filled multilayer graphene,
the interaction for spinless electrons can be written in a particle-hole symmetric form as
\begin{gather}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm int}
=\sum_{i\ne j}
V_{ij}\left(n_{i}-\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(n_{j}-\frac{1}{2}\right)
=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\ne j}V_{ij}
(c^{\dagger}_{i}c^{\dagger}_{j}c_{j}c_{i}
+c_{i}c_{j}c^{\dagger}_{j}c^{\dagger}_{i})
+{\rm const}
\end{gather}
with interaction strength $V_{ij}$.
Since it is hard to treat all the many-body states exactly,
we focus on the many-body problem within the zero-energy LL.
Such a treatment is adequate
as long as
the interaction energy is sufficiently smaller than
the Landau gap between the central and the adjacent LLs.
The projection onto the zero-energy LL is performed as
$\tilde{c}=(\psi\psi^{\dagger})c$,
where $c\equiv(c_{1},\cdots, c_{N})^{T}$ with the number of sites $N$,
and $\psi\psi^{\dagger}$ denotes the projection matrix.
Note that the projected creation and annihilation operators are
no longer fermionic; they obey anticommutation relations
$\{\tilde{c}_{i},\tilde{c}_{j}^{\dagger}\}=(\psi\psi^{\dagger})_{ij}$ and
$\{\tilde{c}_{i},\tilde{c}_{j}\}=\{\tilde{c}^{\dagger}_{i},\tilde{c}^{\dagger}_{j}\}=0.$
In what follows, we assume that the electron-electron
repulsion only acts between electrons on different sublattices
[$V_{ij}>0$ for $(i,j) = (\bullet,\circ)$].
The simplest example is the nearest-neighbor repulsion,
which is the leading term for spinless electrons.
The total Hamiltonian in the projected subspace reads, up to a constant,
\begin{align}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}
=\sum_{i\in\bullet, j\in\circ}\frac{V_{ij}}{2}
(\tilde{c}^{\dagger}_{i}\tilde{c}^{\dagger}_{j}\tilde{c}_{j}\tilde{c}_{i}
+\tilde{c}_{i}\tilde{c}_{j}\tilde{c}^{\dagger}_{j}\tilde{c}^{\dagger}_{i})
=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{klmn}(V_{klmn}d^{\dagger}_{k+}d^{\dagger}_{l-}d_{m-}d_{n+}
+V^{\ast}_{klmn}d_{k+}d_{l-}d^{\dagger}_{m-}d^{\dagger}_{n+}),\label{eq:projected-ham}
\end{align}
where $d^{\dagger}_{m\pm}\equiv c^{\dagger}\psi_{m\pm}$
is the creation operator for the zero mode $\psi_{m\pm}$,
while the pseudopotential appearing for $d, d^{\dagger}$ is defined as
$V_{klmn}=\sum_{i\in\bullet,j\in\circ}V_{ij}
(\psi_{k})^{\ast}_{i}(\psi_{l})^{\ast}_{j}(\psi_{m})_{j}(\psi_{n})_{i}$.
Clearly, $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}$ is semi-positive definite;
for an arbitrary many-body state $|\Phi\rangle$,
$\langle\Phi|\tilde{\mathcal{H}}|\Phi\rangle
=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\in\bullet,j\in\circ}V_{ij}
\left|[\tilde{c}_{i}\tilde{c}_{j}
+(\tilde{c}_{i}\tilde{c}_{j})^{\dagger}]|\Phi\rangle\right|^{2}\ge0.$
Since $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}$ commutes with
$\mathcal{G} \equiv \sum_{m}(d^{\dagger}_{m+}d_{m+}-d^{\dagger}_{m-}d_{m-})$,
eigenstates of $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}$ are classified according to the
total chirality, $\chi=\langle\mathcal{G}\rangle$.
The highest and lowest sectors in $\chi$ correspond to
{\it chiral condensates},
\begin{gather}
|G_{\pm}\rangle=d^{\dagger}_{1\pm}\cdots d^{\dagger}_{M_{\pm}\pm}|D_{<}\rangle,\qquad
\mathcal{G}|G_{\pm}\rangle=\pm M_{\pm}|G_{\pm}\rangle,
\end{gather}
where all the zero modes with chirality $+$ (or $-$) are occupied,
while others are empty.
The chiral condensates are in fact the many-body ground states,
since they are annihilated by both of
$d^{\dagger}_{k\pm}d^{\dagger}_{l\mp}$ and $d_{m\mp}d_{n\pm}$,
hence $\langle G_{\pm}|\tilde{\mathcal{H}}|G_{\pm}\rangle=0$.
Thus the chiral condensates form a ground-state {\it doublet},
$\Psi=(|G_{+}\rangle,|G_{-}\rangle)$,
so that any unitary-mixture,
$\Psi\mapsto\Psi^{\omega}\omega$ with $\omega\in{\rm U(2)}$,
is again an eigenstate.
Since the above discussion holds irrespective of the number of layers,
it is expected that $\Psi$ has properties similar to those
in the monolayer case,
such as vanishing Hall conductivity, or the Kekul\'e-type bond-order
along armchair edges~\cite{hamamoto-unpub1,hamamoto-unpub2}.
As a physical property peculiar to the multilayer case,
we plot in Figure~\ref{fig:charge} layer-by-layer charge distribution
in $|G_{\pm}\rangle$ for an ABC-stacked multilayer
with $N_{c}=15^{2}$ and $N_{l}=10$,
where only the electrons in the zero-energy LL is shown.
Since an experimental cyclotron frequency $\omega_{c}$ is
too small to treat numerically based on our lattice model,
we adopt a rather large parameter $\gamma_{1}/\gamma_{0}=0.5$
to access the realistic parameter region $\gamma_{1}>\omega_{c}$.
One can see charge accumulation towards the top or bottom layer,
which reflects the property of the zero modes
as the surface states~\cite{PhysRevB.73.245426,PhysRevB.81.125304,hatsugai-unpub}.
Notably, a shoulder structure evolves on the intermediate layers with increasing $\phi$,
Although the non-monotonic behavior disagrees with the results of the continuum model,
where low-energy wave functions decays exponentially away from a surface,
the discrepancy seems to be due to the finite size effect of our lattice model.
\section{Excited states}
Next we investigate excited states at half filling
by numerically diagonalizing
the projected Hamiltonian~(\ref{eq:projected-ham}).
For simplicity, only the nearest-neighbor repulsions
in the same layer $V_{0}$ and those between adjacent layers $V_{1}$
are taken into account.
Fig.~\ref{fig:energy-spectra} shows typical examples of
energy spectra plotted against the total chirality, $\chi$,
for AB-stacked bilayer graphene and for ABC- or ABA-stacked trilayer graphene.
The spectra are symmetric with respect to $\chi$,
since now we have the degeneracies of the zero modes with chirality $+$ and $-$
are equal.
From this total-chirality-resolved plot
one can confirm that the ground states are indeed chiral condensates,
as expected from the above discussion.
More importantly, these data suggest that the first excited states
are obtained by flipping a single-chirality of the chiral condensates as
\begin{gather}
|E_{\pm}\rangle=\sum_{mn}C_{mn}d^{\dagger}_{m\mp}d_{n\pm}|G_{\pm}\rangle
\label{eq:first-excited}
\end{gather}
with coefficients $C_{mn}$ determined numerically.
Although the size of the Hilbert space blows up exponentially
with the number of layers,
the ansatz~(\ref{eq:first-excited}) enables us to calculate
the energy gap $\Delta$ between the ground state and the first-excited state
by restricting ourselves to the sector of total chirality $\chi=\pm(M_{\pm}-2)$.
Figure \ref{fig:gap} plots thus obtained
energy gap $\Delta$ of ABC-stacked multilayer graphene
composed of $N_{l}$ graphene sheets.
The decrease in $\Delta$ as a function of $N_{l}$ is consistent with the fact
the overlap of the opposite-chirality zero modes,
which are accumulated near the opposite surfaces,
becomes small with increasing $N_{l}$.
The saturation in $\Delta$ for large $N_{l}$ suggests that
the overlap does not completely vanish due to the finite size effect.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{.35\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mbe2_mc-bulk15x15p3vo0.5go0.5lf1.eps}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{.6\linewidth}
\label{fig:gap}
\caption{Energy gap $\Delta$ of ABC-stacked multilayer graphene
composed of $N_{l}$ graphene sheets as a function of $N_{l}$.
Here a result for $\gamma_{1}/\gamma_{0}=0.5, V_{1}/V_{0}=0.5$ is shown.}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary}
We have considered spinless fermions in multilayer graphene
and investigated many-body states in the quantum Hall regime.
For the electron-electron repulsion restricted to unlike sublattices,
the ground state is exactly identified to be chiral condensates
as in the case of monolayer graphene.
Using the exact diagonalization method,
we have numerically calculated the many-body gap,
which decreases monotonically with increasing the number of layers.
\ack
The computation in this work has been done with the facilities of the Supercomputer Center, Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo. This work was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 23340112 and No. 23654128 from the JSPS.
\section*{References}
|
\section{\textcolor{black}{Introduction}} \label{sec:intro}
A \emph{symplectic manifold} is a pair $(M,\omega)$ consisting of a
$2n$\--dimensional ${\rm C}^{\infty}$\--smooth manifold $M$ and a
\emph{symplectic form} $\omega$, that is, a non\--degenerate closed differential $2$\--form on $M$. For instance, any open subset of $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ equipped with the
$2$\--form $\omega_0=\sum_{i=1}^{n} {\rm d}x_i \wedge {\rm d}y_i,$
where $(x_1,y_1,\ldots,x_n,y_n)$ denote the coordinates in
$\mathbb{R}^{2n}$, is a symplectic manifold. If $U$ and $V$ are open
subsets of $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$, a \emph{symplectic embedding} $f \colon U
\to V$ is a smooth embedding such that $f^*\omega_0=\omega_0.$
In particular, ${\rm volume}(U) \leq {\rm volume}(V)$.
Let ${\rm B}^{2n}(R)$ denote the open ball of radius $R$ in
$\mathbb{R}^{2n}$, where $R>0$, that is, the set of points
$(x_1,y_1\ldots,x_n,y_n) \in \mathbb{R}^{2n}$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^n
(x_i)^2+(y_i)^2<R^2$. Gromov's Nonsqueezing\footnote{Many contributions concerning symplectic embeddings followed Gromov's
work, see e.g. Biran \cite{Biran1999, B1, B2}, Ekeland\--Hofer
\cite{EkHo1989}, Floer\--Hofer\--Wyscoki \cite{FlHoWy1994}, Hofer
\cite{Hofer1990}, Lalonde\--Pinsonnault \cite{LP}, McDuff \cite{M2,
Mc2011}, McDuff\--Polterovich \cite{McPo1994},
McDuff\--Schlenk \cite{McSc2012}, and Traynor \cite{Tr1995}.} Theorem \cite{G} states
that there is no symplectic embedding of ${\rm B}^{2n}(1)$ into the
cylinder ${\rm B}^2(R) \times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-1)}$ for $R<1$. \footnote{It is
considered one of the most fundamental results in symplectic topology.
In particular, it may be used to derive the Eliashberg\--Gromov
Rigidity Theorem (the theorem says that
the symplectomorphism group of a manifold is ${\rm C}^0$\--closed
in the diffeomorphism group).}
Coming from the variational theory of Hamiltonian dynamics, Ekeland
and Hofer gave a proof of Gromov's Nonsqueezing Theorem by studying
periodic solutions of Hamiltonian systems.
\subsection{Embeddings} \label{sec:se}
Hofer asked \cite[page~17]{Hofer1990}: is there $R>0$,
such that the cylinder ${\rm B}^2(1) \times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-1)}$ symplectically embeds into ${\rm B}^{2(n-1)}(R)
\times \mathbb{R}^2$?
\begin{theorem}\label{first}
If $n\geq 2$, the cylinder ${\rm B}^2(1) \times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-1)}$
may be symplectically embedded into the product ${\rm B}^{2(n-1)}(R)
\times \mathbb{R}^2$ for all $R \geq \sqrt{2^{n-1}+2^{n-2}-2}$.
\end{theorem}
Guth's work
(\cite[Section 2]{Guth2008}, \cite[Section~1]{HiKe2009})
answers the \emph{bounded version} of the question by producing
symplectic embeddings from ${\rm B}^2(1) \times {\rm B}^{2(n-1)}(S)$, for any $S>0$,
into ${\rm B}^4(R) \times {\mathbb R}^{2(n-2)}$ for some\footnote{Hind and Kerman afterwards
showed \cite[Theorems~1.1 and 1.3]{HiKe2009} that such embeddings
exist if $R>\sqrt{3}$ and do not exist if
$R<\sqrt{3}$. The authors settled the case $R=\sqrt{3}$ in \cite{PeVN2013}.} $R>0$.
The proof of Theorem~\ref{first} builds on works of
Guth, Hind, Kerman, and Polterovich.
\subsection{Capacities} \label{cap}
Ekeland and Hofer's point of view on Gromov's Nonsqueezing turned out to
be powerful, and allowed them to construct infinitely many new
symplectic invariants, called \emph{symplectic capacities} \cite{EkHo1989, Hofer1990,
Hofer1990b}. For each integer $1\leq d \leq n$, one can \emph{define} the notion a symplectic
$d$\--capacity (see Section~\ref{sec:capacities}). Whether given $d$,
one can \emph{construct} a symplectic $d$\--capacity is not clear. The
first symplectic $1$\--capacity was constructed by Gromov himself, it
is called the \emph{Gromov radius}:
$$
{\rm c}_{{\rm GR}}(M,\omega):=\sup\{r>0 \,\, |\,\, {\rm exists \,\, symplectic \,\, embedding}\,\, {\rm B}^{2n}(r) \hookrightarrow M\}.
$$
The fact that the Gromov radius is a symplectic $1$\--capacity is
equivalent to Gromov's Nonsqueezing theorem. The
volume induced by the symplectic form provides an example of
symplectic $n$\--capacity. Symplectic $d$\--capacities are called
\emph{intermediate capacities} when $1<d<n$. In
\cite[page~17]{Hofer1990}, four years after Gromov's work, Hofer
predicts the nonexistence of intermediate capacities.\footnote{Hofer wrote: ``\emph{so far
no examples are known for intermediate capacities {\rm ($1<d<n$)}.
It is quite possible that they do not exist."} Hofer continues to
say: \emph{``Some evidence for this possibility is given by the fact
that there is an enormous amount of flexibility for symplectic
embeddings $M \hookrightarrow N$ with $\dim M \leq \dim N -2$, see
Gromov's marvellous book }\cite{Gr1985}".} We'll prove
the prediction of Hofer:
\begin{theorem} \label{general0} Let $n\geq 3$. If $1<d<n$,
symplectic $d$\--capacities do not exist on any subcategory of the
category of $2n$\--dimensional symplectic manifolds.
\end{theorem}
The so called $d$\--nontriviality property of $d$\--capacities (see
Section \ref{sec:capacities}, item (3)) cannot be satisfied if $1 < d
< n$ because of Theorem \ref{first}. Hence Theorem~\ref{first} implies
Theorem~\ref{general0}. Guth proved \cite{Guth2008}
that intermediate capacities which also satisfy the \emph{exhaustion property}
(the value of the capacity on an open set equals the supremum of the values on
its compact subsets) do not exist (see Latschev~\cite{La} and Remark~\ref{Guth}).
\begin{remark}
Theorem \ref{general0} implies, in view of Gromov's theorem, that
symplectic $d$\--capacities exist if and only if $d\in \{1,\,n\}$.
Theorem \ref{first} is a
``squeezing statement": an arbitrarily large ${\mathbb R}^N$ may be squeezed
into ${\mathbb R}^2$ provided there is a bounded component whose size can be
increased to make room. This is in agreement with the fact that
$1$\--capacities \emph{exist} due to non\--squeezing,
while $d$\--capacities ($1<d<n$) \emph{do not exist} due to squeezing.
\end{remark}
The literature on the subject is extensive, and we refer to
\cite{CiHoLaSc2007, Gr1985, HoZe1994, Hu2011, Vi1989, Ze2010} and the
references therein.
\section{\textcolor{black}{Symplectic
capacities}} \label{sec:capacities}
Symplectic capacities were invented in Ekeland and Hofer's influential
paper \cite{EkHo1989,Hofer1990}. The first capacity, called the
\emph{Gromov radius}, was constructed
by Gromov \cite{G} (its existence follows from the Nonsqueezing Theorem).
For the basic notions concerning symplectic
capacities we refer to \cite{CiHoLaSc2007}. We follow the
presentation therein here. Denote by $\mathcal{E}\ell\ell$ the
category of ellipsoids in $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ with symplectic embeddings
induced by global symplectomorphisms of $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ as
morphisms, and by ${\rm Symp}^{2n}$ the category of all symplectic
manifolds of dimension $2n$, with symplectic embeddings as morphisms.
A \emph{symplectic category} is a subcategory $\mathcal{C}$ of ${\rm
Symp}^{2n}$ such that $(M,\omega) \in \mathcal{C}$ implies that
$(M,\lambda\omega) \in \mathcal{C}$ for all $\lambda>0$. A
\emph{generalized symplectic capacity} on a symplectic category
$\mathcal{C}$ is a functor $c$ from $\mathcal{C}$ to the
category $([0,\infty],\leq)$ satisfying the following two axioms:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] \emph{Monotonicity}: $c(M,\omega)\leq c(M',\omega')$ if
there exists a morphism from $(M,\omega)$ to $(M,\omega')$ (this is a reformulation of
``functoriality");
\item[(2)] \emph{Conformality}: $c(M,\lambda\omega)=\lambda
c(M,\omega)$ for all $\lambda>0$.
\end{itemize}
A \emph{symplectic capacity} is a generalized symplectic capacity which, in
addition to (1) and (2), is required to satisfy \emph{nontriviality}:
$$
c({\rm B}^{2n}(1))>0\,\,\,\,\,\, \textup{and}\,\,\,\,\,\,\, c({\rm B}^2(1) \times
\mathbb{R}^{2n-2})<\infty,
$$
and the \emph{normalization property}
(that is $c({\rm B}^{2n}(1))=1$). Now let's consider a symplectic
category $\mathcal{C} \subset {\rm Symp}^{2n}$ which contains
$\mathcal{E}\ell\ell$ and let $1 \leq d\leq n$. A \emph{symplectic
$d$\--capacity} on $\mathcal{C}$ is a generalized capacity
satisfying:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(3)] \emph{$d$\--nontriviality}: $c(B^{2n}(1))>0$ and
\[
\begin{cases}
c({\rm B}^{2d}(1) \times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-d)})<\infty\\
c({\rm B}^{2(d-1)}(1) \times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-d+1)})=\infty\\
\end{cases}
\]
\end{itemize}
Symplectic $d$\--capacities are often called \emph{intermediate capacities} if $2
\leq d \leq n-1$. A symplectic $1$\--capacity is the same as a symplectic capacity.
Intermediate capacities were introduced by Hofer \cite{Hofer1990}
in 1989, but no example has ever been constructed. Hofer
conjectured that it is quite possible that they would not exist.
\begin{remark} \label{Guth}
The work of Guth \cite[Section 1]{Guth2008}
implies that intermediate
capacities $c$ which satisfy the \emph{exhaustion property} (Section~\ref{cap}) should not exist.
In fact, it is sufficient as Guth indicated that
$\lim_{R \to \infty} c[{\rm B}^{2d}(1) \times {\rm B}^{2(n-d)}(R)] < \infty$ and
$\lim_{R \to \infty} c[{\rm B}^{2(d-1)}(1) \times {\rm B}^{2(n-d+1)}(R)] =\infty$. The
proof is analogous to the proof we give of Theorem \ref{general0}.
\end{remark}
\section{Capacities and embeddings into ${\rm B}^2(R_1) \times {\rm B}^2(R_2)
\times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-2)}$}
Let's now consider the following question. As before, let $n \geq 3$.
\begin{question} (Hind and Kerman \cite[Question 3]{HiKe2009}).
\label{LaGu:queF20} What, if any, are the smallest $0<R_1 \leq R_2$
such that ${\rm B}^2(1) \times {\rm B}^{2(n-1)}(S)$ may be
symplectically embedded into ${\rm B}^2(R_1) \times {\rm B}^2(R_2)
\times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-2)}$?
\end{question}
\vspace{1mm}
Guth's work implies that, for any $R \gneqq \sqrt{2}$ and $S>0$ there
is a symplectic embedding from ${\rm B}^2(1) \times {\rm
B}^{2(n-1)}(S) $ into ${\rm B}^2(R_1) \times {\rm B}^2(R_2) \times
\mathbb{R}^{2(n-2)}$ (\cite[Theorem 1.6]{HiKe2009}). Hind and Kerman
proved that for any $0 < R <\sqrt{2}$ there are no symplectic
embeddings of ${\rm B}^2(1) \times {\rm B}^{2(n-1)}(S) $ into ${\rm
B}^2(R_1) \times {\rm B}^2(R_2) \times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-2)}$ when $S$
is \emph{sufficiently large}. Their proof is based on a limiting
argument as $\sqrt{2}+\epsilon \to \sqrt{2}$ which may not be directly
applied to the $\sqrt{2}$ case.
\begin{question}.
\label{LaGu:queF2} What, if any, are the smallest $0<R_1 \leq R_2$
such that ${\rm B}^2(1) \times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-1)}$ embeds
symplectically into ${\rm B}^2(R_1) \times {\rm B}^2(R_2) \times
\mathbb{R}^{2(n-2)}$?
\end{question}
\vspace{1mm}
The answer to Question \ref{LaGu:queF2} is
given by the following.
\begin{theorem} \label{answers} The product ${\rm B}^2(1) \times
\mathbb{R}^{2(n-1)}$ embeds symplectically into ${\rm B}^2(R_1)
\times {\rm B}^2(R_2) \times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-2)}$ with $0<R_1\leq
R_2$ if and only if $\sqrt{2}\leq R_1$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection*{Idea of proof of Theorem \ref{answers}}
\begin{itemize}
\item[\,] ({\bf Step 1}). We verify that the constructions of
embeddings which Guth and Hind\--Kerman carried out to answer Question \ref{LaGu:queF20}, and which depends on parameters,
vary \emph{smoothly} with respect to these parameters. To do this,
we follow these authors' constructions with some variations
checking that at every step there is smooth dependance on the
parameters involved. This is a priori unclear from the
constructions, which involve choices of maps, curves, points, etc.
We overcome this by supplying smooth formulas. Sometimes we use
ideas of Polterovich to construct these formulas.
\item[\,] ({\bf Step 2}). From the smooth family in Step 1, we
construct a \emph{new} family of smooth symplectic embeddings which
has, as limit, a symplectic embedding $i$. We are not claiming that
$i$ is the ``limit" of the original family (which may not exist).
The original family is modified according to the upcoming Theorem
\ref{cor}.
\end{itemize}
\subsection*{Proof of Theorems \ref{first} and \ref{general0}}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{first}]
If $1\leq d \leq n-1$, Theorem \ref{answers} may be applied $d-1$
times to get a symplectic embedding from ${\rm B}^2(1) \times
\mathbb{R}^{2(n-1)}$ into
\[ \underbrace{{\rm B}^2(2^{\frac{1}{2}}) \times {\rm B}^2({2}^1)\ldots \times
{\rm B}^2(2^{\frac{d-1}2}) \times {\rm B}^2({2}^{\frac{d-1}2})}_{d\,\, \textup{factors}}
\times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-d)}.
\]
If $d=n-1$, we get a symplectic embedding into $ {\rm
B}^2(2^{\frac{1}{2}}) \times \ldots \times {\rm
B}^2(2^{\frac{n-2}2}) \times {\rm B}^2(2^{\frac{n-2}2}) \times
\mathbb{R}^{2} $ which is included in $${\rm
B}^{2(n-1)}(\sqrt{2+2^2\ldots+2^{n-3}+2^{n-2}+2^{n-2}}) \times
\mathbb{R}^2.$$ The result follows from
$2+2^2\ldots+2^{n-3}+2^{n-2}+2^{n-2}=2^{n-1}+2^{n-2}-2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{general0}]
Let $1 < d < n$. We have
\[
{\rm B}^{2(d-1)}(1) \times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-d+1)} \subset {\rm B}^{2(d-2)}(1)
\times {\rm B}^{2}(1)\times {\mathbb R}^4 \times {\mathbb R}^{2(n-d-1)}.
\]
By Theorem \ref{first} ${\rm B}^{2}(1)\times \mathbb{R}^{4}$
embeds into ${\rm B}^{4}(R)\times \mathbb{R}^{2}$ for some
$R>0$. Since ${\rm B}^{2(d-2)}(1)\times {\rm B}^{4}(R)$ is included in
${\rm B}^{2d}(1+R)$ we get a symplectic
embedding ${\rm B}^{2(d-1)}(1) \times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-d+1)} \hookrightarrow
{\rm B}^{2d}(1+R) \times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-d)}$,
which contradicts $d$\--nontriviality.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The radius in Theorem~\ref{general0} is not optimal, as can be seen
for $n=3$ in view of \cite[Theorem~1.2]{PeVN2013}.
\end{remark}
\section{\textcolor{black}{Families with singular limits and
Hamiltonian dynamics}} \label{sec2}
This section
has been influenced by many fruitful discussions with Lev Buhovski,
and we are very grateful to him.
\subsection*{Smooth families}
We start with the following notion of smoothness.
\begin{definition}
\label{defi:smooth}
Let $P,M,N$ be smooth manifolds. Let $(B_p)_{p\in P}$ be a family of
submanifolds of $N$. For each $p\in B_p$, let $\phi_p: B_p \hookrightarrow M$ be
an embedding. We say that $(\phi_p)_{p\in P}$ is a \emph{smooth
family of embeddings} if the following properties hold~:
\begin{enumerate}
\item there is a smooth manifold $B$ and a smooth map $g:P\times B\to N$ such
that $g_p:b\mapsto g(p,b)$ is an immersion and $B_p=g(p,B)$, for
every $p \in P$;
\item the map $\Phi:P\times B \to M$ defined by $\Phi(p,b) :=
\phi_p\circ g(p,b)$ is smooth.
\end{enumerate}
In this case we also say that $(\phi_p \colon B_p \hookrightarrow M_p)_{p\in P}$
is a \emph{smooth family of embeddings} when $M_p$ is a submanifold
of $M$ containing $\phi_p(B_p)$. If $M$ and $N$ are symplectic,
then a \emph{smooth family of symplectic embeddings} is a smooth
family of embeddings $(\phi_p)_{p\in P}$ such that each
$\phi_p:B_p\hookrightarrow M$ is symplectic.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{defi:smooth1}
If in Definition \ref{defi:smooth}, $P$ is a subset of a smooth
manifold $\tilde{P}$, then we say that the family $(\phi_p)_{p\in
P}$ is \emph{smooth} if there is an open neighborhood $U$ of $P$
such that the maps $g:P\times B\to N$ and $\Phi:P\times B \to M$ may
be smoothly extended to $U \times B$.
\end{definition}
\subsection*{Limits of smooth families}
We present a construction to remove a singular limit of a smooth
family, see Figure \ref{fig:Wt} for an illustration of the theorem. A related statement is \cite[Corollary~1.2]{Mc1991}.
\begin{theorem} \label{cor} Let $N$ be a symplectic manifold, and let
$W_t\subset N$, $t \in (0,\,a)$, be a family of simply connected open subsets with
$\overline{W_s} \subset W_t$, for $s,t \in (0,\,a)$ and $t<s$. Let
$$W_0:=\bigcup_{t \in (0,\,a)} W_t.$$ Let $$(\phi_t \colon W_t \hookrightarrow
M)_{t \in (0,\,a)}$$ be a smooth family of symplectic embeddings such
that for any $t,s>0$, the set $\bigcup_{v\in [t,s]}\phi_v(W_v)$ is
relatively compact in $M$. Then there is a symplectic embedding
$W_0 \hookrightarrow M$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering \centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Wt}
\caption{The figure illustrates the hypothesis of
Theorem~\ref{cor}. Here $t_1<t_2<t_3<t_4$. The theorem does
\emph{not} say that the family of embeddings $(\phi_t \colon W_t
\hookrightarrow M)_{t \in (0,\,a)}$ has a limit as $t\to
0$. Actually, the images $\phi_t(W_t)$ may overlap in complicated
ways, be disjoint etc. An embedding on the union of all the $W_t$
can be constructed using Hamiltonian flows to modify the family,
see the proof of the result.}
\label{fig:Wt}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark} \label{newest} If $N=\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ and if there is a
continuous function $ r \colon (0,a) \subset \mathbb{R} \to
(0,\infty)$, $v \mapsto r(v)$, such that $\phi_v(W_v)$ is contained
in ${\rm B}^{2d}(r(v))$ for every $v \in (0,a)$, then the hypothesis
in Theorem \ref{cor} that for any fixed $t,s>0$, the set
$\bigcup_{v\in [t,s]}\phi_v(W_v)$ is relatively compact in $M$, is
automatically satisfied.
Indeed, we have
that $ \overline{ \bigcup_{v\in [t,s]}\phi_v(W_v)} \subset
\overline{{\rm B}^{2d}(\max_{t \in [t,s]}r(v))}. $
\end{remark}
\subsection*{Key lemmas}
We use two lemmas in order to prove Theorem \ref{cor}.
\begin{lemma} \label{Lemma1} Let $W_t\subset N$, $t \in (0,a)$, be a family of simply
connected open subsets of a symplectic manifold $N$. Let $(\phi_t
\colon W_t \hookrightarrow M)_{t \in (0,a)}$ be a smooth family of symplectic embeddings
such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $\overline{W_s}\subset W_t$ when $t < s$;
\item[{\rm (ii)}] for any $t,s>0$, the set $\bigcup_{v\in
[t,s]}\phi_v(W_v)$ is relatively compact in $M$.
\end{itemize}
Then for any $t<t'<s$ there exists a smooth time-dependent
Hamiltonian $G_v:M\to{\mathbb R}$, $v\in[t,t']$, whose Hamiltonian flow
$\psi_v$ starting at $v=t$ is defined for all $v\in[t,t']$ and
satisfies $ \psi_{t'}\circ \phi_t |_{W_s} = \phi_{t'} |_{W_s}. $
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We divide the proof into three steps.
\\
\\
\emph{Step 1}. Let $s''\in (t',s)$. Let $x\in W_{s''}$. By
\textup{(i)} we have that for any $v\in [t,t']$, $x\in W_v$.
Therefore one can take the following derivative~:
\[
X_v(\phi_v(x)) := \deriv{\phi_v(x)}{v},
\]
which defines a vector field on $\phi_v(W_{s''})$. Because all
$\phi_v$'s are symplectic, the time-dependent vector field $X_v$ is
symplectic. Hence the pull-back $(\phi_v)^*X_v$ is symplectic. Since
$W_{s''}$ is simply connected, $(\phi_v)^*X_v|_{W_{s''}}$ is
Hamiltonian~: there exists a smooth function $(x,v)\mapsto
\tilde{H}_v(x)$ on $W_{s''}\times [t,t']$ such that
$$
\iota_{(\phi_v)^*{X_v}}\omega = - \mathrm{d} \tilde{H}_v.
$$
We let $$H_v(y):=\tilde{H}_v(\phi_v^{-1}(y)),$$ which is a Hamiltonian
function defined on $\phi_v(W_{s''})$ for the vector field $X_v$.
This concludes Step 1.
\\
\\
\emph{Step 2}. We'll construct a smooth family $(\tau_v:M\to {\mathbb R})_{v\in [t,t']}$, with~: \begin{align}
\label{equ:cutoff1}
\tau_v |_{\phi_v(W_s)} \equiv 1;\\
\label{equ:cutoff2}
\tau_v |_{M\setminus \phi_v(W_v)} \equiv 0.
\end{align}
In order to do this, fix $s'\in (s'',s)$, and let
$\chi\in\textup{C}^\infty(M)$ be equal to $1$ on $W_s$ and to $0$ on
$M\setminus W_{s'}$. We simply define
\[
\tau_v(y) :=
\begin{cases}
\chi\circ\phi_v^{-1}(y) & \text{ if } y\in\phi_v(W_v)\\
0 & \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
The map $\tau_v$, for $v\in[t,t']$, satisfies~\eqref{equ:cutoff1}
and~\eqref{equ:cutoff2}. It remains to see that $ (v,y)\mapsto
\tau_v(y) $ is smooth. First, let $(v_0,y_0)\in [t,t']\times M$ be
such that $y_0\in \phi_{v_0}(W_{v_0})$. Using the continuity of the
family $(\phi_v)$ and the fact that $\phi_{v_0}(W_{v_0})$ is open in
$M$, we see that $y\in \phi_{v}(W_{v})$ for $(v,y)$ in a small open
neighborhood of $(v_0,y_0)$. Hence, in this neighborhood,
$$(v,y)\mapsto \tau_v(y)=\chi\circ\phi^{-1}(v)$$ is smooth. Second,
suppose that $y_0\not\in \phi_{v_0}(W_{v_0})$. Therefore $y_0\not\in
\phi_{v_0}(\overline{W_{s'}})$, and the latter being closed, there is
a small neighborhood of $(v_0,y_0)$ in which all $(v,y)$ satisfy
$y\not\in \phi_{v}(\overline{W_{s'}})$. Hence
$y\not\in\phi_v(W_{s'})$, and both cases in the definition of $\tau_v$
lead to $\tau_v(x)=0$, which proves the smoothness.
\\
\\
\emph{Step 3}. We may now define a smooth time dependent Hamiltonian $G
\colon [t,\,t'] \times M \to \mathbb{R}$ by $$G_v(y)=H_v(y) \tau_v(y)$$
for $y \in \phi_v(W_v)$ and $ G_v(y)=0 $ for $y \in M \setminus
\phi_v(W_v)$. Of course, $G_v=H_v$ on $\phi_v(W_s)$.
Let $Y_v$ be the Hamiltonian vector field associated to $G_v$ and let
$\psi(v,y)$ be the flow of $Y_v$ starting from time $t$~:
\[
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \deriv{\psi(v,y)}{v} = Y_v(\psi(v,y)) \\
\psi(t,y)=y.
\end{cases}
\]
The vector field $Y_v$ vanishes outside of the fixed set $
\bigcup_{v\in [t,t']}\phi_v(W_v), $ which is relatively compact in $M$
for any fixed $t,t'>0$ by assumption (ii). This implies that the flow
$\psi(v,y)$ can be integrated up to time $t'$.
Let
$$\varphi(v,x):=\psi(v,\phi_t(x)).$$ Then $\varphi$ satisfies the Cauchy
problem on $W_s$~:
\[
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \deriv{\varphi(v,x)}{v} = Y_v(\varphi(v,x)) = X_v(\varphi(v,x))\\
\varphi(t,x) = \phi_t(x).
\end{cases}
\]
Therefore, for all $x\in W_s$, $\varphi(v,x)=\phi_v(x).$ In particular,
when $v=t'$, we get, with $\Psi(y):=\psi(t',y)$,
\[
\Psi \circ \phi_t |_{W_s} = \phi_{t'} |_{W_s}
\]
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{Lemma2} Let $V_1 \subset V_2 \subset \ldots
\subset V_n \subset \ldots$ be a sequence of simply connected open
subsets of a symplectic manifold $N$. Let $i_n \colon V_n \hookrightarrow M$, $n \in \mathbb{N}^*$, be
a sequence of symplectic embeddings into another symplectic manifold $M$
such that for any $n\geq 2$
there exists a symplectomorphism $\psi_n \colon M \to M$ satisfying
$$
\psi_n \circ i_{n+1}|_{V_{n-1}} =i_n|_{V_{n-1}}. $$ Denote
$$V:=\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty}V_n.$$ Then there exists a symplectic
embedding $j \colon V \hookrightarrow M$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Define $j \colon V \to M$ by
$$j(x):=\psi_2 \circ \psi_3 \circ \ldots \circ \psi_{n-1} \circ i_n(x)$$ for
$x \in V_{n-1} \subset V$ for $n>2$. This definition is independent of
the choice of $n>2$ for which $x \in V_{n-1}$. Then $j$ is a local
symplectomorphism which is injective (any two points $x,y$ are
contained in a common $V_{n-1}$); thus it is a symplectic embedding.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{cor}}
Consider the sequence of domains $V_n:=W_{1/n}.$ For each $n\geq 3$,
consider the family
\[
\left\{W_t \,\, | \,\,
t\in{\textstyle\left(\frac{1}{n+2},\frac{1}{n-2}\right)}\right\},
\]
and the values $s=\frac{1}{n-1}, \,\,\,\,\, t=\frac{1}{n+1}\,\,\,\,\,
\textup{and}\,\,\,\,\, t'=\frac{1}{n}.$ Then Lemma~\ref{Lemma1} gives
us a symplectomorphism $\psi_n:M\to M$ such that
\[
\psi_n \circ i_{n+1}|_{V_{n-1}} =i_n|_{V_{n-1}},
\]
which is the assumption of Lemma~\ref{Lemma2}. Since $\bigcup_{n\geq
3} V_n = \bigcup_{t \in (0,\,a)} W_t,$ we get Theorem \ref{cor}.
\section{\textcolor{black}{Guth's Lemma for families}} \label{sec2a}
The following statement is a smooth family version (see Definition~\ref{defi:smooth})
of the Main Lemma in Guth \cite[Section 2]{Guth2008}. As before, $n\geq 3$.
\begin{lemma} \label{pp:10}
Let
$\Sigma$ be the symplectic torus
$\mathbb{T}^2=\mathbb{R}^2/\mathbb{Z}^2$ of area $1$ minus the
``origin'' (\emph{i.e.} minus the lattice ${\mathbb Z}^2$, $\Sigma=({\mathbb R}^2 \setminus {\mathbb Z}^2)/{\mathbb Z}^2$). There is a smooth
family $(i_{R})_{R>1/3}$ of symplectic embeddings $i_{R} \colon {\rm
B}^{2(n-1)}(R) \hookrightarrow \Sigma \times {\rm
B}^{2(n-2)}(10R^2).$
\end{lemma}
In order to verify Lemma \ref{pp:10} we need to explain why the
construction in \cite{Guth2008} depends \emph{smoothly} on the
parameter $R\in (1/3,\infty)$. Checking this amounts to checking that
the ``choices" therein made depend smoothly on $R$ and
$\epsilon$. Guth's Lemma is valid for $R=1/3$, however we shall see
that the family is not smooth at this value (there is a square root
singularity).
\begin{proof}
We may restrict to $n=3$ with a smaller constant~: $ \textup{B}^4(R)
\hookrightarrow \Sigma \times \textup{B}^2(\sqrt{72}R^2). $ Indeed,
on the left hand-side we use the natural embedding
$\textup{B}^{2(n-1)}(R)\subset B^{2(n-3)}(R)\times \textup{B}^4(R)$,
and on the right hand-side we use the natural embedding
$\textup{B}^{2(n-3)}(R)\times \textup{B}^2(\sqrt{72}R^2)\subset
\textup{B}^{2(n-1)}(\sqrt{72R^4 + R^2})$ and notice that
$\sqrt{72R^4+R^2}\leq 10R^2$, in view of $R>1/3$. To check
smoothness with respect to $R$ we need to write some
explicit formulas for maps and domains which were not explicitly
written in Guth's paper. Then the smoothness with respect to $R$
as in Definition \ref{defi:smooth} becomes equivalent to
the smoothness of the formulas. In terms of the notation in
Definition~\ref{defi:smooth}, we let $B=\textup{B}^{4}(1)\subset
N={\mathbb R}^4$, $P=(1/3,\infty)$, the map $g$ is just a scaling~:
$g(R,b)=R \cdot b$, $R\in P$, $b\in B$, and $M=\Sigma\times {\mathbb R}^2$. Guth's
proof has two steps. The first one, due to Polterovich, is to
construct a linear symplectic embedding of $\textup{B}^4(R)$ into
${\mathbb T}^2 \times \textup{B}^2(\sqrt{72}R^2)$, when $R\geq 1/3$. The
second step is to modify this embedding by a nonlinear
symplectomorphism in order to avoid a point in ${\mathbb T}^2$. Both steps
depend on the radius $R$, therefore we have to check the smooth
dependence.
\\
\\
\emph{Step 1}. We want a plane $V_R \subset \mathbb{R}^4$, depending
smoothly on $R$, such that
\begin{equation}
\int_{{\rm B}^4(R) \cap V_R} \omega=\frac{\pi}{9}.
\label{equ:VR}
\end{equation}
It turns out that one can give an easy formula for this plane. For
$t>0$, let $ W_t:={\rm span}\{ (1,0,0,0),\,e_t \} $ with
$e_t:=(0,t,1-t,0)$. Let $\varphi_t \colon \mathbb{R}^2 \to W_t$ be
the linear parameterization given by
$\varphi(u,v):=(u,tv,(1-t)v,0).$ We have that $\varphi_t^*\omega=t
{\rm d}v \wedge {\rm d}u$. On the one hand,
\begin{eqnarray} {\rm B}^4(R) \cap W_t&=&\Big\{ (x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)
\in V_t\,\,|\,\,
(x_1)^2+(y_1)^2+(x_2)^2+(y_2)^2\leq R^2 \Big\} \nonumber \\
&=& \varphi_t \left(\Big\{(u,v)\in{\mathbb R}^2\, | \,
\frac{u^2}{R^2}+\frac{v^2}{\frac{R^2}{2t^2-2t+1}} \leq
1\Big\}\right), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which is the image of an ellipse of area $\pi a b$, where $a=R$,
$b=\frac{R}{\sqrt{2t^2-2t+1}}$. Therefore
$$
\int_{\varphi_t^{-1}(\textup{B}^4(R) \cap W_t)} t {\rm d}v \wedge {\rm
d}u=\frac{t\pi R^2}{\sqrt{2t^2-2t+1}}.
$$
If $R>1/3$, the equation $\frac{tR^2}{\sqrt{2t^2-2t+1}}=\frac{1}{9}$
has two solutions, and one of them is a smooth positive function
$(1/3,\infty)\ni t\mapsto R(t)$. Thus, we may let $V_t:=W_{R(t)},$
and we satisfy~\eqref{equ:VR}.
Now, let $(f_{1,R},f_{2,R})$ be an orthonormal basis of $V_R$, and
$(f_{1,R}^{\perp},f_{2,R}^{\perp})$ be a symplectic basis of the
symplectic orthogonal complement $V_R^\perp$. These basis may be
chosen to depend smoothly on $R$. Then the linear map
$$
(L_R)^{-1} \colon (x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2) \mapsto \lambda x_1f_{1,R}+
y_1f_{2,R}+x_2f_{1,R}^{\perp}+y_2f_{2,R}^{\perp}
$$
is symplectic when $\omega(\lambda f_{1,R}, f_{2,R})=1$,
i.e. $\lambda=(\omega(f_{1,R},f_{2,R}))^{-1}.$ Thus $(L_R)_{R>1/9}$ is
a smooth family of linear symplectomorphisms that map planes parallel
to $V_R$ to planes parallel to the $(x_1,y_1)$\--plane, and maps disks
parallel to $V_R$ to disks. Let $P$ be an affine plane parallel to the
$(x_1,y_1)$\--plane and let $\tilde{P}_R=L_R^{-1}(P)$. Then ${\rm
B}^4(R) \cap \tilde{P}_R$ is a ball of radius $\leq R$ parallel to
${\rm B}^4(R) \cap V_R$. Therefore, since $\omega$ is invariant by
translation, we have that $ \int_{{\rm B}^4(R) \cap \tilde{P}_R}
\omega \leq \int_{{\rm B}^4(R) \cap V_R} \omega=\frac{\pi}{9}. $
(note that ${\rm B}^4(R) \cap \tilde{P}_R$ can be translated to be a
subset of ${\rm B}^4(R) \cap V_R$.) We know that $L_R({\rm B}^4(R)
\cap \tilde{P}_R)$ must be a Euclidean disk $\textup{B}^2(r)$ in the
$(x_1,y_1)$\--plane. Since $L_R$ is symplectic, we have that
$$\int_{L_R({\rm B}^4(R)) \cap P} \omega =
\int_{\underbrace{\scriptstyle L_R({\rm B}^4(R) \cap
\tilde{P}_R)}_{{\rm B}^2(r)}} \omega = \int_{{\rm B}^4(R) \cap
\tilde{P}_R} \omega \leq \frac{\pi}{9},$$ and therefore $\int_{{\rm
B}^2(r)} {\rm d}x_1 \, {\rm d}y_1\leq \frac{\pi}{9},$ and hence $r
\leq 1/3$. $L_R(\textup{B}^4(R))$ is an ellipsoid (by this we mean
the open set bounded by the ellipsoid) in ${\mathbb R}^4$ whose half\--axes are
smooth, positive functions of $R$. Hence its projection onto the
$(x_2,y_2)$-plane is an ellipse with the same properties. Therefore,
there exists a smooth positive function $\mu(R)$ such that the
projection onto the $(x_2,y_2)$-plane of $\ell_R\circ
L_R(\textup{B}^4(R))$ is a disk, where $\ell_R$ is the
symplectomorphism $$(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)\mapsto
(x_1,y_1,\mu(R)x_2,(\mu(R))^{-1}y_2).$$ In the sequel, we assume that
$L_R$ is this new symplectomorphism $\ell_R\circ L_R$.
The rest of the proof of Step 1 does not involve any construction
depending on $R$. We repeat the argument here for the sake of
completeness. Let $Q:{\mathbb R}^2\times {\mathbb R}^2\to {\mathbb T}^2 \times {\mathbb R}^2$ be the map
defined as the quotient map ${\mathbb R}^2\to{\mathbb T}^2$ on the first factor,
and the identity on the second one (see Figure~\ref{fig:ellipsoid}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering \centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{ellipsoid}
\caption{Vertical slices of the ellipsoid.}
\label{fig:ellipsoid}
\end{figure}
$Q$ restricted to the ellipsoid $L_R(\textup{B}^4(R))$ is injective~:
indeed the ``vertical'' coordinates $(x_2,y_2)$ are preserved, and the
intersection of $L_R(\textup{B}^4(R))$ with a horizontal plane is a
disk of radius $\leq \frac{1}{3}<\frac{1}{2}$. Hence
$Q|_{L_R(\textup{B}^4(R))}$ is an embedding. The desired embedding is
$Q \circ L_R$, which depends smoothly on $R$. Let $\pi_2:{\mathbb R}^2\times
{\mathbb R}^2 \to {\mathbb R}^2$ be the projection onto the second factor. It remains
to estimate the size of $\pi_2(L_R(\textup{B}^4(R)))$, which we know
is an open disk. Let $S$ be the radius of this disk, and let
$p=(x_2,y_2)$ be a point in the concentric disk of radius $S/2$.
Because of \eqref{equ:VR}, the preimage $\pi_2^{-1}(0,0)$ is a disk of
radius $1/3$. Since the ellipsoid is convex, the preimage
$\pi_2^{-1}(p)$ (which is a disk) must have a radius at least $1/6$.
We can now get a lower bound for the volume $v$ of
$L_R(\textup{B}^4(R))$ by integrating over the subset which projects
onto $x_2^2+y_2^2\leq S^2/4$~: $v\geq \pi\frac{S^2}{4}\frac{\pi}{36}$.
Since $L_R$ is symplectic and hence volume preserving, $v$ is also the
volume of $\textup{B}^4(R)$~: $v=\frac{1}{2}\pi^2R^4$. Hence $S\leq
\sqrt{72}R^2$.
\\
\\
\emph{Step 2}. We want now to modify $L_R$ by a nonlinear
symplectomorphism $\tilde{\Psi}_R$, such that the image
$\tilde{\Psi}_R\circ L_R(\textup{B}^4(R))$ avoids the integer lattice
${\mathbb Z}^2\times{\mathbb R}^2$. Then the required embedding will simply be
$Q\circ\tilde{\Psi}_R\circ L_R$.
We are not going to repeat Guth's argument, but simply to point out
the smooth dependence on $R$. Let $\pi_1:{\mathbb R}^2\times {\mathbb R}^2 \to {\mathbb R}^2$ be
the projection onto the first factor. Let $\rho(R)\geq 1$ be a smooth
function such that the ellipse $\pi_1(L_R(\textup{B}^4(R)))$ is
contained in the disk of radius $\rho(R)$. For instance one can take
$\rho(R)$ to be $1$ plus the sum of the two half\--axes of the ellipse.
Then $\tilde{\Psi}_R=\Psi_R\otimes \textup{Id}_{{\mathbb R}}$, where $\Psi_R$
is a symplectomorphism of ${\mathbb R}^2$, obtained by lifting a diffeomorphism
$\Phi_R$ of the $x_1$ variable. We define $\Phi_R(x_1) =
x_1+f_R(x_1),$ where $f_R \colon \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ is a smooth function
that satisfies the following properties~:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f'_R(x_1)\geq - 0.1$;
\item $f_R$ is periodic of period $1$;
\item $f_R(k)=0$, $\forall k\in{\mathbb Z}$;
\item $f'_R(k)=100\rho(R)$, $\forall k\in{\mathbb Z}$;
\item $\abs{f_R}\leq 10^{-4}$;
\item The map $(1/3,\infty)\times{\mathbb R} \ni (R,x_1)\mapsto f_R(x_1)$ is
smooth.
\end{enumerate}
A function satisfying these requirements is depicted in
Figure~\ref{fig:function_f}.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{function_f}
\caption{function $f_R$.}
\label{fig:function_f}
\end{figure}
\section{\textcolor{black}{Embeddings into ${\rm B}^2(R) \times {\rm
B}^2(R) \times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-2)}$}} \label{sec4}
We start with a particular case
of the classical non\--compact Moser theorem (see also \cite[Theorem~B.1, Appendix]{Schlenk2005}):
\begin{lemma}[Greene and Shiohama, Theorem~1 in \cite{GrSh1979}] \label{ncmoser0}
If $\Sigma$ is a connected
oriented $2$\--manifold and if $\omega$ and $\tau$ are area forms on
$\Sigma$ which give the same finite area, then there is a
symplectomorphism $\varphi \colon (\Sigma,\omega) \to (\Sigma,\tau)$.
\end{lemma}
The Greene\--Shiohama result remains valid when varying with respect to smooth parameters.
\begin{lemma} \label{ncmoser} Let $I \subset \mathbb{R}$ be an
interval. Let $\{M_{\delta}\}_{\delta \in I}$ and
$\{N_{\delta}\}_{\delta \in I}$ be smooth families of connected
$2$\--manifolds such that on each $M_{\delta}, N_{\delta}$ there are
area forms $\omega_{\delta},\tau_{\delta}$, respectively, giving the same finite
area for each $\delta \in I$. Then there is a smooth family of
symplectomorphisms $(\varphi_{\delta} \colon M_{\delta} \to
N_{\delta})_{\delta \in I}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{sigma}
\caption{Steps to arrive at Figure \ref{fig:fancyimmersion}.}
\label{fig:steps}
\end{figure}
The following is a smooth family version of the main statement proven
by Hind and Kerman in \cite[Section~4.1]{HiKe2009}. It concerns ball
embeddings constructed using Hamiltonian flows. As before, let
$\Sigma$ be the symplectic torus
$\mathbb{T}^2=\mathbb{R}^2/\mathbb{Z}^2$ of area $1$ minus the
``origin'' (\emph{i.e.} minus the lattice ${\mathbb Z}^2$).
\begin{theorem} \label{pp:11}
For any $\epsilon>0$,
we let
$\Sigma(\epsilon):=({\mathbb R}^2\setminus\sqrt\epsilon{\mathbb Z}^2)/\sqrt\epsilon{\mathbb Z}^2$
be the scaling of $\Sigma$ with symplectic area $\epsilon$.
There exist constants $\epsilon_0>0$, $c>0$,
and a smooth family $({I}_{\epsilon})_{\epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_0]}$
of symplectic embeddings
$
{I}_{\epsilon} \colon \Sigma(\epsilon) \times {\rm B}^2(1)
\hookrightarrow {\rm B}^2(\sqrt 2 + c\epsilon) \times {\rm
B}^2(\sqrt 2).
$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We have organized the proof in several steps.
As in the proof of Lemma \ref{pp:10}, smoothness is the sense of
Definition \ref{defi:smooth}.
\\
\\
\emph{Step 1} (\emph{Definition of immersion $i_{\epsilon}$}). For
sufficiently small fixed $\epsilon>0$ we may define a smooth
immersion
\begin{eqnarray} \label{theone} i_{\epsilon} \colon
\Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon}) \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray} \label{useful_formula}
\tilde{\epsilon}:=100\epsilon
\end{eqnarray} by Figure \ref{fig:fancyimmersion}, with $a=\epsilon^2$. In particular,
the double points of the immersion are concentrated in the small
region $[-a,a]\times[-\epsilon/2,\epsilon/2]$.
The topological steps to transform the punctured torus
$\Sigma(\tilde\epsilon)$ into such a domain are depicted in
Figure \ref{fig:steps}.
\\
\\
\emph{Step 2} (\emph{Modifying $i_{\epsilon}$ to make it symplectic}).
By Moser's argument applied to
$(\Sigma(\tilde\epsilon),\omega_{\Sigma(\tilde\epsilon)})$ and
$(\Sigma(\tilde\epsilon),i_\epsilon^*\omega_0)$
(Lemma~\ref{ncmoser}), where $\omega_0$ is the standard symplectic
form on $\mathbb{R}^2$, the immersion
(\ref{theone}) may be modified so as to obtain a symplectic immersion.
For this to hold, we need that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{moserequality}
\int_{\Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon})} i_{\epsilon}^*\omega_0={\rm
area\,\, of}\,\, \Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon}).
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{immersion}
\caption{The immersion $i_{\epsilon} \colon
\Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon}) \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$.}
\label{fig:fancyimmersion}
\end{figure}
The right hand side of (\ref{moserequality}) is equal to
$\tilde{\epsilon}=100\epsilon$ by definition of
$\Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon})$. Let's compute the left hand side of
(\ref{moserequality}). {From} Figure~\ref{fig:fancyimmersion}, it
is equal, for sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$, to the sum of the
areas of five horizontal rectangles of area $A\epsilon$, and four
vertical rectangles of area $\frac{\pi\epsilon}{A-a}$, plus several
corner squares whose area is a smooth function of $\epsilon$ of
order $\epsilon^2$. Since $a=\epsilon^2$ we obtain that, for
sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$~:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{stf} \int_{\Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon})}
i_{\epsilon}^*\omega_0= 5A \epsilon + \frac{4\pi
\epsilon}{A}+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2).
\end{eqnarray}
Let $p(A)= \int_{\Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon})} i_{\epsilon}^*\omega_0$,
so that (\ref{moserequality}) is equivalent to $p(A)=100\epsilon$. We need to
show that this equation has at least one solution which should be
bounded from below by a positive constant independent of
$\epsilon$. This follows from the study of the second order equation
$q(A)=0$, where $q(A): = A(p(A)/\epsilon -100) =
5A^2+(\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)-100)A+4\pi$, which has two positive
solutions $A \geq \frac{1}{8}$ provided that we chose $\epsilon$ in
Step 1 to be small enough. Hence by choosing
$A=A(\tilde{\epsilon})$ to be either solution we have a smoothly
dependent function on $\tilde{\epsilon}$ for which Moser's equation
(\ref{moserequality}) holds. Therefore we may apply the
non\--compact Moser theorem (Lemma~\ref{ncmoser}) to get a
diffeomorphism $ \varphi_{\epsilon} \colon \Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon})
\to \Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon}) $ such that $
\varphi_{\epsilon}^*(i_{\epsilon}^*\omega_0)=\omega_{\Sigma(\tilde\epsilon)}$
and therefore by composing $i_{\epsilon}$ with $\varphi_{\epsilon}$
we may assume that (\ref{theone}) is symplectic. This concludes Step
2.
\\
\\
\emph{Step 3} (\emph{Preparatory cut\--off functions}). Choose a
smooth cut\--off function $\chi_{\epsilon} \colon \mathbb{R} \to
[0,1]$ which is non decreasing on ${\mathbb R}^-$, non increasing on ${\mathbb R}^+$,
taking values as follows~:
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_{\epsilon} \equiv 1 & \text{ on }&\,\,\,\,\,\, [-a,\,a]; \label{cutoff} \\
\chi_{\epsilon} \equiv 0 & \text{ on }&\,\,\,\,\,\, \mathbb{R} \setminus [-A+\epsilon^2,\,
A-\epsilon^2], \label{cutoff2}
\end{eqnarray}
and such that it satisfies the following bounds~:
\begin{itemize}
\item For every $x \in \mathbb{R}$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{slopebound} |\chi'_{\epsilon}(x)| \leq
\frac{1}{A}+ \epsilon.
\end{eqnarray}
\item For every $x \in
[-A+\frac{\epsilon}{2},\,A-\frac{\epsilon}{2}]$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\biggl\rvert \chi_{\epsilon}(x) - \Big(1-\frac{|x|}{A}\Big) \biggr\rvert \leq \epsilon. \label{trickyinequality}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{itemize}
Such a function $\chi_{\epsilon}$ is depicted in
Figure~\ref{stepfunction}. The ${\rm C}^0$
estimate~\eqref{trickyinequality} follows from
$d=\frac{\epsilon}{200A}\leq \epsilon$ (recall that $A\geq
\frac{1}{8}$). The ${\rm C}^1$ estimate~\eqref{slopebound} follows from
the fact that the maximum slope of the graph in
Figure~\ref{stepfunction} is $\dfrac{1}{A-\frac{\epsilon}{100}}$ and
that, when $\epsilon<A$,
\[
\frac{1}{A-\tfrac{\epsilon}{100}} \leq \frac{1}{A}+\epsilon.
\]
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{stepfunction}
\caption{The cut\--off function $\chi_{\epsilon}$. We have
represented the $x<0$ part; the function is symmetric with
respect to $x=0$.}
\label{stepfunction}
\end{figure}
This concludes Step 3.
\\
\\
\emph{Step 4} (\emph{The smooth map $\mathcal{I}_{\epsilon}$}). On
$\mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{R}^2$ we define the smooth family of
Hamiltonian functions $(\mathcal{H}_{\epsilon}(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2):=-
\chi_{\epsilon}(x_1) x_2 \, \sqrt{\pi})_{\epsilon}$ whose time\--$1$ flows are given by
the smooth family $(\Phi_{\epsilon})_{\epsilon}$~:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{equ:flow} \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\Phi_{\epsilon}(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)=\Big(x_1,\,\,y_1+\chi'_{\epsilon}(x_1)x_2\sqrt{\pi},\,\,x_2,\,\,y_2+
\chi_{\epsilon}(x_1)\sqrt{\pi} \Big).
\end{eqnarray}
Let ${\rm Q}(\sqrt{\pi})$ denotes the open square $ (0,\sqrt{\pi})
\times (0,\sqrt{\pi}) $ and ${\rm R}(\sqrt{\pi},2\sqrt{\pi})$ be the
open rectangle $(0,\sqrt{\pi}) \times (0,2\sqrt{\pi})$. Let
$\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}$ be the connected subset of
$\Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon})$ that is mapped to the horizontal strip $
\widetilde{\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}}=(-A,A) \times
(-\frac{\epsilon}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}) $ by the immersion
$i_{\epsilon}$ (See Figure \ref{fig:fancyimmersion}). We define
$\mathcal{I}_{\epsilon} \colon \Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon}) \times {\rm
Q}(\sqrt{\pi}) \to \mathbb{R}^4 $ by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{I}_{\epsilon}(\sigma,\,b):=
\begin{cases}
\Phi_{\epsilon}(i_\epsilon(\sigma),b) & \text{ if } \sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\epsilon};\\
(i_{\epsilon}(\sigma),b) & \text{ if } \sigma \notin \mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}.\\
\end{cases}
\label{equ:map-I}
\end{equation}
Since $0\leq \chi_\epsilon\leq 1$, the image of
$\mathcal{I}_{\epsilon}$ lies in the set $\mathbb{R}^2 \times {\rm
R}(\sqrt{\pi},2\sqrt{\pi})$. Moreover, $\mathcal{I}_{\epsilon}$ is
smooth because the Hamiltonian flow $\Phi_{\epsilon}$ in
(\ref{equ:flow}) is the identity near $x=\pm A$, $y \in
(-\frac{\epsilon}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2})$ (since $\chi_{\epsilon}=0$
there by (\ref{cutoff2})). For the same reason,
$\mathcal{I}_\epsilon$ is a local diffeomorphism, since $i_\epsilon$
is a local diffeomorphism and $\Phi_\epsilon$ is a diffeomorphism.
\\
\\
\emph{Step 5} (\emph{$\mathcal{I}_{\epsilon}$ is injective}). Assume
$\mathcal{I}_{\epsilon}(\sigma,b)=\mathcal{I}_{\epsilon}(\sigma',b')$.
There are three cases.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] \emph{Suppose that $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}$
and $\sigma' \in \mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}$}. Then $
\Phi_{\epsilon}(i_{\epsilon}(\sigma),b)=\Phi_{\epsilon}(i_{\epsilon}(\sigma'),b'),
$ so since $\Phi_{\epsilon}$ is a diffeomorphism,
$(i_{\epsilon}(\sigma),b)= (i_{\epsilon}(\sigma'),b')$. Since
$i_{\epsilon}|_{\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}}$ is injective, we have
that $\sigma=\sigma'$ and $b=b'$ as we wanted.
\item[(b)] \emph{Suppose that $\sigma \notin \mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}$
and $\sigma' \notin \mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}$}. Then
$(i_{\epsilon}(\sigma),b)=(i_{\epsilon}(\sigma'),b')$ and since
$i_{\epsilon}$ is injective outside of $\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}$,
we have $\sigma=\sigma'$ and $b=b'$.
\item[(c)] \emph{Suppose that $\sigma \in \mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}$
and $\sigma' \notin \mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}$}. We have that $
\Phi_{\epsilon}(i_{\epsilon}(\sigma),b)=(i_{\epsilon}(\sigma'),b').
$ Let us write in coordinates $
(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)=(i_{\epsilon}(\sigma),b)$ and
$(x'_1,y'_1,x'_2,y'_2)=(i_{\epsilon}(\sigma'),b')$. {From}~\eqref{equ:flow}
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{cases}
x'_1=x_1;\\
x'_2=x_2; \\
y'_1=y_1+\chi_{\epsilon}'(x_1)x_2 \sqrt{\pi};\\
y'_2=y_2+\chi_{\epsilon}(x_1)\sqrt{\pi}. \label{last} \\
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, $|y'_2-y_2|=\chi_{\epsilon}(x_1)\sqrt{\pi}.$ Since
$y_2 \in (0,\sqrt{\pi})$ and $y'_2 \in (0,\sqrt{\pi})$ we must
have that $\chi_{\epsilon}(1)<1$. Hence $|x_1|>a$, and we are
outside of the vertical strip $|x_1|\leq a$. If $x_1<-a$, the second to
last equation in (\ref{last}), and the slope bound
(\ref{slopebound}), imply
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{cases}
y_1 \leq y'_1 < y_1 + \bigl( \frac{1}{A} +\epsilon \bigr) \pi;\\
x_1 \geq -A \,\,\,\,\,\, (\textup{because}\,\,\, \sigma \in
\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}). \label{impossible}
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
It follows from Figure \ref{fig:fancyimmersion} that
(\ref{impossible}) is not possible.
Similarly, if $x_1>a$ then $\chi'\leq 0$, and we have that $ y_1
\geq y'_1 > y_1 - \bigl( \frac{1}{A}+ \epsilon \bigr)
\pi, $ which is, again by Figure \ref{fig:fancyimmersion},
impossible.
\end{itemize}
This concludes Step 5.
\\
\\
\emph{Step 6} (\emph{Conclusion}). We have so far shown
that we have a smooth embedding
\begin{eqnarray} \label{inj:map} \mathcal{I}_{\epsilon} \colon
\Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon}) \times {\rm Q}(\sqrt{\pi}) \to
\mathbb{R}^2 \times {\rm R}(\sqrt{\pi},\, 2 \sqrt{\pi})
\end{eqnarray}
for sufficiently small values of $\epsilon>0$. {From} the formula
(\ref{equ:flow}) for the flow $\Phi_{\epsilon}$ we have that $
\pi_1( \mathcal{I}_\epsilon(\Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon}) \times {\rm
Q}(\sqrt{\pi}))) \subset D_{\epsilon}, $ where $D_{\epsilon}$ is
depicted in Figure \ref{fig:sr}, and $\pi_1 \colon \mathbb{R}^2
\times \mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}^2$ is the projection onto the
first factor. So $\mathcal{I}_{\epsilon}$ gives an embedding
\begin{eqnarray} \label{zeromap} \mathcal{I}_{\epsilon} \colon
\Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon}) \times {\rm Q}(\sqrt{\pi})
\hookrightarrow D_{\epsilon} \times {\rm R}(\sqrt{\pi},\, 2
\sqrt{\pi}).
\end{eqnarray}
Let $(\varphi_{\epsilon} \colon D_{\epsilon} \hookrightarrow {\rm
B}^2(r(\epsilon)))_{\epsilon>0} $ be a smooth family of symplectic
embeddings, where
\begin{eqnarray} \label{radius0} r(\epsilon)=\sqrt{\frac{{\rm
Area}(D_{\epsilon})}{\pi}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Such family exists by Moser's argument (Lemma~\ref{ncmoser}). By
construction of $D_{\epsilon}$ (Figure \ref{fig:sr})
there exists a constant $\tilde{c}>0$ such that $r(\epsilon)\leq \sqrt{2} +
\tilde{c}\epsilon$, for sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$.
Again by Moser's argument there are symplectomorphisms
\begin{eqnarray} \label{firstmap}
f \colon {\rm R}(\sqrt{\pi},\, 2
\sqrt{\pi}) \to {\rm B}^2(\sqrt{2})
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{secondmap} g \colon {\rm B}^2(1) \to {\rm
Q}(\sqrt{\pi}).
\end{eqnarray}
We may combine the maps (\ref{zeromap}), (\ref{firstmap}), and
(\ref{secondmap}) to get a smooth family of symplectic embeddings
$(I_{\tilde\epsilon})_{\tilde\epsilon>0}$, for $\tilde\epsilon$
sufficiently small, defined as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma (\tilde{\epsilon}) \times {\rm B}^2(1)
\stackrel{{\rm Id} \otimes g}{\hookrightarrow}
\Sigma(\tilde{\epsilon}) \times {\rm Q}(\sqrt{\pi})
\stackrel{\mathcal{I}_{\epsilon}}{\hookrightarrow} D_{\epsilon} \times {\rm R}(\sqrt{\pi},2\sqrt{\pi}) \nonumber \\
\stackrel{{\rm Id} \otimes f}{\hookrightarrow}
D_{\epsilon} \times {\rm B}^2(\sqrt{2}) \stackrel{\varphi_{\epsilon} \otimes {\rm Id}}{\hookrightarrow} {\rm B}^2(\sqrt{2}+
c \tilde\epsilon) \times {\rm B}^2(\sqrt{2}), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $c=\tilde c/100$. This concludes the proof.\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{domain}
\caption{The open set $D_{\epsilon}$ is the envelope of the image of
the immersion $i_\epsilon$ in
Figure~\ref{fig:fancyimmersion}. Hence the total area of
$D_{\epsilon}$ is of order $2(\tfrac{\pi}{A} \times A) +
\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)= 2\pi + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon)$.}
\label{fig:sr}
\end{figure}
Next we prove that \cite[Theorem~1.6]{HiKe2009} holds for smooth families.
\begin{theorem}\label{kh2}
Let $n\geq 3$. There exist constant $C,C'>0$ and a smooth family of
symplectic embeddings
\[
i_{S,\,R} \colon {\rm B}^2(1) \times {\rm B}^{2(n-1)}(S)
\hookrightarrow {\rm B}^2(R) \times {\rm B}^2(\sqrt 2) \times
\textup{B}^{2(n-2)}({\textstyle\frac{C S^2}{\sqrt{R-\sqrt 2}}}),
\] where $(S,R)$ vary in the open set
\begin{equation}
\{ (S,R)\in {\mathbb R}^2\, | \qquad S>0, \quad \sqrt 2 < R < \sqrt 2 + C'S^2\}.
\label{equ:domain}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the symplectic embedding
\[i_{T} \colon {\rm B}^{2(n-1)}(T) \hookrightarrow \Sigma \times
{\rm B}^{2(n-2)}(10T^2), \qquad T>{\textstyle\frac{1}{3}}
\]
given by Lemma~\ref{pp:10}, where $\Sigma=({\mathbb R}^2\setminus {\mathbb Z}^2)/ {\mathbb Z}^2$
is equipped with the standard quotient symplectic form. For
$\epsilon>0$, let $\tau_{\sqrt\epsilon}:{\mathbb R}^{2(n-1)}\to{\mathbb R}^{2(n-1)}$
be the dilation $\tau_{\sqrt{\epsilon}}(x)=\sqrt\epsilon x$. The
corresponding quotient map $\bar\tau_{\sqrt\epsilon}$ maps
$\Sigma\times {\mathbb R}^{2(n-2)}$ to $\Sigma(\epsilon) \times {\mathbb R}^{2(n-2)}$.
The map $\bar\tau_{\sqrt\epsilon}\circ i_T \circ
(\tau_{\sqrt\epsilon})^{-1}$ is a symplectic embedding of
$\tau_{\sqrt\epsilon}({\rm B}^{2(n-1)}(T))={\rm
B}^{2(n-1)}(\sqrt\epsilon T)$ into
$$
\bar\tau_{\sqrt\epsilon}(\Sigma \times {\rm B}^{2(n-2)}(10T^2)) =
\Sigma(\epsilon) \times {\rm B}^{2(n-2)}(10\sqrt\epsilon T^2)).
$$
Of
course, as $T>\frac{1}{3}$ and $\epsilon>0$ vary, the corresponding
family of embeddings is smooth. By composing with the embeddings
given by Theorem \ref{pp:11}, we obtain a smooth family of
symplectic embeddings~:
\begin{gather*}
{\rm B}^2(1) \times {\rm B}^{2(n-1)}(\sqrt\epsilon T)
\hookrightarrow {\rm B}^2(\sqrt 2 + c\epsilon) \times {\rm
B}^2(\sqrt 2) \times
\textup{B}^{2(n-2)}(10\sqrt\epsilon T^2),\\
T>1/3, \quad \epsilon>0.
\end{gather*}
The conclusion of the theorem is obtained by the smooth change of
parameters $(S,R):=(\sqrt\epsilon T,\sqrt 2 + c\epsilon)$, whose
image is the domain given by~\eqref{equ:domain}, with $C'=9c$. This
change gives the constant $C=10\sqrt{c}$.
\end{proof}
\section{\textcolor{black}{Proof of Theorem~\ref{answers}}} \label{sec:proof}
Hind and Kerman proved \cite[Theorem 1.5]{HiKe2009} that for any $0 <
R_1<\sqrt{2}$ and any $R_2\geq R_1$ there are no symplectic embeddings
of ${\rm B}^2(1) \times {\rm B}^{2(n-1)}(S) $ into ${\rm B}^2(R_1)
\times {\rm B}^2(R_2) \times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-2)}$ when $S$ is
sufficiently large. Therefore, in order to prove
Theorem~\ref{answers}, it is sufficient to show that ${\rm B}^2(1)
\times {\mathbb R}^{2(n-1)} $ symplectically embeds into ${\rm
B}^2(\sqrt2) \times {\rm B}^2(\sqrt2) \times \mathbb{R}^{2(n-2)}$.
By Theorem \ref{kh2} there exist constants $C,C'>0$ and a smooth family
of symplectic embeddings $ i_{S,\,R} \colon {\rm B}^2(1) \times {\rm
B}^{2(n-1)}(S) \hookrightarrow {\rm B}^2(R) \times {\rm B}^2(\sqrt
2) \times \textup{B}^{2(n-2)}({\textstyle\frac{C S^2}{\sqrt{R-\sqrt
2}}}), $ where $(S,R)$ vary in the set $ A $ of points $(S,R)\in
{\mathbb R}^2$ such that $S>0$ and $\sqrt 2 < R < \sqrt 2 + C'S^2$. Let
$j_{R,S}$ be the symplectic rescaling~:
$$
{\rm B}^2(\sqrt{2}/R) \times {\rm B}^{2(n-1)}(\sqrt{2}S/R)
\hookrightarrow {\rm B}^2(\sqrt{2}) \times {\rm B}^2(2/R) \times
\textup{B}^{2(n-2)}({\textstyle\frac{C \sqrt{2}S^2}{R\sqrt{R-\sqrt 2}}}),
$$
given by $x \mapsto \sqrt{2}/R\,\, i_{S,R}(Rx/\sqrt{2})$. The
family $(j_{R,S})_{(R,S) \in A}$ is again a smooth family of
symplectic embeddings.
Consider the smooth subfamily
\begin{eqnarray} \label{phifamily} \phi_{\epsilon}:=j_{S,R},
\,\,\,\, \textup{with}\,\,\,\,\,
S:=\frac{1}{\epsilon(1-\epsilon)},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
R:=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{1-\epsilon}.
\end{eqnarray}
A computation shows that $(R,S)\in A$ as long as
\[
\epsilon^3(1-\epsilon)<\frac{C'}{\sqrt 2},
\]
which holds if $\epsilon<\epsilon_0$ and $\epsilon_0<1$ is small
enough; hence the family (\ref{phifamily}) is well defined, gives symplectic
embeddings from $ {\rm B}^2(1-\epsilon) \times {\rm
B}^{2(n-1)}(1/\epsilon)$ to ${\rm B}^2(\sqrt{2}) \times {\rm
B}^2(\sqrt{2}(1-\epsilon)) \times
\textup{B}^{2(n-2)}(\rho(\epsilon))$ with
\[
\rho(\epsilon) := \frac{2^{-1/4}C}{\sqrt{\epsilon^5(1-\epsilon)}}.
\]
Of course, such a function $\rho \colon (0,\epsilon_0) \to (0,\infty)$ is
continuous and
\begin{align*}
\phi_{\epsilon}\left({\rm B}^2(1-\epsilon) \times {\rm
B}^{2(n-1)}(1/\epsilon)\right) & \subset {\rm B}^2(\sqrt{2}) \times
{\rm B}^2(\sqrt{2}) \times \textup{B}^{2(n-2)}(\rho(\epsilon)) \\
& \subset {\rm B}^{2n}(2\sqrt{2}+\rho(\epsilon)).
\end{align*}
Thus, in view of Remark \ref{newest} we may apply Theorem \ref{cor} to
the family of symplectic embeddings (\ref{phifamily}) with target
manifold $M={\rm B}^2(\sqrt{2}) \times {\rm B}^2(\sqrt{2}) \times
{\mathbb R}^{2(n-2)}$ as in Definition \ref{defi:smooth}. In this way we get a
symplectic embedding $ j \colon {\rm B}^2(1) \times {\mathbb R}^{2(n-1)}
\hookrightarrow {\rm B}^2(\sqrt{2}) \times {\rm B}^2(\sqrt{2}) \times
\mathbb{R}^{2(n-2)}, $ as desired, thus proving Theorem~\ref{answers}.
\vspace{1mm}
{\small \emph{Acknowledgements}. We are thankful to Lev Buhovski for
many fruitful discussions which have been important for the paper.
We thank also Leonid Polterovich for helpful discussions concerning
Moser's theorem. We thank Helmut Hofer for helpful comments on the
introduction to the paper. AP learned of the problem treated in this paper in
a lecture by Helmut Hofer in the Winter of 2011 at Princeton
University, and he is grateful to him for fruitful discussions and
encouragement. AP was partly supported by NSF Grant DMS-0635607 and
an NSF CAREER Award. VNS is partially supported by the Institut
Universitaire de France, the Lebesgue Center (ANR Labex LEBESGUE),
and the ANR NOSEVOL grant. He gratefully acknowledges the
hospitality of the IAS. }
|
\section{Introduction and statement of results}
Let $\Gamma$ be a finite group and let $L/K$ be a finite extension of
fields with $\Gal(L/K) \cong \Gamma$ (for brevity, we say: $L$ is a
$\Gamma$-extension of $K$). Then $L$ is a module over the group algebra
$K[\Gamma]$, and $K[\Gamma]$ carries the structure of a $K$-Hopf algebra. This
makes $L$ into a $K[\Gamma]$-Hopf-Galois extension of $K$. There may be
other $K$-Hopf algebras $H$ which act on $L$ so that $L$ is an
$H$-Hopf-Galois extension. Such Hopf-Galois structures were investigated by
Greither and Pareigis \cite{GP}, who showed how the determination of
all Hopf-Galois structures on a given separable field extension $L/K$
could be reduced to a question in group theory. In particular, any
Hopf algebra $H$ which gives a Hopf-Galois structure on $L$ has the
property that $L \otimes_K H = L[G]$ as $L$-Hopf algebras, where $G$
is some regular group of permutations of $\Gamma$. Thus $G$ and
$\Gamma$ have the same order, but in general they need not be
isomorphic. We will refer to the isomorphism class of $G$ as the {\em type} of
the Hopf-Galois structure, and will say that the Hopf-Galois
structure is {\em abelian} (resp.~{\em nilpotent}) if $G$ is abelian
(resp.~nilpotent).
For some groups $\Gamma$ it is known that every Hopf-Galois structure
on a $\Gamma$-extension must have type
$\Gamma$. This holds for cyclic groups of order $p^n$ with $p>2$
prime and $n \geq 1$ \cite{K}, for elementary abelian groups of
order $p^2$ with $p>2$ \cite{unique}, for cyclic groups of order $n$
with $(n, \varphi(n))=1$ (where $\varphi$ is Euler's totient function)
\cite{unique}, and for non-abelian simple groups \cite{simple}. On the
other hand, there are many groups $\Gamma$ for which there are
Hopf-Galois structures whose type is different from $\Gamma$, the smallest
cases being the two groups of order 4 \cite{unique}. Indeed, if
$\Gamma$ is abelian then there may be Hopf-Galois structures which are
not abelian, or even nilpotent. For example, if $\Gamma$ is cyclic of order
$pq$, where $p$, $q$ are primes such that $q|(p-1)$, then $L/K$ admits
$2(q-1)$ Hopf-Galois structures which are not nilpotent, in addition
to the unique (classical) one of type $\Gamma$ \cite{pq}.
This phenomenon was investigated in some detail in \cite{NYJM}, where
it was shown that any abelian extension $L/K$ of even degree $n>4$
admits a non-abelian Hopf-Galois structure, and that the same holds
for many abelian groups of odd order. On the other hand, some new
groups $\Gamma$ were given in \cite{NYJM} for which all
Hopf-Galois structures are of type $\Gamma$ (cf.~Remark \ref{not-best}
below).
In this paper, we supplement the results of \cite{NYJM} by considering
the situation where $\Gamma$ and $G$ are both abelian or, more
generally, both nilpotent. We will show that the enumeration of such
Hopf-Galois structures can be reduced to the case of groups of prime
power order.
Let $e(\Gamma,G)$ denote the number of Hopf-Galois structures of type
$G$ on a $\Gamma$-extension $L/K$. Thus the total number of
Hopf-Galois structures on $L/K$ is given by
$$ e(\Gamma) = \sum_{G} e(\Gamma,G), $$
where the sum is over all isomorphism classes of groups $G$ of order
$|\Gamma|$. We also write
$$ \eab(\Gamma) = \sum_{G\ \small{\mathrm{abelian}}} e(\Gamma,G), \qquad
\enil(\Gamma) = \sum_{G\ \small{\mathrm{nilpotent}}}
e(\Gamma,G), $$
where the sum is over all isomorphism types of abelian
(resp.~nilpotent) groups $G$ of order $|\Gamma|$. Thus $\eab(\Gamma)$
(resp.~$\enil(\Gamma)$) is the number of abelian (resp.~nilpotent)
Hopf-Galois structures on $L/K$. Recall that a finite group $\Delta$
is nilpotent if it is the
direct product of its Sylow subgroups \cite[(5.2.4)]{Rob}. In
particular, if $\Delta$ is abelian, or if $\Delta$ is a $p$-group for some prime
number $p$, then $\Delta$ is nilpotent.
Let $n$ be the degree of the extension $L/K$. We write the prime
factorisation of $n$ as
$$ n = \prod_{p | n} p^{v_p}, $$
where the product is over the distinct prime factors $p$ of $n$. If
$\Gamma$ is nilpotent, we can correspondingly write $\Gamma$ as a direct
product of groups
\begin{equation} \label{nilp-decomp}
\Gamma = \prod_{p | n} \Gamma_p,
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_p$ is the (unique) Sylow $p$-subgroup of $\Gamma$ and
has order $p^{v_p}$. By Galois theory, we can then decompose $L$ as
$$ L = \bigotimes_{p | n } L_p, $$ (tensor product over $K$) where
$L_p$ is a $\Gamma_p$-extension of $K$. If, for each $p$, we
take a Hopf-Galois structure on
$L_p/K$, say of type $G_p$ and with corresponding $K$-Hopf algebra
$H_p$, then the Hopf algebra $H=\bigotimes_{p | n} H_p$ acts in the
obvious way on $L$,
giving $L/K$ a Hopf-Galois structure of type $G= \prod_{p | n}
G_p$. This Hopf-Galois structure is necessarily nilpotent,
and is abelian if and only if each $G_p$ is abelian.
We will see that if $\Gamma$ is nilpotent then {\em every} nilpotent
Hopf-Galois structure on $L/K$ arises in this way. This is the key
observation in the proof of our first main result:
\begin{theorem} \label{nilp-thm}
Let $\Gamma$ be a nilpotent group of order $n$. Then for each
nilpotent group $G$ of order $n$ we have $e(\Gamma,G)= \prod_{p | n}
e(\Gamma_p,G_p)$.
\end{theorem}
Taking the sum over all isomorphism types of nilpotent (resp.~abelian)
groups $G$ of order $n$, we immediately obtain:
\begin{corollary} \label{nilp-ab}
For a finite nilpotent group $\Gamma$, we have
$$ \enil(\Gamma)=\prod_{p | n} e(\Gamma_p) \mbox{ and }
\eab(\Gamma)=\prod_{p | n} \eab(\Gamma_p). $$
\end{corollary}
As an application of Theorem \ref{nilp-thm}, we will determine
the number of nilpotent (resp.~abelian) Hopf-Galois structures
on a cyclic extension of arbitrary finite degree. Before stating the
result, we fix some notation. For $m \geq 1$, let $C_m$
denote the cyclic group of order $m$, and, for $v \geq 3$, let $D_{2^v}$
(resp.~$Q_{2^v}$) denote the dihedral (resp.~generalized
quaternion) group of order $2^v$. Also, for $n \geq 1$, let
$r(n)$ be the radical of $n$:
$$ r(n) = \prod_{p | n} p. $$
\begin{theorem} \label{cyc-thm}
Let $\Gamma$ be a cyclic group of order $n$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
If $n$ is not divisible by $4$, then
$$ \enil(\Gamma)=\eab(\Gamma)=e(\Gamma,\Gamma)= \frac{n}{r(n)}. $$
Thus every nilpotent Hopf-Galois structure on a cyclic extension of
degree $n$ is cyclic, and hence abelian.
\item[(ii)] If $n \equiv 4 \pmod{8}$, then again
$$ \enil(\Gamma)=\eab(\Gamma)= \frac{n}{r(n)}, $$
but
$$ e(\Gamma,\Gamma)=e(\Gamma, C_2 \times C_{n/2}) =
\frac{n}{2r(n)}. $$
Thus every nilpotent Hopf-Galois structure on a cyclic extension of
degree $n$ is abelian, but only half of them are cyclic.
\item[(iii)] If $n$ is divisible by 8, so $n=2^v n'$ with $v \geq 3$
and $n'$ odd, then
$$ \enil(\Gamma)= \frac{3n}{2r(n)} \mbox{ and }
\eab(\Gamma)=e(\Gamma,\Gamma)= \frac{n}{2r(n)}, $$
with
$$ e(\Gamma,D_{2^v} \times C_{n'}) = e(\Gamma,Q_{2^v} \times C_{n'}) =
\frac{n}{2r(n)}, $$
Thus every abelian Hopf-Galois structure on a cyclic extension of
degree $n$ is cyclic, although there are also Hopf-Galois structures which
are nilpotent but not abelian.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
For a finite abelian $p$-group $\Gamma$, Featherstonhaugh, Caranti and
Childs \cite{FCC} have given conditions under which every abelian
Hopf-Galois structure on a $\Gamma$-extension must have type
$\Gamma$. Combining this with Theorem \ref{nilp-thm}, we will obtain
the following result in the abelian case.
\begin{theorem} \label{ab-thm}
Let $\Gamma$ be a finite group of order $n = \prod_p p^{v_p}$, and
suppose that, for each prime factor $p$ of $n$, either $v_p <
p-1$ or $p \leq3$, $v_p < p$. Then every abelian Hopf-Galois structure
on a $\Gamma$-extension has type $\Gamma=\Gal(L/K)$. Equivalently,
$\eab(\Gamma)=e(\Gamma,\Gamma)$.
\end{theorem}
Combining Theorems \ref{cyc-thm} and \ref{ab-thm} with a result of
L.~E.~Dickson \cite{Dickson} dating from 1905, we obtain some new
cyclic groups $\Gamma$ for which {\em every} Hopf-Galois structure has
type $\Gamma$:
\begin{theorem} \label{all-Gamma-thm}
Suppose that $n= \prod_p p^{v_p}$ satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $v_p \leq 2$ for all primes $p$ dividing $n$;
\item[(ii)] $p \nmid (q^{v_q}-1)$ for all primes $p$, $q$ dividing
$n$;
\item[(iii)] $ 4 \nmid n$.
\end{itemize}
Then a cyclic extension of degree $n$ admits precisely
$n/r(n)$ Hopf-Galois structures, all of which are of cyclic type.
\end{theorem}
\medskip
\noindent {\sc Acknowledgment:} The author thanks Lindsay Childs and Tim Kohl
for email correspondence about this work, which led to a
simplification of some of the arguments.
\section{Nilpotent Hopf-Galois Structures}
In this section we prove Theorem \ref{nilp-thm}.
We first recall the method of counting Hopf-Galois
structures on a $\Gamma$-extension for an arbitrary finite group $\Gamma$.
It was shown in \cite{GP} that these Hopf-Galois structures
correspond to regular permutation groups on $\Gamma$ which are
normalized by the group $\lambda(\Gamma)$ of left multiplications by
elements of $\Gamma$. (Recall that a permutation group $H$ on a set $X$
is regular if, given $x$, $y \in X$, there is a unique $h \in H$ with
$hx=y$.) Thus finding all Hopf-Galois structures with a given type $G$
amounts to finding all regular subgroups in the group
$\Perm(\Gamma)$ of permutations of $\Gamma$ which are isomorphic
to $G$ and are normalized by $\lambda(\Gamma)$. It was shown in
\cite{unique} that this problem can be reframed as a calculation
inside $\Hol(G) = \rho(G) \cdot \Aut(G)$, the holomorph of $G$,
which is usually a much smaller group than $\Perm(\Gamma)$. Here $\rho\;
\colon G \lra \Perm(G)$ is the right regular representation
$\rho(g)(x)=xg^{-1}$ for $g$, $x \in G$. As further reformulated by
Childs (see e.g.~\cite[\S7]{Ch00}), this gives the following method
of counting Hopf-Galois structures. A homomorphism
$\beta \colon \Gamma \lra \Hol(G)$ will be called a regular embedding if it is
injective and its image is a regular group of permutations on
$G$. Two such embeddings will be called equivalent if they are conjugate by
an element of $\Aut(G)$. Then the number $e(\Gamma,G)$ of Hopf-Galois
structures of type $G$ on a $\Gamma$-extension
is the number of equivalence classes of regular
embeddings of $\Gamma$ into $\Hol(G)$.
We will need the following general result.
\begin{proposition} \label{cent-prop}
Let $N$ be a regular subgroup of $\Hol(G)$. Then the centralizer of $N$
in $\Hol(G)$ has order dividing $|G|$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{pf}
We can regard $\Hol(G)$ as a subgroup of the group $B=\Perm(G)$ of all
permutations of $G$. By \cite[Lemma 2.4.2]{GP}, the centralizer of $N$
in $B$ is canonically identified with the opposite group of $N$, so in
particular has order $|N|=|G|$. The centralizer of $N$ in $\Hol(G)$ is a
subgroup of this, so has order dividing $|G|$.
\end{pf}
If $G$ is a nilpotent group, its Sylow subgroups $G_p$ are
characteristic subgroups. We therefore have direct product decompositions
\begin{equation} \label{dec-Aut}
\Aut(G) = \prod_{p | n} \Aut(G_p),
\end{equation}
and hence
\begin{equation} \label{dec-Hol}
\Hol(G) = \prod_{p | n} \Hol(G_p).
\end{equation}
Now suppose that $\Gamma$ and $G$ are nilpotent groups of order $n$,
and that we are given a homomorphism $\beta_p \colon \Gamma_p \lra
\Hol(G_p)$ for each $p|n$. Using (\ref{nilp-decomp}) and (\ref{dec-Hol}), we
can define a homomorphism
\begin{equation} \label{dp-beta}
\beta = \left(\prod_{p|n} \beta_p\right) \colon \Gamma \lra \Hol(G).
\end{equation}
It is clear that if each $\beta_p$ is a regular embedding then so is
$\beta$. This construction corresponds to taking tensor products of
Hopf-Galois structures on field extensions of prime-power degrees, as
described in \S1.
Not every homomorphism $\beta \colon \Gamma \lra \Hol(G)$ arises as
such a product. For any primes $p$, $q$ dividing $n$, let
$\iota_p \colon \Gamma_p \lra \Gamma$ be the inclusion induced by the
direct product decomposition (\ref{nilp-decomp}) of $\Gamma$, and let
$\pi_q \colon \Hol(G) \lra \Hol(G_q)$ be the projection induced by
(\ref{dec-Hol}). Given a homomorphism $\beta \colon \Gamma \lra
\Hol(G)$, let $\beta_{pq}$ be the composite homomorphism $\beta_{pq}=\pi_q \circ
\beta \circ \iota_p \colon \Gamma_p \lra \Hol(G_q)$. Then $\beta$ is
determined by its matrix of components $(\beta_{pq})$. For each $q$,
the images of the $\beta_{pq}$ must centralize each other in
$\Hol(G_q)$, since the $\Gamma_p$ centralize each other in $\Gamma$.
Conversely, a matrix of homomorphisms
$(\beta_{pq})$, $\beta_{pq} \colon \Gamma_p \lra \Hol(G_q)$,
determines a homomorphism $\beta \colon \Gamma \lra \Hol(G)$, provided
only that, for each $q$, the images of the $\beta_{pq}$ centralize
each other in $\Hol(G_q)$.
We can determine from the matrix $(\beta_{pq})$ whether $\beta$
is a regular embedding:
\begin{lemma} \label{diag}
Let $\Gamma$ and $G$ be nilpotent, and let $\beta \colon \Gamma \lra
G$ correspond to the matrix of homomorphisms $(\beta_{pq})$ as above.
Then $\beta$ is a regular embedding if and only if
$\beta_{pp} \colon \Gamma_p \lra \Hol(G_p)$ is a regular embedding for each $p$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf}
First observe that $\beta_{pp}(\Gamma_p)$ is the unique Sylow
$p$-subgroup in the subgroup $\pi_p \circ \beta(\Gamma)$ of $\Hol(G_p)$,
and hence is normal in $\pi_p \circ \beta(\Gamma)$.
If $\beta$ is regular then $\pi_p \circ \beta(\Gamma)$ is transitive
on $G_p$. Then, by Proposition \ref{perm-prop} below, the number of
orbits of $\beta_{pp}(\Gamma_p)$ on $G_p$ divides both $|G_p|=p^{v_p}$
and $|\pi_p \circ \beta(\Gamma)/\beta_{pp}(\Gamma)|$ (which is coprime
to $p$). Thus $\beta_{pp}$ is transitive, and hence regular, on
$G_p$.
Conversely, suppose that each $\beta_{pp}$ is a regular embedding. We write
$e_G$ for the identity element of $G$. Consider the subsets
$X=\beta(\Gamma) e_G$ and $Y=\beta(\Gamma_p) e_G$ of $G$. Clearly $|Y|\leq
|\Gamma_p|$, and the regularity of $\beta_{pp}$ ensures that $|Y| \geq
|G_p|=|\Gamma_p|$. Hence $|Y|=|\Gamma_p|$. As $\beta(\Gamma_p)$ is
normal in $\beta(\Gamma)$, Proposition \ref{perm-prop} shows that all
orbits of $\beta(\Gamma_p)$ on $X$ have the same size. One such orbit
is $Y$, so $|X|$ is divisible by $|\Gamma_p|$. This holds for all $p$,
so $X=G$ and $\beta$ is a regular embedding.
\end{pf}
In the above proof, we used the following simple fact about
permutation groups:
\begin{proposition} \label{perm-prop}
Let $H$ be a finite group acting transitively on a set $X$, and let
$N$ be a normal subgroup of $H$. Then the orbits of $N$ on $X$ all
have the same size, and the number of these orbits divides both
$|X|$ and $|H/N|$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{pf}
Let $N$ have $m$ orbits on $X$, and let $Nx$ and $Ny$ be two such
orbits. Then $y=hx$ for some $h\in H$, and $Ny=Nhx=hNx$. This shows
that the quotient group $H/N$ acts on the set $\{Nx\}$ of orbits of
$N$, and that this action is transitive. It follows firstly that these
orbits have the same size, so that $m$ divides $|X|$, and secondly that
$m$ divides $|H/N|$.
\end{pf}
\begin{pf-nilp-thm}
Let $\beta \colon \Gamma \lra \Hol(G)$ be a regular embedding, and let
$(\beta_{pq})$ be the corresponding matrix of homomorphisms. By Lemma
\ref{diag}, each $\beta_{pp}$ is a regular embedding of $\Gamma_p$
into $\Hol(G_p)$. For $p \neq q$,
the image of the homomorphism $\beta_{pq} \colon \Gamma_p \lra
\Hol(G_q)$ must centralize the regular subgroup $\beta_{qq}(\Gamma_q)$
of $\Hol(G_q)$, and so must be a $q$-group by Proposition
\ref{cent-prop}. But $\beta_{pq}(\Gamma_p)$ is a $p$-group since
$\Gamma_p$ is. Thus $\beta_{pq}$ is the trivial homomorphism
whenever $p \neq q$. This means that the matrix $(\beta_{pq})$ is
``diagonal'' and $\beta$ is just the product $\beta= (\prod_p
\beta_{pp})$ as in (\ref{dp-beta}). Conversely, given a regular
embedding $\beta_p \colon \Gamma_p \lra \Hol(G_p)$ for each $p$, the
homomorphism $(\prod_p \beta_p) \colon \Gamma \lra G$ is a regular
embedding. It is immediate that these two constructions are mutually
inverse.
We have just established a bijection between regular embeddings
$\beta \colon \Gamma \lra \Hol(G)$ and families of regular embeddings
$\beta_p \colon \Gamma_p \lra \Hol(G_p)$ for each $p | n$. It follows
from (\ref{dec-Aut}) that two regular embeddings $\beta$, $\beta'$
are conjugate by an element of $\Aut(G)$ if and only if, for each $p$, their
components $\beta_p$, $\beta'_p$ are conjugate by an element of
$\Aut(G_p)$. Hence the equivalence classes of
regular embeddings $\beta \colon \Gamma \lra \Hol(G)$ correspond
bijectively to families of equivalence classes of regular embeddings
$\beta_p \colon \Gamma_p \lra \Hol(G_p)$. This shows that
$e(\Gamma,G)=\prod_p e(\Gamma_p,G_p)$.
\end{pf-nilp-thm}
\section{Hopf-Galois structures on cyclic extensions}
For cyclic extensions whose degree is a power of a prime $p$, all the
Hopf-Galois structures are already known. We recall the results.
\begin{lemma} \label{kohl-etc}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] For $n=p^v$ with $p>2$ and $v\geq 1$, we have
$e(C_n)=e(C_n,C_n)=p^{v-1}$.
\item[(ii)] For $n=2$, we have $e(C_2)=e(C_2,C_2)=1$; for $n=4$, we
have $e(C_4)=2$ with $e(C_4,C_4)=e(C_4,C_2\times C_2)=1$.
\item[(iii)] For $n=2^v$ with $v \geq 3$, we have $e(C_n)=3 \cdot
2^{v-2}$ with $e(C_n,C_n)=e(C_n,D_n)=e(C_n,Q_n)=2^{v-2}$.
\end{itemize}
Thus, for a prime power $n=p^v$, we have $e(C_n)=n/r(n)$ except in the
case $p=2$, $v \geq 3$, when $e(C_n)=3n/(2r(n))$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf}
(i) is equivalent to Kohl's result \cite{K} that, for an odd prime $p$, a cyclic Galois
extension of degree $p^r$ admits $p^{r-1}$ Hopf-Galois
structures, all of cyclic type. Similarly, (ii) follows from
\cite{unique} and (iii) from \cite{2power}.
\end{pf}
Theorem \ref{cyc-thm} follows directly from Lemma
\ref{kohl-etc} and Theorem \ref{nilp-thm}.
\section{Abelian Hopf-Galois Structures}
In this section, we prove Theorems \ref{ab-thm} and
\ref{all-Gamma-thm}.
From \cite[Theorem 1]{FCC} we have the following result:
\begin{lemma} \label{FCC-lemma}
Let $\Gamma$ be an abelian $p$-group of $p$-rank $m$, with $p>m+1$. Then
$\eab(\Gamma)=e(\Gamma,\Gamma)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf-ab-thm}
Let $G$ be an abelian group of order $n$, and let $\Gamma_p$,
$G_p$ be the Sylow $p$-subgroups of $\Gamma$, $G$ as usual. If
$v_p<p-1$ then certainly $p>m+1$ where $m$ is the $p$-rank of $G_p$,
so, by Lemma \ref{FCC-lemma}, $e(\Gamma_p,G_p)=0$ unless
$G_p=\Gamma_p$. If $p=3$ and $v_3=2$ then either $\Gamma_3 =
C_9$, when by Lemma \ref{kohl-etc}(i) we have $e(\Gamma_3,G_3)=0$
unless $G_3=\Gamma_3$, or $\Gamma_3 = C_3 \times C_3$, when the
same conclusion holds by \cite{unique}. If $p=2$ and $v_2=1$ then
$\Gamma_2 = C_2$ and $G_2 = C_2$. Thus the hypotheses of
Theorem \ref{ab-thm} ensure that
$\eab(\Gamma_p)=e(\Gamma_p,\Gamma_p)$ for all $p$. By Corollary
\ref{nilp-ab} we then have
$$ \eab(\Gamma) = \prod_{p | n} e(\Gamma_p, \Gamma_p) =
e(\Gamma,\Gamma), $$
and every abelian Hopf-Galois structure on $L/K$ has type
$\Gamma$.
\end{pf-ab-thm}
To prove Theorem \ref{all-Gamma-thm}, we need the following old result of
L.~E.~Dickson \cite{Dickson} (see also \cite[\S5.5, Exercise 24,
p.~189]{DF}):
\begin{lemma} \label{dickson}
Let $n$ have prime factorisation $\prod_p p^{v_p}$. Then every group
of order $n$ is abelian if and only if $v_p \leq 2$ for each prime $p$
dividing $n$, and $p \nmid (q^{v_q}-1)$ for all primes $p$, $q$
dividing $n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf-all-Gamma-thm}
Let $\Gamma$ be a cyclic group of order $n$.
The conditions of Theorem \ref{all-Gamma-thm} imply those of Theorem
\ref{ab-thm}, so that every abelian Hopf-Galois structure on a
$\Gamma$-extension has cyclic type. On the other hand,
the hypotheses of Lemma \ref{dickson} are also satisfied. Thus every
group of order $n$ is abelian, and therefore every Hopf-Galois structure is
abelian. It follows that all the Hopf-Galois structures are cyclic. By
Theorem \ref{cyc-thm}(i), the number of Hopf-Galois structures is
therefore $n/r(n)$.
\end{pf-all-Gamma-thm}
\begin{remark} \label{not-best}
In Theorem \ref{all-Gamma-thm}, there are no non-abelian Hopf-Galois
structures for the rather trivial reason that there are no non-abelian
groups of the appropriate order. This result is certainly not best
possible, since if $n=p^2 q^2$ for primes $2<q<p$ with $(q,p+1)>1$
(e.g.~$q=3$, $p=11$), or if $n=p^3 q$ for distinct primes $p$, $q$ with
$(p,q-1)=(q,p^2-1)=1$ but $(q,p^3-1)>1$ (e.g.~$p=7$, $q=19$), then a
cyclic extension of degree $n$ admits only cyclic Hopf-Galois
structures \cite[Theorems 24, 25]{NYJM}. In both cases, non-abelian groups of
order $n$ exist, but a partial analysis of their holomorphs shows
that they cannot arise as the type of a Hopf-Galois structure on a
cyclic extension.
\end{remark}
\section{Abelian Hopf-Galois structures on abelian extensions}
In this final section we describe an alternative approach to Theorem
\ref{nilp-thm} in the case that $\Gamma$ and $G$ are both abelian
(restated as Theorem \ref{ab-case} below). This avoids the use of
Proposition \ref{cent-prop}, and instead is based upon a
result of Caranti, Dalla Volta and Sala \cite{CDVS} which underlies Lemma
\ref{FCC-lemma}. It therefore shows how the ideas in \cite{FCC} extend
to a finite abelian group $\Gamma$ which is not of prime-power order.
An important ingredient in the proof of Lemma \ref{FCC-lemma} (though
not of the original weaker version in Featherstonhaugh's thesis \cite{F}) is a
correspondence between regular subgroups of $\Hol(G)$ for an abelian
group $G$ and certain multiplication operations $\cdot$ on $G$.
This correspondence was first observed in \cite[Theorem
1]{CDVS} for vector spaces over a field $F$. The case
$F=\F_p$ (the field of $p$ elements) covers elementary
abelian $p$-groups $G$. It was noted in \cite{FCC} that the same
argument works for any finite $p$-group; indeed, this is what is
required to prove Lemma \ref{FCC-lemma}. It is easily verified that the
argument of \cite{CDVS} is still valid for arbitrary abelian
groups. Here is the result in that setting.
\begin{lemma} \label{CDVS-corr}
Let $(G,+)$ be an abelian group with identity element $0$. Then there
is a one-to-one correspondence between regular abelian subgroups $T$
of $\Hol(G)$ and binary operations $\cdot$ on $G$ which make
$(G,+,\cdot)$ into a commutative, associative (non-unital) ring with
the property that every element of $G$ has an inverse under the circle
operation $x \circ y = x + y + x \cdot y$ (so $(G,\circ)$ is an
abelian group, whose identity element is again $0$). Under this
correspondence, the subgroup $T$ of $\Hol(G)$ corresponding to $\cdot$
is $\{ \tau_g \; : \; g\in G\}$, where $\tau_g(x)=g \circ x$ for all
$x \in G$.
\end{lemma}
We next investigate the Sylow subgroups of (the additive group of)
such a ring.
\begin{proposition} \label{fin-ring}
Let $(R,+, \cdot)$ be a finite associative non-unital ring, and for each prime
$p$ dividing its order, let $R_p$ be the Sylow $p$-subgroup of
$(R,+)$. Then $R_p$ is an ideal (and hence a subring) of $R$, and
$R$ is the direct product of its subrings
$R_p$. Moreover, every element of $R$ has an inverse under
$\circ$ if and only if the same is true in each $R_p$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{pf}
Let $r \in R_p$, and let $s \in R$ be arbitrary. If $p^e$ is the
exponent of $R_p$ then, by associativity, $p^e(r \cdot s)=(p^e r)\cdot s=0
\cdot s =0$, so that $r \cdot s \in R_p$. Similarly $s \cdot r \in
R_p$. In particular, if $r \in R_p$ and $s \in R_p$ then $r \cdot s
\in R_p$, and if $r \in R_p$
and $s \in R_q$ with $p \neq q$ then $r \cdot s \in R_p \cap R_q$ so
$r \cdot s = 0$. Hence
$R_p$ is both an ideal and a subring of $R$, and $R$ is the direct
product of its subrings $R_p$.
Suppose now that every $r \in R$ has a $\circ$-inverse. If $r \in
R_p$ has $\circ$-inverse $s$ in $R$ then
$s=-r-r\cdot s \in R_p$, so $r$ has $\circ$-inverse $s$ in
$R_p$. Conversely, suppose that $\circ$-inverses exist in each $R_p$. Let $r\in R$. We can
write $r= \sum_p r_p$ with $r_p \in R_p$ for each $p$. If $s_p$ is the
$\circ$-inverse of $r_p$ in $R_p$ then $s= \sum_p s_p$ is the
$\circ$-inverse of $r$ in $R$.
\end{pf}
\begin{corollary} \label{T-syl}
In Lemma \ref{CDVS-corr}, the Sylow $p$-subgroup $T_p$ of $T$ is $\{
\tau_g \; : \; g \in G_p\}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{pf}
If $g$, $h \in G_p$ then $g \circ h =g+h +g \cdot h\in G_p$ by Proposition
\ref{fin-ring}. But $\tau_g (\tau_h(x))=g \circ (h \circ x)=(g \circ
h) \circ x= \tau_{g \circ h}(x)$. The non-empty subset $\{\tau_g \; : \; g
\in G_p\}$ of the finite abelian group $T$ is therefore closed under composition, and
hence is a subgroup. Since its cardinality is $|G_p|$ and
$|G|=|T|$, it is the Sylow $p$-subgroup $T_p$.
\end{pf}
\begin{theorem} \label{ab-case}
Let $\Gamma$ and $G$ be abelian groups of order $n$. Then
$$ e(\Gamma,G)= \prod_{p | n} e(\Gamma_p,G_p). $$
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
Let $\beta \colon \Gamma \lra \Hol(G)$ be a regular embedding. Then
$T=\beta(\Gamma) \cong \Gamma$ is a regular subgroup of $\Hol(G)$
which by Lemma \ref{CDVS-corr} gives a multiplication $\cdot$ on $G$
making $G$ into a ring. Then $T = \{ \tau_g \; : g \in G\}$, where
the $\tau_g$ are defined using the $\circ$-operation obtained from
$\cdot$. By Proposition \ref{fin-ring}, $G$ is the direct product of
its subrings $G_p$. Since $\circ$-inverses exist in $G$, they exist in
$G_p$, so that the multiplication on $G_p$ corresponds via Lemma
\ref{CDVS-corr} to a regular subgroup $T'_p$ of $\Hol(G_p)$. Writing
elements of $G= \prod_p G_p$ as tuples $g=(g_p)_p$ with $g_p \in G_p$,
we have
$$ \tau_g(x) = g + x + g \cdot x = (g_p + x_p + g_p \cdot x_p )_p $$
for any $x=(x_p)_p \in G$. It follows that $T'_p$ consists of the
restrictions to $G_p$ of the $\tau_{g_p}$ for $g_p \in G_p$. By
Corollary \ref{T-syl}, the $\tau_{g_p}$ are precisely the elements of
the Sylow $p$-subgroup $T_p=\beta(\Gamma_p)$ of $T$. Thus $\beta$
induces a regular embedding $\beta_p \colon \Gamma_p \lra \Hol(G_p)$
for each $p$, where $\beta_p(h)$ for $h \in G_p$ is merely the restriction of
$\beta(h)$ to $G_p$. If we form the product $\beta^* = \left(
\prod_p \beta_p \right) \colon \Gamma \lra \Hol(G)$ as in
(\ref{dp-beta}), then $T^*=\beta^*(\Gamma)$ is a regular subgroup of
$\Hol(G)$ which induces the operation $\cdot$ on each $G_p$. By Lemma
\ref{CDVS-corr} and Proposition \ref{fin-ring} we then have $T^*=T$
and so $\beta^*=\beta$. Thus every regular embedding $\beta$ comes
from a family of regular embeddings $\beta_p$. As in the proof of
Theorem \ref{nilp-thm}, it follows that $e(\Gamma,G)=\prod_p
e(\Gamma_p,G_p)$.
\end{pf}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec_introduction}
There has been extensive interest in ultracold atom
physics in the last decade~\cite{review_blume,review_giorgini,review_bloch}.
Ultracold atomic bosonic and fermionic gases are realized experimentally
under varying external confinements.
In these experiments, the number of particles and the scattering length of
the two-body interactions are tunable~\cite{chin_rmp}.
Although the complete energy spectrum of the many-body system
cannot, in general, be obtained from first principles, the energy
spectra of selected few-body systems can, in some cases, be
determined within a microscopic quantum mechanical
framework~\cite{busch,calarco-r,calarco,kestner,blume-greene_prl,javier-greene_prl}.
In some cases, the properties of the few-body system have then been
used to predict
the properties of the corresponding many-body
system~\cite{ho-1,ho-2,rupak,drummond_prl,drummond_pra,drummond_2d,salomon-2010,zwierlein-2012,daily_2012}.
The behavior of atomic and molecular systems depends strongly
on the dimensionality of the
system~\cite{olshanii1,olshanii2,petrov,esslinger}.
In three dimensions, e.g., weakly-bound two-body $s$-wave states exist
when the $s$-wave scattering length is large and positive but not when
it is negative.
In strictly one- and two-dimensional geometries, in contrast, $s$-wave
bound states exist for all values of the $s$-wave
scattering length~\cite{busch}.
In ultracold atomic gases, the de Broglie wavelength of the atoms
is much larger than the van der Waals length that
characterizes the two-body interactions.
This allows one to replace the van der Waals interaction potential
in free-space low-energy scattering calculations
by a zero-range $s$-wave
pseudopotential~\cite{fermi,huang,huang2}.
If the particles are placed in an external trap,
the validity of the pseudopotential treatment (at least if
implemented without accounting for the energy-dependence
of the coupling strength) requires
that the van der Waals length is much smaller than the
characteristic trap length~\cite{blume_greene_pra,bolda_pra}.
In many cases, the use of pseudopotentials greatly simplifies the
theoretical treatment. For example, the eigenequation for two
particles interacting
through
a $s$-wave pseudopotential
under harmonic confinement has been derived
analytically for spherically symmetric, strictly one-dimensional,
strictly two-dimensional and anisotropic harmonic
potentials~\cite{busch,calarco-r,calarco}.
The $s$-wave pseudopotential has also been applied successfully
to a wide range of three-body problems, either in free space
or under
confinement~\cite{nielsen,kartavtsev,rittenhouse-2010,mora,mora-2005,werner,petrov3}.
The present paper develops an efficient numerical framework for
treating the three-body system under anisotropic harmonic confinement.
The developed formalism allows us to study the dependence of the
three-body properties on the dimensionality of the system.
We focus on fermionic systems consisting of two identical
spin-up atoms and one spin-down atom.
The dimensional crossover of two-component Fermi gases has
attracted a great deal of interest
recently~\cite{sommer-2012, kohl-2012, thomas-2012}.
This paper considers the three-body
analog within a microscopic quantum mechanical framework.
We note that our framework readily generalizes to bosonic
three-body systems. The study of the dimensional crossover
of bosonic systems is interesting as it allows one to study
how, under experimentally realizable conditions, Efimov
trimers~\cite{braaten} that are known to exist in three-dimensional
space disappear as the confinement geometry is tuned to an effectively
low-dimensional geometry~\cite{nishidatan}.
This paper generalizes the methods developed in Refs.~\cite{mora,kestner}
for three equal-mass fermions in two different pseudospin states
under spherically symmetric harmonic confinement to anisotropic
harmonic confinement.
We develop an efficient and highly accurate algorithm to calculate the
eigenenergies and eigenstates of the system up to relatively
high energies as functions of the interaction strength and
aspect ratio of the trap.
Several applications are considered:
{\em{(i)}} The BCS-BEC crossover curve is analyzed throughout
the dimensional crossover.
{\em{(ii)}} For large and small aspect ratios, the energy spectra
are analyzed in terms of strictly one-dimensional and
strictly two-dimensional effective three-body Hamiltonian.
{\em{(iii)}} The second- and
third-order virial coefficients are analyzed as functions
of the temperature, aspect ratio and scattering length.
In particular, we show that the high-temperature limit of the
third-order virial coefficient $b_3$ at unitarity is independent of
the shape of the trap in agreement with expectations
derived through use of the local density approximation.
For finite scattering lengths, $b_2$ and $b_3$ for anisotropic
harmonic confinement are well approximated by those
for isotropic harmonic confinement.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{sec_formalsolution} presents a formal solution to the
problem of three $s$-wave interacting fermions confined in an
axially symmetric harmonic trap.
We also consider the extreme cases of strictly one-dimensional and
strictly two-dimensional confinement.
Sections~\ref{sec_cigar} and~\ref{sec_pancake} apply
the formal solution to
cigar-shaped and pancake-shaped traps, respectively.
We determine a large portion of the eigenspectrum
as a function of the scattering length and discuss
the transition to strictly one-dimensional and
strictly two-dimensional geometries.
Section~\ref{sec_virial_coeff} uses the two- and three-body
eigenspectra
to calculate the second- and third-order virial
coefficients as a function of the temperature and
the geometry of the confinement.
Finally, Sec.~\ref{sec_conclusion} concludes.
\section{Formal solution}
\label{sec_formalsolution}
We consider a two-component Fermi gas consisting of two spin-up
atoms and one spin-down atom with interspecies $s$-wave
interactions under anisotropic harmonic confinement.
We refer to the two spin-up atoms as particles 1 and 2,
and to the spin-down atom as particle 3.
We introduce the single-particle Hamiltonian
$H_0({\bf{r}}_j,\mathcal{M})$
for the $j^{th}$ particle with mass $\mathcal{M}$ under harmonic confinement,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_H0}
H_0({\bf{r}}_j,\mathcal{M})=\frac{-\hbar^2}{2\mathcal{M}}{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}^2_{{\bf{r}}_j}+\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{M} (\omega^2_zz_j^2 + \omega^2_{\rho} \rho_j^2).
\end{equation}
Here, ${\bf{r}}_j$ is measured with respect to the trap center, and
in cylindrical coordinates we have
${\bf{r}}_j=(z_j, \rho_j, \phi_j)$.
In Eq.~(\ref{eq_H0}),
$\omega_z$ and $\omega_{\rho}$
are the angular trapping frequencies in the $z$-
and $\rho$-directions, respectively.
The aspect ratio $\eta$ of the trap is defined through $\eta = \omega_{\rho} / \omega_z$.
In this paper, we consider cigar-shaped traps with $\eta>1$
as well as pancake-shaped traps with $\eta<1$.
Our three-particle Hamiltonian $H$ then reads
\begin{equation}
H = \sum_{j=1}^3 H_0({\bf{r}}_{j}, \mathcal{M}) +V_{\rm{int}},
\label{eq_Hamiltonian}
\end{equation}
where $V_{\rm{int}}$ accounts for the interspecies $s$-wave two-body interactions,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_v_int}
V_{\rm{int}} = V_{\rm{ps}}^{\rm{3D}}({{\bf{r}}_{31}}) + V_{\rm{ps}}^{\rm{3D}}({{\bf{r}}_{32}}).
\end{equation}
The regularized pseudopotential $V_{\rm{ps}}^{\rm{3D}}$ is characterized
by the three-dimensional $s$-wave scattering length $a^{\rm{3D}}$~\cite{fermi, huang, huang2},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_pseudopotential}
V_{\rm{ps}}^{\rm{3D}}({{\bf{r}}_{jk}}) = \frac{4 \pi \hbar^2 a^{\rm{3D}}}{\mathcal{M}} \delta ({\bf{r}}_{jk})\frac{\partial}{\partial r_{jk}}r_{jk},
\end{equation}
where ${{\bf{r}}_{jk}}={{\bf{r}}_{j}}-{{\bf{r}}_{k}}$ and
$r_{jk}=|{\bf{r}}_{jk}|$.
Since the trapping potential is quadratic,
the relative and center of mass degrees of freedom
separate and we rewrite the Hamiltonian $H$ in terms of
the relative Hamiltonian $H_{\rm{rel}}$ and the center of mass
Hamiltonian $H_{\rm{cm}}$,
$H = H_{\rm{rel}} + H_{\rm{cm}}$.
In the following, we obtain solutions
to the relative three-body Schr\"odinger equation
$H_{\rm{rel}} \Psi=E_{\rm{3b}} \Psi$,
where
\begin {eqnarray}
\label{eq_rel_Hamiltonian}
{H_{\rm{rel}}}= H_{\rm{rel},0} + V_{\rm{int}}
\end {eqnarray}
with
\begin {eqnarray}
\label{eq_rel_Hamiltonian_0}
H_{\rm{rel},0}=H_0({\bf{r}},\mu) + H_0({\bf{R}},\mu).
\end {eqnarray}
In Eq.~(\ref{eq_rel_Hamiltonian_0}), $\mu$ is the two-body reduced mass,
$\mu=\mathcal{M}/2$,
and the relative Jacobi coordinates ${\bf{r}}$ and ${\bf{R}}$
are defined through
${\bf{r}}={\bf{r}}_{31}$
and
${\bf{R}}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}} (\frac{{{\bf{r}}_{1}}+
{{\bf{r}}_{3}}}{2}-{\bf{r}}_{2})$.
Depending on the context, we use either ${\bf{r}}$ and ${\bf{R}}$ or
${\bf{r}}_{31}$ and ${\bf{r}}_{32}$ to describe the relative
degrees of freedom of the three-body system.
To determine the relative three-body
wave function $\Psi({\bf{r}},{\bf{R}})$,
we take advantage of the fact that the solutions to the ``unperturbed''
relative Hamiltonian $H_{\rm{rel},0}$ are known and consider the
Lippmann-Schwinger equation (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{kestner})
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_lippmann-schwinger}
\Psi({\bf{r}},{\bf{R}})= - \int G(E_{\rm{3b}};{\bf{r}},{\bf{R}};{\bf{r'}},{\bf{R'}})
V_{\rm{int}}({\bf{r'}},{\bf{R'}})
\Psi({\bf{r'}},{\bf{R'}})~d{\bf{r'}}d{\bf{R'}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The Green's function $G$ for the two ``pseudoparticles'' of mass
$\mu$ associated with the Jacobi vectors ${\bf{r}}$ and ${\bf{R}}$
is defined in terms of the eigenstates
$\Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda_1}({\bf{r}}) \Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda_2}({\bf{R}})$
and the eigenenergies
$E_{\boldsymbol\lambda_1}+E_{\boldsymbol\lambda_2}$ of $H_{\rm{rel},0}$,
\begin {eqnarray}
\label{eq_two_Green}
G(E_{\rm{3b}};{\bf{r}},{\bf{R}};{\bf{r'}},{\bf{R'}})=
\sum_{{\boldsymbol\lambda_1},{\boldsymbol\lambda_2}}
\frac{
\Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda_1}^*({\bf{r'}}) \Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda_2}^*({\bf{R'}})
\Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda_1}({\bf{r}}) \Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda_2}({\bf{R}})
}{
(E_{\boldsymbol\lambda_1}+E_{\boldsymbol\lambda_2})-E_{\rm{3b}}
}.
\end {eqnarray}
Here,
${\boldsymbol\lambda}$
collectively denotes the quantum numbers needed to
label the single-particle harmonic osillator states.
In cylindrical coordinates, we have
${\boldsymbol\lambda}=(n_z,n_{\rho},m)$
with $n_z = 0, 1, 2, \cdots$,
$n_{\rho} = 0, 1, 2, \cdots$, and
$m = 0, \pm 1, \pm2, \cdots$.
The single-particle harmonic oscillator eigenenergies and eigenstates read
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_ond-b_energy}
E_{\boldsymbol \lambda}=
\left(n_z+\frac{1}{2}\right) \hbar \omega_z +
\left(2n_{\rho}+|m|+1\right)\eta \hbar \omega_z
\end {equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_ond-b_wavefunction}
\Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda}({\bf{r}})=
\varphi_{n_z}(z)R_{n_{\rho},m}(\rho)\frac{e^{i m \phi}}{\sqrt{2 \pi}},
\end {equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_one-d_wavefunction}
\varphi_{n_z}(z)=
\sqrt{\frac{1}{a_z \sqrt{\pi}~2^{n_z} ~n_z!}}
\exp{\left(-\frac{z^2}{2 a_z^2}\right)} H_{n_z}(z/a_z)
\end {equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_two-d_wavefunction}
R_{n_{\rho},m}(\rho)=\sqrt{\frac{2 ~ \eta ~{n_{\rho}!}}{a_z^2(n_{\rho}+ |m|)!}} \exp{\left(-\frac{ \eta \rho^2}{2 a_z^2}\right)}\left(\frac{\eta^{1/2} \rho}{a_z}\right)^{|m|}
L_{n_\rho}^{(|m|)}\left(\eta \rho^2/a_z^2\right).
\end {equation}
In the last two equations, $H_{n_z}(z/a_z)$ and $L_{n_{\rho}}^{(|m|)}\left(\eta \rho^2/a_z^2\right)$
denote Hermite and associated Laguerre polynomials, respectively.
Throughout most of Secs.~\ref{sec_formalsolution}-\ref{sec_pancake}, we
use the oscillator energy $E_z$ and oscillator
length $a_z$ [$E_z=\hbar \omega_z$
and $a_z=\sqrt{\hbar/(\mu \omega_z)}$] as our energy and length units.
In Eqs.~(\ref{eq_lippmann-schwinger})-(\ref{eq_two-d_wavefunction}),
we employ cylindrical coordinates
since this choice allows us to write the
Green's function $G$ compactly.
However, the two-body $s$-wave interaction potential is
most conveniently expressed in
spherical coordinates [see Eq.~(\ref{eq_pseudopotential})].
Since the pseudopotential $V_{\rm{ps}}^{\rm{3D}}({\bf{r}})$ acts
only at a single point, namely at $r=0$,
it imposes a boundary condition on the relative three-body wave function
$\Psi({\bf{r}},{\bf{R}})$ (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{petrov3}),
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_boundary}
\left. \Psi({\bf{r}},{\bf{R}})\right|_{r \rightarrow 0}
\approx
\frac{f({\bf{R}})}{4 \pi a_z^{3/2}}\left(\frac{a_z}{r} - \frac{a_z}{a^{\rm{3D}}}\right).
\end {equation}
The unknown function $f({\bf{R}})$ can be interpreted
as the relative wave function of the center of mass
of the interacting pair and the third particle.
Similarly, the pseudopotential $V_{\rm{ps}}^{\rm{3D}}({\bf{r}}_{32})$
imposes a boundary condition on
the wave function $\Psi({\bf{r}},{\bf{R}})$
when $r_{32}\rightarrow 0$.
Since the wave function $\Psi({\bf{r}},{\bf{R}})$
must be anti-symmetric under the exchange
of the two identical fermions, i.e.,
$P_{12}\Psi({\bf{r}},{\bf{R}}) = -\Psi({\bf{r}},{\bf{R}})$,
where $P_{12}$ exchanges particles 1 and 2,
the properly anti-symmetrized boundary condition
corresponding to $V_{\rm{ps}}^{\rm{3D}}({\bf{r}}_{32})$ reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_boundary2}
\left. \Psi({\bf{r}}_{32},{\bf{R}}_{32})\right|_{r_{32} \rightarrow 0}
\approx -\frac{f({\bf{R}}_{32})}{4 \pi a_z^{3/2}}
\left(\frac{a_z}{r_{32}} - \frac{a_z}{a^{\rm{3D}}}\right).
\end{equation}
Here, we defined
${\bf{R}}_{32} =
\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\frac{{\bf{r}}_2+{\bf{r}}_3}{2}-{\bf{r}}_{1}\right).$
To simplify the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq_lippmann-schwinger}),
we impose the limiting behaviors of $\Psi({\bf{r'}},{\bf{R'}})$ for
$r'_{31}\rightarrow 0$
and
$r'_{32}\rightarrow 0$,
and expand $f({\bf{R'}})$ in terms of the non-interacting harmonic
oscillator functions,
$f({\bf{R'}})= \sum_{\boldsymbol\lambda'}f_{\boldsymbol\lambda'} \Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda'}({\bf{R'}})$.
Using Eq.~(\ref{eq_two_Green}) for $G$
and orthonormality of the single-particle
harmonic oscillator functions, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_wf_expansion}
\Psi({\bf{r}},{\bf{R}})=\frac{E_z a_z^{3/2}}{2}\sum_{\boldsymbol\lambda}f_{\boldsymbol\lambda}
\left[
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}\left(E_{\rm{3b}}-E_{\boldsymbol\lambda};{\bf{r}};{\bf{0}}\right) \Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda}({\bf{R}}) -
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}\left(E_{\rm{3b}}-E_{\boldsymbol\lambda};\frac{{\bf{r}} + \sqrt{3} {\bf{R}}}{2};{\bf{0}}\right)
\Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda}\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}{\bf{r}} - {\bf{R}}}{2}\right)
\right].
\end {eqnarray}
Here, we used that ${\bf{r}}_{32}$ can be written as
$({\bf{r}} + \sqrt{3}{\bf{R}})/2$
and introduced the one-body Green's function
$\mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}\left(E;{\bf{r}};{\bf{r'}}\right)$
for the pseudoparticle of mass $\mu$ that is associated with the relative
distance vector ${\bf{r'}}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_one_green}
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}\left(E;{\bf{r}};{\bf{r'}}\right) =
\sum_{\boldsymbol\lambda'}\frac{\Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda'}^*({\bf{r'}})
\Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda'}({\bf{r}})
}{E_{\boldsymbol\lambda'}-E}.
\end {eqnarray}
The one-body Green's function
$\mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}\left(E_{\rm{2b}};{\bf{r}};{\bf{r'}}\right)$
with ${\bf{r'}}={\bf{0}}$
coincides with the solution to
the relative Schr\"odinger equation
for two particles under harmonic confinement
interacting through the zero-range pseudopotential
$V_{\rm{ps}}^{\rm{3D}}({\bf{r}})$ with $s$-wave
scattering length $a^{\rm{3D}}$ and relative two-body
energy $E_{\rm{2b}}$.
$\mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}\left(E;{\bf{r}};{\bf{0}}\right)$ is known for
all aspect ratios $\eta$~\cite{calarco-r,calarco}
(see also Secs.~{\ref{sec_cigar}} and~{\ref{sec_pancake}}).
To determine the expansion coefficients $f_{\boldsymbol\lambda}$,
we apply the operation
$\left. \frac{\partial}{\partial r}(r \cdot )\right|_{r \rightarrow 0}$
to the left hand side and the right hand side of
Eq.~(\ref{eq_wf_expansion}), i.e., we multiply both sides
of Eq.~(\ref{eq_wf_expansion}) by $r$, then apply the
derivative operator and lastly take the limit $r \to 0$.
Defining
\begin{align}
\label{eq_f}
\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\eta)= 2 \pi E_z a_z^3
\left. \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left\{r\mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}\left([\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}+\eta+1/2]E_z;{\bf{r}};{\bf{0}}\right)\right\}\right|_{r \rightarrow 0}
\end{align}
with
$(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}+\eta + 1/2)E_z=
E_{\rm{3b}}-E_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$,
we find
\begin{align}
\label{eq_eigen1}
& -\frac{a_z}{2 \pi a^{\rm{3D}}}\sum_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}
f_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}\Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda'}({\bf{R}})=
\nonumber\\
&
\sum_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}f_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}
\left\{\frac{1}{2 \pi}\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}},\eta)
\Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda'}\left({\bf{R}}\right)-
E_z a_z^3 \mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}\left([\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}+\eta+1/2]E_z;\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}{\bf{R}};{\bf{0}}\right)
\Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda'}\left(\frac{-{\bf{R}}}{2}\right)\right\}.
\end{align}
The quantity $\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}$
can be interpreted as a non-integer quantum number
associated with the interacting pair.
If we multiply Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen1}) by $\Phi^*_{\boldsymbol\lambda}({\bf{R}})$
and integrate over ${\bf{R}}$, we find an implicit eigenequation
for the relative three-body energy $E_{\rm{3b}}$ or equivalently, the non-integer
quantum number $\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_eigen2}
\sum_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}\left[
I_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}
\left(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}\right)-
\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}\left(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\eta\right)
\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}\right]
f_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}=
\frac{a_z}{a^{\rm{3D}}}f_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_Ilambda}
I_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}
\left(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}\right)
= 2 \pi E_z a_z^3
\int
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}
\left(
[\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}+\eta+1/2]E_z;
\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}{\bf{R}};{\bf{0}}\right)
\Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda'}\left(\frac{-{\bf{R}}}{2}\right)
\Phi_{\boldsymbol\lambda}^*({\bf{R}})~d{\bf{R}}
\end{eqnarray}
and $ \delta_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}$
is the Kronecker delta symbol.
The determination of
$I_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}})$
and $\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}},\eta)$
for $\eta > 1$ and $\eta < 1$ is discussed in
Secs.~{\ref{sec_cigar}} and~{\ref{sec_pancake}}, respectively.
Equation~(\ref{eq_eigen2}) can be interpreted as
a matrix equation with eigenvalues $a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$
and eigenvectors $f_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$~\cite{kestner, drummond_prl}.
In practice, we first calculate the
matrix elements
$I_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}})$
in Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen2}) for a given
three-body energy $E_{\rm{3b}}$ and obtain
the corresponding scattering lengths for this energy by
diagonalizing the matrix with elements
$I_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}})-
\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\eta) \delta_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}$.
This step is repeated for several three-body energies.
Lastly, we invert $a^{\rm{3D}}(E_{\rm{3b}})$ to get $E_{\rm{3b}}(a^{\rm{3D}})$, i.e.,
to get the three-body energies as a function of the $s$-wave
scattering length.
Equation~(\ref{eq_eigen2}) has a simple physical interpretation.
If the interaction between particles 2 and 3 is turned off, the matrix
$I_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}})$
vanishes and the solution reduces to that of an interacting pair
(particles 1 and 3) and a non-interacting spectator particle (particle 2).
The relative
energy $(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}+\eta+1/2)E_z$
of the pair is determined by solving the relative two-body eigenequation
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}},\eta)=-a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$.
The matrix
$I_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}})$
thus arises from the fact that particle 3 not only
interacts with particle 1 but also with particle 2.
Correspondingly, the terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen2}) that contain
$I_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}})$
can be interpreted as exchange terms that arise from
exchanging particles 1 and 2~\cite{drummond_prl}.
For $\eta = 1$, the function
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\eta)$
is given in Table~\ref{tab_two_scatt} and the evaluation of
$I_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}})$
has been discussed in detail in Ref.~\cite{drummond_pra}.
The $\eta \neq 1$ cases are discussed in Secs.~{\ref{sec_cigar}} and ~{\ref{sec_pancake}}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Two-body properties in three dimensions
($s$-wave channel), two dimensions ($m=0$ channel),
and one dimension (even parity channel).
$\psi({\bf{q}})$ denotes the relative two-body wave function
and $\mu$ the two-body reduced mass. ${\bf{q}}$ stands for
${\bf{r}}$, ${\boldsymbol{\rho}}$, and $z$ in three, two,
and one dimensions, respectively.
For 3D, 2D and 1D, we have $\epsilon=E_{\rm{2b}}/E_z-\eta-1/2$,
$\epsilon=E_{\rm{2b}}/E_{\rho}-1$ and $\epsilon=E_{\rm{2b}}/E_z-1/2$, respectively,
where $E_{\rm{2b}}$ denotes the relative two-body energy.
$\psi_g$ denotes the digamma function and $\gamma$ the Euler constant,
$\gamma \approx 0.577$.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
&
$\rm{3D}$ &
$\rm{2D}$ &
$\rm{1D}$\\
\hline
$V_{\rm{ps}}$ &
$g^{\rm{3D}}\delta^{(3)}({\bf{r}})\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r$ &
$g^{\rm{2D}}\delta^{(2)}({\boldsymbol{\rho}})\frac{\partial}{\partial \rho}\rho$ &
$g^{\rm{1D}}\delta(z)$ \\
\hline
$g$ &
$2\pi \frac{\hbar^2}{\mu}a^{\rm{3D}}$ &
$\pi \frac{\hbar^2}{\mu} \left[\ln(\frac{\rho}{a^{\rm{2D}}})+1\right]^{-1}$ &
$ -\frac{\hbar^2}{\mu}\frac{1}{a^{\rm{1D}}}$ \\
\hline
$ \left.\psi({\bf{q}}) \right|_{|{\bf{q}}| \to 0} $ &
$\propto \left(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{a^{\rm{3D}}}\right)$ &
$\propto \left[\ln(a^{\rm{2D}})-\ln(\rho)\right]$ &
$\propto (z- a^{\rm{1D}})$ \\
\hline
Bethe-Peierls B.C. &
$\left . \frac{\partial (r \psi)}{\partial r} \right|_{r \to 0} = \frac{-1}{a^{\rm{3D}}}\left . (r \psi) \right|_{r \to 0}$ &
$\left . \rho \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \rho} \right|_{\rho \to 0} = \left . \frac{\psi}{\ln\left(\rho/a^{\rm{2D}}\right)} \right|_{\rho \to 0}$ &
$\left . \frac{d \psi}{d z} \right|_{z \to 0} = \frac{-1}{a^{\rm{1D}}}\left . \psi \right|_{z \to 0}$ \\
\hline
$\mathcal{F}$ &
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon,\eta)= 2 \pi E_z a_z^3$&
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{2D}}(\epsilon)= \pi E_{\rho} a_{\rho}^2$&
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{1D}}(\epsilon)= E_z a_z$
\\ & $ \left\{ \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left[r\mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}\left([\epsilon+\eta+\frac{1}{2}]E_z;{\bf{r}};{\bf{0}}\right)\right]\right\}_{r \rightarrow 0}$&
$\left\{ \mathcal{G}^{\rm{2D}}\left([\epsilon+1]E_\rho;{{\rho}};{{0}}\right) + \ln(\rho/a_{\rho})\right\}_{\rho \rightarrow 0}$&
$\left\{ \mathcal{G}^{\rm{1D}}\left([\epsilon+\frac{1}{2}]E_z;z;0\right)\right\}_{z \rightarrow 0}$
\\
\hline
&$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon,1)=\frac{-2\Gamma(-\epsilon/2)}{\Gamma(-\epsilon/2-1/2)}$ &
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{2D}}(\epsilon)=-\frac{1}{2}\psi_g(-\epsilon/2) - \gamma$ &
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{1D}}(\epsilon)=\frac{\Gamma(-\epsilon/2)}{2 \Gamma(-\epsilon/2+ 1/2)}$ \\
\hline
two-body energy &
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon, \eta) = -a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$ &
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{2D}}(\epsilon) = \ln(a^{\rm{2D}}/a_{\rho})$ &
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{1D}}(\epsilon) = a^{\rm{1D}}/a_z$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab_two_scatt}
\end{table}
For a spherically symmetic system with $\eta = 1$,
the total relative angular momentum quantum number $L$,
the corresponding projection quantum number $M$
and the parity $\Pi$ are
good quantum numbers, and the eigenvalue equation can be solved
for each $L$ and $M$ combination separately
using spherical coordinates~\cite{kestner}.
For a fixed $L$ and $M$,
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}=(n,l,m)$ and
$\boldsymbol{\lambda'}=(n',l',m')$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen2})
are constrained by $l=l'=L$ and $m=m'=M$.
The parity of the three-body system is given by
$\Pi=(-1)^L$.
We emphasize that the outlined formalism makes no approximations,
i.e., Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen2}) with
$I_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}
\left(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}\right)$
given by Eq.~(\ref{eq_Ilambda})
describes all eigenstates of
$H_{\rm{rel}}$
[see Eq.~(\ref{eq_rel_Hamiltonian})]
that are affected by the interactions.
In particular, all ``channel couplings'' are accounted for.
In practice, the construction of the matrix
$I_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}})$
requires one to choose a maximum for ${\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$
and $\boldsymbol{\lambda'}$, or alternatively,
a cutoff for the single-particle energy
$E_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$.
As has been shown in Ref.~\cite{drummond_pra},
good convergence is
achieved for a relatively small number of ``basis functions''
for $\eta=1$. As we show below, good convergence is also
obtained for anisotropic confinement geometries.
The formalism outlined can also be applied to strictly
one-dimensional and strictly two-dimensional systems.
Table~\ref{tab_two_scatt} defines the one-dimensional
and two-dimensional pseudopotentials as well as a
number of key properties of the corresponding relative two-body system.
Making the appropriate changes in the outlined derivation
and using the properties listed in Table~\ref{tab_two_scatt},
we find for strictly one-dimensional systems
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_eigen_1d}
\sum_{n_z'=0}^{\infty}
\left[
I_{n_z,n_z'}^{\rm{1D}}\left(\epsilon_{n_z'}\right)
- \mathcal{F}^{\rm{1D}}\left(\epsilon_{n_z}\right)
\delta_{n_z,n_z'}
\right]
f_{n_z'}=
-\frac{a^{\rm{1D}}}{a_z}f_{n_z},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{F}^{\rm{1D}}$ is defined in Table~\ref{tab_two_scatt},
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_Inz_1d}
I_{n_z,n_z'}^{\rm{1D}}\left(\epsilon_{n_z'}\right)=
E_z a_z\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{1D}}\left([\epsilon_{n_z'}+1/2]E_z;
\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}z;0\right)
\varphi_{n_z'}\left(-\frac{z}{2}\right)\varphi_{n_z}^*(z) dz,
\end{eqnarray}
and $E_{\rm{3b}} - E_{n_z'} = (\epsilon_{n_z'} + 1/2)E_z$.
Here, $E_{n_z}$ denotes the single-particle energy of the
one-dimensional system, $E_{n_z}=(n_z+1/2) E_z$,
and $\mathcal{G}^{\rm{1D}}\left(E;z;z'\right)$ the one-dimensional
even parity single-particle Green's function,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_one_green_1d}
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{1D}}\left(E;z;z'\right) =
\sum_{n_z'=0}^{\infty}\frac{\varphi_{2n_z'}^*(z')
\varphi_{2n_z'}(z)
}{E_{2n_z'}-E}.
\end {eqnarray}
For $z'=0$, the single-particle Green's function is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq_2-body_1d}
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{1D}}\left(E;z;0\right)
= \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi} E_z a_z}
\exp\left(-\frac{z^2}{2 a_z^2}\right)
\Gamma\left(-\frac{E/E_z-1/2}{2}\right)
U\left(-\frac{E/E_z-1/2}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{z^2}{a_z^2}\right),
\end{align}
where $\Gamma(x)$ is the Gamma function and $U(a,b,z)$ the confluent
hypergeometric function.
The strictly one-dimensional relative three-body wave function
$\Psi$ is characterized by the parity $\Pi_z$.
For even parity states, i.e., for states with $\Pi_z=1$,
$n_z$ and $n_z'$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen_1d}) have to be even.
For odd parity states, i.e., for states with $\Pi_z=-1$,
$n_z$ and $n_z'$ have to be odd.
Similarly, for strictly two-dimensional systems, expressed in
units of $E_{\rho}$ and $a_{\rho}$ [$E_{\rho}=\hbar \omega_{\rho}$
and $a_{\rho}=\sqrt{\hbar/(\mu \omega_{\rho})}$],
we find, in agreement with Ref.~\cite{drummond_2d},
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_eigen_2d}
\sum_{n_{\rho}'=0}^{\infty}
\left[
I_{n_{\rho},n_{\rho}',m}^{\rm{2D}}(\epsilon_{n_{\rho}',m}) -
\mathcal{F}^{\rm{2D}}(\epsilon_{n_{\rho},m})
\delta_{n_{\rho},n_{\rho}'}
\right]
f_{n_{\rho}',m}=
\ln\left(\frac{a_{\rho}}{a^{\rm{2D}}}\right)f_{n_{\rho},m},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{F}^{\rm{2D}}$ is defined in Table~\ref{tab_two_scatt},
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_Inrho_2d}
I_{n_{\rho},n_{\rho}',m}^{\rm{2D}}(\epsilon_{n_{\rho}',m})=
(-1)^m ~\pi
E_{\rho} a_{\rho}^2
\int_0^{\infty}
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{2D}}
\left([\epsilon_{n_{\rho}',m}+1]E_{\rho};\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\rho;0\right)
R_{n_{\rho}',m}\left(\frac{\rho}{2}\right)
R_{n_{\rho},m}\left(\rho\right) \rho d \rho,
\end{eqnarray}
and $E_{\rm{3b}}-E_{n_{\rho}',m}=(\epsilon_{n_{\rho}',m}+1) E_{\rho}$.
Here, $E_{n_{\rho},m}$ denotes the single-particle energy of the
two-dimensional system, $E_{n_{\rho},m}= (2 n_{\rho} + |m| +1)E_{\rho}$.
The two-dimensional single-particle Green's function
$\mathcal{G}^{\rm{2D}}\left(E;{\rho}; {\rho}'\right)$
is defined analogously to the three- and one-dimensional counterparts
[see Eqs.~(\ref{eq_one_green}) and~(\ref{eq_one_green_1d})].
For $\rho'=0$ and states affected
by the zero-range $s$-wave interactions~\cite{calarco-r,calarco},
one finds
\begin{align}
\label{eq_2-body_2d}
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{2D}}(E;{\rho};{0}) =
\frac{1}{2\pi E_{\rho} a_{\rho}^2}
\exp\left(-\frac{\rho^2}{2 a_{\rho}^2}\right)
\Gamma\left(-\frac{E/E_{\rho}-1}{2}\right)
U\left(-\frac{E/E_{\rho}-1}{2},1,\frac{\rho^2}{a_{\rho}^2}\right).
\end{align}
The strictly two-dimensional relative three-body wave function
is characterized by the projection quantum number $M$
and the parity $\Pi_{\boldsymbol{\rho}}$,
$\Pi_{\boldsymbol{\rho}}=(-1)^{M}$.
For a fixed $M$, $m$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen_2d})
is constrained to the value $m=M$.
The next two sections analyze, utilizing our results for strictly
one- and two-dimensional systems, Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen2})
for cigar- and pancake-shaped traps.
\section{Cigar-shaped trap}
\label{sec_cigar}
To apply the formalism reviewed in
Sec.~{\ref{sec_formalsolution}} to axially symmetric traps,
we need the
explicit forms of the functions
$\mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}\left([\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}+\eta+1/2]E_z;
{\bf{r}};{\bf{0}}\right)$
and
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\eta)$,
that is, the relative solutions to the trapped two-body system.
For cigar-shaped traps ($\eta > 1$), it is convenient
to write
$\mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}$ as~\cite{calarco-r,calarco}
\begin{align}
\label{eq_G_cigar}
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}\left([\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}+\eta+1/2]E_z;
{\bf{r}};{\bf{0}}\right)=
\frac{\eta}{\pi a_z^2}\exp\left(-\frac{ \eta \rho^2}{2 a_z^2}\right)
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} L_j\left( \eta \rho^2 / a_z^2\right)
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{1D}}\left([\epsilon_{\boldsymbol\lambda}-2 \eta j+
1/2]E_z ;z;0\right),
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{G}^{\rm{1D}}\left(E;z;0\right)$
is defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq_2-body_1d}).
Using Eq.~(\ref{eq_G_cigar}) in Eq.~(\ref{eq_Ilambda}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_Ilambda_cigar}
I_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}
(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}) =
\sqrt{2\eta}(-1)^m\delta_{m,m'}\times \nonumber \\
\lim_{j_{\rm{max}} \to \infty}\sum_{j=0}^{j_{\rm{max}}}I_{n_z,n_z'}^{\rm{c}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}},j) I_{n_{\rho},n_{\rho}',m}^{\rm{c}}(j),
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{align}
\label{eq_Iz_cigar}
I_{n_z,n_z'}^{\rm{c}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}},j)=
E_z a_z
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{1D}}\left([\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}-2 \eta j+
1/2]E_z;\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}z; 0\right)
\varphi_{n_z'}\left(-\frac{z}{2}\right)\varphi_{n_z}(z)~dz
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\label{eq_Irho_cigar}
& I_{n_{\rho},n_{\rho}',m}^{\rm{c}}(j)=\nonumber \\
&a_z\int_0^{\infty} R_{j,0}\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\rho\right) R_{n_{\rho}',m}\left(\frac{\rho}{2}\right) R_{n_{\rho},m}(\rho)~\rho d\rho.
\end{align}
The evaluation of the integrals
$I_{n_z,n_z'}^{\rm{c}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}},j)$ and
$I_{n_{\rho},n_{\rho}',m}^{\rm{c}}(j)$ is discussed in
Appendix~\ref{appendix}.
The superscript ``c'' indicates that the integrals
apply to cigar-shaped systems; for pancake-shaped systems
(see Sec.~\ref{sec_pancake}), we introduce the integrals
$I_{n_{\rho},n_{\rho}',m}^{\rm{p}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}},j)$ and
$I_{n_z,n_z'}^{\rm{p}}(j)$
instead.
Although it is possible to calculate
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\eta)$
numerically for any trap aspect ratio $\eta$, we
restrict ourselves to integer aspect ratios for simplicity.
For traps with integer aspect ratio, an exact analytical expression for
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\eta)$ is
known~\cite{calarco-r,calarco},
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_f26_cigar}
\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}} \left( \epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\eta \right)=
-2 \frac
{\Gamma\left(-\frac{\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}{2}\right)}
{\Gamma\left(-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}{2}\right)}
+ \frac
{\Gamma\left(-\frac{\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}{2}\right)}
{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}{2}\right)}
\times \nonumber \\
\sum _{k=1}^{\eta -1} {}_2F_1 \left(1,-\frac{\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}{2};\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}{2};\exp
\left(\frac{2 \pi \imath k}{\eta} \right) \right),
\end{eqnarray}
where
$ {}_2F_1(a,b;c;z)$ is the hypergeometric function~\cite{abramowitz}.
Knowing $I_{\boldsymbol{\lambda},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}
(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}})$
and $\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}},\eta)$,
Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen2}) can be diagonalized separately for each
$(\Pi_z, M,\Pi_{\boldsymbol{\rho}})$ combination.
We recall from Sec.~\ref{sec_formalsolution} that
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}=(n_z,n_{\rho},m)$ and
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}'=(n_z',n_{\rho}',m')$.
The $m$ and $m'$ values are constrained by
$m=m'=M$.
Moreover, for $\Pi_z=+1$ and $\Pi_z=-1$, we have
$n_z=n_z'=even$ and $n_z=n_z'=odd$, respectively.
Figure~\ref{fig_cigar}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{+.9cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=70mm]{fig1_short.eps}
\vspace*{0.3cm}
\caption{Relative three-body energies $E_{\rm{3b}}/E_z$ as a
function of the
inverse scattering length $a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$ for a cigar-shaped trap
with aspect ratio $\eta = 2$ and
(a) $M=0$ and $\Pi_z = +1$, and (b) $M=0$ and $\Pi_z = -1$.
}
\label{fig_cigar}
\end{figure}
shows the three-body relative energies $E_{\rm{3b}}/E_z$
for $\eta=2$ for states with (a) $M=0$ and $\Pi_z = +1$
and (b) $M=0$ and $\Pi_z = -1$
as a function of the inverse scattering length
$a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$.
The
non-interacting limit is approached when $(a^{\rm{3D}})^{-1} \to \pm \infty$,
and the infinitely strongly-interacting regime for $(a^{\rm{3D}})^{-1}=0$
(center of the figure).
For
each fixed projection quantum number $M$,
we include around $840$ basis functions.
This corresponds to a cutoff of around $(82+2M)E_z$
for the single-particle energy $E_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$.
We find that $j_{\rm{max}} \gtrsim 30$ yields converged values for
$I_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}})$,
Eq.~(\ref{eq_Ilambda_cigar}).
For small $|a^{\rm{3D}}/a_z|$ ($a^{\rm{3D}}$ positive and negative),
our eigenenergies agree with those obtained within first-order
perturbation theory.
Our analysis shows that the energy of the ground state
at unitarity has a relative
error of the order of $10^{-5}$.
The accuracy decreases with increasing energy.
For example, for energies around $20 E_z$,
the relative accuracy at unitarity is of the order of $10^{-4}$.
The eigenstates fall into one of two categories:
atom-dimer states and atom-atom-atom states.
The eigenenergies associated with the former are negative for
large positive $a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$ while those associated with the
latter remain positive for large positive $a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$.
The energy spectra shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_cigar}
exhibit sequences of avoided crossings.
To resolve these crossings, a fairly fine mesh in the three-body energy
is needed.
In the $(a^{\rm{3D}})^{-1} \to - \infty$ limit, the lowest
$M=0$ state has negative parity in $z$, i.e., $\Pi_z = -1$.
This is a direct consequence of the fact that the two identical fermions
cannot occupy the same single particle state.
In the $(a^{\rm{3D}})^{-1} \to + \infty$ limit, in contrast, the lowest
$M=0$ state has positive parity in $z$, i.e., $\Pi_z = +1$.
This is a direct consequence of the fact that the system
consists, effectively, of a dimer and an atom.
The main part of Fig.~\ref{fig_cigar_gr_st}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{+.9cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=70mm]{fig2.eps}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\caption{(Color online)~``Crossover curve'' of the
three-body system with $M=0$, shifted by $2 E_{\rho} = 2 \eta E_z$,
for cigar-shaped traps with $\eta = 2$ (solid line), $4$ (dotted line),
$6$ (dashed line), $8$ (dash-dot-dotted line),
and $10$ (dash-dotted line) as a function of $a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$.
The scattering lengths at which the parity of the corresponding
eigenstate changes from
$\Pi_z = -1$ (``left side of the graph'') to
$\Pi_z = +1$ (``right side of the graph'') are marked by asterisks.
At these points, the derivative of the crossover curve
is discontinuous;
the discontinuities are not visible on the scale shown.
The inset shows the (unshifted)
crossover curve as a function of $a_{\rho}/a^{\rm{3D}}$.}
\label{fig_cigar_gr_st}
\end{figure}
shows the relative energy of the energetically
lowest-lying state, the so-called crossover curve,
of the three-body system with $M=0$ for various aspect ratios
of the trap ($\eta = 2,\cdots,10$)
as a function of the inverse scattering length $a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$.
For comparative purposes, we subtract the ground state
energy of $2\eta E_z$ of the strictly two-dimensional non-interacting system,
that is, the energy that the system would have in the
$\rho$-direction if the dynamics in the tight confinement
direction were frozen,
from the full three-dimensional energy.
In Fig.~\ref{fig_cigar_gr_st}, asterisks mark the scattering lengths
at which the eigenstate associated with the crossover curve changes from
$\Pi_z = -1$ to $\Pi_z = +1$.
With increasing $\eta$, the parity change occurs at larger
$a_z / a^{\rm{3D}}$ (that is, smaller $a^{\rm{3D}}/a_z$).
The inset of Fig.~\ref{fig_cigar_gr_st} replots the crossover
curves as a function of $a_{\rho}/a^{\rm{3D}}$.
We now discuss the large $\eta$ limit in more detail.
Using the limiting behavior of
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon, \eta)$
for $\eta\gg 1$ and
$\eta\gg |\epsilon|$~\cite{calarco-r,calarco},
\begin{align}
\label{eq_f_large_eta}
\left.
\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}
(\epsilon, \eta)\right|_{\eta\gg 1}
\approx
2\eta \mathcal{F}^{\rm{1D}}(\epsilon)
+\sqrt{\eta} \zeta(1/2),
\end{align}
the two-body eigenequation for the relative energy
becomes~\cite{calarco-r,calarco}
\begin{align}
\label{eq_two-b_1d}
\mathcal{F}^{\rm{1D}}(\epsilon)=\frac{a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{1D}}}{a_z},
\end{align}
where the renormalized one-dimensional scattering length
$a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{1D}}$ is given by~\cite{olshanii1,olshanii2}
\begin{align}
\label{eq_olshanii}
\frac{a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{1D}}}{a_z}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta}} \left[
-\frac{a_{\rho}}{2 a^{\rm{3D}}}-\frac{\zeta(1/2)}{2}
\right].
\end{align}
Figure~\ref{fig_cigar_quasi_2-body}(a)
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{+1.9cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=70mm]{fig3.eps}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\caption{(Color online)~(a)~Relative two-body energies $E_{\rm{2b}}/E_z$
as a function of the
inverse scattering length $a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$ for a cigar-shaped trap
with aspect ratio $\eta = 10$, $M=0$ and $\Pi_z=+1$.
(b)~The solid curve from panel (a) is replotted and compared with the
energy obtained by solving the strictly one-dimensional
eigenequation with renormalized
one-dimensional scattering length $a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{1D}}$
(dotted line;
the energy $E_{\rho}=\eta E_z$ has been added to allow for a comparison with
the full three-dimensional energy).
The inset shows the difference between the dotted and solid lines as
a function of the inverse scattering length $a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$.
The scale of the $y$-axis is identical to that of the
inset of Fig.~\ref{fig_cigar_quasi_3-body}(b).}
\label{fig_cigar_quasi_2-body}
\end{figure}
shows the relative two-body energies for a system with
$\eta = 10$, $M=0$ and $\Pi_z=+1$ obtained by solving
the eigenequation
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon, \eta=10)=-a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$
[see Eq.~(\ref{eq_f26_cigar}) for $\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon, \eta)$].
Figure~\ref{fig_cigar_quasi_2-body}(b)
compares the full three-dimensional energy (solid line)
with the energy obtained by solving the strictly
one-dimensional eigenequation, Eq.~(\ref{eq_two-b_1d}),
with renormalized one-dimensional scattering length $a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{1D}}$
(dotted line).
To facilitate the comparison, we add the energy of the tight
confinement direction to the energy of the one-dimensional system.
The agreement is quite good for all scattering lengths.
The inset of Fig.~\ref{fig_cigar_quasi_2-body}(b)
shows the difference between the strictly one-dimensional energy
and the full three-dimensional energy as a function of $a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$.
The maximum deviation occurs around unitarity and is of the
order of $0.2 \%$.
Next, we discuss the behavior of the three-body system
in the large $\eta$ limit.
If we use Eqs.~(\ref{eq_f_large_eta}) and~(\ref{eq_olshanii})
in Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen2}),
we find
\begin{align}
\label{eq_eigen_large_eta}
\sum_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}\left[
\frac{1}{2\eta} I^{\rm{3D}}_{\boldsymbol{\lambda},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}'})-
\mathcal{F}^{\rm{1D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}})
\delta_{\boldsymbol{\lambda},\boldsymbol{\lambda}'}
\right]f_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}'}
= - \frac{a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{1D}}}{a_z}f_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}.
\end{align}
A straightforward analysis shows that Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen_large_eta})
reduces to its strictly one-dimensional analog if
{\em{(i)}} the sum over
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}'$ is restricted to a sum over $n_z'$
[$\boldsymbol{\lambda}'=(n_z',0,0)$];
{\em{(ii)}} the index $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ is restricted to
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}=(n_z,0,0)$;
{\em{(iii)}} the energy $E_{\rm{3b}}$ is replaced by $E_{\rm{3b}} -2\eta E_z$;
and
{\em{(iv)}} $j_{\rm{max}}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq_Ilambda_cigar}) is set to zero.
Under these assumptions, Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen_large_eta})
reduces to Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen_1d}) with $a^{\rm{1D}}$
replaced by $a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{1D}}$.
We emphasize that the assumption
$\eta\gg |\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}|$
[see discussion around Eq.~(\ref{eq_f_large_eta})]
is not valid when two
atoms form a tight molecule. In this limit, the
three-dimensional $s$-wave scattering length,
or the size of the dimer, is smaller
than the harmonic oscillator length in the transverse direction,
which implies that the strictly one-dimensional
description is not valid.
Figure~\ref{fig_cigar_quasi_3-body}(a)
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{+.9cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=70mm]{fig4_short.eps}
\vspace*{0.4cm}
\caption{(Color online)~(a)~Relative three-body
energies $E_{\rm{3b}}/E_z$ as a function of the
inverse scattering length $a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$ for a cigar-shaped
trap with aspect ratio $\eta = 10$, $M=0$ and $\Pi_z=+1$.
(b)~The solid curve from panel (a) is replotted and compared with the
energy obtained by solving the strictly one-dimensional
eigenequation with renormalized
one-dimensional scattering length $a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{1D}}$
(the energy of $2 E_{\rho}=2\eta E_z$
has been added to allow for a comparison with
the full three-dimensional energy).
For comparison, the dashed line shows one of the three-dimensional
energy curves for
$M=0$ and $\Pi_z=-1$ [not shown in panel~(a)];
the corresponding strictly one-dimensional energy is shown by a dotted line.
The difference between the full three-dimensional and
strictly one-dimensional descriptions is hardly visible on the scale shown.
Solid and dashed lines
in the inset show the differences between
the strictly
one-dimensional energies
[dotted lines in panel~(b)] and
the full three-dimensional energies
[solid and dashed lines in panel~(b)]
as
a function of the inverse scattering length $a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$
for $\Pi_z=+1$ and $\Pi_z=-1$, respectively.}
\label{fig_cigar_quasi_3-body}
\end{figure}
shows the relative three-body energies for states with
$M=0$ and $\Pi_z=+1$
as a function of the inverse scattering length $a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$
for a cigar-shaped trap with $\eta=10$.
Figure~\ref{fig_cigar_quasi_3-body}(b)
compares the energy of the energetically lowest-lying
three-atom state with $\Pi_z=+1$ (solid line)
[see thick solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig_cigar_quasi_3-body}(a)]
with the corresponding state obtained by solving
the strictly one-dimensional equation with renormalized
one-dimensional scattering length $a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{1D}}$.
We also include the energy of one of the eigenstates with
$M=0$ and $\Pi_z= -1$ (dashed line).
The inset shows the difference between the energy obtained
within the strictly one-dimensional and the full
three-dimensional frameworks.
The maximum of the deviation occurs near unitarity.
The agreement between the full three-dimensional and the
strictly one-dimensional descriptions is good.
Importantly, the deviations for the three-body system
with $M=0$ and $\Pi_z=+1$
[solid line in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig_cigar_quasi_3-body}(b)]
are only slightly larger than those for the two-body system
[inset of Fig.~\ref{fig_cigar_quasi_2-body}(b)],
suggesting that the presence of the third atom does not, in a
significant manner,
reduce the applicability of the strictly one-dimensional
framework---at least for states
in the low-energy regime characterized as gas-like three-atom states.
\section{Pancake-shaped trap}
\label{sec_pancake}
For pancake-shaped traps with $\eta < 1$,
we use the following form of the Green's function
$\mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}$~\cite{calarco-r,calarco},
\begin{align}
\label{eq_G_pancake}
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{3D}}(
[\epsilon_{\boldsymbol\lambda}+\eta+1/2]E_z
;{\bf{r}};{\bf{0}})=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi} E_z a_z^3}\exp\left(-\frac{ z^2}{2 a_z^2}\right)
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
\frac{(-1)^j}{2^{2j}j!}
H_{2j}(z/a_z)
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{2D}}
\left( \left[
\frac{\epsilon_{\boldsymbol\lambda}-2 j}{\eta}+1 \right]E_{\rho};
\rho, 0\right).
\end{align}
This expression
is equivalent to Eq.~(\ref{eq_G_cigar}) but converges faster for
pancake-shaped traps than Eq.~(\ref{eq_G_cigar}).
Using Eq.~(\ref{eq_G_pancake}) in
Eq.~(\ref{eq_Ilambda}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_Ilambda_pancake}
I_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},
\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}) =
2 \sqrt{\pi}(-1)^m \delta_{m,m'}\times \nonumber \\
\lim_{j_{\rm{max}} \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{j=0}^{j_{\rm{max}}}
\frac{(-1)^j\sqrt{\pi^{1/2}(2j)!}}{2^{j} j!}
I_{n_z,n_z'}^{\rm{p}}(j)
I_{n_{\rho},n_{\rho}',m}^{\rm{p}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}},j),
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{align}
\label{eq_Iz_pancake}
I_{n_z,n_z'}^{\rm{p}}(j)=
a_z^{1/2}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \varphi_{2j}\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}z\right)
\varphi_{n_z'}\left(-\frac{z}{2}\right) \varphi_{n_z}(z)~dz
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\label{eq_Irho_pancake}
&I_{n_{\rho},n_{\rho}',m}^{\rm{p}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}},j)=
\nonumber \\
&E_z a_z^2 \int_0^{\infty}
\mathcal{G}^{\rm{2D}}\left(
\left[\frac{\epsilon_{\boldsymbol\lambda'}-2 j}{\eta}+1
\right]E_{\rho};
\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\rho; 0\right)
R_{n_{\rho}',m}\left(\frac{\rho}{2}\right)
R_{n_{\rho},m}(\rho)
~\rho d\rho.
\end{align}
Details regarding the evaluation of the integrals are
explained in Appendix~\ref{appendix}.
In the following, we limit ourselves to cases where the reciprocal of the
aspect ratio is an integer.
In this case, we have~\cite{calarco-r,calarco}
\begin{align}
\label{eq_f41_pancake}
\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},\eta)=
-2 \eta \sum_{k=0}^{1/\eta-1}
\frac{\Gamma(-\frac{\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}{2} + k \eta)}{\Gamma(-\frac{\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}} + 1}{2} + k \eta)}.
\end{align}
Figure~\ref{fig_pancake}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{+.9cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=70mm]{fig5_short.eps}
\vspace*{0.2cm}
\caption{Relative three-body energies $E_{\rm{3b}}/E_{\rho}$
as a function of the
inverse scattering length $a_{\rho}/a^{\rm{3D}}$ for a pancake-shaped
trap with aspect ratio $\eta = 1/2$ and
(a) $M=0$ and $\Pi_z=+1$, and (b) $M=\pm 1$ and $\Pi_z=+1$.}
\label{fig_pancake}
\end{figure}
shows the relative three-body energies $E_{\rm{3b}}/E_{\rho}$ as a function of
the inverse scattering length for $\eta = 1/2$, $\Pi_z=+1$,
and (a) $M=0$ and (b) $M=\pm1$.
In the $(a^{\rm{3D}})^{-1} \to -\infty$ limit, the ground state has
$M=\pm 1$ and $\Pi_z=+1$ symmetry.
In the $(a^{\rm{3D}})^{-1} \to +\infty$ limit, in contrast,
the ground state has $M=0$ and $\Pi_z=+1$ symmetry.
Figure~\ref{fig_pancake_gr_st}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{+.9cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=70mm]{fig6.eps}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\caption{(Color online)~``Crossover curve'' of the
three-body system with $\Pi_z=+1$, shifted by
$E_z = E_{\rho} / \eta$, for various aspect ratios
of the trap, $\eta = 1/2$ (solid line), $1/4$ (dotted line),
$1/6$ (dashed line), $1/8$ (dash-dot-dotted line),
and $1/10$ (dash-dotted line) as a function of $a_{\rho} / a^{\rm{3D}}$.
The scattering lengths at which the $M$ quantum number of the corresponding
eigenstate changes from
$M = \pm 1$ (``left side of the graph'') to
$M = 0$ (``right side of the graph'') are marked by asterisks.
The inset shows the (unshifted)
crossover curve as a function of $a_z / a^{\rm{3D}}$.}
\label{fig_pancake_gr_st}
\end{figure}
shows the relative energy of the energetically
lowest-lying state, the so-called crossover curve,
of the three-body system with $\Pi_z=+1$ for various aspect ratios
of the trap ($\eta = 1/2, \cdots, 1/10$)
as a function of the inverse scattering length $a_{\rho}/a^{\rm{3D}}$.
For comparative purposes, we subtract the relative ground state
energy of $E_z$ of the non-interacting one-dimensional system,
that is, the energy that the system would have in the
$z$-direction if the dynamics in the tight confinement
direction were frozen,
from the full three-dimensional energy.
The scattering lengths at which the symmetry of the corresponding
eigenstate changes from
$M = \pm 1$ to
$M = 0$ are marked by asterisks.
The symmetry change occurs around $a_z/a^{\rm{3D}} \approx 1$
(see inset).
It is instructive to compare Fig.~\ref{fig_pancake_gr_st}
(pancake-shaped trap) and Fig.~\ref{fig_cigar_gr_st}
(cigar-shaped trap).
For both geometries, the crossover curve changes symmetry.
The change of the symmetry is associated with the
low-energy coordinate (the $\rho$-coordinate for pancake-shaped systems
and the $z$-coordinate for cigar-shaped systems).
For both geometries,
the symmetry change occurs,
for the aspect ratios considered,
when $a^{\rm{3D}}$ is of the order of the
oscillator length in the tight confinement direction.
Next, we consider the small $\eta$ limit in more detail.
For $\eta\ll 1$ and
$|\epsilon|\ll 1$, we have~\cite{calarco-r,calarco}
\begin{align}
\label{eq_f_small_eta}
\left. \mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon, \eta)\right|_{\eta\ll 1}
\approx
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}
\left[ 2 \mathcal{F}^{\rm{2D}}(\epsilon)
-2 \ln (\mathcal{C})
- \ln(\eta)
\right],
\end{align}
and the two-body eigenequation for the relative energy becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_two-b_2d}
\mathcal{F}^{\rm{2D}}(\epsilon)= \ln(a^{\rm{2D}}_{\rm{ren}}/a_{\rho}),
\end{eqnarray}
where the renormalized two-dimensional scattering length
$a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{2D}}$ is given by~\cite{petrov}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_ren_a_2d}
\frac{a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{2D}}}{a_{\rho}}=
\sqrt{\eta}
{\mathcal{C}} \exp \left( -\frac{\sqrt{\pi}a_z}{2 a^{\rm{3D}}} \right)
\end{eqnarray}
with ${\mathcal{C}} \approx 1.479$.
Figure~\ref{fig_pancake_quasi_2-body}(a)
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{+.9cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=70mm]{fig7.eps}
\vspace*{0.2cm}
\caption{(Color online)~(a)~Relative two-body energies $E_{\rm{2b}}/E_{\rho}$
as a function of the
inverse scattering length $a_{\rho}/a^{\rm{3D}}$ for a pancake-shaped
trap with aspect ratio $\eta = 1/10$, $M=0$ and $\Pi_z=+1$.
(b)~The solid curve from panel (a) is replotted and compared with the
energy obtained by solving the strictly two-dimensional
eigenequation with renormalized
two-dimensional scattering length $a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{2D}}$
(dotted line;
the energy $E_z/2$ has been added to allow for a comparison
with the full three-dimensional energy).
The inset shows the difference between the dotted and solid lines as
a function of the inverse scattering length $a_{\rho}/a^{\rm{3D}}$.
The scale of the $y$-axis is identical to that of the inset
of Fig.~\ref{fig_pancake_quasi_3-body}(b).}
\label{fig_pancake_quasi_2-body}
\end{figure}
shows the relative two-body energies for a system with
$\eta = 1/10$, $M=0$ and $\Pi_z=+1$ obtained by solving
the eigenequation
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon, \eta=1/10)=-a_z/a^{\rm{3D}}$
[see Eq.~(\ref{eq_f41_pancake}) for $\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon, \eta)$].
Figure~\ref{fig_pancake_quasi_2-body}(b)
compares the full three-dimensional energy (solid line)
with the energy obtained by solving the strictly
two-dimensional eigenequation, Eq.~(\ref{eq_two-b_2d}),
with renormalized two-dimensional scattering length
$a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{2D}}$ (dotted line).
For comparative purposes,
we add the energy of the tight
confinement direction to the energy of the strictly two-dimensional system.
The inset of Fig.~\ref{fig_pancake_quasi_2-body}(b)
shows the difference between the strictly two-dimensional energy
and the full three-dimensional energy as a function of $a_{\rho}/a^{\rm{3D}}$.
The maximum deviation occurs around unitarity and is of the
order of $0.4 \%$.
To treat the three-body system in the small $\eta$ limit,
we insert Eqs.~(\ref{eq_f_small_eta}) and~(\ref{eq_ren_a_2d})
into Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen2}). This yields
\begin{align}
\label{eq_eigen_small_eta}
\sum_{\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}\left[
\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2} I^{\rm{3D}}_{\boldsymbol{\lambda},\boldsymbol{\lambda'}}
(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}'})-
\mathcal{F}^{\rm{2D}}(\epsilon_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}'})
\delta_{\boldsymbol{\lambda},\boldsymbol{\lambda}'}
\right]f_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}'}
= \ln \left(\frac{a_{\rho}}{ a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{2D}}} \right) f_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}.
\end{align}
For fixed $M$, Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen_small_eta})
reduces to the strictly two-dimensional eigenequation,
Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen_2d}), if
{\em{(i)}} the sum over
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}'$ is restricted to a sum over $n_{\rho}'$
[i.e., if $\boldsymbol{\lambda}'=(0,n_{\rho}',m'=M)$];
{\em{(ii)}} the index $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ is restricted to
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}=(0,n_{\rho},m=M)$;
{\em{(iii)}} the energy $E_{\rm{3b}}$ is replaced by $E_{\rm{3b}} -E_z$;
and
{\em{(iv)}} $j_{\rm{max}}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq_Ilambda_pancake}) is set to zero.
Under these assumptions, Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen_small_eta})
reduces to Eq.~(\ref{eq_eigen_2d}) with $a^{\rm{2D}}$
replaced by $a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{2D}}$.
Figure~\ref{fig_pancake_quasi_3-body}(a)
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{+.9cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=70mm]{fig8_short.eps}
\vspace*{0.2cm}
\caption{(Color online)~(a)~Relative three-body energies
$E_{\rm{3b}}/E_{\rho}$ as a function of the
inverse scattering length $a_{\rho}/a^{\rm{3D}}$ for a pancake-shaped
trap with aspect ratio $\eta = 1/10$, $M=0$ and $\Pi_z=+1$.
(b) The solid curve from panel (a) is replotted and compared with the
energy obtained by solving the strictly two-dimensional
eigenequation with renormalized two-dimensional scattering
length $a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{2D}}$ (dotted line;
the energy of $E_{z}$ has been added
to allow for a comparison with the full three-dimensional energy).
The inset shows the difference between the dotted and solid lines as
a function of the inverse scattering length $a_{\rho}/a^{\rm{3D}}$.}
\label{fig_pancake_quasi_3-body}
\end{figure}
shows the relative three-body energies for states with
$M=0$ and $\Pi_z=+1$
as a function of the inverse scattering length $a_{\rho}/a^{\rm{3D}}$
for a pancake-shaped trap with $\eta=1/10$.
Figure~\ref{fig_pancake_quasi_3-body}(b)
compares the energy of the energetically lowest-lying
three-atom state with $M=0$ (solid line)
[see thick solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig_pancake_quasi_3-body}(a)]
with the corresponding state obtained by solving
the strictly two-dimensional equation with renormalized
two-dimensional scattering length $a_{\rm{ren}}^{\rm{2D}}$
(dotted line).
The inset shows the difference between the energies obtained
within the strictly two-dimensional and the full
three-dimensional frameworks.
Similar to the one-dimensional case, the maximum of the deviation
occurs near unitarity.
Comparison of the insets of Figs.~\ref{fig_pancake_quasi_2-body}(b)
and~\ref{fig_pancake_quasi_3-body}(b) suggests that,
at least in this low-energy example,
the presence of the third atom does not, in a
significant manner,
reduce the applicability of the strictly two-dimensional
framework.
For the same aspect ratio,
the deviations are expected to increase with increasing
energy.
\section{Second- and third-order virial coefficients}
\label{sec_virial_coeff}
This section utilizes the two- and three-body energy spectra
to determine the second- and third-order virial coefficients
as functions of the
$s$-wave scattering length $a^{\rm{3D}}$, aspect ratio $\eta$
and temperature $T$.
The $n^{th}$-order virial coefficient $b_n$ enters into the
high-temperature expansion of
the grand-canonical thermodynamic potential
$\Omega$ of the equal-mass two-component
Fermi gas with interspecies $s$-wave
interactions~\cite{ho-1,ho-2,rupak,drummond_prl,drummond_pra,drummond_2d,salomon-2010,zwierlein-2012,daily_2012},
$\Omega = \Omega^{(1)} + \Omega^{(2)} + \Omega^{(12)}$,
where $\Omega^{(1)}$ and $\Omega^{(2)}$ denote
the grand-canonical thermodynamic potential of the spin-up component
and the spin-down component, respectively, and $\Omega^{(12)}$ accounts
for the interspecies interactions,
\begin{align}
\label{eq_omega-12}
\Omega^{(12)} = -k_{\rm{B}}T Q_{1,0} \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} b_n z^n.
\end{align}
Here, $z$ is the fugacity, $z=\exp[\mu/(k_{\rm{B}}T)]$.
In the high-temperature limit, $z$ is a small parameter and
the expansion given in Eq.~(\ref{eq_omega-12}) is expected to provide
a good description if the sum is terminated at quadratic or cubic order.
The coefficient $b_2$ of the $z^2$ term is determined by one-
and two-body physics and the coefficient $b_3$
of the $z^3$ term is determined by one-, two- and three-body
physics. As the temperature approaches
the transition temperature from above, the de Broglie wave
length increases and, correspondingly, the fugacity $z$
increases.
It follows that the number of $b_n$ coefficients needed to accurately
describe the thermodynamics increases
with decreasing temperature. Comparison with
experimental data has shown
that the inclusion of $b_2$ and $b_3$ yields quite
accurate descriptions of the high-temperature thermodynamics
of $s$-wave interacting two-component Fermi gases (see, e.g.,
Refs.~\cite{drummond_prl,salomon-2010,zwierlein-2012}).
In Eq.~(\ref{eq_omega-12}), $Q_{1,0}$
denotes the
canonical partition function of a single spin-up particle.
We define the canonical partition function $Q_{n_1,n_2}$
of the system consisting of $n_1$ spin-up particles
and $n_2$ spin-down particles through
\begin{align}
\label{eq_can_parttion}
Q_{n_1,n_2} = \sum_j \exp \left( -\frac{E_j^{\rm{tot}}(n_1,n_2)}{ k_{\rm{B}}T} \right),
\end{align}
where $E_j^{\rm{tot}}(n_1,n_2)$ denotes the total energy of the
system (including the center-of-mass energy)
and the summation over $j$ includes all quantum numbers
allowed by the symmetry of the system.
For equal-mass fermions, as considered throughout this paper,
we have $Q_{1,0}=Q_{0,1}=Q_1$.
The virial coefficients $b_2$ and $b_3$ can be expressed
as~\cite{drummond_prl,footnote1}
\begin{align}
\label{eq_b2_1}
b_2= \frac{Q_{1,1}-Q_1^2}{Q_1}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\label{eq_b3_1}
b_3= 2~ \frac{Q_{2,1} - Q_{2,0} Q_1 - b_2 Q_1^2}{Q_1}.
\end{align}
The virial coefficients $b_2$ and $b_3$ depend on the interspecies
scattering length $a^{\rm{3D}}$, aspect ratio $\eta$
and temperature $T$.
Once the thermodynamic potential is known, physical observables
such as the pressure and the entropy can be calculated.
We now discuss the determination of $b_2$ and $b_3$ for equal-mass
two-component Fermi gases under anisotropic harmonic confinement.
In this case, the single-particle canonical
partition function $Q_1$ can be determined analytically,
\begin{align}
\label{eq_1-body_can_partition}
Q_1 = \frac
{ \exp \left(\left[1/2+\eta \right]\tilde \omega_z \right)}
{\left[\exp \left(\tilde\omega_z \right) - 1\right]
\left[\exp \left(\eta \tilde \omega_z \right) - 1\right]^2},
\end{align}
where $\tilde \omega_z$ denotes the ``inverse temperature''
in units of $E_z$,
$\tilde \omega_z = E_z / (k_{\rm{B}}T)$.
Alternatively (see below), we
express the inverse temperature in units of $E_{\rho}$ or $E_{\rm{ave}}$,
$\tilde \omega_{\rho} = E_{\rho} / (k_{\rm{B}}T)$ and
$\tilde \omega_{\rm{ave}}(\eta) = E_{\rm{ave}} / (k_{\rm{B}}T)$.
The average energy $E_{\rm{ave}}$ is defined in terms of the
root-mean-square or, in short, average
angular frequency
$\omega_{\rm{ave}}(\eta)$, $E_{\rm{ave}}=\hbar \omega_{\rm{ave}}(\eta)$,
where
\begin{align}
\label{eq_omega-ave}
\omega_{\rm{ave}}(\eta) =
\sqrt{\frac {2 \omega_{\rho}^2 + \omega_z^2}{3}}.
\end{align}
We note that the average angular frequency coincides with the
angular trapping frequency for $\eta=1$ but not for $\eta \ne 1$.
Below, we frequently suppress the explicit dependence
of $\tilde{\omega}_{\rm{ave}}$
on $\eta$.
The partition functions $Q_{1,1}$ and $Q_{2,1}$ can be determined
from the two- and three-body energy spectra
(see Secs.~\ref{sec_cigar} and~\ref{sec_pancake}) for
each $s$-wave scattering length $a^{\rm{3D}}$, aspect ratio
$\eta$ and temperature $T$.
At unitarity, the high-temperature expansion of $b_n$
reads (for $\eta=1$, see Ref.~\cite{drummond_prl})
\begin{align}
\label{eq_bn_taylor}
b_n \approx b_n^{(0)} + b_n^{(2)}(\eta) \tilde \omega_{z}^2
+ b_n^{(4)}(\eta) \tilde \omega_{z}^4 + \cdots.
\end{align}
The coefficients $b_n^{(0)}$, that is, the high-temperature limits
of the trapped virial coefficients $b_n$, are independent of the
aspect ratio $\eta$.
This has previously been shown to be the case for $n=2$~\cite{peng_2011}.
Here, we extend the argument to all $n$.
Application of the local density
approximation~\cite{menotti,drummond_prl,daily_2012}
to axially symmetric confinement potentials shows that the virial
coefficients $b_n^{\rm{hom}}$ of the homogeneous system,
which have been shown to be
temperature-independent at
unitarity~\cite{ho-1,ho-2,rupak},
are related to $b_n^{(0)}$ through
\begin{align}
\label{eq_bn_hom}
b_n^{\rm{hom}} = n^{3/2} b_n^{(0)}.
\end{align}
Since Eq.~(\ref{eq_bn_hom}) holds for all $\eta$, $b_n^{(0)}$
has to be independent of $\eta$ for all $n$.
The expansion coefficients $b_n^{(k)}$, $k=2,4,\cdots$,
parametrize ``trap corrections'', that is, corrections
that arise due to the fact that the harmonic confinement
defines a meaningful (finite) length scale.
In fact, for $\eta \neq 1$, the confinement defines two
length scales, suggesting that the $b_n^{(k)}$, $k=2,4,\cdots$,
depend on $\eta$.
Equation~(\ref{eq_bn_taylor}) expresses the temperature
dependence of $b_n$ in terms of the
inverse temperature associated with the $z$-direction,
regardless of whether $\eta$ is greater or smaller than 1.
Interestingly, it was shown in Ref.~\cite{peng_2011} that the
dependence of $b_2^{(k)}$, $k=2,4,\cdots$, on the aspect ratio
can be parametrized, to a good approximation, in terms of the
average inverse temperature $\tilde \omega_{\rm{ave}}(\eta)$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq_b2_approx}
b_2^{(k)}(\eta)\tilde \omega_z^{k} \approx
b_2^{(k)}(1) [\tilde \omega_{\rm{ave}}(\eta)]^k.
\end{align}
Equation~(\ref{eq_b2_approx}) implies that the trap corrections
for two-body systems with $\eta \ne 1$ can
be parametrized in terms of the trap corrections for the spherically
symmetric system if the inverse temperature is expressed in terms
of the average trapping frequency that characterizes the
anisotropic system.
We now illustrate that Eq.~(\ref{eq_b2_approx}) applies
not only to $b_2$ but also to $b_3$.
Figures~\ref{fig_virial-1}(a) and \ref{fig_virial-1}(b)
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{+.9cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=70mm]{fig9.eps}
\vspace*{0.2cm}
\caption{(Color online)~(a)~Third-order virial coefficient
$b_3$ at unitarity as a function of the
inverse temperature $\tilde \omega_z$ for $\eta = 1$ (solid line),
$2$ (dashed line), and $3$ (dash-dotted line).
(b)~Third-order virial coefficient $b_3$ at unitarity as a
function of the inverse temperature $\tilde \omega_{\rho}$ for
$\eta = 1$ (solid line), $1/2$ (dashed line),
and $1/3$ (dash-dotted line).
For $\eta \neq 1$, $b_3$ terminates at the inverse temperature
of about 0.25
since our calculations include a finite number of three-body energies;
obtaining the behavior of $b_3$ in the high-temperature limit
requires the inclusion of infinitely many three-body energies.
For
$\eta \ne 1$,
dotted lines show $b_3$
for $\eta = 1$, calculated using the average
frequency of the respective anisotropic system.
This approximate description is quite good.
The insets of panels~(a) and (b)
show the same data as the main figure,
but now as a function of $\tilde{\omega}_{\rm{ave}}$
as opposed to $\tilde{\omega}_z$ and $\tilde{\omega}_{\rho}$.
The insets show that the third-order virial
coefficients for different $\eta$
collapse to a universal curve for all $\eta$
(deviations arise in the low-temperature regime,
i.e., for $\tilde{\omega}_{\rm{ave}} \gtrsim 1$).
}
\label{fig_virial-1}
\end{figure}
show the third-order virial coefficient
at unitarity for systems with $\eta \ge 1$ and
$\eta \le 1$, respectively.
The virial coefficients are plotted as a function of the inverse
temperature expressed in units of the weak confinement direction,
i.e., in terms of $\omega_z$ for $\eta \ge 1$ and in terms of
$\omega_{\rho}$ for $\eta \le 1$.
In the high-temperature limit, $b_3$ approaches a constant, confirming
that $b_3^{(0)}$ is independent of $\eta$.
The dotted lines show the third-order virial coefficient
for $\eta=1$, calculated using the
average trapping frequency characteristic for the respective
anisotropic system.
Figure~\ref{fig_virial-1} illustrates that
the third-order virial coefficient for anisotropic
traps is approximated well by that for $\eta=1$ with appropriately
scaled angular frequency.
The insets of Fig.~\ref{fig_virial-1} show that the third-order
virial coefficients of the anisotropic system collape, to a very
good approximation, to a universal curve over a surprisingly
large temperature regime, i.e., down to temperatures
around $k_{\rm{B}} T \approx E_{\rm{ave}}/2$.
We conjecture that $b_n^{(k)}(\eta)\tilde \omega_z^{k}$ can be approximated
quite well by $b_n^{(k)}(1) [\tilde \omega_{\rm{ave}}(\eta)]^k$ for
$n=4,5,\cdots$ as well,
as long as $k$ is not
too large, i.e, as long as the temperature is not too
low.
Next, we discuss the behavior of $b_2$ for finite $s$-wave scattering lengths.
Figure~\ref{fig_b2-diff-asc-3d}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{+.9cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=70mm]{fig10.eps}
\vspace*{0.2cm}
\caption{Second-order virial coefficient
$b_2$ for the two-body system
under isotropic confinement as a function of
the inverse
scattering length $a_{\rm{ave}}/a^{\rm{3D}}$ ($a^{\rm{3D}}$ negative)
and
the inverse
temperature $\tilde{\omega}_{\rm{ave}}$.
The smallest $\tilde{\omega}_{\rm{ave}}$ considered
is $0.0003$. In the $\tilde{\omega}_{\rm{ave}} \rightarrow 0$
limit, $b_2$ approaches $1/2$ for all $a_{\rm{ave}}/a^{\rm{3D}}$
($a^{\rm{3D}}<0$; see text for further discussion).}
\label{fig_b2-diff-asc-3d}
\end{figure}
shows a surface plot of $b_2$ for $\eta=1$
as a function of the inverse scattering length $a_{\rm{ave}}/a^{\rm{3D}}$
($a^{\rm{3D}} \leq 0$) and the inverse temperature $\tilde{\omega}_{\rm{ave}}$.
Here,
$a_{\rm{ave}}$ denotes the oscillator length associated with
the average trapping frequency,
$a_{\rm{ave}}=\sqrt{\hbar/(\mu \omega_{\rm{ave}})}$.
At unitarity, $b_2$ is only weakly-dependent on
the temperature
and approximately equal to $1/2$
(see discussion above).
The smallest inverse temperature $\tilde{\omega}_{\rm{ave}}$
considered
in Fig.~\ref{fig_b2-diff-asc-3d}
is $0.0003$.
For this inverse temperature, $b_2$ is
fairly close to $1/2$ for all $a_{\rm{ave}}/a^{3D}$ shown.
Thus, Fig.~\ref{fig_b2-diff-asc-3d} shows that
the high-temperature limit of $b_2$ is
nearly
independent of
the scattering length.
This behavior can, as we now show, be understood from the two-body
energy spectrum.
Figure~\ref{fig_2-body-E_1}(a)
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{+1.9cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=70mm]{fig11.eps}
\vspace*{2.3cm}
\caption{(Color online)~(a)
Relative two-body energies $E_{\rm{2b}}/E_{\rm{ave}}$,
shifted by $2(n-1)$,
for isotropic confinement
($\eta=1$ and $s$-wave channel)
as a function of
the inverse scattering length $a_{\rm{ave}}/a^{\rm{3D}}$.
(b) Relative two-body energies $E_{\rm{2b}}/E_{\rho}$,
shifted by $2(n-1)$,
for pancake-shaped confinement ($\eta=1/10, M=0$, and $\Pi_z=+1$)
as a function of
the inverse scattering length $a_{\rho}/a^{\rm{3D}}$.
Solid, dotted and dashed lines show
the energies
for $n=1, 100$ and $10000$, respectively.
}
\label{fig_2-body-E_1}
\end{figure}
shows selected relative two-body energies as a function of
$a_{\rm{ave}}/a^{\rm{3D}}$
for the trapped system with $\eta=1$.
In the low-energy regime (solid line), the two-body energy
changes by nearly $2E_{\rm{ave}}$ for the scattering length
range shown.
As the energy increases (dashed and dotted lines show energies
around $200 E_{\rm{ave}}$ and
$20000 E_{\rm{ave}}$, respectively), the two-body energy undergoes less of
a change and eventually becomes nearly flat over the scattering length
region shown.
This implies that the high-energy portion of the two-body spectrum
looks like that of the unitary gas over an increasingly large region
around unitarity.
The behavior of the energy spectrum can be understood
by expanding the transcendental two-body eigenequation
$\mathcal{F}^{\rm{3D}}(\epsilon, 1)=-a_{\rm{ave}}/a^{\rm{3D}}$
around unitarity.
Assuming $|a_{\rm{ave}}/a^{\rm{3D}}| \ll 1$,
we find~\cite{peng_2011,footnotetypo}
\begin{align}
\label{eq_euni_taylor}
\frac{E_{\rm{2b}}}{E_{\rm{ave}}} -
\left(2n+\frac{1}{2} \right)
\approx
-\frac{\Gamma(n+1/2)}
{\pi \Gamma(n+1)} \frac{a_{\rm{ave}}}{a^{\rm{3D}}}.
\end{align}
Equation~(\ref{eq_euni_taylor}) provides a good description
of the energies as long as the right hand side is small.
Since the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq_euni_taylor}) scales
for large $n$
as $(a_{\rm{ave}}/a^{\rm{3D}}) / \sqrt{n}$,
Eq.~(\ref{eq_euni_taylor})
provides, as $n$ increases, a good description for an increasingly
large region around unitarity.
That is, the energies vary approximately linearly with
$a_{\rm{ave}}/a^{\rm{3D}}$, with a slope that approaches zero, as
$n \to \infty$.
This analysis rationalizes why $b_2$
approaches $1/2$ as $T \rightarrow \infty$,
regardless of the value of the scattering length
($a^{\rm{3D}}<0$ and finite).
Figure~\ref{fig_b2-diff-asc-3d} has been obtained for a spherically
symmetric system, that is, for $\eta=1$.
We now demonstrate that Fig.~\ref{fig_b2-diff-asc-3d} applies,
for experimentally relevant temperatures,
to all aspect ratios and not just to $\eta=1$.
Figure~\ref{fig_b2-diff-asc}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{+.9cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=70mm]{fig12.eps}
\vspace*{0.4cm}
\caption{(Color online)~Second-order virial coefficient
$b_2$ of the trapped two-body system as a function of the inverse
temperature $\tilde \omega_{\rm{ave}}$ for three different values of the inverse
scattering length
($a_{\rm{ave}}/a^{\rm{3D}} = -1$, $0$ and $+1$; see labels)
for $\eta=1$ (solid lines), $\eta = 1/5$ (dashed lines)
and $\eta = 1/100$ (dotted lines).}
\label{fig_b2-diff-asc}
\end{figure}
shows $b_2$ as a function of $\tilde{\omega}_{\rm{ave}}$
for three different aspect ratios,
$\eta=1$ (solid lines), $\eta = 1/5$ (dashed lines)
and $\eta = 1/100$ (dotted lines).
Three different scattering lengths are considered:
$a^{\rm{3D}} = -a_{\rm{ave}}$, $\infty$ and $a_{\rm{ave}}$.
It can be seen that $b_2$ is, to a very good approximation,
independent of $\eta$ in the high-temperature
(small $\tilde{\omega}_{\rm{ave}}$) limit.
We stress that the independence of $b_2$ of $\eta$
requires that the inverse temperature and scattering length
are expressed in terms of the
average oscillator units $E_{\rm{ave}}$ and $a_{\rm{ave}}$, respectively.
To understand the universality implied by
Fig.~\ref{fig_b2-diff-asc}, that is, the fact that
Fig.~\ref{fig_b2-diff-asc-3d} applies
to all aspect ratios and not just to $\eta=1$, we analyze
the behavior of the high-lying part of the relative
two-body spectra for $\eta \ne 1$.
Figure~\ref{fig_2-body-E_1}(b) exemplarily shows the relative energies
for a pancake-shaped system with $\eta=1/10$.
Comparison with Fig.~\ref{fig_2-body-E_1}(a) shows that the
qualitative behavior of the high-energy part of the spectrum
is independent of $\eta$.
This is confirmed by a more quantitative analysis that Taylor expands
the implicit eigenequation for the anisotropic two-body
system around unitarity.
We conclude that two two-body systems with different
aspect ratios but identical
$a_{\rm{ave}}/a^{\rm{3D}}$ and $\tilde \omega_{\rm{ave}}$ are
characterized by approximately the same
$b_2$ value.
Our analysis of the three-body energies for
anisotropic confinement suggests that analogous
conclusions hold for $b_3$.
We speculate that the conclusions hold also for the virial coefficients
with $n>3$.
To estimate the extent of the universal behavior, it is instructive
to reexpress $\tilde{\omega}_{\rm{ave}}$ in terms of the Fermi temperature.
For a spin-balanced system of $N$ fermions under spherically
symmetric confinement, we use the semi-classical expression
$k_{\rm{B}} T_{\rm{F}}=(3 N)^{1/3} \hbar \omega_{\rm{ave}}$, yielding
$\tilde \omega_{\rm{ave}}=(3 N)^{-1/3}(T/T_{\rm{F}})^{-1}$.
For $N=10^2$, $10^4$ and $10^6$, $T/T_{\rm{F}}=1$ corresponds
to $\tilde \omega_{\rm{ave}} \approx 0.149$,
$0.032$ and $0.007$, respectively.
For these temperatures, the thermodynamic behavior is,
according to our discussion above, expected to be essentially
universal over a fairly wide range of scattering lengths.
For $T/T_{\rm{F}}=1$,
we estimate that the deviation of $b_2$ from the value $1/2$
approaches
$5\%$ for
$a_{\rm{ave}}/a^{\rm{3D}} \approx -0.16$, $-0.38$ and $-0.78$
for $N=10^2$, $10^4$ and $10^6$, respectively.
This implies that uncertainties
of the scattering length
dependence on the magnetic field
in recent experiments at
unitarity~\cite{salomon-2010,zwierlein-2012} should have a negligibly small
effect on the equation of state at unitarity.
For all three cases considered above,
the corresponding $(k_{\rm{F}} a^{\rm{3D}})^{-1}$ values
is approximately $-0.03$.
The determination of the high-temperature behavior of the third-order
virial coefficient
for different scattering lengths and aspect ratios
is much more demanding than that of the second-order virial coefficient.
Although our analysis of $b_3$ is less exhaustive than that of $b_2$,
it suggests that the conclusions drawn above for the
second-order virial coefficient
carry over to the third-order virial coefficient.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec_conclusion}
This paper developed a Lippmann-Schwinger equation based approach
to determine the energy spectrum and corresponding eigenstates
of three-body systems with zero-range $s$-wave interactions under
harmonic confinement with different transverse and
longitudinal angular trapping frequencies.
The formalism was applied to the equal-mass
system consisting of two identical fermions
and a third distinguishable particle in a different spin-state.
The energy spectra were determined as a function of the interspecies
$s$-wave scattering length for various aspect ratios $\eta$,
$\eta>1$ (cigar-shaped trap) and $\eta<1$ (pancake-shaped trap).
For $\eta \gg 1$, we showed that the low-energy portion of the
energy spectra are reproduced well
by an effective one-dimensional Hamiltonian with renormalized
one-dimensional coupling constant.
Similarly,
for $\eta \ll 1$, we showed that the low-energy portion of the
energy spectra are reproduced well
by an effective two-dimensional Hamiltonian with renormalized
two-dimensional coupling constant.
As the energy increases, the description based on
these effective low-dimensional
Hamiltonian deteriorates.
The two- and three-body energy spectra were then used to determine the second- and third-order virial
coefficients that determine the virial equation of state,
applicable to two-component Fermi gases at temperatures above the
Fermi temperature.
Our key findings are:
{\em{(i)}}
At unitarity, the second- and third-order virial coefficients
$b_2$ and $b_3$ approach constants in the high-temperature regime.
The constants (referred to as $b_2^{(0)}$ and $b_3^{(0)}$) are independent
of $\eta$.
{\em{(ii)}}
For finite scattering length $a^{\rm{3D}}$, we find that $b_2$ and $b_3$
collapse, to a very good approximation, to a single curve for all $\eta$
if the temperature and scattering length are expressed in terms of the
average energy $E_{\rm{ave}}$ and
the average oscillator length $a_{\rm{ave}}$,
respectively.
Deviations from the universal curve arise
in the low-temperature regime where the virial
equation of state is not applicable.
{\em{(iii)}}
The virial coefficient $b_2$ is approximately equal to $1/2$ over a fairly
large temperature and scattering length regime around unitarity.
The work presented in this paper is directly relevant to on-going
cold atom experiments. The
three-body spectra, e.g., can be
measured experimentally through rf
spectroscopy~\cite{esslinger,selim1,selim2}.
Moreover, the
formalism can be employed to characterize the molecular states
in more detail, quantifying the ``perturbation'' of the
dimer due to the third particle throughout the dimensional crossover.
The determination of the virial coefficients is of
immediate relevance to cold atom experiments that study the dynamics
of large fermionic clouds under low-dimensional
confinement.
The formalism developed in
Secs.~\ref{sec_formalsolution}-\ref{sec_pancake}
of this paper can be extended fairly
straightforwardly to three-boson and unequal-mass systems.
\section{Acknowledgement}
We gratefully acknowledge support by the ARO and thank
Krittika Goyal for contributions at the initial stage of this work.
This work was additionally supported by the National Science Foundation
through a grant for the Institute for Theoretical
Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics at Harvard University
and Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.
|
\section{\label{sec:Intro}Introduction}
The inflationary paradigm is the most accepted and successful theoretical framework to explain the homogeneity, flatness and horizon problems we observe today. However, inflation does not give any clues as to what mechanism is responsible for the origin of the inflationary era of the universe \cite{LiddleLyth}. As such, many different model have been developed, from scalar fields to modified theories of gravity that try to describe the early accelerated expansion of the universe that leads to the seeds of the universe we observe today (cf. for example \cite{Lidsey:1999mc,Bassett:2005xm,Langlois:2010xc,Maartens:2010ar}). In order to gain some insight on the dynamics of the early universe and to begin to discriminate between these models, one needs to probe the spectrum of the cosmological perturbations: for example the scalar or tensor perturbations, that arise from the quantum vacuum fluctuations during the inflationary period. In fact, since the evolution of these perturbations depends on the characteristics of the mechanism causing the acceleration of the universe, it is reasonable to assume that a given inflationary model will have some characteristic imprints on the energy spectrum of the gravitational waves (GWs).
Another issue is that the inflationary paradigm does not solve the big bang singularity; indeed it is expected that such a singularity would be resolved within the paradigm of quantum cosmology \cite{claus}. A plausible candidate regarding this is loop quantum cosmology (LQC), which predicts a bounce instead of the big bang singularity \cite{bojowald}. Bouncing cosmologies have a long history and can appear for example in modified theories of gravity {\color{black}\cite{Novello1,Carloni1,Barragan1,Cai:2011tc,Biswas:2005qr}} and lead to the hypothesis of cyclic universes \cite{Piao:2005ag,Cai:2009in}.
In this paper, we propose a bouncing scenario within the context of modified theories in the metric formalism, more precisely we will consider an $f(R)$ model. These kind of models have been quite popular recently as they could describe the current acceleration of the universe without invoking a dark energy component, i.e. the modification in the modified Friedmann equation mimics the effects of a dark energy component with the advantage that the acceleration is a pure gravitational effect and is not due to an unknown dark energy component (see for example Refs.~\cite{Sotiriou:2008rp,Olmo:2011uz} for reviews on $f(R)$ gravity and Refs.~\cite{Nojiri:2006ri,Capozziello2} for reviews on extended theories of gravity). Despite that the $f(R)$ modifications can cause some conflict with observational constrains, (e.g. solar system tests \cite{Berry:2011pb}), a proper chameleonic mechanism was suggested in Refs.~\cite{Hu:2007nk,Starobinsky:2007hu}.
In addition, one of the pioneer inflationary models was formulated within the context of modified gravity and was due to Starobinsky \cite{starobinsky}. In this model the modification of gravity was a result of quantum fluctuations of fields and gravity itself.
The authors of Ref.~\cite{Olmo:2008nf} map the modified Friedmann equation in LQC to that of Palatini $f(R)$ theory, \cite{Olmo:2011uz}. More specifically, they found the right $f(R)$ function that has to be considered to obtain a bouncing cosmology of the kind of LQC, providing for the first time the covariance of the theory through an effective action. Our approach to a bouncing cosmology is different from the one proposed in~\cite{Olmo:2008nf} for the two following reasons: first we assume a metric formalism, second we choose a specific scale factor evolution. We essentially prefer the metric formalism to the Palatini one in the present work because the cosmological perturbations are easier to handle on the metric formalism as compared with the Palatini one. Moreover, on the Palatini $f(R)$ formalism non-vacuum static spherically symmetric objects exhibit curvature singularities, casting doubt on whether Palatini $f(R)$ gravity can be considered as giving viable alternatives to GR as suggested in \cite{Barausse:2007pn}.
The bounce we will consider in our model is followed by an inflationary era which is asymptotically de Sitter where, in addition, the gravitational action approaches the Einstein-Hilbert action with an effective cosmological constant on that regime, such that the modification to Einstein's General Relativity (GR) affects exclusively the very early universe, around the bounce and a few e-folds after that. We will constrain the model obtaining the spectrum of the stochastic gravitational fossil as would be measured today. Such an analysis will be carried out using a generalization for $f(R)$-gravity of the method of the continuous Bogoliubov coefficients first introduced in \cite{Parker1,Starobinsky1,Allen:1987bk}, and later applied in \cite{Henriques1, Moorhouse1, Mendes1}.
One of these Bogoliubov coefficients gives the density of gravitons of the universe. An alternative approach to obtain the spectrum of the GWs in modified theories of gravity was developed in \cite{Mukhanov:1990me,Capozziello:2007zza,Capozziello:2007vd,Capozziello:2008fn}
The outline of the paper is as follows. In section \ref{sec:fR}, we define the behaviour of the bounce through its scale factor and derive the appropriate $f(R)$ action compatible with such an evolution of the early universe (see Refs.~\cite{Dunsby:2010wg,Carloni:2010ph} for works of reconstruction methods in $f(R)$ gravity). In section \ref{sec:Spectrum}, we
summarise the methodology used to obtain the spectrum of the stochastic GWs which is based on the Bogoliubov coefficients. We present in section \ref{sec:Numerical} the spectrum of the GWs for the model introduced in section \ref{sec:fR} using both a GR setup and an $f(R)$ setup to analyse the evolution of the gravitational perturbations. Finally, in section \ref{sec:Conclusions} we present our conclusions.
\section{\label{sec:fR}A bounce in \lowercase{\textit{f}}(R)-metric gravity}
In this paper we introduce a phenomenological bounce in the early universe as a way to avoid the big bang singularity. A bounce at time $t_b$ can be characterized in terms of the scale factor by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: bounce}
\dot{a}(t_b)=0 ~~~~ \text{and} ~~~~ \ddot{a}(t_b)>0.
\end{equation}
Inspired on the de Sitter solution for a closed Friedmann-Lema\^{\i}tre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) space-time, we define the scale factor around the bounce as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: scalefactor}
a(t) = a_b \cosh\left[H_{\textrm{inf}}(t-t_b)\right]
\end{equation}
where $a(t)$ is the scale factor, $a_b$ is a constant quantifying the size of the universe at the bounce. In addition, $H_{\textrm{inf}}$ is related to the energy scale of inflation just after the bounce.\footnote{Notice at this regard that $\ddot{a}>0$ at all times and in particular for $t>t_b$. In addition, $\dot{a}>0$ for $t>t_b$.} For simplicity, we will set $t_b$ to be zero.
While in GR the previous solution \eqref{eq: scalefactor} corresponds to a de Sitter space-time with spherical spatial section, here we are looking for a modified theory of gravity of the kind $f(R)$, such that Eq.~\eqref{eq: scalefactor} is a solution of the modified Friedmann equation of a FLRW universe with flat spatial section. This is a simple and straightforward way of modelling a bounce within the paradigm of modified theories of gravity. In addition, our choice is not only based on criterion of simplicity but also inspired on the fact that the above mentioned solution is asymptotically de Sitter in the past and the future (for space-times with flat spatial sections). Consequently, this procedure assures avoiding the initial singularity and guarantees a period of inflation leading to the first seeds of the structures we see nowadays. Also, the existence of such a bounce is prohibited for a flat space-time in GR unless exotic matter, which violates the null energy conditions, is invoked \cite{Molina1}. In this paper, we work within the framework of $f(R)$ theories of gravity which allow for a rich description of the universe (see for example \cite{Sotiriou:2008rp,Capozziello2}) and as we will show this approach allows for the kind of bounces described by Eq.~\eqref{eq: scalefactor}. For alternative approaches on bouncing cosmologies in modified theories of gravity cf. for example Refs.~\cite{Barragan1,Carloni1,Novello1}.
The action of an $f(R)$ gravity reads \cite{Capozziello2}:
\begin{equation}
S = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int f(R)\sqrt{-g}\textrm{d}^4x + S^{(m)},
\end{equation}
which leads to the modified Friedmann and Raychaudhury equations \cite{Capozziello2}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: Fried1}
H^2 = \frac{\kappa^2}{3f_R} \left( \rho - \frac{f(R)-f_RR}{2\kappa^2}-3H\frac{f_{RR}\dot{R}}{\kappa^2}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Fried2}
2\dot{H} + 3H^2 &= \frac{\kappa^2}{f_R} \left( p + \frac{f(R)-f_RR}{2\kappa^2} \right.
\nonumber\\
&+ \left. \frac{f_{RRR}\dot{R}^2 +f_{RR}\ddot{R}+2Hf_{RR}\dot{R}}{\kappa^2}\right),
\end{align}
respectively. Here $H$ is the Hubble parameter, $\kappa^2=8\pi Gc^{-4}$, $G$ is the gravitational constant, $\rho$ and $p$ are the energy density and pressure of the matter content of the universe. The dot stands for a derivative with respect to the cosmic time and the $R$ subscript indicates a derivative with respect to the scalar curvature. We set the speed of light, $c$, to one on the present section and will set it back to its dimensional value on section~\ref{sec:Spectrum}, when we calculate the spectrum of the gravitational waves.
Using the above written equations (see Eq.~\eqref{eq: Fried1}), we can deduce the form of $f(R)$ such that the scale factor scales with the cosmic time as shown in Eq.~\eqref{eq: scalefactor}. More precisely, from Eq.~\eqref{eq: scalefactor} we derive the temporal evolution for the Hubble parameter, $H$, and the scalar curvature, $R$, in a spatially flat universe:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Hubble}
H(t)= H_{\textrm{inf}}\tanh(H_{\textrm{inf}}t),
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq: RicciScalar}
R(t) = 6H_{\textrm{inf}}^2\left[1+\tanh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)\right].
\end{align}
We will assume that the inflationary era is induced by modifications of gravity with respect to GR. This is a quite old idea first proposed by Starobinsky in its inflationary model \cite{starobinsky}. Therefore, we will assume that the energy density, $\rho$, and the pressure, $p$, are zero. Finally, by inserting Eqs.~\eqref{eq: scalefactor}, \eqref{eq: Hubble} and \eqref{eq: RicciScalar} in the modified Friedmann equation \eqref{eq: Fried1}, we obtain a constraint on $f(R)$; more precisely $f$ must satisfy a second order differential equation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: diffeq_f}
H\ddot{f}+(H^2 - 2\dot{H})\dot{f}+2H\dot{H}f =0.
\end{equation}
It is worthy to stress that this equation has two solutions \cite{Dunsby:2010wg,Carloni:2010ph}. Therefore, there is not a unique form of $f(R)$ given a specific evolution for the scale factor. We will have to impose some physical criteria to choose the appropriate one.
The solution of equation \eqref{eq: diffeq_f} can be written as a linear combination of the functions $f_1(t)$ and $f_2(t)$:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: sol_f}
f_1(t) = \sqrt{6\tanh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)+3}\cos\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\theta_1(t)+\theta_2(t)\right)
\nonumber\\
f_2(t) = \sqrt{6\tanh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)+3}\sin\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\theta_1(t)+\theta_2(t)\right),
\end{align}
where $\theta_1(t)$ and $\theta_2(t)$ are given by:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: sol_theta}
\theta_1(t) &= \text{sgn}(t)\arccos(1-2\tanh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t))
\nonumber\\
\theta_2(t) &= \arccos\left(\sqrt{\frac{\tanh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)}{2\tanh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)+1}}\right).
\end{align}
Here the sgn function is defined by $\textrm{sgn}(t)=2u(t)-1$ where $u(t)$ is the Heavyside step function \cite{abramowitz1}.
We will choose the linear combination of $f_1$ and $f_2$ such that the effective gravitational coupling $G^{\textrm{(eff)}}$ is always positive, or equivalently $f_R>0$ ($G^{\textrm{(eff)}}\equiv G/f_R$, as can be seen from \eqref{eq: Fried1}) . In order to impose this condition it is easier to rewrite $f_1$ and $f_2$ in terms of the scalar curvature \eqref{eq: RicciScalar}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: sol_f_R}
f_1(R) &= \sqrt{R/H_{\textrm{inf}}^2-3}\cos\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\theta_1(R)+\theta_2(R)\right),
\nonumber\\
f_2(t) &= \sqrt{R/H_{\textrm{inf}}^2-3}\sin\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\theta_1(R)+\theta_2(R)\right).
\end{align}
Although we can invert Eq.~(2.7) analytically, for simplicity, we did not include the inverted relation between the cosmic time and the scalar curvature.
Therefore, the solution for $f(R)$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
f(R)=C_1f_1(R)+C_2f_2(R).
\end{equation}
Differentiating \eqref{eq: sol_f_R} and imposing $f_R>0$ we obtain the following conditions for the linear coefficients $C_1$ and $C_2$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: Acondition}
C_1<0
~~~~
\textrm{and}
~~~~
\frac{C_2}{C_1} = \tan\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\pi\right).
\end{equation}
We pick $C_1$ and $C_2$ to be of the form:
\begin{equation}
C_1=C\cos\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\pi\right)
~~
\textrm{and}
~~
C_2=C\sin\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\pi\right),
\end{equation}
with $C$ a positive constant. It can be checked that this choice of coefficients satisfies Eq.~\eqref{eq: Acondition} and leads to the following expression for the $f(R)$ solution:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: f(R)}
f(R)& = C\sqrt{R/H_{\textrm{inf}}^2-3}
\nonumber\\
&\times\cos\left\{\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\left[\pi-\arccos\left(\frac{9-R/H_{\textrm{inf}}^2}{3}\right) \right]\right.
\nonumber\\
&- \left.\arccos\left(\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}\frac{R/H_{\textrm{inf}}^2-6}{R/H_{\textrm{inf}}^2-3}}\right) \right\}.
\end{align}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{f1.eps}}
\hfill
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{f2.eps}}\\
\caption[$f(R)$]{\label{fig: f(R)}These plots show from left to right: (a) the behaviour of $f(R)$ as a function of $R/H_{\textrm{inf}}^2$ (see the continuous curve) and the Einstein-Hilbert action with a cosmological constant, $R-6H_{\textrm{inf}}^2$, (see the dashed curve) corresponding to the limiting behaviour of $f(R)$; (b) the behaviour of $f_R$ (see the continuous curve) and of $f_{RR}$ (see the dashed curve) as functions of $R/H_{\textrm{inf}}^2$.}
\end{figure*}
We are left with a single constant $C$ which can be fixed by imposing that asymptotically, well inside the inflationary era: (i) we recover the Einstein-Hilbert action with a cosmological constant, $R-2\Lambda$, and (ii) the gravitational coupling reduces to the gravitational constant $G$. Following this procedure we obtain $C=2H_{\textrm{inf}}^2$. In Fig.~\ref{fig: f(R)}, we plot the solution \eqref{eq: f(R)} and its first two derivatives with respect to the scalar curvature. Well inside the inflationary era, $R\approx12H_{\textrm{inf}}^2$, the second and higher derivatives of $f(R)$ become small and the action can be approximated as $f(R)\approx R-6H_{\textrm{inf}}^2$; we recover the standard behaviour of GR with an effective cosmological constant $\Lambda\approx3H_{\textrm{inf}}^2$. For low values of the scalar curvature, $R$, the deviations from GR become more significant, in particular close to the bounce. In fact, at the bounce the second derivative and higher derivatives of $f(R)$ get very large. Despite the divergence of $f_{RR}$, and therefore of $f_{RRR}$, the Friedman and Raychandhuri equations, Eqs.~\eqref{eq: Fried1} and \eqref{eq: Fried2}, are well defined for all $R$. We will next show, however, that this behaviour does have serious implications especially in the scalar sector.
It is known that metric $f(R)$ gravity can be recast as a scalar-tensor theory, in particular a Brans-Dicke theory with Brans-Dicke:\footnote{Palatini $f(R)$ gravity is also a Brans-Dicke theory with Brans-Dicke parameter $\omega_0=3/2$\cite{Barragan1,Olmo:2005zr}.} parameter $\omega_0=0 $ and a new scalar degree of freedom, the scalaron, defined as $\phi=f_R$ \cite{Capozziello2,Olmo:2005zr,Olmo:2005hc,Faraoni3,Hwang1,Hwang2,Hwang3}. The squared mass of this field is given by \cite{Olmo:2005hc,Faraoni1}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: ScalMass}
m^2 = \frac{f_R - Rf_{RR}}{3f_{RR}}
\end{equation}
The squared mass of the scalaron in our case vanishes asymptotically, roughly when the scalar curvature is about $R\approx8.7H_{\textrm{inf}}^2$. Unfortunately, it becomes negative for smaller values. This seems to imply that the model would be unstable on the scalar sector, and in particular the spectrum of the scalar perturbations might be ill defined.\footnote{It is usually assumed that the condition that the scalaron is not a ghost or a tachyon is closely related to the Dolgov-Kawasaki instability \cite{Faraoni2,Sotiriou:2008rp}, which implies $f_{RR}>0$. Notice that in our case despite having $f_{RR}>0$, the squared mass of the scalaron becomes negative around the bounce. The reason behind this behaviour is that close to the bounce the model deviates strongly from GR, while in deducing the condition $f_{RR}>0$ to avoid the Dolgov-Kawasaki instability, it is assumed a small deviation from GR \cite{Faraoni2,Sotiriou:2008rp}.}
\section{\label{sec:Spectrum}Energy spectrum of gravitational waves}
We now analyse the GWs spectrum predicted by the model introduced in the previous section. In order to obtain the current energy spectrum of GWs \cite{Parker1,Starobinsky1,Sahni:1990tx}, we use the generalization for $f(R)$-gravity of the method of the continuous Bogoliubov coefficients introduced by Parker. Here a Bogoliubov transformation is applied to quantify the tensor perturbations of the metric in terms of time-fixed annihilation and creation operators and their linear coefficients $\alpha$ and $\beta$. These coefficients, which carry the time dependence of the vacuum state, fulfill the initial conditions $\alpha(t_{\textrm{ini}})=1$ and $\beta(t_{\textrm{ini}})=0$ at some time $t_{\textrm{ini}}$.\footnote{On Sec.~\ref{sec:Numerical}, we will set $t_{\textrm{ini}}$ before the bounce. Therefore, the value of the parameter $t_{\textrm{ini}}$ defines how much the universe contracts before the bounce by fixing the relation $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b$ between the initial value of the scale factor, $a_{\textrm{ini}}$, and the scale factor at the time of the bounce, $a_b$.} Furthermore, $|\beta(t)|^2$ gives the density of gravitons of the universe at a time $t$. A second linear transformation is introduced to describe the evolution of the graviton density by the more practical $X$ and $Y$ variables, which obey \cite{Henriques1,Mendes1,Moorhouse1,Sa1}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: X'eq}
X' = -ikY,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: Y'eq}
Y' = -\frac{i}{k}\left(k^2-\frac{a''}{a}\right)X.
\end{equation}
Here a prime indicates a derivative with respect the conformal time, $\eta$ $(a=dt/d\eta)$. These new variables are related to the graviton density by $|\beta|^2 = |X-Y|^2/4$ and must respect the condition $\textrm{Re}(X\cdotp Y)=1$.
In a flat FLRW de Sitter space-time, the system of equations \eqref{eq: X'eq} and \eqref{eq: Y'eq} admits the solution \cite{Mendes1}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: XdSsolutions}
X(a)= \left(1+i\frac{aH}{k}\right)e^{i\frac{k}{aH}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: YdSsolutions}
Y(a) = \left(1+i\frac{aH}{k} -\frac{a^2H^2}{k^2}\right)e^{i\frac{k}{aH}}.
\end{equation}
The graviton density, $|\beta|^2$, at the present time, $\eta_0$, defines the dimensionless relative logarithmic energy spectrum of GWs for the frequency $\omega$ as \cite{Allen:1987bk,Sa1}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Spectrum}
\Omega_{\textrm{GW}} (\omega,\eta_0) = \frac{\hbar\kappa^2}{3\pi^2 c^5H^2(\eta_0)}\omega^4|\beta(\eta_0)|^2
\end{align}
where $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum and $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck constant. We set back all the units to obtain the spectrum of the gravitational waves.
In $f(R)$-gravity the same method can be applied by replacing $a''/a$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq: Y'eq} by $z''/z$ where $z=a\sqrt{f_R}$ \cite{Capozziello2,Mukhanov:1990me,Faraoni3,Hwang1,Hwang2,Hwang3}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: Y'eqz}
Y' = -\frac{i}{k}\left(k^2-\frac{z''}{z}\right)X.
\end{equation}
Using the definition of $z$ we can expand $z''/z$ into $a''/a$ plus a correction term due to the $f(R)$ modification, $\Xi$, that vanishes at the end of the $f(R)$ era:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: zExp}
\frac{z''}{z} &= \frac{a''}{a}+ \frac{a'}{a}\frac{f_R'}{f_R} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{f_R''}{f_R}-\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{f_R'}{f_R}\right)^2
\nonumber\\
&= \frac{a''}{a} + \Xi.
\end{align}
Even though the definition of $\Xi$ contains terms that diverge at the bounce, because they involve $f_{RR}$ and higher derivatives, $\Xi$ is always finite \footnote{Notice that $f'_R$ and $f''_R$ can be written as linear combinations of $f_{RR}$ and $f_{RRR}$.}.
The definition of the scale factor during the early universe, see Eq.~\eqref{eq: scalefactor}, as well as the solution obtained for $f(R)$, Eq.~\eqref{eq: f(R)}, allows us to cast both terms of Eq.~\eqref{eq: zExp} as functions of the cosmological time:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: a''a1}
\frac{a''}{a}(t) = H_{\textrm{inf}}^2a_b^2\left[2\cosh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)-1\right],
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq: fRcorrec}
\Xi(t) =& H_{\textrm{inf}}^2a_b^2 \Biggl\{ 4-5\cosh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t) \Bigr.
\nonumber\\
&+ \left.\left[9\cosh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)-6\right]Z(t)
\right.\nonumber\\
&- \left. \frac{\left[3\cosh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)-2\right]^2}{4\sinh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)}Z^2(t)\right\},
\end{align}
where the $Z(t)$ is defined as:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Z}
Z(t) = \frac{\sqrt{3\sinh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)}}{\cot\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\theta_1(t)+\theta_2(t)\right)+\sqrt{3\sinh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)}}.
\end{align}
The function $Z(t)$ is a monotonic increasing function of $|t|$ that goes from $Z(0)=0$ to the limiting value during the de Sitter-like expansion $Z(t\rightarrow\infty)=2/3$. In this regime $\Xi\approx H_{\textrm{inf}}^2a_b^2/3$, therefore, we can make the approximation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: z''zLimit}
\frac{z''}{z}(t\gg H_{\textrm{inf}}^{-1}) \approx H_{\textrm{inf}}^2a_b^2\left[2\cosh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)-2/3\right].
\end{equation}
In Fig.~\ref{fig: Potencial_az}, we plot the behaviour of $a''/a$ and $z''/z$ near the bounce. The striking feature of the $f(R)$ modification is the fact that $z''/z$ becomes negative very close to the bounce $(z''/z<0$ approximately for $|t|<0.22H_{\textrm{inf}}^{-1})$. We note that, in GR, the potential $a''/a$ can become negative whenever $\rho-3p<0$, for example for stiff matter. The deviations from the GR term are maximum at the bounce: $\max|\Xi| = |\Xi(0)|\approx4.7H_{\textrm{inf}}^2a_b^2$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Potencial_az}
\caption[$z''/z$, $a''/a$ and $a^2H^2$ near the bounce]{\label{fig: Potencial_az}This Fig. shows: (i) the potential $z''/z$ (see the continuous blue curve) and its asymptotic behaviour (see the discontinuous blue curve); (ii) the potential $a''/a$ (see the green curve); (iii) the comoving wave-number $k_H^2=4\pi^2a^2H^2$ (see the red curve); as functions of cosmic time and near the bounce. All functions are plotted in units of $a_b^2H_{\textrm{inf}}^2$.}
\end{figure}
When the universe is well inside the inflationary era, the deviations of the action of our model from an Einstein-Hilbert action with a cosmological constant become small and equations \eqref{eq: Fried1} and \eqref{eq: Fried2} approach the form of the Friedmann and Raychaudhury equations derived from GR with an effective cosmological constant. We make use of this asymptotic behaviour by switching entirely to a GR description at this point, which allows us to describe the late time evolution of the universe by the $\Lambda$CDM model. To obtain a smooth transition between the $\Lambda$CDM model and the model introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:fR}, we use a modified Generalized Chaplygin Gas (mGCG), see for example Ref.~\cite{Bouhmadi1} (for further works on the Chaplygin gas see Refs.~\cite{GonzalezDiaz:2002hr}). We choose to use a mGCG as it provides a simple phenomenological way to model a smooth transition from a de Sitter-like phase to the radiation dominated epoch. In this approach, we are essentially using two actions during the different stages of the evolution of the universe: the $f(R)$ action \eqref{eq: f(R)} is used until the later stages of inflation, where $R\in[6H_{\textrm{inf}}^2,12H_{\textrm{inf}}^2]$ and $a<a_1$ (see the paragraph just after Eq.\eqref{eq: z''z}); for ensuing times ($a>a_1)$, the Einstein-Hilbert action with a cosmological constant is employed. Given that (i) a time arrow is well defined from the bounce onward, (ii) the universe is asymptotically de Sitter around $a_1$ and that (iii) the $f(R)$ theory is linear on $R$ when it approaches $a_1$, we can connect the two actions continuously and evolve the tensor perturbations till the present time as we will show next.
The effective energy density in vacuum during the $f(R)$ era can be expressed as:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: EffDensity}
\rho^{\textrm{(eff)}} &= \frac{f_RR-f}{2\kappa^2 f_R} - \frac{3H}{\kappa^2}\frac{f_{RR}}{f_R}\dot{R}
\nonumber\\
&= \frac{3H^2}{\kappa^2} = \frac{3H_{\textrm{inf}}^2}{\kappa^2}\left[1-\left(\frac{a_b}{a}\right)^2\right].
\end{align}
Piecing it together with the densities for the mGCG and $\Lambda$CDM models, we can express the energy density of the universe throughout the different eras as follows:\footnote{To avoid confusion and ambiguity in the notation, we have adopted $\lambda$ for the parameter of the mGCG, rather than the usual symbol $\alpha$ which on the present paper denotes one of the Bogoliubov coefficients, thus differing from the notation in Ref.~\cite{Bouhmadi1}.}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: rhototal}
\rho=\begin{cases}
\frac{3H_{\textrm{inf}}^2}{\kappa^2}\left[1-\left(\frac{a_b}{a}\right)^2\right] & \textrm{$f(R)$ era},\\
\left[A+\frac{B}{a^{4(1+\lambda)}}\right]^{\frac{1}{1+\lambda}} & \textrm{mGCG era},\\
\rho_r \left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^4 + \rho_m \left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^3 + 4\rho_{\Lambda} &\Lambda\textrm{CDM era}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The constants $A$ and $B$ are fixed by comparing the asymptotic behaviour of the density in mGCG with these in the $f(R)$ and $\Lambda$CDM regimes:
\begin{equation}
A = \left(3H_{\textrm{inf}}^2/\kappa^2\right)^{1+\lambda} ~~~~ B = \left(\rho_ra_0^4\right)^{1+\lambda}.
\end{equation}
In the later mGCG and $\Lambda$CDM eras, the correction term, $\Xi$, vanishes and $z''/z$ is reduced to the GR term which is determined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: a''a2}
\frac{a''}{a}=\frac{\kappa^2}{6}a^2(\rho-3p).
\end{equation}
Here the energy density is defined by the second and third lines in the definition \eqref{eq: rhototal}, while the pressure is determined by the equations of state of the respective models: $p=(\rho-4A/\rho^{\lambda})/3$ for the mGCG; $p=\Sigma_i p_i = \Sigma w_i\rho_i$ for the $\Lambda$CDM model where $w=1/3$ for radiation, $w=0$ for dust and $w=-1$ for the cosmological constant.
Combining these results to write down \footnote{Notice that $z''/z=a''/a$ for $a>a_1$.} $z''/z$ during the three different eras we obtain:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: z''z}
\frac{z''}{z}=
\begin{cases}
H_{\textrm{inf}}^2\left(2a^2-a_b^2\right) + \Xi &, a<a_1,\\
\frac{2}{3}\kappa^2 a^2A\left[A +\frac{B}{a^{4(1+\lambda)}}\right]^{-\frac{\lambda}{1+\lambda}} &,~a_1<a<a_2,\\
\frac{\kappa^2}{6}a^2\left[\rho_m \left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^3 + 4\rho_{\Lambda}\right] &,~a>a_2.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
The transition from the first to the second era takes place at $a=a_1$, and from the second to the third era at $a=a_2$. The values of both $a_1$ and $a_2$ are implicitly defined by the condition that the branches of Eqs~\eqref{eq: z''z} are continuous at the transition time.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Potencial.eps}
\caption[$z''/z$ and $a^2H^2$]{\label{fig: Potencial}This Figure shows: (i) the potential $a''/a$ (see the blue curve); (ii) the comoving wave-number $k_H^2=4\pi^2a^2H^2$ (see the red curve); as functions of the scale factor and plotted in a logarithmic scale in units of $m_p^2$.}
\end{figure}
To determine the gravitational energy spectrum $\Omega_{\textrm{GW}}$ we integrate equations \eqref{eq: X'eq} and \eqref{eq: Y'eqz} for a given wave-number $k$ from an initial time $t_{\textrm{ini}}$ set before the bounce until the present time. The wave-numbers $k$ are scanned from the mode that is entering the horizon at present, $k_{\textrm{hor}}=a_0H_0$, to the mode that corresponds to the maximum of $z''/z$, $k_{\textrm{max}}=\sqrt{\text{max}(z''/z)}$.
In order to understand the importance of the $f(R)$ corrections in equation \eqref{eq: Y'eqz}, we determine the evolution of $X$ and $Y$ using two methods. In the first method the integration is made considering solely the GR term $a''/a$ while in the second method the complete definition of $z''/z$ is used.
In order to solve the system\footnote{Notice that $z''/z$ reduces to $a''/a$ when $\Xi$ vanishes. Therefore, we can unify in Eqs.~\eqref{eq: X'eq} and \eqref{eq: Y'eqz}, the approaches we will follow in the GR and the $f(R)$ frameworks.} of differential equations, we need to set proper initial conditions. Even though the complex expression of the $f(R)$ term $z''/z$ gives little hope of obtaining an exact analytical solution, we can show that, when only the GR term, $a''/a$, or the approximation during the de Sitter-like regime are considered, the equations can be solved analytically. This allows us to obtain initial conditions for the numerical integration which we will apply on the next section.
We begin by combining the two first order differential equations, \eqref{eq: X'eq} and \eqref{eq: Y'eqz}, that govern the evolution of the variables $X$ and $Y$ in a single second order differential equation for X:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq4: X''eq}
X'' = \left(k^2 - \frac{z''}{z}\right)X.
\end{equation}
Also, we find that Eqs.~\eqref{eq: a''a1} and \eqref{eq: z''zLimit} can be cast in the general form $g_{\gamma}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: GenPot}
g_{\gamma}(a)\equiv H_{\textrm{inf}}^2\left(2a^2-\gamma a_b^2\right),
\end{equation}
with $\gamma$ a parameter taking the value $\gamma=1$ for the GR case $(g_1=a''/a$, c.f. Eq.~\eqref{eq: a''a1}$)$ and $\gamma=2/3$ for the limiting de Sitter-like regime within the $f(R)$ framework $(g_{2/3}=z''/z(t\gg H_{\textrm{inf}}^{-1})$, c.f. Eq.~\eqref{eq: z''zLimit}$)$. Substituting $g_{\gamma}$ in \eqref{eq4: X''eq} and expressing the differential equation in terms of the cosmic time we obtain:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: X''eqt}
\ddot{X} +& H_{\textrm{inf}}\tanh(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)\dot{X}\nonumber\\
&+ H_{\textrm{inf}}^2\left[2\cosh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t) - \gamma - q^2\right]X=0,
\end{align}
where the reduced wave-number $q$ is defined as $q\equiv k/(a_bH_{\textrm{inf}})$. Equation \eqref{eq: X''eqt} has a solution given by the linear combination:
\begin{equation}
X(t) = D_1X_1(t) + D_2X_2(t),
\end{equation}
of the real-valued functions $X_1$ and $X_2$:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Xsolutions}
X_1(t) &= \frac{\sqrt{\sinh^2\left(H_{\textrm{inf}}t\right) + \gamma + q^2}}{\gamma+q^2}
\nonumber\\
\times\cos&\left[\text{sgn}(\gamma-1+q^2)\frac{\phi_1(a)\sqrt{\gamma+q^2}-\phi_2(t)}{2}\right],
\nonumber\\
X_2(t) &= \frac{\sqrt{\sinh^2\left(H_{\textrm{inf}}t\right) + \gamma + q^2}}{\gamma+q^2}
\nonumber\\
\times\sin&\left[\text{sgn}(\gamma-1+q^2)\frac{\phi_1(a)\sqrt{\gamma+q^2}-\phi_2(t)}{2}\right].
\end{align}
The phases $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are defined as:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: ThetaSolutions}
\phi_1(t) &= \pi+ \text{sgn}(t)\arccos\left[2\text{sech}^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)-1\right],
\nonumber\\
\phi_2(t) &= \pi
+ \text{sgn}(t)\arccos\left[\frac{2\left(\gamma+q^2\right)}{\sinh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)+\gamma+q^2}-1\right],
\end{align}
The corresponding $Y$ functions can be obtained by inserting Eq.~\eqref{eq: Xsolutions} in Eq.~\eqref{eq: X'eq}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Ysolutions}
Y_1(t) &= \frac{i}{q}\left[\frac{\sinh(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)\cosh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)}{\sinh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)+\gamma+q^2}X_1(t) \right.
\nonumber\\
&- \left.\sqrt{\gamma+q^2}\frac{|\gamma-1+q^2|}{\sinh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)+\gamma+q^2}X_2(t)\right],
\nonumber\\
Y_2(t) &= \frac{i}{q}\left[\frac{\sinh(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)\cosh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)}{\sinh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)+\gamma+q^2}X_2(t) \right.
\nonumber\\
&+ \left.\sqrt{\gamma+q^2}\frac{|\gamma-1+q^2|}{\sinh^2(H_{\textrm{inf}}t)+\gamma+q^2}X_1(t)\right].
\end{align}
The linear coefficients $D_1$ and $D_2$ are determined by the initial conditions $|X(t_{\textrm{ini}})|=|Y(t_{\textrm{ini}})|=1$, and by imposing that, for high $k$, $X$ converges to a Bunch-Davies-like solution \cite{Langlois:2010xc} with negative Hubble parameter, during the contraction phase.
\begin{align}
D_1 = -i q\frac{\sqrt{X_4^2(t_{\textrm{ini}})+Y_2^2(t_{\textrm{ini}})}}{|\gamma-1+q^2|\sqrt{\gamma+q^2}},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
D_2 &= \frac{-1}{\sqrt{X_4^2(t_{\textrm{ini}})+Y_2^2(t_{\textrm{ini}})}} \nonumber\\
+ i&\frac{q}{|\gamma-1+q^2|\sqrt{\gamma+q^2}} \frac{X_3(t_{\textrm{ini}})X_4(t_{\textrm{ini}})+Y_1(t_{\textrm{ini}})Y_2(t_{\textrm{ini}})}{\sqrt{X_4^2(t_{\textrm{ini}})+Y_2^2(t_{\textrm{ini}})}}.
\end{align}
By fixing the initial conditions before the bounce, we are effectively defining a range of wave-numbers, $(k^2<z''/z(t_{\textrm{ini}}))$, that at the beginning of the integration are already outside the horizon. For those modes there is an increase in the graviton density, $|\beta|^2$, before the bounce. This fact is reflected in an upward shift in the energy spectrum, $\Omega_{\textrm{GW}}$, as we will show. As $z''/z$ grows exponentially with negative time, the further away from the bounce that we set the initial conditions, the more intense this shift is expected to be and the more wave-numbers are affected.
\section{\label{sec:Numerical}Numerical Simulations}
In our model we can identify a set of four independent parameters:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the time when the initial conditions are set, $t_{\textrm{ini}}$;
\item the scale factor at the time of the bounce, $a_b$;
\item the energy scale during the inflationary era, $E_{\textrm{inf}}$, which is related to the constant $H_{\textrm{inf}}$ by:
\begin{equation}
E_{\textrm{inf}}=\left(\frac{3}{\kappa^2}H_{\textrm{inf}}^2\right)^{1/4};
\end{equation}
\item the value of the parameter $\lambda$ in the mGCG model. As this parameter changes the spectrum only in the high frequency range, as opposed to the effects of the bounce which are relevant only for the low frequencies, we use the value $\lambda = -1.04$ obtained in Ref.~\cite{Bouhmadi1} which corresponds to the best fit using the WMAP data \cite{WMAP}.
\end{enumerate}
For a chosen set of values $(a_b,t_{\textrm{ini}},E_{\textrm{inf}})$ we compute the GWs spectrum via the numerical integration of the differential equations \eqref{eq: X'eq} and \eqref{eq: Y'eqz} in two ways: case (i) within a GR perturbative treatment; case (ii) within a full $f(R)$ treatment. The integration is divided in two parts with the first one, during the $f(R)$ era, performed in terms of the cosmic time and the second one, during the mGCG and $\Lambda$CDM eras, performed in terms of the scale factor. Following previous works, \cite{Bouhmadi1,Mendes1,Sa1}, we stop the integration when $k^2\gg z''/z$, i.e. when the mode is well inside the horizon, since in this regime $X$ and $Y$ have a highly oscillatory sinusoidal behaviour while $|\beta|^2$ is virtually constant. This is an excellent way of reducing the computing time of the spectrum.
Before describing the two methods we define two particular wave-numbers. The first one:
\begin{equation}
k_I=\sqrt{\max |\Xi|} =\sqrt{|\Xi_b|},
\end{equation}
can be interpreted as the smallest wave number for which the solutions in Eqs.~\eqref{eq: Xsolutions} and \eqref{eq: Ysolutions} (with $\gamma=2/3$) are a good approximation during the entire $f(R)$ era. The second one:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: kIIdef}
k_{II}=\sqrt{z''/z(t_{\textrm{ini}})},
\end{equation}
indicates the mode with higher wave number that sees its graviton density increased during the contraction phase. Notice that, in principle, all modes should have an increase on its graviton number before the bounce and, indeed, if one sets $t_{\textrm{ini}}$ further away from the moment of the bounce the limit $k_{II}$ grows. However, by starting the integration from a given initial fixed time for all the modes, only those modes close to the bounce will have a significant increases on its graviton density.
We proceed to describe the two methods employed to obtain the energy spectrum of the gravitational waves:
\subsection{GR approach for the perturbations}
In case (i) only the GR term $a''/a$ is considered when performing the integration, i.e. we integrate the Eqs.~\eqref{eq: X'eq} and \eqref{eq: Y'eq}. Since Eqs.~\eqref{eq: Xsolutions} and \eqref{eq: Ysolutions} $(\gamma=1)$ provide us with analytical solutions during the $f(R)$ era, we can skip the numerical integration all together during this period and use Eqs.~\eqref{eq: Xsolutions} and \eqref{eq: Ysolutions} to set the initial conditions for the integration during the mGCG era. This is done in two different ways depending on whether the mode has already crossed the horizon at the moment of the transition defined by $a_1$ or not (we remind that $a_1$ defines the transition from the $f(R)$ solution to the mGCG era (cf. Eq.\eqref{eq: z''z}).
If the mode $k$ is outside of the horizon at the beginning of the mGCG era $(k\lesssim a_1H_1)$, we use Eqs.~\eqref{eq: Xsolutions} and \eqref{eq: Ysolutions} to fix the initial conditions for the integration at $a_i=a_1$ and then integrate numerically until the mode reenters the horizon, i.e. until $a_f\sim10^2a_{\textrm{entry}}^{(k)}$, where $a_{\textrm{entry}}^{(k)}$ is the value of the scale factor at the moment of the reentry of the mode defined as $k=a_{\textrm{entry}}^{(k)}H(a_{\textrm{entry}}^{(k)})$.
As said previously, we stop our integration slightly after the mode reenters the horizon because, for $a > a_{\textrm{entry}}^{(k)}$, $X$ and $Y$ have an oscillatory behaviour; thus, $|\beta|$ remains constant after the crossing.
For higher modes $(k\gtrsim a_1H_1)$, which are still inside the Hubble radius at the moment of the transition, we consider that the solutions \eqref{eq: Xsolutions} and \eqref{eq: Ysolutions} are valid slightly before the mode crosses the horizon, i.e., until $a_i\sim10^{-2}a_{\textrm{exit}}^{(k)}$ , where $a_{\textrm{exit}}^{(k)}$ is the value of the scale factor at the moment when the mode exits the horizon defined by $k=a_{\textrm{exit}}^{(k)}H(a_{\textrm{exit}}^{(k)})$. It is noteworthy to point out that, for large wave numbers, the solutions obtained for this model are virtually identical to the de Sitter solutions after the bounce and this is precisely the reason why we can apply them during the mGCG era when dominated by the effective cosmological constant $A$. Therefore, we use these solutions to set the initial conditions at $a=a_i$ and perform the integration until $a_f\sim10^2a_{\textrm{entry}}^{(k)}$, when the mode is again well inside the horizon. The reason we do not impose for the modes $a_1H_1\lesssim k$ the same boundary condition we used previously for $k\lesssim a_1H_1$ is to avoid the oscilatory regime before the modes cross the horizon as it is very time consuming.
\subsection{$f(R)$ approach for the perturbations}
In case (ii) the full definition of $z''/z$ is considered (see Eqs. \eqref{eq: zExp} and \eqref{eq: fRcorrec}), therefore we integrate Eqs.~\eqref{eq: X'eq} and \eqref{eq: Y'eqz}. The integration is performed accordingly to one of the following procedures:
If $(k\lesssim a_1H_1)$ and $(k\lesssim k_I)$, we begin the integration during the $f(R)$ era by setting the initial conditions at $t=t_{\textrm{ini}}$ using Eqs.~\eqref{eq: Xsolutions} and \eqref{eq: Ysolutions} $(\gamma=2/3)$. The system of differential equations is then integrated until the moment of the transition at $t=t_1$, where $t_1$ is defined by $a_1=a_b\cosh(H_{\textrm{inf}}t_1)$, as given in Eq.~\eqref{eq: scalefactor}. We then use these results as initial conditions for the integration during the mGCG era and then integrate until after the mode reenters the horizon at $a_f\sim10^2a_{\textrm{entry}}^{(k)}$.
Alternatively, if $(k\lesssim a_1H_1)$ and $(k\gtrsim k_I)$ the approximate solutions given by Eqs.~\eqref{eq: Xsolutions} and \eqref{eq: Ysolutions} $(\gamma=2/3)$ are not affected by the exact form of the potential $z''/z$ during the bounce. Therefore, we can skip the numerical integration during the $f(R)$ era, using those solutions to set the initial conditions for the integration during the mGCG era at $a_i=a_1$ and then we integrate numerically until the mode is well inside the horizon at $a_f\sim10^2a_{\textrm{entry}}^{(k)}$.
If $(k\gtrsim a_1H_1)$ and $(k\lesssim k_I)$ we again set the initial conditions for the integration of the $f(R)$ period at $t=t_{\textrm{ini}}$ using Eqs.~\eqref{eq: Xsolutions} and \eqref{eq: Ysolutions} $(\gamma=2/3)$. The numerical integration is then performed in terms of the cosmological time until the mode approaches its horizon exit, i.e., $t=t_i$ defined by $a_i\equiv a_b\cosh(H_{\textrm{inf}}t_i)\sim10^{-2}a_{\textrm{exit}}^{(k)}$. These results are then used as initial conditions at $a=a_i$ and the integration is continued for the mGCG and $\Lambda$CDM eras the mode are well inside the horizon at $a_f\sim10^2a_{\textrm{entry}}^{(k)}$.
Finally, if $(k\gtrsim a_1H_1)$ and $(k\gtrsim k_I)$ we can use the approximated solutions Eqs.~\eqref{eq: Xsolutions} and \eqref{eq: Ysolutions} (with $\gamma=2/3$) to set the initial conditions for the integration of the mGCG era before the mode exits the horizon at $a_i\sim10^{-2}a_{\textrm{exit}}^{(k)}$. The integration is then performed until $a_f\sim10^2a_{\textrm{entry}}^{(k)}$, when the mode is again well inside the horizon.
\subsection{Numerical results}
The range of frequencies scanned is delimited by $\omega_{\textrm{min}}= k_{\textrm{hor}}/a_0\approx 1.43\times 10^{-17}$ rad s$^{-1}$ and $\omega_{\textrm{max}}= k_{\textrm{max}}/a_0\approx 1.49\times 10^{-11}E_{\textrm{inf}}$ rad s$^{-1}$. The values of the parameters of the $\Lambda$CDM model were taken from the WMAP7 data \cite{WMAP}: $\Omega_r=8\times 10^{-5}$, $\Omega_m=0.272$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.728$ and $H_0=$70.4 km s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$. The value of scale factor at present time is set to $a_0=10^{58}$.
Finally the following constraints on the energy spectrum of GWs were considered \cite{Sa1,Smith1}:
\begin{itemize}
\item From the CMB radiation: $h_0^2\Omega_{\textrm{GW}}(\omega_{\textrm{hor}},\eta_0)\lesssim 7\times 10^{-11}$ for $h_0=H_0/(100$ km s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$) and $\omega_{\textrm{hor}}=2\times 10^{-17}h_0$ rad s$^{-1}$;
\item From observation of milliseconds pulsar: $h_0^2\Omega_{\textrm{GW}}(\omega_{\textrm{pul}},\eta_0)< 2\times 10^{-8}$ for $\omega_{\textrm{pul}}=2.5\times 10^{-8}h_0$ rad s$^{-1}$;
\item From the Cassini spacecraft: $h_0^2\Omega_{\textrm{GW}}(\omega_{\textrm{Cas}},\eta_0)< 0.014$ for $\omega_{\textrm{Cas}}=7.5\times 10^{-6}h_0$ rad s$^{-1}$;
\item From the LIGO experiment: $h_0^2\Omega_{\textrm{GW}}(\omega_{\textrm{LIGO}},\eta_0)< 3.4\times 10^{-5}$ for frequencies on the order of a few hundred rad s$^{-1}$;
\item From BBN: $h_0^2\Omega(\omega,\eta_0)d\omega/\omega < 5.6\times 10^{-6}$ for $\omega_n \approx 10^{-9}$rad s$^{-1}$.
\end{itemize}
The results obtained for the GWs spectra are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig: SpectraAi}, \ref{fig: SpectraAini} and \ref{fig: SpectraEi}. In each figure two of the three parameters $(a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b,a_b,E_{\textrm{inf}})$ are fixed while the third one is changed so as to illustrate its effects on the spectrum. The energy scale for the numerical integration is chosen within the allowed observational values and such that the effect of the bounce is enhanced on the spectrum of the GWs. The initial time, $t_{\textrm{ini}}$, is fixed before the bounce, during the phase of de Sitter-like contraction, and the value of the scale factor at the bounce is chosen so that the effect on the low frequency of the spectrum are amplified. In Fig.~\ref{fig: SpectraAi} the results obtained using the perturbative approach in (i) GR and (ii) $f(R)$ are also compared.
As expected, the existence of a bounce in the early universe affects the spectrum only in the low frequency range, where a highly oscillatory regime is present in contrast with the smooth plateau in the intermediate frequencies and the rapid decay in the high frequency range. The fact that the oscillatory structure appears in the spectra of both treatments (i) and (ii) suggests that it is due to the existence of the bounce and not a consequence of the effects of $f(R)$-gravity. Similar oscillations have been obtained in works of loop quantum cosmology first pointed out by Afonso et al \cite{Afonso1,Sa2}, and in the spectrum of scalar perturbation of non-singular models with scalar fields \cite{Piao:2003zm}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{Result1.eps}}
\hfill
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{Result1a.eps}}
\caption[Energy spectrum of GWs for varying $a_b$]{\label{fig: SpectraAi}Spectra of the energy density of GWs at present time for different values of the scale factor at the bounce, $a_b$. The spectra are plotted for \textbf{(a)} the entire range of frequencies and \textbf{(b)} the low frequency range. A comparison is made between the results obtained using the GR setup (dashed curves) and the $f(R)$ treatment (continuous curves). The value of $a_b$ increases from the red curve to the blue curve: $a_b=2\times 10^2$; $a_b=2\times 10^3$; $a_b=2\times 10^4$; $a_b=10\times 10^5$; $a_b=10\times 10^6$. $(E_{\textrm{inf}}=1.5\times 10^{16}$GeV; $a_{\textrm{ini}}=10a_b)$}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{Result2.eps}}
\hfill
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{Result2a.eps}}
\caption[Energy spectrum of GWs for varying $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b$]{\label{fig: SpectraAini}Spectra of the energy density of GWs at present time for different values of the initial time, $t_{\textrm{ini}}$, which is related to the amount of contraction prior to the bounce by $H_{\textrm{inf}}t_{\textrm{ini}}=\textrm{arccosh}(a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b)$. The spectra are plotted for \textbf{(a)} the entire range of frequencies and \textbf{(b)} the low frequency range. The value of $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b$ increases from the red curve to the blue curve: $a_{\textrm{ini}}=10a_b$; $a_{\textrm{ini}}=20a_b$; $a_{\textrm{ini}}=50a_b$; $a_{\textrm{ini}}=100a_b$. $(E_{\textrm{inf}}=1.5\times 10^{16}$GeV; $a_b=2000)$.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{Result3.eps}}
\hfill
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{Result3a.eps}}
\caption[Energy spectrum of GWs for varying $E_{\textrm{inf}}$]{\label{fig: SpectraEi}Spectra of the energy density of GWs at present time for different values of the energy scale during inflation, $E_{\textrm{inf}}$. The spectra are plotted for \textbf{(a)} the entire range of frequencies and \textbf{(b)} the low frequency range. A comparison is made between the results obtained with a fixed value of $a_b$ (continuous curves) and a fixed value of $a_bH_{\textrm{ini}}$ (discontinuous curves). The value of $E_{\textrm{inf}}$ increases from the red curve to the blue curve: $E_{\textrm{inf}}=1.5\times 10^{14}$GeV; $E_{\textrm{inf}}=0.5\times 10^{15}$GeV; $E_{\textrm{inf}}=1.5\times 10^{15}$GeV; $E_{\textrm{inf}}=0.5\times 10^{16}$GeV; $E_{\textrm{inf}}=1.5\times 10^{16}$GeV. $(a_{\textrm{ini}}=10a_b$; $a_b=2\times 10^3)$.}
\end{figure*}
The differences in the spectra obtained in (i) a GR setup and in (ii) an $f(R)$ approach are evidentiated in Fig.~\ref{fig: SpectraAi}. These appear only for very low values of the reduced wave-number, $q$, which corresponds to the low frequencies of the spectra where an extra local minimum occurs for $k=a_bH_{\textrm{inf}}/\sqrt{3}$ . This corresponds to the value that makes the factor $\text{sgn}(\gamma-1+q^2)=0$ in solutions \eqref{eq: Xsolutions} and \eqref{eq: Ysolutions} for $\gamma=2/3$. Notice that for the medium and high frequencies, and even for the higher frequencies on the oscillatory regime, the spectra obtained with the two treatments are virtually indistinguishable. The spectra obtained are in conformity with the assumption that the maximum value of the $f(R)$ corrections, $\Xi$, sets the scale on the upper limit of the wave-numbers for which there are noticeable differences in the spectra determined using the methods (i) or (ii). Thus, for the gravitational spectrum $\Omega_{\textrm{GW}}$ to be useful in discriminating between the GR and $f(R)$ theories describing the evolution of the tensor perturbations, the wave-number $k_I$ must be within the accessible range of wave-numbers today., i.e.:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: DiffCond}
k_I > k_{\textrm{hor}}.
\end{equation}
In Fig.~\ref{fig: SpectraAi} a horizontal displacement is observed in the spectrum when the value of $a_b$ is modified. This reflects the fact that the solutions \eqref{eq: Xsolutions} and \eqref{eq: Ysolutions} do not depend directly on the wave-number $k$ but instead on the reduced wave-number $q=k/(a_bH_{\textrm{inf}})$. As such, it is expected that the position of the peaks on the spectrum to be affected the by changes on the product $a_bH_{\textrm{inf}}$. This effect is also seen in Fig.~\ref{fig: SpectraEi}, because lowering the energy scale for a fixed value of $a_bH_{\textrm{inf}}$ only shifts the spectrum downwards without changing the position of the peaks.
In Fig.~\ref{fig: SpectraAini} an increase on the energy spectrum of GWs, $\Omega_{\textrm{GW}}$, as well as in the range of the affected frequencies, is observed as the initial conditions are set further away from the bounce (higher $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b$). This results agree with the analysis done previously in Sec.~\ref{sec:Spectrum}.
The CMB constraints set an upper limit in the low frequency end of the spectrum of $\Omega_{\textrm{GW}}(\omega_{\textrm{hor}},\eta_0)\approx1.4\times 10^{-10}$. This value limits the amount of contraction that one takes into account as the intensity of the peaks in the energy spectrum scales rapidly with increasing $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b$. In fact from Fig.~\ref{fig: SpectraAini} it is possible to observe that if the condition \eqref{eq: DiffCond} is met the relation $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b$ is heavily constrained: for $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b=20$ the maximum of the potential is slightly above $10^{-10}$, while for $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b=50$ the maximum of the potential is almost two orders of magnitude higher which clearly violates the CMB limit.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{aini_ab}
\caption[]{\label{fig: t0max} This picture shows the maximum allowed value of $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b$ that does not violate the CMB limit, as a function of $a_b$ and for different values of the energy scale, $E_{\textrm{inf}}$. From the red curve to the blue curve: $E_{\textrm{inf}}=0.5\times 10^{15}$GeV; $E_{\textrm{inf}}=1.5\times 10^{15}$GeV; $E_{\textrm{inf}}=0.5\times 10^{16}$GeV; $E_{\textrm{inf}}=1.5\times 10^{16}$GeV. ($k=a_bH_{\textrm{inf}}$)}
\end{figure}
In order to obtain a better picture of the restrictions set on $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b$, we select the wave-number of the most leftward peak (of the order of $k_p\approx a_bH_{\textrm{inf}}$) and repeat the integration with varying $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b$. The results obtained are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig: t0max} for different inflationary energy scales. While the maximum allowed value of $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b$ increases slightly with $a_b$, it rapidly becomes stagnant with growing $a_b$. We call such parameter, for a fixed energy scale, of $l_{E_{\textrm{inf}}}(a_b)$. The curves $l_{E_{\textrm{inf}}}(a_b)$ transform with a rescaling of the energy scale, $E_{\textrm{inf}}\rightarrow mE_{\textrm{inf}}$, as:
\begin{align}
\label{limit_contraction}
l_{E_{\textrm{inf}}}\left(a_b\right)\sim m^{-1}l_{mE_{\textrm{inf}}}\left(m^{-2}a_b\right),
\end{align}
Here, $m$ is a dimensionless scaling factor. From Eq.~\eqref{limit_contraction} we see that by lowering the energy scale, the limiting value of the relation $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b$ is shifted upwards and the minimum value of $a_b$ for which $k_p>k_{\textrm{hor}}$ increases. For $E_{\textrm{inf}}=1.5\times10^{16}$GeV we obtain $l_{E_{\textrm{inf}}}(a_b)\approx 72$ in the high $a_b$ region (see the asymptotic behaviour of Fig.~\ref{fig: t0max}. Notice that this constrain in the amount of the considered contraction can be avoided by lowering the product $a_bH_{\textrm{inf}}$, so that the peaks that violate the CMB limit are shifted toward the left on the spectrum, to the region of frequencies not accessible today. This, however, means that one would lose the ability to differentiate between the GR and the purely $f(R)$ imprints on the spectrum, or, in the extreme case, lose the oscillatory structure altogether.
In Fig.~\ref{fig: SpectraEi} the effects of changing the energy density during inflation may be observed. Besides the scaling of $k_{\textrm{max}}$ with $E_{\textrm{inf}}$ ($k_{\textrm{max}}\propto E_{\textrm{inf}}$), a vertical shift of the intermediate plateau is observed, with:
\begin{align}
\frac{\Omega_{\textrm{GW}}(E_{\textrm{inf}}^{(1)})}{\Omega_{\textrm{GW}}(E_{\textrm{inf}}^{(2)})}\sim \left(\frac{E_{\textrm{inf}}^{(1)}}{E_{\textrm{inf}}^{(2)}}\right)^4.
\end{align}
As discussed above, the position of the peaks observed on the spectrum depend primarily on the relation $a_bH_{\textrm{inf}}$, which in turn goes as $E_{\textrm{inf}}^2$. Therefore, changing the value of the energy scale during inflation is bound to impose a horizontal displacement of the peaks, as observed in Fig.~\ref{fig: SpectraEi}. For comparison, we also plot the spectra obtained by changing the value of $E_{\textrm{inf}}$ while maintaining the value of $a_bH_{\textrm{inf}}$ constant. In this case the peaks do not change their position but the spectrum is displaced vertically.
\section{\label{sec:Conclusions}Conclusions}
In this work we investigate the effects that the presence of a bounce in the early universe has on the energy spectrum of the gravitational waves. In order to avoid violations of the null energy condition that usually appear in bouncing FLRW cosmologies in GR \cite{Molina1} we work within $f(R)$ gravity \cite{Capozziello2} fixing the desired behaviour for the scale factor and then solving the Friedmann equations to obtain the function $f$ (\textit{designer} $f(R)$ gravity \cite{Dunsby:2010wg,Carloni:2010ph}). A mGCG model \cite{Bouhmadi1} was used to connect the bouncing and subsequent inflationary era with the radiation epoch as it provides an easy way to describe a smooth transition between the two phases (inflation and radiation) without affecting the low frequencies of the spectrum.
The method of the Bogoliubov coefficients \cite{Parker1} was used to determine the evolution of the graviton density while treating the tensorial perturbations both in a GR approach and in a full $f(R)$ treatment \cite{Capozziello2}. The energy spectrum of the gravitational waves was determined for different values of the scale factors at the time of the bounce, different amounts of contraction before the bounce and for different energy scales during the inflationary era.
We show that the presence of the bounce leads to a higher creation rate of low frequency gravitons, which results in an oscillatory signature in the low frequency range of the spectrum, with various peaks whose position and intensity depend on the relations $a_bH_{\textrm{inf}}$ and $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b$. Here, $a_b$ defines the value of the scale factor at the time of the bounce, $H_{\textrm{inf}}$ is related to the energy scale during inflation by $H_{\textrm{inf}}^2={\kappa^2}/{3}\;E_{\textrm{inf}}^4$ and $a_{\textrm{ini}}$ defines the value of the scale factor at a fixed time before the bounce when the density of gravitons is negligible. An increase of $a_bH_{\textrm{inf}}$ shifts the peaks rightward on the spectrum while an increase in $a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b$ results in an enhancement of the peaks that correspond to wave-numbers below $k_{II}$ (cf. Eq.~\eqref{eq: kIIdef}). The intermediate and high frequency regions are left unaffected by the bounce. The condition \eqref{eq: DiffCond}, which we have assumed, ensures that the modes currently entering the horizon have some imprints of the $f(R)$ era.
The results obtained are within all the observational constraints considered except for the CMB radiation data as, for the higher energy scales even a contraction of two orders of magnitude before the bounce makes the spectrum violate the limits imposed on the low frequencies of the spectrum \cite{Sa1,Smith1}. An estimation on the maximum amount of the allowed contraction without violating the CMB constraints was determined by studying the dependence of the height of the most intense peak of the spectrum on the parameters of the model. For an energy scale of $E_{\textrm{inf}}=1.5\times10^{16}$GeV during the early inflation, we obtained $\max(a_{\textrm{ini}}/a_b)\lesssim72$. The fact that the contraction before the bounce his highly constrained may be viewed as an indication of the existence of an extra state of the universe that precedes the de Sitter-like contraction. The potential imprint of such a hypothetical state on the gravitational waves spectrum is not studied in this work.
Furthermore, we note that the results obtained in this work are hard to be detected in the near future. Most of the planned experiments that might be sensitive to the cosmological gravitational waves, namely BBO \cite{BBO} and DECIGO \cite{DECIGO} operate on frequencies of $\gtrsim 10^{-5}$Hz (see Fig. 2 of Ref.~\cite{Smith1} and Fig. 6 of Ref.~\cite{Kawasaki:2012rw}), while the imprints originated from the bounce are observable, at best, up to frequencies of $\lesssim 10^{-9}$Hz. The best hope for the detection of these effects relies in future measurement of the B-mode polarization of the CMB radiation \cite{Bourhrous:2012kr,Efstathiou:2009xv,Bonaldi:2011vv}.
Finally, we point out that the solution obtained for $f(R)$ is differentiable for all the values of $R$ but its second and higher derivatives blow up at the bounce. Although this divergence does not have serious implications in the tensorial perturbations, it does imply that the scalaron \cite{Starobinsky:2007hu} becomes a tachyon near the bounce, so some problems are expected when studying the scalar sector. A way to overcome this is to consider further corrections on the gravitational action that have been proved to be free from such kind of instabilities \cite{Biswas:2012bp}.
\acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to S. Capozziello, P. Dunsby and G. Olmo for very useful comments on a previous version of the manuscript and to the anonymous referees for their constructive feedbacks.
M.B.L. is supported by the Spanish Agency ``Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient\'{\i}ficas" through JAEDOC064 and the Basque Foundation for Science IKERBASQUE. This work was supported by the Portuguese Agency ``Funda\c{c}\~{a}o para a Ci\^{e}ncia e Tecnologia" through PTDC/FIS/111032/2009.
|
\section{Introduction}
The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (\ensuremath{C\!K\!M}\xspace) paradigm of \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace violation (\ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace) in the Standard Model (\ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace) has been tested by the {\em B}{\footnotesize\em A}{\em B}{\footnotesize\em AR}\ and Belle experiments with high precision in many overconstrained measurements. Nevertheless \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace leaves many unanswered questions. \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace is one of
the three Sakharov necessary conditions to generate the asymmetry between matter-antimatter (baryogenesis) observed in the Universe.
The measured \ensuremath{C\!K\!M}\xspace\ weak phase is unable to provide enough \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace\ to explain the observed baryon asymmetry.
New \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace sources are needed from New Physics (\ensuremath{N\!P}\xspace) beyond the \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace.
At the B-factories important areas of search for \ensuremath{N\!P}\xspace\ are processes which are expected at low level in \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace and which could be enhanced by \ensuremath{N\!P}\xspace. In these \ensuremath{N\!P}\xspace searches at low energies, charm physics plays currently an important and increasing role. The {\em B}{\footnotesize\em A}{\em B}{\footnotesize\em AR}, Belle and CDF measurements of flavor mixing in the neutral D meson system~\cite{Dmixing} show evidence of \ensuremath{D^0}\xspace\ - \ensuremath{\Dbar^0}\xspace mixing at 1 \% level.
These results are in agreement with \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace predictions~\cite{Buccella,Bianco,Gross} and sets constraints on possible contributions from many \ensuremath{N\!P}\xspace models~\cite{Golo}.
Recently the LHCb collaboration has reported a first evidence of \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace violation in \ensuremath{D^0}\xspace decays to $K^+ K^-$ and $\pi^+ \pi^-$~\cite{LHCb}. This evidence has been confirmed by the CDF Collaboration~\cite{CDF}. Given the \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace expectation that \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace in charm sector should be at the level of $10^{-3}$ (or lower)~\cite{Buccella,Gross}, this \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace evidence was rather unexpected at the present experimental
sensitivity. Marginally compatible with the \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace expectations, this \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace may be a manifestation of \ensuremath{N\!P}\xspace or of significant enhancements of penguin diagrams in charm
decays~\cite{Gross2,Isidori,Franco,Cheng,Gronau}.
In this talk I present recent {\em B}{\footnotesize\em A}{\em B}{\footnotesize\em AR}\ measurements concerning mixing and \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace violation in charm sector. All new results presented here are preliminary.
\section {\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace - \ensuremath{\Dbar^0}\xspace Mixing and CP Violation in Two-Body \ensuremath{D^0}\xspace decays}
Mixing in charm sector is unique because it involves virtual down type quarks. It arises from both short range and long range contributions. The short range contribution is expected to be very small because of \ensuremath{C\!K\!M}\xspace and GIM suppressions. The dominant long range contribution is non perturbative and hard to evaluate. This implies large theoretical
uncertainties in the \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace calculations of the mixing parameters $x$ and $y$~\cite{Bianco,Xing,Burd}. \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace expectations values for $x$ and $y$ are $\leq 10^{-3}$ but higher values are predicted in some \ensuremath{N\!P}\xspace models~\cite{Petrov,Gersa}.
In a recent {\em B}{\footnotesize\em A}{\em B}{\footnotesize\em AR}\ analysis~\cite{Casarosa} charm mixing and \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace violation are measured using the ratio of lifetimes obtained in the \ensuremath{D^0}\xspace decays to the two-body final states $K^{\mp} \pi^{\pm}$, $K^- K^+$, and $\pi^- \pi^+$. The analysis is based on an integrated luminosity of 468 $fb^{-1}$ collected by the {\em B}{\footnotesize\em A}{\em B}{\footnotesize\em AR}\ detector~\cite{babar}. Five different signal channels are considered~\cite{CC}: three flavor tagged channels $\ensuremath{D^{*+}}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \ensuremath{D^0}\xspace \pi^+_s$ with $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace K^+ K^-$, $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \pi^+ \pi^-$, and $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace K^- \pi^+, K^+ \pi^-$ and
two flavor untagged channels $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace K^+ K^-$ and $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace K^- \pi^+$, $K^+ \pi^-$, where $\pi^+_s$ is a slow pion track used in the tagging algorithm.
The experimental observables $y_{CP}$~\cite{Liu} , sensitive to mixing, and $\Delta Y$, sensitive to \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace\ , are measured. These observables are defined as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:Mix}
y_{CP} \equiv \frac{ \Gamma^+ + \bar{\Gamma}^+ }{ \Gamma } -1 \qquad and \qquad \Delta Y \equiv \frac{ \Gamma^+ - \bar{\Gamma}^+ }{ 2 \Gamma }\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Gamma^+$ ($\bar{\Gamma}^+$) is the average width of the \ensuremath{D^0}\xspace (\ensuremath{\Dbar^0}\xspace) when reconstructed in the \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace-even eigenstates ($K^+ K^-$, $\pi^+ \pi^-$). $\Gamma$ is the average \ensuremath{D^0}\xspace width
describing the decays to the CP-mixed final states $K^{\mp}\pi^{\pm}$~\cite{Previous}.
Neglecting contribution of direct \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace violation estimated at a level below our sensitivity~\cite{Gersak} and taking into account that the \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace violating weak phase $\phi$ in \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace to a good approximation does not depend on the final states~\cite{Soko}, the observables $y_{CP}$ and $\Delta Y$ in terms of the mixing parameters $x$ and $y$ can be written as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:array}
y_{CP} &=& y \cos \phi + \frac{{\cal A}_M}{2} x \sin \phi \nonumber\\
\Delta Y &=& -x \sin \phi + \frac{{\cal A}_M}{2} y \cos \phi \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal A}_M = ( |q/p|^2 - |p/q|^2) / ( |q/p|^2 + |p/q|^2 ) $ measures the \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace asimmetry in mixing. The complex parameters $p$ and $q$ relate the mass eigenstates of neutral mesons , $|D_{1,2}>$, to the flavor eigenstates, $|\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace>$ and $|\ensuremath{\Dbar^0}\xspace>$, through the relation $|D_{1,2}> = p |\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace> \pm q |\ensuremath{\Dbar^0}\xspace>$.
A simultaneous extended unbinned Maximum Likelihood (ML) fit to the two-dimensional distribution of the proper time and proper time error in
tagged and untagged modes is performed: the average \ensuremath{D^0}\xspace lifetime $\tau$ is extracted from $K^{\mp} \pi^{\pm}$ final states and the effective lifetime $\tau^+$ ($\bar{\tau}^+$) is extracted from \ensuremath{D^0}\xspace (\ensuremath{\Dbar^0}\xspace) decays to the final states $K^-K^+$ and $\pi^-\pi^+$. Main sources of background are misreconstructed charm events and the combinatorial background candidates consisting of random tracks.
Using the reciprocals of the three measured lifetimes in Eq.~\ref{eq:Mix} we obtain:
$$
y_{\ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace} = (0.72 \pm 0.18 \pm 0.12) \% \qquad \quad and \qquad \quad \Delta Y = (0.09 \pm 0.26 \pm 0.09) \% \,,
$$
where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. Projections of lifetime fit are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Tdistr}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\hspace{-9cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.32] {Fig1-1.pdf} \\
\vspace{-7.2cm}
\hspace {7cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.32] {Fig1-2.pdf} \\
\caption{ Proper time fit projections with the fit results overlaid. The combinatorial background distribution (Comb) is stacked on the top of the misreconstructed-charm background distribution (Charm). Under each plot are shown the normalized Poisson pulls; "unt" refers to the untagged dataset. The gray band is the PDG \ensuremath{D^0}\xspace lifetime $\pm \sigma$\cite{PDG}. }
\label{fig:Tdistr}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
These results exclude no-mixing hypothesis at 3.3$\sigma$ significance and show no evidence of \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace. The $y_{CP}$ value is consistent with the mixing parameter y measured in the decays $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace h^+ h^-$ (where $h = K, \pi$)~\cite{Asner} as expected in absence of \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace.
This $y_{CP}$ measurement is the most precise single measurement up to date. These results are in agreement with \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace predictions.
\section {\ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace Violation in \ensuremath{D^{\pm}\to\ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace\ensuremath{K^\pm}\xspace}\xspace and \ensuremath{D_s^{\pm}\to\ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace\ensuremath{K^\pm}\xspace}\xspace, \ensuremath{\ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^\pm}\xspace}\xspace}
The channels $\ensuremath{D^{\pm}}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace K^{\pm}$ can proceed through Cabibbo-Favored (CF) and Doubly-Cabibbo-Suppressed (DCS) transitions. The CF transition is largely
dominating and the \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace expectation for direct \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace is negligible. The channels $ \ensuremath{D^{\pm}_{s}}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace K^{\pm}\, , \ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace \pi^{\pm}$ can proceed through two Singly-Cabibbo-Suppressed (SCS) transitions, both of comparable amplitudes. The relative
phase between the two decay amplitudes can generate interference effects and induce direct \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace.
In these channels with a \ensuremath{K^0}\xspace (or \ensuremath{\Kbar^0}\xspace) in the final state a time-integrated \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace\ of $\approx (\pm 0.332 \pm 0.006)\, $\% is induced by the $\ensuremath{K^0}\xspace \ensuremath{\Kbar^0}\xspace\ $ mixing~\cite{PDG}. The sign of this asymmetry is positive (negative) in presence in the final state of a \ensuremath{K^0}\xspace\ (\ensuremath{\Kbar^0}\xspace). The exact value of this \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace asymmetry contribution depends on the requirements on the reconstructed $\ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \pi^+ \pi^-$ decays and the decay kinematics~\cite{Nir}.
Previous results of searches for direct \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace violation in these decay modes by CLEO-c~\cite{Cleo} and Belle~\cite{Belle} Collaborations are all in agreement with \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace expectations.
Direct \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace asymmetry in these charm decay modes has been recently searched for by {\em B}{\footnotesize\em A}{\em B}{\footnotesize\em AR}~\cite{Cenci} using a dataset of $469 fb^{-1}$. The following direct \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace-violating parameter \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace\ is measured for each decay channel:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace = \frac{\Gamma\large(D^+_{(s)} \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace (\pi^+, K^+) \large) - \Gamma \large(D^-_{}(s) \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace (\pi^+, K^+) )} {\Gamma\large(D^+_{(s)} \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace (\pi^+, K^+) \large) + \Gamma \large(D^+_{(s)} \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace (\pi^+, K^+) )} \,,
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma$ is the partial width of the decay channel.
The measured \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace asymmetry \ensuremath{\cal A}\xspace an be written as $\ensuremath{\cal A}\xspace = \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace + \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\FB}}\xspace + \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\epsilon}}\xspace$, where \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace\ is the direct \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace asymmetry contribution, \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\FB}}\xspace is a forward/backward asymmetry contribution in $c \bar{c}$ production from $\gamma-Z^0$ interference and
higher order QED processes, and \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\epsilon}}\xspace is the asymmetry contribution induced by the detector in tracking, particle identification, and in material interactions. \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\FB}}\xspace asymmetry is an odd function of the cosine of the polar angle of the \D(s)pm meson momentum in the \ensuremath{e^+\!e^-}\xspace\ center of mass (CM) system, $\cos \theta^*_D$. \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace and \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\FB}}\xspace are both measured while data have been corrected for \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\epsilon}}\xspace\ with a control sample. The data-driven method used to correct for \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\epsilon}}\xspace\ is described in Ref.\cite{FB}.
A simultaneous binned ML fit to the $D^+_{(s)}$ and $D^-_{(s)}$ invariant mass distributions is performed in 10 equally spaced bins of $\cos \theta^*_D$ with bin 0 at [-1.0, -0.8]. Since \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace is independent of the kinematic variable $\cos \theta^*_D$, the asymmetry ${\cal A}(+| \cos \theta^*_D|$ ) measured in a positive $\cos \theta^*_D$ bin and the asymmetry
${\cal A}(-| \cos \theta^*_D|$ ) measured in its symmetric (negative) counterpart $\cos \theta^*_D$ bin give the same contribution to \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace. On the other hand since \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\FB}}\xspace is an odd function of
$\cos \theta^*_D$ , the contribution to \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\FB}}\xspace from symmetric $\cos \theta^*_D$ bins have the same magnitude and opposte sign. So \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace and \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\FB}}\xspace as a function of $\cos \theta^*_D$
can be written in the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\FB}}\xspace(|\cos^* \theta_D|) &=& \frac{{\cal A}(+|\cos \theta^*_D|) - {\cal A}(-|\cos \theta^*_D|) }{2} \nonumber \\
\ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace(|\cos^* \theta_D|) &=& \frac{{\cal A}(+|\cos \theta^*_D|) + {\cal A}(-|\cos \theta^*_D|) }{2} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
The values of \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace and \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\FB}}\xspace\ asymmetries are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:DCP}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45] {DirCP.pdf} \\
\caption{ \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace (top) and \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\FB}}\xspace (bottom) asymmetries for $\ensuremath{D^{\pm}}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace K^{\pm}$ (left), $\ensuremath{D^{\pm}_{s}}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace K^{\pm}$ (center), and $\ensuremath{D^{\pm}_{s}}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace \pi^{\pm}$ (right) as a function of $|\cos^* \theta_D|$ in the data sample.
The solid line represents the central value of \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace and the gray region is the $\pm \sigma$ interval, both from a $\chi^2$ minimization assuming no dependence of \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace on $|\cos^* \theta_D|$.
}
\label{fig:DCP}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For each decay mode Table~\ref{tab:tabella} shows the \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace value from the fit, the bias corrected \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace value and in the last raw the \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace value after subtracting the expcted
\ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace contribution due to \ensuremath{K^0}\xspace-\ensuremath{\Kbar^0}\xspace mixing. These results are consistent with zero and with the \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace predictions within 1 $\sigma$.
\begin{table*}[t]
\footnotesize
\caption{ $A_{\ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace}$ measurements.
Uncertainties, where reported, are statistical the first and systematic the second ({\em B}{\footnotesize\em A}{\em B}{\footnotesize\em AR}\ Preliminary).}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}\hline
& \ensuremath{D^{\pm}\to\ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace\ensuremath{K^\pm}\xspace}\xspace & \ensuremath{D_s^{\pm}\to\ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace\ensuremath{K^\pm}\xspace}\xspace & \ensuremath{D_s^{\pm}\to\ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^\pm}\xspace}\xspace \\
\hline\hline
$A_{\ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace}$ value from the fit & $(+0.16 \pm 0.36)\%$ & $(0.00 \pm 0.23)\%$ & $(+0.6 \pm 2.0)\%$ \\
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|l|}{Bias Corrections for:} \\
Toy MC experiments & $+0.013\%$ & $-0.01\%$ & $-$ \\
PID selectors & $-0.05\%$ & $-0.05\%$ & $-0.05\%$ \\
\ensuremath{\KS \kern -0.2em - \kern -0.2em \KL}\xspace\ interference & $+0.015\%$ & $+0.014\%$ & $-0.008\%$ \\
\hline\hline
$A_{\ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace}$ final value & $(+0.13 \pm 0.36 \pm 0.25)\%$ & $(-0.05 \pm 0.23 \pm 0.24)\%$ & $(+0.6 \pm 2.0 \pm 0.3)\%$\\
\hline\hline
$A_{\ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace}$ contribution & $(-0.332 \pm 0.006)\%$ & $(-0.332 \pm 0.006)\%$ & $(+0.332 \pm 0.006)\%$ \\
from \ensuremath{\Kz \kern -0.2em - \kern -0.2em \Kzb}\xspace mixing &&&\\
\hline\hline
$A_{\ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace}$ final value (charm only) & $(+0.46 \pm 0.36 \pm 0.25)\%$ & $(+0.28 \pm 0.23 \pm 0.24)\%$ & $(+0.3 \pm 2.0 \pm 0.3)\%$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:tabella}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\section {CP Violation in the Decays \ensuremath{\ensuremath{D^{\pm}}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace K^+K^- \ensuremath{\pi^\pm}\xspace}\xspace }
Searches for direct \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace violation in the SCS decays \ensuremath{\ensuremath{D^{\pm}}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace K^+K^- \ensuremath{\pi^\pm}\xspace}\xspace have been recently performed by {\em B}{\footnotesize\em A}{\em B}{\footnotesize\em AR}, using a dataset
of $476 fb^{-1}$~\cite{Puro}. This sample contains enough 3-body SCS decays to probe \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace at the level of \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace predictions. The decay \ensuremath{\ensuremath{D^+}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace K^+K^- \ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace}\xspace~\cite{CC} is dominated by
quasi-two body decays with resonant intermediate states, giving possibility to study direct \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace in a particular resonance or in different regions
of the Dalitz plot (\ensuremath{D\!P}\xspace). In previous analyses of these 3-body decay modes performed by CLEO-c~\cite{CLEO-c} and LHCb~\cite{KKpi} Collaborations no evidence for \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace has been found in agreement with \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace prediction.
Signal reconstruction efficiency is determined with a sample of Monte Carlo (MC) simulated events from the distribution of reconstructed events
as a function of the \ensuremath{C\!M}\xspace polar angle of the D meson ($\cos \theta_{CM}$) and of the $m^2(K^- \pi^+)$ vs $m^2(K^+K^-)$ \ensuremath{D\!P}\xspace. The ratio of efficiency-corrected signal yields,
$R = \frac{ N_{D^+}/\epsilon_{D^+} }{ N_{D^-}/\epsilon_{D^-} } = 1.020 \pm 0.006$ is used to allow for asymmetries in the MC event production due to physics or
detector induced effects.
Time-integrated \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace asymmetry (charge asymmetry) is defined in a given bin as:
\begin{equation}
{\ensuremath{\cal A}\xspace} \equiv \frac{N_{D^+}/\epsilon_{D^+ } - N_{D^-}/\epsilon_{D^- } } {N_{D^+}/\epsilon_{D^+ } + N_{D^-}/\epsilon_{D^- } }
\end{equation}
Selection efficiencies are corrected to account for
differences between data and MC simulated events in the reconstruction asymmetry of charged pion tracks and in the production model of charm mesons. The charge
asymmetry \ensuremath{\cal A}\xspace contains contributions from both the forward/backward asymmetry \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\FB}}\xspace and the direct \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace asymmetry \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace. To remove the contribution \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\FB}}\xspace, the
charge asymmetry is averaged over four symmetric bins in $\cos \theta_{CM} $. The averaged values of \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace in the four bins are shown Fig.~\ref{fig:ChAs}. The central
value $\ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace = (0.35 \pm 0.30 \pm 0.15) $ \% is obtained with a $\chi^2$ minimization. The probability that the asymmetries are null in all the four bins is 21\%.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.40] {ChargeAsymmetry.pdf} \\
\caption{ Charge asymmetry \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace as a function of $|\cos \theta_{CM}| $ in data.
The solid line represents the central value of \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace and the dashed lines represent the $\pm \sigma$ interval, both determined from a $\chi^2$ minimization assuming no
dependence on $|\cos \theta_{CM}|$.
}
\label{fig:ChAs}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A model-independent technique to search for \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace violation in \ensuremath{D\!P}\xspace is to compare \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace asymmetries in different regions of the \ensuremath{D\!P}\xspace. The results of \ensuremath{{\cal A}_{\CP}}\xspace asymmetry measured in four
regions of \ensuremath{D\!P}\xspace are given in Table~\ref{tab:tab1}. Measured \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace asymmetries are consistent with zero.
We also measure the normalized residuals $\Delta$ of efficiency-corrected
and background subtracted \ensuremath{D\!P}\xspace for \ensuremath{D^+}\xspace and \ensuremath{D^-}\xspace for equally populated bins. $\Delta$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\Delta \equiv \frac{ n(\ensuremath{D^+}\xspace) - R\, n(\ensuremath{D^-}\xspace)} {\sqrt{\sigma^2(\ensuremath{D^+}\xspace) + R^2 \sigma^2(\ensuremath{D^-}\xspace)}}\,,
\end{equation}
where n is the yield in a bin in the \ensuremath{D\!P}\xspace and $\sigma$ its uncertainty.
$\Delta$ distribution is fitted to a Gaussian function. For 100 bins we obtain a Gaussian residual mean of $0.08 \pm 0.15$ and a width of $1.11 \pm 0.15$.
The probability that the two \ensuremath{D\!P}\xspace's are consistent with no \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace asymmetry is 72\%.
\begin{table*}[]
\caption{ Yields, efficiencies,, and \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace asymmetry in four different regions of the DP. First uncertainty in the \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace asymmetry is statistical, the second is systematic ({\em B}{\footnotesize\em A}{\em B}{\footnotesize\em AR}\ Preliminary).}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.34]{Table5.pdf} \\
\label{tab:tab1}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
Angular moments of the cosine of the helicity angle $\theta_H$ of the D decay products reflect the spin and mass of intermediate resonant and non resonant states~\cite{babar1}.
The helicity angle $\theta_H$ in the decay $D\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace (r \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace AB)C $ is defined as the angle between the momenta of B and parent D in the AB rest frame.
We can search for \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace in the \ensuremath{D\!P}\xspace in a model-independent way by comparing the angular moments between \ensuremath{D^+}\xspace and \ensuremath{D^-}\xspace~\cite{babar2}. Angular moments
of order l are defined as the efficiency-corrected and background-subtracted two-body invariant mass distributions ($m(K^+K^)-$, $m(K^- \pi^+$)) weighted by spherical
harmonic moments $ w^{(l)} = Y^0_l (\cos \theta_H)$. Weights in two-body invariant mass intervals are defined as:
\begin{equation}
W^{(l)}_i \equiv \frac{\left(\sum_j w^{(l)S}_{ij} - \sum_k w^{(l)B}_{ik}\right)}{<\epsilon_i>}\,,
\end{equation}
where $i$ is bin index, and $j$, $k$ event indices. $S$ and $B$ refer to signal and background, and $<\epsilon_i>$ is the average efficiency in bin $i$.
Normalized moment residuals $X_l $ for \ensuremath{D^+}\xspace and \ensuremath{D^-}\xspace are calculated for l from 0 to 7:
\begin{equation}
X_l = \frac{\left(W^{(l)}_i (\ensuremath{D^+}\xspace) - R W^{(l)}_i (\ensuremath{D^-}\xspace) \right) } { \sqrt{ \sigma_1^{ (l)^2 } (\ensuremath{D^+}\xspace) + R^2 \sigma_1^{ (l)^2 } (\ensuremath{D^-}\xspace) } }
\end{equation}
The $\chi^2$ is calculated over all the mass bins in $K^+K^-$ and $K^-\pi^+$ moments with
\begin{equation}
\chi^2 = \sum_i \sum_{l_1} \sum_{l_2} X_i^{(l_1)} \rho_i^{(l_1l_2)} X_i^{(l_2)}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_i^{(l_1l_2)} $ is the correlation coefficient between $X_i^{(l_1)}$ and $X_i^{(l_2)}$.
With a number of degrees of freedom NDF equal to 287 the $\chi^2/NDF$ in the $K^+K^-$ and $K^-\pi^+$ moments is 1.10 and 1.09,
consistent with no \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace at 11\% and 13 \%, respectively.
{\em B}{\footnotesize\em A}{\em B}{\footnotesize\em AR}\ also searched for \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace in a model-dependent \ensuremath{D\!P}\xspace analysis of the \ensuremath{\ensuremath{D^+}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace K^+K^- \ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace}\xspace decay~\cite{CC}. The \ensuremath{D\!P}\xspace amplitude \ensuremath{\cal A}\xspace in the isobar model is written as a set of two-body intermediate states r :
${\cal A} = \sum_r {\cal M}_r e^{i\phi_r} F_r $,
where ${\ensuremath{\cal M}\xspace}_r$ and $\phi_r$ are real and $F_r = F_r(m(K^+K^-), m(K^-\pi^+))$ are dynamical functions describing the intermediate states.
In case of amplitudes with small contributions the complex coefficient has been parameterized in a Cartesian form: $x_r = {\cal M}_r \cos \phi_r$ and $y_r = {\ensuremath{\cal M}\xspace }_r \sin \phi_r$.
The $K^*(892)^0$ has been chosen as the reference amplitude. Assuming no \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace the relative fractions of resonances and a constant non resonant amplitude over the entire \ensuremath{D\!P}\xspace contributing to the decay have been determined with an unbinned ML fit.
To allow for possible \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace in the decay, the resonances of the \ensuremath{D^+}\xspace (\ensuremath{D^-}\xspace) decays contributing with a fit fraction of at least 1\% have been parameterized with different amplitudes and phases in their decay amplitudes.
A simultaneous fit to the \ensuremath{D^+}\xspace and \ensuremath{D^-}\xspace samples have been performed, parameterizing each resonance with four parameters, ${\ensuremath{\cal M}\xspace}_r$, $\phi_r$, $r_{\ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace}$, and $ \Delta\phi_{\ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace}$. The \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace parameters are $r_{\ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace} = \frac{ |{\ensuremath{\cal M}\xspace}_r|^2 - |{\bar{\ensuremath{\cal M}\xspace}}_r|^2 } { |{\ensuremath{\cal M}\xspace}_r|^2 + |{\bar{\ensuremath{\cal M}\xspace}}_r|^2 }$ and $ \Delta\phi_{\ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace} = \phi_r - \bar{\phi}_r$.
The Cartesian form of the \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace violating parameters are $\Delta x_r$ and $\Delta y_r$ with $x_r(\ensuremath{D^{\pm}}\xspace) = x_r \pm \Delta x_r/2 $ and $ y_r(\ensuremath{D^{\pm}}\xspace) = y_r \pm \Delta y_r/2 $. Fit results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:tab2}.
All \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace parameters from \ensuremath{D\!P}\xspace fit are consistent with zero and with \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace expectations.
\begin{table*}[]
\caption{ \ensuremath{C\!P\!V}\xspace parameters from the \ensuremath{D\!P}\xspace fit. First uncertainties are statistical, the second systematic ({\em B}{\footnotesize\em A}{\em B}{\footnotesize\em AR}\ Preliminary).}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25] {TabRes.pdf} \\
\label{tab:tab2}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\section {Conclusions}
I have presented recent improved {\em B}{\footnotesize\em A}{\em B}{\footnotesize\em AR}\ measurement of mixing and a search of \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace violation in two-body \ensuremath{D^0}\xspace decays, a search for direct \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace violation in \ensuremath{D^{\pm}\to\ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace\ensuremath{K^\pm}\xspace}\xspace
and \ensuremath{D_s^{\pm}\to\ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace\ensuremath{K^\pm}\xspace}\xspace, \ensuremath{\ensuremath{K^0_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^\pm}\xspace}\xspace, and searches for \ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace violation in the decays \ensuremath{\ensuremath{D^{\pm}}\xspace \ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace K^+K^- \ensuremath{\pi^\pm}\xspace}\xspace both using model-independent and model-dependent analysis techniques.
All results in these analyses are well described within the \ensuremath{S\!M}\xspace and no effect related to \ensuremath{N\!P}\xspace has been found. The measured mixing parameter $y_{\ensuremath{C\!P}\xspace} = [0.72 \pm 0.18 (stat) \pm 0.12 (syst)]$\% excludes the no-mixing null hypothesis with a significance of 3.3$\sigma$.
\section {Acknowledgments}
I wish to warmly thank the organizers of QUARKS-2012 for the excellent program and for the kind hospitality in Yaroslavl. I would like to thank also G. Casarosa for useful comments.
|
\subsection{\label{DISC} Discussion}
The motivation for proving quantum ergodicity of random orthonormal bases for $\mathcal{H}_N$ of any dimensions tending
to infinity
was prompted by the general question: how many diffuse states (modes or quasi-modes) does it take to synthesize localized
modes or quasi-modes?
Vice-versa, how many localized states does it take to synthesize diffuse states? We would like to synthesize
entire orthonormal bases rather than individual states and measure the dimensions of the space of states in terms of the Planck constant $\hbar$. Let us consider some examples.
In the case of the standard $S^2$, the eigenspaces $\mathcal{H}_N$ of $\Delta$ are the spaces of spherical harmonics of degree $N$.
They have the well-known highly localized basis $Y^N_m$ of joint eigenfunctions of $\Delta$ and of rotations around
the $x_3$-axis. By localized we mean that a sequence $\{Y^N_m\}$ with $m/N \to \alpha$ microlocally concentrates
on the invariant tori in $S^* S^2$ where $p_{\theta} = \alpha$. Here, $p_{\theta}(x, \xi) = \xi(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})$
where $\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}$ generates the $x_3$-axis rotations. On the other hand, it is proved in \cite{Z1}
that independent ``random" orthonormal bases of $\mathcal{H}_N$ are quantum ergodic, i.e. are highly diffuse in $S^* S^2$.
Since $\dim \mathcal{H}_N = 2N + 1$, it is perhaps not surprising that the same eigenspace can have both highly localized
and highly diffuse orthonormal bases when its dimenson is so large. The question is, how large must it be for
such incoherently related bases to exist?
A setting where the eigenvalues have high multiplicity but of a lower order of magnitude than on $S^2$ is
that of flat rational tori ${\mathbb R}^n/L$ such as
${\mathbb R}^n/{\mathbb Z}^n$. Of course it has an orthonormal basis of localized eigenfunctions, $e^{i \langle k, x \rangle}$.
The key feature of such rational tori is the high multiplicity of eigenvalues of the
Laplacian $\Delta$ of the flat metric. It is well-known and easy to see that the multiplicity is the
number of lattice points of the dual lattice $L^*$ lying on the surface of a Euclidean sphere.
We denote
the distinct multiple $\Delta$-eigenvalues by $\mu_N$, the corresponding eigenspace by $\mathcal{H}_N$
and the multiplicity of $\mu_N^2$ by $d_N = \dim \mathcal{H}_N$.
In dimensions
$n \geq 5$, $d_N \sim \mu_N^{n - 2}$, one degree lower than the maximum possible multiplicity of
a $\Delta$-eigenvalue on any compact Riemannian manifold, achieved on the standard $S^n$. Further,
$\frac{1}{d_N} Tr \Pi_N A \Pi_N \to \omega(A)$.
Hence, the results of this article show that despite the relatively slow growth of $d_N$ on a flat rational
torus, orthonormal bases of $\mathcal{H}_N$ in dimensions $\geq 5$ are almost surely quantum ergodic. The statement for dimensions $2, 3, 4$ is
more complicated (see \S \ref{TORUS}).
An interesting setting where the behavior of eigenfunctions is largely unknown is that of KAM systems. For these,
one may construct a `nearly' complete and orthonormal basis for $L^2(M)$ by highly localized quasi-modes
associated to the Cantor set of invariant tori. It seems unlikely that the actual eigenfunctions are quantum ergodic;
but the results of this article show that if they resemble random combinations of the quasi-mode, then it is
possible that they are. Further discussion is in \S \ref{QM}.
\section{Background}
In this section, we review the definition of random orthonormal basis and relate it to properties of the moment
map for the diagonal action of the maximal torus $T_{d_N}$ on co-adjoint orbits of $U(d_N)$.
\subsection{Random orthonormal bases of eigenspaces} Suppose that we have a sequence of Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{H}_N$
$N = 1, 2, \dots$ of dimensions $d_N = \dim \mathcal{H}_N \to \infty$. We define the large Hilbert space
$$ \mathcal{H} = \bigoplus_{N = 1}^{\infty} \mathcal{H}_N $$
and orthogonal projections
\begin{equation} \label{PIN} \Pi_N : \mathcal{H} \to \mathcal{H}_N . \end{equation}
We then consider the orthonormal bases \eqref{ONBSPACE} of $\mathcal{H}$ which arise from sequences
of orthonormal bases of $\mathcal{H}_N$.
\subsection{The basic random variables}
Let $A \in \Psi^0(M)$ be a zeroth order pseudo-differential operator. By a Toeplitz operator we mean
the compression $T_N^A$ \eqref{TAN} of $A$ to $\mathcal{H}_N$.
Given one ONB of $\mathcal{H}_N$, $T^A_N$ can be identified
with a Hermitian $d_N\times d_N$ matrix.
We fix orthonormal bases $\{e^N_j\}_{j = 1}^{d_N}$ of $\mathcal{H}_N$ and introduce the random variables:
\begin{equation} A_{Nj}({\bf \Psi}) = \left| \langle A \psi^N_j,
\psi^N_j \rangle- \omega(A) \right|^2 = \left|(T^A_N \psi^N_j, \psi^N_j)- \omega(A)
\right|^2 = \left|(U^*_N T^A_N U_N e^N_j, e^N_j)- \omega(A)
\right|^2,\end{equation}
where ${\bf \Psi} = \{U_N\},\ U_N\in {\rm U}(d_N)\equiv \mathcal{O} \mathcal{B} \mathcal{N}_N$.
We also define
\begin{equation}\label{Anj}\widehat
A_{Nj}({\bf \Psi})=\left|(U^*_N T^A_N U_N e^N_j,
e^N_j)-\frac{1}{d_N}{\rm Tr}\;T^A_N \right|^2 \;.\end{equation}
Evidently,
\begin{equation}\label{Y}\frac{1}{d_N}
Y^A_N({\bf \Psi}) =\frac{1}{d_N}\sum_{j=1}^{d_N}\widehat A_{Nj}({\bf \Psi})
=\frac{1}{d_N}\sum_{j=1}^{d_N}A_{Nj}({\bf \Psi})
+ o(1)\end{equation} (where the $o(1)$ term is independent
of $ {\bf \Psi}).$ Thus,
\begin{lem} \cite{Z1,SZ} The ergodic property of an ONB ${\bf \Psi}$ $(\mathcal{E} \mathcal{P})$ is equivalent to:
\begin{equation}\label{EP*}
\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N
\frac{1}{d_n} Y^A_n ({\bf \Psi}) = 0\;,\quad \forall A \in
\Psi^0 (M)\;. \end{equation}
\end{lem}
As mentioned in the introduction, it follows by a
standard diagonal argument that almost all the individual elements $\langle A \psi_{N, j}, \psi_{N, j} \rangle $
tend to $\omega(A)$ for all $A$. We do not discuss this step since it is nothing new.
\subsection{Moment map interpretation}
In the case where the components of $\vec \lambda_N$ are distinct,
the covex polytope $\mathcal{P}_{\vec \lambda_N}$ is the permutahedron determined
by $\lambda$, that is, the simple convex polytope defined as the convex hull of the
points $\{\sigma(\vec \lambda_N)\}$ where $\sigma \in S_N$ runs over the symmetric
group on $d_N$ letters (i.e. the Weyl group of $U(d_N)$). The center of mass is the unique
point $X \in \mathcal{P}_{\vec \lambda_N}$ so that
$$\sum_{\sigma \in S_{d_N}} \overline{X \sigma(\vec \lambda_N)} = 0 \iff X = \frac{1}{(d_N)!} \sum_{\sigma \in S_{d_N}}\sigma (\vec \lambda_N)$$
where $\overline{XY} = X - Y$ is the vector from $X$ to $Y$. The center of mass is evidently invariant under
$S_{d_N}$, hence has the form $(a, a, \dots, a)$ for some $a$ and clearly $a = \frac{1}{d_N} \sum_{j = 1}^{d_N} \lambda_j.$
In
effect, we want to asymptotically calculate the moments of inertia of the sequence of
permutahedra associated to a Toeplitz operator.
\vspace{1cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{permuta.jpeg} \text{Permutahedron}
\end{center}
\vspace{1cm}
\subsection{Symmetric polynomials and Schur polynomials}
The elementary symmetric polynomials of $N$ variables are defined by
$$e_k(X_1, \dots, X_N) = \sum_{i_1 < i_2 < \cdots < i_k \leq N} x_{i_1} \cdots x_{i_N}. $$
If one replaces $<$ by $\leq $ one obtains the complete symmetric polynomials $h_k$. The
Schur polynomials are symmetric polynomials defined by
$$S_{\lambda} = \det \begin{pmatrix} h_{\lambda_i + j - i} \end{pmatrix} = \det \begin{pmatrix} e_{\mu_i + j - i} \end{pmatrix}
$$
where $\mu$ is a dual partition to $\lambda$.
\subsection{Fourier transform of the orbit}
We can compute the moments using the Fourier transform \eqref{FT} of the orbital measure on
the orbit of $D(\vec \lambda)$.
An explicit formuae for $ \hat{\mu}_{\lambda}(X) $ is given in the first line of the proof of Theorem 5.1 of \cite{OV}:
\begin{lem} \label{OV} For $U(d)$,
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mu}_{\vec \lambda}(X) = (d-1)! \cdots 0! \sum_{\mu: \ell(\mu) \leq d}
\frac{S_{\mu}(X) S_{\mu} (i \vec \lambda)}{(\mu_1 + d-1)! (\mu_2 + d-2)! \cdots \mu_N!}. \end{equation}
Here, $\ell(\mu)$ is the number of rows of the partition $\mu$. The degree of $s_{\mu}$ is $|\mu|$,
the number of boxes.
\end{lem}
Since we would like to shift the center of mass of $\mathcal{P}_{\vec \lambda}$ to the origin, we mainly consider
$ \hat{\mu}_{\vec \Lambda}(X)$ the Fourier transform of the traceless orbit (see \eqref{CAPL}).
\section{Proof of Proposition \ref{1}: Moment asymptotics}
\subsection{Second moment asymptotics}
We now prove:
\begin{mainlem} \label{2m} \cite{Z1,Z2,SZ} Let $\vec\lambda=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{d_N})\in{\mathbb R}^{d_N}$, and let
$D_0(\vec\lambda_N)$ denote the trace zero diagonal matrix with entries \eqref{CAPL}. Thus, $p_1(\vec \Lambda) = 0$
\eqref{CAPL}. Then
\begin{equation}\label{orbit-int} {\mathbb E} Y_N^{A} = \int_{{\rm U}(d)} \|J_{d_N} (U^*D_0(\vec\lambda) U)\|^2 dU =
\frac{p_2(\vec\Lambda)}{d_N+1}, \;,\end{equation}
where as above, $d U$ is the normalized Haar probability measure on ${\rm U}(d_N)$.
\end{mainlem}
This Lemma was proved in \cite{Z1,Z2, SZ} using the so-called Itzykson-Zuber-Harish-Chandra formua
for the Fourier transform of the orbit, and again using Gaussian integrals. The proof we give here
generalizes better to higher moments. We also sketch a proof using the Weingarten formulae.
\begin{proof}
We use Lemma \ref{OV} to obtain
$$ {\mathbb E}||J_{d_N}(U^* D(\vec \lambda) U) ||^2 = (d_N-1)! \cdots 0! \sum_{\mu: |\mu| = 2, \ell(\mu) \leq d_N}
\frac{\Delta S_{\mu}(0) S_{\mu} (i \vec \lambda)}{(\mu_1 +d_N-1)! (\mu_2 + d_N-2)! \cdots \mu_{d_N}!}. $$
We sum over the Young diagrams with exactly two boxes and $\leq d_N$ rows. There are just two of them: one row
of two boxes or two rows of one box each corresponding respectively to the Schur functions $S_{(2, 0)}$, $S_{(1,1)}$.
Note that $S_{1^k} = e_k$ is the kth elementary symmetric function and $S_{(k)} = h_k$ is the complete kth degree
symmetric function.
We then translate $\vec \lambda$ to $\vec \Lambda$ so that $\sum_j \Lambda_j = e_1(\vec \Lambda) = 0$, i.e. we replace $D(\vec \lambda_N)$
by $D_0(\vec \lambda_N)$.
Since the degree $|\mu| = 2$, then we can only use $\mu = (2), (1 1)$ and
$$S_{(1,1)} = e_2 = \sum_{i < j} x_i x_j, \;\;\; S_{(2 0)} = e_1^2 - e_2 = \sum_j x_j^2 + \sum_{i < j} x_i x_j. $$
But
$$\Delta e_2 \equiv 0, \;\;\; \Delta (e_1^2 - e_2) = 2 ||\nabla e_1||^2 = 2 d_N. $$
For each monomial $X_i X_j$ we have $\Delta X_i X_j = 2 \delta_{ij}. $ Thus, $\Delta S_{(1,1)} = 0$ and
$\Delta S_{(2 0)} = 2 d_N.$ Since the Schur polynomials are homogeneous of degree 2, we can remove the $i$
under the Schur polynomials to get an overall factor of $-1$, which is cancelled by the $-$ sign from $\Delta$. Thus,
$$\begin{array}{lll} {\mathbb E}||J_{d_N} (U^* D_0(\vec \lambda) U) ||^2 & = & (2 d_N) (d_N-1)!
\frac{ S_{(2,0)} (i \vec \Lambda)}{( d_N + 1)!} = \frac{(2 d_N)}{(d_N + 1) d_N} S_{(2, 0)}(i \vec \Lambda)
\\ &&\\ & = & \frac{2}{d_N + 1} S_{(2, 0)}(\vec \Lambda_N) = \frac{2}{d_N + 1} ( e_1^2 - e_2)(\vec \Lambda). \end{array}$$
Since
$e_1(\vec \Lambda_N) = 0$ we find that
$$\begin{array}{lll} {\mathbb E}||J_{d_N}(U^* D_0(\vec \lambda) U) ||^2 & = & - \frac{2}{d_N + 1} e_2(\vec \Lambda) = \frac{1}{d_N+ 1}
p_2(\vec \Lambda_N). \end{array}$$
Here we use that
$$e_1 = p_1, \; 2 e_2 = e_1 p_1 - p_2. $$
The formula agrees with the one stated in the Lemma \ref{2m}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Weingarten formulae for the expectation}
As a second proof, we use the Weingarten formula for integrals of polynomials over $U(N)$ \cite{W}. We denote
the eigenvalues of $ D_0(\vec \lambda) $ by $\vec \Lambda$. Then,
$$\begin{array}{lll} || \mbox{diag} (U^* D_0(\vec \lambda) U)||^2 & = & \sum_{ j_1, j_2} \Lambda_{j_1} \Lambda_{j_2}
\sum_{i} |U_{i j_1}|^2 |U_{i j_2}|^2.
\end{array}$$
The Weingarten formulae for these special polynomials state that asymptotically $\sqrt{d_N} |U_{ij}|^2$ is a
complex Gaussian random variable of mean zero and variance one. Thus, to leading order,
$$\begin{array}{l} \int_{U(d_N)} |U_{i_1 j_1}|^2 | U_{i_1 j_2} |^2 dU
\simeq d_N^{-2} (1 +
\delta_{j_1 j_2} ), \end{array}$$ and
\begin{equation} \label{EQ} \begin{array}{lll} \sum_{j_1, j_2} \Lambda_{j_1} \Lambda_{j_2}
\sum_{i_1} \int_{U(d_N)} |U_{i_1 j_1}|^2 | U_{i_1 j_2} |^2 dU
& \simeq & d_N^{-1} ( 2 \sum_j \Lambda_j^2
+ \sum_{j_1 \not= j_2} \Lambda_{j_1} \Lambda_{j_2} ). \end{array} \end{equation}
Since $$0 = (\sum \Lambda_j)^2 = \sum \Lambda_j^2 + \sum_{j \not= k} \Lambda_j \Lambda_k$$
we get
$$\eqref{EQ} \simeq d_N^{-1} \sum_j \Lambda_j^2. $$
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{1}: Variance and fourth moment asymptotics}
We now prove the 4th moment identity in Proposition \ref{1}, which is the main new step in this article.
To calculate the variance of $Y_N^A$ we use the expression in Lemma \ref{VARFORM} in terms of $\hat{\mu}_{\vec \lambda}$
and then use the formula of Lemma \ref{OV}.
A Schur polynomial $S_{n_1, \dots, n_d}(x_1, \dots, x_d)$ of degree n in $d$ variables is parameterized by a
partition of of the degree $n= n_1 + n_2 + \cdots + n_d$ into $d$ parts. When $n = 4$ and $d \geq 4$ there
are 5 partitions:
\begin{equation} \label{LIST}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l} S_{1,1,1,1} (x) = e_4 = \sum_{1 \leq i < j < k < \ell} x_i x_j x_k x_{\ell}; \\ \\ S_{2,1,1}(x_1, \dots, x_N) = e_1 e_3\\ \\
S_{2, 2, 0} = e_2^2 - e_1 e_3
\\ \\
S_{4, 0,0} = e_1^4 - 3 e_1^2 e_2 + 2 e_1 e_3 + e_2^2\\ \\
S_{3, 1, 0} = e_1^2 e_2 - e_2^2 - e_1 e_3. \end{array} \right. \end{equation}
We note
that $\Delta e_k(X) = 0$ for all $k$, so $\Delta e_k e_n = 2 \nabla e_k\cdot \nabla e_n $. Also,
$\nabla e_1$ is a constant vector. So
$\Delta^2 e_1 e_3 = \nabla e_1 \cdot \nabla \Delta e_3 = 0$ and $$\Delta^2 e_1^2 e_2 =
4 \Delta (e_1 \nabla e_1 \cdot \nabla e_2) = 8 \nabla e_1 \cdot \nabla (\nabla e_1 \cdot \nabla e_2) =
8 \rm{Tr} \mbox{Hess} e_2 = 0. $$ Here, $\mbox{Hess}$ denotes the Hessian.
We also use that $\Delta (\nabla f \cdot \nabla g) = 2 \mbox{Hess}(f) \cdot \mbox{Hess}(g)$ when $\Delta f = \Delta g = 0$.
Also,
$$ \nabla e_1 \cdot \nabla (\nabla e_1 \cdot \nabla e_2) = (1, 1, \dots, 1) \cdot \sum_{j, k} \frac{\partial^2 e_2}{\partial
x_j \partial x_k} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_k} = \mbox{Tr Hess} (e_2) = 0. $$
Then,
$$\Delta^2 e_2^2 = 2 \Delta (\nabla e_2 \cdot \nabla e_2) = 4 ||\mbox{Hess} (e_2)||^2 = 4 d_N(d_N -1). $$
Further, $\Delta e_1^2 = 2 \nabla e_1 \cdot \nabla e_1 = 2 d_N$, so that
$$\Delta^2 e_1^4 = \Delta (2 (\Delta e_1^2) e_1^2 + 2 \nabla e_1^2 \cdot \nabla e_1^2) = \Delta( 4 d_N e_1^2 + 2 e_1^2 d_N) = 12 d_N^2. $$
We recall Newton's identities,
$$\left\{ \begin{array}{l} e_1 = p_1 \\ \\
2 e_2 = e_1 p_1 - p_2 \\ \\
3 e_3 = e_2 p_1 - e_1 p_2 + p_3 \\ \\
4 e_4 = e_3 p_1 - e_2 p_2 + e_1 p_3 - p_4. \end{array} \right. $$
We note that $\Delta e_k \equiv 0$ for all $k$, so at $X = 0$,
\begin{equation} \label{LIST2} \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\Delta^2 S_{1,1,1,1} = \Delta e_4 \equiv 0; \;\;\; \\ \\ \Delta S_{2,1,1} =
\Delta^2 e_1 e_3 = 2 \Delta (\nabla e_1 \cdot \nabla e_3) = \nabla e_1 \cdot \nabla \Delta e_3 = 0;\\ \\
\Delta^2 S_{2,2,0} = \Delta^2 e_2^2 = 2 \Delta (\nabla e_2 \cdot \nabla e_2) = 4 || \mbox{Hess} (e_2)||^2
= 4 d_N ( d_N -1) \\ \\
\Delta S_{4, 0, 0} = \Delta^2 e_1^4 - (3) 8 \nabla e_1 \cdot \nabla (\nabla e_1 \cdot \nabla e_2) + 4 ||\mbox{Hess} (e_2)||^2
= 12 d_N^2 + 4 d_N ( d_N -1)\\ \\
\Delta S_{3, 1, 0} = 8 \nabla e_1 \cdot \nabla (\nabla e_1 \cdot \nabla e_2) - ||\mbox{Hess} (e_2)||^2
= - 4 ||\mbox{Hess}(e_2)||^2 = - 4 d_N ( d_N -1).
\end{array} \right. \end{equation}
By routine calculations and Lemma \ref{OV} we have,
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll}
\Delta^2 \hat{\mu}_{\vec \Lambda}(0) & = & (d_N-1)! \cdots 0! \sum_{\mu: |\mu| = 4}
\frac{\Delta^2 S_{\mu}(0) S_{\mu} (i \vec \Lambda)}{(\mu_1 + d_N-1)! (\mu_2 + d_N-2)! \cdots \mu_{d_N}!}\\ &&\\
& = & (d_N-1)! (d_N-2)! \frac{\Delta^2 S_{2,2,0} (0) S_{2,2, 0}(i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 1)! (d_N )! }
\\ &&\\
& + & (d_N-1)! \frac{\Delta^2 S_{4, 0, 0} (0) S_{4, 0, 0}(i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 3)! }\\
& + & (d_N-1)! (d_N-2)! \frac{\Delta^2 S_{3,1, 0} (0) S_{3, 1, 0}(i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 2)! (d_N - 1 )!} \\ &&\\
& = & \frac{\Delta^2 S_{2,2,0} (0) S_{2,2, 0}(i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 1) d_N^2 (d_N-1) }
\\ &&\\
& + & \frac{\Delta^2 S_{4, 0, 0} (0) S_{4, 0, 0}(i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 3) (d_N+2) (d_N+1)d_N} + \frac{\Delta^2 S_{3,1, 0} (0) S_{3, 1, 0}(i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 2)(d_N+1) d_N (d_N - 2)}
. \end{array} \end{equation}
By \eqref{LIST2}, we then have
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{l}
\Delta^2 \hat{\mu}_{\vec \Lambda}(0)
= \frac{4 d_N(d_N -1) S_{2,2, 0}(i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 1) d_N^2 (d_N-1) }
+ \frac{ (12 d_N^2 + 2 d_N(d_N -1) )S_{4, 0, 0}(i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 3) (d_N+2) (d_N+1)d_N} + \frac{- 4 d_N(d_N -1) S_{3, 1, 0}(i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 2)(d_N+1) d_N (d_N - 2)}
. \end{array} \end{equation}
Recalling \eqref{LIST}
and that $e_1(\vec \Lambda) = 0$, we get
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{l}
\Delta^2 \hat{\mu}_{\vec \Lambda}(0)
= \frac{4 d_N (d_N -1) e_2^2 (i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 1) d_N^2 (d_N-1) }
+ \frac{ (12 d_N^2 + 4 d_N (d_N -1) ) e_2^2 (i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 3) (d_N+2) (d_N+1)d_N} + \frac{- 4 d_N (d_N -1) e_2^2 (i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 2)(d_N+1) d_N (d_N - 2)}
. \end{array} \end{equation}
Further recalling that $2 e_2 = e_1 p_1 - p_2$ we finally get
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{l}
\Delta^2 \hat{\mu}_{\vec \Lambda}(0) = \frac{ d_N(d_N -1) p_2^2 (i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 1) d_N^2 (d_N-1) }
+ \frac{ (3 d_N^2 + d_N(d_N -1) ) p_2^2 (i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 3) (d_N+2) (d_N+1)d_N}
+\frac{- d_N(d_N -1) p_2^2 (i \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 2)(d_N+1) d_N (d_N - 2)}
. \end{array} \end{equation}
Since the polynomials are homogeneous of degree $4$, the factor of $i$ inside the polynomials may be removed,
and we get
$$\begin{array}{lll} {\mathbb E}||J_{d_N} (U^* D_0(\vec \lambda) U) ||^4 & = &
\frac{ d_N(d_N -1) p_2^2 ( \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 1) d_N^2 (d_N-1) }
+ \frac{ (3 d_N^2 + d_N(d_N -1) ) p_2^2 (\vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 3) (d_N+2) (d_N+1)d_N}
+\frac{- d_N(d_N -1) p_2^2 ( \vec \Lambda)}{(d_N + 2)(d_N+1) d_N (d_N - 2)}
. \end{array} $$
As $N \to \infty$ the leading asymptotics of the outer terms cancel and the middle term is asymptotic to
$ \frac{4}{d_N^2} p_2^2( \vec \Lambda_N)$. We note that $\frac{p_2( \vec \Lambda_N)}{d_N}$ is bounded.
If the the empirical measure of eigenvalues tends to a limit measure, then $\frac{p_2( \vec \Lambda_N)}{d_N}$
tends to its second moment.
Together with Lemma \ref{orbit-int}, this completes the proof of Proposition \ref{1}. Corollary \ref{VARCOR}
follows by subtracting the square of the expectation.
\section{Completion of proof of Theorem \ref{MAINTHEO} }
By the assumption of Definition \eqref{TRACE}
\begin{equation} \omega(A) =
\frac{1}{d_N}{\rm Tr}\;T^A_N +o(1)\;,\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{VARFORM}-Corollary \ref{VARCOR}, the variances of the independent random
variables $\frac{1}{d_N}Y^A_N$ are bounded. Hence, as explained in the introduction (see also \cite{Z1,SZ}), (\ref{EP*}) follows from
Lemma \ref{VARFORM}-Corollary \ref{VARCOR} and the Kolmogorov strong law of large numbers, which gives
\begin{equation}\label{EP*ave}\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{N}
\sum_{n=1}^N \left(\frac{1}{d_n}Y^A_n\right)=0 \;\;\; \mbox{almost surely}\;.\end{equation}
By (\ref{Y}),
$$\sup_{ \mathcal{O} \mathcal{N} \mathcal{B}_N } |X^{A}_N - \frac{1}{d_N} Y^{A}_N| =o(1) .$$ Hence also
\begin{equation}\label{EP*aveb}\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{N}
\sum_{n=1}^N \left(\frac{1}{d_n}X^A_n\right)=0 \;\;\; \mbox{almost surely}\;.\end{equation}
If the dimensions $d_N$ grow fast enough so that $\frac{1}{d_N}$ is summable, then we obtain a stronger
form from the fact that $\sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} {\mathbb E} \frac{1}{d_n} Y_n^A $ is finite hence the general term must
tend to zero almost everywhere. It follows again that ${\mathbb E} \frac{1}{d_n} X_n^A \to 0$ almost everywhere.
\section{Applications}
\subsection{\label{TORUS} Fat tori}
Theorem \ref{MAINTHEO} applies to eigenspaces of the Laplacian on the flat torus ${\mathbb R}^d/{\mathbb Z}^d$ (or other
rational lattices) of dimension $\geq 5$ and
for many eigenspaces in dimensions $d = 2, 3, 4$.
\begin{prop} \label{RATIONALTOR} Random orthornomal bases of $\Delta$-eigenspaces of the flat torus ${\mathbb R}^d/{\mathbb Z}^d$ are quantum ergodic
for $d \geq 5$. Also for $d = 2, 3, 4$ for special eigenspaces (specified below). \end{prop}
The only condition on the eigenspaces for Theorem \ref{MAINTHEO} is that \eqref{TRACE} holds, and we now
recall the known results on this problem.
Given $A \in \Psi^0$, we denote the eigenspaces on a flat torus, enumerated in order of the eigenvalue by $\mathcal{H}_N$
and by $\Pi_N$ the orthogonal projection to $\mathcal{H}_N$ \footnote{Thanks to Z. Rudnick for explanations and
references}.
\begin{lem} \label{FLAT} The condition \eqref{TRACE} is valid in dimensions $\geq 5$ on ${\mathbb R}^d/{\mathbb Z}^d$. That is,
$$\frac{1}{d_N} Tr A \Pi_N \sim \int_{S^* T^m} a(x, \omega) dx \wedge d \omega. $$
It follows that $\frac{1}{d_N} Y_N^A \to 0$ almost surely.
In dimensions 2, resp. 3, resp. 4 there are restrictions on the sequence of eigenvalues given in \cite{EH}, resp. \cite{DSP}, resp.
\cite{P}. For eigenvalues in the allowed sequences, \eqref{TRACE} is valid.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We use the basis $e^N_k = e^{i \langle k, x \rangle}$ with $|k| = \mu_N$. Then
$$\langle A e^N_k, e^N_k \rangle = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n/Z^n} \sigma_A(x, k) dx. $$
Hence
$$\frac{1}{d_N} Tr \Pi_N A = \sum_{k: |k| = \mu_N} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n/Z^n} \sigma_A (x, k) dx. $$
In dimensions
$n \geq 5$, $d_N \sim \mu_N^{n - 2}$. It is proved that lattice points of fixed norm on a sphere of radius $\sqrt{n}$ become uniformly distributed as $n \to \infty$ \cite{P}. It follows that
$$\frac{1}{d_N} \sum_{k: |k| = \mu_N} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n/Z^n} \sigma_A (x, k) dx
\to \int_{S^* T^m} a(x, \omega) dx \wedge d \omega. $$
As in the last step of the proof of Theorem \ref{MAINTHEO},
${\mathbb E} \frac{1}{d_N} X_N^A$ is summable when $n \geq 5$.
The Liouville limit formula is true in dimension 4 when the number of lattice points
grows linearly in $n$. The condition on n is given in \cite{P}. In dimension 3, the equidistribution result is proved in \cite{DSP} with similar conditions
on the sequence of integers $n$.
Dimension $2$ is more complicated. In dimension 2, the eigenvalues of integers $n$ for
which there exist lattice points $(a,b)$ on the circle $a^2 +b^2=n$. It is necessary that all prime factors of $n$ are congruent to 1 modulo 4. In \cite{EH} it is shown that for almost all such n, the lattice points on the circle become uniformly distributed
as $n \to \infty$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} In the case of a generic lattice $L \subset {\mathbb R}^d$, the multiplicity of eigenvalues of $\Delta$
on ${\mathbb R}^d/ L$ is two. The analogue of the eigenspaces above are spectral subspaces for $\sqrt{\Delta}$ of
shriking width $w$. Thus, one considers the exponentials $e^{i \langle \ell, x \rangle}$ for $\ell \in L$
with $|\ell| \in [\lambda - C w, \lambda +w]$. It follows from the lattice point results of \cite{G} that in dimensions $d \geq 5$,
the number of eigenvalues of an irrational flat torus in $[\lambda, \lambda + O(\lambda^{-1}]$ is of
order $\lambda^{d- 2}$. The question whether the trace asymptotics \eqref{TRACE} hold for the
span of the corresponding eigenfunctions does not appear to have been studied.
\end{rem}
\subsection{\label{QM} Quasi-modes}
Theorem \ref{MAINTHEO} is not restricted to eigenspaces of the Laplacian and is equally valid for spaces of
quasi-modes. We refer to \cite{CV, Po} for background on quasi-modes. Following \cite{Po}, we define a $C^{\infty}$ quasimode of infinite order for $\hbar^2 \Delta$ with index set
${\mathcal M}_h$ to be a family $${\mathcal Q} = \{(\psi_m(\cdot, \hbar), \mu_m(\hbar)):
m \in {\mathcal M}_{\hbar} \}$$
of approximate eigenfunctions satisfying
\begin{equation}\left\{ \begin{array}{l} (i) ||( \hbar^2 \Delta - \mu_m(\hbar)) \psi_m(\cdot, \hbar)||_{H^s} = O_M (\hbar^{M}),\;\;\;
(\forall M \in {\mathbb Z}^+), \\ \\ (ii) |\langle \psi_m, \psi_n \rangle - \delta_{mn} | =
O_M (\hbar^{M}),\;\;\;
(\forall M \in {\mathbb Z}^+). \end{array} \right. \end{equation}
It follows by the spectral theorem that
for any $M \in {\mathbb Z}^+$, there exists at least one eigenvalue of $\hbar^2 \Delta$ in the interval
$$I_{m M}^{\hbar} = [\mu_m(\hbar) - \hbar^M,\mu_m(\hbar) + \hbar^M],$$
and
\begin{equation} \label{QMEST} ||E_{I_{m M}^{\hbar} } \psi_k - \psi_k||_{H^s} = O_M (\hbar^{M}). \end{equation}
Here, $E_I$ denotes the spectral projection for $\hbar^2 \Delta$ corresponding
to the interval $I$. We
denote the quasi-classical eigenvalue spectrum of $\hbar \sqrt{\Delta}$by
$$QSp_{\hbar} = \{\mu_m(\hbar): m \in {\mathcal M}_{\hbar} \}.$$
Since quasi-eigenvalues $\mu_m( \hbar)$ are only defined up to errors of
order $h^{\infty}$, there is a notion of `multiple quasi-eigenvalue' defined as
follows: we say $\mu_m(\hbar) \sim \mu_n (\hbar)$ if $\mu_m - \mu_n = O(\hbar^{\infty})$
and define the multiplicity of $\mu_m(\hbar)$ by
$$mult (\mu_m(\hbar)) = \# \{n: \mu_m(\hbar) \sim \mu_n (\hbar) \} =
\dim Span \{\psi_n(\cdot, \hbar): (\hbar^2 \Delta - \mu_m(\hbar)) \psi_n = O(\hbar^{\infty}) \}. $$
We then
introduce slightly larger intervals ${\mathcal I}_{m, \hbar}$ (if need be) so that
$$QSp(\hbar) \subset \bigcup_{m \in {\mathcal M'}} {\mathcal I}_{m, \hbar},\;\;\; {\mathcal I}_{m, \hbar} \cap {\mathcal I}_{n, \hbar} = \emptyset \;\; (m \not= n).$$
Here, ${\mathcal M}'$ consists of equivalence classes of indices (corresponding
to equivalence classes of quasimodes).
We denote by ${\mathcal H}_m^{\hbar}$ the span of the quasimodes
$\{\psi_m(\cdot, \hbar): \mu_m (\hbar) \in {\mathcal
I}_m^{\hbar}\}$. Then
$$|| E_{{\mathcal I}_m^{\hbar}} v - v || = O(\hbar^{\infty}), \;\; \mbox{if}\;\; v \in {\mathcal H}_m^{\hbar}. $$
Theorem \ref{MAINTHEO} applies to quasi-mode spaces ${\mathcal H}_m^{\hbar}$ as long as their dimensions tend to infinity
and as long as there exists a unique limit state for $\frac{1}{\dim {\mathcal H}_m^{\hbar}} Tr A |_{{\mathcal H}_m^{\hbar}}$.
One might expect true modes (eigenfunctions) with eigenvalues in the intervals $I_{m M}^{\hbar}$ to be close to
linear combinations of the quasi-modes with quasi-eigenvalues in that interval. The question raised by Theorem
\ref{MAINTHEO} is whether they behave like random linear combinations or not. If they do, Theorem \ref{MAINTHEO}
gives their quantum limits.
In particular, this bears on the question whether $\Delta$-eigenfunctions of
compact Riemannian
manifolds $(M, g)$ with KAM geodesic flow might be quantum ergodic. It seems unlikely that they are, but we are not
aware of a proof that they are not.
For such KAM $(M, g)$, a large family of quasi-modes is constructed in \cite{CV,Po} which localize
on the invariant tori of the KAM Cantor set of tori.
Without reviewing the results in detail, the `large' family has positive spectral density, i.e. the number of quasi-eigenvalues
$\leq \mu$ grows like a positive constant times $\mu^n$ where $n = \dim M$.
To our knowledge, the multiplicities and trace asymptotics for KAM quasi-modes have not been studied at this time. As
in the discussion of flat tori, one would need to determine the equidistribution law of the tori in the invariant Cantor set
corresponding to eigenvalues (or pseudo-eigenvalues) of $\sqrt{\Delta}$ in very short intervals $I_{\lambda} = [\lambda - w,
\lambda + w]$.
The orthonormal basis of eigenfunctions is not simple to relate to the near orthonormal basis of quasi-modes in this case,
but we might expect that a positive density of the eigenfunctions are mainly given as linear combinations of KAM
quasi-modes with quasi-eigenvalues very close to the true eigenvalues. Whether or not they are quantum ergodic
would reflect the extent to which they are sufficiently random combinations of quasi-modes and the extent to which
the collection of quasi-modes in $I^{\hbar}_{M, m}$ is Liouville distributed.
|
\section{Appendix}
\noindent The metamaterial in this work is modeled as a planar array of electric atoms coupled with an array of magnetic atoms on the same plane with surface normal vector $\hat{z}$ and a unit cell of area $A$. For simplicity, we assume the plane is excited by normally incident plane waves with electric field in the x-direction ($\mathcal{E_\text{x}}$) and magnetic field in the y-direction ($\mathcal{H_\text{y}}$). Suppose each electric atom only generates electric dipole moment ($p$) along the $x$-direction dominated by a single resonance while each magnetic atom only generates magnetic dipole moment ($m$) along its principal direction $\hat{y}\cos(\alpha)+\hat{z}\sin(\alpha)$ also dominated by a single resonance (at a general angle $\alpha$ with $\pi/2$ being the special case of a completely dark magnetic atom). Then, the response of these atoms can be described using a simple dipolar model as
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\omega _1 - \omega - i \gamma _1 & \kappa\\
\kappa & \omega _2 - \omega - i \gamma _2 \\
\end{array}
\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\tilde{p} \\
i\tilde{m} \\
\end{array}
\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt{a_1}\mathcal{E}_x \\
i\sqrt{a_2}\mathcal{H} \\
\end{array}
\right),
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{p}=k p/(2A\sqrt{a_{1}})$ and $\tilde{m}=k m/(2A\sqrt{a_{2}})$ with $k$ being the wavenumber in vacuum and the positive numbers $\omega_i$, $a_i$, $\gamma_i$ being the resonance frequencies, oscillator strength and total resonance linewidth of the $i$-th atom ($i=1$ or $2$ for electric or magnetic atom). $\kappa$ is the coupling parameter (controlled by the displacement between the electric and the magnetic atom in a unit cell), is assumed as a real number in the long wavelength limit in this work.
We have employed the Heaviside-Lorentz unit system and the normalization ($\tilde{p}$ and $\tilde{m}$) is chosen so that $\omega_i$, $a_i$, $\gamma_i$ and $\kappa$ are in the same unit of frequency.
If we use $a_{\pm}$ to indicate the E-field amplitudes of the incoming plane waves in the positive and negative $z$-direction, the incident fields ($\mathcal{E_\text{x}}$ and $\mathcal{H}$) applying on the electric and magnetic atoms can be expressed as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E_\text{x}}=a_{+}+a_{-},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H_\text{y}}\cos{\alpha}=(a_{+}-a_{-})\cos{\alpha}.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\noindent Substituting A.7 into A.6 gives the atomic response to the incoming plane-wave amplitudes as
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\omega _1 - \omega - i \gamma _1 & \kappa\\
\kappa & \omega _2 - \omega - i \gamma _2 \\
\end{array}
\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\tilde{p} \\
i\tilde{m} \\
\end{array}
\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt{a_1}(a_{+}+a_{-}) \\
i\sqrt{a'_2}(a_{+}-a_{-}) \\
\end{array}
\right),
\end{equation}
\noindent where $a'_2$ is a postive number defined as $a'_2=a_2 \cos^2{\alpha}$.
On the other hand, the scattering plane waves (with $s_{\pm}$ being the E-field amplitudes in the positive and negative $z$-direction) are the radiation plane waves generated by the dipole moments:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
s_{+}+s_{-}=2i \sqrt{a_1}\tilde{p},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
s_{+}-s_{-}=2i \sqrt{a'_2}\tilde{m}.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\noindent If we use $b_{\pm}=a_{\pm}+s_{\pm}$ to indicate the E-field amplitudes of the outgoing plane waves in the positive and negative $z$-direction, substituting A.9 and A.8 into it expresses the outgoing plane waves in terms of the dipolar moments as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\omega _1 - \omega - i \gamma _1 + 2i a_1 & \kappa\\
\kappa & \omega _2 - \omega - i \gamma _2 +2i a'_2\\
\end{array}
\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\tilde{p} \\
i\tilde{m} \\
\end{array}
\right) \\
&=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt{a_1}(b_{+}+b_{-}) \\
i\sqrt{a'_2}(b_{+}-b_{-}) \\
\end{array}
\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In fact, we can also express the atomic response using the incoming and scattering plane waves by substituting A.9 into A.8 as
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
s_{+}+s_{-} \\
s_{+}-s_{-} \\
\end{array}
\right)=D\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a_{+}+a_{-} \\
a_{+}-a_{-}\\
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
\noindent where the matrix $D$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& D=i
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt{a_{1}} & 0 \\
0 & \sqrt{a'_{2}} \\
\end{array}
\right) \times \\
& \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\omega _1 - \omega - i \gamma _1 & i\kappa\\
-i\kappa & \omega _2 - \omega - i \gamma _2 \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt{a_{1}} & 0 \\
0 & \sqrt{a'_{2}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent If the system is without gain, we have the passivity condition requiring $\mid a_{+}\mid^{2}+\mid a_{-}\mid^{2}\geq\mid b_{+}\mid^{2}+\mid b_{-}\mid^{2}$.
By substituting A.11 into it for arbitrary excitaiton, after some algebra, the passivity condition means
$D^{-1}+(D^{-1})^{\dag}+2I$ being a negative-definite matrix. Equivalently, it means $\gamma_1>a_1$ and $\gamma_2>a'_2$ directly obtained from A.12. Therefore, for the general system, we can decompose the total resonance linewidth by $\gamma_{i}=\gamma_{i}^{s}+\gamma_{i}^{loss} (i=1,2)$ where the part due to scattering is
$\gamma_{1}^{s}=a_{1}$, $\gamma_{2}^{s}=a'_{2}$
and $\gamma_{i}^{loss}$ is the part due to absorption loss when it is positive.
With such decompositions of the linewidths, A.8 becomes Eq. 2 and A.10 becomes Eq. 3 in text immediately.
|
\section{Introduction}
\nopagebreak
Simulation of population dynamics is an important tool when studying genetic traits. In both population genetics and forensic genetics it is important to know how haplotypes are distributed in a population. In forensic genetics, the haplotypes can for example consist of lineage markers such as short tandem repeat loci on the Y chromosome (Y-STR). Simulation of population dynamics helps facilitating research on the distribution of haplotypes. A dominating model for describing population dynamics is the simple, yet powerful, Fisher-Wright model (or process) \citep{Fisher1922, Fisher1930, Fisher1958, Wright1931, Ewens2004}. In population genetics, the model also forms the basis for coalescent theory \citep{kingman_coalescent_1982, Hudson2001, hein_gene_2005}.
Because the Fisher-Wright model is widely used in population genetics, efficient simulation algorithms and tools are needed. In this paper we describe the model implemented in the \proglang{R} \citep{R} package \pkg{fwsim} \citep{fwsim025}, which provides an efficient tool for simulating certain kinds of Fisher-Wright populations. The simulation scheme described in this paper is exact (from the Fisher-Wright model) and not approximative like the simulation scheme from the coalescent model \citep{kingman_coalescent_1982, Hudson2001, hein_gene_2005}.
\citep{Ewens2004} is a good reference on different models in population genetics as it explains several models and also gives theoretical results.
First some nomenclature must be introduced. Let a locus (loci in plural) be a specific location on the chromosome. The content of a locus is called an allele, which consists of DNA sequences. Here, we assume that the alleles are short tandem repeats (STRs) \citep{Butler2005-2nd} with values in $\mathbb{Z}$ (in genes, an allele could also just be either of two states, $A$ or $B$, say). A haplotype is a ordered collection of alleles at loci that are transmitted together.
We focus on a haploid model, where each individual is a gamete with a haplotype consisting of $r$ loci. Hence, a haplotype can in this context be thought of as a vector in $\mathbb{Z}^r$. It may for example be an Y-STR haplotype. We assume no selection and the individuals are self-reproducing.
First, the traditional Fisher-Wright model without mutations is described in order to introduce the notation and to make it possible to compare it with our model.
Throughout this paper, whenever there is a mutation process, we assume it to be a neutral (in the sense of no selection) single step mutation process with infinitely many possible allelic states. This model was introduced by \citep{OhtaKimura1973} and some mathematical properties were recently discussed in \citep{Caliebe2010}.
\subsection{Fisher-Wright model without mutation} \label{sec:simple-fisher-wright}
\nopagebreak
Traditionally, a simple Fisher-Wright model, for example as formulated by \citep{Ewens2004}, assumes constant population size and no mutations. A Fisher-Wright model is often characterised by a binomial sampling scheme focusing on individuals (or a multinomial sampling scheme focusing on the entire population), such that a new generation of children is sampled by letting each child choose its parent (and thus its haplotype) uniformly at random.
Because our interest is aimed at the sampling of populations and not at the genealogy, the focus is now changed from individuals to haplotypes, where identical haplotypes are treated similarly, as we are not interested in the genealogical tree itself, but only in the haplotypes and their counts in the resulting population (and possibly in the intermediate populations, too).
Let $N$ be the constant, known population size and $H$ the set of haplotypes. Denote by $n_i(x)$ the number of haplotypes in the $i$'th generation of haplotype $x \in H$ and $z_{i+1}(x)$ the number of children from haplotype $x \in H$ in generation $i+1$. Because there are no mutations, we have that $n_{i+1}(x) = z_{i+1}(x)$.
The simple Fisher-Wright model arises by assuming that $P\left(\{ n_{i+1}(x) \}_{x \in H} \mid \{ n_i(x) \}_{x \in H}\right)$ is given by
\begin{align} \label{eq:simple-fw}
\{ n_{i+1}(x) \}_{x \in H} \mid \{ n_i(x) \}_{x \in H}
\sim
\text{Multinomial} \left (N, \left \{ \frac{n_i(x)}{N} \right \}_{x \in H} \right ).
\end{align}
A property of the multinomial distribution is that
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{E} \left [n_{i+1}(x) \mid n_i(x) \right ] = n_i(x)
\end{align*}
as expected.
We note that the process is a Markov chain with $\vert H \vert$ absorbing states, one for each haplotype.
\section{Model}
\nopagebreak
As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:simple-fisher-wright}, the model is formulated on the basis of haplotypes instead of individuals, because it is much more efficient when we are interested in the resulting population after a number of generations rather than the genealogy.
The notation from Section~\ref{sec:simple-fisher-wright} is adopted, such that $H_i$ is the set of haplotypes in the $i$'th generation ($H_i$ depends on $i$ due to mutations, which will be introduced below), $n_i(x)$ is the number of haplotypes in the $i$'th generation of haplotype $x \in H_i$, and $z_{i+1}(x)$ the number of children from haplotype $x \in H_i$. Now let $N_i = \sum_{x \in H_i} n_i(x)$ be the population size in the $i$'th generation (instead of a constant population size $N$ as in the simple Fisher-Wright model in Equation~\ref{eq:simple-fw}).
Our model is then a specification of how
\begin{align*}
\{z_{i+1}(x)\}_{x \in H_i} \mid \{n_{i}(x)\}_{x \in H_i}
\end{align*}
is distributed, that is, how the haplotypes in the next generation are conditionally distributed given the previous generation.
Two important features of our model is, that it assumes stochastic population size -- which we believe is a more realistic model -- and allows flexible population growth specification. We believe that the Fisher-Wright model that will be introduced below with stochastic population size also incorporating flexible population growth has not yet been defined like we do in the following. First the modelling of the population size and growth will be described. Afterwards the mutational model will be explained.
\subsection{Population size and growth}
\nopagebreak
Let $N_0$ be the known initial population size. Note that in the traditional Fisher-Wright model, this is assumed to be a constant.
Then we assume that
\begin{align} \label{eq:population-size}
N_i \mid N_{i-1} \sim \mbox{Poisson}(\alpha_i N_{i-1})
\end{align}
for $\alpha_i > 0$ ($\alpha_i > 1$ gives growth and $0 < \alpha_i < 1$ gives decline). For example, if $\alpha_i = \alpha$ for all $i$, then
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{E}[N_i] = \alpha^i N_0 ,
\end{align*}
that is exponential population growth. One could also choose
\begin{align*}
\alpha_i =
\begin{cases}
\beta, & \text{for $i \leq t$,} \\
\alpha, & \text{else,}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
yielding
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{E}[N_i] =
\begin{cases}
\beta^i N_0, & \text{for $i \leq t$,} \\
\beta^t \alpha^{i-t} N_0, & \text{else,}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
which for example can be used to get exponential growth up to generation $t$ and afterwards an expected constant population size by setting $\alpha = 1$.
A possibly more realistic example is logistic population growth, which can be obtained by specifying a maximum population size $N_{max}$, $\alpha \geq 1$, and then setting
\begin{align*}
\alpha_i = \alpha - \frac{(\alpha-1)N_{i-1}}{N_{max}}
\end{align*}
as the growth rates. A closed form expression for $\mathbf{E}[N_i]$ in this case seems difficult to obtain.
One could alternatively also create a (possibly decreasing) rate $\alpha_i = f(i)$ for some function $f$. Hence, the specification of growth is rather flexible.
\subsection{Number of children}
\nopagebreak
As mentioned previously, the conditional distribution $\{z_{i+1}(x)\}_{x \in H_i} \mid \{x_{i}(x)\}_{x \in H_i}$ must be specified. We assume that the number of children $z_{i+1}(x_0)$ of a certain haplotype $x_0 \in H_i$ is conditionally independent of the number of children of other haplotypes, given the entire previous generation $\{x_{i}(x)\}_{x \in H_i}$. Thus, only the marginal distribution $z_{i+1}(x_0) \mid \{x_{i}(x)\}_{x \in H_i}$ must be specified.
For each haplotype $x_0 \in H_i$ in the $i$'th generation occuring $n_i(x_0)$ times, we then assume that the number of children $z_{i+1}(x_0)$ is distributed independently of other haplotypes as
\begin{align} \label{eq:number-of-children}
z_{i+1}(x_0) \mid \{ n_i(x) \}_{x \in H_i} \sim \text{Poisson}(\alpha_{i+1} n_i(x_0)) .
\end{align}
As can be seen, $z_{i+1}(x_0)$ actually only depends on $n_i(x_0)$ and not on the number of all the other haplotypes.
It then follows that $N_{i+1} = \sum_{x \in H_i} z_{i+1}(x)$ (the sum of the number of haplotypes in the $(i+1)$'th generation) conditionally on $\{n_i(x)\}_{x \in H_i}$ follows a $\text{Poisson}(\alpha_{i+1} N_{i})$ distribution, and that
\begin{align*}
z_{i+1}(x_0) \mid \{n_i(x)\}_{x \in H_i}, N_{i+1} \sim \text{Binomial} \left ( N_{i+1}, \frac{n_i(x_0)}{N_{i}} \right ),
\end{align*}
as expected, which is also true for the simple Fisher-Wright model in Equation~\ref{eq:simple-fw}.
\subsection{Mutation model} \label{sec:model-mutation}
\nopagebreak
As mentioned in the introduction, we assume a neutral (in the sense of no selection) single step mutation process on $\mathbb{Z}$. Instead of just one locus we extend it to $r$ loci, where mutations on loci happen independently. We assume per locus and direction mutation rates. Let
\begin{align*}
Q = \{ -1, 0, 1\}^r = \underbrace{\{ -1, 0, 1\} \times \cdots \times \{ -1, 0, 1\}}_{\text{$r$ factors}} ,
\end{align*}
where $\times$ denotes the Cartesian product, be the lattice of possible mutations. Let
\begin{align} \label{eq:locus-mut-prob}
p_j(q) =
\begin{cases}
\delta_j & q = -1 \\
1 - \delta_j - \omega_j & q = 0 \\
\omega_j & q = 1 \\
0 & \text{else}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
denote the mutation probabilities for the $j$'th locus and
\begin{align*}
p(q) = \prod_{j=1}^r p_j(q_j)
\end{align*}
for a mutation configuration $q = (q_1, q_2, \ldots, q_r) \in Q$ from the fact that mutations are assumed to happen independently across loci.
Let
\begin{align*}
C_{i+1} = \bigcup_{\substack{q \in Q\\x_1 \in H_i}} \{ x_1 + q \}
\end{align*}
be all possible candidate haplotypes for the $(i+1)$'th generation.
Our model with mutations is then
\begin{align} \label{eq:mut-model}
n_{i+1}(y_0) \mid \{n_i(x)\}_{x \in H_i} \sim \text{Poisson} \left ( \alpha_{i+1} \sum_{q \in Q} p(q) n_i(y_0 - q) \right )
\quad
\text{for all $y_0 \in C_{i+1}$},
\end{align}
resulting in $N_{i+1} \mid N_i \sim \text{Poisson} ( \alpha_{i+1} N_i )$ as assumed in Equation~\ref{eq:population-size} because
\begin{align*}
\sum_{y_0 \in C_{i+1}} \alpha_{i+1} \sum_{q \in Q} p(q) n_i(y_0 - q)
&= \alpha_{i+1} \sum_{q \in Q} p(q) \sum_{y_0 \in C_{i+1}} n_i(y_0 - q) \\
&= \alpha_{i+1} \sum_{q \in Q} p(q) N_i \\
&= \alpha_{i+1} N_i .
\end{align*}
Another way to formulate an equivalent model, which will be used in the implementation, is as follows. Let $m_{i+1}(x, x + q)$ denote the number of mutants mutating from $x$ to $x+q$ in the transition from the $i$'th generation to the $(i+1)$'th generation and
\begin{align*}
M_{i+1}(x) = \{ m_{i+1}(x, x + q) \}_{q \in Q}
\end{align*}
the number of mutants for all possible configurations in $Q$.
Then assume that $\{ M_{i+1}(x) \}_{x \in H_i}$ are conditionally independent given $\{ z_{i+1}(x) \}_{x \in H_i}$, thus only the marginal distribution is to be specified. If we model this conditional marginal distribution as
\begin{align} \label{eq:mut-model-alternative}
M_{i+1}(x_0) \mid \{ z_{i+1}(x) \}_{x \in H_i}
\sim \text{Multinomial} \left ( z_{i+1}(x_0) , \{ p(q) \}_{q \in Q} \right ),
\end{align}
and set
\begin{align*}
n_{i+1}(x) = \sum_{q \in Q} m_{i+1}(x - q, x) ,
\end{align*}
we get a model equivalent to the one specified in Equation~\ref{eq:mut-model}.
\subsection{Absorbing state}
\nopagebreak
The model in Equation~\ref{eq:mut-model} (or the equivalent model in Equation~\ref{eq:mut-model-alternative}) has positive probability of dying out, because the Poisson distribution has probability mass in $0$ for every parameter value. This means that population size $0$ is an absorbing state. Also note that this absorbing state is independent of the mutation rate, as the population size is independent of the mutation rate.
\section{Implementation}
\nopagebreak
In this section, some implementation details are discussed. As already mentioned, the described model is implemented in the \proglang{R} \citep{R} package \pkg{fwsim} \citep{fwsim025} using the \proglang{C} programming language. The package \pkg{fwsim} is released under the BSD license.
First some implementation details are explained and then a few examples are given.
\subsection{Haplotype container}
\nopagebreak
Each generation consists of a number of haplotypes, each with a count of the number of times it is present in the generation. These haplotypes are saved in a data container. This data container is a so-called $k$-d tree \citep{Bentley1975} (this abbrivation stands for $k$ dimensional tree), which is a generalisation of a binary search tree. Whereas binary search trees are for one dimensional points (numbers), $k$-d trees are for $k$ dimensional points (vectors). Like binary search trees, the time complexity for insertion and searching in a $k$-d tree is $O(\log n)$ for a tree with $n$ nodes.
For each generation, a new $k$-d tree is created and nodes inserted or updated as the haplotypes are evolved one at a time. A node in the tree contains both the point (haplotype) and additional information, which here is only a count (of the number of individuals having this particular haplotype).
The implementation of $k$-d trees is based on \url{http://code.google.com/kdtree} released under the BSD license, but has been heavily modified for example by changing some data structures and adding node searching and updating functionality.
\subsection{Mutation model} \label{sec:implementation-mutation}
\nopagebreak
In this section, the implementation of the mutation model defined in Section~\ref{sec:model-mutation} is described.
The mutation model is implemented by dividing the number of children Equation~\ref{eq:number-of-children} into categories depending on the number of times they mutate. There are $r+1$ categories, namely for $d = 0, 1, \ldots, r$ mutations on the $r$ loci. Because this is the stepwise mutation model, only one mutation can happen per locus at a time.
As before, $z_{i+1}(x)$ is the number of children from haplotype $x \in H$. Let $z_{i+1}^d(x)$ be the number of children in the $d$'th category such that $z_{i+1}(x) = \sum_{d=0}^r z_{i+1}^d(x)$. If we assume that
\begin{align} \label{eq:impl-mut-d-children}
z_{i+1}^d(x_0) \mid \{ n_i(x) \}_{x \in H_i} \sim \text{Poisson}(\alpha_i \eta_d n_i(x_0)) ,
\end{align}
where $\eta_d$ is the probability for $d$ mutations with $\sum_d \eta_d = 1$, then Equation~\ref{eq:number-of-children} still holds. Naturally, each of the $z_{i+1}^d(x)$ children have to choose their $d$ mutations independently of the others.
To see the analogue between $m_{i+1}(x, x + q)$ and $z_{i+1}(x)$, first let
\begin{align*}
Q_d = \left \{ q \in Q \Bigm \vert \| q \|_1 = d \right \},
\end{align*}
where $\| \cdot \|_1$ denotes the $L^1$ norm such that $\| q \|_1 = \| (q_1, q_2, \ldots, q_r) \|_1 = \sum_{j=1}^r \vert q_j \vert$. That is, $Q_d$ is the mutation configurations resulting in precisely $d$ mutations. Then
\begin{align*}
z_{i+1}^d(x) = \sum_{q \in Q_d} m_{i+1}(x, x + q) .
\end{align*}
First the probability of not mutating is treated. Let $\mu_j = \delta_j + \omega_j$ be the mutation rate for the $j$'th locus for $j=1, 2, \ldots, r$ with $\delta_j$ denoting the downwards mutation rate and $\omega_j$ denoting the upwards mutation rate. Then
\begin{align*}
\eta_0 = \prod_{j=1}^r (1 - \mu_j )
\end{align*}
is the probability of not mutating.
Now the model of choosing the mutating loci is discussed. There are $\binom{r}{d}$ ways to choose the $d$ loci that should mutate. Each of these loci configurations has $2^d$ possible mutation configurations (the size of the cartesian product $\{-1, 1\}^d$). This means that there is a total of $2^d \binom{r}{d}$ possible ways to mutate $d$ times. The probability for mutating to a specific haplotype is determined by the $d$ locus specific upwards and downwards mutation rates.
For mutation category $d$, let
\begin{align*}
S_d = \left \{ s \subseteq \{ 1, 2, \ldots, r \} \Bigm \vert \vert s \vert = d \right \}
\end{align*}
be a so-called \textit{simple table} with $\binom{r}{d}$ rows. Then the probability that it is exactly the loci $s \in S_d$ that should mutate, is
\begin{align*}
p(s) = \prod_{j \in s} \mu_j \prod_{j \in s^C} (1-\mu_j) ,
\end{align*}
where $s^C = \{ 1, 2, \ldots, r, \} \setminus s$. Further, the probability of exactly $d$ mutations is
\begin{align*}
\eta_d = \sum_{s \in S_d} p(s) .
\end{align*}
Hence, Equation~\ref{eq:impl-mut-d-children} is now fully specified. To decide the direction of the mutations, let
\begin{align*}
E_d
= \left \{ (s, q) \mid s \in S_d, q : s \to \{ -1, 1 \} \right \}
\end{align*}
be a so-called \textit{extended table} with $2^d \binom{r}{d}$ rows. The function $q$ maps a locus to a mutation direction. Then each row $e = (s, q) \in E_d$ and has probability
\begin{align*}
p(e) = \prod_{j \in s} p_{j}(q(j)) \prod_{j \in s^C} (1 - p_j(q(j))) ,
\end{align*}
where $p_j(q(j))$ is defined in Equation~\ref{eq:locus-mut-prob}. We still have that the sum of the rows in the extended table is $\eta_d$.
Then for generation $i$, haplotype $x$, and mutation category $d$, we assume that
\begin{align*}
\{ m_{i+1}(x_0, x_0 + q) \}_{q \in Q_d}
\mid
\{ n_i(x) \}_{x \in H_i}
\sim
\text{Multinomial} \left ( z_{i+1}^d(x_0) , \left \{ \frac{p(e)}{\sum_{e \in E_d} p(e) } \right \}_{e \in E_d} \right ) .
\end{align*}
Both the simple and extended table for mutation category $d = 1, 2, \ldots, r$ ($d = 0$ does not require this step) are created before the actual simulation starts as the probabilities are constant during the evolution. They are constant because the mutation rates are assumed constant. This is what is done in the \pkg{fwsim} package for all mutation categories, although this may be changed in future releases if the following theoretical limitations turn out to occur in practise, too.
Note that $2^d \binom{r}{d}$, the size of the extended table, is exponentially growing and may become really large for even relatively small $r$ and that the corresponding extended tables take some time to generate. For example, for $r = 16$ and $d=11$ the size of the extended table is $8,945,664$ (the maximal for that choice of $r$), however, it is still possible to be created and used for simulation. Once the tables are created, the simulations run rather smoothly because they are just stored in memory.
On the other hand, the mutation rate would normally be so low that mutations in the categories for even small $d$ may rarely or never happen depending on the population size, which means that these mutation categories are probably better delt with manually as follows. Recall that $\eta_d$ only depends on the simple table, which is small compared to the extended table -- namely a factor of $2^d$ smaller -- and so the simple table can still be calculated to a rather large $r$. When the simple tables are generated, then draw $n$ from $\text{Poisson}(\alpha_{i+1} \eta_d n_i(x))$ and mutate each of the haplotypes manually one at a time by choosing the $d$ loci and their directions randomly according to their probabilities.
\section{Computation time}
\nopagebreak
The simulation method described above is developed with efficiency in mind. To illustrate that efficiency is achieved, the computation time for different parameters have been investigated using a laptop with a 2.40GHz Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU (model M 520). For these computations, \pkg{fwsim} \citep{fwsim025} version 0.2-5 was used.
In Figure~\ref{fig:time-consumption-loci}, the absolute computation time for simulating a population with a varying number of loci is shown. In Figure~\ref{fig:time-consumption-loci}, the computation time for simulating a population with a varying initial population size is shown. Both figures show that the algorithm is quite fast.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{time-consumption-loci}
\caption{The computation time depending on the number of loci. The initial population size is set to 10,000, the number of generations to 500, the mutation rate to 0.003, the growth parameter to 1 (meaning constant expected population size). The computation time for each number of loci is the median computation time of 10 simulations.}
\label{fig:time-consumption-loci}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{time-consumption-initial-pop}
\caption{The computation time depending on the initial population size. The number of loci is set to 5, the number of generations to 500, the mutation rate to 0.003, the growth parameter to 1 (meaning constant expected population size). The computation time for each number of loci is the median computation time of 10 simulations.}
\label{fig:time-consumption-initial-pop}
\end{figure}
In Table~\ref{fig:time-consumption-naive-comparison}, the computation time using \pkg{fwsim} compared to a na\"ive implementation (focusing on individuals rather than haplotypes) of simulating under a Fisher-Wright model is shown. As seen, \pkg{fwsim} is magnitudes faster than a na\"ive implementation: On average, \pkg{fwsim} is almost 2,000 times faster when simulating a population with an initial size of 5,000, no expected growth (by using the growth parameter $\alpha = 1$), and a mutation rate of 0.003 in 100 generations than the na\"ive implementation (focusing on individuals rather than haplotypes). Further, the memory consumption is smaller for \pkg{fwsim} as it uses haplotypes instead of individuals, which means that it is possible to simulate much larger populations than with a na\"ive implementation.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rrrrrr}
$k$ & $g$ & $\mu$ & Speed-up \\\hline
1,000 & 100 & 0.001 & 145.9 \\
1,000 & 100 & 0.003 & 127.2 \\
1,000 & 200 & 0.001 & 307.9 \\
1,000 & 200 & 0.003 & 372.5 \\
5,000 & 100 & 0.001 & 2,972.1 \\
5,000 & 100 & 0.003 & 1,957.0 \\
5,000 & 200 & 0.001 & 6,848.4 \\
5,000 & 200 & 0.003 & 4,887.1 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{A comparison of the computation time for \pkg{fwsim} and a na\"ive implementation (focusing on individuals rather than haplotypes). A growth parameter $\alpha = 1$ is used meaning no expected population growth. $k$ is the initial population size, $g$ is the number of generations to evolve, and $\mu$ is the mutation rate. 10 replications for each parameter combination (corresponding to a row in the table) were performed. The speed-up column is the computation time for the na\"ive implementation divided by the computation time for \pkg{fwsim}. This means that \pkg{fwsim} on average is roughly 2,000 times faster to simulate a population with an initial size of 5,000 and a mutation rate of 0.003 in 100 generations than the na\"ive implementation.}
\label{fig:time-consumption-naive-comparison}
\end{table}
\section{Examples}
\nopagebreak
In this section, some examples are presented. Please refer to \code{?fwsim} in \proglang{R} for more information about usage of the package \pkg{fwsim}. These examples were made using version 0.2-5 of \pkg{fwsim} \citep{fwsim025}.
\subsection{Simple usage}
\nopagebreak
Lauching an \proglang{R} session and typing the code below will show a short example of the model implemented in the package \pkg{fwsim} (\code{k} is the number of individuals in the initial population, \code{g} is the number of generations to evolve, \code{r} number of loci, \code{mu} mutation rate per loci, \code{alpha} is the population size growth rate and \code{trace} is whether to display trace information):
\begin{CodeChunk}
\begin{CodeInput}
library("fwsim")
set.seed(1)
pop <- fwsim(k = 10000, g = 1000, r = 3, mu = 0.003,
alpha = 1.001, trace = TRUE)
\end{CodeInput}
\end{CodeChunk}
To obtain a contingency table of the first two loci, use the following:
\begin{CodeChunk}
\begin{CodeInput}
sum(pop$haplotypes$N)
\end{CodeInput}
\begin{CodeOutput}
[1] 27672
\end{CodeOutput}
\begin{CodeInput}
xtabs(N ~ Locus1 + Locus2, pop$haplotypes)
\end{CodeInput}
\begin{CodeOutput}
Locus2
Locus1 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-6 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
-5 0 0 0 10 85 75 10 0 2 0 0 0
-4 0 0 0 23 46 301 37 118 1 0 0 0
-3 0 0 15 394 591 474 266 122 110 5 1 0
-2 0 11 144 723 717 1302 542 526 17 9 26 0
-1 0 108 148 1018 1048 1816 1039 453 517 197 138 101
0 1 30 347 879 1713 901 1038 509 448 184 27 11
1 34 198 647 552 324 715 810 421 300 90 11 0
2 0 63 37 659 349 492 314 306 105 10 0 0
3 0 73 420 540 290 50 30 160 0 0 0 0
4 0 20 58 94 63 4 41 2 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\end{CodeOutput}
\end{CodeChunk}
This table is plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:tab-contour}. A slight drift from the initial $(0, 0)$ has occured.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{tab-contour}
\caption{A contour plot of the contingency table of the first two loci. A slight drift from the initial $(0, 0)$ has occured.}
\label{fig:tab-contour}
\end{figure}
We can also see the $10$ most frequent haplotypes compared to the initial $(0, 0, 0)$ haplotype:
\begin{CodeChunk}
\begin{CodeInput}
pop$haplotypes[order(pop$haplotypes$N, decreasing = TRUE)[1:10], ]
\end{CodeInput}
\begin{CodeOutput}
Locus1 Locus2 Locus3 N
279 -1 0 0 665
105 -1 -2 -2 539
270 -1 0 -1 517
269 -2 0 -1 509
173 0 -1 -1 482
160 0 -1 -2 423
179 0 -1 0 423
341 -1 1 -1 385
274 -2 0 0 378
241 -1 0 -2 358
\end{CodeOutput}
\begin{CodeInput}
pop$haplotypes[which(apply(apply(pop$haplotypes[, 1:3], 1, abs),
2, sum) == 0), ]
\end{CodeInput}
\begin{CodeOutput}
Locus1 Locus2 Locus3 N
280 0 0 0 255
\end{CodeOutput}
\end{CodeChunk}
In Figure~\ref{fig:example-pop-size}, the actual population sizes are compared to expected population sizes. This figure was made with following code:
\begin{CodeChunk}
\begin{CodeInput}
plot(pop$sizes, type = "l", xlab = "Generation",
ylab = "Population size", lty = 1)
lines(pop$expected.sizes, lty = 2)
legend("topleft", legend = c("Actual", "Expected"), lty = 1:2)
\end{CodeInput}
\end{CodeChunk}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{sizes}
\caption{The actual population sizes compared to expected population sizes}
\label{fig:example-pop-size}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Genetic drift of alleles}
\nopagebreak
To illustrate how genetic drift in terms of changed allele frequencies occurs, the allele frequencies after a different number of generations are recorded. The \pkg{fwsim} package also has the possibility of saving the intermediate populations, which is used to show how allele frequencies change during the evolution. Thus, genetic drift can be investigated as follows (\code{k} is the number of individuals in the initial population, \code{alim} is the limit of which alleles to plot and \code{gs} is which generations to sample allele frequencies from):
\begin{CodeChunk}
\begin{CodeInput}
library("fwsim")
set.seed(1)
alim <- 2
k <- 100000000
g <- 10000
gs <- seq(100, g - 1, by = 100)
pop <- fwsim(g = g, k = k, r = 1, alpha = 1,
mu = 0.003, gs = gs, trace = FALSE)
interhapfreq <- lapply(pop$intermediate.haplotypes[gs], function(hap) {
tab <- prop.table(xtabs(N ~ Locus1, hap))
as.vector(tab[which(abs(as.numeric(names(tab))) <= alim)])
})
freq <- data.frame(do.call("rbind", interhapfreq))
colnames(freq) <- (-alim):alim
plot(gs, freq[, alim+1], type = "l",
xlab = "Number of generations",
ylab = "Frequency", ylim = range(freq))
for (a in 1:alim) {
i1 <- (alim+1)-a
i2 <- (alim+1)+a
lines(gs, freq[, i1], type = "l", lty = a + 1)
lines(gs, freq[, i2], type = "l", lty = a + 1)
}
others <- 1-apply(freq, 1, sum)
lines(gs, others, type = "l", lty = alim + 2)
legend("topright",
legend = c(paste("Allele", c(0, paste("+/-", 1:alim))),
"Other alleles"),
lty = 1:(alim+2))
\end{CodeInput}
\end{CodeChunk}
Note that we only simulate one locus and set the population size quite large to get the asymptotic behaviour. The resulting plot can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:example-drift}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{drift}
\caption{Simulated genetic drift using an initial population of size 100,000,000, a growth of $1$ (meaning no expected growth), and a mutation rate of $0.003$.}
\label{fig:example-drift}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Genetic drift of alleles depending on mutation rate}
\nopagebreak
To illustrate how genetic drift in terms of changed allele frequencies for the 0 allele occurs depending on the mutation rate, the allele frequencies after a different number of generations are recorded for populations with different mutation rates. Thus, genetic drift depending on mutation rate may be investigated as follows (\code{k} is the number of individuals in the initial population and \code{gs} is which generations to sample allele frequencies from):
\begin{CodeChunk}
\begin{CodeInput}
library("fwsim")
mus <- c(0.001, 0.002, 0.003)
k <- 100000000
g <- 10000
gs <- seq(100, g - 1, by = 100)
set.seed(1)
freqs <- lapply(mus, function(mu) {
pop <- fwsim(g = g, k = k, r = 1, alpha = 1, mu = mu, save.gs = gs,
trace = FALSE)
sapply(pop$intermediate.haplotypes[gs],
function(hap) hap$N[which(hap[, 1] == 0)] / sum(hap))
})
plot(gs, freqs[[1]], type = "l",
xlab = "Number of generations", ylab = "Frequency for allele 0",
ylim = range(unlist(lapply(freqs, range))), lty = 1)
for (i in 2:length(mus)) lines(gs, freqs[[i]], type = "l", lty = i)
legend("topright", legend = paste("mu = ", mus, sep = ""),
lty = 1:length(mus))
\end{CodeInput}
\end{CodeChunk}
Note that we only simulate one locus and set the population size quite large to get the asymptotic behaviour. The resulting plot can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:example-drift-mut}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{drift-mut}
\caption{Simulated genetic drift using a population size of 100,000,000 and a growth of $1$ (meaning no expected growth).}
\label{fig:example-drift-mut}
\end{figure}
\section*{Acknowledgement}
\nopagebreak
The authors would like to thank Torben Tvedebrink, PhD; Søren Højsgaard, PhD; and Lisbeth Grubbe Nielsen, all Aalborg University, Denmark, for helping us improving the manuscript.
|
\section{The model}
\label{model}
The micellar gel sample in the experiment is taken in a rheometer with a cone-plate geometry to ensure uniform strain rate through-out the sample, and the upper plate is rotated with a constant torque while keeping the lower plate fixed. The detailed geometry of the rheometer, however, is not important for the observed findings.
We model the micellar gel medium as a collection of springs that are stretched by the applied torque when they are attached to the plates, and can detach when stretched by a high enough force. We do not associate the ``springs'' with individual molecules or micelles but rather with adhering, deformable domains in the material, whose size we do not know.
We assume the springs always remain attached to the stationary plate.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{rheology_schematic.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{A schematic illustration of the model. The ``springs'' (see text) can get attached to or detached from the upper plate. The experimental geometry can be thought of as effectively one-dimensional with the force being applied in a particular direction.}
\label{rheology_schematic}
\end{figure}
We use an effective one-dimensional description in which $X(t)$ is the total (angular) displacement of the upper plate as in Fig. \ref{rheology_schematic} and let $V(t)=dX(t)/dt$ be its instantaneous velocity.
Let us consider $f_i(t)=k_ix_i$ be the force on the $i$th spring at time $t$ where $k_i$ and $x_i$ are respectively the spring constant and the extension of the spring. Then the spring will pull the plate backwards only if it is attached with the plate. Thus, we can write down the equation of motion for the upper plate as
\begin{equation}
\label{modeleq1}
M\frac{dV(t)}{dt}+BV(t)=F-\sum_i s_if_i(t),
\end{equation}
where $M$ is the mass of the plate, $B$ a viscous damping coefficient, $F$ the force (actually torque) on the rheometer plates and $s_i$ is a two state variable which can take on values $0$ or 1. If $s_i=1$, then the $i$th spring is attached with the plate and it is detached otherwise.
Note that we have not specified the number $N$ of ``springs'' in the model. It is not clear how to do this in the absence of a detailed microscopic theory. It is entirely possible that $N$ depends on the imposed torque, or even that it is determined dynamically. We will assume it is a parameter of the system, and show the behavior in the $N-F$ plane.
Now, if the spring is attached to the plate, it will stretch with the
velocity of the plate; if it is detached it will relax. Thus
\begin{equation}
\label{force_relax}
\frac{dx_i(t)}{dt}=-(1-s_i)\gamma k_ix_i(t)+s_iV(t)
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is a kinetic coefficient. Thus,
\begin{equation}
\label{forcerelax2}
\frac{df_i(t)}{dt}=-(1-s_i)\gamma k_i f_i(t)+s_ik_iV(t).
\end{equation}
Assume for simplicity that all $k_i$'s are equal, define $\gamma k_i\equiv 1/\tau$, redefine $k_iV\to V$ in Eq. (\ref{forcerelax2}) and $B/k_i\to B$ in Eq. (\ref{modeleq1}) and then we set $B$ to unity. Ignoring inertia, we then obtain equations for $V$ and $f_i(t)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{model1}
V(t)=F-\sum_i s_if_i(t) \\
\label{model2}
\frac{df_i(t)}{dt}=-(1-s_i) f_i(t)/\tau+s_iV(t).
\end{eqnarray}
One could imagine more complicated modes of relaxation, for example the springs
can partly redistribute forces among themselves. But Eq. (\ref{model2}) is the
simplest possible model that contains the dominant mechanism. We will discuss
the effect of a diffusive term later.
The state variables $s_i$ are assumed to follow a stochastic dynamics. Let $P_i(t)\equiv$Prob($s_i=1,t$) be the probability that the $i$th spring is attached at time $t$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{modeleq3}
\frac{dP_i(t)}{dt}=-W_DP_i(t)+W_A(1-P_i(t)),
\end{equation}
where $W_A$ and $W_D$ are the attachment and detachment rates, the most
important input parameters of the model. Both $W_A$ and $W_D$ depend on $f_i$. It is possible to engineer these rates
to reproduce different behaviours by the model. The feature that is essential
to get negative fluctuations is that a spring with a large force on it gets
reattached and pulls the plate in the opposite direction.
For a suitable choice of parameter values, as
will be shown below, the model shows a jammed-flowing transition. This is not a
true phase transition, but a strong crossover from slow creep to free flow.
\section{The mean field calculation}
\label{meanfield}
In the mean field approximation, we replace the forces and the $s_i$ by their average values which we take to be the same for all $i$: $\langle f_i\rangle=f$ and $\langle s_i\rangle=s$ so that
\begin{equation}
\label{mfv}
\langle V\rangle=F-\sum_i\langle f_i s_i \rangle \simeq F-\sum_i\langle f_i\rangle\langle s_i \rangle=F-Nsf,
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the total number of springs. In the steady state, (\ref{model2}) will yield
\begin{equation}
(1-s)f/\tau=s\langle V\rangle \Rightarrow f= \tau_1 s\langle V\rangle/(1-s).
\end{equation}
Using the above relation in Eq. (\ref{mfv}), we find the velocity
\begin{equation}
\langle V\rangle=\frac{(1-s)F}{(1-s)+Ns^2\tau}.
\end{equation}
In two extreme limits, if $s=1$, $\langle V\rangle=0$ and if $s=0$, $\langle V\rangle=F$. In the steady state, $dP_i(t)/dt = 0$ so that
\begin{equation}
P_i=\frac{W_A}{W_A+W_D}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the steady state value of $s$, within the mean-field approximation, will be
\begin{equation}
s=\langle s_i\rangle = \sum_{s_i=0,1} s_iP_i= P_i=\frac{W_A}{W_A+W_D}.
\end{equation}
The mean force on each spring becomes
\begin{equation}
f=\frac{\tau sF}{(1-s) + Ns^2\tau}.
\end{equation}
The predictions of mean-field version of the model with the particular set of input parameter values as used for the simulation are shown with solid lines in Fig. \ref{flow_curve}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{flow_curve.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(a) The flow curves obtained from the simulation for various number $N$ of springs with a particular set of parameter values (see text), the lines are the corresponding mean-field solution. (b) The flow curve is shown for $N=200$ for clarity. The mean-field solution underestimates the threshold. The regions are roughly marked based on whether the LDF is quadratic (Q) or non-quadratic (NQ) and whether the fluctuations obey the conventional FR or not.}
\label{flow_curve}
\end{figure}
\section{Details of the simulation and the results}
\label{results}
We simulate the equations (\ref{model1})-(\ref{model2}) and the stochastic dynamics of the $s_i$ corresponding to (\ref{modeleq3}) through the kinetic Monte-Carlo (KMC) method \cite{kmc} to obtain the behaviour of our model. The advantage of KMC over the conventional Monte-Carlo method is that the time scale of the dynamics is entirely determined by the various rates of the problem.
We see from Eq. (\ref{mfv}) that $\langle V\rangle$ depends on three time scales. To simplify
the discussion, we fix $\tau$ and $W_A$ and take $W_D/W_A$ to have an activated
form. We recall that the mechanism of having a negative velocity (in the
direction opposite to $F$) events is that a spring with a large force on it
gets reattached to the plate before it has completely relaxed its force. This
can happen if the force relaxation is much slower than the
attachment-detachment kinetics of the springs. Thus, to have a large number of
negative events, we must have $\tau W_A\gg1$. To ensure this, we chose the
parameters as follows: $\tau=2.5$, $W_A=100$ and $W_D=W_Ae^{\alpha(f_i-f_0)}$,
with $\alpha=2.0$ and $f_0=1.0$. The springs can get attached with the plate at
a constant rate irrespective of the force on it. But if it is already attached
to the plate, it is more probable to get detached as the force on the spring
increases. The relaxation time of the attachment-detachment kinetics of the springs with these parameter values and $N\sim 100$ is of the order of $10^{-4}$. We have introduced the parameter $\alpha$ to obtain a reasonably
sharp transition from jammed to flowing state, at a force whose value is
controlled by $f_0$. Restrictig the form of $W_D$ allows us to worry about one
less parameter of the model.
The activated nature of the attachment-detachment is reminiscent of rheology
models with traps such as the SGR \cite{sollich97,sollich98,fielding00}. An essential difference between our model and the trap models \cite{sollich97,sollich98} is that the springs in our model
retain the forces on them even after getting detached from the plate whereas
the strain on a spring in the trap model becomes zero after it comes out of a
trap. The simplest trap models can not show negative velocity events.
The model shows a well-defined jammed to flowing transition that becomes sharper as we increase the number of springs $N$ as is shown in Fig. \ref{flow_curve} where the symbols are the simulation values and the corresponding curves are the mean-field solution. We see that the mean-field solution underestimates the threshold since mean-field overlooks the fluctuations and noise makes depinning easier. In Fig. \ref{flow_curve}(b) we show the flow curve for $N=200$ and the inset shows the behaviour in the jammed state in a semi-log plot where it is evident that even in the jammed state, the velocity is actually non-zero. The mean-field solution overestimates the threshold but agrees well with simulation results away from the transition.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{extF20_N200.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The behaviour of the model for the particular set of parameter values as specified in the text with $N=200$ and $F=20.0$ (a) The instantaneous velocity as a function of time, the thick line denotes the average velocity. There is a significant number of negative velocity events. (b) The large-deviation function (LDF) for the scaled coarse-grained velocity or work fluctuation (both are same since the applied force is constant) $W_\tau$. The quadratic function is shown by the dotted curve. We see that the LDF is quadratic. (c) $\ln[P(W_\tau)/P(-W_\tau)]$ vs $W_\tau$ for various $\tau$. (d) $(1/\tau)\ln[P(W_\tau)/P(-W_\tau)]$ vs $W_\tau$ for various $\tau$ collapse to a master curve that is straight line signifies that the velocity fluctuation obeys fluctuation relation.}
\label{extF20_N200}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{extF96_N200.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The number of springs is $N=200$ and $F=96.0$ which is very close to the threshold value. (a) The large-deviation function exists for the velocity fluctuation $W_\tau$ and it is non-quadratic. The quadratic function is also shown with the solid line. (b) $\ln[P(W_\tau)/P(-W_\tau)]$ vs $W_\tau$ for various $\tau$ as shown in the figure. The curves deviate from the expected straight line if FR was obeyed by $W_\tau$. (c) When we scale the various curves in (b) by $\tau$, they show excellent data collapse, but the collapsed data deviates significantly from a straight line implying the violation of the conventional FR. The straight line in the figure is just a guide to the eye.}
\label{extF96_N200}
\end{figure}
In the jammed state, there is a significant number of negative velocity events, however, there are none once the system goes to the flowing state. To understand the fluctuations in the jammed state and test the regime of validity of the FR, we keep $N=200$ fixed, and find a threshold force $F=97.0$. We take a value of the external force $F=20.0$ deep in the jammed state. From the instantaneous velocity as shown in Fig. \ref{extF20_N200} (a), we see that there is a significant number of negative velocity events. Since the applied force is constant, the statistics of velocity and power fluctuations are the same. We denote the velocity (or power) fluctuations with respect to the mean, averaged over a time interval $\tau$ by $W_\tau$:
\begin{equation}
W_\tau=\frac{1}{\tau}\int_T^{T+\tau}\frac{V(t)}{\langle V\rangle}dt.
\end{equation}
We sample time intervals separated by durations greater than the mean correlation time of the velocity. The LDF for the velocity fluctuation $W_{\tau}$ is shown in Fig. \ref{extF20_N200}(b). The LDF is found to be quadratic. Also, $W_\tau$ obeys the fluctuation relation as is evident from the plot of $\ln[P(W_\tau)/P(-W_\tau)]/\tau$ vs $W_\tau$ for various $\tau$ collapsing to a master curve that is a straight line going through the origin [Fig. \ref{extF20_N200}(d)].
One of the interesting features of the model is that if we are very close to the threshold, even though the large deviation function exists, $W_\tau$ doesn't obey the standard fluctuation relation, as is seen in Fig. \ref{extF96_N200}.
Here we keep the applied force $F=96.0$ which is very close to the threshold value. In this case, the LDF becomes non-quadratic as is evident from Fig. \ref{extF96_N200}(a). The plot of $\ln[P(W_\tau)/P(-W_\tau)]$ vs $W_\tau$ deviates from a straight line and if we scale $\ln[P(W_\tau)/P(-W_\tau)]$ by $\tau$, even though we obtain data collapse, the master curve is no longer a straight line as shown in Fig. \ref{extF96_N200}(c). As long as we are very close to the threshold force, similar nonlinear FR curves are obtained even if we change the number of springs $N$.
Our simple model thus offers an example of a system with substantial negative fluctuations and excellent data collapse consistent with the large-deviation property, but in which the antisymmetric part of the large-deviation function is strongly nonlinear.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{extF86_N200.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The number of springs is $N=200$ and applied force $F=86$ which is close to the threshold value. (a) The large-deviation function deviates significantly from the quadratic function (dotted curve) near its tail. (b) Plot of $\ln[P(W_\tau)/P(-W_\tau)]$ vs $W_\tau$ for various $\tau$ as shown in the figure. (c) When we scale $\ln[P(W_\tau)/P(-W_\tau)]$ with $\tau$, the curves show data collapse and the master curve is a straight line going through the origin ascertaining the validity of FR.}
\label{extF86_N200}
\end{figure}
However, if we move slightly away from the threshold but still within the jammed state, the LDF remains non-quadratic, but the fluctuation relation is obeyed over the entire range of our data (Fig. \ref{extF86_N200}). This shows that the source of deviation from the fluctuation relations is not merely the non-quadratic nature of the LDF, but it is an intrinsic nature of the model and stems from a complex mechanism near the threshold. We do not completely understand the origin of such behaviour, but further work in this direction should elucidate this very interesting phenomenon.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=3cm]{rheology_phasedia.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{For a certain number of springs, the system goes from a jammed creeping state at low external force ($F$) to a free flowing regime as $F$ is increased. Deep in the jammed state, the LDF of the velocity fluctuation is quadratic (Q) and obeys FR. However, as we increase $F$ towards the transition, close to the transition, LDF becomes non-quadratic (NQ) although FR is still obeyed. Very close to the threshold, the LDF is NQ and FR doesn't hold anymore. We do not see any negative velocity events beyond the threshold.}
\label{rheology_phasedia}
\end{figure}
Let us summarize the behaviour of the model in a schematic phase diagram, Fig. \ref{rheology_phasedia}. Deep in the jammed state, the LDF is quadratic (Q) and the velocity fluctuations obey the fluctuation relations (FR). Near the threshold force of the jammed-to-flowing transition, the LDF becomes non-quadratic (NQ) but the velocity fluctuations still obey FR. As we approach the transition, very close to the threshold, the LDF becomes non-quadratic and the velocity fluctuations no longer obey FR (NFR). We note that these features of our model are similar to the statistical properties of entropy-consuming fluctuations in jammed states of laponite suspensions \cite{sayantan12}.
The slope of the scaled FR plot, analogous to $\beta$ in Eq. (\ref{SSFR}), can be thought of as the inverse of an effective temperature. In the experiment, the effective temperature ($T_{eff}$) increases as $F$ increases \cite{sayantan08}. We have pointed out earlier that there is no reason for the number of attachment points $N$ to remain fixed in the model. In fact, it is more reasonable that $N$ changes with $F$, since large applied force can disentangle or break micelles or disrupt domains giving rise to more independent regions in the dynamics. To see the behaviour of $T_{eff}$ as a function of $F$ within our model, we have plotted $T_{eff}$ as a function of both $F$ and $N$ (Fig. \ref{effectiveT}). Let us first see what happens if we keep $N$ fixed. As we have shown in Fig. \ref{effectiveT}(a) for $N=200$ and $N=400$ (two solid arrows), $T_{eff}$ decreases as $F$ increases with constant $N$. This is in complete contrast to what was found in the experiment \cite{sayantan08}. However, as $N$ increases, $T_{eff}$ increases. Thus, to be consistent with our model, it must be that the system moves on a path on which $N$ changes with $F$. With this in mind, it is possible to identify a path in the 3$d$ space of $(N,F,T_{eff})$ where the model reproduces the correct trend of $T_{eff}$ vs $F$. One such possible path is shown by the dotted arrows in Fig. \ref{effectiveT}(a) and the corresponding $T_{eff}$ vs $F$ behaviours is shown in Fig. \ref{effectiveT}(b) for clarity. We also show in Table \ref{numbervsF} the particular number of attachment points for a particular force $F$ corresponding to this path. We emphasize that this is not the only possible path consistent with the experimental trends, and the particular path that the experiment will follow is going to depend on the microscopic details of the experiment.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{effectiveT.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{
(a) The effective temperature $T_{eff}$ extracted from Eq. (\ref{SSFR}) in arbitrary unit is plotted as a function of $N$ and $F$. If we keep $N$ fixed in the simulation, $T_{eff}$ decreases with increasing $F$ as is found from the two paths shown in the figure by two blue solid arrows corresponding to $N=200$ and $N=400$. However, if we consider a different path, one such possible path is shown by the red dotted arrow, where $N$ increases with increasing $F$, $T_{eff}$ increases on this
path. (b) $T_{eff}$ vs $F$ for the path denoted by the red dotted arrow in (a) is
shown for clarity. The number of filaments corresponding to a particular $F$ is
listed in Table \ref{numbervsF}.
}
\label{effectiveT}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline
F & 20 & 40 & 60 & 80 & 100 \\
N & 50 & 100 & 150 & 400 & 700 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The number of springs $N$ taken at a particular $F$}
\label{numbervsF}
\end{table}
\section{Discussion and conclusion}
\label{discussion}
In this work we have presented a simple model to understand a particular set of
experiments where it was found that the velocity (or power, since the applied
force is constant) fluctuations obey the fluctuation relations. The
force-dependent attachment-detachment kinetics of the springs with the plate is
the main mechanism behind the observed negative velocity. When the applied
force is very close to the threshold, the large-deviation function of velocity fluctuations becomes non-quadratic and the strong departures from a conventional fluctuation relation are seen. This is especially interesting
given that the large-deviation property continues to hold, and we obtain data
collapse when we plot $\ln[P(W_\tau)/P(-W_\tau)]/\tau$ as a function of
$W_\tau$, though the master curve is not a straight line.
A number of theoretical models \cite{farago02,farago04,baule09,sanjib11} of systems driven out of equilibrium by externally imposed noise display such a departure from the conventional FR where the LDF exists. Our model differs from these in that it rationalizes a specific set of experiments on systems near yielding, and relies on the amplification of fluctuations by a deterministic driving force.
We need more experiments and theoretical analysis to understand the
origin of such a phenomenon in our model.
The observation of a linear dependence of $\ln [P(W_\tau)/P(-W_\tau)]$ over a range of $W_\tau$ is not in itself our major finding, as a function that goes through zero will normally have a linear range. It is of greater significance (a) that the function has appreciable weight at negative arguments, suggesting that the model captures some of the essential physics of the experiment and (b) that we observe good data collapse even when the symmetry function departs from linearity.
A worthwhile future direction will be to sample
the rare events \cite{berryman10,anupam11} to improve statistics in the
tail of the distribution, possibly elucidating the nature of this deviation.
If we keep the number of springs taking part in the dynamics fixed, the observed trend of the effective temperature as a function of applied force is opposite to what was found in the experiment. However, it is more reasonable to vary the number of springs as $F$ changes, since larger applied force may break entanglements, rupture micelles, or disrupt adhering domains. This allows the model to reproduce the correct trend of $T_{eff}$.
In the model, we have allowed a simple local relaxation mechanism for the springs. One can imagine more complicated modes of relaxation, for example, we can allow the springs to redistribute forces among their neighbors:
\begin{equation}
\frac{df_i(t)}{dt}=(1-s_i)\bigg[-\frac{f_i(t)}{\tau_1}+\frac{-2f_i+f_{i-1}+f_{i+1}}{\tau_2}\bigg]+s_iV(t).
\end{equation}
We find that the presence of such a diffusive term doesn't affect the behaviour of the model much. During the attachment-detachment kinetics, other processes that could play a role include: spatial inhomogeneity and temporal variation of spring stiffness and their modification by local stretching and release, and the interplay of micellar lengths and relaxation time with imposed stresses \cite{nitin12}.
Finally, we expect that fluctuations near yielding in a wider class of systems could show features similar to those discussed here. We have in mind situations such as the dislocation-mediated flow of stressed crystals at non-zero temperature \cite{zippelius80}, the flow of glass through the mechanism proposed by Sausset {\it et al.} \cite{sausset11}, and thermally assisted depinning in general \cite{bustingorry12}. Fluctuations that take a region from the downhill to the uphill side of a pinning barrier, which are clearly more likely to happen near yielding, where effective barriers are small, should give rise to negative-velocity events.
\begin{acknowledgements}
{SKN would like to thank Sayantan Majumdar and Sumilan Banerjee for discussions. BC and SKN thank the TIFR Centre for Interdisciplinary Sciences, Hyderabad, for hospitality. SKN was supported in part by the University Grants Commission and SR by a J.C. Bose Fellowship from the Department of Science and Technology, India. AKS thanks CSIR for support as Bhatnagar Fellowship. BC acknowledges discussions with Peter Sollich, the hospitality of KITP, Santa Barbara where some of this work was done and support from NSF-DMR award 0905880.}
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
\indent
In the classical parameter estimation theory a fundamental role is played by the Cramer-Rao inequality. According to the latter the variance-covariance of an unbiased estimator is bounded from below by the inverse of the Classical Fisher Information Matrix, which is constructed from the logarithmic derivatives of the parametric statistical model. The Fisher Information Matrix provides a metric on the information manifold of the probability distributions of the model. A basic property of such a metric on a statistical manifold is its monotonicity under stochastic (information loosing) transformations. This means that the distributions are closer w.r.t. such metrics or become less distinguishable under such transformations. The well known theorem of Cencov \cite{cencov} states that the Classical Fisher Metric is the unique metric with the above monotonicity property. In the Quantum Parameter Estimation Problem there are new aspects in the parameter estimation inequalities. First a parameter of a quantum state is estimated using appropriate quantum measurements which provide classical probability distributions. These distributions give the classical Fisher metrics with corresponding Cramer-Rao inequalities. Second the question of the existence of metrics which are independent of the measurements and characteristic only of the quantum states is related to the existence of Quantum Fisher Metrics with the monotonicity property under completely positive maps of the states. The Theorem of Cencov-Morozova-Petz \cite{petz1,petz2} gives the general form of all monotone metrics. With respect to these metrics there is a hierarchy of Cramer-Rao type inequalities which provide bounds for the variance-covariance of unbiased estimators. While the highest bound is given by the Classical Fisher metric of the measurement probability, the quantum monotone metrics give lower bounds \cite{hayashi1}. The highest among them is given by the symmetric logarithmic derivative (SLD) and the lowest by the right logarithmic derivative (RLD). There is an extensive literature on the saturation of these inequalities for finite ensembles and in the asymptotic regime \cite{nielsen1,gill1,wiseman1}. We posed a question in the opposite direction. While the saturation of the inequalities cannot be achieved for all measurements and all types of quantum states, we asked whether there exist higher bounds for a class of measurements that give a less informative estimation. This would be useful in classifying the effectiveness of certain measurements which may actually be realized. Existence of higher bounds means less accuracy in parameter estimation for certain measurements. Given the fact that the SLD gives the highest bound which, anyway, is smaller than the classical Fisher bound, a higher bound, in the spirit of quantum metrics, can be derived if one goes outside the family of metrics resulting from the Cencov-Morozova-Petz Theorem. Since the non-uniqueness of the quantum information metrics is related to the non-commutativity of the logarithmic derivatives, it seemed natural to construct logarithmic derivatives indirectly through a phase-space correspondence. That is, for the given quantum state, we took the logarithmic derivatives of the corresponding Husimi function and mapped them back as operators in the original Hilbert space. Using these operator valued objects we derived a metric. But, as expected, at least for the case of one qubit, the form is not that of the Petz family of metrics. This means that our metric is not manifestly monotone. Nevertheless we investigated what could be its role in the hierarchy of Cramer-Rao type inequalities. We introduced a function which in some sense quantifies the deviation of the new metric from the SLD metric. Using this function we proved that there exist measurements for which the mean square error is bounded from below, with a bound even higher than the classical Fisher bound. This result could be useful in the investigation of the effectiveness of certain estimation procedures. \\
In the paper we first give a short introduction on the classical and quantum estimation problems with the corresponding inequalities. Then we present the necessary tools for the phase-space correspondence. Next we construct the new logarithmic derivatives and the new quantum metric. Using this we state a theorem concerning the new bound and apply it to an example of one qubit. The proof is given in the appendix. Finally we discuss open problems and further possibilities of this approach.
\section{The classical and quantum parameter estimation problem}
\indent
Here we present only the necessary concepts in order to establish the notation. We refer to the bibliography for the details \cite{amari1,hayashi1}. Let
\begin{equation}
S=\{p_{\xi}=p(x;\xi) | \xi = [\xi^{1},...,\xi^{n}]\in \Xi\}
\end{equation}
be a parametric family of probability distributions on $\mathcal{X}$. This is an n-dimensional parametric statistical model \cite{amari1}. Given the N observations $x_{1},...,x_{N}$, the Classical Estimation Problem concerns the statistical methods that may be used to detect the true distribution, that is to estimate the parameters $\xi$. To this purpose, an appropriate estimator is used for each parameter. These estimators are maps from the parameter space to the space of the random variables of the model. The quality of the estimation is measured by the variance -covariance matrix $V_{\xi}=[v_{\xi}^{ij}]$ where
\begin{equation}
v_{\xi}^{ij}= E_{\xi}[(\hat{\xi^{i}}(X)-\xi^{i})(\hat{\xi^{j}}(X)-\xi^{j})]
\end{equation}
Suppose that the estimators are unbiased, namely
\begin{equation}
E_{\xi}[\hat{\xi}(X)]=\xi \quad \quad \forall \xi \in \Xi
\end{equation}
Then a lower bound for the estimation error is given by the Cramer-Rao inequality
\begin{equation}
V_{\xi}(\hat{\xi})\geq G(\xi)^{-1}
\end{equation}
where $G(\xi)=[g_{ij}(\xi)]$
\begin{equation}
g_{ij}(\xi)=E_{\xi}[\partial_{i}l(x;\xi)\partial_{j}l(x;\xi)]
\end{equation}
the Classical Fisher Matrix with
\begin{equation}
l_{\xi}=l(x;\xi)=logp(x;\xi)
\end{equation}
the score function.
As it has been shown the Fisher Matrix provides a metric on the manifold of classical probability distributions. This metric, according to the theorem of Chencov \cite{cencov}, is the unique metric which is monotone under the transformations of the statistical model. This means that if the map $F : \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{Y}$ induces a model $S_{F}=\{q(y;\xi)\}$ on $\mathcal{Y}$ then
\begin{equation}
G_{F}(\xi)\leq G(\xi)
\end{equation}
That is, the distance of the transformed distributions is smaller than that of the original distributions. Thus monotonicity of the metric is intuitively related to the fact that in general we loose distinguishability of the distributions after applying any transformation to the information.
\indent \\
The case of Quantum Estimation Problem differs in two fundamental aspects from the classical one. First the parameters to be estimated are classical parameters of the apparatuses that prepare the quantum system to a given state. These parameters are measured through an interaction of the system with appropriate measuring devices. The measurements give classical distributions which must be estimated as in the classical case, and thus the estimation errors obey the corresponding Cramer-Rao inequalities. The efficiency of this procedure depends on the effectiveness of the measurements used. The immediate question is what is the ultimate bound for the estimation error. This bound must depend only on the state of the system and as it turned out it is given by the inverse of a quantity termed Quantum Fisher Information Metric \cite{amari1,hayashi1}. Let $\Pi =\{\pi(x)\}$ be the measurements used to estimate the state $\rho_{\xi}$ of the system. Then the probability distribution of the measurements is $p(x|\xi)=tr[\rho_{\xi}\pi(x)]$. The corresponding classical Fisher information metric $G_{\Pi}(\xi)$ satisfies the inequality
\begin{equation}
G_{\Pi}(\xi)\leq G_{q,s}(\xi)
\end{equation}
where $G_{q,s}(\xi)$ is the Quantum Fisher Information Metric of \cite{wiseman1,hayashi1}, while the index \textit{s} means \textit{symmetric} and indicates the way this metric is constructed, that is the way the logarithmic derivative is generalized to an appropriate operator. More specifically this operator valued quantity is defined implicitly by the equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \rho_{\xi}}{\partial \xi^{i}}=\frac{1}{2}(\rho_{\xi}L_{i}+L_{i}\rho_{\xi})
\end{equation}
and then $G_{q,s}(\xi)$ is defined by the equation
\begin{equation}
g_{i,j,q,s}(\xi)=tr(\rho_\xi \frac{1}{2}(L_{i}L_{j}+L_{j}L_{i}))
\end{equation}
From now on we write $g_{q,s}(\xi)$ as $g_{SLD}(\xi)$ denoting that it is constructed through a \textit{symmetric logarithmic derivative}.
The SLD metric is monotone under completely positive maps, but it is not unique. This fact is the second fundamental difference from the classical case. There are various approaches for the definition and construction of Quantum Fisher Information Metrics \cite{amari1,hayashi1,petz1,petz2}. The Cencov-Morozova-Petz Theorem \cite{petz1,petz2} gives a general characterization of monotone metrics using operator monotone functions \cite{petz1,petz2,kubo1}. For these metrics we have the inequalities
\begin{equation}
V_{\xi}(\hat{\xi})\geq G_{\Pi}(\xi)^{-1} \geq G_{SLD}(\xi)^{-1} \geq G_{M}(\xi)^{-1} \geq G_{RLD}(\xi)^{-1}
\end{equation}
where $G_{M}(\xi)$ is any monotone metric and $G_{RLD}(\xi)$ is the metric corresponding to the {\textit right logarithmic derivative} defined as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \rho_{\xi}}{\partial \xi^{i}}=\rho_{\xi}L_{i}
\end{equation}
For the case of one qubit that we analyze here, the monotone metrics have the general form \cite{petz1,petz2}
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=\frac{1}{1-r^{2}}dr^{2}+\frac{1}{1+r}g(\frac{1-r}{1+r})dn^{2}
\end{equation}
where $g(t)=\frac{1}{f(t)}$ and $f(t)$ satisfies $f(t)=tf(t^{-1})$.
The above inequalities satisfied by the quantum information metrics lead to the conclusion that, as far as the estimation problem is concerned, only the SLD metric has any practical use, though there are some cases where other metrics play a role \cite{hayashi1}. A great part of the literature on the estimation problem deals with the question of saturation of these inequalities mainly in the asymptotic case \cite{hayashi1,nielsen1,gill1}.
In the present work we pose a question in the opposite direction. We ask whether there exit measurements for which there is a higher bound in the estimation error. In the sequel, after introducing our phase-space construction of the logarithmic derivatives, we prove the existence of such measurements with a higher lower bound even higher than that of the classical Fisher metric of the corresponding measurement.
\section{Phase-space correspondence}
\indent \\
Since our interest is on the question of the existence of measurements with higher lower bounds of estimation errors, we restrict our analysis to the one qubit case. Then the Hilbert space is 2-dimensional and the information manifold 3d \cite{bengtsson1}. The state of one qubit is given by the density operator
\begin{equation}
\rho = \frac{1}{2}(\boldsymbol{1}+r\hat{n}\cdot \boldsymbol{{\vec\sigma}})
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\vec{\sigma}}=(\boldsymbol{\sigma_{1}},\boldsymbol{\sigma_{2}},\boldsymbol{\sigma_{3}})$ and $\hat{n}=(sin\theta cos\phi,sin\theta sin\phi,cos\theta)$ with $0 \leq r \leq 1$ , $0 \leq \theta \leq \pi$ , $0 \leq \phi \leq 2\pi$. Explicitly we have
\begin{equation}
\rho(r,\theta,\phi)= \frac{1}{2}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1+rcos\theta & re^{-i\phi}sin\theta \\
re^{i\phi}sin\theta & 1-rcos\theta
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
$r,\theta,\phi$ are the coordinates of the information manifold for the qubit. The dynamical symmetry group for the system is $SU(2)$ and the phase space is the unit sphere $S^{2}=SU(2)/U(1)$. Let $\Omega (\theta,\phi)$ be a point on $S^{2}$. The Weyl Rule
\begin{equation}
F_{A}(\Omega;s)=tr[A\Delta(\Omega;s)]
\end{equation}
is a map of an operator A acting on the Hilbert space to a function on the phase space. $\{\Delta(\Omega;s)\}$ is a parametric family of operators defined on the phase space, and called Stratonovich-Weyl Kernels \cite{brif1}.
The inverse map is
\begin{equation}
A=\int\limits_{S^{2}}d\mu(\Omega)F_{A}(\Omega;s)\Delta(\Omega;-s)
\end{equation}
where here $ d\mu(\Omega)=sin\theta d\theta d\phi/2\pi $.
We have
\begin{equation}
\Delta(\theta,\phi;s)=\sqrt{2\pi}\sum_{l=0}^{1}<1/2,1/2;l,0|1/2,1/2>^{-s}\sum_{m=-l}^{l}D_{lm}Y_{lm}^{*}(\theta,\phi)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
D_{lm}=\sqrt{\frac{2l+1}{2}}\sum_{k,q=-1/2}^{1/2}<1/2,k;l,m|1/2,q > |q><k|
\end{equation}
or explicitly
\begin{equation}
\Delta(\theta,\phi,s)=\frac{1}{2}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1+3^\frac{1+s}{2}cos\theta & 3^\frac{1+s}{2}e^{-i\phi}sin\theta \\
3^\frac{1+s}{2}e^{i\phi}sin\theta & 1-3^\frac{1+s}{2}cos\theta
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
For $A=\rho$ we get the quasiprobability distributions (QPD) $P(\Omega;s)=F_{\rho}(\Omega;s)$. For $s=-1$ we get the Husimi Q-function, which is non-negative and thus a probability distribution.
We have
\begin{equation}
Q(r,\theta,\phi;\theta_{1},\phi_{1})
=tr[\rho(r,\theta,\phi)\Delta(\theta_{1},\phi_{1},-1)]\\=\frac{1}{2}(1+rcos\theta_{1}cos\theta+rcos(\phi_{1}-\phi)sin\theta_{1}sin\theta)
\end{equation}
\indent \\
Now having a genuine probability distribution associated directly to the state of the system, and not specific to a measurement, we may construct a Fisher metric.
\begin{equation}
g_{ij,Husimi}=E_{Q}[\partial_{i}logQ(\xi;\Omega)\partial_{j}logQ(\xi;\Omega)]
\end{equation}
This was proposed as a way to avoid the non-commutativity difficulties of the direct Hilbert space constructions \cite{ghikas1,ghikas2}. In \cite{ghikas2} a classical Fisher metric was constructed for a squeezed state. As it turned out, this metric was proportional to the SLD one. In \cite{slater1} using this phase space approach a metric was given in the form
\begin{equation}
ds_{Husimi}^{2}=\frac{-2r-log\left(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\right)}{2r^{3}}dr^{2}+\frac{2r+(1-r^{2})log\left(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\right)}{4r^{3}}dn^{2}
\end{equation}
This metric is manifestly non-monotone, as it differs from the standard form of the monotone metrics \cite{petz1,petz2}.
The conclusion is that, though the construction of the classical Fisher metric through the phase-space distribution is very natural, it turned out that either it gives no new metric, or it gives one manifestly outside the monotone family. Motivated by these results we looked at an alternative route, that of a construction of quantum logarithmic derivatives through the phace-space correspondence.
\section{A new quantum information metric}
\indent\\
We propose the following equally natural construction: Starting from the quantum state, construct the phase-space distribution (Husimi function) and take partial derivatives with respect to the relevant parameters of the model. These are functions on the phase-space. Then using the Stratonovich-Weyl Kernels map these functions back to Hilbert space operators. Finally use these operators to construct, in the standard way, the Quantum Fisher Metric.
We present our results for the one qubit case.\\
We have for the new operator logarithmic derivative
\begin{equation}
L_{i}=L_{i}(r,\theta,\phi)=\int_{\theta_{1}=0}^{\pi}\int_{\phi_{1}=0}^{2\pi}\partial_{i}logQ(r,\theta,\phi,\theta_{1},\phi_{1})\Delta(\theta_{1},\phi_{1},1)\frac{sin\theta_{1}d\phi_{1}d\theta_{1}}{2\pi}
\end{equation}
We get
\begin{equation}
L_{1}=\frac{1}{2r^3}\left(2r+log\left(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\right)\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
r-3cos\theta & -3e^{-i\phi}sin\theta \\
-3e^{i\phi}sin\theta & r+3cos\theta
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
L_{2}=\frac{3}{4r^2}\left(2r+(1-r^{2})log\left(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\right)\right)\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-sin\theta & e^{-i\phi}cos\theta \\
e^{i\phi}cos\theta & sin\theta
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
L_{3}=\frac{3}{4r^2}\left(2r+(1-r^{2})log\left(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\right)\right)\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -ie^{-i\phi}sin\theta \\
ie^{i\phi}sin\theta & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
From these we have
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=\frac{9-5r^{2}}{4r^{6}}\left(-2r-log\left(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\right)\right)^{2}dr^{2}+\frac{9}{16r^{6}}\left(2r+(1-r^{2})log\left(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\right)\right)^{2}dn^{2}
\end{equation}
This is our new quantum Fisher metric, which is manifestly non-monotone. Using this metric we construct a new bound for the estimation error which for some measurements is even higher than that of the corresponding classical Fisher bound.
\section{Existence of a new bound}
\indent \\
We introduce three operators which quantify the deviation of our new metric from the SLD metric
\begin{equation}
h_{i}=\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial\xi^{i}}-\frac{1}{2}\left(\rho L_{i}+L_{i}\rho\right)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
h_{1}=\frac{4r^{2}+2rlog\left(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\right)}{4r^{3}}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{array}
\right)
+\frac{6r+(3-r^{2})log\left(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\right)}{4r^{3}}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
cos\theta & sin\theta e^{-i\phi} \\
sin\theta e^{i\phi} & -cos\theta
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
h_{2}=
\frac{6r-4r^{3}+3(1-r^{2})log\left(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\right)}{8r^{2}}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
sin\theta & -cos\theta e^{-i\phi} \\
-cos\theta e^{i\phi} & -sin\theta
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
h_{3}=
\frac{6r-4r^{3}+3(1-r^{2})log\left(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\right)}{8r^{2}}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & isin\theta e^{-i\phi} \\
-isin\theta e^{i\phi} & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
These operators are involved in the construction of the bound. Here we define the main quantities and present the main results. The detailed proof of the theorem is presented in the appendix.
\subsection{The General Bound}
We suppose that we approximately know the value of the parameter $\xi$, with an error $\epsilon$ and that, to be general, the POVM measurement depends on $\xi^{'}$ i.e. $\Pi=\Pi(\hat{\xi},\xi{'})$, where $\xi{'}=\xi+\epsilon$. Then the classical probability distribution to be estimated is $q_{\epsilon}(\hat{\xi}|\xi)=tr[\rho(\xi)\Pi(\hat{\xi},\xi{'})]$
We assume that the estimation is unbiased, namely
\begin{equation}
\xi^{i}=E_{q_{\epsilon}}(\hat{\xi^{i}}|\xi)\equiv \int \hat{\xi^{i}}q_{\epsilon}(\hat{\xi}|\xi)d\hat{\xi}
\end{equation}
Let $Y^{t}=(y_{1},y_{2},y_{3})$ and $Z^{t}=(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})$. We define the quantities
\begin{equation}
T_{\xi} = \boldsymbol{1}\sum_{j=1}^{3}y_{j}(\hat{\xi^{j}}-\xi^{j}) \quad T_{h}=T_{h}(\xi)=\sum_{j=1}^{3}z_{j}h_{j}(\xi)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
A_{k}^{j}(\xi)=\xi^{j}\int tr\left( \rho(\xi)\frac{\partial\Pi(\hat{\xi},\xi+\epsilon)}{\partial\xi^{k}}\right)d\hat{\xi}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
B_{k}^{j}(\xi)=\delta_{k}^{j}-\int \hat{\xi^{j}}tr\left( \rho(\xi)\frac{\partial\Pi(\hat{\xi},\xi+\epsilon)}{\partial\xi^{k}}\right)d\hat{\xi}
\end{equation}
We have
\begin{thm}
Let $V_{q_{\epsilon}}=\{v_{q_{\epsilon}}^{ij}\}$
\begin{eqnarray}
v_{q_{\epsilon}}^{ij}&=&E_{q_{\epsilon}}\left[\left(\hat{\xi^{i}}-\xi^{i}\right)\left(\hat{\xi^{j}}-\xi^{j}\right) |\xi\right] \\
&\equiv& \int \left[\left(\hat{\xi^{i}}-\xi^{i}\right)\left(\hat{\xi^{j}}-\xi^{j}\right)q_{\epsilon}(\hat{\xi}|\xi)\right]d\hat{\xi}
\end{eqnarray}
the covariance matrix w.r.t. $q_{\epsilon}(\hat{\xi}|\xi)$. \\
Then we have
\begin{equation}
\left( Y^{t}V_{q_{\epsilon}}Y \right)\left(Z^{t}G Z \right)\geq \left|Y^{t}\left(A+B\right )Z - tr\int T_{\xi}T_{h}\Pi(\hat{\xi},\xi + \epsilon)d\hat{\xi} \right |^{2}
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
The proof can be found in the Appendix. It is based on a similar Theorem of \cite{helstrom1}.\\
The above inequality is general, and it holds for an arbitrary measurement. The crucial point is that it depends on the operators h which depend only on the state, and not on the measurement. This means that for a given state we may extremize w.r.t. the measurements in order to uncover a possible new lower bound for a class of measurements. Since the general case is quite involved, and since our purpose is to show that there exist such bounds, we analyze in the next section the case of one unknown parameter.
\subsection{One Dimensional case}
For the one qubit case the parameters are $\xi = (r,\theta,\phi)$. Considering $\phi$ to be the single unknown parameter the theorem states that
\begin{equation}
v_{q_{\epsilon}}g \geq \left |a(\phi)+b(\phi)-tr \int_{\phi+\epsilon - \pi}^{\phi + \epsilon + \pi}\left(\hat{\phi}-\phi\right)h_{3}\Pi(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)d\hat{\phi}\right |^{2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
g=\frac{9}{16r^{4}}\left(2r+(1-r^{2})log\frac{1-r}{1+r}\right)^{2}sin^{2}\theta
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
a(\phi)&=&\phi \int_{\phi+\epsilon - \pi}^{\phi + \epsilon + \pi} tr \left(\rho(\phi)\frac{\partial \Pi(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)}{\partial \phi}\right)d\hat{\phi} \\
b(\phi)&=&1-\int_{\phi+\epsilon - \pi}^{\phi + \epsilon + \pi}\hat{\phi} tr \left(\rho(\phi)\frac{\partial \Pi(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)}{\partial \phi}\right)d\hat{\phi}
\end{eqnarray}
A general POVM in the present case has the form
\begin{equation}
\Pi(\hat{\phi},\phi)=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
x^{11}(\hat{\phi},\phi) & x^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi) + iy^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi) \\
x^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi) - iy^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi) & x^{22}(\hat{\phi},\phi)
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
Then we get
\begin{equation}
v_{q_{\epsilon}}g \geq \left (a(\phi)+b(\phi)-2h_{3r}(r)sin\theta \int_{\phi+\epsilon - \pi}^{\phi + \epsilon + \pi}\left(\hat{\phi}-\phi\right)(sin\phi x^{12}+cos\phi y^{12})d\hat{\phi}\right )^{2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
h_{3r}=
\frac{6r-4r^{3}+3(1-r^{2})log\left(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\right)}{8r^{2}}
\end{equation}
We note that the quantity inside the absolute value, according to the proof of the Theorem 1, is real.
Now for measurements independent of the estimated parameter we can state the result as a Corollary
\begin{cor}
Let the measurement be independent of the estimated parameter $\phi$, then since $a(\phi)=0$ and $b(\phi)=1$ the inequality simplifies to
\begin{equation}
v_{q_{\epsilon}}g \geq \left( 1 -2h_{3r}(r)sin\theta \int_{\phi+\epsilon - \pi}^{\phi + \epsilon + \pi}\left(\hat{\phi}-\phi\right)(sin\phi x^{12}+cos\phi y^{12})d\hat{\phi}\right )^{2}
\end{equation}
\end{cor}
We observe that the bound concerns a family of estimators with the same nondiagonal elements.
\subsection{Maximizing the bound}
We want to maximize the right hand side of the inequality. This means to find conditions on a class of measurements that maximize the quantity
\begin{equation}
C= \left( a(\phi)+b(\phi) -2h_{3r}(r)sin\theta \int_{\phi+\epsilon - \pi}^{\phi + \epsilon + \pi}\left(\hat{\phi}-\phi\right)(sin\phi x^{12}+cos\phi y^{12})d\hat{\phi}\right )^{2}
\end{equation}
Our purpose is to prove the existence of measurements for which the bound is higher than that of the classical Fisher metric. We impose conditions which the measurements must satisfy and which make them to have a very restricted form. This is only to prove our point, that is to prove that the class of measurements for which there exists a higher bound is not empty. A better approach would be to determine the most general form which has the property of being bounded with this higher bound. The non-negativity of the POVM gives the non-negativity of its eigenvalues, namely
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{1}&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(x^{11}+x^{22}-\sqrt{(x^{11}-x^{22})^{2}+4(x^{12})^{2}+4(y^{12})^{2}}\right) \geq 0\\
\lambda_{2}&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(x^{11}+x^{22}+\sqrt{(x^{11}-x^{22})^{2}+4(x^{12})^{2}+4(y^{12})^{2}}\right) \geq 0
\end{eqnarray}
The unbiasedness condition of Eq 33 with its LHS changed to $\xi^{i}+\epsilon^{i}$ is
\begin{equation}
\int_{\phi+\epsilon - \pi}^{\phi + \epsilon + \pi}\left(\hat{\phi}-(\phi+\epsilon)\right)\left(\frac{1+rcos\theta}{2}x^{11}+\frac{1-rcos\theta}{2}x^{22}+rsin\theta\left(cos\phi x^{12}-sin\phi y^{12}\right)\right)d\hat{\phi}\\=0
\end{equation}
where we have made the following general assumptions and specific choices for the matrix elements of the POVM
\begin{equation}
x^{11}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)=x^{22}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)\geq 0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\int_{\phi+\epsilon - \pi}^{\phi + \epsilon + \pi}x^{11}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)d\hat{\phi}= 1
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\int_{\phi+\epsilon - \pi}^{\phi + \epsilon + \pi}x^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)d\hat{\phi}= \int_{\phi+\epsilon - \pi}^{\phi + \epsilon + \pi}y^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)d\hat{\phi}= 0
\end{equation}
We assume further that $x^{11}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)$, as a function of $\hat{\phi}$ is symmetric w.r.t. $\phi + \epsilon$. Then if we choose
\begin{equation}
x^{12}=(tan\phi)y^{12}
\end{equation}
the condition given by Eq 51 is satisfied and we also have
\begin{equation}
sin\phi x^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)+cos\phi y^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon) = \frac{1}{cos\phi}y^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)
\end{equation}
Then the quantity to be bounded becomes
\begin{equation}
C= \left( a(\phi)+b(\phi) -2h_{3r}(r)sin\theta \int_{\phi+\epsilon - \pi}^{\phi + \epsilon + \pi}\left(\hat{\phi}-\phi\right)\left( \frac{1}{cos\phi}y^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon) \right)d\hat{\phi}\right )^{2}
\end{equation}
With the given assumptions and special conditions a bound for C comes from the nonnegativity of the eigenvalue $\lambda_{1}$. We get
\begin{equation}
x^{11}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon) \geq \left|\frac{y^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)}{cos\phi}\right|
\end{equation}
Assuming further that
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{y^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)}{cos\phi} \, > \, 0 \quad &for& \quad \hat{\phi} \, < \, \phi + \epsilon \\
\frac{y^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)}{cos\phi} \, = \, 0 \quad &for& \quad \hat{\phi} \, = \, \phi + \epsilon \\
\frac{y^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)}{cos\phi} \, < \, 0 \quad &for& \quad \hat{\phi} \, > \, \phi + \epsilon
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
c(\phi)=a(\phi)+b(\phi) \geq 0
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}
C \leq \left[c(\phi) - 2h_{3r}(r)sin\theta \left( I_{1}-I_{2}\right)\right]^{2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
I_{1}=\int_{\phi+\epsilon - \pi}^{\phi + \epsilon }\left(\left(\hat{\phi}-(\phi+\epsilon)\right) x^{11}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)+\epsilon \frac{1}{cos\phi}y^{12}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)\right)d\hat{\phi}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
I_{2}=\int_{\phi+\epsilon}^{\phi + \epsilon +\pi}\left(\hat{\phi}-\phi\right)x^{11}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)d\hat{\phi}
\end{equation}
Thus for the selected class of measurements we have a lower bound for the variance of the estimator which is different from that given by the SLD. The usefulness of this result is that this bound, for this class of POVMs is higher than not only the bound provided by SLD, which is higher than all those provided by the monotone metrics, but it is higher even from the bound of the corresponding Classical Fisher metric, as it is shown in the next section.
\subsection{An application }
To make the bound explicit we choose the form of $x^{11}$ so that an analytic integration is possible. We take
\begin{equation}
x^{11}(\hat{\phi},\phi+\epsilon)=\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2\pi}erf(\pi/3\sqrt{2})}Exp\left(-\left(\hat{\phi}-(\phi+\epsilon)\right)^{2}/18\right)
\end{equation}
and $y^{12}$ from Eq 58 considered as equality, and with the appropriate signs.
With this choice we get $a(\phi)=0$ and
\begin{equation}
b(\phi)=1-\frac{e^{-\pi^{2}/18}\left(-\sqrt{2\pi}+3e^{\pi^{2}/18}erf\left(\frac{\pi}{3\sqrt{2}}\right)-9\left(e^{\pi^{2}/18}-1\right)\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}rsin\theta\right)}{3erf\left(\frac{\pi}{3\sqrt{2}}\right)}
\end{equation}
For the classical Fisher metric for the measurement we have
\begin{equation}
g_{0,Fisher}(r,\theta,\phi)=\int_{\phi-\pi}^{\phi+\pi}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}log\left(p_{0}(\hat{\phi}|\phi;r,\theta)\right) \right)^{2}p_{0}(\hat{\phi}|\phi;r,\theta)d\hat{\phi}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
p_{0}(\hat{\phi}|\phi;r,\theta)=tr\left[\rho(r,\theta,\phi)\Pi(\hat{\phi},\phi_{0})\right]
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{ghi_oik_fig1_big.eps}}
\caption{Comparison of the different bounds for the variance of the estimator for $\phi$. For the plot, $\phi$ was chosen so that $cos\phi < 0$ and $\theta = \pi /2$, $B_{max}= C_{max}/g$. $B_{SLD}, B_{RLD}, B_{Fisher}$ are the corresponding quantities for SLD, RLD and classical Fisher metric. The x-axis is the parameter r of the state which is related to the puriness of the qubit.}
\label{fig:comparison}
\end{figure}
Now in order to plot the different bounds we have chosen a value for $\phi$ so that $cos\phi< 0$ and $\theta=\pi/2$.
In Figure 1 we plot $B_{max}= C_{max}/g$ and the corresponding quantities $B_{ SLD}, B_{RLD}, B_{Fisher}$ for SLD, RLD and the classical Fisher metric versus the parameter r, which is related to the puriness of the state. We see that the new bound is higher than all the others. The deviation becomes bigger for higher values of r.
\indent \\
\section{Discussion}
We have posed the question whether, for certain classes of quantum estimators the lower bound for the variance of the estimated parameter is higher than those given by the quantum Cramer-Rao inequalities. The current literature deals with questions of saturation of these inequalities, that is which measurements are optimal with respect to their accuracy of estimation. Here we asked whether there exist "bad" measurements for which the error is bounded from bellow with higher bounds. This would be useful in the classification of measurements with respect to their effectiveness. The highest possible bound given by the monotone quantum metrics is that of the Symmetric Logarithmic Derivative. This is majorized by the classical Fisher bound associated with the probability distribution of the measurement. To go beyond these bounds means to construct a metric outside the family of manifestly monotone metrics. To do that we constructed the operator logarithmic derivatives indirectly through the phase space correspondence. That is we mapped the state to the Husimi function, we took the logarithmic derivative and we mapped them back to Hilbert space operators. The related metric is manifestly not monotone. Then using an operator which quantifies the difference of this derivative from the symmetric one we were able to derive a bound for the variance. This depends both on the state and on the measurement. We were not able to determine the general class of the measurements for which the new bound is higher than the previous ones, but using an explicit example we showed that this class is not empty. Now observing that, under the conditions we have imposed on the measurement, we have that one of its eigenvalues is zero, namely $\lambda_{1}=0$, we see that the measurement belongs to the class of sharp measurements \cite{wiseman1}. Further work is needed to determine the class of all measurements which have this property of bounded accuracy and, most importantly, to analyze the physical realizability and nature of such measurements.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{INTRO}
It has been revealed in electric transport measurements that the electron-phonon interaction induces unique features in the nonequilibrium current through molecular junctions~\cite{Smit,Kiguchi} and atomic wires.~\cite{Tal,Agrait,Kumar}
In particular, when the phonon energy is small compared to the resonance width on the junction, the inelastic phonon scattering increases/decreases the current for small/large transmission probabilities as the source-drain bias voltage $V$ exceeds the local phonon frequency $\omega_0$.~\cite{Smit,Tal,Agrait,Kumar}
Quite a number of theoretical microscopic models, e.g. Ref.~\onlinecite{Viljas,delaVega}, including density-functional theories,~\cite{Frederiksen} have been devoted to such junctions (see Ref.~\onlinecite{Galperin} and references therein).
They revealed that a simplified model,~\cite{Egger} of a single-level quantum dot coupled to a local Einstein phonon mode causing fluctuations of the dot energy level,~\cite{Holstein} seems to suffice to capture this ubiquitous feature.
Recently, the current noise of an atomic wire has been measured,~\cite{Kumar} and it was observed that the electron-phonon interaction can enhance or reduce the noise, depending on the value of the transmission probability.
Based on the theory of Avriller and Levy Yeyati,~\cite{Avriller} the negative correction is understood as resulting from the anti-bunching of two electrons:
An electron cannot be inelastically scattered by a phonon when the final state is already occupied by another electron.
Avriller and Levy Yeyati considerations follow from the theory of full-counting statistics (FCS),~\cite{Levitov,Nazarov} which is most convenient for analyzing nonequilibrium electric transport.
Indeed, considerable effort has been invested in recent years in exploiting FCS to study various aspects of nonequilibrium quantum transport [e.g. Refs.~\onlinecite{Avriller,Levitov,Nazarov,Komnik,Gogolin,BUGS,Bagrets,UGS,Sakano,Haupt1,Haupt2,Novotny,Schmidt,Urban,Simine,Schaller,Maier} and references therein].
FCS refers to the probability distribution $P_\tau(q)$ of the charge $q$ to be transmitted through a quantum conductor during a certain measurement time $\tau$ at out-of-equilibrium conditions (we set $e=\hbar =1$).
The effect of coupling to a vibrational mode on the electric transport has also been investigated in this context, both for a weak~\cite{Haupt1,Haupt2,Novotny,Avriller,Schmidt,Urban} and a strong~\cite{Simine,Schaller,Maier} electron-phonon coupling.
In general, it is a rather formidable task to calculate the FCS of interacting electrons.
For this reason, most of the investigators have taken advantage of the Keldysh field-theory technique.
There, the characteristic function (CF),
\begin{align}
{\cal Z}^{}_{\tau}(\lambda )=\sum_{q}P^{}_{\tau}(q)e^{iq\lambda}
\ ,
\label{Z}
\end{align}
or the scaled cumulant generating-function (CGF)~\cite{Touchette} pertaining to the steady state,
\begin{align}
{\cal F}(\lambda)
=
\lim_{\tau \rightarrow \infty}
\frac{1}{\tau} \ln{\cal Z}^{}_{\tau}(\lambda) \ ,
\label{F}
\end{align}
can be formally written as a `partition function' or a `free energy', respectively, defined along the Keldysh time-contour.
The $\lambda$ appearing in these formulae is termed the counting field or the counting parameter.
However, even if one calculates the CGF successfully, one still needs to find a way to characterize the electronic correlations in it.
One promising approach would be to utilize the location distribution of the zeros of the CF, or equivalently that of the singularities of the CGF, by allowing the counting field $\lambda$ in Eq.~(\ref{Z}) to attain complex values,~\cite{Abanov,Kambly,DIvanov,FG}
similarly to the Yang-Lee theory of phase transitions.~\cite{Yang}
This idea is based on the recent observation that, upon transforming $\lambda$ into $u$,
\begin{align}
u={\rm e}^{i \lambda} ,
\label{cft}
\end{align}
the singularities of the CGF of noninteracting electrons transported between two terminals are all on the negative real axis of the $u-$plane.~\cite{Abanov,Vanevic,Hassler}
It suggests that singularities off the negative real axis would characterize electronic correlations.
From this aspect, molecular junctions are rather advantageous since second-order perturbation theory in the electron-phonon coupling would capture most relevant features of the electron-phonon correlations in them, allowing for obtaining the location distribution of the singularities.
Another recent ingredient is the fluctuation theorem (FT).~\cite{EG,Tobiska,Foerster,SU,US,Andrieux,Esposito,Campisi,Altland,Lopez,UK,Nakamura,Saira}
The FT is a consequence of micro-reversibility and can be understood as a microscopic extension of the second law of thermodynamics.
Despite its simple appearance, a detailed-balance like relation~[see Eq.~(\ref{FT}) below],
the FT reproduces the linear-response results, i.e. it ensures the fluctuation-dissipation theorem and Onsager's reciprocal relations close to equilibrium,~\cite{Tobiska,Foerster,SU,Andrieux,Esposito,Campisi} while conveying invaluable information at nonequilibrium conditions.
For molecular junctions, the FT has been addressed using the master-equation approach of FCS for incoherent electron transport.~\cite{Schaller,Simine}
The FT is considered to be a basic symmetry, such as gauge invariance, which the CF should fulfill.
In the present paper we investigate the FCS of electrons coupled to phonons under out-of-equilibrium conditions.
The quantity to be calculated and analyzed is the cumulant generating-function.~\cite{Haupt1,Haupt2,Novotny,Avriller,Schmidt,Urban}
Employing the Luttinger-Ward functional, \cite{Baym,Luttinger,Ivanov}, we obtain its full analytic expression, or equivalently {\it all} cumulants, in the wide-band limit, treating systematically the nonequilibrium phonon distribution via a self-consistent condition accurate up to second order in the electron-phonon coupling.
There are other attempts in the literature \cite{Novotny,Urban} to account for the nonequilibrium phonon effect avoiding the Luttinger-Ward functional; these
produce contradicting results; our first two cumulants agree with those of Ref. \onlinecite{Novotny}, which has not gone beyond the second cumulant.
(Our results disagree with those of Ref. \onlinecite{Urban}.)
The structure of the paper is as follows.
We begin in Sec. \ref{SECFT} with brief general explanations of the FT, the large-deviation analysis and singularities of the CGF.
We then introduce in Sec. \ref{CGF} the model Hamiltonian and present analytical results for the CGF and detailed explanations of the calculations and the approximations involved.
A self-consistent calculation based on the nonequilibrium Luttinger-Ward functional,~\cite{Baym,Ivanov,Luttinger} is relegated to Appendices~\ref{LW} and \ref{LCE}.
In Sec. \ref{RESU} we analyze the singularities of the CGF and demonstrate the probability distribution within the large-deviation analysis.
Section~\ref{SUMM} summarizes our results. Technical details of the calculations are given in Appendices \ref{CEP} and \ref{PHPR}.
\section{The fluctuation theorem and singularities}
\label{SECFT}
The definition of the probability distribution $P_{\tau}(q)$ in quantum systems requires special care.~\cite{Levitov,Nazarov}
Full-counting statistics theory begins with by introducing the CF [see Eq. (\ref{Z}) and Eq.~(\ref{ZKE}) below for the definition employed in the Keldysh technique] and then defining the quasi-probability distribution by the inverse Fourier transform of the CF,
\begin{align}
P^{}_{\tau}(q)
=
\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{-\pi}^\pi d \lambda
{\rm e}^{-i \lambda q} {\mathcal Z}_\tau(\lambda)
\ .
\label{ifotr}
\end{align}
More details are given in Sec. \ref{CGF}.
The $n$-th cumulant, in steady state, is given by the $n$-th derivative of the CGF, Eq.~(\ref{F}),
\begin{align}
\langle\!\langle I^n \rangle\!\rangle
=
\lim_{\tau \rightarrow \infty}
\frac{\langle\!\langle q^n \rangle\!\rangle}{\tau}
=
\frac{\partial^n {\cal F}(\lambda )}{\partial (i\lambda )^n }
\Big |^{}_{\lambda =0}\ .
\end{align}
For example, the average current is the first cumulant, and the current noise is the second one.
The FT in the context of quantum electric transport relates the probability of the current to flow oppositely to the bias voltage because of thermal agitations, $P_{\tau}(-q)$, \cite{Tobiska,Foerster,Andrieux,Esposito,Campisi,SU,Altland,Lopez,UK,Nakamura,US} to the distribution $P_{\tau}(q)$,
\begin{align}
P^{}_{\tau}(-q)=P^{}_{\tau}(q)e^{-\beta q V}\ ,
\label{FT}
\end{align}
where $\beta $ is the inverse temperature. The FT can be equivalently written in terms of the CGF ${\cal F}$, Eq. (\ref{F}), as
\begin{align}
{\cal F}(\lambda )={\cal F}(-\lambda +i\beta V) \, .
\label{FFT}
\end{align}
The relation (\ref{FFT}) restricts the possible locations of the singularities of the CGF in the $\lambda-$plane.
As an example, we depict in Fig.~\ref{uplane1} (a) the branch cuts corresponding to the continuous singularities of the CGF pertaining to two-terminal transport of noninteracting electrons, Eq.~(\ref{ZO}) below.
This CGF is $2 \pi-$periodic along the real axis of $\lambda$, which guarantees integer values of charge.~\cite{Levitov}
The branch cuts, depicted by thick lines, are at ${\rm Re} \, \lambda = (2 n-1) \pi$, where $n$ is an integer.
The FT ensures that the branch cuts are symmetrically distributed around $\lambda = i \beta V/2$.
(In Fig.~\ref{uplane1} (a), the upper left thick line is identical to the lower right thick line, etc.)
The $2 \pi-$periodicity is removed by the conformal transformation Eq.~(\ref{cft}).
Then the branch cuts are on the negative real axis of the $u$-plane [Fig.~\ref{uplane1} (b)].~\cite{Vanevic,Abanov,Kambly,Hassler}
The steady-state probability distribution, beyond the central-limit theorem, is derived within the theory of large deviations.~\cite{Touchette}
At steady state, realized in the $\tau \to \infty$ limit,
we scale $q=I \tau$ and ${\mathcal Z}_\tau \approx {\rm e}^{\tau {\mathcal F}}$.
Then the integral of the inverse Fourier transform Eq.~(\ref{ifotr}) can be estimated by the saddle-point approximation~\cite{BO} and the result is written with the rate function~\cite{Touchette} ${\mathcal I}$ as $P^{}_{\tau} \approx {\rm e}^{-\tau {\mathcal I}}$.
Since $P_\tau$ is real and positive, the saddle point is expected to reside on the imaginary axis of complex $\lambda-$plane.
Then the rate function is written in the form of a Legendre-Fenchel transform,
\begin{align}
{\mathcal I}(I)
=
-\lim_{\tau \to \infty} \frac{1}{\tau} \ln P^{}_{\tau}(I \tau)
=
\max_{\lambda} \left \{ i \lambda I -{\cal F}(\lambda) \right \}
\, .
\label{ratefun}
\end{align}
Here $\lambda$ is a purely imaginary number.
In most cases,
the CGF is real, i.e. the imaginary part of the exponent of the Fourier integral (\ref{ifotr}),
$\ln {\mathcal Z}_\tau(\lambda)-i \lambda q$,
is zero on the imaginary axis of $\lambda-$plane.
Then the imaginary axis is expected to be the steepest contour of the integral (\ref{ifotr}).~\cite{BO}
There are few exceptions where singularities of the CGF are on the imaginary axis~\cite{BUGS,Bagrets} as we will also find below.
The relation between the CGF and the rate function is analogous to that of thermodynamic potentials.
It suggests that singularities on the imaginary axis of the $\lambda-$plane would also cause characteristic features in the rate function.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=.9 \columnwidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{
The thick
lines represent branch cuts corresponding to the continuous singularities of the CGF of noninteracting electrons, Eq.~(\ref{ZO}), in the $\lambda-$plane (a) and in the $u-$plane (b).
The FT ensures that the branch cuts are symmetrically distributed around $\lambda = i \beta V/2$ in the $\lambda-$plane (a).
In the $u-$plane (b) the FT relates the branch cuts located inside and outside the dotted circle.
}
\label{uplane1}
\end{figure}
\section{Model Hamiltonian and cumulant-generating function}
\label{CGF}
Our explicit calculations are carried out for a simple model [Fig.~\ref{setup}], a single-level quantum dot coupled to a local Einstein phonon, which induces fluctuations in that level energy.~\cite{Mitra,Egger,Holstein,Galperin}
The model Hamiltonian is
\begin{align}
{\cal H}={\cal H}^{}_{\rm mol}+{\cal H}^{}_{\rm ph}+{\cal H}^{}_{\rm lead}+{\cal H}^{}_{{\rm tun}, \pm}\ , \label{HAM}
\end{align}
where the $\pm$ subscript is due to the presence of counting fields (see below).
The molecular bridge or the atomic wire is described by the Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{\rm mol}$,
\begin{align}
{\cal H}^{}_{\rm mol}=[\epsilon^{}_{0}+\gamma (b+b^{\dagger})]c^{\dagger}_{0}c^{}_{0}\ ,
\end{align}
in which $c_{0}$ ($c^{\dagger}_{0}$) destroys (creates) an electron on the localized level representing the molecule, of energy $\epsilon_{0}$, $b$ and $b^{\dagger}$ are the destruction and creation operators of the vibrations to which the electron is coupled while residing on the dot, and $\gamma$ is the strength of the electron-phonon coupling.
The vibrational modes obey the harmonic Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
{\cal H}^{}_{\rm ph}=\omega^{}_{0}b^{\dagger}b\ ,
\end{align}
where $\omega_{0}$ is the frequency of the Einstein phonon.
The leads are represented by free electron gases, of creation and destruction operators $c_{{\rm r}k}^{\dagger}$ and $c_{{\rm r}k}^{}$, and eigen energies $\epsilon^{}_{{\rm r}k}$,
\begin{align}
{\cal H}^{}_{\rm lead}=\sum_{\rm r=L,R}\sum_{k}\epsilon^{}_{{\rm r}k}c^{\dagger}_{{\rm r}k}c^{}_{{\rm r}k}\ .
\end{align}
Finally there is the tunneling Hamiltonian, coupling the leads to the molecule.
This part of the Hamiltonian is augmented by the counting fields.
Those appear as phase factors on the operators $c^{}_{{\rm r}k}$ and $c^{\dagger}_{{\rm r}k}$,
\begin{align}
{\cal H}^{}_{{\rm tun, }\pm}=\sum_{\rm r=L,R}\sum_{k}J^{}_{\rm r}e^{\pm i \lambda^{}_{\rm r}}c^{\dagger}_{{\rm r}k}c^{}_{0}+{\rm H.c.}\ ,\label{HTUN}
\end{align}
where $J_{\rm L}$ and $J_{\rm R}$ are the tunneling amplitudes between the left and the right lead, and the dot.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=.45 \columnwidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Schematic description of the single-level quantum dot coupled to an Einstein vibrational mode.
}
\label{setup}
\end{figure}
In terms of the tunneling Hamiltonian Eq.~(\ref{HTUN}), the characteristic function is~\cite{Nazarov}
\begin{align}
{\cal Z}_\tau(\lambda )
=
\Big \langle T^{}_{\rm K}
\exp \Bigl (-i\int_{\rm K} dt
{\cal H}_{{\rm tun},\pm}(t)_{\rm I}\Bigr )
\Big \rangle \ ,
\label{ZKE}
\end{align}
where K denotes the Keldysh contour, which runs from $t=-\tau /2$ to $t=\tau /2$ on the upper branch and returns to $t=-\tau/2$ on the lower one (see Fig. \ref{Keldysh}) and $T_{\rm K}$ is the time-ordering operator along that contour. The subscript I indicates time dependence in the interaction picture.
The $\pm$ notation indicates the branch of the Keldysh contour on which the tunneling Hamiltonian is effective, $+$ for the upper branch in Fig. \ref{Keldysh} and $-$ for the lower one.
In the long-time limit, the scaled CGF depends only on the the difference of the two counting fields
\begin{align}
\lambda=\lambda^{}_{\rm L}-\lambda^{}_{\rm R} \ .
\label{LAM}
\end{align}
As $\lambda_{\rm L}+\lambda_{\rm R}$ counts the number of electrons flowing into the dot, the fact that the CGF depends solely on $\lambda$ implies current conservation.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=.45 \columnwidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{The Keldysh contour
}
\label{Keldysh}
\end{figure}
Since in our case the electron-phonon coupling $\gamma$ is weak, we carry out the calculation up to second-order accuracy, ${\mathcal O}(\gamma^2)$.
There is a subtle point in this expansion.
A naive second-order perturbation theory is not capable of producing the correct nonequilibrium phonon distribution.~\cite{Frederiksen,Viljas,Haupt1,Haupt2,Novotny,ora,Rosch}
We therefore have to perform a re-summation of infinite diagrams by adopting the linked cluster expansion, see e.g. Ref. \onlinecite{UGS}, or a more advanced method, the nonequilibrium Luttinger-Ward functional, $\Phi$.~\cite{Baym,Ivanov,Luttinger,Park}
The first approach had been adopted in Refs. \onlinecite{Schmidt} and \onlinecite{Urban}, while the second had been employed implicitly by Gogolin and Komnik, ~\cite{Gogolin} and hence by later studies~\cite{Haupt1,Haupt2,Novotny,Avriller} based on Ref. \onlinecite{Gogolin}.
Although the second scheme is physically transparent since it relies on the self energy of the electron Green function, the price to pay is that a self-consistent calculation is required in order to ensure various conservation laws.
Here we follow the second approach based explicitly on the Luttinger-Ward functional, which enables us to perform the self-consistent calculations of the CGF in a transparent manner.
Details, are given in Appendices~\ref{LW} and \ref{LCE}.
In terms of the Luttinger-Ward potential, the cumulant generating-function is
\begin{align}
{\cal F}(\lambda )={\cal F}^{}_{0}(\lambda )-\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}(\lambda)
\ ,
\label{FFF}
\end{align}
where
${\cal F}_{0}$ is the CGF pertaining to noninteracting electrons, and given in terms of the Keldysh Green function $g_{\lambda}$ [see Eq. (\ref{INVG})] of the {\em electronic} part of the Hamiltonian Eq. (\ref{HAM}),
\begin{align}
{\mathcal F}_0(\lambda)
&=
\frac{1}{2 \pi}
\int d \omega
\ln
\frac{{\rm det} g_\lambda^{-1}(\omega)}
{{\rm det} g_0^{-1}(\omega)}
\ ,
\label{ZORD1}
\end{align}
with the trace being performed over the $2 \times 2$ Keldysh space.
The CGF satisfies the normalization condition
${\mathcal F}_0(0)=0$.
The effect of the electron-phonon interaction is included in the scaled Luttinger-Ward potential
$\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}$,
which consists of linked diagrams up to
${\cal O}(\gamma^{2})$ accuracy,
\begin{align}
\lim_{\tau \to \infty}
\frac{1}{\tau}
{\Phi}(g_\lambda)
=
\bar{\Phi}(\lambda)
=
\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}(\lambda)
+
{\mathcal O}(\gamma^4)
\ .
\label{slw}
\end{align}
\subsection{The electronic part}
The inverse of the Keldysh Green function $g_{\lambda}$ reads
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
g^{}_{\lambda}(\omega )^{-1}_{}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\omega-\epsilon^{}_{0}+i\sum_{\rm r=L,R}\Gamma^{}_{\rm r}[f^{-}_{\rm r}(\omega )-f^{+}_{\rm r}(\omega )]/2&i\sum_{\rm r=L,R}\Gamma^{}_{\rm r}f^{+}_{\rm r}(\omega )e^{i\lambda^{}_{\rm r}}\\
-i\sum_{\rm r=L,R}\Gamma^{}_{\rm r}f^{-}_{\rm r }(\omega )e^{-i\lambda^{}_{\rm r}}&-\omega+\epsilon^{}_{0}+i\sum_{\rm r=L,R}\Gamma^{}_{\rm r}[f^{-}_{\rm r}(\omega )-f^{+}_{\rm r}(\omega )]/2\end{array}\right ]\ ,
\label{INVG}
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where $\Gamma_{\rm L}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm R}$ are the partial widths of the localized level induced by the coupling with the leads,
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{}_{r}=2\pi\nu^{}_{\rm r}|J^{}_{\rm r}|^{2}\ ,\ \ \ r={\rm L,R}\ .
\end{align}
Here $\nu_{\rm L}$ and $\nu_{\rm R}$ are the densities of states in the left and right leads.
Each of the leads is specified by its chemical potential $\mu_{\rm r}$, such that $\mu_{\rm L}-\mu^{}_{\rm R}=V$, and their electron/hole distribution is accordingly given by
\begin{align}
f^{\pm}_{\rm r}(\omega )=\frac{1}{e^{\pm\beta (\omega-\mu^{}_{\rm r})}+1}\ .\label{FERMI}
\end{align}
Our calculation is confined to the extended wide-band limit, \cite{Haupt1,Haupt2,Novotny}
in which either the level broadening $\Gamma=\sum_{\rm r=L,R}\Gamma^{}_{\rm r}$ is larger than the all other energy scales except for the dot level $|\epsilon_0|$ or the dot level $|\epsilon_0|$ is larger than all other energy scales,
i. e.
\begin{align}
|V|, k_{\rm B} T, \omega_0 \ll \Gamma \, ,
\label{wbl1}
\end{align}
or
\begin{align}
|V|, k_{\rm B} T, \omega_0,\Gamma \ll |\epsilon_0|\ .
\label{wbl2}
\end{align}
In both cases, we can neglect the energy dependence of the dot density of states.
The normalized dot density of states is then replaced by its value at the Fermi energy [see Eq.~(\ref{DOS})]
\begin{align}
\rho_0
=
\frac{\Gamma^2}{4 \epsilon_0^2+\Gamma^2}\
.
\label{APPRDOS}
\end{align}
The calculation detailed in Appendix \ref{CEP} yields ~\cite{Levitov}
\begin{align}
{\cal F}^{}_{0}(\lambda )=
\frac{
({\rm arccosh}^{}X_\lambda)^{2}
}
{2 \pi \beta}
-
\frac{\beta V^2}
{8 \pi}
\ ,
\label{ZO}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
X_\lambda
=&
({\mathcal T}-1)
\cosh \frac{\beta V}{2}
-
{\mathcal T}
\cosh \frac{\beta V+2 i \lambda}{2}
\, .
\label{X}
\end{align}
Here ${\cal T}$ is the transmission of the localized level,
\begin{align}
{\cal T}
=
\alpha \rho_0
\ , \label{T_}
\end{align}
written in terms of the normalized density of states Eq.~(\ref{APPRDOS}) and the transmission probability at resonance
\begin{align}
\alpha &=
\frac{4 \Gamma^{}_{\rm L} \Gamma^{}_{\rm R}}{\Gamma^{2}}
\, .
\label{AL}
\end{align}
The counting field dependence is only through $X_\lambda$.
This result obeys the FT since when $\lambda \rightarrow -\lambda +i\beta V$, $X_\lambda$ is unchanged.
This CGF possesses continuous lines of singularities for $X_\lambda \in [1,\infty)$.
As discussed in Sec. \ref{SECFT}, in the $u-$plane these become branch cuts $(-\infty,u_-]$ and $[u_+,0)$,
where the branch points are at
$u_\pm=
{\rm e}^{-\beta V/2}(x \pm \sqrt{x^2-1})
$,
with
$x=\cosh(\beta V/2) (1-1/{\mathcal T})-1/{\mathcal T}$
[see Figs.~\ref{uplane1} (a) and (b)].
The zeroth-order CGF (\ref{ZO}) takes a particular simple form for a symmetric bridge $\Gamma_{\rm L}=\Gamma_{\rm R}$ at resonance $\epsilon_0=0$, for which the transmission is perfect ${\mathcal T}=1$ [see Eqs. (\ref{T_}), (\ref{AL}), and (\ref{APPRDOS})]
\begin{align}
{\cal F}^{}_{0}(\lambda )
=
i\lambda (V+i\lambda /\beta )/(2\pi) \ ,
\label{gaussian}
\end{align}
which describes Gaussian thermal fluctuations.
On the other hand, when the bridge is extremely askew,
$\Gamma_{\rm R}\ll\Gamma_{\rm L}$
or
$|\epsilon_0| \gg \Gamma$
and thus ${\cal T}\ll1$ one may expand the CGF
to obtain
\begin{align}
{\cal F}^{}_{0}(\lambda )
\approx
\frac{{\cal T}V}{2\pi}
\Bigl (\frac{e^{i\lambda}-1}{1-e^{-\beta V}}+
\frac{e^{-i\lambda}-1}{e^{\beta V}-1}
\Bigr ) \ ,
\label{bidpoisson}
\end{align}
which is the bi-directional Poisson form.
\subsection{The phonon-induced part}
The nonequilibrium Luttinger-Ward functional ${\Phi}$ in Eq. (\ref{slw}) results from the coupling of the charge carriers to the vibrational modes. We expand it diagrammatically in powers of the small parameter (see Appendix \ref{LCE} for details)
\begin{align}
g =
\frac{2 \gamma^2}{\pi \Gamma^2}
\, . \label{PARAG}
\end{align}
The relevant diagrams are shown in Fig.
~\ref{diagrams}: the second-order diagrams [(a) and (b)]
and two of higher-order diagrams [(c) and (d)].
Diagram (a) represents the Hartree term, which is ignored below since it is independent of the phonon distribution [see Eq.~(\ref{hartree})].
Diagram (b) represents the Fock term, which depends on the phonon distribution function at equilibrium [see Eq.~(\ref{fock})].
The actual nonequilibrium phonon distribution function can be obtained only by summing up to an infinite order (in the electron-phonon coupling) of diagrams.
The simplest way is to collect all ring-diagrams, such as (b), (c) and (d) in Fig.~\ref{diagrams}, is to exploit the random-phase approximation (RPA) [see Eq. (\ref{phirpa})] which yields
\begin{align}
\bar{\Phi}^{\rm RPA}(g_\lambda)
=
\frac{1}{4 \pi} \int d \omega \ln \det D_\lambda(\omega)^{-1}.
\label{cgfph}
\end{align}
This approximation accounts for the relaxation of the phonon mode by the particle-hole excitations in the electrodes. The RPA is expected to provide results accurate
up to second order in $\gamma$,
\begin{align}
\bar{\Phi}^{\rm RPA}(g_\lambda)
=
\bar{\Phi}^{\rm (2)}(\lambda)
+
{\mathcal O}(g^2)
\, .
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[hb]
\includegraphics[width=.5 \columnwidth]{fig4.eps}
\caption{Second-order diagrams, the Hartree (a) and Fock (b) terms.
Diagram (c) is one of the fourth-order ones, and diagram
(d) is one of sixth-order diagrams (a ring diagram).
The full lines denote electron propagators, and the dashed ones phonon propagators.
}
\label{diagrams}
\end{figure}
The dressed phonon Green function $D_\lambda$ in Eq. (\ref{cgfph}) is given by [see Appendix \ref{PHPR}]
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
D_{\lambda}(\omega )^{-1}
&=
\left [
\begin{array}{cc}
(\omega_{} ^{2}-\omega^{2}_{0})/2\omega^{}_{0}-\Pi^{++}_{\lambda}(\omega )&\Pi^{+-}_{\lambda}(\omega ) \\
\Pi^{-+}_{\lambda}(\omega )& -(\omega_{} ^{2}-\omega^{2}_{0})/2\omega^{}_{0}-\Pi^{--}_{\lambda}(\omega )
\end{array}
\right ]\ .
\label{fullphononGF}
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
In Eq. (\ref{fullphononGF}) there appears the Keldysh particle-hole propagator $\Pi$, whose lesser/greater components are given by
\begin{align}
i \Pi^{\pm \mp}_{\lambda}(\omega)
&=
\frac{\gamma^2}{2 \pi} \int d \omega^{\prime}
g^{\pm \mp}_{\lambda}(\omega^\prime + \omega/2)
g^{\mp \pm}_{\lambda}(\omega^\prime - \omega/2) \ .
\label{PIo}
\end{align}
It is convenient to express these propagators in the forms
\begin{align}
i \Pi^{\pm \mp}_{\lambda}(\omega)
&=
\sum_{{\rm r,r}^\prime={\rm L,R}}
i
\tilde{\Pi}_{{\rm rr}^\prime \, \lambda}^{\pm \mp}(\omega)
{\rm e}^{\pm i(\lambda_{\rm r}-\lambda_{{\rm r}^\prime})}\
,
\label{PI}
\end{align}
where $\tilde{\Pi}_{{\rm rr}^\prime \, \lambda}^{\pm \mp}$ describe the particle-hole excitations created in the $r$ and $r'$ leads.
Explicitly,
\begin{align}
&{i \tilde{\Pi}_{r r^\prime \, \lambda}^{-+}(\omega)}
=
\frac{
{g {\alpha}_{r r^\prime} \rho_0^2}
}{\beta}
{\rm e}^{\beta (\omega+s_{r^\prime} V)/2}
\sum_{i}
(z_i+{\rm e}^{-\beta (s_{r} V+\omega)/2})
\nonumber \\
&\times
(z_i+{\rm e}^{-\beta (s_{r^\prime} V-\omega)/2})
\ln z_i
\prod_{j \neq i}
\frac{1}{z_i-z_j}
\ ,
\label{tildepi}
\end{align}
where
$s_r=\pm1$ for $r=L/R$
and
$\alpha_{rr^\prime} = {4 \Gamma_r \Gamma_{r^\prime}}/{\Gamma^2}$.
Here $z_i$ ($i=1, \cdots, 4$) are
$z_1 = {\rm e}^{ \beta \omega/2} Z_{\lambda +}$,
$z_2 = {\rm e}^{ \beta \omega/2} Z_{\lambda -}$,
$z_3 = {\rm e}^{-\beta \omega/2} Z_{\lambda+}$,
and
$z_4 = {\rm e}^{-\beta \omega/2} Z_{\lambda-}$,
where
\begin{align}
Z_{\lambda \pm}
=&
X_\lambda
\pm
\sqrt{
X_\lambda^2
-
1
}\ . \label{ZPM}
\end{align}
The lesser components are obtained from the symmetry relations
\begin{align}
\Pi_\lambda^{+-}(\omega)
&=
\Pi_\lambda^{-+}(-\omega)\
, \nonumber
\\
\tilde{\Pi}_\lambda^{+-}(\omega)
&=
\tilde{\Pi}_\lambda^{-+}(-\omega)
\ .
\label{sympit}
\end{align}
For $\lambda= 0$,
Eq.~(\ref{tildepi}) reduces to the well-known form
\begin{align}
{i \tilde{\Pi}_{r r^\prime \, 0}^{-+}(\omega)}
& =
g \alpha_{rr'} \rho_0
\frac{\mu_r-\mu_{r'}-\omega}
{{\rm e}^{\beta (\mu_r-\mu_{r'}-\omega) }-1}
\, .
\end{align}
Having determined the dressed phonon Green function Eq. (\ref{fullphononGF}), we now use it to obtain $\bar{\Phi}^{\rm RPA}$, Eq. (\ref{cgfph}).
By using Eqs. (\ref{SPI}) and (\ref{API}), the determinant of the dressed phonon Green function is found to be
\begin{align}
-\det D_\lambda^{-1}(\omega)
=&
\left(
\frac{\omega^2 - \omega_{0}^2}{2 \omega_0}
-{\rm Re} \Pi^R(\omega)
\right)^2
+
{\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega)
\, ,
\label{detd}
\end{align}
where the retarded component $\Pi^R$ is expressed by the lesser and greater components upon exploiting the Kramers-Kronig relation, Eq.~(\ref{piret}).
The counting-field dependent phonon life time broadening, $\sqrt{{\mathcal A}_\lambda}$ is a crucial ingredient in our analysis. It is given by
\begin{align}
{\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega)
&=
\Pi^{-+}_{\lambda}(\omega) \Pi^{+-}_{\lambda}(\omega)\nonumber\\
&-\frac{1}{4}
[ \tilde{\Pi}^{-+}_{\lambda}(\omega) + \tilde{\Pi}^{+-}_{\lambda}(\omega)
+
\phi^S_\lambda(\omega)]^{2}
\, ,
\label{A}
\end{align}
where
$\tilde{\Pi}^{\pm \mp}_{\lambda}(\omega)=\sum_{\rm r r'} \tilde{\Pi}^{\pm \mp}_{{\rm rr'} \lambda}(\omega)$ and
\begin{align}
i \phi^{S}_{\lambda}(\omega )
=&
2 g \rho_0[1-2 \rho_0]
\sum_{i}
\prod_{s,s'=\pm}
({\rm e}^{\beta (s V+s' \omega)/2} +z_i)
\nonumber \\
\times
&
\frac{
\, \ln z_i
}
{\beta z_i}
\prod_{j \neq i}
\frac{1}{z_j-z_i}\
,
\label{PHILASS}
\end{align}
for the condition (\ref{wbl1}) and zero for the condition (\ref{wbl2}).
Collecting the results, we find that the derivative of Eq~(\ref{cgfph}) is
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial \bar{\Phi}^{\rm RPA}(g_\lambda)}
{\partial \lambda}
& =
\int \frac{d \omega}{4\pi}
\frac{
\partial_\lambda
{\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega)
}
{
\left(
\frac{\omega^2 - \omega_0^2}{2 \omega_0}
-
{\rm Re} \Pi^R(\omega)
\right)^2
+
{\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega)
}
\, .
\label{phrpa}
\end{align}
The $\omega-$integrations is carried out to
leading order in $g$.
The integrand has four poles, which within that accuracy are given by
\begin{align}
\pm
[\omega_0 + {\rm Re} \Pi^R(\omega_0)]
\pm i \sqrt{{\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega_0)}
\, ,
\label{4poles}
\end{align}
where we have used
${\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega)={\mathcal A}_\lambda(-\omega)$.
The real part of the retarded component in Eq. (\ref{4poles}) also shifts the argument of ${\mathcal A}$, which can be neglected since it is already proportional to the small parameter $g$, Eq.~(\ref{PARAG}).
The locations of poles of the integrand in Eq. (\ref{phrpa}) are complex functions of $\lambda$. Consider them first in the limit $\lambda\rightarrow 0$.
Since
$
{\mathcal A}_0(\omega_0)
=
(
2 g
\rho_0^2
\omega_0
)^2
$
is a positive real number, then at small enough $\lambda$,
the real part of the squire root satisfies
${\rm Re} \sqrt{ {\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega_0) }>0$
and thus the integration yields
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial \bar{\Phi}^{\rm RPA}(g_\lambda)}
{\partial \lambda}
& \approx
\partial_\lambda
\sqrt{
{\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega_0)
}
\, ,
\end{align}
up to ${\mathcal O}(g)$.
It follows that
\begin{align}
\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}(\lambda)
&
=
\sqrt{{\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega_0)}
-
2 g
\rho_0^2
\omega_0
\, ,
\label{fph}
\end{align}
which satisfies the normalization condition
$\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}(0)=0$.
Away from the origin $\lambda=0$,
${\rm Re} \sqrt{ {\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega_0) }$ may be negative. When this is the case we obtain
\begin{align}
\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}(\lambda)
& =
-
\sqrt{{\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega_0)}
-
2 g
\rho_0^2
\omega_0
\, .
\label{fphm}
\end{align}
Hence a branch cut appears at $\lambda$ satisfying ${\rm Re} \sqrt{ {\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega_0) }=0$.
In order to carry out a large-deviation analysis it suffices to consider the imaginary axis of the $\lambda-$plane, since there the rate function (\ref{ratefun}) is real.
On the imaginary axis, ${\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega_0)$ is a real function.
When ${\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega_0) > 0$
the imaginary part of $\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}$ is zero and thus the imaginary axis can serve as the steepest contour (the steepest ascent path)~\cite{BO} of the integral Eq.~(\ref{ifotr}).
When ${\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega_0) \leq 0$, there appears a branch cut on the imaginary axis.
One might have thought that the branch cut would be detrimental to the saddle-point approximation of the integral in Eq.~(\ref{ifotr}).
Here we point out that a complex integration along a path encircling the branch cut oscillates rapidly in the $\tau \to \infty$ limit and thus would be averaged out.
Therefore we will neglect the contribution from the branch cut.
Equations (\ref{A}), (\ref{fph}), and (\ref{fphm}), supplemented by Eqs.~(\ref{tildepi}) and (\ref{PHILASS}), are the main results of this paper.
Closed expressions, but confined to the first two cumulants, have been derived in Ref. \onlinecite{Novotny}.
In contrast, we obtain analytic expressions for the entire CGF, which enable us to examine its singularities and to fully analyze the rate function itself, as will be detailed in the Sec. \ref{RESU}.
To conclude this section we verify that our results obey the FT.
Exploiting the extended detailed-balance relation,
\begin{align}
\tilde{\Pi}^{-+}_{r r' \, -\lambda+i \beta V}
(\omega)
=
\tilde{\Pi}^{-+}_{r r' \, \lambda}
(\omega)
=
\tilde{\Pi}^{+-}_{r r' \, \lambda}
(\omega)
{\rm e}^{\beta(\omega-\mu_r+\mu_{r'})}
\, ,
\end{align}
and the relations
\begin{align}
{\Pi}^{-+}_{-\lambda+i \beta V}
(\omega)
&=
{\Pi}^{+-}_{\lambda}
(\omega)
{\rm e}^{\beta \omega}
\, , \nonumber
\\
\tilde{\Pi}^{-+}_{-\lambda+i \beta V}
(\omega)
&=
\tilde{\Pi}^{+-}_{\lambda}
(\omega)
\, , \nonumber
\\
\phi^S_{-\lambda+i \beta V}
(\omega)
&=
\phi^S_{\lambda}
(\omega)
\, ,
\label{elftrel}
\end{align}
we find
\begin{align}
{\mathcal A}_{-\lambda+i \beta V}(\omega)
=
{\mathcal A}_{\lambda}(\omega)
\, .
\end{align}
Therefore Eqs.~(\ref{fph}) and (\ref{fphm}) satisfy the FT,
\begin{align}
\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}(-\lambda+i \beta V)
=
\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}(\lambda)
\, .
\end{align}
\section{Results and Discussion}
\label{RESU}
In the following we confine ourselves to a symmetric junction, $\alpha=1$ ($\Gamma_{\rm L}=\Gamma_{\rm R}$), and thus the normalized density of states on the dot at the Fermi level dominates the transmission probability, ${\mathcal T}=\rho_0$ [see Eq. (\ref{T_})].
The numerical results are all obtained for the electron-phonon coupling constant, Eq.~(\ref{PARAG}),~$g=0.1$, unless otherwise specified.
\subsection{Average current and noise}
Figure~\ref{is} (a) shows the source-drain bias voltage dependence of the current $\langle\!\langle I \rangle\!\rangle$ at a finite temperature $\beta \omega_0=10$ (solid lines) and at zero temperature (dashed lines) for a perfect, ${\mathcal T}=1$, and a relatively weak, ${\mathcal T}=0.5$, transmission probabilities.
At perfect transmission the current is suppressed above the threshold $|V|>\omega_0$, because electrons are inelastically backscattered by phonons.
When the transmission is weak, ${\mathcal T}=0.5$, the current is slightly enhanced above the threshold.
These results are consistent with previous ones.~\cite{Haupt1,Haupt2}
A finite temperature tends to smear the kink structure of the ${\mathcal T}=1$ curve; it affects far less the average current at weak transmission, ${\mathcal T}=0.5$, where the solid and dashed lines almost overlap.
Figure~\ref{is} (b) depicts the current noise $\langle\!\langle I^2 \rangle\!\rangle$.
At perfect transmission the noise is absent below the threshold $|V|<\omega_0$ at zero temperature.
Thermal fluctuations which arise at finite temperatures induce additional noise below the threshold.
Although the current is suppressed above the threshold $|V|=\omega_0$ by the inelastic phonon scattering, the noise is significantly enhanced.
This indicates that inelastic phonon scattering broadens the probability distribution of the current. In the case of a weak transmission, ${\mathcal T}=0.5$, the temperature effect is less dramatic--the noise is simply enhanced.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=.75 \columnwidth]{fig5.eps}
\caption{
The source-drain bias voltage dependence of the current (a) and the current noise (b) for ${\mathcal T}=1$ and $0.5$.
Solid lines--$\beta \omega_0=10$;
dashed lines--zero temperature.
The vertical axes are normalized by
$\omega_0/R_{\rm K}$, where $R_{\rm K}=2 \pi$ is the resistance quantum.
}
\label{is}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Singularities and the rate function}
\label{sandr}
At zero temperature, it is possible to obtain a simpler form for the scaled CGF, which is useful for finding its singularities.
For positive voltages $V \geq 0$, the explicit form of the electronic part of the CGF, Eq. (\ref{ZO}), reads
\begin{align}
{\cal F}^{}_{0}(\lambda )
&=
\frac{V}{2 \pi}
\ln
\tilde{u}
\, ,
\;\;\;\;
\tilde{u}
=
1+ {\mathcal T}(u-1)
\ ,
\end{align}
where $u$ is defined in Eq.~(\ref{cft}).
The function ${\mathcal A}_\lambda$ which determines the phonon part is given by
\begin{align}
{\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega_0)
=&
4 \, g^2 {\mathcal T}^2
[
(1-1/\tilde{u})
({\mathcal T}-1)
V
+
{\mathcal T} \, \omega_0
]^2
\, ,
\label{alb}
\end{align}
for $0<V<\omega_0$ and
\begin{align}
{\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega_0)
=&
g^2
{\mathcal T}^2
\{
[ V (1-{\mathcal T} + \tilde{u}^2 (2 {\mathcal T}-1) ) + ({\mathcal T}-1
\nonumber \\ &
+ \tilde{u} (2-\tilde{u}+2 {\mathcal T} (\tilde{u}-1) )) \, \omega_0]^2 - u {\mathcal T}^2 (V
\nonumber \\ &
-\omega_0)[2 \tilde{u} \, \omega_0+u (V+(2 \tilde{u}-1) \, \omega_0)]
\}
/ \tilde{u}^4
\, ,
\label{ala}
\end{align}
for $V \geq \omega_0$.
Below, we investigate the analytic properties of the phonon-induced part of the CGF.
\subsubsection{Elastic phonon scattering}
\label{Elphsc}
As at zero temperature phonons cannot be excited when $0<V<\omega_0$, and electron transport at such voltages is hence affected only by {\em elastic} phonon scattering.
Figure~\ref{branchb} (a) shows schematically the square-root branch cut of $\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}$,
Eqs.~(\ref{fph}) and (\ref{fphm}).
We find that the $u-$plane is separated into two by the the brach cut.
This branch cut intersects the real axis at $u_0=1-1/{\mathcal T}$ [$u_0$ is indicated by empty dots in Fig.~\ref{branchb} (a)] and
$u_1 = {({\mathcal T}-1) (V+\omega_0)}/[V ({\mathcal T}-1)+ {\mathcal T} \omega_0]$.
Around these points, ${\mathcal A}_\lambda$ can be expanded as
\begin{align}
{\mathcal A}_\lambda
& \approx
g^2
\frac{4 V^2({\mathcal T}-1)^2}{(u-u_0)^2}
\, ,
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
{\mathcal A}_\lambda
& \approx
g^2
\frac{4 {\mathcal T}^4 ( {\mathcal T} \omega_0 + ({\mathcal T}-1)V)^4}
{V^2 ({\mathcal T}-1)^2}
(u-u_1)^2
\, .
\end{align}
Upon sweeping the transmission ${\mathcal T}$ from 0 to 1,
$u_0$ increases from $-\infty$ to $0$,
while $u_1$ increases but at ${\mathcal T}_{\rm C}=V/(V+\omega_0)$ jumps from $+\infty$ to $-\infty$.
Accordingly, we may define two regimes, or phases, ~\cite{DIvanov}
I (${\mathcal T}<{\mathcal T}_{\rm C}$)
and
II (${\mathcal T}>{\mathcal T}_{\rm C}$) as indicated in Fig.~\ref{branchb} (a).
This classification roughly captures the behavior of the average current and the current noise.
Figures~\ref{branchb} (b) and (c) depict the corrections induced by the electron-phonon interaction in the average current and in the current noise, respectively,
\begin{align}
\langle\!\langle I^n \rangle\!\rangle_{\rm ph}
=
\frac{\partial^n \bar{\Phi}^{(2)}}
{\partial (i\lambda )^n }
\Big |^{}_{\lambda =0}\ .
\end{align}
We find that the electron-phonon interaction always increases the average current under the conditions adopted here [Fig.~\ref{branchb} (b)].
On the other hand, the noise can be either enhanced or suppressed, depending on which regime the transmission is in [Fig.~\ref{branchb} (c)].
In regime I, one of the intersection points, $u_1$, is on the positive real axis, outside the unit circle $|u|=1$ [the left panel of Fig.~\ref{branchb} (a)].
Therefore, in the $\lambda-$plane, there is a nonanalytic point on the positive $i \lambda-$axis, which induces a weak non-convexity of the CGF as shown in Fig.~\ref{cgfrateb} (a).
[The non-convex region is indicated by an arrow there.
For comparison, we also plot the $g=0$ case (the dotted line) for which the CGF is convex.]
Figure~\ref{cgfrateb}~(b) exhibits the Legendre transform of the CGF,
$\tilde{ {\mathcal I} } = i \lambda^* I - {\mathcal F}(\lambda^*)$,
where $\lambda^*$ satisfies
$I=\partial {\mathcal F}(\lambda^*)/\partial (i \lambda^*)$.
The Legendre transform is multi-valued around $I/\langle \! \langle I \rangle \! \rangle_0 \sim 3$ (the thick line in the figure) because of the non-convexity of the CGF.
In contrast, the Legendre-Fenchel transform, Eq. (\ref{ratefun}), chooses the minimum value among them and provides the physical rate function ${\mathcal I}$.
[For the relation between the Legendre transform and the Legendre-Fenchel transform, see Ref.~\onlinecite{Touchette}.]
Then, similar to the way a first-order phase transition manifests itself in thermodynamics, a kink appears in the rate function.
We note that the location of the kink does not coincide with that of the peak;
the peak of the rate function is at $I=\langle \! \langle I \rangle \! \rangle$ where $\lambda=0$ and ${\mathcal I}=0$.
The physical consequence is that the elastic phonon scattering broadens the distribution by enhancing the probability of currents larger than the average value.
It is important to note that the
kink is a consequence of the non-convexity of the CGF on the positive real axis of the $u-$plane, a feature which is absent in the noninteracting-electrons case.
In regime II the two intersection points are on the negative real axis of the $u-$plane [the right panel of Fig.~\ref{branchb} (a)].
The CGF and the rate function pertaining to this case are plotted in Figs.~\ref{cgfrateb} (c) and (d).
The CGF is convex and the corresponding rate function is concave.
In this regime the peak position is shifted from that for $g=0$ [dashed line].
The elastic scattering by the phonons can either broaden or shrink the width of the rate function depending on the transmission probability as we deduce from Fig.~\ref{branchb} (c).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=.85 \columnwidth]{fig6.eps}
\caption{
(a) Schematic picture of the branch cut of $\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}$ in the complex $u-$plane below threshold, $0<V<\omega_0$.
The dashed circles are the unit ones.
The corrections induced by elastic electron-phonon scattering to the average current and the current noise are portrayed in panel (b) and (c), respectively.
The bias voltage is $V/\omega_0=0.5$. See text for the significance of ${\cal T}_{\rm C}$.
}
\label{branchb}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=.75 \columnwidth]{fig7.eps}
\caption{
The scaled CGF (a) and its Legendre transform (b) in regime I (${\mathcal T}=0.1$).
Solid lines are for $g=0.1$ and dashed lines are for $g=0$.
The bias voltage is below threshold, $V/\omega_0=0.5$.
The CGF is plotted as a function of the counting field on the imaginary axis.
The axes are normalized by
$\langle \! \langle I \rangle \! \rangle_0={\mathcal T} V/R_{\rm K}$.
The scaled CGF (c) and the rate function (d) in regime II (${\mathcal T}=0.5$).
}
\label{cgfrateb}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Inelastic phonon scattering}
\label{Inphsc}
Above threshold $V \geq \omega_0$, inelastic phonon scattering becomes possible.
The analytic properties of the scaled CGF in this regime depend on the bias voltage.
The branch cuts in the $u-$plane are schematically shown in Fig.~\ref{brancha} (a).
Three branch points, $u_1$, $u_2$, and $u_3$ can be obtained by searching for the roots of ${\mathcal A}_\lambda(u)=0$
[the filled dots in Fig.~\ref{brancha} (a)].
In addition there is another point, $u_{0}=1-1/{\mathcal T}$
[the empty dots in Fig.~\ref{brancha} (a)],
around which ${\mathcal A}_\lambda$ can be expanded
\begin{align}
{\mathcal A}_\lambda
& \approx
g^2
\frac{2 V({\mathcal T}-1) (\omega_0-V)}{{\mathcal T} (u-u_0)^3}
\ .
\end{align}
The branch point $u_1$ is always on the negative real axis such that $u_1 \leq u_0$.
From the positions of the other two branch points, $u_2$ and $u_3$, we identify three regimes, see Fig.~\ref{brancha} (a).
In regime I the two branch points are on the positive real axis outside the unit circle.
As ${\mathcal T}$ increases $u_2$ and $u_3$ approach one another and meet at ${\mathcal T}={\mathcal T}_-$.
Then in regime II, the two branch points are located symmetrically off the real axis.
Upon further increasing ${\mathcal T}$, $u_2$ and $u_3$ move in the complex plane and at ${\mathcal T}={\mathcal T}_+$ they meet on the real axis again.
In regime III, the two branch points are on the positive real axis inside the unit circle.
In Figs. \ref{inel} (a) and (b) we plot the CGF and the rate function pertaining to regime I.
The overall tendencies are similar to those found in regime I below threshold, $0<V<\omega_0$.
In the shaded area of Fig.~\ref{inel} (a) the CGF is nonanalytic and non-convex.
This gives rise to a stronger kink structure in the rate function [Fig.~\ref{inel} (b)].
Figures \ref{inel} (c) and (d) present the CGF and the rate function in regime II.
The overall tendency is again similar to those of regime II below threshold.
Because of the non-analyticities off the real axis, the statistics would not be reduced to that of noninteracting electrons.
We note that our identification of the three regimes roughly captures the behavior of the corrections to the current and the noise induced by the electron-phonon interaction [Figs.~\ref{brancha} (b) and (c)],
which oscillate as a function of the transmission probability.~\cite{Kumar,Avriller,Schmidt}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=.95 \columnwidth]{fig8.eps}
\caption{
(a) Schematic picture of the branch cut of $\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}$ in the complex $u-$plane above threshold $V>\omega_0$.
The dashed circles are the unit ones.
(b) The corrections induced by the electron-phonon coupling to the current and (c) to the current noise.
The bias voltage is $V/\omega_0=1.5$.
The boundaries between I and II and between II and III are at
${\mathcal T}_- \approx 0.551$ and ${\mathcal T}_+ \approx 0.908$,
respectively.
Regime II roughly corresponds to the negative-noise correction region.
}
\label{brancha}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=.75 \columnwidth]{fig9.eps}
\caption{
The CGF (a) and the rate function (b) in I (${\mathcal T}=0.1$).
The solid lines are for $g=0.1$ and the dashed ones are for $g=0$.
The bias voltage is above threshold, $V/\omega_0=1.5$.
Panels (c) and (d) show the CGF and the rate function, respectively, pertaining to II (${\mathcal T}=0.6$).
Axes notations are the same as in Fig.~\ref{cgfrateb}.
}
\label{inel}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Fluctuation theorem}
\label{FTIII}
The analysis of the CGF and the rate function in regime III [see Fig.~\ref{brancha}] is rather subtle.
At zero temperature, there develops a non-convex region in the CGF, and the origin $\lambda=0$ might enter it.
When this happens, second-order perturbation fails since the rate function does not satisfy the relation ${\mathcal I}(I=\langle \! \langle I \rangle \! \rangle)=0$ [this relation is related to the normalization condition ${\mathcal F}(\lambda=0)=0$].
We therefore study regime III at finite temperatures, taking as an example
$\beta \omega_0=10$, and show that the FT is crucial for obtaining a
physically-reasonable result.
Note that when the symmetry~(\ref{FFT}) holds, the FT (\ref{FT}) is also preserved within the large-deviation analysis, \cite{Lebowitz}
\begin{align}
{\mathcal I}(I)
=&
\min_\xi
\left \{
\xi I
-
{\cal F}(i \xi+i \beta V)
\right \}
\nonumber \\
=&
\min_{\xi^*}
\left \{
-
\xi^* I
-\beta I V
-{\cal F}(-i \xi^*)
\right \}
\nonumber \\
=&
{\mathcal I}(-I)
-\beta I V
\, .
\label{FTLD}
\end{align}
Figure \ref{probdist1} exhibits the CGF and the rate function at perfect transmission.
For comparison, we plot the corresponding curves for noninteracting electrons, Eq. (\ref{gaussian}).
As we have already noted when discussing the current noise, Fig.~\ref{is} (b), the width of the rate function is enhanced by inelastic phonon scattering [Fig.~\ref{probdist1} (b)].
The CGF obeys the FT, Eq. (\ref{FFT}), and the curves are symmetric around the dot-dashed vertical line at $i\lambda=-\beta V/2$ [Fig.~\ref{probdist1} (a)].
The peak of the probability distribution is shifted in the negative direction and the probability to find large current fluctuations is suppressed as compared with the noninteracting case [Fig.~\ref{probdist1} (b)].
In the shaded area of Fig.~\ref{probdist1} (a), the CGF is non-analytic and non-convex.
Correspondingly, the rate function has a non-differentiable point at $I=0$, see Fig.~\ref{probdist1}~(b).
As a result, although the probability to observe currents smaller than the average value is enhanced by the inelastic phonon scattering, the probability to find negative currents $I<0$ is strongly suppressed.
This is consistent with the FT (\ref{FT}), which states that although thermal agitations generate current flowing in the opposite direction to the source-drain bias, that probability is exponentially suppressed at low temperatures. Note that previous studies report on a finite current flowing oppositely to the bias at zero temperature [see e.g. Eq. (13) in Ref.~\onlinecite{Avriller}] in disagreement with the FT, although it may be quantitatively small.
This can be easily seen by calculating the probability distribution of the transmitted charge $q$ using the CGF as given by Eq. (13) of Ref.~\onlinecite{Avriller} and the inverse Fourier transform Eq.~(\ref{ifotr}),
\begin{align}
P^{}_{\tau}(q)
&\approx
\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{-\pi}^\pi d \lambda
{\rm e}^{-i \lambda q + i \bar{q}_0 \lambda + \bar{q}_1 ({\rm e}^{-i \lambda}-1)}
\nonumber \\
&=
\frac{
{\rm e}^{- \bar{q}_1} {\bar{q}_1}^{\; \bar{q}_0-q}
}
{(\bar{q}_0-q)!}
\theta(\bar{q}_0-q)
\, ,
\end{align}
{where the parameters $\bar{q}_{0}$ and $\bar{q}_{1}$ are defined in Ref.~\onlinecite{Avriller}. }
In the limit of zero temperature $\beta \to \infty$
this probability distribution remains finite at $q<\bar{q}_0$ including negative the $q$ regime, which violates the FT (\ref{FT}) .
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=0.75 \columnwidth]{fig10.eps}
\caption{
(a) The CGF and (b) the rate function for ${\mathcal T}=1$, $V/\omega_0=1.5$,
and $\beta \omega_0=10$.
The solid (dotted) lines show results with ($g=0.1$) and without ($g=0$) electron-phonon interaction, respectively.
In the shaded area of panel (a) the CGF for interacting case is non-analytic and non-convex, resulting in a non-differentiable point of the rate function at $I=0$ (b).
Axes are normalized by
$\langle\!\langle I \rangle\!\rangle_0 = V/R_{\rm K}$.
}
\label{probdist1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Discussion}
Recently, Kumar {\it et al}~ \cite{Kumar} have explored experimentally the possibility to identify different regimes, as implied by the sign of the correction to the noise induced by the coupling with the phonons,~\cite{Schmidt,Avriller} as depicted in Fig.~\ref{brancha} (c).
Above the threshold, our classification predicts three regimes, similarly to Ref. \onlinecite{Kumar}.
However, the critical points quoted there,
$
{\mathcal T}_{\pm}^{\rm Kumar}
=
1/2 \pm 1/(2 \sqrt{2})
\approx
0.85,0.15
$,
are different from ours.
Figure \ref{phasediagram} summarizes the regimes found in Sec. \ref{sandr}.
Above the threshold, our critical points ${\mathcal T}_\pm$ depend on the bias voltage, with ${\mathcal T}_-=1/2$ and ${\mathcal T}_+=1$ in the
$V \to \omega_0$ limit.
Hence, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the classification of Ref.~\onlinecite{Kumar} and ours although we expect the regime II above the threshold roughly correspond to the negative phonon-induced noise regime.
Since oscillations in higher cumulants are ubiquitous~\cite{FlindtPNAS,Flindt,Schmidt,Avriller,Golubev} and are dominated by singularities close to $\lambda=0$ as detailed in Ref.~\onlinecite{FlindtPNAS,Flindt},
it seems to be legitimate to utilize the location distribution of the singularities itself for the classification.~\cite{Kambly,DIvanov,FG}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=.9 \columnwidth]{fig11.eps}
\caption{Phase diagram summarizing the regimes discussed in Sec. \ref{sandr}. }
\label{phasediagram}
\end{figure}
It is worthwhile to expound upon this point.
Previous studies~\cite{Kumar,Avriller,Novotny,Schmidt} have considered the changes of slope of the $n$th cumulant at threshold,
\begin{align}
\Delta
\langle\!\langle I^{n} \rangle\!\rangle_{\rm ph}'
=
\left. \partial_V \langle\!\langle I^{n} \rangle\!\rangle_{\rm ph}
\right|_{V=\omega_0+0}
-
\left. \partial_V \langle\!\langle I^{n} \rangle\!\rangle_{\rm ph}
\right|_{V=\omega_0-0}
\, ,
\end{align}
as guidelines for the classifications of the various regimes. If we adopt this scheme, we find
[see Eqs. (\ref{fph}), (\ref{alb}) and (\ref{ala})]
\begin{align}
\Delta (\bar{\Phi}^{(2)})'
=
\left. \partial_V
\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}
\right|_{V=\omega_0+0}
-
\left. \partial_V
\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}
\right|_{V=\omega_0-0}
\ ,
\end{align}
which upon expanding becomes
\begin{align}
&\Delta (\bar{\Phi}^{(2)})'= \frac{ {\mathcal T}^2 }{2}
(5-8 {\mathcal T}) i \lambda
\nonumber \\
&+
g \frac{ {\mathcal T}^2 }{4}
(17-60 {\mathcal T}+48 {\mathcal T}^2) (i \lambda)^2
\nonumber \\
&+
g \frac{ {\mathcal T}^2 }{12}
(77-392 {\mathcal T}+642 {\mathcal T}^2-336 {\mathcal T}^3) (i \lambda)^3
\nonumber \\
&+
\cdots
\, .
\end{align}
We see that the slope difference of the $n=1$ cumulant changes its sign at
${\mathcal T}=0.635$, that of $n=2$ at ${\mathcal T}=0.434,0.816$, etc.
In the $n=2$ case, the result is compatible with that of Ref. \onlinecite{Novotny}.
For $n=3$, we obtain three zeros (at ${\mathcal T}=0.449,0.576,0.885$) similarly to Refs. \onlinecite{Avriller,Schmidt}, though the positions are different. In general, the coefficient of $\lambda^n$ in the expansion is an $n+2$th-degree polynomial function of ${\mathcal T}$, yielding oscillations as a function of ${\mathcal T}$, which is one example of the universal oscillations. \cite{FlindtPNAS,Berry}
From the higher cumulants, we obtain more zeros, but it is unclear what useful information can be extracted of them. In contrast, the topology of the singularity distribution is distinct and, in our opinion, provides a better way to classify regimes where electron transport is affected differently by the coupling with the phonons.
However, as a direct connection between the singularity distribution and the phonon-induced noise seems to be absent at the moment, it is not surprising that we obtain just poor quantitative agreements between our critical points and the positions of the zeros for the phonon-induced noise in Figs.~\ref{branchb} (c) and \ref{brancha} (c).
Another comment related to previous studies has to do with the high-bias limit. Urban {\it et. al.}~\cite{Urban} have suggested that in that limit, i.e., for $\omega_0 \ll V \ll \Gamma$, the correction induced by the electron-phonon coupling to the cumulants scales as
$
\langle\!\langle I^{n+1} \rangle\!\rangle_{\rm ph}/
\langle\!\langle I^n \rangle\!\rangle_{\rm ph}
\sim
V/\omega_0$. We can use our result Eq.~(\ref{ala}) to obtain in this regime the expansion
\begin{align}
{\mathcal A}_\lambda(\omega_0)
\approx
4 g^2 {\mathcal T}^4 \omega_0
+
2 g^2 {\mathcal T}^4 V^2 (4 {\mathcal T}-3) i \lambda
+
\cdots \, \ ,
\end{align}
which implies a stronger scaling,
\begin{align}
\frac{
\langle\!\langle I^{n+1} \rangle\!\rangle_{\rm ph}
}{
\langle\!\langle I^{n} \rangle\!\rangle_{\rm ph}
}
\approx
\left(n-\frac{1}{2} \right)
\left( \frac{3}{2} -2 {\mathcal T} \right)
\left( \frac{V}{\omega_0} \right)^2
\, .
\end{align}
Our result thus extends that of Ref. \onlinecite{Novotny}, where $\langle\!\langle I^{2} \rangle\!\rangle_{\rm ph} \propto V^4$ was reported. We note that our phonon-induced part of the CGF, Eq. (\ref{cgfph}), is already different form that of Urban {\it et. al.}, Eq.~(11) in Ref.~\onlinecite{Urban}.
A comment on the validity of second-order perturbation theory is called for.
Flindt {\it et. al.} \cite{Flindt} have analyzed the FCS of sequential transport through a quantum dot containing two levels.~\cite{Belzig}
They have assumed identical incoming rates but different outgoing ones
for the two levels and analyzed the approximate CGF, derived by expanding in the ratio of the two outgoing rates, taken to be a small parameter.
They have noticed a peculiar behavior:
The agreement between the cumulants obtained by differentiating the approximate CGF (with respect to the counting field) and those derived by differentiating the CGF before expanding it was good for the low-order cumulants, but failed completely for the higher-order ones.
In our case, the CGF is obtained as an expansion in the electron-phonon coupling and thus it is plausible that the unphysical results which we encountered around regime III for $V>\omega_0$ at zero temperature, may have a similar origin to the apparent discrepancy reported in Ref. \onlinecite{Flindt}.
This fault may be resolved by accounting for all orders in the electron-phonon coupling.
However, getting analytical results seems to be technically complicated and almost inevitably requires numerical methods. \cite{Park}
Another example of the FCS for interacting electrons is found in transport through a quantum dot in the Kondo regime.
Recently, Sakano {\it et. al.} have calculated the CGF for the $SU(N)-$impurity Anderson model, ~\cite{Sakano} using the renormalized perturbation theory.
Their result is exact up to cubic order in the source-drain bias voltage ${\mathcal O}(V^3)$ for a particle-hole symmetric case, and is quadratic in $u$. This is interpreted as the sum of the CGF for single-particle transfer and that for two-particle transfer.
In our case, the phonon part of the CGF at zero temperature, to leading order in $V$, can be obtained from Eqs.~(\ref{fph}) and (\ref{alb}) in the form
\begin{align}
\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}
&\approx
2 g V
\sum_{n=1}^\infty
\frac{ {\mathcal T}^{n+1} }{({\mathcal T}-1)^n}
(u^n-1)
\nonumber \\
&=
\frac{
2 g {\mathcal T} ({\mathcal T}-1)(u-1)
}{u-u_0}
V
\, , \label{SAK}
\end{align}
where $u_{0}=1-1/{\mathcal T}$.
One may interpret the first right-hand side of Eq. (\ref{SAK}) as a sum of independent $n$-electron transfers.
However, the second line indicates that the CGF is non-analytic on the negative real axis of the $u-$plane at $u_0 \leq 0$.
Therefore, within the first order expansion in $V$, the electron transfer statistics may be reduced to that of noninteracting electrons.~\cite{Abanov}
This example suggests that there exist certain subtleties in interpreting the CGF for interacting electrons.
\section{summary}
\label{SUMM}
We have investigated the full-counting statistics of currents mediated by elastic and inelastic electron-phonon scattering.
In the extended wide-band limit, we obtained analytic expressions for the cumulant generating-function, accurate up to second order in the electron-phonon coupling.
Our results are applicable for finite temperatures and bias voltages and satisfy the fluctuation theorem.
Using those we analyzed the locations of singularities of the CGF.
The singularities are symmetrically distributed in the $\lambda-$plane as to obey the fluctuation theorem.
The singularities in $u-$ plane, which appear because of the electron-phonon interaction, classify specific regimes in which the dependence of the electron transfer statistics on the bare transmission is distinct.
For small transmission probabilities we find singularities of the CGF on the positive real axis satisfying $u>1$.
Around the singularities, the CGF is non-convex, which results in a kink of the rate function.
Such a kink, derived within the large-deviation analysis resembles a first-order phase transition in thermodynamics.
It signifies the tendency of the phonon scattering to enhance the probability to find currents larger than the average value.
When the bias voltage is larger than the phonon frequency, $V>\omega_0$,
we find singularities in $0<u<1$ around perfect transmission.
This results in a kink at $I=0$ and a strong reduction for $I<0$ in the rate function.
This behavior can be understood in the following way:
In this regime, phonons scatter electrons inelastically opposite to the bias.
This broadens the rate function but
the probability for current flowing opposite to the bias voltage is suppressed exponentially at low temperatures in accordance with the fluctuation theorem.
The kink structures in the rate function characterizes the electron-phonon interactions.
Although measurements of the rate function of molecular junctions would be technically demanding, the FCS can be in principle monitored experimentally, \cite{Utsumi} as is proven by existing measurements of higher cumulants~\cite{Reulet,FlindtPNAS} and of the FCS itself, ~\cite{Gustavsson,UK} for metallic and semiconducting nanostructures. This gives hope that our predictions could be put to test.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Christian Flindt, Dimitri Golubev, Akira Oguri and V\'aclav $\check{{\rm S}}$pi$\check{{\rm c}}$ka for valuable discussions.
We particularly thank Tom\'{a}$\check{\rm{s}}$ Novotn\'{y} for his helpful discussion in comparing our results with previous theories.
This work was supported by the Bination Science Foundation (BSF) of the US
and Israel,
by the Israel Science Foundation (ISF),
by the Okasan-Katoh Foundation,
by the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) (Grants No. 23740294 and No. 24710111),
by the Young Researcher Overseas Visits Program for Vitalizing Brain Circulation (R2214) from the JSPS,
and
by the MEXT kakenhi ``Quantum Cybernetics".
This paper was written while the authors were members of a research group on molecular electronics at the Institute for Advanced Studies, Jerusalem.
\begin{appendix}
\section{The Luttinger-Ward potential}
\label{LW}
The way to construct a partition function based on the self energy is to exploit the Luttinger-Ward functional approach, \cite{Luttinger}
or the self-consistent $\Phi$-derivable approximation. \cite{Baym}
This method can be straightforwardly extended to a nonequilibrium situation.~\cite{Ivanov}
The saddle-point approximation for the CGF can also be constructed by this approach. \cite{US} The underlying idea is the observation that by introducing the Luttinger-Ward functional $\Phi$, which includes all skeleton diagrams, the total generating functional can be formally written as
\begin{align}
{\mathcal F}(\lambda)
&=
\lim_{\tau \to \infty} \frac{1}{\tau}
\Bigl (
{\rm Tr} [\ln G^{-1}]
+{\rm Tr}[\Sigma(G) \, G]
-
\Phi(G)
\Bigr )\ ,
\label{LW1}
\end{align}
where the trace and the product mean integrations over time along the Keldysh contour.
The Green function $G$, also defined on the Keldysh contour, is
\begin{align}
G^{-1}(1,2)
&=
g_\lambda^{-1}(1,2)-\Sigma(1,2;G)
\ ,
\end{align}
where the arguments 1, 2, $\cdots$ stand for $t_{1}$, $t_{2}$, $\cdots$.
Here $g_\lambda$ is the Green function of the noninteracting electrons
\begin{align}
g_\lambda(1,2)
&= -i \, \langle T_{\rm K }
c^{}_0(1)_{\rm I}
c_0^{\dagger}(2)_{\rm I} \rangle
\, ,
\end{align}
given explicitly in Eqs. (\ref{GT}) and (\ref{GT1}).
The self energy is a functional of $G$ as well as of the phonon Green function $d$,
\begin{align}
d(1,2)
&= -i \, \langle T_{\rm K}
(b^{}(1)_{\rm I}+b^\dagger(1)_{\rm I})
(b^{}(2)_{\rm I}+b^\dagger(2)_{\rm I}) \rangle
\ ,
\end{align}
given in Eqs. (\ref{DT}) and (\ref{DTCOM}).
The functional derivative of the nonequilibrium Luttinger-Ward functional $\Phi$ gives the self energy,
\begin{align}
\Sigma(1,2;G)
=
\frac{
\delta \Phi
}{
\delta G(2,1)
}
\ . \label{LW2}
\end{align}
Both functions $G$ and $\Sigma$ depend implicitly on the counting field only through $g_\lambda$.
By differentiating Eq. (\ref{LW1}) with respect to the counting field $\lambda$ and using Eq. (\ref{LW2}) one obtains
\begin{align}
\frac{d {\mathcal F}(\lambda)}
{d \lambda}
=
-
\lim_{\tau \to \infty} \frac{1}{\tau}
{\rm Tr} \!
\left(
G
\frac{\partial g_\lambda^{-1}}
{\partial \lambda}
\right)
\ ,
\label{LW3}
\end{align}
where we have used the relation
\begin{align}
\frac{d \Phi}
{d \lambda}
=
{\rm Tr} \!
\left(
\frac{\delta \Phi}{\delta G}
\frac{\partial G}{\partial \lambda}
\right)
\ .
\end{align}
It should be emphasized that in this formulation the self energy has to be determined self-consistently in order to satisfy conservation laws. \cite{Ivanov}
To second order in the electron-phonon coupling $\gamma$, Eq. (\ref{LW3}) becomes
\begin{align}
\frac{d {\mathcal F}}{d \lambda}
& \approx
\lim_{\tau \to \infty} \frac{1}{\tau}
{\rm Tr}
\left(
g_\lambda
\frac{\partial g_\lambda^{-1}}
{\partial \lambda}
\right)\nonumber\\
&
+
\lim_{\tau \to \infty} \frac{1}{\tau}
{\rm Tr}
\left(
g_\lambda
\Sigma(g_\lambda)
g_\lambda
\frac{\partial g_\lambda^{-1}}
{\partial \lambda}
\right)
\ , \label{DIFF}
\end{align}
where we have replaced
$\Sigma(G)$ by $\Sigma(g_\lambda)$,
since it is already ${\mathcal O}(\gamma^2)$.
Upon using the identity
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial g_\lambda}{\partial \lambda}
=
-
g_\lambda
\frac{\partial g_\lambda^{-1}}{\partial \lambda}
g_\lambda
\ ,
\end{align}
and exploiting the self-consistent condition Eq. (\ref{LW2}) [in its ${\mathcal O}(\gamma^{2})$ form], Eq. (\ref{DIFF}) becomes
\begin{align}
\frac{d {\mathcal F}}{d \lambda}
& \approx
\lim_{\tau \to \infty} \frac{1}{\tau}
\frac{d}{d \lambda}
{\rm Tr}
[\ln
g_\lambda^{-1}]
-
\lim_{\tau \to \infty} \frac{1}{\tau}
\frac{d \Phi(g_\lambda)}{d \lambda}
\ ,
\end{align}
and consequently
\begin{align}
{\mathcal F}(\lambda )
&
=
\lim_{\tau \to \infty} \frac{1}{\tau}
\Bigl (
{\rm Tr}
[\ln
g_\lambda^{-1}]
\Bigr )
-
\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}(\lambda)
\ .
\label{LW4}
\end{align}
Comparing this expression with the original one, Eq. (\ref{LW1}), one notes that the term depending explicitly on the self energy has disappeared.
The lowest-order scaled Luttinger-ward potential $\bar{\Phi}^{(2)}(\lambda)$ is obtained by expanding $\bar{\Phi}(g_\lambda)$ (which may depend on $g_\lambda$ and not on $G$) up to ${\mathcal O}(\gamma^2)$ [see Eq. (\ref{slw})].
For brevity, the calculation above is presented in the time domain.
One may also switch to the frequency representation in which Eq. (\ref{LW3}) reads
\begin{align}
\frac{d {\mathcal F}(\lambda)}
{d \lambda}
&=&
-
\frac{1}{2 \pi}
\int d \omega
{\rm Tr} \!
\left(
G(\omega)
\tau_3
\frac{\partial g_\lambda(\omega)^{-1}}
{\partial \lambda}
\tau_3
\right) .
\label{GK}
\end{align}
The Pauli matrix $\tau_{3}$,
\begin{align}
{\tau_3}=
\left [
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0& -1
\end{array}
\right ] \, .
\label{paulimz}
\end{align}
appears once we project the time from the Keldysh contour on the real time axis,
\begin{align}
\int_K dt
=
\int_{-\tau/2}^{\tau/2} dt_+
-
\int_{-\tau/2}^{\tau/2} dt_-
\, , \label{TINT}
\end{align}
where $t_\pm \in K_\pm$ (see Fig. \ref{Keldysh}).
This leads to Eqs. (\ref{FFF}) and (\ref{ZORD1}) in the main text.
Note that
Eq. (\ref{LW3}) or (\ref{GK}) corresponds to the ``generalized current expression" given by Eq. (12) of Ref.~\onlinecite{Gogolin}.
The latter is the starting point for several studies of FCS of molecular junctions, \cite{Haupt1,Haupt2,Novotny,Avriller}
e.g.
Eq. (1) in Ref. \onlinecite{Haupt1},
Eq. (8) in Ref. \onlinecite{Haupt2}, and
Eq. (3) in Ref. \onlinecite{Avriller}.
We emphasize that the simple form of the generalized current expression \cite{Gogolin} is correct only when the approximate self energy of the electron Green function (\ref{LW2}) is determined self-consistently.
This point becomes clearer when one set the counting field in Eq. (12) of Ref.~\onlinecite{Gogolin} to zero, $\bar{\lambda}=0$.
That equation is then reduced to the expression for the current, analyzed by Hershfield, {\it et. al.}
in Refs.~\onlinecite{Hershfield},
where it was demonstrated that second-order perturbation for the self energy can violate current conservation.
Although this problem was discussed in the context of the on-site Coulomb interaction, we suspect that it will arise for the on-site electron-phonon interaction as well.
The safe approach is to exploit the``generalized current expression", Eq. (12) of Ref.~\onlinecite{Gogolin}, {with the self energy determined self-consistently.}
\section{Diagrammatic expansion}
\label{LCE}
Given the results of Appendix \ref{LW}, it remains to calculate $\bar{\Phi}(g_\lambda)$ up to ${\mathcal O}(\gamma^2)$.
This is accomplished by expanding it perturbatively in $\gamma$.
The zeroth-order term is just a constant,
\begin{align}
\bar{\Phi}^{(0)}(g_\lambda)
=
-
\lim_{\tau \to \infty}
\frac{1}{2 \tau}
{\rm Tr}
\ln
[d]
\ , \label{P0}
\end{align}
independent of the counting field. The diagrams constituting the second order are depicted in Fig.~\ref{diagrams}.
The Hartree term [Fig.~\ref{diagrams} (a)] is
\begin{align}
&\bar{\Phi}^{\rm H}(g_\lambda)
=
-i
\frac{\gamma^2}{2}
\lim_{\tau \to \infty} \frac{1}{\tau}
\int_{\rm K} d1 d2 \,
g_\lambda(1,1)
d(1,2)
g_\lambda(2,2)
\nonumber
\\
&=
-i \frac{\gamma^2}{2}
\sum_{s,s'=+,-}
s \, s'
d^{ss'}(0)
\int \frac{d \omega_1}{2 \pi} \,
g_\lambda^{ss}(\omega_1)
\int \frac{d \omega_2}{2 \pi} \,
g_\lambda^{s's'}(\omega_2)
\, .
\label{DIRECT}
\end{align}
Inserting Eqs. (\ref{GT1}) and (\ref{DTCOM}) into Eq. (\ref{DIRECT}) yields
\begin{align}
\bar{\Phi}^{\rm H}(g_\lambda)
=&
\frac{g}{\pi \omega_0}
\left(
\int d \omega
\frac{1}{\Omega_\lambda(\omega)}
\frac{\Gamma (\omega-\epsilon_0)}
{(\omega-\epsilon_0)^2+\Gamma^2/4}
\right)\nonumber\\
&\times
\left(
\sum_{\rm r}
\frac{\Gamma_r}{\Gamma}
\int d \omega
\bar{\rho}(\omega)
\frac{2 f_{\rm r}^+(\omega)-1}
{\Omega_\lambda(\omega)}
\right)
\, ,
\label{hartree}
\end{align}
where the small parameter $g$ is given in Eq. (\ref{PARAG}).
Note the appearance of the distribution Eq. (\ref{FERMI}) in the form $f_{\rm r}^+(\omega)-1/2$, resulting from the definition of the step function as $\Theta(0)=1/2$ in the continuous notation.~\cite{Kamenevbook}
By using Eq.~(\ref{ftomega}), one can check that the FT is fulfilled,
$\bar{\Phi}^{\rm H}(g_{-\lambda+i \beta V})=\bar{\Phi}^{\rm H}(g_\lambda)$.
In the main text, we neglect the Hartree term since it does not depend on the phonon distribution.
The Fock term [Fig.~\ref{diagrams} (b)] reads
\begin{align}
\bar{\Phi}^{\rm F}(g_\lambda)
=&
i
\frac{\gamma^2}{2}
\lim_{\tau \to \infty} \frac{1}{\tau}
\int_K d1 d2 \,
g_\lambda(1,2)
d(1,2)
g_\lambda(2,1)
\nonumber\\
=&
-\frac{1}{2}
\lim_{\tau \to \infty} \frac{1}{\tau}
\int_{\rm K} d1 d2 \,
d(1,2)
\Pi_\lambda(2,1)
\ , \label{FOCK}
\end{align}
where we have introduced the particle-hole propagator, $\Pi$,
\begin{align}
\Pi_\lambda(1,2) &= -i \gamma^2 g_\lambda(1,2) g_\lambda(2,1) \, .
\label{php}
\end{align}
Adopting the form (\ref{FOCK}), we find
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
\bar{\Phi}^{\rm F}(g_\lambda)
= &
-\frac{1}{2}
\int \frac{d \omega}{2 \pi}
\biggl [
d^{++}(\omega) \Pi_\lambda^{++}(\omega)
+
d^{--}(\omega) \Pi_\lambda^{--}(\omega)
-
d^{-+}(\omega) \Pi_\lambda^{+-}(\omega)
-
d^{+-}(\omega) \Pi_\lambda^{-+}(\omega)
\biggl ]
.
\end{align}
Here a constant should be added to keep the normalization condition
$\bar{\Phi}^{\rm F}(g_0)=0$.
Inserting Eqs. (\ref{SPI}) and (\ref{API}), we obtain
\begin{align}
\bar{\Phi}^{\rm F}(g_\lambda)
= &
-\frac{1}{2}
\int \frac{d \omega}{2 \pi}
\biggl [
d^{-+}(\omega)
\biggl (
\frac{\tilde{\Pi}_\lambda^{+-}(\omega)+\Pi_0^{+-}(\omega)}{2}
- \Pi_\lambda^{+-}(\omega)
\biggl)
+
d^{+-}(\omega)
\biggl(
\frac{\tilde{\Pi}_\lambda^{-+}(\omega)+\Pi_0^{-+}(\omega)}{2}
- \Pi_\lambda^{-+}(\omega)
\biggl)
\nonumber \\ &
+ \frac{d^{-+}(\omega)+d^{+-}(\omega)}{2}
\phi_\lambda^S(\omega)
+
\frac{d^{++}(\omega)-d^{--}(\omega)}{2}
\phi_\lambda^A(\omega)
\biggl]
.
\end{align}
Using relations (\ref{sympit})
and the corresponding ones for the components of the phonon Green function, e.g.,
$d^{+-}(\omega)=d^{-+}(-\omega)$,
yields
\begin{align}
\bar{\Phi}^{\rm F}(g_\lambda)
= &
\sum_{s=\pm}
s n^+(s \omega_0)
\biggl (
\frac{i \tilde{\Pi}_\lambda^{-+}(s \omega_0)+i {\Pi}_0^{-+}(s \omega_0)}
{2}
-i {\Pi}_\lambda^{-+}(s \omega_0)
\biggl)
+
\frac{i}{2}
\coth
\left( \frac{\beta \omega_0}{2} \right)
\phi_\lambda^S(\omega_0)
-
{\rm P}
\int \frac{d \omega}{2 \pi}
\frac{\omega_0 \,
\phi_\lambda^A(\omega)
}{\omega^2-\omega_0^2}
\, ,
\label{fock}
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where ${\rm P}$ means the Cauchy principle value and $n^{\pm}$ is the Bose distribution,
\begin{align}
n^\pm(\omega)
=\pm
\frac{ 1}
{{\rm e}^{\pm \beta \omega}-1} \, .
\label{bosedist}
\end{align}
The Fock term depends on the equilibrium phonon distribution $n^+$, which suggests that a re-summation of an infinite series of diagrams is needed in order to account for the nonequilibrium phonon distribution.
We carry out this summation within the random-phase approximation, by summing over all ring diagrams [see diagrams (c) and (d) in Fig. \ref{diagrams}].
The RPA is also known to be relevant for the AC conductance.~\cite{UEA}
In this way, we obtain the functional
\begin{align}
\bar{\Phi}^{\rm RPA}(g_\lambda)
&=
\frac{1}{2}
\lim_{\tau \to \infty} \frac{1}{\tau}
{\rm Tr}
\ln
\left[1-
d \,
\Pi_\lambda \,
\right]
+
\bar{\Phi}^{(0)}(g_\lambda)
\nonumber\\
&=
\frac{1}{2}
\lim_{\tau \to \infty} \frac{1}{\tau}
{\rm Tr}
\ln
D_\lambda^{-1}
\, ,
\label{phirpa}
\end{align}
where we have also included the zeroth-order term, Eq. (\ref{P0}) and the full phonon propagator, $D_{\lambda}$,
\begin{align}
D_\lambda^{-1}
&=
d^{-1}-
\Pi_\lambda \, .
\label{fpp}
\end{align}
Equation (\ref{phirpa}) yields Eq.~(\ref{cgfph}) in Fourier space.
This RPA can be also formulated using the Keldysh path-integral approach within the saddle-point approximation~\cite{US} and further accounting for the Gaussian-fluctuation correction around it.
A comment on the FT and current conservation in the diagrammatic expansion is called for.
The FT, including current conservation as represented by Eq.~(\ref{LAM}), has been proved using perturbation expansion in the interaction. \cite{SU}
Although the proof has been constructed for the Coulomb interaction, it may be extended to the electron-phonon interaction case as well.
\section
The electronic part}
\label{CEP}
The electronic Keldysh Green functions are obtained by inverting the matrix Eq.~(\ref{INVG})
\begin{align}
g^{}_{\lambda}(\omega )=\left[\begin{array}{cc}g^{++}_{\lambda}(\omega) &
g^{+-}_{\lambda}(\omega)\\
g^{-+}_{\lambda}(\omega)
&
g^{--}_{\lambda}(\omega)\end{array}\right ]\ , \label{GT}
\end{align}
to obtain
\begin{align}
&g^{ss}_{\lambda}(\omega )
=
\frac{1}{\Omega^{}_{\lambda}(\omega )}
\left (
\frac{1}{s(\omega -\epsilon^{}_{0})+i\Gamma/2}
+
is \sum_{\rm r=L,R}
g^{s\overline{s}}_{{\rm r}}(\omega )
\right)
\ ,
\nonumber\\
&g^{s\overline{s}}_{\lambda}(\omega )
=
\sum_{\rm r=L,R}
\frac{
g^{s\overline{s}}_{{\rm r}}(\omega )
}
{\Omega^{}_{\lambda}(\omega )}
e^{is\lambda^{}_{\rm r}}
\ ,
\label{GT1}
\end{align}
where
$\overline{s}=-/+$ for $s=+/-$.
The lesser and greater Green functions, in the absence of the counting field, $g^{s\overline{s}}_{\rm r}$, are expressed in terms of the density of states on the localized level normalized by $\Gamma$,
the width of the resonance on the localized level,
\begin{align}
\bar{\rho}(\omega) &=
\frac{\Gamma^{2}_{}/4}{(\omega-\epsilon_{0})^2+\Gamma^{2}/4}
\, , \label{DOS}
\end{align}
as
\begin{align}
g^{\pm \mp}_{\rm r}(\omega )
&=
\pm
4 i \frac{\Gamma^{}_{\rm r}}{\Gamma^2} \bar{\rho}(\omega)
f^{\pm}_{\rm r}(\omega )
\ .
\end{align}
The dependence on the counting field is contained in the function $\Omega_{\lambda}$,
\begin{align}
&\Omega^{}_{\lambda}(\omega )=-\frac{{\rm det}g^{}_{\lambda}(\omega )^{-1}_{}}{{\rm det} g^{}_{0}(\omega )^{-1}_{}}=
1+{\cal T}(\omega )\nonumber\\
&\times[f^{+}_{\rm L}(\omega )f^{-}_{\rm R}(\omega )(e^{i\lambda}-1)
+f^{+}_{\rm R}(\omega )f^{-}_{\rm L}(\omega )(e^{-i\lambda}-1)]\ ,
\label{OMEG}
\end{align}
where the transmission of the localized level is frequency dependent,
\begin{align}
{\cal T}(\omega )
=
\alpha \bar{\rho}(\omega)
\ . \label{T}
\end{align}
From Eqs.~(\ref{ZORD1}) and (\ref{OMEG}) we can see the FT is satisfied since
\begin{align}
\Omega_{-\lambda+i \beta V}(\omega)
=
\Omega_{\lambda}(\omega)
\, .
\label{ftomega}
\end{align}
Within the extended wide-band limit approximation,
the frequency dependent normalized density of state~(\ref{DOS})
can be replaced by its value at the Fermi energy (\ref{APPRDOS}).
Then the transmission becomes energy independent, as shown in Eq.~(\ref{T_}), and consequently the computation of the integral determining the zeroth-order CGF [see Eq. (\ref{ZORD1})] is straightforward.
The key observation is that the variable transformation
\begin{align}
z=\exp[\beta (\omega' - (\mu_L+\mu_R)/2)] \, ,
\label{vt}
\end{align}
transforms Eq. (\ref{OMEG}) into a simpler form,
\begin{align}
\Omega_\lambda(\omega')
=&
\frac{
(z-Z_{\lambda+})
(z-Z_{\lambda-})
}
{
(1+z \, {\rm e}^{-\beta(\mu_L-\mu_R)/2})
(1+z \, {\rm e}^{\beta(\mu_L-\mu_R)/2})
} \, ,
\end{align}
where $Z_{\lambda \pm}$ and $X_\lambda$ are given in Eq.~(\ref{ZPM}) and Eq.~(\ref{X}), respectively.
Then we obtain
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial {\cal F}^{}_{0}(\lambda )}{\partial (i\lambda )}
=&
\frac{-1}{2 \pi \beta}
\frac{2 \partial_{i \lambda} X_\lambda}
{Z_{\lambda+} - Z_{\lambda-}}
\ln
\frac
{Z_{\lambda-}}
{Z_{\lambda+}}
\, ,
\label{DERF0}
\end{align}
and consequently the CGF (\ref{ZO}) by integrating over $\lambda$.
\section{The phonon-induced part}
\label{PHPR}
We first derive the dressed phonon Green function $D_\lambda$ Eq.~(\ref{fullphononGF}).
The free Keldysh phonon Green function is given by
\begin{align}
d(\omega )
=
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
d^{++}(\omega) & d^{+-}(\omega) \\
d^{-+}(\omega) & d^{--}(\omega)
\end{array}
\right] \ , \label{DT}
\end{align}
whose four components are
\begin{align}
d^{\pm \pm}(\omega)
=&
{\rm Re}
\frac{2 \omega_0}{(\omega+i 0^+)^2-\omega_0^2}
\nonumber \\
&
-i \pi
\coth \frac{\beta \omega}{2}
[
\delta(\omega-\omega_0)
-
\delta(\omega+\omega_0)
]
\, ,\nonumber\\
d^{\mp \pm}(\omega)
=&
-2 \pi i
[
\delta(\omega-\omega_0)
-
\delta(\omega+\omega_0)
]
\, n^\mp(\omega)
\, . \label{DTCOM}
\end{align}
Here $0^+$ is a positive infinitesimal, and $n^{\pm}$ is the Bose distribution, Eq.~(\ref{bosedist}).
Using the matrix form of the particle-hole Keldysh Green Function (\ref{php}),
\begin{align}
\Pi_\lambda(\omega)
&=
\left [
\begin{array}{cc}
\Pi^{++}_{\lambda}(\omega ) & \Pi^{+-}_{\lambda}(\omega ) \\
\Pi^{-+}_{\lambda}(\omega ) & \Pi^{--}_{\lambda}(\omega )
\end{array}
\right ]\ ,
\label{mphp}
\end{align}
Eq.~(\ref{fullphononGF}) is obtained as the matrix form of Eq.~(\ref{fpp}),
\begin{align}
D_{\lambda}(\omega )^{-1}
&=
d(\omega)^{-1}-\tau^{}_3 \Pi_\lambda(\omega) \tau^{}_3 \, ,
\end{align}
where $\tau_{3}$ is the third Pauli matrix, Eq. (\ref{paulimz}).
Analytic expressions for the four components of the particle-hole propagator, Eq. (\ref{php}) or equivalently Eq. (\ref{PIo}), are obtained in the extended wide-band limit.~\cite{Haupt1,Haupt2,Novotny}
Since the lesser and greater components are related to one another [see Eqs. (\ref{sympit})] it suffices to compute the greater component.
$\tilde{\Pi}^{-+}_{{\rm rr'} \, \lambda}$,
\begin{align}
i \tilde{\Pi}^{-+}_{{\rm rr'} \, \lambda}(\omega)
&=
\frac{\gamma^2}{2 \pi} \int d \omega^{\prime}
\frac{
g^{-+}_{\rm r}(\omega^\prime + \omega/2)
g^{+-}_{\rm r'}(\omega^\prime - \omega/2)
}{
\Omega^{}_{\lambda}(\omega^\prime + \omega/2)
\Omega^{}_{\lambda}(\omega^\prime - \omega/2)
}
\nonumber \\
& =
{g {\alpha}_{r r^\prime} \rho_0^2}
\int \! d \omega^{\prime}
\frac{
f_r^-(\omega_+)
f_{r^\prime}^+(\omega_-)
}
{
\Omega_{\lambda}(\omega_+)
\Omega_{\lambda}(\omega_-)
}\ ,
\end{align}
where the small parameter $g$ is given in Eq. (\ref{PARAG}), and
\begin{align}
\omega^{}_{\pm}=\omega '\pm\omega /2 \ .
\end{align}
After a lengthy but straightforward calculation, exploiting the variable transformation Eq.~(\ref{vt}), we obtain Eq. (\ref{tildepi}).
The calculation of $\Pi^{++}$ and $\Pi^{--}$ is facilitated by considering the combinations $\Pi^{++}\pm\Pi^{--}$.
The only $\lambda-$dependence of the casual and anti-casual electronic Green functions is contained in their denominator, $\Omega_{\lambda}$
[see Eqs. (\ref{GT1})].
Therefore we may write
\begin{align}
i \Pi^{\pm \pm}_{\lambda}(\omega)
&=
\frac{\gamma^2}{2 \pi} \int d \omega^{\prime}
\frac{
g^{\pm \pm}_{0}(\omega_+)
g^{\pm \pm}_{0}(\omega_-)
}{
\Omega^{}_{\lambda}(\omega_+)
\Omega^{}_{\lambda}(\omega_-)
}
\, .
\end{align}
Upon using the relations
\begin{align}
g^{++}_{0}&=g^{+-}_{0}+g_{}^{R}=g^{-+}_{0}+g_{}^{A}\ ,\nonumber\\
g^{--}_{0}&=g^{-+}_{0}-g^{R}_{}=g^{+-}_{0}-g^{A}_{}\ ,\label{IDENT}
\end{align}
where $g_{}^{R,A}$ are the retarded and advanced Green functions,
\begin{align}
g^{R,A}_{}(\omega )=\frac{1}{\omega-\epsilon^{}_{0}\pm i\Gamma /2}\ ,
\end{align}
we find
\begin{align}
\Pi^{++}_{\lambda}(\omega )+\Pi^{--}_{\lambda}(\omega )
&=
\tilde{\Pi}^{+-}_{\lambda}(\omega)
+
\tilde{\Pi}^{-+}_{\lambda}(\omega)
+
\phi^{S}_{\lambda}(\omega)
\ ,
\label{SPI}
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
i \phi^{S}_{\lambda}(\omega )
=&
\frac{\gamma^{2}}{2 \pi}\int d\omega '
\Bigl (\frac{1}{\Omega^{}_{\lambda}(\omega^{}_{+})\Omega^{}_{\lambda}(\omega^{}_{-})}-1\Bigr )\nonumber\\
& \times
[g^{R}_{}(\omega^{}_{+})g^{R}_{}(\omega^{}_{-})+g^{A}_{}(\omega^{}_{+})g^{A}_{}(\omega^{}_{-})]
\ ,
\label{ET}
\end{align}
where the relation
\begin{align}
\int d\omega 'g^{R/A}_{}(\omega^{}_{+})g^{R/A}_{}(\omega ^{}_{-})=0\
\end{align}
has been used.
Since
$\Omega_{\lambda}=1$ for $|\omega| \gg{\rm max}(|V|,1/\beta)$
the integral in Eq. (\ref{ET}) is bounded, and therefore in the
extended wide-band limit~\cite{Haupt1,Haupt2,Novotny} the terms in the square brackets there can be replaced by
\begin{align}
2 {\rm Re} \, g^{R}_{}(0)^2
\approx& \,
\left \{
\begin{array}{cc}
8 \rho_0 [1-2 \rho_0]/\Gamma^2 &
(|V|,k_{\rm B} T, \omega_0 \ll \Gamma)
\\
2/\epsilon_0^2 &
(|V|,k_{\rm B} T, \omega_0, \Gamma \ll |\epsilon_0|)
\end{array}
\right.
,
\end{align}
yielding Eq.~(\ref{PHILASS});
\begin{align}
i \phi^{S}_{\lambda}(\omega )
\approx& \,
\left \{
\begin{array}{cc}
2 g \rho_0[1-2 \rho_0] S &
(|V|,k_{\rm B} T, \omega_0 \ll \Gamma)
\\
0 &
(|V|,k_{\rm B} T, \omega_0, \Gamma \ll |\epsilon_0|)
\end{array}
\right.
,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
S&=\int d\omega '
\Bigl (\frac{1}{\Omega^{}_{\lambda}(\omega^{}_{+})\Omega^{}_{\lambda}(\omega^{}_{-})}-1\Bigr )
\nonumber \\
&=
\sum_{i}
\prod_{s,s'=\pm}
({\rm e}^{\beta (s V+s' \omega)/2} +z_i)
\frac{
\, \ln z_i
}
{\beta z_i}
\prod_{j \neq i}
\frac{1}{z_j-z_i}
.
\end{align}
Turning now to the combination $\Pi^{++}-\Pi^{--}$, we use Eqs. (\ref{IDENT}) and the relation $g^{\rm K}=g^{-+}_{0}+g^{+-}_{0}$ for the Keldysh component of the Green function, to obtain
\begin{align}
\Pi^{++}_{\lambda}(\omega )-\Pi^{--}_{\lambda}(\omega)
&=
2 {\rm Re} \Pi^{R}_{}(\omega )
+
\phi^{A}_{\lambda}(\omega)
\ .
\label{API}
\end{align}
The retarded component is derived from the relation
\begin{align}
\Pi^R(\omega )
&=
\frac{\gamma^2}{2 \pi i}
\int d \omega'
\frac{
g^{\rm K}_{}(\omega^{}_{+})g^{A}_{}(\omega^{}_{-})
+
g^{R}_{}(\omega^{}_{+}) g^{\rm K}_{}(\omega^{}_{-})
}
{2}
\ ,
\nonumber
\end{align}
which is rewritten by exploiting the Kramers-Kronig relation as
\begin{align}
\Pi^{R}_{}(\omega )
=
\frac{i}{2\pi}
\int d\omega '\frac{\Pi^{-+}_{0}(\omega ')-\Pi^{+-}_{0}(\omega ')}{\omega -\omega ' +i0^{+}}
\ .
\label{piret}
\end{align}
In Eq.~(\ref{API}) we obtain
\begin{align}
&i \phi^{A}_{\lambda}(\omega ) = \frac{\gamma^{2}}{2\pi}\int d\omega '\Bigl (\frac{1}{\Omega^{}_{\lambda}(\omega^{}_{+})\Omega^{}_{\lambda}(\omega^{}_{-})}-1\Bigr )
\, \nonumber\\
&\times
{\rm Im}
\Bigl(
g^{\rm K}_{}(\omega^{}_{+})g^{A}_{}(\omega^{}_{-})
+
g^{R}_{}(\omega^{}_{+}) g^{\rm K}_{}(\omega^{}_{-})
\Bigr )\ .
\end{align}
Using Eq.~(\ref{ftomega}), we can verify the symmetry
\begin{align}
\phi^A_{-\lambda+i \beta V}(\omega)
=
\phi^A_\lambda(\omega)
\, .
\label{ftphia}
\end{align}
One can now convince oneself that in the extended wide-band limit, in which
${\rm Re}[g^{R}(\omega )]\approx -\epsilon_{0}/[\epsilon^{2}_{0}+\Gamma^{2}/4]$ and
\begin{align}
g^{\rm K}(\omega )
=
-\frac{4i}{\Gamma}
\sum_{\rm r}
\frac{\Gamma^{}_{\rm r}}{\Gamma}
\rho_0
{\rm tanh}[\beta(\omega-\mu^{}_{\rm r})/2]
\label{gk}
\end{align}
is ${\mathcal O}(1/\Gamma)$, $\phi^{A}_{\lambda}$ may be safely neglected, since
\begin{align}
\phi^{A}_{\lambda}
\propto& \,
\left \{
\begin{array}{cc}
1/\Gamma^2 &
(|V|, k_{\rm B} T, \omega_0 \ll \Gamma)
\\
1/(\Gamma |\epsilon_0|) &
(|V|,k_{\rm B} T, \omega_0, \Gamma \ll |\epsilon_0|)
\end{array}
\right.
\, .
\label{PHYA}
\end{align}
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Introduction}
Active safety systems have the potential to transform automobile traffic by complementing a human operator's capabilities to prevent accidents and increase efficiency~\cite{Caveney}. Communication between cars enables cooperative safety applications by further augmenting information gained from local sensors. Examples for active safety applications are traffic signal violation warning, cooperative collision warning and electronic emergency brake light~\cite{Caveney,Sengupta2}.
By transmitting information between each other, cars can gain a view of the traffic situation more refined than it would be possible merely with sensors~\cite{VComm}, because global information about traffic is being made available locally to the cars. Such information can be used in active safety systems to avoid accidents and even improve traffic efficiency by enabling both communication with the infrastructure and between cars~\cite{highways,Caveney,Dresner, collisionwarning, rearend}.
Depending on the active safety application, different types of vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication paradigms have been investigated. Safety applications often require to maintain continuous tracking of other cars in the vicinity, which is typically done by having cars broadcast information about their position, velocity and other parameters of their state in regular intervals~\cite{Sengupta2}. Vehicle Ad-Hoc Networks (VANETs) using routing protocols such as Geocasting or Ad-Hoc Distance Vector (AODV) handle applications involving several cars in a peer-to-peer (P2P) connection~\cite{hartenstein,RAODV,geocasting}. The main challenge is to maintain reliable communication in the presence of possible channel congestion if several cars use the transmission medium simultaneously~\cite{hartenstein, routing}.
Traditionally, in the development of communication protocols, the programs are implemented manually, and verification of the protocol is only done after prototyping, either through testing or model checking~\cite{CSMA, AODVVerify, AdHocVerify}. A slight improvement over this bottom-up approach is to develop a framework for distributed protocol specification and automatically generate inputs to model checkers and theorem provers~\cite{DeclarativeNetwork}. %
In contrast, synthesis finds the programs to be executed on each car directly from a global protocol specification. In this approach, the synthesis method is guaranteed to generate distributed implementations that satisfy their specification by construction. However, so far only small problems have been considered in synthesis without particular applications in mind~\cite{Probert, GlobalClock, Multipath}. Also, protocol implementations are only valuable in practice if it is clear under which assumptions they are correct and if the communication requirements are clearly specified~\cite{hartenstein}. Only if a precise model of the environment is provided, i.e.\ the worst-case behavior of the transmission medium, is an argument of correctness convincing.
Synthesis is made difficult on the one hand by distributing a single global specification in a way that the distributed implementation operates correctly in an adverse environment, and on the other hand by having to ensure correctness of the results, which has to be ensured for \emph{any} valid protocol specification given as input to the synthesis.
Our main contribution is the development of a method that automatically translates global specifications of the protocol into implementations that formally guarantee the desired quality of service requirements under the environment assumptions. Specifically, we develop a synthesis method for reliable asynchronous communication protocols with clearly defined interfaces that can be used in a layered design. We focus on providing communication services to enable active safety applications for cars and therefore lump any active safety activities into an abstract higher level that interacts via strictly defined interfaces with the lower level communication services that we develop. %
Our work addresses several shortfalls in previous work on protocol synthesis~\cite{ChuLiu, Ishida, Probert, Zafiropulo}. We introduce a formal specification language to allow a textual representation of the protocol specifications, which are typically given in graphical form. Moreover, we make precise the semantics of protocol specifications and their implementations that are usually only informally described.
\vspace{-.06in}
\section{Communication} \label{sec:communication}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\psfrag{A}[cc][cc]{\footnotesize{B}}
\psfrag{B}[cc][cc]{\footnotesize{A}}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{scenario.eps}
\caption{Intersection scenario: Car $A$ runs the red traffic light. Hence car $B$ (and potentially other cars) must stop. Other cars at the intersection may be transmitting over the wireless medium at the same time, which has a deteriorating effect on the communication between $A$ and $B$.}
\label{fig:intersection}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\end{figure}
Consider the scenario of two cars wanting to communicate with each other at an intersection, c.f.\ \fig{intersection}. One major complicating factor for reliable V2V communication is that the cars are constantly moving and have to communicate over wireless links. Cars that intend to communicate share restricted bandwidth availability with all other cars within reach. When constantly tracking cars using broadcasts, scalability is limited by the susceptibility for flooding and frequent message collisions~\cite{routing}, and by having to keep track of the state of every car.
It would be desirable to be able to implement communication protocols that guarantee the correct transmission of data even in the presence of a large number of other cars. We therefore consider initiating communication on-demand when required by an active safety application in an emergency. In this approach we do not track every car but only exchange information when required. This approach has the advantage that traffic on the network is lower, more predictable, and reliability guarantees can be provided, as demonstrated in this paper. We adopt an approach in which the sender is responsible for correct delivery by retransmitting data when a package drop is detected~\cite{initiation}.
When considering a V2V communication between two cars, we do not explicitly consider the behavior of all other cars. Since from the point of view of the transceivers it is only relevant whether a message is correctly received, we lump together the behavior of all other cars that are not directly involved in the communication and consider them as a single environment. Our method allows us to explicitly state the assumptions on this environment under which the protocol has to perform correctly.
Communication between cars is governed by a set of rules summarized as a protocol. After a data transfer is initiated, messages are transmitted and received in order to guarantee a reliable delivery. A protocol is implemented by equipping each car with a communication service automaton (CSA), which can be seen as a building block or ``controller'' handling all communication activities. Hence, the protocol can be seen as a building block with clearly defined behavior and interfaces to its environment consisting of higher level active safety components (ASCs) and to the lower level that handles the transmission of the messages over the physical medium.
Each CSA operates locally, i.e.\ it can only interact with the sensors and actuators of the car it is located on. However, since a communication protocol defines events potentially involving several cars, CSAs need to interact with each other. This interaction is done by transmitting messages between the cars e.g.\ using wireless transceivers.
Defining a clear hierarchy of layers is inspired from the ISO OSI architecture prevalent in most modern communication networks~\cite{ISOOSI}: A \emph{network layer} is dedicated to establishing host-to-host connections with basic quality of service (QoS) guarantees. A \emph{data-link layer} is layered below the network layer and provides error-corrected single hop connections. Above the network layer is the \emph{transport layer}, that among other services provides the destination address of a message and QoS requirements. We consider an abstraction in which a car's ASC contains the transport layer and all above layers. The ASC specifies parameters such as the data to be sent, the destination address, and limits on transmission delay.
\vspace{-.06in}
\section{Setup} \label{sec:preliminaries}
Developing a synthesis method requires a formal specification language for protocols and a modelling framework to formally describe executable CSAs. Moreover, the CSAs should include interfaces to their corresponding ASCs at the higher level, and hence our synthesis method is designed to introduce this inter-level interaction. To illustrate our method we will use the following example motivated by Caveney~\cite{Caveney}, and Farkas et al.\ \cite{VComm}:
\begin{example}
Consider the scenario of cars at a road intersection shown in \fig{intersection}. Car $A$ runs a red traffic light, and car $B$ approaches the intersection on a trajectory that would lead to a collision. The two cars have to communicate in order to avoid an accident. At the intersection there might be other cars that share the same broadcast medium and hence might interfere with the communication between $A$ and $B$.
\end{example}
\subsection{Operation of a Protocol} \label{sec:protocol}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix@R=0.1cm@C=0.5cm{ {\begin{array}{l}\text{\sl Transport}\\\text{\sl Layer and}\\\text{\sl higher}\end{array}} & {\mathrm{ASC}_A} \ar@<1ex>[ddd]^<<<<{\env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d}} & & {\mathrm{ASC}_B} \ar@<1ex>[ddd]^<<<<{\eenv{\mathrm{ack}}{B}{A}} \\ \\ \\ {\begin{array}{l}\text{\sl Network}\\\text{\sl Layer {\phantom{anda}}}\end{array}} & *+++[][F]{M_A} \ar@<1ex>[d]^>>{!!a_{A \rightarrow B}(d)} \ar@<1ex>[uuu]^<<<<{\esys{\mathrm{ack}}{A}{B}} & & *+++[][F]{M_B} \ar@<1ex>[d]^>>{!!b_{B \rightarrow A}} \ar@<1ex>[uuu]^<<<<{\sys{\mathrm{snd}}{B}{A}{d}} \\ {\begin{array}{l}\text{\sl Data-link}\\\text{\sl Layer and}\\\text{\sl below}\end{array}} & {} \ar@<1ex>[u]^<<{?b_{A \leftarrow B}} & {\begin{array}{c}\\\\\text{Medium}\end{array}} \ar@<2.5ex>@{==}[l] \ar@<-2.5ex>@{==}[r] & {}\ar@<1ex>[u]^<<{?a_{B \leftarrow A}(d)}
}
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\caption{Two cars $A$ and $B$ communicating with each other: $A$ sends a message (by calling $\env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d}$) and $B$ responds with an acknowledgement on reception (by calling $\eenv{\mathrm{ack}}{B}{A}$). The transmission medium and the ASCs are the environment of the CSAs.}
\label{fig:cars}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\end{figure}
The primary objective of a communication protocol is to transfer information between cars. Information transfer between two cars can be interpreted as synchronizing two local events between the cars. Events are indexed by elements $\epsilon$ from a set $\mathcal{E}$. An event $\epsilon$ may be associated with data $d$ from a set $\mathcal{D}$, written $\epsilon(d)$. $\mathcal{D}$ contains an auxiliary element $\perp$, indicating the absence of data. We simply write $\epsilon$ for notational convencience if $\d = \perp$ in $\epsilon(d)$.
A {\sl local event} is an event that is triggered either by the ASC of a car (an {\sl environment-triggered event} from the point of view of the CSA), or by the CSA of a car itself (a {\sl system-triggered event}). An environment-triggered event that is initiated by the ASC at car $A$ and is to be synchronized with car $B$ is written as $\env{\epsilon}{A}{B}{d}$. It is synchronized with the corresponding system-triggered event $\sys{\epsilon}{B}{A}{d}$ by the CSA of car $B$. The sets of environment-triggered and system-triggered events are written as $\mathcal{E}_E$ and $\mathcal{E}_S$ respectively.
If $\env{\epsilon}{A}{B}{d}$ on car $A$ is synchronized with $\sys{\epsilon}{B}{A}{d}$ on car $B$, then the data $d$ is transferred from $A$ to $B$. This is summarized as a single {\sl global event} $\glob{\epsilon}{A}{B}{d}$ (note the absence of the line under $\epsilon$). The set of global events is denoted by $\mathcal{E}_G$. A protocol specification defines a desired temporal order on such global events. Since global events involve several cars, a protocol specification is {\sl centralized}, i.e., it is assumed that the actions of all cars can be influenced independently by a single controller.
Synchronization is achieved by sending messages across a shared transmission medium. A CSA interacts with the medium by transmitting messages and waiting for reception of messages. A message {\sl transmission} is indicated by ``$!!$'', while a {\sl reception} is indicated by ``?'' prefixed to a message.
The interaction with the higher-level ASC is managed by {\sl calls} and {\sl upcalls}. A call is initiated by the ASC and causes an environment-triggered event in the CSA. An upcall is initiated by a system-triggered event in the CSA.
\begin{excont}{Continued}
Consider again the intersection problem in \fig{intersection}. As car $A$ is approaching the intersection, it needs to establish whether it is safe to enter the intersection. It therefore wants to establish a communication with any car that might pose a safety hazard.
Car $A$ needs to communicate with car $B$ to find out if $B$ is willing and able to stop or whether $A$ should attempt an emergency brake. Each car is assigned a unique address for labelling messages, so that when a car receives a message, it knows whether it is the intended destination. We assume that the ASC at $A$ provides its CSA with the address of $B$, so that a P2P communication with $B$ can be established.
This communication scenario is shown in \fig{cars}, where the CSA associated with each car is shown as a box. Data $d$ is transferred from $A$ to $B$, and $B$ should send an acknowledgement back to $A$. Sending $d$ from $A$ to $B$ is done by synchronizing the local events $\env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d}$ and $\sys{\mathrm{snd}}{B}{A}{d}$, while the acknowledging synchronizes $\eenv{\mathrm{ack}}{A}{B}$ with $\esys{\mathrm{ack}}{B}{A}$. A call by an ASC triggers the corresponding environment-triggered event in the CSA on the same car, while an upcall is initiated by the CSA when some system-triggered event requires the attention of the higher level.
\end{excont}
\subsection{Quality of Service} \label{sec:QoS}
Depending on the application, it is be necessary to guarantee that a transmission is completed with certain requirements on particular aspects such as end-to-end delay, message drop probability or bandwidth. These aspects are called Quality of Service (QoS). We are concerned with automatically implementing protocols that guarantee that certain requirements on QoS are met.
Whether QoS requirements can be satisfied depends on the properties of the medium used to transmit messages over. In our work we assume minimal capabilities for a transceiver, so the only way to satisfy QoS requirements is to select the appropriate frequency and number of retransmissions for messages.
Also, when finding the CSAs that satisfy the protocol, we have to take into account that the performance of the transmission medium typically degrades as consequence of messages being transmitted. Moreover, a car cannot predict the behavior of the transmission medium merely on the basis of its own actions, since there might be other cars sharing the same medium that exhibit unpredictable behavior from the point of view of the car. In Example 1, while cars $A$ and $B$ are communicating, other cars might be trying to transmit messages itself, leading to a degradation in performance for $A$ and $B$ that neither car can predict.
We restrict the package drop probability $\Delta$ of the transmission medium by assuming that it is below a given threshold probability $\d$ at all times. We write this as $\always(\Delta \leq \d)$, where ``$\always$'' is the always operator ``$\always$'' of linear temporal logic (LTL) Hence, a full specification in the framework can be stated as an assumption/guarantee specification~\cite{AGspec} $\always(\Delta \leq \d) \rightarrow \v$, where a protocol specification $\v$ only has to hold as long as the assumption that at all times $\Delta \leq \d$ is satisfied.
A straightforward extension to take time into account would be to consider each (re)transmission to take up some amount of time $\mathcal{T}$. We can then include another assumptions of the form $\always(\mathcal{T} \leq \tau_{max})$, where $\tau_{max}$ is an upper bound on the transmission time.
\vspace{-.06in}
\section{Technical Approach} \label{sec:approach}
In this section the concepts described above are formalized.
\subsection{Protocol Specification Language} \label{sec:speclang}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfigure[Centralized.]{
\xymatrix@R=0.0cm@C=-0.1cm{ \\ & {\mathrm{ASC}_A} \ar@<1ex>[ddd] & & {\mathrm{ASC}_B} \ar@<1ex>[ddd] \\ \\ \\ & {} \ar@<1ex>[uuu] & & {} \ar@<1ex>[uuu] \\ & & {\text{ Protocol}} \\ & {} & & & & {} \save "5,1"."7,5"*[F]\frm{} \restore \\ \\ \\ \\ }}
\hspace{0.1cm}
\subfigure[Distributed.]{
\xymatrix@R=0.0cm@C=-0.1cm{& {\mathrm{ASC}_A} \ar@<1ex>[ddd] & & {\mathrm{ASC}_B} \ar@<1ex>[ddd] \\ \\ \\ & {\mathrm{CSA}_A} \ar@<1ex>[ddd] \ar@<1ex>[uuu] & & {\mathrm{CSA}_B} \ar@<1ex>[ddd] \ar@<1ex>[uuu] \\ \\ \\ & {} \ar@<1ex>[uuu] & & {} \ar@<1ex>[uuu] & & \\ & & {\text{Medium}} \ar@{==}[rr] \ar@{==}[ll] & {} & & \\ & {} & & & & {} & \save "3,1"."8,5"*+[F]\frm{} \restore }}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{The protocol on two levels of detail.}
\label{fig:protocol}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\end{figure}
In a protocol specification, the protocol is viewed as a single component interacting with the ASCs, cf.\ \fig{protocol}(a). Only the interaction across the interface between ASCs and CSAs is specified. The CSAs, representing an implementation of a protocol, then interface with the lower level transmission medium in order to provide the required services to the higher level. In this way, the ASCs never come in direct contact with the transmission medium. As introduced above, a specification of the protocol is given as a temporal (partial) order of global events. A global event is any event involving the interaction of several cars, such as a message transmission (involving both the sender and the receiver).
Hence, a protocol specification can be seen as an allowed set of sequences of global events. Moreover, each sequence is tagged with a QoS requirement, which, in our case simply is the required probability of the sequence to be synchronized correctly. In order to avoid having to write a list of sequences with potentially many global events repeating, we use the following temporal logic-like language to define {\sl protocol specifications}:
\begin{equation*}
\v ::= e^p | e \rightarrow \next\v | \v \vee \v,
\end{equation*}
where $e^p$ is a global event $e \in \mathcal{E}_G$ together with a probability $p$ indicating the required QoS. Extensions of this specification language can also include time, bandwidth or other QoS requirements in the same way in the specification. A {\sl specification} is a protocol specification together with an environment assumption, in our case an upper bound $\d$ on the drop probability $\Delta$.
\begin{excont}{Continued}
The protocol described in the intersection example of \fig{intersection} can be specified as
\begin{equation}
\v = \glob{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d} \rightarrow \next (\eglob{\mathrm{ack}}{B}{A}^{p_1} \vee \eglob{\mathrm{nack}}{B}{A}^{p_2}), \label{eq:protspec}
\end{equation}
which can be illustrated as a tree as in \fig{protspec}. In the numerical results presented later for this example we will use different values for $p_1$ and $p_2$.
The results of the synthesis also depend on the drop probability bound $\d$. A complete specification that includes the assumptions on the transmission medium dynamics would be
\begin{equation}
\always(\Delta \leq \d) \rightarrow \v.
\end{equation}
\end{excont}
Since we are interested in QoS requirements over the drop probability of the transmission medium, a probability $p$ on $e^p$ labels each leaf of the tree representing a protocol specification, specifying the desired probability of the (unique) sequence of global events $\sigma$ occurring that leads to the leaf. We call a sequence $\sigma$ with a probability $p$ attached to it a {\sl $p$-sequence} and write $(\sigma)^p$. The semantics of the protocol specification language is defined by a satisfaction relation: If a $p$-sequence $\sigma$ of global events satisfies the protocol specification $\v$, this is written as $(\sigma)^p \models \v$.
We first develop an intuitive understanding of a sequence $\sigma = e_1e_2\ldots$ satisfying a specification $\v$. Recall that a protocol specification only takes the interfaces between CSAs and ASCs into account, and hence views the protocol implementation as a monolithic entity as in \fig{protocol}(a). Each global event $e_i = \glob{\epsilon}{x}{y}{d}$ in the sequence $\sigma$ is interpreted as the synchronization of an environment-triggered event $\env{\epsilon}{x}{y}{d}$ and a system-triggered event $\sys{\epsilon}{y}{x}{d}$. The ASC on car $x$ triggers $\env{\epsilon}{x}{y}{d}$ by a call to its CSA. The intention is that the corresponding system-triggered event $\sys{\epsilon}{y}{x}{d}$ is synchronized with that event in the CSA on car $y$ (and an upcall is made to its ASC). The synchronization is correct if after an environment-triggered event $\env{\epsilon}{x}{y}{d}$, the first system-triggered event is $\sys{\epsilon}{y}{x}{d}$, i.e.\ no other system-triggered event is interleaved between them. Note that environment-triggered events that do not correspond to global events in the specification may be interleaved, as the protocol has no control over the higher level. Then, the statement $(\sigma)^p \models \v$ expresses that $\sigma$ satisfies the partial order defined in $\v$ and has a high enough probability $p$ attached to it.
We now formally define $\models$ recursively on the structure of a protocol specification $\v$ (cf.\ \eqref{eq:protspec}):
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rlll}
(e)^p &\models e^q &\Leftrightarrow & p \geq q \\
(e, \sigma)^p &\models e \rightarrow\next\v &\Leftrightarrow & (\sigma)^p \models \v \\
(\sigma)^p &\models \v_1 \vee \v_2 &\Leftrightarrow &(\sigma)^p \models \v_1 \mathrm{~or~} (\sigma)^p \models \v_2,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where adding a global event $e$ to the head of a sequence $\sigma$ is written as $e, \sigma$. Under these semantics a protocol specification is satisfied exactly by those sequences of global events that both obey the partial order induced by $\varphi$ and that have a sufficiently high probability attached to them.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{ & *++[o][F-]{} \ar[d]^{\mathrm{snd}_{x \rightarrow y}(d)} \\ & *++[o][F-]{} \ar[dl]_(0.7){\mathrm{ack}_{y \rightarrow x}} \ar[dr]^(0.7){\mathrm{nack}_{y \rightarrow x}} \\ *+[o][F-]{p_1} & & *+[o][F-]{p_2}}
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\caption{Visualization of protocol specification $\v$ in \eqref{eq:protspec}, which establishes a partial order between the global events $\mathrm{snd}_{x \rightarrow y}(d)$, $\mathrm{ack}_{y \rightarrow x}$ and $\mathrm{nack}_{y \rightarrow x}$, represented by the order of the edge labels.}
\label{fig:protspec}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Communication Service Automata} \label{sec:CSA}
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[Sender: $M_A$]{
\xymatrix@C=0.8cm@R=1cm{ & *++[o][F=]{s_1} \ar[d]^{\env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d}}="snd" \\
*++[o][F-]{s_4} & *++[o][F-]{s_2} \ar[l]_(.5){\scriptsize\begin{array}{l}\locev{\mathrm{fail}}_1 \\ \nu_1 > n_1\end{array}} \ar@/^/[d]^(.7){!!a_{A \rightarrow B}(d)}="!!a"^(.5){\nu_1 \leq n_1} \\
& *++[o][F-]{s_3} \ar[dl]_(.7){?b_{A \leftarrow B}}="?b"_(.5){\esys{\mathrm{ack}}{A}{B}}="rack" \ar[dr]^(.7){?c_{A \leftarrow B}}="?c"^(.5){\esys{\mathrm{nack}}{A}{B}}="rnack" \ar@/^/[u]^(.3){\mathrm{T.O.}_1}^(.5){\nu_1+\!+} \\
*++[o][F.]{s_5} & & *++[o][F.]{s_6} }}
%
\subfigure[Receiver: $M_B$]{
\xymatrix@C=0.8cm@R=1cm{ {} & & *++[o][F=]{s_1} \ar[d]_{?a_{B \leftarrow A}(d)}="?a"^{\sys{\mathrm{snd}}{B}{A}{d}}="rcv" & & {}\\
& & *++[o][F-]{s_2} \ar[dl]_(.5){\eenv{\mathrm{ack}}{B}{A}}="ack" \ar[dr]^(.5){\eenv{\mathrm{nack}}{B}{A}}="nack" & & {} \\
*++[o][F-]{s_4} & *++[o][F-]{s_3} \ar@/^/[d]^(0.7){!!b_{B \rightarrow A}}="!!b"^(.5){\nu_2 \leq n_2} \ar[l]_(.5){\scriptsize\begin{array}{l}\locev{\mathrm{fail}}_2 \\ \nu_2 > n_2\end{array}}="fail2" & & *++[o][F-]{s_7} \ar@/_/[d]_(0.7){!!c_{B \rightarrow A}}="!!b"_(.5){\nu_3 \leq n_3} \ar[r]^(.5){\scriptsize\begin{array}{l}\locev{\mathrm{fail}}_3 \\ \nu_3 > n_3\end{array}}="fail3" & *++[o][F-]{s_8} \\
& *++[o][F]{s_5} \ar@/^/[u]^(.3){?a_{B \leftarrow A}(d)}^(.5){\nu_2+\!+} \ar[d]_(.65){\mathrm{T.O.}_2}="?b"_(.5){\locev{\mathrm{success}}_2}="success2" & & *++[o][F]{s_9} \ar@/_/[u]_(.3){?a_{B \leftarrow A}(d)}_(.5){\nu_3+\!+} \ar[d]^(.65){\mathrm{T.O.}_3}="?b"^(.5){\locev{\mathrm{success}}_3}="success3" \\
& *++[o][F.]{s_6} & & *++[o][F.]{s_{10}}}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\caption{Two CSAs that realize the protocol specification in~\eqref{eq:protspec}. The transitions are labelled with broadcast messages (e.g.\ $!!a_{A \rightarrow B}(d)$), receptions (e.g.\ $?a_{B \leftarrow A}(d)$), and local events (e.g.\ $\sys{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d}$ and $\env{\mathrm{snd}}{B}{A}{d}$). Initial states and final states are shown as doubled and dotted circles respectively. In each retransmission loop, a retransmission counter $\nu_i$ is increased by one on each timeout or reception. The transmissions are conditioned on the retransmission counters $\nu_i$. If the counter is exceeded, indicated by $\nu_i > n_i$, a $\locev{\mathrm{fail}}_i$ occurs.}
\label{fig:services}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\end{figure}
We are interested in finding a way to implement a protocol in a distributed manner by finding CSAs for the cars so that their joint execution satisfies the protocol specification. That is, the implementation of the protocol must use the transmission medium in order to guarantee the required services to the higher level, see \fig{protocol}(b). A set $\mathcal{M}$ of CSAs satisfies a protocol specification if it produces only the allowed sequences of global events, and these with a sufficiently high probability. In this section we make precise the concept of a CSA and define its semantics in the next section.
A CSA is a finite state machine with labelled transitions, which is similar to a protocol entity specification used by Ishida et al.\ \cite{Ishida}. Transition labels either indicate which actions should be executed when the transition is taken, or impose conditions on a transition. A transition for which all conditions are satisfied is called {\sl enabled}. The labels that are available to the synthesis method are explained below, and transitions are typically labelled with combinations of labels.
Firstly, interaction with the higher-level ASCs is encoded by edges labelled with environment-triggered and system-triggered events. We also introduce two special system-triggered events ``$\locev{\mathrm{fail}}$'' and ``$\locev{\mathrm{success}}$'' to $\mathcal{E}_S$ that have no corresponding environment-triggered events to be synchronized with. The purpose of these events is merely to inform the ASC of the outcome of a transmission. A $\locev{\mathrm{fail}}$ event indicates that allowable retransmission count is exceeded, while the $\locev{\mathrm{success}}$ event indicates a successful transmission to the ASC triggering the last global event.\footnote{This is necessary since no response from another ASC can indicate completion of the transmission.}
Secondly, to interact with the transmission medium, transitions can be labelled with message transmissions and receptions. Each message has a unique identifier $m$. A broadcast message is written as $!!m_{x \rightarrow y}(d)$, where $x$ and $y$ are the source and destination respectively, and $d \in \mathcal{D}$ is the data transmitted. It is read as ``send $m$ with data $d$ to $y$ from source $x$.'' Similarly, a reception is written as $?m_{y \leftarrow x}(d)$, where $x$, $y$ and $d$ have the same interpretation as for a broadcast message. It is read as ``receive $m$ with data $d$ from $x$ destined for $y$.'' Again, if $d = \perp$, the parameter is not written. Define $\mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{R}$ to be the set of broadcasts and receptions respectively.
Lastly, we introduce labels for internal actions of a CSA. In order to satisfy the QoS requirements of the protocol specification, it may be necessary to allow the retransmission of messages. To this end, we define a set of {\sl variables} $\mathcal{V}$ over $\mathbb{N}_0 = \{0, 1, 2, \ldots \}$ that act as {\sl retransmission counters}. We will construct the CSAs in such a way that for each message $m$ that might be retransmitted, after a transmission $!!m_{x \rightarrow y}(d)$, either a reception of some other message is expected or a {\sl timeout} ``$\mathrm{T.O.}$'' may occur. On the timeout, the retransmission counter $\nu$ of the message is increased by one. If $\nu$ exceeds its {\sl retransmission bound} $n \in \mathbb{N}_0$, the transmission fails, causing a $\locev{\mathrm{fail}}$ event and a corresponding upcall informing the ASC. We write an {\sl update} of a variable $\nu \in \mathcal{V}$ as $\nu\!+\!+$, and denote the set of updates by $\mathcal{U} = \{ \nu\!+\!+ | \nu \in \mathcal{V}\}$. Further, a transition may be labelled by a {\sl condition} on a retransmission counter, which can be either of the form $\nu \leq n$ or $\nu > n$. The set of conditions is defined as $\mathcal{C} = \{\nu \bowtie n | \nu \in \mathcal{V}, \bowtie \in \{ \leq, > \}, n \in \mathbb{N}_0 \}$
When synthesizing a CSA from a protocol specification, each transition can be of one of seven kinds, depending on the labels: A environment-triggered event, a conditional system-triggered event, a timeout with a system-triggered event, a timeout with update, a conditional broadcast, a reception with a system-triggered event or a reception with update. Hence, the set of labels is $\Sigma = \mathcal{E}_E \cup (\mathcal{E}_S \times \mathcal{C}) \cup (\{\mathrm{T.O.}\} \times \mathcal{E}_S) \cup (\{\mathrm{T.O.}\} \times \mathcal{U}) \cup (\mathcal{B} \times \mathcal{C}) \cup (\mathcal{R} \times \mathcal{E}_S) \cup (\mathcal{R} \times \mathcal{U})$ for the respective cases. The set of such transition labels is denoted by $\Sigma$. A CSA $M$ is a quintuple
\begin{equation*}
M \triangleq \langle S, \mathcal{V}, s^{init}, S^f, T \rangle,
\end{equation*}
where $S$ is a set of {\sl states} labelled by valuations of variables $\mathcal{V}$, $s^{init} \in S$ is the {\sl initial state}, $S^f \subseteq S$ is the set of {\sl final states}, and $T : S \times \Sigma \rightarrow S$ is the (partial) {\sl transition function}.
\begin{excont}{Continued}
The pair of CSAs shown in \fig{services} represents one potential implementation of the protocol specification in \eqref{eq:protspec}. The transmissions and receptions are introduced in order to ensure that the QoS requirements as defined in the specification is preserved by the CSAs that can only communicate over the transmission medium. For example, the sender $M_A$ may retransmit the message $!!a_{A \rightarrow B}(d)$ up to $n_1$ times in case of repeated timeouts to increase the likelihood of a successful transmission, in order to meet the specification.
\end{excont}
\subsection{Semantics of CSAs}
In the semantics of a CSA, we want to reflect that a car should be able to execute it as a controller for its wireless transceiver.
Decisions when to make transitions should be based only on information available locally. For example, a transition labelled by a reception $?m_{x \leftarrow y}$ is taken only when a message $m$ arrives that has $x$ as its destination and $y$ as its source. Since a CSA is executed locally on a car, we first define the {\sl local semantics} of a single CSA. This describes how a CSA operates in isolation when receiving calls from the ASC on the same car, and messages from the transmission medium, cf.\ \fig{protocol}(b). We then define the {\sl global semantics} of several CSAs that operate together, which requires to take the transmission medium dynamics into account, cf.\ \sec{QoS}. Hence, the global semantics can be interpreted as defining the behavior of the protocol in \fig{protocol}(a). An example of how the semantics are used is presented in \sec{Pdeduction}.
\subsubsection{Deduction Rules}
For ease of presentation, the semantics are defined as a set of {\sl deduction rules}. A deduction rule is of the form
\begin{equation*}
\frac{
\begin{array}{cccc}
H_1 & H_2 & \ldots & H_n
\end{array}}{
C},
\end{equation*}
which is the same as $\bigwedge_{i = 1}^n{H_i} \Rightarrow C$, i.e.\ the {\sl conclusion} $C$ follows from the {\sl hypotheses} $H_1, H2, \ldots, H_n$. A deduction rule can be applied if all its hypotheses hold. Rules can either be applied forward, starting from one or several axioms, or backwards, starting from a conclusion. Forward application corresponds to simulation, while backwards application corresponds to verification.
\subsubsection{Notation}
\newcommand{\smallstep}[2]{\xrightarrow{\hspace{0.3cm}{#1}\hspace{0.3cm}}_{M_{#2}}}
\newcommand{\bigstep}[1]{\xRightarrow{\hspace{0.3cm}{#1}\hspace{0.3cm}}_{\mathcal{M}(\d)}}
We first introduce some notation to make the statement of the rules more compact. Retransmission uses conditional transitions and updating of variables. The value $v$ of a variable $\nu \in \mathcal{V}$ in a state $s$ is written $s(\nu) = v$. In the initial state $s^{init}$ all variables valuate to zero. A condition $\gamma = \nu \bowtie n$ is satisfied in state $s$, written $\gamma(s)$, if and only if $s(\nu) \bowtie n$. Two states $s$ and $s'$ are equivalent on their values of the variables in $V \subseteq \mathcal{V}$, written $s \vareq{V} s'$, if and only if $\forall \nu \in V . s(\nu) = s'(\nu)$. We write $T(s, \varsigma) \vareq{V} s'$ if and only if $T(s, \varsigma) = s'$ and $s \vareq{V} s'$, where $\varsigma \in \Sigma$ may stand for any transition label. Furthermore, we use the $+$ operator to append an element to the end of a sequence.
\subsubsection{Local Semantic Rules}
\newcommand{3.7ex}{3.7ex}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{equation*}
\hspace{-0.3cm}\begin{array}{ll}
\text{[env]} &
\frac{
\begin{array}{c}
T(s, \env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}) \vareq{\mathcal{V}} s'
\end{array}}{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle \rho, s \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{e}}{y} \langle \rho + \env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}, s' \rangle
\end{array}} \\[3.7ex]
\text{[sys-c]} &
\frac{
\begin{array}{cc}
T(s, (\sys{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}, \gamma)) \vareq{\mathcal{V}} s' & \gamma(s)
\end{array}}{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle \rho, s \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{e}}{y} \langle \rho + \sys{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}, s' \rangle
\end{array}} \\[3.7ex]
\text{[to-sys]} &
\frac{
\begin{array}{c}
T(s, (\mathrm{T.O.}, \sys{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d})) \vareq{\mathcal{V}} s'
\end{array}}{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle \rho, s \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{t}}{y} \langle \rho + \mathrm{T.O.} + \sys{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}, s' \rangle
\end{array}} \\[3.7ex]
\text{[to-upd]} &
\frac{
\begin{array}{cc}
T(s, (\mathrm{T.O.}, \nu\!+\!+)) \vareq{\mathcal{V} \backslash \{\nu\}} s' & s'(\nu) = s(\nu) + 1
\end{array}}{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle \rho, s \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{t}}{y} \langle \rho + \mathrm{T.O.}, s' \rangle
\end{array}} \\[3.7ex]
\text{[b-c]} &
\frac{
\begin{array}{cc}
T(s, (!!m_{y \rightarrow z}(d), \gamma)) \vareq{\mathcal{V}} s' & \gamma(s)
\end{array}}{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle \rho, s \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{e}}{y} \langle \rho + !!m_{y \rightarrow z}(d), s' \rangle
\end{array}} \\[3.7ex]
\text{[r-sys]} &
\frac{
\begin{array}{cc}
T(s, (\varsigma, \sys{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d})) \vareq{\mathcal{V}} s' & \varsigma = ?m_{y \leftarrow z}(d)
\end{array}}{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle \rho + \varsigma, s \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{r}}{y} \langle \rho + \varsigma + \sys{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}, s' \rangle
\end{array}} \\[3.7ex]
\text{[r-upd]} &
\frac{
\begin{array}{cc}
T(s, (?m_{y \leftarrow z}(d), \nu\!+\!+)) \vareq{\mathcal{V} \backslash \{\nu\}} s' & s'(\nu) = s(\nu) + 1
\end{array}}{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle \rho + ?m_{y \leftarrow z}(d), s \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{r}}{y} \langle \rho + ?m_{y \leftarrow z}(d), s' \rangle
\end{array}}
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
\caption{Local semantic rules for deducing behavior of a single CSA $M_y$.}
\label{tab:singleCSArules}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\end{table}
The local semantics is defined by a relation $\smallstep{}{} \subseteq (\Sigma^* \times S) \times (\Sigma^* \times S)$ between sequences of transition labels and CSA states. The statement $\langle \rho, s \rangle \smallstep{}{} \langle \rho', s' \rangle$ means that $M$ at state $s$ transforms $\rho$ into $\rho'$ by making a single transition to state $s'$. It holds if and only if it is deducible via the rules given in \tab{singleCSArules}. To make the statement of the global semantics simpler, we may label the relation by a superscript to distinguish which rules are applied. For example, $\smallstep{\mathrm{e}}{}$ indicates that either the rule [env], [sys-c] or [b-c] are applied. If the superscript is omitted, any rule may be applied.
We explain the [env] rule for CSA $M_y$ in detail, the other rules are similar. The hypothesis $T(s, \env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}) \vareq{\mathcal{V}} s'$ expresses that $M_y$ must allow a transition from $s$ that is labelled with the environment-triggered event $\env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}$ and leads to a state $s'$ in which the values of all variables in $\mathcal{V}$ are the same as in $s$ (i.e.\ there is no update). If this hypothesis is satisfied, $M_y$ at state $s$ transforms $\rho$ into $\rho'$ by making a transition to state $s'$.
The [env] rule can be applied at any point if a transition labelled by an environment-triggered event is enabled. It is not dependent on an input from the higher level ASC. Stating the rule this way is sufficient for our presentation, but it can be substituted by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{[env$'$]} &
\frac{
\begin{array}{c}
T(s, \env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}) \vareq{\mathcal{V}} s'
\end{array}}{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle \rho + \env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}, s \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{e}}{y} \langle \rho + \env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}, s' \rangle
\end{array}}
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
to explicitly require an input to be able to apply the rule. The input is the last element in the sequence, which is an environment-triggered event $\env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}$, indicating that the ASC must have made the corresponding call. This input may be placed in the sequence (i.e.\ added as last element) by the global semantics, similar to the inputs for the [r-sys] and [r-upd] rules.
The [sys-c] rule places no restriction on the input and contains as an additional hypothesis that the condition $\gamma$ must be satisfied in state $s$. The system-triggered event $\sys{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}$ gives rise to an upcall. Such outputs can be read off the last element of the deduced sequence and hence are not modelled explicitly in these rules. The [to-sys] rule can be applied for a transition labelled with a timeout $\mathrm{T.O.}$ and a system-triggered event $\sys{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}$. In the [to-upd] rule the value of the variable $\nu \in \mathcal{V}$ is incremented by one as the transition is taken. Hence we use the operator $\vareq{\mathcal{V} \backslash \{\nu\}}$, since $\vareq{\mathcal{V}}$ would indicate that all variables in $\mathcal{V}$ retain their values as the transition is taken. The [b-c] rule can be applied for a conditional broadcast message. The outgoing message again can be obtained from the last element of the deduced sequence. Rules [r-sys] and [r-upd] require the reception $?m_{y \leftarrow z}(d)$ to occur, hence the rules require the corresponding input.
Each CSA may deduce a set of sequences of events by transitioning between its states. Decisions between environment-triggered events, receptions and timeouts are made by inputs (or the absence thereof) received either from the higher level ASC or the lower level transmission medium. These inputs can only be generated by the global semantics.
\subsubsection{Transmission Medium Modelling}
We define the global semantics by modelling how the transmission medium operates. That is, we define the behavior of the protocol in \fig{protocol}(a) by composing the behavior of the CSAs in \fig{protocol}(b) and abstracting away all lower level detail. The global semantics defines when inputs to a CSA are received from the transmission medium, and restricts the valid interleavings of locally generated sequences. The medium therefore also acts as an arbiter or scheduler of transitions.
In the global semantics, we are interested in ensuring that several CSAs together satisfy the global protocol specification by interacting with each other. We therefore define the semantics of a list of CSAs $\mathcal{M} = \langle M_A, M_B \ldots \rangle$ that is executed together on the respective set of cars $\mathfrak{C} = \{A, B, \ldots \}$. Each execution starts with all CSAs in $\mathcal{M}$ being in their initial state $s^{init} = \langle s_A^{init}, s_B^{init}, \ldots \rangle$ and making only transitions allowed by the semantics. Only a single sequence $\rho \in \Sigma^*$ is deduced, which is an interleaving of the sequences deduced locally. The deduction rules also express that the medium transmits messages only with a given probability. Hence, the deduced sequence $\rho$ is tagged with a probability $p$, indicating how likely it occurs.
Not only do the global semantics define how messages are transmitted, also the valid interleavings of locally deduced sequences are restricted. To motivate this, consider in \fig{services} the execution of the environment-triggered event $\eenv{\mathrm{ack}}{B}{A}$. Since time is abstracted away, the transition may be delayed by an arbitrary amount of time. However, then the retransmission loop in the sender $A$ cannot reliably increase the likelihood of a successful execution, since the timeout transition can also be taken at any time. In order to prevent this from happening, the global semantics ensure that transitions that are not timeouts or receptions are taken immediately if enabled. Hence, only one CSA is allowed to make transitions until a timeout or reception is encountered. Then any CSA may make a transition. This is incorporated in the global semantics by always prioritizing one CSA is to make a transition. If this CSA has no transition enabled, any other CSA may make a transition.
\subsubsection{Global Semantic Rules}
\begin{table}[bt!]
\centering
\begin{equation*}
\hspace{-0.5cm}\begin{array}{ll}
\text{[trans]} &
\frac{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle \rho + ?m_{z \leftarrow y}(d), s_z \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{r}}{z} \langle \rho', s_z' \rangle \\ \varsigma = !!m_{y \rightarrow z}(d)
\end{array}}{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle (\rho + \varsigma)^p, s, y \rangle \bigstep{} \langle (\rho')^{(1-\d)p}, s[z \leftarrow s_z'], z \rangle
\end{array}} \\[3.7ex]
\text{[drop]} &
\frac{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle \rho + ?m_{z \leftarrow y}(d), s_z\rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{r}}{z} \langle \rho', s_z' \rangle \\ \varsigma = !!m_{y \rightarrow z}(d)
\end{array}}{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle(\rho + \varsigma)^p, s, y \rangle \bigstep{} \langle (\rho)^{\d p}, s, z \rangle
\end{array}} \\[3.7ex]
\text{[nacc]} &
\frac{
\begin{array}{c}
\neg(\langle \rho + ?m_{z \leftarrow y}(d), s_z \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{r}}{z} \langle \rho', s_z' \rangle) \\ \varsigma = !!m_{y \rightarrow z}(d) \hspace{1cm} \langle \rho, s_x \rangle \smallstep{}{x} \langle \rho', s_x' \rangle
\end{array}}{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle (\rho + \varsigma)^p, s, y \rangle \bigstep{} \langle (\rho)^p, s, z \rangle
\end{array}} \\[3.7ex]
\text{[pr-e]} &
\frac{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\varsigma \neq !!m_{y \rightarrow z}(d) & \langle \rho + \varsigma, s_y \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{e}}{y} \langle \rho', s_y' \rangle
\end{array}}{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle (\rho + \varsigma)^p, s, y \rangle \bigstep{} \langle (\rho')^p, s[y \leftarrow s_y'], y \rangle
\end{array}} \\[3.7ex]
\text{[pr-t]} &
\frac{
\begin{array}{cl}
\varsigma \neq !!m_{y \rightarrow z}(d) & \neg(\langle \rho + \varsigma, s_y \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{e}}{y} \langle \rho'', s_y'' \rangle) \\ & \langle \rho + \varsigma, s_y \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{t}}{y} \langle \rho', s_y' \rangle
\end{array}}{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle (\rho + \varsigma)^p, s, y \rangle \bigstep{} \langle (\rho')^p, s[y \leftarrow s_y'], y \rangle
\end{array}} \\[3.7ex]
\text{[npr]} &
\frac{
\begin{array}{cl}
\varsigma \neq !!m_{y \rightarrow z}(d) & \neg(\langle \rho + \varsigma, s_y \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{e, t}}{y} \langle \rho'', s_y' \rangle) \\ & \langle \rho + \varsigma, s_x \rangle \smallstep{}{x} \langle \rho', s_x' \rangle
\end{array}}{
\begin{array}{c}
\langle (\rho + \varsigma)^p, s, y \rangle \bigstep{} \langle (\rho')^p, s[x \leftarrow s_x'], x \rangle
\end{array}}
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
\caption{Global semantics for deducing behavior of several CSAs $\mathcal{M}$. In particular, the rules [trans], [drop] and [nacc] model the transmission medium.}
\label{tab:compositionrules}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\end{table}
In the global semantics, we are interested in ensuring that several CSAs together satisfy the global protocol specification by interacting with each other. The transmission medium therefore acts as an arbiter or scheduler of transitions. Hence, we can think of the global behavior of several CSAs $M_1, M_2, \ldots$ as an interleaving $\rho$ of the locally generated sequences $\rho_1, \rho_2, \ldots$ of the respective CSAs. Messages are only transmitted with a certain probability. Hence, the sequence $\rho$ is tagged with a probability $p$, indicating how likely it occurs.
The relation $\langle (\rho)^p, s, x \rangle \bigstep{} \langle (\rho')^{p'}, s', x' \rangle$ defines the global semantics according to the rules in \tab{compositionrules}. It means that $\mathcal{M}$ with drop probability $\d$ at state $s$ transforms $\rho$ into $\rho'$ by making a transition to state $s'$ while the priority changes from $M_x$ to $M_{x'}$. In the statement of the rules, updating the $z^{\mathrm{th}}$ element $s_z$ in state $s = \langle s_A, s_B, \ldots, s_z, \ldots \rangle$ with $s_z'$ is written as $s[z \leftarrow s_z']$.
The [trans], [drop] and [nacc] rules define the transmission medium dynamics. If the last deduced element in the sequence is a broadcast message, i.e.\ $\varsigma = !!m_{y \rightarrow z}(d)$, the medium tries to transmit. An application of the [trans] rule models a successful message transmission. This only occurs if the CSA for which the message was destined, $M_z$ makes a transition labelled with the corresponding reception. That is, $\langle \rho + ?m_{z \leftarrow y}(d), s_z \rangle \smallstep{\mathrm{r}}{z} \langle \rho', s' \rangle$ is only satisfied if $M_z$ can execute [r-sys] or [r-upd]. Since a message transmission occurs with probability $1-\d$, the probability with which the sequence $\rho'$ is tagged in the conclusion of [trans] is $(1-\d)p$.
An application of the [drop] rule models a dropped message. It has exactly the same hypotheses as [trans], but its conclusion reflects that no progress has been made. The sequence $\rho$ is tagged with $\d p$ due to the message drop probability $\d$. Note that the priority is at the source CSA $M_y$, which may now execute a timeout transition (if enabled).
The [nacc] rule is applied when a message should be transmitted, but the destination CSA has no transition enabled that is labelled by the corresponding reception. Similar to the [drop] rule, no progress is made. Also, the probability of the deduced sequence is not affected.
The [pr-e], [pr-t] and [npr] rules may be applied if the last element of the sequence is not a message transmission. Then the transmission medium is inactive, and and the CSA that is currently prioritized may execute: If a transition that is not a timeout or reception is enabled, then [pr-e] is applied. If a timeout transition is enabled, then [pr-t] is applied. The [npr] rule may only applied if the currently prioritized CSA has no such transitions enabled. In this case, any CSA $M_x$ may execute.
The transitive closure $\langle (\rho)^p, s, x \rangle \bigstep{}^* \langle (\rho')^{p'}, s', x' \rangle$ denotes that $\langle \rho, s \rangle$ is transformed into $\langle \rho', s' \rangle$ in an arbitrary number of deduction steps. The CSAs $\mathcal{M}$ execute by starting in state $s^{init}$ with an empty 1-sequence $(\bullet)^1$ and any CSA $M_x$ prioritized. Valid deductions are the tuples $\langle (\rho)^{p}, s, y \rangle$ for which $\langle (\bullet)^1, s^{init}, x \rangle \bigstep{}^* \langle (\rho)^{p}, s, y \rangle$.
Note that an example of how the local and global semantic rules are used is included in \sec{Pdeduction}.
\subsubsection{Global Event Sequences}
By applying the deduction rules, sequences over both envi\-ronment-triggered and system-triggered events, broadcasts, receptions and timeouts can be obtained from a set of CSAs. Since protocol specifications are over global events, we need to extract the synchronizations of local events in the sequences generated by a set of CSAs. We therefore define the projection function $\proj{\cdot} : \Sigma^* \rightarrow \mathcal{E}_G^*$ to find a sequence over global events from $\rho$. It is defined by
\begin{align*}
\proj{\bullet} &\triangleq \bullet\\
\proj{\rho + r} &\triangleq \begin{cases}
\proj{\rho} + \env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d} &\text{if}~r = \env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d} \\
\proj{\rho'} + \glob{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}&\text{if}~\proj{\rho} = \proj{\rho'} + \env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}\text{and}~r = \sys{\epsilon}{z}{y}{d}\\
\proj{\rho} &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
We use the projection function $\proj{\cdot}$ to express whether a set of CSAs satisfies a protocol specification $\v$ under the environment assumptions $\always(\Delta \leq \d)$.
\subsection{Correctness} \label{sec:correctness}
In this section we define correctness of a protocol's implementation in form of a set of CSAs $\mathcal{M}$ with respect to a specification $\always(\Delta \leq \d) \rightarrow \v$. If $\mathcal{M}$ satisfies this specification this is written as $\mathcal{M} \vdash \always(\Delta \leq \d) \rightarrow \v$. Correctness depends on the probability of sequences $\sigma$ being synchronized correctly by the CSAs $\mathcal{M}$ if the transmission medium's drop probability $\Delta$ is bounded from above by $\d$, i.e.\ it satisfies $\always(\Delta \leq \d)$. If this assumption on the transmission medium is not satisfied, the specification $\always(\Delta \leq \d) \rightarrow \v$ is trivially satisfied by any set of CSAs. However, this case is useless in practice, as the protocol will not deliver the data with the required QoS.
\subsubsection{Definitions}
Given a protocol specification $\v$, correctness of an implementation depends on whether all CSAs involved in synchronizing a sequence of global events are in a final state. We therefore define the set of {\sl globally final} states $S^f_\mathcal{M}$ to include all tuples of states $\langle s_A, s_B, \ldots \rangle \in \prod_{x \in \mathfrak{C}}S_x$ so that if there is some sequence involving CSAs $x, y, \ldots$, the states $s_x, s_y, \ldots$ are actually final states from $S_x^f, S_y^f, \ldots$.%
We say that a $p$-sequence $(\rho)^p$ is {\sl generated} by a set of CSAs $\mathcal{M}$ and drop probability $\d$, and write $(\rho)^p \models {\M(\d)}$, if it can be deduced by the rules in \tab{singleCSArules} and \tab{compositionrules} and the deduction ends in a globally final state $s^f \in S^f_{\mathcal{M}}$. Formally,
\begin{align*}
(\rho)^p \models {\M(\d)} \Leftrightarrow \\
\exists s^f \in S^f_{\mathcal{M}} . \exists x, y \in \mathfrak{C} . \langle (\bullet)^1, s^{init}, x \rangle \bigstep{}^* \langle (\rho)^p, s^f, y \rangle.
\end{align*}
As noted above in \sec{protocol}, a $p$-sequence $(\sigma)^p$ satisfies a specification $\v$ exactly if the probability $p$ that all (global) events in $\sigma$ are correctly synchronized is high enough given that the corresponding environment-triggered events are all triggered through calls by the higher level ASCs. For a set of CSAs therefore to satisfy a specification, it is required that the synchronization of events in each sequence is performed with high enough probability.
\subsubsection{Correctness Condition}
The important criterion for correctness is not whether a sequence $\rho$ is generated, but whether the QoS requirements are satisfied. This is because the decisions between environment-triggered events (which essentially generate the sequence) are made by the higher level ASCs, over which a CSA has no control. For example, in \fig{services}, the receiver CSA has no control over whether $\eenv{\mathrm{ack}}{B}{A}$ or $\eenv{\mathrm{nack}}{B}{A}$ is triggered by its ASC in state $s_2$. In our case the only QoS requirement is the probability of all global events being correctly synchronized, so the question for correctness becomes: Given that the ASCs trigger the events necessary to generate $\sigma$, how likely is it that all synchronizations performed?
$\mathcal{M}$ might generate a given sequence $\sigma$ in many different ways, since several sequences $\rho$ deducible by the rules in \tab{singleCSArules} might satisfy $\proj{\rho} = \sigma$. For a sequence $\sigma$, we evaluate the sum of all probabilities $p$ for distinct sequences $\rho$ that satisfy
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{cond}(\sigma, p, \d, \mathcal{M}) \triangleq (\proj{\rho} = \sigma \wedge (\rho)^p \models {\M(\d)}),
\end{equation*}
and get the probability
\begin{equation*}
r(\sigma, \d, \mathcal{M}) \triangleq \sum_{\mathrm{cond}(\sigma, p, \d, \mathcal{M})}{p},
\end{equation*}
expressing the likelihood of the events in the sequence $\sigma$ being correctly synchronized when executing all CSAs in $\mathcal{M}$ in parallel (i.e. using the global semantics). {\sl Correctness} then is expressed by
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M} \vdash \always(\Delta \leq \d) \rightarrow \v \Leftrightarrow \forall \sigma . (\exists q . (\sigma)^q \models \v) \Rightarrow (\sigma)^{r(\sigma, \d, \mathcal{M})} \models \v,
\end{equation*}
i.e.\ if $\sigma$ is a sequence allowed by the specification $\v$, $\mathcal{M}$ synchronizes the events $\sigma$ at least as likely as it is required.\\
The algorithmically challenging part in establishing correctness is to evaluate $r(\sigma, \d, \mathcal{M})$. However, we only need to compute this for the CSAs that we are synthesizing.
\vspace{-.06in}
\section{Synthesis} \label{sec:method}
The protocol synthesis method $\mathfrak{S}$ translates a specification into a set of CSAs that is guaranteed to satisfy the specification. The inputs to the synthesis are a protocol specification $\v$, a set of cars $\mathfrak{C}$ and the specification on the transmission medium dynamics $\always(\Delta \leq \d)$. $\mathfrak{S}(\v, \mathfrak{C}, \d)$ produces a CSA for each car $x \in \mathfrak{C}$ that interacts with the higher level ASCs as outlined in \sec{preliminaries}.
\subsection{Realizability and Well-Posedness}
Synthesis is preceded by a realizability check, i.e.\ checking whether a specification \emph{can} be implemented. That is, checking realizability amounts to deciding whether there exists a set of CSAs that satisfies the specification $\always(\Delta \leq \d) \rightarrow \varphi$. If a protocol specification $\v$ is realizable for a set of cars $\mathfrak{C}$ under a drop probability $\d$, this is written as $\mathfrak{R}(\v, \mathfrak{C}, \d)$.
Checking realizability consists of two parts: Firstly, the specification itself must be well-posed, i.e.\ $\v$ must admit a ``reasonable'' implementation in the form of CSAs. Secondly, it must be possible to find retransmission bounds so that the QoS requirements are satisfied under the given drop probability $\d$.
Well-posedness is a purely syntactic requirement on the specification. We introduce this concept because it is easy to check and simplifies the presentation of the synthesis algorithm. A protocol specification $\v$ is {\sl well posed} if on every $p$-sequence satisfying $\v$, two ASCs take turns in triggering the events, and there are at least two events on each path through the tree induced by the specification.
These rather strict requirements on the specifications for well-posedness can be relaxed by generalizing the synthesis method presented in the next section appropriately. For example, a straightforward relaxation would be to allow protocol specifications in which for any disjunction $\v_1 \vee \v_2$, the system-triggered events corresponding to the immediately following global events are all triggered by the same ASC.
We do not develop a separate test for realizability but rather show how our method fails for well-posed but nonrealizable specifications.
\subsection{Synthesis Algorithm}
The synthesis method is implemented in two parts: First, the retransmission bounds are calculated. Then the CSAs are constructed using the retransmission bounds. The retransmission bounds are calculated with the structure of the resulting CSAs in mind, so we present the CSA construction first.
For any specification $\always(\Delta \leq \d) \rightarrow \v$ and any set of cars $\mathfrak{C}$, if the specification is realizable, the resulting set $\mathcal{M}$ of CSAs from the synthesis, $\mathfrak{S}(\v, \mathfrak{C}, \d)$ must satisfy $\always(\Delta \leq \d) \rightarrow \varphi$. Formally,
\begin{equation*}
\forall \v . \forall \mathfrak{C} . \forall \d \in [0, 1] . \mathfrak{R}(\v, \mathfrak{C}, \d) \Rightarrow (\mathfrak{S}(\v, \mathfrak{C}, \d) \vdash \always(\Delta \leq \d) \rightarrow \v).
\end{equation*}
The synthesis method $\mathfrak{S}$ is implemented in two parts: First, the retransmission bounds are calculated. Then the CSAs are constructed using the retransmission bounds. The retransmission bounds are calculated with the structure of the resulting CSAs in mind, so we present the CSA construction first.
\subsubsection{CSA Construction}
\tab{synthesis} shows the algorithm {\sc{Synthesize}}$(\v, x, i, E, n_{\v})$. This algorithm constructs the CSA $M_x$ for car $x$ from the specification $\v$. The parameter $i$ is used to uniquely index states in the CSA, and $E$ is a set of global events that is used to construct appropriate criteria for retransmission (explained below). $n_{\v}$ is the list of retransmission bounds calculated in the first step (cf.\ \sec{retransmission}).
Each global event $e = \glob{\epsilon}{x}{y}{d}$ that occurs in the protocol specification $\v$ is assigned an environment-triggered event $\env{\epsilon}{x}{y}{d}$, a system-triggered event $\sys{\epsilon}{y}{x}{d}$, a message $m_{\epsilon} \in \mathrm{MSG}$, a variable (as retransmission counter) $\nu_{\epsilon} \in \mathcal{V}$, a retransmission bound $n_{\epsilon}$ from $n_{\v}$, and system-triggered events $\mathrm{T.O.}_{\epsilon}$ and $\locev{\mathrm{fail}}_{\epsilon}$.
The algorithm is invoked by {\sc{Synthesize}}$(\v, x, 0, \emptyset, n_{\v})$, for each car $x \in \mathfrak{C}$:\footnote{Note that $x$ does not need to occur in the protocol specification $\v$.} It synthesises a CSA for the well-posed protocol specification $\v$ for car $x$, where states are indexed starting from $0$, no previous events are stored ($E = \emptyset$) and the retransmission bounds $n_{\v}$ are used.
{\sc{Synthesize}} recursively decomposes $\v$ into its subparts. If $\v = \v_1 \vee \v_2$, then two CSAs $M_1$ and $M_2$ are constructed from $\v_1$ and $\v_2$ first and joined together by forming the union of their state spaces, final states and transitions and substituting the initial state $s^{init}_{M_2}$ by the initial state $s^{init}_{M_1}$. For this purpose we define $M[s_1/s_2]$ to be the CSA $M$ with all occurrences of $s_2$ substituted by $s_1$.
If $\v = \glob{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d} \rightarrow \next \v'$, the set $E$ of global events that has last been received on the path through the CSA is updated first. Then again the CSA $M$ for $\v'$ is constructed. Depending on which car $x$ the CSA is constructed for, different transitions are now introduced. If $x = y$ then the ASC on car $x$ is responsible for triggering the event $\env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}$, and a retransmission loop is introduced:
\begin{minipage}{0.1\textwidth}
(I)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.2\textwidth}
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix@C=1.2cm@R=1.3cm{ *++[o][F=]{s_i} \ar[r]^{\env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}}
& *+[o][F-]{s_{i+1}} \ar[r]_{\locev{\mathrm{fail}}_{\epsilon}}^{\nu_{\epsilon} > n_{\epsilon}} \ar@/_/[d]_(.6){!!a_{\epsilon, y \rightarrow z}(d)}_(.45){\nu_{\epsilon} \leq n_{\epsilon}} & *+[o][F-]{s^{init}_{M}}\\
& *+[o][F-]{s_{i+2}} \ar@/_/[u]_(.4){\mathrm{T.O.}_{\epsilon}}_(.55){\nu_{\epsilon}+\!+} & }
\end{equation*}
\end{minipage}
\noindent If $x = z$, then car $x$ synchronizes $\epsilon$ by the system-triggered event $\sys{\epsilon}{z}{y}{d}$:
\begin{minipage}{0.1\textwidth}
(II)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.2\textwidth}
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix@C=1.5cm@R=1.3cm{*++[o][F-]{s_i} \ar[r]^{\sys{\epsilon}{z}{y}{d}} & *+[o][F-]{s^{init}_M}}
\label{eq:2}
\end{equation*}
\end{minipage}
\noindent In any other case, simply the CSA for $\v'$ is returned as then the car $x$ is not directly involved in the transmission.
Finally, if $\v = \epsilon_{y \rightarrow z}^p(d)$ then no recursive call to {\sc{Synthesize}} is necessary, but a CSA is directly constructed. If $x = y$ then a retransmission loop is constructed:
\begin{minipage}{0.1\textwidth}
(III)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.2\textwidth}
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix@C=1.2cm@R=1.3cm{ *++[o][F-]{s_i} \ar[r]^{\env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}}
& *+[o][F-]{s_{i+1}} \ar[r]_{\locev{\mathrm{fail}}_{\epsilon}}^{\nu_{\epsilon} > n_{\epsilon}} \ar@/_/[d]_(.6){!!m_{\epsilon, y \rightarrow z}(d)}_(.45){\nu_{\epsilon} \leq n_{\epsilon}} & *+[o][F-]{s_{i+3}}\\
& *+[o][F-]{s_{i+2}} \ar@/_/[u]_(.4){?\mu_{y \leftarrow z}(d)}_(.55){\nu_{\epsilon}+\!+} \ar[r]^{\mathrm{T.O.}_3}="?b"_{\locev{\mathrm{success}}_3}="success3" & *+[o][F.]{s_{i+4}}}
\label{eq:3}
\end{equation*}$\mathfrak{S}$
\end{minipage}
\noindent In this case, a retransmission is not triggered by a timeout, because $\epsilon_{y \rightarrow z}(d)$ is the last global event in a sequence of required synchronizations and no feedback from the car $z$ can be expected. Therefore, a retransmission is initiated by receiving the last message $\mu$ from car $z$ again, because this indicates that $z$ has not received the message $m_{\epsilon}$ correctly. The message $\mu$ is taken from $E$, the set of global events that has last been received on the path through the CSA. Only if no such message is received is a timeout transition made, which indicates success by an upcall to the ASC. The global semantics of CSAs were carefully constructed so that this timeout is only taken if no message $\mu$ is received.
If $x = z$, then car $x$ synchronizes $\epsilon$ by the system-triggered event $\sys{\epsilon}{z}{y}{d}$:
\begin{minipage}{0.1\textwidth}
(IV)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.2\textwidth}
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix@C=1.5cm@R=1.3cm{*++[o][F-]{s_i} \ar[r]^{\sys{\epsilon}{z}{y}{d}} & *+[o][F.]{s_{i+1}}}
\label{eq:4}
\end{equation*}
\end{minipage}
\noindent In any other case a trivial CSA with one state is returned.
\begin{excont}{Continued}
The resulting CSAs from synthesizing the specification in \eqref{eq:protspec} are shown in \fig{services}. The CSAs were generated by calling {\sc{Synthesize}}$(\v, x, 0, \emptyset, n_{\v})$ for $x \in \{A, B\}$. The retransmission bounds $n_{\v}$ are calculated as explained in the next section according to the QoS requirements and to the bound on the drop probability $\d$.
\end{excont}
\newcommand{\hspace{0.7cm}}{\hspace{0.7cm}}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{l}
\sc{Synthesize}$(\v, x, i, E, n_{\v})$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\textbf{If} $\v = \v_1 \vee \v_2$ \textbf{Then}\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb$(M_1, i_1) =$~\sc{Synthesize}$(\v_1, x, i, E, n_{\v})$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb$(M_2, i_2) =$~\sc{Synthesize}$(\v_2, x, i_1, E, n_{\v})$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\textbf{Return} $(\langle S_{M_1} \cup S_{M_2}, s^{init}_{M_1}, S^f_{M_1} \cup S^f_{M_2},$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\tb $T_{M_1} \cup T_{M_2} \rangle [s^{init}_{M_1} / s^{init}_{M_2}] , i_2)$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\textbf{Else If} $\v = \glob{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d} \rightarrow \next \v'$ \textbf{Then}\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\textbf{If} $\exists \mu, d . \mu_{y \rightarrow z}(d) \in E$ \textbf{Then}\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\textbf{Replace} $\mu_{y \rightarrow z}(d)$ \textbf{By} $m_{\epsilon, y \rightarrow z}(d)$ \textbf{In} $E$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\textbf{Else}\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\textbf{Insert} $m_{\epsilon, y \rightarrow z}(d)$ \textbf{Into} $E$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\textbf{If} $x = y$ \textbf{Then}\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}$(M, i') =$~\sc{Synthesize}$(\v', x, i+3, E, n_{\v})$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\hspace{-1cm}(I)$\left\{\begin{array}{l}
T_{M}(s_i, \env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}) := s_{i+1}\\
T_{M}(s_{i+1}, (!!m_{\epsilon, y \rightarrow z}(d), \nu_{\epsilon} \leq n_{\epsilon})) := s^{init}_{M}\\
T_{M}(s_{i+1}, (\locev{\mathrm{fail}}_{\epsilon}, \nu_{\epsilon} > n_{\epsilon})) := s_{i+2}\\
T_{M}(s^{init}_{M}, (\mathrm{T.O.}_{\epsilon}, \nu_{\epsilon}\!+\!+)) := s_{i+1}
\end{array}\right.$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\textbf{Return} $(\langle S_{M} \cup \{s_i, s_{i+1}, s_{i+2} \}, s_i, S^f_{M}, T_{M} \rangle, i')$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\textbf{Else If} $x = z$ \textbf{Then}\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}$(M, i') =$~\sc{Synthesize}$(\v', x, i+1, E, n_{\v})$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\hspace{-1cm}(II)$\left\{\hspace{0.1cm}\begin{array}{l}
T_{M}(s_i, (?m_{\epsilon, z \leftarrow y}(d), \sys{\epsilon}{z}{y}{d})) := s^{init}_{M}
\end{array}\right.$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\textbf{Return} $(\langle S_{M} \cup \{s_i \}, s_i, S^f_{M}, T_{M} \rangle, i')$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\textbf{Else}\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\textbf{Return} \sc{Synthesize}$(\v', x, i, E, n_{\v})$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\textbf{Else If} $\v = \v = \epsilon_{y \rightarrow z}^p(d)$ \textbf{Then}\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\textbf{If} $x = y$ \textbf{Then}\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}$\mu_{y \leftarrow z}(d) \in E$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\hspace{-1cm}(III)$\left\{\begin{array}{l}
T(s_i, \env{\epsilon}{y}{z}{d}) := s_{i+1}\\
T(s_{i+1}, (!!m_{\epsilon, y \rightarrow z}(d), \nu_{\epsilon} \leq n_{\epsilon})) := s_{i+2}\\
T(s_{i+1}, (\locev{\mathrm{fail}}_{\epsilon}, \nu_{\epsilon} > n_{\epsilon})) := s_{i+3}\\
T(s_{i+2}, (?\mu_{y \leftarrow z}(d), \nu_{\epsilon}\!+\!+)) := s_{i+1}\\
T(s_{i+2}, (\mathrm{T.O.}_{\epsilon}, \locev{\mathrm{success}}_{\epsilon})) := s_{i+4}
\end{array}\right.$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\textbf{Return} $(\langle \{s_i, s_{i+1}, s_{i+2}, s_{i+3}, s_{i+4} \}, s_i,$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\tb $\{ s_{i+4} \}, T \rangle, i+5)$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\textbf{Else If} $x = z$ \textbf{Then}\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\hspace{-1cm}(IV)$\left\{\hspace{0.1cm}\begin{array}{l}
T(s_i, (?m_{\epsilon, z \leftarrow y}(d), \sys{\epsilon}{z}{y}{d})) := s_{i+1}
\end{array}\right.$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\textbf{Return} $(\langle\{s_i, s_{i+1} \}, s_i, \{ s_{i+1} \}, T \rangle, i+2)$\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\textbf{Else}\\
\hspace{0.7cm}\tb\hspace{0.7cm}\textbf{Return} $(\langle \{s_i \}, s_i, \{ s_i \}, \emptyset \rangle, i+1)$\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Pseudocode of synthesis algorithm. The CSA is constructed from the diagrams explained in the text and referred to by Roman numerals.}
\label{tab:synthesis}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Retransmission Bounds} \label{sec:retransmission}
Each global event $\epsilon_{x \rightarrow y}(d)$ gets assigned a unique message $m_{\epsilon} \in \mathrm{MSG}$ and a unique retransmission bound $n_{\epsilon} \in \mathbb{N}_0$. The retransmission bounds are evaluated according to the QoS requirements defined in the protocol specification $\v$.
Recall that the protocol specification $\v$ induces a tree, cf.\ \fig{protspec}. Each edge of this tree is translated by the synthesis into a retransmission loop in the CSA of exactly one car, with a retransmission bound associated with that loop. The retransmission bounds have to be selected so that correctness as defined in \sec{correctness} is guaranteed.
We use the semantics to find the conditions on the retransmission bounds that are sufficient for correctness. We can exploit the tree-like structure of the synthesized CSAs: Apart from the last two retransmission loops in each sequence, the message associated with a retransmission loop is never used at a later point in the same sequence.
Each sequence of global events $\sigma = \epsilon_1\epsilon_2\ldots\epsilon_l$ is associated with a sequence of retransmission bounds $n_{\sigma} = n_{\epsilon_1}n_{\epsilon_2}\ldots n_{\epsilon_l}$. Depending on the values of the retransmission bounds, the sequence $\sigma$ is generated correctly with a certain {\sl synchronization probability} $P^{\sigma}(n_{\sigma})$ that depends on all retransmission bounds associated with any event in $\sigma$. Note that this probability is the likelihood of $\sigma$ being generated correctly \emph{given} that the calls are made by the ASCs that generate $\sigma$.
\subsubsection{Deduction of $P^{\sigma}(n_{\sigma})$} \label{sec:Pdeduction}
The synchronization probability $P^{\sigma}(n_{\sigma})$ is evaluated as follows: The case of only one retransmission bound ($\len{n_\sigma} = 1$) never occurs. The case of exactly two retransmission bounds ($\len{n_\sigma} = 2$) means that the last retransmission loop uses the message transmitted in the retransmission loop one before last, cf.\ \fig{services}. The example in this figure can be used to deduce the general expression for $P^{\sigma}(n_1, n_2)$. This is because the synthesis will always generate the same pattern for the last two global events in a specification.
We use the sequence $\sigma = \mathrm{snd}_{A \rightarrow B}(d)\mathrm{ack}_{B \rightarrow A}$ to deduce $P^{\sigma}(n_1, n_2)$ by evaluating the probability of correct synchronization by applying the deduction rules in \tab{singleCSArules} and \tab{compositionrules}. The CSAs $\langle A, B \rangle = \mathcal{M}$ start in the initial state $\langle s^A_1, s^B_1 \rangle$. We omit writing the values of the retransmission counters within the states in our presentation. We let $P^{\sigma}(n_1, n_2) = p^{\sigma}_{1, 1}(n_1, n_2)$, where $p^{\sigma}_{i, j}(n_1, n_2)$ are an auxiliary functions describing the probability of reaching a globally final state from $\langle s^A_i, s^B_j \rangle$ when the calls in $\sigma$ are made.
Initially only $M_A$ can execute by applying the [env] rule locally. Hence, we start the deduction at $\langle (\bullet)^1, \langle s^A_1, s^B_1 \rangle, A \rangle$. We find $p^{\sigma}_{1, 1}(n_1, n_2)$ by applying the global rules to deduce all sequences for which $\mathcal{M}$ ends in a globally final state and the calls in $\sigma$ are made. First, apply [pr-e] globally and [env] locally and deduce
\begin{equation*}
\langle (\bullet)^1, \langle s^A_1, s^B_1 \rangle, A \rangle \bigstep{} \langle (\env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d})^1, \langle s^A_2, s^B_1 \rangle, A \rangle
\end{equation*}
globally from
\begin{equation*}
\langle \bullet, s^A_1 \rangle \smallstep{e}{A} \langle \env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d}, s^A_2 \rangle
\end{equation*}
locally. This deduction step yields $p^{\sigma}_{1, 1}(n_1, n_2) = p^{\sigma}_{2, 1}(n_1, n_2)$, as the probability is not changed from state $\langle s^A_1, s^B_1 \rangle$ to $\langle s^A_2, s^B_1 \rangle$. From now on we omit the left hand side of the relation $\bigstep{}$, since it is equivalent to the right hand side of the previous deduction. We further omit writing the local deductions.
At $\langle s^A_2, s^B_1 \rangle$, globally only the [pr-e] rule can be applied. Locally, either [sys-c] or [b-c] can be applied, depending on the value of the retransmission counter $\nu_1$. Applying [sys-c] corresponds to taking the transition labelled by $\locev{\mathrm{fail}}_1$. Since then no final state can ever be reached, we only apply the [b-c] rule locally. So we apply locally the [b-c] rule:
\begin{equation*}
\bigstep{} \langle (\env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d} + !!a_{A \rightarrow B}(d))^1, \langle s^A_3, s^B_1 \rangle, A \rangle.
\end{equation*}
This transition leads to $p^{\sigma}_{2, 1}(n_1, n_2) = p^{\sigma}_{3, 1}(n_1, n_2)$. At this point the transmission medium is invoked and globally both the [trans] and [drop] rules can be applied. If [trans] is applied, $M_B$ receives the message and we apply the [r-sys] rule locally. If [drop] is applied, merely the probability and prioritization changes. Hence, we can deduce either
\begin{align*}
\bigstep{} &\langle (\rho + ?a_{B \leftarrow A}(d) + \sys{\mathrm{snd}}{B}{A}{d})^{(1 - \d)}, \langle s^A_3, s^B_2 \rangle, B \rangle,~\text{or}\\
\bigstep{} &\langle (\rho)^{\d}, \langle s^A_3, s^B_1 \rangle, B \rangle,
\end{align*}
where $\rho = \env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d}$. Since two transitions may be taken, we get $p^{\sigma}_{3, 1}(n_1, n_2) = (1-\d)p^{\sigma}_{3, 2}(n_1, n_2) + \d\overline{p}^{\sigma}_{3, 1}(n_1, n_2)$. After the application of [drop], $M_B$ is prioritized but cannot make a transition. In state $\langle s^A_3, s^B_1 \rangle$, globally only [npr] can be applied, with $M_A$ making a timeout transition using [to-upd] locally:
\begin{equation*}
\bigstep{} \langle (\env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d} + \mathrm{T.O.}_1)^{\d}, \langle s^A_2, s^B_1 \rangle, A \rangle.
\end{equation*}
Since the application of [to-upd] increases the retransmission counter $\nu_1$ by one, we get $\overline{p}^{\sigma}_{3, 1}(n_1, n_2) = p^{\sigma}_{2, 1}(n_1 - 1, n_2)$ and the base case $\overline{p}^{\sigma}_{3, 1}(0, n_2) = 0$. This indicates that in state $\langle s^A_2, s^B_1 \rangle$, the deduction may be repeated with the bound $n_1$ decreased by one, corresponding to a retransmission. If $n_1 = 0$, i.e.\ in the base case, no more retransmissions are possible.
In state $\langle s^A_3, s^B_2 \rangle$ after the transmission, $M_B$ makes a transition in response to a call from its ASC. By applying [env] instead of [env$'$], we model that a is made immediately. Applying [pr-e] globally and [env] locally yields:
\begin{equation*}
\bigstep{} \langle (\rho + \eenv{\mathrm{ack}}{B}{A})^{(1 - \d)}, \langle s^A_3, s^B_3 \rangle, B \rangle,
\end{equation*}
where $\rho = \env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d} + ?a_{B \leftarrow A}(d) + \sys{\mathrm{snd}}{B}{A}{d}$. Then only [pr-e] with [b-c] can be applied (because again, applying [sys-c] does not conform with wanting to reach a final state). Therefore we get
\begin{equation}
\bigstep{} \langle (\rho + !!b_{B \rightarrow A})^{(1 - \d)}, \langle s^A_3, s^B_5 \rangle, B \rangle,
\label{eq:35}
\end{equation}
where $\rho = \env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d} + ?a_{B \leftarrow A}(d) + \sys{\mathrm{snd}}{B}{A}{d} + \eenv{\mathrm{ack}}{B}{A}$. This generates the equalities $p^{\sigma}_{3, 2}(n_1, n_2) = p^{\sigma}_{3, 3}(n_1, n_2)$ and $p^{\sigma}_{3, 3}(n_1, n_2) = p^{\sigma}_{3, 5}(n_1, n_2)$.
In $\langle s^A_3, s^B_5 \rangle$ we can apply either [trans] globally with [r-sys] locally on $M_A$, modelling a successful transmission, or we apply [drop] globally, modelling a dropped message. Hence we can either deduce
\begin{align*}
\bigstep{} &\langle (\rho + ?b_{A \leftarrow B})^{(1 - \d)(1 - \d)}, \langle s^A_5, s^B_5 \rangle, A \rangle,~\text{or}\\
\bigstep{} &\langle (\rho)^{\d(1 - \d)}, \langle s^A_3, s^B_5 \rangle, A \rangle
\end{align*}
where $\rho = \env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d} + ?a_{B \leftarrow A}(d) + \sys{\mathrm{snd}}{B}{A}{d} + \eenv{\mathrm{ack}}{B}{A}$. We get $p^{\sigma}_{3, 5}(n_1, n_2) = (1-\d)p^{\sigma}_{5, 5}(n_1, n_2) + \d \overline{p}^{\sigma}_{3, 5}(n_1, n_2)$. In state $\langle s^A_5, s^B_5 \rangle$, the sequence has been synchronized successfully. Here only [npr] with [to-sys] on $M_B$ can be applied to yield
\begin{equation*}
\bigstep{} \langle (\rho + \mathrm{T.O.}_2 + \locev{\mathrm{success}}_2)^{(1 - \d)(1 - \d)}, \langle s^A_5, s^B_5 \rangle, A \rangle,\\
\end{equation*}
where $\rho =\env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d} + ?a_{B \leftarrow A}(d) + \sys{\mathrm{snd}}{B}{A}{d} + \eenv{\mathrm{ack}}{B}{A} + $ $?b_{A \leftarrow B}$. This deduction ends in a globally final state and hence $p^{\sigma}_{5, 5}(n_1, n_2) = 1$, because the sequence $\sigma$ is correctly synchronized. In state $\langle s^A_3, s^B_5 \rangle$ after the message has been dropped, only [pr-t] with [to-upd] locally on $M_A$ can be applied:
\begin{equation*}
\bigstep{} \langle (\rho + \mathrm{T.O.}_1)^{\d(1 - \d)}, \langle s^A_2, s^B_5 \rangle, A \rangle
\end{equation*}
where $\rho = \env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d} + ?a_{B \leftarrow A}(d) + \sys{\mathrm{snd}}{B}{A}{d} + \eenv{\mathrm{ack}}{B}{A}$. This step yields $\overline{p}^{\sigma}_{3, 5}(n_1, n_2) = p^{\sigma}_{2, 5}(n_1 - 1, n_2)$ with base case $\overline{p}^{\sigma}_{3, 5}(0, n_2) = 0$. Now $M_A$ retransmits (if its retransmission count is not yet exceeded) and we deduce with [pr-e] and [b-c] locally on $M_A$:
\begin{equation*}
\bigstep{} \langle (\rho + !!a_{A \rightarrow B}(d))^{\d(1 - \d)}, \langle s^A_3, s^B_5 \rangle, A \rangle
\end{equation*}
where $\rho = \env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d} + ?a_{B \leftarrow A}(d) + \sys{\mathrm{snd}}{B}{A}{d} + \eenv{\mathrm{ack}}{B}{A} + \mathrm{T.O.}_1$. This yields $p^{\sigma}_{2, 5}(n_1, n_2) = \overline{\overline{p}}^{\sigma}_{3, 5}(n_1, n_2)$. Now [trans] can be applied with [r-upd] locally on $M_B$. However, when applying [drop], no final state can be reached by any sequence of applications of deduction rules. Hence we only apply [trans] and [r-upd] and get
\begin{align*}
\bigstep{} \langle (\rho + ?a_{A \rightarrow B}(d))^{\d(1 - \d)(1 - \d)}, \langle s^A_3, s^B_5 \rangle, A \rangle
\end{align*}
where $\rho = \env{\mathrm{snd}}{A}{B}{d} + ?a_{B \leftarrow A}(d) + \sys{\mathrm{snd}}{B}{A}{d} + \eenv{\mathrm{ack}}{B}{A} + \mathrm{T.O.}_1$. This yields $\overline{\overline{p}}^{\sigma}_{3, 5}(n_1, n_2) = (1 - \d)p^{\sigma}_{3, 3}(n_1, n_2 - 1)$ with base case $\overline{\overline{p}}^{\sigma}_{3, 5}(n_1, 0) = 0$.
\subsubsection{Optimization Problem}
For notational convenience, we drop the $\sigma$ superscript if the context is clear and we are not referring to a particular sequence. When the sequence of global events $\sigma$ has exactly two elements ($\len{\sigma} = 2$), we get
\newcommand{\varrho}{\varrho}
\begin{align*}
P(n_1, n_2) &\triangleq \varrho(1-\d^{n_1+1}) + \frac{\varrho^3}{1-\d\varrho}\sum_{i=1}^{n_1}{\d^i\left[1-(\d\varrho)^{M}\right]},
\end{align*}
where $\varrho = (1-\d)$ is the {\sl reception probability} and $M = \min{(n_1+1-i, n_2)}$. When $\sigma$ has more than two elements ($\len{\sigma} > 2$), the synchronization probability can be similarly deduced:
\begin{align*}
P(n_1, n_2, \ldots, n_l) &\triangleq \varrho \sum_{i = 0}^{n_1}{\d^{i}\locev{P}(n_1 - i, n_2 \ldots, n_l)}, \\
\locev{P}(n_1, n_2, \ldots, n_l) &\triangleq \begin{cases}\varrho \sum_{i = 0}^{M}{\d^{i}\locev{P}(n_2 - i, \ldots, n_l)} &\text{if}~l > 2 \\
P(n_1, n_2) &\text{if}~l = 2, \\
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
where $M = \min{(n_1, n_2)}$. Ideally, we want to find the smallest retransmission bounds that ensure correctness. Each $p$-sequence $(\sigma)^p$ that satisfies the specification $\v$ induces a condition on the retransmission bounds associated with the elements of $\sigma$. For example, a sequence $(\epsilon_1\epsilon_2\ldots\epsilon_l)^p$ induces the condition $P^{\epsilon_1\epsilon_2\ldots\epsilon_l}(n_{\epsilon_1}, n_{\epsilon_2}, \ldots, n_{\epsilon_l}) \geq p$. This inequality ensures that the sequence $\sigma$ is generated by the CSAs with high enough probability as required by the correctness criterion set out above.
We can find the retransmission bounds by solving an optimization problem:
\begin{align*}
\text{(OPT)}\hspace{0.5cm}&\min_{n_{\epsilon_1}, n_{\epsilon_2}, \ldots, n_{\epsilon_l}} \sum_{j = 1}^{l} n_{\epsilon_j}\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}\text{s.t.}~P^\sigma(n_\sigma) \geq p \hspace{0.5cm}\text{for all}~ (\sigma)^p \in \mathcal{S_{\v}},
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{S_{\v}} = \{ (\sigma)^p | (\sigma)^p \models \v\}$ is the set of $p$-sequences $\sigma$ that satisfy the protocol specification $\v$.
\begin{excont}{Continued}
Checking realizability of a specification amounts to checking well-posedness of the specification and feasibility of the optimization problem. For our example specification \eqref{eq:protspec}, the optimization problem is
\begin{align*}
\min_{n_{\mathrm{snd}}, n_{\mathrm{ack}}, n_{\mathrm{nack}}} &n_{\mathrm{snd}} + n_{\mathrm{ack}} + n_{\mathrm{nack}}\\
&\text{s.t.}~P(n_{\mathrm{snd}}, n_{\mathrm{ack}}) \geq p_1 \\
&\phantom{\text{s.t.}}~P(n_{\mathrm{snd}}, n_{\mathrm{nack}}) \geq p_2.
\end{align*}
In the case that $p_1 = 0.7$, $p_2 = 0.8$ and $\d = 0.35$, we get $n_{\mathrm{snd}} = 3$, $n_{\mathrm{ack}} = 1$, and $n_{\mathrm{nack}} = 2$.
\end{excont}
\subsection{Correctness of Synthesis}
Take any protocol specification $\v$, drop probability bound $\d$, and any $p$-sequence $\sigma$ for which $(\sigma)^p \models \v$ holds. Then, correctness of the synthesis method is established by showing that $(\sigma)^{r(\sigma, \d, \mathcal{M})} \models \v$, where $\mathcal{M}$ is the result of synthesis.
The definition of the feasible region of the optimization problem (OPT) contains the inequality $P(n_{\sigma}) \geq p$ for each such sequence $\sigma$. By the semantics of protocol specifications $(q \geq p \wedge (\sigma)^{p} \models \v) \Rightarrow (\sigma)^{q} \models \v$ for any sequence $\sigma$. It is therefore sufficient to show that $(\sigma)^{P(n_{\sigma})} \models \v$ and $r(\sigma, \d, \mathcal{M}) \geq P(n_\sigma)$, because then $(\sigma)^{r(\sigma, \d, \mathcal{M})} \models \v$, as required to establish correctness.
First, if the retransmission bounds $n_{\sigma}$ are part of a feasible solution to (OPT), then we necessarily have $P(n_{\sigma}) \geq p$, and so $(\sigma)^{P(n_{\sigma})} \models \v$ follows from $(q \geq p \wedge (\sigma)^{p} \models \v) \Rightarrow (\sigma)^{q} \models \v$.
Second, we have $P(n_\sigma) = r(\sigma, \d, \mathcal{M})$ by construction of $P$ (note that the superscript $\sigma$ has been dropped from $P^{\sigma}$): $r(\sigma, \d, \mathcal{M})$ is the sum of all probabilities $p$ for which $\proj{\rho} = \sigma \wedge (\rho)^p \models {\M(\d)}$, i.e.\ the environment-triggered events and system-triggered events in $\rho$ synchronize to the sequence of global events $\sigma$ and the $p$-sequence $(\rho)^p$ is generated by $\mathcal{M}$ and drop probability $\d$. By definition, $(\rho)^p \models {\M(\d)} \Leftrightarrow \exists s^f \in S^f_{\mathcal{M}} . \exists x, y \in \mathfrak{C} . \langle (\bullet)^1, s^{init}, x \rangle \bigstep{}^* \langle (\rho)^p, s^f, y \rangle$. It is therefore sufficient to show that in the deduction of the expression for $P(n_{\sigma})$ exactly those $p$-sequences $(\rho)^p$ are taken into account that end in a globally final state $s^f \in S^f_{\mathcal{M}}$ (the prioritization of $x$ and $y$ can safely be ignored) and for which $\proj{\rho} = \sigma$.
The deduction of $P(n_{\sigma})$ in \sec{Pdeduction} is essentially done by constructing a product automaton of all CSAs in $\mathcal{M}$ using the global semantics, and adding the probabilities along all paths that end in a globally final state corresponding to the sequence $\sigma$ having been executed.
Note that it would have been enough to show $P(n_\sigma) \leq r(\sigma, \d, \mathcal{M})$. A synthesis method that generates CSAs with $P(n_\sigma) = 0$ would be perfectly correct, but not very useful: The larger $P(n_\sigma)$ gets, the greater the feasible region of (OPT) gets and the more specifications can be synthesized. So by having $P(n_\sigma) = r(\sigma, \d, \mathcal{M})$, we have maximized the capabilities of the synthesis method.
\subsection{Computational Considerations} \label{sec:computation}
The time required to generate a CSA from a protocol specification $\v$ by the {\sc{Synthesize}} algorithm is proportional to the number of global events and disjunctions ($\vee$) in $\v$ (ignoring the set operations on $E$), which can easily be seen from \tab{synthesis}, where the implementation of {\sc{Synthesize}} is shown as a simple structural recursion on $\v$. When also the set operations on $E$ are taken into account, the algorithm is quadratic in the number of global events in $\v$.
The main computational complexity arises from the optimization problem OPT, which is an integer program and in general is NP-hard. There are however a few points to be noted that may simplify finding a solution. First, both the objective function and the function $P^{\sigma}(n_{\sigma})$ are monotonous in their arguments along any dimension. Hence, if OPT is feasible for some $n = (n_{\epsilon_1}, n_{\epsilon_2}, \ldots, n_{\epsilon_l})$, it is also feasible for any $n' \geq n$.
Second, since correctness depends on $P^{\sigma}(n_{\sigma}) \leq r(\sigma, \delta, \mathcal{M})$, it is sufficient to solve an optimization problem with a strictly smaller feasible set than that of (OPT). This is helpful if a function $Q^{\sigma}$ can be found s.t.\ for all $\sigma$, $Q^{\sigma}(n_{\sigma}) \leq P^{\sigma}(n_{\sigma})$ while still maintaining that there exist retransmission bounds $n_{\sigma}$ s.t.\ $Q^{\sigma}(n_{\sigma}) \geq p$ for all $(\sigma)^p \in S_\v$. The solution to the resulting optimization problem might not be optimal, but the resulting CSAs are still correct.
Lastly, since any suboptimal solution to OPT still gives rise to correct CSAs, the retransmission bounds may be chosen to be arbitrarily high as long as they are feasible. Note however that there might not be a solution to OPT at all, in which case the specification was unrealizable in the first place.
\subsection{Discussion} \label{sec:validity}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\psfrag{data length}[cc][cc]{data length $d_{max}$}
\psfrag{number of cars}[rb][rt]{$\begin{array}{l}\text{number}\\\text{of cars $N$}\end{array}$}
\psfrag{minimum delay}[cc][cc]{minimum delay $\tau_{min}$}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{feasibility9.eps}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Feasible region of OPT for the protocol specification in \eqref{eq:protspec} with $p_1 = p_2 = 0.9$. The drop probability bound $\d$ is calculated as a function of $N$, $d_{max}$ and $\tau_{min}$. All points on and under the surface are feasible.}
\label{fig:feasibility6}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\end{figure}
The implementations of a communication protocol specification provide the ASCs with sufficient information on what messages are received so that accidents can effectively be prevented. In this section we develop the continuing example of the cars at an intersection further by explaining how our protocol can be embedded in an active safety application.
\begin{excont}{Continued}
When transmitting data $d$ from car $A$ to car $B$, six cases can occur. We distinguish the cases by the final system-triggered events that generate upcalls to the ASCs on either car. The case we call ``correct'' is when $B$ receives $d$, $A$ knows about it and $B$ assumes correctly that $A$ knows. $B$ then correctly receives a ``$\locev{\mathrm{success}}$'' upcall, which is consistent with $A$'s last upcall. The ASCs can then correctly react in a consistent way, e.g.\ by one car gracefully decelerating.
In other cases the ASCs can still react in a safe way even if $A$ and $B$ have inconsistent information about each other: If $B$ receives $d$ correctly, $A$ never receives an acknowledgement and $B$ assumes $A$ never did, then both ASCs receive ``$\locev{\mathrm{fail}}$'' upcalls and can react accordingly. If $B$ receives $d$ correctly and $A$ receives the acknowledgement, but $B$ assumes $A$ did not receive it, then $B$ receives a ``$\locev{\mathrm{fail}}$'' upcall and can react conservatively. If $B$ does not receive $d$ and $A$ holds that it did not, then the ASC on $A$ can react conservative on its ``$\locev{\mathrm{fail}}$'' upcall. If $B$ receives $d$ correctly, $A$ misses the acknowledgement but $B$ holds that $A$ received it, then $A$ incorrectly assumes the worst case but yet reacts conservatively.
The only problematic case is when $B$ does not receive $d$ but $A$ holds that it did. Then the ASC on neither $A$ nor $B$ takes conservative action, potentially resulting in an accident. However, the synthesis method constructs the CSAs so that this case never occurs under the given assumptions.
\end{excont}
We now conclude the example by presenting numerical results that illustrate in which hypothetical scenarios protocols that we are considering are realizable.
\begin{excont}{Continued}
As introduced above, the drop probability bound $\d$ on the transmission medium may be calculated from other more readily available parameters. The realizability of a given protocol specification $\v$ depends on the drop probability bound $\d$. For demonstrative purposes, we calculate $\d$ from the number of cars $N$ at the intersection that may use the transmission medium simultaneously, the minimum time $\tau_{min}$ it may take for a message to be sent between two cars and the maximum amount of data $d_{max}$ that may be carried in a message. Given an empirically obtained function $\d(r)$ that maps a data-rate $r$ to a drop-probability of the transmission medium, we calculate $\d(r)$ with $r = (N-2)d_{max}/\tau_{min}$ (we take $N-2$ as we consider the environment to be all cars except the two that are communicating).
We illustrate the effectiveness of our synthesis method by asserting the sigmoid $\d(r) = (1 + a\cdot\exp(-br))$ with $a = 4$ and $b = 0.002$. Using the protocol specification in \eqref{eq:protspec}, we illustrate how realizability changes with different values for the number of cars $N$, minimum time to deliver a message $\tau_{min}$ and maximum amount of data in a message $d_{max}$. \fig{feasibility6} shows the feasible region of (OPT) for $\v$ with $p_1 = p_2 = 0.9$, i.e.\ for which values of $\d$ calculated as a function of $N$, $\tau_{min}$ and $d_{max}$ the synthesis problem is realizable.
It is clearly visible from \fig{feasibility6} that the more cars are sharing the transmission medium, the smaller the delay, and the larger the packets, the higher the worst-case data rate could be on the network, and the specification becomes harder to realize. If moreover the requirements $p_1$ and $p_2$ are made more stringent, the feasible region decreases even further.
\end{excont}
\vspace{-.06in}
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}
This work demonstrates a framework for reliable communication protocols for intervehicular communication in active safety applications. The framework, consisting of a precisely defined specification language and execution model (in the form of CSAs), allows for correct-by-construction synthesis of protocol implementations that satisfy the specifications even in the presence of several other cars sharing the transmission medium.
In our synthesis method we only take into account the drop probability of the transmission medium and assume that this is sufficient to synthesise reliable protocols. This also only enables to guarantee QoS requirements on the reception probability. Furthermore, in the current formulation, only two cars can participate in a dialogue, but some active safety applications might require to extend this. Also, note that if a communication is under way, the arrival of another message cannot directly be handled even if it is required to satisfy the QoS requirements.
Our approach permits several extensions: (i) Allowing the higher level to specify the QoS requirements and the destination address at runtime (i.e.\ for each transmission), (ii) Guaranteeing QoS requirements on the end-to-end delay of the communication and more general assumptions on the transmission medium dynamics in order to widen the range of applicability, and (iii) including the capability to relay messages over several cars to create a routed network. The latter would also require a rigorously developed synthesis method for protocols to discover the network topology, which we are currently working on.\\
\vspace{-.06in}
\section*{Acknowledgements} The authors would like to extend thanks to Rohit Pandita and Vladimeros Vladimerou from Toyota as well as Scott Livingston, Pavithra Prabhakar and Eric Wolff at the California Institute of Technology for fruitful discussions.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
\small{
|
\section{Neutrino Beams}
\label{sec:beams}
The accelerator neutrino beams used by the experiments covered in this
review article are described in this section. As in other areas of
particle physics, the experiments' detectors exist in a strongly
coupled relationship with the beam and it is important to consider
both beam and detector to understand the design and performance of the
experiments.
An interesting feature of neutrino beams is that multiple detectors
can be simultaneously exposed to the same individual beam spills with
no noticeable effect on the beam itself. This is true for Near and Far
detectors but also, for example, where there are multiple experiments
in the same underground laboratory.
An advantage of accelerator beams is the ability to exploit the pulsed
nature of the beams to reject backgrounds from cosmic rays and
atmospheric neutrinos. With beam pulses lasting tens of microseconds
and accelerator cycle times measured in seconds, a background
rejection factor of $10^5$ is typical.
The beams used in long-baseline experiments are described here in the
following order: section~\ref{sec:beamKEK} describes the beam used by
K2K; section~\ref{sec:beamNuMI} describes the NuMI beam used by MINOS
and in future {NO$\nu$A}\xspace and MINOS+; section~\ref{sec:beamCNGS} describes
the CNGS beam used by OPERA and ICARUS; and
section~\ref{sec:beamJPARC} describes the J-PARC beam used by T2K.
\subsection{KEK Beam}
\label{sec:beamKEK}
In this section, the beam for the first LBL experiment K2K in Japan
which was in operation from 1999 to 2004 is
described~\cite{Ahn:2006zza}. A schematic layout of the K2K beam line
is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:beamK2K}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{beams/K2K-beamline}
\caption{A schematic of the K2K beamline that includes the primary
proton beamline.}
\label{fig:beamK2K}
\end{figure}
The beam of muon neutrinos was produced with the KEK 12~GeV proton
synchrotron~(PS) and was sent towards Super-Kamiokande, which is
located 250~km from KEK\@. The central axis of the neutrino beam was
aligned to aim at the center of Super-Kamiokande giving an on-axis
wideband beam.
The proton beam was extracted from the PS in a single turn with a 2.2~s
cycle time. The spill was 1.1~$\mu$s long and consisted of nine
bunches. The proton beam intensity reached about $6\times 10^{12}$
protons/pulse, corresponding to a beam power of about 5~kW\@.
Initially the target was a 66~cm long, 2~cm diameter Al rod but this
was replaced with a wider, 3~cm diameter rod in November
1999. Secondary positive pions were focused by two electromagnetic
horns~\cite{Yamanoi:2000hg}. Both horns had a pulsed current about
1~ms long with a 200~kA peak for the June 1999 run, and that was
increased to a 250~kA peak for runs after November 1999. The target
was embedded in the first horn and played a role as an inner conductor
as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:hornK2K}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{beams/K2K-hornmagnet}
\caption{A schematic showing the layout and operation of the K2K
beamline target and horns.}
\label{fig:hornK2K}
\end{figure}
Measurements of the momenta and angular distribution of secondary
pions, $N(p_\pi, \theta_\pi)$, were made using the pion monitor. This
detector was a gas \v{C}erenkov\xspace detector occasionally placed just downstream of
the second horn in the target station. The results of the pion monitor
measurements were used in calculations of the ratio of the flux at SK
to the flux at the near detector (ND), $R_\Phi (E_\nu) \equiv
\Phi_{\rm SK}(E_\nu)/\Phi_{\rm ND}(E_\nu)$.
The target region was followed by a 200~m long decay pipe where pions
decayed in flight to muon neutrinos and muons. At the downstream end
of the decay pipe, there was a beam dump made of iron 3~m thick and
followed by 2~m thick concrete. Muons above 5~GeV could penetrate the
beam dump and be detected by the muon monitors installed just behind
the beam dump. The muon monitors consisted of $2~{\rm m}\times 2~{\rm
m}$ segmented ionization chambers along with an array of silicon pad
detectors and provided spill-by-spill monitoring of the beam profile
and intensity.
Beam line components were aligned with Global Positioning
System~(GPS)~\cite{Noumi:2004es}. The alignment uncertainty from the
GPS survey was $\lesssim 0.01$~mrad while that of the civil
construction was $\lesssim 0.1$~mrad, both of which were much better
than physics requirement of 1~mrad.
The expected neutrino spectra at SK are plotted in
Figure~\ref{fig:K2Kflux}. The average neutrino energy was 1.3~GeV and
the purity of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ in the beam was estimated by Monte Carlo~(MC)
simulation to be 98.2\% and $\nu_{e}$ contamination to be 1.3\%.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{beams/K2K-BeamMC-Enu-FD}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{beams/K2K-BeamMC-Enu-SK}
\caption{Simulated neutrino flux of K2K beam.}
\label{fig:K2Kflux}
\end{figure}
The K2K experiment started physics data taking in June 1999 and
finished in November 2004. The total number of protons on target~(POT)
delivered was $1.049\times 10^{20}$, of which $0.922\times
10^{20}$~POT were used in the final physics analysis.
\subsection{NuMI Beam}
\label{sec:beamNuMI}
The NuMI beam~\cite{Anderson:1998zza} is located at the Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois, USA, and it was initially
constructed primarily for the MINOS experiment. In this section a
description of NuMI as it was operated for the last 7 years is given
first, before going on to discuss the upgrades for the {NO$\nu$A}\xspace
experiment that are underway at the time of writing. MINOS measured
the NuMI flux at distances of 1~km and 735~km from the target and
{NO$\nu$A}\xspace will have the longest baseline of all such experiments at
810~km.
Protons from the Main Injector~(MI) accelerator with a momentum of
120~GeV/c are used for the production of neutrinos and antineutrinos
in the NuMI beamline. Typically, either 9 or 11 slip-stacked batches
of protons from the MI are extracted in a single-shot onto the NuMI
target giving neutrino pulses either 8~or~10~$\mu$s long. Filling the
MI with 8~GeV/c protons from the Booster accelerator takes about 0.7~s
and then acceleration to 120~GeV/c takes a further 1.5~s, giving a
total cycle time of about 2.2~s. A single-shot extraction from the MI
contains around $3\times10^{13}$ protons and the beam operated at a
power of 300--350~kW over the last few years. By the time of the
long-shutdown that started on 1st May 2012, NuMI had received nearly
$16\times10^{20}$ protons on target.
Figure~\ref{fig:beamNuMI} shows a schematic of the NuMI beamline and
the components are described in sequence, starting on the far left
with the protons coming from the MI\@. A water-cooled, segmented
graphite target 2.0~interaction lengths long is used to produce the
short-lived hadrons that give rise to the neutrinos. Two magnetic
horns focus either positively or negatively charged particles towards
a 675~m long decay volume, previously evacuated but now filled with
helium. At the end of the decay volume a hadron absorber stops any
remaining hadrons leaving just neutrinos and muons. Beyond that nearly
250~m of rock attenuates the muons leaving just the neutrinos.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip, width=0.9\columnwidth]{beams/Beamline}
\caption{A schematic of the NuMI beamline. Protons from the Main
Injector strike a graphite target, shown at the far left, and the
resulting negatively or positively charged hadrons are focused by
two magnetic horns. A 675~m long decay pipe gives the short-lived
hadrons and muons time to decay. All hadrons remaining at the end of
the decay volume are stopped by the absorber leaving just muons and
neutrinos. The remaining muons are stopped by nearly 250~m of
rock. Figure from~\cite{Zwaska:2005be}.}
\label{fig:beamNuMI}
\end{figure}
The NuMI beamline was designed to be flexible in its operation with a
number of parameters that could be adjusted to optimise the
sensitivity to the physics topics of interest. The position of the
target with respect to the first horn, the position of the second
horn, the horn current and polarity could all be adjusted. The vast
majority of data were taken in a ``low energy'' configuration that
optimized the sensitivity to the atmospheric mass squared splitting by
providing as large a flux as possible at the oscillation maximum for
MINOS (around 1.4~GeV). This was achieved by inserting the target as
far into the first horn as safely possible and having the second horn
close to the first. A horn current of 185~kA was routinely
used. Approximately 80\% (20\%) of the data were taken with the horn
current polarity set to focus positively (negatively) charged hadrons
enhancing the production of neutrinos (antineutrinos). The energy
spectrum measured by MINOS is shown in the results section in
Figure~\ref{fig:enSpect}.
The neutrino flavor composition of the on-axis NuMI beam is as
follows: firstly, with the magnetic horn polarity set to focus
positive hadrons a neutrino-enhanced beam is produced, giving rise to
interactions in the (on-axis) MINOS near detector that are
91.7\%~$\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$, 7.0\%~$\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$ and 1.3\%~$\nu_{e}+\overline{\nu}_{e}$; secondly,
with the opposite polarity an antineutrino-enhanced beam is produced,
giving near detector interactions that are 40\%~$\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$,
58\%~$\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$, 2\%~$\nu_{e}+\overline{\nu}_{e}$~\cite{HimmelThesis}. However, it
should be noted that in the antineutrino-enhanced beam the $\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$
component comprises about 80\% of the interactions below 6~GeV in the
region where the oscillation effect is largest.
On a number of occasions and for relatively short periods the NuMI
beamline was operated in non-standard configurations. These special
runs were used to constrain uncertainties in analyses and better
understand the beam. Examples include: runs with the horn current at
170~kA, 200~kA and 0~kA; and runs with the target pulled back out of
the first horn by up to 2.5~m.
At the time of writing, the long accelerator shutdown to upgrade the
NuMI beam for {NO$\nu$A}\xspace is underway. With the shutdown of the Tevatron,
two relatively straightforward changes will allow the NuMI beam power
to be doubled to 700~kW\@. Previously the Recycler, a fixed field ring
in the MI tunnel, was used to store antiprotons but now for {NO$\nu$A}\xspace it
will accumulate protons from the Booster while the MI is ramping. By
parallelizing the accumulation and acceleration of protons for NuMI, and with
a small increase in the MI ramp rate,
the cycle time will be reduced from 2.2~s to 1.33~s. The second change
is that the number of batches in the MI ring will be increased from 11
to 12 and the two that were previously used to produce antiprotons
will now be used for NuMI.
In addition to the upgrades to the accelerator for {NO$\nu$A}\xspace,
modifications will also be made to the NuMI beamline. For the {NO$\nu$A}\xspace
detectors the position of the peak in the energy spectrum will be
determined by the off-axis angle and so the flux will be optimized by
focusing the maximum number of pions into the decay pipe with energies
that allow a substantial fraction of them to decay within the 675~m
long decay volume. The optimal configuration of the NuMI beamline for
{NO$\nu$A}\xspace will be to operate in a so-called ``medium energy'' configuration
with the target sitting a meter or so back from the first horn and
with the second horn positioned further downstream. This medium energy
beam will have a peak energy of around 7~GeV for the on-axis
experiments (e.g. MINOS+) compared to 1.9~GeV for {NO$\nu$A}\xspace. The simulated
energy spectrum is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:spectraNuMI}. The {NO$\nu$A}\xspace
detectors, sitting 14~mrad off-axis, will see a beam flux with
significantly higher purity than is obtained on-axis, having only
about 1\% $\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$ contamination of the $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$-enhanced beam and
about 5\% $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ contamination of the $\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$-enhanced beam.
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip,
width=0.6\columnwidth]{beams/050-me-spectra}
\caption{The simulated NuMI energy spectrum as it will be in the
{NO$\nu$A}\xspace-era with the beamline in the ``medium energy''
configuration. The {NO$\nu$A}\xspace detectors will sit 14~mrad off-axis and the
energy spectrum at that angle is shown by the red histogram. In
contrast, the MINOS+ experiment will sit on-axis and so collect
thousands of neutrino interactions per year that will be measured
with an $L/E$ resolution at the 10\% level: the on-axis spectrum is
shown by the black dots. The green and blue histograms further
illustrate how the spectrum changes with the off-axis angle.}
\label{fig:spectraNuMI}
\end{figure}
The target for the {NO$\nu$A}\xspace era has been redesigned since there is no
longer the constraint that it should be placed inside the first horn
and increased reliability is expected. Beyond the upgrades underway
for {NO$\nu$A}\xspace, there is the possibility of increasing the beam power
further; for example, the first phase of a proton driver could deliver
1.1~MW.
\subsection{CNGS Beam}
\label{sec:beamCNGS}
The CNGS beam~\cite{Acquistapace:1998rv,Meddahi:1051376} is located at
CERN on the border of Switzerland and France and the neutrinos are
measured by experiments at the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy, 730~km
away. CNGS uses 400~GeV/c protons from CERN's SPS accelerator that are
fast extracted in two 10.5~$\mu$s spills 50~ms apart every 6~s. Each
spill contains typically $2\times10^{13}$ protons to give an average
power of around 300~kW. The CNGS beam was commissioned in 2006 and the
total exposure is expected to reach $1.9\times10^{20}$ protons on
target by the end of the 2012 run.
The CNGS target assembly consists of a magazine containing 5 separate
targets, of which one is used at a time and the others are in-situ
spares. Each target consists of a series of thirteen graphite rods
10~cm long, the first two are 5~cm in diameter and the remainder are
4~cm. The magnetic focusing system consists of a horn and a reflector
that are pulsed at 150~kA and 180~kA respectively. An evacuated decay
volume 1000~m long and 2.5~m in diameter allows the short-lived
hadrons time to decay. At the end of the decay volume there is a
graphite and iron hadron stop. Beyond that, two detector stations
measure the remaining muons, which are used to derive the intensity and
profile of the neutrino beam.
The CNGS beam is operated in a neutrino-enhanced mode and provides a
high purity $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ source with $\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$-contamination of 2\% and
$\nu_{e}$+$\overline{\nu}_{e}$-contamination of less than 1\%. The number of prompt
$\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ in the beam is negligible~\cite{Agafonova:2010dc}.
At the time of writing, no formal proposal for running the CNGS beam
beyond the long LHC-shutdown in 2013 has been made by OPERA or other
Gran Sasso experiments.
\subsection{T2K Beam}
\label{sec:beamJPARC}
The neutrino beam for the Tokai-to-Kamioka (T2K) experiment is
produced at the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex (J-PARC) and
measured by both near detectors locally and by Super-Kamiokande,
295~km from J-PARC\@. The T2K beam is an off-axis narrow band
beam. Details of the experimental apparatus for T2K including the
beamline are described in~\cite{Abe:2011ks}.
J-PARC is a high intensity proton accelerator complex located in Tokai
village, Japan, whose construction was completed in 2009. The accelerator
chain consists of a 181~MeV LINAC, 3~GeV
Rapid Cycling Synchrotron and a 30~GeV Main Ring~(MR). The design beam
power of the MR is 750~kW. The proton beam used to produce the
neutrino beam is extracted from MR in a single turn (fast extraction)
with repetition cycle of 3.52~s at the beginning of operation in 2010
and 2.56~s now in 2012. The beam pulse of the single extraction
consist of 8~bunches, 580~ns apart, making the pulse about 5~$\mu$s
long. The beam power achieved for stable operation as of summer 2012
was 200~kW which corresponds to $1.1\times 10^{14}$~protons/pulse~(ppp)
or $1.3\times 10^{13}$~protons/bunch~(ppb).
The layout of the neutrino beam facility at J-PARC is illustrated in
Figure~\ref{fig:T2K-beamline}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{beams/T2K-beamline}
\caption{A schematic of the overall T2K beam facility, showing the
primary and secondary beamlines plus the location of the ND280
detector complex.}
\label{fig:T2K-beamline}
\end{figure}
The extracted beam from MR is bent by about 90$^\circ$ to point
in the Kamioka direction using 28 superconducting combined function
magnets~\cite{Ogitsu:2004ad,Nakamoto:2004nj,Ogitsu:2010zz} and
delivered to the production target.
The secondary beamline where the neutrinos are produced is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:T2K-secondarybeam}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{beams/T2Kbeam_secondary}
\caption{Schematic of T2K secondary beam line.}
\label{fig:T2K-secondarybeam}
\end{figure}
The production target is a 26~mm diameter and 90~cm long graphite rod,
corresponding to 2~interaction lengths, in which about 80\% of
incoming protons interact. The secondary positive pions (and kaons)
from the target are focused by three electromagnetic horns operated at
a 250~kA pulsed current.
The target region is followed by a 110~m long decay volume filled with
helium gas in which pions and kaons decay in flight into
neutrinos. The beam dump, which consists of graphite blocks about
3.15~m thick followed by iron plates 2.5~m thick in total, is placed
at the downstream end of the decay volume.
Muon monitors (MUMON) are placed just behind the beam dump to monitor
the intensity and the profile of muons which pass through the beam
dump on a spill-by-spill basis. High energy muons of $>5$~GeV can
penetrate the beam dump and reach the MUMONs.
The design principle of the J-PARC neutrino facility is that all parts
which can never be replaced later, for example, the decay volume shielding
and cooling pipes, beam dump cooling capacity, etc, are built such
that they can be operated with up to 3~MW of beam power from the
beginning. Parts that can be replaced are designed to be operated with
a beam power up to 750~kW and have a safety factor of 2 to 3.
The neutrino beamline is designed so that the neutrino energy spectrum
at Super-Kamiokande can be tuned by changing the off-axis angle down
to a minimum of $2.0^{\circ}$ from the current (maximum) angle of
2.5$^{\circ}$. The unoscillated $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ energy spectrum at
Super-Kamiokande with a 2.5$^\circ$ off-axis angle is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:T2K-flux}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{beams/T2K-flux}
\caption{The unoscillated $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ flux at Super-Kamiokande with an
off-axis angle of 2.5$^{\circ}$ and operation of the electromagnetic
horns at 250~kA.}
\label{fig:T2K-flux}
\end{figure}
The construction of the neutrino facility started in 2004 and was
completed in 2009. Stable beam production for physics measurements
started in January 2010 after careful commissioning. The Great East
Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011 damaged J-PARC and stopped the
operation of the accelerators. After recovery work, the accelerator
restarted operation in December 2011 and stable beam for T2K data
taking was achieved in March 2012.
The J-PARC neutrino facility will provide an integrated number of
protons on target of $7.5\times 10^{21}$ (equivalent to $750~{\rm
kW}\times 5\times 10^7$s), which is the approved exposure for
T2K. With the present power upgrade scenario, this will take about 10
years.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Accelerator long-baseline experiments have made many measurements of
neutrino oscillations, extracting fundamental neutrino mixing
parameters and mass squared differences. The quantum mechanical
interference pattern expected from neutrino oscillations has been
observed with high statistics.
The most precise measurements to-date of $|\ensuremath{\Delta m^{2}_{{\rm atm}}}\xspace|$ for both neutrinos
and antineutrinos were made by a long-baseline neutrino oscillation
experiment. Measurement of the largest neutrino mixing angle,
$\theta_{23}$, has reached the level of precision obtained using
atmospheric neutrinos and second generation long-baseline experiments
will soon improve the precision considerably further. Evidence for
electron neutrino appearance in a beam of muon neutrinos has recently
been obtained and is consistent with new results that demonstrate the
disappearance of reactor electron antineutrinos due to
$\theta_{13}$.
Using a dedicated accelerator long-baseline experiment, candidate tau
neutrino events have been directly observed in a beam of muon
neutrinos and analysis of the complete data set is expected to reveal
several more $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ candidates. Searches for oscillations into
sterile neutrinos have set stringent limits on various models and
these will improve further in the future. Long-baseline experiments
have also been exploited in searches for Lorentz violation and to make
world-leading measurements of the neutrino velocity.
The second generation long-baseline experiments currently taking data,
or soon to start, will exploit the relatively large value of
$\theta_{13}$ with the aim of measuring the mass hierarchy,
determining the octant of $\theta_{23}$, searching for CP violation
and exploring models of new physics. Over the next decade, these
experiments promise a rich program of research with the sensitivity to
make fundamental discoveries.
\section{Detectors}
\label{sec:detectors}
In this section the detectors used by the experiments to achieve their
diverse physics goals are described. Design of these detectors took
into account multiple factors such as target mass, cost-effectiveness,
particle flavor identification purity and efficiency, the beam energy
spectrum and required baseline. The subsections below are time ordered
and include K2K Near detectors and Super-Kamiokande (SK), MINOS, OPERA,
ICARUS, the T2K ND280 complex and {NO$\nu$A}\xspace.
\subsection{K2K Near Detectors}
The K2K Near detector complex was located at the KEK laboratory in
Japan. The detectors were about 300~m from the beam-target, about 70~m
of which was taken up with earth shielding. The detectors were
designed to measure the flux and energy spectrum of the beam as it
leaves KEK\@. Their mass composition was chosen to be primarily water
so as to largely cancel common systematic uncertainties with
Super-Kamiokande. These goals were achieved using a 1~kiloton water
\v{C}erenkov\xspace detector (the ``1~kt'') and fine-grained detectors~(FGD). A
scintillating fiber detector~(SciFi)~\cite{Suzuki:2000nj},
scintillating counters, a lead glass array~(LG) and a muon range
detector~(MRD)~\cite{Ishii:2001sj} comprised the FGDs. For the second
phase of K2K, the LG was replaced by the fully active scintillator-bar
detector~(SciBar)~\cite{Nitta:2004nt}.
The 1~kt used the same technology as the Super-Kamiokande far detector
with the same arrangement of photomultiplier tubes and the same
40\%~coverage. In total, 680 50 cm photomultiplier tubes were used to
line an 8.6~m diameter, 8.6~m high cylinder.
The SciFi tracking detector used 20 layers of scintillating fibers, closely packed
together in $2.6~{\rm m}\times2.6$~m sheets that were separated by
9~cm. These layers were interleaved with 19 layers of water target
contained in extruded aluminum boxes and read
out using image-intensifier tubes and CCD cameras. The energy and
angle of the muons produced in $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC interactions were measured
using the MRD\@. This detector was designed to be big enough ($7.6~{\rm
m} \times 7.6$~m in the plane transverse to the beam) to measure
both the flux and the profile of the beam. The MRD consisted of
12~layers of iron absorber with vertical and horizontal drift tubes
in between. The first 4~(upstream) layers were 10~cm thick and the
remaining 8~layers were 20~cm thick. With 2.00~m of iron in total, up
to 2.8~GeV/c muons could be stopped and their total energy measured.
The SciBar detector was an upgrade to the near detectors designed with
the aim of improving the measurement of CC quasi-elastic interactions
and was installed in 2003. It was designed with the requirement of
high purity and efficiency, with the suppression of inelastic CC
interactions involving pions in the final state one of the main
goals. The detector was ``totally active'' and could measure $dE/dx$ for
individual particles such as protons and pions. The SciBar detector consisted of
14,848 extruded scintillator strips (of dimension
$1.3\times2.5\times300$~cm$^3$) packed tightly together to make up the
tracker part of the detector. On the downstream side of the tracker
was an electromagnetic calorimeter, 11~radiation lengths thick and made
of scintillating fibres \& lead foils, called the Electron
Catcher. This calorimeter was used to aid the measurement of electron
showers and $\pi^0$ produced by neutrino interactions.
\subsection{Super-Kamiokande Detector}
The Super-Kamiokande detector~\cite{Fukuda:2002uc} is the world's
largest land-based water \v{C}erenkov\xspace detector with a total mass of
50~kilotonnes. SK is a 39~m diameter and 41~m high stainless steel
cylindrical tank filled with ultra pure water that is located 1~km
underneath Mt. Ikenoyama in Japan. The water tank is optically
separated into a 33.8~m diameter and 36.2~m high cylindrically-shaped
inner detector (ID) and outer detector (OD) by opaque black sheets and
Tyvek sheets attached to a supporting structure. There are 11,129
inward-facing 50~cm diameter photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) lining the
ID giving 40\% coverage, and 1885 outward facing 20~cm diameter PMTs
on the inner wall of the OD\@. The ID and OD are optically separated
to allow interactions produced within the ID to be distinguished from
those entering from outside (e.g. cosmic rays).
A key feature of SK is the ability to separate $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC events from
$\nu_{e}$~CC by identifying the electron or muon. The muons, being
heavier, produce sharper \v{C}erenkov\xspace cones whereas electrons scatter more
easily and the resulting ``fuzzy'' \v{C}erenkov\xspace cone is effectively the sum of
multiple overlapping cones all pointing in slightly different
directions. The vertex for each interaction is reconstructed using the
timing from all the hit PMTs and used to define the fiducial volume of
22.5~kilotonnes.
\subsection{MINOS Detectors}
The MINOS detectors~\cite{Michael:2008bc} are magnetized tracking
calorimeters made of steel and plastic scintillator optimized for
measurements of muon neutrinos and antineutrinos with energies of a
few-GeV\@. The Near Detector at Fermilab has a mass of 0.98~kilotonnes
and the Far Detector at the Soudan Underground Laboratory in
Minnesota, USA has a mass of 5.4~kilotonnes. The detectors have a
planar geometry with the active medium comprised of solid plastic
scintillator strips with neighboring planes having their strips
orientated in perpendicular directions to give three dimensional
tracking capability. The planes are hung vertically so as to be
approximately perpendicular to the path of the beam neutrinos. In the
detectors' fiducial volumes 80\% of the target mass is provided by
steel planes and they are magnetized to provide average fields of
1.28~T and 1.42~T for the Near and Far detectors respectively.\ The
steel planes are 2.54~cm thick (1.45 radiation lengths) and mounted on
each one is, at most, a single 1.0~cm thick scintillator plane. Each
scintillator plane comprises of up to 192 strips that are 4.1~cm wide
and up to 8~m in length. There is an air gap between each plane of
2.4~cm in which the magnetic field is substantially smaller. A
schematic of the Near and Far detectors is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:MINOSdetectors}. The Far Detector planes are an 8~m
wide octagonal shape and grouped together into two separately
magnetized supermodules that are about 15~m in length. The Near
Detector planes have a squashed octagon shape that is about 3~m wide
and 2~m high. The Near Detector has two main parts: a fully
instrumented region used for calorimetry and a muon spectrometer that
is located downstream in the neutrino beam.
\begin{figure*}[htpb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip,width=0.45\textwidth,keepaspectratio=true]{detectors/NearXsecFig}
\hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip,width=0.45\textwidth,keepaspectratio=true]{detectors/FarXsecFig}
\caption{Schematics showing the end views of the MINOS Near (left) and
Far (right) detectors. For the Near detector the label `A'
identifies the upstream steel plate, `B' is the magnet coil and `C'
is an electronic rack. For the Far detector, `A' identifies the
steel plane at the end of the second supermodule, the furthest
downstream in the beam, `B' is the cosmic ray veto shield, `C' is a
magnet coil and `D' is an electronics rack. The detectors are shown
with different scales: the Near detector is 3~m wide compared to 8~m
for the Far detector. Figure from~\cite{Michael:2008bc}.}
\label{fig:MINOSdetectors}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
MINOS scintillator is made of polystyrene, doped with the fluors PPO
(1\%) and POPOP (0.03\%), which is co-extruded with a thin 0.25~mm
TiO$_2$ layer. A groove runs along the length of each strip into which
a 1.2~mm wavelength-shifting (WLS) fibre optic cable is glued. On exiting
the ends of the strips, the WLS fibers run together in a manifold to
terminate in a connector. Clear fibre optic cables, with a longer 12~m
attenuation length, are used to route the light to multi-anode
photomultiplier tubes.
The Near and Far detectors were designed to be as similar as possible,
although due to their different environments it was necessary to use
different front-end electronics. On average, several neutrino
interactions occur in the Near detector in every beam spill, whereas in
the Far detector only a handful of neutrino interactions occur per
day. The Near detector electronics digitizes the signal from each PMT
pixel continuously during each beam spill at the frequency of the beam
RF structure of 53.103~MHz. In contrast, the Far detector electronics
has a dead time of at least 5~$\mu$s after each PMT dynode
trigger. The Far detector self-triggers with high efficiency on
neutrino interactions. In addition, the beam spill time is
sent over the internet and used to record all detector activity in a
100~$\mu$s window around the beam spill. Both Near and Far detectors
also record cosmic ray events, and at the Far detector, atmospheric
neutrino events can be selected.
Neutrino energy reconstruction in MINOS involved both calorimetry of
showers (although later analyses also used topological information to
improve shower energy resolution) and either range or curvature of
muon tracks. The calorimetric energy resolution of the MINOS detectors
was determined to be 21.4\%$/\sqrt{E} \oplus 4\%/E$ for
electromagnetic showers and $56\%/\sqrt{E} \oplus 2\%$ for hadronic
showers. The accuracy of the simulation of protons, pions, electrons
and muons was determined using a specially constructed calibration detector
that was exposed to CERN test-beams~\cite{Adamson:2006xv}. The
test-beam data was also used to demonstrate that differences in the
Near and Far detector readout systems could be corrected for by the
calibration and the detector simulation~\cite{Cabrera:2009fi} down to
the 1\% level.
In the Far detector the optimal fiducial volume of 4.2~kilotonnes
included as many events as possible to reduce the statistical
uncertainty on the oscillation parameters. Whereas in the Near
detector, with millions of events, the fiducial volume was optimized to
make the best possible measurement of the neutrino energy spectrum and
had a mass of 23.7~tonnes.
\subsection{OPERA Detector}
The OPERA detector is located 1400~m underground in Hall~C at the Gran
Sasso Laboratory, Italy and is optimized to enable a high purity
selection of tau neutrino interactions on an individual event basis. A
key signature of a $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ event is the topology of the tau
decay. Substantial energy is carried away by the $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ produced in
tau decay and due to the large tau mass the effect of missing
transverse momentum often gives rise to a substantial change in
direction (or ``kink'') at the point along a track where the tau
decays. With a mean lifetime of 0.29 picoseconds, corresponding to
87~$\mu$m at the speed of light, directly observing the tau in a
necessarily massive detector is an experimental challenge.
The detector used by the OPERA collaboration is a hybrid consisting of
a target constructed of fine grained emulsion and electronic
detectors. Neutrino events are localized in the target using the
scintillator target tracker (TT) detector and a spectrometer is used
to measure the momentum and charge of muons. The target is divided
into two supermodules with veto planes upstream. Each target region
contains 75\,000 emulsion cloud chambers (ECC), or ``bricks'', which
are constructed from 56 lead plates 1~mm thick that are interleaved
with 57 nuclear emulsion films. Each ECC weighs 8.3~kg for a total
target mass of around 1.25~kilotonnes. An automated system is used to
extract the bricks identified by the TT from the detector. Scanning of
the emulsion films is performed by automated microscopes located on
the surface in Europe and Japan.
\subsection{ICARUS Detector}
The ICARUS T600 detector~\cite{Rubbia:2011ft} is located in Hall~B of
the Gran Sasso Laboratory, Italy and consists of 760~tonnes of
ultra-pure liquid argon (LAr) held at 89~K\@. The argon provides the
target mass and the ionization medium for four time projection
chambers (TPCs). These four TPCs come in two pairs, with each pair
occupying a volume of $3.6\times3.9\times19.6$~m$^3$. A shared cathode
plane runs down the centre of each volume separating the two TPCs,
giving a maximum drift path of 1.5~m. This detector provides exquisite
electronic imaging of neutrino interactions in three dimensions with a
position resolution of around 1~mm$^3$ over the whole detector active
volume of about 170~m$^3$.
An electric field of 500~V/cm is used to drift ionization electrons
towards three parallel planes of wires arranged at 0$^\circ$,
+60$^\circ$ and -60$^\circ$ to the horizontal. These planes are situated
along one side of each TPC and are separated by 3~mm. In total there
are 53248 wires that have a pitch of 3~mm and lengths up to 9~m
long. The first two planes (Induction-1 and Induction-2) provide
signals in a non-destructive way before the charge is finally
integrated on the Collection plane. Position information along the
drift direction is provided by combining measurement of the absolute
time of the ionising event with knowledge of the drift velocity (about
1.6~mm/$\mu$s at the nominal electric field
strength). VUV~scintillation light from the liquid argon, measured by
PMTs operating at cryogenic temperatures, provides the absolute timing
information.
Electronegative impurities such as O$_2$, CO$_2$ and H$_2$O were
initially reduced by evacuating the detector for 3~months before
filling and are generally maintained at below the 0.1~ppb level by
recirculating the LAr through purification systems. Full volume
recirculation can be accomplished in 6 days. A free electron lifetime
of 1~ms corresponds to a 1.5~m drift distance and this has been
successfully maintained for the vast majority of the time since the
detector started operation in mid-2010.
\subsection{T2K ND280 Detectors}
\label{sec:detectorsT2KND280}
The ND280 detector complex is located on the site of the J-PARC
accelerator complex about 280~m downstream of the production
target. The T2K experiment is formed of the ND280 detectors, the
beamline and Super-Kamiokande. The ND280 detectors measure the
neutrino energy spectrum and flavor content of the beam before it
oscillates. Since the far detector is located $2.5^\circ$ off-axis,
the primary near detector is also located off-axis at the same
angle. An on-axis near detector, INGRID, measures the neutrino beam
profile and intensity.
The off-axis near detector is a magnetized tracking detector
comprising of several sub-detectors located within the magnet recycled
from the UA1 experiment at CERN\@. Figure~\ref{fig:nd280} shows an
exploded view of the off-axis ND280 detector displaying the $\pi^0$
detector~(P0D), the tracker comprising of fine-grained
detectors~(FGDs) and time projection chambers~(TPCs), the
electromagnetic calorimeter~(ECal), and side muon range
detector~(SMRD).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip, width=0.6\columnwidth]{detectors/ND280Exploded-Text-White}
\caption{An exploded view of the ND280 off-axis near detector for the
T2K experiment. The ND280 is a magnetized tracking detector
comprising of several sub-detectors located inside the UA1 magnet
(see the main body of text for detailed descriptions). Figure
from~\cite{Abe:2011ks}.}
\label{fig:nd280}
\end{figure}
The P0D consists of scintillating bars alternating with either a water
target or brass or lead foil (to limit the range of any $\pi^0$s). The
FGDs consist of layers of finely segmented scintillator bars used to
measure charged current interactions. These inner detectors are all surrounded by
the ECal to catch any $\gamma$-rays that do not convert in the inner
detectors. Finally, the SMRD sits in the return yoke of the magnet and
measures the range of muons that exit the sides of the detector.
The on-axis INGRID detector consists of 14 identical modules arranged
in a cross pattern with two groups: extending 10~m along the
horizontal and vertical axes. A further two modules are located at
off-axis positions a few meters above the horizontal and to each side
of the vertical part of the cross. Each module is constructed from 9
steel plates 6.5~cm thick interleaved with 11 tracking scintillator
planes. The planes consist of two sets of 24 scintillator bars
measuring $1.0\times5.0\times120.3$~cm$^3$, one set arranged to run
vertically and the other horizontally. INGRID measures the center of
the beam to a precision of 10~cm, equivalent to 0.4~mrad.
\subsection{{NO$\nu$A}\xspace Detectors}
\label{sec:detectorsNOvA}
The {NO$\nu$A}\xspace~\cite{Ayres:2007tu} far detector will be located 14 mr off
the NuMI beam axis, 810 km from the NuMI target, off the Ash River
Trail in northern Minnesota, USA. The Ash River Trail is the most
northern road in the United States near the NuMI beam line. The {NO$\nu$A}\xspace
near detector will be located on the Fermilab site about 1 km from the
NuMI target, also at an angle of 14 mr to NuMI beam.
The {NO$\nu$A}\xspace detectors can be described as totally active, tracking,
liquid scintillator calorimeters. The basic cell of the far detector
is a column or row of liquid scintillator with approximate transverse
dimensions 4 cm by 15.6 m and longitudinal dimension 6 cm encased in a
highly-reflective polyvinyl chloride (PVC) container. A module of 32
cells is constructed from two 16-cell PVC extrusions glued together
and fitted with appropriate end pieces. Twelve modules make up a
plane, and the planes alternate in having their long dimension
horizontal and vertical. The far detector will consist of a minimum
of 928 planes, corresponding to a mass of approximately 14 kt.
Additional planes are possible depending on available funds at the end
of the project. Each plane corresponds to 0.15~radiation lengths.
The {NO$\nu$A}\xspace near detector will be identical to the far detector except that it will be
smaller, 3 modules high by 3 modules wide, with 192 planes. Behind the near
detector proper will be a muon ranger, a sandwich of 10 10-cm
iron plates each followed by two planes of liquid scintillator detectors.
{NO$\nu$A}\xspace has also constructed a near detector prototype called the NDOS
(Near Detector On the Surface) which has been running since November 2010
on the surface at Fermilab, off axis to both the NuMI and Booster neutrino
beams.
Figure~\ref{fig:novaDetectors} contains a drawing of the {NO$\nu$A}\xspace detectors.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=8cm]{detectors/novaDetectors}
\caption{Drawings of the {NO$\nu$A}\xspace far and near detectors. The human figure at
the base of the far detector is for scale.}
\label{fig:novaDetectors}
\end{figure}
Light is extracted from each liquid scintillator cell by a U-shaped 0.7-mm
wavelength-shifting fiber, the ends of which terminate on a pixel of a
32-pixel avalanche photodiode (APD), which is mounted on the module.
The APD is custom-made for the {NO$\nu$A}\xspace experiment by the Hamamatsu
Corporation to optimize the match to the two fiber ends per pixel.
Light from the far end of the cell is preferentially attenuated at the
lower wavelengths, so that the peak of the spectrum is at about 540 nm.
The use of APDs is crucial for the experiment since they have a quantum
efficiency of approximately 85\% at this wavelength compared to 10\%
for a photomultiplier with a bialkali photocathode.
The system is designed to produce a minimum of 20 photoelectrons
from the far end of the cell for the passage of a minimum ionizing
particle at normal incidence. The APD is run at a gain of 100, so low
noise is required for efficient operation. The APD is cooled to
$-$15$^\circ$ C by a thermoelectric cooler to reduce the thermal noise of
the APD to an acceptable limit.
The {NO$\nu$A}\xspace front-end electronics runs in continuous digitization mode at 2
MHz for the far detector and 8 MHz for the near detector. It delivers
GPS time-stamped, pedestal subtracted, and zero-suppressed data to the
data acquisition system (DAQ). At the far detector, the DAQ buffers the
data for up to 20 seconds while awaiting a beam spill time message from
Fermilab via Internet. All data within a 30 \ensuremath{\mathrm{\mu s}}\xspace window around the
10 \ensuremath{\mathrm{\mu s}}\xspace beam spill will be recorded for offline analysis.
\section{Future Sensitivities}
\label{sec:future}
The expected future physics sensitivities of experiments currently
running, or about to start taking data, are outlined
here. Section~\ref{sec:futSensOsc} describes the prospects for
measurements of the standard 3-flavor neutrino oscillation parameters
and section~\ref{sec:futSensNewPhysics} focuses on models of new
physics.
\subsection{Oscillation physics}
\label{sec:futSensOsc}
As of 2012, all three mixing angles are known to be nonzero and have
been measured to reasonably good accuracy. However, there is no
significant information on the mass ordering, the $\theta_{23}$ octant
or CP violation yet. The main goals of long-baseline experiments in
the next decade will be to determine or obtain indications of the
present unknowns by improving the precision of the measurements as
much as possible. Since the CP violation term in the $\nu_{e}$ appearance
probability depends on all the mixing angles in some way, it is
important to improve the precision of $\theta_{23}$ through $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$
disappearance measurements as well as $\nu_e$ appearance. Further, if
\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace is not unity, then the determination of the
$\theta_{23}$ octant will tell us whether $\nu_{3}$ couples more
strongly to $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ or $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$.
T2K plans to accumulate up to $750~{\rm kW}\times 5\times10^7$~seconds
equivalent POT, which is about $8\times 10^{21}$~POT and 26~times the
exposure so far. The {NO$\nu$A}\xspace sensitivities discussed below all assume
that {NO$\nu$A}\xspace will run for three years in neutrino mode and three years
in antineutrino mode, for a total of $36 \times 10^{20}$ POT. These
predicted sensitivities are largely based on analysis techniques that
were used by the MINOS experiment. {NO$\nu$A}\xspace expects to be able to
achieve somewhat better sensitivities as it incorporates additional
techniques allowed by {NO$\nu$A}\xspace's finer segmentation and greater active
fraction.
\subsubsection{\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace Disappearance}
\ \newline The disappearance of \ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace charged current events measures
\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace and $|\Delta m^{2}_{32}|$. The expected statistical precision
of the T2K $\nu_\mu$ disappearance measurements at $750~{\rm kW}\times
5\times 10^7$~seconds are plotted in
Figure~\ref{fig:T2Knmdisappstat}~\cite{T2Kproposal}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{future/T2K-nmdisapp-stat}
\caption{T2K expected statistical precision on the oscillation
parameters $\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace$ and $|\Delta m^{2}_{32}|$ assuming an exposure
of $750~{\rm kW}\times 5\times 10^7$~seconds as a function of true
$|\Delta m^{2}_{32}|$ \cite{T2Kproposal}. The 1\,$\sigma$ confidence intervals
for $|\Delta m^{2}_{32}|$ from MINOS are indicated by red hatches.}
\label{fig:T2Knmdisappstat}
\end{figure}
The statistical precision reaches $\delta(\sin^22\theta_{23})\sim 1$\%
and $\delta(|\Delta m^{2}_{32}|) \sim 0.05\times 10^{-3}$~eV$^2$. The goal for
the systematic uncertainties is to reach the same level as for the
statistical errors for both of the parameters.
The latest MINOS measurement of \ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace is $0.96 \pm
0.04$~\cite{Nichol:Neu2012}. For the reasons cited above, {NO$\nu$A}\xspace
should be able to make a measurement that is about a factor of two to
three more sensitive. Figure~\ref{fig:s22th23} shows the {NO$\nu$A}\xspace
sensitivity for three possible values of \ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace. {NO$\nu$A}\xspace
will gain further information about $\theta_{23}$ from $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}\rightarrow\nu_{e} }\xspace$
oscillations, as discussed below.
\begin{SCfigure}[50.0][!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{future/s22th23}
\caption{One and two standard deviation {NO$\nu$A}\xspace sensitivity contours for
a joint measurement of $|\Delta m^{2}_{32}|$ and \ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace for three
possible values of these parameters indicated by the plus signs.
The single parameter measurement of \ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace will be
somewhat more sensitive than the extreme limits of the displayed
contours.\vspace{0.75in}}
\label{fig:s22th23}
\end{SCfigure}
\subsubsection {$\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}\rightarrow\nu_{e} }\xspace$ Oscillations}
\ \newline The parameters for \ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}\rightarrow\nu_{e} }\xspace oscillations are considerably
more complex than for $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ disappearance. This process is largely
proportional to both\ \ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{13})}\xspace and \ensuremath{\sin^2(\theta_{23})}\xspace, with large
perturbations caused by the mass ordering (through the matter effect)
and by CP violation. A convenient way to see the dependences is
through bi-probability plots. These plots show the loci of possible
{NO$\nu$A}\xspace measurements of \ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}\rightarrow\nu_{e} }\xspace and \ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}\rightarrow\overline{\nu}_e}\xspace oscillation
probabilities, given a set of parameters. These parameters include
\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{13})}\xspace, which is fixed at 0.095, a value consistent with
the recent reactor
measurements\cite{Abe:2012tg,Dwyer:Neu2012,Ahn:2012nd}, and
\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace. Figures~\ref{fig:finder100} and \ref{fig:finder97}
show bi-probability plots for \ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace = 1.00 and 0.97,
respectively. The CP-violating phase $\delta$ traces out the ovals
and the multiplicity of ovals represents the two possible mass
orderings and, for Figure~\ref{fig:finder97}, the ambiguity of whether
$\theta_{23}$ is larger or smaller than $\pi/4$.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}[t]{3.0in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{future/finder100}
\caption{Bi-probability plot for $\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace=1.00$. See text
for explanation.}
\label{fig:finder100}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{3.0in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{future/finder97}
\caption{Bi-probability plot for $\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace=0.97$. See text
for explanation.}
\label{fig:finder97}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
A useful way to visualize what {NO$\nu$A}\xspace will be able to do is to
superimpose one and two standard deviation contours on the
bi-probability plots. For example, Figures~\ref{fig:disp100n333} and
\ref{fig:disp97ln333} show these contours for a favorable set of
parameters, normal mass ordering and $\delta=3\pi/2$. The mass
ordering is resolved to more than two standard deviations, the
$\theta_{23}$ ambiguity is resolved to two standard deviations, and CP
violation is established to almost two standard deviations. This
occurred because the matter effect and the CP-violating effect went in
the same direction, so there was no ambiguity.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}[t]{3.0in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{future/disp100n333}
\caption{Bi-probability plot for $\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace=1.00$ with {NO$\nu$A}\xspace
expected 1 and 2 standard deviation contours superimposed on the
starred point.}
\label{fig:disp100n333}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{3.0in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{future/disp97ln333}
\caption{Bi-probability plot for $\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace=0.97$ with {NO$\nu$A}\xspace
expected 1 and 2 standard deviation contours superimposed on the
starred point.}
\label{fig:disp97ln333}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
An unfavorable set of parameters would be one in which the matter
effect and the CP-violating effect go in opposite directions so that
there is an ambiguity as to which direction each one went. An example
of that is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:disp97ln133}. The $\theta_{23}$
ambiguity is resolved, but the mass ordering is not, and therefore
there is little information on the CP-violating phase. If nature
gives us this situation, then the only way to resolve the mass
ordering in the short term is to compare {NO$\nu$A}\xspace measurements of
\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}\rightarrow\nu_{e} }\xspace\ oscillations with those from an experiment with a
different baseline. The only experiment that meets that requirement
is T2K, which has a 295~km baseline.
\begin{SCfigure}[10.][!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{future/disp97ln133}\hspace{0.5in}
\caption{Bi-probability plot for $\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace=0.97$ with {NO$\nu$A}\xspace
expected 1 and 2 standard deviation contours superimposed on the
starred point.
\vspace{1.5in}}
\label{fig:disp97ln133}
\end{SCfigure}
The algorithm for resolving the mass ordering is quite simple. If
{NO$\nu$A}\xspace measures a higher probability of \ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}\rightarrow\nu_{e} }\xspace\ oscillations than
T2K, then the mass ordering is normal; if it is the opposite, it is
inverted. That is because {NO$\nu$A}\xspace and T2K will see the identical
CP-violation, but T2K will see a much smaller matter effect due to its
shorter baseline. The only catch in this algorithm is that the
comparison must be done at the same point in the oscillation phase,
and the two experiments run at different average oscillation phases.
Figures~\ref{fig:finder97ex} and \ref{fig:finderT2K97} show the
bi-probability plots in which the {NO$\nu$A}\xspace measurements have been
extrapolated to the same oscillation phase as the T2K measurements. A
comparison of the two plots shows that the algorithm works for all
values of $\delta$.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}[t]{3.0in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{future/finder97ex}
\caption{Bi-probability plot for $\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace=0.97$ with {NO$\nu$A}\xspace
extrapolated to the average oscillation phase of T2K}
\label{fig:finder97ex}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{3.0in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{future/finderT2K97}
\caption{Bi-probability plot for $\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace=0.97$ for T2K.}
\label{fig:finderT2K97}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
Unfortunately, the combined statistical power of {NO$\nu$A}\xspace and T2K at the
end of the nominal six-year {NO$\nu$A}\xspace run will be insufficient to resolve
the mass ordering at the two standard deviation level using this
strategy. However, it is unlikely that either the American or the
Japanese neutrino program will end at that time. With anticipated
improvements in both programs, in the worst case, the mass ordering
should be resolved in the next decade.
Figures~\ref{fig:novaMassOrdering} and \ref{fig:CPv} summarize the
{NO$\nu$A}\xspace sensitivities for resolving the mass ordering and determining
that there is CP violation in the leptonic sector, respectively.
These figures are for {NO$\nu$A}\xspace alone and use only the total measured
oscillation rate. There will be some gain in sensitivity in using the
measured energy dependence and, as mentioned previously, improvements
in the analysis. Figures~\ref{fig:novaT2KmassOrdering} and
\ref{fig:novaT2KCPv} show the same information, but include the
information from T2K that is expected to be available at the end of
the nominal six-year {NO$\nu$A}\xspace run.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}[t]{3.0in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{future/novaMassOrdering}
\caption{Significance of the resolution of the mass ordering as a
function of $\delta$ in standard deviations. These sensitivities
are for {NO$\nu$A}\xspace alone for the two possible orderings and
\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace = 1.0. The zeros correspond to the crossing of
the ovals in Figure~\ref{fig:finder100}.}
\label{fig:novaMassOrdering}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{3.0in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{future/novaT2KmassOrdering}
\caption{Same as the figure to the left except that information from
the T2K experiment has been included.}
\label{fig:novaT2KmassOrdering}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}[t]{3.0in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{future/CPv}
\caption{Significance of the determination that CP violation occurs in
neutrino oscillations as a function of $\delta$ in standard
deviations. These sensitivities are for {NO$\nu$A}\xspace alone for the two
possible orderings and $\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace=1.0$. The significance
goes to zero at $\delta=0$ and $\delta=\pi$ since there is no CP
violation at those points. The dips in the peaks occur because the
mass ordering has not been resolved for the ordering containing the
dips.}
\label{fig:CPv}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{3.0in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{future/novaT2KCPv}
\caption{Same as the figure to the left except that information from
the T2K experiment has been included.}
\label{fig:novaT2KCPv}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Searches for new physics}
\label{sec:futSensNewPhysics}
Future data to be accumulated by long-baseline experiments offer novel
avenues to search for new physics in several
ways. MINOS+~\cite{Tzanankos:2011zz} will run with the NuMI beam
providing a flux that is least a factor of two higher in energy and
power than for MINOS\@. This wide band beam will yield thousands of
interactions a year in the Far detector with well measured $L/E$\@. In
combination with a precise prediction for the spectrum of interactions
from the Near detector, precision probes of new physics will be
performed. {NO$\nu$A}\xspace and T2K experiments will exploit their narrow band
beams that have well defined energies. The {NO$\nu$A}\xspace detectors with their
fine granular sampling of events (1 plane is 0.15 radiation lengths,
see section~\ref{sec:detectorsNOvA}) will provide enhanced ability to
distinguish the different neutrino interaction types.
Sterile neutrinos are one of the major areas of interest that will be
probed by upcoming experiments. {NO$\nu$A}\xspace will improve on the MINOS
searches for a deficit in the rate of NC interactions in the Far
detector (see section~\ref{sec:resultsNewPhysics}), with significantly
better rejection of the dominant background coming from $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC
events. In addition to studies of NC events, MINOS+ will use the
complementary approach to looking for sterile neutrinos that involves
constraining the disappearance of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ and hence, via unitarity,
will constrain the appearance of $\nu_{e}$ (that short-baseline
experiments are directly sensitive
to). Figure~\ref{fig:sterileContours} shows what MINOS+ expects to add
to the world's constraints on muon-electron mixing at mass squared
splittings between $10^{-2}$~eV$^2$ and 10~eV$^2$ (i.e. larger than
the atmospheric and solar mass splittings). The red curve in
Figure~\ref{fig:sterileContours} is the expected combined sensitivity
of MINOS+ and the Bugey reactor experiment~\cite{Declais:1994su}:
Bugey constrains the $\theta_{14}$ mixing angle with its $\overline{\nu}_{e}$
disappearance measurements while MINOS+ aims to constrain
$\theta_{24}$ via the $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ disappearance mode. Predicted
90\%~C.L. sensitivities for MINOS+ combined with Bugey data are shown
for exposures of $1.2\times10^{21}$~POT in both neutrino-enhanced
(left) and antineutrino-enhanced (right) NuMI beam configurations:
these contours show that MINOS+ has the sensitivity to exclude
substantial regions of parameter space allowed by
MiniBooNE~\cite{AguilarArevalo:2010wv} and LSND~\cite{Aguilar:2001ty}
results.
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip,
width=0.47\columnwidth]{future/MINOSPlusBugeyCombo}
\includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip,
width=0.47\columnwidth]{future/MINOSPlusAntiBugeyCombo}
\caption{Expected sensitivities for MINOS+ combined with Bugey data to
$\sin^2(2\theta_{\mu e})$ as relevant for sterile neutrino
searches. 90\%~C.L. contours are shown for exposures of
$1.2\times10^{21}$~POT in both neutrino-enhanced (left) and
antineutrino-enhanced (right) NuMI beam
configurations~\cite{Nichol:Neu2012}. The regions of parameter space
allowed by MiniBooNE and LSND experiments along with the limits from
KARMEN~\cite{Armbruster:2002mp} are also shown.}
\label{fig:sterileContours}
\end{figure}
In addition to searching for sterile neutrinos, MINOS+ will have a
rich physics program that includes more precise measurements of
$|\ensuremath{\Delta m^{2}_{{\rm atm}}}\xspace|$ and $|\ensuremath{\Delta \overline{m}^{2}_{{\rm atm}}}\xspace|$, a search for tau neutrinos, non-standard
interactions, extra-dimensions, measurements of neutrino
time-of-flight and atmospheric neutrinos.
\section{Introduction}
Neutrino oscillation experiments are normally categorized into
short-baseline and long-baseline experiments. For experiments using
accelerator neutrinos as the source, the long-baseline means that $E/L
\simeq\Delta m^2 \sim2.5\times 10^{-3}$~eV$^2$, where $E$ and $L$ are
the neutrino energy and flight distance respectively. In this article,
accelerator long-baseline (LBL) neutrino oscillation experiments are
reviewed. The recent reactor neutrino experiments
to look for non-zero $\theta_{13}$ at $\Delta m^2 \sim2.5\times
10^{-3}$~ eV$^2$ and atmospheric neutrino experiments are covered
elsewhere in this Special Issue on Neutrino Physics.
Neutrino beams for the LBL experiments are produced in the
``conventional'' method where a high energy proton beam hits a target
and the pions that are produced then decay in flight to give muon
neutrinos. The typical neutrino energy thus produced is 0.5--10~GeV
and that sets the necessary distance to a neutrino detector to be
several hundreds of kilometers such that the neutrino oscillation
driven by $\Delta m^2 \sim2.5 \times 10^{-3}$~eV$^2$ can be
investigated. This review describes KEK~\cite{kek:1998},
NuMI~\cite{Anderson:1998zza}, CNGS~\cite{Acquistapace:1998rv} and
J-PARC~\cite{Abe:2011ks} neutrino beams and their associated
experiments.
The goals of the first LBL experiments proposed in 1990s,
K2K~\cite{Ahn:2006zza}, MINOS~\cite{Ambats:1998aa} and CERN to Gran
Sasso (CNGS) experiments OPERA~\cite{Acquafredda:2009zz} and
ICARUS~\cite{Arneodo:2001tx} were to clarify the origin of the anomaly
observed in the atmospheric neutrino measurements of
Kamiokande~\cite{Hirata:1988uy} and IMB~\cite{Haines:1986yf} and later
to confirm the discovery of neutrino oscillations by Super-Kamiokande
(SK) in 1998~\cite{Fukuda:1998mi}. Kamiokande observed a deficit of
muon neutrinos coming through the earth, which could have been
interpreted as muon to tau neutrino oscillation and/or to electron
neutrino oscillation. Soon afterwards, the CHOOZ
experiment~\cite{Apollonio:2002gd} excluded the possibility that muon
to electron neutrino oscillation is the dominant mode. Therefore, the
goal of the first generation LBL experiments was focused on confirming
muon to tau neutrino oscillation. The K2K and MINOS experiments, which
used beams with neutrino energies of a few-GeV, focused on detecting
muon neutrino disappearance because the energy of the neutrinos was
rarely high enough to make $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ charged current interactions
(threshold energy is about 3.5~GeV). In contrast, the CNGS experiments
make use of a higher energy ($\sim$20~GeV) neutrino beam and OPERA is
optimized for the detection of tau neutrino appearance.
Soon after the discovery of neutrino oscillation by SK, the importance
of the sub-leading electron neutrino appearance channel was pointed
out. In the three flavor mixing picture, the probability of electron
neutrino appearance gives a measure of the mixing angle
$\theta_{13}$. The existence of electron neutrino appearance at the
atmospheric oscillation length means non-zero $\theta_{13}$. Only
an upper bound of $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})=0.14$~(90\%~C.L.) from the CHOOZ
experiment was known until very recently. Because the CP violating
observable, the phase $\delta$, appears always in the product with
$\sin(2\theta_{12}) \sin(2\theta_{23}) \sin(2\theta_{13})$ and
$\theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{12}$ are known to be large, the size of
$\theta_{13}$ is a major factor in the feasibility of the future CP
violation search.
With the goal to discover electron neutrino appearance and determine
$\theta_{13}$, the T2K experiment~\cite{Abe:2011ks} in Japan started
taking data in 2010 and the {NO$\nu$A}\xspace
experiment~\cite{Ayres:2002ws,Ayres:2004js,Ayres:2007tu} in the USA is
now under construction and will start measurements in 2013. The design
of these experiments was optimized for detection of electron neutrino
appearance. Both T2K and {NO$\nu$A}\xspace adopted a novel ``off-axis'' beam
technique that provides a narrow peak in the energy spectrum, tuned to
be at the expected oscillation maximum, while at the same time
reducing the unwanted high energy tail. The $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace\rightarrow\nu_{e}$
transition is a sub-dominant effect and the oscillation probability to
be probed is small. To have enough sensitivity, beam powers of order
1~MW and detector masses of order 10~kilotons are required and as such
these experiments are sometimes called ``superbeam'' experiments.
With evidence of $\nu_{e}$ appearance from early T2K results and the
recent measurement of $\overline{\nu}_{e}$ disappearance by the reactor
experiments~\cite{Abe:2011fz,An:2012eh,Ahn:2012nd}, the major focus
for the future will be to determine the mass hierarchy and search for
evidence of CP violation. {NO$\nu$A}\xspace will have the longest baseline of all
second-generation experiments at 810~km, which will give enhanced sensitivity to the
neutrino mass hierarchy due to the neutrino-matter interaction in the
Earth as the neutrinos propagate. Information on the mass
hierarchy and the expected precision measurement of $\theta_{13}$
from the reactor experiments will be crucial to resolve degeneracies
in the grand combination of T2K, {NO$\nu$A}\xspace and reactor experiments to
reveal information on what nature has chosen for leptonic CP
violation.
Beyond oscillations, the provision of intense and relatively well
understood neutrino beams along with the large detectors in these
experiments has opened up whole new avenues to look for new
physics. This review provides a concise overview of searches for
sterile neutrinos, velocity measurements of neutrinos and searches for
violation of Lorentz symmetry. In the future, the MINOS+
experiment~\cite{Tzanankos:2011zz} will focus on searches for new
physics through high-precision, high-statistics measurements with the
NuMI beam operating at a peak on-axis energy of 7~GeV.
This review paper is structured as follows. Section~\ref{sec:beams}
describes the beams and section~\ref{sec:detectors} gives an overview
of the detectors. The results from long-baseline neutrino oscillation
experiments are presented here in three parts:
section~\ref{sec:resultsDom} describes the measurements made using the
dominant $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace \rightarrow \ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ oscillation mode;
section~\ref{sec:resultsSubdom} details the recent detection of
sub-dominant $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace \rightarrow \nu_{e}$ oscillations; and
section~\ref{sec:resultsNewPhysics} describes the results from
searches for new physics such as sterile neutrinos. Future
sensitivities are described in section~\ref{sec:future} and a
conclusion is given in section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{References}
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{Bibliography}
\bibliographystyle{styleFiles/jeffStyle.bst}
\section{Results on $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace \rightarrow \ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$: the dominant oscillation mode}
\label{sec:resultsDom}
The dominant oscillation mode for all long-baseline accelerator
experiments performed to date is $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace \rightarrow \ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$. This
channel was used by K2K~\cite{Ahn:2002up,Ahn:2006zza} and
MINOS~\cite{Michael:2006rx} to provide essential confirmation of the
neutrino oscillations observed by Super-Kamiokande in atmospheric
neutrinos~\cite{Fukuda:1998mi}. Accelerator experiments with their
fixed baselines, $L$, and high energy resolution detectors allow
precise measurement of $L/E$\@. In turn, this allows resolution of the
oscillatory quantum-mechanical interference pattern and precise
measurements of $|{\Delta}m^2|$ and $\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace$: these results are described
here in section~\ref{sec:resultsDm2Sin2}. The corresponding
measurements for muon antineutrinos are described in
section~\ref{sec:resultsDm2BarSin2Bar}.
Direct observation of tau appearance by OPERA will further confirm
$\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace \rightarrow \ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ as the dominant mode of oscillation and the
results from the first half of their data
set~\cite{Agafonova:2010dc,Agafonova:2012zz} are described in
section~\ref{sec:resultsTau}.
\subsection{Precision measurement of $|{\Delta}m^2|$ and $\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace$}
\label{sec:resultsDm2Sin2}
In an accelerator experiment, measurement of $|{\Delta}m^2|$ and $\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace$ is
performed by observing the energy dependent disappearance of muon
neutrinos. The fixed baselines, $L$, are known to high precision and
so contribute a negligible uncertainty to measurement of $L/E$, which
is dominated by the energy resolution of the detectors. The energy at
which the maximum disappearance occurs is a measure of $|{\Delta}m^2|$ and the
disappearance probability at that point is given by
$\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace$. Figure~\ref{fig:enSpect} shows the energy spectrum of muon
neutrino candidate events in the MINOS far detector where the energy
dependent deficit can be clearly seen, with the maximum disappearance
occurring at around 1.4~GeV for the 735~km baseline.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip, width=0.6\columnwidth]{results/fd_spectrum}
\caption{The energy spectrum of fully reconstructed muon neutrino
candidate events in the MINOS Far detector (top pane). Both the no
oscillation hypothesis and the best oscillation fit are shown. The
shaded region shows the expected neutral-current background. The
ratio to no oscillations (bottom pane) displays the best fits to
models of neutrino decay and neutrino decoherence, where they are
seen to be disfavored at high significance (7\,$\sigma$ and
9\,$\sigma$ respectively).}
\label{fig:enSpect}
\end{figure}
A crucial ingredient to enabling precise measurements of the
oscillation parameters is event-by-event identification of whether the
observed interactions are neutral-current~(NC) or charged-current~(CC)
events. In the absence of sterile neutrinos, the spectrum of NC events
is unchanged due to oscillations and has to be separated from the muon
neutrino CC sample. For the experiments performed to date,
identification of the flavor of CC events has been of secondary
importance to the separation of NC events since the vast majority of
CC events are muon flavor. Given the tau production threshold at a
neutrino energy of around 3.5~GeV, this appearance mode is naturally
suppressed in K2K, MINOS, T2K and {NO$\nu$A}\xspace due to their lower beam
energies and so relatively few $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$~CC interactions occur. The
appearance of electron neutrinos is a sub-dominant effect (detailed in
section~\ref{sec:resultsSubdom}) that contributes, for example, only
around 1\% of the event rate in MINOS\@. The performance of the
different experiments in selecting a $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC event sample is
discussed below.
\subsubsection{K2K $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ Disappearance Results}
\ \newline K2K was the first accelerator long-baseline experiment,
taking data from 1999--2004. The neutrino beam was produced and
measured at KEK in Japan and then observed 250~km away at the
Super-Kamiokande detector. K2K saw 112 beam-originated events in the
fiducial volume of Super-Kamiokande with an expectation of
158.1$^{+9.2}_{-8.6}$ without oscillation~\cite{Ahn:2006zza}. The
water \v{C}erenkov\xspace detector allowed separation of 58 single-ring muon-like
events in which a distortion of the energy spectrum was seen. At the
K2K beam energy these muon-like events contained a high fraction of
quasi-elastic events and the incoming neutrino energy was
reconstructed using two-body kinematics. Combining information from
both the shape of the energy spectrum and the normalization, K2K
determined that the probability of obtaining their data in the case of
null-oscillations was 0.0015\%~(4.3\,$\sigma$) thus confirming the
Super-Kamiokande atmospheric neutrino results. The K2K
90\%~C.L. allowed region in the $|{\Delta}m^2|$\,--\,$\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace$ plane is shown
by the magenta line in~Figure~\ref{fig:sinVsdm2}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip, width=0.6\columnwidth]{results/fid+raf_contours_conf_no2008}
\caption{The 90\% confidence regions for $|{\Delta}m^2|$ and
$\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace$. Results shown are published contours from
K2K~\cite{Ahn:2006zza}, MINOS~\cite{Adamson:2011ig} and
Super-Kamiokande~\cite{Ashie:2004mr,Ashie:2005ik}. For the latest
but still preliminary results see Figure~\ref{fig:sinVsdm2Prelim}.}
\label{fig:sinVsdm2}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{MINOS $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ Disappearance Results}
\label{sec:minosNuMuDisap}
\ \newline MINOS started data taking in 2005 and ran for 7 years
through April 2012. Around 80\% of the data was taken with the beam
optimized to produce neutrinos and the remaining 20\% antineutrinos
(see section~\ref{sec:resultsDm2BarSin2Bar} for a description of the
$\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$ disappearance results). The first $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ disappearance
results from MINOS are given in~\cite{Michael:2006rx} and detailed in
a longer paper~\cite{Adamson:2007gu}. Updated results are given
in~\cite{Adamson:2008zt} and those presented here are taken
from~\cite{Adamson:2011ig}. Additionally, the results from the
preliminary analysis using the full MINOS data
set~\cite{Nichol:Neu2012} are also summarised here.
The geometry of the MINOS detectors allows three dimensional
reconstruction of tracks and showers. Using the reconstructed vertex
information a fiducial volume cut was made that separated incomplete
and partially reconstructed events occurring at the edge of the
detector from those that were fully reconstructed. As mentioned above,
a crucial step in this analysis was the separation of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC events
from NC events. For the first results a particle identification
parameter was constructed using probability density functions for the
event length, the fraction of the energy contained in the track, and
the average pulse height per plane. The later results used an improved
technique based on a k-nearest-neighbor algorithm~(kNN). This kNN
technique used the energy deposition along a track and its fluctuation
to discriminate muons from spurious tracks reconstructed from hadronic
activity in NC interactions. For the most recent analysis an overall
efficiency for selecting $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC events of 90\% was achieved. The
first results made a selection on the charge-sign of the muon but later
analyses have included the 7\% antineutrino component of the
neutrino-enhanced beam, which had a significantly higher average
energy~\cite{Adamson:2011ch}.
Near detector data was used to substantially reduce systematic effects
on this measurement that would otherwise arise from limited knowledge
of the neutrino flux and cross-sections. Both the Near and Far
Detectors measured a product of flux times cross-section and by doing a
relative measurement, the uncertainties on that product canceled to
first order. However, the flux iwas not the same at the Near and Far
detectors: one saw a line-source of neutrinos and the other saw what
was effectively a point source. The Far Detector flux was populated by
neutrinos from more forward decaying pions and so the spectrum was
somewhat harder than at the Near detector. The beamline simulation
incorporated and was used to estimate these largely geometrical
effects.
Due primarily to the flux and cross-section uncertainties, the Near
detector data differed from the simulation by up to 20\% as a function
of energy. An extrapolation procedure used the Near Detector
measurements to predict the Far Detector energy spectrum via a number
of steps as follows: subtracting the estimated background from the
Near Detector energy spectrum; deconvolving the effects of Near
detector energy resolution; using a transfer matrix to account for the
different flux at the Far Detector; weighting each energy bin
according to the oscillation probability; reintroducing the effect of
energy resolution at the Far Detector; and adding in the estimated Far
Detector background. With all these steps complete an oscillated Far
Detector prediction was obtained for comparison with the data.
Several sources of systematic uncertainty were accounted for in this
measurement. The three largest uncertainties on the measurement of
$|{\Delta}m^2|$ were on the absolute energy scale of hadronic showers, the
absolute energy scale of muons and the relative normalization of event
rates between Near and Far Detectors. Other uncertainties included NC
contamination, the relative hadronic energy scale, cross-sections and
beam flux. Overall, the statistical error on the MINOS measurement of
$|{\Delta}m^2|$ was still more significant than the systematic uncertainty.
The largest three systematic uncertainties on the measurement of
$\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace$ were on the NC contamination, cross-sections, and the
relative hadronic energy scale. However, the MINOS measurement of
$\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace$ was dominated by the statistical uncertainty, with the
systematic uncertainty being smaller by more than a factor of four.
Every NuMI beam event with a reconstructed muon was included in the
likelihood fit to extract the oscillation parameters. These events
were split into 7 event categories to extract the maximum
information. Partially reconstructed events, where the neutrino
interacted in the rock outside the detector or in the outer edges of
the detector, were a separate category and only their reconstructed
muon information was used (any shower energy was ignored due to its
limited use for this sample). Fully reconstructed $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC candidate
events were separated by the charge-sign of the muon. Positively
charged events formed their own single sample but the negatively
charged events were divided into 5 categories using their estimated
energy resolution (for example, a highly-elastic CC event where most
of the neutrino energy was carried away by the muon was measured more
precisely than an inelastic event where shower energy fluctuations
smeared the measurement). The four dominant systematic uncertainties
were included as nuisance parameters and the mixing angle was
constrained by the physical boundary at $\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace=1$.
Thousands of beam neutrino interactions have been recorded at the
MINOS Far detector and used, as described above, to make the world's
most precise measurement of
$|{\Delta}m^2|=(2.32^{+0.12}_{-0.08})\times10^{-3}$~eV$^2$ while constraining
$\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace<0.90$ at
90\%~C.L.~\cite{Adamson:2011ig}. Figure~\ref{fig:enSpect} shows the
fully reconstructed events recorded by MINOS where the distortion of
the energy spectrum expected by oscillations can be seen and contrasts
with that expected from alternative models of neutrino disappearance
such as neutrino decay or decoherence (they are excluded at 7 and
9\,$\sigma$ respectively). The MINOS contours associated with this
published result are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sinVsdm2} (updated but
preliminary results from MINOS are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:sinVsdm2Prelim}).
Recently, preliminary MINOS results using the complete data set have
been released~\cite{Nichol:Neu2012}. The total neutrino-enhanced beam
exposure is $10.7\times10^{20}$~POT, 50\% more than the previous
result given above. Furthermore, two additional data sets are
included: firstly, the antineutrino-enhanced beam
data~($3.36\times10^{20}$~POT); and secondly, atmospheric neutrinos
and antineutrinos~(37.9~kiloton-years). While still well within the
previous 1\,$\sigma$ contours, the best fit point for this new
analysis has moved slightly away from maximal mixing to
$|{\Delta}m^2|=(2.39^{+0.09}_{-0.10})\times10^{-3}$~eV$^2$ and
$\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace=0.96^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ (the shift in upwards in $|{\Delta}m^2|$ being
correlated with the shift downward in $\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace$, due to the required
overall normalization being similar to the previous result).
The MINOS preliminary 90\%~C.L. allowed region in the
$|{\Delta}m^2|$\,--\,$\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace$ plane is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:sinVsdm2Prelim} by the solid black contour. The latest
results from Super-Kamiokande~\cite{Itow:Neu2012} (preliminary) and
T2K~\cite{Abe:2012gx} are shown alongside for comparison. All the
results presented here use the 2-flavor approximation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip, width=0.6\columnwidth]{results/contoursNeu2012}
\caption{Preliminary 90\% confidence regions for $|{\Delta}m^2|$ and
$\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace$ (except for T2K, which is published). Results are shown
for MINOS~\cite{Nichol:Neu2012}, T2K~\cite{Abe:2012gx} and
Super-Kamiokande~\cite{Itow:Neu2012}. The MINOS results shown here
are a combination of NuMI beam data and atmospheric neutrino data.}
\label{fig:sinVsdm2Prelim}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{T2K $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ Disappearance Results}
\ \newline T2K started taking data in 2010 and was the first
experiment to use an off-axis beam to observe muon neutrino
disappearance~\cite{Abe:2012gx}. The exposure for the first result was
$1.43\times10^{20}$~POT and is expected to increase substantially over
the next few years. In the Super-Kamiokande far detector, 31
fully-contained muon-like ring events were observed against an
expectation of $104\pm14$(syst) without neutrino oscillations. The
observed neutrino energy spectrum alongside the predicted spectra with
and without oscillation are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:T2K-numudisappspec}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip, width=0.6\columnwidth]{results/T2K-numu_disapp_spec}
\caption{Reconstructed neutrino energy spectra of T2K $\nu_\mu$
disappearance analysis.}
\label{fig:T2K-numudisappspec}
\end{figure}
The values of the oscillation parameters obtained are consistent with
both MINOS results and Super-Kamiokande atmospheric
neutrinos. Interestingly, the T2K constraints on $\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\theta)}\xspace$ already
approach the limit set by MINOS. This demonstrates the sensitivity of
T2K where the energy peak of the narrow band, off-axis, beam is
positioned close to the oscillation maximum and consequently a large
fraction of the $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ flux disappears. The T2K contours are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:sinVsdm2Prelim} alongside the latest MINOS results.
\subsection{Measurements of $|\ensuremath{\Delta \overline{m}^{2}_{{\rm atm}}}\xspace|$ and $\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\overline{\theta})}\xspace$}
\label{sec:resultsDm2BarSin2Bar}
MINOS accumulated 20\% of its total exposure with the NuMI beam
configured to enhance production of antineutrinos and made the first
direct measurement of muon antineutrino
disappearance~\cite{Adamson:2011fa}. The CPT theorem, that provides
the foundation of the standard model, predicts identical disappearance
of neutrinos and antineutrinos in vacuum and the measurements
described here allow precision tests of that hypothesis as well as
other models of new physics. The first antineutrino result from MINOS
reported tension with the neutrino results but with further data the
results are now consistent~\cite{Adamson:2012rm,Nichol:Neu2012}. In
addition to these results, the 7\% antineutrino component of the
neutrino-enhanced beam has also been analyzed~\cite{Adamson:2011ch};
these data provided a higher statistics sample of $\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$ events in
the 5--15~GeV range, allowing the oscillation probability to be
measured with greater precision in that region. The MINOS magnetized
detectors were essential to obtaining a high purity sample of
$\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC events and making the measurements reviewed here.
The antineutrino-enhanced beam flavor composition, described in
section~\ref{sec:beams}, was 40\%~$\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$, 58\%~$\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$,
2\%~$\nu_{e}+\overline{\nu}_{e}$~\cite{HimmelThesis}. The reason for the large
number of neutrinos was two-fold: firstly, the antineutrino
cross-section is about 2--3 times lower than for neutrinos; and
secondly, the yield of negative pions from the beam target was lower
than for positive pions. However, the ratio of antineutrinos to
neutrinos in the NuMI beam varied strongly as a function of energy and
below 6~GeV about 80\% of the interactions were antineutrinos (and
that's where the oscillation effect was largest for
MINOS). Discrimination of muon neutrinos from antineutrinos was
performed on an event-by-event basis by analyzing the track curvature
in the detector's magnetic field. Efficiency and purity wass estimated
from the MC simulation at 91.6\% and 99.0\% respectively for the Far
Detector.
With the magnetized detectors able to cleanly separate positive and
negative muons, the rejection of NC events was an important requirement
for this analysis. The k-nearest-neighbor multivariate technique used
for the neutrino analysis (see section~\ref{sec:resultsDm2Sin2}) was
used to separate $\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC events from NC. The procedure for
extrapolating Near Detector antineutrino data to make a Far Detector
prediction was essentially the same as for the neutrino analysis. The
detector and beamline simulations were reperformed for antineutrinos
to calculate, for example, the required detector resolution
deconvolution matrix and flux transfer matrix for $\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$. A slight
modification to the oscillation step of the extrapolation was required
to allow neutrinos and antineutrinos to oscillate differently in the
simulation.
Systematic uncertainties on the measurement of the antineutrino
oscillation parameters were similar to those described for neutrinos in
section~\ref{sec:minosNuMuDisap} above. An additional uncertainty was
included on the level of neutrino contamination and the knowledge of
the neutrino oscillation parameters. The MINOS measurement of neutrino
parameters is not yet systematically limited and given both the factor
of 3 lower exposure recorded for antineutrinos
($3.36\times10^{20}$~POT) and the reduced number of $\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$ per
POT, the antineutrino measurement is dominated by statistical
uncertainties.
Recently, a preliminary version of the MINOS measurements of
antineutrino oscillation parameters using the full data set have been
released~\cite{Nichol:Neu2012}. This analysis incorporates three
distinct data sets: the antineutrino-enhanced NuMI beam data
($3.36\times10^{20}$~POT); the antineutrinos in the neutrino-enhanced
beam ($10.7\times10^{20}$~POT); and atmospheric antineutrino data
(37.9~kiloton-years). The antineutrino mass splitting was measured to
be $|\ensuremath{\Delta \overline{m}^{2}_{{\rm atm}}}\xspace|=(2.48^{+0.22}_{-0.27})\times10^{-3}$~eV$^2$ and the
mixing angle $\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\overline{\theta})}\xspace=0.97^{+0.03}_{-0.08}$ with
$\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\overline{\theta})}\xspace>0.83$ at 90\% C.L\@. The antineutrino contour from MINOS
is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sinbarVsdm2bar} by the solid black
line. Also shown for comparison is the result from the
Super-Kamiokande measurement (dashed black) of the combined flux of
atmospheric muon neutrinos and antineutrinos~\cite{Abe:2011ph}. The
red contour shows the result from just the NuMI beam data and the blue
contour from just the MINOS atmospheric antineutrino data. The MINOS
measurements provide the highest precision on the antineutrino mass
squared splitting while Super-Kamiokande measures the antineutrino
mixing angle most precisely.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip, width=0.6\columnwidth]{results/AllData_4parfitnoallbeam_plus_SuperK}
\caption{The 90\% confidence regions for antineutrino parameters
$|\ensuremath{\Delta \overline{m}^{2}_{{\rm atm}}}\xspace|$ and $\ensuremath{\sin^{2}(2\overline{\theta})}\xspace$. Antineutrino results are shown from
Super-Kamiokande~\cite{Abe:2011ph} (dashed black) alongside the
latest preliminary results from MINOS~\cite{Nichol:Neu2012} (solid
black). The MINOS results used three data sets: (1) atmospheric
antineutrinos; (2) antineutrinos from the NuMI beam operating in
antineutrino-enhanced mode; and (3) antineutrinos from the
neutrino-enhanced beam. The red contour shows the result from just
the NuMI beam data and the blue contour from just the atmospheric
antineutrino data.}
\label{fig:sinbarVsdm2bar}
\end{figure}
The uncertainty on the difference in the atmospheric mass squared
splittings of neutrinos and antineutrinos is currently dominated by
the statistical precision on the antineutrino measurements, by about a
factor of 2--3. In the future, {NO$\nu$A}\xspace will improve measurement of all
the disappearance related parameters for neutrinos and
antineutrinos. Importantly for future precision tests of CPT symmetry,
several systematic errors on the difference between $|{\Delta}m^2|$ and
$|\ensuremath{\Delta \overline{m}^{2}_{{\rm atm}}}\xspace|$ will be significantly smaller than the systematic
uncertainty on the two absolute measurements taken separately.
\subsection{Searches for $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ Appearance}
\label{sec:resultsTau}
The observation of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ appearance with a $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ source would
directly confirm the hypothesis of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace \rightarrow \ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$
oscillations as the cause of the disappearance affect observed by
atmospheric and accelerator experiments. This is the goal of the OPERA
experiment~\cite{Acquafredda:2009zz}. Furthermore, there is currently
no observation at the 5-sigma level of the appearance of neutrino
flavors due to oscillations, only disappearance. The next few years
should see the conclusive observation of both $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ appearance with
OPERA and $\nu_{e}$ appearance with T2K and {NO$\nu$A}\xspace, demonstrating key
aspects of the 3-flavour neutrino oscillation model.
The kinematic threshold for $\tau$ production from $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$
interactions is around 3.5~GeV and at that energy the first maximum of
the oscillation probability occurs at a baseline of approximately
2500~km. For a fixed baseline, matching the energy of the beam with
the peak of the product of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ cross-section times oscillation
probability maximizes the number of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ interactions in the
detector for a given integrated flux: this is largely what the OPERA
experiment has done with the CNGS beam. As described in
section~\ref{sec:beams}, the experiments using the CNGS and NuMI beams
have very similar baselines, 730~km vs.\ 735~km respectively, but
differ substantially in their average neutrino energies of 17~GeV and
3~GeV respectively due to the different physics goals of the
experiments.
The OPERA experiment at LNGS started taking data in 2008 with the CNGS
beam~\cite{Acquistapace:1998rv,Meddahi:1051376} and in 2010 they
published the observation of their first $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ candidate
event~\cite{Agafonova:2010dc}. As described in
section~\ref{sec:detectors}, the OPERA detector consists of
lead-emulsion bricks with electronic detectors to pinpoint the bricks
in which neutrino interactions occurred.
The first candidate $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ event observed by OPERA is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:tau}. A detailed description of the likely candidates
for each of the numbered tracks is given
in~\cite{Agafonova:2010dc}. This event is compatible with the decay
$\tau^- \rightarrow \rho^- \nu_\tau$ with the $\rho(770)$ decaying to
a $\pi^0$ and $\pi^-$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{results/beam_m}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{results/beam_zoom_m}\\
\includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip, width=0.8\columnwidth]{results/viewer_m}
\caption{The first candidate $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ event observed by the OPERA
experiment. The top plots show the transverse view with the right
plot being a zoom of the left. The bottom plot shows the
longitudinal view. The short red track (labeled as ``4 parent'') is
identified as being due to the $\tau$ lepton and the track of what
is thought to be the tau-daughter is shown in turquoise (labeled as
``8 daughter''). A kink is clearly seen, particularly in the zoomed
transverse view (top right), and demarked by the change in color
from red to turquoise along the track. A detailed description of the
likely candidates for each of the numbered tracks is given in the
OPERA paper~\cite{Agafonova:2010dc}.}
\label{fig:tau}
\end{figure}
A preliminary analysis of further data has recently been released and
a second $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ candidate has been
observed~\cite{Nakamura:Neu2012}. This event was seen in the 2010-11
data set and it satisfies the selection criteria for $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace
\rightarrow 3$~hadrons. In the data set analyzed to date, the
preliminary background estimate was 0.2 events and 2.1 signal events
were expected. The Poisson probability of observing 2 or more events
given a background expectation of 0.2 is 1.75\%.
Atmospheric neutrino experiments have a relatively large number of
$\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ events in their data samples, given the broad range of
available energies and the Earth's 13,000~km
diameter. Super-Kamiokande has published 2.4\,$\sigma$ evidence for
$\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ appearance~\cite{Abe:2006fu} using candidate events selected
for the expected shape of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ interactions and characteristics of
$\tau$ leptons. This statistical separation is a complementary
approach to OPERA's goal of directly observing individual $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$
events. At the time of writing a new SK result was published on the
arXiv that provides evidence for $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ appearance at the
3.8\,$\sigma$ confidence level~\cite{Abe:2012jj}. In the future,
MINOS+ will also have a relatively large number of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ events
(around 90/year with the $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$-enhanced beam) and with sufficient
rejection of backgrounds will have sensitivity to this oscillation
channel~\cite{Tzanankos:2011zz}.
\section{Results on $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace \rightarrow \nu_{e}$: the sub-dominant oscillation mode}
\label{sec:resultsSubdom}
With the baselines and neutrino energies (the $L/E$) used by the
experiments described in this review, $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace \rightarrow \nu_{e}$ is a
sub-dominant oscillation mode (although at an $L/E$ 25 times larger,
the solar mass splitting would have a significant effect and $\nu_{e}$'s
would then make up the majority of the flux).
Measurements of the sub-dominant $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace \rightarrow \nu_{e}$ oscillation
mode are of great importance for a number of reasons: firstly, its
discovery will demonstrate the full 3-flavor neutrino oscillation
model; secondly, with a non-zero value of $\theta_{13}$ a door is
opened to discovering CP violation in the lepton sector; and thirdly,
by exploiting the neutrino--matter interaction that the neutrinos and
antineutrinos experience as they propagate through the Earth, the
neutrino mass hierarchy (the sign of $\Delta m^2_{32}$) can also be
determined.
Measurements of the sub-dominant mode made using accelerator neutrino
beams are highly complementary to those made using nuclear
reactors. The reactor neutrino experiments Double
Chooz~\cite{Abe:2011fz}, Daya Bay~\cite{Ahn:2012nd} and
RENO~\cite{Ahn:2012nd} have recently observed sub-dominant neutrino
oscillations via the disappearance of $\overline{\nu}_{e}$ over a distance of
around 1.5~km. This channel is only sensitive to $\theta_{13}$ and
so a direct measurement can be made. In contrast, the
accelerator experiments are sensitive to $\theta_{13}$, the CP
phase, the mass hierarchy and the octant of $\theta_{23}$,
enabling a rich set of measurements to be made using a combination of
different baselines and energies with neutrinos and/or antineutrinos.
In this section the electron neutrino appearance results from K2K,
MINOS and T2K are presented. A key feature of these experiments is
their ability to distinguish the rare occurrence of electron flavor
neutrino interactions from among the many more $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC events and
NC events from all neutrino flavors. For example, electron neutrino
events in MINOS contribute only around 1\% of the event rate. The
significant majority of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC events are relatively easy to
reject due to the presence of the muon. However, in highly inelastic
$\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC events the muon can escape detection and should the
hadronic shower have a significant electromagnetic component (from,
for example, $\pi^0\rightarrow \gamma\gamma$) then it can be
misidentified as an electron neutrino event.
\subsection{K2K $\nu_{e}$ Appearance Results}
\label{sec:resultsK2KNueApp}
The first long-baseline accelerator neutrino experiment to search for
electron neutrino appearance was
K2K~\cite{Ahn:2004te,Yamamoto:2006ty}. This measurement exploited the
ability of the Super-Kamiokande detector to distinguish muons and
electrons, which had been well established for the earlier atmospheric
neutrino results. As such, the primary background for K2K was events
containing a $\pi^0$ from a NC interaction. This background occurs
when one of the two gammas from the $\pi^0$ decay is not
reconstructed, due to highly asymmetric energies or a small opening
angle between the two gammas. Beam $\nu_{e}$ events are around 1\% at the
KEK site and the background from such electron neutrinos intrinsic to
the beam was estimated to be only 13\% of the total background.
At the limit set by the CHOOZ experiment~\cite{Apollonio:2002gd} and
with an exposure of $9.2\times10^{19}$ protons on target, K2K expected
to see only a few events and so it was critical that the background
was reduced to a very low level. The basic selection of electron
neutrino events is as follows: the first step is to require electron
\v{C}erenkov\xspace-ring candidates; secondly, any events with electron-equivalent
energy below 100~MeV are removed to reject charged pions and electrons
from muon decay; and thirdly, no candidate may have a muon decay
within a 30~$\mu$s time window. To improve the rejection of the
$\pi^0$ background a dedicated algorithm to calculate the invariant
mass under the assumption that there were two rings was also used. The
total background expectation with the above cuts was
1.7$^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$~events (in the case of no oscillation). The
overall efficiency for selection of $\nu_{e}$ signal events in the
simulation is around~50\%.
The fraction of the background coming from NC interactions that
produce a single $\pi^0$ (NC\,1$\pi^0$) was 70\% so constraining the
associated systematic uncertainty was crucial. To do this a 1~kiloton
water \v{C}erenkov\xspace Near detector was used to measure the NC\,1$\pi^0$/CC
interaction ratio and the uncertainty was constrained to the 12\%
level. Many other sources of systematic uncertainty were considered and
the largest individual one concerned the $\pi^0$ mass cut and that
uncertainty was constrained using atmospheric neutrino data. The other
systematics also included the detector efficiency, water properties,
neutrino flux at SK, and several neutrino interaction model
uncertainties. In total the background uncertainty was between
24--39\% depending on the run period.
K2K observed 1 event that passed their selection criteria, consistent
with the background expectation. These data allowed a 90\%~C.L. limit
to be set on the maximum electron neutrino appearance probability of
0.13, at the oscillation parameters measured by K2K via $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$
disappearance (see section~\ref{sec:resultsDm2Sin2}). Such an
appearance probability corresponds to an approximate limit of
$\sin^2(2\theta_{13})<0.26$.
\subsection{MINOS $\nu_{e}$ Appearance Results}
\label{sec:resultsMINOSNueApp}
The first MINOS $\nu_{e}$ appearance result was released in
2009~\cite{Adamson:2009yc} and two further results with more data and
analysis improvements have since been
published~\cite{Adamson:2010uj,Adamson:2011qu}. The MINOS detectors
were optimized for measuring muon neutrino interactions at the few-GeV
scale. The steel planes are 1.4 radiation lengths thick and the strip
width is 4.1~cm (compared to the Moli\`{e}re radius of 3.7~cm) giving
a relatively coarse view of an electron shower. Absolutely crucial for
controlling the systematic uncertainties on these measurements is the
functionally identical design of the Near and Far detectors. As with
K2K, the dominant background is from NC interactions. Although,
$\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC events also contribute significantly to the background
along with intrinsic $\nu_{e}$ events in the beam and $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ events
that have oscillated from $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$.
Determining the composition of the background is important for this
analysis since at the Far detector a fraction of the $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ events
have oscillated away and therefore the background from $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC
events is reduced. The other effect of oscillations is to introduce a
background from $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ in the Far detector that does not exist in
the Near detector. In contrast, the NC events do not oscillate away
and to first order that background component is the same in the Near
and Far detectors. MINOS took a data-driven approach to determining
the background composition by comparing the data with the simulation
for a number of data sets taken with the NuMI beam in special
configurations. For example, with the magnetic horns turned off the
peak in the energy spectrum disappears, which drastically changes the
CC/NC ratio as a function of energy. Similarly, data taken with the
beam configured to produce higher energy neutrinos has an enhanced NC
fraction at low energies. A fit to the ND data and MC across all these
special data sets was used to estimate the background composition and
determine the uncertainties on each component.
The selection of electron neutrino candidate events starts out with
fiducial volume cuts and ensuring the event is in time with the
low-duty-cycle NuMI beam. Electron showers penetrate only a few
(typically 6--12) planes and are transversely compact so any events
with tracks longer than 24~planes or with a track extending more than
15~planes beyond the end of a reconstructed shower are rejected. A
requirement is also made that events contain at least 5~contiguous
planes with an energy deposition at least half that of a minimum
ionizing particle. Any events with an energy less than 1~GeV or
greater than 8~GeV are also removed. After these pre-selection cuts
77\% of the signal, 39\% of NC events and 8.5\% of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC events
remain.
Further reduction of backgrounds is achieved by a more sophisticated
analysis of the energy deposition patterns in preselected events. The
first two MINOS results used an artificial neural network with 11
variables characterizing the transverse and longitudinal profile of
events. For the most recent MINOS analyses, a nearest-neighbor
``library event matching'' (LEM) technique is used. Each data event is
compared, one-by-one, to a large library of tens of millions of
simulated events. Since the detector is homogeneous, events occurring
throughout the volume are translated to a fixed reference location and
then compared at the level of individual strips. This approach is
computationally intensive and is made more manageable in two notable
ways: firstly, fluctuations in the energy deposition of individual
strips are allowed for; and secondly, library events are shifted by
$\pm$1~plane in search of a better match. The final LEM discriminant
is formed using a neural network that takes as its inputs the event
energy along with three variables derived from the 50~best-matched
events. A cut of ${\rm LEM}>0.7$ selects $(40.4\pm2.8)$\% of signal
events.
The predictions for the Far detector signal and backgrounds as a
function of energy and LEM uses the Near detector data as the starting
point. The simulated ratio of Near and Far detector rates for each
background type is used as the conversion factor to translate the Near
detector data into a Far detector prediction.
Two data samples provide sidebands that allow many of the procedures
developed for this analysis to be tested and the accuracy of the
simulation to be probed. Firstly, $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC events with cleanly
identified muons provide a sample of known hadronic showers once the
muon hits are removed. These muon-removed events are a lot like NC
interactions and the predicted and observed events at the Far detector
agree well. The second sideband is the ${\rm LEM}<0.5$ region that
contains almost no $\nu_{e}$ appearance events. The Far detector
prediction for this ${\rm LEM}<0.5$ region is obtained in the same way
as for the signal region and so all stages of the analysis up to the
final signal extraction are exercised: for example, determining the
background composition and extrapolating the Near detector data is
done in the same way.
A fit to the data, binned as a function of the LEM discriminant and
reconstructed energy, was performed using the full 3-flavor
oscillation framework including matter effects. The influence of the
already measured oscillation parameters was included when constructing
the contours.
Updated MINOS results were released this summer for neutrinos, along
with the first appearance results for
antineutrinos~\cite{Nichol:Neu2012}. With an exposure of
$10.6\times10^{20}$~POT in the neutrino-enhanced beam and assuming
$\sin^22\theta_{13}=0$ ($\sin^22\theta_{13}=0.1$,
$\delta=0$, normal mass hierarchy) MINOS expected to see 128.6 (161.1)
events in the Far detector; 152 events were observed.
With an exposure of $3.3\times10^{20}$~POT in the
antineutrino-enhanced beam and assuming $\sin^22\theta_{13}=0$
($\sin^22\theta_{13}=0.1$, $\delta=0$, normal mass hierarchy)
MINOS expected to see 17.5 (21.2) events in the Far detector; 20
events were observed.
The allowed regions as a function of the CP violating phase, $\delta$,
and $2\sin^2(2\theta_{13})\sin^2\theta_{23}$ are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:nueMINOS_joint}. For $\delta=0$ and the normal
(inverted) mass hierarchy a best fit of
$2\sin^2(2\theta_{13})\sin^2\theta_{23} = 0.053~(0.094)$ is obtained; the
90\%~C.L. allowed range is
$0.01<2\sin^2(2\theta_{13})\sin^2\theta_{23}<0.12$
($0.03<2\sin^2(2\theta_{13})\sin^2\theta_{23}<0.19$) and the
$\theta_{13}=0$ hypothesis is disfavored at the 96\% confidence
level. These results are consistent with both the T2K result described
below in section~\ref{sec:resultsNueT2K} and with the reactor neutrino
experiments.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip, width=0.6\columnwidth]{results/PrelimContour_Joint_Nue2012}
\caption{MINOS allowed regions for the CP violating phase and
$2\sin^2(2\theta_{13})\sin^2\theta_{23}$, obtained using the full data
set of both neutrinos and antineutrinos. The top (bottom) plot
assumes the normal (inverted) mass hierarchy. All values of the CP
violating phase are consistent with the data and so the best fit
parameters are shown by the black line. The blue (red) band shows
the regions allowed at 68\% (90\%) confidence level. The
$\theta_{13}=0$ hypothesis is disfavored at the 96\% confidence
level. These results were preliminary at the time of
writing~\cite{Nichol:Neu2012}. }
\label{fig:nueMINOS_joint}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:nueMINOS_rhc} shows the results from the first
measurement of electron antineutrino appearance. The data set used for
this measurement was obtained with the NuMI beam set to enhance
production of antineutrinos. The limits on
$2\sin^2(2\theta_{13})\sin^2\theta_{23}$ are consistent with those from
neutrinos. Although, the smaller exposure and lower antineutrino
cross-section means that the limits are not as strong as for
neutrinos. Significant improvement in measurement of electron
antineutrino appearance is not expected until {NO$\nu$A}\xspace takes data using
the NuMI beam configured for enhanced $\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$ production (see
section~\ref{sec:future}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip, width=0.6\columnwidth]{results/PrelimContour_RHCOnly_Nue2012}
\caption{MINOS allowed regions for antineutrinos as a function of the
CP violating phase and $2\sin^2(2\theta_{13})\sin^2\theta_{23}$. See
Figure~\ref{fig:nueMINOS_joint} for the full description. These
results were preliminary at the time of
writing~\cite{Nichol:Neu2012}.}
\label{fig:nueMINOS_rhc}
\end{figure}
\subsection{T2K $\nu_{e}$ Appearance Results}
\label{sec:resultsNueT2K}
The primary goal of the T2K experiment is to discover electron
neutrino appearance and precisely measure the oscillation probability if
it exists. The experimental setup is optimized for this purpose.
T2K reported the first evidence of electron neutrino appearance
(2.5\,$\sigma$ significance, p-${\rm value}=0.7$\%) in June 2011 based
on $1.43\times 10^{20}$~POT data taken before the Great East Japan
Earthquake on 11th March 2011~\cite{Abe:2011sj}.
The goal of the analysis is to select $\nu_{e}$~CC interactions at high
efficiency and with the background contamination as low as
possible. At the peak of the T2K neutrino energy spectrum, around
600~MeV, the interaction of neutrinos is dominated by CC quasi-elastic
interaction (CCQE), $\nu_e + n \rightarrow e^- + p$, and that was
chosen as the target signal interaction. The benefit of CCQE
interaction is that with just a measurement of the momentum of the
final lepton, the parent neutrino energy can be reconstructed with a
good energy resolution of around 80~MeV.
The signature for signal events in the Super-Kamiokande detector is a
single showering (electron-like) ring in the expected energy region.
The two major sources of background events are the intrinsic electron
neutrino contamination in the beam mainly produced by muon decay in
the decay volume, and inelastic NC interaction of all flavors that
contain a $\pi^0$ in the final state. The $\gamma$s from $\pi^0$s are
detected in SK by the \v{C}erenkov\xspace light from their electromagnetic showers,
which can be indistinguishable from the \v{C}erenkov\xspace light distribution
produced by an electron. For example, if one of the two $\gamma$s from
the $\pi^0$ decay is missed, the event topology in SK becomes very
similar to that of the signal, i.e.\ a single electron-like ring.
Selection criteria for the signal event are as follows. The ``fully
contained in fiducial volume'' (FCFV) events are selected by
requiring: no event activity in either the outer detector or in the
100~$\mu$s before the event trigger time; at least 30~MeV
electron-equivalent energy deposited in the inner detector (defined as
visible energy $E_{vis}$); and the reconstructed vertex to be in the
fiducial volume of 22.5~kilotonnes. The event timing is required to be
within the range from -2~$\mu$s to 10~$\mu$s around the beam trigger
time.
Further selection cuts require events with the number of rings equal
to 1 and a PID consistent with being electron-like. The visible energy
is required to be $E_{vis} > 100$~MeV to reduce NC
elastic-interactions and decay electron backgrounds. It is also
required to have no associated delayed electron signal to reduce the
background from invisible $\pi \rightarrow\mu$ decay. To suppress
misidentified $\pi^{0}$, a second electron-like ring is forced to be
reconstructed and a cut on the two-ring invariant mass $M_{inv} <
105$~MeV/c$^2$ is imposed. Finally, the neutrino energy $E_\nu^{rec}$,
computed using the reconstructed momentum and direction of the ring
assuming CCQE kinematics and neglecting Fermi motion, is required to
be $E_\nu^{rec} < 1250$~MeV.
The $\nu_{e}$ appearance signal efficiency is estimated with MC to be
66\% while rejection for $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace + \ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC, beam $\nu_{e}$~CC, and NC
are $>99$\%, 77\%, and 99\%, respectively.
The selection is applied to the data and 6 events in SK are selected
as signal candidates from all data before the earthquake, corresponding
to $1.43\times 10^{20}$~POT. The $E_\nu^{rec}$ distribution of the
observed events together with the signal and background expectations are
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:T2KnueEnu}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{results/t2knue1st-enurec}
\caption{Reconstructed neutrino energy $E_\nu^{rec}$ spectra for T2K
$\nu_{e}$ appearance search. The black points show the 6 candidate
events observed in SK using $1.43\times 10^{20}$~POT data. Using
$\sin^2(2\theta_{13})=0.1$ the red histogram is the predicted appearance
signal, the expected background shown in yellow is for muon
neutrinos, green is for the electron neutrinos intrinsic to the beam
and blue is for the NC events.}
\label{fig:T2KnueEnu}
\end{figure}
The expected signal and background events are estimated using the far
detector MC simulation with the constraints and inputs from
measurements of near detector $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC events and external
data. These external data include hadron production measurements made
by the NA61 experiment~\cite{Abgrall:2011ae,Abgrall:2011ts} using
30~GeV protons impinging on the neutrino production target and also
neutrino interaction cross-sections measured by previous experiments
such as MiniBooNE\@.
The off-axis near detector measures the number of inclusive $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC
events by selecting events with a single negative muon. The ratio of
the observed number of events to that from the MC simulation is $1.036
\pm 0.028({\rm stat})^{+0.044}_{-0.037} ({\rm det. syst}) \pm 0.038
({\rm phys. syst})$. This near detector ratio is multiplied by the
number of events from the far detector simulation to give the
predicted number of events in the far detector data. This method
provides partial cancellation of uncertainties in the absolute flux
and cross-sections at the far detector.
The number of background events thus obtained when
$\sin^2(2\theta_{13})=0$ is estimated to be $1.5\pm 0.3$~(syst). The major
contributions to the background systematic error come from the beam
flux (8.5\%), cross-section (14\%) and far detector systematic error
(15\%). The probability that the observed number of events becomes 6
or larger if $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})=0$ is calculated to be 0.7\%, which
corresponds to a 2.5\,$\sigma$ excess.
The constraints on the oscillation parameters are evaluated also by
using only the number of events. The confidence intervals are $0.03
(0.04) < \sin^22\theta_{13} < 0.28 (0.34)$ at 90\%~C.L. and the best
fit parameters are $\sin^2(2\theta_{13}) = 0.11 (0.14)$ for the normal
(inverted) hierarchy assuming $\ensuremath{\sin^2(2\theta_{23})}\xspace = 1$, $\Delta
m_{32}^2 = 2.4\times 10^{-3}$~eV$^2$ and
$\delta=0$. Figure~\ref{fig:T2Knuecont} shows the T2K allowed regions
of parameters in the $\sin^22\theta_{13}$--$\delta$ plane.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{results/t2knue1st-contour}
\caption{Allowed regions in the $\sin^22\theta_{13}$--$\delta$
plane from the T2K $\nu_{e}$ appearance measurement. Light (dark) red
areas are 68\%~C.L. and 90\%~C.L. regions. Solid black curves are
best fit relations.}
\label{fig:T2Knuecont}
\end{figure}
To summarize the T2K $\nu_{e}$ appearance search, 6 signal candidate
events are detected while the expected number of background events at
$\sin^2(2\theta_{13})=0$ is $1.5\pm 0.3$. The probability to observe 6 or
more events without $\nu_{e}$ appearance is 0.7\%, which corresponds to
2.5\,$\sigma$ significance\footnote{In Summer 2012, T2K updated the
results with $3.01\times 10^{20}$ POT of
data~\cite{Nakaya:Neu2012}. The observed number of events is~11
while the expected background is $3.22\pm 0.43$ at
$\sin^2(2\theta_{13})=0$, which corresponds to 3.2\,$\sigma$
significance and provides further firm evidence of $\nu_{e}$
appearance.}. Constraints on the
$\sin^22\theta_{13}$--$\delta$ space are given for both the
normal and inverted mass hierarchy.
\section{Results on New Physics Searches}
\label{sec:resultsNewPhysics}
The provision of intense and relatively well understood neutrino beams
along with large detectors has opened up whole new avenues to look for
new physics. Here we focus on three main areas:
section~\ref{sec:resultsSterile} describes the searches for sterile
neutrinos; section~\ref{sec:tof} briefly summarizes neutrino velocity
measurements; and section~\ref{sec:lorentz} describes searches for
Lorentz symmetry violation.
\subsection{Searches for sterile neutrinos}
\label{sec:resultsSterile}
While the conventional picture of oscillations between three active
neutrino flavors is well established, the possibility of mixing with
one or more unseen sterile neutrinos is not excluded. Neutral-current
(NC) interaction cross-sections are identical for the three active
flavors and so no change in the NC event rate would be observed as a
function of $L/E$ in the standard neutrino model. MINOS provided the
first limits on the fraction of mixing to sterile neutrinos allowed at
the atmospheric mass splitting in~\cite{Adamson:2008jh}, with details
given in a longer paper~\cite{Adamson:2010wi}. Earlier, in 2000,
Super-Kamiokande had excluded the possibility of maximal
$\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace\rightarrow\nu_{s}$ oscillations at 99\%~C.L.~\cite{Fukuda:2000np}
by exploiting the effect such oscillations would have on both the NC
event rate and the number of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ candidate events
(the difference in the neutrino-matter interaction of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ and
$\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$ compared to $\nu_{s}$ is significant for atmospheric neutrinos
of the energy measured by SK). More recent observations of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\tau}}\xspace$
appearance~\cite{Abe:2006fu,Abe:2012jj} also constrain oscillations to
sterile neutrinos, although limits are not directly given in those
papers. The current best limits on the fraction of mixing to sterile
neutrinos are from MINOS and given in~\cite{Adamson:2011ku}.
Selection of NC events in the MINOS detectors requires careful study
since the visible energy is relatively low and there is no distinct
feature to the events (for example, missing transverse momentum is not
easily observed in the MINOS detectors). NC candidate events can have
signal in as few as 4 scintillator strips. The high rate environment
of the ND, where there are around 16 events per 10~$\mu$s beam spill,
requires additional selections on timing and topology: events must be
separated by at least 40~ns and events that occur within 120~ns of
each other must be separated in the beam direction by at least 1~m. To
select an NC-candidate event sample the length of the event has to be
less than 60~planes and any track in the event must not extend beyond
the end of a shower by more than 5~consecutive planes.
An extrapolation procedure similar to that used in the $\nu_{e}$
appearance analysis (see section~\ref{sec:resultsMINOSNueApp}) is used
to form the Far detector prediction for the NC
spectrum. Figure~\ref{fig:sterileNCSpect} shows the visible energy
spectrum of Far detector candidate NC events. The data can be seen to
be consistent with no oscillation to sterile neutrinos.
Many sources of systematic uncertainty on the MINOS NC results are
similar to the $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ disappearance and $\nu_{e}$ appearance
measurements (see sections~\ref{sec:minosNuMuDisap}
and~\ref{sec:resultsMINOSNueApp} respectively), for example the
absolute and relative energy scale of hadronic showers, and the
relative event rate normalization. Uncertainties specific to the NC
measurement are in the Near and Far detector selection, and in the
CC~background. The latest results, given below, are approaching the
systematic limit for how much further these measurements can be
improved by MINOS.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm 0.1mm, clip, width=0.6\columnwidth]{results/FDNC_Runs123_data_3flav_2flav}
\caption{Visible energy spectrum of MINOS Far detector neutral-current
event candidates~\cite{Nichol:Neu2012}. The data are shown by the
black points. The prediction obtained from the Near detector data is
shown for three cases: no oscillations (red); oscillations with
atmospheric parameters and $\theta_{13}=8.6^{\circ}$ (dashed
black); and oscillations with atmospheric parameters and
$\theta_{13}=0^{\circ}$ (dashed black). The contamination of the
NC spectrum from $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$~CC events is shown by the gray histogram.}
\label{fig:sterileNCSpect}
\end{figure}
A straightforward phenomenological approach to presenting the limits
on the allowed level of sterile neutrino mixing is to consider the
fraction, $f_s$, of the disappearing $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ flux that could oscillate
to $\nu_{s}$. MINOS finds $f_s < 0.22~(0.40)$ at 90\%~C.L., where the
number in brackets is the limit assuming maximal $\nu_{e}$ appearance at
the CHOOZ limit. The alternative approach to presenting the limits is
in the context of a specific model. MINOS has considered two models:
firstly, one where the fourth mass eigenstate $m_4=m_1$; and secondly
where $m_4>>m_3$. The 90\%~C.L. limits obtained from MINOS data are
$\theta_{24}<7^\circ(8^\circ)$ and $\theta_{34}<26^\circ(37^\circ)$ in
the $m_4>>m_3$ model, and $\theta_{34}<26^\circ(37^\circ)$ in the
$m_4=m_1$ model. In the future, the MINOS+ experiment will extend the
sensitivity to sterile neutrinos, in particular through also
constraining the disappearance of $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$ (see
section~\ref{sec:futSensNewPhysics}).
\subsection{Neutrino Velocity}
\label{sec:tof}
In 2007 MINOS made the first measurement of neutrino velocity in a
long-baseline experiment~\cite{Adamson:2007zzb}. The time of flight
between the Near and Far detectors separated by $734\,298.6\pm0.7$~m
was measured to be $-126\pm32({\rm stat})\pm64({\rm syst})$~ns
w.r.t.\ the calculated time for light to travel the same distance,
which corresponds to $(v-{\rm c})/{\rm
c}=(5.1\pm2.9)\times10^{-5}$. This result was systematically limited
by uncertainties in the timing system and its overall sensitivity
comparable with previous neutrino velocity measurements from
short-baseline experiments~\cite{PhysRevLett.43.1361}.
Dedicated upgrades to the OPERA experiment's timing system along with
high statistics neutrino event samples gave substantially improved
sensitivity to the neutrino velocity. In September 2011 they released
their result $(v-{\rm c})/{\rm c}=[2.37\pm0.32({\rm
stat})^{+0.34}_{-0.24}({\rm syst})]
\times10^{-5}$~\cite{Adam:2011zb}, which generated huge world wide
media interest. However, in February 2012 the OPERA collaboration
released a statement, available on their website, saying that two
errors in the timing system had been found that could potentially
bring the neutrino velocity back into line with expectations from
special relativity. This was followed by a measurement from the ICARUS
experiment~\cite{Antonello:2012hg}, also located in the LNGS
laboratory, that was of similar sensitivity to OPERA but consistent
with expectations. Around the time of writing OPERA released an
updated result $(v-{\rm c})/{\rm c}=[0.27 \pm 0.31({\rm
stat})^{+0.34}_{-0.33}({\rm syst})]
\times10^{-5}$~\cite{Adam:2011zb}, confirming that they had understood
the anomaly in their first result. Results from
Borexino~\cite{AlvarezSanchez:2012wg} and LVD~\cite{Agafonova:2012rh}
are also consistent with OPERA and ICARUS. These results from four of
the experiments located at Gran Sasso are the world's most precise
measurements of the neutrino velocity and they are approaching their
ultimate systematic limit. Future measurements that use different
beamlines and hence have a lower number of correlated systematic
uncertainties will be important. MINOS, and in future MINOS+, will
exploit recent investments in their timing systems with the aim of
reducing the systematic uncertainties further~\cite{Adamson:Neu2012}.
\subsection{Searches for Lorentz Symmetry Violation}
\label{sec:lorentz}
MINOS has investigated whether neutrinos have a preferred
direction in space and hence violate Lorentz symmetry and consequently
also CPT symmetry. This search was performed in the context of the
Standard Model Extension
theory~\cite{Colladay:1996iz,Colladay:1998fq,PhysRevD.69.105009} that
provides a model-independent framework with coefficients to quantify
the various ways Lorentz symmetry could be violated. The experimental
observable for these searches is a sidereal variation in the rate of
neutrino interactions. MINOS has results for $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\xspace$ in
the Near detector as well as $\ensuremath{\nu_{\mu}}\xspace$ in the Far
detector~\cite{Adamson:2008ij,Adamson:2012hp,Adamson:2010rn}.
The rotation of the Earth rotates the neutrino beam in the
sun-centered inertial reference frame with the sidereal frequency of
$2\pi / 23^{\rm h}56^{\rm m}04.090\,53^{\rm s}$. The offset of the
sidereal frequency from the Earth's rotational frequency of
$2\pi/24^{\rm h}$ is experimentally advantageous since diurnal effects
can potentially average out over the course of a year. The MINOS
analysis was performed by examining the data as a function of local
sidereal phase (LSP), which is simply the local sidereal time divided
by the length of a sidereal day. Each neutrino event was placed in an
LSP histogram and the protons on target for each beam spill used in
the analysis were placed in a second LSP histogram. The ratio of the
two histograms gave the normalized number of neutrino events observed
as a function of LSP\@. Fast Fourier transforms to determine the power
associated with sinusoidal functions at the sidereal frequency and its
second harmonic were performed. To date, no sidereal variation of the
neutrino event rate has been detected.
In addition to long-baseline accelerator experiments, searches for
Lorentz symmetry violation have been performed by several other
neutrino experiments. This has allowed many of the coefficients in the
SME to be constrained over a wide range of directions, baselines and
neutrino energies. A comprehensive summary of experimental limits is
given in~\cite{Kostelecky:2008ts}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Ultracold gases with resonant interactions, that is having a $s$-wave scattering length much larger in absolute
value than the interaction range, can now be studied experimentally thanks to the broad magnetic Feshbach resonances,
not only with fermionic atoms \cite{Varenna} but also with bosonic atoms \cite{Cornell_kFa=1,Salomon_Bose_strong,CornellCBose}
or mixtures \cite{JochimEfimovRF}.
In this resonant regime, one can neglect the range of the interaction, which is equivalent to replacing
the interaction with contact conditions on the $N$-body wavefunction: In 3D, this constitutes the so-called
zero-range model
\cite{Efimov,AlbeverioLivre,YvanHouchesBEC,PetrovPRL,PetrovJPhysB,RevueBraaten,WernerThese},
that can also be defined in 2D (see e.g.\ \cite{Busch,PetrovShlyapCollisions2D,MaximLudo2D,LudoScatteringLowD}),
and of course in 1D \cite{LiebLiniger,GaudinLivre}. In each dimension, these models include a length, the so-called
$d$-dimensional scattering length $a$. In three dimensions, when the Efimov effect occurs~\cite{Efimov}, an additional
length has to be introduced, the so-called three-body parameter \cite{Danilov}.
For the zero-range models, it was gradually realized that several observables, such as the short distance behavior of the pair
distribution function $g^{(2)}(\rr)$ or the tail of the momentum distribution $n(\kk)$,
can be related to derivatives of the energy with respect to the $d$-dimensional scattering length $a$.
In 1D, the value of $g^{(2)}(0)$ was directly related to such a derivative
by the Hellmann-Feynman theorem \cite{LiebLiniger}; the coefficient of the leading $1/k^4$ term
in $n(k)$ at large $k$ was then related to the singular behavior of the wavefunction for two close particles,
and ultimately to $g^{(2)}(0)$, by general properties of the Fourier transform \cite{Olshanii_nk}.
In 3D, for spin-$1/2$ fermions (where the Efimov effect does not occur), an extension of the 1D relations
was obtained by a variety of techniques \cite{TanEnergetics,TanLargeMomentum,Braaten,BraatenLong,
WernerTarruellCastin,ZhangLeggettUniv}, including the original 1D techniques. Generalizations were then obtained
for 2D systems, for fermions or bosons \cite{TanSimple,CombescotC,Moelmer,CompanionFermions}.
This is the second of a series of two articles on such general relations.
The first one covered two-component fermions (Ref.~\cite{CompanionFermions}, hereafter referred to as Article~I).
Here, we consider single-component bosons, as well as mixtures.
In the 3D case, remarkably, the Efimov effect leads to modifications or even breakdown of some relations,
and to the appearance of additional relations involving the derivative of the energy with respect to
the three-body parameter $R_t$. Several of the results presented here were already contained in~\cite{50pages}
and rederived in ~\cite{BraatenBosons} with a different technique, that allowed the authors of~\cite{BraatenBosons}
to obtain still other Efimovian relations for $N$ bosons \footnote{The ``three-body contact'' parameter $C_3$ of~\cite{BraatenBosons}
is equal to $[m/(2\hbar^2)] (\partial_{\ln R_t} E)_a$ in our notations.}.
The article is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{sec:intro} introduces the zero-range model and associated notations for the single-component bosons.
Section~\ref{sec:analog} presents relations which are analogous to the fermionic ones.
Additional relations resulting from the Efimov effect are derived in Section~\ref{sec:new_rel}.
As an application, the three-body loss rate of a non-degenerate Bose gas for an infinite scattering length
is calculated in Section~\ref{sec:tblr}.
Finally the case of an arbitrary mixture is addressed in Section \ref{sec:melange}.
For convenience, the obtained relations are displayed in Tables~I, II, III.
\section{Model and notations}
\label{sec:intro}
In 3D, the zero-range model imposes the Wigner-Bethe-Peierls contact condition on the $N$-body wavefunction:
For any pair of particles $i,j$, when one takes the limit of a vanishing distance $r_{ij}\equiv|\rr_i-\rr_j|$ with a
fixed value of the center of mass $\cc_{ij}=(\rr_i+\rr_j)/2$ different from the positions $\rr_k$ of the
other $N-2$ particles, the wavefunction has to behave as
\be
\psi(\rr_1,\ldots,\rr_N)= \left(\frac{1}{r_{ij}}-\frac{1}{a}\right)A_{ij}(\cc_{ij},(\rr_k)_{k\neq i,j})+O(r_{ij})
\label{eq:wbp3d}
\ee
where $a$ is the 3D scattering length. The {\sl a priori} unknown functions $A_{ij}$ are determined
from the fact that $\psi$ solves the free Schr\"odinger's equation over the domain where the positions
of the particles are two by two distinct: $E\psi = H\psi$ with
\be
H=\sum_{i=1}^{N} \left[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \Delta_{\rr_i} + U(\rr_i)\right]
\label{eq:hamil}
\ee
and $U$ is the external potential.
Also $\psi$ is normalized to unity.
If there are three bosons or more, the Efimov effect occurs~\cite{Efimov}, and the zero-range model has to be supplemented
by a three-body contact condition that involves a positive length, the three-body parameter $R_t$:
In the limit where {\sl three} particles approach each other (that one can take to be particles 1, 2 and 3 due
to the bosonic symmetry),
there exists a function $B$, hereafter called three-body regular part, such that
\be
\psi(\rr_1,\ldots,\rr_N)\underset{R\to0}{\sim}\Phi(\rr_1,\rr_2,\rr_3)\, B(\CC,\rr_4,\ldots,\rr_N)
\label{eq:danilov}
\ee
where
$\CC=(\rr_1+\rr_2+\rr_3)/3$ is the center of mass of particles $1$,$2$ and $3$,
$\Phi$ is the zero-energy three-body scattering state
\be
\Phi(\rr_1,\rr_2,\rr_3) = \frac{1}{R^2}\sin\left[|s_0|\ln\frac{R}{R_t}\right] \phi_{s_0}(\Oom),
\label{eq:Phi_ZR}
\ee
and where $R, \Oom$ are the hyperradius and the hyperangles associated with particles $1$, $2$ and $3$.
We take the limit $R\to0$ in~(\ref{eq:danilov}) for fixed $\Oom$ and $\CC$ (in analogy with the two-body contact condition).
We recall the definition of $R$ and $\Oom$: From the Jacobi coordinates $\rr=\rr_2-\rr_1$ and
$\rhob=(2\rr_3-\rr_1-\rr_2)/\sqrt{3}$, one forms the six-component vector
$\RR=(\rr,\rhob)/\sqrt{2}$; then, the hyperradius $R=\sqrt{(r^2+\rho^2)/2}$ is the norm
of $\RR$, and $\Oom=\RR/R$ is its direction that can be parametrized by five
hyperangles, so that $d^6R=R^5 dR d^5\Omega$.
In Eq.~(\ref{eq:Phi_ZR}), $s_0=i\cdot 1.00623782510\ldots$ is Efimov's transcendental number,
it is the imaginary solution (with positive imaginary part)
of $s \cos(s \pi/2) = (8/\sqrt{3}) \sin( s \pi / 6)$;
$\phi_{s_0}(\Oom)$ is the hyperangular part of the Efimov trimers wavefunctions~\cite{Efimov}, which, in the present case (single-component bosons), is given by
$\phi_{s_0}(\Oom)\equiv \Nr\,(1+Q)\sinh\left[|s_0|\left(\frac{\pi}{2}-\alpha\right)\right]
/\sin(2\alpha)$ where $Q=P_{13}+P_{23}$ and $P_{ij}$ exchanges particles $i$ and $j$,
and where $\alpha\equiv {\rm arctan}(r/\rho)$.
Here we introduced, for later convenience, a normalization factor
such that $\int d^5\Omega\, |\phi_{s_0}(\Oom)|^2 = 1$. Using
$\int d^5\Omega = \int_0^{\pi/2}d\alpha\sin^2\alpha\cos^2\alpha
\int d^2\hat{r}\int d^2\hat{\rho}$, where $d^2\hat{r}$ and $d^2\hat{\rho}$ are the
differential solid angles in 3D, we obtain ~\cite{Efimov93,CastinWernerTrimere}
\begin{multline}
\Nr^{-2} = \frac{6\pi^2}{|s_0|} \sinh(|s_0|\pi/2) \Big[\cosh(|s_0|\pi/2)
\\
+ |s_0| \frac{\pi}{2} \sinh (|s_0|\pi/2) -\frac{4\pi}{3\sqrt{3}}\cosh (|s_0|\pi/6)\Big] .
\end{multline}
For $N=3$ particles, it is well established that this model is self-adjoint and that it is the zero-range limit of finite-range models,
see e.g.~\cite{WernerThese} and references therein.
The fact that the zero-range (i.e. low-energy) regime can be described using the scattering length and a three-body parameter only is known as universality~\cite{RevueBraaten}.
For $N=4$, an accurate numerical study \cite{Deltuva} has shown, as was suggested by earlier ones
\cite{Stecher4corps,Hammer4corps1,Hammer4corps2}, that there is no need to introduce a
four-body parameter in the zero-range limit,
implying that the here considered zero-range model is self-adjoint for $N=4$.
Physically, this is related to the fact that the introduction of $R_t$,
imposed by the three-body Efimov effect,
breaks the separability of the 4-body problem at infinite scattering length and prevents the occurrence of a four-body
Efimov effect for bosons \cite{CMP}.
Here we consider an arbitrary value of $N$ such that the model is self-adjoint.
In 2D, the zero-range model is a direct generalization of the 3D one, since one simply replaces the 3D zero-energy
two-body scattering wavefunction $r_{ij}^{-1}-a^{-1}$ by the 2D one $\ln(r_{ij}/a)$, where $a$ is now the 2D scattering
length. For any pair of particles $i$ and $j$, in the limit $r_{ij}\equiv |\rr_i-\rr_j|\to 0$ with $\cc_{ij}=(\rr_i+\rr_j)/2$ fixed,
the $N$-body wavefunction satisfies in 2D:
\be
\psi(\rr_1,\ldots,\rr_N)= \ln(r_{ij}/a)A_{ij}(\cc_{ij},(\rr_k)_{k\neq i,j})+O(r_{ij}).
\label{eq:wbp2d}
\ee
There is no Efimov effect in 2D so that no additional parameter is required
\cite{BruchTjon3bosons2D,Fedorov3bosons2D,Leyronas4corps}.
The Hamiltonian is the corresponding 2D version of (\ref{eq:hamil}).
\section{Relations which are analogous to the fermionic case}
\label{sec:analog}
\begin{table*
\begin{tabular}{|cc|cc|}
\hline
Three dimensions & & Two dimensions & \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{\vspace{-4mm}}
\\
\multicolumn{3}{|c}{$\mathcal{C}\equiv {\displaystyle \lim_{k\to +\infty}}
k^4 n(\kk)$}
& (1) \vspace{-4mm}
\\
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{} \\
\hline
\vspace{-4mm}
& & & \\
\vspace{-4mm}
$\ds \mathcal{C} =
32\, \pi^2\ (A,A)
$
&
(2a)
&
$\ds \mathcal{C} =
8\, \pi^2\,(A,A)
$
&
(2b)
\\
& & & \\
\hline
& & &
\vspace{-4mm}
\\
$\ds
\int d^3R \,
g^{(2)} \left(\mathbf{R}+\frac{\mathbf{r}}{2},
\mathbf{R}-\frac{\mathbf{r}}{2}\right)
\underset{r\to0}{\sim}
\frac{\mathcal{C}}{(4\pi)^2}
\frac{1}{r^2}
$
&(3a) \vspace{-4mm}
&
$\ds
\int d^2R \,
g^{(2)} \left(\mathbf{R}+\frac{\mathbf{r}}{2},
\mathbf{R}-\frac{\mathbf{r}}{2}\right)
\underset{r\to0}{\sim}
\frac{\mathcal{C}}{(2\pi)^2}
\ln^2 r$
&
(3b)
\\
& & &
\\
\hline & & &
\vspace{-4mm}
\\
$\displaystyle\left(\frac{\partial E}{\partial(-1/a)}\right)_{\!R_t} = \frac{\hbar^2 \mathcal{C}}{8\pi m} $ &
(4a) &
$\ds\frac{dE}{d(\ln a)} = \frac{\hbar^2 \mathcal{C}}{4\pi m} $
& (4b) \vspace{-4mm}
\\
&& & \\
\hline & & & \vspace{-4mm} \\
$\ds E - E_{\rm trap} \stackrel{\mathrm{if}\, \exists\, \mathrm{lim}}{=} \frac{\hbar^2 \mathcal{C}}{8\pi m a} $
& &
$\ds E - E_{\rm trap} = \lim_{\Lambda\to\infty}\left[-\frac{\hbar^2 \mathcal{C}}{4\pi m} \ln \left(\frac{a \Lambda e^\gamma}{2}\right) \right.
$
&
\vspace{-3mm}
\\
& & & \\
$\ds + \lim_{\Lambda\to\infty}\int_{k<\Lambda} \frac{d^3\!k}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m}
\left[n(\kk) - \frac{\mathcal{C}}{k^4}\right]$
&(5a)
&
$\ds + \left. \int_{k<\Lambda} \frac{d^2\!k}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m}
n(\kk) \right]
& (5b)\vspace{-4mm}
\\
&& & \\
\hline
& & & \vspace{-8mm} \\
\\$\ds\frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{\partial^2E_n}{\partial(-1/a)^2}\right)_{\!R_t}
= \left(\frac{4\pi\hbar^2}{m}\right)^2 \sum_{n',E_{n'}\neq E_n}
\frac{|(A^{(n')},A^{(n)})|^2}{E_n-E_{n'}}$
&(6a) &
$\ds\frac{1}{2} \frac{d^2E_n}{d(\ln a)^2}
= \left(\frac{2\pi\hbar^2}{m}\right)^2 \sum_{n',E_{n'}\neq E_n}
\frac{|(A^{(n')},A^{(n)})|^2}{E_n-E_{n'}} $
&
(6b) \vspace{-4mm}
\\&&
& \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{For single-component bosons, relations which are analogous to the fermionic case.
In three dimensions, the derivatives are taken for a fixed three-body parameter $R_t$.
As discussed in the text, in three dimensions, the relation between energy and momentum distribution is valid if the large cut-off limit $\Lambda\to +\infty$ exists, which is not the case for Efimovian states
(i.e.\ eigenstates whose energy depends on $R_t$). The notation $(A,A)$ is defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:AA}). $\gamma=0.577215\ldots$ is Euler's constant.
\label{tab:bosons1}}
\end{table*}
A first set of relations is given in Table~\ref{tab:bosons1}. These relations and derivations are largely analogous to the fermionic case (which was treated in Article~I).
An obvious difference with the fermionic case is that there are no more spin indices in the pair distribution function $g^{(2)}$ and in the momentum distribution $n(\kk)$. Accordingly
we now have $g^{(2)}(\rr,\rr')=\langle
\hat{\psi}^\dagger(\rr)
\hat{\psi}^\dagger(\rr')
\hat{\psi}(\rr')
\hat{\psi}(\rr)
\rangle
=
\int d^d r_1\ldots d^d r_N
\left|
\psi(\rr_1,\ldots,\rr_N)
\right|^2
\sum_{i\neq j}
\delta\left(\rr-\rr_i\right)
\delta\left(\rr'-\rr_j\right)
$,
where $\hat{\psi}$ is the bosonic field operator,
and the momentum distribution is normalized as
$
\int n(\kk) d^d k/(2\pi)^d= N
$.
Apart from numerical prefactors, there are two more important differences which appear in the 3D case due to the Efimov effect.
The first important difference is that the derivatives with respect to $1/a$ in [Tab.~\ref{tab:bosons1}, Eqs.~(4a,6a)] have to be taken for a fixed three-body parameter $R_t$.
This comes from the relation
\be
\left( \frac{\partial E}{\partial(-1/a)} \right)_{\!R_t} = \frac{4\pi\hbar^2}{m} (A, A),
\label{eq:AA_3D}
\ee
with the notation (given for generality in dimension $d$):
\be
(A,A)\equiv \sum_{i<j} \int (\prod_{k\neq i,j}d^d r_k)\int d^dc_{ij} |A_{ij}(\cc_{ij},(\rr_k)_{k\neq i,j})|^2.
\label{eq:AA}
\ee
Eq.~(\ref{eq:AA_3D}) was already obtained in~\cite{WernerThese} in the case $N=3$.
A simple way to derive it for any $N$ is to use a cubic lattice model, of lattice spacing $b$, with purely on-site interactions
characterized by a coupling constant $g_0$ [see the Hamiltonian in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hlatt}) with $h_0=0$],
adjusted to reproduce the correct scattering length \cite{MoraCastin}:
\be
\frac{1}{g_0}= \frac{m}{4\pi\hbar^2 a} -\int_{D} \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{m}{\hbar^2 k^2}
\label{eq:val_g0}
\ee
where the wavevector $\kk$ of a single particle plane wave on the lattice
is restricted as usual to the first Brillouin zone $D=(-\frac{\pi}{b},\frac{\pi}{b})^3$.
One then follows the same reasoning as in (Article~I, Section~V, Subsections~C-D-E). The key point here is that,
in the limit of $b\ll |a|$, the three-body parameter corresponding to the lattice model is equal to a numerical constant times $b$~\footnote{The value of this constant is irrelevant for what follows. It could be calculated e.g.\ by equating the energies of the weakly bound Efimov trimers of the lattice model with the ones of the zero-range model. This was done e.g.\ in~\cite{Werner3corpsPRL,WernerThese}, not for the lattice model, but for a Gaussian separable potential model.}. Thus, varying the coupling constant $g_0$ while keeping $b$ fixed
is equivalent to varying $a$ while keeping $R_t$ fixed, so that
\be
\frac{dE}{dg_0}=\left(\frac{dE}{d(-1/a)}\right)_{\!R_t}\ \frac{d(-1/a)}{dg_0}.
\label{eq:dEdg0_Rt}
\ee
The left-hand side of (\ref{eq:dEdg0_Rt}) is given by the Hellmann-Feynman theorem:
\begin{multline}
\frac{dE}{dg_0} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\rr} b^3 \langle (\hat{\psi}^\dagger \hat{\psi}^\dagger \hat{\psi}\hat{\psi})(\rr)\rangle \\
=\frac{N(N-1)}{2} \sum_{\rr,\rr_3,\ldots,\rr_N} b^{3(N-1)} |\psi(\rr,\rr,\rr_3,\ldots,\rr_N)|^2
\end{multline}
where $\psi$ is the eigenstate wavefunction on the lattice. In the zero-range limit $b\ll |a|$, $\psi$ has to match
the contact condition (\ref{eq:wbp3d}): Its two-body regular part $A_{12}$, defined as
\be
\psi(\rr,\rr,\rr_3,\ldots,\rr_N)\equiv \phi(\mathbf{0}) A_{12}(\rr,\rr_3,\ldots,\rr_N),
\ee
with the correctly normalized zero-energy two-body lattice scattering wavefunction $\phi(\rr)$ [$\phi(\rr)=r^{-1}-a^{-1}+o(1)$ at $r\gg b$],
has to converge to the zero-range model regular part.
Similarly, in the right-hand side of (\ref{eq:dEdg0_Rt}), the lattice model's $(dE/d(-1/a))_{R_t}$ tends to the zero-range model's one
if one takes the zero-range limit while keeping $R_t$ fixed~\footnote{The zero-range limit for a fixed $R_t$ can be taken by repeatedly dividing $b$ by the discrete scaling factor $\exp(\pi/|s_0|)$
and by adjusting $g_0$ so that $a$ remains fixed. In this limit the ground state energy tends to $-\infty$ as follows from the Thomas effect, but
the restriction of the spectrum to any fixed energy window converges (see e.g.~\cite{WernerThese}).}.
\setcounter{fnnumberbis}{\thefootnote}
Finally, the last factor of (\ref{eq:dEdg0_Rt}) can be evaluated from (\ref{eq:val_g0}).
Using the relation $\phi(\mathbf{0}) =-4\pi\hbar^2/(m g_0)$ established in \cite{CompanionFermions}, we obtain
[Tab.~\ref{tab:bosons1},Eq.~(4a)].
The same lattice model reasoning explains why the second-order derivative in [Tab.~\ref{tab:bosons1}, Eq.~(6a)]
also has to be taken for a fixed $R_t$.
The second important difference with respect to the fermionic case is that the relation [Tab.~\ref{tab:bosons1}, Eq.~(5a)] breaks down in general, and only holds for special states for which the infinite-cutoff limit $\Lambda\to\infty$ exists (such as the universal states for 3 trapped bosons of~\cite{Pethick3corps,Werner3corpsPRL}).
This was overlooked in~\cite{CombescotC}, and was shown for an Efimov trimer in~\cite{CastinWernerTrimere}.
The correct relation valid for any $N$-body state in presence of the Efimov effect was obtained in~\cite{BraatenBosons}.
\section{Additional relations coming from the Efimov effect}
\label{sec:new_rel}
\begin{table*}
\begin{tabular}{|cc|}
\hline
\vspace{-4mm}
&
\\
$\ds \left(\frac{\partial E}{\partial (\ln R_t)}\right)_{\!\!a}=\frac{\hbar^2}{m}\,\frac{\sqrt{3} \,|s_0|^2}{4} N(N-1)(N-2)
\int d^3C\, d^3r_4\ldots d^3r_N\,|B(\CC,\rr_4,\ldots,\rr_N)|^2$
& (1)
\\
\vspace{-4mm}
&
\\
\hline
\vspace{-4mm}
&
\\
$\ds \int d^3C\,g^{(3)}(\rr_1,\rr_2,\rr_3) \underset{R\to0}{\sim}
|\Phi(\rr_1,\rr_2,\rr_3)|^2
\,\left(\frac{\partial E}{\partial (\ln R_t)}\right)_{\!\!a}\
\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}\,|s_0|^2}
\,\frac{m}{\hbar^2}$
& (2)
\\
\vspace{-4mm}
&
\\
\hline
\vspace{-4mm}
&
\\
$\ds \hbar\Gamma \underset{\eta\to 0}{\sim} \left(\frac{\partial E}{\partial (\ln R_t)}\right)_{\!\!a}\ \frac{2\eta}{|s_0|}$ & (3)
\vspace{-4mm}
\\&
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{For single-component bosons in 3D, additional relations coming from the Efimov effect.
$B$ is the three-body regular part of the $N$-body wavefunction; $g^{(3)}$ is the triplet distribution function;
$\Gamma$ is the decay rate due to three-body losses and $\eta$ is the corresponding inelasticity parameter
(see text).
\label{tab:bosons2}}
\end{table*}
In addition to modifying relations which already existed for fermions,
the Efimov effect gives rise to additional relations, involving the
derivative of the energy with respect to the logarithm of the three-body parameter.
These relations are displayed in Table~\ref{tab:bosons2}.
\subsection{Derivative of the energy with respect to the three-body parameter}
Our first additional relation~[Tab.~\ref{tab:bosons2}, Eq.~(1)] expresses
the derivative of the energy with respect to the three-body parameter $R_t$ in terms
of the three-body regular part defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:danilov}).
This is similar to the relation
(\ref{eq:AA_3D})
between the derivative with respect to the scattering length and the (two-body) regular part
\footnote{We note that it was already speculated in \cite{Braaten} that, in presence of the Efimov effect, ``a three-body analog of the contact'' may ``play an important role''.}.
We will first derive this relation using the zero-range model in the case $N=3$, and then using a lattice model for any $N$.
\subsubsection{Derivation using the zero-range model for three particles}
We consider two wavefunctions $\psi_1$, $\psi_2$, satisfying the two-body
boundary condition (\ref{eq:wbp3d})
with the same scattering length $a$, and the three-body boundary condition
(\ref{eq:danilov},\ref{eq:Phi_ZR})
with different three-body parameters $R_{t 1}$, $R_{t 2}$. The corresponding three-body regular parts are denoted by $B_1$, $B_2$.
We show in the Appendix~\ref{app:3b} that
\begin{multline}
\la \psi_1, H \psi_2\ra-\la H\psi_1,\psi_2\ra=\frac{\hbar^2}{m}\frac{3\sqrt{3}|s_0|}{2}\sin\left[|s_0|\ln\frac{R_{t 2}}{R_{t 1}}\right]\,
\\ \times \int d^3C\,B^*_1(\CC)B_2(\CC),
\label{eq:lemme_dEdRt}
\end{multline}
which yields [Tab.~II, Eq.~(1)] by choosing $\psi_i$ as an eigenstate of energy $E_i$ and taking the limit $R_{t 2}\to R_{t 1}$
\footnote{We note that $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ do not satisfy the lemma [Article~I, Eq.~(33)] because they are too singular for $R\to0$.
If this lemma was applying, the right-hand side of (\ref{eq:lemme_dEdRt}) would be zero and the zero-range model
(\ref{eq:wbp3d}) would be self-adjoint without need of the extra contact condition (\ref{eq:danilov}),
which is not the case.}.
\subsubsection{Derivation using a lattice model}
We now derive [Tab.~II, Eq.~(1)] for all $N$ using as in Sec.~\ref{sec:analog} a cubic lattice model,
except that the Hamiltonian now contains a three-body interaction term (of coupling constant $h_0$)
allowing one to adjust the three-body parameter $R_t$ without changing the lattice spacing:
\begin{multline}
H_{\rm latt}=\int_D \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\, \frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m} \hat{c}^\dagger(\kk)\hat{c}(\kk) + \sum_{\rr} b^3 U(\rr) (\hat{\psi}^\dagger
\hat{\psi})(\rr)
\\+\frac{g_0}{2} \sum_\rr b^3 (\hat{\psi}^\dagger\hat{\psi}^\dagger\hat{\psi}\hat{\psi})(\rr)
+h_0 \sum_\rr b^3 (\hat{\psi}^\dagger\hat{\psi}^\dagger\hat{\psi}^\dagger\hat{\psi}\hat{\psi}\hat{\psi})(\rr).
\label{eq:Hlatt}
\end{multline}
Here the bosonic field operator obeys discrete commutation relations
$[\hat{\psi}(\rr),\hat{\psi}^\dagger(\rr')]=\delta_{\rr\rr'}/b^3$ and the plane wave annihilation operator
obey as usual $[\hat{c}_\kk,\hat{c}^\dagger_{\kk'}]=(2\pi)^3\delta(\kk-\kk')$ provided that $\kk$ and $\kk'$ are restricted to
the first Brillouin zone $D$.
We then define the zero-energy three-body scattering state $\phi_0(\rr_1,\rr_2,\rr_3)$
as the solution of $H_{\rm latt}|\phi_0\ra=0$ for $a=\infty$, with the boundary condition
\be
\phi_0(\rr_1,\rr_2,\rr_3)\sim \Phi(\rr_1,\rr_2,\rr_3)
\ee
in the limit where all interparticle distances tend to infinity.
Here $\Phi$ is the zero-range model's zero-energy scattering state, given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Phi_ZR}).
This defines the three-body parameter $R_t(b,h_0)$ for the lattice model (since $\Phi$ depends on $R_t$).
The Hellmann-Feynman theorem writes:
\begin{multline}
\frac{\partial E}{\partial h_0} = \sum_{\rr} b^3\,\la (\psi^\dagger\psi^\dagger\psi^\dagger\psi\psi\psi)(\rr)\ra
\\ =
N(N-1)(N-2)\sum_{\rr,\rr_4,\ldots,\rr_N}b^{3(N-2)}|\psi(\rr,\rr,\rr,\rr_4,\ldots,\rr_N)|^2.
\end{multline}
For the lattice model we define the three-body regular part $B$ through:
\be
\psi(\rr,\rr,\rr,\rr_4,\ldots,\rr_N)=\phi_0(\vn,\vn,\vn)\,B(\rr,\rr_4,\ldots,\rr_N);
\ee
in the zero-range limit, we expect that this lattice model's regular part tends to the regular part of the zero-range model defined in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:danilov},\ref{eq:Phi_ZR}). Thus, in the zero-range limit:
\begin{multline}
\left( \frac{\partial E}{\partial(\ln R_t)}\right)_a=N(N-1)(N-2)
|\phi_0(\vn,\vn,\vn)|^2 \left( \frac{\partial h_0}{\partial(\ln R_t)}\right)_{\!b}
\\
\times \int d^3 r\, d^3 r_4\ldots d^3 r_N\,|B(\rr,\rr_4,\ldots,\rr_N)|^2.
\label{eq:proto_dEdRt}
\end{multline}
It remains to evaluate the derivative of $h_0$ with respect to $R_t$: This is achieved by applying (\ref{eq:proto_dEdRt}) to the case of an Efimov trimer in free space, where the regular part can be deduced from the known expression~\cite{CastinWernerTrimere} for the normalized wavefunction. This yields [Tab.~II, Eq.~(1)].
\subsection{Short-distance triplet distribution function}
Similarly to the pair distribution function $g^{(2)}$, one defines the triplet distribution function
$g^{(3)}(\rr_1,\rr_2,\rr_3) = \la \hat{\psi}^\dagger(\rr_1) \hat{\psi}^\dagger(\rr_2)
\hat{\psi}^\dagger(\rr_3)
\hat{\psi}(\rr_3) \hat{\psi}(\rr_2) \hat{\psi}(\rr_1)\ra$, which is given in first quantization by $N (N-1) (N-2) \int d^3r_4\ldots d^3r_N\,|\psi(\rr_1,\ldots,\rr_N)|^2$.
In the limit $R\to0$ where the three positions $\rr_1,\rr_2,\rr_3$ approach each other,
the many-body wavefunction behaves according to~(\ref{eq:danilov}).
The result~[Tab.~\ref{tab:bosons2}, Eq.~(2)]
then directly follows, using~[Tab.~\ref{tab:bosons2}, Eq.~(1)].
As a consequence, in a measurement of the positions of all the particles,
the mean number of triplets of particles having a small hyperradius $R$ is given by
\begin{multline}
N_{\rm triplets}(R<\epsilon) = \frac{1}{3!} \int_{R<\epsilon} d^3r_1 d^3 r_3 d^3 r_3 g^{(3)}(\rr_1,\rr_2,\rr_3) \\
\underset{\epsilon\to0}{\sim} \frac{m}{2\hbar^2|s_0|^2} \left(\frac{\partial E}{\partial (\ln R_t)}
\right)_a \epsilon^2 \left[1-\mathrm{Re}\, \frac{(\epsilon/R_t)^{2i|s_0|}}{1+i|s_0|}\right]
\label{eq:ntripl}
\end{multline}
where we used the Jacobian
$\frac{D(\rr_1,\rr_2,\rr_3)}{D(\CC,\RR)}=3\sqrt{3}$ and the division by $3!$ takes into account the
indistinguishability of the particles within a triplet.
\subsection{Decay rate due to three-body losses}
In experiments, the cold atomic gases are only
metastable: There exist deeply bound dimer states, that is with a binding energy
of order $\hbar^2/(m b^2)$, where $b$ is the van der Waals length of the real atomic interaction.
These deeply bound states can be populated by three-body collisions, which are strongly exothermic (with
respect to the trapping potential depth) and thus lead to a net loss of atoms.
Usually, one expects that these deeply bound dimer states have a vanishing small effect on the metastable many-body states
for $b\to 0$; the metastable states then converge to stationary states
described by the zero-range model.
In presence of the Efimov effect, however, the probability
$p_{\rm close}$ to find three particles within a distance $b$ (e.g., with an hyperradius $R<b$)
vanishes only as $b^2$ according to Eqs.~(\ref{eq:danilov},\ref{eq:Phi_ZR},\ref{eq:ntripl}). As the three-body loss rate
scales as $p_{\rm close} \hbar /m b^2$, it does not vanish in the zero-range limit \cite{PetrovPRL,EsryGammaEfi}.
Fortunately, one can still in that limit simply include the losses by modifying the three-body boundary
conditions \cite{Braaten_etats_d_efimov,RevueBraaten2}: One keeps Eq.~(\ref{eq:danilov}) with a modified $\Phi$ deduced
from Eq.~(\ref{eq:Phi_ZR}) by the substitution
\begin{multline}
\sin\left[|s_0|\ln\frac{R}{R_t}\right] \rightarrow \frac{1}{2i} \left[e^{-\eta} e^{i|s_0|\ln(R/R_t)} \right. \\
\left. -e^{\eta}e^{-i|s_0|\ln(R/R_t)}\right].
\label{eq:cl_eta}
\end{multline}
The so-called inelasticity parameter $\eta \geq 0$ determines to which extent the reflection of the incoming hyperradial wave $\exp[-i|s_0|\ln(R/R_t)]$ on the point $R=$ (where the
model-dependent short range three-body physics takes place) is elastic.
In this work, we have considered so far the ideal case where $\eta$ is strictly zero. We now show that this allows
to access the decay rate due to three-body losses to first order in $\eta$ by taking simply a derivative of the loss-less
eigenenergies $E$. In a first approach, we simply assume that $E(\ln R_t)$
is an analytic function of $\ln R_t$. As the substitution
(\ref{eq:cl_eta}) simply amounts to performing the change
\be
\ln R_t \rightarrow \ln R_t - \frac{i\eta}{|s_0|},
\ee
we conclude that the resulting eigenenergy for non-zero $\eta$ acquires an imaginary part
$-i \hbar \Gamma/2$ given to first order in $\eta$ by [Tab.~\ref{tab:bosons2}, Eq.~(3)].
Furthermore, we have developed an alternative approach, that relates for arbitrary $\eta$ the decay rate
$\Gamma$ to the integral of $|B|^2$, where $B$ is defined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:danilov}), see Appendix~\ref{app:Gamma}.
Combining this with [Tab.~\ref{tab:bosons2}, Eq.~(1)] in the limit $\eta\to 0$
reproduces the relation [Tab.~\ref{tab:bosons2}, Eq.~(3)].
\section{Application: Three-body loss rate constant for a Bose gas}
\label{sec:tblr}
We consider a 3D Bose gas, in a cubic quantization box of volume $V$, at thermal equilibrium
in the grand canonical ensemble and in the thermodynamic limit. Within the zero-range model,
with a truncation of the three-body energy spectrum (that is introducing a lower energy cut-off,
as discussed below), relation [Tab.~\ref{tab:bosons2}, Eq.~(3)]
can be used to obtain, to first order in the inelasticity parameter $\eta$,
the three-body loss-constant $L_3$ customarily defined by
\be
\frac{d}{dt} N = - L_3 n^2 N
\ee
where $N$ is the mean particle number and $n=N/V$ the mean density.
Applying [Tab.~\ref{tab:bosons2}, Eq.~(3)] to each many-body eigenstate, taking a truncated
thermal average and keeping in mind that
each loss event eliminates three particles out of the system
\footnote{If one normalizes to unity the eigenstate $\psi$ at time $0$,
the norm squared $||\psi(t)||^2$ is the probability that no loss event occured during $t$.
For the complex eigenenergy $E-i\hbar\Gamma/2$, this leads to a loss event rate equal to $\Gamma$,
and to a particle loss rate $dN/dt=-3\Gamma$.},
we obtain
\be
\frac{d L_3}{d\eta}(\eta=0) = \frac{6}{\hbar |s_0| n^2 N} \left(\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial(\ln R_t)}\right)_{\mu,T}
\ee
where the derivative of the grand potential $\Omega$ is taken for fixed chemical potential
$\mu$ and temperature $T$ \footnote{To give a meaning to a $N$-body thermal average
within the zero-range model requires, for $N\geq 4$, a procedure whose identification is beyond
the scope of this paper. This is here a formal issue, as we will consider the non-degenerate
limit allowing us to restrict to the three-body sector.}.
To obtain analytical results, we restrict to the non-degenerate
limit $\mu\to -\infty$, where the density vanishes, $n \lambda^3\to 0$, with $\lambda=[2\pi\hbar^2/(m k_B T)]^{1/2}$
the thermal de Broglie wavelength. One then can use the virial expansion
\cite{Huang_livre,PaisUlhenbeck1959,BedaqueRupak2003,Ho_virial,Hu_virial3}:
\be
\Omega(\mu,T) = -\frac{V}{\lambda^3} k_B T \sum_{q\geq 1} b_q e^{q\beta\mu},
\ee
with $\beta=1/(k_B T)$, and $b_q$ only depends on $q$-body physics and temperature.
The leading order contribution that involves $\ln R_t$ is thus for $q=3$, so that
\be
\frac{d L_3}{d\eta}(\eta=0) \underset{n\lambda^3\to 0}{\to} -\frac{12\pi}{|s_0|} \frac{\hbar \lambda^4}{m}
\left(\frac{\partial b_3}{\partial(\ln R_t)}\right)_{T}
\ee
where we used $n \lambda^3\sim \exp(\beta\mu)$.
The coefficient $b_q$ can be deduced from the solution of the $q$-body problem. We thus restrict
to the resonant case $1/a=0$, where the solution for $q=3$ is known in free space \cite{Efimov}.
Due to separability in hyperspherical coordinates \cite{WernerSym} the solution is also known
for the isotropic harmonic trap case \cite{Pethick3corps,Werner3corpsPRL}, which allows us to use the technique
developed in \cite{Hu_virial3,Huilong2010} to calculate $b_3$:
\be
b_3 = 3^{3/2} \lim_{\omega\to 0} \left[\frac{Z_3}{Z_1} -Z_2 + \frac{1}{3} Z_1^2\right]
\ee
where $Z_q(\omega)$ is the canonical partition function at temperature $T$ for the system of $q$ interacting bosons
in the harmonic trapping potential $U(\rr)=\frac{1}{2} m\omega^2 r^2$.
Since the center-of-mass is separable, $Z_3/Z_1$ simply equals the partition function $Z_3^{\rm int}$
of the internal variables.
The internal 3-body eigenspectrum in the trap involves fully universal states (not depending on $R_t$),
and a single Efimovian channel with $R_t$-dependent eigenenergies $E_n(\omega)$,
$n\in \mathbb{Z}$, solving a transcendental
equation. Within the boundary conditions (\ref{eq:danilov},\ref{eq:Phi_ZR}), the sequence $E_n(\omega)$
is unbounded below. To give a mathematical existence
to thermal equilibrium, we thus truncate the sequence, labelling the ground three-body state
with the quantum number $n=0$ and then keeping only $n\geq 0$ in the thermal average
\footnote{Physically, our $n=0$ trimer state corresponds to
the lowest weakly bound trimer. As usual in cold atom physics, the deeply bound (here trimer) states are
excluded from the thermal ensemble since their (very exothermic) collisional formation
simply leads to particle losses}. In the free space limit $\omega\to 0$, this corresponds to a purely geometric
spectrum of trimer states with a ratio $\exp(-2\pi/|s_0|)$ and a ground state Efimov trimer energy:
\be
E_0(\omega) \underset{\omega\to 0}{\to} -\frac{2\hbar^2}{m R_t^2} e^{\frac{2}{|s_0|} \mathrm{Im}\, \ln \Gamma (1+s_0)} \equiv - E_t.
\label{eq:defet}
\ee
Given $E_t$, this uniquely determines the three-body parameter $R_t$
\footnote{In reality, for an interaction with finite range or effective range $b$,
the Efimovian trimer spectrum is only asymptotically geometric ($n\to +\infty$);
there exist various models \cite{stecher_Nbosons,Pricoupenko2010},
however, where $E_t$ is of order $\exp(-2\pi/|s_0|)\hbar^2/(m b^2)$
so that $R_t \gg b$, the ground state Efimovian trimer is close to the zero-range
limit, and the spectrum is almost entirely geometric.}.
This finally leads to
\be
\left(\frac{\partial b_3}{\partial(\ln R_t)}\right)_T = -\frac{3^{3/2}}{k_B T} \lim_{\omega\to 0}
\sum_{n\geq 0} e^{-\beta E_n(\omega)}
\frac{\partial E_n(\omega)}{\partial(\ln R_t)}.
\label{eq:fsl}
\ee
Details of the calculation of that limit are exposed in Appendix~\ref{app:b3}. The resulting expression
for the three-body loss rate constant can be split in contributions of the three-body bound free-space spectrum
and continuous free-space spectrum:
\be
\frac{d L_3}{d\eta}(\eta=0) \underset{n\lambda^3\to 0}{\to}
72\sqrt{3}\, \frac{\hbar \lambda^4}{m} \left(S_{\rm bound} + S_{\rm cont}\right).
\label{eq:l3final}
\ee
The bound-state contribution naturally appears as a (rapidly converging) discrete sum over the trimer states:
\be
S_{\rm bound} = \frac{\pi}{|s_0|} \sum_{n\geq 0} \beta E_t e^{-2\pi n/|s_0|} \exp\left(
\beta E_t e^{-2\pi n/|s_0|}\right).
\label{eq:sbound}
\ee
This allows to predict the mean number $N_{\rm trim}$ of trimers with energy $E_{\rm trim}=-E_t e^{-2\pi n/|s_0|}$ in the
loss-less system at thermal equilibrium:
Since the contribution to $dN/dt$ (to first order in $\eta$) of the term of index $n$ in (\ref{eq:sbound}) is
intuitively $-3 \Gamma_{\rm trim} N_{\rm trim}$, where the decay rate of the trimer
is $\Gamma_{\rm trim}\simeq (2\eta/\hbar|s_0|) \partial_{\ln R_t} E_{\rm trim}$, we obtain
\be
\frac{N_{\rm trim}}{N} \underset{n\lambda^3\to 0}{\sim} 3^{3/2} (n \lambda^3)^2 e^{-\beta E_{\rm trim}}.
\ee
This agrees with Eq.~(188) of \cite{PaisUlhenbeck1959} obtained from a chemical equilibrium reasoning.
The continuous-spectrum contribution to (\ref{eq:l3final}) naturally appears as an integral over positive energies $E$,
see Appendix~\ref{app:b3}. Mathematically, it can also be turned into an easier to evaluate (rapidly
converging) discrete sum
\footnote{This is rapidly converging since $|\Gamma(1-in|s_0|)|^2=\pi n |s_0|/\sinh(\pi n |s_0|)$ \cite{Gradstein}.}:
\be
S_{\rm cont} = \frac{1}{2} + \sum_{n\geq 1} e^{-n \pi |s_0|}
\mathrm{Re} \left[\Gamma(1-in|s_0|) \left(\beta E_t\right)^{i n |s_0|}\right].
\label{eq:scont}
\ee
As expected, $S_{\rm cont}$ is a log-periodic function of $E_t$. In practice, due to
$|s_0|> 1$, it has weak amplitude
oscillations, between the extreme values $\simeq 0.478$ and $\simeq 0.522$.
Our continuous-spectrum contribution to $L_3$ is equivalent, to first order
in $\eta$,
to the result of a direct three-body loss rate calculation for the thermal ensemble of free-space three-boson
scattering states \cite{Petrov_manip_en_prepa}.
In experiments, the interaction potential has a finite range $b$, and the actual $L_3$ will
deviate from the above results. For clarity, we now denote with a star
the quantities corresponding to a finite $b$. Due to the three-body losses, the so-called weakly bound
trimer states are actually not bound states, they are resonances with complex energies $E_n^*-i\hbar \Gamma_n^*/2$.
Assuming that $\Gamma_n^* \ll |E_n^*|$, we can name these resonances quasi-bound states or
quasi-trimers.
Their contribution to the decay rate of the Bose gas,
from the reasoning below Eq.~(\ref{eq:sbound}), can be estimated as
\be
\Gamma_{\rm quasi-bound}^* \simeq
3^{3/2} (n \lambda^3)^2 N \sum_{n\geq 0} \Gamma_n^* e^{-\beta E_n^*}.
\ee
This is meaningful provided that the thermal equilibrium trimer
population formula Eq.~(188) of \cite{PaisUlhenbeck1959} makes sense in presence of losses,
that is the formation rate of quasi-trimers of quantum number $n$ has to remain much larger than $\Gamma_n^*$
(in the zero-range framework, this is ensured by first taking the limit $\eta\to 0$
then the limit of vanishing density $n\lambda^3\to 0$).
Evaluation of the finite-$b$ positive-energy continuous spectrum
contribution $L_{3, \mathrm{cont}>0}^*$ to the three-body loss rate constant is beyond the scope of this work. We can simply point out that,
taking the limit $b\to 0$ (with a fixed, infinite scattering length) makes $L_{3, \mathrm{cont}>0}^*$
converge to the value obtained in the zero-range finite $\eta$ model; further taking the zero-$\eta$
limit gives
\be
\lim_{\eta\to 0} \frac{1}{\eta}\left(\lim_{b\to 0} L_{3, \mathrm{cont}>0}^*\right) =
\frac{d L_{3,\mathrm{cont}}}{d\eta}(\eta=0).
\ee
In practice, as soon as $b\ll \lambda$ and $\eta\ll 1$, we expect that
$L_{3, \mathrm{cont}>0}^*\simeq \eta \frac{d L_{3,\mathrm{cont}}}{d\eta}(\eta=0)$.
\section{Arbitrary mixture}\label{sec:melange}
\begin{table*}
\begin{tabular}{|cc|cc|}
\hline
Three dimensions & & Two dimensions & \\
\vspace{-4mm}
& & & \\
\hline
\vspace{-4mm}
& & & \\
$\displaystyle\frac{\partial E}{\partial(-1/a_{\si\sip})} = \frac{2\pi\hbar^2}{\mu_{\si\sip}} (A,A)_{\si\sip}$ &
(1a) &
$\ds\frac{\partial E}{\partial(\ln a_{\si\sip})} = \frac{\pi\hbar^2}{\mu_{\si\sip}} (A,A)_{\si\sip}$ &
(1b) \\
\vspace{-4mm}
& & & \\
\hline
\vspace{-4mm}
&&&\\
$\ds \mathcal{C}_\si\equiv {\displaystyle \lim_{k\to +\infty}}
k^4 n_\sigma(\kk) =
\sum_{\sip}(1+\delta_{\si\sip})\frac{8\pi \mu_{\si\sip}}{\hbar^2}
\frac{\partial E}{\partial(-1/a_{\si \sip})} $ & (2a) &
$\ds \mathcal{C}_\si\equiv {\displaystyle\lim_{k\to +\infty}} k^4 n_\sigma(\kk) = \sum_\sip(1+\delta_{\si\sip})\frac{4\pi \mu_{\si\sip}}{\hbar^2}
\frac{\partial E}{\partial(\ln a_{\si\sip})}$ & (2b) \\
\vspace{-4mm}
&&&\\
\hline
\vspace{-4mm}
& & &\\
$\ds
\int d^3R \,
g_{\si\sip}^{(2)} \left(\mathbf{R}+\frac{m_\sip}{m_\si+m_\sip}\mathbf{r},
\mathbf{R}-\frac{m_\si}{m_\si+m_\sip}\mathbf{r}\right) $
& &
$\ds
\int d^2R \,
g_{\si\sip}^{(2)} \left(\mathbf{R}+\frac{m_\sip}{m_\si+m_\sip}\mathbf{r},
\mathbf{R}-\frac{m_\si}{m_\si+m_\sip}\mathbf{r}\right)
$
&
\\
\vspace{-4mm}
& & &\\
$\underset{r\to0}{\sim}(1+\delta_{\si\sip}) \ds \,\frac{\mu_{\si\sip}}{2\pi\hbar^2}\,\frac{\partial E}{\partial(-1/a_{\si\sip})}
\,\frac{1}{r^2}$ & (3a) &
$\underset{r\to0}{\sim}(1+\delta_{\si\sip}) \ds\, \frac{\mu_{\si\sip}}{\pi\hbar^2}\,\frac{\partial E}{\partial(\ln a_{\si\sip})}
\,\ln^2 r$ &(3b)
\\
\vspace{-4mm}
&&&\\
\hline
\vspace{-4mm}
& & & \\
$\ds E - E_{\rm trap} = \sum_{\si\leq\sip} \frac{1}{a_{\si\sip}} \frac{\partial E}{\partial(-1/a_{\si\sip})} $ & &
$\ds E - E_{\rm trap} = \lim_{\Lambda\to\infty}\left[-\sum_{\si\leq\sip}\frac{\partial E}{\partial(\ln a_{\si\sip})} \ln \left(\frac{a_{\si\sip} \Lambda e^\gamma}{2}\right) \right.
$ &
\\
\vspace{-4mm}
& & & \\
$\ds +\sum_{\sigma} \int \frac{d^3\!k}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m_\si}
\left[n_\sigma(\kk) - \frac{\mathcal{C}_\si}{k^4}\right]$
& (4a) &
$\ds \left. +\sum_{\sigma} \int_{k<\Lambda} \frac{d^2\!k}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m_\si}
n_\sigma(\kk)\right]$ & (4b)
\\
\vspace{-4mm}
&&&\\
\hline
& & & \\
$\ds\frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial^2E_n}{\partial(-1/a_{\si\sip})^2}
= \left(\frac{2\pi\hbar^2}{\mu_{\si\sip}}\right)^2 \sum_{n',E_{n'}\neq E_n}
\frac{|(A^{(n')},A^{(n)})_{\si\sip}|^2}{E_n-E_{n'}}$
& (5a) &
$\ds\frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial^2E_n}{\partial(\ln a_{\si\sip})^2}
= \left(\frac{\pi\hbar^2}{\mu_{\si\sip}}\right)^2 \sum_{n',E_{n'}\neq E_n}
\frac{|(A^{(n')},A^{(n)})_{\si\sip}|^2}{E_n-E_{n'}} $
& (5b)
\\
\vspace{-4mm}
&& &\\
\hline
\vspace{-4mm}
&& &\\
$\ds\left(\frac{\partial^2F}{\partial(-1/a_{\si\sip})^2}\right)_T < 0 $
& (6a) &
$\ds\left(\frac{\partial^2F}{\partial(\ln a_{\si\sip})^2}\right)_T < 0 $
& (6b)
\\
\vspace{-4mm}
& & & \\
\hline
\vspace{-4mm}
& & & \\
$\ds\left(\frac{\partial^2E}{\partial(-1/a_{\si\sip})^2}\right)_S < 0 $
& (7a) &
$\ds\left(\frac{\partial^2E}{\partial(\ln a_{\si\sip})^2}\right)_S < 0 $
& (7b) \vspace{-4mm}
\\
& & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Main results for an arbitrary mixture.
In three dimensions, if the Efimov effect occurs, the derivatives must be taken for fixed three-body parameter(s), the expression for $E$ in line~4 breaks down,
and the last two lines, with derivatives of the free energy $F$ and of the mean energy $E$
respectively taken at fixed temperature $T$ and entropy $S$,
are meaningless in the absence of spectral selection (see
Sec.~\ref{sec:tblr}). $\gamma=0.577215\ldots$ is Euler's constant.
\label{tab:melange}}
\end{table*}
In this Section we consider a mixture of bosonic and/or fermionic atoms with an arbitrary number of spin components. The $N$ particles are thus divided into groups, each group corresponding to a given chemical species and to a given spin state. We label these groups by an integer $\sigma\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$.
Assuming that there are no spin-changing collisions, the number $N_\sigma$ of atoms in each group is fixed, and one can consider that particle $i$ belongs to the group $\sigma$ if $i\in I_\sigma$, where the $I_\sigma$'s are a fixed partition of
$\{1,\ldots,N\}$ which can be chosen arbitrarily. For example,
a possible choice is $I_1=\{1,\ldots,N_1\}$; $I_2=\{N_1+1,\ldots,N_1+N_2\}$; etc.
The wavefunction $\psi(\rr_1,\ldots,\rr_N)$ is then symmetric (resp. antisymmetric) with respect to the exchange of two particles belonging to the same group $I_\sigma$ of bosonic (resp. fermionic) particles.
Each atom has a mass $m_i$ and is subject to a trapping potential $U_i(\rr_i)$, and the scattering length between atoms $i$ and $j$ is $a_{ij}$. We set $m_i=m_\sigma$ and $a_{ij}=a_{\sigma \sigma'}$
for $i\in I_\sigma$ and $j\in I_{\sigma'}$. The reduced masses are $\mu_{\si\sip}=m_\si m_\sip/(m_\si+m_\sip)$.
We shall denote by $P_{\sigma \sigma'}$ the set of all pairs of particles with one particle in group $\sigma$ and the other one in group $\sigma'$, each pair being counted only once:
\be
P_{\sigma \sigma'}\equiv\left\{ (i,j)\in (I_\sigma\times I_{\sigma'})\cup (I_{\sigma'}\times I_\sigma) \ /\ i<j \right\}.
\ee
The definition of the zero-range model is modified as follows: In the contact conditions~(\ref{eq:wbp3d},\ref{eq:wbp2d}),
the scattering length $a$ is replaced by $a_{ij}$,
and the limit $r_{ij}\to0$ is taken for a fixed center of mass position $\cc_{ij}=(m_i\rr_i+m_j\rr_j)/(m_i+m_j)$;
moreover Schr\"odinger's equation becomes
\be
\sum_{i=1}^N \left[
-\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_i}\Delta_{\rr_i} + U_i(\rr_i)
\right] \psi = E\,\psi.
\ee
Our results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:melange}, where we introduced the notation in dimension $d$:
\begin{multline}
( A^{(1)},A^{(2)})_{\si\sip}\equiv \sum_{(i,j)\in P_{\si \sip}} \int \Big( \prod_{k\neq i,j} d^d r_k \Big) \int d^d c_{ij}
\\
A^{(1)*}_{ij}(\mathbf{c}_{ij}, (\mathbf{r}_k)_{k\neq i,j})
A^{(2)}_{ij}(\mathbf{c}_{ij}, (\mathbf{r}_k)_{k\neq i,j}).
\end{multline}
Since $a_{\si\sip}=a_{\sip\si}$ there are only $n(n+1)/2$ independent scattering lengths, and the
partial derivatives with respect to one of these independent scattering lengths are taken while keeping fixed the other independent scattering lengths.
We note that, in Ref.~\cite{CombescotC}, [Tab.~\ref{tab:melange}, Eqs.~(4a,4b)]
were already partially obtained
\footnote{Our expressions [Tab.~\ref{tab:melange}, Eqs.~(4a,4b)] complete the ones in~\cite{CombescotC} in the following way.
In Ref.~\cite{CombescotC},the coefficient of $1/a_{\sigma\sigma'}$
was not expressed as $\partial E/\partial(1/a_{\sigma\sigma'})$;
only the case of a spatially homogeneous system
was covered; finally, an arbitrary mixture was covered only in 3D, while in 2D only the
case of a 2-component Fermi-Fermi mixture was covered.}.
In 3D the three-body Efimov effect can occur, e.g.\ if the mixture contains a bosonic group, or at least three fermionic groups, or two fermionic groups with a mass ratio strictly larger than the critical value $13.6069\ldots$~\cite{Efimov73,Petrov3fermions,LudoYvanBoite}. In this case, as for single-component bosons, the derivatives with respect to any scattering length have to be taken for fixed three-body parameter(s), and the relation between $E$ and the momentum distribution (line~4 of Table~\ref{tab:melange}) breaks down, which was not realized in~\cite{CombescotC}~\footnote{Indeed, in presence of the Efimov effect, the momentum distribution has a subleading contribution
$\delta n_\si(k)\propto 1/k^5$, evaluated in the bosonic case in~\cite{CastinWerner_nk_trimer}, leading to a divergent integral in this relation. For two-component fermions with a small enough mass ratio,
the integral converges, because $\delta n_\si(k)\propto 1/k^{5+2s}$ where $s>0$ is the scaling exponent of the three-body wavefunction, $\psi(\lambda\rr_1,\lambda\rr_2,\lambda\rr_3)\propto\lambda^{s-2}$ for $\lambda\to0$, see a note in~\cite{TanLargeMomentum} and note 6 in \cite{CompanionFermions}.}.
When the Efimov effect occurs, there appear new relations analogous to the ones given in Section~\ref{sec:new_rel}
for bosons; we do not give these here for conciseness.
The derivations of the relations of Tab.~\ref{tab:melange} are analogous to the ones already given for two-component fermions and single-component bosons.
The lemmas~[Article~I, Eqs.~(33,35)] are replaced by
\begin{multline}
\la\psi_1,H\psi_2\ra-\la H\psi_1,\psi_2\ra
\\
=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\ds \frac{2\pi\hbar^2}{\mu_{\si\sip}}\left(\frac{1}{a^{(1)}_{\sigma\sigma'}}-\frac{1}{a^{(2)}_{\sigma\sigma'}}\right)(A^{(1)},A^{(2)})_{\si\sip} & {\rm in}\ 3D
\\
\ds\frac{\pi\hbar^2}{\mu_{\si\sip}}\ln(a^{(2)}_{\sigma\sigma'}/a^{(1)}_{\sigma\sigma'})(A^{(1)},A^{(2)})_{\si\sip} & {\rm in}\ 2D,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{multline}
where $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ obey the same contact conditions (including the three-body ones
if there is an Efimov effect), {\sl except} for the independent scattering length $a_{\sigma\sigma'}$,
that is equal to $a^{(i)}_{\sigma\sigma'}$ for $\psi_i$, $i=1,2$.
The momentum distribution for the goup $\sigma$ is normalized as
$\int n_\sigma(\kk) d^dk/(2\pi)^d=N_\sigma$.
The pair distribution function is now defined by
\begin{multline}
g^{(2)}_{\si\sip}(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})
=
\int d^dr_1\ldots d^dr_N
\left|
\psi(\rr_1,\ldots,\rr_N)
\right|^2
\\
\times \sum_{ i\in I_\si , j\in I_\sip , i\neq j}
\delta\left(\mathbf{u}-\rr_i\right)
\delta\left(\mathbf{v}-\rr_j\right).
\end{multline}
The Hamiltonian of the lattice model used in some of the derivations now reads
\be
H_{\rm latt}=H_0+\sum_{\sigma\leq\sigma'}g_{0,\sigma \sigma'} \,W_{\sigma \sigma'}
\ee
where
$
H_0=\sum_{i=1}^N \left[ -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_i}\Delta_{\rr_i} +U_i(\rr_i) \right]
$
with the discrete Laplacian defined by $\langle \rr | \Delta_\rr | \kk \rangle \equiv -k^2 \langle \rr | \kk \rangle$ (for $\kk$ in the first Brillouin zone)
and
$W_{\sigma \sigma'}=\sum_{(i,j)\in P_{\sigma \sigma'}} \delta_{\rr_i,\rr_j} b^{-d}.$
In the formulas of Article~I
involving the two-body scattering problem, one has to replace $g_0$ by $g_{0,\sigma\sigma'}$, $a$ by $a_{\si\sip}$ and $m$ by $2\mu_{\si\sip}$. Denoting the corresponding zero-energy scattering wavefunction by $\phi_{\si\si'}(\rr)$,
the lemma~[Article~I, Eq.~(56)] is replaced by
$\la\psi'|W_{\si\sip}|\psi\ra = |\phi_{\si\sip}({\bf 0})|^2\ ( A',A)_{\si\sip}.$
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}
In dimensions two and three,
we obtained several relations valid for any eigenstate of the $N$-boson problem with zero-range interactions.
The interactions are characterized by the 2D or 3D two-body $s$-wave
scattering length $a$ and, in 3D when the Efimov effect
takes place,
by a three-body parameter $R_t$. Our expressions relate various observables to derivatives of the energy
with respect to these interaction parameters. Some of the expressions,
initially obtained in \cite{50pages},
were derived in \cite{BraatenBosons} with a different technique. For completeness, we
have also generalized some of the relations to arbitrary mixtures of Bose and/or Fermi gases.
For the bosons in 3D, especially interesting are the relations involving the
derivative of the energy with respect to the three-body parameter.
Physically, one of then predicts (to first order in the inelasticity parameter $\eta$)
the decay rate $\Gamma$ of the system due to three-body losses, that occur
in cold atom experiments by recombination to deeply bound dimers. This means that
one can extract $\Gamma$ from the eigenenergies of a purely loss-less ($\eta=0$) model. As an application,
we analytically obtained (within the zero-range model, and to first order in $\eta$)
the three-body loss rate constant $L_3$ for the 3D non-degenerate Bose gas at infinite
scattering length. Experimentally, this quantity is under current study with real atomic gases
\cite{Petrov_manip_en_prepa}.
Mathematically, the 3D relations hold under the assumption that the two-body scattering length and the three-body parameter are sufficient to make the $N$-boson problem well-defined, with a self-adjoint Hamiltonian.
Therefore they may be used to numerically test this assumption, for example by checking the consistency between
the values of
the derivative of the energy with respect to the three-body parameter
obtained in different ways. Three possible ways are: numerical differentiation of the energy,
the present relation on the short-distance triplet distribution function,
or the virial theorem which also involves this derivative~\cite{FelixViriel}.
\acknowledgments
We thank S.~Tan and J.~von~Stecher for stimulating discussions.
The work of F.W. at UMass was supported by NSF under Grant No.~PHY-0653183 and No.~PHY-1005543.
Our group at ENS is a member of IFRAF. We acknowledge support from ERC
Project FERLODIM N.228177.
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper is concerned with the abstract formulation of nonanticipative rate distortion function (RDF) on Polish spaces (complete separable metric spaces) and its relation to filtering theory. In the past, rate distortion (or distortion rate) functions and filtering theory have evolved independently. Specifically, classical RDF addresses the problem of reproduction of a process subject to a fidelity criterion without much emphasis on the realization of the reproduction conditional distribution via nonanticipative operations. On the other hand, filtering theory is developed by imposing real-time realizability on estimators with respect to measurement data.\\
\noindent Historically, the work of R. Bucy \cite{bucy} appears to be the first to consider the direct relation between distortion rate function and filtering. The work of A. K. Gorbunov and M. S. Pinsker \cite{gorbunov91} on $\epsilon$-entropy defined via a nonanticipative constraint on the reproduction distribution of the RDF, although not directly related to the realizability question pursued by Bucy, computes the nonanticipative RDF for stationary Gaussian processes via power spectral densities. \\
\noindent The objective of this paper is to investigate the connection between nonanticipative RDF and filtering theory for general distortion functions and random processes on abstract Polish spaces using the topology of weak convergence.\\
The main results discussed in this paper are the following.\\
{\bf(1)} Existence of optimal reproduction distribution minimizing directed information using the topology of weak convergence of probability measures on Polish spaces;\\
{\bf(2)} Closed form expression of the optimal reproduction conditional distribution for stationary processes;\\
{\bf(3)} Realization procedure of the filter;\\
{\bf(4)} Example to demonstrate the realization of the filter;\\
{\bf(5)} Connection between nonanticipative RDF and joint source-channel coding of symbol-by-symbol transmission \cite{gastpar2003}.\\
\noindent {\it Motivation.} This work is motivated by applications in which estimators are desired to have specific accuracy, by control over limited rate communication channel applications \cite{tatikonda-mitter2004b,nair-evans2004}, and by the desire to provide necessary conditions for symbol-by-symbol or uncoded transmission \cite{gastpar2003} for sources with memory without anticipation.
\par First, we give a brief high level discussion on nonanticipative RDF and filtering theory, and discuss their connection. Consider a discrete-time process $X^n\sr{\triangle}{=}\{X_0,X_1,\ldots,X_n\}\in{\cal X}_{0,n} \sr{\triangle}{=} \times_{i=0}^n{\cal X}_i$, and its reproduction $Y^n\sr{\triangle}{=}\{Y_0,Y_1,\ldots,Y_n\}\in{\cal Y}_{0,n} \sr{\triangle}{=} \times_{i=0}^n{\cal Y}_i$ where ${\cal X}_i$ and ${\cal Y}_i$ are Polish spaces.\\
\noindent{\it Bayesian Estimation Theory.} In classical filtering, one is given a mathematical model that generates the process $X^n$, $\{P_{X_i|X^{i-1}}(dx_i|x^{i-1}):i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$, a mathematical model that generates observed data obtained from sensors, say, $Z^n$, $\{P_{Z_i|Z^{i-1},X^i}$ $(dz_i|z^{i-1},x^i):i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$, while $Y^n$ are the causal estimates of some function of the process $X^n$ based on the observed data $Z^n$.
The classical Kalman Filter is a well-known example, where $\widehat{X}_i =\mathbb{E}[X_i | Z^{i-1}],~i=0,1,\ldots,n$, is the conditional mean which minimizes the average least-squares estimation error. Fig. 1 is the block diagram of the filtering problem.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{filtering_problem.jpg}
\caption{Filtering problem.}
\label{filtering}
\end{figure}
\noindent{\it Nonanticipative Rate Distortion Theory and Estimation.} In nonanticipative rate distortion theory one is given a distribution for the process $X^n$, which induces $\{P_{X_i|X^{i-1}}(dx_i|x^{i-1}):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$, and determines the nonanticipative reproduction conditional distribution $\{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ which minimizes the directed information from $X^n$ to $Y^n$ subject to distortion or fidelity constraint. The filter $\{Y_i:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ of $\{X_i:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ is found by realizing the optimal reproduction distribution $\{P_{Y_i|X^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ via a cascade of sub-systems as shown in Fig. 2. Thus, in nonanticipative rate distortion theory the observation or mapping from $\{X_i:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ to $\{Z_i:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ is part of the realization procedure, while in filtering theory, this mapping is given \'a priori.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{filtering_via_CRDF.jpg}
\caption{Filtering via nonanticipative rate distortion function.}
\label{filtering_and_causal}
\end{figure}
\noindent The precise problem formulation necessitates the definitions of distortion function or fidelity, and directed information.\\
The distortion function or fidelity constraint \cite{berger} between $x^n$ and its reproduction $y^n$, is a measurable function $d_{0,n} : {\cal X}_{0,n} \times {\cal Y}_{0,n} \rightarrow [0, \infty]$ defined by
\begin{align*}
d_{0,n}(x^n,y^n)\sr{\triangle}{=}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum^n_{i=0}\rho_{0,i}(x^i,y^i).
\end{align*}
Directed information from a sequence of Random Variables (RV's) $X^n\sr{\triangle}{=}\{X_0,X_1,\ldots,X_n\}\in{\cal X}_{0,n}\sr{\triangle}{=}\times_{i=0}^n{\cal X}_i$, to another sequence $Y^n\sr{\triangle}{=}\{Y_0,Y_1,\ldots,Y_n\}\in{\cal Y}_{0,n}\sr{\triangle}{=}\times_{i=0}^n{\cal Y}_i$ is often defined via \cite{massey90,charalambous-stavrou2012}\footnote[4]{Unless otherwise, integrals with respect to probability distributions are over the spaces on which these are defined.}
\begin{align}
&I(X^n\rightarrow{Y}^n)\sr{\triangle}{=}\sum_{i=0}^n{I}(X^i;Y_i|Y^{i-1})\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{i=0}^n\int\log\Big(\frac{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)}{{P}_{Y_i|Y^{i-1}}(dy_i|y^{i-1})}\Big)P_{X^i,Y^i}(dx^i,dy^i)\nonumber\\%\label{1a}
&\equiv\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(P_{X_i|X^{i-1},Y^{i-1}},P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}:~i=0,1,\ldots,n).\nonumbe
\end{align}
\noindent In this paper, it is assumed that $\forall~i=0,1,\ldots,n$,
\begin{align}
P_{X_i|X^{i-1},Y^{i-1}}(dx_i|x^{i-1},y^{i-1})=P_{X_i|X^{i-1}}(dx_i|x^{i-1}).\nonumber
\end{align}
The above assumption states that the process $\{X_i:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ is conditionally independent of $Y^{i-1}=y^{i-1}$ given knowledge of $X^{i-1}=x^{i-1}$, and it is implied by the following conditional independence, $P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^{\infty}}$ $(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^{\infty})=P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)-a.s.,~\forall~i=0,1,\ldots,n$. The last assumption implies that the reproduction of $Y_i$ does not depend on future values $X_{i+1}^{\infty}\sr{\triangle}{=}\{X_{i+1},X_{i+2},\ldots,X_{\infty}\}$.\\
Given a sequence of source distributions $\{{P}_{X_i|X^{i-1}}(\cdot|\cdot):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ and a sequence of reproduction conditional distributions $\{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot|\cdot,\cdot):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ define the joint distribution $P_{X^n,Y^n}(dx^n,dy^n)={P}_{X_i|X^{i-1}}(dx_i|x^{i-1})\otimes{P}_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)$. The nonanticipative RDF is a special case of directed information defined by
\begin{align}
&I_{P_{X^n}}(X^n\rightarrow{Y^n})\nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(P_{X_i|X^{i-1}},P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}:i=0,1,\ldots,n).\nonumbe
\end{align}
\noindent {\it Nonanticipative RDF.}
The nonanticipative RDF is defined by
\begin{equation}
{R}^{na}_{0,n}(D)\sr{\triangle}{=} \inf_{\substack{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot|\cdot,\cdot),\\~i=0,1,\ldots,n:\\
\mathbb{E}\big\{d_{0,n}(X^n,Y^n)\leq{D}\big\}}}I_{P_{X^n}}(X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}).\label{7}
\end{equation}
The definition of the nonanticipative RDF is consistent with \cite{gorbunov-pinsker} in which nonanticipation is defined via the Markov chain (MC) $X_{n+1}^\infty \leftrightarrow X^n \leftrightarrow Y^n$, e.g., $P_{Y^n|X^{\infty}}(dy^n|x^{\infty})=P_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)$. Therefore, by finding the solution of (\ref{7}), then one can realize it via a channel from which one can construct an optimal filter via nonanticipative operations as in Fig.~\ref{filtering_and_causal}. One can view the sensor map as consisting of an encoder and a channel, thus draw relations to symbol-by-symbol and uncoded transmission in information theory \cite{gastpar2003}.
\par This paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{abstract} discusses the formulation on abstract spaces. Section~\ref{existence} establishes existence of optimal minimizing distribution, and Section~\ref{necessary} derives the optimal minimizing distribution for stationary processes. Section~\ref{realization1} describes the realization of nonanticipative RDF, while Section~\ref{example} provides an example.
\section{Abstract Formulation}\label{abstract}
The source and reproduction alphabets are sequences of Polish spaces \cite{dupuis-ellis97}. Probability distributions on any measurable space $( {\cal Z}, {\cal B}({\cal Z}))$ are denoted by ${\cal M}_1({\cal Z})$. For $({\cal X}, {\cal B}({\cal X})), ({\cal Y}, {\cal B}({\cal Y}))$ measurable spaces, the set of conditional distributions $P_{Y|X}(\cdot|X=x)$ is denoted by ${\cal Q}({\cal Y};{\cal X})$ and these are equivalent to stochastic kernels on $({\cal Y},{\cal B}({\cal Y}))$ given $({\cal X},{\cal B}({\cal X}))$.\\
Given the process distributions $P_{X^n}(dx^n)$ and $\{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ the following probability distributions are defined.\\
({\bf P1}): The reproduction conditional probability distribution ${\overrightarrow P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in \overrightarrow{\cal Q}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$:
\begin{equation}
{\overrightarrow P}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n) \sr{\triangle}{=} \otimes^n_{i=0}P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i).\nonumbe
\end{equation}
({\bf P2}): The joint probability distribution $P_{X^n,Y^n}\in {\cal M}_1({\cal Y}_{0,n}\times {\cal X}_{0, n})$ for $G_{0,n} \in {\cal B}({\cal X}_{0,n})\times{\cal B}({\cal Y}_{0,n})$:
\begin{align}
P_{X^n,Y^n}&(G_{0,n})\sr{\triangle}{=}(P_{X^n} \otimes \overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})(G_{0,n})\nonumber\\
&=\int \overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}(G_{0,n,x^n}|x^n)\otimes{P}_{X^n}(d{x^n})\nonumber
\end{align}
where $G_{0,n,x^n}$ is the $x^n-$section of $G_{0,n}$ at point ${x^n}$ defined by $G_{0,n,x^n}\sr{\triangle}{=} \{y^n \in {\cal Y}_{0,n}: (x^n, y^n) \in G_{0,n}\}$ and $\otimes$ denotes the convolution.\\
({\bf P3}): The marginal distribution $P_{Y^n}\in {\cal M}_1({\cal Y}_{0,n})$
\begin{align}
P_{Y^n}&(F_{0,n})\sr{\triangle}{=} P({\cal X}_{0, n} \times F_{0,n}),~F_{0,n} \in {\cal B}({\cal Y}_{0,n})\nonumber\\
&=\int \overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}(F_{0,n}|x^n) P_{X^n}(d{x^n}).\nonumber
\end{align}
Define
\begin{align*}
&\overrightarrow{\cal Q}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})=\Big\{{\overrightarrow P}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)\in{\cal Q}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n}):\\
&{\overrightarrow P}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n) \sr{\triangle}{=} \otimes^n_{i=0}P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)\Big\}.
\end{align*}
\noindent Directed information (special case) is defined via the Kullback-Leibler distance:
\begin{align}
&I_{P_{X^n}}(X^n\rightarrow{Y^n})\sr{\triangle}{=}\mathbb{D}(P_{X^n,Y^n}|| P_{X^n}\times{P_{Y^n}})\nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{D}(P_{X^n}\otimes{\overrightarrow{P}}_{Y^n|X^n}||P_{X^n}\times{P}_{Y^n})\nonumber\\
&=\int\log \Big( \frac{d (P_{X^n} \otimes \overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}) }{d ( P_{X^n} \times P_{Y^n} ) }\Big) d(P_{X^n} \otimes\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}) \nonumber\\
&\equiv \mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(P_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}). \label{re3}
\end{align}
Note that (\ref{re3}) states that directed information is expressed as a functional of $\{P_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\}$. \\
Next, the definition of nonanticipative RDF is given.
\begin{definition}\label{def1}
$(${\bf Nonanticipative RDF}$)$
Suppose $d_{0,n}\sr{\triangle}{=}\sum^n_{i=0}\rho_{0,i}(x^i,y^i)$ is measurable, and let $\overrightarrow{\cal Q}_{0,n}(D)$ (assuming is non-empty) denotes the fidelity set
\begin{align}
&\overrightarrow{\cal Q}_{0,n}(D)\sr{\triangle}{=}\big\{\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n} \in \overrightarrow{\cal Q}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n}) :~\ell_{d_{0,n}}(\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})\nonumber \\
&\sr{\triangle}{=}\int d_{0,n}(x^n,y^n)
\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)\otimes{P}_{X^n}(dx^n)\leq D\big\}\label{eq2}
\end{align}
where $D\geq0$. The nonanticipative RDF is defined by
\begin{align}
{R}^{na}_{0,n}(D) \sr{\triangle}{=} \inf_{{\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in \overrightarrow{\cal Q}_{0,n}(D)}}{\mathbb I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}({P}_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}).\label{ex12}
\end{align}
\end{definition}
Clearly, ${R}^{na}_{0,n}(D)$ is characterized by minimizing $\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}({P}_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})$ over $\overrightarrow{\cal Q}_{0,n}(D)$.
\section{Existence of Reproduction Distribution}\label{existence}
\par In this section, the existence of the minimizing $(n+1)$-fold convolution of conditional distributions in (\ref{ex12}) is established by using the topology of weak convergence of probability measures on Polish spaces. First, we state some properties derived in \cite{charalambous-stavrou2012}.
\begin{theorem}\label{convexity_properties}\cite{charalambous-stavrou2012}
Let $\{{\cal X}_n:~n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ and $\{{\cal Y}_n:~n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ be Polish spaces. Then\\
{\bf(1)} The set $\overrightarrow{\cal Q}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ is convex.\\
{\bf(2)} ${\mathbb I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}({P}_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})$ is a convex functional of $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in\overrightarrow{\cal Q}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ for a fixed $P_{X^n}\in{\cal M}_1({\cal X}_{0,n})$.\\
{\bf(3)} The set $\overrightarrow{\cal Q}_{0,n}(D)$ is convex.
\end{theorem}
Let $BC({\cal Y}_{0,n})$ denotes the set of bounded continuous real-valued functions on ${\cal Y}_{0,n}$. We need the following.
\begin{assumption}\label{conditions-existence}
The following conditions are assumed throughout the paper.\\
{\bf(A1)} ${\cal Y}_{0,n}$ is a compact Polish space, ${\cal X}_{0,n}$ is a Polish space;\\
{\bf(A2)} for all $h(\cdot){\in}BC({\cal Y}_{0,n})$, the function mapping $(x^{n},y^{n-1})\in{\cal X}_{0,n}\times{\cal Y}_{0,n-1}\mapsto\int_{{\cal Y}_n}h(y)P_{Y|Y^{n-1},X^n}(dy|y^{n-1},x^n)\in\mathbb{R}$
is continuous jointly in the variables $(x^{n},y^{n-1})\in{\cal X}_{0,n}\times{\cal Y}_{0,n-1}$;\\
{\bf(A3)} $d_{0,n}(x^n,\cdot)$ is continuous on ${\cal Y}_{0,n}$;\\
{\bf(A4)} the distortion level $D$ is such that there exist sequence $(x^n,y^{n})\in{\cal X}_{0,n}\times{\cal Y}_{0,n}$ satisfying $d_{0,n}(x^n,y^{n})<D$.
\end{assumption}
Note that since ${\cal Y}_{0,n}$ is assumed to be a compact Polish space, then by \cite{dupuis-ellis97} probability measures on ${\cal Y}_{0,n}$ are weakly compact. Moreover, the following weak compactness result can be obtained.
\begin{lemma}\label{compactness2}
Suppose Assumption~\ref{conditions-existence} {\bf(A1)}, {\bf(A2)} hold. Then\\
{\bf(1)} The set $\overrightarrow{\cal Q}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ is weakly compact.\\
{\bf(2)} Under the additional conditions {\bf(A3)}, {\bf(A4)} the set ${\overrightarrow{\cal Q}}_{0,n}(D)$ is a closed subset of $\overrightarrow{\cal Q}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ (hence compact).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The derivation is found in \cite{stavrou-charalambous2013c}.
\end{proof}
The previous results follow from Prohorov's theorem that relates tightness and weak compactness. The next theorem establishes existence of the minimizing reproduction distribution for (\ref{ex12}); it follows from Lemma~\ref{compactness2} and the lower semicontinuity of $\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(P_{X^n},\cdot)$ with respect to $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}$ \cite{stavrou-charalambous2013c}.
\begin{theorem}$(${\bf Existence}$)$\label{existence_rd}
Suppose the conditions of Lemma~\ref{compactness2} hold. Then ${R}^{na}_{0,n}(D)$ has a minimum.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The derivation is found in \cite{stavrou-charalambous2013c}.
\end{proof}
\section{Optimal Reproduction of Nonanticipative RDF}\label{necessary}
In this section the form of the optimal reproduction conditional distribution is derived under a stationarity assumption. We introduce the following main assumption.
\begin{assumption}$(${\bf Stationarity}$)$\label{stationarity}
The $(n+1)$-fold convolution conditional distribution $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)=\otimes^n_{i=0}P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}$ $(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)$, is the convolution of stationary conditional distributions.
\end{assumption}
\noindent The consequence of Assumption~\ref{stationarity}, which holds for stationary processes and a single letter distortion function, is that the Gateaux differential of $\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(P_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})$ is done in only one direction $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}-\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0$ via $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^{\epsilon}\sr{\triangle}{=}\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}+\epsilon\big{(}\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}-\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0\big{)}$, $\epsilon\in[0,1]$, since under Assumption~\ref{stationarity}, the functionals $\{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)\in{\cal Q}({\cal Y}_i;{\cal Y}_{0,i-1}\times{\cal X}_{0,i}):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ are identical.
\begin{theorem} \label{th5}
Suppose Assumption~\ref{stationarity} holds and~${\mathbb I}_{P_{X^n}}(\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}) \sr{\triangle}{=}\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(P_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})$ is well defined for every $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in \overrightarrow{\cal Q}_{0,n}(D)$ possibly taking values from the set $[0,\infty]$. Then $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n} \rightarrow {\mathbb I}_{P_{X^n}}(\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})$ is Gateaux differentiable at every point in $\overrightarrow{\cal Q}_{0,n}(D)$, and the Gateaux derivative at the point $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0$ in the direction $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}-\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0$ is given
by
\begin{align}
&\delta{\mathbb I}_{P_{X^n}}(\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0,\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}-\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0)\nonumber\\
&=\int\log \Bigg(\frac{\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0(dy^n|x^n)}{P_{Y^n}^0(dy^n)}\Bigg)\nonumber\\
&\otimes(\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}-\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0)(dy^n|x^n) P_{X^n}(dx^n)\nonumber
\end{align}
where $P_{Y^n}^0\in{\cal M}_1({\cal Y}_{0,n})$ is the marginal measure corresponding
to $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0\otimes{P}_{X^n}\in{\cal M}_1({\cal Y}_{0,n}\times{\cal X}_{0,n})$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to the one in \cite{farzad06} (although it is more involved).
\end{proof}
\noindent The constrained problem defined by (\ref{ex12}) can be reformulated as an unconstrained problem using Lagrange multipliers \cite{stavrou-charalambous2013c}
\begin{align}
&{R}_{0,n}^{na}(D)= \sup_{s\leq{0}}\inf_{\substack{{\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}}\\
\in \overrightarrow{Q}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})}} \Big\{{\mathbb I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(P_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})\nonumber\\
&-s(\ell_{{d}_{0,n}}\big(\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})-D(n+1)\big)\Big\},~s\in(-\infty,0]. \label{ex13}
\end{align}
\noindent The above observations yield the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}$(${\bf Optimal Reproduction Distribution}$)$ \label{th6}
Suppose the Assumption~\ref{stationarity} holds and consider $d_{0,n}(x^n,y^n)\sr{\triangle}{=}\sum_{i=0}^n\rho(T^i{x^n},T^i{y^n})$. Then\\
{\bf(1)} The infimum in $(\ref{ex13})$ is attained at $\overrightarrow{P}^*_{Y^n|X^n} \in\overrightarrow{\cal Q}_{0,n}(D)$ given by\footnote[5]{Due to stationarity assumption $P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1}}(\cdot|\cdot)=P(\cdot|\cdot)$ and ${P}^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot|\cdot,\cdot)={P}^*(\cdot|\cdot,\cdot)$}
\begin{align}
&\overrightarrow{P}^*_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)=\otimes_{i=0}^n{P}^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)\nonumber\\
&=\otimes_{i=0}^n\frac{e^{s \rho(T^i{x^n},T^i{y^n})}P^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1}}(dy_i|y^{i-1})}{\int_{{\cal Y}_i} e^{s \rho(T^i{x^n},T^i{y^n})} P^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1}}(dy_i|y^{i-1})}\label{ex14}
\end{align}
where $s\leq{0}$ and $P^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1}}(dy_i|y^{i-1})\in {\cal Q}({\cal Y}_i;{\cal Y}_{0,{i-1}})$.\\
{\bf(2)} The nonanticipative RDF is given by
\begin{align}
&{R}_{0,n}^{na}(D)=sD(n+1) -\sum_{i=0}^n\int\log \Big( \int_{{\cal Y}_i} e^{s\rho(T^i{x^n},T^i{y^n})} \nonumber\\
&P^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1}}(dy_i|y^{i-1})\Big){\overrightarrow{P}^*_{Y^{i-1}|X^{i-1}}(dy^{i-1}|x^{i-1})\otimes{P}_{X^i}(dx^i)}.\nonumbe
\end{align}
If ${R}_{0,n}^{na}(D) > 0$ then $ s < 0$ and
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=0}^n\int\rho(T^i{x^n},T^i{y^n})\overrightarrow{P}^*_{Y^{i}|X^{i}}(dy^i|x^i)P_{X^i}(dx^i)=(n+1)D.\nonumbe
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The derivation is found in \cite{stavrou-charalambous2013c}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Note that if the distortion function satisfies $\rho(T^i{x^n},T^i{y^n})=\rho(x_i,T^i{y^n})$ then for $i=0,1,\ldots,n$
\begin{equation}
{P}^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)={P}^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x_i)\nonumber
\end{equation}
that is, the reproduction kernel is Markov in $X^n$.
\end{remark}
\section{Realization of Nonanticipative RDF}\label{realization1}
The realization of the nonanticipative RDF (optimal reproduction conditional distribution) is equivalent to the sensor mapping as shown in Fig.~\ref{filtering_and_causal} which produces the auxiliary random process $\{Z_i:~i\in\mathbb{N}\}$ which is used for filtering. This is equivalent to identifying a communication channel, an encoder and a decoder such that the reproduction from the sequence $X^n$ to the sequence $Y^n$ matches the nonanticipative rate distortion minimizing reproduction kernel. Fig.~\ref{realization_figure} illustrates the cascade sub-systems that realize the nonanticipative RDF.
\begin{definition}$(${\bf Realization}$)$\label{realization}
Given a source $\{P_{X_i|X^{i-1}}(dx_i|x^{i-1}):i=0,\ldots,n\}$, a channel $\{P_{B_i|B^{i-1},A^{i}}(db_i|b^{i-1},a^i):i=0,\ldots,n\}$ is a realization of the optimal reproduction distribution (\ref{ex14}) if there exists a pre-channel encoder $\{P_{A_i|A^{i-1},B^{i-1},X^i}$ $(da_i|a^{i-1},b^{i-1},x^i):i=0,\ldots,n\}$ and a post-channel decoder $\{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},B^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},b^i):i=0,\ldots,n\}$ such that
\begin{align}
{\overrightarrow {P}}_{Y^{n}|X^{n}}^*(dy^n|x^n)&\sr{\triangle}{=}\otimes_{i=0}^n P^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)\nonumber\\
&=\otimes_{i=0}^n P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)\label{equation9}
\end{align}
where (\ref{equation9}) is generated from the joint distribution
\begin{align}
&P_{X^n, A^n, B^n, Y^n}(dx^n,da^n,db^n,dy^n) \nonumber \\
&=\otimes_{i=0}^n P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},B^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},b^i)\nonumber\\
&\quad\otimes P_{B_i|B^{i-1},A^{i}}
(db_i|b^{i-1},a^i)\nonumber\\
&\quad\otimes P_{A_i|A^{i-1},B^{i-1},X^i}(da_i|a^{i-1},b^{i-1},x^i)\nonumber\\
&\quad\otimes P_{X_i|X^{i-1}}(dx_i|x^{i-1}).\nonumber
\end{align}
The filter is given by $\{P_{X_i|B^{i-1}}(dx_i|b^{i-1}):i=0,\ldots,n\}$ or by $\{P_{X_i|Y^{i-1}}(dx_i|y^{i-1}):i=0,\ldots,n\}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{realization_CRDF.jpg}
\caption{Realizable nonanticipative rate distortion function.}
\label{realization_figure}
\end{figure}
\noindent Clearly, $\{B_i:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ is an auxiliary random process which is needed to obtain the filter $\{P_{X_i|B^{i-1}}(dx_i|b^{i-1}):i=0,\ldots,n\}$. If we further ensure that there exists $(D,P)$ such that $R^{na}(D)\sr{\triangle}{=}\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n+1}R^{na}_{0,n}(D)=C(P)$, where $C(P)$ is the capacity of the channel with power level $P$, then the realization of Fig.~\ref{realization_figure} is equivalent to symbol-by-symbol transmission in which the source is matched to the channel, e.g., real-time transmission of information.
\section{Example}\label{example}
\par Consider the following discrete-time partially observed linear Gauss-Markov system described by
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} X_{t+1}=AX_t+BW_t,~X_0=X\in\mathbb{R}^n,~t\in\mathbb{N}\\
Y_t=CX_t+GV_t,~t\in\mathbb{N} \end{array} \right.\label{equation51}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $X_t\in\mathbb{R}^m$ is the state (unobserved) process of information source (plant), and $Y_t\in\mathbb{R}^p$ is the partially measurement (observed) process. Assume that ($C,A$) is detectable and ($A,\sqrt{BB^{tr}}$) is stabilizable, ($G\neq0$). The state and observation noises $\{(W_t,V_t):t\in\mathbb{N}\}$, $W_t\in\mathbb{R}^k$ and $V_t\in\mathbb{R}^p$, are Gaussian IID processes with zero mean and identity covariances are mutually independent, and independent of the Gaussian RV $X_0$, with parameters $N(\bar{x}_0,\bar{V}_0)$.\\
\noindent The objective is to reconstruct $\{Y_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ from $\{\tilde{Y}_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ using single letter distortion.
First, we compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
R_{0,n}^{na}(D)=\inf_{\overrightarrow{P}_{\tilde{Y}^n|Y^n}\in\overrightarrow{\cal Q}_{0,n}(D)}\frac{1}{n+1}\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(P_{Y^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{\tilde{Y}^n|Y^n})
\end{eqnarray*}
and then realize the optimal reproduction distribution. According to Theorem~\ref{th6}, the optimal reproduction is given by
\begin{align}
\overrightarrow{P}^*_{\tilde{Y}^n|Y^n}(d\tilde{y}^n|y^n)=\otimes_{t=0}^n\frac{e^{s||\tilde{y}_t-y_t||^2}P_{\tilde{Y}_t|\tilde{Y}^{t-1}}(d\tilde{y}_t|\tilde{y}^{t-1})}{\int_{{\cal Y}_t}e^{s||\tilde{y}_t-y_t||^2}P_{\tilde{Y}_t|\tilde{Y}^{t-1}}(d\tilde{y}_t|\tilde{y}^{t-1})}\label{eq.9}
\end{align}
where $s\leq{0}$.
Hence, from (\ref{eq.9}) it follows that $P_{\tilde{Y}_t|\tilde{Y}^{t-1},Y^t}=P_{\tilde{Y}_t|\tilde{Y}^{t-1},Y_t}(d\tilde{y}_t|\tilde{y}^{t-1},y_t)-a.a.$, that is, the reproduction is Markov with respect to the process $\{Y_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$, and $\{(X_t,{Y}_t):~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ is jointly Gaussian, hence it follows that $P_{\tilde{Y}_t|\tilde{Y}^{t-1},Y_t}(\cdot|\tilde{y}^{t-1},y_t)$ is Gaussian. Hence, it has the general form
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{Y}_t=\bar{A}Y_t+\bar{B}\tilde{Y}^{t-1}+\bar{Z}_t,~t\in\mathbb{N}\label{eq.10}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{A}_t\in\mathbb{R}^{p\times{p}}$, $\bar{B}_t\in\mathbb{R}^{p\times{t}p}$, and $\{\bar{Z}_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ is an independent sequence of Gaussian vectors.\\
The nonanticipative RDF is given by \cite{stavrou-charalambous2013c}
\begin{align}
R_{0,n}^{na}(D)=\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{t=0}^n\sum_{i=1}^p\log\Big{(}\frac{\lambda_{t,i}}{\delta_{t,i}}\Big{)}\label{equation11}
\end{align}
where $\{\xi_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ are such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{t,i} \sr{\triangle}{=} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \xi_t & \mbox{if} \quad \xi_t\leq\lambda_{t,i} \\
\lambda_{t,i} & \mbox{if}\quad\xi_t>\lambda_{t,i} \end{array} \right.,~t\in\mathbb{N},~i=1,\ldots,p\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and $\{\xi_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ satisfies $\sum_{i=1}^p\delta_{t,i}=D$. Define $\Delta_t\sr{\triangle}{=}{diag}\{\delta_{t,i},\ldots,\delta_{t,p}\}$.\\
We realize (\ref{eq.10}) and (\ref{equation11}) via a scalar additive Gaussian noise (AGN) channel with feedback defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
B_t=A_t+Z_t,~Var(Z_t)=Q,~t\in\mathbb{N}\label{eq.11}
\end{eqnarray}
where the encoder is a mapping $A_t=\Phi_t(Y_t,\tilde{Y}^{t-1})$ with power $P_t\sr{\triangle}{=}{E}\{(A_t)^2\}$. Hence, the capacity of (\ref{eq.11}) is $C(P)\sr{\triangle}{=}\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n+1}I(A^n\rightarrow{B}^n)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{t=0}^n\log\big(1+E\{(A_t)^2\}Var(Z_t)^{-1}\big)=\frac{1}{2}\log(1+\frac{P}{Q})$. \\
{\it Realization of the nonanticipative RDF.} The realization is based on the block diagram of Fig.~\ref{discrete_time_communication_system}. The encoder $\Phi_t(\cdot,\cdot)$ consists of a pre-encoder which produces the Gaussian innovation process $\{K_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$, defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
K_t\sr{\triangle}{=}{Y}_t-E\Big{\{}Y_t|\sigma\{\tilde{Y}^{t-1}\}\Big{\}},~t\in\mathbb{N}\label{equation52}
\end{eqnarray}
whose covariance is defined by $\Lambda_t\sr{\triangle}{=}{E}\{K_tK_t^{tr}\}$. The decoder consists of a pre-decoder $\{\tilde{K}_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ which is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{K}_t\sr{\triangle}{=}\tilde{Y}_t-E\Big{\{}Y_t|\sigma\{\tilde{Y}^{t-1}\}\Big{\}},~t\in\mathbb{N}.\label{eq.12}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent Let $\{E_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ be the unitary matrix such that
\begin{eqnarray}
E_t\Lambda_t{E}_t^{tr}=diag\{\lambda_{t,1},\ldots\lambda_{t,p}\},~t\in\mathbb{N}.\label{equation53}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent Define $\Gamma_t\sr{\triangle}{=}{E}_tK_t$ and let $\{\tilde{\Gamma}_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}^{n}\}$ denote its reproduction.\\
Thus, the pre-encoder can be further scalled by $\Gamma_t=E_tK_t$, and $\Gamma_t$ is compressed by $A_t={\cal A}_t\Gamma_t$ and sent through the AGN channel with feedback, after which the received signal is decompressed by $\tilde{\Gamma}_t={\cal B}_tB_t$ in the pre-decoder. By the knowledge of the channel output at the decoder, the mean square estimator $\hat{X}_t$ is generated at the decoder (and encoder because $\hat{X}_t\sr{\triangle}{=}{E}\big{\{}X_t|\sigma\{\tilde{Y}_{t-1}\}\big{\}}$). The complete design is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{discrete_time_communication_system}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{discrete_time_communication_system_v1.jpg}
\caption{Design of the discrete-time communication system with scalar additive Gaussian noise (AGN) channel.}
\label{discrete_time_communication_system}
\end{figure}
\noindent We can design $\{({\cal A}_t,{\cal B}_t):~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ by
\begin{align}
&{\cal A}_t=\Big{[}\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_1{P}_t}{\lambda_{t,1}}},\ldots,\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_p{P}_t}{\lambda_{t,p}}}\Big{]},~t\in\mathbb{N}\nonumber\\%\label{equation55}\\
&{\cal B}_t=\Big{[}\sqrt{\alpha_1{P}_t\lambda_{t,1}},\ldots,\sqrt{\alpha_p{P}_t\lambda_{t,p}}\Big{]}^{tr},~t\in\mathbb{N}\nonumbe
\end{align}
where $\sum_{i=1}^p{\alpha}_i=1$,~$i=1,\ldots,p$. Note that $H_t\sr{\triangle}{=}{\cal B}_t{\cal A}_t$.\\
{\it Decoder.} From Fig.~\ref{discrete_time_communication_system},
\begin{align*}
\tilde{K}_t&=E_t^{tr}\tilde{\Gamma}_t=E_t^{tr}H_tE_tK_t+E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_tZ_t,~t\in\mathbb{N}.
\end{align*}
The reproduction of $Y_t$ is given by the sum of $\tilde{K}_t$ and $C\hat{X}_t$ as follows.
\begin{align}
\tilde{Y}_t&=E_t^{tr}H_tE_tK_t+E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_tZ_t+C\hat{X}_t,~t\in\mathbb{N}.\nonumber\\%\label{eq.14}
&=E_t^{tr}H_tE_tC(X_t-\hat{X}_t)+C\hat{X}_t\nonumber\\
&\qquad+(E_t^{tr}H_tE_tGV_t+E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_tZ_t)\nonumber
\end{align}
where $\{V_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ and $\{Z_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ are independent Gaussian vectors.
\noindent The desired distortion is achieved as follows
\begin{align}
&E\Big{\{}(Y_t-\tilde{Y}_t)^{tr}(Y_t-\tilde{Y}_t)\Big{\}}\nonumber\\%=Tr{E}\Big{\{}(K_t-\tilde{K}_t)(K_t-\tilde{K}_t)^{tr}\Big{\}}\nonumber\\
&=Tr\Big{\{}E_t^{tr}\Big{(}(I-H_t)diag(\lambda_{t,1},\ldots,\lambda_{t,p})(1-H_t)^{tr}\nonumber\\
&+({\cal B}_tQ{\cal B}_t^{tr})\Big{)}E_t\Big{\}}=\sum_{i=0}^p\delta_{t,i}=D.\label{equation55}
\end{align}
Thus, from (\ref{equation55}), $\{\delta_{t,i}\}_{i=1}^p$ are eigenvalues of the matrix
\begin{align*}
T_t\sr{\triangle}{=}(I-H_t)diag(\lambda_{t,1},\ldots,\lambda_{t,p})(1-H_t)^{tr}+({\cal B}_tQ{\cal B}_t^{tr})
\end{align*}
and we can calculate $\{a_i\}_{i=1}^p$
and $P_t$ in terms of $\{\lambda_{t,i},\delta_{t,i}\}_{i=1}^p$ and $Q$.\\
The decoder is $\tilde{Y}_t=\tilde{K}_t+C\hat{X}_t$, where $\{\hat{X}_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ is obtained from the modified Kalman filter as follows.
\begin{align}
\hat{X}_{t+1}&=A\hat{X}_t+A\Sigma_t(E_t^{tr}H_tE_tC)^{tr}M_t^{-1}(\tilde{Y}_t-C\hat{X}_t),\hat{X}_0=\bar{x}_0\nonumber\\
\Sigma_{t+1}&=A\Sigma_tA^{tr}-A\Sigma_t(E_t^{tr}H_tE_tC)^{tr}M_t^{-1}(E_t^{tr}H_tE_tC)\Sigma_tA\nonumber\\
&+BB_t^{tr},~\Sigma_0=\bar{\Sigma}_0\nonumber
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
M_t&=E_t^{tr}H_tE_tC\Sigma_t(E_t^{tr}H_tE_tC)^{tr}\nonumber\\
&+E_t^{tr}H_tE_tGG^{tr}(E_t^{tr}H_tE_t)^{tr}+E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_tQ{\cal B}_t^{tr}E_t.\nonumber
\end{align}
\noindent{\it Infinite Horizon.} As $t\rightarrow\infty$, under the assumption that the linear system is stabilizable and detectable, we have
\begin{align}
\Sigma_{\infty}&=A\Sigma_\infty{A}^{tr}\nonumber\\
&-A\Sigma_{\infty}(E_\infty^{tr}H_\infty{E}_{\infty}C)^{tr}M_{\infty}^{-1}(E_{\infty}^{tr}H_{\infty}E_{\infty}C)\Sigma_{\infty}A\nonumber\\
&+BB_{\infty}^{tr}\nonumber
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
M_\infty&=E_\infty^{tr}H_\infty{E}_{\infty}C\Sigma_{\infty}(E_{\infty}^{tr}H_{\infty}E_{\infty}C)^{tr}\nonumber\\
&+E_{\infty}^{tr}H_{\infty}E_{\infty}GG^{tr}(E_{\infty}^{tr}H_{\infty}E_{\infty})^{tr}+E_{\infty}^{tr}{\cal B}_{\infty}Q{\cal B}_{\infty}^{tr}E_t\nonumber
\end{align}
and $E_{\infty}$ is the unitary matrix that diagonalizes $\Lambda_{\infty}$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{\infty}\Lambda_{\infty}E_{\infty}^{tr}=diag(\lambda_{\infty,1},\ldots,\lambda_{t,p}).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Also,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{\infty,i} \triangleq \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \xi_\infty & \mbox{if} \quad \xi_\infty\leq\lambda_{\infty,i} \\
\lambda_{\infty,i} & \mbox{if}\quad\xi_\infty>\lambda_{\infty,i} \end{array} \right.,~i=1,\ldots,p\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
satisfying $\sum_{i=1}^p\delta_{\infty,i}=D$. Define $\Delta_{\infty}\sr{\triangle}{=}{diag}(\delta_{\infty,1},\ldots,\delta_{\infty,p})$.\\
Finally, we show matching of the source to the channel.
\begin{align}
&R^{na}(D)\sr{\triangle}{=}\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n+1}R^{na}_{0,n}(D)\nonumber\\
&=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{t=0}^n\sum_{i=1}^p\log\Big(\frac{\lambda_{t,i}}{\delta_{t,i}}\Big)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^p\log\Big(\frac{\lambda_{\infty,i}}{\delta_{\infty,i}}\Big)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{|\Lambda_{\infty}|}{|\Delta_{\infty}|}=\frac{1}{2}\log(1+\frac{P}{Q})=C(P).\nonumber
\end{align}
Thus, for a given $(D,P)$, $C(P)=R^{na}(D)$ is the minimum capacity under which there exists a realizable filter for the data reproduction of $\{Y_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ by $\{\tilde{Y}_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ ensuring an average distortion equal to $D$. This is precisely the so-called source-channel matching with symbol-by-symbol transmission.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Since the initial investigation of Krylov \cite{krylov1972control},
it has been the subject of many studies to verify that the value function
of an optimal stochastic control problem should be the unique solution
of the associated Bellman equation from the dynamic programming principle
for the optimal stochastic control problem. Nowadays, the notion of
viscosity solution invented in 1983 by Crandall and Lions \cite{crandall1983viscosity}
has become a universal tool to study such a broad fundamental subject.
For detailed exposition of such a tool and the related general dynamic
programming theory on optimal stochastic control, see among others
the survey paper of Crandall, Ishii \& Lions \cite{crandall1992user}
and the monographs of Fleming \& Soner \cite{fleming2006controlled}
and Yong \& Zhou \cite{yong1999stochastic}.
Such a theme has also been developing in terms of backward stochastic
differential equations (BSDEs). For instance, a BSDE depending on
a Markovian diffusion in a Markovian way via the generator and the
terminal condition, is associated to a second-order partial differential
equation (PDE), and a fully coupled forward and backward stochastic
differential equation (FBSDE) is associated to a quasi-linear PDE.
For relevant details, see Pardoux \& Peng \cite{pardoux1992backward},
Ma, Proter \& Yong \cite{ma1994solving}, and Pardoux \& Tang \cite{pardoux1999forward}.
These developments appear quite natural in view of the close relation
between BSDEs and minimax problems as exposed by Tang \cite{tang2006dual}.
Furthermore, the second-order BSDE (2BSDE) is associated to a fully
nonlinear PDE, and for such a relation see Cheritdito, Soner, Touzi
\& Victoir \cite{cheridito2007second} and Soner, Touzi \& Zhang \cite{soner2011wellposedness}.
More generally, Peng \cite{peng1992stochastic} shows that an optimal
stochastic control problem---where the coefficients of both the system
and the cost functional depend on the history path of the underlying
Brownian motion---should be associated to a fully nonlinear backward
stochastic PDE as the underlying Bellman equation.
Recently Dupire \cite{dupire2009functional} introduced horizontal
and vertical derivatives in the path space of a path functional, non-trivially
generalized the classical It\^o formula to a functional It\^o formula
(see Cont \& Fournie \cite{cont2010change,cont2010functional} for
a more general and systematic research), and provided a functional
extension of the classical Feynman-Kac formula. His insightful work
is becoming a foundation to stochastic analysis of path functionals,
and has stimulated extensions of some above-mentioned developments
to the functional case. In fact, he has shown that a path functional
in $\mathscr{C}^{1,2}(\Lambda)$ solves a linear path-dependent PDE
(PPDE) if its composition with a Brownian motion generates a martingale.
In the plenary lecture at the International Congress of Mathematicians
of the year 2010, Peng \cite{peng2010backward} pointed out that a
non-Markovian BSDE is a PPDE. In view of Dupire's functional It\^o
formula, it is very natural to associate a BSDE to a ``semi-linear''
PPDE, and a stochastic optimal control problem of BSDE to a path-dependent
Bellman equation. Peng \& Wang \cite{peng2011bsde} studied the former
relation and give some sufficient conditions for a semi-linear PPDE
to admit a classical solution. However, a PPDE, even for the simplest
heat equation, rarely has a classical solution, and a path-dependent
Bellman equation, even in the simpler state-dependent case, also appeals
to a generalized solution in many occasions. Therefore, generalized
solution of general PPDEs are demanding, and it has to be developed.
This paper incorporates Dupire's functional It\^o calculus to discuss
the optimal stochastic control problem for a path-dependent stochastic
system under a recursive path-dependent cost functional. The associated
Bellman equation from the dynamic programming principle in this general
setting is a path-dependent fully nonlinear partial differential equation
of second order, and we are concerned with its viscosity solution.
The familiar optimal control of SDEs with delay can be addressed within
our current framework.
In the classical theory of viscosity solution to PPDEs (see Crandall, Ishii
\& Lions \cite{crandall1992user} and Fleming \& Soner \cite{fleming2006controlled}),
local compactness of the state space and smoothness of the norm play a crucial role. The main
difficulty for our path-dependent case lies in both facts that the path
space $\Lambda$ is an infinite dimensional Banach space and lacks of a local
compactness, and that the maximal norm $\|\cdot\|_0$ is not smooth. The arguments for the case of Hilbert space introduced
by Lions (see \cite{lions1988viscosity,lions1989viscosity}) contain
a limiting procedure based on the structure of Hilbert space, and
are difficult to be adapted to our path-dependent case where we have to work in a subspace $\mathbf{C}^\alpha$ (which has a local compactness, but whose $\alpha$-H\"older norm is not smooth).
In the generalization of Kim's $i$-smooth theory \cite{kim1999functional},
Luyakonov \cite{lukoyanov2007viscosity} developed a theory of viscosity
solution to fully non-linear path-dependent (also called functional
in literature) Hamilton-Jacobi (HJ) equations of first order---which
include conventionally called Bellman and Isaacs equations arising
from deterministic optimal control problems and differential games
for time-delayed ordinary differential equations. He used the so-called
\textit{co-invariant derivatives} (it is \textit{Clio}-derivative
in Kim's terminology), which coincide with the restriction of Dupire's
derivatives on continuous paths though their definitions appear different.
A deterministic functional differential system, subject to some proper
conditions, starting at a uniformly Lipschitz continuous path, actually
evolves forever in the locally compact space $\mathbf{C}^{0,1}$ of
all uniformly Lipschitz continuous paths. This property of deterministic
dynamical systems allows Luyakonov \cite{lukoyanov2007viscosity}
to define the jet functionals and to localize the application of dynamical
programming all in $\mathbf{C}^{0,1}$ (in fact in a sequence of expanding
compact subsets) of paths. Due to these conveniences, his proof of
existence and uniqueness of viscosity solutions appears fairly straightforward.
In our stochastic case, the situation changes in a dramatic manner.
Even starting at a uniformly Lipschitz continuous path, due to the
essential diffusion nature, our dynamic system could not live in $\mathbf{C}^{0,1}$
anymore, and it is impossible in general to enclose under proper conditions
our dynamical system within any given compact space. We have to choose
an $\alpha$-H\"older continuous paths space $\mathbf{C}^{\alpha}$
($\forall\alpha\in(0,\frac{1}{2}$)) to substitute $\mathbf{C}^{0,1}$,
and also define our jet functional on a family of expanding compact
subsets $\{\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}:\mu\text{ is sufficiently large}\}$
in $\mathbf{C}^{\alpha}$. We give an example to illustrate the following
phenomenon in our stochastic dynamic system (see Remark \ref{rem:exist-th}
for details): starting at the boundary of $\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$,
our stochastic system might leave away from the set $\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$
with probability one within an arbitrary small time. This essential
nature prevents us from starting the dynamic programming
at the boundary of $\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$ to show the Bellman
equation holds there for the value functional. More precisely, to show that the value
functional is a viscosity solution, we could not follow the conventional
way to start the dynamic programming directly at the minimum/maximum path
of the difference between the value functional and a jet functional
since the extremum path might be at the boundary. To get around the difficulty, we construct a specific
perturbation $\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}\in \mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$ (around the extremum path $\gamma_t$) where we can start the dynamic
programming and use the exit time $\hat\tau^\varepsilon$ from $\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$ (see the definition of $\hat\tau^\varepsilon$ in the existence proof of Section 5; the
probability for our dynamical system starting from $\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}$ at time $t$
to stay within $\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$ up to time $t+\delta$ is shown to converge
to one, uniformly with respect to sufficiently large $\mu$, as $\delta\to 0+$) to localize our dynamic programming within the compact subset
$\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$. It seems to be the first here for us to define $\hat\tau^\varepsilon$ in association to the $\alpha$-H\"older modulus of the system's history path. We finally prove that the value functional
is a viscosity solution in Section 5. In the proof of the uniqueness,
we adapt the smoothing (and viscosity vanishing for the degenerate
case) methodology of Lions \cite{lions1983optimal} to our path-dependent
case, and also use the natural approximating arguments of parameterized
state-dependent PDEs. In the passage to the limit, our a priori maximal
and H\"older estimates on the second-order derivatives of the solutions
to the approximate PPDEs play a crucial role. Our methodology is expected
to be used to study the path-dependent Isaacs equation arising from
stochastic differential games (see \cite{TangZhang2012game}) and
other related fully nonlinear PPDEs. We note that using Gateaux or
Frechet derivatives, Goldys \& Gozzi \cite{goldys2006second} and
Fuhrman, Masiero \& Tessitore \cite{fuhrman2010stochastic} considered
time-delay stochastic optimal control problems with the diffusion
being independent of the control variable, and studied the mild solutions
to the associated semi-linear functional Bellman equations on Hilbert
space and Banach space, respectively.
Defining the ``semi-jets'' on non compact subsets in terms of a
nonlinear expectation, Ekren et al. \cite{ekren2011viscosity} studied
in a quite different way viscosity solution to second order path-dependent
PDE. They prove the existence and uniqueness of viscosity solutions
(in their sense) for a semi-linear PPDE by Peron's approach. In the
subsequent works, Ekren, Touzi, and Zhang (see for details \cite{TouziZhang2012Optimal,TouziZhang2012viscosityI,TouziZhang2012viscosityII})
use their previous notion of viscosity solution to study the fully
nonlinear PPDE, Pham and Zhang (see \cite{pham2012two}) discuss path-dependent
Bellman-Isaacs equations. However, their relevant results on the path-dependent
Bellman equation require stronger conditions: Their Assumption 2.8
requires, as they have noted, the diffusion coefficient $\sigma$
to be path-invariant (see \cite[page 8]{TouziZhang2012viscosityII}
for details), and, in the degenerate case, their Assumption 7.1 (i)
requires further approximating structures (see \cite[page 29]{TouziZhang2012viscosityII}
for details). Our Theorems \ref{thm:(repres-theorem-nondegen} (on
the non-degenerate case) and \ref{thm:Repr-Th-degen} (on the degenerate
case) give more general uniqueness results on path-dependent Bellman
equation. Furthermore, Ekren, Touzi, and Zhang \cite{TouziZhang2012Optimal,TouziZhang2012viscosityI,TouziZhang2012viscosityII}
directly work with an abstract fully nonlinear PPDE, and use a more
complicated definition of super- and sub-jets in their notion of viscosity
solution, in particular their definitions involve the unnatural and
advanced notion of nonlinear expectation.
Backward stochastic PDE is another tool to study non-Markovian optimal
control problems and FBSDEs. Peng \cite{peng1992stochastic,peng1997bsde}
established the non-Markovian stochastic dynamic programming principle
where he derived the backward stochastic Bellman equations in a heuristic
way. Ma \& Yong \cite{ma1997adapted} gave the relationship between
FBSDEs and a class of semi-linear BSPDEs, and further developed the
stochastic Feynman-Kac formula. For Sobolev and classical solution
of BSPDE, we refer to Zhou \cite{zhou1992duality}, Tang \cite{tang2005semi},
Du \& Meng \cite{du2010revisit}, Du \& Tang \cite{du2011strong},
Du, Tang \& Zhang \cite{du2011Linear-Degenerate} and Qiu \& Tang
\cite{qiu2012maximum}. For viscosity solution of BSPDE or SPDE, we
refer to Lions \cite{lions1998fully,lions1998fully2}, Buckdahn \&
Ma \cite{buckdahn2001stochastic1,buckdahn2001stochastic2,buckdahn2002pathwise-Taylor,buckdahn2007pathwise}
and Boufoussi et al. \cite{boufoussi2007generalized}. In Example
\ref{relation-PHJB-SHJB}, the relationship is exposed between path-dependent
Bellman equations and backward stochastic Bellman equations.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:Preliminaries.},
we introduce the calculus for path functionals of \cite{cont2010change,cont2010functional}
and \cite{dupire2009functional}, and preliminary results on BSDEs.
In Section \ref{sec:Stochastic-optimal-problems}, we formulate the
path-dependent stochastic optimal control problem and discuss the
dynamic programming principle, which is crucial in the proof of the
existence of a viscosity solution. In Section \ref{sec:FBSDE-and-viscosity},
we define classical and viscosity solutions to our path-dependent
Bellman equation, state our main results, and prove a verification
theorem in the context of classical solutions. In Section 5, we prove
that the value functional is a viscosity solution, which implies our
existence of a viscosity solution to the path-dependent Bellman equations.
Finally in Section \ref{sec:Uniqueness-of-viscosity} we prove the
uniqueness of viscosity solutions for the path-dependent Bellman equations.
\section{\label{sec:Preliminaries.}Preliminaries}
\subsection{Calculus of path functionals}
\subsubsection{Space of cadlag paths}
Let $n$ be a positive integer and $T$ be a fixed positive number.
For each $t\in[0,T]$, define $\hat{\Lambda}_{t}(\mathbb{R}^{n}):=\mathrm{D}([0,t],\mathbb{R}^{n})$
as the set of all cadlag (right continuous with left limit) $\mathrm{\mathbb{R}}^{n}$-valued
functions on $[0,t]$. For $\gamma\in\hat{\Lambda}_{T}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$,
$\gamma(s)$ is the value of $\gamma$ at time $s\in[0,T]$, and for
some $t\in[0,T]$ we denote the part of $\gamma$ up to time $t$ by $\gamma_{t}:=\{\gamma(s),s\in[0,t]\}$$\in\hat{\Lambda}_{t}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$.
Define $\hat{\Lambda}(\mathbb{R}^{n}):=\bigcup_{t\in[0,T]}\hat{\Lambda}_{t}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$.
Write $\hat{\Lambda}$ for $\hat{\Lambda}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ if there
is no confusion.
For convenience, define for $0\leq t<\bar{t}\leq T$, and $\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}},\gamma_{t}\in\hat{\Lambda}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_{t}^{x}(s) & := & \gamma_{t}(s)\chi_{[0,t)}(s)+(\gamma_{t}(t)+x)\chi_{\{t\}}(s),\quad s\in[0,t];\\
\gamma_{t,\bar{t}}^{x}(s) & := & \gamma_{t}(s)\chi_{[0,t)}(s)+(\gamma_{t}(t)+x)\chi_{[t,\bar{t}]}(s),\quad s\in[0,\bar{t}];\\
\gamma_{t,\bar{t}} & := & \gamma_{t,\bar{t}}^{\mathbf{0}};\\
\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}^{\gamma_{t}}(s) & := & \gamma_{t}(s)\chi_{[0,t)}(s)+(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}(s)-\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}(t)+\gamma_{t}(t))\chi_{[t,\bar{t}]}(s),\quad s\in[0,\bar{t}].
\end{eqnarray*}
We define the quasi-norm and metric in $\hat{\Lambda}$ as follows:
for each $0\leq t\leq\bar{t}\leq T$ and $\gamma_{t},\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}\in\hat{\Lambda}_{T}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\|\gamma_{t}\|_{0} & := & \sup_{0\leq s\leq t}|\gamma_{t}(s)|,\nonumber \\
d_{p}(\gamma_{t},\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}) & := & \sqrt{|t-\bar{t}|}+\sup_{0\leq s\leq\bar{t}}|\gamma_{t,\bar{t}}(s)-\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}(s)|.\label{eq:metric}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $|\cdot|$ is the standard metric of the Euclid space, $d_{p}$
is called parabolic metric. It is easy to verify that $(\hat{\Lambda}_{t}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),\|\cdot\|_{0})$
is a Banach space, $(\hat{\Lambda},d_{p})$ is a complete metric spaces.
\begin{defn} \label{Continuity}(Continuity). Let $\mathbb{E}$ be
a Banach space. A map $v:\hat{\Lambda}\rightarrow\mathbb{E}$ is said
to be continuous at $\gamma_{t}$, if for any $\varepsilon>0$ there
exits $\delta>0$ such that for each $\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}\in\hat{\Lambda}$
such that $d_{p}(\gamma_{t},\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})<\delta$, we have
$|v(\gamma_{t})-v(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})|<\varepsilon$. $v$ is
said to be continuous on $\hat{\Lambda}$ and is denoted by $v\in\mathscr{C}(\hat{\Lambda},\mathbb{E})$
if $v$ is continuous at each $\gamma_{t}\in\hat{\Lambda}$. Moreover,
we write $v\in\mathscr{C}_{b}(\hat{\Lambda},\mathbb{E})$ if $v$
is bounded, and if $v(\gamma_{t})\leq C(1+\|\gamma_{t}\|_{0})$ for
all $\gamma_{t}\in\hat{\Lambda}$ holds for some constant $C$, we
write $v\in\mathscr{C}_{l}(\hat{\Lambda},\mathbb{E})$ (the subscript
indicates linear growth).
(uniform continuity). A continuous map $v:\hat{\Lambda}\rightarrow\mathbb{E}$
is said to be uniformly continuous, and is denoted by $u\in\mathscr{C}_{u}(\hat{\Lambda},\mathbb{E})$,
if for any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a $\delta>0$ such that
for each $\gamma_{t},\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}\in\hat{\Lambda}$ satisfying
$d_{p}(\gamma_{t},\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})<\delta$, we have $|v(\gamma_{t})-v(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})|\le\varepsilon$.
We write $\mathscr{C}(\hat{\Lambda}),\,\mathscr{C}_{b}(\hat{\Lambda}),\,\mathscr{C}_{l}(\hat{\Lambda})$
and $v\in\mathscr{C}_{u}(\hat{\Lambda})$ for $\mathscr{C}(\hat{\Lambda},\mathbb{R}),\,\mathscr{C}_{b}(\hat{\Lambda},\mathbb{R}),\,\mathscr{C}_{l}(\hat{\Lambda},\mathbb{R}),$
and $v\in\mathscr{C}_{u}(\hat{\Lambda},\mathbb{R})$, respectively.\end{defn}
Now we define the vertical and horizontal derivatives of Dupire \cite{dupire2009functional}.
\begin{defn} \label{derivative}(Vertical derivative). Consider functional
$v:\hat{\Lambda}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ and $\gamma_{t}\in\hat{\Lambda}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$.
The vertical (space) derivative of $v$ at $\gamma_{t}$ is defined
as
\[
D_{x}v(\gamma_{t}):=(D_{1}v(\gamma_{t}),\cdots,D_{n}v(\gamma_{t}))
\]
where
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{i}v(\gamma_{t}) & := & \lim_{h\rightarrow0}\frac{1}{h}\big[v(\gamma_{t}^{he_{i}})-v(\gamma_{t})\big],\quad i=1,\cdots n,\label{eq:define-vertical-derivative}
\end{eqnarray}
if all the limits exist, with $e_{i},i=1,\cdots,n,$ being coordinate
unit vectors of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. If \eqref{eq:define-vertical-derivative}
is well-defined for all $\gamma_{t}$, the map $D_{x}v:=(D_{1}v,\cdots,D_{n}v):\hat{\Lambda}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$
is called the vertical derivative of $v$. We define the Hessian $D_{xx}v(\gamma_{t})$
in an obvious way. Then $D_{xx}v$ is an $\mathbb{S}(n)$-valued functional
defined on $\hat{\Lambda}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$, where $\mathbb{S}(n)$
is the space of all $n\times n$ symmetric matrices.
(Horizontal derivative). The horizontal derivative at $\gamma_{t}\in\hat{\Lambda}$
of a functional $v:\hat{\Lambda}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is defined
as
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{t}v(\gamma_{t}) & := & \lim_{h\rightarrow0,h>0}\frac{1}{h}[v(\gamma_{t,t+h})-v(\gamma_{t})],\label{eq:defination-horizon-derivative}
\end{eqnarray}
if the limit exists. If \eqref{eq:defination-horizon-derivative}
is well-defined for all $\gamma_{t}\in\hat{\Lambda}$, the functional
$D_{t}v:\hat{\Lambda}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is called the horizontal
derivative of $v$. Note that it is a right derivative. \end{defn}
\begin{defn} \label{hight order derivative} Define $\mathscr{C}^{j,k}(\hat{\Lambda})$
as the set of functionals $v:\hat{\Lambda}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
which are $j$ times horizontally and $k$ times vertically differentiable
in $\hat{\Lambda}$ such that all these derivatives are continuous.
Moreover, we write $v\in\mathscr{C}_{b}^{j,k}(\hat{\Lambda})$ if
$v$ together with all its derivatives are bounded, and $v\in\mathscr{C}_{l}^{j,k}(\hat{\Lambda})$
if $v\in\mathscr{C}^{j,k}(\hat{\Lambda})$ and $v$ grows in a linear
way.\end{defn}
\begin{rem} For $v(\gamma_{t})=f(t,\gamma_{t}(t))$ with $f\in\mathscr{C}^{1,1}(\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n},\mathbb{R})$,
we have
\[
D_{t}v(\gamma_{t})=\partial_{t}f(t,\gamma_{t}(t)),\quad\quad D_{x}v(\gamma_{t})=\partial_{x}f(t,\gamma_{t}(t)),
\]
which shows the coincidence of Dupire's derivatives with the classical
ones.
\end{rem}
\subsubsection{Space of continuous paths}
Let $\Lambda_{t}(\mathbb{R}^{n}):=\mathbf{C}_{0}([0,t],\mathbb{R}^{n})$
be the set of all continuous $\mathbb{R}^{n}$-valued functions defined
over $[0,t]$ which vanish at time zero, and $\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{n}):=\bigcup_{t\in[0,T]}\Lambda_{t}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$.
In the sequel, for notational simplicity, we use $\mathbf{0}$ to
denote $\gamma_{0}$ or vectors and matrices whose components are
all zero. Clearly, $\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{n})\subset\hat{\Lambda}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$.
$(\Lambda_{t}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),\|\cdot\|_{0})$ is a Banach space,
and $(\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{n}),d_{p})$ is a complete metric space.
We write $\Lambda$ for $\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ if there is no
confusion.
Let $\mathbb{E}$ be a Banach space. $\hat{v}:\hat{\Lambda}\rightarrow\mathbb{E}$
and $v:\Lambda\rightarrow\mathbb{E}$ are called consistent on $\Lambda$
if $v$ is the restriction of $\hat{v}$ on $\Lambda$.
\begin{defn} \label{(Continuity)-derivitive-cont-space} Consider
a map $v:\Lambda\rightarrow\mathbb{E}$.
(i) We write $v\in\mathscr{C}(\Lambda)$ if $v$ is continuous at
every path $\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda$ under $d_{p}$. We write $v\in\mathscr{C}_{b}(\Lambda)$
(resp. $v\in\mathscr{C}_{l}(\Lambda)$, $v\in\mathscr{C}_{u}(\Lambda)$)
if $v\in\mathscr{C}(\Lambda)$ and $v$ is bounded (resp. linearly
growth, uniformly continuous).
(ii) We write $v\in\mathscr{C}^{j,k}(\Lambda)$ if there exists $\hat{v}\in\mathscr{C}^{j,k}(\hat{\Lambda})$
which is consistent with $v$ on $\Lambda$, we shall define
\begin{equation}
D_{t}^{i}v:=D_{t}^{i}\hat{v},\, D_{x}^{\beta}v:=D_{x}^{\beta}\hat{v},\qquad\text{on }\Lambda,\label{eq:derivetive on continuous path}
\end{equation}
where $0\leq i\leq j$ and multi index $\beta=(\beta_{1},\cdots,\beta_{n})$
with the non-negative integers $\alpha_{1},\cdots,\alpha_{n}$ satisfying
$\beta_{1}+\cdots+\beta_{n}\leq k$. Similarly, we define the spaces
$\mathscr{C}_{b}^{j,k}(\Lambda)$, $\mathscr{C}_{l}^{j,k}(\Lambda)$
and $\mathscr{C}_{u}^{j,k}(\Lambda)$ in an obvious way.\end{defn}
\begin{rem} By \cite{dupire2009functional} and \cite{cont2010functional},
the derivatives of $v$ in \eqref{eq:derivetive on continuous path}
is independent of the choice of $\hat{v}$, i.e., if $\hat{v}'\in\mathscr{C}^{j,k}(\hat{\Lambda})$
is another functional consistent with $v$, then $D_{x}^{i}\hat{v}=D_{x}^{i}\hat{v}'$
and $D_{x}^{\alpha}\hat{v}=D_{x}^{\alpha}\hat{v}'$ on $\Lambda$.
Therefore, Definition \ref{(Continuity)-derivitive-cont-space} (ii)
is well defined. \end{rem}
\begin{defn}(H\"older continuity). For $\alpha\in(0,1]$, we say
that a functional $v$ defined on $\mathbf{Q}\subset\Lambda$ is H\"older
continuous on $\mathbf{Q}$ with exponent $\alpha$ if the quantity
\[
[v]_{\alpha;\mathbf{Q}}:=\sup_{\gamma_{t},\gamma'_{t'}\in\mathbf{Q},\gamma_{t}\neq\gamma'_{t'}}\frac{|v(\gamma_{t})-\gamma(\gamma'_{t'})|}{d_{p}^{\alpha}(\gamma_{t},\gamma'_{t'})}
\]
is finite. Let $v\in\mathscr{C}^{1,2}(\Lambda)$, define
\begin{align}
|v|_{\alpha;\mathbf{Q}} & :=\sup_{\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{Q}}|v(\gamma_{t})|+[\gamma_{t}]_{\alpha;\mathbf{Q}},\nonumber \\
|v|_{2,\alpha;\mathbf{Q}} & :=|v|_{\alpha;\mathbf{Q}}+|D_{t}v|_{\alpha;\mathbf{Q}}+\sum_{1\leq|\beta|\leq2}|D_{x}^{\beta}v|_{\alpha;\mathbf{Q}}.\label{eq:2apha-holde}
\end{align}
If \eqref{eq:2apha-holde} is finite, we write $v\in\mathscr{C}^{1+\frac{\alpha}{2},2+\alpha}(\mathbf{Q})$.\end{defn}
\subsubsection{Filtration and localization}
Now we introduce the filtration of $\Lambda_{T}$. Let $\mathscr{G}_{T}:=\mathscr{B}(\Lambda_{T})$,
the smallest Borel $\sigma$-field generated by metric space $(\Lambda_{T},\|\cdot\|_{0})$.
For any $t\in[0,T]$, define $\mathscr{G}_{t}:=\theta_{t}^{-1}(\mathscr{G}_{T})=\sigma(\theta_{t}^{-1}(\mathscr{G}_{T}))$,
where $\theta_{t}:\Lambda_{T}\rightarrow\Lambda_{T}$ is the mapping
\begin{equation}
(\theta_{t}\gamma)(s)=\gamma(t\wedge s),\quad0\leq s\leq T,\text{ for any }\gamma\in\Lambda_{T},\label{eq:theta-stop-fun}
\end{equation}
and $\sigma$ means the smallest $\sigma$-field generated by the
underlying class of subsets. $\mathscr{G}:=\{\mathscr{G}_{t},t\in[0,T]\}$
is a filtration. $\mathscr{G}_{t}$ is just the smallest $\sigma$-algebra
generated by the collection of finite-dimensional cylinder sets of
the form
\[
\big\{\gamma\in\Lambda_{T};(\gamma(t_{1}),\cdots\gamma(t_{k}))\in A\big\};\quad k\geq1,A\in\mathscr{B}(\mathbb{R}^{k}),
\]
where, for all $i=1,\cdots,k$, $t_{i}\in[0,t]$. For more details,
see the monograph of Stroock and Varadhan \cite[Section 1.3]{stroock1979multidimensional}.
Define $\pi_{t}:\Lambda_{T}\rightarrow\Lambda_{t}$ as follows:
\[
(\pi_{t}\gamma)(s)=\gamma_{t}(s),\quad(s,\gamma)\in[0,t]\times\Lambda_{T}.
\]
It is easy to observe that $\pi_{t}^{-1}(\mathscr{G}_{T})=\sigma(\pi_{t}^{-1}(\mathscr{G}_{T}))=\mathscr{B}(\Lambda_{t})$,
the smallest Borel $\sigma$-field generated by metric space $(\Lambda_{t},\|\cdot\|_{0})$.
A map $H:[0,T]\times\Lambda_{T}\rightarrow\mathbb{E}$ is called a
functional process. Moreover, we say a process $H$ is adapted to
the filtration $\mathscr{G}$, if $H(t,\cdot)$ is $\mathscr{G}_{t}$-measurable
for any $t\in[0,T]$. Obviously an adapted process $H$ has the property
that, for any $\gamma^{1},\gamma^{2}\in\Lambda_{T}$ satisfying $\gamma^{1}(s)=\gamma^{2}(s)$
for all $s\in[0,t]$, $H(t,\gamma^{1})=H(t,\gamma^{2})$. Hence $H(t,\gamma_{T})$
can be view as $H(\gamma_{t})$, that is to say a functional adapted
process equals a path functional defined on $\Lambda$. Let $B=\{B(t),t\in[0,T]\}$
be the canonical process on $\Lambda$, i.e. $B(t,\gamma)=\gamma(t)$.
Define $B_{t}:=\{B(s),s\in[0,t]\}$, and it is $\mathscr{G}_{t}$-measurable.
For any continuous map $v:\Lambda\rightarrow\mathbb{E}$, we know
that $\{v(B_{t}),t\in[0,T]\}$ is an adapted functional process.
Let $P_{0}$ be the Wiener measure of space $(\Lambda_{T},\mathscr{G})$,
under which the canonical process $B$ (i.e. $B(t,\gamma)=\gamma(t)$)
is a standard Brownian motion. For any integrable $\mathscr{G}_{T}$-measurable
variable $\xi$, denote $P_{0}[\xi]$ the integration of $\xi$ under
measure $P_{0}$.
Let $X:=\{X(t),t\in[0,T]\}$ be an $n$-dimensional adapted continuous
stochastic process on the probability space $(\Omega,\mathscr{F},(\mathscr{F}_{t})_{0\leq t\leq T},P)$.
For $t\in[0,T]$, $X(t)$ is the value of $X$ at time $t$ and $X_{t}$
is the path of $X$ up to time $t$, i.e., $X_{t}:=\{X(r),r\in[0,t]\}$.
$X$ can be viewed as a map from $\Omega$ to $\Lambda_{T}$, the
continuity and adaption of $X$ imply that $X_{t}$ is $\mathscr{F}_{t}/\mathscr{G}_{t}$-measurable
for any $t\in[0,T]$. For any $v\in\mathscr{C}(\Lambda)$, $\{v(X_{t}),t\in[0,T]\}$
is an $\mathscr{F}$-adapted stochastic process.
The following functional It\^o formula was initiated by Dupire \cite{dupire2009functional}
and later extended to a more general context by Cont \& Fournie \cite{cont2010functional}.
\begin{thm}[Functional It\^o formula] Suppose $X$ is a continuous
semi-martingale and $v\in\mathscr{C}^{1,2}(\Lambda)$. Then for any
$t\in[0,T]$:
\begin{align}
v(X_{t}(\omega))-v(X_{0}(\omega)) & =\int_{0}^{t}D_{s}v(X_{s}(\omega))ds+\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{t}D_{xx}v(X_{s}(\omega))d\langle X\rangle(s,\omega)\nonumber \\
& +\int_{0}^{t}D_{x}v(X_{s}(\omega))dX(s,\omega),\quad\quad\qquad\text{a.s. -}\omega.\label{eq:ito formu}
\end{align}
\end{thm}
A time functional $\tau:\Lambda_{T}\rightarrow[0,T]$ (resp. $\tau:\Lambda_{T}\rightarrow[0,T]$)
is said to be a $\mathscr{G}$-stopping time, if $\{\gamma_{t}:\gamma\in\Lambda_{T},\,\tau(\gamma)\leq t\}\in\mathscr{G}_{t}$
for every $t\in[0,T]$. Let $\mathscr{T}$ be the set of all $\mathscr{G}$-stopping
times. Define $\mathscr{T}_{+}:=\{\tau\in\mathscr{T}:\tau>0\}$.
Let $u\in\mathscr{C}(\Lambda)$. Obviously, for any constant $\lambda>0$,
$\tau(\gamma):=\inf\big\{ t:u(\gamma_{t})\geq\lambda\big\}\wedge T$
is a stopping time.
\subsubsection{Space shift }
For any fixed $\gamma_{t}\in\hat{\Lambda}$ and $s\in[t,T]$, we introduce
the shifted spaces of cadlag and continuous paths.
Let $\hat{\Lambda}_{s}^{\gamma_{t}}:=\{\bar{\gamma}_{s}\in\hat{\Lambda}_{s};\bar{\gamma}_{s}(r)=\gamma_{t}(r)\text{ for any }r\in[0,t]\}$
be the space of cadlag paths originating at $\gamma_{t}$, and $\hat{\Lambda}^{\gamma_{t}}:=\cup_{t\leq s\leq T}\hat{\Lambda}_{s}^{\gamma_{t}}$.
Let $\Lambda_{s}^{\gamma_{t}}:=\{\bar{\gamma}_{s}\in\hat{\Lambda}_{s}^{\gamma_{t}};\bar{\gamma}_{s}\text{ is continuous on }[t,s]\}$
be the spaces with continuous paths originating at $\gamma_{t}$ and
$\Lambda_{s}^{\gamma_{t}}:=\cup_{t\leq s\leq T}\Lambda_{s}^{\gamma_{t}}$.
It is easy to verify that $(\hat{\Lambda}_{s}^{\gamma_{t}},\|\cdot\|_{0})$
and $(\Lambda_{s}^{\gamma_{t}},\|\cdot\|_{0})$ are Banach spaces,
and $(\hat{\Lambda}^{\gamma_{t}},d_{p})$ and $(\Lambda^{\gamma_{t}},d_{p})$
are complete metric spaces.
For any map $v:\hat{\Lambda}^{\gamma_{t}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$,
define the derivatives in the spirit of Definition \ref{derivative},
and define the spaces $\mathscr{C}(\hat{\Lambda}^{\gamma_{t}})$,
$\mathscr{C}_{b}(\hat{\Lambda}^{\gamma_{t}})$, $\mathscr{C}_{u}^{j,k}(\hat{\Lambda}^{\gamma_{t}})$
in the spirit of Definitions \ref{Continuity} and \ref{hight order derivative}.
We define $\mathscr{C}(\Lambda^{\gamma_{t}})$, $\mathscr{C}_{b}(\Lambda^{\gamma_{t}})$,
$\mathscr{C}_{u}^{j,k}(\Lambda^{\gamma_{t}})$ in the spirit of Definition
\ref{(Continuity)-derivitive-cont-space}.
Let $\mathscr{G}_{T}^{\gamma_{t}}:=\mathscr{B}(\Lambda_{T}^{\gamma_{t}})$
, the smallest Borel $\sigma$-field generated by metric space $(\Lambda_{T}^{\gamma_{t}},\|\cdot\|)$.
For $s\in[t,T]$, define $\mathscr{G}_{s}^{\gamma_{t}}:=\theta_{s}^{-1}(\mathscr{G}_{T}^{\gamma_{t}})=\sigma(\theta_{s}^{-1}(\mathscr{G}_{T}^{\gamma_{t}}))$,
with $\theta$ being defined by \eqref{eq:theta-stop-fun}. $\mathscr{G}^{\gamma_{t}}:=\{\mathscr{G}_{s}^{\gamma_{t}},s\in[t,T]\}$
is said to be $\mathscr{G}^{\gamma_{t}}$-filtration. A time functional
$\tau:\Lambda_{T}^{\gamma_{t}}\rightarrow[t,T]$ is called $\mathscr{G}^{\gamma_{t}}$-stopping
time, if $\{\gamma_{s}:\gamma\in\Lambda_{T}^{\gamma_{t}},\,\tau(\gamma)\leq s\}\in\mathscr{G}_{s}^{\gamma_{t}}$
for any $s\in[t,T]$. The set of all $\mathscr{G}^{\gamma_{t}}$-stopping
is denoted $\mathscr{T}^{\gamma_{t}}$. Denote $\mathscr{T}_{+}^{\gamma_{t}}:=\{\tau\in\mathscr{T}_{+}^{\gamma_{t}}:\tau>t\}$.
Let $\{H_{t},t\in[0,T]\}$ be a $\mathscr{G}$-progressively measurable
functional process, and $\xi$ be a $\mathscr{G}_{T}$ measurable
functional variable, let $\gamma_{t}\in\hat{\Lambda}$. Define the
process $H^{\gamma_{t}}$ on $[0,T]\times\Lambda_{T}^{\gamma_{t}}$
and the variable $\xi^{\gamma_{t}}$ on $\Lambda_{T}^{\gamma_{t}}$,
as the restriction on $\Lambda^{\gamma_{t}}$ of $H$ and $\xi$,
respectively; that is,
\begin{align*}
H^{\gamma_{t}}: & =H\big|_{[0,T]\times\Lambda_{T}^{\gamma_{t}}},\quad\quad\xi^{\gamma_{t}}:=\xi\big|_{\Lambda_{T}^{\gamma_{t}}}.
\end{align*}
Then, $\{H_{s}^{\gamma_{t}},s\in[t,T]\}$ is a $\mathscr{G}^{\gamma_{t}}$-progressively
measurable functional process, and $\xi^{\gamma_{t}}$ is a $\mathscr{G}_{T}^{\gamma_{t}}$-measurable
functional variable
\subsubsection{Space of $\alpha$-H\"older continuous paths}
For any $\alpha\in(0,1]$, we say that $\gamma\in\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{n})$
is $\alpha$-H\"older continuous if
\[
\llbracket\gamma_{t}\rrbracket_{\alpha}:=\sup_{0\leq s<r\leq t}\frac{|\gamma_{t}(s)-\gamma_{t}(r)|}{|s-r|^{\alpha}}<\infty.
\]
We call $\llbracket\gamma_{t}\rrbracket_{\alpha}$ the $\alpha$-H\"older
modulus of $\gamma_{t}$. Define the $\alpha$-H\"older space:
\[
\mathbf{C}^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^{n}):=\{\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda:\llbracket\gamma_{t}\rrbracket_{\alpha}<\infty\}.
\]
Clearly, $\mathbf{C}^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\subset\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{n})$.
We write $\mathbf{C}^{\alpha}$ for $\mathbf{C}^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$
if there is no confusion.
For any $\alpha\in(0,1]$ and $\mu>0$, denote
\begin{align}
\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha} & :=\{\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda:\llbracket\gamma_{t}\rrbracket_{\alpha}\leq\mu\}.\label{eq:D-nu-m compact-set}
\end{align}
Analogous to the proof of the Arzela-Ascoli theorem, we show the following
compact property.
\begin{prop} For $\alpha\in(0,1]$, $\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$
is a compact subset of $(\Lambda,d_{p})$.\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Since $(\Lambda,d_{p})$ is a metric space, it suffices
to prove that every sequence $\{\gamma_{t_{k}}^{k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}\subset\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$
has a convergence subsequence and the limit lies in $\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$.
For $\{t_{k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}\subset[0,T]$, it has a convergence
subsequence, still denoted by $\{\gamma_{t_{k}}^{k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$.
Without loss of generality, we suppose that $t_{k}$ converges increasingly
to$t\in[0,t]$ as $k\to\infty$. From \eqref{eq:D-nu-m compact-set},
we have
\begin{equation}
|\gamma_{t_{k}}^{k}(r)|\leq|\gamma_{t_{k}}^{k}(0)|+\mu r^{\alpha}\leq\mu T^{\alpha},\,\forall r\in[0,t_{k}],k=1,2\cdots.\label{eq:gamma-k bounded}
\end{equation}
Let $\mathbb{Q}$ be the set of rational numbers, and $\{r_{1},r_{2},\cdots\}$
be an enumeration of $\mathbb{Q}\cap[0,t)$. By \eqref{eq:gamma-k bounded},
we can choose a subsequence $\{\gamma_{t_{k}^{(1)}}^{(1)k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$
of $\{\gamma_{t_{k}}^{k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ such that $r_{1}\in[0,t_{k}^{(1)}]$
for all $k=1,2,\cdots$ and $\{\gamma_{t_{k}^{(1)}}^{(1)k}(r_{1})\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$
converges to a limit, denoted by $\gamma_{t}(r_{1})$. From $\{\gamma_{t_{k}^{(1)}}^{(1)k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$,
choose a further subsequence $\{\gamma_{t_{k}^{(2)}}^{(2)k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$
such that $r_{2}\in[0,t_{k}^{(2)}]$ for all $k=1,2,\cdots$ and $\{\gamma_{t_{k}^{(2)}}^{(2)k}(r_{2})\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$
converges to a limit $\gamma_{t}(r_{2})$. Continue this process,
and then let $\{\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}_{k}}^{k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}=\{\gamma_{t_{k}^{(k)}}^{(k)k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$
be the ``diagonal sequence''. We have $\{\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}_{k}}^{k}(r):r\in[0,\bar{t}_{k}]\text{for all }k\}$
has a unique accumulation point $\gamma_{t}(r)$ for any $r\in\mathbb{Q}\cap[0,t)$.
For any $r,s\in\mathbb{Q}\cap[0,t)$,
\[
|\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}_{k}}^{k}(r)-\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}_{k}}^{k}(s)|\leq\mu|r-s|^{\alpha},\quad\forall k\geq K,
\]
where $K$ is a sufficiently large integer such that $r,s\in[t,\bar{t}_{k}]$
for all $k\geq K$. Setting $n\to\infty$, we have
\[
|\gamma_{t}(r)-\gamma_{t}(s)|\leq\mu|r-s|^{\alpha},\quad\forall s,r\in\mathbb{Q}\cap[0,t).
\]
Hence $\gamma_{t}$ has a continuous extension on $[0,t]$, still
denoted by $\gamma_{t}$, and it lies in $\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$.
It remains to show the limit $\lim_{k\to\infty}d_{p}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}_{k}}^{k},\gamma_{t})=0$.
In fact, for any $\varepsilon>0$, define
\[
r_{j}=j(\frac{\varepsilon}{\mu})^{\frac{1}{\alpha}},\quad j=1,2,\cdots,\lfloor t(\frac{\mu}{\varepsilon})^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}\rfloor,
\]
where $\lfloor s\rfloor$ denotes the greatest integer less than or
equal to $s$. Then, for $s\in[0,t]$, there is some $r_{j}$ such
that $|r_{j}-s|\leq(\frac{\varepsilon}{\mu})^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}$.
For a sufficiently large $K$, we have $r_{k}\in[0,\bar{t}_{k}]$
and $|\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}_{k}}^{k}(r_{j})-\gamma_{t}(r_{j})|<\varepsilon$,
for all $j=1,2,\cdots\lfloor t(\frac{\mu}{\varepsilon})^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}\rfloor$
and $k>K$. Consequently,
\begin{align*}
|\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}_{k}}^{k}(s)-\gamma_{t}(s)| & \leq|\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}_{k}}^{k}(s)-\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}_{k}}^{k}(r_{j})|+|\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}_{k}}^{k}(r_{j})-\gamma_{t}(r_{j})|+|\gamma_{t}(r_{j})-\gamma_{t}(s)|\\
& \leq3\varepsilon,\quad\qquad\qquad\forall s\in[0,t],\, k>K.
\end{align*}
Furthermore,
\[
d_{p}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}_{k}}^{k},\gamma_{t})=\max_{0\leq s\leq t}d_{p}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}_{k},t}^{k}(s),\gamma_{t}(s))+\sqrt{|\bar{t}_{k}-t|}\leq\varepsilon+\sqrt{|\bar{t}_{k}-t|},
\]
which leads to $\lim_{k\to\infty}d_{p}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}_{k}}^{k},\gamma_{t})=0$.
\end{proof}
Define the following (random) time for the path to oscillate beyond
a given $\alpha$-H\"older modulus:
\[
\tau_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\gamma):=\inf\{t>0:\llbracket\gamma_{t}\rrbracket_{\alpha}>\mu\},\quad\gamma\in\Lambda_{T}.
\]
It is a $\mathscr{G}$-stopping time due to the following
\begin{align*}
\{\tau_{\mu}^{\alpha}\leq t\} & =\left\{ \gamma\in\Lambda_{T}:\llbracket\gamma_{t}\rrbracket_{\alpha}\leq\mu\right\} =\left\{ \gamma\in\Lambda_{T}:\sup_{s,r\in\mathbb{Q}\cap[0,t],s\neq r}\frac{|\gamma(s)-\gamma(t)|}{|s-r|^{\alpha}}\leq\mu\right\} \\
& =\bigcap_{s,r\in\mathbb{Q}\cap[0,t],s\neq r}\left\{ \gamma\in\Lambda_{T}:|\gamma(s)-\gamma(t)|\leq\mu|s-r|^{\alpha}\right\} \in\mathscr{G}_{t}.
\end{align*}
This kind of exit time will play a crucial role in the subsequent
proof of the existence of a viscosity solution.
\subsection{Backward stochastic differential equations}
Let $(\Omega,\mathscr{F},(\mathscr{F}_{t})_{0\leq t\leq T},P)$ be
a probability space with the usual condition (see Karatzas and Shreve
\cite{karatzas1991brownian}), and $\{W(t),t\in[0,T]\}$ be a $d$-dimensional
standard Brownian motion. Let $\mathscr{N}$ be the collection of
all $P$-null sets in $\Omega,$ for any $0\leq t\leq r\leq T$, $\mathscr{F}_{r}^{t}$
denotes the completion of $\sigma(W(s)-W(t);t\leq s\leq r)$, i.e.,
$\mathscr{F}_{r}^{t}:=\sigma(W(s)-W(t);t\leq s\leq r)\cup\mathscr{N}$.
We also write $\mathscr{F}^{t}$ for $\{\mathscr{F}_{s}^{t},s\in[t,T]\}$.
For any $t\in[0,T]$, denote by $\mathscr{M}^{2}(t,T)$ the space
of all $\mathscr{F}^{t}$-adapted, $\mathbb{R}^{d}$-valued processes
$\{Y(s),s\in[t,T]\}$ such that $E[\int_{t}^{T}|Y(s)|^{2}ds]<\infty$
and by $\mathscr{S}^{2}(0,T)$ the space of all $\mathscr{F}^{t}$-adapted,
$\mathbb{R}$-valued continuous processes $\{Y(s),s\in[t,T]\}$ such
that $E[\sup_{s\in[t,T]}|Y(s)|^{2}]<\infty$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:bsde1} Consider $f:\Omega\times[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
such that $\{f(t,y,z),t\in[0,T]\}$ is progressively measurable for
each $(y,z)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$, and the following
two conditions are satisfied:
(i) $f$ is uniformly Lipschitz continuous about $(y,z)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$;
(ii) $f(\cdot,0,\mathbf{0})\in\mathscr{M}^{2}(0,T)$. For any $\xi\in L^{2}(\Omega,\mathscr{F}_{T},P)$,
the BSDE
\begin{equation}
Y(t)=\xi+\int_{t}^{T}f(s,Y(t),Z(s))ds-\int_{t}^{T}Z(s)dW_{s},\quad0\leq t\leq T,
\end{equation}
has a unique adapted solution $(Y,Z)\in\mathscr{S}^{2}(0,T)\times\mathscr{M}^{2}(0,T).$
\end{lem}
We recall the following comparison theorem on BSDEs (see El Karoui,
Peng and Quenez \cite{el1997backward})
\begin{lem} \label{lem:comparison-theorem} Let two BSDEs of data
$(\xi_{1},f_{1})$ and $(\xi_{2},f_{2})$, satisfy all the assumptions
of Lemma~\ref{lem:bsde1}. Denote by $(Y^{1},Z^{1})$ and $(Y^{2},Z^{2})$
their respective adapted solutions. Then we have:
(1) (Monotonicity). If $\xi_{1}\geq\xi_{2}$ and $\tilde{f}_{1}\geq\tilde{f}_{2}$,
a.s., then $Y^{1}(t)\geq Y^{2}(t)$, a.s., for all $t\in[0,T]$.
(2) (Strict monotonicity). If, in addition to (1), we also $P\{\xi_{1}>\xi_{2}\}$>0,
then $P\{Y^{1}(t)>Y^{2}(t)\}>0$ for any $t\in[0,T)$, and in particular,
$Y^{1}(0)>Y^{2}(0)$. \end{lem}
\section{\label{sec:Stochastic-optimal-problems} Formulation of the path-dependent
optimal stochastic control problem and dynamic programming principle}
Let the set of admissible control processes $\mathcal{U}$ be the
set of all $\mathscr{F}$-progressively measurable process valued
in some compact metric space $U$. For any $t\in[0,T]$, $p\geq1$,
$L^{p}(\Omega,\mathscr{F}_{t};\Lambda_{t},\mathscr{G}_{t})$ is the
set of all $\mathscr{F}_{t}/\mathscr{G}_{t}$-measurable maps $\Gamma_{t}:\Omega\rightarrow\Lambda_{t}$
satisfying $E\|\Gamma_{t}\|_{0}^{p}<\infty$.
Consider the following functionals $b:\Lambda\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$,
$\sigma:\Lambda\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$, $g:\Lambda_{T}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
and $f:\Lambda\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$.
We make the following assumption.
\medskip{}
(H1) \textit{There exists a constant $C>0$ such that, for all } $(t,\gamma_{T},y,z,u),(t',\gamma'_{T},y',z',u')\in[0,T]\times\Lambda_{T}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times U$,
\begin{align*}
|b(\gamma_{t},u)-b(\gamma'_{t'},u')| & \leq C(d_{p}(\gamma_{t},\gamma'_{t'})+|u-u'|),\\
|\sigma(\gamma_{t},u)-\sigma(\gamma'_{t'},u')| & \leq C(d_{p}(\gamma_{t},\gamma'_{t'})+|u-u'|),\\
|f(\gamma_{t},y,z,u)-f(\gamma'_{t'},y',z',u')| & \leq C(d_{p}(\gamma_{t},\gamma'_{t'})+|y-y'|+|z-z'|+|u-u'|),\\
|g(\gamma_{T})-g(\gamma'_{T})| & \leq C\|\gamma_{T}-\gamma'_{T}\|_{0}.
\end{align*}
\medskip{}
For given $t\in[0,T)$, $\mathscr{F}_{t}/\mathscr{G}_{t}$-measurable
map $\Gamma_{t}:\Omega\rightarrow\Lambda_{t}$ and admissible control
$u\in\mathcal{U}$, consider the following SDE:
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
X^{\Gamma_{t},u}(s) & = & \Gamma_{t}(s),\quad\text{all }\omega,\, s\in[0,t];\\
X^{\Gamma_{t},u}(s) & = & {\displaystyle \Gamma_{t}(t)+\int_{t}^{s}b(X_{r}^{\Gamma_{t},u},u(r))\, dr}\\
& & {\displaystyle +\int_{t}^{s}\sigma(X_{r}^{\Gamma_{t},u},u(r))\, dW(r),\quad\text{a.s.-}\omega,\text{ }s\in[t,T].}
\end{array}\right.\label{eq:diffu proc}
\end{equation}
\begin{lem} \label{lem:FSDE} Take $p\geq2$. Let Assumption (H1)
hold. For
\[
t\in[0,T],\Gamma_{t}\in L^{p}(\Omega,\mathscr{F}_{t};\Lambda_{t},\mathscr{B}(\Lambda_{t})),\text{ and }u\in\mathcal{U},
\]
SDE \eqref{eq:diffu proc} admits a unique strong solution $X^{\Gamma_{t},u}:\Omega\rightarrow\Lambda_{T}$
such that $X_{s}^{\Gamma_{t},u}:\Omega\rightarrow\Lambda_{s}$ is
$\mathscr{F}_{s}/\mathscr{B}(\Lambda_{s})$ measurable for all $s\in[t,T]$,
and $E[\|X_{T}^{\Gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}^{p}]<\infty$. Moreover, there
is a positive constant $C_{p}$ such that for any $t\in[0,T]$, $u,u'\in\mathcal{U}$,
and $\Gamma_{t},\Gamma_{t}'\in L^{p}(\Omega,\Lambda_{t};\mathscr{F}_{t}/\mathscr{B}(\Lambda_{t}))$,
we have, $P$-a.s.,
\begin{align*}
E[\|X_{T}^{\Gamma_{t},u}-X_{T}^{\Gamma_{t}',u'}\|_{0}^{p}|\mathscr{F}_{t}] & \leq C_{p}\big(\|\Gamma_{t}-\Gamma_{t}'\|_{0}^{p}+E\big[\int_{t}^{T}|u(r)-u'(r)|^{p}dr\big|\mathscr{F}_{t}\big]\big),\\
E[\|X_{T}^{\Gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}^{p}|\mathscr{F}_{t}] & \leq C_{p}\big(1+\|\Gamma_{t}\|_{0}^{p}\big),\\
E[\|X_{r}^{\Gamma_{t},u}-\Gamma_{t,r}\|_{0}^{p}|\mathscr{F}_{t}] & \leq C_{p}\big(1+\|\Gamma_{t}\|_{0}^{p}\big)(r-t)^{\frac{p}{2}},\quad r\in[t,T].
\end{align*}
The constant $C_{p}$ only depends on the Lipschitz constant of $b$
and $\sigma$ in $(\gamma_{t},t)$. \end{lem}
Combing Lemmas~\ref{lem:bsde1} and~\ref{lem:FSDE}, we have
\begin{lem} \label{lem:FBSDE} Take $p\geq2$. Let (H1) hold. For
any $t\in[0,T]$, $\Gamma_{t}\in L^{p}(\Omega,\mathscr{F}_{t};\Lambda_{t},\mathscr{B}(\Lambda_{t}))$
and $u\in\mathcal{U}$, $X^{\Gamma_{t},u}$ is the solution of the
stochastic equation \eqref{eq:diffu proc}. Then BSDE
\begin{eqnarray}
Y^{\Gamma_{t},u}(s) & = & g(X_{T}^{\Gamma_{t},u})+\int_{s}^{T}f(X_{r}^{\Gamma_{t},u},Y^{\Gamma_{t},u}(r),Z^{\Gamma_{t},u}(r),u(r))\, dr\nonumber \\
& & -\int_{s}^{T}Z^{\Gamma_{t},u}(r)\, dB(r),\quad\text{a.s.-}\omega,\,\text{all }s\in[t,T],\label{eq:BSDE}
\end{eqnarray}
has a unique solution $(Y^{\Gamma_{t},u},Z^{\Gamma_{t},u})\in\mathscr{S}^{2}(t,T)\times\mathscr{M}^{2}(t,T).$
Furthermore, there is a constant $C_{p}$ such that for any $t\in[0,T]$,
$\Gamma_{t},\Gamma_{t}'\in L^{p}(\Omega,\mathscr{F}_{t};\Lambda_{t},\mathscr{B}(\Lambda_{t}))$,
and $u\in\mathcal{U}$, $P$-a.s.,
\begin{align}
E\Big[\sup_{t\leq s\leq T}|Y^{\Gamma_{t},u}(s)-Y^{\Gamma'_{t},u'}(s)|^{p}\big|\mathscr{F}_{t}\Big] & \leq C_{p}\big(\|\Gamma_{t}-\Gamma'_{t}\|_{0}^{p}+E\big[\!\!\int_{t}^{T}\!\!|u(r)-u'(r)|^{p}dr\big|\mathscr{F}_{t}\big]\big),\label{eq:regularity of Y 1}\\
E\Big[\sup_{t\leq s\leq T}|Y^{\Gamma_{t},u}(s)|^{p}\big|\mathscr{F}_{t}\Big] & \leq C_{p}(1+\|\Gamma_{t}\|_{0}^{p}),\label{eq:regularity of Y 2}\\
E\Big[\sup_{t\leq s\leq r}|Y^{\Gamma_{t},u}(s)-Y^{\Gamma_{t},u}(t)|^{p}\big|\mathscr{F}_{t}\Big] & \leq C_{p}\big(1+\|\Gamma_{t}\|_{0}^{p}\big)(r-t)^{\frac{p}{2}}.\label{eq:regularity of Y 3}
\end{align}
\end{lem}
For the particular case of a deterministic $\Gamma_{t}$, i.e. $\Gamma_{t}=\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda_{t}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
X^{\gamma_{t},u}(s)=\gamma_{t}(s), & \text{all }\omega,s\in[0,t);\\
{\displaystyle X^{\gamma_{t},u}(s)=\gamma_{t}(t)+\int_{t}^{s}\! b(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u},u(r))\, dr+\int_{t}^{s}\!\sigma(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u},u(r))\, dW(r),} & \text{a.s.-}\omega,s\in[t,T].
\end{cases}\label{eq:diffu proc-2}
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
Y^{\gamma_{t},u}(s) & = & g(X_{T}^{\gamma_{t},u})+\int_{s}^{T}f(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u},Y^{\gamma_{t},u}(r),Z^{\gamma_{t},u}(r),u(r))\, dr\nonumber \\
& & -\int_{s}^{T}Z^{\gamma_{t},u}(r)\, dW(r),\quad\text{a.s.-}\omega,\,\text{all }s\in[t,T].\label{eq:BSDE-1}
\end{eqnarray}
Given the control process $u\in\mathcal{U}$, we introduce the following
cost functional:
\[
J(\gamma_{t},u):=Y^{\gamma_{t},u}(t),\quad\text{P-a.s.}\quad\forall\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda.
\]
The value functional of the optimal control is defined by
\begin{equation}
\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t}):=\esssup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}Y^{\gamma_{t},u}(t),\quad\forall\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda.\label{eq:defination Of value fun}
\end{equation}
We easily prove that for $t\in[0,T]$ and $\Gamma_{t}\in L^{2}(\Omega,\Lambda_{t};\mathscr{F}_{t}/\mathscr{B}(\Lambda_{t}))$,
\[
J(\Gamma_{t},u)=Y^{\Gamma_{t},u}(t),\quad P\text{-a.s.}.
\]
\begin{rem} The above essential supremum should be understood as
one with respect to indexed families of random variables (see Karatzas
and Shreve \cite[Appendix A]{karatzas1998methods} for details). For
the convenience of reader we recall the notion of esssup of random
variables. Given a family of real-valued random variables $\eta_{\alpha}$,
$\alpha\in I$, a random variable $\eta$ is said to be $\esssup_{\alpha\in I}\eta_{\alpha}$,
if\end{rem}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\eta\leq\eta_{\alpha}$, $P$-a.s., for any $\alpha\in I$;
\item if there is another random variable $\xi$ such that $\xi\leq\eta_{\alpha}$,
$P$-a.s., for any $\alpha\in I$, then $\xi\leq\eta$, $P$-a.s..
\end{enumerate}
The existence of $\esssup_{\alpha\in I}\eta_{\alpha}$ is well known.
Under Assumption (H1), the random variable $\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})\in L^{p}(\Omega)$
is $\mathscr{F}_{t}$-measurable. We have
\begin{prop} \label{determin}The value functional $\tilde{v}$ is
deterministic.\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Firstly we show that there exist $\{u_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}\subset\mathcal{U}$
such that
\begin{equation}
\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})=\esssup_{u(\cdot)\in\mathcal{U}}Y^{\gamma_{t},u}(t)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\nearrow Y^{\gamma_{t},u_{n}}(t).\label{eq:prop3.4-0}
\end{equation}
In view of \cite[Theorem A.3]{karatzas1998methods}, it is sufficient
to prove that, for any $u_{1},\, u_{2}\in\mathcal{U}$, we have
\begin{equation}
Y^{\gamma_{t},u_{1}}(t)\vee Y^{\gamma_{t},u_{2}}(t)=Y^{\gamma_{t},u}(t),\quad P\text{-a.e.}\label{eq:prop3.4-1}
\end{equation}
for $u\in\mathcal{U}$ such that $u(s):=u_{1}(s)\chi_{A_{1}}+u_{2}(s)\chi_{A_{2}},\, s\in[t,T]$,
where $A_{1}:=\{Y^{\gamma_{t},u_{1}}(t)>Y^{\gamma_{t},u_{2}}(t)\}$
and $A_{2}:=\{Y^{\gamma_{t},u_{1}}(t)\leq Y^{\gamma_{t},u_{2}}(t)\}$.
Since $\sum_{i=1,2}\varphi(x_{i})\chi_{A_{i}}=\sum_{i=1,2}\varphi(x_{i}\chi_{A_{i}})$,
we have
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=1,2}\chi_{A_{i}}X^{\gamma_{t},u_{i}}(s) & =\gamma(t)+\int_{t}^{s}\! b(\sum_{i=1,2}\chi_{A_{i}}X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u_{i}},\sum_{i=1,2}\chi_{A_{i}}u_{i}(r))\, dr\label{eq:prop3.4-2}\\
& +\int_{t}^{s}\!\!\sigma(\sum_{i=1,2}\chi_{A_{i}}X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u_{i}},\sum_{i=1,2}\chi_{A_{i}}u_{i}(r))\, dW(r),\quad s\in[t,T]\nonumber
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
& \sum_{i=1,2}\chi_{A_{i}}Y^{\gamma_{t},u_{i}}(s)\label{eq:prop3.4-3}\\
= & \sum_{i=1,2}\chi_{A_{i}}g(X_{T}^{\gamma_{t},u_{i}})\nonumber \\
& +\int_{s}^{T}\!\! f(\sum_{i=1,2}\chi_{A_{i}}X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u_{i}},\sum_{i=1,2}\chi_{A_{i}}Y^{\gamma_{t},u_{i}}(r),\sum_{i=1,2}\chi_{A_{i}}Z^{\gamma_{t},u_{i}}(r),\sum_{i=1,2}\chi_{A_{i}}u_{i}(r))\, dr\nonumber \\
& -\int_{s}^{T}\sum_{i=1,2}\chi_{A_{i}}Z^{\gamma_{t},u_{i}}(r)\, dW(r),\quad s\in[t,T].\nonumber
\end{align}
By the uniqueness of solution of BSDE, we have
\begin{equation}
Y^{\gamma_{t},u}=\sum_{i=1,2}\chi_{A_{i}}Y^{\gamma_{t},u_{i}},\quad P\text{-a.e.}.\label{eq:prop3.4-4}
\end{equation}
From Lemma \ref{lem:comparison-theorem}, we have $\sum_{i=1,2}\chi_{A_{i}}Y^{\gamma_{t},u_{i}}(t)=Y^{\gamma_{t},u_{1}}(t)\vee Y^{\gamma_{t},u_{2}}(t),$
which yields \eqref{eq:prop3.4-1}.
Suppose that $\{u_{i}(\cdot)\}_{i=1}^{\infty}\subset\mathcal{U}$
satisfy \eqref{eq:prop3.4-0}. Since $Y^{\gamma_{t},u}$ is continuous
in $u\in\mathcal{U}$, we suppose without lost of generality that
$u_{i}(\cdot)$ takes the following form:
\[
u_{i}(s)=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\chi_{A_{i,j}}u_{ij}(s),\quad s\in[t,T].
\]
Here, $u_{ij}(s)\in\mathscr{F}_{s}^{t},\, t\leq s\leq T$ and $\{A_{ij}\}_{j=1}^{N}\subset\mathscr{F}_{t}$
is a partition of $(\Omega,\mathscr{F}_{t})$, i.e., $\cup_{i=1}^{N}A_{i}=\Omega$
and $A_{i}\cap A_{j}=\emptyset$, $i\neq j$. Like \eqref{eq:prop3.4-2}
and \eqref{eq:prop3.4-3}, we know that
\[
J(\gamma_{t},u_{i}(\cdot))=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\chi_{A_{ij}}J(\gamma_{t},u_{ij}(\cdot)).
\]
It is easy to prove that $J(\gamma_{t},u_{ij}(\cdot))$ is deterministic.
Without lost of generality, we suppose
\[
J(\gamma_{t},u_{ij}(\cdot))\leq J(\gamma_{t},u_{i1}(\cdot)).
\]
Immediately, we have $J(\gamma_{t},u_{i}(\cdot))\leq J(\gamma_{t},u_{i1}(\cdot))$.
Combining \eqref{eq:prop3.4-0}, we have
\[
\lim_{i\to\infty}J(\gamma_{t},u_{i1}(\cdot))=\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t}).
\]
Therefore, $\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})$ is deterministic. \end{proof}
From \eqref{eq:regularity of Y 1} and \eqref{eq:regularity of Y 2},
we have the following estimates on functional $\tilde{v}$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:regularity of valued functional 1}There exists
a constant $C>0$ such that, for all $0\leq t\leq T$, $\gamma_{t},\gamma_{t}^{'}\in\Lambda_{t}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
(1) & |\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})-\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t}^{'})| & \leq C\|\gamma_{t}-\gamma_{t}^{'}\|_{0};\\
(2) & |\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})| & \leq C(1+\|\gamma_{t}\|_{0}).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lem}
To formulate the DPP for the optimal control problem \eqref{eq:diffu proc-2}, \eqref{eq:BSDE-1} and \eqref{eq:defination Of value fun}, we define
the family of backward semi-groups generated by BSDE \eqref{eq:BSDE-1}
in the spirit of of Peng \cite{peng1997bsde}.
Given the initial path $\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda$, an $\mathscr{F}$-stopping
time $\hat{\tau}\geq t$, an admissible control process $u\in\mathcal{U}$,
and a real-valued random variable $\eta\in L^{2}(\Omega,\mathscr{F}_{\hat{\tau}},P;\mathbb{R})$,
we put
\[
\mathbb{G}_{s,\hat{\tau}}^{\gamma_{t},u}[\eta]:=\tilde{Y}^{\gamma_{t},u}(s),\quad s\in[t,\hat{\tau}],
\]
where the pair $(\tilde{Y}^{\gamma_{t},u},\tilde{Z}^{\gamma_{t},u})$
solves the following BSDE of the terminal time $\hat{\tau}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{Y}^{\gamma_{t},u}(s) & = & \eta+\int_{s}^{\hat{\tau}}\!\! f(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u},\tilde{Y}^{\gamma_{t},u}(r),\tilde{Z}^{\gamma_{t},u}(r),u(r))\, dr\nonumber \\
& & -\int_{s}^{\hat{\tau}}\tilde{Z}^{\gamma_{t},u}(r)\, dW(r),\quad\text{a.s.-}\omega,\text{ all }s\in[t,\hat{\tau}],\label{eq:BSDE-1-1}
\end{eqnarray}
with $X^{\gamma_{t},u}$ being the solution to SDE \eqref{eq:diffu proc-2}.
Then, obviously, for the solution $(Y^{\gamma_{t},u},Z^{\gamma_{t},u})$
of BSDE \eqref{eq:BSDE-1}, the uniqueness of the BSDE yields
\begin{align*}
J(\gamma_{t},u) & =\mathbb{G}_{t,T}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[g(X_{T}^{\gamma_{t},u})\right]=\mathbb{G}_{t,\hat{\tau}}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[Y^{\gamma_{t},u}(\hat{\tau})\right]\\
& =\mathbb{G}_{t,\hat{\tau}}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[Y^{X_{\hat{\tau}}^{\gamma_{t},u},u}(\hat{\tau})\right]=\mathbb{G}_{t,\hat{\tau}}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[J(X_{\hat{\tau}}^{\gamma_{t},u},u)\right].
\end{align*}
The following dynamic programming principle (DPP) is adapted from
the Markovian case, by mimicking the method of Peng \cite{peng1992stochastic,peng1997bsde}.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:DPP} Let Assumption (H1) be satisfied. Then
for any $\delta\in(0,T-t)$, the value functional $\tilde{v}$ obeys
the following:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})=\esssup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}\mathbb{G}_{t,t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[\tilde{v}(X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t},u})\right],\quad\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda.\label{eq:DPP}
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
Our proof requires the following lemma
\begin{lem} Let $t\in[0,T]$, $\Gamma_{t}\in L^{2}(\Omega,\mathscr{F}_{t};\Lambda_{t},\mathscr{B}(\Lambda_{t}))$.
For $u\in\mathcal{U}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\tilde{v}(\Gamma_{t})\geq Y^{\Gamma_{t},u}(t).\label{eq:lemma3.7-1}
\end{equation}
For any $\varepsilon>0$, there is $u\in\mathcal{U}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\tilde{v}(\Gamma_{t})\leq Y^{\Gamma_{t},u}(t)+\varepsilon.\label{eq:lemma3.7-2}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Since $\tilde{v}$ is continuous in $\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda_{t}$
and $Y_{t}^{\gamma_{t},u}$ is continuous in $(\gamma_{t},u)\in\Lambda_{t}\times\mathcal{U}$,
it is sufficient to prove \eqref{eq:lemma3.7-1} for the following
class of $\Gamma_{t}$ and $u$:
\[
\Gamma_{t}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\chi_{A_{i}}\gamma_{t}^{i}
\]
and
\[
u(s)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\chi_{A_{i}}u^{i}(s),\quad t\leq s\leq T.
\]
Here, $N$ is a positive integer, $u^{i}$ is $\mathscr{F}^{t}$-adapted,
and $\{A_{i}\}_{i=1}^{N}\subset\mathscr{F}_{t}$ is a partition of
$(\Omega,\mathscr{F}_{t})$, that is, $\cup_{i=1}^{N}A_{i}=\Omega$
and $A_{i}\cap A_{j}=\emptyset$ for $i\neq j$. We have
\[
Y^{\Gamma_{t},u}(t)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\chi_{A_{i}}Y^{\gamma_{t}^{i},u^{i}}(t)\leq\sum_{i=1}^{N}\chi_{A_{i}}\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t}^{i})=\tilde{v}(\Gamma_{t}).
\]
We obtain the first assertion \eqref{eq:lemma3.7-1}.
In a similar way, we prove \eqref{eq:lemma3.7-2}. Obviously there
exists $\bar{\Gamma}_{t}\in L^{2}(\Omega,\mathscr{F}_{t};\Lambda_{t},\mathscr{B}(\Lambda_{t}))$
of the form
\[
\bar{\Gamma}_{t}=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\chi_{A_{i}}\gamma_{t}^{i},
\]
such that
\[
\|\Gamma_{t}-\bar{\Gamma}_{t}\|\leq\frac{1}{3}C^{-1}\varepsilon,
\]
where $C$ is the constant in Lemmas \ref{lem:FSDE} and \ref{lem:FBSDE},
$\gamma_{t}^{i}\in\Lambda_{t}$ and $\{A_{i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}\subset\mathscr{F}_{t}$
satisfies $\cup_{i=1}^{\infty}A_{i}=\Omega$ and $A_{i}\cap A_{j}=\emptyset$,
$i\neq j$. By Lemmas \ref{lem:FSDE} and \ref{lem:FBSDE}, we have
for any $u\in\mathcal{U}$, $P$-a.e.,
\begin{align}
|Y^{\Gamma_{t},u}(t)-Y^{\bar{\Gamma}_{t},u}(t)| & \leq\frac{1}{3}\varepsilon,\label{eq:lemma3.7-3}\\
|\tilde{v}(\Gamma_{t})-\tilde{v}(\bar{\Gamma}_{t})| & \leq\frac{1}{3}\varepsilon.\nonumber
\end{align}
Then for any $\gamma_{t}^{i}$, we can choose an $\mathscr{F}^{t}$-adapted
admissible control $u^{i}\in\mathcal{U}$ such that
\[
\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t}^{i})\leq Y^{\gamma_{t}^{i},u^{i}}(t)-\frac{1}{3}\varepsilon.
\]
Define
\[
u(\cdot)=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\chi_{A_{i}}u^{i}(\cdot).
\]
Combining \eqref{eq:lemma3.7-3}, we have
\begin{align*}
Y^{\Gamma_{t},u}(t) & \geq-|Y^{\Gamma_{t},u}(t)-Y^{\bar{\Gamma}_{t},u}(t)|+Y^{\bar{\Gamma}_{t},u}(t)\geq-\frac{1}{3}\varepsilon+\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\chi_{A_{i}}Y^{\gamma_{t}^{i},u^{i}}(t)\\
& \geq-\frac{1}{3}\varepsilon+\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\chi_{A_{i}}(\tilde{v}(\gamma_{i}^{i})-\frac{1}{3}\varepsilon)=-\frac{2}{3}\varepsilon+\tilde{v}(\bar{\Gamma}_{t})\\
& \geq-\varepsilon+\tilde{v}(\Gamma_{t}).
\end{align*}
The proof is complete. \end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:DPP}] On one hand,
\begin{align*}
\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t}) & =\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}\mathbb{G}_{t,T}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[g(X_{T}^{\gamma_{t},u})\right]=\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}\mathbb{G}_{t,t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[Y^{X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t},u},u}(t+\delta)\right].
\end{align*}
From \eqref{eq:lemma3.7-1} and the definition of $\tilde{v}$, we
have
\begin{align*}
\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t}) & \leq\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}\mathbb{G}_{t,t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[\tilde{v}(X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t},u})\right].
\end{align*}
On the other hand, by \eqref{eq:lemma3.7-2} for any $\varepsilon>0$,
there exists $\bar{u}\in\mathcal{U}$ such that, a.e. $P$
\[
\tilde{v}(X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t},u})\leq Y^{X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t},u},\bar{u}}(t+\delta)+\varepsilon.
\]
From \ref{lem:comparison-theorem}, we have
\begin{align*}
\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t}) & \geq\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}\mathbb{G}_{t,t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[\tilde{v}(X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t},u})-\varepsilon\right]\\
& \geq\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}\mathbb{G}_{t,t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[\tilde{v}(X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t},u})\right]-C\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
Since $\varepsilon$ is arbitrary, we have \eqref{eq:DPP}. \end{proof}
In Lemma \ref{lem:regularity of valued functional 1}, the value functional
$\tilde{v}$ is Lipschitz continuous in $\Lambda_{t}$, uniformly
in $t$. Theorem \ref{thm:DPP} implies the following continuity in
$t$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:t-regu-value fun} Let Assumption (H1) be
satisfied. There is a constant $C$ such that for every $\gamma_{T}\in\Lambda_{T}$,
$t,t'\in[0,T]$,
\begin{equation}
|\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})-\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t'})|\leq C(1+\|\gamma_{t\vee t'}\|_{0})(|t-t'|)^{\frac{1}{2}}.\label{eq:time-estimat}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Suppose that $t\leq t'$. From Theorem \ref{thm:DPP},
we see that for any $\varepsilon>0$, there is $u\in\mathcal{U}$
such that
\[
|\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})-\mathbb{G}_{t,t'}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[\tilde{v}(X_{t'}^{\gamma_{t},u})\right]|\leq\varepsilon.
\]
Hence
\[
|\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t'})-\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})|\leq\text{Part1}+\text{Part2}+\varepsilon,
\]
where
\begin{align*}
\text{Part1} & :=E\left|\mathbb{G}_{t,t'}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[\tilde{v}(X_{t'}^{\gamma_{t},u})\right]-\mathbb{G}_{t,t'}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t'})\right]\right|,\\
\text{Part2} & :=E\left|\mathbb{G}_{t,t'}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t'})\right]-\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t'})\right|.
\end{align*}
Since $\tilde{v}$ is uniformly continuous in $\gamma_{t}$, we have
from Lemmas \ref{lem:FSDE} and \ref{lem:FBSDE},
\[
\text{Part1}\leq C(E\big|\tilde{v}(X_{t'}^{\gamma_{t},u})-\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t'})\big|^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq C(E\|X_{t'}^{\gamma_{t},u}-\gamma_{t'}\|_{0}^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq C(1+\|\gamma_{t'}\|_{0})(t'-t)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\]
for a positive constant $C$ being independent of $u$. By the definition
of $\mathbb{G}_{t,t'}^{\gamma_{t},u}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\text{Part2}= & \left|E\left[\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t'})+\int_{t}^{t'}\!\! f(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u},Y^{\gamma_{t},u}(r),Z^{\gamma_{t},u}(r),u(r))\, dr\right.\right.\\
& \quad\quad\left.\left.+\int_{t}^{t'}Z^{\gamma_{t},u}(r)\, dW(r)\right]-\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t'})\right|\\
= & E\left[\int_{t}^{t'}\big|f(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u},Y^{\gamma_{t},u}(r),Z^{\gamma_{t},u}(r))\big|dr\right]\\
& \leq C(1+\|\gamma_{t'}\|_{0})(t'-t)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{align*}
Since $\varepsilon$ is arbitrary, we have \eqref{eq:time-estimat}.
\end{proof}
From Lemmas \ref{lem:regularity of valued functional 1} and \ref{lem:t-regu-value fun},
we have the regularity for the value functional $\tilde{v}$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:regu-of-tilde-u} Let Assumption (H1) be satisfied.
There is a constant $C>0$ such that for any $0\leq t\leq t'\leq T$
and $\gamma_{t},\gamma'_{t'}\in\Lambda$, we have
\begin{equation}
|\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})-\tilde{v}(\gamma'_{t'})|\leq C\left(\|\gamma_{t,t'}-\gamma'_{t'}\|_{0}+(1+\|\gamma'_{t'}\|_{0}+\|\gamma_{t}\|_{0})(t'-t)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right).\label{eq:regul-tilde-u}
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
From \eqref{eq:regul-tilde-u}, we have the stronger version of Theorem
\ref{thm:DPP}:
\begin{thm} \label{thm:DPP-1} Let Assumption (H1) be satisfied.
For any $\mathscr{F}$-stopping time $\hat{\tau}\geq t$, a.s., the
value functional $\tilde{v}$ obeys the following:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})=\esssup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}\mathbb{G}_{t,\hat{\tau}}^{\gamma_{t},u}\left[\tilde{v}(X_{\hat{\tau}}^{\gamma_{t},u})\right],\quad\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda.\label{eq:DPP-1}
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\section{\label{sec:FBSDE-and-viscosity} Associated path-dependent Bellman
equation}
\subsection{Path-dependent Bellman equation and viscosity solution \label{sub:definition of viscosity solutions}}
Define the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}:\Lambda\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\times U\to\mathbb{R}$
by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}(\gamma_{t},r,p,A,u):=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\big(\sigma\sigma^{T}(\gamma_{t},u)A\big)+\langle b(\gamma_{t},u),p\rangle+f(\gamma_{t},r,\sigma^{T}(\gamma_{t},u)p,u)\quad
\end{equation}
for $(\gamma_{t},r,p,A,u)\in\Lambda\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\times U$.
For each $(\gamma_{t},u)\in\Lambda\times U$, define the differential
operator $\mathscr{L}(\gamma_{t},u):\mathscr{C}^{1,2}(\Lambda)\to\mathbb{R}$
by
\begin{equation}
(\mathscr{L}\psi)(\gamma_{t},u):=D_{t}\psi(\gamma_{t})+\mathcal{H}(\gamma_{t},\psi(\gamma_{t}),D_{x}\psi(\gamma_{t}),D_{xx}\psi(\gamma_{t}),u),\quad\psi\in \mathscr{C}^{1,2}(\Lambda).\label{eq:L-operator}
\end{equation}
Consider the following path-dependent Bellman equation:
\begin{equation}
-D_{t}v(\gamma_{t})-\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}(\gamma_{t},v(\gamma_{t}),D_{x}v(\gamma_{t}),D_{xx}v(\gamma_{t}),u)=0,\qquad\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda,t<T,\label{eq:PHJBE}
\end{equation}
with the terminal condition
\begin{equation}
v(\gamma_{T})=g(\gamma_{T}),\qquad\gamma_{T}\in\Lambda_{T}.\label{eq:terminal condition}
\end{equation}
\begin{defn} (Classical solution). A functional $v\in\mathscr{C}^{1,2}(\Lambda)$
is called a classical solution to the path-dependent Bellman equation
\eqref{eq:PHJBE} if it satisfies the path-dependent Bellman equation
\eqref{eq:PHJBE} point-wisely in the sense of Definition \ref{derivative}.
\end{defn}
For $(\kappa, \iota)\in (0, \infty)\times (0,T)$
and $\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda$ with $t\in[0,T-\iota)$, define the cylinder
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{Q}_{\kappa,\iota}(\gamma_{t}):=\{\gamma_{t'}'\in\Lambda:t\leq t'\leq t+\iota,\|\gamma_{t,t'}-\gamma_{t'}'\|_{0}<\kappa\}.\label{eq:cylinder}
\end{equation}
Write $\mathbf{Q}_{\kappa,\iota}$ for $\mathbf{Q}_{\kappa,\iota}(\mathbf{0})$,
i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{Q}_{\kappa,\iota}:=\{\gamma_{t'}'\in\Lambda:0\leq t'\leq t+\iota,\|\gamma_{t'}'\|_{0}<\kappa\}.\label{eq:glob-cylinder}
\end{equation}
Throughout the rest of this paper, we fix $\alpha\in(0,\frac{1}{2})$
and $\beta\in(0,1)$.
We now generalize the classical notions of semi-jets (see Crandall,
Ishii, and Lions \cite{crandall1992user}).
For $\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{C}^{\alpha}$ with $t\in[0,T)$, $(\mu,\kappa)\in (\|\gamma_t\|_0, \infty)\times (0,T-t)$, and
$v\in\mathscr{C}(\Lambda)$, define the super-jet of $v$ at $\gamma_{t}$ sliced by the double index of H\"older modulus $(\mu, \kappa)$:
\begin{flalign}
& \mathcal{J}_{\mu,\kappa}^{+}(\gamma_{t},v)\label{eq:super-jet}\\
:= & \Big\{\psi\in\mathscr{C}^{1,2}(\Lambda):\,|\psi|_{2,\beta;\mathbf{Q}_{\kappa,\kappa}(\gamma_{t})\cap\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}}\leq\kappa^{-1},\,\text{and }\nonumber \\
& \,0=\psi(\gamma_{t})-v(\gamma_{t})\leq\psi(\gamma'_{t'})-v(\gamma'_{t'}),\,\forall\gamma'_{t'}\in\mathbf{Q}_{\kappa,\kappa}(\gamma_{t})\cap\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}\Big\}\nonumber
\end{flalign}
and the sub-jet of $v$ at $\gamma_{t}$ sliced by the double index of H\"older modulus $(\mu, \kappa)$:
\begin{align}
& \mathcal{J}_{\mu,\kappa}^{-}(\gamma_{t},v)\label{eq:sub-jet}\\
:= & \Big\{\psi\in \mathscr{C}^{1,2}(\Lambda):\,|\psi|_{2,\beta;\mathbf{Q}_{\kappa,\kappa}(\gamma_{t})\cap\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}}\leq\kappa^{-1},\,\text{ and }\nonumber \\
& 0=\psi(\gamma_{t})-v(\gamma_{t})\geq\psi(\gamma'_{t'})-v(\gamma'_{t'}),\,\forall\gamma'_{t'}\in\mathbf{Q}_{\kappa,\kappa}(\gamma_{t})\cap\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}\Big\}.\nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{rem} Both $\mathcal{J}_{\mu,\kappa}^{+}(\gamma_{t},v)$ and
$\mathcal{J}_{\mu,\kappa}^{-}(\gamma_{t},v)$ may be empty.\end{rem}
Our notion of viscosity solutions is defined as follows.
\begin{defn}\label{defn:viscosity solution}
(i) We call $v\in\mathscr{C}(\Lambda)$ a viscosity sub-solution to
the path-dependent Bellman equation \eqref{eq:PHJBE}, if for any
$(M_{0}, \kappa)\in (0, \infty)\times (0,T)$, we have
\begin{align}
\varlimsup_{\mu\to\infty}\sup_{\begin{subarray}{c}
\psi\in\mathcal{J}_{\mu,\kappa}^{+}(\gamma_{t},v)\\
\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{Q}_{M_{0},T-\kappa}\cap\,\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}
\end{subarray}}\Big\{-D_{t}\psi-\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}(\cdot,\psi,D_{x}\psi,D_{xx}\psi,u)\Big\}(\gamma_{t})\leq0 & .\label{eq:subsolution}
\end{align}
(ii) We call $v\in\mathscr{C}(\Lambda)$ a viscosity super-solution
to the path-dependent Bellman equation \eqref{eq:PHJBE}, if for any
$(M_{0}, \kappa)\in (0, \infty)\times (0,T)$, we have
\begin{equation}
\varliminf_{\mu\to\infty}\inf_{\begin{subarray}{c}
\psi\in\mathcal{J}_{\mu,\kappa}^{-}(\gamma_{t},v)\\
\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{Q}_{M_{0},T-\kappa}\cap\,\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}
\end{subarray}}\Big\{-D_{t}\psi-\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}(\cdot,\psi,D_{x}\psi,D_{xx}\psi,u)\Big\}(\gamma_{t})\geq0.\label{eq:suppersolution}
\end{equation}
(iii) We call $v\in\mathscr{C}(\Lambda)$ a viscosity solution to
the path-dependent Bellman equation \eqref{eq:PHJBE} if it is both
the viscosity sub- and super-solution.
Note that in \eqref{eq:subsolution} and \eqref{eq:suppersolution}:
$\sup\emptyset:=-\infty$, $\inf\emptyset:=+\infty$. \end{defn}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:def-viscosity-solution} (1) A viscosity solution
of the path-dependent Bellman equation $u$ is a classical solution
if it furthermore lies in $\mathscr{C}^{1,2}(\Lambda)$.
(2) In the classical uniqueness proof of viscosity solution to state-dependent
PDEs in an unbounded domain (which is locally compact), a conventional
technique is to construct an auxiliary smooth function decaying outside
a compact domain. In our path-dependent case, we find it difficult
to construct such a smooth functionals. For the sake of the uniqueness
proof, our new notion of jets is enlarged to be defined only on $\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$,
which is compact in $\Lambda$. However, at a cost, our modification
leads to additional difficulty in the existence proof.
(3) Assume that all the coefficients of Bellman equation \eqref{eq:PHJBE}
and terminal condition \eqref{eq:terminal condition} are state-dependent.
Let state-dependent function $u$ be a viscosity solution to \eqref{eq:PHJBE}
as a path-dependent functional. Then $u$ is also a classical viscosity
solution as a function of time and state. \end{rem}
\subsection{Main results}
Our main results on the existence and the uniqueness of the viscosity
solution to the path-dependent Bellman equation\eqref{eq:PHJBE} are
formulated below.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:ex-th}Let assumption (H1) be satisfied. Then
$\tilde{v}$ defined by \eqref{eq:defination Of value fun} is a viscosity
solution to the path-dependent Bellman equation \eqref{eq:PHJBE}.\end{thm}
The uniqueness is given on both non-degenerate and degenerate cases.
we first address the non-degenerate case.
We make the following assumption, extending our previous assumption
(H1) to the larger path space $\hat{\Lambda}$.
\medskip{}
(H2) \textit{ The functionals $b:\hat{\Lambda}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$,
$\sigma:\hat{\Lambda}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$,
$g:\hat{\Lambda}_{T}\rightarrow\mathbb{R},$ and $f:\hat{\Lambda}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
are all bounded. There is a constant $C>0$ such that for all $(t,\gamma_{T},y,z,u),\,(t',\gamma'_{T},y',z',u')\in[0,T]\times\hat{\Lambda}_{T}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times U$,
\begin{align}
|b(\gamma_{t},u)-b(\gamma'_{t'},u')| & \leq C(d_{p}(\gamma_{t},\gamma'_{t'})+|u-u'|),\nonumber \\
|\sigma(\gamma_{t},u)-\sigma(\gamma'_{t'},u')| & \leq C(d_{p}(\gamma_{t},\gamma'_{t'})+|u-u'|),\nonumber \\
|f(\gamma_{t},y,z,u)-f(\gamma'_{t'},y',z',u')| & \leq C(d_{p}(\gamma_{t},\gamma'_{t'})+|y-y'|+|z-z'|+|u-u'|),\label{eq:Lip-conditon}\\
|g(\gamma_{T})-g(\gamma'_{T})| & \leq C\|\gamma_{T}-\gamma'_{T}\|_{0}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Moreover, $\sigma$ satisfies the non-degenerate condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma\sigma^{T} & > & \frac{1}{C}I_{n}.\label{eq:non-degen}
\end{eqnarray}
}
\medskip{}
The uniqueness of viscosity solutions of \eqref{eq:PHJBE} is an immediate
consequence of the following representation theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:(repres-theorem-nondegen} Suppose that (H2)
holds. Let $v\in\mathscr{C}_{b}(\Lambda)\cap\mathscr{C}_{u}(\Lambda)$.
If $v$ is a viscosity solution to the path-dependent Bellman equation
\eqref{eq:PHJBE}, and $v=g$ on $\Lambda_{T}$, then $v$ is the
value functional $\tilde{v}$ defined by \eqref{eq:defination Of value fun}.
\end{thm}
In the degenerate case of $\sigma\sigma^{T}\geq0$, we have the following
extra smooth conditions on the coefficients.
\medskip{}
(H3) \textit{Functionals $b:\hat{\Lambda}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$,
$\sigma:\hat{\Lambda}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$,
$g:\hat{\Lambda}_{T}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ and $f:\hat{\Lambda}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
satisfy \eqref{eq:Lip-conditon}. Furthermore, for any $u\in U$,
the functionals $\sigma(\cdot,u),\, b(\cdot,u)\in\mathscr{C}_{b}^{1,2}(\hat{\Lambda}),$
$g\in\mathscr{C}_{b}^{1,2}(\hat{\Lambda}_{T})$, and $f(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot,u)\in\mathscr{C}_{b}^{1,2,2,2}(\hat{\Lambda}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n})$
and all their differentials are bounded uniformly w.r.t. $u\in U$.}
\medskip{}
We have the following representation theorem.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:Repr-Th-degen} Suppose that (H3) holds. Let
$v\in\mathscr{C}_{b}(\Lambda)\cap\mathscr{C}_{u}(\Lambda)$ be a viscosity
solution to the path-dependent Bellman equation \eqref{eq:PHJBE},
and $v=g$ on $\Lambda_{T}$. Then $v=\tilde{v}$, where $\tilde{v}$
is defined by \eqref{eq:defination Of value fun}. \end{thm}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:bound-regul-tilde-u} Analogous to the proof
of Lemma \ref{lem:regularity of valued functional 1} and Theorem
\ref{thm:regu-of-tilde-u}, from the bounded and Lipschitz assumption
on the coefficients in (H2) or (H3), the value functional $\tilde{v}$
can be shown to be bounded and to satisfy
\begin{equation}
|v(\gamma_{t})-v(\gamma'_{t'})|\leq Cd_{p}(\gamma_{t},\gamma_{t'}'),\quad\forall\gamma_{t},\gamma_{t'}'\in\Lambda,\label{eq:regu-of-u}
\end{equation}
which implies $\tilde{v}\in\mathscr{C}_{b}(\Lambda)\cap\mathscr{C}_{u}(\Lambda)$.
Note that the non-degeneracy condition \eqref{eq:non-degen} is not
needed here. \end{rem}
In view of the comparison theorem of BSDEs, we immediately have the
following comparison theorem.
\begin{cor} Suppose that either (H2) or (H3) holds. Let $v_{1},v_{2}\in\mathscr{C}_{b}(\Lambda)$
satisfy \eqref{eq:regu-of-u}, and $g_{1},g_{2}\in\mathscr{C}_{b}(\Lambda_{T})$
satisfy $g_{1}\leq g_{2}$. Furthermore, let $v_{1}$ and $v_{2}$
be viscosity solutions to the path-dependent Bellman equation \eqref{eq:PHJBE}
with the terminal conditions:
\[
v_{1}(\gamma_{T})=g_{1}(\gamma_{T}),\quad v_{2}(\gamma_{T})=g_{2}(\gamma_{T}),\quad\forall\gamma_{T}\in\Lambda_{T}.
\]
Then $v_{1}\leq v_{2}$.\end{cor}\bigskip{}
For an initial path $\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda$, define
\[
\mathcal{U}_{t}:=\left\{ u\in[t,T]\times\Omega\to U\big|u\text{ is }\mathcal{F}^{t}\text{-progressive measurable}\right\} .
\]
We have
\begin{thm}[Verification Theorem]
Let $v$ be a classical solution to \eqref{eq:PHJBE} and \eqref{eq:terminal condition}.
Then we have the following two assertions:
(i) $v(\gamma_{t})\geq J(\gamma_{t},u),\quad\forall(u,\gamma_{t})\in\mathcal{U}_{t}\times\Lambda$.
(ii) If the following holds for an admissible control $u^{*}\in\mathcal{U}_{t}$:
for every $\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda$,
\[
0=(\mathscr{L}v)\left(X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u^{*}},u^{*}(s)\right)=\argmax_{\beta\in U}\left\{ (\mathscr{L}v)\left(X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u^{*}},\beta\right)\right\} ,\quad\text{a.s.-}\omega,\text{ a.e.}s\in[t,T],
\]
then $v(\gamma_{t})=J(\gamma_{t})$ for any $\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} For $u\in\mathcal{U}_{t}$, since $v$ is a classical
solution, we have
\[
(\mathscr{L}u)\left(X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u},u(s)\right)\leq0.
\]
Applying It\^o formula to compute $v(X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u})$, we
have
\begin{align*}
& v(X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u})=g(X_{T}^{\gamma_{t},u})\\
& +\int_{s}^{T}\left(f(\cdot,v,\sigma^{T}(\cdot,u(r))D_{x}v,u(r))-(\mathscr{L}v)(\cdot,u(r))\right)(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u})dr\\
& -\int_{s}^{T}\sigma^{T}(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u},u(r))D_{x}v(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u})dW(r),\quad s\in[t,T].
\end{align*}
Define for $s\in[t,T]$,
\[
Y^{1}(s):=v(X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u})-Y^{\gamma_{t},u}(s),\quad Z^{1}(s):=\sigma^{T}(X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u},u(s))D_{x}v(X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u})-Z^{\gamma_{t},u}(s).
\]
In view of \eqref{eq:BSDE-1}, we have
\begin{align*}
& Y^{1}(s)\\
= & \int_{s}^{T}\left(f(\cdot,v,\sigma^{T}D_{x}v,u(r))-f(\cdot,Y^{\gamma_{t},u}(r),Z^{\gamma_{t},u}(r),u(r))\right)(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u})\\
& -(\mathscr{L}v)(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u},u(r))dr-Z^{1}(r)dW(r)\\
= & \int_{s}^{T}\left(A(r)Y^{1}(r)+\langle\bar{A},Z^{1}\rangle(r)-(\mathscr{L}v)(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u},u(r))\right)dr-Z^{1}(r)dW(r).
\end{align*}
Denote by $\Gamma^{t}(\cdot)$ the unique solution of the linear SDE
\[
d\Gamma^{t}(s)=\Gamma^{t}(s)\Big(A(s)ds+\bar{A}(s)dW(s)\Big),\quad s\in[t,T];\quad\Gamma^{t}(t)=1.
\]
From \cite[Proposition 2.2]{el1997backward}, we have
\[
E\,[Y^{1}(t)]=-E\,\left[\int_{t}^{T}\Gamma^{t}(r)(\mathscr{L}v)(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u},u(r))dr\right]\geq0,
\]
and the equality holds for $u=u^{*}$. This proves Assertions (i)
and (ii). The proof is complete.\end{proof}
\begin{example} \label{relation-PHJB-SHJB} In what follows, we show
that the conventional non-Markovian optimal stochastic control problem
is included as a particular case of our problem \eqref{eq:diffu proc-2},
\eqref{eq:BSDE-1} and \eqref{eq:defination Of value fun}. Under
some suitable smooth conditions, the corresponding path-dependent
Bellman equation is associated to a backward stochastic Bellman equation
via Dupire's functional calculus.
Let $\{B_{t},0\leq t\leq T\}$ be a $d$-dimensional Winner process
on the probability space $(\Omega:=\Lambda_{T}(\mathbb{R}^{d}),P_{0})$.
Consider functionals $\bar{b}:\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{d})\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$,
$\bar{\sigma}:\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{d})\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$,
$\bar{f}:\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{d})\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
and $\bar{g}:\Lambda_{T}(\mathbb{R}^{d})\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$.
The non-Markovian stochastic optimal control problem is formulated
as follows. For any $u\in\mathcal{U}$ and $(t,x)\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{n}$,
consider the following forward and backward stochastic differential
systems:
\[
\left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
d\bar{X}^{t,x,u}(s) & = & \bar{b}(B_{s},\bar{X}^{t,x,u}(s),u(s))ds+\bar{\sigma}(B_{s},\bar{X}^{t,x,u}(s),u(s))dB(s),\quad s\in[t,T];\\
\bar{X}^{t,x,u}(t) & = & x
\end{array}\right.
\]
and
\[
\left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
-d\bar{Y}^{t,x,u}(s) & = & \bar{f}(B_{s},x,\bar{Y}^{t,x,u}(s),\bar{Z}^{t,x,u}(s),u(s))ds-\bar{Z}^{t,x,u}(s)dB(s),\quad s\in[t,T];\\
\bar{Y}^{t,x,u}(T) & = & \bar{g}(B_{T},\bar{X}^{t,x,u}(T)).
\end{array}\right.
\]
The optimal value field $\bar{v}:[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
is given by
\[
\bar{v}(t,x):=\esssup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}\bar{Y}^{t,x,u}(t).
\]
This problem depends on the Brownian path $B_{t}$ and the state $X(t)$.
Now we translate this problem into the path-dependent case. For any
$(\gamma_{t},\xi_{t})\in\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{d})\times\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{n})$
and $u\in U$, define $b:\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{d+n})\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d+n}$,
$\sigma:\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{d+n})\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{(d+n)\times d}$,
$f:\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{d+n})\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$,
and $g:\Lambda_{T}(\mathbb{R}^{d+n})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
b\left((\gamma_{t},\xi_{t}),u\right) & :=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{0}\\
\bar{b}(\gamma_{t},\xi_{t}(t),u)
\end{array}\right),\\
\sigma\left((\gamma_{t},\xi_{t}),u\right) & :=\left(\begin{array}{c}
I_{d}\\
\bar{\sigma}(\gamma_{t},\xi_{t}(t),u)
\end{array}\right),\\
f\left(\gamma_{t},\xi_{t},y,z,u\right) & :=\bar{f}(\gamma_{t},\xi_{t}(t),y,z,u),\\
g(\gamma_{T},\xi_{T}) & :=\bar{g}(\gamma_{T},\xi(T)).
\end{align*}
Following \eqref{eq:diffu proc-2}, \eqref{eq:BSDE-1} and \eqref{eq:defination Of value fun},
for any $(\gamma_{t},\xi_{t})\in\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{d})\times\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{n})$
and $u\in\mathcal{U}$, we define $X^{(\gamma_{t},\xi_{t}),u}$, $Y^{(\gamma_{t},\xi_{t}),u}$,
and $\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t},\xi_{t}):=\esssup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}Y^{(\gamma_{t},\xi_{t}),u}(t)$.
Note that $\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t},\xi_{t})$ only depends on the state
$x=\xi_{t}(t)$ of the path $\xi_{t}$ at time $t$---instead of its
whole history up to time $t$, and thus we can rewrite $X^{(\gamma_{t},\xi_{t}),u}$,
$Y^{(\gamma_{t},\xi_{t}),u}$, and $\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t},\xi_{t})$
into $X^{\gamma_{t},x,u}$, $Y^{\gamma_{t},x,u}$, and $\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t},x)$,
respectively. The uniqueness of solution to the FBSDE implies that
for any $(t,x)\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{n}$,
\begin{align*}
\bar{X}^{t,x,u}(s) & =X^{B_{t},x,u}(s),\quad\text{\ensuremath{P}-a.s. },\quad t\leq s\leq T,\\
\bar{Y}^{t,x,u}(s) & =Y^{B_{t},x,u}(s),\quad\text{\ensuremath{P}-a.s. },\quad t\leq s\leq T,\\
\bar{v}(t,x) & =\tilde{v}(B_{t},x),\quad\text{\ensuremath{P}-a.s. },\quad t\leq s\leq T.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, in view of Theorem \ref{thm:ex-th}, $\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t},x)$
is a solution to the PDE:
\begin{align}
& {\displaystyle -D_{t}\tilde{v}-\sup_{u\in U}\biggl[\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\big({\bar{\sigma}}{\bar{\sigma}}^{T}(\gamma_{t},x,u)\partial_{xx}\tilde{v}\big)+\left\langle {\bar{b}}(\gamma_{t},x,u),\partial_{x}\tilde{v}\right\rangle +\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}D_{\gamma\gamma}\tilde{v}}\label{eq:path-eq-classic}\\
& {\displaystyle +{\bar{\sigma}}^{T}(\gamma_{t},x,u)D_{x\gamma}\tilde{v}+{\bar{f}}(\gamma_{t},x,u,D_{\gamma}\tilde{v}+{\bar{\sigma}}^{T}(\gamma_{t},x,u)\partial_{x}\tilde{v},u)\biggr]=0,\quad(\gamma_{t},x)\in\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{d})\times\mathbb{R}^{n}.}\nonumber
\end{align}
Here, $D_{\gamma}$ and $D_{\gamma\gamma}$ are the path vertical
derivatives in $\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda(\mathbb{R}^{d})$, and $\partial_{x}$
and $\partial_{xx}$ are the classical partial derivatives in the
state variable $x$.
If $\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t},x)$ is smooth enough, applying It\^o formula
to $\tilde{v}(B_{t},x)$, we have
\[
d\tilde{v}(B_{t},x)=(D_{t}\tilde{v}(B_{t},x)+\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}D_{\gamma\gamma}\tilde{v}(B_{t},x))dt+D_{\gamma}\tilde{v}(B_{t},x)dB(t).
\]
In view of \eqref{eq:path-eq-classic}, we have
\begin{align*}
d\tilde{v}(B_{t},x) & =-\sup_{u\in U}\biggl[\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\big({\bar{\sigma}}{\bar{\sigma}}^{T}(B_{t},x,u)\partial_{xx}\tilde{v}\big)+\left\langle {\bar{b}}(B_{t},x,u),\partial_{x}\tilde{v}\right\rangle \\
& +{\bar{\sigma}}^{T}(B_{t},x,u)D_{x\gamma}\tilde{v}+{\bar{f}}(B_{t},x,u,D_{\gamma}\tilde{v}+{\bar{\sigma}}^{T}(B_{t},x,u)\partial_{x}\tilde{v},u)\biggr]dt\\
& +D_{\gamma}\tilde{v}(B_{t},x)dB(t).
\end{align*}
Define the pair of $\mathscr{F}_{t}$-adapted processes $(\bar{v}(t,x),p(t,x)):=\big(\tilde{v}(B_{t},x),D_{\gamma}\tilde{v}(B_{t},x)\big)$.
Then we have
\begin{align}
d\bar{v}(t,x) & =-\sup_{u\in U}\biggl\{\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\left({\bar{\sigma}}{\bar{\sigma}}^{T}(B_{t},x,u)\partial_{xx}\bar{v}\right)+\left\langle {\bar{b}}(B_{t},x,u),\partial_{x}\bar{v}\right\rangle \label{eq:classical-BSPDE}\\
& +{\bar{\sigma}}^{T}(B_{t},x,u)\partial_{x}p+{\bar{f}}(B_{t},x,u,p+{\bar{\sigma}}^{T}(B_{t},x,u)\partial_{x}\bar{v},u)\biggr\} dt\nonumber \\
& +p\, dB(t),\nonumber
\end{align}
with the terminal condition
\begin{equation}
\bar{v}(T,x)={\bar{g}}(B_{T},x).\label{eq:classic-BSPDE-terminal}
\end{equation}
The fully nonlinear BSPDE \eqref{eq:classical-BSPDE} and \eqref{eq:classic-BSPDE-terminal}
with ${\bar{f}}$ being invariant in the third and fourth arguments
$(y,z)$, is the so-called stochastic Bellman equation, introduced
by Peng \cite{peng1992stochastic,peng1997bsde}. \end{example}
\section{Existence of viscosity solutions}
In this section we give the solution of the path-dependent Bellman
equation \eqref{eq:PHJBE} with the help of FBSDEs \eqref{eq:diffu proc-2}
and \eqref{eq:BSDE-1}.
First, let us perturb a path $\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$.
For $\mu>0$, $\varepsilon\in(0,\mu)$ and $\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$,
define a perturbation of $\gamma_{t}$ in the following manner:
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}(s):=\begin{cases}
\gamma_{t}(s), & |\gamma_{t}(s)-\gamma_{t}(t)|\leq(\mu-\varepsilon)|s-t|^{\alpha};\\
\gamma_{t}(t)+(\mu-\varepsilon)(t-s)^{\alpha}\frac{\gamma_{t}(s)-\gamma_{t}(t)}{|\gamma_{t}(s)-\gamma_{t}(t)|}, & |\gamma_{t}(s)-\gamma_{t}(t)|>(\mu-\varepsilon)|s-t|^{\alpha}.
\end{cases}\label{eq:perturbation}
\end{equation}
We have
\begin{lem} \label{lem:perturbation} Let $\mu>0,M_{0}>0$. Assume
that $\llbracket\gamma_{t}\rrbracket_{\alpha}\leq\mu,\,\|\gamma_{t}\|_{0}\leq M_{0},$
and $\varepsilon\leq\frac{1}{2}\mu$. We have
(i) $\|\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}-\gamma_{t}\|_{0}\leq2M_{0}\varepsilon(\mu-\varepsilon)^{-1}\leq4M_{0}\varepsilon\mu^{-1}$;
(ii) $\llbracket\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}\rrbracket_{\alpha}\leq\mu$;
(iii) there is a constant $C$, independent of $\mu$ and $u\in\mathcal{U}$,
such that for some $p,\, p(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha)>1$ and for all $\delta<T-t$,
\[
P\left\{ \llbracket X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}\rrbracket_{\alpha}>\mu\right\} \leq C\delta^{p(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha)}\varepsilon^{-p}.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Assertion (i) is obvious. Now we prove Assertion (ii).
Since $|\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}(s)-\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}(t)|=|\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}(s)-\gamma_{t}(t)|\leq\mu|s-t|^{\alpha}$
for $s\in[0,t)$, it is sufficient to show that for any $s_{1},s_{2}\in[0,t)$
such that $s_{1}>s_{2}$, we have
\begin{equation}
|\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}(s_{1})-\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}(s_{2})|\leq\mu|s_{1}-s_{2}|^{\alpha}.\label{eq:gamma-epsilon-holder}
\end{equation}
Define
\begin{alignat*}{1}
& r_{1}:=|\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}(s_{1})-\gamma_{t}(t)|,\quad r_{2}:=|\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}(s_{2})-\gamma_{t}(t)|,\\
& x_{1}:=|\gamma_{t}(s_{1})-\gamma_{t}(t)|-r_{1},\quad x_{2}:=|\gamma_{t}(s_{2})-\gamma_{t}(t)|-r_{2},\\
& C_{\varepsilon}^{2}:=|\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}(s_{1})-\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}(s_{2})|^{2}=r_{1}^{2}+r_{2}^{2}-2r_{1}r_{2}\cos\theta,\\
& C^{2}:=|\gamma_{t}(s_{1})-\gamma_{t}(s_{2})|^{2}=(r_{1}+x_{1})^{2}+(r_{2}+x_{2})^{2}-2(r_{1}+x_{1})(r_{2}+x_{2})\cos\theta.
\end{alignat*}
Here, $\theta$ is the angle between both vectors $\gamma_{t}(s_{1})-\gamma_{t}(t)$
and $\gamma_{t}(s_{2})-\gamma_{t}(t)$ and it is equal to the angle
between both vectors $\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}(s_{1})-\gamma_{t}(t)$
and $\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}(s_{2})-\gamma_{t}(t)$. We have
\begin{equation}
0\le r_{1}\le(\mu-\varepsilon)(t-s_{1})^{\alpha},\quad0\le r_{2}\le(\mu-\varepsilon)(t-s_{2})^{\alpha},\quad x_{1}\ge0,\quad x_{2}\ge0.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
C^{2}-C_{\varepsilon}^{2}=x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}+2r_{1}x_{1}+2r_{2}x_{2}-2(x_{1}x_{2}+r_{1}x_{2}+r_{2}x_{1})\cos\theta.
\end{equation}
The proof of inequality \eqref{eq:gamma-epsilon-holder} is divided
into the following three cases.
\medskip{}
\textit{ The case of $x_{1}=0$. } We have
\begin{equation}
C^{2}-C_{\varepsilon}^{2}=x_{2}^{2}+2r_{2}x_{2}-2r_{1}x_{2}\cos\theta=x_{2}^{2}+2x_{2}(r_{2}-r_{1}\cos\theta).\label{difference}
\end{equation}
We assert that $C_{\varepsilon}^{2}\le C^{2}$, which implies \eqref{eq:gamma-epsilon-holder}
immediately. It is obvious if $x_{2}=0$. If $x_{2}>0$, we have
\[
r_{2}=(\mu-\varepsilon)|t-s_{2}|^{\alpha}>(\mu-\varepsilon)|t-s_{1}|^{\alpha}\ge r_{1}
\]
by the definition \eqref{eq:perturbation}, which together with equality
\eqref{difference} gives $C^{2}-C_{\varepsilon}^{2}\ge0$.
\medskip{}
\textit{The case of $x_{1}>0$ and $r_{2}\le r_{1}$. } We have
\[
r_{2}\le r_{1}=(\mu-\varepsilon)|t-s_{1}|^{\alpha}<(\mu-\varepsilon)|t-s_{2}|^{\alpha}.
\]
Therefore, we have $x_{2}=0$ from the definition \eqref{eq:perturbation},
and thus
\[
C^{2}-C_{\varepsilon}^{2}=x_{1}^{2}+2r_{1}x_{1}-2r_{2}x_{1}\cos\theta=x_{1}^{2}+2x_{1}(r_{1}-r_{2}\cos\theta)\ge0.
\]
\medskip{}
\textit{The case of $x_{1}>0$ and $r_{2}>r_{1}$. } We have
\[
r_{2}\leq(\mu-\varepsilon)|t-s_{2}|^{\alpha},\quad r_{1}=(\mu-\varepsilon)|t-s_{1}|^{\alpha}.
\]
If $C^{2}\ge C_{\varepsilon}^{2}$, the proof is complete. If $C^{2}<C_{\varepsilon}^{2}$,
we have
\[
\cos\theta>\frac{x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}+2r_{1}x_{1}+2r_{2}x_{2}}{2(x_{1}x_{2}+r_{1}x_{2}+r_{2}x_{1})}\geq\frac{r_{1}}{r_{2}}.
\]
Then
\begin{align*}
C_{\varepsilon}^{2} & =r_{1}^{2}+r_{2}^{2}-2r_{1}r_{2}\cos\theta\le r_{1}^{2}+r_{2}^{2}-2r_{1}^{2}=r_{2}^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\\
& \le(\mu-\varepsilon)^{2}|t-s_{2}|^{2\alpha}-(\mu-\varepsilon)^{2}|t-s_{1}|^{2\alpha}\leq(\mu-\varepsilon)^{2}|s_{1}-s_{2}|^{2\alpha},
\end{align*}
and thus \eqref{eq:gamma-epsilon-holder} holds. The last inequality
is deduced from the following fact: if $2\alpha\in[0,1]$, then $a^{2\alpha}+b^{2\alpha}\geq(a+b)^{2\alpha}$
for all $a>0,\, b>0$.
\bigskip{}
It remains to show Assertion (iii). For any $\delta<T-t$ and $\bar{\gamma}_{t+\delta}\in\Lambda$
such that
\[
\sup_{t\leq s_{1}<s_{2}\leq t+\delta}\frac{|\bar{\gamma}_{t+\delta}(s_{1})-\bar{\gamma}_{t+\delta}(s_{2})|}{|s_{1}-s_{2}|^{\alpha}}\leq\varepsilon,
\]
in view of \eqref{eq:perturbation} and Assertion (ii), we have $\llbracket\bar{\gamma}_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}}\rrbracket_{\alpha}\leq\mu$.
Therefore, we have
\[
\left\{ \llbracket X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}\rrbracket_{\alpha}>\mu\right\} \subset\left\{ \sup_{t\leq s_{1}<s_{2}\leq t+\delta}\frac{|X^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}(s_{1})-X^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}(s_{2})|}{|s_{1}-s_{2}|^{\alpha}}>\varepsilon\right\} .
\]
Assertion (iii) then follows from Proposition \ref{Prop:Hold-norm-prob-est}
in the Appendix. \end{proof} \bigskip{}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:ex-th}] Firstly, we show
that $\tilde{v}$ is a viscosity sub-solution. Let $M_{0}>0,\mu>0,$
and $\kappa\in(0,T)$. For $\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{Q}_{M_{0},T-\kappa}\cap\,\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$
and $\psi\in\mathcal{J}_{\mu,\kappa}^{+}(\gamma_{t},\tilde{v})$.
Note that the cylinder $\mathbf{Q}_{M_{0},T-\kappa}(\gamma_{t})$
is defined by \eqref{eq:glob-cylinder}.
For any $\mu>1$ and $\varepsilon<\frac{1}{2}\wedge(\frac{1}{8}\kappa\mu M_{0}^{-1})$,
from Assertion (ii) of Lemma \ref{lem:perturbation}, we have
\[
\|\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}-\gamma_{t}\|_{0}\leq4M_{0}\varepsilon\mu^{-1}<\frac{1}{2}\kappa.
\]
For any $\mu>1$ and $u\in\mathcal{U}$, we define an $\mathscr{F}$-stopping
time
\[
\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon}:=\inf\left\{ s>t:\llbracket X_{s}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}\rrbracket_{\alpha}>\mu\right\} \wedge\inf\left\{ s>t:\|X_{s}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}-\gamma_{t,s}\|_{0}>\kappa\right\} \wedge(t+\kappa).
\]
Obviously, $X_{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}\in\mathbf{Q}_{\kappa,\kappa}(\gamma_{t})\cap\,\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$,
and for any $\delta<\kappa$,
\[
\left\{ \hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon}\geq t+\delta\right\} \supset\left\{ \llbracket X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}\rrbracket_{\alpha}\leq\mu\right\} \cap\left\{ \|X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}-\gamma_{t,t+\delta}^{\varepsilon}\|_{0}\leq\frac{1}{2}\kappa\right\} .
\]
Therefore,
\[
P\left\{ \hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon}\geq t+\delta\right\} \ge P\left\{ \llbracket X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}\rrbracket_{\alpha}\leq\mu\right\} -P\left\{ \|X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}-\gamma_{t,t+\delta}^{\varepsilon}\|_{0}>\frac{1}{2}\kappa\right\} .
\]
From Lemma \ref{lem:FSDE} and Assertion (iii) of Lemma \ref{lem:perturbation},
we have
\begin{align*}
& P\left\{ \llbracket X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}\rrbracket_{\alpha}\leq\mu\right\} \geq1-C\delta^{p(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha)}\varepsilon^{-p},\\
& P\left\{ \|X_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}-\gamma_{t,t+\delta}^{\varepsilon}\|_{0}>\frac{1}{2}\kappa\right\} \leq C\delta\kappa^{-2}.
\end{align*}
Note that $\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon}$ depends on $u$ and $\mu$,
while the R.H.S. of both inequalities are independent of the pair
$(u,\mu)$. Hence, uniformly with respect to $(u,\mu)$,
\[
P\left\{ \hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon}\geq t+\delta\right\} \geq1-C\delta^{p(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha)}\varepsilon^{-p}-C\delta\kappa^{-2}\nearrow1\quad\text{ as }\delta\to0.
\]
where $p(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha)>1$. In particular, there is a positive
constant $\delta_{1}(\varepsilon,\kappa,p)<\kappa$ such that,
\begin{equation}
P\left\{ \hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon}\geq t+\delta\right\} \geq\frac{1}{2},\quad\forall\delta\in(0,\delta_{1}(\varepsilon,\kappa,p)).\label{eq:low-bound-stopping}
\end{equation}
Define
\begin{equation}
\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}:=\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon}\wedge(t+\delta).\label{eq:ex-th-stopping}
\end{equation}
Applying the functional It\^o formula \eqref{eq:ito formu} to $\psi$
on interval $[t,\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}]$, we have
\begin{align}
\psi(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon})= & \psi(X_{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u})-\int_{t}^{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}(\mathscr{L}\psi)(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},u(r))dr\label{eq:ex-th-1}\\
& +\int_{t}^{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}f(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},\psi(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}),\sigma^{T}(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},u(r))D_{x}\psi(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}),u(r))\, dr\nonumber \\
& -\int_{t}^{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}\big[D_{x}\psi(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u})\big]^{T}\sigma(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},u(r))\, dW(r),\nonumber
\end{align}
where $\mathscr{L}$ is defined as \eqref{eq:L-operator}. Let $(Y^{1,\varepsilon,\delta,u},Z^{1,\varepsilon,\delta,u})$
be the solution of the following BSDE
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
-dY(r)= & f(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},Y(r),Z(r),u(r))\, dr-Z(r)\, dW(r),\quad r\in[t,\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}];\\
Y(\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta})= & \tilde{v}(X_{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,u}}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},\delta}).
\end{cases}\label{eq:ex-th-2}
\end{equation}
Set
\begin{align}
Y^{2,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(s):= & \psi(X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u})-Y^{1,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(s),\label{eq:delta-Y}\\
Z^{2,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(s):= & \sigma^{T}(X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u},u(s))D_{x}\psi(X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u})-Z^{1,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(s).\nonumber
\end{align}
Comparing \eqref{eq:ex-th-1} and \eqref{eq:ex-th-2}, we have for
$r\in[t,\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}]$, $P$-a.s.,
\begin{eqnarray}
-dY^{2,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(r) & = & {\displaystyle \biggl[-(\mathscr{L}\psi)(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},u(r))}\nonumber \\
& & {\displaystyle +f(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},\psi(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}),\sigma^{T}(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},u(r))D_{x}\psi(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u}),u(r))}\label{eq:diff-ex-th}\\
& & {\displaystyle -f(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},Y^{1,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(r),Z^{1,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(r),u(r))\biggr]\, dr-Z^{2,\varepsilon,u,\delta}(r)\, dW(r)}\nonumber \\
& = & \left[-(\mathscr{L}\psi)(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},u(r))+A(r)Y^{2,\varepsilon,u,\delta}(r)+\langle\bar{A},Z^{2,\varepsilon,u,\delta}\rangle(r)\right]\, dr\nonumber \\
& & {\displaystyle -Z^{2,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(r)\, dW(r),}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $|A|,|\bar{A}|\leq C$ ($C$ depends on Lipschitz constant of
$f$, and is independent of the triplet $(u,\varepsilon,\delta)$.
Therefore, we have (see \cite[Proposition 2.2]{el1997backward})
\begin{eqnarray}
Y^{2,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(t)\!\!\! & = & \!\!\!{\displaystyle E\!\left[Y^{2,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta})\Gamma^{t}(\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta})-\!\int_{t}^{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}\Gamma^{t}(r)(\mathscr{L}\psi)(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},u(r))dr\Big|\mathscr{F}_{t}\right],}\label{eq:pres-diff-Exis-Th}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Gamma^{t}(\cdot)$ solves the linear SDE
\[
d\Gamma^{t}(s)=\Gamma^{t}(s)\Big(A(s)\, ds+\bar{A}(s)\, dW(s)\Big),\: s\in[t,\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}];\quad\Gamma^{t}(t)=1.
\]
Obviously, $\Gamma^{t}\geq0$. Since $\psi\in\mathcal{J}_{\mu,\kappa}^{+}(\gamma_{t},\tilde{v})$,
$\psi-\tilde{v}$ is minimized at $\gamma_{t}$ over $\mathbf{Q}_{\kappa,\iota}(\gamma_{t})\cap\,\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$,
and in view of Theorem \ref{thm:DPP-1} and Proposition \ref{determin},
we have
\begin{align}
Y^{2,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}) & \geq Y^{2,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(t)=0,\label{eq:sub-case-term-cond}\\
\inf_{u\in\mathcal{U}}EY^{2,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(t)=\essinf_{u\in\mathcal{U}}Y^{2,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(t) & =\psi(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon})-\esssup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}Y^{1,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta})\label{eq:sub-case-ini-cond}\\
& =\psi(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon})-\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}).\nonumber
\end{align}
From equation \eqref{eq:pres-diff-Exis-Th}, we have
\begin{align}
\psi(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon})-\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon})\geq & \inf_{u\in\mathcal{U}}E[Y^{2,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(t)]\label{eq:ex-th-3}\\
= & \inf_{u\in\mathcal{U}}E\left[Y^{2,\varepsilon,\delta,u}(\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta})\Gamma^{t}(\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta})-\int_{t}^{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}\Gamma^{t}(r)(\mathscr{L}\psi)(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},u(r))dr\right]\nonumber \\
\geq & -\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}E\left[\int_{t}^{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}\Gamma^{t}(r)(\mathscr{L}\psi)(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},u(r))dr\right]\nonumber \\
= & -\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}E\left[\int_{t}^{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}(\mathscr{L}\psi)(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u(r))dr\right]\nonumber \\
& -\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}E\left[\int_{t}^{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}\left[(\mathscr{L}\psi)(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},u(r))-(\mathscr{L}\psi)(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u(r))\right]dr\right]\nonumber \\
& -\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}E\left[\int_{t}^{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}(\Gamma^{t}(r)-1)(\mathscr{L}\psi)(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},u(r))dr\right]\nonumber \\
:= & -\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}\text{Part1}-\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}\text{Part2}-\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}\text{Part3}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Since the coefficients in $\mathscr{L}$ are Lipschitz continuous,
combining the regularity of $\psi$ (see \eqref{eq:super-jet}), we
have for any $\gamma_{t^{1}}^{1},\gamma_{t^{2}}^{2}\in\mathbf{Q}_{\kappa,\kappa}(\gamma_{t})\cap\,\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$
and $\bar{u}\in U$,
\begin{align}
|\psi(\gamma_{t^{1}}^{1})-\psi(\gamma_{t^{2}}^{2})|\leq & d_{p}^{\beta}(\gamma_{t^{1}}^{1},\gamma_{t^{2}}^{2}),\nonumber \\
\left|\mathscr{L}\psi(\gamma_{t^{1}}^{1},\bar{u})-\mathscr{L}\psi(\gamma_{t^{2}}^{2},\bar{u})\right|\leq & Cd_{p}^{\beta}\left(\gamma_{t^{1}}^{1},\gamma_{t^{2}}^{2}\right).\label{eq:op-L-cont}
\end{align}
Thus we have
\begin{align}
& \psi(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon})-\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon})=(\psi-\tilde{v})(\gamma_{t})+\psi(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon})-\psi(\gamma_{t})+\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon})-\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})\label{eq:ex-th-0}\\
\leq & C\left(\|\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}-\gamma_{t}\|_{0}^{\beta}+\|\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}-\gamma_{t}\|_{0}\right)\leq C\left(4M_{0}\varepsilon\mu^{-1}\right)^{\beta},\nonumber
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
& \sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}\text{Part1}\label{eq:ex-th-I}\\
\leq & \sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}E\left[(\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}-t)\sup_{\bar{u}\in U}\mathscr{L}\psi(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},\bar{u})\right]\leq\sup_{\bar{u}\in U}\mathscr{L}\psi(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},\bar{u})\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}E[(\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}-t)]\nonumber \\
\leq & \left(\sup_{\bar{u}\in U}\mathscr{L}\psi(\gamma_{t},\bar{u})+C\left(4M_{0}\varepsilon\mu^{-1}\right)^{\beta}\right)\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}E[(\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}-t)].\nonumber
\end{align}
Now we estimate higher order terms Part2 and Part3. In view of Lemma
\ref{lem:FSDE} and \eqref{eq:op-L-cont}, we have
\begin{align*}
& E\left[\sup_{t\leq r\leq\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}|\mathscr{L}\psi(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},u(r))-\mathscr{L}\psi(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u(r))|\right]\\
\leq & CEd_{p}^{\beta}(X_{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon})\leq C\delta^{\frac{\beta}{2}}.
\end{align*}
Hence
\begin{align}
|\text{Part2}| & \leq E\left[(\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}-t)\sup_{t\leq r\leq\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}|\mathscr{L}\psi(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},u(r))-\mathscr{L}\psi(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u(r))|\right]\nonumber \\
& \leq\delta E\left[\sup_{t\leq r\leq\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}|\mathscr{L}\psi(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u},u(r))-\mathscr{L}\psi(\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon},u(r))|\right]\nonumber \\
& =C\delta^{1+\frac{\beta}{2}}\label{eq:ex-th-II}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
|\text{Part3}| & \leq CE\int_{t}^{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}|\Gamma^{t}(r)-1|dr\leq CE\left[(\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}-t)\sup_{t\leq r\leq\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon_{1},\delta}}|\Gamma^{t}(r)-1|\right]\nonumber \\
& \leq C\delta E\left[\sup_{t\leq r\leq\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}}|\Gamma^{t}(r)-1|\right]\leq C\delta^{\frac{3}{2}}.\label{eq:ex-th-III}
\end{align}
Substituting \eqref{eq:ex-th-0} - \eqref{eq:ex-th-III} into \eqref{eq:ex-th-3},
we have
\begin{align}
& -C\left(4M_{0}\varepsilon\mu^{-1}\right)^{\beta}\label{eq:ex-th-4}\\
\leq & \left(\sup_{\bar{u}\in U}\mathscr{L}\psi(\gamma_{t},\bar{u})+C\left(4M_{0}\varepsilon\mu^{-1}\right)^{\beta}\right)\sup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}E[(\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}-t)]+C\delta^{1+\frac{\beta}{2}}.\nonumber
\end{align}
In view of \eqref{eq:low-bound-stopping}, then for all $\delta\in(0,\delta_{1}(\kappa,\varepsilon,p))$,
uniformly for every $u\in\mathcal{U}$, we have
\begin{equation}
E[\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}-t]\geq E\left[\chi_{\{\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}\geq t+\delta\}}(\hat{\tau}^{\varepsilon,\delta}-t)\right]\geq\frac{1}{2}\delta.\label{eq:est-of-stopping}
\end{equation}
Therefore,
\begin{equation}
-\sup_{u\in U}\mathscr{L}\psi(\gamma_{t},u)\leq C\left(4M_{0}\varepsilon\mu^{-1}\right)^{\beta}(2\delta^{-1}+1)+2C\delta^{\frac{\beta}{2}}.\label{eq:last-estim}
\end{equation}
Note that the constants $C$ throughout this proof only depend on
$M_{0},\kappa$ and the Lipschitz constants of the coefficients in
$\mathscr{L}$, and they do not depend on $\psi\in\mathcal{J}_{\mu,\kappa}^{+}(\gamma_{t},\tilde{v})$,
$\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{Q}_{M_{0},T-\kappa}\cap\,\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$,
and $\delta\in(0,\delta_{1}(\varepsilon,\kappa))$. Taking the supremum
on both sides over $\psi\in\mathcal{J}_{\mu,\kappa}^{+}(\gamma_{t},\tilde{v})$
and $\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{Q}_{M_{0},T-\kappa}\cap\,\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$,
setting $\delta:=\mu^{-\frac{\beta}{2}}$, and then sending $\mu$
to $\infty$, we have \eqref{eq:subsolution}. This shows that $\tilde{v}$
is a viscosity sub-solution to the path-dependent Bellman equation
\eqref{eq:PHJBE}.
In a symmetric (also easier) way, we show that $\tilde{v}$ is a super-solution
to the path-dependent Bellman equation \eqref{eq:PHJBE}. The proof
is complete.\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:exist-th} (1) Our existence proof is more
complicated than the classical counterpart (for the state-dependent
case). The complication arises from the fact that we start the dynamic
programming at the perturbation $\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}$ instead
of directly at the minimum path $\gamma_{t}$ of $\psi-{\tilde{v}}$
like the conventional arguments. Since our jets are defined on some
compact subset $\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$ of $\Lambda$, the minimum
path $\gamma_{t}$ might happen to be at the boundary of $\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$,
i.e. $\llbracket\gamma_{t}\rrbracket_{\alpha}=\mu$. If we started
at $\gamma_{t}$, BSDE \eqref{eq:diff-ex-th} would be trivial and
nothing from the localized dynamic programming principle could be
derived if
\begin{equation}
P\{\llbracket X_{s}^{\gamma_{t}}\rrbracket_{\alpha}\leq\mu,\,\exists s>t\}=0.\label{eq:court-example}
\end{equation}
The following example illustrates that \eqref{eq:court-example} might
happen, and therefore explains why we have to start the dynamic programming
at the perturbation $\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}$.
Let $W$ be a one-dimensional standard Brownian Motion and $\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda(\mathbb{R})$
such that for some $t_{1}\in[0,t)$
\[
\gamma_{t}(t)-\gamma_{t}(t_{1})=\mu|t-t_{1}|^{\alpha}.
\]
Define
\[
W^{\gamma_{t}}(s):=\gamma_{t}(s)\chi_{[0,t)}(s)+\big(W(s)-W(t)+\gamma_{t}(t)\big)\chi_{[t,T]}(s),\quad s\in[0,T].
\]
Then
\begin{align*}
& \left\{ \exists\delta>0,\text{ s.t. }\llbracket W_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t}}\rrbracket_{\alpha}\leq\mu\right\} \\
\subset & \left\{ \exists\delta>0,\text{ s.t. }W^{\gamma_{t}}(s)-\gamma_{t}(t_{1})\leq\mu|s-t_{1}|^{\alpha},\,\forall s\in(t,t+\delta)\right\} \\
= & \left\{ \exists\delta>0,\text{ s.t. }W^{\gamma_{t}}(s)-\gamma_{t}(t)+\gamma_{t}(t)-\gamma_{t}(t_{1})\leq\mu|s-t_{1}|^{\alpha},\,\forall s\in(t,t+\delta)\right\} \\
= & \left\{ \exists\delta>0,\text{ s.t. }W^{\gamma_{t}}(s)-\gamma_{t}(t)\leq\mu(|s-t_{1}|^{\alpha}-|t-t_{1}|^{\alpha}),\,\forall s\in(t,t+\delta)\right\} .
\end{align*}
Since the function $\mu(|\cdot-t_{1}|^{\alpha}-|t-t_{1}|^{\alpha})\in C^{1}[t,t+\delta]$,
by the law of iterated logarithm (see \cite[Theorem 9.23, Chapter 2]{karatzas1991brownian}),
we have
\[
P\left\{ \exists\delta>0,\text{ s.t. }\llbracket W_{t+\delta}^{\gamma_{t}}\rrbracket_{\alpha}\leq\mu\right\} =0.
\]
This example enlightens us to perturb the left $\mu$-H\"older modulus
of $\gamma_{t}$ at time $t$ in \eqref{eq:perturbation}.
(2) The introduction of $\mathbf{Q}_{M_{0},T-\kappa}$ in Definition
\ref{defn:viscosity solution} plays a crucial role in the proof of
Theorem \ref{thm:ex-th}. Otherwise, we only have the following too
rough estimate on our perturbation: $\|\gamma_{t}^{\varepsilon}-\gamma_{t}\|_{0}\leq C\varepsilon$,
from which and \eqref{eq:last-estim} only results the following inequality
\begin{align*}
-\sup_{u\in U}\mathscr{L}\psi(\gamma_{t},u) & \leq C\varepsilon^{\beta}(2\delta^{-1}+1)+2C\delta^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{align*}
It does not help us, for the relation of $\delta^{\frac{1}{2}-\alpha}=\text{o}(\varepsilon)$
is required in the estimate \eqref{eq:est-of-stopping} by Proposition
\ref{Prop:Hold-norm-prob-est} and implies that $\varepsilon^{\beta}\delta^{-1}$
increases to $\infty$ as $\delta$ is decreasing to zero.
However, with the restriction of $\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{Q}_{M_{0},T-\kappa}$,
in \eqref{eq:last-estim} we could fix $\varepsilon$, while sending
$\delta\to0$ and $(4M_{0}\varepsilon\mu^{-1})^{\beta}\delta^{-1}\to0$
simultaneously.
(3) In the above proof, both parameters $\mu$
and $M_{0}$ in our definition of viscosity sub-solutions play a key role, while the parameter $\kappa$ is fixed
such that the following associated family of path functionals
\[
\{\psi,D_{t}\psi,D_{x}\psi,D_{xx}\psi:\mathbf{Q}_{\kappa,\iota}(\gamma_{t})\cap\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}\to\mathbb{R};\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{Q}_{M_{0},T-\kappa}\cap\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha},\psi\in\mathcal{J}_{\mu,\kappa}^{+}(\gamma_{t},u),\mu\ge\mu_{0}\}
\]
for some sufficiently large $\mu_{0}$, share a common H\"older modulus,
which implies the so-called equi-continuous but with the underlying
functionals being considered on varying domains.
\end{rem}
\section{\label{sec:Uniqueness-of-viscosity}Uniqueness of viscosity solution}
\subsection{Non-degenerate case}
We assume without loss of generality that, there exists a constant
$K>0$, such that, for all $(\gamma_{t},p,A,u)\in\Lambda\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\times U$
and $r_{1},r_{2}\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $r_{1}<r_{2}$ ,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}(\gamma_{t},r_{1},p,A,u)-\mathcal{H}(\gamma_{t},r_{2},p,A,u)\geq K(r_{2}-r_{1}).\label{eq:Monotonicity-of-h}
\end{equation}
Otherwise, define $\bar{v}(\gamma_{t})=e^{-\lambda t}v(\gamma_{t})$
for $\lambda>0$. Then $v$ is a viscosity solution of PHJB equation
\eqref{eq:PHJBE} if and only if $\bar{v}$ is a viscosity solution
of the following PPDE
\[
\begin{cases}
{\displaystyle -D_{t}\bar{v}-\sup_{u\in U}\bar{\mathcal{H}}(\gamma_{t},\bar{v},D_{x}\bar{v},D_{xx}^{2}\bar{v},u)=0,} & \quad\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda;\\
\bar{v}(\gamma_{T})=e^{-\lambda T}g(\gamma_{T}), & \quad\gamma_{T}\in\Lambda_{T},
\end{cases}
\]
where
\[
\bar{\mathcal{H}}(\gamma_{t},r,p,A,u):=-\lambda r+e^{-\lambda t}\mathcal{H}(\gamma_{t},e^{\lambda t}r,e^{\lambda t}p,e^{\lambda t}A,u).
\]
Obviously, $\bar{\mathcal{H}}$ satisfies \eqref{eq:Monotonicity-of-h}
for sufficiently large $\lambda$.
\subsubsection{\label{sub:Smooth-approximations} State-dependent smooth approximations}
First, we construct the state-dependent approximations of the path
functional $\tilde{v}$ defined by \eqref{eq:defination Of value fun}.
Let $m$ be a positive integer, and $t_{i}:=\frac{i}{m}T,i=0,1,\cdots m,$
which divide the time interval $[0,T]$ into $m$ equal parts. Now
for all $t\in[0,T]$, we define the truncating operator $\mathbf{P}^{m}:\Lambda_{t}\rightarrow\hat{\Lambda}_{t}$
by
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\mathbf{P}^{m}\gamma_{t})(r) & = & \sum_{i=0}^{k-2}\gamma_{t}(t_{i})\chi_{[t_{i},t_{i+1})}(r)+\gamma_{t}(t_{k-1})\chi_{[t_{k-1},t)}(r)+\gamma_{t}(t)\chi_{\{t\}}(r)\\
& = & \sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}}\chi_{[t_{i-1},t]}(r)+\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{k-1}}^{t}\chi_{\{t\}}(r),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}}:=\gamma_{t}(t_{i})-\gamma_{t}(t_{i-1})$,
and $k$ is the positive integer such that $t\in(t_{k-1},t_{k}]$.
We define functions $b^{m}:\hat{\Lambda}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$,
$\sigma^{m}:\hat{\Lambda}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$,
$f^{m}:\hat{\Lambda}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$,
$g^{m}:\hat{\Lambda}_{T}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, and $\mathcal{H}^{m}:\hat{\Lambda}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
b^{m}(\gamma_{t},u) & := & b(\mathbf{P}^{m}\gamma_{t},u),\\
\sigma^{m}(\gamma_{t},u) & := & \sigma(\mathbf{P}^{m}\gamma_{t},u),\\
f^{m}(\gamma_{t},y,z,u) & := & f(\mathbf{P}^{m}\gamma_{t},y,z,u),\\
g^{m}(\gamma_{T}) & := & g(\mathbf{P}^{m}\gamma_{T}),\\
\mathcal{H}^{m}(\gamma_{t},r,p,A,u) & := & \mathcal{H}(\mathbf{P}^{m}\gamma_{t},r,p,A,u).
\end{eqnarray*}
Assumption (H2) implies the following estimates
\begin{align}
|b^{m}(\gamma_{t},u)-b(\gamma_{t},u)| & \le C\|\mathbf{P}^{m}\gamma_{t}-\gamma_{t}\|_{0},\nonumber \\
|\sigma^{m}(\gamma_{t},u)-\sigma(\gamma_{t},u)| & \le C\|\mathbf{P}^{m}\gamma_{t}-\gamma_{t}\|_{0},\nonumber \\
|f^{m}(\gamma_{t},y,z,u)-f(\gamma_{t},y,z,u)| & \le C\|\mathbf{P}^{m}\gamma_{t}-\gamma_{t}\|_{0},\label{eq:coeffient-first-estmat}\\
|g^{m}(\gamma_{t})-g(\gamma_{t})| & \le C\|\mathbf{P}^{m}\gamma_{t}-\gamma_{t}\|_{0},\nonumber \\
|\mathcal{H}^{m}(\gamma_{t},r,p,A,u)-\mathcal{H}(\gamma_{t},r,p,A,u)| & \le C(1+|p|+|A|)\|\mathbf{P}^{m}\gamma_{t}-\gamma_{t}\|_{0}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Consider the following FBSDE: for any $\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda,\, t<T$,
and $u\in\mathcal{U}$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
X^{m,\gamma_{t},u}(s)=(\mathbf{P}^{m}\gamma_{t})(s), & \text{ all }\omega,\, s\in[0,t],\\
{\displaystyle X^{m,\gamma_{t},u}(s)=(\mathbf{P}^{m}\gamma_{t})(t)+\int_{t}^{s}b^{m}(X_{r}^{m,\gamma_{t},u},u(r))dr}\\[3mm]
{\displaystyle \quad\quad+\int_{t}^{s}\sigma^{m}(X_{r}^{m,\gamma_{t},u},u(r))\, dW(r),\qquad} & \text{a.s.-}\omega,\, s\in[t,T];
\end{cases}\label{eq:diffu proc-1}
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray*}
Y^{m,\gamma_{t},u}(s) & = & g^{m}(X_{T}^{m,\gamma_{t},u})+\int_{s}^{T}f^{m}(X_{r}^{m,\gamma_{t},u},Y^{m,\gamma_{t},u}(r),Z^{m,\gamma_{t},u}(r),u(r))\, dr\\
& & -\int_{s}^{T}Z^{m,\gamma_{t},u}(r)\, dW(s),\quad s\in[t,T].
\end{eqnarray*}
Define the first approximating value functional
\[
v^{m}(\gamma_{t}):=\esssup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}Y^{m,\gamma_{t},u}(t),\quad\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda.
\]
\begin{prop} For $(u,\gamma_{t})\in\left(\mathcal{U}\times\Lambda\right)$,
and $p>2$, we have
\begin{equation}
E\big[\|X_{T}^{m,\gamma_{t},u}-X_{T}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}^{p}\big]\leq C\Big(\text{Osc}(\gamma_{t},m^{-1})^{p}+m^{-\frac{p}{2}}\Big),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
E\Big[\sup_{s\in[t,T]}|Y^{m,\gamma_{t},u}(s)-Y^{\gamma_{t},u}(s)|^{p}\Big]\leq C\Big(\text{Osc}(\gamma_{t},m^{-1})^{p}+m^{-\frac{p}{2}}\Big),\label{eq:first-ESTIMAT}
\end{equation}
where
\[
\text{Osc}(\gamma_{t},m^{-1}):=\max_{0<s<s+\delta<t,0<\delta<m^{-1}}|\gamma(s+\delta)-\gamma(s)|
\]
is the oscillating amplitude with time $m^{-1}$ of $\gamma_{t}$
in the interval $(0,t)$.\end{prop}
\begin{proof} From \eqref{eq:coeffient-first-estmat}, we have
\begin{align*}
& |b^{m}(X_{s}^{m,\gamma_{t},u})-b(X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u})|\leq C\|\mathbf{P}^{m}X_{s}^{m,\gamma_{t},u}-X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}\\
\leq & C(\|\mathbf{P}^{m}X_{s}^{m,\gamma_{t},u}-\mathbf{P}^{m}X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}+\|\mathbf{P}^{m}X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}-X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0})\\
\leq & C(\|X_{s}^{m,\gamma_{t},u}-X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}+\|\mathbf{P}^{m}X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}-X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}).
\end{align*}
In a similar way, we have
\begin{align*}
& |\sigma^{m}(X_{s}^{m,\gamma_{t},u})-\sigma(X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u})|\leq C(\|X_{s}^{m,\gamma_{t},u}-X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}+\|\mathbf{P}^{m}X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}-X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}),\\
\\
& |f^{m}(X_{s}^{m,\gamma_{t},u},y',z',u)-f(X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u},y,z,u)|\\
\leq & C(\|X_{s}^{m,\gamma_{t},u}-X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}+\|\mathbf{P}^{m}X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}-X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0})+|y-y'|+|z-z'|,\\
\\
& |g^{m}(X_{T}^{m,\gamma_{t},u})-g(X_{T}^{m,\gamma_{t},u})|\leq C\left(\|X_{s}^{m,\gamma_{t},u}-X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}+\|\mathbf{P}^{m}X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}-X_{s}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}\right).
\end{align*}
Applying It\^o formula, BDG and Gronwall inequality, using standard
arguments, we have
\begin{align*}
E\|X_{T}^{m,\gamma_{t},u}-X_{T}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}^{p} & \leq CE\|\mathbf{P}^{m}X_{T}^{\gamma_{t},u}-X_{T}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}^{p}\\
& =CE\left[\max_{\begin{array}{c}
1\leq i\leq m\\
t_{i-1}\leq s\leq t_{i}
\end{array}}|X^{\gamma_{t},u}(s)-X^{\gamma_{t},u}(t_{i})|\right]\\
& \leq C\Big(\text{Osc}(\gamma_{t},m^{-1})^{p}+m^{-\frac{p}{2}}\Big),
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
& E\|Y^{m,\gamma_{t},u}(T)-Y^{\gamma_{t},u}(T)\|_{0}^{p}\leq C\Big(E\|X_{T}^{m,\gamma_{t},u}-X_{T}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}^{p}+E\|\mathbf{P}^{m}X_{T}^{\gamma_{t},u}-X_{T}^{\gamma_{t},u}\|_{0}^{p}\Big)\\
\leq & C\Big(\text{Osc}(\gamma_{t},m^{-1})^{p}+m^{-\frac{p}{2}}\Big).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Obviously, \eqref{eq:first-ESTIMAT} yields, for any $\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda$
and positive integer $m$,
\begin{equation}
|\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})-v^{m}(\gamma_{t})|\leq C\Big(\text{Osc}(\gamma_{t},m^{-1})+m^{-\frac{1}{2}}\Big).\label{eq:first-approx-path-rate}
\end{equation}
Similar to the state-dependent optimal stochastic control problem,
$v^{m}$ has a PDE interpretation. For each $m$ and $i=1,\ldots,m$,
define functions $B^{m,i}:(t_{i-1},t_{i}]\times\mathbb{R}^{i\times n}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$,
$\Sigma^{m,i}:(t_{i-1},t_{i}]\times\mathbb{R}^{i\times n}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$,
$F^{m,i}:(t_{i-1},t_{i}]\times\mathbb{R}^{i\times n}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$,
$G^{m}:\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, and $H^{m,i}:(t_{i-1},t_{i}]\times\mathbb{R}^{i\times n}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
as follows (with $\overrightarrow{x_{i}}=(x_{1},\cdots,x_{i})\in\mathbb{R}^{i\times n}$):
\begin{align*}
B^{m,i}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},u):= & b\Big(\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}x_{j}\chi_{[t_{j},t]}+x_{i}\chi_{\{t\}},u\Big),\\
\Sigma^{m,i}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},u):= & \sigma\Big(\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}x_{j}\chi_{[t_{j},t]}+x_{i}\chi_{\{t\}},u\Big),\\
F^{m,i}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},y,z,u):= & f\Big(\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}x_{j}\chi_{[t_{j},t]}+x_{i}\chi_{\{t\}},y,z,u\Big),\\
G^{m}(x_{1},\cdots,x_{m}):= & g\Big(\sum_{j=1}^{m-1}x_{j}\chi_{[t_{j},T]}+x_{m}\chi_{\{T\}}\Big),\\
H^{m,i}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},r,p,A,u):= & \frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\left(\Sigma^{m,i}(\Sigma^{m,i})^{T}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},u)A\right)+\langle B^{m,i}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},u),p\rangle\\
& +F^{m,i}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},r,(\Sigma^{m,i})^{T}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},u)p,u).
\end{align*}
Obviously, for any $\gamma\in\Lambda_{T}$, $u\in U$ and $t\in(t_{i-1},t_{i}]$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
b^{m}(\gamma_{t},u) & = & B^{m,i}\big(t,\gamma_{t}(t_{1}),\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}},\cdots,\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-2}}^{t_{i-1}},\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-1}}^{t},u\big),\\
\sigma^{m}(\gamma_{t},u) & = & \Sigma^{m,i}\big(t,\gamma(t_{1}),\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}},\cdots,\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-2}}^{t_{i-1}},\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-1}}^{t},u\big),\\
f^{m}(\gamma_{t},y,z,u) & = & F^{m,i}\big(t,\gamma(t_{1}),\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}},\cdots,\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-2}}^{t_{i-1}},\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-1}}^{t},y,z,u\big),\\
g^{m}(\gamma,u) & = & G^{m,i}\big(t,\gamma(t_{1}),\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}},\cdots,\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{m-2}}^{T}\big),\\
\mathcal{H}^{m}(\gamma_{t},r,p,A,u) & = & H^{m,i}\big(t,\gamma(t_{1}),\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}},\cdots,\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-2}}^{t_{i-1}},\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-1}}^{t},r,p,A,u\big).
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $\gamma\big|_{s}^{t}:=\gamma(t)-\gamma(s)$. Furthermore, from
Assumption (H2), $B^{m,i},\sigma^{m,i},F^{m,i},$ and $G^{m}$ are
uniformly Lipschitz continuous in $(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},y,z,u)$,
and for $i<m$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
B^{m,i}(t_{i},\overrightarrow{x_{i}},u) & = & B^{m,i+1}(t_{i}+,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\mathbf{0},x_{i},u),\\
\Sigma^{m,i}(t_{i},\overrightarrow{x_{i}},u) & = & \Sigma^{m,i+1}(t_{i}+,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\mathbf{0},x_{i},u),\\
F^{m,i}(t_{i},\overrightarrow{x_{i}},y,z,u) & = & F^{m,i+1}(t_{i}+,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\mathbf{0},x_{i},y,z,u),\\
H^{m,i}(t_{i},\overrightarrow{x_{i}},r,p,A,u) & = & H^{m,i+1}(t_{i}+,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\mathbf{0},x_{i},r,p,A,u).
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $f(t_{i}+)$ is the right limit of the function $f$ at time
$t_{i}$.
Let $V^{m,i},i=1,\cdots m$ be the unique viscosity solutions of second
order parametrized nonlinear parabolic equations
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
{\displaystyle -\partial_{t}V^{m,i}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})-\sup_{u\in U}H^{m,i}\left(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}})V^{m,i},u\right)=0,}\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\,\,(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})\in(t_{i-1},t_{i})\times\mathbb{R}^{i\times n},\, i=1,\cdots,m;\\
V^{m,i}(t_{i},\overrightarrow{x_{i}})=V^{m,i+1}(t_{i}+,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\mathbf{0},x_{i}),\quad\quad i<m,\,\overrightarrow{x_{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{i\times n};\\
V^{m,m}(T,\overrightarrow{x_{m}})=G^{m}(\overrightarrow{x_{m}}),\qquad\qquad\quad\,\overrightarrow{x_{m}}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}.
\end{cases}\label{eq:first-approx-PDE}
\end{equation}
According to the the relationship between viscosity solution of Bellman
equations and the optimal control problems, we have, for any $\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda$,
\[
v^{m}(\gamma_{t})=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\chi_{[t_{i-1},t_{i})}(t)V^{m,i}(t,\gamma_{t}(t_{1}),\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}},\cdots,\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-2}}^{t_{i-1}},\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-1}}^{t}).
\]
\medskip{}
Second, we construct the smooth approximations of $v^{m}$. For this
purpose, we mollify $\sup_{u}H^{m,i}$. Consider the following mollifier
$\varphi_{i}:\mathbb{R}^{i}\to\mathbb{R},\, i=1,2,\cdots,$
\begin{align*}
\varphi_{i}(x) & :=\begin{cases}
C_{i}\exp\big(-(1-|x|^{2})^{-1}\big), & |x|^{2}<1;\\
0, & \text{else},
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
where $C_{i}$ is the constant such that $\int\varphi_{i}=1$. Let
\[
\varphi_{\varepsilon}(t,x,r,p,A):=\varepsilon^{-(n^{2}+2n+2)}\varphi_{1}(\frac{t+1/\varepsilon}{\varepsilon})\varphi_{n}(\frac{x}{\varepsilon})\varphi_{1}(\frac{r}{\varepsilon})\varphi_{n}(\frac{p}{\varepsilon})\varphi_{n^{2}}(\frac{A}{\varepsilon}).
\]
Now we extend $H^{m,i},\, i<m,$ on the interval $t\in[t_{i},t_{i+1})$
by
\[
H^{m,i}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},r,p,A,u):=H^{m,i+1}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\mathbf{0},x_{i},r,p,A,u),
\]
and $H^{m,m}$ on the interval $t\in[T,T+1/m)$ by
\[
H^{m,m}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{m}},r,p,A,u):=H^{m,m}(T,\overrightarrow{x_{m}},r,p,A,u),
\]
and mollify $\sup_{u}H^{m,i}$ on interval $(t_{i-1},t_{i}]$ as
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(\cdot,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\cdot,\cdot,\cdot,\cdot):=\left(\sup_{u}H^{m,i}(\cdot,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\cdot,\cdot,\cdot,\cdot,u)\right)*\varphi_{\varepsilon_{1}}(\cdot),\label{eq:mollif}
\end{equation}
where $*$ is the convolution operator in $(t,x_{i},r,p,A)$ and $\varepsilon_{1}<m^{-1}$.
Obviously, $\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}$ is differentiable in $(t,x_{i},r,p,A)$
and Lipschitz continuous in $\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}}$. Noting the
structure condition, we obtain that
\begin{equation}
|\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},r,p,A)-\sup_{u}H^{m,i}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},r,p,A,u)|\le C(1+|p|+|A|)\varepsilon_{1},\label{eq:Hmi-second-approx}
\end{equation}
and $\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon}$ satisfy the following structure conditions:
\begin{align}
& |\partial_{t}\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon}|+|\partial_{x_{i}}\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon}|\le C(1+|p|+|A|),\nonumber \\
& |\partial_{p}\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon}|+|\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},r,p,\mathbf{0})|\le C,\nonumber \\
& C^{-1}I_{n}\le\partial_{A}\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon}\le CI_{n},\quad\partial_{r}\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon}\le-C,\label{eq:structure-condition}\\
& \hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon}\left(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},r,p,A\right)\text{ is convex in }A.\nonumber
\end{align}
Similarly, we define $G_{\varepsilon}^{m}(\overrightarrow{x_{m-1}},\cdot):=G^{m}(\overrightarrow{x_{m-1}},\cdot)*\varphi_{\varepsilon}^{n}$.
Consider the following system of fully nonlinear parameterized state-dependent
PDE
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
-\partial_{t}V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})-\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}})=0,\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})\in(t_{i-1},t_{i})\times\mathbb{R}^{i\times n};\\
V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t_{i},\overrightarrow{x_{i}})=V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i+1;\varepsilon_{1}}(t_{i}+,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\mathbf{0},x_{i}),\qquad\qquad i<m,\,\overrightarrow{x_{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{i\times n};\\
V_{\varepsilon}^{m,m;\varepsilon_{1}}(T,x_{1},\cdots,x_{m})=G_{\varepsilon}^{m}(x_{1},\cdots,x_{m}),\qquad\,\,(x_{1},\cdots,x_{m})\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}.
\end{cases}\label{eq:second-approx-PDE}
\end{equation}
Define
\[
G_{0}:=\sup_{m,\overrightarrow{x_{m}}}|G_{\varepsilon}^{m}(\overrightarrow{x_{m}})|,\quad H_{0}:=\sup_{m,i,t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}}}|\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},0,\mathbf{0},\mathbf{0})|.
\]
We have the following key lemma.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:estimate-approx-St-Depen-equation-nindegen}
Assume (H2). Then the system \eqref{eq:first-approx-PDE} has unique
viscosity solutions $\{V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}\}_{i=1}^{m}$.
Moreover, there is some positive constants $C$ which are independent
of $m$, $i$ and $\varepsilon_{1}\,(\varepsilon_{1}<m^{-1})$, such
that:
(1) $V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(\cdot,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\cdot)\in\mathscr{C}^{1,2}([t_{i-1},t_{i})\times\mathbb{R}^{n})$,
and for any $t\in[t_{i-1},t_{i})$ and $\overrightarrow{x_{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{i\times n}$,
\begin{equation}
|V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})|\leq G_{0}e^{-K(T-t)}+(1-e^{-K(T-t)})H_{0}K^{-1},\label{eq:est-in-lemma}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
|\partial_{t}V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})|+|\partial_{x_{i}}V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})|+|\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}}V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})|\le C(\varepsilon),\label{eq:driv-estimate-in-lemma}
\end{equation}
where $K$ is the constant in \eqref{eq:Monotonicity-of-h}.
(2) H\"older continuity: for any $t\in[t_{i-1},t_{i})$, $\overrightarrow{x_{i}},\,\overrightarrow{y_{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{i\times n}$,
and $s\in[t_{j-1},t_{j})$, $i\leq j\leq m$,
\begin{align}
& \left|(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}},\partial_{t})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\cdot)\big|_{\overrightarrow{y_{i}}}^{\overrightarrow{x_{i}}}\right|\le C(\varepsilon)\max_{1\le k\le i}|(x_{1}-y_{1})+\cdots+(x_{k}-y_{k})|^{\beta},\label{eq:lipsch-cont-in-lemma-space}\\
& \left|(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}},\partial_{t})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})-(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}},\partial_{t})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,j;\varepsilon_{1}}(s,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\underbrace{\mathbf{0},\cdots,\mathbf{0}}_{j-i},x_{i})\right|\label{eq:lipsch-cont-in-lemma-time}\\
\le & \, C(\varepsilon)|s-t|^{\frac{\beta}{2}},\nonumber
\end{align}
(3) smoothly approximating rate:
\begin{equation}
|V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}-V^{m,i}|\le C(\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon).\label{eq:solution-second-approx-pde-rate}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Firstly we prove the existence of viscosity solution.
Define
\begin{align*}
H_{T} & :=\sup_{\overrightarrow{x_{m}}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}}\hat{H}^{m,m;\varepsilon_{1}}(T,\overrightarrow{x_{m}},G_{\varepsilon}^{m},\partial_{x_{m}}G_{\varepsilon}^{m},\partial_{x_{m}x_{m}}G_{\varepsilon}^{m}).
\end{align*}
It is easy to verify that
\[
G_{\varepsilon}^{m}+(1-e^{-K(T-t)})H_{T}K^{-1},t\in[0,T]\text{ and }G_{\varepsilon}^{m}-(1-e^{-K(T-t)})H_{T}K^{-1},t\in[0,T]
\]
are respectively viscosity super- and sub-solutions of system \eqref{eq:second-approx-PDE}
on interval $[t_{m-1},T]$, where $K$ is the constant in \eqref{eq:Monotonicity-of-h}.
By Perron's method and comparison principle (see Crandall, Ishii and
Lions \cite{crandall1992user}), system \eqref{eq:second-approx-PDE}
has unique viscosity solutions $V_{\varepsilon}^{m,m;\varepsilon_{1}}$
on $[t_{m-1},T]$. If assertion (1) holds on $[t_{m-1},T]$, then
$V_{\varepsilon}^{m,m}(t_{m-1}+,\overrightarrow{x_{m-2}},0,x_{m-1})$,
the terminal value of $V_{\varepsilon}^{m,m-1;\varepsilon_{1}}$,
is bounded and twice differentiable in $x_{m-1}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$.
Similarly we have the existence of the unique viscosity solution $V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}$
on $[t_{i-1},t_{i}]$ ($i=m-1,m-2,\cdots,1$) recursively.
In view of Wang \cite[Theorems 1.1 and 1.3]{wang1992regularity},
using the interior $\mathscr{C}^{1,\alpha}$ and $\mathscr{C}^{2,\alpha}$
estimates for the equations of the structure conditions \eqref{eq:structure-condition}
(see Lieberman \cite[Chapter 14, Sections 2-4]{lieberman2005second}),
we have that $V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(\cdot,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\cdot)\in\mathscr{C}^{1,2}([t_{i-1},t_{i})\times\mathbb{R}^{n})$.
Since
\[
G_{0}e^{-K(T-t)}+(1-e^{-K(T-t)})H_{0}K^{-1},\, t\in[0,T],
\]
and
\[
-G_{0}e^{-K(T-t)}-(1-e^{-K(T-t)})H_{0}K^{-1},\, t\in[0,T],
\]
are viscosity super- and sub-solutions of system \eqref{eq:second-approx-PDE},
respectively, we have \eqref{eq:est-in-lemma}. Then combining the
interior $\mathscr{C}^{2,\alpha}$ estimates and interpolation inequality,
we have \eqref{eq:driv-estimate-in-lemma}. Assertion (1) is proved.
Noting that $\bar{V}:=V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(\cdot,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\cdot)-V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(\cdot,\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}},\cdot)$
is the solution of
\[
-\partial_{t}\bar{V}-\text{Tr}(a\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}}\bar{V})-\langle b,\partial_{x_{i}}\bar{V}\rangle-c\bar{V}-h_{0}=0,
\]
where
\begin{align*}
a:= & \int_{0}^{1}\partial_{A}\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}\Big(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},x_{i},(1,\partial_{x_{i}})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},x_{i}),\\
& \partial_{x_{i}x_{i}}V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}},x_{i})+\theta\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}}V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\cdot,x_{i})\Big|_{\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}}}^{\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}}}\Big)d\theta,\\
b:= & \int_{0}^{1}\partial_{p}\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}\Big(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},x_{i},V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},x_{i}),\partial_{x_{i}}V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}},x_{i})\\
& +\theta\partial_{x_{i}}V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\cdot,x_{i})\Big|_{\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}}}^{\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}}V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}},x_{i})\Big)d\theta,\\
c:= & \int_{0}^{1}\partial_{r}\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}\Big(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},x_{i},V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}},x_{i})+\theta V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\cdot,x_{i})\Big|_{\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}}}^{\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}}},\\
& \qquad(\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}},x_{i})\Big)d\theta,\\
h_{0}:= & \hat{H}_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}\left(t,\cdot,x_{i},(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}},x_{i})\right)\Big|_{\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}}}^{\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}}}.
\end{align*}
In view of Assertion (1), we know $|a|+|b|+|c|<C,$ and
\[
|h_{0}|\leq C\max_{1\leq k\leq i-1}|(x_{1}-y_{1})+\cdots+(x_{k}-y_{k})|.
\]
Similar to recursive method in Assertion (1), we have
\begin{align*}
& |\bar{V}(t,x_{i})|=|V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})-V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}},x_{i})|\\
\le & e^{-K(T-t)}G_{\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}}}+(1-e^{-K(T-t)})K^{-1}L_{\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}}}\\
\le & C\left(1\wedge\max_{1\leq k\leq i-1}|(x_{1}-y_{1})+\cdots+(x_{k}-y_{k})|\right),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
G_{\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}}}:= & \sup_{x_{i},\cdots,x_{m}}\left|\, G_{\varepsilon}^{m}(z,x_{i},\cdots,x_{m})\Big|_{z=\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}}}^{z=\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}}}\,\right|\\
\le & \, C\left(1\wedge\max_{1\leq k\leq i-1}|(x_{1}-y_{1})+\cdots+(x_{k}-y_{k})|\right)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
L_{\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}}}:= & \sup_{k\geq i,x_{i+1},\cdots x_{m}}\left|\,\hat{H}^{m,k;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,z,x_{i},\cdots,x_{k},0,\mathbf{0},\mathbf{0})\Big|_{z=\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}}}^{z=\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}}}\,\right|\\
\le & \, C(\varepsilon)\left(1\wedge\max_{1\leq k\leq i-1}|(x_{1}-y_{1})+\cdots+(x_{k}-y_{k})|\right).
\end{align*}
In view of the interior Schauder estimate for linear parabolic equation
(see Lieberman \cite[Theorem 4.9]{lieberman2005second}), we have
\begin{align*}
& \left|(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}},\partial_{t})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\cdot,x_{i})\big|_{\overrightarrow{y_{i-1}}}^{\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}}}\right|=\left|(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}},\partial_{t})\bar{V}(t,x_{i})\right|\\
\le & C(\varepsilon)\left(1\wedge\max_{1\leq k\leq i-1}|(x_{1}-y_{1})+\cdots+(x_{k}-y_{k})|\right).
\end{align*}
Incorporating the following interior $\mathscr{C}^{2,\alpha}$ estimate
of $V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}$:
\[
\left|(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}},\partial_{t})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\cdot)\big|_{y_{i}}^{x_{i}}\right|\le C(\varepsilon)|x_{i}-y_{i}|^{\beta},
\]
we have \eqref{eq:lipsch-cont-in-lemma-space}.
For any $t\in[t_{i-1},T)$ and $\overrightarrow{x_{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{i\times n}$,
define
\begin{align*}
\bar{\bar{V}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}}) & :=\sum_{k=i}^{m}\chi_{[t_{k-1},t_{k})}(t)V_{\varepsilon}^{m,k;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\underbrace{\mathbf{0},\cdots,\mathbf{0}}_{k-i},x_{i}),\\
\bar{\bar{H}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},r,p,A) & :=\sum_{k=i}^{m}\chi_{[t_{k-1},t_{k})}(t)\hat{H}^{m,k;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\underbrace{\mathbf{0},\cdots,\mathbf{0}}_{k-i},x_{i},r,p,A).
\end{align*}
Obviously, $\bar{\bar{H}}$ is smooth and satisfies structure condition
\eqref{eq:structure-condition}, and $\bar{\bar{V}}$ is the classical
solution of
\[
\begin{cases}
\partial_{t}\bar{\bar{V}}+\bar{\bar{H}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},\bar{\bar{V}},\partial_{x_{i}}\bar{\bar{V}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}}\bar{\bar{V}})=0, & t\in[t_{i-1},T);\\
\bar{\bar{V}}(T,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})=G_{\varepsilon}^{m}(\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\underbrace{\mathbf{0},\cdots,\mathbf{0}}_{m-i},x_{i}).
\end{cases}
\]
By the Schauder interior estimate, we have for any $t\in[t_{i-1},t_{i})$,
$s\in[t_{j-1},t_{j})$, $i\leq j\leq m$, and $\overrightarrow{x_{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{i\times n}$,
\begin{align*}
& \Big|(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}},\partial_{t})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})-(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}},\partial_{t})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,j;\varepsilon_{1}}(s,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\underbrace{\mathbf{0},\cdots,\mathbf{0}}_{j-i},x_{i})\Big|\\
= & \Big|\bar{\bar{V}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})-\bar{\bar{V}}(s,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})\Big|\leq C(\varepsilon)|t-s|^{\frac{\beta}{2}}.
\end{align*}
We proved \eqref{eq:lipsch-cont-in-lemma-time}.
It remains to show Assertion (3). Form \eqref{eq:driv-estimate-in-lemma}
and \eqref{eq:Hmi-second-approx}, we see that, when $C$ is sufficiently
large, $V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}+C(\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon)$
is a viscosity super-solution and $V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}-C(\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon)$
a viscosity sub-solution of equation \eqref{eq:first-approx-PDE},
which imply \eqref{eq:solution-second-approx-pde-rate} by the comparison
principle. \end{proof}
\begin{rem} Note that the constant in estimate \eqref{eq:est-in-lemma}
does not depend on $m$, which allows us to conclude that those constants
in the estimates \eqref{eq:driv-estimate-in-lemma} - \eqref{eq:lipsch-cont-in-lemma-time}
do not depend on $m$.\end{rem}
\medskip{}
Define the smooth approximating functional
\begin{equation}
v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}(\gamma_{t}):=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\chi_{[t_{i-1},t_{i})}(t)V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}\left(t,\gamma_{t}(t_{1}),\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}},\cdots,\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-2}}^{t_{i-1}},\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-1}}^{t}\right),\quad\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda.\label{eq:-second-approx-path}
\end{equation}
Then, $v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}\in\mathscr{C}^{1,2}(\Lambda)$.
In fact, \eqref{eq:-second-approx-path} is well-defined as well for
$\gamma\in\hat{\Lambda}$. It is obvious that $v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}\in\mathscr{C}^{1,2}(\hat{\Lambda})$,
which implies by definition that the restriction of $v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}$
on $\Lambda$ lies in $\mathscr{C}^{1,2}(\Lambda)$.
Define
\[
\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}(\gamma_{t},r,p,A):=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\chi_{[t_{i-1},t_{i})}(t)\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\gamma_{t}(t_{1}),\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}},\cdots,\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-2}}^{t_{i-1}},\gamma_{t}\big|_{t_{i-1}}^{t},r,p,A).
\]
Obviously, $v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}$ is the classical
solution of the following path-dependent PDE
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
-D_{t}v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}-\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}(\gamma_{t},v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}},D_{x}v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}},D_{xx}v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}})=0, & \forall\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda,0<t<T;\\
v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}(\gamma_{T})=G_{\varepsilon}^{m}(\gamma_{T}), & \forall\gamma_{T}\in\Lambda_{T}.
\end{cases}\label{eq:second-approx-path-Equation}
\end{equation}
Moreover, we have the path version of Lemma \ref{lem:estimate-approx-St-Depen-equation-nindegen}.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:estimate-approx-equation-nondegen} Let
(H2) hold. There are some positive constants $C(\varepsilon)$ (independent
of $m$ and $\varepsilon_{1}\,(\varepsilon_{1}<m^{-1})$), such that
for all $\gamma_{t},\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}\in\Lambda,\, t,\bar{t}<T$,
we have:
(1) $\mathscr{C}^{1+\frac{\beta}{2},2+\beta}$ boundedness:
\begin{equation}
\big|v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}(\gamma_{t})\big|_{2,\beta;\Lambda}\le C(\varepsilon).\label{eq:solution-second-approx-drivetive-estimat}
\end{equation}
(2) smoothly approximating rate:
\begin{equation}
|v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}(\gamma_{t})-\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})|\le C(\text{Osc}(\gamma_{t},m^{-1})+m^{-\frac{1}{2}}+\varepsilon+\varepsilon_{1}).\label{eq:solution-second-approx-Path-rate}
\end{equation}
\end{prop} \begin{proof} Assertion (1) is immediate consequence
of Assertions (1) and (2) of Lemma \ref{lem:estimate-approx-St-Depen-equation-nindegen}.
Assertion (2) follows from \eqref{eq:first-approx-path-rate} and
\eqref{eq:solution-second-approx-pde-rate}. \end{proof}\medskip{}
At the end of this subsection, we introduce the following auxiliary
path functional
\[
\tilde{v}_{0}(\gamma_{t}):=E\left[\|W_{T}^{\gamma_{t}}\|_{0}\right],\quad\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda,
\]
and the smooth approximating functional
\begin{equation}
v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}(\gamma_{t}):=E[g_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}(W_{T}^{\gamma_{t}})],\quad\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda.\label{eq:smooth-func-linear-grow}
\end{equation}
Here,
\[
W^{\gamma_{t}}(s):=\gamma_{t}(s)\chi_{[0,t)}(s)+\big(W(s)-W(t)+\gamma_{t}(t)\big)\chi_{[t,T]}(s),\quad s\in[0,T],
\]
and
\[
g_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}(\gamma_{t}):=G_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}\left(\gamma_{T}(t_{1}),\gamma_{T}\big|_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}},\cdots,\gamma_{T}\big|_{t_{i-2}}^{t_{i-1}},\gamma_{T}\big|_{t_{i-1}}^{t}\right),
\]
\[
G_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}(\overrightarrow{x_{m-1}},\cdot):=\left(\left(\max_{1\leq k\leq m-1}|x_{1}+\cdots+x_{k}|\right)\vee|x_{1}+\cdots+x_{m-1}+\cdot|\right)*\varphi_{n,\varepsilon},
\]
$\varphi_{n,\varepsilon}$ is a mollifier in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Obviously
\[
V_{0,\varepsilon}^{m,i}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}}):=v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}\big(\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}x_{j}\chi_{[t_{j},t]}+x_{i}\chi_{\{t\}}\big),\,(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})\in[t_{i-1},t_{i}]\times\mathbb{R}^{i\times n},i=1,\cdots,m,
\]
are the classical solutions of
\[
\begin{cases}
\partial_{t}V_{0,\varepsilon}^{m,i}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})+\frac{1}{2}\Delta_{x_{i}x_{i}}V_{0,\varepsilon}^{m,i}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})=0, & (t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})\in(t_{i-1},t_{i})\times\mathbb{R}^{i\times n};\\
V_{0,\varepsilon}^{m,i}(t_{i},\overrightarrow{x_{i}})=V_{0,\varepsilon}^{m,i+1}(t_{i}+,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\mathbf{0},x_{i}), & \overrightarrow{x_{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{i\times n},i=1,\cdots m-1;\\
V_{0,\varepsilon}^{m,i}(T,\overrightarrow{x_{m}})=G_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}(\overrightarrow{x_{m}}), & \overrightarrow{x_{m}}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}.
\end{cases}
\]
Similarly as in Proposition \ref{prop:estimate-approx-equation-nondegen},
$v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}\in\mathscr{C}^{1,2}(\Lambda)$ satisfies the
following estimates:
\begin{align}
\big|v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}\big|_{2,\beta;\mathbf{Q}_{M_{0},T}} & \le C(\varepsilon)(1+M_{0}),\label{eq:bounded-estimat-v}\\
|v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}(\gamma_{t})-\tilde{v}_{0}(\gamma_{t})| & \le C\left(\text{Osc}(\gamma_{t},m^{-1})+m^{-\frac{1}{2}}+\varepsilon\right).\label{eq:approx-rate-v}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:(repres-theorem-nondegen}}
Let $v\in\mathscr{C}_{b}(\Lambda)\cap\mathscr{C}_{u}(\Lambda)$ satisfying
\eqref{eq:regu-of-u} be a viscosity solution to the path-dependent
Bellman equation \eqref{eq:PHJBE}, and $\tilde{v}$ be defined by
\eqref{eq:defination Of value fun}. From Remark \ref{rem:bound-regul-tilde-u}
we know $\tilde{v}\in\mathscr{C}_{b}(\Lambda)\cap\mathscr{C}_{u}(\Lambda)$.
It is sufficient to show $\tilde{v}\geq v$ since the inverse inequality
can be proved in a similar way.
Otherwise, we have
\[
\inf_{\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda}\big(\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})-v(\gamma_{t})\big):=-r_{0}<0.
\]
For sufficiently large $\lambda>1$, we have
\[
\inf(\tilde{v}+e^{-\lambda(t+1)}\tilde{v}_{0}-v)<-\frac{7}{8}r_{0}.
\]
We fix $\lambda$. Since $\cup_{\mu>0}\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$
is dense in $\Lambda$, then for sufficiently large number $\mu$,
\[
\inf_{\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}}\left[\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})+e^{-\lambda(t+1)}\tilde{v}_{0}(\gamma_{t})-v(\gamma_{t})\right]<-\frac{3}{4}r_{0}.
\]
Besides, from the definition of $\tilde{v}_{0}$ we know $\tilde{v}_{0}(\gamma_{t})\geq\|\gamma_{t}\|_{0}$,
and noting that $v,\,\tilde{v}\in\mathscr{C}_{b}(\Lambda)$, thus
there is $M_{0}=M_{0}(\lambda)>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\tilde{v}+e^{-\lambda(t+1)}\tilde{v}_{0}-v>0,\qquad\text{on }\Lambda\backslash\mathbf{Q}_{M_{0},T}.\label{eq:decay in proof}
\end{equation}
Now, we fix $\mu$ and $M_{0}$ firstly. From \eqref{eq:solution-second-approx-Path-rate}
and \eqref{eq:approx-rate-v}, we have for all $\varepsilon<\frac{1}{32}r_{0}C$,
$m>\overline{m}:=(32C\mu r_{0}^{-1})^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}\vee[(32C)^{2}r_{0}^{-2}]$
and $\varepsilon_{1}<\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}:=(\frac{1}{32}r_{0}C^{-1})\wedge m^{-1}$,
for any $\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$,
\begin{gather*}
|(v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}-\tilde{v})(\gamma_{t})|\le C(\text{Osc}(\gamma_{t},m^{-1})+m^{-\frac{1}{2}}+\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon)\le C(\mu m^{-\alpha}+m^{-\frac{1}{2}}+\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon)<\frac{1}{8}r_{0},\\
|(v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-\tilde{v}_{0})(\gamma_{t})|\le C(\text{Osc}(\gamma_{t},m^{-1})+m^{-\frac{1}{2}}+\varepsilon)\le C(\mu m^{-\alpha}+m^{-\frac{1}{2}}+\varepsilon)<\frac{1}{8}r_{0}.
\end{gather*}
Hence
\begin{gather}
\inf_{\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}}\big(v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}-e^{-\lambda(t+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-v\big)(\gamma_{t})<-\frac{1}{2}r_{0},\label{eq:maximum-degen}\\
(v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}+e^{-\lambda(t+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-v)(\gamma_{t})>-\frac{1}{4}r_{0},\quad\forall\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}\backslash\mathbf{Q}_{M_{0},T},\label{eq:decay-infty}
\end{gather}
and
\begin{align}
& (v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}+e^{-\lambda(T+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-v)(\gamma_{T})\label{eq:decay-terminal}\\
> & (\tilde{v}+e^{-\lambda(T+1)}\tilde{v}_{0}-v)(\gamma_{T})-\frac{1}{4}r_{0}>-\frac{1}{4}r_{0},\quad\forall\gamma_{T}\in\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Since $v\in\mathscr{C}_{u}(\Lambda)$, $v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}$
satisfies \eqref{eq:solution-second-approx-drivetive-estimat} and
$v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}$ satisfies \eqref{eq:bounded-estimat-v} uniformly
w.r.t. all $m$ and $\varepsilon_{1}$, therefore, there is a constant
$\kappa_{1}=\kappa_{1}(\varepsilon,\lambda,M_{0})\in(0,T)$ such that
for any $\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha},\, t>T-\kappa_{1}$,
\begin{equation}
\left|(v_{\varepsilon}^{m,\varepsilon_{1}}+e^{-\lambda(t+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-v)(\gamma_{t})-(v_{\varepsilon}^{m,\varepsilon_{1}}+e^{-\lambda(T+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-v)(\gamma_{t,T})\right|\leq\frac{1}{4}r_{0}.\label{eq:terminal-cont}
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{eq:decay-terminal}, we have
\begin{equation}
|(v_{\varepsilon}^{m,\varepsilon_{1}}+e^{-\lambda(t+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-v)(\gamma_{t})|\leq\frac{1}{2}r_{0},\quad\forall\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha},t>T-\kappa_{1}.\label{eq:decay-near-termin}
\end{equation}
This together with \eqref{eq:maximum-degen} and \eqref{eq:decay-infty}
yield that there is $\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}\in\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}\cap\mathbf{Q}_{M_{0},T-\iota}$
where the functional $v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}+e^{-\lambda(t+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-v$
is minimized over $\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$.
Define
\begin{equation}
\psi(\gamma_{t}):=v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}(\gamma_{t})+e^{-\lambda(t+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}(\gamma_{t})-(v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}+e^{-\lambda(\bar{t}+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-v)(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),\quad\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda.\label{eq:sup-jet}
\end{equation}
By \eqref{eq:solution-second-approx-drivetive-estimat} and \eqref{eq:bounded-estimat-v},
there is $\kappa=\kappa(M_{0},\varepsilon,\lambda)<\kappa_{1}$ such
that $\psi\in\mathcal{J}_{\mu,\kappa}^{+}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}},v)$
for all $m>\overline{m}$ and small $\varepsilon_{1}>\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}$.
Consider the following estimates:
\begin{align}
& -D_{t}\psi(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})-\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}},\psi(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),D_{x}\psi(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),D_{xx}\psi(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),u)\label{eq:contradict-th-uniq}\\
= & -D_{t}(v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}+e^{-\lambda(\bar{t}+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m})(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
& -\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}\left(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}},v(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),(D_{x},D_{xx})(v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}+e^{-(\lambda+1)\bar{t}}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m})(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),u\right)\nonumber \\
\geq & e^{-\lambda(\bar{t}+1)}\left(\lambda v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-D_{t}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-\sup_{u}|\sigma|^{2}|D_{xx}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|-\sup_{u}(|b|+|\sigma|)|D_{x}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|)\right)(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
& -D_{t}v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})-\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}\left(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}},v(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),(D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),u\right)\nonumber \\
\geq & e^{-\lambda(\bar{t}+1)}\left(\lambda v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-C(|D_{t}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|+|D_{xx}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|+|D_{x}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|)\right)(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
& +\left[-D_{t}v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}-\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}\left(\cdot,(1,D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}\right)\right](\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
& +\left[\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}\left(\cdot,(1,D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}\right)-\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}^{m}(\cdot,(1,D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}},u)\right](\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
& +\left[\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}^{m}\left(\cdot,(1,D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}},u\right)-\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}\left(\cdot,(1,D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}},u\right)\right](\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
& +\left[\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}\left(\cdot,v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}},(D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}},u\right)-\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}\left(\cdot,v,(D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}},u\right)\right](\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
:= & \text{Part1}+\text{Part2}+\text{Part3}+\text{Part4}+\text{Part5}.\nonumber
\end{align}
From estimates \eqref{eq:bounded-estimat-v}-\eqref{eq:approx-rate-v},
if $\lambda$ is sufficiently large,
\begin{align*}
& \text{Part1}\\
\leq & e^{-\lambda}\left(\lambda(\tilde{v}_{0}-\text{Osc}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}},m^{-1})-m^{-\frac{1}{2}}-\varepsilon)-C(|D_{t}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|+|D_{xx}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|+|D_{x}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|)\right)(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\\
\leq & e^{-\lambda}\left(\lambda(\|\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}\|_{0}-\mu m^{-\alpha}-m^{-\frac{1}{2}}-\varepsilon)-C(1+\|\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}\|_{0})\right)\quad(\text{here choosing }\lambda>C)\\
\leq & -e^{-\lambda}(\mu m^{-\alpha}+m^{-\frac{1}{2}}+\varepsilon+C).
\end{align*}
Since $v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}$ is a classical solution
to PPDE \eqref{eq:second-approx-path-Equation}, we have
\[
\text{Part2}=0.
\]
From \eqref{eq:Hmi-second-approx}, we have
\[
|\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}-\sup_{u}\mathcal{H}^{m}|\le C(1+|p|+|A|)\varepsilon_{1},
\]
which together with \eqref{eq:solution-second-approx-drivetive-estimat}
gives
\[
|\text{Part3}|\le C\varepsilon_{1}.
\]
From the estimates \eqref{eq:coeffient-first-estmat} and \eqref{eq:solution-second-approx-drivetive-estimat},
noting $\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}\in\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}$, we have
\[
|\text{Part4}|\le C\|\mathbf{P}^{m}\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}-\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}\|_{0}\leq C\mu m^{-\alpha}.
\]
Both \eqref{eq:Monotonicity-of-h} and \eqref{eq:maximum-degen} imply
\[
\text{Part5}\geq-C(v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}(\bar{\gamma_{t}})-v(\bar{\gamma_{t}}))\geq\frac{1}{2}Cr_{0}.
\]
Note that the constants $C$ in this proof all do not depend on $m,\varepsilon_{1},\mu$
and $\lambda$. Setting $m\to\infty,\varepsilon_{1}\to0$, and then
considering the upper-limit as $\mu\to\infty$ on both sides of \eqref{eq:contradict-th-uniq},
we have from Definition \eqref{eq:suppersolution} the following inequality:
\[
0\geq-e^{-\lambda}(\varepsilon+C)+\frac{1}{2}Cr_{0},
\]
which is a contradiction when $\lambda$ tends to $\infty$. The proof
is complete.
\begin{rem}
Assertions of Theorems \ref{thm:(repres-theorem-nondegen} and \ref{thm:Repr-Th-degen}
are still true if the coefficients in Assumptions (H2) and (H3) are
relaxed to grow in a linear way.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Degenerate case}
In this subsection, we prove Theorem \ref{thm:Repr-Th-degen} using
the vanishing viscosity method (see \cite{lions1983optimal}).
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Repr-Th-degen}] Similarly
as in the non-degenerate case, we assume that $\mathcal{H}$ strictly
decreases in $y\in\mathbb{R}$ without loss of generality, i.e., \eqref{eq:Monotonicity-of-h}
holds. We only prove $\tilde{v}\geq v$, and the reverse inequality
can be proved in a symmetric (also easier) way.
First we construct an approximation of $\tilde{v}$. For any $\theta>0$,
$\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda$ and $u\in\mathcal{U}$, let $X^{\gamma_{t},u;\theta}$
and $Y^{\gamma_{t},u;\theta}$ solve following stochastic equations
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
X^{\gamma_{t},u;\theta}(s)=\gamma_{t}(s), & \text{all }\omega,\, s\in[0,t);\\
X^{\gamma_{t},u;\theta}(s)=\gamma_{t}(t)+\int_{t}^{s}b(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u;\theta},u(r))dr\\[3mm]
\quad\quad+\int_{t}^{s}\sigma(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u;\theta},u(r))\, dW(r)+\theta(\tilde{W}(t)-\tilde{W}(s)), & \text{a.s. }\omega,s\in[t,T];
\end{cases}\label{eq:diffu proc-3}
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray*}
Y^{\gamma_{t},u;\theta}(s) & = & g(X_{T}^{\gamma_{t},u;\theta})+\int_{s}^{t}f(X_{r}^{\gamma_{t},u;\theta},Y^{\gamma_{t},u;\theta}(r),Z^{\gamma_{t},u;\theta}(r),u(r))\, dr\\
& & -\int_{s}^{t}Z^{\gamma_{t},u;\theta}(r)\, dW(s)-\int_{s}^{t}\tilde{Z}^{\gamma_{t},u;\theta}(r)\, d\tilde{W}(s),\quad s\in[t,T].
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\{\tilde{W}_{t},0\leq t\leq T\}$ is an $n$-dimensional Brownian
motion, independent of $W$. Define
\[
\tilde{v}^{\theta}(\gamma_{t}):=\esssup_{u\in\mathcal{U}}Y^{\gamma_{t},u;\theta}(t).
\]
Obviously, we have
\begin{equation}
|\tilde{v}^{\theta}(\gamma_{t})-\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})|\le C\theta.\label{eq:5.2-first-estimation}
\end{equation}
For any positive integer $m$, $\varepsilon>0$, and $\varepsilon_{1},\,(\varepsilon_{1}<m^{-1})$,
let $V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}:[t_{i-1},t_{i}]\times\mathbb{R}^{i\times n}\to\mathbb{R},\, i=1,\cdots,m$
be the viscosity solutions to the following state-dependent PDEs
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
-\partial_{t}V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})-\frac{1}{2}\theta^{2}\Delta_{x_{i}x_{i}}V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-\hat{H}^{m,i;\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}},(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}}))=0,\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\,(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})\in(t_{i-1},t_{i})\times\mathbb{R}^{i\times n},i=1,\cdots,m;\\
V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(t_{i},\overrightarrow{x_{i}})=V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i+1;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(t_{i}+,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\mathbf{0},x_{i}),\qquad\quad\quad i<m,\overrightarrow{x_{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{i\times n};\\
V_{\varepsilon}^{m,m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(T,\overrightarrow{x_{m}})=G_{\varepsilon}^{m}(\overrightarrow{x_{m}}),\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\overrightarrow{x_{m}}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}.
\end{cases}\label{eq:first-approx-PDE-1}
\end{equation}
Like in Subsection \ref{sub:Smooth-approximations}, we know $V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(\cdot,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\cdot)\in\mathscr{C}^{1,2}([t_{i-1},t_{i}]\times\mathbb{R}^{n})$
and, there are some constants $C$, independent of $m,\, i,$ and
$\varepsilon_{1}$, such that
\begin{equation}
|V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}|+|\partial_{x_{i}}V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}|+|\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}}V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}|\le C(\theta),\label{eq:bound-estimat-degen-state}
\end{equation}
and for all $(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})\in[t_{i-1},t_{i}]\times\mathbb{R}^{i\times n}$,
$(s,\overrightarrow{y_{j}})\in[t_{j-1},t_{j}]\times\mathbb{R}^{j\times n}$,
$i\leq j\leq m$,
\begin{align}
& \left|(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}},\partial_{t})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\cdot)\big|_{\overrightarrow{y_{i}}}^{\overrightarrow{x_{i}}}\right|\le C(\theta)\max_{1\le k\le i}|(x_{1}-y_{1})+\cdots+(x_{k}-y_{k})|^{\beta},\label{eq:lipsch-in-space-deg}\\
& \left|(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}},\partial_{t})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\overrightarrow{x_{i}})-(1,\partial_{x_{i}},\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}},\partial_{t})V_{\varepsilon}^{m,j;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(s,\overrightarrow{x_{i-1}},\underbrace{\mathbf{0},\cdots,\mathbf{0}}_{j-i},x_{i})\right|\label{eq:lipsch-in--time-deg}\\
\le & \, C(\theta)|s-t|^{\frac{\beta}{2}},\nonumber
\end{align}
Since the coefficients in $H^{m,i}$ are twice differentiable, in
view of the method in Krylov \cite[Lemma 1, Scetion 7.1 ]{krylov1987nonlinear},
we have the following lower bound estimate
\begin{equation}
\partial_{x_{i}x_{i}}V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\theta\varepsilon_{1}}\ge-C.\label{eq:2-orderlow-bound-degen-stat}
\end{equation}
Hence
\[
u_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(\gamma_{t}):=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\chi_{[t_{i-1},t_{i})}(t)V_{\varepsilon}^{m,i;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(t,\gamma_{t}(t_{1}),\gamma\big|_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}},\cdots,\gamma\big|_{t_{i-2}}^{t_{i-1}},\gamma\big|_{t_{i-1}}^{t})
\]
is the classical solution of PPDE
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
-D_{t}v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}-\frac{1}{2}\theta^{2}\Delta v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}-\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}\left(\gamma_{t},(1,D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}\right)=0, & \gamma_{t}\in\Lambda,t<T;\\
v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(\gamma_{T})=g_{\varepsilon}^{m}(\gamma_{T}), & \gamma_{T}\in\Lambda_{T},
\end{cases}\label{eq:smooth approx}
\end{equation}
and satisfies the following estimates from \eqref{eq:bound-estimat-degen-state}
- \eqref{eq:2-orderlow-bound-degen-stat},
\begin{align}
\left|v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}\right|_{2,\beta;\Lambda} & \le C(\theta),\label{eq:holde-estimat-degen-path}\\
D_{xx}v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}} & \ge-C.\label{eq:2order-low-bound-path}
\end{align}
Besides, we easily have the following approximating rate
\[
|v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(\gamma_{t})-\tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})|<C\big(\text{Osc}(\gamma_{t},m^{-1})+m^{-\frac{1}{2}}+\theta+\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon\big).
\]
\medskip{}
Now we assert that $\tilde{v}\geq v$. Otherwise, we have
\[
\inf_{\gamma_{t}\in\Lambda}\left\{ \tilde{v}(\gamma_{t})-v(\gamma_{t})\right\} :=-r_{0}<0.
\]
As in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:(repres-theorem-nondegen}, for
any sufficiently large $\lambda>1$, there are $M_{0}=M_{0}(\lambda)>0$
and $\kappa_{1}=\kappa_{1}(\lambda,M_{0})\in(0,T)$, such that for
all sufficiently large number $\mu$, $\theta=\theta(r_{0}),\varepsilon=\varepsilon(r_{0}),\varepsilon_{1}<\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}(\mu,r_{0})$
and $m>\overline{m}(\mu,r_{0}),$ we have
\[
(v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}+e^{-\lambda(\bar{t}+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-v)(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})=\inf_{\gamma_{t}\in\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}}(v_{\varepsilon}^{\theta,m}+e^{-\lambda(t+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-v)(\gamma_{t})>-\frac{1}{2}r_{0},
\]
here $\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}\in\mathbf{C}_{\mu}^{\alpha}\cap\mathbf{Q}_{M_{0},T-\kappa_{1}}$.
Noting \eqref{eq:bounded-estimat-v}, \eqref{eq:holde-estimat-degen-path},
there is a constant $\kappa=\kappa(M_{0},\theta,\lambda,\varepsilon)<\kappa_{1}$
such that
\[
\psi:=v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}+e^{-\lambda(t+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-(v_{\varepsilon}^{m,\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}+e^{-\lambda(\bar{t}+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-v)(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})
\]
lies in $\mathcal{J}_{\mu,\kappa}^{+}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}},v)$.
Since $v$ is a viscosity sub-solution to the path-dependent Bellman
equation \eqref{eq:PHJBE}, we consider the following formula:
\begin{align}
& -D_{t}\psi(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})-\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}},\psi(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),D_{x}\psi(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),D_{xx}\psi(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),u)\label{eq:contradict-th-uniq-1}\\
= & -D_{t}(v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}+e^{-\lambda(\bar{t}+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m})(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
& -\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}\left(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}},v(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),(D_{x},D_{xx})(v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}+e^{-\lambda(\bar{t}+1)}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m})(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),u\right)\nonumber \\
\geq & e^{-\lambda(\bar{t}+1)}\left(\lambda v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-D_{t}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-\sup_{u}|\sigma|^{2}|D_{xx}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|-\sup_{u}(|b|+|\sigma|)|D_{x}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|)\right)(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
& -D_{t}v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})-\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}},v(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),(D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}}),u)\nonumber \\
\geq & e^{-\lambda(\bar{t}+1)}\left(\lambda v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-C(|D_{t}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|+|D_{xx}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|+|D_{x}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|)\right)(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})+\frac{1}{2}\theta^{2}\Delta v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
& +\left[-D_{t}v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}-\frac{1}{2}\theta^{2}\Delta v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}-\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}\left(\cdot,(1,D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}\right)\right](\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
& +\left[\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}\left(\cdot,(1,D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}\right)-\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}\left(\cdot,(1,D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}},u\right)\right](\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
& +\left[\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}^{m;\varepsilon_{1}}\left(\cdot,(1,D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}},u\right)-\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}\left(\cdot,(1,D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}},u\right)\right](\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
& +\left[\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}\left(\cdot,v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}},(D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}},u\right)-\sup_{u\in U}\mathcal{H}\left(\cdot,v,(D_{x},D_{xx})v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}},u\right)\right](\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
:= & e^{-\lambda(\bar{t}+1)}\left(\lambda v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-C(|D_{t}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|+|D_{xx}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|+|D_{x}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|)\right)(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})+\frac{1}{2}\theta^{2}\Delta v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\nonumber \\
& +\text{Part1}+\text{Part2}+\text{Part3}+\text{Part4}.\nonumber
\end{align}
From Assumption (H3) and the corresponding estimates, similar to the
proof of Theorem \ref{thm:(repres-theorem-nondegen}, we have
\begin{align*}
& e^{-\lambda(\bar{t}+1)}\left(\lambda v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}-C(|D_{t}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|+|D_{xx}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|+|D_{x}v_{0,\varepsilon}^{m}|)\right)(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\\
\geq & -e^{-\lambda}(\mu m^{-\alpha}+m^{-\frac{1}{2}}+\varepsilon+C),\quad\text{if }\lambda\text{ sufficiently large},\\
& \theta^{2}\Delta v_{\varepsilon}^{m;\theta,\varepsilon_{1}}(\bar{\gamma}_{\bar{t}})\ge-\theta^{2}C,
\end{align*}
and
\[
\text{Part1}=0,\quad|\text{Part2}|\ge-C(\theta)\varepsilon_{1},\quad|\text{Part3}|\ge-C(\theta)\mu m^{-\alpha},\quad\text{Part4}\ge\frac{1}{2}Cr_{0}.
\]
Since the constants $C$ and $C(\theta)$ do not depend on $\mu,m,\varepsilon_{1}$
and $\lambda$, first setting $m\to\infty,\varepsilon_{1}\to0$ and
then considering the upper-limit as $\mu\to\infty$ on both sides
of \eqref{eq:contradict-th-uniq-1}, we have from the definition \eqref{eq:subsolution}
the following inequality
\[
0>-e^{-\lambda}(C+\varepsilon)-\frac{1}{2}\theta^{2}C+\frac{1}{2}Cr_{0},
\]
which yields a contradiction when sending $\lambda$ to $\infty$
and $\theta$ to $0$. The proof is complete. \end{proof}
\section{Appendix}
In this Appendix, we prove the $\alpha$-H\"older continuity of the
path for the following SDE:
\begin{equation}
X(t)=\int_{0}^{t}b(X_{r})dr+\int_{0}^{t}\sigma(X_{r})dW(r),\label{eq:hold-SDE}
\end{equation}
where $b:\Lambda\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and $\sigma:\Lambda\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$
are uniformly Lipschitz continuous.
\begin{prop}\label{Prop:Hold-norm-prob-est} Let any $\alpha\in(0,\frac{1}{2})$,
$\mu>0$, and $X$ be the unique strong solution of \eqref{eq:hold-SDE}.
For any $p$ satisfying $(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha)p>1$, there is a constant
$C=C(p,\alpha)$ such that
\begin{equation}
P\{\llbracket X_{T}\rrbracket_{\alpha}\geq\mu\}\leq CT^{(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha)p}\mu^{-p}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
Now we give an auxiliary result. \begin{lem} \label{lem:Hold-lem}Fix
$\delta\in(0,T]$, $\mu>0$, $\alpha\in(0,\frac{1}{2})$ and $p>1$.
Then we have
\[
P\left\{ \max_{\begin{subarray}{c}
0\leq s<t\leq T\\
|s-t|\leq\delta
\end{subarray}}|X(s)-X(t)|>\mu\delta^{\alpha}\right\} \leq2\cdot3^{p}C_{p}\delta^{p(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha)-1}\mu^{-p}.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Let $m=m(\delta)\geq2$ be the unique integer satisfying
$T/m<\delta\leq T/(m-1)$. Suppose that $|X(t)-X(s)|>\mu\delta^{\alpha}$
for some $s$ and $t$ such that $0\leq s<t\leq T$ and $|s-t|\leq\delta$.
Then there is a unique integer $q\in[0,m-1]$ such that $s\in[q\delta,(q+1)\delta)$.
There are two possibilities for $t$. One is $t\in[q\delta,(q+1)\delta)$,
where we have either of both inequalities:
\[
|X(q\delta)-X(s)|>\frac{1}{3}\mu\delta^{\alpha}\quad\text{and}\quad|X(q\delta)-X(t)|>\frac{1}{3}\mu\delta^{\alpha}.
\]
The other is $t\in[(q+1)\delta,(q+2)\delta)$ (with $q\leq m+2$),
where we have one of the three inequalities:
\[
|X(q\delta)-X(s)|>\frac{1}{3}\mu\delta^{\alpha},|X(q\delta)-X((q+1)\delta)|>\frac{1}{3}\mu\delta^{\alpha},\text{ and }|X((q+1)\delta)-X(t)|>\frac{1}{3}\mu\delta^{\alpha}.
\]
In conclusion, we have
\[
\left\{ \max_{\begin{subarray}{c}
0\leq s<t\leq T\\
|s-t|\leq\delta
\end{subarray}}|X(s)-X(t)|>\mu\delta^{\alpha}\right\} \subset\bigcup_{q=0}^{m-1}\left\{ \max_{q\delta\leq s\leq(q+1)\delta}|X(s\wedge T)-X(q\delta)|>\frac{1}{3}\mu\delta^{\alpha}\right\} .
\]
In view of Chebyshev's inequality and Lemma \ref{lem:FSDE}, we have
\begin{align*}
P\left\{ \max_{\begin{subarray}{c}
0\leq s<t\leq T\\
|s-t|\leq\delta
\end{subarray}}|X(s)-X(t)|>\mu\delta^{\alpha}\right\} & \leq\sum_{q=0}^{m-1}P\left\{ \max_{q\delta\leq s\leq(q+1)\delta}|X(s\wedge T)-X(q\delta)|>\frac{1}{3}\mu\delta^{\alpha}\right\} \\
& \leq\sum_{q=0}^{m-1}E\left[\max_{q\delta\leq s\leq(q+1)\delta}|X(s\wedge T)-X(q\delta)|^{p}\right]3^{p}(\mu\delta^{\alpha})^{-p}\\
& \leq3^{p}(T\delta^{-1}+1)C_{p}\delta^{\frac{p}{2}}(\mu\delta^{\alpha})^{-p}\\
& \leq2\cdot3^{p}C_{p}T\delta^{p(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha)-1}\mu^{-p}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof} \medskip{}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{Prop:Hold-norm-prob-est}]
For any $s,t\in[0,T]$ such that $s<t$, there is a unique integer
$q\geq0$ such that $2^{-(q+1)}T<t-s\leq2^{-q}T.$ Obviously,
\begin{align*}
& \left\{ |X(s)-X(t)|>\mu|s-t|^{\alpha}\right\} \subset\left\{ |X(s)-X(t)|>\mu T^{\alpha}2^{-\alpha(q+1)}\right\} \\
\subset & \left\{ \max_{\begin{subarray}{c}
0\leq s<t\leq T\\
|s-t|\leq2^{-q}T
\end{subarray}}|X(s)-X(t)|>2^{-\alpha}\mu(2^{-q}T)^{\alpha}\right\} .
\end{align*}
Thus, applying Lemma \ref{lem:Hold-lem},
\begin{align*}
P\left\{ \max_{0\leq s<t\leq T}\frac{|X(s)-X(t)|}{|s-t|^{\alpha}}>\mu\right\} & \leq\sum_{q=0}^{\infty}P\left\{ \max_{\begin{subarray}{c}
0\leq s<t\leq T\\
|s-t|\leq2^{-q}T
\end{subarray}}|X(s)-X(t)|>2^{-\alpha}\mu(2^{-q}T)^{\alpha}\right\} \\
& \leq\sum_{q=0}^{\infty}2\cdot3^{p}C_{p}T(2^{-q}T)^{p(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha)-1}(2^{-\alpha}\mu)^{-p}\\
& =CT^{(\frac{1}{2}-\alpha)p}\mu^{-p}.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof.\end{proof}
\medskip{}
\textbf{Acknowledgment}: The authors would thank Professor Nizar Touzi
for pointing out an error in our first version of this paper, and
as well for helpful comments and suggestions on the second version. Of course, both authors are responsible for all errors occurring in the new version.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
All graphs considered are simple and finite. For a graph $G=(V,E)$, we will use $n=n(G)$ to denote the order, or $|V|$, and $m=m(G)$ to denote the size, or $|E|$. Moreover, we will use the notation $\Delta(G)$ and $\delta(G)$ to denote, respectively, the maximum and minimum degrees of a graph $G$. A complete graph with $r$ vertices is denoted $K_r$ and an empty graph with $r$ vertices is denoted $E_r$. If $S$ is a subset of $V$, then we use the notation $[S]$ to denote the subgraph induced by $S$. For two graphs $G$ and $H$, we use the notation $G \cup H$ to denote their union and the notation $G+H$ to denote their join (the graph obtained by joining all possible edges between $G$ and $H$). A $j$-independent set is a set $I \subseteq V$ such that $\Delta([I]) < j$. The $j$-independence number, denoted $\alpha_j(G)$, is the cardinality of a largest $j$-independent set. This generalizes the traditional independence number since $\alpha_1(G)=\alpha(G)$. A $j$-dominating set is a set $D \subseteq V$ such that each vertex in $V-D$ has at least $j$ neighbors in $D$. The $j$-domination number, denoted $\gamma_j(G)$, is the cardinality of a smallest $j$-dominating set. This generalizes the traditional domination number since $\gamma_1(G)=\gamma(G)$. These concepts were introduced in \cite{25,26} and both invariants have become popular research topics. For example, $j$-independence number is studied in \cite{28,23,21,22,19}, $j$-domination is studied in \cite{29,27,20,30}, while relationships between these invariants is studied in \cite{16,24,18,17}. In fact, the literature is so extensive that in order to see the many more articles on these topics, it would be better to consult the textbook \cite{30} and the survey article \cite{16} which collectively capture much of what is known. The degree sequence $D$ of a graph $G$, unless stated otherwise, is assumed to be in non-decreasing order and denoted; $D=D(G)=\{\delta=d_1 \leq d_2 \leq \ldots \leq d_n=\Delta\}$.
The goal of this paper is to introduce a general method by which to constrain NP-hard graph invariants, such as the independence and domination numbers, by use of the degree sequence. In particular, we will show how certain indices of the ordered degree sequence can be used as upper and lower bounds for various other graph invariants. In some instances, these will be improvements or generalizations on known bounds, while in other instances, they will lead to new bounds entirely.
\section{The General Strategy}
Given a graph $G$ with degree sequence $D=\{d_1 \leq d_2 \leq \ldots \leq d_n\}$, our goal is to find both upper and lower bounds, connected to indices from $D$, for the size of a largest (smallest) induced subgraph having a given property $P$. Let $c(G)$ be a given graph invariant of $G$. Now, for any subset $S \subseteq V$, let $h(\{ deg(v) | v \in S \})$ be a function of the degrees in $S$ such that for any two subsets of $V$, say $X$ and $Y$, with the same cardinality, if $\sum_{v \in X} deg(v) \geq \sum_{v \in Y} deg(v)$, then $h(\{ deg(v) | v \in X \}) \geq h(\{ deg(v) | v \in Y \})$.\\
The strategy we introduce, which we call the \textbf{Degree Sequence Index Strategy}, (DSI strategy) can now be described in the following steps.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $A(P)$ be an optimal induced subgraph of $G$ with property $P$. Identify functions $f_U(G,A(P))$ and $f_L(G,A(P))$, such that one of the following is true;
\[ h(\{ deg(v) | v \in A(P) \}) + f_U(G,A(P)) \leq c(G), \]
if an upper bound on $|A(P)|$ was intended, and
\[ h(\{ deg(v) | v \in A(P) \}) + f_L(G,A(P)) \geq c(G), \]
if a lower bound on $|A(P)|$ was intended.
\item Define the indices $DSI_U(G,h,f_U,k)$ and $DSI_L(G,h,f_L,k)$ as follows;
\[ DSI_U(G,h,f_U,c) = \max\{k \in \mathbb{Z} | h(\{ d_i | i \in \{1,2,\ldots,k\} \}) + f_U(G,A(P)) \leq c(G)\}, \]
\[ DSI_L(G,h,f_L,c) = \min\{k \in \mathbb{Z} | h(\{ d_{n-i+1} | i \in \{1,2,\ldots,k\} \}) + f_L(G,A(P)) \geq c(G)\}. \]
\item Next, make the following observations;
\[ h(\{ d_i | i \in \{1,2,\ldots,|A(P)|\} \}) + f_U(G,A(P)) \leq h(\{ deg(v) | v \in A(P) \}) + f_U(G,A(P)) \leq c(G), \]
\[ h(\{ d_{n-i+1} | i \in \{1,2,\ldots,|A(P)|\} \}) + f_L(G,A(P)) \geq h(\{ deg(v) | v \in A(P) \}) + f_L(G,A(P)) \geq c(G). \]
\item Finally, since $|A(P)|$ is an integer satisfying the definitions above, we conclude; $DSI_L(G,h,f_L,c) \leq |A(P)| \leq DSI_U(G,h,f_U,c)$, as was intended.
\item After this, the optional step would be to find more easily computable approximations to the functions $f_U$ and $f_L$ (and possibly to $c(G)$), so that, for example, the $DSI_U$ and $DSI_L$ can be found in polynomial time.
\end{enumerate}
As is evident, the most difficulty lies in the identification of the functions from the first step, and then in finding approximations to those functions for practicality. In the next section, we give an example of this process, which we will elaborate on for much of the remainder of the paper. In a later section, we will give an example using a different graph property, giving some feeling for the generality of the DSI strategy.
\section{Application to Independence}
The monotonicity condition imposed on the function $h$ is suggestive, and leads to our first concrete example. Namely, we identify $h(\{ deg(v) | v \in S \}) = \sum_{v \in S} deg(v)$. Also, we will use the number of edges, or size, of $G$ as our graph invariant $c(G)=m(G)$. Our property $P$ is that of being a $j$-independent set, so that $A(P)$ is a maximum $j$-independent set and we want to constrain $|A(P)|=\alpha_j(G)$. Thus, in this section, we will apply the DSI strategy to find upper and lower bounds for the $j$-independence number. This problem is well motivated since calculating the $j$-independence number exactly is a computationally difficult problem \cite{15,14,13}. In some cases, we will show how these inequalities give improvements or generalizations on known results, or new results entirely. Finally, we will consider the extreme cases where these newly discovered upper and lower bounds are sharp, as well as where they can be very poor approximations.
The annihilation number of a graph was introduced by Pepper in \cite{3,4} -- where it was shown to be an upper bound on the independence number. The characterization of equality for this upper bound was addressed in \cite{2}. While reading the proof of this upper bound, Fajtlowicz formulated the definition presented below, recognizing that it also led to an upper bound on the independence number. In \cite{5,4}, Pepper shows that the original definition is equivalent to the one presented below -- which for simplicity, and relevance to this paper, is the only one we give.
\begin{defn}\label{ann_def}
Let $D=\{d_1 \leq d_2 \leq \ldots \leq d_n\}$ be the degree sequence of a graph $G$. The \textit{annihilation number} of $G$, denoted $a=a(G)$, can be defined by the equation:
\[
a(G) = \max \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_i \leq m(G) \}.
\]
\end{defn}
Since the sum of the first $\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor$ terms in $D$ is clearly at most $m(G)$, it is apparent from the definition above that $a(G) \geq \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor$.
\begin{thm}\label{alpha_ann}\cite{3,4,5}
For any graph $G$, $\alpha(G) \leq a(G)$.
\end{thm}
To see that the definition and theorem above are a special case of the DSI strategy, notice that we would just make the identifications, $f_U(G,A(P))=0$ and $DSI_U(G,h,f_U,c)=a(G)$, while letting $P$ be the property of being an independent set.
Our first new application of the DSI strategy is a generalization and improvement of Theorem \ref{alpha_ann}, as well as a new and analogous lower bound.
\begin{defn}\label{upper_lower}
Let $D=\{d_1 \leq d_2 \leq \ldots \leq d_n\}$ be the degree sequence of a graph $G=(V,E)$ and let $F$ denote the family of all maximum $j$-independent sets in $G$. The \textit{upper $j$-annihilation number} of $G$, denoted $a_j=a_j(G)$, can be defined by the equation:
\[
a_j(G) = \max \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_i + \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \leq m(G) \}.
\]
The \textit{lower $j$-annihilation number} of $G$, denoted $c_j=c_j(G)$, can be defined by the equation:
\[
c_j(G) = \min \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_{n-i+1} + \min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \geq m(G) \}.
\]
\end{defn}
The main result of this section now follows.
\begin{thm}\label{main}
For any positive integer $j$ and for any graph $G=(V,E)$;
\[
c_j(G) \leq \alpha_j(G) \leq a_j(G).
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
First we prove the upper bound. Let $I$ be a maximum $j$-independent set such that for all $S \in F$, $m[V-I]-m[I] \geq m[V-S]-m[S]$. Denote by $m_1$ the number of edges in $[I]$, by $m_2$ the number of edges in $[V-I]$, and by $m_3$ the number of edges between $I$ and $V-I$. Observe the following chain of inequalities:
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{\alpha_j} d_i + (m[V-I]-m[I]) \leq \sum_{v \in I} deg(v) + m_2-m_1 = 2m_1+m_3 + m_2-m_1 = m.
\]
Since $\alpha_j$ is an integer satisfying the condition in the definition of the upper $j$-annihilation number, and $a_j$ is the largest such integer, the upper bound is proven.
Next we prove the lower bound. Let $I$ be a maximum $j$-independent set such that for all $S \in F$, $m[V-I]-m[I] \leq m[V-S]-m[S]$. Denote $m_1$, $m_2$, and $m_3$ as above. Observe the following chain of inequalities:
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{\alpha_j} d_{n-i+1} + (m[V-I]-m[I]) \geq \sum_{v \in I} deg(v) + m_2-m_1 = 2m_1+m_3 + m_2-m_1 = m.
\]
Since $\alpha_j$ is an integer satisfying the condition in the definition of the lower $j$-annihilation number, and $c_j$ is the smallest such integer, the lower bound is proven.
\end{proof}
To see that these results fit into the DSI strategy, note that our property $P$ is that of being a $j$-independent set and $A(P)$ is a maximum $j$-independent set (so that $|A(P)|=\alpha_j(G)$). Moreover, our functions $f_U(G,A(P))$ and $f_L(G,A(P))$ are $\max \{m[V-S]-m[S]| S \in F \}$ and $\min \{m[V-S]-m[S]| S \in F \}$ respectively. Finally, $DSI_U(G,h,f_U,c)$ and $DSI_L(G,h,f_L,c)$ are simply the upper and lower $j$-annihilation numbers.
The quality of Theorem \ref{main} will now be discussed. First, let us consider a few examples where the upper $j$-annihilation number is an improvement on the annihilation number from Definition \ref{ann_def}.
\begin{ex}[Showing $\alpha(G)=a_1(G)<a(G)$]\label{3.5}
For positive integers $p$ and $n$ satisfying $2p+3 < n$, the families of graphs $E_p \cup K_{n-p}$ and $E_p + K_{n-p}$ are both examples where $\alpha(G)=a_1(G)<a(G)$. In fact, we have;
\[
\alpha(E_p \cup K_{n-p})=a_1(E_p \cup K_{n-p})= p+1 < \frac{n-1}{2} \leq \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor \leq a(E_p \cup K_{n-p})
\]
and
\[
\alpha(E_p + K_{n-p})=a_1(E_p + K_{n-p})= p < \frac{n-3}{2} < \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor \leq a(E_p + K_{n-p}).
\]
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}[Showing $\alpha(G)=2=a_1(G)<a(G)$]\label{3.6}
Let $G$ be the graph obtained by adding a matching between two complete graphs with $p$ vertices. Then, if $ p \geq3$, we have;
\[
\alpha(G)=a_1(G)= 2 < p = a(G).
\]
\end{ex}
\begin{rem}
It should be mentioned here that, while the upper $j$-annihilation number is sharp for every $p \geq3$ in the graphs described in Example \ref{3.6}, none of the known upper bounds on the independence number presented in the recent survey \cite{9} are satisfied with equality for these examples. This includes some of the more famous bounds such as $\alpha(G) \leq n(G)-\mu(G)$, as well as the bound of Cvetkovic of the minimum of the non-negative and non-positive eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix. Thus there are examples where this new bound, the upper $1$-annihilation number is a better approximation of $\alpha_1=\alpha$ than all known upper bounds. Additionally, if $G$ is the graph of the regular dodecahedron, we have $c_1(G) = 8 = \alpha(G)$, while all of the 12 lower bounds on the independence number presented in \cite{9} return values less than that. Hence there are also examples where the lower $1$-annihilation number is a better approximation of $\alpha_1=\alpha$ than all known lower bounds. Admittedly, in both instances, focus was on efficiently computable approximations and neither $a_j$ nor $c_j$ have this property.
\end{rem}
Next we present a theorem that shows the strengths and weaknesses of Theorem \ref{main} in its most general form. In particular, it will show that there are graphs where equality holds throughout the theorem, while also graphs where both upper and lower bounds can be very far from the actual value of $\alpha_j(G)$. The fact that both upper and lower bounds can, for some graphs, be very poor approximations to the independence number (the $j=1$ case) is not surprising when one considers that determining $\alpha(G)$ is a well known NP-hard problem \cite{15,14,13}. In this context, the following theorem gives more evidence that, in spite of the apparent improvement over known upper and lower bounds, the situation is still far from ideal.
\begin{thm} We will give constructive existence proofs of the following four propositions.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists graphs where $c_j(G) = \alpha_j(G) = a_j(G)$.
\item There exists graphs where $c_j(G) = \alpha_j(G)$ while $\frac{a_j(G)}{\alpha_j(G)} \to \infty$.
\item There exists graphs where $a_j(G) = \alpha_j(G)$ while $\frac{\alpha_j(G)}{c_j(G)} \to \infty$.
\item There exists graphs where $\alpha_j(G)-c_j(G) \to \infty$ and $\frac{a_j(G)}{\alpha_j(G)} \to \infty$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
To prove (1), let $G$ be a regular graph whose vertices can be partitioned into two maximum $j$-independent sets. As evidence that these kind of graphs exist in general, let
\[ G = (\cup_{i=1}^{j}K_j) + (\cup_{i=1}^{j}K_j) \].
Notice that this family of graphs is regular of degree $j^2+j-1$, has $\alpha_j(G)=j^2$, and its vertices can be partitioned into two maximum $j$-independent sets. First, note that $a_j \leq \frac{n}{2}$ since the sum of the smallest $\frac{n}{2}$ terms of the degree sequence is already equal to $m(G)$, and $\max \{m[V-S]-m[S]| S \in F \} \geq 0$ since one of the two parts has at least as many edges in its induced subgraph as the other. Next, note that $c_j(G) \geq \frac{n}{2}$ since the sum of the largest $\frac{n}{2}$ terms of the degree sequence is already equal to $m(G)$, and $\min \{m[V-S]-m[S]| S \in F \} \leq 0$ since one of the two parts has at most as many edges in its induced subgraph as the other. Combining this with Theorem \ref{main},
\[
\frac{n(G)}{2} \leq c_j(G) \leq \alpha_j(G) \leq a_j(G) \leq \frac{n(G)}{2}.
\]
Thus they are all equal and the first proposition is established.
To prove (2), we denote the disjoint union of $b$ isomorphic copies of $H$ with the notation $\cup_{i=1}^b H$. Now, for given positive integers $j$ and $p$ such that $j < p^2$, we will establish the truth of the following two claims;
\[
c_j(\cup_{i=1}^{p}K_{p^2} + \cup_{i=1}^{p+1}K_j)= \alpha_j(\cup_{i=1}^{p}K_{p^2} + \cup_{i=1}^{p+1}K_j),
\]
while simultaneously, as $p \to \infty$;
\[
\frac{a_j(\cup_{i=1}^{p}K_{p^2} + \cup_{i=1}^{p+1}K_j)}{\alpha_j(\cup_{i=1}^{p}K_{p^2} + \cup_{i=1}^{p+1}K_j)} \to \infty.
\]
For ease of notation, set $G=\cup_{i=1}^{p}K_{p^2} + \cup_{i=1}^{p+1}K_j$. First, we can see that $\alpha_j(G)=j(p+1)$. Observe that $G$ has $p^3$ vertices of degree $p^2+pj+j-1$ while it has $j(p+1)$ vertices of degree $p^3+j-1$. When combined with the fact that $G$ has a unique maximum $j$-independent set -- the $(p+1)$ copies of $K_j$ -- this allows us to deduce all of the following;
\[
\min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} = \frac{p^3(p^2-1)}{2} - \frac{j(j-1)(p+1)}{2},
\]
\[
m(G) = \frac{p^3(p^2-1)}{2} + \frac{j(j-1)(p+1)}{2} + p^3(p+1)j,
\]
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{(p+1)j} d_{n-i+1} + \min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} = (p^3+j-1)(p+1)j + \frac{p^3(p^2-1)}{2} - \frac{j(j-1)(p+1)}{2} = m(G).
\]
Therefore, we conclude from the definition, $c_j(G)=\alpha_j(G)$, which settles the first claim.
As for the second claim, since $\alpha_j(G)=j(p+1)$, it only remains to calculate $a_j(G)$ and compare them. To this end, we observe the validity of the following chain of inequalities, as $p \to \infty$;
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{p^2} d_i + \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} = (p^2+pj+j-1)p^2 + \frac{p^3(p^2-1)}{2} - \frac{j(j-1)(p+1)}{2} \leq m(G).
\]
This shows that $p^2$ is an integer satisfying the condition in the definition of upper $j$-annihilation number. Hence, because $a_j(G)$ is the largest such integer, $a_j(G)\geq p^2$. Finally,
\[
\frac{a_j(G)}{\alpha_j(G)} \geq \frac{p^2}{j(p+1)},
\]
and the right hand side of this inequality grows arbitrarily large with $p$ for any fixed integer $j$. This completes the proof of the second proposition.
Next, to prove (3), consider complete split graphs, which are joins of complete graphs and empty graphs. Note that these graphs are the same as those from Example \ref{3.5}. Let $p$ and $j$ be positive integers. Then, we make the following two claims. As $p \to \infty$, we have;
\[
\alpha_j(E_{p^2}+K_p)= a_j(E_{p^2}+K_p),
\]
while simultaneously,
\[
\frac{\alpha_j(E_{p^2}+K_p)}{c_j(E_{p^2}+K_p)} \to \infty.
\]
For ease of notation, set $G=E_{p^2}+K_p$. Choose $p$ large enough so that, $j < p^2$. It is clear now that $\alpha_j(G)=p^2$. Observe that $G$ has $p^2$ vertices of degree $p$ while it has $p$ vertices of degree $p^2+p-1$. Now, since the difference $m[V-S]-m[S]$ is maximized over the set $F$, of all maximum $j$-independent sets, when $S$ is the vertex set of $E_{p^2}$, we see that;
\[
\max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} = \frac{p(p-1)}{2},
\]
while,
\[
m(G)=\frac{p(p-1)}{2}+p^3.
\]
Therefore,
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{p^2} d_i + \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} = p^3 + \frac{p(p-1)}{2} = m(G),
\]
from which we conclude from the definition that $a_j(G) = p^2$, which settles the first claim.
As for second claim, since we still have $\alpha_j(G)=p^2$, it only remains to calculate $c_j(G)$ and compare them. To this end, we choose $p$ large enough so that for the given positive integer $j$, $G$ has a unique maximum $j$-independent set consisting of the vertex set of $E_{p^2}$. Then we see that;
\[
\min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} = \frac{p(p-1)}{2}.
\]
Therefore,
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{p} d_{n-i+1} + \min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} = p^3 + \frac{p(p-1)}{2} = m(G).
\]
We now conclude from the definition that $c_j(G)=p$. Hence $\frac{\alpha_j(G)}{c_j(G)}=p \to \infty$, concluding the proof of the third proposition.
Finally, to prove (4), we establish the truths of the two claims that follow. For positive integers $p$,$q$,$r$, and $j$, define the graph $G(p,q,r,j)$ as follows. Starting with the disjoint union of a $K_q$ and $q$ disjoint copies of the graph $\cup_{i=1}^{p}K_{r} + \cup_{i=1}^{p+1}K_j$, associate a unique vertex of $K_q$ to each of the $q$ copies and join all vertices of each copy to this associated vertex. Now, as $p \to \infty$, we must show that;
\[
\alpha_j(G(p,p^2,p^2,j)) - c_j(G(p,p^2,p^2,j)) \to \infty,
\]
while simultaneously,
\[
\frac{a_j(G(p,p^2,p^2,j))}{\alpha_j(G(p,p^2,p^2,j))} \to \infty.
\]
Set $G=G(p,p^2,p^2,j)$ for ease of notation. Since we are only interested in this family of graphs when $p$ is growing arbitrarily large, we only calculate the following list of invariants for $p$ large enough so that $j < p^2$. First, since $G$ has a unique maximum $j$-independent set, we can record the following invariants;
\[
\alpha_j(G)= p^3j + p^2j,
\]
\[
m(G) = (\frac{p^3(p^2-1)}{2} + \frac{j(j-1)(p+1)}{2}+ p^3(p+1)j)p^2 + \frac{p^2(p^2-1)}{2} + p^2(p^3+j(p+1)),
\]
\[
\min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \}=\max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} = \frac{p^5(p^2-1)}{2}+\frac{p^2(p^2-1)}{2} + p^5 - \frac{p^2(p+1)j(j-1)}{2}.
\]
Subtracting the third equation above from the second and simplifying, we have;
\begin{equation}\label{p6}
m(G) - \min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \}=m(G) - \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} = p^6j + p^5j +p^3j^2 + p^2j^2.
\end{equation}
Now we will record the degree sequence of $G$, using exponents on the different degrees to indicate the number of times that degree occurs in $G$,
\[
D = \{(p^2+pj+j)^{p^5},(p^3+j)^{(p+1)p^2j},(p^3+p^2+pj+j-1)^{p^2} \}.
\]
From this we observe that the sum of the largest $p^2$ degrees is less than Equation \ref{p6}, while the sum of the largest $(p^2+(p+1)p^2j)$ degrees is greater than Equation \ref{p6}. This enables us to deduce that $p^2 < c_j(G) \leq p^2+(p+1)p^2j$. Using this information, we derive the following;
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{p^3j+p^2j-p} d_{n-i+1} = p^2(p^3+p^2+pj+j-1) + (p^3j+p^2j-p-p^2)(p^3+j) \geq m(G) - \min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \}.
\]
This shows that $(p^3j+p^2j-p)$ is an integer satisfying the condition in the definition of lower $j$-annihilation number. Since $c_j(G)$ is defined as the smallest such integer, $c_j(G) \leq p^3j+p^2j-p$. Hence we can compare the difference between $\alpha_j(G)$ and $c_j(G)$ as follows;
\[
\alpha_j(G)-c_j(G) \geq (p^3j+p^2j) - (p^3j+p^2j-p) = p,
\]
which can be made arbitrarily large. This completes the proof of the first claim.
Next, we observe that the smallest $p^5$ degrees of $G$ are all $(p^2+pj+j)$. Of course, the same thing is true for the smallest $p^4-p^2$ degrees, from which we get;
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{p^4-p^2} d_i = (p^4-p^2)(p^2+pj+j) \leq m(G) - \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \}.
\]
This shows that $p^4-p^2$ is an integer satisfying the condition in the definition of upper $j$-annihilation number. Since $a_j(G)$ is defined as the largest such integer, $a_j(G) \geq p^4-p^2$. Hence, we can compare the ratio of $\alpha_j(G)$ and $a_j(G)$ as follows;
\[
\frac{a_j(G)}{\alpha_j(G)} \geq \frac{p^4-p^2}{p^3j + p^2j},
\]
which can be made arbitrarily large. This establishes the second claim, completes the proof of the fourth proposition, and therefore proves the theorem.
\end{proof}
To conclude this section, we give a couple more definitions and a lemma that will be used later on in the paper. Recall the definitions of upper and lower $j$-annihilation number, where $F$ is the family of all maximum $j$-independent sets,
\[ a_j(G) = \max \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_i + \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \leq m(G) \}, \]
\[ c_j(G) = \min \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_{n-i+1} + \min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \geq m(G) \}. \]
In \cite{2}, the authors define an annihilating set to be a set whose degree sum is at most the size. We will borrow this language to define an \textit{upper $j$-annihilating set} to be a set $A$ with the property that,
\[ \sum_{v \in A}deg(v) + \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \leq m(G). \]
Analogously, we say that $A$ is a \textit{lower $j$-annihilating set} when,
\[ \sum_{v \in A}deg(v) + \min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \geq m(G). \]
We then define a \textit{maximum upper $j$-annihilating set} to be an upper $j$-annihilating set of the largest order and a
\textit{minimum lower $j$-annihilating set} is a lower $j$-annihilating set of the smallest order.
\begin{lem}\label{ann_set}
For any graph $G$, if $A$ is a maximum upper $j$-annihilating set, then $|A|=a_j(G)$. That is, the order of a maximum upper $j$-annihilating set is exactly the upper $j$-annihilation number. Moreover, if $A$ is a minimum lower $j$-annihilating set, then $|A|=c_j(G)$. That is, the order of a minimum lower $j$-annihilating set is exactly the lower $j$-annihilation number.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a graph with degree sequence $D=\{d_1 \leq d_2 \leq \ldots \leq d_n\}$ and let $A$ be a maximum upper $j$-annihilating set of $G$. Now,
\[ \sum_{i=1}^{|A|}d_i \leq \sum_{v \in A} deg(v), \]
which implies
\[ \sum_{i=1}^{|A|}d_i + \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \leq \sum_{v \in A} deg(v) + \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \leq m(G). \]
Hence, $|A|$ is an integer satisfying the definition of upper $j$-annihilation while $a_j(G)$ is the largest such integer. Consequently, $|A| \leq a_j(G)$.
On the other hand, let $B$ be a set of vertices of $G$ whose degrees are the $a_j(G)$ smallest degrees, $\{d_1,\ldots,d_{a_j}\}$. Clearly we have,
\[ \sum_{i=1}^{a_j}d_i = \sum_{v \in B} deg(v). \]
Hence, from the definition of $a_j(G)$,
\[ \sum_{v \in B} deg(v) + \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} = \sum_{i=1}^{a_j}d_i + \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \leq m(G). \]
From this we conclude that $B$ is an upper $j$-annihilating set and as such, the order of $B$ is less than or equal to the order of a maximum upper $j$-annihilating set -- namely, $|B| \leq |A|$. Therefore, since $a_j(G)=|B|$ and together with the first paragraph, this shows they are equal and proves the first part of the theorem. The second part of the theorem can be proven in a similar fashion.
\end{proof}
Of course, there could be more than one maximum upper $j$-annihilating set, but the proof shows that they all have the same order and additionally that any set of the smallest $a_j(G)$ degrees suffices to find one.
It is clear that calculating $a_j(G)$ and $c_j(G)$ is still an intractable problem, since it uses information about all maximum $j$-independent sets. Thus, as was alluded to in the description of the DSI strategy, the next step is to find approximations to the functions $f_U(G,A(P))$ and $f_L(G,A(P))$, so that the weaker bounds can at least be computed more easily. This is done to some extent in the next section, where we also give applications of the DSI strategy when certain other features of the graph are known.
\section{Approximations and Applications}
In this section, we first give easily computable approximations to Theorem \ref{main}. These are presented in Definition \ref{weak_upper_lower} and Theorem \ref{weak}. After that, we illustrate what can be gained by assuming the graph is planar. Next, we give an application using chromatic number. Finally, we apply the DSI strategy to claw-free graphs.
Let us recall once again Definition \ref{upper_lower}, the upper and lower $j$-annihilation numbers of $G$;
\[
\alpha_j(G) \leq a_j(G) = \max \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_i + \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \leq m(G) \},
\]
\[
\alpha_j(G) \geq c_j(G) = \min \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_{n-i+1} + \min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \geq m(G) \}.
\]
Our next step in the DSI strategy is to find approximations to $\max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \}$ and $\min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \}$ that are simpler or at least more easily computed. In particular, we need a simpler function $f(S) \leq \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \}$, such that when substituted into the definition, we get an index at least as large as $a_j(G)$. For the lower bound, we need to find a simpler function $g(S) \geq \min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \}$, such that when substituted into the definition, we get an index at most as large as $c_j(G)$. To illustrate this idea with an example, consider the following definitions, which give easy to calculate approximations for the invariants introduced in Theorem \ref{main}.
\begin{defn}\label{weak_upper_lower}
Let $D=\{d_1 \leq d_2 \leq \ldots \leq d_n\}$ be the degree sequence of a graph $G=(V,E)$. The \textit{weak upper $j$-annihilation number} of $G$, denoted $a_j^\prime=a_j^\prime(G)$, can be defined by the equation:
\[
a_j^\prime(G) = \max \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_i - \frac{k(j-1)}{2} \leq m(G) \}.
\]
The \textit{weak lower $j$-annihilation number} of $G$, denoted $c_j^\prime=c_j^\prime(G)$, can be defined by the equation:
\[
c_j^\prime(G) = \min \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_{n-i+1} + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{n-k} (d_{n-i+1}-1) \geq m(G) \}.
\]
\end{defn}
\begin{thm}\label{weak}
For any positive integer $j$ and for any graph $G=(V,E)$;
\[
c_j^\prime(G) \leq c_j(G) \leq \alpha_j(G) \leq a_j(G) \leq a_j^\prime(G).
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
To see that $c_j^\prime(G) \leq c_j(G)$, it is enough to show;
\[
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{n-c_j} (d_{n-i+1}-1) \geq \min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \}.
\]
With this in mind, let $A$ be a maximum $j$-independent set which realizes $\min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \}$. Denote by $m_1$ the number of edges in $[A]$, by $m_2$ the number of edges in $[V-A]$, and by $m_3$ the number of edges between $A$ and $V-A$. Now we get the following three equations, which will simplify what follows;
\[
m[V-A]-m[A] = m_2 - m_1,
\]
\[
\sum_{v \notin A} deg(v) = 2m_2 + m_3.
\]
\[
\sum_{v \in A} deg(v) = 2m_1 + m_3.
\]
From Theorem \ref{main}, $c_j(G) \leq \alpha_j(G)$, so;
\[
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{n-c_j} (d_{n-i+1}-1) \geq \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{n-\alpha_j} (d_{n-i+1}-1) = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{n-\alpha_j} d_{n-i+1} - \frac{n-\alpha_j}{2}.
\]
However, since the sum of the highest $n-\alpha_j$ degrees is at least as large as the sum of the degrees of the $n-\alpha_j$ vertices in $V-A$,
\[
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{n-\alpha_j} d_{n-i+1} - \frac{n-\alpha_j}{2} \geq \frac{1}{2}\sum_{v \notin A} deg(v) - \frac{n-\alpha_j}{2} = m_2 + \frac{1}{2}m_3 - \frac{n-\alpha_j}{2}.
\]
Next we observe that,
\[
m_2 + \frac{1}{2}m_3 - \frac{n-\alpha_j}{2} \geq \min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] = m[V-A]-m[A] = m_2 - m_1,
\]
if and only if,
\[
n-\alpha_j \leq 2m_1 + m_3 = \sum_{v \in A} deg(v).
\]
But this last equation is true since each of the $n-\alpha_j$ vertices not in $A$ has a neighbor in $A$ due to the fact that $A$ is a maximum $j$-independent set. From this we conclude that $c_j^\prime(G) \leq c_j(G) \leq \alpha_j(G)$.
On the other hand, to see that $a_j^\prime(G) \geq a_j(G)$, let $I$ be a maximum $j$-independent set such that for all $S \in F$, $m[V-I]-m[I] \geq m[V-S]-m[S]$. Now, since $\alpha_j \leq a_j$, $m[V-I] \geq 0$, and $m[I] \leq \frac{\alpha_j(j-1)}{2}$, we deduce;
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{a_j} d_i - \frac{a_j(j-1)}{2} \leq \sum_{i=1}^{a_j} d_i - \frac{\alpha_j(j-1)}{2} \leq \sum_{i=1}^{a_j} d_i + m[V-I] - m[I] \leq m(G).
\]
As $a_j^\prime(G)$ is the largest integer having this property by definition, $a_j(G) \leq a_j^\prime(G)$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
We should note here that the weak annihilation number of $G$, $a_j^\prime(G)$, is exactly equal to the annihilation number from Definition \ref{ann_def} when $j=1$. Thus Theorem \ref{weak} is a generalization of Theorem \ref{alpha_ann}, while Theorem \ref{main} is both a generalization and an improvement. The definition of $a_j^\prime(G)$, and its relationship to $\alpha_j(G)$, was previously discovered by Pepper and Waller \cite{12}, though it was never published.
\end{rem}
The main idea of this section was to make use of the DSI strategy to create efficient approximations for NP-hard invariants that we are interested in. As more information about the graph is known, the approximations can be made more precise. In fact, the definition of the weak lower $j$-annihilation number does not even depend on $j$, so that $c_j^\prime(G)=c_1^\prime(G)$.
Moreover, the weak upper $j$-annihilation number was defined without any consideration for the edges outside of a maximum $j$-independent set, even though this was part of the definition for the upper $j$-annihilation number. Some of these weaknesses can be addressed by knowing more about the structure of the graph.
\subsection{Approximations assuming planarity}
With that in mind, let us turn our attention to maximum planar graphs, that is, planar graphs $G$ such that $m(G)=3n(G)-6$.
\begin{thm}\label{planar}
Let $G$ be a maximum planar graph with minimum degree $\delta(G) \leq 5$. Then, for any positive integer $j \leq \delta(G)$;
\[
\alpha_j(G) \leq \frac{2n(G)-4}{\delta(G)-j+1}.
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For any maximum independent set $S$ in $G$, the number of edges between $S$ and $V-S$ is at most $2n(G)-4$, since that is true for all bipartite planar graphs by Euler's formula. Now, because $G$ is maximum planar, $m(G) =3n(G)-6$. Hence we have that;
\[
\max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \geq \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]\} \geq (3n(G)-6)-(2n(G)-4)=n(G)-2,
\]
where $F$ is the set of all maximum $j$-independent sets. So this gives us the approximation we need to more precisely apply the DSI strategy, in the form of the upper $j$-annihilation number. Now, using the above inequality together with the fact that $\alpha_j(G)\leq a_j(G)$ from Theorem \ref{main}, we get;
\[
(\delta(G)-j+1) \alpha_j(G) + n(G)-2 \leq \sum_{i=1}^{\alpha_j} d_i + n(G)-2 \leq \sum_{i=1}^{a_j} d_i + \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \leq m(G) = 3n(G)-6.
\]
From which we deduce our desired inequality.
\end{proof}
When $j=1$, this result becomes a theorem from a paper of Caro and Roddity \cite{10}. In that paper, examples are given showing that equality holds in Theorem \ref{planar}, when $j=1$, for infinitely many graphs and for each value of $\delta \in \{2,3,4,5\}$. A nice corollary to Theorem \ref{planar} that is worth mentioning is below.
\begin{cor}\cite{10}
If $G$ is a maximum planar graph with $\delta(G)=5$, then;
\[
\alpha(G) \leq \frac{2n(G)-4}{5}.
\]
\end{cor}
To see that the inequality in Theorem \ref{planar} is sharp even for $j>1$, consider the following example. We show here that the theorem is satisfied with equality (only asymptotically in one case) for the following pairs $(j,\delta)$: $\{(1,3),(1,4),(1,5),(2,2),(2,3),(2,4),(3,4),(3,5)\}$. For the pairs $(3,3),(4,4),$ and $(5,5)$ equality is not possible. The cases when $j=1$ appeared in \cite{10}, though we give another example of the $(1,4)$ case below. Examples for the other cases where equality holds are collected below. We do not know whether the bound is sharp for some graphs for the $(j,\delta)=(2,5)$ and $(j,\delta)=(4,5)$ cases, and leave these for open problems.
\begin{ex}
First, when $j=\delta(G)=2$, a complete graph on $3$ vertices is the unique graph with the desired properties, and there are no other instances where equality can be achieved when $j = \delta(G)$. So we restrict our attention to $j \leq \delta(G)-1$. When $j=2$ and $\delta(G)=3$, the complete graph on $4$ vertices is the unique graph with the desired properties.
Now, let $G$ be the graph formed by taking a cycle on $3p$ vertices, where $p \geq 2$ is an integer, adding a vertex $u$ inside this cycle and a vertex $v$ outside the cycle, and then joining each of $u$ and $v$ to each of the $3p$ vertices of the cycle. Observe that $m(G) = 9p = 3n(G)-6$. Hence, $G$ is a maximum planar graph with $\delta(G)=4$. When $j=1$, we find that,
\[ \frac{2n(G)-4}{\delta(G)-j+1} = \frac{2n(G)-4}{4}= \frac{n(G)}{2} - 1 = \alpha_1(G) = \alpha(G). \]
Moreover, when $j=2$, we find,
\[ \frac{2n(G)-4}{\delta(G)-j+1} = \frac{2n(G)-4}{3}= 2p = \alpha_2(G). \]
Finally, when $j=3$, we find,
\[ \frac{2n(G)-4}{\delta(G)-j+1} = n(G)-2 = 3p = \alpha_3(G). \]
Thus, we see there are infinitely many examples satisfying Theorem \ref{planar} with equality when $\delta =4$ and $1 \leq j \leq 3$.
When the $\delta(G)=5$ and $j=3$, we can construct a family of graphs for which the inequality is ``nearly" sharp, meaning different only by a small constant as $n$ grows arbitrarily large. Let $G$ be the graph described as follows. Let $r \geq 5$ be an integer. Let $A=P_r$ be a path on $r$ vertices labeled $\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}$, let $B=P_r$ be a path on $r$ vertices labeled $\{b_1,\ldots,b_r\}$, and let $C=P_{r-1}$ be a path on $r-1$ vertices labeled $\{c_1,\ldots,c_{r-1}\}$. Draw $A$ above $C$ above $B$. Join $a_1$ to $b_1$ and join $a_r$ to $b_r$. For each $i \in \{1,\ldots,r-1\}$, join $c_i$ to $a_i$, $a_{i+1}$, $b_i$, and $b_{i+1}$. Add a vertex $u$, and join it to all of the vertices of $A$, and a vertex $v$, and join it to all of the vertices of $B$. Finally, join $a_1$ to $a_r$, join $b_1$ to $b_r$, and $a_1$ to $b_r$. This graph is maximum planar with $\delta(G)=5$. When $j=3$, the set $(A-a_1)\cup(B-b_r)$ is a $3$-independent set of order $2r-2$. Moreover, since $n=3r+1$
\[ \frac{2n(G)-4}{\delta(G)-j+1} = \frac{2n(G)-4}{3} = 2r - \frac{2}{3} = \alpha_3(G) + \frac{4}{3}. \]
\end{ex}
\subsection{Approximations using chromatic number}
Next we will focus on using the chromatic number to get upper bounds on the independence number. Before proceeding, let us define the \textit{$j$-chromatic number of $G$}, denoted by $\chi_j(G)$, as the fewest number of $j$-independent sets the vertices of $G$ can be partitioned into. For example, when $j=1$, this is just the regular chromatic number.
\begin{thm}\label{chromatic}
For any positive integer $j$ and for any graph $G=(V,E)$;
\[
\alpha_j(G) \leq a_j(G) \leq \max \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_i + {\chi_j-1 \choose 2} -\frac{k(j-1)}{2} \leq m(G) \} \leq a_j^\prime(G).
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
To prove this result, as with the earlier approximations of Theorem \ref{main}, it suffices to establish that;
\[
{\chi_j-1 \choose 2} - \frac{a_j(G)(j-1)}{2} \leq \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \},
\]
where again, $F$ is the family of all maximum $j$-independent sets.
To this end, let $A$ be a maximum $j$-independent set realizing $\max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \}$. The first point to observe is that;
\[
\chi_j([V-A]) \geq \chi_j(G)-1,
\]
since otherwise, because $A$ is $j$-independent, we could have found a smaller partition than $\chi_j(G)$. Now, partition $V-A$ into $\chi_j([V-A])$ $j$-independent sets. The next point to observe is that there is at least one edge between all pairs of these sets, due to the minimality of the coloring. Consequently;
\[
m[V-A] \geq {\chi_j-1 \choose 2}.
\]
To conclude, since we know that each vertex of $A$ is adjacent to at most $j-1$ others, and $\alpha_j(G) \leq a_j(G)$;
\[
m[A] \leq \frac{\alpha_j(G)(j-1)}{2} \leq \frac{a_j(G)(j-1)}{2}
\]
\end{proof}
For the $j=1$ case, we have the following corollary.
\begin{cor}
For any graph $G=(V,E)$;
\[
\alpha(G) \leq \max \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_i + {\chi-1 \choose 2} \leq m(G) \}.
\]
\end{cor}
With this corollary in hand for instance, we could get a slight improvement over the naive annihilation number upper bound for all planar graphs, where we know that $\chi(G) \leq 4$ from the Four Color Theorem. It also gives us another way to interpret the intuitive idea that highly chromatic graphs have relatively small maximum independent sets, since high chromatic number would generally push the upper bound above lower.
\subsection{Specification to Claw-Free and $K_{1,p}$-Free Graphs}
Now we focus specifically on using the DSI strategy to find approximations to the independence number for $K_{1,p}$-free graphs (graphs which have no induced $K_{1,p}$).
\begin{thm}\label{claw}
Let $p\geq 3$ be an integer and let $G=(V,E)$ be a $K_{1,p}$-free graph with degree sequence $D=\{d_1 \leq d_2 \leq \ldots \leq d_n\}$. Then,
\[ a_1(G) \leq w(G) = \max \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_i + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=k+1}^n d_i - \frac{(n-k)(p-1)}{2} \leq m(G) \}. \]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $A$ be a maximum upper $1$-annihilating set of $G$. First we observe that,
\[ \sum_{i=1}^{|A|}d_i + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=|A|+1}^n d_i - \frac{(n-|A|)(p-1)}{2} \leq \sum_{v\in A} deg(v) + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{v \notin A} deg(v) - \frac{(n-|A|)(p-1)}{2}. \]
This is true because the weight of the first sum is $1$ while that of the second is $\frac{1}{2}$, so any deviation from the lowest $|A|$ terms of $D$ being the degrees of the vertices in $A$ would only favor the right hand side of the above inequality. Next we observe that,
\[ \sum_{v\in A} deg(v) + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{v \notin A} deg(v) - \frac{(n-|A|)(p-1)}{2} \leq \sum_{v \in A} deg(v) + m[V-A] \leq m(G), \]
which follows from the fact
\[ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{v \notin A} deg(v) - \frac{(n-|A|)(p-1)}{2} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{v \notin A} (deg(v)-(p-1)) \leq m[V-A] \]
because each of the $n-|A|$ vertices in $V-A$ has at most $p-1$ edges going back to $A$ since $G$ is $K_{1,p}$-free. Hence, $|A|$ is an integer satisfying the definition of $w(G)$, and since $w(G)$ is the largest such integer, we know $|A| \leq w(G)$. Finally, from Lemma \ref{ann_set}, we get that $|A| = a_1(G) \leq w(G)$ which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{claw} together with Theorem \ref{main} give us the corollary below.
\begin{cor}\label{w}
Let $p\geq 3$ be an integer and let $G=(V,E)$ be a $K_{1,p}$-free graph with degree sequence $D=\{d_1 \leq d_2 \leq \ldots \leq d_n\}$. Then, with $w(G)$ defined as above, $\alpha(G) \leq w(G)$.
\end{cor}
In a paper from 1992 by Faudree, Gould, Jacobson, Lesniak, and Lindquester \cite{11}, it is established that, for $K_{1,p}$-free graphs of order $n(G)$ with minimum degree $\delta(G)$ and independence number $\alpha(G)$,
\[ \alpha(G) \leq \frac{(p-1)n(G)}{\delta(G)+p-1}. \]
It turns out that this result follows from Corollary \ref{w}, and hence also from Theorems \ref{main} and \ref{claw}.
\begin{cor}
Let $p\geq 3$ be an integer and let $G=(V,E)$ be a $K_{1,p}$-free graph with degree sequence $D=\{d_1 \leq d_2 \leq \ldots \leq d_n\}$. Then, with $w(G)$ defined as above,
\[ \alpha(G) \leq a_1(G) \leq w(G) \leq \frac{(p-1)n(G)}{\delta(G)+p-1}. \]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The first two inequalities in the chain have already been established, so it remains to show the final inequality. To start, we know from the definition of $w(G)$ that
\[ m(G) \geq \sum_{i=1}^{w}d_i + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=w+1}^n d_i - \frac{(n-w)(p-1)}{2}. \]
Hence it is also true that,
\[ 2m(G) \geq 2\sum_{i=1}^{w}d_i + \sum_{i=w+1}^n d_i - (n-w)(p-1), \]
which is equivalent to,
\[ 2m(G)+(n-w)(p-1) \geq \sum_{i=1}^n d_i + \sum_{i=1}^{w}d_i. \]
This last inequality is equivalent to,
\[ (n-w)(p-1) \geq \sum_{i=1}^{w}d_i. \]
Finally, since
\[ \sum_{i=1}^{w}d_i \geq \delta w, \]
we arrive at
\[ (n-w)(p-1) \geq \delta w, \]
which, after rearranging, yields our desired inequality, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
We can use the DSI strategy as well to generalize this result from independence to $j$-independence. We present a shorter direct proof below.
\begin{thm}
Let $j$ and $p\geq 3$ be integers and let $G=(V,E)$ be a $K_{1,p}$-free graph with minimum degree $\delta(G) \geq j-1$. Then,
\[ \alpha_j(G) \leq \frac{j(p-1)n(G)}{j(p-1)+\delta(G)-(j-1)}. \]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $A$ be a maximum $j$-independent set and denote by $m(A,V-A)$ the number of edges with one vertex in $A$ and the other vertex in $V-A$. Since the maximum degree in $[A]$ is at most $j-1$, each vertex of $A$ has at least $\delta(G) -(j-1)$ neighbors in $V-A$. Hence,
\begin{equation}\label{first equation}
m(A,V-A) \geq |A|(\delta(G)-(j-1)) = \alpha_j(G)(\delta(G)-(j-1)).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, suppose there is a vertex $u \in V-A$ which has at least $j(p-1)+1$ neighbors in $A$. Let $N(u)$ denote the neighbors of $u$ in $A$. Consider the subgraph induced by $N(u)$, which we will denote by $[N(u)]$. Since $\Delta([N(u)]) \leq j-1$, there must be an independent set in $[N(u)]$ of size at least,
\[ \frac{|N(u)|}{\Delta([N(u)])+1} \geq \frac{|N(u)|}{(j-1)+1} = \frac{|N(u)|}{j} \geq \frac{j(p-1)+1}{j} = p - \frac{j-1}{j}. \]
This means that, since the independence number is an integer, $\alpha([N(u)]) \geq p$. However, this is a contradiction since $G$ was $K_{1,p}$-free. Therefore, every vertex in $V-A$ has at most $j(p-1)$ neighbors in $A$. From this we deduce that,
\begin{equation}\label{second equation}
m(A,V-A) \leq j(p-1)(n(G)- \alpha_j(G)).
\end{equation}
Now combining Equations \ref{first equation} and \ref{second equation}, we have;
\[ \alpha_j(G)(\delta(G)-(j-1)) \leq j(p-1)(n(G)- \alpha_j(G)). \]
Solving this last inequality for $\alpha_j(G)$, we reach our desired conclusion.
\end{proof}
\section{Other Applications of the DSI Strategy}
As another example of the DSI strategy, we observe that similar treatment could be given for $j$-domination number. As was stated in the introduction, researching the $j$-domination number is very popular and some examples are \cite{29,27,20,30}. Meanwhile, there is some strong relationships between the $j$-domination and $j$-independence numbers as seen for instance in \cite{16,24,18,17}.
\begin{defn}\label{upper_lower_2}
Let $D=\{d_1 \leq d_2 \leq \ldots \leq d_n\}$ be the degree sequence of a graph $G=(V,E)$ and let $F$ denote the family of all minimum $j$-dominating sets in $G$. We define the following two graph invariants;
\[ z_j(G) = \max \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_i + \max_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \leq m(G) \}, \]
\[ w_j(G) = \min \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_{n-i+1} + \min_{S \in F} \{m[V-S]-m[S] \} \geq m(G) \}. \]
\end{defn}
Now we have an analog to Theorem \ref{main} with respect to the $j$-domination number.
\begin{thm}\label{main2}
For any positive integer $j$ and for any graph $G=(V,E)$;
\[
w_j(G) \leq \gamma_j(G) \leq z_j(G).
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
First we prove the upper bound. Let $D$ be a minimum $j$-dominating set such that for all $S \in F$, $m[V-D]-m[D] \geq m[V-S]-m[S]$. Denote by $m_1$ the number of edges in $[D]$, by $m_2$ the number of edges in $[V-D]$, and by $m_3$ the number of edges between $D$ and $V-D$. Observe the following chain of inequalities:
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{\gamma_j} d_i + (m[V-D]-m[D]) \leq \sum_{v \in D} deg(v) + m_2-m_1 = 2m_1+m_3 + m_2-m_1 = m.
\]
Since $\gamma_j$ is an integer satisfying the condition in Definition \ref{upper_lower_2} above, and $z_j$ is the largest such integer, the upper bound is proven.
Next we prove the lower bound. Let $D$ be a minimum $j$-dominating set such that for all $S \in F$, $m[V-D]-m[D] \leq m[V-S]-m[S]$. Denote $m_1$, $m_2$, and $m_3$ as above. Observe the following chain of inequalities:
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{\gamma_j} d_{n-i+1} + (m[V-D]-m[D]) \geq \sum_{v \in D} deg(v) + m_2-m_1 = 2m_1+m_3 + m_2-m_1 = m.
\]
Since $\gamma_j$ is an integer satisfying the condition in Definition \ref{upper_lower_2} above, and $w_j$ is the smallest such integer, the lower bound is proven.
\end{proof}
From this new starting point, we can repeat some of the same ideas we had for $j$-independence number. Namely, try to approximate it in some computationally efficient way, make some structural assumptions to see what more can be said under certain conditions, and compare to known results about $j$-domination number. To give just one example of such endeavors, while choosing to leave the rest for future work, consider the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
For any positive integer $j$ and for any graph $G=(V,E)$;
\[
\gamma_j(G) \geq w^{\prime}_j(G) = \min \{ k \in Z | \sum_{i=1}^k d_{n-i+1} + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=k+1}^n (d_{n-i+1}-j) \geq m(G) \}.
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $D$ be a minimum $j$-dominating set and consider the following simplifying notation; $m[D]=m_1$, $m[V-D]=m_2$, and $m(D,V-D)=m_3$. To prove the theorem, we verify that $\gamma_j(G)$ is an integer satisfying the condition in the definition of $w^{\prime}_j(G)$, which is itself the smallest such integer. To this end, it suffices to show;
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{\gamma_j} d_{n-i+1} + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=\gamma_j+1}^n (d_{n-i+1}-j) \geq \sum_{v \in D} deg(v) + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{v \in V-D} (deg(v)-j) \geq m(G).
\]
The first inequality above is true because any degree in $D$ not among the highest $\gamma_j(G)$ degrees in $G$ is counted with a weight of $1$ on the left but only a weight of $\frac{1}{2}$ on the right. To see that the second inequality above is true, notice that,
\[
\sum_{v \in D} deg(v) + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{v \in V-D} (deg(v)-j) = 2m_1 + m_3 + m_2 + \frac{m_3}{2} - \frac{j(n-\gamma_j)}{2}.
\]
However, since $m(G)=m_1 + m_2 + m_3$, the second inequality is true if and only if,
\[
m_1 + \frac{m_3}{2} \geq \frac{j(n-\gamma_j)}{2},
\]
or equivalently,
\[
\sum_{v \in D} deg(v) = 2m_1 + m_3 \geq j(n - \gamma_j).
\]
Finally, this last inequality is true since each of the $(n - \gamma_j)$ vertices from $V-D$ have at least $j$ neighbors in $D$ because it is a $j$-dominating set.
\end{proof}
\section{Final Remarks}
To conclude, the main goal of our paper was to present the DSI strategy and give some examples of how it could be used to derive approximations for computationally difficult graph invariants. We showed how, as more information is known about the graph, stronger results can be obtained -- and we gave some examples of how this is done. The authors hope there will be many other instances where the DSI strategy can be used to get new results or give deeper insight to known results. In particular, we primarily focused our studies on $k$-independence number, while leaving mostly unexplored the applications of DSI to the last parts of the paper dealing with $k$-domination number. Finally, we left open the question of whether or not equality can be obtained in Theorem \ref{planar} for the $(j,\delta)=(2,5)$ and $(j,\delta)=(4,5)$ cases.
|
\section{Strong-coupling approach}
The effective Hamiltonian which governs the low-energy properties of the problem is the
two-orbital SU($N$) Hubbard model:
\cite{Gorshkov2010,kobayashi,xu}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}&=&-t \sum_{i, l \alpha} \left(c_{l \alpha,\,i}^\dag c_{l \alpha,\,i+1}^{} + H.c.\right)
-\mu \sum_i n_i
+ \frac{U}{2} \sum_i n^2_i
\nonumber\\
&+& J \sum_i \left[ (T_i^x)^2 + (T_i^y)^2\right] + J_z \sum_i (T_i^z)^2 ,
\label{alkaTmodel}
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_{l \alpha,\,i}^\dag$ denotes the fermion creation operator at the $i^{th}$ site
with nuclear-spin states $\alpha=1,\cdots,N$.
The general orbital index $ l=1,2$ stands either for the $g$ and $e$ states of alkaline-earth like
fermionic atoms \cite{Gorshkov2010} or for the second double degenerate $p$ orbitals, $p_x$ and $p_y$, of the optical lattice \cite{kobayashi}.
In eq.~(\ref{alkaTmodel}), $n_i = \sum_{l \alpha} c_{l \alpha,\,i}^\dag c_{l \alpha,\,i}^{}$ denotes
the occupation number on the site $i$, and $2 {\vec T}_i = \sum_{l m \alpha} c_{l \alpha,\,i}^\dag
{\vec \sigma}_{l m} c_{m \alpha,\,i}^{}$ is the orbital
pseudospin operator (${\vec \sigma}$ being the Pauli matrices).
For the sake of simplicity, we restrict ourself here to the case where the two orbitals
play a similar role. As it will be discussed below,
all topological phases of the problem are robust against small terms which breaks the Z$_2$ orbital symmetry
$1 \leftrightarrow 2$.
On top of the U(1)$_c$ charge symmetry
($c_{l \alpha,\,i} \rightarrow e^{i \theta} c_{l \alpha,\,i}$), model (\ref{alkaTmodel}) features
an SU($N$) symmetry ($c_{l \alpha,\,i} \rightarrow \sum_{\beta} U_{\alpha \beta} c_{l \beta,\,i}$,
$U$ being an SU($N$) matrix), and a U(1)$_o$ symmetry in the orbital space spanned
by the orbital states ($c_{1,2\, \alpha,\,i} \rightarrow e^{\pm i \theta} c_{1,2\, \alpha,\,i}$).
Though model (\ref{alkaTmodel}) enjoys an extended U(1)$_c$ $\times$ U(1)$_o$ $\times$
SU($N$), the determination of its phase diagram is a highly non-trivial problem in the general case.
However, one can already anticipate the existence of different topological phases by means of
a strong-coupling analysis along special lines of model (\ref{alkaTmodel}).
These phases are protected by their spectral gaps and are stable against small symmetry-breaking perturbations.
In this respect, let us consider the special case $J=J_z$ where the
U(1)$_o$ orbital symmetry is enlarged to SU(2)$_o$. The single-site energy-spectrum at
half-filling ($\mu = U N$) is labelled by two integers $p,q$:
\begin{eqnarray}
E \left(p,q\right) &=& \frac{U}{2} (p+q) \left( p+q - 2 N\right) + \frac{J}{4} \left(p - q\right)(p - q + 2)
\nonumber \\
D(p,q) &=& \frac{N! (N+1)! (p-q+1)^2}{(N-p)!(N+1-q)!(p+1)!q!};
\label{spectrum}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\onefigure[width=0.95\linewidth]{CartoonHSHO}
\caption{(Colour on-line) For $N=2$: the blue and yellow atoms describe the orbital states $l=1,2$.
The Haldane phases for nuclear spin and orbital (HO) degrees of freedom present a dilute order~\cite{dennijs}
that can be seen here as an alternation of sites with total (pseudo)spin component $\pm 1$, diluted with an
arbitrary number of sites with (pseudo)spin component $0$.
\label{fig:HSHO}}
\end{figure}
$D$ is the degeneracy, $n=p+q$ is the number of fermions on one site,
and $T = (p -q)/2$ is the spin of the orbital
pseudospin operator ${\vec T}_i$.
A first interesting line is $U=0$ and $J<0$ where the lowest energy states (\ref{spectrum}) are $N+1$
degenerate ($p=N$ and $q=0$) and ${\vec T}_i$ is a $N/2$ pseudospin operator.
At second order of perturbation theory in $|J| \gg t$, we find a pseudospin-$N$/2
antiferromagnetic SU(2) Heisenberg chain: ${\cal H}_{\rm eff} = J_o
\sum_i {\vec T}_i \cdot {\vec T}_{i+1}$ with $J_o = 8 t^2/N(2N+1)|J|$.
As it is well-known, the physics of the latter model strongly depends on the parity
of $N$~\cite{haldane}.
When $N$ is odd, the phase is gapless with one gapless bosonic mode while, in the even $N$ case, it
is fully gapped (Haldane gap).
We thus find the emergence of an SU(2) topological (Haldane) phase when $N$ is even, where the SU(2) symmetry
stems from the orbital degrees of freedom.
We dub this phase {\it Haldane-orbital phase} (HO), since this phase is different from
the Haldane phase for (nuclear) spin degrees of freedom (see fig.~\ref{fig:HSHO}, where a cartoon
represents this phase for $N=2$).
As it is well known, these Haldane phases are robust against SU(2) symmetry-breaking perturbations.
In addition, they are SPT phases only when
$N/2$ is odd~\cite{pollman12}.
A second interesting line is $J = 2 NU/(N+2) > 0$ with even $N$.
The lowest energy states correspond to $p=q=N/2$ ($N$ fermions which
are orbital singlets) and transform into the SU($N$) self-conjugate representations described by a Young tableau with
two columns and $N/2$ rows. At second order of perturbation theory in $|U| \gg t$,
we find an SU($N$) Heisenberg
spin chain in this representation. For $N=2$, the spin-1 Haldane phase is
formed among the nuclear spins and, in this respect, is intrinsically different from
the HO phase with $N=2$ (see fig.~\ref{fig:HSHO}).
When $N>2$, the physical properties of the GS of the SU($N$) magnet are not
known. A confinement of spinons is expected from the general classification
of Ref.~\cite{greiter}, and a non-degenerate gapful phase was predicted in the
large $N$ limit~\cite{sachdev}.
\section{Valence-bond-solid (VBS) approach}
To get a good insight into the properties of the GS of this SU($N$) Heisenberg chain,
we construct a series of model GS, the VBS states~\cite{AKLT},
whose parent Hamiltonian is close to the original one.
We start from a pair of the self-conjugate representations (characterised by a Young tableau
with {\em one} column and $N/2$ rows) on each site and create maximally-entangled pairs
between adjacent sites (see fig.~\ref{fig:VB-construction}).
Last, we obtain the model VBS state by projecting the tensor-product
states on each site onto the desired self-conjugate representation~\cite{remarkVBS}.
We explicitly constructed the matrix-product representation
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\{m_{i}\}}A_{1}(m_1)A_{2}(m_2)\cdots A_{i}(m_i)\cdots |m_1,m_2,\ldots,m_i
,\ldots\rangle
\end{equation}
of such a state for $N=4$
(with the dimension of the $A$-matrices being 6 and $\{m_i\}$ labelling the 20 physical states at each
site) to obtain `spin-spin' correlations exponentially decaying
with correlation length $1/\ln 5\approx 0.6213$.
The parent Hamiltonian which supports the above VBS state as the exact GS
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}_{\rm VBS} &=& J_s \sum_{i}\Big\{ S^{A}_{i} S^{A}_{i+1} + \frac{13}{108}(S^{A}_{i} S^{A}_{i+1})^2
\nonumber \\&&
+ \frac{1}{216}(S^{A}_{i} S^{A}_{i+1})^3 \Big\},
\label{VBSmodel}
\end{eqnarray}
where $S^{A}_{i}$ denote the SU($4$) spin operators in the 20-dimensional representation.
We observe that model (\ref{VBSmodel}) is not very far from the original pure Heisenberg
Hamiltonian (with spin exchange $J_s$) obtained by the $t/U$-expansion.
This strongly suggests that an SU(4) topological phase
is stabilised in the strong-coupling regime with the emergent edge states belonging to the 6-dimensional
representation of SU(4).
From the structure of the edge states, one can easily see that the VBS state found above
belongs to one of the $N$ topological classes protected by SU($N$) symmetry \cite{quella}.
\begin{figure}
\onefigure[width=0.95\linewidth]{SU4-VBS-20rep-v2}
\caption{(Colour on-line) SU($N$) VBS states are constructed out of a pair of self-conjugate
representations at each site. Dashed lines denote maximally-entangled pairs.
(a) SU(4) with 20-dimensional representation and
(b) SU(6) with 175-dimensional representation.
\label{fig:VB-construction}}
\end{figure}
It is interesting to check its robustness in the absence of SU($N$) symmetry.
Recently, it has been demonstrated that the even-fold degenerate structure in the entanglement
spectrum is a fingerprint of the topological Haldane phase protected by inversion
symmetry~\cite{pollman10}.
One may think that the $N=4$ VBS state above represents a topologically
robust Haldane state since its six finite entanglement eigenvalues are all degenerate.
However, this even-fold degeneracy is accidental
and the corresponding topological phase is protected only
in the presence of high symmetries [e.g. SU($N$)].
In fact, if the phase is protected by the link-inversion symmetry,
the unitary matrix $U_{I}$ satisfying~\cite{Garcia-W-S-V-C-08}
\begin{equation}
A^{T}(m) = e^{i\theta_{I}}{U_{I}}^{\dagger} A(m) U_{I}
\label{unitary_matrix}
\end{equation}
should be antisymmetric~\cite{pollman10}.
For the $N=4$ VBS state, ${U_{I}}^{T}=U_{I}$ and
the state becomes trivial only in the presence of such an elementary symmetry as the link-inversion.
Since the dimension of the self-conjugate representation
is rapidly growing (1764 for SU(8)), it is not practical to explicitly construct the MPS for $N\geq 6$.
However, it can be shown that the symmetry of $U_{I}$ is determined solely by that
of the maximally-entangled (singlet) pair; if the latter pair is antisymmetric with respect to
the interchange of the two constituent states, $U_{I}$ is antisymmetric and the corresponding MPS remains
topological even without high symmetries.
By investigating the form of the maximally-entangled pair, we conclude that for $N/2$ odd
the VBS state remains to be the stable topological Haldane phase
protected by inversion symmetry while it is not the case for $N/2$ even.
In particular, as in the HO case,
we expect that the gapped SU($N$) phase realised along the line
$J=2NU/(N+2)$ is SPT when $I=1/2,5/2,9/2, \ldots$.
\section{Low-energy approach}
The low-energy effective field theory of the lattice model
(\ref{alkaTmodel}) is derived by expressing the standard continuum limit of
the lattice fermionic operators $c_{l\alpha\,i}$ in terms of $2N$
left- and right-moving $L_{l\alpha},\,R_{l\alpha}$ Dirac fermions \cite{bookboso}:
$c_{l\alpha\,i} \sim R_{l \alpha} e^{ik_F x}+ L_{l \alpha} e^{-i k_F x}$,
where $x=ia_0$, $a_0$ being the lattice spacing and $k_F = \pi/(2 a_0)$ the Fermi momentum.
The continuum Hamiltonian then takes the form of $2N$ Dirac fermions
coupled with marginal four-fermions interactions.
The low-energy properties of the resulting field theory
are determined by means of a one-loop renormalization group (RG) analysis.
This analysis has been done in the $N=2$ case~\cite{nonneViet,nonne2010}.
For instance, four different fully gapped Mott-insulating phases have been found when $J=J_z$.
On top of conventional two-fold degenerate phases with spin-Peierls (SP) and charge-density wave (CDW) orderings,
the pseudospin-1 HO and the spin-1 Haldane phases, which have been identified in the strong-coupling
analysis, persist in the weak-coupling regime as well.
The RG analysis in the general $N>2$ case is much more involved.
In some regions of the phase diagram, we find that the one-loop RG flow is attracted
along two isotropic rays with SO($4N$) symmetry which is the maximal continuous symmetry achievable
for $2N$ Dirac fermions.
These highly-symmetric rays signal the emergence of the CDW and SP phases
in the general $N$ case~\cite{nonne2011}.
In sharp contrast to $N=2$, the one-loop RG flow for $N>2$ features a region
with no symmetry restoration in the infrared (IR) limit.
There is a separation of the energy scales: one of the perturbations, which depends only
on the SU($N$) spin degrees of freedom,
reaches the strong-coupling regime faster than the others.
A spin gap $\Delta_s$ is thus formed among the nuclear spin degrees of freedom.
Below the energy scale of the spin gap $E \ll \Delta_s$, the dominant part of the effective
interacting Hamiltonian only involves the remaining charge and orbital
degrees of freedom and, when $J=J_z$, it reads as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H}^{\rm eff}_{\rm int} \simeq
\lambda \left( {\rm Tr} g \right)^2
+ \mu \cos \left(\sqrt{8 \pi K_c /N} \Phi_c \right) ,
\label{effhamregion3}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Phi_c$ is a Bose field which accounts for the U(1)$_c$
charge degrees of freedom, and $K_c$ is its Luttinger parameter~\cite{bookboso}.
The low-energy properties of the charge degrees of freedom are captured
by the sine-Gordon model at $\beta^2 = 8 \pi K_c /N$ and we expect that the charge sector
is gapped away since $K_c <N$. The IR properties of model (\ref{effhamregion3}) thus
depend only on the orbital degrees of freedom and are
described by the SU(2)$_N$ conformal field theory (CFT) perturbed by its spin-1
operator $ \left( {\rm Tr} g \right)^2$ ($g$ being the SU(2) matrix) with scaling dimension $4/(N+2)$.
In this respect, the resulting low-energy field theory is exactly that of the spin-$N/2$ SU(2)
Heisenberg chain derived by Affleck and Haldane using the non-Abelian bosonization
approach~\cite{affleckhaldane}.
We thus deduce the emergence of a Haldane-gap phase when $N$ is even,
i.e. for general half-integer nuclear spins.
The resulting Haldane phase is identified with the HO phase which have been found
already by the strong-coupling approach and is a collective singlet state formed among
the orbital degrees of freedom.
In stark contrast, within the weak-coupling approach, we could see no evidence for
a similar SU($N$) topological phase of the nuclear spins for $N>2$.
In particular, along the $J = 2 NU/(N+2) > 0$ line ($N$ being even), a SP phase is found in the
RG approach instead of an SU($N$) topological phase expected from the strong-coupling
argument.
Therefore a quantum phase transition necessarily occurs at intermediate couplings
and it is tempting to conjecture that the quantum critical
point is described by an SU($N$)$_2$ CFT.
The situation may be understood as follows.
First, one can determine by symmetry the low-energy field theory which is valid in the vicinity of this
SU($N$)$_2$ quantum critical point:
$\mathcal{H}_{\rm eff} \simeq \mathcal{H}_{SU({\rm N})_2} + (g -g_c) |{\rm Tr} \; G|^2$,
$G$ being the SU($N$)$_2$ primary field which belongs to the fundamental representation
of SU($N$).
Following Ref.~\cite{afflecksun}, the nature of the phases of the latter model
can be inferred from a semiclassical approach;
when $g<g_c$, one has $ \langle {\rm Tr} G \rangle \ne 0$,
and the GS is two-fold degenerate as a consequence of
broken translation symmetry ($G \rightarrow - G$).
This may be identified with the SP phase found in the weak-coupling limit.
On the strong coupling side, when $g > g_c$,
the semiclassical analysis now gives an SU($N$) matrix with
the constraint $ {\rm Tr} G =0$, and the phase is translationally invariant.
The resulting effective field theory is known to be
the Grassmannian sigma model on $U(N)/[U(N/2)\times U(N/2)]$ manifold
with a $\theta = 2 \pi$, topological theta term,
which is massive~\cite{afflecksun}. The latter is known to be the semiclassical field theory
of the SU($N$) Heisenberg spin chain in self-conjugate representations with two columns~\cite{sachdev}.
We thus conclude that the SU($N$) topological phase, identified within the
VBS approach based on the strong-coupling Hamiltonian, emerges for $g > g_c$.
\begin{figure}
\onefigure[width=\linewidth,clip]{figDMRG_N=4}
\caption{(Colour on-line) (a) Bond kinetic energy for various $U>0$ along the line $J=4U/3$ ($N=4$) in a $L=36$ chain
($t=1$).
(b) local densities $n_{i,\alpha}$ in the topological phase
showing the existence of edge states. The dashed line is an exponential fit with a correlation length of
around 3 lattice spacings.
\label{fig:figDMRG.N=4}}
\end{figure}
\section{DMRG calculations} A density-matrix renormalization group~\cite{DMRG} (DMRG)
is clearly called for to shed light on the existence of this quantum phase transition
for moderate couplings.
Model (\ref{alkaTmodel}) was rewritten as an $N$-leg Hubbard ladder
with additional rung interactions to get more efficient
simulations.
Typically, we used open boundary conditions and kept up to 1600 and 3200 states for
convergence with $N=2$ and $N=4$ respectively to get a discarded weight below $10^{-5}$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:figDMRG.N=4}(a) shows the bond kinetic energy for
various $U>0$ using $N=4$ along the special line $J= 2 NU/(N+2)=4U/3$.
As $U$ increases, we clearly see a quantum phase
transition from a SP phase to a uniform non-degenerate one.
This is in agreement with our conjecture based on the low-energy and
strong-coupling analysis.
In order to confirm that the non-degenerate phase
corresponds to the SU(4) topological phase discussed above, we plot in
fig.~\ref{fig:figDMRG.N=4}(b) the local densities
$n_{i,\alpha}=\sum_{l} c_{l \alpha,\,i}^\dag c_{l \alpha,\,i}^{}$ for
each flavour $\alpha=1,\ldots,4$ in this phase to investigate its edge states.
Clearly, edge states
are present with an exponential profile and a correlation length of
the order of 3 lattice spacings for $U=6$ and $J=8$ (see
fit). Moreover, DMRG data randomly show different kinds of edge
states: in the sense that for a given edge, two flavours out of four
give the same local densities~\cite{comment}.
Since there are six ways to choose two flavours out of four, our
numerical data confirm that edge states are 6-fold degenerate in
agreement with the VBS prediction that they belong to 6-dimensional SU(4)
representation.
Another related evidence for the SU($N$) topological phase comes from the degeneracy of the entanglement spectrum.
According to the classification of the SU($N$) SPT phases in~\cite{quella}, the SU(4) VBS state
discussed above corresponds to one of the stable topological phases predicted there.
Therefore, one may expect, on physical grounds, that the six-fold degeneracy of
the lowest entanglement eigenvalue can be used as the fingerprint.
To check this, we considered the ground-state corresponding to the parameters used in fig.~\ref{fig:figDMRG.N=4}(b)
and measured the entanglement spectrum in the SU(4) topological phase.
In fact, we observed that the lowest eigenvalue (i.e. the largest weight) is 6-fold degenerate as expected.
The full characterisation of our SU($N$) topological phase in terms of entanglement spectrum
and the (non-local) order parameters~\cite{non-local-OP1,non-local-OP2,non-local-OP3}
will be discussed in future work.
We also observed that these edge states are absent in the SP phase,
and correspondingly the entanglement spectrum is non-degenerate. Therefore, this quantum phase transition is an example of topological one since the entanglement spectrum is totally different in each phase. However, the precise location of the phase transition and its universality class, as well as the full phase diagram, require
extensive large-scale simulations and are thus beyond the scope of the Letter.
Finally, let us mention that our preliminary data indicate that this topological phase has a rather large extension in the phase diagram (a large part of the quadrant $U,J>0$), which confirms its robustness and relevance for such parameters.
\begin{figure}
\onefigure[width=\linewidth,clip]{plot_HO_N=2}
\caption{(Colour on-line) $N=2$ data for a chain of length $L=64$ with $U=0$ and $J/t=-12$
(a) local average $\langle T_z(x)\rangle$ vs position $x$ in the GS
with total $T_z=1$ showing evidence of localised edge states;
(b) pseudospin correlations $T_{zz}(x)=\langle T_z(L/2) T_z(L/2+x)\rangle$ and $T_{pm}(x)=\langle T_+(L/2) T_-(L/2+x)\rangle/2$
in the GS with $T_z=0$ exhibit an $SU(2)_o$ symmetry, are short-ranged and almost identical to spin correlations measured in spin-1 Heisenberg chain.
Bulk and edge correlation lengths are close to 5 lattice spacings.
\label{fig:figDMRG.HO}}
\end{figure}
Now, we turn to the illustration of the HO phase for
$N=2$ since the case $N=4$ would be quite demanding numerically~\cite{spin2}. Fig.~\ref{fig:figDMRG.HO}(a)
shows the presence of edge states in a finite chain of length $L=64$, similarly to what is found in
the Haldane phase of the spin-1 chain. In fig.~\ref{fig:figDMRG.HO}(b), we also plot
pseudospin correlations (taken from the middle of the chain) that are short-ranged and almost identical to spin correlations measured in a spin-1 Heisenberg chain.
Overall, we confirm
the existence of the HO phase in this region.
\section{Conclusion}
We have found that nontrivial topological phases can exist in 1D alkaline-earth cold atomic systems,
thanks to the interplay between orbital and nuclear-spin degrees of freedom.
More explicitly, we have shown the existence of (i) the \emph{Haldane-orbital phase}, which is
the analogue of the usual Haldane phase but with orbital degrees of freedom, and also (ii) an
SU($N$) topological phase for which we give an explicit construction using MPS approach and that
possesses nontrivial edge states.
Moreover, both topological phases correspond to the symmetry-protected Haldane phase
provided $N/2$ is odd,
which is directly relevant to strontium and ytterbium cold atoms, while the new SU($N$) phase
for the other even-$N$s is stable only in the presence of exact SU($N$) symmetry.
In principle, experimental realisations of such phases could be achieved using alkaline-earth cold atoms such
as ytterbium (${}^{171}$Yb and ${}^{173}$Yb)~\cite{taie,taie_2012}
and strontium (${}^{87}$Sr)~\cite{desalvo},
that are known to realise SU($N$) symmetry with great accuracy.
In such a case, the orbital degree of freedom could be
provided either by the metastable excited $e$ state
of the atoms \cite{Gorshkov2010}, or by the $p$-band of the 1D optical lattice~\cite{kobayashi}.
In a harmonic trap potential, the polarisation on the outer region of cold atomic systems
can be measured \cite{Partridge_2006, Liao_2010} which may
open perspectives for the observation of SPT in alkaline-earth cold atoms.
\acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank E. Boulat and T. Koffel for useful discussions.
Numerical simulations were performed at CALMIP.
Supported in part at the Technion by a fellowship from the Lady Davis Foundation.
\bibliographystyle{eplbib}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sect:intro}
Coronal holes (CHs) are regions on the Sun where the emission of coronal lines is significantly reduced. CHs were found
to be the main source regions of the fast solar wind \citep{1973SoPh...29..505K} while coronal hole boundaries are
believed to be the regions where the slow solar wind originates. We first studied the small-scale evolution of CHs
and their boundaries using spectroscopic observations from SUMER \citep{2004ApJ...603L..57M}. This was followed by three
studies. The first one investigated dynamic phenomena at the coronal hole boundaries (CHBs) using
TRACE (The Transition Region And Coronal Explorer) and EIT (Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope) onboard SoHO
\citep[][hereafter paper I]{2009A&A...503..991M}. The second study by \citet[][hereafter paper II]{2010A&A...516A..50S}
automatically identified X-ray transient brightenings in CHs and the quiet-Sun regions in observations from XRT
(The X-Ray Telescope) onboard the Hinode satellite. Next, \citet[][hereafter paper III]{madj2012} analysed the plasma
properties of all the events which were identified in paper II having simultaneous spectral observations taken with the EIS
(Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer) and SUMER (Solar Ultraviolet Measurements of Emitted Radiation) instruments
onboard Hinode and SoHO, respectively. By studying tens of events, the authors found that events in the CHs and quiet-Sun regions reached
similar temperatures and electron densities, but events in CHs and their boundaries presented higher dynamics than
events in the quiet Sun. Background information on coronal holes and an overview on the results of the papers published
earlier are given in \citet[][and the references therein]{madj2012}. These studies showed that the brightening events,
including coronal bright points (BPs) and jets, are associated with the small-scale dynamics of CHBs.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Description of the observations used in this study.}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c}
\hline\hline
Date &Observing period&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Cadence (seconds)}&Observed&SOT FOV size\\
&(UT)&XRT observations&SOT magnetograms®ion&\\
\hline
2007-Nov-09&06:38 $\rightarrow$ 14:59&40&90&Coronal hole&261\arcsec$\times$148\arcsec\\
2007-Nov-12&01:21 $\rightarrow$ 10:57&40&90&Coronal hole&261\arcsec$\times$148\arcsec\\
2009-Jan-10&11:30 $\rightarrow$ 16:59&60&45&Quiet Sun&46\arcsec$\times$148\arcsec\\
2009-Jan-13&11:22 $\rightarrow$ 17:34&60&45&Quiet Sun&46\arcsec$\times$148\arcsec\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:obs}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm,trim=5mm 15mm 28mm 28mm,clip]{sot_fov_09.eps}\includegraphics[width=8cm,trim=5mm 15mm 28mm 28mm,clip]{sot_fov_12.eps}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,trim=5mm 15mm 28mm 28mm,clip]{sot_fov_090110.eps}\includegraphics[width=8cm,trim=5mm 15mm 28mm 28mm,clip]{sot_fov_090113.eps}
\caption{Generated X-ray images (see the text in Section~2.2) of an equatorial CH on 2007 November 9 (top left) and
November 12 (top right), the quiet Sun 2009 January 10 (bottom left) and January 13 (bottom right). The
images are shown with an inverted colour table. The SOT/Hinode field-of-views are marked as rectangles~(straight solid lines). Features
within the dashed-line boxes are the events studied in this paper. For the two CH datasets shown in the top
panel, the black solid contour plot outlines the coronal hole boundary as seen at the beginning of each observing period.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[trim=2mm 2mm 25mm 5mm,clip]{sotfov_09.eps}}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[trim=2mm 2mm 25mm 5mm,clip]{sotfov_12.eps}}
\caption{Full field-of-view of the SOT longitudinal magnetograms of the coronal hole analysed in this study. Overplotted with dashed lines are the FOVs of the events identified in X-rays, which are shown in the top panels of Fig.\,\ref{fig1}.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[trim=0.5cm 1cm 1.5cm 1.5cm,clip]{sotfov_10.eps}
\includegraphics[trim=0.5cm 1cm 1.5cm 1.5cm,clip]{sotfov_13.eps}}
\caption{Full field-of-view of the SOT longitudinal magnetograms of the quiet Sun analysed in this study. Overplotted with dashed lines are the FOVs of the events identified in X-rays, which are shown in the bottom panels of Fig.\,\ref{fig1}.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\par
Coronal BPs are omnipresent in both CHs and the quiet Sun. They were first identified in soft X-rays \citep{vaiana1970a}
and analysed in detail during the \textit{Skylab} mission
\citep[][and references therein]{1976SoPh...49...79G, 1976SoPh...50..311G, 1992AnGeo..10...34H}. They are small (on
average 20\arcsec--30\arcsec) and short-lived (from a few minutes to a few tens of hours) emission enhanced
structures observed in the solar corona \citep[][and references therein]{1993SoPh..144...15W}. They can also be observed
in the EUV wavelength bands \citep[][etc.]{1981SoPh...69...77H, 2001SoPh..198..347Z}. BPs represent small-scale loop
structures first seen in an unique sequence of high-resolution Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Skylab spectroheliograms
with a spatial resolution of 2\arcsec \citep{1979SoPh...63..119S}. \citet{1979SoPh...63..119S} found that BPs consist
of two or three miniature loops (2\,500~km in diameter and 12\,000 km long) evolving on a time scale of 6~min.
\citet{1990ApJ...352..333H} confirmed this result showing that simultaneously measured peaks of emission in six
different lines (emitted from the chromosphere to the corona) were not always co-spatial, implying that the BPs are
composed of small-scale loops at different temperatures. The fine structure of BPs consisting of numerous loops was
later confirmed by the high-resolution TRACE and now by XRT/Hinode and AIA/SDO observations.
\par
Studies of BPs have shown variations in their radiance lightcurves
\citep[][etc.]{1977ApJ...218..286M, 1979SoPh...63..119S, 1981SoPh...69...77H}. \citet{2003A&A...398..775M} found six
minutes radiance variations in SUMER transition region observations of a coronal BP. \citet{2004A&A...418..313U} derived
intensity oscillations with time scales of 420--650~s while later \citet{2004A&A...425.1083U} reported oscillations
with periods ranging from 600~s to 1100~s. These oscillations were interpreted as an indicator of global magnetic-acoustic
modes of the closed magnetic structures associated with BPs. Although oscillations with periods of a few minutes is more
commonly known, longer periods were also found by \citet{2008A&A...489..741T}. The reason for these oscillations is still
under debate. \citet{1988ApJ...330..474P} suggested they are repetitive small-scale flares, i.e. micro-flares. \citet{2008A&A...489..741T}
suggested magneto-acoustic waves and/or a recurrence of magnetic reconnection. \citet{2004A&A...425.1083U} found that there
is a one to one relation between the magnetic flux in the bipolarity and the EIT 195~\AA\ coronal emission during the
growing and decaying phase for the two BPs studied. The authors concluded that their results give further support to the
idea that magnetic reconnection involving the interaction of two magnetic polarities as the more likely operating mechanism.
\par
Regarding magnetic fields, BPs are found to be associated with small bipolar regions
\citep{1971IAUS...43..397K, 1977SoPh...53..111G, 1993SoPh..144...15W, 2001SoPh..201..305B}. With the Big Bear Solar Observatory
(BBSO) magnetograms, \citet{1993SoPh..144...15W} investigated the correspondence of evolving magnetic features of 25 X-ray BPs.
They found 22 BPs associated with converging of the magnetic features, while 18 were associated with cancelling magnetic
features. They also found the BPs were more likely associated with pre-existing magnetic features rather than newly emerging
ones. From higher resolution observations during the \textit{Yohkoh} mission, \citet{1994xspy.conf...21H} further
demonstrated that most BPs were associated with magnetic cancellation. \citet{1999ApJ...510L..73P}
found that the time evolution of several BPs observed by EIT 195~\AA\ images was strongly correlated with
the variation of magnetic flux as determined from MDI photospheric magnetograms. By studying a BP observed in
EIT 195~\AA\ together with its MDI photospheric magnetograms, \citet{2003A&A...398..775M} confirmed such a
correlation. They also found that the BP existed until the complete cancellation of one of the polarities from the corresponding
bipolar region. \citet{2004A&A...418..313U} also observed a linear dependence between the EIT 195~\AA\ intensity
flux from a BP and the total magnetic flux of a photospheric bipolar region. They found that the increase of the coronal
emission associated with a BP was linked to the emergence of a new magnetic field and the disappearance of coronal
emission was associated with the cancellation of one of the polarities. In one of the cases, the disappearance in EUV emission took
place three to four hours before the full cancellation of the weakest polarity.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.48]{mag_distribution091107.eps}\includegraphics[scale=0.48]{mag_distribution121107.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.48]{mag_distribution100109.eps}\includegraphics[scale=0.48]{mag_distribution130109.eps}
\caption{Magnetic flux distribution of the CH (top left November 9, right November 12) and quiet-Sun (bottom left January 10, right January 13) magnetic elements detected by SWAMIS.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{negper_all_new.eps}}
\caption{Fractional number of pixels with negative longitudinal magnetic field for each day of the observations. }
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
\par
\par
As reviewed above, BPs are associated with magnetic cancellation which exhibits as magnetic flux
disappearance in photospheric observations. What actually happens during the disappearance of the magnetic flux?
\citet{1987ARA&A..25...83Z} suggested a few possibilities. One way is a simple submergence,
when a pre-existing loop descends into the convection zone. Another scenario requires magnetic
reconnection either above or below the photosphere, which is named reconnection submergence. The
reconnection submergence was discussed in detail by \citet{1989ApJ...343..971V}. They pointed out that a
certain distance between the two opposite polarities was required for this type of cancellation to happen. From simultaneous
measurements of the magnetic field in the photosphere and chromosphere \citet{1999SoPh..190...35H} concluded that the magnetic
flux ``is retracting below the surface for most, if not all, of the cancellation sites studied''. Furthermore,
\citet{1994ApJ...427..459P} developed a model of BPs based on converging motions of magnetic features which
can trigger magnetic reconnection and thereby energize a BP. The model was further developed in three-dimensions
by \citet{1994SoPh..153..217P} and tested by two-dimensional numerical experiments by
\citet{2006MNRAS.366..125V,2006MNRAS.369...43V}. In the model of \citet{1994ApJ...427..459P}, (called Converging Flux
Model), a certain interaction distance is also required to start the reconnection and then energize the BP. Evidence of this model was provided by
\citet{2003A&A...398..775M} who found that the BP appeared in EUV only
when two opposite polarities were 10\arcsec\ apart. A possible evidence of magnetic reconnection in BPs was also
confirmed by magnetic field reconfigurations \citep{2008A&A...492..575P, 2011A&A...526A.134A, 2012ApJ...746...19Z}.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm, trim=42mm -15mm 0mm 60mm,clip]{tv_all_xrt_09_1.ps}
\caption{Temporal evolution of a CH bright point seen in X-ray on November 9 (event No. 1). The images are displayed in reversed colour table. The field-of-view size is
30\arcsec$\times$30\arcsec. An animated version is available online, c.f. Fig.\,A\ref{fig20}.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm, trim=42mm -15mm 0mm 60mm,clip]{tv_all_sot_09_1.ps}
\caption{Longitudinal magnetic field images of the CH bright point shown in
Fig.\,\ref{fig6}. The field of view is the same as in Fig.\,\ref{fig6}, and the images are
scaled from --70~Mx~cm$^{-2}$ to +70~Mx~cm$^{-2}$. Whenever the magnetic cancellations are observed, the site is outlined by a black circle on the corresponding image. The circle is adjusted as precisely as possible to include only the involved magnetic features. A white arrow points at an emerging magnetic element. The field-of-view has a size of
30\arcsec$\times$30\arcsec. An animated version is available online, c.f. Fig.\,A\ref{fig20}.}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure*}
\par
X-ray jets are dynamic phenomena which represent collimated plasma flows from coronal BPs
\citep[see paper II, III,][]{1998ApJ...508..899W, 2010ApJ...710.1806D}. They were first discovered in soft X-rays
by \citet{1992PASJ...44L.173S} and are mostly associated with mixed polarity regions \citep{1998SoPh..178..379S}. Magnetic
reconnection is believed to be the main mechanism of their formation \citep{1995Natur.375...42Y,2008ApJ...673L.211M}.
A more detailed introduction on X-ray jets can be seen in paper~III and the references therein.
\par
As a continuation of papers I, II, and III and based on the brightenings identifications in paper II,
we focus here on the emergence, evolution and disappearance of magnetic flux associated with transient brightenings
responsible for the small-scale evolution of coronal holes. A comparison with only a few events in the quiet Sun is also provided.
Such a detailed study of the magnetic field of small-scale transients in the solar atmosphere is unprecedented thanks to the
high-sensitivity, cadence and resolution of the SOT/Hinode data which has been pivotal for achieving the aim of our study.
In Section \ref{sect:obs}, we
describe the observations used in this study and the methods used in the data calibration and analysis. In Section
\ref{sect:res}, we present the results. Our discussion and conclusions are given in Section \ref{sect:concl}.
\section{Observations and analysis}
\label{sect:obs}
\subsection{Data and calibrations}
The observations used in this study were taken by XRT \citep[X-Ray Telescope,][]{2007SoPh..243...63G} and SOT \citep[Solar Optical Telescope,][]{2008SoPh..249..167T}
onboard Hinode. They include four datasets. Two of them were taken in November 2007 pointing at an equatorial
coronal hole, and another two were taken in January 2009 in a quiet-Sun region. In Table\,\ref{tab:obs} we list all details
of the observations.
The XRT observations were taken with the Al$\_$Poly filter whose temperature response function peaks around
8$\times10^6$\,K. The pixel size of the X-ray images is 1\arcsec$\times$1\arcsec. The standard procedures
from the solar software (SSW) were used for the data reduction. The observations were carefully examined and any
frames which were seriously affected by cosmic rays or instrumental effects were then excluded. In addition to the
jitter correction, the images were further cross-correlated for the removal of the residual jitter.
\par
The SOT observations used in this study include two types of data, series of Stokes V and I polarimetric images taken
with the Narrowband Filter Imager (NFI) and Stokes I, Q, U, V polarimetric spectra obtained with the Spectro-polarimeter
(SP). The NFI filtergrams (FG) V and I images were taken in the Na~{\sc i}~5896~\AA\ spectral line which measures
the magnetic field in the chromosphere \citep{2008SoPh..249..233I}. The pixel size of the magnetograms is
0.16\arcsec$\times$0.16\arcsec. Each SP scan took about 20 minutes to obtain. The SP images have a pixel size of 0.32\arcsec$\times$0.32\arcsec.
The standard software available from SSW was used to calibrate the data. Some of the V/I magnetograms which were
badly affected by cosmic rays were not included. The time series of Stokes V/I magnetograms were further corrected for
the jitter effect via a cross-correlation method. After this correction a region of 50 pixels (i.e. 8\arcsec)
at each edge of the original \mbox{field-of-view} was discarded.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{lightc_0901.eps}}
\caption{Lightcurves~(top: X-ray radiance; middle: positive magnetic flux; bottom: negative magnetic flux) of a CH bright point
that is marked as No. 1 event on November 9 in Fig.\,\ref{fig1}. The lightcurves are extracted from the FOV shown in
Figs.\,\ref{fig6}, and \ref{fig7}. The time~(x) axis is shown in unit of UT. {For better scaling the peak of the X-ray lightcurve is cut off and resumes from below
in red line. The dash-doted-lines in the middle and bottom panels are linear fits of the corresponding magnetic flux from 10:00\,UT to 14:00\,UT.}
}
\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
\par
To convert the $V/I$ values into physical units, we adopted a method which was applied
by \citet{2007PASJ...59S.619C} to Fe~{\sc I}~ 6302.5~\AA. In this method, the magnetic strength ($B$) is assumed to be linear to $V/I$,
i.e. $B=\beta\frac{V}{I}$. Although \citet{2007PASJ...59S.619C}
mentioned that $\beta$ would vary with magnetic strength, they also suggested that it is a good approximation to assume it
as a constant in a region with similar solar activity. To obtain the best
linear fit, we used a slightly different formula, $B=\beta \frac{V}{I} + B_0$, where $\beta$ and $B_0$
are constants. We produced the longitudinal magnetogram from the SP scan with the standard method instructed by the
\textit{SOT analysis guide}. We then averaged the FG V/I images obtained during this scan. Next, we re-binned the FG
data to the same spatial scale as the SP magnetogram and co-aligned them. Finally, we applied a linear fit to the
distribution of the SP longitudinal magnetic strength versus the FG $V/I$ values to get the calibration parameters
of $\beta$ and $B_0$. The resulting values of the magnetic field can carry an error of up to 30\%. To correct the light-of-sight effect, the longitudinal magnetograms are then divided by cosine of the offset to the solar disk centre angle at each pixel~\citep[for details see][]{2001ApJ...555..448H}.
\par
In order to co-align the X-ray images with the chromospheric magnetograms, TRACE \mbox{171\,\AA\,} and
\mbox{1700\,\AA\,} observations were used as intermediary. First we calibrated the TRACE data with \textit{trace\_prep.pro}
which automatically aligns the observations of the two TRACE channels. We then co-aligned the X-ray images with
the \mbox{TRACE 171~\AA} images and the SOT magnetograms with the \mbox{TRACE 1700~\AA} data. EIS \mbox{He\,{\sc ii}\,256.32~\AA\,}
and \mbox{Fe\,{\sc xii}\,195.12~\AA\,} observations were also used to check the goodness of the
co-alignment.
\subsection{Analysis methods}
\label{subsect:method}
After the data calibration and alignment, {the brightening events identified in paper II (in X-ray data) were overlayed on the SOT magnetograms. Further, a visual inspection was made to unsure which polarities are involved in an individual event. This was especially needed when a few events occurred close to each other.}
In Fig.\,\ref{fig1} we show the X-ray images with each analysed event numbered and shown in dashed-line-boxed regions. The X-ray images in this figure were generated
by taking for each pixel the highest value obtained during the time intervals given in Table\,\ref{tab:obs}. We identified 22 events
in the coronal hole datasets and six events in the quiet-Sun datasets as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig1}.
\par
To follow the evolving magnetic features, the feature tracking software, SWAMIS \citep[The SouthWest Automatic
Magnetic Identification Suite,][]{2007ApJ...666..576D, 2008ApJ...674..520L, 2010ApJ...720.1405L} was used in the present
study. SWAMIS can be freely downloaded from \url{http://www.boulder.swri.edu/swamis}. The tracking procedures include feature
detection, feature identification, feature association, tabulation and event classification. The details on the procedures
and a user guide of the software can be found on the website. Gaps in the datasets can seriously mislead the tracking program,
therefore, a linear interpolation was applied to fill these gaps. In SWAMIS, a low and a high threshold have to be assigned
for the feature detection. For each dataset, five sigma of the magnetic field strength of all pixels from each magnetogram
were used as the high threshold. In order to detect weak magnetic elements, we randomly selected 100 pixels in each data set which we determined
as `weak'. The average magnetic strength of these pixels was determined to be \mbox{25~Mx~cm$^{-2}$}. Thus we used
\mbox{25~Mx~cm$^{-2}$} as the low threshold. To detect a flux concentration (named hereafter `magnetic element'),
a method called `downhill' was used in the feature identification. The `downhill' method determines first a local maximum
of magnetic flux density and then expands down towards zero gradient of flux density which is defined as the edge of one
magnetic element and its size. The magnetic element is then followed until it disappears or merges with another element,
which determines its lifetime. The minimum size and lifetime of elements to be detected was set to four pixels
(i.e. 0.64\arcsec$\times$0.64\arcsec) and three frames (i.e. 270 seconds for the CHs data and 135 seconds for the QS data).
A new magnetic element can be born from splitting of the old magnetic element, or a flux emergence. SWAMIS defines a
magnetic element that was born associated with a recently-born opposite magnetic element or with a growing opposite magnetic
element as flux emergence. In our online material, we marked all magnetic elements on the magnetograms with symbols (flux
emergence with squares, and the other new born magnetic elements with asterisks). However, these definitions do
not always work as expected because of the very complex behaviour of magnetic features. Feature tracking is a very complex
procedure and no automatic program can deal with it precisely~(Parnell, C. E., private communication),
therefore, it has to be complemented by visual analysis. Each event was tracked by mean of the naked eye by simultaneously viewing of X-ray image and the corresponding magnetogram. All important changes were noted and organised in tables (see Table\,A\ref{tab:0901} as an example).\footnote{All the movies, together with
the notes are provided as online materials at \href{http://www.arm.ac.uk/highlights/2012/603/bpmag.html}{www.arm.ac.uk/highlights/2012/603/bpmag.html}.}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm, trim=25mm 42mm -10mm 35mm,clip]{tv_all_xrt_12_2.ps}
\caption{As Fig.\,\ref{fig6}, but for a CH bright point observed on November 12 (marked as No. 2
event in Fig.\,\ref{fig1}). The field-of-view has a size of 50\arcsec$\times$50\arcsec. An animated version is available online, c.f. Fig.\,A\ref{fig21}.}
\label{fig9}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm, trim=0mm -45mm 15mm 60mm,clip]{tv_all_sot_12_2.ps}
\caption{As Fig.\,\ref{fig7}, but for the bright point shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig9}. The magnetograms are scaled from --70~Mx~cm$^{-2}$to +70~Mx~cm$^{-2}$. The first two rows show the magnetic field evolution
before the emergence of the brightening event. The white arrow points at an emerging magnetic element which later cancels. The
white circles emphasise a bipolar region created by magnetic flux emergence, while the black circles emphasise the area when and
where magnetic cancellation occurs. Dotted lines outline the area where the magnetic flux lightcurve (Fig.\,\ref{fig11}) was
extracted from. An animated version is available as online material, c.f. Fig.\,A\ref{fig21}.}
\label{fig10}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
\label{sect:res}
\subsection{Magnetic field distribution in the coronal hole and the quiet Sun}
\label{subsect:magdistr}
We present in Figs.\,\ref{fig2} and \ref{fig3} the full SOT field-of-view (FOV) images of the coronal hole and the quiet-Sun regions respectively.
A visual inspection of Fig.\,\ref{fig2} reveals that the dominant flux in the coronal hole is of negative polarity which also forms the largest concentration of magnetic flux in terms of size.
To compare the distribution of positive and negative fluxes in both regions, we calculated the average flux for each magnetic element (see in
Sect.~2.2 the definition of a magnetic element) over its lifetime. In Fig.\,\ref{fig4} we show the derived flux distribution for the four
days of observations. In the CH the number of magnetic elements with negative flux is more than four times higher with respect to
the positive flux elements. Both distributions peak at the same flux strength which is around {\mbox{3--4~$\times~10^{16}$~Mx}},
compared with {\mbox{2~$\times~10^{16}$~Mx}} in the quiet Sun. In the quiet Sun the number of magnetic elements is the same for
both the negative and the positive flux. The small flux imbalance, especially on January 13, is due to the limited field-of-view.
The fractional distribution of pixels with negative magnetic field can be found in Fig.\,\ref{fig5}. Again, the prevalence of a
single polarity in the CH is very clear. The CH magnetic fields reach up to 600~Mx~cm$^{-2}$ while the quiet Sun contains magnetic field
concentrations only up to 400~Mx~cm$^{-2}$. Almost 100\% of the highest values of the magnetic field in the coronal hole are found in pixels occupied by the dominant polarity. It should also be noted that the fractional distribution of positive and negative
polarities in the coronal hole did not change over a three day period which separates the two coronal hole datasets.
A flux stronger than 100~Mx~cm$^{-2}$ remains imbalanced in the quiet-Sun regions because of the small field-of-views.
\subsection{X-ray intensity variations and magnetic field evolution of brightening events in coronal holes}
\label{subsect:CH}
With SWAMIS, we were able to follow the magnetic elements from their birth to death, studying their behaviour including emergence,
convergence, splitting, mergence and cancellation. All events in the coronal hole resulted from the interaction of bipolar magnetic
regions. From 22 brightening events, seven were seen in the X-ray images {at} the start of the observations while 12 appeared
during the observations but their corresponding bipolar regions were already present {at} the beginning of the observations.
Three events were formed during the observations together with the formation of their corresponding bipolar region. In most of
the cases (19 out of 22), one of the polarities forms a `stable' centre (which can be a single large polarity or a group of closely scattered
small polarities). The stable polarity remains in the same place and in only a few cases when the
central polarity exists for more than a few hours, it may move a few arcseconds usually approaching the opposite polarity. The
stable polarity tends to be the stronger polarity in the bipolar region. In eleven cases this is the negative polarity
(i.e. dominant polarity in the coronal hole), in five cases it is the positive one, and in three cases it switches between
polarities depending on which one is the strongest at a particular time remaining for hours each time. The remaining three cases are inconclusive.
\par
The evolution of the magnetic flux associated with a coronal transient brightening proceeds in a similar way for all events. All brightening
events identified in the X-ray images are caused by magnetic flux emergence and a follow-up cancellation with the pre-existing
and/or newly emerging magnetic flux. In some cases a magnetic flux (opposite to the stable magnetic element polarity)
emerges close-by (a few arcsecs) from the stable polarity. The emergence is followed shortly after (a few tens of seconds) by
cancellation. The emerging element can also surface at a distance away (20\arcsec\ for instance) from the stable center. The
newly emerged polarity then starts moving towards the stable centre often becoming larger with time by merging with a flux of
the same sign. Once the magnetic polarities get close to each other and start cancelling, a brightening will appear in the X-ray image. However,
from the visual analysis we established that there are many more magnetic cancellation sites than X-ray brightening events. We
compared the magnetic flux (unsigned total) involved in magnetic cancellation while a brightening was observed in X-rays
with the unsigned total magnetic flux when no X-ray brightening was present. We found that the magnetic flux involved in
brightening events is twice larger than the cases without an X-ray response. We speculate that there is a threshold of the
amount of magnetic flux involved in cancellation above which brightening would occur at X-ray temperatures. This subject, however,
needs further detailed investigation which will be tackled in future work. Magnetic flux emergence is also important
in maintaining the field strength of a magnetic element during its cancellation. Flux cancellation and emergence are
often seen to happen simultaneously at the same location.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{lightc_1202.eps}}
\caption{As Fig.\,\ref{fig8}, lightcurves of a CH bright point that is marked as No. 2 event on November 12 in Fig.\,\ref{fig1}.
The X-ray lightcurve is extracted from the FOV shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig9} and the magnetic flux variations are extracted from
the region outlined by dotted lines in Fig.\,\ref{fig10}.}
\label{fig11}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{event_1202_pm_vs_xr.eps}}
\caption{Correlation analysis of the positive magnetic flux and the X-ray emission of event No. 2 on November 12.}
\label{fig12}
\end{figure}
\par
The X-ray/magnetic-flux correlation analysis demonstrates a strong
correspondence of the magnetic positive and/or negative fluxes with the {long-term (in the order of a few hours) changes in the X-ray emission (see the discussion
in the following subsection for more details). However, in some cases even changes as short as 1 hour can be observed (see the X-ray and positive flux variations in Fig.\,\ref{fig11} for example).}
The radiance variations of isolated bright points in the coronal hole (5 cases) correlated
with {the magnetic flux changes in both polarities.} In 50\% of the cases (eleven) the radiance variations correlate ONLY
with the positive flux, {i.e. the subordinate polarity in the CH}. In five out of 22 cases the correlation in time follows either
one or the other polarity. In one case a very strong jet was followed in X-rays together with the emergence,
evolution and disappearance of the magnetic flux associated with it.
\par
{Thanks to the very simple magnetic field configuration of the
coronal hole (and in general any coronal hole) the evolution of each individual phenomenon can easily be analysed. In the following subsections, we give a detailed and further description of three examples (two CH bright points and one X-ray jet). Note that in the online material we give the same full description (figures, movies and tables) for each analysed event.}
\subsubsection{{Magnetic evolutions of two CH bright points}}
In Fig.\,\ref{fig6} we give an example of the temporal evolution of a CH bright point on November 9 (event No. 1) as
seen in X-rays. The temporal evolution of the magnetic polarities associated with this event is presented in Fig.\,\ref{fig7}.
The corresponding lightcurves in X-rays, positive and negative magnetic flux are shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig8}. A detailed description
of the BP evolution is given in Table\,A\ref{tab:0901}. The intensity variation of the BP is apparent with peaks of the X-ray
emission at 06:44~UT, 07:07~UT, 07:26~UT, 08:17~UT, 09:44~UT, 10:10~UT, 10:43~UT and 14:52~UT, with an overall periodicity of
$\sim$20~mins. The shape and projected size of the BP change in time as well. We give an example of an emerging magnetic
element (denoted by a white arrow in Fig.\,\ref{fig7}) which moves towards the pre-existed opposite polarity, causing
magnetic cancellation. The magnetic
element emerges at 07:21~UT and affects the event around 10:10~UT which results in a strong X-ray emission increase in this event
(Fig.\,\ref{fig6} at 10:09:57~UT, and in Fig.\,\ref{fig8}, the highest peak in the lightcurve).
\par
Radiance oscillations in BPs have been the subject of several studies in the past (see Section\,\ref{sect:intro}). They were
interpreted as the signature of propagating waves though suggestions were also made that these emission spikes can be due to
repetitive magnetic reconnection. The lightcurves of the negative and positive magnetic fluxes derived here show similar
fluctuations. The question is what is the origin of these small-scale variations of the magnetic flux? The lightcurves
were smoothed with five data points to remove the short period variations. The five data points here correspond to 7.5~minutes
(the cadence of our data is 1.5 minutes). A visual inspection of
event No. 1 on November 9 and all other events suggests that the magnetic flux lightcurve variations are mostly due to
emerging and cancelling magnetic fluxes.
\par
Event No.~2 on November 12 best describes the magnetic-flux/X-ray-emission correlation. In Fig.\,\ref{fig9} we show the X-ray image sequence and in Fig.\,\ref{fig10}
the magnetogram sequence. The corresponding lightcurves are given in Fig.\,\ref{fig11}. The event first appeared in X-rays
at 04:23~UT when a bipolar region was formed. The emergence of the positive magnetic elements in this bipolar region started at the
beginning of the observations~(i.e. 01:21~UT). They emerged near a negative polarity and moved to another negative polarity to form
the bipolar region. The negative polarity is the stable
one and was formed from both pre-existing and newly emerging magnetic flux. The X-ray emission variations of the event have a period
close to an hour. The positive flux strongly correlates with the X-ray emission (Fig.\,\ref{fig12}). The reoccurring positive
magnetic flux cancellations are associated with an intensity variation and can be followed in the online material (Fig.\,A\ref{fig21}).
An example of a magnetic polarity emergence and then cancellation is denoted by an arrow in Fig.\,\ref{fig10}. After emergence
several small positive flux concentrations merge together forming larger flux concentrations. The cancellation with the negative
magnetic elements starts at around 06:21~UT and the positive polarity disappears around 10:00~UT. This typical process can be
summarised as:
\textit{a single polarity emerging away from an opposite polarity magnetic element $\rightarrow$ becomes stronger and moves away
from the emerging site $\rightarrow$ divides into a few elements, each of them becomes stronger and/or merges with other elements
of the same sign$\rightarrow$ moves towards the opposite sign flux and cancels with it.}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=15cm, trim=-11mm -85mm 38mm 49mm,clip]{tv_all_xrt_09_3.ps}
\caption{As Fig.\,\ref{fig6}, but for an X-ray jet in a CH on November 9 (marked as No. 3 event in
Fig.\,\ref{fig1}). The field-of-view has a size of 43\arcsec$\times$75\arcsec. The corresponding magnetograms of the area
below the black dotted line are shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig14}. An animated version is available online, c.f. Fig.\,A\ref{fig22}.}
\label{fig13}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=15cm, trim=-11mm -85mm -7mm 100mm,clip]{tv_all_sot_09_3rv.ps}
\caption{Longitudinal magnetic field images of the X-ray jet shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig13}.
The field-of-view corresponds to the area below the dotted lines in the X-ray images and has a size of 43\arcsec$\times$43\arcsec.
The magnetograms are scaled from $-70$~Mx~cm$^{-2}$to $+70$~Mx~cm$^{-2}$. The black circles indicate the magnetic cancellation
sites. The white arrow points at an emerging positive magnetic element. The black dotted lines outline the region
where the magnetic flux lightcurves were extracted from. An animated version is available online, c.f. Fig.\,A\ref{fig22}.}
\label{fig14}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Magnetic flux evolution of an X-ray jet}
\label{subsect:jet}
In our observations, an X-ray jet was observed in the CH on 2007 November 9 (marked as No. 3 event in Fig.\,\ref{fig1}). The evolution of the jet in X-rays and its corresponding magnetic flux are shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig13} and \ref{fig14}. The X-ray and magnetic flux lightcurves are given in Fig.\,\ref{fig15}. At the beginning of the observations (06:38~UT) the region is very quiet, i.e. no X-ray emission variations are observed. Around 07:17~UT a bright point emerges, showing fluctuations in
its X-ray emission until around 11:30~UT. At 11:44~UT a brightening in a few pixels is followed by growth of the bright point.
At 11:55~UT, a loop structure, which could be the site projection of a sigmoid, is formed and starts rapidly expanding producing a jet
around 11:58~UT. When the jet first forms, the brightening system (the loop and the jet) has an \mbox{inverted-Y-shaped}.
Both the jet and the loop then become brighter. Around 12:01~UT, the loop appears O-shaped. Around 12:02~UT, the jet evolves into
two bright branches. The brightening system reaches peak emission around 12:05~UT, and then becomes weaker, returning to
a single branch again around 12:07~UT. The jet disappears fully before 12:20~UT. Because of a data-gap between 12:08~UT
and 12:20~UT, we could not follow the event during its weakening stage. A small bright point is still present when the
observations resume at 12:20~UT. At 12:36~UT the bright point cannot be seen in X-rays. It flares again at 13:10~UT, and
produces a small short-lived (about two minutes) jet around 13:21~UT. Around 13:24~UT, a small bright point remains
but is weak. The brightening system completely disappears in X-rays after 13:30~UT.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{lightc_0903.eps}}
\caption{Lightcurves of the X-ray jet marked as No. 3 event on November 9 in Fig.\,\ref{fig1}. The X-ray lightcurve (top) is extracted from the FOV shown in
Fig.\,\ref{fig13} and the magnetic flux lightcurves (positive -- top and negative -- bottom) are extracted from the region outlined by black dotted lines in Fig.\,\ref{fig14}.
The time~(x) axis is shown in units of UT. {The peak of the X-ray lightcurve (top) is cut off and resume from below in red. The dash-doted-lines in the middle and bottom panels are linear fits of the corresponding magnetic flux from 10:50\,UT to 13:00\,UT.}}
\label{fig15}
\end{figure}
\par
Fig.\,\ref{fig15} shows the variation of the magnetic flux in the footpoints of the jet. As often seen in bright points, the
magnetic flux at the footpoints of the jet clearly decreases after its eruption. Fig.\,\ref{fig14} displays the longitudinal
magnetograms evolution of the region. At 06:38~UT, a bipolar region is already present. Around 07:17~UT when the bright point
emerges, positive elements are moving closer to the negative elements and some weak elements disappear due to cancellation.
During the bright point intensity fluctuations, the positive elements continue moving towards the negative ones. The cancellation
of the negative flux shown in the boxed region in Fig.\,\ref{fig14} starts shortly before 09:00~UT. After 09:00~UT the
positive flux has also started to cancel, though additional positive flux emergence takes place before 10:00~UT. It is
followed by a rapid flux cancellation starting at 10:40~UT. Around 11:40~UT, positive elements are touching the negative ones. At this time the negative fragments are closely grouped together. Around 11:55~UT when the BP evolves into a sigmoid-like
feature, a positive element inserts into the space between the two separate negative ones. When the jet starts (at around 11:58~UT),
the magnetogram shows that the positive element between two negative ones has become stronger and then starts to decrease. The
positive element is very small and weak at 12:20~UT, it disappears at 12:37~UT. After the major jet, both negative and positive
elements were more scattered and weaker, but the magnetic cancellation in the region continues. At around 12:22~UT, a
small positive element emerges, and it is highlighted by a white arrow after 12:37~UT in Fig.\,\ref{fig14}. The emerged element
becomes stronger and moves towards the negative one. It touches the negative element and becomes smaller at around 13:21~UT
when the small jet is formed. It disappears at the same time as the brightening system seen in X-rays fully fades away. After
13:30~UT, there are no positive elements visible while the negative elements in the region are much smaller than that at
the beginning of the observation because of the cancellation.
\subsubsection{Magnetic flux cancellation rate of a BP and an X-ray jet}
\label{subsect:rate}
\par
We define the magnetic cancellation rate as $\frac{\Delta F}{\Delta T}$, where $\Delta F$ is the decrease of magnetic
flux and $\Delta T$ is the time period of the decrease. In many cases the complex nature of the cancellation process does
not allow us to calculate the cancellation rate. Fortunately, two events had a well isolated magnetic
configuration which permitted such an estimation. This is the decaying stage of event No. 1~(bright point) on 9
November (see Fig.\,\ref{fig6}) which was observed from 10:00~UT to 14:00~UT. During this time the magnetic flux lightcurves
(see Fig.\,\ref{fig8}) show a decrease after the largest flaring (see the peak in the X-ray light
curve displayed in red). The X-ray jet discussed in Section\,\ref{subsect:jet} also has a clear magnetic
structure (see Fig.\,\ref{fig14}) and shows a very clear decrease of the magnetic flux lightcurves around and after the
eruption (see Fig.\,\ref{fig15} around 12:00~UT). {In Figs.\,\ref{fig8} and \ref{fig15}, we overplotted the corresponding linear fits on the corresponding unsigned magnetic flux of these two events.} We obtained the magnetic cancellation rates from the linear fit
as $1.9\times10^{14}$~Mx/s~(positive polarity) and $6.5\times10^{14}$~Mx/s~(negative polarity) for the bright point,
and $3.0\times10^{14}$~Mx/s~(positive polarity) and $7.9\times10^{14}$~Mx/s~(negative polarity) for the X-ray jet. {The flux cancellation rate of the positive polarity of the X-ray jet is about 60\% higher than that of the bright point. The magnetic flux cancellation rate of the negative polarities~(dominant one in this CH) of the X-ray jet is only 20\% higher with respect to the BP.}
\par
{As discussed previously, all brightening events are associated with magnetic cancellation. We presume that reconnection of higher loops has produced short loops which consequently submerged and this is possibly what we see at photospheric level as magnetic flux cancellation. We can only speculate that the higher rate of magnetic cancellation during the jet is a signature of a bursty physical process, e.g. magnetic reconnection, and the X-ray jet formation is the signature of this process. The jet observation presented here
is a single but very good example (unique concerning data cadence and resolution) of magnetic field evolution of an X-ray jet, however, drawing conclusions how all jets exactly evolve will be premature. }
\subsection{X-ray intensity variations and magnetic field evolution of brightening events in the quiet Sun}
Events in the quiet-Sun regions studied in the present study are similar to those in the coronal holes, e.g. they are all associated with bipolar
regions, magnetic cancellation is found to correlate with their behaviour in X-rays. From six events, three emerged before the beginning of the observations, and three emerged during the observing periods but their related bipolar regions can be tracked
from the start of the dataset. In the quiet-Sun region magnetic elements seed the whole region very densely and by moving
frequently interact with each other in comparison to coronal holes. However, for the brightening events, a stable group of
polarities is still found in three events. {Brightening events in the quiet-Sun region also show fluctuation in their X-ray emission, and repeated magnetic
cancellation is found to be associated with it. We presently studied only six events in the quiet-Sun regions. Due to the small sample, we can not make any general conclusion on quiet-Sun events. Observations of SDO/AIA/HMI and forthcoming IRIS will provide an opportunity to include this subject in future study.
}
\section{Discussion and conclusion}
\label{sect:concl}
It is well known already for several decades that coronal holes form in unipolar photospheric magnetic fields. Thanks to
the high-resolution longitudinal magnetic field observations provided by SOT/Hinode, we were able to follow the magnetic
field evolution of quiet-Sun and coronal-hole regions at high cadence and small scale. We investigated the role of small-scale
transients in the evolution of the magnetic field in an equatorial coronal hole. We used the magnetic feature tracking procedure
SWAMIS to follow magnetic element emergence, movement, mergence, coalescence, cancellation etc. In addition, a visual analysis
of each individual phenomenon simultaneously recorded by XRT and SOT was carried out.
\par
We found that in the coronal hole the number of magnetic elements of the dominant polarity (in the present case, this is the negative polarity)
is four times higher than the non-dominant one. The magnetic field concentrations in the coronal hole reach 600\,Mx~cm$^{-2}$ with respect to the quiet Sun
where no concentrations with a field strength of more than 400~Mx~cm$^{-2}$ were detected. \citet{2010ApJ...719..131} found more kilo-Gauss magnetic
field concentrations in a polar coronal hole than in the quiet Sun.
They explained the difference in the strength of the magnetic field of the two regions by the higher chance
of collision, reconnection, magnetic energy loss and submergence of positive and negative elements in the quiet Sun which would
easily weaken the field strength. We believe that additional factors such as a different magnetic field diffusion and transportation in
comparison to the quiet Sun as well as sub-photospheric processes may play a very important role.
This will be a subject for future study.
\par
\citet{2006ApJ...649..464Z} analysed the magnetic flux distribution in a small coronal hole using high signal-to-noise level
(2~G) magnetic observations from BBSO. They concluded that if one polarity dominates the network field, the opposite one will
dominate the intranetwork field (i.e. weak field). {In this study, we also found that the dominant polarity in the coronal hole
forms large concentrations of magnetic field while the opposite polarity is mostly dispersed in the form of weaker field concentrations.
The magnetic flux distribution in the intranetwork region is not conclusive because its nature of weak field is a big
challenge to the sensitivity and signal-to-noise of the instruments.} We noticed that the supergranulation configuration appear to have preserved
its general shape during approximately nine hours of observations though the large concentrations in the network (the dominant
polarity which sustains the coronal hole open magnetic field) did evolve and/or were slightly displaced, and their strength either increased or decreased.
All changes were caused by the interaction of the network field~(mostly the dominant polarity) with the emerging opposite
polarity magnetic field. We observe in 19 of 22 events in the coronal hole a single stable polarity which in eleven cases is the dominant polarity. That strongly suggests that the formation of small-scale transients is due to the interaction of pre-existing (often long-lived) magnetic flux with newly emerging opposite polarity flux.
\par
Our results show that all brightening events are associated with
bipolar regions. A bipolar region is not formed by only two simple opposite magnetic polarities but each polarity is organised in many magnetic elements. From KPNO observations, \citet{1977SoPh...53..111G} found that bipolar regions did not exist in newly emerged and decayed X-ray bright
points. Here, some of the studied events were followed from their emergence, through their entire lifetime until
their full disappearance. Bipolar regions were found in the footpoints of the events before the event appearance at X-rays and
were still present (although weak) after the decay of the feature in X-rays. This shows that
transient brightenings can maintain high temperature plasma only during part of their lifetime. During the emerging and
decaying stages of X-ray bright points, the magnetic flux was found to be relatively weak which is possibly the reason for it not to
have been detected in the KPNO observations of \citet{1977SoPh...53..111G}.
\par
Thanks to the open magnetic flux in coronal holes, plasma at high speed, temperature and density is
ejected to far away distances as a result of magnetic reconnection forming
X-ray/EUV jets (see paper III for more discussion). In the present study, the magnetic flux evolution associated with an X-ray jet was presented
in unprecedented detail. Similar to X-ray bright points, magnetic cancellation
was observed during the eruption. In comparison to a bright point, however, the rate of magnetic cancellation occurring in the footpoints of the X-ray jet was twice higher. \citet{1998SoPh..178..379S} analysed the magnetic flux evolution of 25 X-ray jets observed by the Soft X-ray telescope onboard \textit{Yohkoh} using full-disk KPNO longitudinal magnetograms. They found that 72\% of the jets occurred in mixed polarity region. We believe that all brightening events including jets are due to the interaction of bipolar regions. It should be noted that the SOT observations have higher sensitivity and more than ten times higher spatial resolution with respect to the KPNO data. That allowed us to detect much smaller and weaker magnetic flux and as noted earlier, weak magnetic fields are often responsible for the formation of various small-scale transients. More studies based on high-resolution observations of X-ray jet magnetic fields are needed to fully understand their formation patterns.
\par
Following reconnection, the newly formed smaller loops could eventually submerge which is observed as cancellation of magnetic dipoles \citep{1999SoPh..190...35H}. Much more magnetic cancellation sites than X-ray
brightening events were observed in the present paper, i.e. not all magnetic cancellations relate to X-ray brightenings. This result is in agreement
with \citet{1977SoPh...53..111G}, who found that not all active magnetic regions (namely ephemeral active regions) coincide with X-ray bright points. In order to observe brightening in X-rays, plasma has to be heated to X-ray temperatures, which means that only reconnection sites which release sufficient energy can have an X-ray response.
\par
In paper III, we have found that transient brightening events have a response over a wide temperature range from the chromosphere
to the corona. This result, however, was obtained using spectroscopic EIS and SUMER slit observations, which means that we
had a very limited view and cadence to investigate how cancellation of magnetic flux with different strength is related to
chromospheric, transition region or/and coronal emission. The multi-wavelength observations from
AIA~\citep[The Atmospheric Imaging Assembly,][]{aia2010} and
HMI~\citep[The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager,][]{hmi2010} on board \textit{SDO}~\citep[The Solar Dynamics Observatory,][]{sdo2010}
provide an unique opportunity to further investigate this. We should be able to find observational signatures on what is the relation between photospheric magnetic flux cancellation and magnetic reconnection, and
whether magnetic cancellation (submergence or other processes) is always related to energy release into the solar atmosphere.
\citet{2005ApJ...626..563F} modelled the transport of open magnetic fields in the Sun. He suggested that
the coronal holes are formed because of a local minimum of dipolar magnetic flux emergence.
This idea was later supported from analysing observations from \textit{SOHO}/MDI~\citep{2006ApJ...641L..65A} and
BBSO~\citep{2006ApJ...649..464Z}, where they found dipolar flux emergence rates in coronal holes lower than in
quiet-Sun regions. Our study demonstrates that the magnetic flux in coronal holes
is continuously `recycled' through magnetic reconnection which is responsible for the formation of numerous
small-scale transient events. The open magnetic flux forming the coronal-hole phenomenon is largely involved
in these transient features. The question on whether this open flux is transported as a result of the
formation and evolution of these transient events, however, still remains open. Additional analysis is needed
comprising of field extrapolations from high-cadence and high resolution magnetic field observations, together
with MHD modelling of magnetic reconnection at coronal holes boundaries and comparison with high-resolution
imaging and spectroscopic information. Data from AIA and HMI on SDO may be a suitable first step towards such an analysis.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We gratefully acknowledge the anonymous referee for the very important corrections and constructive suggestions. We thank Miss Kamalam Vanninathan for her careful and critical reading of the manuscript. Research at Armagh Observatory is grant-aided by the N.~Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL). ZH thanks DCAL for the PhD studentship. We also thank STFC for support via grants ST/F001843/1 and PP/E002242/1. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under the grant agreement eHeroes (project n$^{\circ}$284461, www.eheroes.eu). Hinode is a Japanese mission developed and
launched by ISAS/JAXA, with NAOJ as domestic partner, and NASA and STFC (UK) as international partners. It is operated by these agencies in co-operation with ESA and NSC (Norway). SWAMIS was written by Craig DeForest and Derek Lamb at the Southwest Research Institute Department of Space Studies in Boulder, Colorado. MSM thanks ISSI Bern for the support of the team ``Magnetic Flux Emergence in the Solar Atmosphere''.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $X$ be a strictly convex domain in a Riemannian manifold $(\tilde
X,g)$ of dimension $\geq 3$. In this paper we consider the local inverse problem for the
geodesic X-ray transform. That is, for an open set $O\subset
\overline{X}$, we call geodesic segments $\gamma$ of $g$ which are
contained in $O$ with endpoints at $\partial X$ {\em $O$-local geodesics};
we denote the set of these by $\mathcal M_O$. Thus, $\mathcal M_O$ is an open subset of
the smooth manifold of all geodesics, $\mathcal M$.
We then define
the {\em local geodesic transform} of a function $f$ defined on
$X$ as the collection $(If)(\gamma)$ of integrals of $f$ along
geodesics $\gamma\in \mathcal M_O$, i.e.\ as the restriction of the X-ray
transform to $\mathcal M_O$.
In order to state our main theorem in concrete terms, it is useful to
introduce some notation. Let $\rho\inC^\infty(\tilde X)$ be a defining function of $\partial X$,
considered a function on $\tilde X$ (so $\rho>0$ in $X$, $<0$ on
$\tilde X\setminus \overline{X}$, vanishes non-degenerately at $\partial
X$). Our main theorem is an invertibility result for the local
geodesic transform on neighborhoods of $p$ in $\overline{X}$ of
the form $\{\tilde x>-c\}$, $c>0$, where $\tilde x$ is a function with
$\tilde x(p)=0$, $d\tilde x(p)=-d\rho(p)$, see Figure~\ref{fig:convex-1} below.
\begin{thm*}
For each $p\in\partial X$, there exists a function $\tilde x\inC^\infty(\tilde
X)$ vanishing at $p$ and with $d\tilde x(p)=-d\rho(p)$
such that for $c>0$ sufficiently small, and with
$O_p=\{\tilde x>-c\}\cap\overline{X}$,
the local geodesic transform is injective on
$H^s(O_p)$, $s\geq 0$.
Further, let $H^s(\mathcal M_{O_p})$ denote the restriction of
elements of $H^s(\mathcal M)$ to $\mathcal M_{O_p}$, and
for $\digamma>0$ let
$$
H^s_\digamma(O_p)=e^{\digamma/(\tilde x+c)} H^s=\{f\in
H^s_{{\mathrm{loc}}}(O_p):\ e^{-\digamma/(\tilde x+c)} f\in
H^s(O_p)\}.
$$
Then for $s\geq 0$
there exists $C>0$ such
that for all $f\in H^s_\digamma(O_p)$,
$$
\|f\|_{H^{s-1}_\digamma(O_p)}\leq C\|If|_{\mathcal M_{O_p}}\|_{H^s(\mathcal M_{O_p})}.
$$
\end{thm*}
\begin{rem*}
Here the constant $C$ is uniform in $c$ for small $c$, and indeed if
we consider the regions $\{\rho\geq\rho_0\}\cap\{\tilde x>-c\}$ with
$|\rho_0|$ and $|c|$ sufficiently small and such that this
intersection is non-empty, the estimate is uniform in both $c$ and
$\rho_0$.
Further, the estimate is also stable under sufficiently small
perturbations of the metric $g$, i.e.\ the constant is
uniform. (Notice that the hypotheses of the theorem are satisfied for
small perturbations of $g$!)
\end{rem*}
We remark that for this result we only need to assume convexity near the point $p.$
This local result is new even in the case that the metric is conformal
to the Euclidean metric. We also point out that we also get a reconstruction method in the form of a Neumann series. See Section~\ref{sec:sc-calc} for more details.
While this large weight $e^{\digamma/(\tilde x+c)}$ means that the
control over $f$ in terms of $If$ is weak at $\tilde x=-c$, the control is uniform in compact
subsets of $O_p$: these weights are
bounded below on $O_p$ by a positive constant, and bounded above on
compact subsets of $O_p$
(in particular at parts of $\partial X$). Here $\digamma>0$ can be taken
small, but not vanishing. Further, $\tilde x$, whose existence is
guaranteed by the theorem,
is such that $\tilde x=-c$ is concave
from the side of $O_p$.
As an application, we consider domains with compact closure $\overline{X}$ equipped with a function
$\rho:\overline{X}\to[0,\infty)$ whose level sets
$\Sigma_t=\rho^{-1}(t)$, $t<T$, are strictly
convex (viewed from $\rho^{-1}((t,\infty))$ (and $d\rho$ is
non-zero on these level sets), with $\Sigma_0=\partial X$
and $X\setminus\cup_{t\in[0,T)}\Sigma_t=\rho^{-1}([T,\infty))$ either having $0$ measure or having empty interior. (Note in
particular that $\rho$ is a boundary defining function.)
\begin{cor*}
For $X$ and $\rho$ as above, if $X\setminus\cup_{t\in[0,T)}\Sigma_t$
has $0$ measure, the global geodesic transform is
injective on $L^2(X)$, while if it has empty interior, the global geodesic transform is
injective on $H^s(X)$, $s>n/2$.
\end{cor*}
This corollary is an immediate consequence of our main theorem. Indeed,
if $If=0$ and $f\in H^s$, $s>n/2$, $f\neq 0$, then $\operatorname{supp} f$ has non-empty
interior since $f$ is continuous by the Sobolev embedding, while if $f\in L^2$, $f\neq 0$, then $\operatorname{supp} f$ has non-zero
measure.
On the other hand, let $\tau=\inf_{\operatorname{supp} f}\rho$; if $\tau\leq T$ we
are done, for then $\operatorname{supp} f\subset
X\setminus\cup_{t\in[0,T)}\Sigma_t$. Thus, suppose $\tau>T$, so
$f\equiv 0$ on $\Sigma_t$ for $t<\tau$, but there exists
$q\in\Sigma_\tau\cap\operatorname{supp} f$ (since $\operatorname{supp} f$ is closed and
$\overline{X}$ is compact). Now we use
the main theorem on $\rho^{-1}(\tau,\infty)$ to conclude that a
neighborhood of $q$ is disjoint from $\operatorname{supp} f$ to obtain a
contradiction.
In fact, in this global setting we can even take $\tilde x=-\rho$, and
the uniformity of the constants in terms of $c$ and $\rho_0$, as
stated in the remark after the main theorem directly yields that if
$t<T$ then there exists $\delta=\delta_t>0$ such that if $c,\rho_0\in
(t-\delta_t,t+\delta_t)$ then a stability estimate holds (with a
reconstruction method!) for the
region $\rho^{-1}([\rho_0,c))$. Now in general, for $T'<T$, one can
take a finite open cover of $[0,T']$ by such intervals $(t_j',t_j'')$,
$j=1,\ldots,k$ (with, possibly after some reindexing and dropping some
intervals, $t_1'<0$, $t_k''>T'$, $t_j''\in(t_{j+1}',t_{j+1}'')$), and proceed
inductively to recover $f$ on $\cup_{t\in[0,T']}\Sigma_t$ from its X-ray transform, starting with the
outermost region. More precisely, first, using the theorem, one can
recover the restriction of $f$ to
$\rho^{-1}((-\infty,t_1''))$. Then one turns to the next interval,
$(t_2',t_2'')$,
and notes there is a reconstruction method for the restriction to
$\rho^{-1}((t_2',t_2''))$
of functions $f_2$
supported in $\rho^{-1}((t_2',+\infty))$ (no support condition needed at the other end,
$t_2''$). One applies this to
$f_2=\phi_2 f$, where $\phi_2$ identically $1$ near $\rho^{-1}([t''_1,+\infty))$, supported in $\rho^{-1}((t_2',+\infty))$; since
$f=(1-\phi_2)f+\phi_2 f$, and one has already recovered $(1-\phi_2)f$,
one also knows the X-ray transform of $\phi_2 f$, and thus the theorem
is applicable. One then proceeds inductively, covering
$\rho^{-1}([0,T'])$ in $k$ steps.
This gives a {\em global} stability estimate, and indeed
a reconstruction method doing a reconstruction layer by layer; that
is, we have
(in principle) developed a layer stripping algorithm for this problem.
The geodesic ray transform is closely related to the boundary rigidity
problem of determining a metric on a compact Riemannian manifold from its
boundary distance function. See \cite{SU, I} for recent reviews. The case
considered here is the
linearization of the boundary rigidity problem in a fixed conformal class.
The standard X-ray transform, where one integrates a function along straight
lines, corresponds to the case of the Euclidean metric and is the basis of
medical imaging techniques such as CT and PET. The case of integration along
more general geodesics arises in geophysical imaging in determining the
inner structure of the Earth since the speed of elastic waves generally
increases with depth, thus curving the rays back to the Earth surface. It
also arises in ultrasound imaging, where the Riemannian metric models the
anisotropic index of refraction. Uniqueness and stability
was shown by Mukhometov \cite{Mu} on simple surfaces, and also for more general families of curves
in two dimensions. The case of geodesics was generalized also for simple manifolds to higher dimensions in
\cite{Mu-R}, \cite{Mu}, \cite{BG}. In dimension $n\ge 3$, the paper \cite{FSU} proves injectivity and stability for the X-ray transform integrating over quite a general class of analytic curves with analytic weights, assuming an additional microlocal condition that includes the case of real-analytic metrics for a class of non-simple manifolds. Reconstruction procedures or inversion formulas have not been proven except in a few cases for instance for a class of symmetric spaces,
see \cite{Hel}, and real-analytic curves \cite{FSU}. Our results
generalize support type theorems to the smooth case for the geodesic X-ray transform given in \cite{K} for simple real-analytic metrics.
The global geometric condition that we are imposing is a natural analog of the
condition $\frac{d}{dr} (r/c(r))>0$ proposed by Herglotz \cite{Her} and
Wiechert and Zoeppritz \cite{WZ} for an isotropic radial sound speed $c(r)$.
In this case the geodesic spheres are strictly convex. It is also satisfied
for negatively curved manifolds.
But this condition allows in principle for conjugate points of the metric. In \cite{SU4} one can find a microlocal study of the geodesic X-ray transform with fold caustics.
A similar condition of foliating by convex hypersurfaces was used in \cite{SU5} to
satisfy the pseudoconvexity condition needed for Carleman estimates.
We also remark that our approach is a completely new one to uniqueness for the global problem for the geodesic ray transform. The only method up to now, except in the real-analytic category \cite{SU}, has been the use of energy type equalities one introduced by Mukhometov \cite{Mu} and developed by several authors which are now called ``Pestov identities".
The main theorem is proved by considering an operator $A$ which is
essentially a `microlocal normal operator' for the geodesic ray
transform. Let $\rho$ be a boundary defining function of $X$, i.e.\
$\rho>0$ in $X$, $\rho=0$ at $\partial X$, and $d\rho\neq 0$ at $\partial X$; we
assume that in fact $\rho$ is defined on the ambient space $\tilde X$
as above.
First we choose an initial neighborhood
$U$ of $p$ in $\tilde X$ and a function $\tilde x$ defined on it with $\tilde
x(p)=0$, $d\tilde x(p)=-d\rho(p)$, $d\tilde x\neq 0$ on $U$ with convex level sets from the side
of the sublevel sets and
such that $O_c=\{\tilde x>-c\}\cap\{\rho\geq 0\}$ satisfies
$\overline{O_c}\subset U$ is compact. Such a $\tilde x$ exists as can
be seen by slightly modifying $-\rho$, making the level sets slightly
less convex. We define an
operator $L$ which integrates $If$ over a subset of $\mathcal M_{O_c}$ with a
$C^\infty$ cutoff, and
consider $A=L\circ I$. We
consider this operator as a map between appropriate function spaces on
$O_c$. It turns out that with the subset of geodesics we choose, the exponential conjugate
$A_\digamma$ of $A$ is a pseudodifferential
operator in Melrose's scattering calculus \cite{RBMSpec}. (The
exponential conjugate corresponds to working with exponentially
weighted spaces for $A$.) We show that $A_\digamma$ is a
Fredholm operator, and indeed that it is invertible for $c$ near $0$.
\begin{figure}[ht]\label{fig:convex-1}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{convex-inverse-loc-crop.pdf}
\caption{The functions $\rho$ and $\tilde x$ when the background is
flat space $\tilde X$. The intersection of
$\rho\geq 0$ and $x_c> 0$ (where $x_c=\tilde x+c$, so this is the region $\tilde x>-c$) is the lens
shaped region $O_p$. Note that, as viewed from the superlevel sets,
thus from $O_p$, $\tilde
x$ has concave level sets. At the point $z$, $L$ integrates over
geodesics in the indicated small angle. As $z$ moves to the
artificial boundary $x_c=0$, the angle of this cone shrinks like $C
x_c$ so that in the limit the geodesics taken into account become
tangent to $x_c=0$.}
\end{figure}
Before giving more details, recall that Stefanov and Uhlmann \cite{SU3} have
shown that under a microlocal condition on the geodesics, one can
recover the singularities of functions from their X-ray transform, and
indeed from a partial X-ray transform (where only some geodesics are
included in the X-ray family $\mathcal M'$). (In
fact, they also showed analogous statements for the transforms on
tensors.) Roughly speaking what one needs is that given a covector
$\nu=(z,\zeta)$, one needs to have a geodesic in $\mathcal M'$ normal to $\zeta$ at $z$
such that in a neighborhood of $\nu$ a simplicity condition is
satisfied. Indeed, under these assumptions, a microlocal version of
the normal operator, $(QI)^*(QI)$, where $Q$ microlocalizes to $\mathcal M'$
roughly speaking, is an elliptic pseudodifferential operator. Now, in
dimension $\geq 3$, if the boundary $\partial X$ is convex,
one can use geodesics which are almost tangent to
$\partial X$ to give a family $\mathcal M'$ which satisfies the above conditions
for $\nu$ with $z$ near $\partial X$. While this gives a recovery of
singularities for the local problem we are considering, it yields no
invertibility or reconstruction. Indeed for the latter we would like
to have $(QI)^*(QI)$ to be an invertible operator on a space of
functions on $O_c$; in particular, as one approaches $\tilde x=-c$ one
would need to only allow integrals over geodesics in a narrow cone,
becoming tangent to $\tilde x=-c$, which takes one outside the
framework of standard pseudodifferential operators.
To remedy this, we introduce the artificial boundary $\tilde x=-c$,
and work with pseudodifferential operators in $x_c=\tilde x+c>0$ which
degenerate at $x_c=0$. Suppressing the $c$ dependence of $x$, the
particular degeneration we end up with is Melrose's scattering
calculus as already mentioned. This is defined on manifolds with
boundary, with boundary defining function $x$, and is based on
degenerate vector fields $x^2\partial_x$ and $x\partial_{y_j}$, where the $(x,y_1,\ldots,y_{n-1})$
are local coordinates. This has the effect of pushing $x=0$ `to
infinity' (these vector fields are complete under the exponential
map). Thus, ultimately, our approach is based on working in a
framework with an artificial boundary which is effectively `at
infinity', and we work with function spaces allowing exponential
growth at this boundary. Thus the control at $x=0$ will be quite weak
in a sense, though one has the standard control when $x$ is bounded
away from $0$. Since $x=0$ is just an artificial boundary, this is
a satisfactory situation.
In fact, for most of the paper we work in a much more general
setting. We consider a family of curves $\gamma_\nu:I\to \tilde X$ parameterized by
$\nu=(z,\zeta)\in S \tilde X$ (the sphere bundle of $\tilde X$ realized as a subbundle
of $T\tilde X$, e.g.\ via a Riemannian metric) with $\gamma_\nu'(0)=\nu$ and
we assume that if $\nu$ is tangent to a level set of $\tilde x$ in
$O_c$, i.e.\ if $\frac{d}{dt}(\tilde x\circ\gamma_\nu)|_{t=0}=0$,
then $\frac{d^2}{dt^2}(\tilde x\circ\gamma_\nu)|_{t=0}\geq C>0$. By
possibly shrinking $U$, we may always assume this in our setting; the
lower bound on the second derivative is a concavity statement for the level sets of
$\tilde x$
from the side of the superlevel sets. Let $x=x_c=\tilde x+c$ as above. Thus,
$x$ is a boundary defining function for $\{\tilde x>-c\}$; for the
time being we regard $c$ as fixed. A
consequence of our uniform concavity statement is that, with
$\lambda=\frac{d}{dt}(x\circ\gamma_\nu)|_{t=0}$, if $C_1>0$ is
sufficiently small and $|\lambda|<C_1
\sqrt{x}$, then $\gamma_\nu$ remains in $x\geq 0$. Rather than using
this range of $\lambda$, we instead use the stronger bound
$|\lambda|< C_2 x$, and define $A$ to be an average:
$$
Af(z)=x^{-1}\int If(\gamma_\nu)\chi(\lambda/x)\,d\mu(\nu),
$$
where $\mu$ is a non-degenerate smooth measure on $S\tilde X$, and $\chi$ has
compact support. We show that for $\digamma\in\mathbb{R}$,
$$
A_\digamma=x^{-1}e^{-\digamma/x}A e^{\digamma/x}\in\Psi_\scl^{-1,0}(\{x\geq 0\}),
$$
where $\Psi_\scl$ stands for the scattering calculus of Melrose,
and is elliptic in the sense that the standard principal
symbol is such near the boundary (up to the boundary, $x=0$). However, even when this holds
globally on a compact space, this ellipticity is not sufficient
for Fredholm properties (between Sobolev spaces of order shifted by
$1$), or the corresponding estimates, due to
the boundary $x=0$. In general, scattering pseudodifferential
operators also have a principal symbol at the boundary, which is a
(typically non-homogeneous)
function on a cotangent bundle; this needs to be invertible (non-zero) globally
to imply Fredholm properties. Similarly, estimates implying the finite dimensionality
of localized (in $O$) non-trivial nullspace as well as stability estimates,
follow
if this principal symbol is also invertible on $O$. (Note that here
localization {\em does allow} the support in $\{x\geq 0\}$ to include
points at $x=0$!) We thus show that in the case when
$\frac{d^2}{dt^2}(\tilde x\circ\gamma_\nu)|_{t=0}$ is a quadratic form
in $\zeta$ subject to $\lambda=0$, which is the case with geodesics,
for suitable choices of $\chi$, namely essentially cutoff
Gaussians, this principal symbol is invertible when the weight
$\digamma$ satisfies
$\digamma>0$. This implies that
$A_\digamma$ is Fredholm on this space, i.e.\ $A$ itself is Fredholm on
exponentially weighted spaces, where {\em exponential growth} is
allowed at $x=0$. We now recall that $x=x_c$ depends on $c$, with all
estimates uniform for $c$ remaining in a compact set, and the
argument is finished by showing that for $c>0$ sufficiently small one
not only has Fredholm properties but also invertibility, essentially
as the Schwartz kernel has small support.
We note that the geodesic nature of the curves was only used in the
crucial step of showing
that the principal symbol at the boundary is invertible. While our
argument relied on properties of the geodesics to analyze this symbol,
it may well be possible to analyze it in general and prove the result
for more general families of curves. We remark that J. Boman has given in
\cite{Bo} counterexamples for local uniqueness for the X-ray transform that integrates along lines with a dense family of smooth weights so that we expect some restrictions on the family of curves.
\section{Scattering calculus}\label{sec:sc-calc}
Melrose's algebra of scattering pseudodifferential operators
$\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\overline{M})$ on a compact manifold with boundary $\overline{M}$,
see \cite{RBMSpec}, can be thought of either via reducing to a model
on $\mathbb{R}^n$ (via appropriate charts on $M$, the interior of
$\overline{M}$),
or via a geometric definition. Both are of use in the
current paper; the $\mathbb{R}^n$ version makes the simplicity of this
algebra transparent, while the geometric definition emphasizes that
infinity in the $\mathbb{R}^n$-picture is not really `remote', and indeed in
our setting the artificial boundary $\tilde x=-c$ plays $\partial M$, i.e.\
infinity is at a decidedly finite place (moving it to infinity is what
is artificial).
First we start with the $\mathbb{R}^n$ picture, which is
straightforward. Indeed, the scattering algebra in this setting is a
special case of H\"ormander's Weyl calculus \cite[Section~18.5]{Hor},
which in this particular case has also been studied by Parenti
\cite{Pa} and
Shubin \cite{Sh}. That is, scattering symbols of order $(m,l)$ are defined to be
functions on $\mathbb{R}^n_z\times\mathbb{R}^n_\zeta$ satisfying
$$
|D^\alpha_z D^\beta_\zeta a(z,\zeta)|\leq C_{\alpha\beta}\langle z\rangle^{l-|\alpha|}\langle\zeta\rangle^{m-|\beta|},
$$
i.e.\ they are `product type' symbols in $z$ and $\zeta$. Note that
our order convention for the second order $l$, indicating growth/decay in
$z$, is the opposite of that of Melrose \cite{RBMSpec} (i.e.\ our $l$
is $-l$ in \cite{RBMSpec}); we make this deviation so that the
symbol class increases both with $m$ and $l$, i.e.\ so that the two
indices play a parallel role. Their set is
denoted by $S^{m,l}(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathbb{R}^n)$ or simply $S^{m,l}$. One then
defines $\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ to consist of, say, left quantizations of such
symbols, i.e.\ of operators of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:left-quantization}
Au(z)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{i(z-z')\cdot\zeta} a(z,\zeta) u(z')\,dz'\,d\zeta,
\end{equation}
understood as an oscillatory integral.
Right quantizations could be used equally well, i.e.\ one gets the
same class of operators if $a\in S^{m,l}$ but one substitutes
$a(z',\zeta)$ into the oscillatory integral in place of $a(z,\zeta)$. Note that for
$l\leq 0$, $\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\mathbb{R}^n)$
is a subspace of H\"ormander's uniform algebra $\Psi_\infty^m(\mathbb{R}^n)$,
i.e.\ where the above estimates hold without the factor $\langle
z\rangle^{l-|\alpha|}$, and the general weight barely affects the
standard arguments with pseudodifferential operators. The space
$\Psi_\scl^{*,*}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is a filtered *-algebra under composition of
operators and taking adjoints (relative to the Euclidean metric), i.e.
$$
A\in\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\mathbb{R}^n),\ B\in\Psi_\scl^{m',l'}(\mathbb{R}^n)\Rightarrow AB\in\Psi_\scl^{m+m',l+l'}(\mathbb{R}^n)
$$
and
$$
A\in\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\mathbb{R}^n)\Rightarrow A^*\in\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\mathbb{R}^n).
$$
Further, we define the principal symbol of $A$ to be the equivalence
class of the amplitude
$a$ in \eqref{eq:left-quantization} in $S^{m,l}/S^{m-1,l-1}$, which thus
captures $A$ modulo $\Psi_\scl^{m-1,l-1}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, i.e.\ one order lower
operators both in terms of the differential order and growth at infinity. With this
definition, the principal symbol of $AB$ is the product of the
principal symbols of $A$ and $B$, while that of $A^*$ is the complex
conjugate of the principal symbol of $A$. In particular, if $A$ is elliptic,
i.e.\ its principal symbol is invertible in the sense that there is
$b\in S^{-m,-l}$ such that $ab-1\in S^{-1,-1}$ (which is independent
of the choice of representative for the principal symbol), then the
standard parametrix construction produces $B\in\Psi_\scl^{-m,-l}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ such
that $AB-\operatorname{Id}\in\Psi_\scl^{-\infty,-\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$. Operators $R$ in
$\Psi_\scl^{-\infty,-\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ have a Schwartz function on
$\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ for their Schwartz kernel; this is just the inverse Fourier
transform of their amplitude $r$ in the $\zeta$ variable evaluated at
$z-z'$ (where $\mathbb{R}^{2n}=\mathbb{R}^n_z\times\mathbb{R}^n_{z'}$, with $z$ the left
and $z'$ the right variable). In particular, such operators are
compact between all {\em polynomially weighted Sobolev spaces}
$H^{s,r}=\langle z\rangle^{-r}H^s(\mathbb{R}^n)$. Further,
$A\in\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is bounded $H^{s,r}\to H^{s-m,r-l}$, and
if $A$ is elliptic then the parametrix construction and the
compactness we observed shows that $A$ is Fredholm -- it has closed
range, finite dimensional kernel and cokernel, and corresponding
estimates,
$$
\|u\|_{H^{s,r}}\leq
C(\|Au\|_{H^{s-m,r-l}}+\|Fu\|_{H^{-N,-N}}),
$$
where $F$ can be taken a
finite rank
element of $\Psi_\scl^{-\infty,-\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, and $N$ can be taken
arbitrary.
In order to relate $\Psi_\scl(\mathbb{R}^n)$ to the geometric setting, and also
in order to explain its classical subalgebra, it is useful to {\em
compactify} $\mathbb{R}^n$. Concretely, we compactify $\mathbb{R}^n$ to a closed
ball $\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$ by adding the sphere at infinity $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$. Thus,
$\mathbb{R}^n\setminus\{0\}$ can be identified with
$(0,\infty)_r\times\mathbb{S}^{n-1}_\theta$ via `polar coordinates',
$(r,\theta)\mapsto r\theta$; letting $x=r^{-1}$ we have `reciprocal
polar coordinates', $(0,\infty)_x\times\mathbb{S}^{n-1}_\theta$ which allow us to glue a sphere to $x=0$
(corresponding to $r=\infty$) by extending the range of $x$ to
$[0,\infty)$. (Thus, formally, $\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$ is the disjoint
union of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with $[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ modulo the
identification of $\mathbb{R}^n\setminus\{0\}$ with
$(0,\infty)_x\times\mathbb{S}^{n-1}_\theta$.) Notice that $x=r^{-1}$ is
a boundary defining function near $\partial\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$; modifying it
near $0$ gives a global boundary defining function $\rho$. It is straightforward to
check that Schwartz functions on $\mathbb{R}^n$ are exactly the restrictions
to $\mathbb{R}^n$
of $C^\infty$ functions on $\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$ which vanish with all
derivatives at $\partial \overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$. Further, writing $z$ as the
variable on $\mathbb{R}^n$, the linear vector fields $z_j\partial_{z_k}$ on
$\mathbb{R}^n$ lift (automatically uniquely, as $\mathbb{R}^n$ is the interior of
$\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$)
to smooth vector fields on $\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$ which are tangent to the
boundary, and indeed all smooth vector fields tangent to the boundary
are, away from the origin, linear combinations of these lifts with
coefficients that are smooth on $\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$. Since being a
symbol on $\mathbb{R}^n$, i.e.\ satisfying estimates $|D_z^\alpha a(z)|\leq
C_\alpha \langle z\rangle^{l-|\alpha|}$, is equivalent (away from the
origin, near which one has smoothness) to satisfying stable
estimates under linear vector fields, i.e.\ that $|V_1\ldots V_k a
|\leq C\langle z\rangle^{l}$ for all $k$ and linear vector fields
$V_j$ (with $C$ depending on these), it follows that the lift of a
symbol is a conormal function, i.e.\ a function that
satisfies $\rho^{l}V_1\ldots V_k a\in L^\infty$ whenever $V_j$ are
vector fields tangent to $\partial\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$, and conversely, every
conormal function is the lift of a symbol. Correspondingly
$\rho^{-l}C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb{R}^n})\subset S^l(\mathbb{R}^n)$; these are the
`classical' or `one-step' symbols; the Taylor series of a $C^\infty$
function at the boundary gives rise to the expansion (with $x=\rho$
near $x=0$)
$$
\sum_{j\geq 0}x^{-l+j} a_j(\omega)=\sum_{j\geq 0} r^{l-j}a_j(\omega),
$$
understood as an asymptotic sum.
One can now compactify {\em each factor} of $\mathbb{R}^n_z\times\mathbb{R}^n_\zeta$ to
define the compactified space of scattering symbols
$\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}\times\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$; we write $\rho_\partial$ for
the boundary defining function in the first factor (`position', $z$) and $\rho_\infty$ for
that in the second factor (`momentum', $\zeta$). The same considerations as
above show that a scattering symbol on $\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^n$ of order
$(m,l)$ corresponds to a conormal function on
$\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}\times\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$, i.e.\ one satisfying
$\rho_\infty^m\rho_\partial^{l}V_1\ldots V_k a\in L^\infty$ whenever $V_j$ are
vector fields tangent to both boundary hypersurfaces of
$\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}\times \overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$.
Classical symbols, as before, then are elements of
$\rho_\partial^{-l}\rho_\infty^{-m}C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}\times\overline{\mathbb{R}^n})$,
i.e.\ functions of the form $a=\rho_\partial^{-l}\rho_\infty^{-m} \tilde a$,
$\tilde a\in C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}\times\overline{\mathbb{R}^n})$. Note
that for a classical symbol, its equivalence class in
$S^{m,l}/S^{m-1,l-1}$ can be represented by
$\rho_\partial^{-l}\rho_\infty^{-m}$ times the function $a_0=\tilde a|_{\partial(\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}\times\overline{\mathbb{R}^n})}$ on
$\partial(\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}\times\overline{\mathbb{R}^n})$ in the sense that any smooth
extension $\tilde a'$ of this function to
$\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}\times\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$ produces an element of the
equivalence class of $a$. Ellipticity then simply means the
non-vanishing of this function $a_0$. Note also that this principal
symbol can be thought of as consisting of two parts, namely the
standard principal symbol, at $\rho_\infty=0$, and the
`boundary principal symbol' at $\rho_\partial=0$. We also write
$\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\overline{\mathbb{R}^n})=\Psi_\scl(\mathbb{R}^n)$.
If $\overline{M}$ is a manifold with boundary with interior $M$, we
can now define $\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\overline{M})$, much as the standard
pseudodifferential algebra is defined on manifolds by locally
identifying the manifold with $\mathbb{R}^n$ and imposing that on such charts
$U\times U$ the Schwartz kernel of the operator is that of a
pseudodifferential operator on $\mathbb{R}^n$, and allowing additional globally
smooth terms in the Schwartz kernel. In our case, the analogous
construction is locally identifying
$\overline{M}$ with $\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$, and imposing that on such charts
$U\times U$ the Schwartz kernel of the operator is that of an element
of $\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\overline{\mathbb{R}^n})$, and allowing additional globally
{\em Schwartz} (i.e.\ rapidly decaying with all derivatives, smooth)
terms in the Schwartz kernel.
As in the standard manifold case, all the basic properties of the
algebra generalize (one needs to impose some proper support conditions
in the absence of compactness). Concretely, the weighted Sobolev
spaces $H_{\scl}^{s,r}(\overline{M})$ are also defined by local
identification with $\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$, and then $A\in
\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\overline{\mathbb{R}^n})$ implies that $A$ is bounded from
$H_{\scl}^{s,r}(\overline{M})$ to $H_{\scl}^{s-m,r-l}(\overline{M})$.
It is also of some use to work out the behavior of the Schwartz kernel
of elements of $\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\overline{M})$ on
$\overline{M}\times\overline{M}$. In view of the previous definition,
this reduces to a calculation for $\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\overline{\mathbb{R}^n})$
(modulo Schwartz terms which we ignore as they give elements of
$\Psi_\scl^{-\infty,-\infty}(\overline{M})$). Thus, using local
coordinates $y$ on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, and corresponding coordinates
$(x,y,x',y')$ on $\overline{M}\times\overline{M}$, one checks that in the coordinates
$$
x,\ y,\ X=\frac{x-x'}{x^2},\ Y=\frac{y-y'}{x},
$$
valid for $x>0$,
so the diagonal is $X=0$, $Y=0$ when $x>0$,
the Schwartz kernel of an element of $\Psi_\scl^{m,l}$ is of the form
$x^{-l}\tilde K$, where $\tilde K$ is smooth in $(x,y)$ down to
$x=0$ with values in conormal distributions on $\mathbb{R}^n_{X,Y}$, conormal
to $\{X=0,\ Y=0\}$, which are Schwartz at infinity (i.e.\ decay
rapidly at infinity with all derivatives). Further, the boundary
principal symbol is simply $x^{-l}$ times the Fourier transform in $(X,Y)$
of $\tilde K|_{x=0}$ (a restriction which makes sense in view of the
stated smoothness). In particular, when $l=0$, we need to check that
$$
\int e^{-i\xi X-i\eta\cdot Y} \tilde K(0,y,X,Y)\,dX\,dY
$$
is a non-zero function of $(y,\xi,\eta)$, with a lower bound
$C\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle$, $C>0$, for its absolute value (which
means we also need a uniform bound at infinity in addition to the
invertibility). Checking this will be the main step of the arguments
presented in the next section.
We mention here that vector fields in
${\mathcal V}_{\scl}(\overline{M})=x{\mathcal V}_{\bl}(\overline{M})$, where ${\mathcal V}_{\bl}(\overline{M})$ is
the set of all smooth vector fields tangent to $\partial M$, are in
$\Psi_\scl^{1,0}(\overline{M})$, and indeed the Sobolev spaces of
positive integer differential orders $s$ are equivalently defined by
$u\inH_{\scl}^{s,r}(\overline{M})$ if and only if $x^{-r}V_1\ldots V_k u\in
L^2_{{\mathrm{sc}}}(\overline{M})$ for all $k\leq s$ (including $k=0$) and
$V_j\in {\mathcal V}_{\scl}(\overline{M})$; here $L^2_{{\mathrm{sc}}}(\overline{M})$ is the
$L^2$ space given by identification by $\overline{\mathbb{R}^n}$, i.e.\ the
measure (or density) is, up to a non-degenerate positive multiple,
$r^{n-1}\,dr\,dy=x^{-n-1}\,dx\,dy$. (Densities like this may be called
{\em scattering densities}.)
We now briefly relate the standard Sobolev spaces $H^s(\overline{M})$
to $H_{\scl}^{s,r}(\overline{M})$ for $s\geq 0$. First, for $s=0$, the
above description gives $H_{\scl}^{0,-(n+1)/2}(\overline{M})=L^2
(\overline{M})$ (in the sense of equivalent norms). Next, using that
$V'_1\ldots V'_k u\in L^2 (\overline{M})$ for $k\leq s$ and $V'_j$
smooth vector fields on $\overline{M}$ (which is equivalent to $u\in
H^s(\overline{M})$)
implies that $V_1\ldots V_k u\in
H_{\scl}^{0,-(n+1)/2} (\overline{M})$ for $k\leq s$ and
$V_j\in{\mathcal V}_{\scl}(\overline{M})$ (since all elements of ${\mathcal V}_{\scl}(\overline{M})$
are smooth vector fields), i.e.\ that $u\in
H_{\scl}^{s,-(n+1)/2}(\overline{M})$, so
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reg-Sob-in-sc}
H^s(\overline{M})\subset H_{\scl}^{s,r}(\overline{M}),\ r\leq -\frac{n+1}{2},
\end{equation}
with continuous inclusion map. For the converse direction, we note that if
$V'$ is a smooth vector field, then $x^2 V'\in{\mathcal V}_{\scl}(\overline{M})$. Thus,
$V_1\ldots V_k u\in
H_{\scl}^{0,2s-(n+1)/2} (\overline{M})$ for $k\leq s$ and
$V_j\in{\mathcal V}_{\scl}(\overline{M})$, so $x^{-2s}V_1\ldots V_k u\in
H_{\scl}^{0,-(n+1)/2} (\overline{M})$, so $x^{-2}V_1\ldots x^{-2}V_k u\in
H_{\scl}^{0,-(n+1)/2} (\overline{M})$, implies that
$V'_1\ldots V'_k u\in L^2 (\overline{M})$ for $k\leq s$ and $V'_j$
smooth vector fields. Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sc-Sob-in-reg}
H_{\scl}^{s,r}(\overline{M})\subset H^s(\overline{M}),\ r\geq -\frac{n+1}{2}+2s,
\end{equation}
with continuous inclusion map.
There are similar inclusions between negative order spaces. For
instance, as $H^{-s}(\overline{M})=(H^{s}_0(\overline{M}))^*$, $s\geq 0$, via
identification by the $L^2$ pairing, and as $H^s_0(\overline{M})$ is a closed
subspace of $H^s(\overline{M})$, the inclusion
\eqref{eq:reg-Sob-in-sc}
gives the continuous inclusion map on the dual spaces
\begin{equation}\label{eq:neg-sc-Son-in-reg}
H_{\scl}^{-s,-r}(\overline{M})\subset H^{-s}(\overline{M}),\ -r\geq \frac{n+1}{2}.
\end{equation}
Finally we discuss what happens when ellipticity holds only
locally. Thus, suppose $O$ is an open subset of $\overline{M}$ on
which $A\in\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\overline{M})$ is elliptic, and suppose that
$K\subset O$ is a compact subset. Let $\phi$ be supported in $O$,
identically $1$ on $K$; let $O'$ be a neighborhood of $\operatorname{supp}\phi$ with
closure compactly contained in $O$. By the ellipticity assumption, there is a {\em
local parametrix} $G\in\Psi_\scl^{-m-,l}(\overline{M})$ for $A$ such
that $GA=\operatorname{Id}+E$, $E\in\Psi_\scl^{0,0}(\overline{M})$, but over $O'$ the
better conclusion that $E$ is, locally, in $\Psi_\scl^{-\infty,-\infty}$,
holds, so $\phi E\phi\in
\Psi_\scl^{-\infty,-\infty}(\overline{M})$. Thus, $\phi E\phi$ is compact
on any polynomially weighted Sobolev space, so in particular there is
a finite rank operator $F\in\Psi_\scl^{-\infty,-\infty}(\overline{M})$
supported in $O\times O$ such that $\operatorname{Id}+\phi E\phi-F$ is invertible.
Now suppose that $v$ is supported in $K$, so $\phi
v=v$. Then $\phi GA\phi=\phi^2+\phi E\phi$ shows that
$$
(\operatorname{Id}+\phi E\phi)v=\phi G Av,
$$
so
$$
v=(\operatorname{Id}+\phi E\phi-F)^{-1}\phi GAv-(\operatorname{Id}+\phi E\phi-F)^{-1}Fv.
$$
In particular, if $Av=0$ then $v$ is in a finite dimensional space,
namely the range of $(\operatorname{Id}+\phi E\phi-F)^{-1}F$, and if one chooses a
complementary subspace $V$ of $\operatorname{Ker} A\cap\{w:\ \operatorname{supp} w\subset K\}$ in a weighted Sobolev space
$H_{\scl}^{s,r}(\overline{M})$, then there is a constant $C>0$ such that for $v\in V\cap\{w:\ \operatorname{supp} w\subset
K\}$,
$$
\|v\|_{H_{\scl}^{s,r}(\overline{M})}\leq C\|Av\|_{H_{\scl}^{s-m,r-l}(\overline{M})},
$$
i.e.\ a stability estimate holds.
Now suppose that one has a family of operators, $A_t$, $t\in[0,T]$,
depending continuously on $t$ in $\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\overline{M})$, with
each element of the family being elliptic on $O$ (and thus there is a uniform
constant in the estimates over compact subsets of $O$). Suppose also
that we have a continuous function $f$ on $[0,T]$ with $f(0)=0$, a
compact subset $K_0$ of $O$, and
a family of open sets $\mathcal O_t$, $t>0$ in $K_0$, with the
boundary defining function satisfying $x\leq f(t)$ on $\mathcal O_t$, and we are
interested in distributions $v$ supported in $\mathcal O_t$. In view of the
uniform elliptic estimates, choosing $O'$ a neighborhood of $K_0$
with closure compactly contained in $O$, we then have families of operators $G_t$
and $E_t$, depending continuously on $t\in[0,T]$, with values in
$\Psi_\scl^{-m,-l}(\overline{M})$, resp.\ $\Psi_\scl^{0,0}(\overline{M})$,
such that on $O'$, $E_t$ is uniformly in
$\Psi_\scl^{-\infty,-\infty}(\overline{M})$. Thus, the Schwartz kernel
$K_t$ of $E_t$ satisfies that for any $N$, $x^{-N}(x')^{-N}K_t$ is bounded (with
values in scattering densities in the right, i.e.\ primed, factor),
i.e.\ locally is of the form $\kappa_t \frac{dx'\,dy'}{(x')^{n+1}}$
with $|\kappa_t(x,y,x',y')|\leq C_N x^N (x')^N$. (Notice that the fact
that we used `scattering' densities is thus of little relevance; any
polynomial factor such as $(x')^{-n-1}$, can make no difference.) If
$\phi_t\inC^\infty_c(\overline{M})$ is now supported in $\mathcal O_t$ and takes
values in $[0,1]$, then $\phi_t E_t\phi_t$ has kernel
$\phi_t(x,y)\phi_t(x',y')\kappa_t \frac{dx'\,dy'}{(x')^{n+1}}$, with
$|\phi_t(x,y)\phi_t(x',y')\kappa_t|\leq C'_N f(t)^{2N}x^{n+1}
(x')^{n+1}$ for all $N$, and thus by Schur's lemma is bounded on
$L^2_{{\mathrm{sc}}}(\overline{M})$ with norm $\leq C''_N f(t)^{2N}$. In
particular, there is $t_0>0$ such that the norm is $<1/2$ for $t\in
(0,t_0]$. Thus, $\operatorname{Id}+\phi_t E_t\phi_t$ is invertible for such $t$, and the
previous arguments give that if $K_t\subset \mathcal O_t$ is compact then for $t\in(0,t_0]$,
$$
\operatorname{Ker} A_t\cap \{w:\ \operatorname{supp} w\subset K_t\}=\{0\}
$$
and for $v$ supported in $K_t$ one has the stability estimate (with
uniform constant $C$)
$$
\|v\|_{H_{\scl}^{s,r}(\overline{M})}\leq C\|A_t v\|_{H_{\scl}^{s-m,r-l}(\overline{M})}.
$$
We remark here that $(\operatorname{Id}+\phi_t E_t\phi_t)^{-1}$ can be constructed
by a Neumann series, and thus ultimately our whole argument is
completely constructive.
In our setting we start with an ambient manifold $\tilde X$ with equipped with a function
$\tilde x$ with non-degenerate level sets near the $0$ value, let
$x_c=\tilde x+c$ ($c$ near $0$), let $M_c=\{x_c> 0\}$, identify a
neighborhood of $Y=\{\tilde x=0\}$ with $Y\times
(-\delta,\delta)_{\tilde x}$, and have a
family of operators
$B_c\in\Psi_\scl^{m,l}(\overline{M_c})$ with Schwartz kernel localized in
$\tilde x<c_0$ (in both factors), where $c_0>0$ is small. We further
have a fixed set $O\subset\tilde X$ with compact closure, $K\subset O$
compact, and a
function $f$ continuous on $[0,\delta)$ with $f(0)=0$, such that on
$O\cap M_c$, $x_c\leq f(c)$. In order to analyze the $B_c$ as $c\to 0$,
we regard these instead as
operators on $M_0=\{\tilde x>0\}$ by letting $A_c=(\Phi_c^{-1})^*
B_c\Phi_c^*$, $\Phi_c(\tilde x,y)=(\tilde x+c,y)$ which maps $M_c$ to
$M_0$. The operators $A_c$ obtained by this procedure (with the
parameter being $c$ rather than $t$), together with the corresponding
translates $\mathcal O_c$ and $K_c$ of $O\cap M_c$ and $K\cap M_c$
satisfy all the requirements of
the previous paragraphs, and thus conclusions apply, which, when
translated to $B_c$ give that for sufficiently small $c$
$$
\operatorname{Ker} B_c\cap \{w\in H_{\scl}^{s,r}(M_c):\ \operatorname{supp} w\subset K\cap M_c\}=\{0\}
$$
and for $v\inH_{\scl}^{s,r}(M_c)$ supported in $K$ one has the stability estimate (with
uniform constant $C$)
$$
\|v\|_{H_{\scl}^{s,r}(\overline{M_c})}\leq C\|B_c v\|_{H_{\scl}^{s-m,r-l}(\overline{M_c})}.
$$
Further, in our setting, the operators $B_c$ are in fact of the form
$$
B_c=x_c^{-1}e^{-\digamma/x_c}L_c
e^{\digamma/x_c}\in\Psi_\scl^{-1,0}(\overline{M_c}),
$$
so we in fact
obtain that for sufficiently small $c$
$$
\operatorname{Ker} L_c\cap \{e^{-\digamma/x_c} w\in H_{\scl}^{s,r}(M_c):\ \operatorname{supp} w\subset K\cap M_c\}=\{0\}
$$
and for $v\in e^{\digamma/x_c} H_{\scl}^{s,r}(M_c)$ supported in $K$ one has the stability estimate (with
uniform constant $C$)
$$
\|e^{-\digamma/x_c} v\|_{H_{\scl}^{s,r}(\overline{M_c})}\leq C\|e^{-\digamma/x_c} L_c v\|_{H_{\scl}^{s+1,r-1}(\overline{M_c})}.
$$
Notice that this is an exponentially weak estimate at $\partial M_c$, i.e.\
at $x_c=0$, but the exponential factor is immaterial in
$x_c>0$. Notice also that if $\tilde v\in H^s(\tilde X)$, say, then for
$\digamma>0$ its restriction $v$ to $M_c$ is in $e^{\digamma/x_c}
H_{\scl}^{s,r}(M_c)$ for all $r$, i.e.\ the results are in fact applicable
to $v$.
\section{Proofs}
Suppose first that $X$ is a domain in $(\tilde X,g)$, $p\in\partial X$, and
$\partial X$ is geodesically strictly convex at $p$ (hence near $p$).
That is, with $\rho$ a boundary defining function of $\overline{X}$,
we have (with $G$ the dual metric, and metric function) that for
covectors $\beta\in T^*_p\tilde X\setminus o$,
$$
(H_G\rho)(\beta) =0\Rightarrow (H_G^2\rho)(\beta)<0.
$$
In particular, by compactness of the unit sphere and homogeneity,
there is a neighborhood $U_0$ of $p$ in $\tilde X$ and $C_0>0$, $\delta>0$ such that for
covectors $\beta\in T^*_{U_0}\tilde X\setminus o$,
$$
|(H_G\rho)(\beta)|<\delta G(\beta)^{1/2}\Rightarrow (H_G^2\rho)(\beta)\leq -C_0 G(\beta).
$$
We then want to define a function $\tilde x$ near $p$ such that
$\tilde x(p)=0$, the
region $\tilde x\geq -c$, $\rho\geq 0$, is compact for $c>0$ small,
and the level sets of $\tilde x$ are concave from the side of this
region (i.e.\ the super-level sets of $\tilde x$). By shrinking $U_0$
if needed, we may assume that it is a coordinate neighborhood of $p$. Concretely we let,
for $\epsilon>0$ to be decided, an with $|.|$ the Euclidean norm,
$$
\tilde x(z)=-\rho(z)-\epsilon|z-p|^2;
$$
then $\tilde x\geq -c$ gives $\rho+\epsilon|z-p|^2\leq c$ and thus
$\rho\leq c$; further, with $\rho\geq 0$ this gives $|z-p|^2\leq
c/\epsilon$. Thus, for $c/\epsilon$ sufficiently small, the region $\tilde x\geq
-c$, $\rho\geq 0$, is compactly contained in $U_0$. Further, for
$\beta\in T^*_{U_0} \tilde X$,
$H_G\tilde x(\beta)=-H_G\rho(\beta)-\epsilon H_G|.-p|^2$, so $H_G\tilde
x=0$ implies $|H_G\rho|<C'\epsilon G^{1/2}$, so with $\delta>0$ as above there is $\epsilon'>0$ such that
for $\epsilon\in(0,\epsilon')$, $H_G\tilde x=0$ in $U_0$ implies $|H_G
\rho|<\delta G^{1/2}$, and then, for $\epsilon<\epsilon'$,
$$
H_G^2\tilde
x=-H_G^2\rho-\epsilon H_G^2|.-p|^2\geq (C_0-C''\epsilon) G.
$$
Thus, there is $\epsilon_0>0$ such that for $\epsilon\in(0,\epsilon_0)$,
$H_G^2\tilde x\geq (C_0/2) G$ at $T^*_p
\tilde X$ when $H_G\tilde x$ vanishes. Thus taking $c_0>0$ sufficiently
small (corresponding to $\epsilon_0$), we have constructed a
function $\tilde x$ defined on a neighborhood $U_0$ of $p$ with
concave level sets (from the side of the super-level sets) and such
that for $0\leq c\leq c_0$,
$$
O_c=\{\tilde x>-c\}\cap\{\rho\geq 0\}
$$
has compact closure in $U_0\cap\overline{X}$.
From now on we work with $x_c=\tilde x+c$, which is the boundary
defining function of the region $x_c\geq 0$; we suppress the $c$
dependence and simply write $x$ in place of $x_c$. For most of the
following discussion we completely ignore the actual boundary,
$\rho=0$; this will only play a role at the end since ellipticity
properties only hold in $U_0$ and we need $f$ to be supported in
$\rho\geq 0$, ensuring localization, in order to obtain injectivity
and stability estimates. Thus, completing $\tilde x$ to a coordinate
system $(\tilde x,y)$ on a neighborhood $U_1\subset U_0$ of $p$, for
each point $(\tilde x,y)$ we can parameterize geodesics through this
point by the unit sphere; the relevant ones for us are `almost
tangent' to level sets of $\tilde x$, i.e.\ we are interested in ones
with tangent vector $c(\lambda\partial_x+\omega\partial_y)$, $c>0$ (to say have
unit length), $\omega\in\mathbb{S}^{n-2}$, and $\lambda$ relatively
small.
Now, the geodesic corresponding to $(z_0,\nu_0)$, $\gamma=\gamma_{z_0,\nu_0}$, is the
projection of the bicharacteristic $\tilde\gamma$ emanating from
$(z_0,g_{z_0}(\nu_0))=(z_0,\zeta_0)$ (i.e.\ the integral curve of
$H_G$ through this point; here we are using the metric $g_{z_0}$ to turn the
vector $\nu_0$ into a covector)
which thus satisfies
$(\frac{d}{dt}\tilde\gamma)(t)=H_G(\tilde\gamma(t))$, so
$\frac{d^2}{dt^2}(f\circ\tilde\gamma)(t)=H_G^2f(\tilde\gamma(t))$. Thus,
if $f$ is a function on the base space $\tilde X$ then
$(\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\gamma)(0)=(H_G^2
f)(\gamma(0),g_{\gamma(0)}(\gamma'(0)))$. But $H_G^2$ is homogeneous
degree two in the fiber (second) variable of the cotangent bundle, and
it is a polynomial, which shows that
$\frac{d^2}{dt^2}(f\circ\tilde\gamma)(0)$ is a quadratic polynomial in
$\nu$.
We now make this more concrete. For this, we use a fibration by level sets of a function
$x$ with non-vanishing differential. Letting $V$ be a vector field orthogonal with respect to $g$ to
these level sets with $Vx=1$, and using $\{x=0\}$ as the initial
hypersurface, the flow of $V$ (locally) identifies a neighborhood of
$\{x=0\}$ with $(-\epsilon,\epsilon)_x\times\{x=0\}$, with the first coordinate
being exactly the function $x$ (since time $t$ flow by $V$ changes the
value of $x$ by $t$). In particular, choosing coordinates $y_j$ on
$\{x=0\}$, we obtain coordinates on this neighborhood such that
$\partial_{y_j}$ and $\partial_x$ are orthogonal, i.e.\ the metric is of the
form $f(x,y)\,dx^2+h(x,y,dy)$, and the dual metric is of the form
$$
F(x,y)\xi^2+\sum H_{ij}(x,y)\eta_i\eta_j,
$$
with $f,F>0$,
so (with $h_{ij}$ denoting the metric components, so $H_{ij}$ is the
inverse matrix of $h_{ij}$),
$$
\frac{dx}{dt}=2F(x,y)\xi,\ \frac{dy_i}{dt}=2\sum H_{ij}(x,y)\eta_j,\
-\frac{d\xi}{dt}=\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\xi^2+\sum\frac{\partial H_{ij}}{\partial x}(x,y)\eta_i\eta_j,
$$
and thus
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2 x}{dt^2}
&=2\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}(x,y)F(x,y)\xi^2 +2\sum\frac{\partial F}{\partial
y_i}H_{ij}(x,y)\eta_j\xi\\
&\qquad-F(x,y)\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\xi^2
-F(x,y)\sum\frac{\partial H_{ij}}{\partial
x}(x,y)\eta_i\eta_j
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
which at $\frac{dx}{dt}=0$, thus $\xi=0$, simplifies to
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
&-\sum\frac{\partial H_{ij}}{\partial
x}(x,y)h_{ik}(x,y)h_{jl}(x,y)\frac{dy_k}{dt}\frac{dy_l}{dt}\\
&=-\sum\frac{\partial H_{ij}}{\partial x}(x,y)h_{ik}(x,y)h_{jl}(x,y)\omega_k\omega_l.
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
Here we used the unit sphere for the $\omega$-parameterization. Note
that
$$
-(\sum\frac{\partial H_{ij}}{\partial x}(x,y)h_{ik}(x,y)h_{jl}(x,y))_{kl}
$$
is
positive definite by our assumptions. Thus, for geodesics we have a
positive definite quadratic form
$$
\alpha(x,y,\omega,0,0)=
-\sum(\sum\frac{\partial H_{ij}}{\partial x}(x,y)h_{ik}(x,y)h_{jl}(x,y))_{kl}\omega_k\omega_l.
$$
In fact, as explained in the introduction, we mostly work in the
following more general setting.
We consider integrals along a family of $C^\infty$ curves
$\gamma_{x,y,\lambda,\omega}$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$,
$(x,y,\lambda,\omega)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{S}^{n-2}$,
depending smoothly ($C^\infty$) on the parameters,
typically (but not necessarily) geodesics.
Here $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}_y$ could be replaced by
an arbitrary manifold and below we make $x$ small, so effectively we
are working in a tubular neighborhood of a codimension one
submanifold of an arbitrary manifold, such as $\tilde X$. However,
since the changes in the manifold setting are essentially just
notational, for the sake of clarity we work with $\mathbb{R}^n$. Further,
below we work with neighborhoods of a compact subset $\{0\}\times
K\subset \mathbb{R}_x\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}_y$; $\gamma_{x,y,\lambda,\omega}(t)$ would only need to be
defined for $(x,y)$ in a fixed neighborhood $\tilde U$ of $\{0\}\times
K$ and for $|\lambda|<\tilde\delta_0$, and $|t|<\tilde\delta_0$, $\tilde\delta_0>0$ a fixed constant.
The basic feature we need is that
for $x\geq 0$ and for $\lambda$ sufficiently small, depending on $x$,
the curves stay in $[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.
Thus, for $x=0$ only the parameter value
$\lambda=0$ is allowed; in our concrete setting $|\lambda|\leq
C_0\sqrt{x}$ works for suitably small $C_0>0$. However, it is convenient to use an even
smaller range of $\lambda$, such as $|\lambda|\leq C_0x$. So concretely
assume that
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
&\gamma_{x,y,\lambda,\omega}(0)=(x,y),\
\gamma'_{x,y,\lambda,\omega}(0)=(\lambda,\omega),\\
&\gamma''_{x,y,\lambda,\omega}(t)=2(\alpha(x,y,\lambda,\omega,t),\beta(x,y,\lambda,\omega,t)),
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
and
$$
\alpha(0,y,0,\omega,0)\geq 2C>0,
$$
with $\alpha$, $\beta$ smooth. This implies that if
$K\subset\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ is compact, then for a sufficiently
small neighborhood $U$ of $\{0\}\times K$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ (with compact closure), and for $\lambda$ and $t$ sufficiently
small, say $|\lambda|, |t|<\delta_0$, where $\delta_0>0$, one has
$$
\alpha(x,y,\lambda,\omega,t)\geq C>0.
$$
One may assume that $x<\delta_0$ on $U$.
Thus, writing $\gamma(t)=(x'(t),y'(t))$,
$$
x'=x+\lambda t+t^2\int_0^1(1-s) \alpha(x,y,\lambda,\omega,s)\,ds\geq
x+\lambda t+Ct^2/2,
$$
so if $|t|<\delta_0$, $(x,y)\in U$, $|\lambda|<\delta_0$ then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:x-xp-comp}
x'\geq \frac{C}{2}\Big(t+\frac{\lambda}{C}\Big)^2+\Big(x-\frac{\lambda^2}{2C}\Big).
\end{equation}
Thus, for $|\lambda|\leq \sqrt{2C}\sqrt{x}$ (and $|\lambda|<\delta_0$), $x'\geq 0$, i.e.\ the curves
remain in the half-space $x'\geq 0$ at least for $|t|<\delta_0$. Further, if we fix $x_0>0$, then
$x'\geq x_0$ provided $|t+\frac{\lambda}{C}|>\sqrt{2x_0/C}$ and
$|t|<\delta_0$, thus when $|\lambda|\leq C_0 x_0$ and
$|\lambda|<\delta_0$ then $x'\geq x_0$ provided
$|t|>\frac{C_0}{C}x+\sqrt{2x_0/C}$, $|t|<\delta_0$. Assuming $x\leq
x_0$ and taking $x_0$ sufficiently small so that
$\frac{C_0}{C}x_0+\sqrt{2x_0/C}<\delta_0$,
we thus deduce that the curve
segments $\gamma_{x,y,\lambda,\omega}|_{(-\delta_0,\delta_0)}$ are outside
the region
$x'<x_0$ for $t$ outside a (fixed!) compact subinterval of
$(-\delta_0,\delta_0)$.
{\em From now on, by $\gamma$ we mean the restriction
$\gamma_{x,y,\lambda,\omega}|_{(-\delta_0,\delta_0)}$, and we
everywhere assume that the functions we integrate along $\gamma$ are
supported in $x'\leq x_0/2$, so all integrals are on a fixed compact subinterval.}
Note that in the case of geodesics, as discussed above, $\alpha$ is a
quadratic polynomial in $\omega$; this will be of use when the ellipticity of the
boundary principal symbol is discussed.
Before we proceed, we
discuss the blowup of a space around a submanifold. Here we work
locally on say $\mathbb{R}^m_w$, thus the submanifold can be taken to be
given by $w'=0$, where we write
$w=(w',w'')\in\mathbb{R}^k\times\mathbb{R}^{m-k}$. Then blowing up
$\mathbb{R}^{m-k}=\{w'=0\}$ in $\mathbb{R}^m$ amounts to introducing cylindrical
coordinates around it, i.e.\ the factor $\mathbb{R}^{m-k}$ (the cylindrical
`axis', though higher dimensional) is unchanged, while on $\mathbb{R}^k_{w'}$
one introduces `polar coordinates' $(|w'|,\frac{w'}{|w'|})\in
[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{S}^{k-1}$, thus one replaces $\mathbb{R}^m$ by
$$
[\mathbb{R}^m;\mathbb{R}^{m-k}]=[0,\infty)_r\times\mathbb{S}^{k-1}_\theta\times\mathbb{R}^{m-k}_{w''};
$$
altogether one has `coordinates' (the quotes are due to the spherical factor)
$$
r=|w'|,\ \theta=\frac{w'}{|w'|},\ w'',
$$
with the equalities holding outside $r=0$.
The new boundary
$$
{\mathrm{ff}}=\{0\}\times \mathbb{S}^{k-1}\times\mathbb{R}^{m-k}
$$
is called
the front face.
Further one
has a blow-down map $\Phi:[\mathbb{R}^m;\mathbb{R}^{m-k}]\to\mathbb{R}^m$ which is smooth,
namely $(r,\theta,w'')\mapsto (r\theta,w'')$, but is not invertible at
$r=0$ although it restricts to a diffeomorphism $[\mathbb{R}^m;\mathbb{R}^{m-k}]\setminus{\mathrm{ff}}\to\mathbb{R}^m\setminus\mathbb{R}^{m-k}$. We refer
to the Appendix of \cite{RBMSpec} for a concise but more detailed
description, and for further references. Note that the effect of this blow up is to distinguish directions
of approach to the submanifold being blown up, $\mathbb{R}^{m-k}$; curves
$c:[0,\epsilon)\to\mathbb{R}^m$ with $c(0)\in\mathbb{R}^{m-k}$ and $c'(0)$ not in the
tangent space of $\mathbb{R}^{m-k}$ lift to (i.e.\ using the diffeomorphism
property away from $\mathbb{R}^{m-k}$, can be identified with) curves $\tilde
c$ in
$[\mathbb{R}^m;\mathbb{R}^{m-k}]$ with $\tilde c(0)\in {\mathrm{ff}}$, and two such curves
$c_j$ with $c_1(0)=c_2(0)$ satisfy $\tilde c_1(0)=\tilde c_2(0)$ if
and only if $c_1'(0)-c_2'(0)$ is tangent to $\mathbb{R}^{m-k}$. (This says
that invariantly ${\mathrm{ff}}$ is the spherical normal bundle of $\mathbb{R}^{m-k}$
in $\mathbb{R}^m$, i.e.\ the quotient of its normal bundle minus its zero
section by dilations.)
Let $\hat X=\mathbb{R}_x\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}_y$, $S\hat X=\hat X\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{S}^{n-2}$.
In our setting, as we show momentarily, we start with the map
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Gamma-plus-def}
\Gamma_+: S\hat X\times[0,\infty)\to [\hat X\times \hat
X;\mathrm{diag}],\qquad \Gamma_+(z,\nu,t)=\gamma_{z,\nu}(t),
\end{equation}
being a diffeomorphism near $S\hat X\times\{0\}$. More precisely,
$\Gamma_+$ is defined on $\tilde
U\times(-\tilde\delta_0,\tilde\delta_0)\times\mathbb{S}^{n-2}\times(-\tilde\delta_0,\tilde\delta_0)$,
and this map is a diffeomorphism onto it range when restricted to a
neighborhood of $S\hat X\times\{0\}$.
To see this, note that the
diagonal is the submanifold $z-z'=0$ of $\hat X\times\hat X$, so
nearby one can use coordinates $z-z'\in\mathbb{R}^n$ (the analogue of $w'$
above) and $z\in\mathbb{R}^n$ (the analogue of $w''$ above). Thus,
coordinates on $[\hat X\times \hat
X;\mathrm{diag}]$ are given by $z$, $|z'-z|$ and
$\frac{z'-z}{|z'-z|}$, and a simple calculation shows that at $t=0$,
one has $\frac{z'-z}{|z'-z|}=\frac{\nu}{|\nu|}$ (with the norms being
just Euclidean norms), which proves that $\Gamma_+$ as in
\eqref{eq:Gamma-plus-def} is a diffeomorphism near $S\hat X\times\{0\}$.
Similarly,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Gamma-minus-def}
\Gamma_-: S\hat X\times(-\infty,0]\to [\hat X\times \hat
X;\mathrm{diag}],\qquad \Gamma_-(z,\nu,t)=\gamma_{z,\nu}(t),
\end{equation}
is a diffeomorphism near $S\hat X\times\{0\}$.
\begin{rem}
The analogous results would work
with $\tilde X$ in place of $\hat X$.
Then $S\tilde X$
is the sphere bundle of $\hat X$, i.e.\ $T\tilde X\setminus o$
quotiented out by the $\mathbb{R}^+$-action. If we have a Riemannian
metric we could take this to be the unit sphere bundle with respect to
this metric, but {\em any} other choice of a transversal to the
dilation orbits in the tangent space of $\hat X$ works, such as the
unit sphere bundle with respect to another metric, or indeed (locally,
in the region of interest) the space of tangent vectors of the form
$\lambda \,\partial_x+\omega\,\partial_y$, where $\omega\in\mathbb{S}^{n-2}$,
considered above.
\end{rem}
We now reduce $\delta_0>0$ if necessary so that $\Gamma_+$ is a
diffeomorphism on $U_{x,y}\times
(-\delta_0,\delta_0)_\lambda\times\mathbb{S}^{n-2}_\omega\times
[0,\delta_0)_t$, and analogously for $\Gamma_-$; we assume this from
now on. (Note that in $\lambda_0$ we could allow an arbitrary interval
with compact closure for this particular purpose.)
Our inversion problem is now that assuming
$(If)(x,y,\lambda,\omega)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}f(\gamma_{x,y,\lambda,\omega}(t))\,dt$
is known, we would like to recover $f$ from it. (Recall our
convention from above; the integral is really over
$(-\delta_0,\delta_0)$, and $f(x',y')$ vanishes for $x'\geq x_0/2$.)
It is occasionally convenient to assume
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma-symmetric}
\gamma_{x,y,-\lambda,-\omega}(-t)=\gamma_{x,y,\lambda,\omega}(t).
\end{equation}
Without
this symmetry assumption, we would have two curves with a given
tangent line at $(x,y)$, so having the integral of functions along
both, we would have additional information. (In other words, we could
simply drop one of these families to arrive at the present setting.)
The idea is simply
to average over the family, i.e.\ to consider for $x>0$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:A-def}
(Af)(x,y)=\int_\mathbb{R}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-2}} (If) (x,y,\lambda,\omega)\,\tilde\chi(x,\lambda)\,d\lambda\,d\omega,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde\chi$ is supported in $|\lambda|\leq
\sqrt{2C}\sqrt{x}$. One concrete choice that achieves this
$$
\tilde\chi(x,\lambda)=x^{-1/2}\chi(\lambda/\sqrt{x}),
$$
with $\chi$ having sufficiently small support near $0$; another one is
$$
\tilde\chi(x,\lambda)=x^{-1}\chi(\lambda/x),
$$
where now any compactly supported $\chi$ works (for sufficiently small
$x$). We remark that we can allow $\chi$ to depend smoothly on
$\omega$ and $y$; over compact sets such a behavior is necessarily
uniform since there are no boundaries in these variables.
\begin{rem}
Here we need to recall that $\gamma$ and $A$ are
only locally defined, on some open set $O$ (i.e.\ $\gamma$ is defined
for $z=(x,y)\in O$ only, and only as long as its image remains in $O$). However, as we are only
interested in applying $A$ to distributions supported in $O$, and as
the ellipticity statements we show are local in nature, this
is not a problem. For instance, for $K$ a fixed subset of $O$, one may
replace $A$ by $\psi A\psi$ where $\psi\inC^\infty_c(O)$ is $\equiv 1$ on a
neighborhood of $K$, which is now globally well-defined, and
ellipticity statements are unaffected near $K$.
\end{rem}
For any $r$, we can write $A$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:A-decomp}
A=L\circ I,\ L=M_2\circ\Pi \circ M_1\circ I,
\end{equation}
where
$$
\Pi u(x,y)=\int_\mathbb{R}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-2}} u (x,y,\lambda,\omega)\,d\lambda\,d\omega,
$$
and
$$
M_1 u(x,y,\lambda,\omega)= x^r \chi(\lambda/x) u(x,y,\lambda,\omega),\ (M_2f)(x,y)=x^{-1-r}f(x,y).
$$
Thus, $\Pi$ is a push-forward map, and thus is bounded on
$$
H^s([0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{S}^{n-2})\to
H^s([0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1})
$$
for all $s\geq 0$, i.e.\ `on $H^s$' in
brief, since such a map is bounded on $H^s$ in the
absence of boundaries, and there are continuous extension maps from
$H^s$ of a half space to $H^s$ of the whole space. On the other hand, as $\chi$ is bounded, $M_1$
is bounded on
$L^2(\{x\geq 0\})$ while its $j$th derivative is bounded by $x^{-j}$
times a constant, so $x^s M_1$ is bounded as map on $H^s(\{x\geq 0\})$
when $s\geq 0$ integer.
Thus,
$$
L:H^s([0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{S}^{n-2})\to x^{-s-1}H^s([0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1})
$$
is bounded.
Further, the X-ray transform, $I$, is itself of the form
$I=\tilde\Pi\circ\Phi^*$, where $\Phi^*$ is pull-back by the
map $(z,\nu,t)\mapsto \gamma_{z,\nu}(t)$,
$\nu=(\lambda,\omega)$, which has surjective differential
in view of the diffeomorphism property of $\Gamma_\pm$ (on the relevant
set; recall also that we are assuming that the functions we are
applying $I$ to are supported in $U$), and $\tilde\Pi$ is the
push-forward given by integration in $t$. Thus, $I$ itself is bounded
$$
I:H^s([0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1})\to H^s([0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{S}^{n-2}).
$$
Correspondingly, if we show $A$ is invertible as a map between
appropriate spaces of functions supported near $x=0$ (as
discussed in the previous section), concretely
weighted Sobolev spaces, with domain space including
$H^s([0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1})$ and range space including $x^{-s-1}H^s([0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1})$,
we obtain an estimate for $f$ in
terms of $If$ when $f$ satisfies such a support condition and lies in $H^s([0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1})$.
Note that the $A$ defined by \eqref{eq:A-def} is certainly a pseudodifferential
operator in $x>0$; moreover, its principal symbol is elliptic if
$\chi\geq 0$ with
$\chi>0$ near $0$ (this
uses $n>2$) -- while this is well-known, we check it below explicitly
in the proof of the next proposition. Our main task is to understand the uniform behavior of
$A$ to $x=0$. It turns out that while $A$ itself is not a scattering
pseudodifferential operator, its conjugates by exponential weights are:
\begin{prop}
Suppose $\chi\inC^\infty_c(\mathbb{R})$.
Let $\tilde\chi(x,\lambda)=x^{-1}\chi(\lambda/x)$.
The operator
$A_\digamma=x^{-1}e^{-\digamma/x}Ae^{\digamma/x}$ is in $\Psi_\scl^{-1,0}$ for
$\digamma>0$.
\end{prop}
The main point here regarding the exponential weights is that the
Schwartz kernel of $A$ itself is well-behaved near compact subsets of
the front face, i.e.\ where $X=\frac{x'-x}{x^2}$ and $Y=\frac{y'-y}{x}$ are bounded, but is not so
well-behaved as $(X,Y)\to\infty$. However, the support conditions on
$\chi$ insure that $X\to +\infty$ on the support of the Schwartz
kernel of $A$ (with a suitable estimate), and thus the exponential
conjugation gives exponential decay of the {\em conjugated kernel} as
$(X,Y)\to\infty$, giving the conclusion of the proposition.
\begin{proof}
At first work in $x>0$, ignoring the limit $x\to 0$. Then it is
standard that $A$ is a pseudodifferential operator (the weights are
harmless then), but it is instructive to prove this in a manner that
extends seamlessly to the general case.
With $\Gamma_\pm$ as in \eqref{eq:Gamma-plus-def}-\eqref{eq:Gamma-minus-def},
for $\tilde\chi$ an arbitrary smooth function on $S\tilde X$ (not necessarily
dependent just on $x,\lambda$) the diffeomorphism property on $S\tilde
X\times [0,\delta_0)$ allows one to
rewrite, with $|d\nu|$ denoting a smooth measure on the transversal
such as $|d\lambda|\,|d\omega|$,
$$
Af(z)=\sum_{\bullet=+,-}\int f(z')\tilde\chi(\Gamma_\bullet^{-1}(z,z')) (\Gamma_\bullet^{-1})^{*}(|d\nu|\,dt)
$$
in terms of $z,z'$ as
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}\label{eq:off-bdy-diag-ker-form}
&\int
f(z')|z'-z|^{-n+1}b\Big(z,\frac{z'-z}{|z'-z|},|z'-z|\Big)\,dz',\\
& b\Big(z,\frac{z'-z}{|z'-z|},0\Big)=\tilde\chi\Big(z,\frac{z'-z}{|z'-z|}\Big)\sigma\Big(z,\frac{z'-z}{|z'-z|}\Big),
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where $\sigma>0$ is bounded below -- it is the change of variables
Jacobian factor. The two terms $\Gamma_\pm$ are in fact identical by
the symmetry assumption on $\gamma$, \eqref{eq:gamma-symmetric}, so we
can ignore $\Gamma_-$.
In particular, $A$ is a pseudodifferential operator with principal
symbol given by the Fourier transform of
$$
|z'-z|^{-n+1}b(z,\frac{z'-z}{|z'-z|},0)=|z'-z|^{-n+1}(\tilde\chi\sigma)(z,\frac{z'-z}{|z'-z|})
$$
in $Z=z'-z$. One can insert a cutoff $\phi$ in $|Z|$ with compact
support, identically $1$ near $0$ (considered as an even function on
$\mathbb{R}$), without changing the result modulo rapid decay, i.e.\ as a
principal symbol, the result is not affected. The latter can be computed easily as
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
&\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} e^{-iZ\cdot\zeta}|Z|^{-n+1}(\tilde\chi\sigma)(z,\hat
Z)\phi(|Z|)\,dZ=\int_0^\infty\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}e^{-it\hat Z\cdot\zeta}(\tilde\chi\sigma)(z,\hat
Z)\phi(t)\,dt\,d\hat Z\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\int_\mathbb{R}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}e^{-it\hat Z\cdot\zeta}(\tilde\chi\sigma)(z,\hat
Z) \phi(t)\,dt\,d\hat Z=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}\hat\phi(\hat Z\cdot\zeta) (\tilde\chi\sigma)(z,\hat
Z)\,d\hat Z;
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
here $\hat\phi$ is the Fourier transform of $\phi$. Fixing $\hat\zeta=\frac{\zeta}{|\zeta|}$, since $\hat\phi$
is Schwartz, if $\tilde\chi\sigma$ is supported away from the
equatorial sphere $\{\hat Z:\ \hat Z\cdot\hat\zeta=0\}$, $|\hat
Z\cdot\zeta|>c|\zeta|$ on its support for some $c>0$, and then for all $N$,
$\hat\phi(\hat Z\cdot\zeta)\leq\tilde C_N|\zeta|^{-N}$, and thus we
conclude that the integral is Schwartz and thus gives no contribution
to the principal symbol. Correspondingly (by using a partition of unity), it suffices to consider a
neighborhood of the equator and assume $\tilde\chi\sigma$ is supported
here. Then one can write $Z=(Z^\parallel,Z^\perp)$ according to the orthogonal
decomposition relative to $\hat\zeta=\frac{\zeta}{|\zeta|}$, so
$Z^\parallel=Z\cdot\hat\zeta$, similarly for $\hat Z$, and
$d\hat Z$ is of the form $a(\hat Z^\parallel)\,d\hat
Z^\parallel\,d\theta$, $\theta=\frac{\hat Z^\perp}{|\hat
Z^\perp|}\in\mathbb{S}^{n-2}$ with $a(0)=1$ since $\hat Z^\perp=(1-|\hat
Z^\parallel|^2)^{1/2}\theta$. Thus, one has
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{2}\int_\mathbb{R}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-2}}\hat\phi(\hat Z^\parallel |\zeta|) (\tilde\chi\sigma)(z,\hat
Z^\parallel\hat\zeta+(1-|\hat
Z^\parallel|^2)^{1/2}\theta)a(\hat Z^\parallel)\,d\theta\,d\hat
Z^\parallel\\
&=\frac{1}{2|\zeta|}\int_\mathbb{R} (|\zeta|\hat\phi(\hat Z^\parallel |\zeta|)) a(\hat Z^\parallel)\Big(\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-2}}(\tilde\chi\sigma)(z,\hat
Z^\parallel\hat\zeta+(1-|\hat
Z^\parallel|^2)^{1/2}\theta)\,d\theta\Big)
\,d\hat
Z^\parallel
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
Since $(|\zeta|\hat\phi(\hat Z^\parallel |\zeta|))\to\delta_0$ in
distributions as $|\zeta|\to\infty$, this is
$|\zeta|^{-1}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-2}}
(\tilde\chi\sigma)(z,\theta)\,d\theta$ modulo terms decaying faster
as $|\zeta|\to\infty$; indeed, one easily sees by expanding
$\tilde\chi\sigma$
around $\hat Z^\parallel=0$ that this asymptotic holds modulo
$O(|\zeta|^{-2})$ terms. In other words, the principal symbol of $A$
at
$(z,\zeta)$ is a constant multiple of
\begin{equation}\label{eq:off-bdy-pr-symbol-form}
|\zeta|^{-1}\int (\tilde\chi\sigma)(z,\hat Z^\perp)\,dZ^\perp.
\end{equation}
In
particular, if $\tilde\chi\geq 0$, then as long as for each $(z,\zeta)$, $\zeta\neq 0$, there is $\hat Z$
perpendicular to $\zeta$ with $\tilde\chi$ non-zero at $(z,\hat Z)$,
then $A$ is an elliptic order $-1$ pseudodifferential operator, in
accordance with the results of Stefanov and Uhlmann \cite{SU2}. This is indeed
the case with our choice of $\tilde\chi$, provided $n>2$.
We now turn to the scattering behavior, i.e.\ as at least one of
$x,x'\to 0$. Note that from \eqref{eq:x-xp-comp}, on the support of
$\tilde\chi$, $x'\geq x-c_0x^2$,
for $x$ small. We in fact show below that on the support of
$\tilde\chi$, $X$ is bounded below, and $X\to+\infty$ if
$|Y|\to\infty$, and indeed $X\geq C_1|Y|^2$ for $|Y|$
sufficiently large, $C_1>0$. Here we recall from Section~\ref{sec:sc-calc} that
$$
X=\frac{x-x'}{x^2},\ Y=\frac{y-y'}{x}.
$$
With $K$ denoting the Schwartz
kernel of $A$, as
$$
x^{-1}-(x')^{-1}=\frac{x'-x}{xx'}=X\frac{x}{x'}=X/(1+xX),
$$
$A_\digamma$ has Schwartz
kernel
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}\label{eq:K-flat-form}
K^\flat(x,y,X,Y)&=x^{-1}e^{-\digamma(x^{-1}-(x')^{-1})}K(x,y,X,Y)\\
&=x^{-1}e^{-\digamma
X/(1+xX)}K(x,y,X,Y).
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Taking into account the polynomial bounds on $K$ in terms of $X,Y$, and
$x'\geq x-c_0x^2$ implying that $X$ is bounded below as shown later in
the proof, further that
$X\to+\infty$ as $|Y|\to\infty$ with $X\geq C_1|Y|^2$,
exponential decay of $K^\flat$ as well as its derivatives follows
easily for $\digamma>0$. Thus, the main claim is that $K^\flat$ is smooth
for $(X,Y)$ finite, non-zero, conormal to $(X,Y)=0$.
Now, on $\Gamma_+(\operatorname{supp}\tilde\chi\times [0,\delta_0))$, $|x-x'|\leq
C|y-y'|$ means that locally in this region
$x,y,|y'-y|,\frac{x'-x}{|y'-y|},\frac{y'-y}{|y'-y|}$ are coordinates on
$[\tilde X\times\tilde X;\mathrm{diag}]$ -- indeed, this corresponds to using
the transversal $|y'-y|=1$ to dilations in
$\mathbb{R}^n=\mathbb{R}_{x'-x}\times\mathbb{R}_{y'-y}^{n-1}$ in place of the unit sphere
$|(x'-x,y'-y)|=1$, which is indeed a transversal where $y'-y$ is large
relative to $x'-x$, i.e.\ in our region of interest.
Further, $\Gamma_+(x,y,\lambda,\omega,0)$
is, in terms of these coordinates, $(x,y,\lambda,\omega,0)$. In
general, thus,
$$
\lambda\Big(\Gamma_+^{-1}\Big(x,y,|y'-y|,\frac{x'-x}{|y'-y|},\frac{y'-y}{|y'-y|}\Big)\Big)=\Lambda\Big(x,y,|y'-y|,\frac{x'-x}{|y'-y|},\frac{y'-y}{|y'-y|}\Big),
$$
with
$$
\Lambda\Big(x,y,0,\frac{x'-x}{|y'-y|},\frac{y'-y}{|y'-y|}\Big)=\frac{x'-x}{|y'-y|},
$$
so (suppressing $\Gamma_+$ on the left hand side)
$$
\lambda=\frac{x'-x}{|y'-y|}+|y'-y|\tilde\Lambda\Big(x,y,|y'-y|,\frac{x'-x}{|y'-y|},\frac{y'-y}{|y'-y|}\Big).
$$
Now, in terms of the scattering coordinates,
$$
|y'-y|=x|Y|,\ \frac{x'-x}{|y'-y|}=\frac{xX}{|Y|},\
\frac{y'-y}{|y'-y|}=\hat Y,
$$
so (suppressing $\Gamma_+$ composed with
the scattering blow up map on the left hand side)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lambda-over-x}
\frac{\lambda}{x}=\frac{X}{|Y|}+|Y|\tilde\Lambda\Big(x,y,x|Y|,\frac{xX}{|Y|},\hat Y\Big).
\end{equation}
Similarly,
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
\omega&=\frac{y'-y}{|y'-y|}+|y'-y|\tilde
\Omega\Big(x,y,|y'-y|,\frac{x'-x}{|y'-y|},\frac{y'-y}{|y'-y|}\Big)\\
&=
\hat Y+x|Y|\tilde\Omega\Big(x,y,x|Y|,\frac{xX}{|Y|},\hat
Y\Big)
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}\label{eq:t-expr}
t&=|y'-y|+|y'-y|^2\tilde
T\Big(x,y,|y'-y|,\frac{x'-x}{|y'-y|},\frac{y'-y}{|y'-y|}\Big)\\
&=x|Y|+x^2|Y|^2\tilde T\Big(x,y,x|Y|,\frac{xX}{|Y|},\hat
Y\Big).
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Thus,
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}\label{eq:sc-density-calc}
dt\,d\lambda\,d\omega&=J\Big(x,y,\frac{X}{|Y|},|Y|,\hat Y\Big)
\,x^2|Y|^{-1} \,dX\,d|Y|\,d\hat Y\\
&=J\Big(x,y,\frac{X}{|Y|},|Y|,\hat Y\Big)\,x^2|Y|^{-n+1}\,dX\,dY
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
where the density factor $J$ is smooth and positive, and $J|_{x=0}=1$.
Also, on the blow-up
of the scattering diagonal, $\{X=0,\ Y=0\}$, in the region
$|Y|>\epsilon|X|$, thus on the support of $\chi$ in view of \eqref{eq:lambda-over-x},
$$
x,y,|Y|,\frac{X}{|Y|},\hat Y
$$
are valid coordinates,
with $|Y|$ being the defining function of the front face of this blow
up (i.e. of the lifted diagonal). Taking into account
the $x^{-1}$ in the definition in $\tilde\chi$, we thus deduce that
$K^\flat$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:K-flat-form}
e^{-\digamma X/(1+xX)}\chi\Big(\frac{X}{|Y|}+|Y|\tilde\Lambda(x,y,x|Y|,\frac{xX}{|Y|},\hat Y)\Big) |Y|^{-n+1}J\Big(x,y,\frac{X}{|Y|},|Y|,\hat Y\Big),
\end{equation}
so in particular it is conormal to the front face on the blow-up of the scattering
diagonal, of the form $\rho^{-n+1}b$, where $b$ is smooth up to the
front face, and without the first exponential factor it, together with
its derivatives (in $x,y,X,Y$) has polynomial
growth estimates as $(X,Y)\to\infty$, i.e.\ the derivatives satisfy
bounds $\leq C|(X,Y)|^N$ for some $C,N$ (depending on the
derivative). Decomposing $K^\flat$ into pieces supported in, say,
$|(X,Y)|<2$ and $|(X,Y)|>1$ by a partition of unity, we show in the
next paragraph that the
latter is Schwartz in $(X,Y)$ due the exponential decay of the first
factor of \eqref{eq:K-flat-form} on the support of the second
factor. On the other hand, for the former term, supported in $|(X,Y)|<2$,
calculations as in \eqref{eq:off-bdy-diag-ker-form}
in Fourier transforming this in $(X,Y)$ show that this term of $K^\flat$ is indeed
the Schwartz kernel of an element of $\Psi_\scl^{-1,0}$, with standard
principal symbol being given by the analogue of
\eqref{eq:off-bdy-pr-symbol-form}. Here the additional information is
in the behavior at $x=0$, but given that our operator {\em is} an
element of $\Psi_\scl^{-1,0}$, the same information can be obtained from
computing the boundary principal symbol, which we need in any case.
We use \eqref{eq:t-expr} to express $\frac{\lambda}{x}$ using
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma-form-near-diag}
x'=x+\lambda t+\alpha(x,y,\lambda,\omega)t^2+O(t^3),\ y'=y+\omega t+O(t^2),
\end{equation}
where the $O(t^2)$ and $O(t^3)$ terms have coefficients which are
smooth in $(x,y,\lambda,\omega)$.
Thus,
$$
X=\frac{x'-x}{x^2}=\frac{\lambda t}{x^2}+\frac{\alpha
t^2}{x^2}+\frac{t^3}{x^2}\Upsilon(x,y,x\mu,\omega,t),
$$
with $\Upsilon$ a smooth function of its arguments,
so
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
X=&\frac{\lambda(\Gamma_+^{-1})}{x}|Y|(1+x|Y|\tilde T(x,y,x|Y|,xX/|Y|,\hat Y))\\
&+\alpha(\Gamma_+^{-1}) |Y|^2(1+x|Y|\tilde T(x,y,x|Y|,xX/|Y|,\hat
Y))^2+x|Y|^3\Upsilon(\Gamma_+^{-1}),
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
and thus
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lambda-over-x-form}
\frac{\lambda(\Gamma_+^{-1})}{x}=\frac{X-\alpha(\Gamma_+^{-1})|Y|^2}{|Y|}+O(x),
\end{equation}
where the $O(x)$ has smooth coefficients in terms of
$x,y,x|Y|,xX/|Y|,\hat Y$. Thus, for $\mu=\frac{\lambda}{x}\in (-c,c)$,
$-c|Y|<X-\alpha(\Gamma_+^{-1})|Y|^2<c|Y|$, which shows (by the positive
definiteness of $\alpha$) that $X\to+\infty$ on $\operatorname{supp}\tilde\chi$ if
$|Y|\to\infty$, and indeed, for $|Y|$ sufficiently large, $X>C_1|Y|^2$
for some $C_1>0$.
As already explained, this proves the proposition, since now for all
$N'$ the
exponential factor in \eqref{eq:K-flat-form} is $\leq
C'|(X,Y)|^{-N'}$ for suitable $C'$ on the support of the second
factor, so combined with the
polynomial estimates for the derivatives of the second and third
factors, it follows that $K^\flat$ is smooth in $(x,y)$, with values
in functions Schwartz in $(X,Y)$ for $(X,Y)\neq 0$, and conormal to
$(X,Y)=0$, which is exactly the characterization of the Schwartz
kernel of a scattering pseudodifferential operator.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
We now explain the form these arguments would take for a different
scaling chosen for $\tilde\chi$. By \eqref{eq:gamma-form-near-diag}
for $\lambda=\sqrt{x}\mu$, with $\mu$ in a compact set near $0$
(i.e.\ the first, $O(\sqrt{x})$ localization used above),
$x'=x+\sqrt{x}\mu t+\alpha(x,y,\sqrt{x}\mu,\omega,t)t^2+O(t^3)$ gives
$$
x'\leq C'(x+|y-y'|^2),
$$
indicating that $|y'-y|/x^{1/2}$ is the appropriate homogeneous
variable for analysis; using $X=\frac{\sqrt{x'}-\sqrt{x}}{\sqrt{x}}$,
$Y=\frac{y'-y}{\sqrt{x}}$, this amounts to a statement that the
analysis is well-behaved on the 0 double space of Mazzeo-Melrose \cite{Mazzeo-Melrose:Meromorphic} when
the smooth structure is given by the boundary defining function
$\sqrt{x}$. This is a somewhat complicated space with a
non-commutative normal operator at infinity; there's a reduced normal
operator after a partial Fourier transform and rescaling which is a
b-scattering (or Bessel) type pseudodifferential operator on a
half-line. This is the reason for using our sharper cutoff, which puts
us into the more amenable setting of Melrose's scattering calculus, as
described above.
\end{rem}
We now compute the boundary principal symbol of $A_\digamma$. Indeed,
this is immediate from \eqref{eq:K-flat-form} and \eqref{eq:lambda-over-x-form}
which show that at $x=0$ (i.e.\ the scattering front face) the
Schwartz kernel of $A_\digamma$ is
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
e^{-\digamma
X}|Y|^{-n+1}\chi\Big(\big(X-\alpha(0,y,0,\hat
Y)|Y|^2\big)/|Y|\Big)=\tilde K(y,X,Y).
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
As described in Section~\ref{sec:sc-calc},
for each $y$, $\tilde K(y,.,.)$ acts as a convolution operator,
thus it becomes a multiplication operator upon Fourier transforming in $(X,Y)$,
and the desired invertibility $H_{\scl}^{s,r}\to H_{\scl}^{s+1,r}$ amounts to the Fourier
transformed kernel, $\hat K(y,.,.)$ being bounded below in absolute value by
$c\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{-1}$, $c>0$ (here $(\xi,\eta)$ are the
Fourier dual variables of $(X,Y)$). Thus, we need to compute the
inverse Fourier transform of $\tilde K(y,.,.)$, and find $\digamma$ such that
the desired bound holds. Note also that if $\chi$ depends on $y$ and
$\omega$ as discussed above, we simply have
$$
\chi\Big(\big(X-\alpha(0,y,0,\hat
Y)|Y|^2\big)/|Y|,y,\hat Y\Big)
$$
in the above expression for the Schwartz kernel at the front face. We
have thus shown
\begin{lemma}
The boundary principal symbol of
$x^{-1}e^{-\digamma/x}Ae^{\digamma/x}$ is
the $(X,Y)$-Fourier transform of
$$
\tilde K(y,X,Y)=e^{-\digamma
X}|Y|^{-n+1}\chi\Big(\big(X-\alpha(0,y,0,\hat
Y)|Y|^2\big)/|Y|,y,\hat Y\Big).
$$
\end{lemma}
In order to find a suitable $\chi$, we first make
a slightly inadmissible choice for an easier computation,
namely we take $\chi(s)=e^{-s^2/(2\nu)}$ with $\nu$ to be fixed (and
allowed to depend on $y$ and $\hat Y$), so
$\hat\chi(.)=c\sqrt{\nu}e^{-\nu|.|^2/2}$ for appropriate $c>0$. Thus,
$\chi$ does not have compact support, and an approximation argument
will be necessary.
Now, in general (for arbitrary $\chi$ which has
superexponential decay so its Fourier transform is entire), the Fourier
transform in $X$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:partial-FT-gen}
\mathcal F_X \tilde K(y,\xi,Y)=|Y|^{2-n}e^{-\alpha\digamma|Y|^2}e^{-i\alpha\xi|Y|^2}\hat\chi((\xi-i\digamma)|Y|),
\end{equation}
as follows by taking into account the effect of translations,
dilations and multiplication by exponential weights on the Fourier
transform (the last two of which are closely related). Here $\alpha$
is a function of $y$ and $\hat Y$, as above. Substituting
the particular $\chi$ yields a non-zero multiple of
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}\label{eq:partial-FT-Gauss}
&\sqrt{\nu}|Y|^{2-n}e^{-\alpha\digamma|Y|^2}e^{-i\alpha\xi|Y|^2}e^{-\nu(\xi-i\digamma)^2|Y|^2/2}\\
&=\sqrt{\nu}|Y|^{2-n}e^{-(2\alpha\digamma+\nu\xi^2-\nu\digamma^2)|Y|^2/2}e^{-i(\alpha-\digamma\nu)\xi|Y|^2}.
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Now, the $Y$-Fourier transform of $|Y|^{2-n}$ is a homogeneous radial
(i.e.\ $\mathrm{SO}(n-1)$-invariant) function of order $-1$, so it is a
non-zero multiple of $|\eta|^{-1}$, with $\eta$ the Fourier-dual
variable of $Y$. Notice that this uses very strongly that we have
$n>2$; $n=2$ would give a delta distribution. Thus, if the $Y$-Fourier transform of
\begin{equation*}
e^{-(2\alpha\digamma+\nu\xi^2-\nu\digamma^2)|Y|^2/2}e^{-i(\alpha-\digamma\nu)|Y|^2}
\end{equation*}
is positive, then the Fourier transform of the product, which is given
by the convolution (in $\eta$) of these, is also positive, and with asymptotic
behavior given by that of $|\eta|^{-1}$ provided the Fourier transform
of the Gaussian is Schwartz.
Indeed, if one Fourier transforms $|Y|^{2-n}\psi(y, Y)$, where $\psi$
is Schwartz in the last variable, only the behavior near $Y=0$ contributes to the
asymptotics as $\eta\to\infty$, and thus using the Taylor series of
$\psi$, one obtains the asymptotic expansion of the Fourier transform
as $\eta\to\infty$ as a classical polyhomogeneous function (with the
expansion in terms of $|\eta|^{-1-j}$, $j\geq 0$ integer).
So assume now that $\alpha$ is a positive definite quadratic form
in $\hat Y$ and take $\nu=\digamma^{-1}\alpha$ (so same holds for
$\nu$, i.e.\ $\nu$ is a quadratic form in $\hat Y$).
Thus, one has $\alpha|Y|^2=Q(Y,Y)$, a quadratic form in
$Y$. Thus, writing $Q^{-1}(Y,Y)$ for the
dual quadratic form, and taking $\chi(s)=e^{-s^2/(2\digamma^{-1}Q(\hat Y,\hat
Y))}$, we have
$$
\hat \chi(\sigma)=c(\digamma^{-1}Q(\hat Y,\hat
Y))^{1/2}e^{-\digamma^{-1}Q(\sigma\hat Y,\sigma\hat Y)/2}.
$$
In view of \eqref{eq:partial-FT-gen}-\eqref{eq:partial-FT-Gauss},
$\mathcal F_X \tilde K(y,\xi,Y)$ is a non-zero multiple of
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
&\sqrt{\nu}|Y|^{2-n}e^{-\alpha\digamma|Y|^2}e^{-i\alpha\xi|Y|^2}e^{-\nu(\xi-i\digamma)^2|Y|^2/2}\\
&=\sqrt{\nu}|Y|^{2-n}e^{-(2\alpha\digamma+\nu\xi^2-\nu\digamma^2)|Y|^2/2}e^{-i(\alpha-\digamma\nu)\xi|Y|^2}\\
&=\digamma^{-1/2}\sqrt{\alpha}|Y|^{2-n}e^{-(\xi^2+\digamma^2)\alpha\digamma^{-1}|Y|^2/2}=\digamma^{-1/2}\sqrt{\alpha}|Y|^{2-n}e^{-\digamma^{-1}(\xi^2+\digamma^2)Q(Y,Y)/2},
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
where the last factor is a real Gaussian
since the oscillatory factor in \eqref{eq:partial-FT-Gauss} becomes
identically $1$.
This is Schwartz in $Y$ for $\digamma>0$, and thus the Fourier
transform is a positive multiple of
$$
(\det
Q)^{-1/2}\digamma^{(n-1)/2}(\xi^2+\digamma^2)^{-(n-1)/2}e^{-\digamma Q^{-1}(\eta,\eta)/(2(\xi^2+\digamma^2))}.
$$
which satisfies the requirements from the previous paragraph (positive
Schwartz function).
One has to be a bit
careful about the joint $(\xi,\eta)$-behavior, i.e.\ when $\xi$ is
also going to infinity, and where we still need lower bounds. The
Fourier transform of $|Y|^{2-n}e^{-\digamma^{-1}\langle\xi\rangle^2Q(Y,Y)/2}$, with
$\langle\xi\rangle=(\xi^2+\digamma^2)^{1/2}$, is a constant
multiple of
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
&\int
|\eta-\zeta|^{-1}\langle\xi\rangle^{-(n-1)}e^{-\digamma Q^{-1}(\zeta,\zeta)/(2\langle\xi\rangle^2)}\,d\zeta\\
&=\int
|\eta-\langle\xi\rangle\zeta'|^{-1}e^{-\digamma Q^{-1}(\zeta',\zeta')/2}\,d\zeta'\\
&=\langle\xi\rangle^{-1}\int|\eta/\langle\xi\rangle-\zeta'|^{-1}e^{-\digamma
Q^{-1}(\zeta',\zeta')/2}\,d\zeta'
=\langle\xi\rangle^{-1}\varphi(\eta/\langle\xi\rangle)
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
where we wrote $\zeta'=\zeta/\langle\xi\rangle$, and where $\varphi$
is an elliptic positive classical symbol of order $-1$, namely the convolution of
$|.|^{-1}$ with the Schwartz function $e^{-\digamma Q^{-1}(.,.)/2}$. This assures lower bounds
$c\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{-1}$, $c>0$, i.e.\ elliptic lower
bounds. Indeed,
this is immediate when $\langle\xi\rangle>\epsilon|\eta|$, for
$\langle\xi\rangle^{-1}$ is equivalent to
$\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{-1}$ in this region in terms of decay rates, while
$\varphi(\eta/\langle\xi\rangle)$ is a 0th order symbol in this
region.
To see what happens when $|\eta|>\epsilon \langle\xi\rangle$, notice that
by virtue of the classicality in fact have
$\varphi(\eta')=|\eta'|^{-1}\tilde\varphi(\langle\xi\rangle/|\eta'|,\eta'/|\eta'|)$, with
$\tilde\varphi$ smooth near $0$ in the first argument. Thus, we obtain
$$
\langle\xi\rangle^{-1}\varphi(\eta/\langle\xi\rangle)=|\eta|^{-1}\tilde\varphi(\langle\xi\rangle/|\eta|,\eta'/|\eta'|),
$$
which is a symbol of order $-1$ in $|\xi|\leq C|\eta|$, and
$|\eta|^{-1}$ is equivalent to $\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{-1}$ here,
completing the proof of the ellipticity claim.
Now, if $\chi$ is not a Gaussian, but rather one has a sequence $\chi_n$
in $C^\infty_c(\mathbb{R})$ which converges to the Gaussian in Schwartz functions
(notice that this does not imply that the Fourier transform of
$\chi_n$ is
pointwise positive for any $n$, which is the reason we need to use the Fourier
transform of the Gaussian directly),
then the Fourier transforms converge in the appropriate spaces, which
suffices to conclude that for sufficiently large $n$, letting
$\chi=\chi_n$,
the Fourier transform $\hat K$, i.e.\ the
boundary principal symbol, still has
lower bounds $\tilde C\langle(\xi,\eta)\rangle^{-1}$, $\tilde C>0$, as
desired. We have thus proved:
\begin{lemma}
For $\digamma>0$ there exists $\chi\inC^\infty_c(\mathbb{R})$, $\chi\geq 0$,
$\chi(0)=1$, such that for the corresponding operator
$x^{-1}e^{-\digamma/x}Ae^{\digamma/x}$ the boundary symbol is
elliptic; indeed, this holds for all $\chi$ sufficiently close in
Schwartz space to a
specific Gaussian.
\end{lemma}
Hence, we have
$$
B=x^{-1}e^{-\digamma/x}Ae^{\digamma/x}\in\Psi_\scl^{-1,0}
$$
elliptic both in the sense of the standard principal symbol (in the
set of interest $O$), and
the scattering principal symbol, which is at $x=0$, and in particular
the results of Section~\ref{sec:sc-calc} are applicable. Thus,
elements of the kernel of $A$ which have support in the compact subset
$K$ of $O$ is finite dimensional, and further a stability estimate
holds on a complementary subspace of this finite dimensional
subspace. Further, with $x=x_c=\tilde x+c$, as discussed at the
beginning of this section, the arguments at the end of
Section~\ref{sec:sc-calc} show that for sufficiently small $c$, this
subspace of the kernel of $A=A_c$ is actually trivial, and one has a
stability estimate in $M_c=\{x_c>0\}$ for functions supported in
$K$. Thus, for $c$ small, writing the support condition as final subscript,
$$
A=xe^{\digamma/x}Be^{-\digamma/x}:e^{\digamma/x}H_{\scl}^{s,r}(M_c)_K\to
xe^{\digamma/x}H_{\scl}^{s+1,r}(M_c)=e^{\digamma/x}H_{\scl}^{s+1,r+1}(M_c)
$$
satisfies estimates
$$
\|f\|_{e^{\digamma/x}H_{\scl}^{s,r}(M_c)_K}\leq C\|Af\|_{e^{\digamma/x}H_{\scl}^{s+1,r+1}(M_c)}.
$$
In particular, if one is willing to give up polynomial weights as
unimportant at the cost of losing $\delta/x$ in the exponential weight, $\delta>0$, and one uses that for $s\geq 0$, $H^s(M_c)\subset H_{\scl}^{s,r}(M_c)$ for
$r\leq -\frac{n+1}{2}$ while for $r\geq -\frac{n+1}{2}+2s$,
$H_{\scl}^{s,r}(M_c)\subset H^s(M_c)$, with continuous inclusion maps, see
\eqref{eq:reg-Sob-in-sc}-\eqref{eq:sc-Sob-in-reg}, we have
$$
\|f\|_{e^{(\digamma+\delta)/x}H^s(M_c)_K}\leq C\|Af\|_{e^{\digamma/x}H^{s+1}(M_c)}.
$$
Now, using the decomposition $A=L\circ I$ of $A$ in \eqref{eq:A-decomp}, and the boundedness
statements following it, we have for all $\digamma>0$,
$$
\|Af\|_{e^{\digamma/x}H^{s+1}(M_c)}\leq C'\|If\|_{H^{s+1}(\mathcal M_{M_c})}
$$
when $f\in H^{s+1}(M_c)_K$.
For the convenience of the reader, we summarize all the maps for
$\digamma>0$ and with $r\in\mathbb{R}$, $\delta>0$ arbitrary, in a
commutative diagram:
\begin{equation*}\begin{CD}
e^{\digamma/x}H_{\scl}^{s,r}(M_c)_K@>A>>e^{\digamma/x}H_{\scl}^{s+1,r+1}(M_c)@>G>>e^{\digamma/x}H_{\scl}^{s,r}(M_c)\\
@AAA @AAA @VVV\\
H^{s+1}(M_c)_K@>L\circ I>> H^{s+1}(M_c)@.e^{(\digamma+\delta)/x} H^s(M_c)
\end{CD}\end{equation*}
with all vertical arrows inclusion maps, $G$ the inverse of $A$ on the
range of $A$, and with
\begin{equation*}\begin{CD}
H^{s+1}(M_c)_K@>I>>H^{s+1}(\mathcal M_{O_c})@>L>> H_{\scl}^{s+1}(M_c)
\end{CD}\end{equation*}
being the lower left composite map $L\circ I$ written out in detail.
Indeed, note that even $s=-1$ is allowed with the inclusions we
stated; factoring the first inclusion via $H^{s+1}(M_c)\to
e^{\digamma/x}H_{\scl}^{s+1.r}(M_c)\to e^{\digamma/x} H_{\scl}^{s,r}(M_c)$
proves it since $s+1\geq 0$,
while using \eqref{eq:neg-sc-Son-in-reg} (with $-s$ in place of $s$)
gives the last inclusion map.
In combination, this completes the proof of the main theorem for
$s\geq -1$ in the notation here (thus $s\geq 0$ for the notation of
the main theorem), with
$\digamma$ replaced by $\digamma+\delta$ -- as both $\digamma>0$ and
$\delta>0$ are arbitrary, this means that the original statement is proved.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Fundamental issues of non-equilibrium physics of interacting
many-body quantum systems and of phase coherence and phase stability, in
particular, have a long history. A simple yet relevant model, the two-site Bose-Hubbard
Hamiltonian, features phase and fluctuation decay, and also revivals and thus,
over the years, many thorough investigations of its quantum dynamics have appeared.
Most remarkably, recent experiments involving ultracold Bose gases trapped in
an effectively one-dimensional double-minimum potential represent an almost ideal
realizations of this fundamental model \cite{Alb05,Gat07}, with the fascinating
possibility to vary relevant model parameters over a wide range.
A full many-body calculation of the dynamics of an interacting, trapped ultracold Bose gas is only
possible for a very small number of particles, even for weakly interacting Bosons.
Most often a mean field approximation in form of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation
is applied, which provides good results for low temperatures and for a large number
of particles $N$, if only for a limited time and a limited set of observables.
These limits are intensively studied. Once the field operators are replaced by a c-number field,
some truly quantum phenomena, e.g. wave function revivals, cannot be described.
The double-well potential provides an ideal playground to analyze these issues.
Thus, a purely classical field approach quickly comes to its limits, and the question
arises whether {\it semiclassical} methods can improve the
theoretical treatment of such bosonic systems, allowing us in the future to
study more challenging problems whose many-body Schrödinger equation can no longer
be solved fully numerically.
A number of articles deal with the discussion of the consequences of the
mean-field approximation and many-body quantum corrections
\cite{Var01,Ang01}
and the many-body quantum and classical dynamics in phase space
\cite{Mah05}.
Furthermore, semiclassical methods were applied to the double-well system. In
\cite{Gra07,Paw11,Fran00,Chu10,Sh08,Nis10} a WKB quantization is adopted to
analyze the energy spectrum and the wave functions in certain parameter regions.
Despite this fair amount of investigations, it is remarkable to realize that
-- leaving some fairly straightforward cases aside --
no analytical expressions for the relevant dynamical quantities
appear to be known. Thus,
the purpose of this article is to find a generally applicable analytical
description of the
population imbalance dynamics of an ultracold Bose gas in a double-well potential
by applying semiclassical methods. Since the full quantum dynamics can be determined numerically
up to many thousand particles, we are able to compare to exact results.
Clearly, the interesting case of very large $N
\rightarrow \infty$ can no longer
be investigated numerically, yet our analytical approach is suited to study this
very limit in detail.
At low temperatures a Bose-Einstein condensate in a double-well
potential can be described by a two-mode approximation.
The corresponding second quantized many particle two-site
Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian is written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{BH}=-T\left( \hat a_1^\dagger \hat a_2 + \hat a_2^\dagger
\hat a_1 \right) + U\left(\hat a_1^\dagger \hat a_1^\dagger \hat a_1
\hat a_1
+ \hat a_2^\dagger \hat a_2^\dagger \hat a_2 \hat a_2 \right) + \delta
\left( \hat n_1 - \hat n_2 \right)
\label{eqBH}
\end{equation}
with the creation and annihilation operators for a boson in the $i$th
well denoted by $\hat a_i^\dagger $, $\hat a_i$ with $[a_i,a^\dagger_j]=\delta_{ij}$. Thus,
the particle number operator of the $i$th site is $\hat n_i = \hat
a_i^\dagger \hat a_i$. $U$ is a measure for the on-site two-body
interaction strength, $T$
is a tunneling amplitude, which in the experiments can be controlled by
varying the barrier hight. The tilt parameter
$\delta$ leads to an asymmetry in the one-particle site
energies of the two wells and is used to initiate the dynamics.
Note that in the standard notation adapted in Josephson physics we have
$E_J=NT$ and $E_C=4U$ \cite{Leg01}.
\\
It has been shown that the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian describes the
dynamics of the bosons in the double-well potential properly
\cite{Mil97}, provided that the
interaction energy $U$ is small compared to the level spacing of the
trap potential, such that only the two lowest lying modes have to be
taken into account. Transverse modes should also be suppressed.
It should be mentioned that there are finer descriptions of the two-mode
limit that also take into account tunnel coupling energies depending
explicitly
on the nonlinear two-body interaction term \cite{An06}. In this work,
however, we restrict ourselves to the standard Bose-Hubbard
Hamiltonian (\ref{eqBH}).
\\
\\
First, there are three qualitatively quite different regimes \cite{Pa01,Leg01}
with respect to crucial features of
the energy spectra. They are best explained by introducing the parameter
\begin{equation}
\Lambda=\frac{U N}{T},
\end{equation}
which thus separates the Rabi- ($\Lambda < 1$) from the so-called
Josephson regime for which $1<\Lambda\ll N^2$ and the Fock regime with $\Lambda \gg N^2$.
The Rabi regime is the
non-interacting limit $\Lambda \ll 1$, when the system consists of $N$
independent particles leading to an almost harmonic oscillator energy
spectrum and thus, after an initial tilt, to plasma oscillations with the
known plasma frequency
$\omega_p=2T\sqrt{1+\Lambda}\approx 2T$ \cite{Smer97,Gat07}.
In the Fock regime all eigenenergies are grouped in
doublets with a quasi-degenerate symmetric and antisymmetric state. Thus, the dynamics
of the mean population imbalance
follows an extremely slow evolution in time which is called self trapping.
The Josepshon regime combines the two characteristics of the spectrum just discussed.
We distinguish the
self trapping regime $E>2NT$ from the plasma oscillating regime,
where $E < 2NT$ holds. In the former, the energy eigenstates
appear as doublets again leading to self trapping.
In the latter the energy eigenstates correspond to an (an-harmonic) oscillator
spectrum and the population imbalance oscillates around zero.
Thus, in the Josephson regime the dynamics will depend on the energy of the
initial state. For low energies -- the subject of this work -- the dynamics undergoes
plasma oscillations, for higher
energies we see self-trapping, which is beyond the scope of this paper.
\\
\\
In this article we have in mind an experiment as in reference
\cite{Alb05}, so the double-well system is initially prepared in the
ground state $\psi_0$ of
a tilted potential, i.e. $\delta \ne 0$ in (\ref{eqBH}). Then, at $t=0$ it is
quickly switched to a symmetric potential, i.e. $\delta = 0$.
Starting from an initial population imbalance unequal to zero the system is
left to evolve in time.
\\
In our paper we first discuss the spectrum using the semiclassical WKB-
or Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization. We find a way to systematically obtain
an approximate, useful expression for energies in the plasma oscillating
regime. In order to describe imbalance dynamics, we need to explore
overlap matrix elements in the following section, which we do with the help
of the reflection principle. We then apply the Poisson summation
formula, which has a long history in semiclassical approaches to
quantum dynamics. As a result, we find a useful expression for the
time evolution of the imbalance, containing parameters that can be
obtained analytically on the basis of the classical Hamiltonian.
We then compare exact calculations with our new formula and find
remarkable agreement over the whole relevant range of $\Lambda$,
covering the known Rabi- but also the plasma oscillating Josephson
region. In particular, the oscillation frequency, the collapse and
revival times are reproduced astonishingly well. We finally discuss the
corresponding analytical expressions. It should be noted that the
experimentally observed oscillation frequency in \cite{Alb05} of about
$40$ms follows directly from our formula.
\section{Semiclassical description}
\label{sec_semicl}
We will follow mainly Braun \cite{Bra93} and his discrete WKB method,
as already applied to the double-well problem by Korsch et
al. \cite{Gra07}. The two-mode Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian can be written in the
Schwinger spin
representation by transforming to angular momentum
operators $\hat J_x=\frac{1}{2}\left(\hat a_1^\dagger \hat a_2 + \hat
a_2^\dagger \hat a_1 \right)$,
$\hat J_y=\frac{1}{2i}\left(\hat a_1^\dagger \hat a_2 - \hat
a_2^\dagger \hat a_1 \right)$ and
$\hat J_z=\frac{1}{2}\left(\hat a_1^\dagger \hat a_1 - \hat a_2^\dagger
\hat a_2 \right)$. With the ladder operators $\hat J_+=\hat J_x+i
\hat J_y$ and
$\hat J_-=\hat J_x - i \hat J_y$
the Hamiltonian (\ref{eqBH}) becomes
\begin{equation}
\hat H =2U \hat J_z^2+2 \delta \hat J_z -T\left(\hat J_+ + \hat J_-
\right) + \frac{1}{2} U \hat N^2 - U\hat N \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\hat N$ is the total particle number operator. For fixed $N$ a
change from basis $|n,N-n\rangle$ to the angular momentum states $|l,j\rangle$
is useful, with
$l=\frac{N}{2}$ and $j=\frac{n_1-n_2}{2}$.
With $w_j=2Ul^2-2Ul+2Uj^2+2 \delta
j$ and $p_j=-T\sqrt{l(l+1)-j(j-1)}$, the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian are
determined by an equation of the form
\begin{equation}
p_j c_{j-1} + (w_j - E) c_j + p_{j+1} c_{j+1}=0 \ ,
\label{eqSG}
\end{equation}
as discussed in \cite{Bra93}.
By introducing the ``coordinate'' operator
$\phi=i
\frac{\partial}{\partial j}$ (note \cite{BraunFootnote}),
equation (\ref{eqSG}) can be written as a
Schr\"odinger equation for the function $c_j$ with
eigenvalue $E$ and Hamilton operator $\hat H = w(j)+p(j)e^{-i \phi} +
p(j+1) e^{i \phi}$. In the classical limit the operators
turn to
canonically conjugate coordinate $\phi$ and momentum $j$ (population imbalance), where
$\phi$ turns out to be the phase difference
between the two wells.
Since $p(j)$ is a slowly varying function of $j$ in the classical
limit ($N \rightarrow \infty$) one can replace both $p_j$ and $p_{j+1}$ by $p_{j+\frac{1}{2}}$ and
one finds the Hamilton function
\begin{align}
H(j,\phi) &= w(j)+2p(j+\frac{1}{2})\cos \phi \\
&= \frac{1}{2} U N^2-UN+2Uj^2+2\delta j -2T\sqrt{(N/2)^2-j^2}\cos \phi
\label{eqHamiltonfunktion}
\end{align}
which can also be found from the mean-field
Gross-Pitaevskii functional in the two-mode limit \cite{Smer97, NFootnote}.
The classical dynamics of the population imbalance and the relative phase (for
$\delta=0$) is then determined by Hamilton's equations of
motion:
\begin{align}
\frac{dj}{dt}&=-\frac{\partial H}{\partial \phi}=-2T \sqrt{(N/2)^2-j^2}
\sin \phi
\nonumber
\\
\frac{d \phi}{dt}&=\frac{\partial H}{\partial j}=4Uj+\frac{2Tj \cos
\phi}{\sqrt{(N/2)^2-j^2}}
\label{eqofmotion}
\end{align}
The rich dynamics in this ''classical picture'' have been studied by
several groups \cite{Mil97, Rag99, Hol01}, focusing on
the differences between the classical and the quantum description of the
dynamics \cite{Kra09,Jav10,Ton05}. Clearly a purely classical description
cannot picture the collapses and the revivals of the population imbalance,
but it is able to shed light on the transition from the tunneling to the
self-trapping regime.
Recently, the phase space region near the classical bifurcation was also investigated
experimentally with ultracold Bosons \cite{Zib10}.
\subsection{Semiclassical energy spectrum: Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization}
An analytical approach to the energy spectrum relies on the WKB method
following Braun \cite{Bra93} and others \cite{Fran00,Chu10,Gra07,Paw11}.
In \cite{Gra07}, only the noninteracting case is investigated analytically. In \cite{Fran00,Chu10}
the authors concentrate on energies close to the extremal points,
and in \cite{Paw11} the case of an attractive gas for the single value of $\Lambda=1$
is studied. We here concentrate on the plasma oscillating regime and aim
for solutions over the whole range of $\Lambda \ll 1$ to $\Lambda \gg 1$.
For the Hamilton function (\ref{eqHamiltonfunktion}) it is
convenient to introduce two potential-energy curves
\begin{align}
V^+(j)=H(j,\pi)=TN+2Uj^2+2T\sqrt{(N/2)^2-j^2}
\\
V^-(j)=H(j,0)=TN+2Uj^2-2T\sqrt{(N/2)^2-j^2}
\label{eqpotentials}
\end{align}
such that the classically allowed energies lie in the region confined by
the two potential curves $V^+$ and $V^-$. The minimum energy is chosen to be $V^-(j=0)=0$. The potential curves display
the transition from the Rabi- to the Josephson
regime very nicely, as shown in Fig. \ref{figPotentials}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=40mm]{potentials01.eps} \hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=40mm]{potentials1.eps} \hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=40mm]{potentials10.eps}
\\
\includegraphics[width=40mm]{eigenenergies01.eps} \hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=40mm]{eigenenergies1.eps} \hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=40mm]{eigenenergies10.eps}
\caption{Potential curves $V^+$, $V^-$ and the energy eigenvalues $E_n$ for, from left to right, $\Lambda=$ 0.1, 1, 10 and $N=30$, $T=3$. }
\label{figPotentials}
\end{figure}
The energy eigenvalues change from a (non-harmonic) oscillator like spectrum for $\Lambda < 1$ to a
spectrum with doublets for $\Lambda > 1$ due to tunneling,
which can be seen from the potential curves. For $\Lambda > 1$, $V^+$ attains a local
minimum which leads to doublets in the spectrum for energies $E>V^+(0)$. The deeper
the minimum, the bigger this so-called Fock-fraction of the spectrum. Since
we are interested in plasma oscillations, the Fock-fraction will not be
investigated here, but a semiclassical analysis along similar lines
-- if only more involved -- is possible, see for instance \cite{SAB91}.
\\
\\
In the WKB approximation the eigenenergies $E_n$ are obtained from the quantization condition
\begin{equation}
S=S(E)= \oint \phi(j) dj = 4\int_{0}^{j_+(E)}
\arccos\left(\frac{E-TN-2Uj^2}{2T\sqrt{(N/2)^2-j^2}}\right)dj=2\pi(n+\frac{1}{2})
\ ,
\label{eqWKB}
\end{equation}
where $n$ is the quantum number, and $\phi(j)$ is determined by the
Hamilton function (\ref{eqHamiltonfunktion}) at fixed energy $E$
(recall that zero energy $E=0$ corresponds to $S(E=0)=0$). The integration limit $j_+$ is
the (positive) classical turning point as obtained from
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{(V^+(j)-E)(E-V^-(j))}\stackrel{\mathrm{!}}=0,
\end{equation}
which leads to a quadratic equation in $j^2$ with solutions
\begin{equation}
(j^2)_\pm(E) = \frac{1}{2U^2}\left(
(EU-(\omega_p/2)^2)\pm\sqrt{(\omega_p/2)^4-EU\omega_p^2/(2(1+\Lambda))}\right).
\end{equation}
Recall that $\omega_p=2T\sqrt{1+\Lambda}$ is the plasma frequency. For the plasma oscillating regime the relevant turning point is $j_+$.
Note that $j_+\rightarrow 0$ for $E\rightarrow 0$, while $(j_-^2)$
approaches the negative constant $(j_-^2)\rightarrow -
(\omega_p/(2U))^2$ as $E\rightarrow 0$.
The integral in eqn. (\ref{eqWKB}) can be solved numerically and the results
agree very well with the exact quantum results even for quite small numbers
of particles as has already been noticed in \cite{Gra07}.
It is impossible to
solve the action integral analytically without approximation. As we aim
at the plasma oscillation regime, we expand in powers of $E$. First,
however,
we take the derivative with respect to energy and rescale to find
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial S(E)}{\partial E}=\frac{2}{U|j_-(E)|}\int_{0}^1
\frac{d\lambda}{\sqrt{(1-\lambda^2)(1+\kappa^2(E)\lambda^2)}} \ .
\label{eq_integral}
\end{equation}
with $\kappa^2=(j_+)^2/|j_-|^2$.
Since $\kappa^2 \rightarrow 0$ for $E\rightarrow 0$, and $0<\lambda<1$, an expansion of $(1+\kappa^2\lambda^2)^{-1/2}$ in powers of $\kappa^2\lambda^2$
leads to a series in powers of $E$. The corresponding integrals $\int_0^1 \mathrm{d}\lambda \frac{\lambda^{2n}}{\sqrt{1-\lambda^2}}$ are
known analytically. Finally, a systematic expansion of $\kappa^{2n}$ and $1/|j_-|$ in $E$ leads to
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial S}{\partial E} = \frac{2 \pi}{\omega_p}+4\pi
\frac{U(1+\Lambda/4)}{\omega_p^3 (1+\Lambda)}E + 6\pi
\frac{3U^2(1+\Lambda/3+(\Lambda/4)^2)}{\omega_p^5(1+\Lambda)^2}E^2 + ....,
\label{eq_sstrich}
\end{equation}
which is one of the important results of this paper.
Apparently, the formal expansion in $E$ is an expansion in the dimensionless parameter
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon = \frac{UE}{\omega_p^2}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\Lambda}{1+\Lambda}\left(\frac{E}{V^+(0)}\right) \ .
\end{equation}
The expression on the right hand side clearly shows that our results are expected to be valid in
the plasma oscillating regime $E < V^+(0)$, irrespectively of the value of $\Lambda$.
From a simple integration together with the Bohr-Sommerfeld-quantization condition (\ref{eqWKB})
we find
\begin{equation}
n(E)=-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{\omega_p}E +
\frac{U(1+\Lambda/4)}{\omega_p^3
(1+\Lambda)}E^2+\frac{3U^2(1+\Lambda/3+(\Lambda/4)^2)}{\omega_p^5(1+\Lambda)^2}E^3
+ ...
\label{eqspectrum}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{spectrum01.eps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{spectrum1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{spectrum10.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the analytical (\ref{eqspectrum}) (red, solid
line, including third order in $E$) and the numerically exact spectrum (blue squares) for,
from left to right, $\Lambda=$
0.1, 1, 10 and for $N=30$, $T=3$. The vertical dashed lines illustrate the transition from the plasma oscillating regime to the self trapping regime at $E=V^+(0)=2NT$. We see excellent agreement in the plasma oscillating regime. }
\label{figspectrum}
\end{figure}
In figure \ref{figspectrum} we show examples of the spectrum for a wide range of values of $\Lambda=0.1, \ 1, \ 10$,
covering both the Rabi and the Josephson regime. Apparently, our approximation
(\ref{eqspectrum}), including contributions up to third order in $E$,
coincides with the numerically exact spectrum with high
accuracy in the plasma oscillating regime ($E<V^+(0)$) for all values of $\Lambda$.
Clearly,
the doublet structure in the Fock regime (high energy regime $E>V^+(0)$ in the right diagram of Fig. \ref{figspectrum})
cannot be captured by our series expansion (\ref{eqspectrum}).
\section{Exact quantum dynamics of the population imbalance}
To determine the tunneling dynamics, the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian
(\ref{eqBH}) can be diagonalized numerically for a finite number of Bosons.
Using the eigenbasis
$\{|\phi_n\rangle\} $, the dynamics of $|\psi(t) \rangle $ is given by
\begin{equation}
|\psi(t)\rangle = \sum _n c_n e^{-iE_nt} |\phi_n\rangle \ ; \ \text{with} \ c_n=\langle \phi_n | \psi_0\rangle
\end{equation}
The time evolution of the population imbalance $\hat j=(\hat n_1-\hat n_2)/2$ is then
\begin{equation}
j(t)=\langle \psi(t) | \hat j |\psi(t)\rangle=\sum_{n,m}
A_{nm}e^{-i(E_n-E_m)t}
\label{eqImbalance}
\end{equation}
with the matrix
\begin{equation}
A_{nm}=c_n c_m^\ast \langle\phi_m|\hat j|\phi_n\rangle \ .
\label{eqAnm}
\end{equation}
The dynamics of the
population imbalance thus depends on the energy spectrum through the differences $E_n-E_m$,
and on the matrix
$A_{nm}$, which contains the initial condition and matrix elements
$\langle\phi_m|\hat j|\phi_n\rangle$.
Figure \ref{figAnm} shows the matrix $A_{nm}$ for increasing $\Lambda$,
obtained from a numerically exact calculation.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=30mm]{Anm01.eps} \hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=30mm]{Anm05.eps} \hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=30mm]{Anm1.eps}\hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=37mm]{Anm10.eps}
\caption{The matrix $A_{nm}$ for $\Lambda=$ 0.1, 0.5, 1, 10 and for
$N=30$, $T=3$. }
\label{figAnm}
\end{figure}
Due to parity with respect to $\hat j$, $A_{nm}$ is zero for an even number $n-m$,
as can be seen in Fig. \ref{figAnm}: $0=A_{nn}=A_{nn\pm 2}=A_{nn\pm 4}+\ldots$.
Among the non-zero matrix elements, there is a strong hierarchy,
\begin{equation}
|A_{nn\pm 1}|\gg |A_{nn\pm 3}|\gg |A_{nn\pm 5}| \gg \ldots \ ,
\label{eq_hierarchy}
\end{equation}
in particular for small $\Lambda$, which will be important later. It
is worth noting that in the limit $U\rightarrow 0$ (and therefore $\Lambda \rightarrow 0$,
for fixed $N$)
the dynamics is well described by a harmonic oscillator. In that case
it is easy to prove (the $\phi_n(j)$ are Hermite polynomials) that only the $A_{nn\pm 1}$ are
in fact different from zero.
Along the diagonals, the matrix elements $A_{nn\pm k}$
(with $k=1, \ 3, \ 5, \ \ldots$) have a Gaussian-like $n$-dependence.
This is due to the $n$-dependence of the overlap $c_n=\langle \phi_n | \psi_0\rangle$,
which will be discussed in the next section.
By contrast, the $n$-dependence of the matrix elements $\langle\phi_{n\pm k}|\hat j|\phi_{n}\rangle$
is weak. Thus, it is save to assume the form
\begin{equation}
A_{nn\pm k} \approx c_n c_{n\pm k}^\ast d_k \ ,
\label{eq_dk}
\end{equation}
with $n$-independent parameters $d_k\approx \langle \phi_{\bar n \pm k}|\hat j|\phi_{\bar n}\rangle$
(with the most relevant ${\bar n}$), for which, following (\ref{eq_hierarchy}), we expect
\begin{equation}
|d_1| \gg |d_3| \gg |d_5| \gg \ldots
\label{eq_hier_dk}
\end{equation}
\section{Semiclassical dynamics of the population imbalance}
For a semiclassical evaluation of $j(t)$ according to equations (\ref{eqImbalance}) and (\ref{eqAnm}) we
need semiclassical expressions for $E_n-E_{n\pm k}$ and the overlap coefficients $c_n$. While
the spectrum was discussed in section \ref{sec_semicl}, we start here with the latter.
\subsection{Reflection principle}
The problem to find overlap integrals of an initial wavepacket $\psi_0(j)$
localized near $j \approx j_0$
with eigenstates $|\phi_E\rangle$ of the Hamiltonian with potential $V(j)=V^-(j)$
is often encountered in molecular photo-dissociation \cite{schinke}. The semiclassical
solution (reflection principle) states that
\begin{equation}
\langle \phi_E|\psi_0\rangle = c \cdot \psi_0\left(\frac{E-V(j_0)}{V'(j_0)}\right) \
\end{equation}
with some constant $c$.
It is important to note that here the eigenstates are understood to be energy normalized,
i.e. $\langle \phi_E|\phi_{E'}\rangle=\delta(E-E')$, since in typical applications these
are scattering states. For the coefficients
$c_n$ we therefore find $c_n=\langle \phi_n|\psi_0\rangle=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{d}E}{\mathrm{d}n}}\langle \phi_E|\psi_0\rangle$.
The normalization condition $1=\sum_n |c_n|^2 \approx \int \mathrm{d}n |c_n|^2$ yields $c=1/\sqrt{V'(j_0)}$, and we get
\begin{equation}
c_n=\langle\phi_n|\psi_0\rangle \approx
\frac{1}{\sqrt{V'(j_0)}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{d}E(n)}{\mathrm{d}n}} \; \psi_0\left(\frac{E_n-V(j_0)}{V'(j_0)}\right) \ .
\label{eq_cninE}
\end{equation}
In our calculations, following the experiments, the initial wave function is
prepared as the ground state of the tilted trap potential (achieved through the term $\delta (\hat n_1-\hat n_2)=2\delta \hat j$ in the Bose-Hubbard
Hamiltonian (\ref{eqBH})).
In a harmonic approximation near the potential minimum of the tilted potential we find the Gaussian density
\begin{equation}
|\psi_0(j)|^2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}}e^{-\frac{(j-j_0)^2}{2
\sigma^2}}
\label{eqpsi0}
\end{equation}
with $j_0$ uniquely determined by the tilting strength $\delta$ and
\begin{equation}
\sigma^2=\frac{N}{4}
\frac{1-(2j_0/N)^2}{\sqrt{1+\Lambda(1-(2j_0/N)^2)^{3/2}}} \ .
\end{equation}
Clearly, the shape of the initial wave function determines the shape of the $c_n$ as a function of $n$.
On closer inspection of equation (\ref{eq_cninE}), however, we observe that for the initial state (\ref{eqpsi0}), due to the nonlinear relation between $E_n$ and $n$,
the coefficients $c_n$ are gaussian in $E_n$ but not in $n$.
\subsection{Population imbalance}\label{subsecpop}
Having all the ingredients at hand we can now aim at a semiclassical expression
for the dynamics of the population imbalance $j(t)$ which we choose to
write as
\begin{equation}
j(t)= \sum_{n,k} A_{nn-k} \exp(-i (E_n-E_{n-k})t) + c.c.
\label{eqdynamics}
\end{equation}
with $k=1,3,5,\ldots$ taking into account the diagonal structure of $A_{nm}$ as discussed in the last section.
Replacing $A_{nn\pm k}$ by expression (\ref{eq_dk}) and using the Poisson summation formula we
find
\begin{equation}
j(t)=\sum_{k=1,3,5..} d_k \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty I_m^k(t) + c.c.
\label{eq_j_t}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
I_m^k(t)=\int \mathrm{d}n
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}E}{\mathrm{d}n}\right)
\frac{1}{V'(j_0)}
\psi_0\left(\frac{E_n-V(j_0)}{V'(j_0)}\right)
\psi_0^\ast\left(\frac{E_{n-k}-V(j_0)}{V'(j_0)}\right)
e^{-i(E_n-E_{n-k})t} e^{2\pi i mn} \ .
\end{equation}
This rather complicated expression is readily simplified by changing the
integration variable from $n$ to $E$. Further, as only very small $k$ ($k=1, \ 3)$ are
relevant (see equ.(\ref{eq_hier_dk})), it is safe to replace $E_n-E_{n-k} \approx \frac{\mathrm{d}E}{\mathrm{d}n}k= \frac{2\pi k}{S'(E)}$
and neglect the $k$-dependence in the reflection principle, i.e. $c^\ast_{n\pm k} \approx c^\ast_n$.
Finally, we replace $2\pi n=S(E)-\pi$ according to the semiclassical quantization rule (\ref{eqWKB}).
With $\tau=kt$ we find
\begin{equation}
I_m^k(t)=I_m(\tau)= e^{i\pi m} \int \frac{\mathrm{d}E}{V'(j_0)} \bigg|\psi_0
\left(\frac{E-V(j_0)}{V'(j_0)} \right)\bigg |^2
e^{-\frac{2 \pi i \tau }{S'(E)}}e^{i m S(E)} .
\label{eq_Imk}
\end{equation}
This expression, together with equ.(\ref{eq_j_t}) is one of the main results of our paper.
As we will see, even with further simplifications, the formula captures all essential details
of the dynamics,
allows for a thorough understanding of decay and revival dynamics, and,
most importantly, is the starting point for analytical expressions.
\\
\\
Due to the localization of the initial state $\psi_0(j)$, the
energy integration in (\ref{eq_Imk}) is confined to a relatively small interval near $E\approx V(j_0)$,
which we assume to be in the plasma oscillating regime ($E<V^+(0)$). Therefore, for the
evaluation of
the overall phase $mS(E)-2 \pi kt /S'(E)$ we can rely on our
semiclassical series expansions (\ref{eq_sstrich}) and (\ref{eqspectrum}).
With a Gaussian initial state as in (\ref{eqpsi0}) and expanding the
overall phase up to second order around $E\approx V(j_0)$ allows us
to take the Gaussian integral and leads us to the analytical result
\begin{equation}
I_m(\tau)+c.c.=\frac{2}{(1+A^2)^{1/4}}\cos\left(\tilde{\omega}_p \tau -\tilde \varphi \right)
\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2(1+A^2)}\left(\frac{\tau-mT_{\mathrm{rev}}}{T_{\mathrm{collapse}}}\right)^2\right)
\label{equltimativeformel}
\end{equation}
with $\tau=kt$. In the following we want to discuss the structure of this central result.
The most important features are the plasma oscillations ($\tilde \omega_p$),
their collapse ($T_{\mathrm{collapse}}$) and their revivals ($T_{\mathrm{rev}}$).
The phase $\tilde \varphi=\tilde \varphi (\tau,m)$ can be ignored for a qualitative
discussion -- it is a complicated expression and can be
found in the appendix. Importantly, ${\tilde \varphi}$ varies slowly with time and thus needs
only be taken into account when quantitative agreement with exact calculations
over extremely long time scales is sought.
The parameter $A=A(\tau,m)=\tau\cdot \Sigma_\tau -m \cdot \Sigma_m$
(expressions for the constants $\Sigma_\tau$ and $\Sigma_m$ can be found in the appendix)
describes an additional slow broadening and decay of the signal. As for the phase
${\tilde\varphi}$, the inclusion of $A$
leads to quantitative agreement with exact calculations as shown later,
but need not be discussed further here.
\\
Thus we concentrate on the important plasma oscillations ($\tilde \omega_p$),
their collapse ($T_{\mathrm{collapse}}$) and their revivals ($T_{\mathrm{rev}}$).
The analytical formula for the generalized plasma frequency
for arbitrary $\Lambda$ is
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\omega}_p=\omega_p(1-2c_1g-5c_2g^2) \ ,
\label{eq_plasma_analyt}
\end{equation}
which is valid both in the Rabi and the Josephson regime.
Here, $c_1=({1+\Lambda/4})/({1+\Lambda})$ and $c_2=({1+\frac{\Lambda}{5}+\frac{\Lambda^2}{4^2}})/(1+\Lambda)^2$
are $\Lambda$-dependent numbers of the order of one
and $g=\frac{UV(j_0)}{\omega_p^2}$ is a dimensionless interaction parameter.
We give a more elaborate discussion of this expression in section \ref{sec_dis}.
For the revival time we find
\begin{equation}
T_{\mathrm{rev}}=\frac{\pi}{U}\frac{(1+2c_1g)}{(c_1+5c_2g)} ,
\label{eq_revival_analyt}
\end{equation}
and for the collapse time
\begin{equation}
T_{\mathrm{collapse}}=\frac{1}{2 g\, \Delta V_0\, \omega_p(c_1+5c_2g)} \ ,
\label{eq_collapse_analyt}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\Delta V_0=\sigma V'(j_0)/V(j_0)
\end{equation}
being the width of the wavepacket in energy in units of the mean excited energy.
Again, a more elaborate discussion of these results will be done in section \ref{sec_dis}.
\subsection{Simple Rabi limit}
In the well studied Rabi limit, i.e. when $\Lambda \ll 1$, our results simplify.
In particular, ${\tilde \omega_p} \rightarrow \omega_p$, $T_{\mathrm{rev}}\rightarrow \frac{\pi}{U}$,
and $T_{\mathrm{collapse}}\rightarrow (2 g \Delta V_0 \omega_p)^{-1}$. Moreover, only the
main off-diagonal contribution $k=1$ of the matrix $A_{nn\pm k}$ needs to be taken into account.
Thus, in the Rabi limit, the dynamics of the population imbalance is governed by
the simple expression
\begin{equation}
j(t)=j_0 \sum_m \cos\left(\omega_p t\right) \exp \left(-2 \omega_p^2g^2(\Delta V_0)^2\left(t-\frac{\pi
m}{U}\right)^2 \right) \ ,
\label{eq_rabilimitformel}
\end{equation}
a result that with an appropriate identification of the parameters
can also be found in the literature \cite{PitStr01}.
\section{Comparison of results}
Equation (\ref{equltimativeformel}) describes the dynamics of the
population imbalance without any free parameter.
The population imbalance oscillates with the generalized plasma frequency $\tilde \omega_p$,
with roughly a Gaussian envelope of width $T_{\mathrm{collapse}}$ (note that the
parameter $A$ contributes to the envelope, in particular for long times). The sum over $m$
counts the revivals -- the initial collapse dynamics is captured by $m=0$, the first revival
corresponds to the contribution of $m=1$, and so on.
The sum over $k$
takes into account further off-diagonal contributions in the matrix $A_{nn\pm k}$ which
lead to small revivals
(of the order of $d_k$) at earlier times $mT_{\mathrm{rev}}/k$ with $k-$fold frequency.
For $\Lambda = 25$, for instance, one can see tiny contributions of $k=3$ at one and two
thirds of the full revival time in Fig. \ref{figdynj25}.
Figures \ref{figdynj01}, \ref{figdynj1}, \ref{figdynj10} and \ref{figdynj25} show
a comparison of the exact dynamics of the
population imbalance, our analytical expression (\ref{equltimativeformel})
(taking into account $k=1$ only) and
the simple expression for the Rabi limit (\ref{eq_rabilimitformel}), for different
values of $\Lambda$ between $0.1$ and $25$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{l01_d20_exakt.eps} \\
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{l01_d20_neu_analytisch.eps} \\
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{l01_d20_alt_analytisch.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the exact dynamics (top) of the population imbalance $j$ with the
improved semiclassical expression (\ref{equltimativeformel}) (middle) and the expression for the Rabi limit (\ref{eq_rabilimitformel}) (bottom)
as a function of the dimensionless time $\tilde t= \tilde \omega_p t/2 \pi$ for $\Lambda=0.1$, $T=10$, $N=100$
and an initial $j_0=20$. }
\label{figdynj01}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{l1_d20_exakt.eps} \\
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{l1_d20_neu_analytisch.eps} \\
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{l1_d20_alt_analytisch.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the exact dynamics (top) of the population imbalance $j$ with the
improved semiclassical expression (\ref{equltimativeformel}) (middle) and the expression for the Rabi limit (\ref{eq_rabilimitformel}) (bottom)
as a function of the dimensionless time $\tilde t= \tilde \omega_p t /2 \pi$ for $\Lambda=1$, $T=10$, $N=100$
and an initial $j_0=20$. }
\label{figdynj1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{l10_exakt_d10.eps} \\
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{l10_d10_neu_analytisch.eps} \\
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{l10_d10_alt_analytisch.eps}\\
\caption{Comparison of the exact dynamics (top) of the population imbalance $j$ with the
improved semiclassical expression (\ref{equltimativeformel}) (middle) and the expression for the Rabi limit (\ref{eq_rabilimitformel}) (bottom)
as a function of the dimensionless time $\tilde t=\tilde \omega_p t/2 \pi$ for $\Lambda=10$, $T=10$, $N=100$
and an initial $j_0=10$. }
\label{figdynj10}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{l25_d10_exakt.eps} \\
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{l25_d10_neu_analytisch.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the exact dynamics (top) of the population imbalance $j$ with the
improved semiclassical expression (\ref{equltimativeformel}) (bottom)
as a function of the dimensionless time $\tilde t=\tilde \omega_p t/2 \pi$ for $\Lambda=25$, $T=10$, $N=100$
and an initial $j_0=10$. }
\label{figdynj25}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{l25_d10_zerfall.eps}
\caption{Detailed comparison of the numerical exact initial collapse dynamics of $j$ (green, dashed line)
and the improved semiclassical analytical results (blue, solid line) for $\Lambda=25$, $N=100$, $T=10$ and $j_0=10$ as a function of the dimensionless time $\tilde t=\tilde \omega_p t/2 \pi$. }
\label{fig_collapse_25}
\end{figure}
Obviously, our
semiclassical expression
(\ref{equltimativeformel}) describes the exact dynamics almost perfectly
over this huge range of values of $\Lambda$. By contrast, the simple expression (\ref{eq_rabilimitformel})
is valid, indeed, for only very small values of $\Lambda$ ($\Lambda=0.1$), as expected.
For increasing $\Lambda$ the simple Rabi expression fails, as can be seen from
Figs. \ref{figdynj1} and \ref{figdynj10}.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec_dis}
Having an analytical expression for the time evolution of the population
imbalance allows us to discuss the dependence of the collapse- and revival
time and the plasma oscillation frequency on
the relevant parameters of the system.
\subsection{Plasma oscillation frequency}
The plasma oscillation frequency was found to be
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\omega}_p=\omega_p(1-2c_1g-5c_2g^2) \
\end{equation}
with $c_1=({1+\Lambda/4})/({1+\Lambda})$, $c_2=({1+\frac{\Lambda}{5}+\frac{\Lambda^2}{4^2}})/(1+\Lambda)^2$,
and $g=\frac{UV(j_0)}{\omega_p^2}$.
For very small $\Lambda$, the correct ${\tilde \omega_p}$ approaches the standard plasma frequency $\omega_p$,
since the constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ tend to one in this limit, and
the parameter $g$ approaches zero: with $V(j_0)\approx \omega_p^2 j_0^2/(2NT)$ (harmonic approximation of the
potential), it is worth
writing the latter parameter in the form
\begin{equation}
g\approx\frac{\Lambda}{8}(2j_0/N)^2
\label{eq_g_anders}
\end{equation}
which shows that $g$ tends to zero linearly in $\Lambda$ for fixed initial imbalance $(j_0/N)$.
However, for increasing $\Lambda$ the correction terms in $\tilde \omega_p$ become
more and more relevant, especially for large $j_0$, as can be seen from (\ref{eq_g_anders}).
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{omegaschl.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the numerically exact (symbols) and improved semiclassical analytical (\ref{eq_plasma_analyt})
(lines) plasma oscillation frequency as a function of $\Lambda$ for different $j_0$: $j_0=5$:
diamonds, dotted line, $j_0=10$: squares, dashed line, $j_0=20$: circles, solid line,
for a total number of $N=100$ particles.
The constant dash-dotted line indicates the simple plasma frequency $\omega_p$, valid only in the
Rabi regime $\Lambda\ll 1$. }
\label{fig_omega}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig_omega} shows a comparison of the plasma frequency obtained from
numerically exact results and
the semiclassical expression (\ref{eq_plasma_analyt}) as a function of $\Lambda$ for
different initial imbalance $j_0$.
It can be seen that the classical plasma frequency $\omega_p$ is only a good
approximation for very small $\Lambda$, as expected. Especially for relatively
large initial imbalance
$j_0=20$ with $N=100$, the numerically exact plasma frequencies (circles) differ strongly from $\omega_p$,
but are in very good agreement with the new semiclassical expression ${\tilde\omega_p}$ (blue, solid line).
Since $\Lambda=25$ and an initial $j_0/N\approx 0.15$ are typical experimental
values \cite{Gat07}, this discrepancy becomes by all means relevant. Sure enough,
with the parameters given in \cite{Gat07}, our formula leads to $2\pi/{\tilde\omega_p}=39$ms -- which
is the experimentally observed value. By contrast, without our corrections one would find $2\pi/{\omega_p}=30$ms.
\subsection{Collapse time}
According to (\ref{equltimativeformel}), the collapse time is given by
\begin{equation}
T_{\mathrm{collapse}}=\frac{1}{2 g \Delta V_0 \omega_p(c_1+5c_2g)}.
\end{equation}
The expression in front of the brackets (which can be identified with the
collapse time in the Rabi regime, i.e. for small $\Lambda$) can be approximated as $N/(\Lambda \omega_p (2j_0/N))\sigma$.
Thus, assuming $\Lambda$ and $(j_0/N)$ are kept fixed so that $\sigma$ is proportional to $\sqrt{N}$,
the collapse time is proportional to $\sqrt{N}$.
This $\sqrt{N}$-behavior has been stated before in \cite{Paw11,Par09}.
Our semiclassical formula shows, however, that this statement is only correct for the special
case of fixed $\Lambda$ and $j_0/N$, or in the Rabi limit ($\Lambda\ll 1$). In all the
other cases, the collapse time
depends in a nontrivial way on $N$ through $\Lambda$ and $j_0/N$.
Figures \ref{figdynj01}, \ref{figdynj1}, \ref{figdynj10}, \ref{figdynj25}, and in detail Fig.
\ref{fig_collapse_25} show that our semiclassical expression for the collapse time is remarkably
reliable.
\subsection{Revival time}
Following (\ref{equltimativeformel}), the revival time is
\begin{equation}
T_{\mathrm{rev}}=\frac{\pi}{U}\frac{(1+2c_1g)}{(c_1+5c_2g)} \ .
\label{eqrevtime}
\end{equation}
Most interestingly, in the Rabi limit it becomes independent of the number of
particles and in fact independent of any other system parameter except
the interaction strength $U$.
The revival time was already discussed in \cite{Ton05} where it
was found to be equal to $4 \pi$, with an
interaction strength of $\frac{1}{4}$ (considering the different
definition of parameters), which we confirm here, in the Rabi limit.
Furthermore, it is stated in \cite{Ton05, Paw11} that the revival time grows
linearly with the number of particles $N$. This is obviously true
for those investigations with $UN=$ const only, as can be seen
from our expression (\ref{eqrevtime}). However, note that
even only slightly away from the Rabi limit, when $\Lambda$ approaches or becomes
greater than one, the constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ and the parameter $g$
become relevant. This can be seen from Fig. \ref{fig_revival}. Thus,
for $\Lambda>1$ no simple scaling law for the revival time exists.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{revzeiten.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the numerically exact (symbols) and improved
semiclassical analytical
revival time (lines) as a function of $\Lambda$ for different initial
imbalance $j_0$: $j_0=5$:
diamonds, dotted line, $j_0=10$: squares, dashed line, $j_0=20$: circles, solid line,
for a total number of $N=100$ particles. The
dashed-dotted line indicates the result $\pi/U$ of the Rabi limit, which is
obviously only valid for very small $\Lambda$. }
\label{fig_revival}
\end{figure}
The figure shows that for increasing $\Lambda$ the exact revival times
differ strongly from the revival time $\pi/U$ predicted by the Rabi limit formula.
On the other hand, it can be seen that the improved semiclassical expression
(\ref{eqrevtime}) reproduces the exact revival times very nicely even for
$\Lambda>1$. For increasing values of $\Lambda$
the self-trapping fraction of the phase space is increasing as well,
such that for large initial excitations, e.g. $j_0=20$ for $N=100$,
the semiclassical analysis ceases to give reliable results.
\section{Conclusion}
We applied semiclassical methods to the well-known two-mode Bose-Hubbard model, in
order to investigate in detail BEC tunneling in a
double-well trap. Within the plasma oscillation regime
we found analytical expressions for the energy spectrum and the initial
state agreeing nicely with numerically exact results.
Employing the reflection principle and the Poisson summation
formula led us to an analytical expression for the time evolution of the population
imbalance of the Bose gas in the double well.
This allows us to discuss the dependence of characteristic quantities of the
dynamics, like plasma oscillation frequency, collapse and revival times,
on the relevant system parameters. Remarkably enough, despite a wealth of
publications on the two-mode model, such detailed understanding has not been
achieved before.
Finally, our generalized formula for the plasma oscillation frequency agrees
perfectly well with experimental findings. Challenging as it may be, we hope
that our predictions for collapse and revival times will be confirmed experimentally,
too.
Semiclassical methods are well suited to study the non-equilibrium dynamics of
a Bosonic interacting many-body quantum system. For systems with more degrees of
freedom, an explicitly time dependent approach might prove useful.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Markus Oberthaler for a nice discussion.
L. S. acknowledges support from the International Max Planck Research
School (IMPRS), Dresden.
\begin{appendix}
\section{Parameters}
In order to complete the discussion of our semiclassical analytical result for the time evolution of
he population imbalance (\ref{equltimativeformel}), we present here the definition of the
remaining parameters. The phase of the oscillation reads
\begin{equation}
\tilde \varphi = - m
\varphi_m+\frac{1}{2}\arctan A- \frac{A}{2(1+A^2)}\left(\frac{\tau-mT_{\mathrm{rev}}}{T_{\mathrm{collapse}}}\right)^2 \ ,
\end{equation}
where the dominantly $m$-dependent part is defined separately as
\begin{equation}
\varphi_m=2\pi\bar{V}(1+c_1g-1/(2\bar V)) \ .
\end{equation}
$\bar V$ is the mean excited energy in units of the plasma frequency
\begin{equation}
\bar V =V(j_0)/\omega_p \ .
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the quantity
\begin{equation}
A=\tau \Sigma_\tau -m \Sigma_m \
\end{equation}
contributes to an overall slow spread and decay of the signal. It can be
separated in a $\tau$- and a $m$ dependent contribution with
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_\tau=10c_2(\Delta V_0)^2 g^2 \omega_p
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_m=4 \pi c_1 (\Delta V_0)^2 g \bar V \ .
\end{equation}
For completeness, we repeat the expressions for
$c_1=({1+\Lambda/4})/({1+\Lambda})$, $c_2=({1+\frac{\Lambda}{5}+\frac{\Lambda^2}{4^2}})/(1+\Lambda)^2$,
$g=\frac{UV(j_0)}{\omega_p^2}$, and $\Delta V_0=\sigma V'(j_0)/V(j_0)$ from section \ref{subsecpop}.
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:con}
The observation leading to this paper is that there exists one or more valuable backlinks for a page with a nonzero number of backlinks.
We show that by leveraging the best backlinks a recursive update
can have a much faster convergence than PageRank.
The algorithm has a parameter $\lambda\in[0,1]$, which controls the effects of the best backlinks discovered.
When $\lambda=0$, the algorithm reduces to PageRank.
Empirical results show that with large $\lambda$s (but smaller than $1$) the new algorithm converges dramatically faster,
but the results still have $80\%$ similarities to PageRank on average (measured with Kendall's tau).
Thus our algorithm is advantageous for ranking in large search systems, where the computation of many personalized, query-dependent or context-sensitive score vectors is demanding.
Results on Wikipedia show that the number of unique best backlink sources (the so-called ``core'' in the paper) is only about $13.5\%$ of the total number of pages.
However, the sum of their scores is more than a half (about $53.1\%$) of the total scores.
We propose to measure a source in the core by the times of being the best backlinks (TBB) and the ratio between TBB and the out-degree.
Results show that TBB follows an exponential distribution with a similar exponent to the distribution of the out-degrees.
With these two measures,
the number of competitive backlink sources is very small.
Results also show that a top authority is not easily influenced by the best backlink source.
\section{Discussion of the Proposed Algorithms}\label{sec:discussion}
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
The size of the Web creates a large computation burden for PageRank.
Currently most large commercial search engines index $10$ to $100$ billion pages.
However, the Web is actually much larger, e.g.,
there were already 1 trillion unique URLs in 2008 according to Google.
\footnote{http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/we-knew-the-Web-was-big.html}
Computing a single, global PageRank for the Web is already very demanding.
Page et. al. used power iteration to take advantage of the sparse nature of the link structure of the Web \citep{Page98}.
Kamvar et al. proposed an adaptive method which monitors the change in the PageRank update for each page, and removes those pages whose update no longer changes \citep{TaherAda}.
Methods proposed in \citep{Tahereff}, \citep{pr_block}, and \citep{PR_survey} take advantage of the structure of link matrices and compute PageRank block-wise.
Other linear system solvers were also used to update PageRank.
For example,
Kamvar et. al. used extrapolation methods \citep{PR_extra};
Gleich et. al. proposed an inner-outer iteration procedure \citep{gleichthesis,PR_inout}, which essentially applies preconditioning incrementally; and
Langville and Meyer, and Ipsen and Kirklad studied aggregation/disaggregation methods \citep{amy06,iad_conv}.
It becomes more severe when one wants to computes many score vectors,
such as many personalized PageRank \citep{Page98,jeh03}, context-sensive or query-dependent scores \citep{davood,qdpr,taher02}, which has numerous applications in search systems.
Jeh and Widom proposed a scalable method by pre-computing some components of PageRank and saving them for efficient future computation \citep{jeh03}.
Fogaras et. al. simulated a number of random walks and used Monte-Carlo methods to estimate personalized PageRank vectors \citep{ppr_fully}.
The computation of PageRank is very demanding.
Thus distributed, parallel computation becomes necessary for large graphs.
The methods in \citep{graphagg04,amy_agg04,pr_agg} partition the whole graph into disjoint subgraphs,
and then compute local PageRank for each subgraph.
The local PageRanks are then merged, considering the links between the subgraphs.
The methods in \citep{pr_lin,pr_parallel} feature in the use of advanced linear system solvers.
Some researchers also considered efficient hardware structures, such as specially optimized circuits \citep{pr_fpga}.
For excellent surveys of PageRank, please refer to \citep{PR_survey,pr_survey3,revisit06,amy06,liu07,pr_survey2}.
Our method is very different from these efforts in literature, though
it should be noted that these techniques also apply to our algorithms in a straightforward way.
Our work takes advantage of the influential links in updating PageRank-style scores.
We hope by doing so one can gain speedup in convergence and the performance is similar or comparable to PageRank.
\subsection{Convergence Studies}
Figure \ref{fig:prec_tau_maxranked} (Left) compares the convergence rates of MaxRank and PageRank, measured in terms of the
(1-norm) errors between successive iterations.
MaxRank is faster than PageRank.
The advantage is very significant for large $\lambda$.
MaxRank with $\lambda=0.1$ needs about $20$ iterations to reach the accuracy by PageRank at the $30$th iteration,
while with $\lambda=0.9$ MaxRank only needs $3$ or $4$ iterations.
\subsection{Performance of MaxRank}
We compared the top list for the three algorithms, since it is usually the most important in practice.
Table \ref{tab:MaxRanked0850} shows the top $50$ pages by PageRank (MaxRank with $\lambda=0$).
Table \ref{tab:MaxRanked08501}, Table \ref{tab:MaxRanked08505} and Table \ref{tab:MaxRanked08509} show the top results of MaxRank with $\lambda=0.1, 0.5, 0.9$.
We also tested $\lambda=1$ for MaxRank, but the results were very poor.
The intuition is that the found ``best backlinks'' are not good without considering the wisdom of the majority.
Note that in the tables,
``ISBN is short for ``International\_Standard\_Book\_Number'', and
``Inter-Air-Trans-code'' is short for ``International\_Air\_Transport\_Association\_airport\_code''.
The top lists of these algorithms have some similarities, and also some differences.
In order to measure the similarity between the algorithms,
we performed comparisons using two measurements.
One is the percentage of common pages in the top-$k$ lists by two algorithms,
\[
c_{k} = \frac{\mbox{\# Common pages in top-$k$}}{ k} \in [0,1].
\]
The other is Kendall's tau coefficient which measures the correlation in two rankings \citep{kendall}.
Here we care about whether MaxRank ranks the top-$k$ pages of PageRank in a consistent manner to PageRank,
so the measure used is
\[
\tau_{k} = \frac{n_{k} }{ C_{k}^{2}} \in [0,1],
\]
where $n_{k}$ is the number of concordant orderings for every two pages from the top-$k$ pages of PageRank.
The results of $c_{k}$
are summarized in the middle plot of Figure \ref{fig:prec_tau_maxranked}, for $k=$5, 10, 30, 50, 80, 100, 300, 500, 800, 1000.
Notice that MaxRank performs remarkably similarly to PageRank for $\lambda=0.1$, due to that the effect of the best backlinks is made small.
In general, the smaller $\lambda$ is, the more similar ranking of MaxRank to that of PageRank.
The results of $\tau_{k}$ are summarized in the right plot of Figure \ref{fig:prec_tau_maxranked}.
Similarly,
the smaller the parameter $\lambda$ is,
the more similar the ranking is to PageRank.
In particular, MaxRank with $\lambda=0.1$ has a very similar $\tau_{k}$ to PageRank for all $k$.
For large $\lambda$ like $0.9$ and $0.99$,
MaxRank still has about $80\%$ similarities on average,
and $65\%$ similarities at worst to PageRank.
The difference between the orderings of $0.9$ and $0.99$ for MaxRank is relatively small for all $k$.
This suggests that increasing $\lambda$ to large values close to $1$ produces stable rankings.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.2\textwidth}
\vspace{0pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.3in]{gamma085_rate_maxranked_new.eps
\end{minipage}%
\hspace{1.8cm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.2\textwidth}
\vspace{0pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{prec_maxranked.eps}
\end{minipage}%
\hspace{1.8cm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.2\textwidth}
\vspace{0pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.3in]{tau_maxranked_085.eps}
\end{minipage}%
\caption{
Left: convergence rate comparisons of MaxRank and PageRank.
Middle and Right: Percentage of the common pages and Kendall's tau for the top-$k$ lists of MaxRank and PageRank.
}
\label{fig:prec_tau_maxranked}
\end{figure*}
\input{exp_maxranked_sdm.tex}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
The gigantic size and diverse content of modern databases have made ranking algorithms fundamental components of search systems \citep{searchweb}.
The link analysis approach to ranking has been proven to be very effective in evaluating the qualities of Webpages \citep{HITS,Page98},
with widely practice from industry and intensive studies from academics.
The success has proven that the hyperlinks on the Web are useful in finding high quality sources, which is hard based only on the content of pages.
PageRank and HITS are two seminal algorithms in literature.
PageRank finds {\em authorities} which are the pages frequently visited by a random surfer.
HITS finds both {authorities} and {hubs}, which are defined recursively---
the {\em authorities} are frequently linked by the {\em hubs} which turn out to be the pages frequently linked by authorities.
In this paper, we will be focused on finding authorities in the spirit of PageRank, though our techniques may also apply to HITS and other link analysis algorithms.
{\em PageRank}.
In PageRank formulation, with probability $c$,
a random surfer model follows the links on a page uniformly at random,
and with probability $1-c$, the surfer model jumps to a new page selected uniformly at random from the database.
The PageRank value of a page is defined as the probability of visiting the page in the long run of the random walk, e.g., see \citep{Page98,PR_survey,deeper04,pr_survey3,amy06,liu07}.
Suppose there are $N$ documents in the database.
All vectors are column vectors. The transpose of a matrix $X$ is denoted by $X^T$.
We need the following notations.
$L$ be an adjacency matrix of the database.
That is, $L(i,j)=1$ if there is a link from document $i$ to document $j$, otherwise $L(i,j)=0$, $i,j=1,2, \ldots, N$;
$\bar{L}$ be a row normalized matrix of $L$;
$e$ be a vector of all $1$s, and $v$ be a vector of probabilities that sum to one; and
$S$ be a stochastic matrix such that $S=\bar{L}+ (a e^T/N)$,
where $a_i=1$ if document $i$ is dangling (i.e., document $i$ has no forward link)
and $0$ otherwise.
The transition probability matrix used by PageRank is
\[
G=c S+ (1-c) ev^T,
\]
where $v$ (often called the {\em teleportation vector}) is a probability vector that sums to one.
Matrix $G$ is sometimes called the {\em Google matrix} in literature \citep{amy06}.
One merit of the Google matrix is that it is stochastic and primitive and thus its steady state distribution (also called the stationary distribution) exists.
In fact,
PageRank (denoted by $\pi$) is exactly the steady state distribution vector of $G$, satisfying
\[
{\pi}=G^T{\pi}.
\]
The other merit of $G$ is that it does not have to be stored,
and the power iteration of computing ${\pi}$ can take advantage of the rank-1 matrix $ev^T$,
manipulating $S$, $c$, $e$ and $v$ directly, e.g., see \citep{Taherthesis}.
Considerable efforts have been devoted to the computation problem of PageRank due to its large scale applications.
This is especially important when one wants to compute multiple PageRank vectors depending on queries and users.
For a detailed discussion, please refer to Section \ref{sec:discussion}.
In this paper,
we present a method utilizing the best backlinks, which have a much faster convergence than PageRank but the performance is still comparable.
We are interested in understanding the roles of these influential links and their implication for link analysis algorithms especially PageRank.
\if0
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
Section \ref{sec:questions} summarizes several research questions that we will address in this paper.
Section \ref{sec:maxrank} defines the best back links and provides a link analysis method that takes advantage of them.
Section \ref{sec:wiki} provides empirical answers to the questions on Wikipedia.
We present a discussion of relevant research in Section \ref{sec:discussion} before concluding the paper in Section \ref{sec:con}.
\fi
\section{The Best Back Links and MaxRank}\label{sec:maxrank}
In the case of PageRank-style authority discovery,
a natural definition of the {\em best back link} of a page is the one with the largest score.
\if0
Depending on how the contribution score is defined, we have two variants of the definition that will be illustrated shortly.
\fi
We discover the best back links in the same process of authority score update, giving a so-called {\em MaxRank} method.
The basic idea of this algorithm is,
with probability $\lambda$,
the contributing score comes from the best backlink of the page;
with probability $1-\lambda$,
the contributing scores come from a random backlink of the page.
\subsection{The Algorithm}
In particular, MaxRank of a page $j$ ($j =1,2, \ldots, N$) is defined by
\begin{align}
{R}(j) = & c \left[ \lambda P(i^*,j){ {R}(i^*)} + (1-\lambda) \sum_{i\in \mathcal{B}(j)}{ P(i,j){R}(i)} \right] \label{MaxRgen2} \\
+ & (1-c)v(j), \nonumber
\end{align}
where
\[
i^*=\arg\max_{i\in \mathcal{B}(j)}{ {R}(i)},
\]
$\lambda \in [0,1]$,
$\mathcal{B}(j)$ is the set of backlink pages of page $j$,
and $P({i,j})$ is the probability of going from page $i$ to page $j$,
\subsection{Convergence of MaxRank}
In this section, we first give a theorem showing that both variants of MaxRank are well defined.
A straightforward application of this theorem is that power iteration of computing MaxRank is guranteed to converge for $\lambda \in [0,1]$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:well}
For $c\in(0,1)$ and $\lambda \in [0, 1]$,
MaxRank is well defined.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For notational convenience, we define
\[
\mathbb{T}(R,j) = \left[ \lambda P(i^*,j)\max_{i\in \mathcal{B}(j)}{ {R}(i)} + (1-\lambda) \sum_{i\in \mathcal{B}(j)}{ P(i,j){R}(i)} \right].
\]
Accordingly, we have
\[
R(j) =c\mathbb{T}(R,j) + (1-c)v(j)
\]
$j=1,2, \ldots, N$.
In matrix form, we have
\begin{equation}\label{RcT}
R =c\mathbb{T}(R) +(1-c)v,
\end{equation}
where $ \mathbb{T}(R)$ is a vector, with $\mathbb{T}(R)(j) = \mathbb{T}(R,j) $, $j=1, 2, \ldots, N$.
Next we are to prove that $\mathbb{T}(R)$ is a non-expansion operator with respect to the $1$-norm, which means that
\begin{equation}\label{tmp1}
||\mathbb{T}(R) ||_{1} \le || R||_{1}.
\end{equation}
According to the definition of $\mathbb{T}(R)$, $\mathbb{T}(R)(j)$ and $\mathbb{T}(R,j)$, we have
\[
\mathbb{T}(R)= T \cdot R,
\]
where ${T}$ is a $N\times N$ matrix, with $T({j,i})= P({i,j})$, if page $i$ is the best backlink of page $j$;
otherwise ${T}({j,i})= (1-\lambda) P({i,j})$.
Then the inequality (\ref{tmp1}) can be proven in the following steps:
\begin{align*}
||\mathbb{T}(R) ||_{1} &\le ||T||_{1} ||R||_{1}\nonumber \\
&= \max_{i=1,2, \ldots, N} \sum_{j=1}^{N}{T}(j,i) ||R||_{1} \nonumber \\
&\le \max_{i=1,2, \ldots, N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} P(i,j) ||R||_{1} \nonumber \\
&= ||R||_{1} \nonumber
\end{align*}
For the third equation, the equality holds when $i$ is the best backlink for all pages.
Thus $T$ is a non-expansion mapping in $1$-norm.
According to equation (\ref{RcT}), $R$ is defined by a contraction mapping composed of $T$ and $c$. Hence $R$ is finite.
\end{proof}
The definition of MaxRank enables straightforward estimation using power iteration starting from any initial guess.
The convergence of power iteration is guaranteed following an argument similar to Theorem \ref{thm:well}.
\begin{thm}[Convergence]\label{thm:conv}
For $c\in(0,1)$ and $\lambda \in [0, 1]$,
power iteration of solving MaxRank converges to the true vector defined in (\ref{MaxRgen2}), irrespective of any initial vector.
\end{thm}
We will consider the random surfer in the remainder of this paper.
That is, the probability of going from a (non-dangling) page $i$ to a page $j$ is $1/n_{i}$, where $n_{i}$ is the number of (forward) links on page $i$.
In this case, it is noticeable that when $\lambda=0$,
the algorithm reduces to PageRank.
When $\lambda=1$, the algorithm only considers the ``best'' backlink it finds and
ignores the contribution from the others.
However, in our experience,
this usually gives poor ranking results because the selected best backlink pages are usually not good in quality.
\section{Research Questions}\label{sec:questions
Link analysis takes advantage of the linking information in calculating document importances.
For example, Pagerank uses the back links of a document in updating its score.
Intuitively, there are {\em influential} links which contribute a large portion to the score,
and there are unimportant links which only contribute a negligible portion.
We would like to ask the following questions.
\begin{itemize}
\item
Where are the influential links from?
What types of documents are the influential sources?
Are they authorities, hubs, or anything else?
What relations are they to the nodes that are influenced by them?
\item
How many such influential sources are there?
\item
How influential is a backlink to the score of a document?
Most importantly, how influential are those influential back links?
\end{itemize}
These questions are interesting for all link analysis algorithms.
In this paper, we will be dealing with PageRank.
By answering these questions, we wish to gain insights into the connectivity of large, real-world graphs and the quality of documents, and provide a better ranking.
A result of this study is a ranking method that takes advantage of the most influential back links to discover authorities and communities.
\section{Empirical Results}\label{sec:wiki}
In this section, we study the proposed algorithm and questions on the Wikipedia English article dump,
which contains about $6$ million pages (articles or categories).
For all algorithms, $c=0.85$ was used.
The teleportation probabilities were uniformly set to $1/N$.
All algorithms are updated by the standard power iteration.
No sophisticated update is used for any algorithm.
Recall that we would like to study the following questions.
{\em What are the sources of the best back links? How many are they? How influential are they?}
For space limitation we show only the case of $\lambda=0.1$ in this paper.
\subsection{Sources of the Best Back links}
\label{subsec:exp_wiki_Q2}
Table \ref{tab:MaxRanked08501} shows the sources of the best backlinks for the top-50 pages on Wikipedia,
using algorithm MaxRank{\em ed} with $\lambda=0.1$.
Note that this choice produces a similar scoring to PageRank, as will be shown later.
The sources of the best backlinks are mostly global authorities.
The very top pages are seen to support many top pages.
For example, ``United States'' influences many other concepts which further influence the remaining of the site.
The effect is that this classifies the site into clusters of nodes, in each of which there are only a small number of dominant nodes.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Nsources_maxranked.eps}
\caption{Number of best backlink sources on Wikipedia according to MaxRanked with $\lambda=0,0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 0.99$.
}\label{fig:wiki:maxranked:lam:coresize}
\end{figure}
There are only $775,438$ unique backlink sources with MaxRank.
They support the whole site and form a core.
The size of this core is only about $0.7\%$ of the total number of links ($117,864,053$), and about $13.5\%$ of the total number of the pages ($5,743,047$).
On average a core page ``supports'' about $3,620,343/775,438\approx 4.7$ pages.
This is also an estimate of the average size of the clusters.
The size of the best backlink core for various $\lambda$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig:wiki:maxranked:lam:coresize}.
$\lambda=0.3$ leads to the smallest core for this example.
For $\lambda$ larger than $0.7$, the core size is much larger and increases much quicker with respect to $\lambda$.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.2\textwidth}
\centering
\vspace{0pt}
\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{tbb_top100auth_maxranked.eps}
\end{minipage}%
\hspace{1.8cm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.2\textwidth}
\vspace{0pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{tbb_top1000auth_maxranked.eps}
\end{minipage}%
\hspace{1.8cm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.2\textwidth}
\vspace{0pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{tbb_top10000auth_maxranked.eps}
\end{minipage}%
\caption{Left to Right: The TBB of the top 1--100, 101--1000, 1001--10000 authorities on Wikipedia ($\lambda=0.1$).
}\label{fig:wiki:maxranked:01:tbbtopauth}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Influence of the Best Backlink Sources}
We measure the influence of the best backlink sources in three distinct aspects.
The first measure is the {\em collective influence} of the best backlink sources in the graph, which is defined as
the ratio of the sum of the scores of all the best backlink sources over the sum of the scores of all the pages.
The {collective influence} of the core is $53.1\%$. Note that the number of core pages is only about $13.5\%$ of the whole graph.
Thus the influence of the core is significant.
Different core sources have different strength of influence.
Some contribute many best backlinks, while others only contribute a few.
Thus this suggests a measure for influential sources, in particular, by the {\em times of being the best back link (TBB)} to other nodes.
Note that the TBB of an influential page is equal to the number of pages that the page supports.
Table \ref{tab:maxranked_times08501} shows the ordering of the sources according to the TBB measure.
In addition, we also show in this table the ratio of TBB to the out-degree of the sources, which measures the percentage of competitive links cast by the sources.
In this top list we see many hubs and authorities, and the number of hubs is more than the number of authorities.
Thus on Wikipedia the more links an article has the more likely it is influential to others.
A log-log plot of the distributions of the out-degree and the TBB is shown in the left plot of Figure \ref{fig:wiki:maxranked:01:outdegrees_influencedratio_tbbnf}.
Some key observations are as follows.
First, the number of pages that have been the best backlink only a few times is very large,
while the number of pages that have been the best backlink many times is very small.
Second, the log-log curve of TBB distribution is more straight, which means the TBB distribution follows an exponential distribution in a more strict
way.
Third,
it can be seen that for $x>10$, the two curves follow a similar exponential distribution with a close exponent,
with a large shift in the $x$ direction which indicates that the TBB of a page is much smaller than the out-degree of the same page.
The (sorted) ratio between the TBB and the out-degree for each core page is shown in the middle plot of Figure \ref{fig:wiki:maxranked:01:outdegrees_influencedratio_tbbnf}.
First, the sources whose value of the ratio is smaller than $0.2$ are about $66\%$ of the total core.
This means the majority of the core has only $20\%$ of their links being the best backlinks.
Second, the number of those pages whose ratio is equal to $1.0$ is about $87,193$ ($11\%$ of the total core).
Astonishingly, $86,763$ ($99.5\%$) of them have only one link.
This sheds lights on the structure of Wikipedia.
Most of them are due to the existence of ``redirect pages'' in Wikipedia, which contains no content but a ``link'' to another article.
Third, the remaining sources have a ratio larger than $0.2$.
Together with the nontrivial sources whose ratio is $1.0$, they form the most competitive link sources of the core.
They take about $23\%$ of the total core.
Of them, only $4,632$ sources have a ratio larger than 0.5,
and $360$ sources have a ratio larger than $0.8$.
In short,
{\em the number of nontrivial, competitive backlink sources is very small}.
The third is from the perspective of an ordinary page (either in the core or not in the core), a measure of being influenced by the best back link, by
the ratio of the score contributed by the best back link over the overall score of the page.
We expect this measure can distinguish authorities.
This ratio for all the pages is shown in the right plot of Figure \ref{fig:wiki:maxranked:01:outdegrees_influencedratio_tbbnf}.
For authorities with high scores, this ratio is very small.
Thus they are not easily influenced even by the best backlink source.
As pages become less authoritative (along the negative direction of the $x$-axis), the values of this ratio become more diverse.
For example,
we can observe the values of this ratio cover almost the whole range of $(0, 1)$ for pages with a score equal to $10^{-5}$.
Figure \ref{fig:wiki:maxranked:01:tbbtopauth} shows the TBB versus the out-degree for the top authorities.
For the very top-100 authorities, the curve is almost linear, and very close to $y=x$.
(Note that all points are below $y=x$.)
Thus their links are very influential.
Further down the ordering of the authorities,
we can observe that there are more and more less influential pages.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.2\textwidth}
\vspace{0pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{Distributions_Out_TBB_maxranked.eps}
\end{minipage}%
\hspace{1.8cm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.2\textwidth}
\vspace{0pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{TBB_div_NF_maxranked.eps}
\end{minipage}%
\hspace{1.8cm}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.2\textwidth}
\vspace{0pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{beinginfluenced_ratio_maxranked.eps}
\end{minipage}%
\caption{Left: Distributions of TBB and out-degree for the best backlink sources on Wikipedia.
Middle: The sorted ratio between TBB and out-degree for the best backlink sources.
Right: The ratio of the score being influenced by the best backlink source for all pages (with a nonzero number of backlinks). $\lambda=0.1$.
}\label{fig:wiki:maxranked:01:outdegrees_influencedratio_tbbnf}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{The ordering of the best backlink sources according to the ``Times of being the Best Backlinks'' (TBB). $\lambda=0.1$.
}
\label{tab:maxranked_times08501}
\vskip 0.15in
\begin{center}
\begin{scriptsize}
\begin{tabular}{llllll}
\hline
Rank &Page &TBB &\#Links & TBB/\#Links &Score\\
\hline
1 & List\_of\_endangered\_animal\_species & 3850 & 5097 & 0.755346 & 0.000003 \\
2 & Area\_codes\_in\_Germany & 3044 & 4032 & 0.754960 & 0.000084 \\
3 & Village\_Development\_Committee & 2784 & 2982 & 0.933602 & 0.000024 \\
4 & Index\_of\_India-related\_articles & 2581 & 4772 & 0.540863 & 0.000006 \\
5 & List\_of\_Tachinidae\_genera\_and\_species & 2547 & 2635 & 0.966603 & 0.000003 \\
6 & List\_of\_years & 2325 & 3885 & 0.598456 & 0.000105 \\
7 & List\_of\_auxiliaries\_of\_the\_United\_States\_Navy & 1751 & 1886 & 0.928420 & 0.000017 \\
8 & List\_of\_municipalities\_of\_Switzerland & 1749 & 1967 & 0.889171 & 0.000049 \\
9 & List\_of\_Bulbophyllum\_species & 1717 & 1742 & 0.985649 & 0.000001 \\
10 & List\_of\_municipalities\_and\_towns\_in\_Slovakia & 1692 & 2302 & 0.735013 & 0.000008 \\
11 & 2007 & 1632 & 1856 & 0.879310 & 0.001658 \\
12 & List\_of\_state\_leaders\_by\_year & 1604 & 2026 & 0.791708 & 0.000007 \\
13 & United\_States & 1448 & 1448 & 1.000000 & 0.009093 \\
14 & List\_of\_Roman\_Catholic\_dioceses\_(alphabetical) & 1434 & 2326 & 0.616509 & 0.000002 \\
15 & List\_of\_cutaneous\_conditions & 1306 & 1829 & 0.714051 & 0.000013 \\
16 & United\_Kingdom & 1140 & 1505 & 0.757475 & 0.003863 \\
17 & List\_of\_Olympic\_medalists\_in\_athletics\_(men) & 1127 & 2069 & 0.544708 & 0.000013 \\
18 & List\_of\_postal\_codes\_in\_Germany & 1092 & 1304 & 0.837423 & 0.000084 \\
19 & List\_of\_Vanity\_Fair\_caricatures & 1090 & 1815 & 0.600551 & 0.000001 \\
20 & Russia & 1087 & 1597 & 0.680651 & 0.001464 \\
21 & List\_of\_mantis\_genera\_and\_species & 1001 & 1057 & 0.947020 & 0.000025 \\
22 & List\_of\_United\_States\_Representatives\_from\_New\_York & 996 & 1342 & 0.742176 & 0.000025 \\
23 & List\_of\_extant\_baronetcies & 992 & 1168 & 0.849315 & 0.000033 \\
24 & Catholic\_Church & 990 & 1166 & 0.849057 & 0.000913 \\
25 & Index\_of\_statistics\_articles & 984 & 2026 & 0.485686 & 0.000016 \\
26 & 2006\_in\_music & 953 & 2162 & 0.440796 & 0.000017 \\
27 & List\_of\_prehistoric\_bony\_fish & 946 & 1049 & 0.901811 & 0.000007 \\
28 & England & 927 & 1551 & 0.597679 & 0.002462 \\
29 & List\_of\_EC\_numbers\_(EC\_2) & 920 & 1141 & 0.806310 & 0.000006 \\
30 & List\_of\_marine\_aquarium\_fish\_species & 898 & 1103 & 0.814143 & 0.000002 \\
31 & List\_of\_school\_districts\_in\_Texas & 891 & 943 & 0.944857 & 0.000007 \\
32 & Peerage\_of\_the\_United\_Kingdom & 856 & 1132 & 0.756184 & 0.000052 \\
33 & List\_of\_rivers\_of\_New\_Zealand & 843 & 919 & 0.917301 & 0.000019 \\
34 & List\_of\_chess\_players & 841 & 1577 & 0.533291 & 0.000003 \\
35 & London & 838 & 1323 & 0.633409 & 0.001363 \\
36 & List\_of\_subjects\_in\_Gray\'s\_Anatomy:\_IX.\_Neurology & 825 & 1426 & 0.578541 & 0.000037 \\
37 & 2004\_in\_music & 824 & 1780 & 0.462921 & 0.000018 \\
38 & Pronunciation\_of\_asteroid\_names & 823 & 910 & 0.904396 & 0.000030 \\
39 & List\_of\_destroyers\_of\_the\_United\_States\_Navy & 814 & 1030 & 0.790291 & 0.000012 \\
40 & California & 807 & 1192 & 0.677013 & 0.001055 \\
41 & List\_of\_EC\_numbers\_(EC\_1) & 799 & 1063 & 0.751646 & 0.000013 \\
42 & Cocaine & 789 & 1231 & 0.640942 & 0.000059 \\
43 & Sibley-Monroe\_checklist\_18 & 789 & 1844 & 0.427874 & 0.000000 \\
44 & List\_of\_United\_States\_Representatives\_from\_Pennsylvania & 789 & 1085 & 0.727189 & 0.000021 \\
45 & List\_of\_Digimon & 788 & 788 & 1.000000 & 0.000186 \\
46 & List\_of\_bird\_genera & 788 & 1929 & 0.408502 & 0.000005 \\
47 & List\_of\_subjects\_in\_Gray\'s\_Anatomy:\_XI.\_Splanchnology & 786 & 1116 & 0.704301 & 0.000046 \\
48 & List\_of\_State\_Routes\_in\_New\_York & 772 & 985 & 0.783756 & 0.000025 \\
49 & Italy & 762 & 1310 & 0.581679 & 0.001633 \\
50 & List\_of\_ICF\_Canoe\_Sprint\_World\_Championships\_medalists\_in\_men\'s\_kayak & 761 & 865 & 0.879769 & 0.000007 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{scriptsize}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table*}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}
A smooth
projective threefold $X$ is called Calabi-Yau if it satisfies $\omega_X\cong \mathcal O_X$ and
$h^1(\mathcal O_X)=h^2(\mathcal O_X)=0$.
Such threefolds have attracted considerable attention over the years as possible
targets for type II superstring compactifications. From the mathematical point of view,
Calabi-Yau threefolds
are natural higher dimensional analogs of the celebrated K3 surfaces. However, their geometry
is much more varied.
It is not known in general whether Calabi-Yau threefolds fall into a finite or infinite number
of different families; current constructions have already produced over 30,000
diffeomorphism classes. The vast majority of these have appeared as hypersurfaces in
Fano toric varieties from the work of Skarke and
Kreuzer (\cite{KS97},\cite{KS00}), based on the reflexive polytope construction of Batyrev \cite{Bat94}.
In this paper we use a non-toric method of constructing Calabi-Yau threefolds, inspired
by the work of Gross and Popescu \cite{GP}. Specifically, in \cite{GP} the authors considered Calabi-Yau threefolds that contain
$(1,d)$ polarized abelian surfaces for small $d$. They constructed their threefolds as small
resolutions of nodal complete intersections with equations contained in the ideal of
the abelian surface.
In our paper we consider Calabi-Yau $(2,4)$ complete intersections in ${\mathbb P}^5$ that contain
an Enriques surface in its Fano embedding. Explicitly, these varieties can be constructed as
follows. Consider a four-dimensional complex vector space $V$. Take a generic
four-dimensional subspace $W$ of $V^{\vee}\otimes V^{\vee}$ of bilinear forms on $V$.
Then $X=X_W$ is a hypersurface in the Grassmannian ${\rm Gr}(2,V)$ which consists
of two-dimensional subspaces $V_1\subseteq V$ such that the space of restrictions of elements of $W$ to
$V_1^{\vee}\otimes V_1^{\vee}$ has dimension at most three.
This variety $X$ contains an Enriques surface under its Reye embedding.
It has $58$ ODP singularities at those $V_1$ where the dimension of the restriction
of $W$ is two and admits two small resolutions, $X^0$ and $X^1$. The Calabi-Yau threefold
$X^0$ has the structure of a fibration over ${\mathbb P}^1$ with the above-mentioned Enriques surface appearing
as the reduction of a double fiber. The Calabi-Yau variety $X^1$ has a small contraction
onto a complete intersection $\hat X$ of type $(4,4)$ in a weighted projective space
${\mathbb P}(1,1,1,1,2,2)$ with variables $(u_1,\ldots,u_4,y,z)$ given explicitly by the equations
$$
\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
y^2&=&\det(\sum_i u_iA_i)\\
z^2&=&-\det(\sum_i u_i(A_i+B_i))+(y-{\rm Pf}(\sum_i u_iB_i))^2
\end{array}
\right.
$$
where $A_i$ and $B_i$ are symmetric and antisymmetric parts of a basis of $W$.
Two more models of $X$ are obtained by means of an involution $\sigma$ on $\hat X$
which changes the sign of $z$, see Figure 1. Their Hodge numbers are
$(h^{11},h^{12})=(2,32)$ \hskip-3pt\footnote{We note that while this construction is new, these hodge numbers have been discovered previously in \cite{BK}.}. These exhaust all minimal models of $X$, which is the
main result of this paper.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{background} we recall the
basic results about Enriques surfaces and their Fano embeddings. In Section \ref{sec2}
we introduce our Calabi-Yau varieties. We give an alternative description of them as
determinantal hypersurfaces in the Grassmannian. In Section \ref{secwp} we begin to
investigate the birational geometry of our varieties. Specifically, we produce a birational
model which is a nodal complete intersection in a weighted projective space.
We finish the discussion of birational geometry of our varieties in Section \ref{bir}.
We state some open questions in Section \ref{seccom}.
In this section we also describe a construction of Calabi-Yau varieties with novel
Hodge numbers $(23,5)$ and $(31,1)$.
We chose to collect some of the technical statements that we use along the way
in the appendices to streamline the main exposition.
{\bf Acknowledgements.} We thank Igor Dolgachev, Mark Gross, and Mihnea Popa for useful discussions. We are also grateful to Mike Stillman and Dan Grayson for the program \textit{Macaulay2} \cite{GS} which was instrumental to our project. Additionally, we thank an anonymous referee for various small corrections as well as useful help with the additional arguments and references required to remove the use of computer calculations in the proof of Theorem \ref{construction}. The authors were partially supported by NSF Grant DMS 1201466.
\section{Background: Enriques surfaces}\label{background}
We present here a survey of pertinent results about Enriques surfaces. For further information about Enriques surfaces see \cite{CD} or Section 5 of \cite{DM}. Unless otherwise mentioned,
proofs of facts about Enriques surfaces can be found there.
\begin{definition} A smooth complex projective surface $S$ is called an Enriques surface if
$h^1(S,\mathcal O_S)=h^2(S,\mathcal O_S)=0$
and the canonical bundle satisfies $\omega_S^2\cong \mathcal O_S$.
\end{definition}
\subsection{The Picard lattice and Fano models}\label{Fano Models}
It is well known that the Picard group of an Enriques surface $S$, denoted ${\rm Pic}(S)$, coincides with its Neron-Severi group and has torsion subgroup generated by the canonical class $K_S$. Furthermore, ${\rm Num}(S)={\rm Pic}(S)/(K_S)$, its group of divisors modulo numerical equivalence, comes with a nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form defined by the intersection pairing. It makes ${\rm Num}(S)$ a rank 10 lattice with signature $(1,9)$. It follows from the classification of even unimodular lattices that it must be isomorphic to $\mathbb E=U\oplus E_8$, where $U$ is the hyperbolic plane and $E_8$ is the unique negative definite even unimodular lattice of rank 8. In \cite{DM} one sees that $\mathbb E$ can be realized as a primitive sublattice of the odd hyperbolic lattice \[\mathbb Z^{1,10}=\mathbb Z e_0+...+\mathbb Z e_{10}\] with $e_0^2=1,e_i^2=-1$ for $i>0$. One can show that $\mathbb E$ is isomorphic to the orthogonal complement of the vector \[k_{10}=-3e_0+e_1+...+e_{10}.\] We form the vectors \[f_i=e_i-k_{10}=3e_0-\sum_{j=1,j\neq i}^{10} e_j, i=1,...,10,\] which lie in $k_{10}^{\perp}$, and thus in this copy of $\mathbb E$. These vectors form what's called an isotropic 10-sequence, that is a sequence of 10 isotropic vectors such that $f_i\cdot f_j=1$ for $i\neq j$. Defining \[\Delta=10e_0-3e_1-...-3e_{10},\] we get that \[3\Delta=f_1+...+f_{10}.\] This construction is very important when considered in ${\rm Num}(S)$. We refer to \cite{DM} for the definition of a \textit{canonical} isotropic 10-sequence and the proof of the following
\begin{theorem} For any canonical isotropic 10-sequence $(f_1,...,f_{10})$ in ${\rm Num}(S)$, there exists a unique $\delta \in \overline{\rm Amp}(S)\cap {\rm Num}(S)$ such that \[3\delta=f_1+...+f_{10}.\] It satisfies $\delta^2=10,\delta\cdot f\geq 3$ for any nef isotropic class $f$. Conversely, any nef $\delta$ satisfying this property can written as above for some canonical isotropic 10-sequence defined uniquely up to permutation.
\end{theorem}
It is well known that nef primitive isotropic vectors in the Picard lattice come from nef effective divisors $F\in {\rm Pic}(S)$ with $F^2=0$ and such that $|2F|$ is an elliptic pencil with precisely two double fibers, $F$ itself and its conjugate $F+K_S$.
Let $\Delta\in {\rm Pic}(S)$ be a divisor whose numerical equivalence class is as in the theorem above. Then this defines a nef effective divisor with $\Delta^2=10$ and $\Delta\cdot F\geq 3$ for any nef effective divisor $F\in {\rm Pic}(S)$ with arithmetic genus 1. From Lemma 4.6.2 in \cite{CD}, the linear system $|\Delta|$ induces a birational morphism $S\rightarrow \mathbb P^5$ onto a normal surface $\overline{S}$ of degree 10 with at worst nodal singularities. In this case $\overline{S}$ is called a \textit{Fano model} of $S$ and $\Delta$ is called a \textit{Fano polarization}. One defines the degeneracy invariant of the isotropic 10-sequence and finds that $\Delta$ is ample if and only if it is defined by a non-degenerate isotropic 10-sequence, which is the generic case. The corresponding half-fibers $F_i$ are mapped to plane cubics lying in 10 planes $\Lambda_1,...,\Lambda_{10}$ such that $\Lambda_i\cap\Lambda_j\neq \varnothing$. Moreover the conjugates $F_{-i}=F_i+K_S$ lie in 10 different planes $\Lambda_{-1},...,\Lambda_{-10}$. The intersection of planes corresponding to one 10-sequence with the planes in the conjugate sequence depends on the geometry of the specific Fano embedding. For the beautiful geometry surrounding these 20 planes see \cite{DM}. We refer to \cite{BP} for another discussion of isotropic sequences, Fano models, and their relations with the automorphism group of an Enriques surface.
The existence of Fano polarizations was proved in \cite{CP}.
\subsection{Reye and Cayley Models of nodal Enriques surfaces}
It is not easy to describe the Fano embeddings of general Enriques surfaces. However,
such descriptions are more readily available for surfaces in the codimension one family of the 10-dimensional moduli space of Enriques surfaces consisting of so-called nodal \hskip-3pt\footnote{The term \emph{nodal} here means the existence of a $(-2)$ curve, rather than
the presence of a singularity in the Fano embedding, see \cite{CD}.} Enriques surfaces.
Let $V$ be a complex vector space of dimension four. Let $W_+$ be a four-dimensional
subspace of ${\rm Sym^2}(V^{\vee})$. We can view it as a three-dimensional linear system (called a web) of quadrics in ${\mathbb P} V$. By considering the corresponding bilinear forms one also gets a
three-dimensional linear system $W'$ of symmetric $(1,1)$ divisors on ${\mathbb P} V \times {\mathbb P} V$.
One says that $W_{+}$ is a \textit{regular} web if the base locus of $W'$, denoted $Y_{W_{+}}$, is smooth. From the adjunction formula one sees that in this case $Y_{W_{+}}$ is a K3 surface. One can check that for a regular web $W_{+}$ the base locus of $W_{+}$ is empty and the involution $\tau$ switching the factors has no fixed points along $Y_{W_{+}}$. Thus the quotient of $Y_{W_{+}}$ by $\tau$ is an Enriques surface $S_{W_{+}}$ with K3 cover $Y_{W_{+}}$.
Consider the $(1,1)$ line bundle on ${\mathbb P} V\times {\mathbb P} V$. It restricts to a line bundle of degree $20$
on $Y_{W_+}$. Its pushforward to $S_{W_+}$ splits into a direct sum of two line bundles of
degree $10$ each, which correspond to different lifts of the involution $\tau$ to the $(1,1)$ bundle.
Depending on the choice of the line bundle its sections are symmetric or skew forms in
$H^0({\mathbb P} V\times {\mathbb P} V,{\mathcal O}(1,1))=V^{\vee}\times V^{\vee}$.
\subsubsection{Reye Models}\label{Reye models}
The linear system $|\bigwedge^2 V^{{\vee}}|\subset H^0({\mathbb P} V\times {\mathbb P} V,{\mathcal O}(1,1))$ restricted to $Y_{W_{+}}$ defines a morphism \[\pi:Y_{W_{+}}\rightarrow \mathbb P(\bigwedge^2 V),\] which factors through $S_{W_+}$, where $\pi(x,y)=\overline{xy}$, the line through $x$ and $y$ for $(x,y)\in \mathbb P^3\times\mathbb P^3\backslash\Delta$. The image of this morphism is a smooth surface $Re(W_{+})$ contained in $G(2,V)$ in its Pl\"{u}cker embedding and isomorphic to $S_{W_{+}}$. This model of the nodal Enriques surface $S_{W_+}$ is called the \textit{Reye model}. Consult Theorem 5.1 in \cite{DM} for an explicit geometric description of the plane cubics and (-2)-curves in this model and for a proof that this is indeed a Fano polarization. It is a celebrated result that an Enriques surface is nodal if and only if it is isomorphic to a Reye model. This was proved for a generic nodal Enriques by Cossec in \cite{CR} and for any nodal Enriques by Dolgachev and Reider, see \cite{DR},\cite{CD2}.
\subsubsection{Cayley Models}
Consider now the linear system of symmetric $(1,1)$ divisors
$|{\rm Sym}^2(V^{{\vee}})|\subset H^0({\mathbb P} V\times {\mathbb P} V,{\mathcal O}(1,1))$. It
induces a closed embedding \[\phi:(\mathbb P(V)\times \mathbb P(V))/\tau \rightarrow \mathbb
P({\rm Sym}^2(V)).\] Explicitly, this map sends $({\mathbb C} x,{\mathbb C} y)$
to ${\mathbb C} (x\otimes y+y\otimes x)$. The restriction to $S_{W_{+}}$ gives an embedding of $S_{W_{+}}$ in $\mathbb P({\rm Sym}^2(V))$. In fact, the image lies in ${\mathbb P}^5\cong
{\mathbb P}({\rm Ann(W_+)})\subset {\mathbb P}({\rm Sym}^2(V))$.
This image is denoted by $Ca(W_{+})$ and called the \textit{Cayley model} of the Enriques surface $S_{W_+}$. From this description we easily see that $Ca(W_{+})$ is the
locus of elements in ${\mathbb P}({\rm Ann(W_+)})\subset {\mathbb P}({\rm Sym}^2(V))$
which have rank $2$ when viewed as quadrics in ${\mathbb P} V^{\vee}$.
Clearly the Reye and Cayley models, being isomorphic to the same Enriques surface, are isomorphic, and the above constructions suggest that the defining polarizations are related. Indeed one has the following
\begin{proposition} Let $|\Delta^r|$ be the linear system defining the Reye model of $S_{W_{+}}$. Then the Cayley model of $S_{W_{+}}$ is defined by the linear system $|\Delta^c|:=|\Delta^r+K_{S_{W_{+}}}|$.
\end{proposition}
For us the most relevant difference between the Cayley and Reye models is that the Reye model is contained in a quadric, while the Cayley model is not.
\subsection{Equations of Fano models}\label{Fano equations}
Using the descriptions of the Cayley and Reye models above, we get explicit descriptions of the defining equations of these Enriques surfaces in their Fano embeddings.
\begin{proposition} As above, let $Re(W_{+})\subset \mathbb P(\bigwedge^2 V)$ and $Ca(W_{+})\subset \mathbb P(\rm Ann(W_+))$ be the Reye and Cayley models of the nodal Enriques surface $S_{W_+}$, respectively. Then the linear system of cubics containing these models (in the respective projective space) is 9-dimensional. Moreover, the homogeneous ideal of $Ca(W_+)$ is generated by these 10 cubics, while the homogeneous ideal of $Re(W_+)$ is generated by a quadric and 4 cubics.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We sketch parts of the proof here while deferring to \cite{DM} for the details. If $S\subset \mathbb P^5$ is any Fano model defined by an ample Fano polarization $\Delta$, then $\Delta^2=10$. By Serre duality and Kodaira vanishing applied to $\Delta+K_S$, we find that $h^0(S,3\Delta)=46$ from Riemann-Roch theorem. But $h^0(\mathbb P^5, \mathcal O_{\mathbb P^5}(3))=56$, so we must have at least 10 cubics in the homogeneous ideal of $S\subset \mathbb P^5$. From \cite{GLM} it follows that Fano models are 3-normal so that $h^1(\mathbb P^5,\mathcal I_S(3))=0$, and thus $h^0(\mathbb P^5,\mathcal I_S(3))=10$.
In the special case of Reye and Cayley Fano models, we can describe the 10 cubics explicitly. For $Re(W_+)$, we can account for 6 of the cubics as products of the quadric defining $G(2,4)$, which contains $Re(W_+)$, with a linear polynomial. We will give an explicit description of 4 additional cubics in Section 3.2. For the Cayley model, notice that in the preceding subsection we showed that $Ca(W_+)=\phi(\mathbb P^3\times \mathbb P^3) \cap \mathbb P({\rm Ann}( W_+))$. Recall that $\phi(\mathbb P^3\times \mathbb P^3)$ was the locus of reducible quadrics, which is the singular locus of the quartic hypersurface $\mathcal D_4$
in $\mathbb P^9=\mathbb P({\rm Sym}^2(V))$ parametrizing singular quadrics. Thus $Ca(W_+)$ is the intersection of the ten cubic partials of $\mathcal D_4$'s defining equation with the generic 5-plane $\mathbb P({\rm Ann}(W_+))$. Again, see \cite{DM} for proofs that the homogeneous ideals are generated as claimed.
\end{proof}
For unnodal Enriques surfaces the situation is similar to that of the Cayley model.
\begin{proposition} The homogeneous ideal of a Fano model of a general Enriques surface is generated by 10 cubics.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} In \cite{CR} it's shown that a Fano model of a generic Enriques surface is not contained in a quadric. The rest is discussed in \cite{DM}.
\end{proof}
\section{Complete intersection of type (2,4) that contains a Reye Enriques and its small resolutions}\label{sec2}
For the bulk of the paper we consider the following geometric data.
Let $V$ be a complex vector space of dimension four. Let $W$ be
a generic four-dimensional subspace in $V^{\vee}\otimes V^{\vee}$.
It will be often convenient to identify $V$ with the space of column vectors and think of $W$ as generated by four linearly independent $4\times 4$ matrices. We will
further separate the symmetric and skew parts of the matrices so that
$W$ is generated by $A_i+B_i$, $i=1,\ldots,4$ with $A_i=A_i^*$, $B_i=-B_i^*$.
\subsection{Reye Models}
To $W\subset V^{\vee}\otimes V^{\vee}$ above, we naturally associate a web of quadrics
$W_+$ on ${\mathbb P} V$
generated by the symmetric parts of elements of $W$ (i.e. by $A_i$ in our explicit presentation).
We further assume for the rest of this section that $W_+$ induces a regular web of quadrics in $\mathbb P^3=\mathbb P(V)$ (for the definition and properties of such
regular webs see Section \ref{Reye models}), and consider the Reye model of the generic
nodal Enriques surface, denoted $Re(W_+)$.
Recall that $W_+$ defines a 3-dimensional linear system
of symmetric $(1,1)$ divisors on ${\mathbb P}^3
\times {\mathbb P}^3$ whose base locus is a smooth K3 surface $Y_{W_+}$.
The Enriques surface $S_{W_+}$ is defined as the quotient of $Y_{W_+}$ by the
involution that interchanges the copies of ${\mathbb P}^3$.
There is a morphism $Y_{W_+} \rightarrow
\mathbb P(\bigwedge^2 V)$
which factors through the Enriques surface $S_{W_+}$ and defines a closed embedding
$$\pi:S_{W_+}\to {\mathbb P}(\Lambda^2V).$$
The
projective model $Re(W_+)$ is the image of $S_{W_+}$, under this morphism.
It is a smooth Enriques surface in $\mathbb P^5$ contained in the Grassmannian $G(2,4)$ under the Pl\"ucker embedding.
The embedding
$\pi$ corresponds to a polarization $\Delta$ of degree 10 on $S_{W_+}$, and in fact $Re(W_+)$ is a Fano model of the
generic nodal Enriques surface $S_{W_+}$ [see Sections \ref{Reye models} and \ref{Fano Models}].
From Section \ref{Fano equations} we know that the homogeneous ideal of $Re(W_+)$ is generated by
the Pl\"ucker quadric $Q$ defining $G(2,4)$ and four cubics $C_1,\ldots,C_4$.
Let $X$ be a (2,4) complete
intersection cut out by $Q$ and a generic element $P$ of degree four in the ideal
of $Re(W_+)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{construction} For general $P$ we have
(1) $X$ is an irreducible threefold whose singular locus consists of 58 ordinary double points
all of which lie on $Re(W_+)$.
(2) There is a small resolution $\pi_1:X^1\rightarrow X$
of the ordinary double points, with $X^1$ a
non-singular Calabi-Yau threefold, obtained by blowing up $X$ along $Re(W_+)$.
(3) There is another small resolution $\pi_0:X^0 \rightarrow X$
of the ordinary double points, with
$X^0$
a non-singular Calabi-Yau threefold, and such that there is a map
$X^0\rightarrow {\mathbb P}^1$
whose generic fiber is a K3 surface. It contains $Re(W_+)$ as a double fiber.
(4) $\chi(X^1)=\chi(X^0)=-60$,
$h^{1,1}(X^1)=h^{1,1}(X^0)=2$, and
$h^{2,1}(X^1)=h^{2,1}(X^0)=32$. \end{theorem}
\begin{proof} (1) Since $X$ is a complete intersection, it is certainly connected. To see that its singular
locus is as claimed for general $P$, we first restrict ourselves to the singular locus along $Re(W_+)$, that is
$Sing(X)\cap Re(W_+)$. We note that the equations defining $X$, $Q$ and $P$, define sections of
$(\mathcal I/\mathcal I^2)(2)$ and $(\mathcal I/\mathcal I^2)(4)$, respectively, where $\mathcal I$ denotes the
ideal sheaf of $Re(W_+)$ in $\mathbb P^5$. A local calculation shows that $Sing(X)\cap Re(W_+)$ is precisely the
subscheme where these two sections are linearly dependent. To calculate the degree of this subscheme we note that
using the standard exact sequence for tangent and normal bundles and the Euler exact sequence on $\mathbb P^5$ we
find that $c((\mathcal I/\mathcal I^2)(4))=1+6H+138[{\rm pt}]$ up to numerical equivalence, where $H$ is the hyperplane
class on $Re(W_+)$. The section $Q$ of $(\mathcal I/\mathcal I^2)(2)$ induces the following short exact
sequence \[0\rightarrow \mathcal O(2)\rightarrow (\mathcal I/\mathcal I^2)(4)\rightarrow V\rightarrow 0.\] Taking
Chern classes we find that $c_2(V)=58$ is precisely the degree of the subscheme where these two sections are
linearly dependent. So we would expect to have 58 singularities along $Re(W_+)$ counted with multiplicities.
However, a \textit{Macaulay2} calculation gives examples for which $X$ has precisely 58 ordinary double
points, and thus this is true for general parameter choices, for example by semi-continuity of Milnor numbers. Since the singular locus has dimension 0, we see that indeed $X$
is an irreducible threefold.
For the sake of completeness, we mention a direct geometric proof that the singular locus is as claimed for generic choice of parameters. Consider the restriction of the linear system of cubics containing the Enriques surface $Re(W_+)$ to the Grassmanian $G(2,4)$ containing it. Then $Re(W_+)$ is the scheme-theoretic base locus of this linear system. This is true also of the linear system $\Lambda$ of quartics containing $Re(W_+)$. Let $\pi:\tilde{G}\rightarrow G$ be the blow up of $G=G(2,4)$ along $Re(W_+)$ with exceptional divisor $E$. Then $|\pi^*\Lambda-E|$ is base-point free, and by Bertini's theorem a generic member $\tilde{X}$ of this linear system is nonsingular. Thus the strict transform of $X$, the intersection with $G(2,4)$ of a generic quartic containing $Re(W_+)$, is nonsingular. Moreover, according to Bertini's theorem the singular locus of $X$ occurs along the base-locus of the linear system, namely along $Re(W_+)$.
According to Theorem 2.1 and Claim 2.2 of \cite{DH}, the singular locus of $X$ has codimension 2 on $Re(W_+)$, and these finite number of points are precisely the points of $X$ over which $\tilde{X}$ contains an entire fiber of $\pi$. Now restricting $|\pi^*\Lambda-E|$ to $E$ preserves base-point freeness and thus the intersection with $E$ of a generic member of this linear system is a nonsingular surface $S$ by Bertini. Let $C\subset \tilde{X}$ be one of the fibers of $\pi$ contracted to a singular point of $X$. Then consider the normal bundle exact sequence, $$0\rightarrow N_{C\subset S}\rightarrow N_{C\subset \tilde{X}}\rightarrow N_{S\subset \tilde{X}}|_C\rightarrow 0.$$ Since $S$ is a smooth surface mapped birationally to smooth $Re(W_+)$ by $\pi$, $N_{C\subset S}$ is $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P^1}(-1)$. Furthermore, since $S$ is the intersection of an element of $|\pi^*\Lambda-E|$ with $|E|$, the normal bundle $N_{S\subset \tilde{X}}$ is the restriction of $\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}}(E)$ to $E$ and then to $S$. But since $E$ is the exceptional fibre of the blow-up of a smooth variety along a smooth subvariety, $\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}}(E)|_E\cong \mathcal O_E(-1)$. Thus $N_{S\subset \tilde{X}}=\mathcal O_S(-1)$. Restricting to $C$ gives $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P^1}(-1)$. Since $\text{Ext}^1(\mathcal O_{\mathbb P^1}(-1),\mathcal O_{\mathbb P^1}(-1))=0$, we see that $N_{C\subset \tilde{X}}$ must be $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P^1}(-1)\oplus\mathcal O_{\mathbb P^1}(-1)$.
It follows from (5.13, (b)) in \cite{Pagoda} that these curves are contracted to ordinary double points. The number of nodes is then calculated as above, using the Chern class calculation.
(2 and 3) According to Lemma \ref{small res}, blowing up $X$ along $Re(W_+)$ gives a small resolution
$X^1\rightarrow X$ of the ordinary double points with $X^1$ a nonsingular Calabi-Yau threefold.
Simultaneously flopping the 58 exceptional $\mathbb P^1$'s we obtain a second small resolution $X^0$. Since
$Re(W_+)$ contained the 58 nodes, the blow-up when restricted to $Re(W_+)$ is simply the usual blow-up of smooth
points, and therefore flopping these exceptional curves has the effect of blowing down the (-1)-curves on
$\pi_1^{-1}(Re(W_+))$ (see (5.13) of \cite{Pagoda}). Therefore, $X^0$ contains a copy of $Re(W_+)$, and we get the claimed fibration by Proposition
\ref{CYfibration}.
(4) By Batyrev's theorem on the birational invariance of Hodge numbers for Calabi-Yau's \cite{Bat99}, it suffices to check
these claims on $X^1$. The claim about the topological Euler characteristic follows immediately from the
fact that a generic (2,4) complete intersection has Euler characteristic -176, and from
the number of nodes.
The calculation of the Hodge numbers follows from the results of Section \ref{Hodge} and \textit{Macaulay2} calculations. An alternative calculation of the Hodge numbers will be given in Remark \ref{alternative hodge}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} It was observed in \cite{CR} that an Enriques surface in its Fano embedding in ${\mathbb P}^5$
is contained in a quadric if and only if this surface is a Reye Enriques. Thus our construction describes a general
CY $(2,4)$ intersection in ${\mathbb P}^5$ that contains an Enriques surface in its Fano embedding.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Alternate description as a determinantal variety}\label{alternate}
We offer here a different, but very useful description of $X$ as a determinantal variety
inside the Grassmannian $G(2,V)$. The Reye model $Re(W_+)$ is then the set of lines $l
\subset {\mathbb P} V = \mathbb P^3$ such that the image of ${\rm Span}(\{A_i\}_{i=1,...,4})$ under the restriction map to the subspace ${\mathbb C}^2\subset V$ corresponding
to $l$ has dimension at most 2 (Remark 5.5 in \cite{DM}). The cubics containing $Re(W_+)$ modulo the ideal of the Grassmannian can be described
very explicitly. For a given plane $\mathbb C^2\subset \mathbb C^4$ representing our line $l\in {\mathbb P} V$
choose a basis \[v=\left(\begin{matrix} a_1 \\ a_2 \\a_3 \\a_4 \end{matrix}\right), w=\left( \begin{matrix} b_1
\\b_2\\b_3\\b_4\end{matrix}\right),\] and consider the $4 \times 3$ matrix
\begin{equation}\label{matrix}
\left( \begin{matrix} v^* A_1 v & v^*
A_1 w & w^* A_1 w\\ v^* A_2 v & v^* A_2 w & w^* A_2 w\\ v^* A_3 v & v^* A_3 w & w^* A_3 w\\ v^* A_4 v & v^* A_4 w &
w^* A_4 w \end{matrix} \right).
\end{equation}
The four $3 \times 3$ minors of this matrix give degree 6 equations in the
$a_i,b_i$, and writing these minors in terms of the Pl\"{u}cker coordinates of $l$ gives 4 cubic equations, defined modulo the ideal of the Grassmannian. These are the 4 cubics that cut out $Re(W_+)$ inside $G(2,4)$.
To present the determinantal description of $X$ we need the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}
The natural map
\[H^0({\rm Gr}(2,4),\mathcal O_{{\rm Gr}(2,4)}(1))\otimes H^0({\rm Gr}(2,4),\mathcal I(3))\rightarrow H^0({\rm Gr}(2,4),\mathcal I(4)),\]
given by multiplication, is an isomorphism, where $\mathcal I$ is the ideal sheaf of $Re(W_+)$ in $G(2,4)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} One may verify this for generic $W_+$ using \textit{Macaulay2}. \end{proof}
Now from the lemma we see that the choice of a quartic hypersurface in $\mathbb P^5$ that contains $Re(W_+)$ is
a choice
of a sum of products of a linear form and a $3\times 3$ minor of the matrix above. But a linear form
$l(x_0,...,x_5)$ on $\mathbb P^5=\mathbb P(\bigwedge^2 V)$ corresponds to a skew-form $B$ on $V$, whose
restriction to the plane $\mathbb C^2$ is determined by $v^* Bw$. Thus we have four skew-forms $B_1,..,B_4$, and
we may express our quartic as \[\det \left( \begin{matrix} v^* B_1 w&v^* A_1 v & v^* A_1 w & w^* A_1 w\\
v^* B_2 w&v^* A_2 v & v^* A_2 w & w^* A_2 w\\
v^* B_3 w&v^* A_3 v & v^* A_3 w & w^* A_3 w\\
v^* B_4 w&v^* A_4 v & v^* A_4 w & w^* A_4 w \end{matrix}\right ) .\]
Thus we get the following description:
\begin{proposition}
Let $Q$ be the universal quotient bundle on $G(2,4)$. Take a generic dimension four
subspace of sections of $Q\otimes Q$. Then the nodal Calabi-Yau threefold $X$
is
the determinantal variety on $G(2,4)$ given by \[\det \left(\begin{matrix} s_1 \\
s_2\\s_3\\s_4\end{matrix}\right).\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Indeed the only thing left to note is that $X$ was cut out on the Grassmannian by a quartic
containing $Re(W_+)$. The choice of such a quartic was seen to be given by a $4\times 4$ determinant like the one
preceding the proposition. Each row combined the restrictions of a skew-symmetric and symmetric matrix to a ${\mathbb C}^2\subset {\mathbb C}^4$ in such a way that we get
a section of $Q\otimes Q$. This gives the desired description. \end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Observe that $H^0({\rm Gr}(2,V),Q\otimes Q)$ is naturally isomorphic to $V^{\vee}\otimes V^{\vee}$.
Moreover, the above description of the subspace means that it can be viewed as the
subspace $W$ of $V^{\vee}\otimes V^{\vee}$ considered in the beginning of the section.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{scaleskew}
It is clear that one can scale the $B_i$-s simultaneously without affecting the determinantal
variety. In invariant terms, this is due to the fact that $Q\otimes Q$ is the direct sum of
symmetric and skew parts. The corresponding naive parameter count for the moduli space of $X$,
$\dim {\rm Gr}(4,V^{\vee}\otimes V^{\vee})-\dim PGL(V) - 1 = 48-15-1=32$, is in fact correct from Theorem \ref{construction}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The fibration structure} In this subsection we will give an explicit way of
seeing the fibration structure on $X^0$. In the process we will see that the K3 fibers
of this fibration are determinantal quartics in ${\mathbb P}^3$.
We again start by considering a space $W\subseteq V^{\vee}\otimes V^{\vee}$.
We will identify $V$ with the column vectors of length four for convenience.
Consider the intersection inside ${\mathbb P}^3\times {\mathbb P}^3\times {\mathbb P}^1$ of the
four $(1,1,1)$ divisors given by
$$
x^*(sA_i+tB_i)y=0,~{\rm for~all~}i.
$$
Here $x$ and $y$ denote column vectors and $(s:t)\in{\mathbb P}^1$.
Note that this space contains the irreducible component $\Delta=\{(x,x,(0:1))|x\in {\mathbb P}^3\}$. Denote by $Z$
the closure of the complement of this component in ${\mathbb P}^3\times {\mathbb P}^3\times {\mathbb P}^1$. A \textit{Macaulay2} calculation shows that $Z$ is smooth. Observe that $Z$ is preserved by the involution $\tau$ that sends
$$\tau:(x,y,(s:t))\mapsto (y,x,(s:-t)).$$
\begin{remark}
It is standard that the variety $Z$ is fibered over ${\mathbb P}^1$ with fibers that are isomorphic to determinantal
quartics in ${\mathbb P}^3$. The fiber over $(1:0)$ is the symmetric K3 surface $Y_{W_+}$ which
is the double cover of $S_{W_+}$ considered in \ref{Reye models}. The involution $\tau$ acts
on the base of this fibration, so that $Z/\tau$ maps to ${\mathbb P}^1$. The
reduction of the fiber of this map
over $(1:0)$ is the Enriques surface $S_{W_+}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}
The quotient space $Z/\tau$ is naturally birational to $X$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us define the two birational maps which are inverses of each other.
First we describe the map from $Z/\tau$ to $X$. The point
$$
(x,y,(s:t))
$$
is sent to ${\mathbb C} x\oplus {\mathbb C} y\subset{\mathbb C}^4$ which gives
a point in ${\rm Gr}(2,V)$. Clearly, this map is well-defined modulo $\tau$ away from $Z\cap \Delta$.
Observe that the restrictions of $sA_i+tB_i$
to $V_1={\mathbb C} x\oplus {\mathbb C} y\subset{\mathbb C}^4$ lie in the codimension one subspace of $V_1^{\vee}\otimes V_1^{{\vee}}$ defined by $x^*(-)y=0$. As a consequence, the image lies in the determinantal variety in $G(2,V)$ given by the $sA_i+tB_i$. In view of Remark \ref{scaleskew},
this implies that the image lies in $X$.
In the opposite direction, let $V_1\subseteq V$ be a dimension two subspace such
that ${\rm Span}(A_i+B_i)$ restricts to a proper subspace of $V_1^{\vee}\otimes V_1^{\vee}$. We may assume $V_1$ is generic in $X$ so that the space of restrictions is of dimension three. Consider a generator of its annihilator $l\in V_1\otimes V_1$. Split it into symmetric and skew-symmetric parts $l=l_++l_-$. Then $tl_++sl_-$ annihilates $sA_i+tB_i$ for all $i$ and $(s:t)\in {\mathbb P}^1$. For a generic point $V_1$ corresponding to a point in $X$ and generic $(s:t)\in {\mathbb P}^1$, the tensor $tl_++sl_-$ will be indecomposable. The space of decomposable tensors
is a quadric in ${\mathbb P}(V_1\otimes V_1)$. Consider $(s:t)$ such that $tl_++sl_-$ is decomposable,
i.e. $tl_++sl_-=x\otimes y$. We see that $tl_+-sl_-=y\otimes x$, and these are the
only decomposable linear combinations of $l_+$ and $l_-$. We then map
the point of $X$ that corresponds to $V_1$ to $(x,y,(s:t))$ for any decomposable
$tl_++sl_-=x\otimes y$, with the choice of a decomposable linear combination irrelevant
modulo $\tau$.
It is easy to see that these two constructions are inverses of each other.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Observe that the line through $l_+$ and $l_-$ lies in the quadric of decomposable
tensors if and only if $l_-=0$ and $l_+$ is decomposable, i.e. $l_+=x\otimes x$.
This means that $x^*A_ix=0$ for all $i$ which does not happen for a $W$ with regular web $W_+$. Thus the only ambiguity in the above map occurs at the points where the dimension of ${\rm Span}(A_i+B_i)|V_1$ drops by $2$ (i.e. along $Re(W_+)$). In this case, one needs to get a choice of $l$ that annihilates all $A_i+B_i$. This means that the map lifts to a map from $X^0$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} Based upon computational evidence, we believe that $Z/\tau$ is in fact isomorphic to $X^0$ blown up at the two points corresponding to the two-dimensional subspaces ${\mathbb C} x\oplus {\mathbb C} y$ such that $x^*B_i y=0$ for all $i$.
\end{remark}
\section{A birational model of $X$ as a nodal complete intersection in the weighted projective
space}\label{secwp}
In this section we continue to investigate the birational geometry of $X^1$. We find that it maps to
a certain nodal complete intersection of type $(4,4)$ inside a weighted projective space
${\mathbb P}(1,1,1,1,2,2)$. As before, we consider four generic $4\times 4$ symmetric (resp. skew) matrices
$A_i$ (resp. $B_i$).
Let $(u_1:u_2:u_3:u_4: y : z)$ be homogeneous coordinates on the weighted projective space
${\mathbb P}(1,1,1,1,2,2)$ of the respective
weights. Consider the complete intersection of two degree $4$ hypersurfaces in this weighted projective
space defined by the property that
\begin{equation}\label{formal}
(y+z q + {\rm Pf}(\sum_i u_iB_i)q^2)(y-z q +{\rm Pf}(\sum_i u_iB_i)q^2)=\det(\sum_i u_i(A_i+qB_i))
\end{equation}
as polynomials in the formal variable $q$.
Note that the right hand side is an even polynomial in $q$. The coefficient at $q^0$ is
$\det(\sum_i u_iA_i)$ and the coefficient at $q^4$ is $\det(\sum_i u_iB_i) = ({\rm Pf}(\sum_i u_iB_i))^2$.
The middle coefficient is therefore $\det(\sum_i u_i(A_i+B_i))-\det(\sum_i u_iA_i)-({\rm Pf}(\sum_i u_iB_i))^2$.
The equation \eqref{formal} thus reduces to two equations
\begin{equation}\label{ciwp}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
y^2&=&\det(\sum_i u_iA_i)\\
z^2&=&-\det(\sum_i u_i(A_i+B_i))+(y-{\rm Pf}(\sum_i u_iB_i))^2
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
of degree $4$ in ${\mathbb P}(1,1,1,1,2,2)$.
\begin{definition}
Denote by $\hat X$ the complete intersection defined by \eqref{ciwp}.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{wpmodel}
Let $H=\pi_1^*\mathcal O_{X}(1)$ and $E$ the class of $\pi_1^{-1}(Re(W_+))$ inside
$N^1(X^1)$, the Neron-Severi group of $X^1$. The ray ${\mathbb R}_{\geq 0}(3H-E)$ in $\tilde{N}^1(X^1)=N^1(X^1)\otimes \mathbb R$ defines a small contraction
of $X^1$ to the complete intersection $\hat X$ in ${\mathbb P}(1,1,1,1,2,2)$ defined above.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We first calculate the intersection product on $N^1(X^1)$. We have $\int_{X^1}H^3=8$, $\int_{X^1}H^2E=10$, $\int_{X^1}HE^2=0$,
$\int_{X^1}E^3=-58$. The last statement follows because $E$ is the blowup of an Enriques surface at $58$ points
and $E\vert_E$ is the sum of the $58$ exceptional lines of this blowup.
We also have from the adjunction formula
$12+58=\int_E c_2(E)=\int_{X^1} E\frac {1+c_2(X^1)+c_3(X^1))}{(1+E)}=\int_{X^1} c_2(X^1)E+E^3=\int_{X^1}c_2(X^1)E-58$ so that $\int_{X^1} c_2(X^1)E=128$. We calculate from the Riemann-Roch formula that $\chi(H)=\int_{X^1} \frac 16 H^3 +\frac 1{12}c_2(X^1)H$, and since $H$ is nef, Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing gives $\chi(H)=h^0(X^1,H)=6$. Thus we get $\int_{X^1}c_2(X^1)H = 12(6-\frac 86)=56$.
Consider the divisor $L=3H-E$ on $X^1$. Notice that $\int_{X^1}L^3=4$. We also have $\int_{X^1}c_2(X^1)L=40$. Thus, $\chi(kL)=\frac 23k^3+\frac {10}3k$, so in particular $\chi(L)=4$, $\chi(2L)=12$.
We can view $X^1$ as a divisor on the blowup $\widehat{Gr}$
of ${\rm Gr}(2,4)$ along $Re(W_+)$, by viewing it as the proper preimage
of $X$ under the blowup. Since the ideal of $Re(W_+)$ on $G(2,4)$ is generated by four cubics, see \ref{Fano equations}, the divisor $3H-E$ is base-point-free on $\widehat{Gr}$ and thus on $X^1$. Consequently, $3H-E$ is nef, thus $h^0(L)=4$, $h^0(2L)=12$.
We can describe the global sections of $L$ and $2L$ in more detail. As in
subsection \ref{alternate}
we can describe the sections of $L$ as $3\times 3$ minors of the $4\times 3$ matrix of restrictions
\eqref{matrix}. For a point in ${\rm Gr}(2,V)$ given by a vector space $V_1$ these minors $u_i$ are such
that $\sum_i u_iA_i$ restricts to $0$ on $V_1$. In fact, $\widehat{Gr}$ is naturally embedded into
${\rm Gr}(2,V)\times {\mathbb P}^3$ and the map by $\vert L\vert$ is simply the projection to the second factor
(restricted to $X^1\subset \widehat{Gr}$). Points in $X^1$ can be thought of as
two-dimensional subspaces $V_1\subset V$ together with a choice of $(u_1:\ldots:u_4)\in {\mathbb P}^3$
such that $\sum_iu_i(A_i+B_i)$ restricts trivially on $V_1$. Note that this implies $\sum_i u_i(A_i+qB_i)$
restricts trivially to $V_1$ for any $q$.
Pick a basis of $V_1$ to represent it by a $4\times 2$ matrix $T$. We have
$$
T^*\sum_i u_i (A_i+qB_i) T = {\bf 0}.
$$
We will now use the results of Section \ref{linalg}.
Consider for given $W$, $V_1$, $u$, and $q$,
$$
\det (S^*\sum_i u_i (A_i+qB_i) T )
$$
as a function of $S$, where $S$ is a $4\times 2$ matrix. If the dimension of the span of columns of $S$ and $T$ is less than four, then there is a linear combination of columns of $S$ that lies in that of $T$. This implies that there is a linear combination of the rows of
$S^*\sum_i u_i (A_i+qB_i) T$ which is zero, thus the determinant above vanishes. Since this determinant is a
polynomial function of $S$, it must be divisible by the irreducible polynomial $\det(T\vert S)$, where $T\vert S$ is the $4\times 4$ matrix obtained by juxtaposing $T$ and $S$. Since the $S$-degree
of both polynomials is $2$, the ratio depends only on $W$, $V_1$, $u$, and $q$. The dependence on $q$ is
clearly quadratic. Moreover, the coefficient by $q^2$ is equal to ${\rm Pf}(\sum u_i B_i)$, see
Proposition \ref{skew}. Thus
we have
$$
\det (S^*\sum_i u_i (A_i+qB_i) T) = (\hat y+\hat zq+{\rm Pf}(\sum u_i B_i)q^2)\det(T\vert S).
$$
for some $\hat y$ and $\hat z$.
By taking a transpose and switching $q\to -q$ we get
$$
\det (T^*\sum_i u_i (A_i+qB_i) S )= (\hat y-\hat zq+{\rm Pf}(\sum u_i B_i)q^2)\det(T\vert S).
$$
By Proposition \ref{tn} this implies
$$
(\hat y+\hat zq+{\rm Pf}(\sum u_i B_i)q^2)(\hat y-\hat zq+{\rm Pf}(\sum u_i B_i)q^2) = \det (\sum_i u_i(A_i+qB_i)).
$$
Let us now investigate the dependence of $\hat y$ and $\hat z$ on the choice of the basis
of $V_1$. A different choice of basis leads to a matrix $T_1=TU$ for some $2\times 2$
invertible matrix $U$. Observe that $u_i$ are sections of $L=3H-E$ and can be
naturally viewed as sections of $3H$, i.e. they scale by $(\det U)^3$.
By scaling $S\mapsto SU$ we see that $\hat y$ and $\hat z$
scale by $(\det U)^6$. They thus descend from functions on the frame bundle over
$X^1$ to sections of $6H$.
We now observe that $\hat y$ and $\hat z$ are sections of $2L=6H-2E$, because
they are integral over ${\mathbb C}[u_1,\ldots,u_4]$ and $\oplus_{n\geq 0}H^0(X^1,nL)$
is integrally closed. As a result, $(u_1,...,u_4,\hat y,\hat z)$ give a map from $X^1$ to the complete intersection $\hat X$.
We have checked using \textit{Macaulay2} that $\hat X$ is nodal with $42$ ordinary double points. It is also easy to
see that $X^1\to \hat X$ has three-dimensional image. Consequently, the subring of $\oplus_n H^0(X^1,nL)$
generated by $u_i$, $\hat y$ and $\hat z$ has the same Hilbert series as a complete intersection of type $(4,4)$
in ${\mathbb P}(1,1,1,1,2,2)$, i.e. $H(t)=\frac {(1+t^2)^2}{(1-t)^4}$. Since this coincides with the dimensions of
$H^0(X^1,nL)$ obtained via Riemann-Roch and Kawamata vanishing, we see that $u_1,\ldots,u_4,\hat y,\hat z$
generate $\oplus_n H^0(X^1,nL)$, and $X^1\to \hat X$ is a contraction that corresponds to the ray
${\mathbb R}_{\geq 0}(3H-E)$. Observe that this divisor is not ample, because $\hat X$ is singular.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
It is instructive to see explicitly the birational map from
$\hat X$ to $X^1$ which is the inverse of $X^1\to \hat X$. Let $(u_1,\ldots,u_4,y,z)$ satisfy \eqref{ciwp}.
We are working birationally and can thus assume that ${\rm Pf}(\sum_i u_iB_i)\neq 0$.
Consider two roots $q_1$ and $q_2$ of
$$y+zq+{\rm Pf}(\sum_i u_iB_i)q^2=0$$
From \eqref{ciwp} we see that $\sum_i u_i(A_i+q_1B_i)$
is degenerate. Consider its right kernel, call it $x_1\in V$. Similarly, we can consider the right kernel $x_2$
of $\sum_i u_i(A_i+q_2B_i)$. Then the point in $X^1$ is given (generically) by ${\rm Span}(x_1,x_2)$. Indeed these elements lie in $V_1$ by Proposition \ref{kernel}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The map from $\widehat {Gr}$ defined by multiples of $3H-E$ is interesting in its own right.
One can show that it maps onto the hypersurface in ${\mathbb P}(1,1,1,1,2)$ given by
$$
y^2=\det(\sum_i u_iA_i).
$$
The generic fibers are rational curves which correspond to a ruling of the smooth quadric $\sum_i u_iA_i$ in ${\mathbb P} V$. The choice of sign in $y$ (locally) distinguishes the two rulings.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{alternative hodge}
From the preceding remark and the proof of the preceeding theorem, we may now present a purely geometric, non-computer-based proof that the Picard rank of $X^1$ is 2. The blow-up $\widehat{Gr}$ of $Gr(2,4)$ along the Enriques surface $Re(W_+)$ necessarily has Picard rank 2 as the blow-up of a smooth variety of Picard rank 1 along a smooth subvariety. We've seen that $3H-E$, in the notation above, is base-point free and thus nef. Moreover, since we know that $3H-E$ is nef but not ample, and likewise for $H$, we see that $4H-E$ lies in the interior of the cone spanned by these two rays and thus must be ample. By the Lefschetz hyperplane theorem it follows that $X^1$ also has Picard rank 2 as a generic member of the ample linear system $|4H-E|$.
\end{remark}
\section{Birational models of $X^1$}\label{bir}
It is known that the Picard group ${\rm Pic}(X)$ of a smooth Calabi-Yau variety $X$ is isomorphic to its Neron-Severi group $N^1(X)$. Its rank $\rho(X)$ is called the Picard number. We denote the nef cone of $X$ by $\overline{\rm Amp}(X)$. It consists of those Cartier $\mathbb R$-divisors that have non-negative intersection with every effective curve in $X$. Its relative interior is the ample cone ${\rm Amp}(X)$, the convex cone generated by ample divisors. We also write $\overline{\rm Mov}(X)$ for the convex cone generated by the set of movable divisors, effective divisors that move in a linear system without fixed components. Its interior is denoted ${\rm Mov}(X)$. Since a birational map between Calabi-Yau varieties $X$ and $Y$ would have indeterminacy locus of codimension at least two, their divisor vector spaces $\tilde{N}^1(X)$ and $\tilde{N}^1(Y)$ are identified. From the following lemma (Lemma 1.5 in \cite{Kaw97}) we see that their nef cones coincide under this identification if and only if the birational map between them is an isomorphism, and otherwise they are disjoint:
\begin{lemma}\label{kaw}
Let $X$ be a smooth Calabi-Yau variety, and denote its birational automorphism group by $Bir(X)$.
Then $g\in Bir(X)$ is a biregular automorphism if and only if there exists an ample divisor $H$ on $X$ such that
$g^*H$ is ample.
\end{lemma}
On the other hand, this isomorphism between $\tilde{N}^1(X)$ and $\tilde{N}^1(Y)$ identifies $\overline{\rm Mov}(X)$ and $\overline{\rm Mov}(Y)$. Moreover, for a Calabi-Yau threefold $X$ it follows from the existence and termination of flops (see \cite{Kaw88}) that the movable cone is covered by the nef cones of all birational models of $X$ that are isomorphic outside of a locus of codimension at least 2. This arrangement is called the moveable fan.
We now consider the vector space $\tilde{N}^1(X^1)=N^1(X^1)\otimes \mathbb R$ for the smooth Calabi-Yau varieties $X^1$ constructed above. It is a real vector space of dimension 2 by Theorem \ref{construction}. We uncovered in Theorem \ref{construction} two smooth birational models $X^0$ and $X^1$ of $X$. On $X^0$ we found the divisor $E$ whose ray $\mathbb R_{\geq 0} E$ induced a fibration of $X^0$ over $\mathbb P^1$ so that $E$ must be nef but clearly not ample. It thus forms an extremal ray of $\overline{\rm Amp}(X^0)$. The other extremal ray is generated by $H$ which is nef as the pull back from $X$ of the nef (even very ample) line bundle $\mathcal O_X(1)$, but which cannot be ample as it contracts the 58 exceptional $\mathbb P^1$'s. The variety $X^1$, the flop of $X^0$ by these curves, has $H$ as one of its extremal rays for the same reason. As we noted in the proof of Theorem \ref{wpmodel}, the divisor $3H-E$ is nef but not ample so it forms the other extremal ray. We can now complete the analysis and describe explicitly the entire movable cone and all of the other smooth birational models.
First note that by two results of Kawamata on a Calabi-Yau threefold $X$, any $\phi\in Bir(X)$ can be decomposed into a sequence of flops followed by an automorphism of $X$ at the last stage, and any flop of $X$ corresponds to an extremal ray of $\overline{\rm Amp}(X)$ (see Theorem 5.7 in \cite{Kaw08} and Theorem 1 in \cite{Kaw88}, respectively). Thus $\mathbb R_{\geq 0} E$ forms an extremal ray of the entire movable cone since it induces a fibration, which cannot be flopped.
Now consider the map from $X^1\to \hat X$. It is a resolution of $42$ nodes of $\hat X$. We can flop it to obtain another resolution $X^2\to \hat X$. Note also that $\hat X$ admits an involution
$$
\sigma: (u_1:\ldots:u_4:y:z)\mapsto (u_1:\ldots:u_4:y:-z).
$$
By a \textit{Macaulay2} calculation, there are $22$ singular points of $\hat X$ that are fixed by this
involution (the remaining $20$ are pairs of points where $y=0$ and $\sum u_iA_i$ is a rank $2$ quadric on $V$, i.e. they lie over the Hessian surface of $W_+$ which has precisely 10 nodes \cite{DM}). Note that $\sigma$ lifts to a birational automorphism of $X^1$ and thus acts
on $N^1(X^1)$.
\begin{proposition}
The action of $\sigma$ on $N^1(X^1)$ is nontrivial. Specifically,
it sends $$(H,E)\mapsto (17H-6E, 48H-17E).$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If this map was trivial, then it would act as an automorphism of $X^1$ by Lemma \ref{kaw}.
However, it does not extend to a morphism on any of the $22$ exceptional lines
of $X^1\to \hat X$ whose images are fixed by $\sigma$ because on $\hat X$ it switches the two resolutions locally around the fixed nodes.
Clearly, $L=3H-E$ is fixed by the involution since this divisor corresponds to $\mathcal O_{\hat{X}}(1)$ and the involution comes from one on $\mathbb P(1,1,1,1,2,2)$. Because it acts
nontrivially, the other eigenvalue is $(-1)$ and we have $H\mapsto k(3H-E)-H$ for some $k$. Since the degree of $H$ as a subvariety of ${\mathbb P}(1,1,1,1,2,2)$ must be preserved by the involution, the intersection number $H(3H-E)^2$ must be preserved. This implies $k=6$ and finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
We observe that $X^2$ is actually isomorphic to $X^1$ via the lift of the involution on $\hat X$.
Specifically, the birational map $g: X^1 \rightarrow \hat{X}\rightarrow \hat{X}\dashrightarrow X^2$, obtained by applying the involution on $\hat{X}$ in the middle, maps the nef cone $\overline{\rm Amp}(X^1)$ to an adjacent cone, which must then be the cone of $X^2$, since both contain $L$.
As a consequence, the nef cone of $X^2$ is generated by $3H-E$ and $17H-6E$. The contraction that corresponds to $17H-6E$ contracts $58$ smooth ${\mathbb P}^1$s. These can be flopped to get a $K3$ fibration via $96H-34E$, with $48H-17E$ a smooth Enriques surface which is the reduction of a double fiber of the fibration. This gives the
\begin{corollary}
The birational models of $X$ look as in Figure 1. Moreover, $\overline{\rm Mov}(X)$ is the convex cone generated by $E$ and $48H-17E$.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = .6]{Slide2.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{Birational models of $X$}
\end{figure}
Here $X^{i}$ are depicted inside their nef cones. The picture is slightly distorted for readability.
\end{corollary}
It seems worth mentioning that the above result verifies the Kawamata-Morrison cone conjecture for this family (see \cite{Kaw97},\cite{Mor} for statements and discussion).
\section{Comments}\label{seccom}
\subsection{Relation to other constructions of Calabi-Yau threefolds.}
Batyrev and Kreuzer have obtained Calabi-Yau threefolds with Hodge numbers $(2,32)$
in \cite{BK} in the context of degenerations of toric complete intersections. We do not know at the moment how many distinct families are constructed there, and whether our construction yields one of those families.
\subsection{Other complete intersections in ${\mathbb P}^5$ that contain Enriques surfaces.}
It is only natural to investigate other kinds of complete intersections that contain Enriques surfaces. In particular, if we have an Enriques surface $S$ in its Fano embedding, we may want to look at a generic $(3,3)$ complete intersection $X$ in ${\mathbb P}^5$ that contains it. It can be shown using methods analogous to those above that such a complete intersection has $48$ ODP's that lie on the Enriques surface. Its blowup $X^1$ along $S$ and the flop $X^0$ of the 48 exceptional $\mathbb P^1$'s are somewhat similar to the ones considered in this paper. They have Hodge
numbers $h^{11}=2$, $h^{12}=26$. This again fits one of the Hodge pairs from \cite{BK}.
We are, however, unable to describe the movable cones for generic such (3,3) complete intersections. The divisor $E$ corresponding to the preimage of $S$ under the blow-up still induces a fibration of $X^0$ by K3 surfaces with double fiber along $S$, and thus this divisor still forms an extremal ray of the movable cone. Moreover, since the Fano model of a generic Enriques surface is not contained in a quadric, its homogeneous ideal is generated by 10 cubics. Thus on the blow-up along $S$, the divisor $3H-E$ is base-point free and thus nef. When $S$ is a generic nodal surface either in its Cayley or Reye embedding, the divisor $3H-E$ induces a divisorial contraction on $X^1$. In the Reye case there is a surface on $X^1$ which gets
contracted to a genus one curve of singularities on the image. For the Cayley model, the proper preimage of the union of the trisecants of $S$ that sit inside $X$ form a surface which gets contracted. Hence the divisor $3H-E$ is not ample and forms an extremal ray of the movable cone. For a generic unnodal Enriques surface, however, we do not have as explicit a description for the cubics that cut it out. While we do not have an explicit description of the entire movable cone for (3,3) complete intersections coming from generic unnodal Enriques surfaces, we do have the following positive result:
\begin{proposition} For the $X^1$ birational model of (3,3) complete intersection Calabi-Yau's coming from generic unnodal Enriques surfaces, the divisor $3H-E$ is ample.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Take as a starting point the $X^1$ model for a complete intersection coming from a generic Reye Enriques. Then as mentioned above the divisor $3H-E$ contracts a smooth ruled surface $S$ over a curve of genus 1. By Proposition 4.1 in \cite{W} the locus $\Gamma$ of deformations of $X^1$ for which $S$ deforms in the family is a smooth divisor. By taking a 1-parameter family of deformations transversal to $\Gamma$ and coming from deforming the nodal Reye Enriques to be a generic unnodal one, Proposition 4.4 in \cite{W} shows that the class $3H-E$ will be ample in some punctured neighborhood of the origin of this 1-parameter family.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Mirrors.} We have been unable to find mirrors of our varieties. However, in
the process of looking for them, we have constructed Calabi-Yau threefolds with novel
Hodge numbers $(23,5)$ and $(31,1)$ as follows.
Motivated by \cite{HT}, we consider a subfamily given by matrices
$A_i+B_i$ with
$$
A_1+B_1=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
a&b&0&0\\
c&d&0&0\\
0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0\\
\end{array}
\right),~~
A_2+B_2=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0&0&0&0\\
0&a&b&0\\
0&c&d&0\\
0&0&0&0\\
\end{array}
\right),
$$
$$
A_3+B_3=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0\\
0&0&a&b\\
0&0&c&d\\
\end{array}
\right),~~
A_4+B_4=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
d&0&0&c\\
0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0\\
b&0&0&a\\
\end{array}
\right)
$$
with generic $a,b,c,d$. Calculations in \textit{Macaulay2} suggest that a generic member of this
family gives a $(2,4)$ complete intersection in ${\mathbb P}^5$ with $106$ ODPs. Interestingly,
the Hodge number calculations yield a larger than obvious five-dimensional family,
with the Hodge numbers $(23,5)$. We have verified the existence of crepant resolutions of these nodal complete intersections.
If we further restrict the subfamily by picking $a=d$, then we get complete intersections
with $118$ ODPs, and we have shown the existence of crepant resolutions of these singular points. The calculations of Section \ref{Hodge} then yield $(31,1)$ Hodge
numbers. This family might be mirror to the known families with Hodge numbers $(1,31)$
constructed in \cite{Ton} and \cite{Kap}. We hope to study this family further in a subsequent
paper.
\section{Appendix 1: Hodge numbers calculations}\label{Hodge}
Here we present the method we used to calculate the Hodge numbers of the Calabi-Yau varieties we construct. We present the method for general complete-intersection Calabi-Yau threefolds, expounding upon the presentation in Remark 4.11 of \cite{GP}. These results are well-known
but we have been unable to find a suitable reference.
We first have the following result:
\begin{lemma}\label{small res} Let $X$ be a projective threefold with only ODP singularities. Suppose further that there exists a smooth Weil divisor $S$ passing through all of the ODP's. Then there exists a projective small crepant resolution $\pi: \tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ obtained by blowing up $S$. Moreover, the restriction $\pi: \pi^{-1}(S)\rightarrow S$ is the blow-up of $S$ at the smooth points
of $S$ located at ODP's of $X$. Finally, the natural map $\pi^*\Omega_X\rightarrow \Omega_{\tilde{X}}$ is injective.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} The blowup of $X$ along $S$ is projective. Its smoothness and the other claims
can be verified locally in the strong topology. Since 3-fold ordinary double points have embedding dimension 4, we may represent $X$ locally around an ordinary double point as $f(x,y,z,w)=0$ in $\mathbb C^4$, where $f$ has vanishing partials at the origin and nonsingular Hessian. Since $S$ is smooth, we may take local coordinates such that $S$ is locally represented by $x=z=0$ and $f=xQ+zP$ since $S$ passes through the singular point. The first two claims of the lemma follow from applying the Jacobian criterion on the blow-up along $S$, and checking the restriction of the blow-up morphism to $S$.
For the last statement, one finds from the description above that $X$ can locally be represented as Spec $\mathbb C[x,y,z,w]/(xy-zw)$, $\tilde{X}$ as Spec $\mathbb C[x,w,v]$, while the map $\pi$ corresponds to the ring homomorphism $R=\mathbb C[x,y,z,w]/(xy-zw)\rightarrow T=\mathbb C[x,w,v]$ with $x\mapsto x,y\mapsto vw,z\mapsto xv,w\mapsto w$. From this description it follows immediately that the map on differentials $\Omega_{R/\mathbb C}\otimes_R T\rightarrow \Omega_{T/\mathbb C}$ is injective.
\end{proof}
Let $X$ be a complete intersection Calabi-Yau threefold in $\mathbb P^{n+3}$ with only nodal singularities, given by $f_1=...=f_n=0$ of degrees $d_i$. We assume that we are in the situation of the lemma so that there exists a small resolution $\pi:\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$. Our first result guarantees that such an $\tilde{X}$ will indeed be a bona fide smooth Calabi-Yau threefold:
\begin{proposition} Let $X$ be a complete intersection Calabi-Yau threefold with only nodal (rational) singularities, admitting a small resolution $\pi:\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$. Then $\tilde{X}$ is a nonsingular Calabi-Yau threefold, that is $\omega_{\tilde{X}}\cong \mathcal O_{\tilde{X}}$ and $h^i(\tilde{X},\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}})=0$ for $i=1,2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Since $\pi$ is a small resolution and complete intersections are Gorenstein, $\pi$ is crepant, i.e. $\pi^*\omega_X\cong \omega_{\tilde{X}}$. But $X$ is Calabi-Yau, so $\omega_X\cong \mathcal O_X$ and thus $\omega_{\tilde{X}}\cong \mathcal O_{\tilde{X}}$. For the statement on cohomology, we get the exact sequence of low degree terms coming from the Leray spectral sequence, \[0\rightarrow H^1(X,\pi_*\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}})\rightarrow H^1(\tilde{X},\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}})\rightarrow H^0(X,R^1\pi_*\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}}).\] Integral complete intersections are normal so that $\pi_*\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}}\cong \mathcal O_X$, and because our singularities are rational we have $R^i\pi_*\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}}=0$ for $i>0$. Thus $H^1(\tilde{X},\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}})\cong H^1(X,\mathcal O_X)=0$, and by Serre duality and triviality of $\omega_{\tilde{X}}$ we have $h^2(\tilde{X},\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}})=h^1(\tilde{X},\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}})=0$.
\end{proof}
We will now describe the calculation for the Hodge numbers $h^{1,1}(\tilde X)$ and $h^{2,1}(\tilde X)$.
Consider the tangent space to the deformation space of $X$, $\text{Def}_X(\mathbb C[\epsilon])\cong \text{Ext}^1_{\mathcal O_X}(\Omega_X^1,\mathcal O_X)$. It fits into an exact sequence isomorphic to the local-to-global exact sequence for Exts: \[0\rightarrow H^1(X,\mathcal T_X)\rightarrow \text{Ext}^1_{\mathcal O_X}(\Omega^1_X,\mathcal O_X)\rightarrow H^0(X,\mathcal T^1_X)\rightarrow H^2(X,\mathcal T_X),\] where \[\mathcal T_X\cong Hom_X(\Omega_X^1,\mathcal O_X),\mathcal T_X^1\cong Ext_{\mathcal O_X}^1(\Omega_X^1,\mathcal O_X),\] are the tangent sheaf of $X$ and Schlessinger-Lichtenbaum's $\mathcal T^1$ sheaf, respectively (see \cite{Ser} for proofs of these and all general deformation theoretic results). Notice that $\mathcal T_X^1$ is a skyscraper sheaf with support precisely at the nodes, and over each node it is a copy of $\mathbb C$ since the deformation space of a node is one-dimensional.
Since $\tilde{X}$ is nonsingular, the tangent space to the deformation space of $\tilde{X}$ is given by $H^1(\tilde{X},\mathcal T_{\tilde{X}})$. Since $\tilde{X}$ is a Calabi-Yau threefold, we have $\bigwedge^2 \Omega_{\tilde{X}}^1\cong \mathcal T_{\tilde{X}}\otimes \omega_{\tilde{X}}\cong \mathcal T_{\tilde{X}}$ so that $h^{2,1}=h^1(\tilde{X},\bigwedge^2 \Omega_{\tilde{X}}^1)=h^1(\tilde{X},\mathcal T_{\tilde{X}})$. We have the following result which allows us to use the deformation theory for $X$ to calculate this Hodge number for $\tilde{X}$:
\begin{proposition} With $\tilde{X},X$ as above, $H^1(\tilde{X},\mathcal T_{\tilde{X}})\cong H^1(X,\mathcal T_X)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} The resolution $\pi$ has as its exceptional locus a finite disjoint union of smooth rational curves $\{E_i\}$. We use the natural exact sequence \[0\rightarrow \pi^*\Omega_X\rightarrow \Omega_{\tilde{X}}\rightarrow \Omega_{\tilde{X}/X}\rightarrow 0,\] which is left exact from Lemma \ref{small res}. Notice that $\Omega_{\tilde{X}/X}\cong \bigoplus \omega_{E_i}$. Note that $Hom(\bigoplus \omega_{E_i},\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}})=0$, since $\bigoplus \omega_{E_i}$ is a torsion sheaf, and $Ext^1(\bigoplus \omega_{E_i},\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}})=0$ from duality for projective schemes and the fact that $\omega_{\tilde{X}}\cong \mathcal O_{\tilde{X}}$. Thus upon dualizing the above exact sequence we find that $\mathcal T_{\tilde{X}}= Hom(\Omega_{\tilde{X}},\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}})\cong Hom(\pi^*\Omega_X,\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}})$. Pushing forward and using a form of the projection formula we get that \[\pi_*\mathcal T_{\tilde{X}}\cong \pi_* Hom(\pi^*\Omega_X,\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}})\cong Hom(\Omega_X,\pi_* \mathcal O_{\tilde{X}})\cong \mathcal T_X,\] where as before we note that $\pi_*\mathcal O_{\tilde{X}}\cong \mathcal O_X$. We'll be done if we can show that $H^1(\tilde{X},\mathcal T_{\tilde{X}})\cong H^1(X,\pi_* \mathcal T_{\tilde{X}})$.
From the exact sequence of low terms arising from the Leray spectral sequence we get that \[0\rightarrow H^1(X,\pi_* \mathcal T_{\tilde{X}})\rightarrow H^1(\tilde{X},\mathcal T_{\tilde{X}})\rightarrow H^0(X,R^1\pi_*\mathcal T_{\tilde{X}}),\] so it suffices to prove that $R^1\pi_*\mathcal T_{\tilde{X}}=0$. Clearly $(R^1 \pi_*\mathcal T_{\tilde{X}})_x=0$ for $x$ a nonsingular point. We may check the vanishing on each node separately, so consider the exact sequence on $E_i$, \[0\rightarrow \mathcal T_{E_i} \rightarrow \mathcal T_{\tilde{X}}|_{E_i}\rightarrow \mathcal N_{E_i/\tilde{X}}\rightarrow 0,\] where $E_i$ is the exceptional curve above the node $x$. Since $E_i\cong \mathbb P^1$ we have $\mathcal T_{E_i}\cong \mathcal O_{\mathbb P^1}(2)$, so $h^1(E_i,\mathcal T_{E_i})=0$. By Remark 5.2 in \cite{Pagoda} we have $\mathcal N_{E_i/\tilde{X}}\cong \mathcal O_{\mathbb P^1}(-1)^{\oplus 2}$, so $h^1(E_i,\mathcal N_{E_i/\tilde{X}})=0$. From the exact sequence above we see that $h^1(E_i,\mathcal T_{\tilde{X}}|_{E_i})=0$. By using the Theorem on Cohomology and Base Change (Theorem III.12.11 in \cite{Har}) we can conclude that $R^1\pi_*\mathcal T_{\tilde{X}}\otimes k(x)=0$ and thus $(R^1\pi_* \mathcal T_{\tilde{X}})_x=0$ by Nakayama's Lemma.
\end{proof}
The previous proposition implies that $h^{2,1}(\tilde{X})$ is the dimension of the kernel of the map $\text{Ext}^1_{\mathcal O_X}(\Omega^1_X,\mathcal O_X)\rightarrow H^0(X,Ext_{\mathcal O_X}^1(\Omega_X^1,\mathcal O_X))$, so we must understand this map better.
Denote by $S$ the homogeneous coordinate ring of $X$, so that \[S\cong \mathbb C[x_0,...,x_{n+3}]/(f_1,...,f_n).\] Then since $X$ is a complete intersection, the conormal exact sequence is left-exact as well, \[0\rightarrow \mathcal I/\mathcal I^2\rightarrow \Omega_{\mathbb P^{n+3}}|_X\rightarrow \Omega_X\rightarrow 0,\]and $\mathcal I/\mathcal I^2\cong \bigoplus \mathcal O_X(-d_i)$. Thus $\text{Hom}(\mathcal I/\mathcal I^2,\mathcal O_X)\cong \bigoplus H^0(X,\mathcal O_X(d_i))\cong \bigoplus S_{d_i}$ since $X$ is projectively normal, and \[\text{Ext}^1(\Omega_{\mathbb P^{n+3}}|_X,\mathcal O_X)\cong H^1(X,\mathcal T_{\mathbb P^{n+3}}|_X)=0\] from the Euler exact sequence. From the cohomology of the conormal exact sequence we see $\text{Ext}^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X)$ is the cokernel of the natural map \[\text{Hom}(\Omega_{\mathbb P^{n+3}}|_X,\mathcal O_X)\rightarrow \text{Hom}(\mathcal I/\mathcal I^2,\mathcal O_X)\cong \bigoplus S_{d_i}.\] Applying global Hom to the Euler exact sequence restricted to $X$ and using the usual connection of Hom with $H^0$ we get, \[0\rightarrow H^0(X,\mathcal O_X)\rightarrow H^0(X,\mathcal O_X(1))^{n+4}\rightarrow \text{Hom}(\Omega_{\mathbb P^{n+3}}|_X,\mathcal O_X)\rightarrow 0.\] Thus we can represent $\text{Ext}^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X)$ as the cokernel of the map \[(S_1)^{n+4}=H^0(X,\mathcal O_X(1))^{n+4}\rightarrow \bigoplus H^0(X,\mathcal O_X(d_i))=\bigoplus S_{d_i},\] given by the matrix
\[\left ( \begin{matrix}
\partial{f_1}/\partial{x_0} & \ldots & \partial{f_1}/\partial{x_{n+3}}\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\partial{f_n}/\partial{x_0} &\ldots & \partial{f_n}/\partial{x_{n+3}}
\end{matrix} \right ).\]
To understand the kernel of the map \[\text{Ext}^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X)\rightarrow H^0(X,Ext^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X))\] better, we apply sheaf $Hom$ to the conormal exact sequence to get \[0\rightarrow Hom(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X)\rightarrow \mathcal T_{\mathbb P^{n+3}}|_X\rightarrow \mathcal N_{X\backslash \mathbb P^{n+3}}\rightarrow Ext^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X)\rightarrow 0.\] From the discussion in the above paragraph, we find that the map in question is induced by the map on global sections \[H^0(X,\mathcal N_{X\backslash \mathbb P^{n+3}})\rightarrow H^0(X,Ext^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X)),\] where of course as before $H^0(X,\mathcal N_{X\backslash \mathbb P^{n+3}})=\bigoplus S_{d_i}$. To find the kernel of this map, we consider the map of sheaves on each affine piece, $U_i=\{x_i\neq 0\}$, $i=0,...,n+3$, so that if $(g_1,...,g_n) \in \bigoplus S_{d_i}$ goes to zero in $H^0(X,Ext^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X))$, then its restrictions to $U_i$, upon which $\mathcal N_{X\backslash\mathbb P^{n+3}}$ is trivial and the restrictions are $(x_i^{-d_1}g_1,...,x_i^{-d_n}g_n)$ in the affine coordinates $T_j=x_j/x_i$, also go to zero in $H^0(U_i,Ext^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X))$ for each $i$. Since these $U_i$'s are affine and all of the sheaves in question are coherent (and thus quasi-coherent), taking sections on these open affines keeps the sequence exact, and thus we can calculate explicitly when this $n$-tuple goes to zero in $H^0(U_i,Ext^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X))$. Specifically, it must come from $H^0(U_i,\mathcal T_{\mathbb P^{n+3}}|_X)$ and thus from the affine version of the dual of the conormal exact sequence, we get that there exist $h^i_k(T_0,...,\hat{T_i},...,T_{n+3})\in \mathcal O_X|_{U_i}$ such that \[x_i^{-d_j}g_j=\sum_{k\neq i} x_i^{-d_j+1} \frac{\partial{f_j}}{\partial{x_k}} h^i_k,\] where we've dehomogenized the $g_j$'s and the $f_j$'s to their affine counterparts. But then we can homogenize to get \[x_i^{\sum_{k\neq i} \deg h^i_k} g_j=\sum_{k\neq i} (x_i^{1+\sum_{s\neq k,i} \deg h^i_s} \frac{\partial{f_j}}{\partial{x_k}})[x_i^{\deg h^i_k}h^i_k(T_0,...,\hat{T_i},...,T_{n+3})],\] where now $x_i^{\deg h^i_k}h^i_k(T_0,...,\hat{T_i},...,T_{n+3})=p^i_k$ are homogeneous polynomials. Consider the $n\times n$ minors of the matrix \[\left ( \begin{matrix} g_1&
\partial{f_1}/\partial{x_0} & \ldots & \partial{f_1}/\partial{x_{n+3}}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
g_n &\partial{f_n}/\partial{x_0} &\ldots & \partial{f_n}/\partial{x_{n+3}}
\end{matrix} \right ).\] Then from the above description we find that $x_i^{\sum_{k\neq i} \deg h^i_k}$ times each of these minors is in the homogeneous ideal of the singular locus. We get such a description for each $i$ and since the homogeneous ideal is saturated we in fact find that the $n\times n$ minors themselves are in the homogeneous ideal of the singular locus. Conversely, we show that if a pair $(g_1,...,g_n)\in \bigoplus S_{d_i}$ such that the $n\times n$ minors of \[\left ( \begin{matrix} g_1&
\partial{f_1}/\partial{x_0} & \ldots & \partial{f_1}/\partial{x_{n+3}}\\
\vdots &\vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
g_n &\partial{f_n}/\partial{x_0} &\ldots & \partial{f_n}/\partial{x_{n+3}}
\end{matrix} \right )\] are in the homogeneous ideal of the singular locus, then $(g_1,...,g_n)$ is in the kernel of the map in question. Restricting again to the affine open $U_i$, we get that the corresponding minors of the dehomogenizations are in the affine ideal of the singular locus of $U_i$. Let $B_i$ denote the affine coordinate ring of $Sing(X)\cap U_i$. Then since $Ext^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X)|_{U_i}$ has support on precisely this set, its module structure is unchanged by considering it as a $B_i$ module. Thus tensoring our usual right exact sequence, \[\mathcal T_{\mathbb P^{n+3}}|_{U_i}\rightarrow \mathcal N_{X\backslash \mathbb P^{n+3}}\rightarrow Ext^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X)|_{U_i}\rightarrow 0,\] by $B_i$ we get that $Ext^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X)|_{U_i}$ may be viewed as the cokernel of the map \[B_i^{n+3}\rightarrow B_i^n,\] given by the dehomogenization of the Jacobian. Localizing at each of the isolated points of $Sing(X)\cap U_i$ and using Nakayama's lemma, we may just mod out by the maximal ideal $\mathfrak m_p$ corresponding to such a singular point $p$. Since these points are ordinary double points, $Ext^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X)\otimes \kappa(p)=\mathbb C$, so the Jacobian as a map of vector spaces has rank $n-1$, that is there are $n-1$ columns of the Jacobian which are linearly independent. Since the minor involving the column $(g_1,...,g_n)$, reduced mod $\mathfrak m_p$, with these $n-1$ columns of the Jacobian vanishes, we find that $(g_1,...,g_n)$ must be a linear combination of these columns, i.e. it's in the image of the Jacobian. Since this is each true for each singular point $p$, we find that $(g_1,...,g_n)$ goes to zero in $H^0(U_i,Ext^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X))$ for each $i$, and thus in $H^0(X,Ext^1(\Omega_X,\mathcal O_X))$.
Using the description in the previous paragraph, of $h^{2,1}(\tilde{X})$ as the dimension of the space of $n$-tuples $(g_1,...,g_n)$ representing an element of $\text{Ext}^1(\Omega,\mathcal O_X)$ such that the $n\times n$ minors of \[\left ( \begin{matrix} g_1&
\partial{f_1}/\partial{x_0} & \ldots & \partial{f_1}/\partial{x_{n+3}}\\
\vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots\\
g_n &\partial{f_n}/\partial{x_0} &\ldots & \partial{f_n}/\partial{x_{n+3}}
\end{matrix} \right ),\] are in the homogeneous ideal of the singular locus, one may actually calculate the Hodge number $h^{2,1}(\tilde{X})$ using \textit{Macaulay2}. If one knows the topological Euler characteristic of $\tilde{X}$, as we did in our (2,4) and (3,3) constructions, then one may calculate the Picard number, $h^{1,1}$, as well.
\section{Appendix 2: Enriques surfaces embedded into Calabi-Yau threefolds}
In this appendix, we prove that if a smooth Calabi-Yau threefold $X$ contains an Enriques surface, then the Enriques surface appears as a double fibre of a fibration of $X$ by K3 surfaces. This was observed in \cite{MP} for Calabi-Yau threefolds $Q=K3\times E/\sigma$, where $E$ is an elliptic curve and the involution $\sigma$ acts on $K3$ by a fixed-point free involution and on $E$ by translation by a $2$-torsion point. In their example, projection to the second factor induces a K3 fibration with 4 double Enriques fibers. See \cite{MP} for details and a discussion of the Gromov-Witten theory of such Calabi-Yau threefolds.
\begin{proposition}\label{CYfibration} Let $X$ be a Calabi-Yau threefold, and $i:E\subset X$ an Enriques surface. Then $|2E|$ is a base-point free linear pencil that induces a fibration $\pi:X\rightarrow \mathbb P^1$ whose generic fibre is a K3 surface and in which $E$ appears as a double fibre.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Consider the short exact sequence on $X$,
$$
0\rightarrow {\mathcal O}_X\rightarrow {\mathcal O}_X(E)
\rightarrow i_*{\mathcal O}_E(E)\rightarrow 0
.$$
Since $X$ is Calabi-Yau, we have by adjunction that $\omega_E\cong\omega_X(E)|_E\cong \mathcal O_E(E)$, where $\omega_X,\omega_E$ are the canonical bundles of $X$ and $E$, respectively. We use the long exact sequence in cohomology to calculate cohomology
of ${\mathcal O}_X(E)$.
Since $\omega_E$ has no global sections, we see that $h^0(X,\mathcal O_X(E))=1$. Since $h^1(X,\mathcal O_X)=h^1(E,\omega_E)=0$, we also see that $h^1(X,\mathcal O_X(E))=0$. Furthermore, we have $h^2(X,\mathcal O_X)=0$, $h^2(E,\omega_E)=h^0(E,\mathcal O_E)=1$ by Serre duality, and $h^3(X,\mathcal O(E))=h^0(X,\mathcal O(-E))=0$ by Serre duality and the fact that $-E$ is not effective. Finally $h^3(X,\mathcal O_X)=1$
implies $h^2(X,\mathcal O(E))=0$.
Now consider the short exact sequence,
$$0\rightarrow \mathcal O_X(E)\rightarrow \mathcal O_X(2E)\rightarrow
i_* \mathcal O_E\rightarrow 0,$$
where we have used $\mathcal O_E\cong \omega_E^2\cong \mathcal O_E(2E)$. From
$h^1(\mathcal O_X(E))=0$
we conclude that $h^0(X,\mathcal O_X(2E))=2$ and $h^1(X,\mathcal O_X(2E))=0$.
To see that the linear system $|2E|$ is base-point free, note that its only base-points must be along $E$ itself. However
a section of $\mathcal O_X(2E)$ that maps nontrivially to $H^0(i_* \mathcal O_E)$
does not vanish on $E$.
Thus we get a morphism $\pi:X\rightarrow \mathbb P^1$ with $E$ a double fibre.
By Generic Smoothnes (Theorem III.10.7 in \cite{Har}) the generic fibre of $\pi$ is smooth. So let $D\in |2E|$ be such a generic fibre. Then by adjunction $\omega_D\cong\mathcal O_D(2E)\cong \mathcal O_D$ since $D$ and $2E$ are distinct fibers. From the exact sequence, \[0\rightarrow \mathcal O_X\rightarrow \mathcal O_X(2E)\rightarrow i_*\mathcal O_D(2E)\rightarrow 0,\] and the fact that $\omega_D\cong \mathcal O_D(2E)$ we see that $h^1(D,\omega_D)=0$ since by above $h^1(X,\mathcal O_X(2E))=0=h^2(X,\mathcal O_X)$. Thus $D$ is a K3 surface.
\end{proof}
\section{Appendix 3: Linear algebra lemma}\label{linalg}
In this section we establish some linear algebra results which are used in
Section \ref{secwp}. We will state the results for arbitrary $n\geq 1$ although only the $n=2$
case will be used in this paper.
\begin{proposition}\label{tn}
Let $M$ be a $2n\times 2n$ matrix with complex coefficients.
Let $T$ be a $2n\times n$ complex matrix of rank $n$ such that
$$
T^*MT=0.
$$
Then for any $2n\times n$ complex matrix $S$ we have
$$
\det (S^*MT)\det(T^*MS) = (-1)^n\det (M) \det(T\vert S)^2
$$
where $T\vert S$ is a $2n\times 2n$ matrix made from $T$ and $S$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The transformation $(M,T,S)\mapsto
(U^*MU,U^{-1}T,U^{-1}S)$
for an invertible $2n\times 2n$ matrix $U$ does not alter the two sides of the claim.
Thus we may assume that
$$
T=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\rm Id}_{n}\\
0
\end{array}
\right).
$$
Then $T^*MT=0$ means that
$$
M=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0&M_1\\
M_2&M_3
\end{array}
\right)
$$
for some $n\times n$ matrices $M_i$. If
$$
S=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
S_1\\
S_2
\end{array}
\right),
$$
then
$$
S^*MT=S_2M_2,~T^*MS=M_1S_2,~\det (T\vert S)=\det S_2
$$
and the claim follows easily.
\end{proof}
We will also need a particular case of this statement.
\begin{proposition}\label{skew}
Let $M$ and $T$ be as above. Assume in addition that $M^*=-M$.
Then
$$
\det(S^*MT)=(-1)^n\det(T\vert S) {\rm Pf}(M).
$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof is analogous.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{kernel}
If $T^*MT=0$, ${\rm rk}M=2n-1$ and $\det (S^*MT)=0$, then
the right kernel of $M$ lies in the span of columns of $T$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We again transform $T$ into a standard form. We observe that
since ${\rm rk} M=2n-1$, the matrix $M_1$ is nondegenerate, so the last $n$ components
of the right kernel of $M$ are zero.
\end{proof}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Orbital degree of freedom~\cite{2011_Lewenstein_Liu_orbital_dance} plays a fundamental
role in understanding the unconventional
properties in solid state materials~\cite{2000_Tokura_Nagaosa_orbital_Science}.
Recent experiments in optical lattices
have demonstrated that orbitals can also be used to construct quantum emulators of
exotic models beyond natural crystals. Orbital lattices are attracting growing interests
due to their unique and fascinating properties resulting
from the spatial nature of the degenerate states.
For example, the bosonic $p_x + ip_y$
superfluid~\cite{2005_Isacsson_pband,2006_Liu_TSOC,2006_Kuklov_sf,2008_Lim_TSOC,2012_Li_1DTSOC_PRL}
state has been prepared on a bipartite square lattice~\cite{2011_Wirth_pband}, and later
the other complex superfluid
with $s$ and $p$ orbitals correlated was observed on a hexagonal lattice~\cite{2011_Sengstock_honeycomb_BEC}.
Previous study on multicomponent cold gases mainly focused on hyperfine states of
alkali atoms~\cite{2008_Bloch_review,2012_Lewenstein_OLEreview}. In a cold gas of atoms
with two approximately degenerate
hyperfine states, the realized pseudo-spin SU(2) symmetry makes it possible to emulate
Fermi Hubbard model in optical lattices~\cite{2006_Bloch_fermi,2007_Scalapino_FHEmulator,2009_Giamarchi_FHEmulator}.
To engineer spin-orbital couplings and the resulting topological phases, one has to induce Raman transitions between
the hyperfine states to break the pseudo-spin
symmetry~\cite{2009_Liu_SOC_PRL,2009_Spielman_SOCBoson,2012_Wang_JingZhang_SOCFermi,2012_Zwierlein_SOCFermi,2012_Zhang_Pan_SOC_PRL}.
In contrast,
due to the spatial nature of the orbital degrees of freedom, the
symmetry in orbital gases, such as that in $p_x + ip_y$
superfluid~\cite{2011_Wirth_pband}, can be controlled by simply changing the
lattice geometry
{as shown in Ref.~\cite{2011_Wirth_pband,2011_Sengstock_honeycomb_BEC,2012_Esslinger_megeDirac_Nature,2012_Hemmerich_TopAvoidCross_PRL},
where unprecedented tunability of double-wells has been demonstrated.}
With a certain lattice geometry, a spin-orbital like coupling
can naturally appear in an orbital gas with $s$ and $p$-orbitals without
Raman transitions~\cite{2012_Li_orbitalladder_NatComm}. Theoretical studies of orbital physics largely focusing
on two or three dimensions suggest exotic orbital
phases~\cite{2005_Isacsson_pband,2006_Liu_TSOC,2006_Kuklov_sf,2008_Zhao_pOrborder,2008_Wu_pOrbOrder,2008_Lim_TSOC,2008_Vladimir_icsf,2009_Wu_pband,2009_Hung_fpair,2010_Cai_FFLO,2010_Zhou_interband,2011_Sun_TSM,2012_DasSarma_dwBEC_PRA}
beyond the scope of spin physics.
In this article, we study a one dimensional orbital ladder with $s$ and $p$ orbitals
coupled~\cite{2010_Zhang_sppair,2012_Li_orbitalladder_NatComm}. We shall
derive such an effective model for dipolar
molecules or atoms~\cite{2008_JILA_Dip_Science,2010_Benjamin_Dysprosium_PRL,2011_JILA_Dip_NPHYS,2012_JILA_Dip_PRL,2012_Zwierlein_polar_PRL}
loaded in a
double-well optical lattice.
The tunneling rates (or effective mass) of each orbital component are highly tunable by
changing the lattice strength.
The coupling between $s$ and $p$ orbitals mimics the spin-orbital couplings~\cite{2012_Li_orbitalladder_NatComm}.
This orbital system suggests the possibility of exploring the equivalent of the exciting
spin-orbital coupled physics in dipolar gases yet without requiring the use of synthetic gauge
fields, and hence it provides an interesting, simple alternative route.
{A rich phase diagram, including incommensurate orbital density wave (ODW),
pair density wave (PDW)~\cite{2009_Berg_Fradkin_PDW_NPHYS,2012_Jaefari_Fradkin_PDW_PRB,2012_Wei_PDW_PRL,2012_Robinson_PDW_PRB},
and other exotic superconducting phases, is found
with bosonization analysis. The PDW phase realized here
is a superconducting phase, that features an oscillating Cooper pair field
with a period of $\pi$.}
The incommensurate ODW phase has an oscillating particle-hole
pair, which tends to break
the time-reversal symmetry. An exotic superconducting phase on the repulsive side is also discovered.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=.9\linewidth]{dipoleschematic.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{{ (Color online) Schematic plot illustrating control of interactions
with polar molecules or atoms loaded on $s$- and $p$- orbitals. Dipole moments aligned
``head-to-head'' (``head-to-tail'') in the left (right) figure provide repulsive (attractive) interaction. }
}
\label{fig:dipoleschematic}
\end{figure}
\section{Model}
Consider a cold ensemble of polar molecules or atoms,
e.g. $^{40}\mathrm{K}^{87}\mathrm{Rb}$~\cite{2008_JILA_Dip_Science,2011_JILA_Dip_NPHYS,2012_JILA_Dip_PRL},
$^{23}\mathrm{Na}^{40}\mathrm{K}$~\cite{2012_Zwierlein_polar_PRL},
$\mathrm{OH}$~\cite{2012_JILA_OH_Nature},
or Dy~\cite{2010_Benjamin_Dysprosium_PRL}, whose dipole moments are
controlled by an external field as demonstrated in
experiments.
Long lived polar molecules have been realized in optical lattices~\cite{2012_JILA_Dip_PRL}.
Let the ensemble trapped by a ladder-like optical
lattice of the type studied
in~\cite{2012_Li_orbitalladder_NatComm}.
{As shown in the schematic picture in~\cite{2012_Li_orbitalladder_NatComm},
the lattice consists
of two chains of potentials of unequal depth.
We consider a single species of fermionic atoms/molecules occupying the
$s$ and $p$ orbitals of the shallow and deep chains, respectively,
with the low-lying $s$ orbitals on the deep chain completely filled (FIG.~\ref{fig:dipoleschematic}).
Alternatively, fermions can be directly
loaded into the higher orbitals while keeping the lower $s$ nearly empty
by the techniques developed in recent
experiments~\cite{2011_Wirth_pband,2012_Esslinger_megeDirac_Nature}.
Coherent meta-stable states in high orbitals
with long life time up to several hundred milliseconds were demonstrated achievable~\cite{2011_Wirth_pband}.
To suppress chemical reactions of polar molecules, the latter approach is preferable. }
The single particle Hamiltonian of the $sp$-orbital ladder is then
given as~\cite{2012_Li_orbitalladder_NatComm}
\begin{eqnarray}
H_0 &=& \sum_j C_j ^\dag
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-t_s & -t_{sp} \\
t_{sp} & t_p
\end{array}
\right]
C_{j+1} +h.c.
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_j ^\dag = [a_s ^\dag (j), a_p ^\dag (j) ]$, and $a_s ^\dag $
($a_p ^\dag$) is
the creation operator for the $s$-orbital ($p$-orbital). The lattice constant is set as the
length unit in this paper.
{In the proposed optical lattice setup~\cite{2012_Li_orbitalladder_NatComm}, the ratios
$t_s/t_p$ and $t_{sp}/t_p$ are small (typically $0.1$).
{
We emphasize here that $s$-orbital is parity even and that $p$-orbital is parity odd.
The relative signs of hoppings are dictated by the parity nature of the $s$- and $p$-orbitals~\cite{2012_Li_orbitalladder_NatComm}}
The band structure is readily obtained by Fourier transform
$C_j = \int \frac{dk}{2\pi} \tilde{C} (k) e^{i k j}$. The Hamiltonian in the momentum
space reads as $H_0 = \int \frac{dk}{2\pi} \tilde{C} ^\dag (k) \tilde{\cal H} (k) \tilde{C} (k)$, with
$
\tilde{ \mathcal{H}} (k) = h_0 (k) \sigma_0 + \vec{h} (k) \cdot \vec{\sigma},
$
where $h_0 (k) = (t_p - t_s ) \cos(k)$, $h_x (k) =0$, $h_y (k) = 2 t_{sp} \sin(k)$ and
$h_z (k ) = -(t_p + t_s) \cos (k)$.
Here $\sigma_0$ is the identity matrix and $\sigma_{x,y,z}$ are Pauli matrices.
The two bands
are given by
$
E_\pm (k) = h_0 (k) \pm
\sqrt{ h_y ^2 (k) + h_z^2 (k) },
$
which are shown in FIG.~\ref{fig:spectra}.
The Hamiltonian is rewritten as
$H_0 = \int \frac{dk}{2\pi} \sum_{\wp=\pm} E_{\wp} (k) \phi_{\wp} ^\dag(k) \phi_{\wp} (k)$.
We define an angle variable $\theta$ by
$\cos(\theta (k)) = h_z/|\vec{h}|$ and $\sin(\theta (k)) = h_y/|\vec{h}|$ to save writing.
Here, we only consider lower than half filling, i.e., less than one particle per unit cell. The lower band
is thus partially filled and the upper band is empty. Since we are interested in the low-energy physics, the spectrum
$E_-$ is linearized around the Fermi momenta $\pm k_{F\nu}$. Here, $\nu = A$ or $B$, and $\pm k_{FA}$ are
inner Fermi points and $\pm k_{FB}$ are outer Fermi points (FIG.~\ref{fig:spectra}).
The resulting Fermi velocities are
$v_{F\nu} = |\frac{\partial E_- (k)}{\partial k }|_{k=k_{F\nu}} $.
The operators capturing the
low energy fluctuations are defined with
right ($\Psi$) and left ($\overline{\Psi}$) moving modes
$\Psi_A (k) = \phi_- (k_{FA} +k)$, $\overline{\Psi}_A (k) = \phi_- (-k_{FA} +k)$,
$\Psi_B (k) = \phi_- (-k_{FB} +k)$ and $\overline{\Psi}_B (k) = \phi_- (k_{FB} +k)$.
The field operators
are introduced by
$\psi_\nu (x) = \int \frac{dk}{2\pi} \Psi_\nu (k) e^{ikx}$ and
${\bar{\psi} }_\nu (x) = \int \frac{dk}{2\pi} \overline{\Psi}_\nu (k) e^{ikx}$.
These field operators are related to lattice operators by
\begin{eqnarray}
C(j) &\to &\lambda ^{A} \psi_A (x) e^{ik_{FA} x} + \lambda ^{A*} \bar{\psi}_A (x) e^{-ik_{FA} x} \nonumber \\
&+ &\lambda ^B \psi_B (x) e^{-ik_{FB} x} + \lambda ^{B*} \bar{\psi}_B (x) e^{i k_{FB} x},
\label{eq:Cj}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\[\lambda ^\nu =
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
i \sin(\theta_\nu/2) \\
\cos(\theta_\nu/2)
\end{array}\right],
\]
with $\theta_A = \theta (k_{FA})$ and $\theta_B = \theta (-k_{FB})$.
{The substitution in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Cj}) and the energy linearization are valid
for weakly interacting fermions at low temperature. }
With polar molecules or atoms loaded on the $sp$-ladder, we include all
momentum-independent interactions (momentum-dependent part is
irrelevant in the Renormalization group flow~\cite{1994_Shankar_RGFermion_RMP})
allowed by symmetry. The Hamiltonian density of the interactions is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H}_{\text{int} }
&=& \sum_{\nu \nu'} \frac{1}{2}g_4 ^{\nu \nu'} \left[ J_\nu J_{\nu'} + {\bar{J}}_\nu {\bar{J}}_{\nu'} \right]
+ g_2 ^{\nu \nu'} J_\nu {\bar{J}}_{\nu'} \nonumber \\
&& + g_3 \left\{{\bar{\psi} }_A ^* {\bar{\psi} }_B \psi^* _A \psi_B +
{\bar{\psi} }_B ^* {\bar{\psi} }_A \psi^* _B \psi_A \right\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $J_\nu = :\psi_\nu ^* \psi_\nu :$ and ${\bar{J}}_\nu = :{\bar{\psi} } _\nu ^* {\bar{\psi} }_\nu:$. For
the symmetric case $t_s = t_p$, an Umklapp process
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}_{um} = g_u\left\{ {\bar{\psi} }_A ^* \psi{_A} \psi_B ^* {\bar{\psi} }{_B} +
{\bar{\psi} }_B ^* \psi{_B} \psi_A ^* {\bar{\psi} }{_A} \right\}
\end{equation}
becomes allowed for the reason that $k_{FA} + { k_{FB} } = \pi$.
Since dipolar interactions between polar
molecules or atoms decay as $1/r^3$,
the leading interaction in the proposed double-well lattice
setup~\cite{2012_Li_orbitalladder_NatComm} is
$$
H_{\text{int}} = U \sum_j
\left[a_s ^\dag (j) a_s (j) -\frac{1}{2} \right]
\left[a_p ^\dag (j) a_p (j) - \frac{1}{2} \right].
$$
The strength of $U$ is tunable by changing the dipole moment,
{ or by
varying the distance between the shallow and deep wells (FIG.~\ref{fig:dipoleschematic}).
By controlling this distance the leading interaction can be made significantly
larger than sub-leading interactions (dipolar tails), which are neglected here.
}
In the weak interacting limit,
the $g$-ology couplings are related to $U$ by
$g_4 ^{\nu \nu} = U$, $g_4 ^{AB} = g_4 ^{BA} = U \sin^2 \left(\frac{\theta_A - \theta_B}{2}\right)$,
$g_2 ^{\nu \nu} = U \sin^2 (\theta_\nu)$, $g_2 { ^{AB} } = g_2 { ^{BA} } = U$,
\[
g_3 = U \sin(\theta{_A}) \sin(\theta{_B}) ,\]
and
\[ g_u = U \cos(\theta{_A}) \cos(\theta{_B}), \]
at tree level~\cite{1994_Shankar_RGFermion_RMP}.
Considering strong interactions or the finite ranged tail of
dipolar interactions, the g-ology couplings will be renormalized
due to neglected irrelevant couplings.
By manipulating the direction of dipole moments with {an external field,}
the interaction can
be either repulsive or attractive
(FIG.~\ref{fig:dipoleschematic})~\cite{2008_JILA_Dip_Science,2011_JILA_Dip_NPHYS,2012_JILA_Dip_PRL,2012_Zwierlein_polar_PRL}.
We follow the notation convention of Ref.~\cite{1999_Senechal_bosonization_arXiv}, where
the bosonization identity takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_\nu = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi} } \eta_\nu e^{-i\sqrt{\pi} (\varphi_\nu + \vartheta_\nu) } \nonumber \\
{\bar{\psi} }_\nu = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \bar{\eta}_\nu e^{i\sqrt{\pi} (\varphi_\nu - \vartheta_\nu) },
\end{eqnarray}
where $\eta_\nu$ is the Klein factor and $\vartheta_\nu$ is the dual field of boson field $\varphi_\nu$.
The charge and orbital boson fields are further introduced here by
$[\varphi_c, \varphi_o] = [\varphi{_A}, \varphi{_B}] T$, with the matrix $T$ given by
$$
T = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
1& - 1\\
1 & 1
\end{array}
\right] .
$$
and their dual fields are $[\vartheta_c , \vartheta_o] = [\vartheta{_A}, \vartheta{_B}] T$.
The Bosonized Hamiltonian density reads
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H} &=& {\cal H}_c + {\cal H}_o + {\cal H}_\text{mix} ,\nonumber \\
{\cal H} _c &=& \frac{u_{c}}{2} \left[ K_c \Pi_{c} ^2 + \frac{1}{K_c} (\partial_x \varphi_c)^2 \right], \nonumber \\
{\cal H}_o &=& \frac{u_{{o}}}{2} \left[ K_o \Pi_{{o}} ^2 + \frac{1}{K_o} (\partial_x \varphi_o)^2 \right] \nonumber \\
&& +\frac{1}{2\pi^2} \left[ {g_3} \cos (\sqrt{8\pi} \vartheta_o)
+{g_u} \cos(\sqrt{8\pi} \varphi_o)\right], \nonumber \\
{\cal H}_\text{mix} &=& u_{m} \left [ K_{m} \Pi_c \Pi_o
+ \frac{1}{K_{m}} (\partial_x \varphi_c) (\partial_x \varphi_o) \right],
\end{eqnarray}
with
$$
u_{\alpha=c/o } =
\sqrt{\left(v_+ +\tilde{g}_4^{\alpha\alpha } /2\pi\right)^2 - \left(\tilde{g}_2 ^{\alpha\alpha } /2\pi\right) ^2} ,$$
$$
K_{\alpha} =
\sqrt{ \frac{2\pi v_+ +\tilde{g}_4 ^{\alpha \alpha } -\tilde{g}_2 ^{\alpha \alpha} }
{2\pi v_+ +\tilde{g}_4 ^{\alpha \alpha } +\tilde{g}_2 ^{\alpha \alpha}} },
$$
$$
u_{m} = \sqrt{\left(v_- +\tilde{g}_4^{c o} /2\pi\right)^2 - \left(\tilde{g}_2 ^{c o } /2\pi\right) ^2},
$$ and
$$
K_m =
\sqrt{ \frac{2\pi v_- +\tilde{g}_4 ^{c o} -\tilde{g}_2 ^{c o} }
{2\pi v_- +\tilde{g}_4 ^{c o} +\tilde{g}_2 ^{c o}} },
$$
where $v_+ = ({ v_{FA} } + { v_{FB} })/2$, $v_- = (-{ v_{FA} } + { v_{FB} })/2$ and the transformed coupling matrices $\tilde{g}_4$ and
$\tilde{g}_2$ are given by
$[\tilde{g}] = T^{-1} [g] T$.
The mixing term ${\cal H}_\mathrm{mix}$ vanishes for the symmetric case with $t_s = t_p$.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\linewidth]{spectra_v2.eps}
\vspace{-3em}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Sketch of the band structure of the $sp$-orbital ladder. Red dashed lines show the level of chemical potentials.
(a), the symmetric case with $t_s = t_p$. (b), the asymmetric case with $t_s <t_p$. { Here $t_p$ is taken as the energy unit.}
}
\label{fig:spectra}
\end{figure}
\section{Quantum phases and transitions of the Symmetric case}
For the symmetric case with
$t_s = t_p$ (FIG.~\ref{fig:spectra}), the Hamiltonian has
an accidental $Z_2$ symmetry, $C_j \to (-1)^j \sigma_x C_j$ and Fermi momenta are
related by $k_{FA} = \pi - { k_{FB} } \equiv k_F$.
This $Z_2$ symmetry implies that
${ v_{FA} } = { v_{FB} }$, $g_4 { ^{AA} } = g_4 { ^{BB} }$ and $g_2 { ^{AA} } = g_2 { ^{BB} }$.
We find that the transformed
coupling matrices $\tilde{g}_2$ and $\tilde{g}_4$ are diagonal and that
the orbital-charge mixing term ${\cal H}_\mathrm{mix}$ vanishes.
In other words, the $Z_2$ symmetry guarantees orbital-charge separation.
The charge part $H_c$ is quadratic and the orbital part $H_o$
is a sine-Gordon model~\cite{2003_Giamarchi_oned}.
With attraction, we have $K_o<1$, $g_u>0$, and
the sine-Gordon term $g_u$ is relevant (flows to $+\infty$) in the renormalization group (RG) flow~\cite{2003_Giamarchi_oned}.
This corresponds to an orbital gapped phase with $\cos(\sqrt{8\pi} \varphi_o)$ locked at $-1$. In this phase, quantum fluctuations
of $\varphi_o$ become massive, and the divergent susceptibilities are the following: charge density wave (CDW) and
PDW~\cite{2009_Berg_Fradkin_PDW_NPHYS,2012_Jaefari_Fradkin_PDW_PRB,2012_Robinson_PDW_PRB}
given by the operators:
\begin{eqnarray}
O_\text{CDW} (x) &=& \psi_A ^* {\bar{\psi} }{_A} e^{-2ik_{FA} x} - \psi_B ^* {\bar{\psi} }{_B} e^{2i{ k_{FB} } x} \nonumber \\
&\propto& e^{-2ik_{F} x} e^{i\sqrt{2\pi} \varphi_c } \sin (\sqrt{2\pi} \varphi_o) \nonumber \\
O_\text{PDW} (x) &=& \psi{_A} {\bar{\psi} }{_B} e^{i(k_{FA}+{ k_{FB} }) x} + \psi{_B} {\bar{\psi} }{_A} e^{-i ({ k_{FA} } + { k_{FB} }) x} \nonumber \\
&\propto& (-1)^x e^{-i\sqrt{2\pi} \vartheta_c} \sin (\sqrt{2\pi} \varphi_o) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Due to orbital-charge separation, the CDW and PDW correlation functions are readily given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle O_\text{CDW} (x) O_\text{CDW} ^\dag (0) \rangle &\propto& e^{-2ik_{F} x} x^{-K_c}, \\
\langle O_\text{PDW} (x) O_\text{PDW} ^\dag (0)\rangle &\propto & (-1)^x x^{-1/K_c}.
\label{eq:symmetric_pdw}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $K_c >1$ for attraction, the algebraic PDW order is dominant. In this phase,
the superconducting pairing $\mathcal{O}_\text{SC} = a_s (j) a_p (j)$ oscillates in space
with a period of $\pi$.
With repulsion, we have $K_o >1$, and thus $g_3$ is relevant~\cite{2003_Giamarchi_oned}.
This gives an orbital gapped phase with $\cos(\sqrt{8\pi} \vartheta_o)$
locked at $1$, because $g_3<0$. The fluctuations of $\vartheta_o$ are massive, and the divergent susceptibilities are
ODW and superconducting SC$^+$ given by the operators:
\begin{eqnarray}
O_\text{ODW} (x) & =& e^{-i({ k_{FA} } - { k_{FB} }) x} ( \psi_A ^* {\bar{\psi} } {_B}
- \psi_B ^* {\bar{\psi} }{_A} ) \nonumber \\
&\propto& e^{-i({ k_{FA} } - { k_{FB} }) x} e^{i\sqrt{2\pi} \varphi_c} \cos (\sqrt{2\pi} \vartheta_o) \nonumber \\
O_{\text{SC}^+} (x) &=& \psi{_A} {\bar{\psi} }{_A} + \psi{_B} {\bar{\psi} }{_B} \nonumber \\
&\propto & e^{-i\sqrt{2\pi} \vartheta_c} \cos (\sqrt{2\pi} \vartheta_o) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Since $K_c <1$ for repulsion, the dominant algebraic order here is ODW, for which the correlation function is given by
\begin{equation}
\langle O_\text{ODW} (x) O_\text{ODW} ^\dag (0)\rangle \propto e^{-i({ k_{FA} } - { k_{FB} }) x} x^{-K_c}.
\label{eq:symmetric_oaf}
\end{equation}
In the ODW phase, the particle-hole pairing in terms of lattice operators reads
$\mathcal{O}_\text{ODW} (j) = C_j ^\dag \sigma_y C_j$.
This ODW order is incommensurate with an oscillation period $2\pi/({ k_{FA} } - { k_{FB} })$ in real space.
If we go beyond the one-dimensional limit and consider small transverse
tunnelings~\cite{2012_Li_orbitalladder_NatComm}, a true long-range
ODW order $\langle O_\mathrm{ODW} (x) \rangle \propto e^{i({ k_{FA} } - { k_{FB} }) x}$ is expected. Such an order
breaks time-reversal symmetry.
The ODW and PDW phases predicted by Bosonization analysis are further verified in numerical simulations
with matrix products state,
{ in which open boundary condition is adopted.}
The superconducting correlation
$$
C_\mathrm{SC} (j'-j) = \langle a_p ^\dag (j) a_s ^\dag (j) a_s (j') a_p (j') \rangle$$
and the orbital density wave
correlation
$$
C_\mathrm{ODW} (j'-j) = \langle C_j ^\dag \sigma_y C_j C_{j'} ^\dag \sigma_y C_{j'} \rangle$$
are calculated.
{ In our calculation, the two points $j$ and $j'$ are $10$ sites away from the boundaries to
minimize the boundary effects.
The convergence of these correlations is checked in numerical simulations.}
FIG.~\ref{fig:phasediag_symmetric} shows the Fourier transform of these correlations, defined by
${\cal C}(k) = \sum_{j\neq 0} C(j) e^{-i k j} $,
{which approaches to its thermodynamic limit with increasing system size (FIG.~\ref{fig:phasediag_symmetric}).}
The sharp peaks of ${\cal C}_\mathrm{SC}(k)$ at momenta $\pm \pi$
on the attractive side tell the quantum state has a PDW order shown in Eq.~\ref{eq:symmetric_pdw}.
{On the repulsive} side sharp dips of ${\cal C}_\mathrm{ODW} (k)$ at finite momenta verify the incommensurate ODW order
shown in Eq.~\ref{eq:symmetric_oaf}.
With numerical calculations, we also find the existence of PDW phase in the strongly attractive regime
if $t_s \neq t_p$.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.9\linewidth]{phasediag_symmetric.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) SC-PDW and CDW phases of the symmetric $sp$-orbital
ladder with $t_s = t_p = 2t_{sp}$. ${\cal C}_\mathrm{ODW} (k)$ and
${\cal C}_\mathrm{SC} (k)$ show the Fourier transform of the orbital density wave and superconducting
correlations, respectively. {The numerical results are calculated
for the system at two different sizes $L=80$ and $100$
at filling
$\frac{1}{L} \sum_j \langle a_s ^\dag (j) a_s(j) + a_p^\dag (j) a_p (j)\rangle = 0.7$.}
In the upper (lower) graph, the interaction $U=3 t_s$ ($U =-3t_s$). }
\label{fig:phasediag_symmetric}
\end{figure}
\section{Quantum phases and transitions of the Asymmetric case}
For the asymmetric case---$t_s<t_p$ (FIG.~\ref{fig:spectra}), the Fermi velocity ${ v_{FB} } > { v_{FA} }$ and the orbital-charge separation no longer holds. Thus,
the orbital and charge degrees of freedom cannot be treated separately. The other difference with the symmetric case is
{that} the Umklapp process $g_u$ does not exist.
Since the effects of $g_4$ couplings are just to renormalize
the Fermi
velocities~\cite{1993_Fabrizio_coupledchain_PRB,1996_Balents_ladder_PRB,1997_Lin_Balents_Nchain_PRB,2000_Ledermann_twobandfermi_PRB}.
For simplicity, we do not consider such effects and set $g_4 ^{\nu \nu'} =0$ here.
The one-loop RG equations are given by~\cite{2000_Ledermann_twobandfermi_PRB},
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d g_2 ^{\nu \nu'}} {dl} &=& \frac{g_3 ^2}{2\pi}
\left[ \frac{ \delta _{\bar{\nu} \nu'} }{v_+}
-\frac{\delta_{\nu \nu'}}{ v_{F\bar{\nu}} }
\right], \nonumber \\
\frac{d g_3}{dl} &=& \frac{g_3}{2\pi} \sum_\nu
\left[ \frac{g_2 ^{\nu \bar{\nu}}}{ v_+}
-\frac{g_2^{\nu \nu}}{v_{F\nu}}
\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where { $l$ is the flow parameter ($l \to \infty$) and $\bar{\nu}=$ $A$ ($B$) for $\nu=$ $B$ ($A$).}
The RG flow of the sine-Gordon term $g_3$ is obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \sqrt{|C|}/g_3 (l) \nonumber \\
& =& F\left[-\text{sgn} (g_3 Y )\sqrt{\frac{2|C|D}{\pi v_+}} l +F^{-1} [\frac{\sqrt{|C|}}{ g_3 (0)}] \right],
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
C = \frac{2{ v_{FA} } { v_{FB} } v_+^2 }{{ v_{FA} } { v_{FB} } + v_+^2 }
\left[ \frac{g_2 { ^{AB} }}{v_+} - \frac{g_2 { ^{AA} }}{2{ v_{FA} }} - \frac{g_2 { ^{BB} }}{ 2 { v_{FB} }} \right]^2 -g_3 ^2,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
D = \frac{{ v_{FA} } { v_{FB} } +v_+ ^2}{\pi { v_{FA} } { v_{FB} } v_+},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
Y = \frac{g_2 { ^{AB} } }{v_+} -\frac{g_2 { ^{AA} }}{2 { v_{FA} }} - \frac{g_2 { ^{BB} }}{2 { v_{FB} }}.
\end{equation}
The function $F$ is the hyperbolic function ``$\sinh$'' (the trigonometric function ``$\sin$'') if $C>0$ ($C<0$).
When $Y>0$, $g_3$ always flows to $\infty$ and the system is in some gapped phase. When $Y<0$, $g_3$ flows to $\infty$ only if
$C<0$.
$g_3$ is irrelevant only if
$
C>0
$
and
$
Y<0.
$
In the weak interacting regime,
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
Y/U = \frac{1}{v_+} -\frac{\sin^2 (\theta{_A})}{2 { v_{FA} }} - \frac{\sin^2 (\theta{_B})}{2 { v_{FB} } } .
\end{eqnarray}
We will consider the regime $Y/U>0$ { (this condition holds when $t_{sp}$ is weak compared with $t_s + t_p$)} in the following.
With repulsion ($U>0$, $Y>0$), $g_3$ is relevant and flows to $-\infty$ in RG flow.
Then the dual orbital field $\vartheta_o$ is locked with
$\cos(\sqrt{8\pi} \vartheta_o) = 1$ and its fluctuations $\vartheta_o$
are massive.
The key effect of orbital-charge mixing can be seen from its modification of the dynamics of the conjugate fields, given as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_{\theta_o} &=& \frac{K_o}{u_o} \partial_t \vartheta_o + \frac{K_o u_m}{K_m u_o} \partial_x \varphi_o, \\
\Pi_{\varphi_c} &=& \frac{1}{u_c K_c} \partial_t \varphi_c +\frac{K_m u_m}{K_c u_c} \partial_x \vartheta_o,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Pi_{\varpi}$ is the conjugate field of $\varpi$. The Lagrangian is constructed by
$$\mathcal{L} (x,t) = \Pi_{\vartheta_o} \partial_t \vartheta_o + \Pi_{\varphi_c} \partial_t \varphi_c -\mathcal{H}.$$
With massive fluctuations of $\vartheta_o$ integrated out, the Lagrangian of the charge field $\varphi_c$ is
given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_c = \frac{1}{2\gamma} \left[ \frac{1}{u} (\partial_t \varphi_c)^2 - u (\partial_x \varphi_c)^2 \right]
+O\left((\partial \varphi_c)^4\right),
\end{eqnarray}
with the renormalized Luttinger parameter and sound velocity given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma &=& \frac{K_c }{\sqrt{1-\frac{K_c K_o }{K_m^2}\frac{u_m^2 }{u_c u_o}} }, \\
u &=& \sqrt{u_c ^2 - u_m^2 \frac{u_c K_c K_o}{u_o K_m^2}}.
\end{eqnarray}
To zeroth order in the interaction $U$, the renormalized Luttinger parameter is
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma = \left[{1 - \left(\frac{v_-}{v_+}\right)^2 }\right]^{-1/2}.
\label{eq:gamma}
\end{eqnarray}
Our result reproduces
the perturbative result~\cite{2000_Ledermann_twobandfermi_PRB} when the orbital-charge mixing term is small.
The diverging susceptibilities are ODW and SC$^+$, and the corresponding correlation functions
are given as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle O_{\text{SC}^+} (x) O_{\text{SC}^+} ^\dag (0) \rangle &\propto& x^{-1/\gamma}, \\
\langle O_\text{ODW} (x) O_\text{ODW} ^\dag (0) \rangle &\propto& e^{-i({ k_{FA} } - { k_{FB} }) x} x^{-\gamma}.
\end{eqnarray}
With sufficiently weak repulsion $\gamma >1$, the dominant order is SC$^+$, of which the pairing
in terms of lattice operators is $\mathcal{O}_\mathrm{SC} = a_s (j) a_p (j)$. We emphasize
here that this pairing does not oscillate in real space.
{ Such a superconducting phase arising
in the repulsive regime
results from that charge mode $\varphi_c$ is coupled with the orbital mode $\varphi_o$, which
is strongly fluctuating with its conjugate field $\vartheta_o$ pinned. }
The sine-Gordon term $g_3$ causing this pinning effect is finite only when the coupling of $sp$-orbitals
$t_{sp}$ is finite, and $g_3$ is monotonically increasing when $t_{sp}$ is increased. Thus the transition temperature of
this repulsive superconducting phase can be increased by tuning $t_{sp}$, which makes this exotic superconducting
phase potentially realizable in experiments.
With stronger repulsion, the renormalized Luttinger parameter $\gamma$ decreases. Eventually with
repulsion larger than some critical strength, we have
$\gamma<1$, and the repulsive superconducting phase gives way to the ODW phase.
With attractive interaction, the condition $Y/U>0$ gives $Y<0$. Thus
$g_3$ is relevant and flows to $+\infty$ when $C<0$. The sine-Gordon term
$\cos(\sqrt{8\pi} \vartheta_o)$ is locked at $-1$, and the dominant order
is superconducting SC$^-$, given by
\begin{eqnarray}
O_{\text{SC} ^-} &=& \psi{_A} {\bar{\psi} }{_A} - \psi{_B} {\bar{\psi} }{_B} \nonumber \\
&\propto & e^{-i\sqrt{2\pi} \vartheta_c} \sin (\sqrt{2\pi} \vartheta_o).
\end{eqnarray}
{In numerical simulations we find the SC$^-$ phase competing with PDW in the strongly
attractive regime. }
When $g_3$ is irrelevant ($C>0$, $Y<0$), the orbital ladder is
in a two component Luttinger liquid phase exhibiting two gapless normal modes and
each mode is a mixture of orbital and charge.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=.95\linewidth]{phasediag.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{{ Schematic phase diagram of the $sp$-orbital ladder.
In the asymmetric case, the condition that $g_3$ is relevant is taken (see the main text).
The superconducting SC$^+$ phase appears in the repulsive regime due to quantum fluctuations. } }
\label{fig:phasediag}
\end{figure}
{
\paragraph*{Discussion of dipolar tails.---}
In Ref.~\cite{2005_Cirac_dipolartail_PRA},
it is shown that the tail of dipolar interaction makes correlations
decay as $1/r^3$ in the gapped phase, and that the
tail does not change the critical properties at the critical point.
The present study finds Luttinger liquid phases, which are critical. The power law correlations
characterizing our predicted critical phases decay much slower than $1/r^3$.
For example, with weak repulsive interaction, the scaling exponent for the SC$^+$ phase,
$1/\gamma$, is found less than $1$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:gamma}, well below the dipolar exponent $3$.
We thus conclude that the dipolar tail corrections should be negligible.
}
\section{Conclusion}
To conclude, we have studied quantum phases of a one-dimensional $sp$-coupled interacting Fermi gas,
with both numeric and analytic methods.
A PDW phase, featuring oscillating Cooper
pair field, shows up naturally in the attractive regime.
An incommensurate ODW phase is found in the repulsive regime. A repulsive superconducting phase
emergent from orbital-charge mixing is also discussed.
In experiments, radio-frequency spectroscopy can be used to probe
spectra functions~\cite{2011_JILA_RF_Nature,2009_Chen_Levin_RF_PRL},
which exhibit the signatures of pairings of the predicted phases. In orbital
density wave phases, {where there are diverging correlations}
$\langle C_j ^\dag \sigma_y C_j C_{j'} ^\dag \sigma_y C_{j'} \rangle$,
the quench dynamics of occupation numbers of $s$ and $p$ orbitals is a probe
of such orders~\cite{2012_Paramekanti_ProbeCurrent_PRA}.
{\it Acknowledgement.} We appreciate the very helpful discussions with
A. Daley, E. Fradkin and Z. Nussinov, A. Paramekanti and E. Zhao.
This work is supported by A. W. Mellon Fellowship (X.L.),
NSF (PHY11-25915) (X.L.),
AFOSR (FA9550-12-1-0079) (W.V.L.), ARO (W911NF-11-1-0230) and
ARO-DARPA-OLE (W911NF-07-1-0464) (X.L. and W.V.L.), the National Basic
Research Program of China (Grant No 2012CB922101), and Overseas
Scholar Program of NSF of China (11128407) (W.V.L.).
\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
|
\section{Introduction}
A metric space $(X,d)$ is called monotone if there is a linear order $<$ on $X$ and
a constant $c>0$ such that $d(x,y)\leq c d(x,z)$ for all $x<y<z\in X$.
Suppose $f$ is a continuous real-valued function defined on an interval.
The graph $\gr$ of $f$ is a subset of the plane. The goal of this paper is
to investigate differentiability of $f$ assuming that the graph $\gr$
is a monotone space.
\subsection*{Monotone metric spaces}
Monotone metric spaces were introduced in~\cite{Zin1,NZ2,MR2822419}.
Some applications are given in~\cite{Zin1,ZinQ,KMZ}.
\begin{defn}
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space.
$(X,d)$ is called \emph{monotone} if there is a linear order $<$ on $X$ and
a constant $c>0$ such that for all $x,y,z\in X$
\begin{equation}\label{basic1}
d(x,y)\leq c d(x,z) \qquad\text{whenever $x<y<z$}.
\end{equation}
The order $<$ is called a \emph{witnessing order} and $c$ is called
a \emph{witnessing constant}.
$(X,d)$ termed \emph{\si monotone} if it is a countable union of monotone subspaces.
\end{defn}
It is easy to check that if $(X,d)$, $c$ and $<$ satisfy \eqref{basic1}, then
$d(y,z)\leq(c+1)d(x,z)$ for all $x<y<z$.
It follows that replacing condition~\eqref{basic1} by
\begin{equation}\label{basic2}
\max\bigl(d(x,y),d(y,z)\bigr)\leq c d(x,z) \qquad\text{whenever $x<y<z$}
\end{equation}
gives an equivalent definition of a monotone space.
Since we will be occasionally interested in the value of $c$, we introduce
the following notions.
\begin{defn}
Let $c>0$. A metric space $(X,d)$ is called
\begin{enum}
\item \emph{$c$-monotone} if there is a linear order $<$ such
that~\eqref{basic1} holds,
\item \emph{symmetrically $c$-monotone} if there is a linear order
$<$ such that~\eqref{basic2} holds.
\end{enum}
\end{defn}
It is clear that $(X,d)$ is monotone iff it is $c$-monotone for some $c$
iff it is symmetrically $c$-monotone for some $c$.
It is also clear that if a space is $c$-monotone, then it is
symmetrically $(c+1)$-monotone and that a symmetrically $c$-monotone space
is $c$-monotone.
Topological properties of monotone and \si mono\-tone spaces are investigated in
\cite{NZ2}. We recall the relevant facts proved therein.
A monotone metric space is suborderable, i.e.~embeds in a linearly orderable
metric space.
In particular, if $<$ is a witnessing order, then every open interval $(a,b)$
is open in the metric topology, i.e.~the metric topology is finer than
the order topology.
If a metric space contains a dense monotone subspace, then the space itself is
monotone. It follows that every \si monotone subset of a metric space
is contained in a \si monotone $F_\sigma$-subset. This fact will be utilized
at several occasions.
Though the topological dimension of a monotone metric space is at most one,
in a general context of a separable metric space there is nothing one can say
about the Hausdorff dimension of a monotone space. Indeed, there are $1$-monotone
compact spaces of arbitrary Hausdorff dimension, including $\infty$.
However, when one considers only monotone subspaces of Euclidean spaces,
there is, as proved in the oncoming paper~\cite{ZinFrac}, an upper estimate
of Hausdorff dimension by means of the witnessing constant.
On the other hand, by a result from~\cite{KMZ}, every Borel set in $\Rset^n$
contains a \si monotone subset of the same Hausdorff dimension.
Thus a monotone set can have Hausdorff dimension greater than $1$.
The same holds for curves: by an unpublished result of Pieter Allaart and
Ond\v rej Zindulka, the von Koch curve is monotone.
The interplay between porosity and
monotonicity in the plane are investigated in~\cite{HrZi,ZinFrac}.
In particular, by~\cite[Theorem 4.2]{HrZi}, every monotone set in $\Rset^n$ is
strongly porous (see Section~\ref{sec:MICHAL} for the definition).
This fact is utilized in Section~\ref{sec:MICHAL}.
\subsection*{Monotone graphs}
We will focus on properties of continuous functions that have monotone graph.
Our hope was that such a function must be differentiable at a substantial
portion of its domain. It, however, turned out that the interplay between
monotonicity of graph and differentiability is more delicate and definitely
not straightforward. Our goal is to study this interplay.
It turns out that such a graph has \si finite $1$-dimensional Hausdorff measure
and in particular, in contrast with the just mentioned von Koch curve property,
has Hausdorff dimension $1$.
Can one go further and prove for instance that a continuous function with
a monotone graph is differentiable at a large set, say, almost everywhere?
Or, in the other direction, that a differentiable function has a monotone or
\si monotone graph?
We provide answers to these questions.
We outline a few results.
In sections~\ref{sec:ONDREJ} and~\ref{sec:ondrej2} we show,
e.g., that a differentiable function has a \si monotone graph and that
a continuous function with monotone graph has knot points
(i.e.~both upper/lower Dini derivatives are $\infty$/$-\infty$)
almost everywhere where it does not posses a derivative.
In section~\ref{sec:m1} continuous functions with a $1$-monotone graph are
investigated. The strongest result says that such a function on a compact
interval is of finite variation and in particular is differentiable almost
everywhere.
However, in Section~\ref{sec:VASEK} we construct a continuous function that
exhibits that, perhaps surprisingly, this theorem completely fails for
monotone graph:
an almost nowhere differentiable function with a monotone graph. Consequently,
almost all points of the domain are knot points.
So a continuous function with monotone graph can be rather wild.
But not completely: in Section~\ref{sec:ondrej2} we show that such a function
is differentiable at an uncountable dense set and its graph is of \si finite
length and in particular of Hausdorff dimension $1$.
As proved at the beginning of Section~\ref{sec:MICHAL}, a graph of
an absolutely continuous function is \si monotone except a set
of linear measure zero. The following result
is thus perhaps surprising: there is an absolutely continuous function
whose graph is not \si monotone. Moreover, such a function can be constructed
so that the graph is a porous set.
The concluding Section~\ref{sec:Q} lists some open problems.
\section{Monotone graphs}\label{sec:PRE}
A topological closure and interior of a set $A$ in a metric space are denoted
by $\cl A$ and $\inter A$, respectively.
For $A\subs\Rset^2$ denote $\hdim A$ the Hausdorff dimension of $A$.
Lebesgue measure on the line is denoted by $\leb$.
Given $A\subs\Rset^2$, its linear measure, i.e.~$1$-dimensional Hausdorff measure,
is denoted $\len(A)$ and referred to as \emph{Hausdorff length}.
We will be concerned with monotonicity of graphs of continuous functions.
The symbol $I$ is used to denote a non-degenerate interval of real numbers.
Let $f:I\to\Rset$ be a continuous function.
Formally there is no difference between $f$ and its graph,
but confusion may arise for instance from ``$f$ is monotone''.
Therefore we use $\gr$ when referring to the graph of $f$
as a pointset in the plane (and likewise $\ggr$ for the graph of $g$ etc.).
Given a set $E\subs I$, denote $\gr|E$ the graph of $f$ restricted to $E$.
We write $\psi_f(x)=(x,f(x))$
(or just $\psi(x)$ if there is no danger of confusion) to denote the
natural parametrization of $\gr$. The graph $\gr$ is obviously a connected
linearly ordered space. By~\cite[Theorem II]{MR0003201}, if a space is
linearly orderable and connected,
then the order is unique up to reversing. Therefore there are only two
orders on $\gr$ that can witness monotonicity of $C$: the order given by
$\psi(t)<\psi(s)$ if $t<s$ and its reverse.
Since being symmetrically $c$-monotone is invariant with respect to reversing
the witnessing order, it does not matter which of the two orders we choose.
Overall, given the conditions
\begin{align}
&\text{for all $x<y<z\in I$}\quad|\psi(x)-\psi(y)|\leq c|\psi(x)-\psi(z)|,
\label{L1,1}\\
&\text{for all $x<y<z\in I$}\quad|\psi(z)-\psi(y)|\leq c|\psi(x)-\psi(z)|,
\label{L1,2}
\end{align}
we have
\begin{lem} If $f:I\to\Rset$ is continuous, then
\begin{enum}
\item $\gr$ is $c$-monotone if and only if at least one of
\eqref{L1,1}, \eqref{L1,2} holds,
\item $\gr$ is symmetrically $c$-monotone if and only if both
\eqref{L1,1} and \eqref{L1,2} hold.
\end{enum}
\end{lem}
The following simple condition equivalent to monotonicity of $\gr$ will
turn useful.
\begin{defn}
Given $c>0$, say that $f$ satisfies condition $\mathsf P_c$ if
\begin{equation}\label{Pc}
\max_{x\leq t\leq y}\abs{f(x)-f(t)}\leq c|x-y|
\text{ whenever $x<y$ and $f(x)=f(y)$}.
\tag{$\mathsf P_c$}
\end{equation}
\end{defn}
\begin{lem}\label{L4}
Let $f:I\to\Rset$ be a continuous function and $c\geq1$.
\begin{enum}
\item If $\gr$ is $c$-monotone, then $f$ satisfies $\mathsf P_c$,
\item if $f$ satisfies $\mathsf P_{c-1}$, then $\gr$ is symmetrically $c$-monotone.
\end{enum}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(i)
Let $x<y$ satisfy $f(x)=f(y)$. $c$-monotonicity of $\gr$ yields for all $t\in[x,y]$
$$
\abs{f(x)-f(t)}\leq\abs{\psi(x)-\psi(t)}\leq c\abs{\psi(x)-\psi(y)}=c\abs{x-y}.
$$
(ii)
We prove only condition~\eqref{L1,1}, as
condition~\eqref{L1,2} is proved in the same manner.
Let $x<y<z\in I$. Suppose that $f(x)\leq f(z)\leq f(y)$, all other cases are
trivial or similar.
Find $w\in [x,y]$ such that $f(w)=f(z)$.
Condition $\mathsf P_{c-1}$ yields $\abs{f(z)-f(y)}\leq (c-1)|z-w|$. Therefore
\begin{align*}
\abs{\psi(x)-\psi(y)}&\leq\abs{(x-z,f(x)-f(y))}\\
&\leq\abs{\psi(x)-\psi(z)}+\abs{(z-z,f(z)-f(y))}\\
&\leq\abs{\psi(x)-\psi(z)}+(c-1)\abs{z-w}
\leq c\abs{\psi(x)-\psi(z)}.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Monotonicity and \si monotonicity are clearly global properties.
It turns out that the following pointwise counterpart of monotonicity
is worth investigation.
\begin{defn}
Let $f:I\to\Rset$ be a continuous function and $c\geq1$.
\textbullet{}
Say that $\gr$ is \emph{$c$-monotone at $y\in\gr$} if there is a neighborhood
$U\subs\gr$ of $y$ such that if $x<y<z$ and $x,z\in U$, then
$\abs{x-y}\leq c\abs{x-z}$, and \emph{monotone at $y$} if it is $c$-monotone at
$y$ for some $c\geq1$.
The set of all points where $\gr$ is $c$-monotone is denoted $\simon_c(\gr)$.
The set of all points where $\gr$ is monotone is denoted $\simon(\gr)$.
\textbullet{}
If $\gr$ is $c$-monotone (monotone) at $\psi_f(y)$, we call $y$ an
\emph{$\MM_c$-point} (\emph{$\MM$-point}) of $f$.
The set of all $\MM_c$-points of $f$ is denoted $\MM_c(f)$ or just $\MM_c$.
The set of all $\MM$-points of $f$ is denoted $\MM(f)$ or just $\MM$.
\end{defn}
It is clear that $\simon(\gr)=\gr|\MM(f)$.
Since the natural parametrization $\psi_f$ is a homeomorphism, it thus makes
no difference whether we investigate topological properties of $\simon(\gr)$
or $\MM(f)$.
Obviously, $y\in I$ is an $\MM_c$-point if and only if there is $\eps>0$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{pwm}
\text{for all $x\in(y-\eps)$, $z\in(y+\eps)$}
\quad\abs{\psi(x)-\psi(y)}\leq c\abs{\psi(x)-\psi(z)}.
\end{equation}
By the reasoning preceding~\eqref{basic2}, the inequality
$\abs{\psi(x)-\psi(y)}\leq c\abs{\psi(x)-\psi(z)}$ in condition~\eqref{pwm}
can be replaced with $\abs{\psi(y)-\psi(z)}\leq c'\abs{\psi(x)-\psi(z)}$,
possibly with another constant $c'$.
Thus the definition of $\MM$-point is ``symmetric'', in that it is invariant
under reversing the orientation of $x$- or $y$-axis.
Another equivalent definition: $y$ is an $\MM$-point if and only if there
is $c$ and $\eps>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{pwm2}
\text{for all $x\in(y-\eps)$, $z\in(y+\eps)$}
\quad\abs{f(x)-f(y)}\leq c\bigl(\abs{f(x)-f(z)}+\abs{z-x}\bigr).
\end{equation}
Let us clarify the relation of monotonicity, \si monotonicity,
pointwise monotonicity and $\MM$-points.
The proof of the following is straightforward.
\begin{prop}\label{meager2}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is continuous, then
\begin{enum}
\item $\MM$ and $\MM_c$ are $F_\sigma$-sets, and so are $\simon(\gr)$ and
$\simon_c(\gr)$,
\item $\simon(\gr)=\gr|\MM$ is \si monotone,
\item $\simon_c(\gr)=\gr|\MM_c$ is a countable union of closed $c$-monotone sets.
\end{enum}
\end{prop}
Needles to say that if a continuous function has a monotone graph,
then all points are $\MM$-points. However, there is a continuous function
$f$ on $[0,1]$ with $\MM_1(f)=[0,1]$, i.e.~$\gr$ is $1$-monotone at each point,
but $\gr$ is not monotone:
let $f(x)=\abs x^{3/2}\sin\frac1x$ for $x\neq0$, $f(0)=0$.
It is easy to check that condition~\eqref{Pc} fails for
each $c$ and thus $\gr$ is not monotone. On the other hand, $f$
is differentiable everywhere and hence, by Theorem~\ref{thmMM1} below,
all points are $\MM_1$-points.
By~\cite[Corollary 2.6]{NZ2}, every monotone set has a monotone closure.
Using this fact, the above proposition and Baire category theorem
one can easily prove the following facts on relation between monotonicity,
\si monotonicity and pointwise monotonicity.
\begin{lem}\label{baire}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is continuous, with a \si monotone graph, then
for any interval $J\subs I$ there is
a subinterval $J'\subs I$ such that $\gr|J'$ is monotone.
\end{lem}
\begin{coro}\label{intM}
Let $f:I\to\Rset$ be continuous.
\begin{enum}
\item If $f$ has a \si monotone graph, then $\inter\MM$ is dense in $I$,
i.e.~$\simon(\gr)$ contains an open dense subset of $\gr$.
\item If all points of $I$ are $\MM$-points, i.e.~if $\gr$ is monotone
at each point, then $\gr$ is \si monotone.
\end{enum}
\end{coro}
Part (i) of this corollary cannot be strengthened:
As shown in~\ref{chdim}, there is a continuous function $f$ on $[0,1]$
with a \si monotone graph, and a perfect set of non-$\MM$-points.
There is a profound connection between the set of $\MM$-points and monotone
subspaces of $\gr$. Its proof is straightforward.
\begin{prop}\label{meager3}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is continuous, then the following are equivalent.
\begin{enum}
\item Every monotone set $M\subs\gr$ is nowhere dense in $\gr$,
\item every monotone set $M\subs\gr$ is meager in $\gr$,
\item $\MM(f)$ is meager in $I$,
\item $\inter\MM(f)=\emptyset$.
\end{enum}
\end{prop}
\section{Differentiability vs.~pointwise monotonicity}
\label{sec:ONDREJ}
We now investigate if pointwise monotonicity is related to differentiability.
Recall definitions of derivatives and related notation.
The \emph{upper right Dini derivative} of a function $f:I\to\Rset$ at point $x$
is denoted and defined by
$\urd f(x)=\limsup_{y\to x+}\frac{f(y)-f(x)}{y-x}$.
The other three Dini derivatives $\lrd f(x)$, $\uld f(x)$ and $\lld f(x)$
are defined likewise. If the four Dini
derivatives at $x$ equal, the common value is of course the derivative $f'(x)$.
If the two right Dini derivatives
at $x$ are equal, the common value is called the \emph{right
derivative} and denoted $\rd f(x)$; and likewise for the left side.
The set of points where the derivative of $f$ exists (infinite values are allowed)
is denoted $\DD(f)$ or just $\DD$.
A point $x\in I$ is called a \emph{knot point of $f$} if
$\uld{f}(x)=\urd{f}(x)=\infty$ and $\lld{f}(x)=\lrd{f}(x)=-\infty$.
The set of knot points of $f$ is denoted $\KK(f)$ or just $\KK$.
The \emph{approximate upper right Dini derivative} of $f$ at point
$x$ is denoted and defined by
$$
\urdapp f(x)=
\inf\Bigl\{t:\lim_{\delta\to0+}\frac1\delta\,
\leb\bigl(\bigl\{y\in(x,x+\delta):\tfrac{f(y)-f(x)}{y-x}
\leq t\bigr\}\bigr)=1\Bigr\}.
$$
The other three approximate Dini derivatives $\lrdapp f(x)$, $\uldapp f(x)$
and $\lldapp f(x)$ are defined likewise, as well as the
\emph{approximate derivative}
$\dapp f(x)$ and \emph{right} and \emph{left approximate derivatives}.
The set of points where the approximate derivative of $f$ exists
is denoted $\DDapp(f)$ or just $\DDapp$.
Approximate knot points are defined in the obvious way. The set of approximate knot
points of $f$ is denoted $\KKapp(f)$ or just $\KKapp$.
\begin{lem}\label{MMM}
Let $f:I\to\Rset$ be continuous and $y\in I$.
\begin{enum}
\item If $y$ is not an $\MM$-point, then $\urd f(y)=-\lld f(y)=\infty$,
or $\uld f(y)=-\lrd f(y)=\infty$.
\item If $\lld f(y)=-\infty$ and $\lrdapp f(y)=\infty$, then $y$ is not an
$\MM$-point.
\end{enum}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(i) Let $y=f(y)=0$. Since $0$ is not an $\MM$-point, it follows
from~\eqref{pwm2} that there are sequences $x_n\nearrow 0$ and $z_n\searrow 0$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{densx2}
\abs{f(x_n)}\geq n\bigl(\abs{f(x_n)-f(z_n)}+\abs{x_n-z_n}\bigr).
\end{equation}
In particular, $\abs{f(x_n)}\geq n\abs{x_n-z_n}\geq n\abs{x_n}$.
\emph{Mutatis mutandis} we may assume that all $f(x_n)$'s have the same sign.
Suppose that $f(x_n)>0$ for all $n$; the other case is treated likewise.
Hence $f(x_n)\geq n\abs{x_n}$. Clearly
$f(z_n)\geq f(x_n)-\abs{f(z_n)-f(x_n)}$, and~\eqref{densx2} yields
$\abs{f(z_n)-f(x_n)}\leq\frac1n f(x_n)$. Therefore $f(z_n)\geq f(x_n)(1-\frac1n)$.
Apply~\eqref{densx2} again to get $f(z_n)\geq n(1-\frac1n)z_n=(n-1)z_n$.
In summary, $f(x_n)\geq n\abs{x_n}$ and $f(z_n)\geq(n-1)z_n$, which is enough for
$\urd f(y)=-\lld f(y)=\infty$.
(ii) Suppose for contrary that $y$ is an $\MM$-point and assume without loss
of generality that $y=f(y)=0$. Let $\eps$ and $c$ be such that~\eqref{pwm2} holds.
Let $a=4c$ and $\beta=1/a$.
Since $\lrdapp f(0)>a$, there is $\delta<\eps$ such that for all $s<\delta$
\begin{equation}\label{densx}
\leb\bigl\{t\in(0,s):\tfrac{f(t)}{t}>a\bigr\}>s(1-\beta).
\end{equation}
Since $\lld f(0)<-a$, there is $s\in(0,\delta)$ such that $\frac{f(-s)}{s}\geq a$.
Therefore there is $x\in[-s,0)$ such that $f(x)=as$.
Now use~\eqref{densx} to conclude that there is $t\in(s(1-\beta),s)$ such that
$\frac{f(t)}{t}>a$, i.e.~$f(t)>at$, and choose $z\in(0,t)$ such that
$f(z)=at$. Clearly $x\in(-\eps,0)$ and $z\in(0,\eps)$.
However, $\abs{f(x)-f(y)}=f(x)=as$,
$\abs{f(x)-f(z)}=as-at\leq as-as(1-\beta)=as\beta=s$ and $\abs{z-x}\leq2s$.
Thus~\eqref{pwm2} yields
$as\leq c(s+2s)$, which is contradicted by $a=4c$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{thmMM}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is continuous, then
\begin{enum}
\item $\DD(f)\subs\MM(f)$,
\item there is a set $E\subs I$ such that $\len(\gr|E)=0$ and
$\MM(f)\subs\DDapp(f)\cup\KKapp(f)\cup E$.
In particular, almost every $\MM$-point $x\notin\DDapp(f)$ is a knot point.
\end{enum}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
(i) It follows from Lemma~\ref{MMM}(i) that if $x$ is not an $\MM$-point,
then there are two Dini derivatives at $x$ that differ. Therefore $x\notin\DD(f)$.
(ii) We employ the approximate derivative version of the famous
Denjoy--Young--Saks Theorem due to Alberti, Csornyei, Laczkovich and
Preiss~\cite{MR1825530} that strengthens the Denjoy--Khintchine Theorem:
\emph{If $f$ is measurable, then there is a set $E\subs I$ such that
$\len(\gr|E)=0$ and for every point $x\notin E$ either $\dapp f(x)$
exists and is finite, or else all approximate Dini derivatives are infinite.}
It follows that if $x\notin\DDapp\cup\KKapp\cup E$, then all possible
configurations of the Dini derivatives obtain by reversing
the $x$- or $y$-axis from the following two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\lldapp f(x)=\uldapp f(x)=-\infty$, $\lrdapp f(x)=\urdapp f(x)=+\infty$,
\item $\lldapp f(x)=-\infty$, $\uldapp f(x)=\lrdapp f(x)=\urdapp f(x)=+\infty$.
\end{itemize}
Both satisfy the hypotheses of Lemma~\ref{MMM}(ii).
Hence $x$ is not an $\MM$-point.
The second statement of (ii) follows from the obvious inclusion $\KKapp\subs\KK$.
\end{proof}
The last goal of this section is to derive from Theorem~\ref{thmMM}(ii)
that the set of points where the graph is monotone has \si finite length
and in particular Hausdorff dimension $1$.
We need the following folklore covering lemma. Instead of reference we provide
a brief proof.
\begin{lem}\label{2rlemma}
Let $X$ be a metric space and $E\subs X$. Let $\{r_x:x\in E\}$ be a set of
positive reals
such that $\sup_{x\in E}r_x<\infty$. Then for each $\delta>2$ there is a set
$D\subs E$ such that the family $\{B(x,r_x):x\in D\}$ is disjoint and
the family $\{B(x,\delta r_x):x\in D\}$ covers $E$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We may assume that $r_x<1$ for all $x\in E$. Define recursively
\begin{align*}
A_n&=\{x\in E:(\delta-1)^{-n+1}>r_x\geq (\delta-1)^{-n}\},\\
B_n&=\{x\in A_n:B(x,r_x)\cap\bigcup\nolimits_{i<n}\bigcup\mathcal A_i=\emptyset\}
\end{align*}
and let $\mathcal A_n\subs\{B(x,r_x):x\in B_n\}$ be a maximal disjoint family.
It is easy to check that $D=\{x\in E:B(x,r_x)\in\bigcup_{n=0}^\infty\mathcal A_n\}$
is the required set.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lemE}
Suppose that $f:I\to\Rset$ is continuous.
$$
E^+=\{x\in[0,1]:\exists x_n\downarrow x\text{ such that $f(x_n)=f(x)$}\}.
$$
If $A\subs E^+\cap\MM_c(f)$, then $\len(\gr|A)\leq4c\leb(A)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $A\subs E^+$.
For $\eps>0$ let $A_\eps$ be the set of points $y\in A$ satisfying~\eqref{pwm}.
Fix $\eta\in(0,\eps)$. Let $\{U_i:i\in\Nset\}$ be a cover of $A_\eps$
by open intervals of length $<\eta$ such that
$\sum_i\diam(U_i)<\leb(A_\eps)+\eta$.
Now fix $i\in\Nset$.
For each $x\in A_\eps\cap U_i$ choose $z_x>x$, $z_x\in U_i$ such that
$f(z_x)=f(x)$.
If $y\in[x,z_x]\cap A_\eps$, then, since $\abs{z_x-x}\leq\eta<\eps$, condition
~\eqref{pwm} with $z-z_x$ is met. Hence
$$
\abs{\psi(y)-\psi(x)}\leq c\abs{\psi(z_x)-\psi(x)}=c\abs{z_x-x}.
$$
It follows that letting $r_x=c(z_x-x)$ we have
$$
\gr\big|([x,z_x]\cap A_\eps)\subs B(\psi(x),r_x).
$$
The family $\mc B=\{B(\psi(x),r_x):x\in A_\eps\cap U_i\}$ thus covers
$A_\eps\cap U_i$.
Apply Lemma~\ref{2rlemma}: for any $\delta>2$
there is a set $A'\subs A_\eps\cap U_i$ such that the family
$\{B(\psi(x),r_x):x\in A'\}$ is pairwise disjoint and
$\gr|(A_\eps\cap U_i)\subs\bigcup_{x\in A'}B(\psi(x),\delta r_x)$.
We claim that the family of intervals $\{[x,z_x]:x\in A'\}$ is pairwise disjoint.
Indeed, if $x,y\in A'$ were such that $[x,z_x]\cap[y,z_y]\neq\emptyset$,
then either $x\in[y,z_y]\cap A_\eps$ or $y\in[x,z_x]\cap A_\eps$. Suppose
the former. Then $\psi(x)\in\psi([y,z_y]\cap A_\eps)\subs B(\psi(y),r_y)$.
Therefore the balls $B(\psi(x),r_x)$ and $B(\psi(y),r_{y})$ would not
be disjoint.
It follows that $\sum_{x\in A'}\abs{x-z_x}\leq\diam(U_i)$, which yields
$$
\sum_{x\in A'}\diam(B(\psi(x),\delta r_x))
\leq 2\delta\sum_{x\in A'}r_x
\leq 2\delta c\sum_{x\in A'}\abs{x-z_x}
\leq 2\delta c\diam(U_i).
$$
Moreover, the diameters of $B(\psi(x),\delta r_x)$ do
not exceed $2\delta c\eta$. Consequently
$$
\len_{2\delta c\eta}(\gr|(A_\eps\cap U_i)\leq 2\delta c\diam(U_i).
$$
Summing over $i$ yields
$$
\len_{2\delta c\eta}(\gr|A_\eps)\leq 2\delta c
\sum_{i\in\Nset}\diam(U_i)
\leq2\delta c(\leb(A_\eps)+\eta).
$$
$\len(\gr|A_\eps)\leq4c\leb(A_\eps)$ now follows on letting $\eta\to0$ and
$\delta\to2$, and $\len(\gr|A)\leq4c\leb(A)$ on letting $\eps\to0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{thmHaus}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is continuous, then $\len(\simon(\gr))$ is \si finite.
In particular, $\hdim\simon(\gr)=1$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $A=\{\psi(x):x\notin\KK\}\subs\gr$. It is clear that for any point
$a\in A$ there is a (one-sided) cone $V$ with vertex at $a$ and a ball $B$ centered
at $a$ such that the only point of $\gr$ within $V\cap B$ is $a$.
Such a set is by~\cite[Lemma 15.13]{1333890} \emph{rectifiable}, i.e.
covered by countably many Lipschitz curves. In particular, $A$ has \si finite
length.
In view of Theorem~\ref{thmMM}(ii) it thus remains to show that
$\len(\gr|\MM\cap\KK)$ is \si finite. But that follows at once from
Lemma~\ref{lemE}, since any knot point belongs to the set $E^+$.
\end{proof}
\begin{coro}\label{coroHaus}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is continuous with a monotone graph, then $\len(\gr)$
is \si finite. In particular, $\hdim\gr=1$.
\end{coro}
\section{Functions with a monotone or \si monotone graph}
\label{sec:ondrej2}
In this section we investigate differentiability of continuous functions
with monotone or \si monotone graph.
Our first theorem claims that if $\gr$ is monotone, then the
approximate derivatives coincide with derivatives.
\begin{prop}\label{approximate}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is continuous with a monotone graph,
then $\urdapp f(x)=\urd f(x)$ for all $x\in I$.
A similar statement holds for all Dini derivatives.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Assume for contrary that there is $x$ such that $\urdapp f(x)<\urd f(x)$.
\emph{Mutatis mutandis} we may suppose that $x=f(x)=0$.
Choosing suitable constants $\alpha,\beta$ the function
$g(y)=\alpha f(y)-\beta y$ satisfies
$\urdapp g(0)<0$ and $\urd g(0)>1$.
Since the graph of $g$ is an affine transform of the graph of $f$ and
an affine transform is bi-Lipschitz, the graph of $g$ is
by~\cite[Proposition 2.2]{NZ2} a monotone set.
Therefore there is $c\geq1$ such that $g$ satisfies condition~\ref{Pc}.
Since $\urdapp g(0)<0$, the set $M=\{y\in I:g(y)<0\}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:approx1}
\forall\eps>0\ \exists\delta_0\ \forall\delta\in(0,\delta_0)
\quad\leb\bigl([0,\delta]\setminus M\bigr)<\eps\delta
\end{equation}
Let $\eps=\frac1{2c}$ and let $\delta_0$ satisfy \eqref{eq:approx1}.
Since $\urd g(0)>1$, there is $t\in(0,\delta_0/2)$ such that $g(t)>t$.
Put $\delta=2t$. Since $\eps\leq\frac12$ and $\delta<\delta_0$,
\eqref{eq:approx1} yields
$M\cap(0,t)\neq\emptyset$ and $M\cap(t,2t)\neq\emptyset$.
Therefore the numbers $a=\sup(0,t)\cap M$, $b=\inf(t,2t)\cap M$
satisfy $0<a<t<b<\delta$. Also $g(a)=g(b)=0$ by the continuity of $g$.
Obviously $[a,b]\cap M=\emptyset$. Hence \eqref{eq:approx1} yields
$\abs{b-a}<\eps\delta=t/c$.
Therefore
$
c\abs{b-a}<t<g(t)=\abs{g(t)-g(a)}
$
and thus condition~\ref{Pc} fails: the desired contradiction.
\end{proof}
This theorem together with Theorem~\ref{thmMM} yield
\begin{coro}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is continuous function with a monotone graph,
then there is a set $E\subs I$ such that $\len(\gr|E)=0$ and
$I=\DD(f)\cup\KK(f)\cup E$.
In particular, almost all points $x\notin\DD(f)$ are knot points.
\end{coro}
\begin{coro}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is a continuous function with a $c$-monotone graph, then
$\len(\gr|A)\leq4c\leb(A)$ for every $A\subs I\setminus\DD(f)$.
In particular, $\len(\gr|I\setminus\DD(f))<\infty$.
\label{clp2}
\end{coro}
In the next section we present an example of function with a monotone graph
that has derivative almost nowhere, hence the set of knot points is rather large.
However, a \si monotone graph yields a dense set of differentiability.
\begin{lem}
Let $f:I\to\Rset$ be a continuous function with a \si monotone graph.
Then $\leb(f[\DD(f)\cap J])>0$ for each interval $J\subs I$
where $f$ is not constant. \label{bigder}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Using Lemma~\ref{baire}
it is clearly enough to prove that if $f:[0,1]\to\Rset$, $f(0)\neq f(1)$,
and $\gr$ is monotone, then $\leb(f[\DD])>0$.
Suppose the contrary: $\leb(f[\DD])=0$.
Let $0\leq x<y\leq1$. Use the assumption and Corollary~\ref{clp2} to estimate
$\abs{f(x)-f(y)}$:
\begin{align*}
\abs{f(x)-f(y)}&=\leb([f(x),f(y)])\leq\leb(f[x,y])\\
&\leq\leb(f[[x,y]\setminus\DD])+\leb(f[[x,y]\cap\DD])\\
&\leq 4c\,\leb([x,y]\setminus\DD)+\leb(f[\DD])
\leq 4c\,\leb([x,y])=4c\abs{x-y}.
\end{align*}
It follows that $f$ is a Lipschitz function. Therefore it is differentiable
almost everywhere. Use Corollary~\ref{clp2} again to get
$\leb(f[[0,1]\setminus\DD])\leq\len(\gr|[0,1]\setminus\DD)=0$. Thus
$$
\leb(f[\DD])\geq\leb(f[0,1])-\leb(f[I\setminus\DD])
=\leb(f[0,1])\geq\abs{f(0)-f(1)}>0,
$$
which contradicts the assumption.
\end{proof}
Let us call a set \emph{perfectly dense} if its intersection with any nonempty
open set contains a perfect set.
\begin{thm}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is a continuous function with a \si monotone graph,
then $f$ is dif\-ferentiable at a perfectly dense set.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
If $f$ is constant on $I$, there is nothing to prove.
Otherwise Lemma~\ref{bigder}
yields $\leb(f[\DD(f)\cap I])>0$. Therefore $\DD(f)\cap I$ is an uncountable
Borel set. Thus it contains, by the Perfect Set Theorem, a perfect set.
\end{proof}
\begin{coro}\label{coroMM}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is a continuous function, then $\inter\MM(f)\subs\cl{\DD(f)}$.
\end{coro}
We now present several examples illustrating that one cannot prove much
more than Theorem~\ref{thmMM} and Corollary~\ref{coroMM} about
differentiability properties of $\MM$-points. The first two examples are nowhere
differentiable functions. Note that by the above corollary and
Proposition~\ref{meager3} such a function must have a small set of
$\MM$-points:
\begin{coro}\label{coroMM2}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is a continuous, nowhere differentiable function,
then $\MM(f)$ is meager, i.e. every monotone set $M\subs\gr$ is nowhere dense.
\end{coro}
For $y\in\Rset$ let $\norm y=\dist(y,\Zset)$.
\begin{prop}\label{function}
The function $f(y)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty2^{-k}\norm{2^{k^2}y}$ is continuous
and has no $\MM$-points.
Therefore every monotone subset of $\gr$ is meager and $f$ is nowhere
differentiable.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Continuity of $f$ is easy.
Fix $y\in\Rset$, $\eps>0$ and $c>0$. We want to disprove condition~\eqref{pwm2}.
Let $n\in\Nset$ be large enough (this will be specified later).
It is easy to check that there is $i\in\{1,3\}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Fab2}
\bigl|\norm{2^{n^2}y}-\norm{2^{n^2}y-\tfrac i4}\bigr|\geq\tfrac14.
\end{equation}
Set $x=y-\frac i42^{-n^2}$, $z=x+2^{-n^2}$. Clearly
if $n$ is large enough, then $x\in(y-\eps)$ and $z\in(y,y+\eps)$. We show that
$x,z$ witness failure of~\eqref{pwm2}.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item If $k>n$, then $-\frac i4 2^{k^2-n^2}$ is an integer. Therefore
$\norm{2^{k^2}x}=\norm{2^{k^2}y}=\norm{2^{k^2}z}$.
\item Since $2^{n^2}z-2^{n^2}x=1$, we have $\norm{2^{n^2}x}=\norm{2^{n^2}z}$.
\item If $k<n$ and $t=y$ or $t=z$, then
$\bigl|\norm{2^{k^2}t}-\norm{2^{k^2}x}\bigr|\leq 2^{k^2}\abs{t-x}\leq 2^{k^2-n^2}$.
Thus
$$
\sum_{k<n}2^{-k}\bigl|\norm{2^{k^2}t}-\norm{2^{k^2}x}\bigr|
\leq\sum_{k<n}2^{-k}2^{k^2-n^2}
\leq n2^{2-3n}.
$$
\end{enumerate}
It follows that
\begin{align*}
\abs{f(z)-f(x)}
&\overset{(a,b)}{\leq}
\sum_{k<n}2^{-k}\bigl|\norm{2^{k^2}z}-\norm{2^{k^2}x}\bigr|
\overset{(c)}{\leq}
n2^{2-3n},\\
\abs{f(y)-f(x)}
&\overset{(a)}{\geq}
2^{-n}\bigl|\norm{2^{n^2}y}-\norm{2^{n^2}x}\bigr|
-\sum_{k<n}2^{-k}\bigl|\norm{2^{k^2}y}-\norm{2^{k^2}x}\bigr| \\
&\overset{(\ref{Fab2},c)}{\geq}
2^{-n-2}-n2^{2-3n}.
\end{align*}
Combine these estimates to get
$$
\frac{\abs{f(y)-f(x)}}{\abs{f(z)-f(x)}+\abs{z-x}}\geq
\frac{2^{-n-2}-n2^{2-3n}}{n2^{2-3n}+2^{-n^2}}.
$$
With a proper choice of $n$ the rightmost expression
is as large as needed, in particular greater than $c$. Therefore~\eqref{pwm2}
fails.
\end{proof}
\begin{ex}
Let $f$ be the above function. Define $g(x)=(x-\frac12)\sin\frac1{2x-1}f(x)$.
It is easy to derive from the above that $g$ has no $\MM$-points
except $x=\frac12$. Straightforward calculation of Dini derivatives
at $x=\frac12$ gives $\urd g(\frac12)=\uld g(\frac12)=\frac12$ and
$\lrd g(\frac12)=\lld g(\frac12)=-\frac12$.
Therefore $\frac12$ is an $\MM$-point (actually an $\MM_1$-point).
It also follows from Theorem~\ref{thmMM} that $g$ is differentiable at no point.
In particular $\DD(g)$ is not dense in $\MM(g)$.
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}
Let $T(x)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty 2^{-n}\norm{2^nx}$ be the \emph{Takagi function}.
The following facts can be found in~\cite{takagi:survey}.
$T$ does not possess a finite one-sided derivative at any point.
However, if $x$ is a dyadic rational, then $\rd T(x)=+\infty$ and
$\ld T(x)=-\infty$. Also $T'(x)=+\infty$ at a dense set.
It follows that the sets $\DD(T)$, $\MM_1(T)$, $\MM(T)$
as well as their complements are dense.
\end{ex}
\section{A non-differentiable function with a monotone graph}
\label{sec:VASEK}
In this section we provide an example of a continuous, almost nowhere
differentiable function on $[0,1]$ with a monotone graph.
Note that it follows from the above results that such a function necessarily
have the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item Every point of $[0,1]$ is an $\MM$-point,
\item the function is almost nowhere approximately differentiable,
\item almost all points are knot points (actually approximate knot points),
\item the function has a derivative at a perfectly dense set.
\end{itemize}
\begin{thm}\label{vas1}
For any $c>1$ there is a continuous, almost nowhere differentiable
function $f:[0,1]\to\Rset$ with a symmetrically $c$-monotone graph.
\end{thm}
The proof is a bit involved.
The function $f$ we construct satisfies condition $\mathsf P_1$. That is enough,
because given any $c>1$, the function $x\mapsto(c-1)f(x)$ satisfies obviously
condition $\mathsf P_{c-1}$ and is thus by Lemma~\ref{L4} $c$-monotone.
We first construct the function and then prove its properties in
a sequence of lemmas.
\subsection*{Construction of the function}
The function $f$ is defined as a limit of a sequence of
piecewise linear continuous functions $f_n:[0,1]\to [0,1]$ that we now define.
We recursively specify finite sets
$\mc A_n=\{a_n^k:k=0,\dots,r_n\}\subs[0,1]$ such that
$$
0=a_n^0<a_n^1<\dots<a_n^{r_n}=1
$$
and values of $f_n$ at each point of $\mc A_n$.
The function $f_n$ is then defined as the unique function that is linear between
consecutive points of $\mc A_n$.
For $n=0$ put $\mc A_0=\{0,1\}$ and $f_0(0)=f_0(1)=0$.
The induction step:
Suppose $f_n$ and $\mc A_n=\{a_n^k:k=0,\dots,r_n\}$ are constructed.
Let $k<r_n$ be arbitrary.
For $l=0,\dots,5$ set
$x_l=\frac l5 a_n^{k+1}+(1-\frac l5)a_n^k$.
\noindent
If $f_n(a_n^k)=f_n(a_n^{k+1})$, set $A_n^k=\{x_l:l=1,\dots,5\}$ and
\begin{align*}
f_{n+1}(x_0)&=f_{n+1}(x_1)=f_{n+1}(x_4)=f_{n+1}(x_5)=f_n(a_n^k),\\
f_{n+1}(x_2)&=f_{n+1}(x_3)=f_n(a_n^k)+\tfrac16\abs{a_n^{k+1}-a_n^k}.
\intertext{If $f_n(a_n^k)\neq f_n(a_n^{k+1})$, set $A_n^k=\{x_0,x_1,x_4,x_5\}$ and}
f_{n+1}(x_0)&=f_n(a_n^k),\\
f_{n+1}(x_5)&=f_n(a_n^{k+1}),\\
f_{n+1}(x_1)&=f_{n+1}(x_4)=\tfrac12\bigl(f_n(a_n^k)+f_n(a_n^{k+1})\bigr)
\end{align*}
and let $\mc A_{n+1}=\bigcup_{k=0}^{r_n-1}A_n^k$.
\begin{lem}\label{L2}
Let $n\in\Nset$ and $k<r_n$. Then the following holds:
\begin{enum}
\item If $k>0$, then $\abs{a_n^{k-1}-a_n^k}
\leq 3\abs{a_n^{k+1}-a_n^k}\leq 9\abs{a_n^{k-1}-a_n^k}$,
\item $\abs{a_{2n}^{k+1}-a_{2n}^k}\leq \left(\frac{3}{25}\right)^n$,
\item $\abs{a_{2n+1}^{k+1}-a_{2n+1}^k}\leq \frac15\left(\frac{3}{25}\right)^n$,
\item $\abs{a_n^{k+1}-a_n^k}\geq \left(\frac15\right)^n$,
\item $f_i(a_n^k)=f_n(a^k_n)$ if $i\geq n$,
\item $\abs{f_n(a_n^{k+1})-f_n(a_n^k)}\leq\frac16\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^n$,
\item $\frac{\abs{f_n(a_n^k)-f_n(a_n^{k+1})}}{\abs{a_n^k-a_n^{k+1}}}=
0$ or $\frac{\abs{f_n(a_n^k)-f_n(a_n^{k+1})}}{\abs{a_n^k-a_n^{k+1}}}\geq
\frac56$,
\item if $i>0$ and $x\in [a_n^k,a_n^{k+1}]$, then
\begin{align*}
\min\bigl(f_n(a^k_n),f_n(a_n^{k+1})\bigr)&\leq f_{n+i}(x)\\
&\leq
\max\bigl(f_n(a^k_n),f_n(a_n^{k+1})\bigr)+\abs{a^{k+1}_n-a_n^k}
\,\sum_{j=1}^i6^{-j},
\end{align*}
\item if $i>0$, $x\in (a_n^k,a_n^{k+1})$ and $f_n(a_n^k)\neq f_n(a_n^{k+1})$, then
$$
f_{n+i}(x)<\max\bigl(f_n(a^k_n),f_n(a_n^{k+1})\bigr),
$$
\item $f_n$ is continuous and $f_n(x)\in [0,1]$ for all $x\in [0,1]$.
\end{enum}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(i)--(v) follows right away from the construction of functions $f_n$.
(vi) can be easily proved from the construction using (ii) and (iii).
(vii): Case $n=0$ is trivial.
Assume (vii) holds for some $n\geq 0$ and we prove it for $n+1$.
Let $i<r_{n+1}$ be arbitrary. There exists $k<r_n$ such that
$a_{n+1}^i,a_{n+1}^{i+1}\in [a^k_n,a^{k+1}_n]$.
\textbullet{}
If $\dfrac{\abs{f_n(a_n^k)-f_n(a_n^{k+1})}}{\abs{a_n^k-a_n^{k+1}}}=0$, then
$$
\frac{\abs{f_{n+1}(a_{n+1}^i)-f_{n+1}(a_{n+1}^{i+1})}}{\abs{a_{n+1}^i-a_{n+1}^{i+1}}}=0
\quad\vee\quad
\frac{\abs{f_{n+1}(a_{n+1}^i)-f_{n+1}(a_{n+1}^{i+1})}}{\abs{a_{n+1}^i-a_{n+1}^{i+1}}}
=\frac56.
$$
\textbullet{}
If $\dfrac{\abs{f_n(a_n^k)-f_n(a_n^{k+1})}}{\abs{a_n^k-a_n^{k+1}}}\neq 0$,
then
$$
\frac{\abs{f_{n+1}(a_{n+1}^i)-f_{n+1}(a_{n+1}^{i+1})}}{\abs{a_{n+1}^i-a_{n+1}^{i+1}}}=0
$$
or
$$
\frac{\abs{f_{n+1}(a_{n+1}^i)-f_{n+1}(a_{n+1}^{i+1})}}{\abs{a_{n+1}^i-a_{n+1}^{i+1}}}
=\frac{5}{2}\frac{\abs{f_n(a_n^k)-f_n(a_n^{k+1})}}{\abs{a_n^k-a_n^{k+1}}}\geq \frac56.
$$
(viii): The first inequality is obvious. The second inequality is proved
by induction over $i$.
Case $i=1$ easily follows from the construction. Suppose that this statement is true
for $i=p$. We show that it is also true for $i=p+1$.
Find $l<r_{n+1}$ such that $x\in [a_{n+1}^l,a_{n+1}^{l+1}]$ and
use the induction hypothesis to compare $f_n(a^k_n),f_n(a^{k+1}_n)$ with
$f_{n+1}(a^l_{n+1}),f_{n+1}(a^{l+1}_{n+1})$ (which is the case $i=1$) and
$f_{n+1}(a^l_{n+1}),f_{n+1}(a^{l+1}_{n+1})$ with $f_{n+p+1}(x)$ (which is the case $i=p$).
(ix): This is similar to (viii). Case $i=1$ easily follows from
the construction. Proceed by induction: Assume that the statement is true for
$i=p$. We show that it is also true for $i=p+1$. Find $l<r_{n+1}$ such that
$x\in [a_{n+1}^l,a_{n+1}^{l+1}]$.
If $f(a_{n+1}^l)\neq f(a_{n+1}^{l+1})$ then use the statement to compare
$f_n(a^k_n),f_n(a^{k+1}_n)$ with
$f_{n+1}(a^l_{n+1}),f_{n+1}(a^{l+1}_{n+1})$ (which is the case $i=1$) and
$f_{n+1}(a^l_{n+1}),f_{n+1}(a^{l+1}_{n+1})$ with $f_{n+p+1}(x)$ (which is the case $i=p$).
If $f(a_{n+1}^l)=f(a_{n+1}^{l+1})$ then by the construction and (vii) we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{25}{36}\abs{a_{n+1}^l-a_{n+1}^{l+1}}&=\frac{5}{12}\abs{a_n^{k+1}-a_n^k}\\
&\leq\frac12\max\bigl(f_n(a^k_n),f_n(a_n^{k+1})\bigr)-\min\bigl(f_n(a^k_n),f_n(a_n^{k+1})
\bigr)\\
&=\max\bigl(f_n(a^k_n),f_n(a_n^{k+1})\bigr)-f_{n+1}(a_{n+1}^l).
\end{align*}
By (viii) we have
$$
f_{n+p+1}(x))\leq f_{n+1}(a_{n+1}^l)+\frac15\abs{a_{n+1}^l-a_{n+1}^{l+1}}.
$$
Thus $f_{n+p+1}(x)<\max\bigl(f_n(a^k_n),f_n(a_n^{k+1}\bigr).$
(x) can be easily proved from the construction using (viii).
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{L3}
The functions $f_i$ satisfy condition $\mathsf P_1$ for every $i$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $x<y\in[0,1]$ and $i$ be arbitrary such that $f_i(x)=f_i(y)$. We show that
\begin{equation}\label{L1}
\max_{x\leq t\leq y}\abs{f_i(x)-f_i(t)}\leq |x-y|.
\end{equation}
Since $f_i$ is piecewise linear, level sets are finite.
We may thus assume that there is no $w\in(x,y)$ such that $f_i(w)=f_i(x)$.
Let $z\in(x,y)$ be such that
$\max_{x\leq t\leq y}\abs{f_i(x)-f_i(t)}=\abs{f_i(x)-f_i(z)}$.
The case $f_i(x)=f_i(z)$ is trivial. We may thus assume that either $f_i(x)<f_i(z)$
or $f_i(x)>f_i(z)$.
Assume first $f_i(x)<f_i(z)$. By the construction of $f_i$ we can find minimal
$n\leq i$ and $k<r_n-1$ such that $z\in(a_n^k,a_n^{k+1})\subset(x,y)$ and
$f_i(a_n^k)=f_i(a_n^{k+1})\in(f_i(x),f_i(z)]$. By Lemma \ref{L2}(v) we have
$f_n(a_n^k)=f_n(a_n^{k+1})=f_i(a_n^k)$. We show that $f_n(a_n^{k-1})<f_n(a_n^k)$.
Suppose the contrary: $f_n(a_n^{k-1})>f_n(a_n^k)$. By Lemma \ref{L2}(viii) we have
$f_i(t)\geq f_n(a_n^k)$ for all $t\in(a_n^{k-1},a_n^k)$.
So, $x\notin[a_n^{k-1},a_n^k]$. Thus $a_n^{k-1}\in(x,y)$.
By Lemma \ref{L2}(vii) and (i) we have
$$
f_n(a_n^{k-1})\geq f_n(a_n^k)+\frac56\abs{a_n^{k-1}-a_n^k}
\geq f_n(a_n^k)+\frac{5}{18}\abs{a_n^k-a_n^{k+1}}.
$$
By Lemma \ref{L2}(viii) we have $f(z)\leq f_n(a_n^k)+\frac15\abs{a_n^k-a_n^{k+1}}$.
Thus $f_i(z)<f_i(a_n^{k-1})$, which contradicts that $f_i(t)\leq f_i(z)$ for all $t\in(x,y)$.
Similarly, we have $f_n(a_n^{k+1})>f_n(a_n^{k+2})$.
By the construction we have that there exists $l<r_{n-1}$ such that
$a_{n-1}^l=a_n^{k-2}$, $a_{n-1}^{l+1}=a_n^{k+3})$ and $f_n(a_{n-1}^l)=f_n(a_{n-1}^{l+1})$.
By the minimality of $n$ we have $(x,y)\not\supset(a_{n-1}^l,a_{n-1}^{l+1})$.
Thus $x\in[a_{n-1}^l,a_{n-1}^{l+1}]$ or $y\in[a_{n-1}^l,a_{n-1}^{l+1}]$.
We can assume $x\in[a_{n-1}^l,a_{n-1}^{l+1}]$.
By Lemma \ref{L2}(viii) and $x,z\in[a_{n-1}^l,a_{n-1}^{l+1}]$
we have
$$
\max_{x\leq t\leq y}\abs{f_i(x)-f_i(t)}=
\abs{f_i(x)-f_i(z)}\leq\frac15\abs{a_{n-1}^l-a_{n-1}^{l+1}}=
\abs{a_n^k-a_n^{k+1}}\leq\abs{x-y}.
$$
Now assume $f_i(x)>f_i(z)$. By the construction of $f_i$ and Lemma \ref{L2}(viii)
we can find minimal $n\leq i$ and $k<r_n-1$ such that $a_n^k,a_n^{k+1}\in(x,y)$ and
$f_i(a_n^k)=f_i(a_n^{k+1})=f_i(z)$. By Lemma \ref{L2}(v) we have
$f_n(a_n^k)=f_n(a_n^{k+1})=f_i(z)$. Since $f_i(t)\geq f_n(a_n^k)$ for all $t\in(x,y)$
and Lemma \ref{L2}(ix) we have $f_n(a_n^{k-1}),f_n(a_n^{k+2})>f_n(a_n^k)$.
By the construction there is no $l<r_{n-1}$ such that
$(a_{n-1}^l,a_{n-1}^{l+1})\supset(a_n^{k-1},a_n^{k+2})$.
Thus there are two possible cases:
\begin{enum}
\item There exists $l<r_{n-1}$ such that $a_{n-1}^l=a_n^{k+1}$ and
$f(a_{n-1}^{l-1})=f(a_{n-1}^l)$
\item There exists $l<r_{n-1}$ such that $a_{n-1}^l=a_n^k$ and
$f(a_{n-1}^{l+1})=f(a_{n-1}^l)$.
\end{enum}
We prove only (i), as the case (ii) is similar. By minimality of $n$ we have
$x\in[a_{n-1}^{l-1},a_{n-1}^l]$. Lemma \ref{L2}(viii) yields
\begin{align*}
\max_{x\leq t\leq y}\abs{f_i(x)-f_i(t)}&=
\abs{f_i(x)-f_n(a_{n-1}^l)} \\
&\leq\frac15\abs{a_{n-1}^{l-1}-a_{n-1}^l}=
\abs{a_n^k-a_n^{k+1}}<\abs{x-y}. \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
The sequence $\{f_n\}$ is uniformly Cauchy.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Fix $n\in\Nset$ and let $k<r_n$. If $a_n^k\leq x\leq a_n^{k+1}$, then
by construction of $f_{n+1}$
$$
\abs{f_{n+1}(x)-f_n(x)}
\leq \frac16|a_n^{k+1}-a_n^k|+\frac{3}{10}|f_n(a_n^{k+1})-f_n(a_n^k)|.
$$
Estimate $|a_n^{k+1}-a_n^k|$ using Lemma~\ref{L2}(ii) and (iii) and
$|f_n(a_n^{k+1})-f_n(a_n^k)|$ using Lemma~\ref{L2}(vi)
and combine the estimates to get
$$
\frac16\abs{a_n^{k+1}-a_n^k}+\frac{3}{10}\abs{f_n(a_n^{k+1})-f_n(a_n^k)}\leq
2^{-n}.
$$
Thus $\abs{f_{n+1}(x)-f_n(x)}\leq 2^{-n}$, irrespective of the particular $k$.
Since the intervals $[a_n^k,a_n^{k+1}]$, $k<r_n$, cover $[0,1]$, we have
$\abs{f_{n+1}(x)-f_n(x)}\leq 2^{-n}$ for all $x$, which is clearly enough.
\end{proof}
This lemma lets us define $f=\lim_{n\to\infty}f_n$. We claim that thus defined
$f$ is the required function. It is of course continuous.
By Lemma \ref{L3} the functions $f_n$ satisfy condition
$\mathsf P_1$.
It is easy to check that since $f$ is a limit of $f_n$'s, it satisfies
$\mathsf P_1$ as well. We thus have
\begin{prop}\label{vas11}
$f$ is a continuous function satisfying $\mathsf P_1$.
\end{prop}
It remains to show that $f$ fails to have a derivative at almost all points.
For $n\in\Nset$ define
\begin{align*}
A_n&=\cl{\{x\in [0,1]:f_n'(x)=0\}},\\
B_n&= \cl{[0,1]\setminus A_n},\\
B&=\bigcup_{i\in\Nset}\bigcap_{n\geq i}B_n,\\
D&=\left\{x\in [0,1];\ \forall n\in\Nset: x\cdot5^n\pmod 1\notin
\left(\tfrac{1}{5},\tfrac{4}{5}\right)\right\}.
\end{align*}
\begin{lem}\label{vas22}
$\leb(B)=0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For every $n$ set
$\mc M_n=\bigl\{i<r_n:f_n'
\bigl(\frac{a^i_n+a^{i+1}_n}{2}\bigr)\neq0\bigr\}$.
It is easy to see that
$$
B=\bigcup_{n\in\Nset}\bigcup_{i\in\mc M_n}
\{x\cdot\abs{a^{i+1}_n-a^i_n}+a^i_n:x\in D\}
$$
and since obviously $\leb(D)=0$, we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{vas33}
\begin{enum}
\item If $x\notin B$, then $\rd f(x)$ and $\ld f(x)$ do not exist.
\item If $x\in B$, then at least one of the Dini derivatives of $f$ at $x$
is infinite.
\end{enum}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
(i): Let $x\notin B$. We show that $\rd f(x)$
does not exists, the proof for $\ld f(x)$ is similar.
Let $\delta>0$ be arbitrary. Since $x\notin B$ there exist $n\in\Nset$
and $k_i<r_{n+i}$ such that $x\in (a^{k_0}_n,a^{k_0+1}_n)$,
$f_n(a^{k_0}_n)=f_n(a^{k_0+1}_n)$,
$\abs{a^{k_0+1}_n-a^{k_0}_n}<\delta$ and $a^{k_i}_{n+i}=a^{k_0}_n$ for all $i\in\Nset$.
By the construction of functions $f_n$ we have
$f_{n+i}(a^{k_i}_{n+i})=f_{n+i}(a^{k_i+1}_{n+i})$.
Since $x\neq a^{k_0}_n$ there exists $i\in\Nset$ such that
$x\notin [a^{k_i}_{n+i},a^{k_i+1}_{n+i}]$.
We may assume that $x\notin (a^{k_1}_{n+1},a^{k_1+1}_{n+1})$.
By Lemma \ref{L2}(v) and (viii) we have
\begin{align*}
\left|\tfrac{f(a_{n+2}^{k_2+3})-f(x)}{a_{n+2}^{k_2+3}-x}
-\tfrac{f(a_{n+2}^{k_2+4})-f(x)}{a_{n+2}^{k_2+4}-x}\right|
&=\left|\tfrac{f_{n+2}(a_{n+2}^{k_2+3})-f(x)}{a_{n+2}^{k_2+3}-x}
-\tfrac{f_{n+2}(a_{n+2}^{k_2+4})-f(x)}{a_{n+2}^{k_2+3}-x}\right|\\
&\geq\left|\tfrac{f_{n+2}(a_{n+2}^{k_2+3})-f(x)}{a_{n+2}^{k_2+3}-x}
-\tfrac{f_{n+2}(a_{n+2}^{k_2+4})-f(x)}{a_{n+2}^{k_2+3}-x}\right|\\
&\geq\left|\tfrac{f_{n+2}(a_{n+2}^{k_2+3})-f_{n+2}(a_{n+2}^{k_2+4})}
{|a^{k_0+1}_n-a^{k_0}_n|}\right|\geq\frac{1}{30}.
\end{align*}
Thus, $\rd f(x)$ does not exists.
(ii): Since $x\in B$ there exist $n\in\Nset$ and $k_i<r_{n+i},\ i\in\Nset$,
such that
\begin{itemyze}
\item $x\in [a^{k_i}_{n+i},a^{k_i+1}_{n+i}]$ for all $i\in\Nset$,
\item $f_n(a^{k_0}_n)=f_n(a^{k_0+1}_n)$,
\item $f_{n+i}(a^{k_i}_{n+i})\neq f_{n+i}(a^{k_i+1}_{n+i})$ for all $i>0$.
\end{itemyze}
By the construction of functions $f_n$ we have, for all $i>0$,
$$
\left|\frac{f_{n+i}(a^{k_i+1}_{n+i})-f_{n+i}(a^{k_i}_{n+i})}{a^{k_i+1}_{n+i}-a^{k_i}_{n+i}}
\right|=\frac56\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)^{i-1}.
$$
By Lemma \ref{L2}(v) we have, for all $i>0$,
$$
\left|\frac{f(a^{k_i+1}_{n+i})-f(x)}{a^{k_i+1}_{n+i}-x}
\right|\geq\frac56\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)^{i-1}
$$
or
$$
\left|\frac{f(x)-f(a^{k_i}_{n+i})}{x-a^{k_i}_{n+i}}
\right|\geq\frac56\left(\frac{5}{2}\right)^{i-1},
$$
which is clearly enough.
\qedhere
\end{proof}
Theorem~\ref{vas1} now follows from Proposition~\ref{vas11}, Lemma~\ref{vas22}
and Proposition~\ref{vas33}.
\section{$\MM_1$-points}
\label{sec:m1}
It turns out that being an $\MM_1$-point is a particularly simple and strong property:
it is, modulo negligible set, equivalent to differentiability.
We begin with an elementary lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lemMM1a}
Let $f:I\to\Rset$ be continuous and $y\in I$. Suppose $\eps>0$ is such that
condition~\eqref{pwm} holds with $c=1$.
If there is $x\in(y-\eps,y)$ such that $f(x)>f(y)$, then
$\urd f(y)\leq\frac{y-x}{f(x)-f(y)}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $C$ be the open disc centered at $\psi(x)$ whose boundary circle passes
through $\psi(x)$. If $z\in(y,y+\eps)$, then $\psi(z)\notin C$.
Therefore $\urd f(y)$ is less than or equal to the slope of the line tangent
to $C$ at $\psi(y)$. This slope is clearly equal to $\frac{y-x}{f(x)-f(y)}$,
as required.
\end{proof}
\begin{coro}
Let $f:I\to\Rset$ be continuous and $y\in I$ an $\MM_1$-point.
If $\lld f(y)<0$, then $\urd f(x)\leq \frac1{\abs{\lld f(y)}}$.
\end{coro}
\begin{thm}\label{thmMM1}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is continuous, then there is a set $E\subs I$ such that
$\len(\gr|E)=0$ and $\DD(f)\subs\MM_1(f)\subs\DD(f)\cup E$.
In particular, $f$ is differentiable at almost every $\MM_1$-point.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
If $f$ has a derivative, finite or infinite, at $y$, then there is obviously
$\eps>0$ such that if $y-\eps\leq x<y<z\leq y+\eps$, then
the angle spanned by the vectors $\psi(x)-\psi(y)$ and $\psi(z)-\psi(y)$
is obtuse and consequently
\begin{equation}\label{Hr999x}
\abs{\psi(y)-\psi(x)}\leq\abs{\psi(z)-\psi(x)},
\end{equation}
which is nothing but condition~\eqref{pwm} with $c=1$.
Hence $y$ is an $\MM_1$-point.
To prove the latter inclusion we employ the famous Denjoy--Young--Saks Theorem,
cf.~\cite[IX(4.2)]{MR0167578}: \emph{There is a set $E\subs I$ such that
$\len(\gr|E)=0$ and for every point $x\notin E$ one of the following
cases occurs:
\emph{(a)} $f'(x)$ exists,
\emph{(b)} $x$ is a knot point,
\emph{(c)} $\urd f(x)=-\lld f(x)=\infty$ and $\uld f(x)=\lrd f(x)$ are finite,
\emph{(d)} $\uld f(x)=-\lrd f(x)=\infty$ and $\urd f(x)=\lld f(x)$ are finite.}
Suppose for contrary that there is $y\in\MM_1(f)\setminus(\DD\cup E)$.
Then one of cases (b), (c), (d) occurs.
Since (d) obtains from (c) by reversing the $y$-axis,
we only have to consider (b) and (c). In either case, $\lld f(y)=-\infty$ and
$\urd f(y)=\infty$. The above corollary yields $\urd f(x)\leq0$: a contradiction.
\end{proof}
The set $\gr|\DD(f)$ is, by this theorem and Proposition~\ref{meager2}(iii),
a countable union of closed $1$-monotone sets. An easy symmetry argument gives
a bit more:
\begin{coro}\label{Hr999}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is continuous, then $\gr|\DD(f)$ admits a
countable cover by symmetrically $1$-monotone sets.
\end{coro}
$1$-monotone graphs behave particularly nice:
\begin{thm}\label{1-mono}
If $I$ is compact and $f:I\to\Rset$ is continuous with a $1$-monotone graph
, then $f$ is of bounded variation.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Set $A=\{x\in I: \forall y\in[0,x)\ f(y)-f(x)<x-y\}$ and let $g(x)=f(x)+x$.
Obviously $A=\{x\in I:\forall y\in[0,x)\ g(y)<g(x)\}$,
hence $g$ is increasing on $A$.
By~\cite[VII(4.1)]{MR0167578} there is a non-decreasing extension
$g^*:I\to\Rset$ of $g$.
If follows that $f^*(x)=g^*(x)-x$ is of bounded variation on $[0,1]$
and clearly $f^*(x)=f(x)$ for all $x\in A$.
Therefore $\len(\gr|A)\leq\len(\gr^*)<\infty$.
The same argument shows that letting
$B=\{x\in I: \forall y\in[0,x)\ f(x)-f(y)<x-y\}$ we have
$\len(\gr|B)\leq\len(\gr^*)<\infty$.
Now suppose $x\notin A$, i.e.~there is $y<x$ such that $f(y)-f(x)\geq x-y$.
Lemma~\ref{lemMM1a} yields $\urd f(x)\leq1$. The same argument shows that if
$x\notin B$, then $\lrd f(x)\geq-1$.
In summary, if $x\notin A\cup B$, then $\abs{\urd f(x)}\leq1$.
By the remark following~\cite[IX(4.6)]{MR0167578}
$$
\len(\gr|I\setminus(A\cup B))\leq
\int_{I\setminus(A\cup B)}\sqrt{1+(\urd f(x))^2}\leq
\sqrt2\leb(I)<\infty.
$$
Altogether
$\len(\gr)\leq\len(\gr|A)+\len(\gr|B)+\len(\gr|I\setminus(A\cup B))<\infty$.
In particular, $f$ is of bounded variation.
\end{proof}
Since every nondecreasing function has a $1$-monotone graph, we have the
following characterization of bounded variation.
\begin{coro}\label{BVchar}
A continuous function $f:[0,1]\to\Rset$ is of bounded variation if and only if
it is a sum of two continuous functions with $1$-monotone graphs.
\end{coro}
\section{An absolutely continuous function with a non-\si monotone graph}
\label{sec:MICHAL}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is absolutely continuous, then it is differentiable almost
everywhere and, moreover, the set $\gr|I\setminus\DD(f)$ is of length zero.
Thus Corollary~\ref{Hr999} yields:
\begin{coro}
If $f:I\to\Rset$ is absolutely continuous, then there is a countable family
$\{M_n\}$ of symmetrically $1$-monotone sets such that\label{Hr1000}
$$
\len\Bigl(\gr\setminus\bigcup\nolimits_{n\in\Nset}M_n\Bigr)=0.
$$
\end{coro}
We want to show that this fact cannot be sharpened by providing
an example of an absolutely continuous function whose graph is
not \si monotone.
Recall the notion of strong porosity, as defined in~\cite{HrZi}.
A set $X\subs\Rset^2$ is termed \emph{strongly porous} if there is $p>0$
such that for any $x\in\Rset^2$ and any $r\in(0,\diam X)$
there is $y\in\Rset^2$ such that $B(y,pr)\subs B(x,r)\setminus X$.
The constant $p$ is termed a \emph{porosity constant} of $X$.
As proved in~\cite[Theorem 4.2]{HrZi}, every monotone set in $\Rset^2$ is
strongly porous. More information on porosity properties of monotone sets in $\Rset^n$
can be found in~\cite{ZinFrac}.
M.~Zelen\' y~\cite{2177418} found an example of an absolutely continuous function
whose graph is not \si porou
\footnote{See~\cite{2177418} or~\cite{943561,2201041} for the definition
of \si porous.},
and since a countable union of strongly porous sets is \si porous,
we have, in view of~\cite[Theorem 4.2]{HrZi} mentioned above,
the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
There is an absolutely continuous function on $[0,1]$ whose graph is not \si monotone.
\end{thm}
Zelen\' y's example is rather involved. We provide another example
that is much simpler and moreover it exhibits that the implication
monotone $\Rightarrow$ strongly porous cannot be reversed even for graphs.
\begin{thm}
There is an absolutely continuous function $f:[0,1]\to\Rset$
whose graph is strongly porous, but every monotone subset of $\gr$ is nowhere
dense. In particular, $\gr$ is not \si monotone.\label{Hrrrr}
\end{thm}
The function is built of single peak functions. Let
$\norm x=\dist(x,\Rset\setminus[-1,1])$.
Fix two sequences of positive reals $\seq{a_n}$ and $\seq{b_n}$.
Suppose that $\sum_na_n<\infty$ and let the sequence $\seq{q_n}$ enumerate
all rationals within $[0,1]$. The following formula defines
a real-valued function $f:[0,1]\to\Rset$.
$$
f(x)=\sum_{n\in\Nset}a_n \Bigl\|\frac{x-q_n}{b_n}\Bigr\|
$$
We will show that with a proper choice of the two sequences the function $f$
possesses the required properties.
For simplicity stake write $f_n(x)=a_n \bigl\|\frac{x-q_n}{b_n}\bigr\|$
and $s_n=\frac{a_n}{b_n}$.
\begin{lem}
If $\sum_na_n<\infty$, then $f$ is absolutely continuous. \label{HrA}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Fix $\eps>0$. Choose $m\in\Nset$ such that
$\sum_{n>m}a_n\leq\eps$ and let
$\delta= \frac{\eps}{\sum\limits_{n\leq m}s_n}$.
Suppose $x_0<y_0<x_1<y_1<\dots<x_k<y_k$ satisfy
$\sum\limits_{i=0}^k y_i-x_i<\delta$.
Since $\abs{f_n(x_i)-f_n(y_i)}\leq s_n(y_i-x_i)$ for all $i$ and $n$,
we have, for all $n$,
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=0}^k\abs{f_n(x_i)-f_n(y_i)}&\leq\sum_{i=0}^k s_n(y_i-x_i)
<\delta s_n \label{Hr4}
\intertext
and since the function $f_n$ is unimodal and ranges between $0$ and $a_n$, also}
\sum_{i=0}^k\abs{f_n(x_i)-f_n(y_i)}&\leq 2a_n. \label{Hr5}
\end{align}
Use~\eqref{Hr4} for $n\leq m$ and~\eqref{Hr5} for $n>m$ to get
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i=0}^k\abs{f(x_i)-f(y_i)}
&\leq\sum_{n\leq m}\sum_{i=0}^k\abs{f_n(x_i)-f_n(y_i)}+
\sum_{n>m}\sum_{i=0}^k\abs{f_n(x_i)-f_n(y_i)}\\
&\overset{(\ref{Hr4},\ref{Hr5})}{<}
\sum_{n\leq m}\delta s_n+\sum_{n>m} 2a_n
\leq
\eps+2\eps=3\eps,
\end{align*}
the last inequality by the choice of $\eps$ and $\delta$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{HrB}
If $\lim\limits_{m\to\infty}\frac{\sum_{n>m}a_n}{a_m}=0$ and
$\lim\limits_{m\to\infty}\frac{\sum_{n<m} s_n}{s_m}=0$, then $\MM(f)$ is meager.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that if $s_m>2c$, then the points $q_m-b_m<q_m<q_m+b_m$ witness that
the graph $f_m$ is not $c$-monotone.
We want to show that the same argument works for the entire sum $f=\sum_nf_n$.
The former condition ensures that the terms $f_n$, $n>m$, contribute to the sum
negligible quantities because of their small magnitudes.
The latter condition ensures that also the terms $f_n$, $n<m$, are negligible
because of their small slopes.
Write
$$
\eps_m=\frac{\sum_{n>m}a_n}{a_m}+\frac{\sum_{n<m}s_n}{s_m}
=\frac{\sum_{n>m}^\infty a_n+b_m\sum_{n<m} s_n}{a_m}.
$$
According to Propositions~\ref{intM},~\ref{meager2} and Lemma~\ref{baire}
it is enough to show that $\gr|I$ is monotone for no interval $I$.
Fix $c>0$ and an interval $I$. The hypotheses ensure that $\eps_m\to 0$ and
$s_m\to\infty$. Therefore if $m$ is large enough $m$, then
\begin{equation}\label{Hr7}
\frac{1-\eps_m}{2(\frac1{s_m}+\eps_m)}>c.
\end{equation}
Choose such na $m$ subject to $[q_m{-}b_m,q_m{+}b_m]\subs I$.
Write $x=q_m{-}b_m$, $z=q_m{+}b_m$.
If we succeed to prove that
\begin{equation}\label{Hr8}
\abs{\psi(z)-\psi(q_m)}>c\abs{\psi(z)-\psi(x)},
\end{equation}
we will be done, because the points $x<q_m<z$ will witness that
$\gr|I$ is not $c$-mono\-tone.
Estimate the term on the left
\begin{align*}
\abs{\psi(z)-\psi(q_m)}
&\geq\abs{f(z)-f(q_m)}
\geq\abs{f_m(z)-f_m(q_m)}-
\sum_{n\neq m}\abs{f_n(z)-f_n(q_m)}\\
&\geq a_m-
\Bigl(\sum_{n<m}\abs{f_n(z){-}f_n(q_m)}
+\sum_{n>m}\abs{f_n(z){-}f_n(q_m)}\Bigr)\\
&\geq a_m-\Bigl(\sum_{n<m}s_nb_m+\sum_{n>m}a_n\Bigr)
=a_m-\eps_ma_m=a_m(1-\eps_m),\\
\intertext{and the term on the right}
\abs{\psi(z)-\psi(x)}
&\leq
2b_m+\abs{f(z)-f(y)}\\
&\leq 2b_m+\sum_{n<m}\abs{f_n(z){-}f_n(x)}
+\sum_{n>m}\abs{f_n(z){-}f_n(x)}\\
&\leq 2b_m+2b_m\sum_{n<m}s_n+\sum_{n>m}a_n
\leq 2b_m+2\Bigl(b_m\sum_{n<m}s_n+\sum_{n>m}a_n\Bigr)\\
&\leq 2(b_m+\eps_ma_m)=2a_m\Bigl(\frac{1}{s_m}+\eps_m\Bigr).
\end{align*}
Thus~\eqref{Hr7} yields
$$
\frac{\abs{\psi(z)-\psi(q_m)}}{\abs{\psi(z)-\psi(x)}}
\geq\frac{a_m(1-\eps_m)}{2a_m\bigl(\frac{1}{s_m}+\eps_m\bigr)}=
\frac{1-\eps_m}{2\bigl(\frac{1}{s_m}+\eps_m\bigr)}>c
$$
and~\eqref{Hr8} follows.
\end{proof}
The next goal is to show that with a proper choice of $\seq{a_n}$ and $\seq{b_n}$
the graph of $f$ is porous. To that end
we introduce the following system of rectangles.
Let $\mc R$ denote the family of all planar rectangles $I\times J$,
where $I,J$ are compact intervals,
with aspect ratio $5:3$, i.e.~$\frac{\leb(I)}{\leb(J)}=\frac53$.
Each $R\in\mc R$ is covered in a natural way by $15$ non-overlapping
closed squares with side one fifth of the length of the base of $R$.
The family of these squares will be denoted $\mc S(R)$.
These squares determine in a natural way five closed columns and three
closed rows.
Given $R\in\mc R$, the length of the base of $R$ is denoted $\ell(R)$.
\begin{lem}
There are sequences $\seq{a_n}$ and $\seq{b_n}$ satisfying hypotheses of
Lemma~\ref{HrB} such that for each $R\in\mc R$ there is a square $S\in\mc S(R)$
such that $\inter S\cap\gr=\emptyset$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We build the sequences recursively. Let $g_n=\sum_{i\leq n}f_i$, $n\in\Nset$, be the
partial sums of $f$; graphs of $g_n$ are denoted $\ggr_n$.
Our goal is to find $a_n$'s and $b_n$'s so that for each $n$ the following holds:
\begin{equation}\label{HrSq}
\text{For each $R\in\mc R$ there is a square
$S\in\mc S(R)$ disjoint with $\ggr_n$.} \tag{$\mathsf{C}_n$}
\end{equation}
Choose $a_0$ and $b_0$ so that $s_0>3$. The graph of $f_0$
is obviously covered by three lines: two skewed and one horizontal.
Let $R\in\mc R$.
Each of the two skewed lines, because of their big slopes,
can meet at most two out of the five columns. Therefore one column remains left.
The horizontal line meets at worst two of the three squares forming this column.
Thus one square remains disjoint with each of the three lines and thus
with the graph $\ggr_0$ of $g_0=f_0$. Thus condition $\mathsf C_0$ is met.
Now suppose that $a_i$ and $b_i$ are set up for all $i<n$ so that
condition $\mathsf C_{n-1}$ is met. Let
$\eps_n=\min\{\abs{q_i-q_j}:0\leq i<j\leq n\}$.
\begin{claim}
There is $\delta_n>0$ such that if $\ell(R)\geq\eps_n$,
then there is $S\in\mc S(R)$ that is at least $\delta_n$ far apart from
$\ggr_{n-1}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose the contrary: For each $m$ there is $R_m\in\mc R$ such that
$\ell(R_m)\geq\eps_n$ and the distance of $S$ from $\ggr_{n-1}$ is less than
$\frac1m$ for each square $S\in\mc S(R_m)$. In particular, $\ell(R_m)\leq5$ for all
$m\geq1$ and there is a bounded set that
contains all rectangles $R_m$. Thus passing to a subsequence
we may suppose that $\seq{R_m}$ is convergent in the Hausdorff metric.
The limit $R$ of this sequence is clearly a rectangle with aspect ratio $5:3$
or a point.
But the latter cannot happen, because $\ell(R_m)\geq\eps_n$ for each $m$.
Thus $R\in\mc R$. The distance of $\ggr_{n-1}$ from
each of the squares $S\in\mc S(R)$ is obviously zero. Since the squares are
compact,
$\ggr_{n-1}$ meets all of them: the desired contradiction.
\end{proof}
Choose $a_n<\delta_n$ and $b_n$ subject to
\begin{equation}\label{Hr11}
a_n\leq\frac{2^{-n}}{n}, \qquad s_n>2^n\sum_{i<n}s_i.
\end{equation}
We need to show that thus chosen values ensure condition $\mathsf C_n$.
Suppose first that $\ell(R)\geq\eps_n$. There is $S\in\mc S(R)$ such that
$\dist(S,\ggr_{n-1})\geq\delta_n$. Consequently
\begin{align*}
\dist(S,\ggr_n)&\geq\dist(S,\ggr_{n-1})-\dist(\ggr_{n-1},\ggr_n)\\
&\geq
\delta_n-\max\abs{g_{n-1}-g_n}=\delta_n-\max\abs{f_n}=\delta_n-a_n>0.
\end{align*}
Thus $S$ is disjoint with $\ggr_n$.
To treat the case $\ell(R)<\eps_n$ we first prove
\begin{claim}
If $g_n(x)>0$ and a local maximum of $g_n$ occurs at $x$, then
$x=q_j$ for some $j\leq n$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $g_n(x)>0$ and there is a local maximum of $g_n$ at $x$.
We examine the left-sided derivative $g_n^-(x)$. Clearly
$g_n^-(x)=\sum_{i\leq n}f_i^-(x)$ and each $f_i^-(x)$ is either $0$, or
$s_i$, or $-s_i$.
If all of them were $0$, the value $g_n(x)$ would be $0$, so there is
$i\leq n$ such that
$f_i^-(x)\neq0$. Let $j=\max\{i\leq n:f_i^-(x)\neq0\}$.
First of the conditions~\eqref{Hr11} yields $\abs{\sum_{i<j}f_i^-(x)}<s_j$.
Since $g_n^-(x)\geq0$, it follows that $f_j^-(x)=s_j$.
By the same analysis of the right-sided derivative, letting
$k=\max\{i\leq n:f_i^+(x)\neq0\}$ we have $f_k^+(x)=-s_k$.
Suppose that $j<k$. Then, by the definition of $j$, $f_k^-(x)=0$ and
$f_k^+(x)=-s_k$. But there is no such point. Thus $j<k$ fails.
The same argument proves that $j>k$ fails as well. Therefore $j=k$.
Overall, $f_j^-(x)=s_j$ and $f_j^+(x)=-s_j$. The only point with this property
is $q_j$.
\end{proof}
Now suppose $R=I\times J\in\mc R$ and that $\ell(R)<\eps_n$.
It is clear that if the graph $\ggr_n$ passes through all squares $S\in\mc S(R)$,
then $g_n$ has at least two positive local maxima in $I$. Therefore, by the above Claim,
there are $i<j\leq n$ such that both $q_i$ and $q_j$ belong to $I$.
Consequently $\abs{q_i-q_j}\leq\leb(I)=\ell(R)<\eps_n$,
which contradicts the definition of $\eps_n$. Thus
$\ggr_n$ misses at least one of the squares $S\in\mc S(R)$.
The proof of condition $\mathsf C_n$ is finished.
It remains to draw the statement of the lemma from conditions $\mathsf C_n$.
Fix $R\in\mc R$. Since there are only finitely many squares in $\mc S(R)$,
there is $S\in\mc S(R)$ such that the set $F=\{n:\ggr_n\cap S=\emptyset\}$
is infinite. Since $f=\lim_{n\in F}g_n$, we have
$\gr\subs\cl{\bigcup_{n\in F}\ggr_n}$.
Therefore $\gr$ does not meet $\inter S$.
Conditions~\eqref{Hr11} ensure that $f$ satisfies hypotheses
of Lemma~\ref{HrB}.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem~\ref{Hrrrr}}
The required function $f$ is of course the one constructed in the above lemma.
Let $B(x,r)$ be any closed ball in $\Rset^2$. Inscribe in $B(x,r)$ a rectangle
$R\in\mc R$, as big as possible. By the above lemma there is a square
$S\in\mc S(r)$ such that $\inter S$ misses $\gr$. Inscribe into $S$ an open ball $B$.
This ball is disjoint with $\gr$. The radius of this ball is by trivial calculation
$r/\sqrt{34}$. The closed ball concentric with $B$ and of radius $\frac r6$
is thus disjoint
with $\gr$. We proved that $\gr$ is strongly porous.
The function $f$ is absolutely
continuous by Lemma~\ref{HrA} and $\gr$ is not \si monotone by Lemma~\ref{HrB}.
\qed
\medskip
Since any monotone function has trivially a $1$-monotone graph, and since
every absolutely continuous function is a difference of two increasing
functions, we have
\begin{coro}
A sum of two functions with $1$-monotone graphs need not have a
\si monotone graph.
\end{coro}
\section{Remarks and questions}\label{sec:Q}
We conclude with several remarks and questions that we consider interesting.
\subsection*{Hausdorff dimension}
If a continuous function $f:I\to\Rset$ has a monotone graph, then
$\hdim\gr=1$ by Corollary~\ref{coroHaus}.
The analogy for \si monotone graph fails:
\begin{prop}\label{chdim}
There is a continuous function $f:[0,1]\to\Rset$ with a \si monotone graph
such that $\hdim\gr>1$. Any such function admits a perfect set
of non-$\MM$-points.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
There is a continuous function $g:[0,1]\to\Rset$ such that $\hdim\ggr>1$,
cf.~e.g.~\cite[Chapter 11]{MR1102677}. By~\cite{KMZ}, there is a monotone
compact set $K\subs\ggr$ such that $\hdim K>1$.
Let $C=\{x\in[0,1]:\psi(x)\in K\}$.
Define $f$ to coincide with $g$ on $C$ and on each component of
the complement of $C$ let $f$ be linear and so that it is continuous on $[0,1]$.
Since there are only countably many components, the resulting function
has a \si monotone graph.
To prove the second statement notice that Theorem~\ref{thmHaus} yields
$\hdim\gr|\MM(f)=1$ and thus if $\hdim\gr>1$, then the set of non-$\MM$-points
certainly contains a perfect set.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Nowhere differentiable functions}
The nowhere differentiable function of Proposition~\ref{function} has no
$\MM$-points. Though there is a plethora of other nowhere differentiable functions
with the same property and the argument for nonexistence of $\MM$-points
seems similar to that for nonexistence of derivatives,
in general we know about nowhere differentiable functions only
Corollary~\ref{coroMM2}: the set of $\MM$-points is meager.
\begin{question}
Is there a continuous nowhere differentiable function with a dense or even
perfectly dense set of $\MM$-points? What about $\MM_1$-points?
\end{question}
The Baire category arguments used cannot be adapted to subsets of a graph that
are of positive measure, since such sets may be totally disconnected and thus
have way too many candidates for witnessing order to check.
\begin{question}
Let $f$ be the function of Proposition~\ref{function}.
Is there a set $A\subs[0,1]$ of positive measure such that $\gr|A$
is monotone?
\end{question}
\subsection*{Bounded variation}
By Theorem~\ref{1-mono}, a continuous function with a $1$-monotone graph
is of bounded variation.
It also follows from Proposition~\ref{approximate} that a continuous function
with a monotone, rectifiable graph is differentiable almost everywhere.
\begin{question}
Is there a continuous function on $[0,1]$ with a monotone, rectifiable graph
that is not of bounded variation?
\end{question}
\subsection*{Luzin property}
Recall that $f$ satisfies \emph{Luzin condition} if $\leb(f(A))=0$ whenever $\leb(A)=0$.
Note that if $f$ has a monotone graph, then it satisfies Luzin condition
``almost everywhere'':
Letting $\DD_\infty=\{x\in\DD(f):\abs{f'(x)}=\infty\}$,
we have $\leb(\DD_\infty)=0$ and if $A\cap\DD_\infty=\emptyset$, then
$\leb(A)=0$ implies $\leb(f(A))=0$. Hence $f$ satisfies Luzin condition if and only if
$\leb(f(\DD_\infty))=0$.
The following easily follows from Theorem~\ref{bigder}.
\begin{prop}
A continuous function satisfying Luzin condition with a \si mono\-tone graph
is differentiable
at a set that has positive measure within each interval.
\end{prop}
\begin{question}
Is a continuous function satisfying Luzin condition with a monotone graph differentiable
almost everywhere?
\end{question}
\subsection*{Porosity constant}
We know from~\cite[Theorem 4.2]{HrZi} that any monotone set in $\Rset^2$ is
strongly porous, and from Theorem~\ref{Hrrrr} that the converse fails.
In our proof we showed that the porosity
constant of $\gr$ can be pushed to $1/\sqrt{34}$.
Perhaps a set must be \si monotone if it is strongly porous and its
porosity constant is large enough? For compact sets in the plane it is not so:
Let $C\subs\Rset$ be a strongly porous perfect set such that every
$p<\frac12$ is a porosity constant of $C$. The set $C\times[0,1]$ clearly
has the same property. On the other hand, by~\cite[Lemma 2.1]{HrZi}
it is not \si monotone.
Hence there is a strongly porous compact set $X\subs\Rset^2$ such that every
$p<\frac12$ is its porosity constant and yet $X$ is not \si monotone.
But what about curves and graphs?
\begin{question}
Is there $p<\frac12$ such that every strongly porous curve in $\Rset^2$ with porosity
constant $p$ is monotone or \si monotone?
What about graphs of continuous functions?
\end{question}
\subsection*{Monotone graph vs.~continuity}
Say that a function $f:I\to\Rset$ is \emph{\si continuous} if there is a partition
$\{D_n:n\in\Nset\}$ of $I$ such that $f\rest D_n$ is continuous for each $n$.
We claim that monotone graph does not imply \si continuity.
To see that, let $C\subs[0,1]$ be the usual Cantor ternary set and $g:C\to C$
a non-\si continuous function. By~\cite[Proposition 4.6]{HrZi} $C\times C$ is
monotone. Therefore so is the graph of $g$. Now extend $g$
to $f:[0,1]\to\Rset$ by $f(x)=-1$ for $x\notin C$. Easy to check that $\gr$
is monotone and yet not \si continuous.
How about $1$-monotone graphs? Consider the function $f:[0,1]\to\Rset$ defined
by $f(x)=-1$ if $x$ is rational and $f(x)=x$ otherwise. The graph of $f$ is
$1$-monotone, but $f$ is continuous at no point. However, $f$ is continuous on
both rationals and irrationals.
\begin{question}
Is a function with a $1$-monotone graph \si continuous?
\end{question}
\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} \label{sec:intro}
Finding frequent elements in a dataset is a fundamental operation in data mining. Finding the most frequent elements can be challenging when all the distinct elements have nearly equal frequencies and we do not have the resources to compute all their frequencies exactly. In some cases, however, we are interested in the most frequent elements only if they really are frequent. For example, Misra and Gries~\cite{MG82} showed how, given a string and a threshold $\tau$ with \(0 < \tau \leq 1\), with two passes and $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ words of space we can find all the distinct elements in a string whose relative frequencies are at least $\tau$. These elements are called the $\tau$-majorities of the string. Misra and Gries' algorithm was rediscovered by Demaine, L\'opez-Ortiz and Munro~\cite{DLM02}, who noted it can be made to run in $\Oh{1}$ time per element on a word RAM with \(\Omega (\log n)\)-bit words, where $n$ is the length of the string, which is the model we use; it was then rediscovered again by Karp,
Shenker and Papadimitriou~\cite{KSP03}. As Cormode and Muthukrishnan~\cite{CM03} put it, ``papers on frequent items are a frequent item!''
Krizanc, Morin and Smid~\cite{KMS05} introduced the problem of preprocessing the string such that later, given the endpoints of a range, we can quickly return the mode of that range (i.e., the most frequent element). They gave two solutions, one of which takes $\Oh{n^{2 - 2 \epsilon}}$ space for any fixed positive \(\epsilon \leq 1 / 2\), and answers queries in $\Oh{n^\epsilon \log \log n}$ time; the other takes $\Oh{n^2 \log \log n / \log n}$ space and answers queries in $\Oh{1}$ time. Petersen~\cite{Pet08} reduced Krizanc et al.'s first time bound to $\Oh{n^\epsilon}$ for any fixed non-negative \(\epsilon < 1 / 2\), and Petersen and Grabowski~\cite{PG09} reduced the second space bound to $\Oh{n^2 \log \log n / \log n}$. Chan et al.~\cite{CDLMW12} recently gave a linear-space solution that answers queries in $\Oh{\sqrt{n / \log n}}$ time. They also gave evidence suggesting we cannot easily achieve query time substantially smaller than $\sqrt{n}$ using linear space; however, the best known lower bound,
by Greve et al.~\cite{GJLT10}, says only that we cannot achieve query time \(o \left( \rule{0ex}{2ex} \log (n) / \log (s w / n) \right)\) using $s$ words of $w$ bits each. Because of the difficulty of supporting range mode queries, Bose et al.~\cite{BKMT05} and Greve et al.~\cite{GJLT10} considered the problem of approximate range mode, for which we are asked to return an element whose frequency is at least a constant fraction of the mode's frequency.
Karpinski and Nekrich~\cite{KN08} took a different direction, analogous to Misra and Gries' approach, when they introduced the problem of preprocessing the string such that later, given the endpoints of a range, we can quickly return the $\tau$-majorities of that range. We refer to this problem as parameterized range majority. Assuming $\tau$ is given when we are preprocessing the string, they showed how we can store the string in $\Oh{n (1 / \tau)}$ space and answer queries in $\Oh{(1 / \tau) (\log \log n)^2}$ time. They also gave bounds for dynamic and higher-dimensional versions. Durocher et al.~\cite{DHMNS13} independently posed the same problem and showed how we can store the string in $\Oh{n \log (1 / \tau + 1)}$ space and answer queries in $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ time. Notice that, because there can be up to \(1 / \tau\) distinct elements to return, this time bound is worst-case optimal. Gagie et al.~\cite{GHMN11} showed how to store the string in compressed space --- i.e., $\Oh{n (H + 1)}$ bits, where
$H$ is the entropy of the distribution of elements in the string --- such that we can answer queries in $\Oh{(1 / \tau) \log \log n}$ time. They also showed how to drop the assumption that $\tau$ is fixed and simultaneously achieve optimal query time, at the cost of increasing the space bound by a \((\log n)\)-factor. That is, they gave a data structure that stores the string in $\Oh{n (H + 1)}$ space such that later, given the endpoints of a range and $\tau$, we can return the $\tau$-majorities of that range in $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ time. Chan et al.~\cite{CDSW12} recently gave another solution for variable $\tau$, which also has $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ query time but uses $\Oh{n \log n}$ space. As far as we know, these are all the relevant bounds for Karpinski and Nekrich's original exact, static, one-dimensional problem, both for fixed and variable $\tau$; they are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:results} together with our own results. Related work includes Elmasry et al.'s~\cite{EHMN11} solution for the dynamic
version and Lai, Poon and Shi's~\cite{LPS08} and Wei and Yi's~\cite{WY11} approximate solutions for the dynamic version.
\begin{table}
\tbl{Results for the problem of parameterized range majority on a string of length $n$ over an alphabet of size $\sigma$ in which the distribution of the elements has entropy $H$.\label{tab:results}}
{\begin{tabular}{l@{\hspace{2ex}}|@{\hspace{2ex}}c@{\hspace{3ex}}c@{\hspace{3ex}}c}
source & space & time & variable $\tau$\\[.5ex]
\hline\\[-2ex]
\cite{KN08} & $\Oh{n (1 / \tau)}$ words & $\Oh{(1/\tau)(\log \log n)^2}$ & no\\[1ex]
\cite{DHMNS13} & $\Oh{{n \log (1 / \tau)}}$ words & $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ & no\\[1ex]
\cite{GHMN11} & $\Oh{n (H + 1)}$ bits & $\Oh{(1 / \tau) \log \log \sigma}$ & no\\[1ex]
Theorem~\ref{thm:fixed maj} & $\Oh{n}$ words & $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ & no\\[1ex]
\hline\\[-1.5ex]
\cite{GHMN11} & $\Oh{n (H + 1)}$ words & $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ & yes\\[1ex]
\cite{CDSW12} & $\Oh{n \log n}$ words & $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ & yes\\[1ex]
Theorem~\ref{thm:fast maj} & $\Oh{n \log \log \sigma}$ words & $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ & yes\\[1ex]
Theorem~\ref{thm:small maj better} & \(n H + o (n)(H+1)\) bits & $\Oh{(1 / \tau) \log \log \sigma}$ & yes\\[1ex]
Theorem~\ref{thm:sensitive maj} & \((1 + \epsilon) n H +o(n)\) bits & $\Oh{(1 / \tau) \log \frac{\log (1 / \tau)}{\log w}}$ & yes
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
In this paper we first consider the complementary problem of parameterized range minority, which was recently introduced by Chan et al.~\cite{CDSW12} (and then generalized to trees by Durocher et al~\cite{DSST13}). For this problem we are asked to preprocess the string such that later, given the endpoints of a range, we can return (if one exists) a distinct element that occurs in that range but is not one of its $\tau$-majorities. Such an element is called a $\tau$-minority for the range. At first, finding a $\tau$-minority might seem harder than finding a $\tau$-majority because, e.g., we are less likely to find a $\tau$-minority by sampling. Nevertheless, Chan et al. gave a linear-space solution with $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ query time even when $\tau$ is given at query time. In Section~\ref{sec:minority} we give two results, also for the case of variable $\tau$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item for any positive constant $\epsilon$, a solution with $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ query time that takes \((1 + \epsilon) n H + \Oh{n}\) bits;
\item for any function \(f (n) = \omega (1)\), a solution with $\Oh{(1 / \tau)\,f (n)}$ query time that takes \(n H + o(n)(H+1)\) bits.
\end{enumerate}
That is, we improve Chan et al.'s solution to use either nearly optimally compressed space with no slowdown, or optimally compressed space with nearly no slowdown. We reuse ideas from this section in our solutions for parameterized range majority.
In Section~\ref{sec:fixed maj} we return to Karpinski and Nekrich's original problem of parameterized range majority with fixed $\tau$ and give the first linear-space solution with worst-case optimal $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ query time. In Section~\ref{sec:variable maj} we adapt this solution to the more challenging case of variable $\tau$ and give three results:
\begin{enumerate}
\item a solution with $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ query time that takes $\Oh{n \log \log \sigma}$ space, where $\sigma$ is the size of the alphabet;
\item a solution with $\Oh{(1 / \tau) \log \log \sigma}$ query time that takes \(n H + o (n)(H+1)\) bits;
\item for any positive constant $\epsilon$, a solution with $\Oh{(1 / \tau) \log \frac{\log (1 / \tau)}{\log w}}$ query time that takes \((1 + \epsilon) n H+o(n)\) bits.
\end{enumerate}
With (2), we can support $\Oh{1}$-time access to the string and $\Oh{\log \log
\sigma}$-time rank and select (see definitions in
Section~\ref{subsec:queries}); with (3), select also takes $\Oh{1}$ time. While proving (3) we introduce a compressed data structure with density-sensitive query time for one-dimensional range counting, which may be of independent interest.
We will also show in the full version how to use our data structures for (2) or (3) to find a range mode quickly when it is actually reasonably frequent. We leave as an open problem reducing the space bound in (1) or the time bound in (2) or (3), to obtain linear or compressed space with optimal query time.
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:preliminaries}
\subsection{Access, select and (partial) rank} \label{subsec:queries}
Let \(S [1..n]\) be a string over an alphabet of size $\sigma$ and let $H$ be the entropy of the distribution of elements in $S$. An access query on $S$ takes a position $k$ and returns \(S [k]\); a rank query takes a distinct element $a$ and a position $k$ and returns the number of occurrences of $a$ in \(S [1..k]\); a select query takes a distinct element $a$ and a rank $r$ and returns the position of the $r$th occurrence of $a$ in $S$. A partial rank query is a rank query with the restriction that the given distinct element must occur in the given position; i.e., \(S [k] = a\). These are among the most well-studied operations on strings, so we state here only the results most relevant to this paper.
For \(\sigma = 2\) and any constant $c$, P\v{a}tra\c{s}cu~\cite{Pat08} showed how we can store $S$ in \(n H + \Oh{n / \log^c n}\) bits. For \(\sigma = \log^{\mathcal{O} (1)} n\), Ferragina et al.~\cite{FMMN07} showed how we can store $S$ in \(n H + o (n)\) bits and support access, rank and select in $\Oh{1}$ time. For \(\sigma < n\), Barbay et al.~\cite{BCGNN13} showed how, for any positive constant $\epsilon$, we can store $S$ in \((1 + \epsilon) n H + o (n)\) bits and support access and select in $\Oh{1}$ time and rank in $\Oh{\log \log \sigma}$ time. Alternatively, they can store $S$ in $nH+o(n)(H+1)$ bits and support either access or select in time $\Oh{1}$, and the other operation, as well as rank, in time $\Oh{\log\log\sigma}$. Belazzougui and Navarro~\cite{BN11} showed how to support $\Oh{1}$-time partial rank using $\Oh{n (\log H + 1)}$ bits; in the full version of their paper~\cite{BN??} they reduced that space bound to \(o (n) (H + 1)\) bits. In another paper, Belazzougui and Navarro~\cite{BN12}
showed how, for any function \(f (n) = \omega (1)\), we can store $S$ in \(n H + o (n)(H + 1)\) bits and support access in $\Oh{1}$ time, select in $\Oh{f (n)}$ time and
rank in $\Oh{\log \log \sigma}$ time. They also proved, via a reduction from the predecessor problem, that we cannot support general rank queries in \(o (\log (\log \sigma / \log \log n))\) time while using \(n \log^{\mathcal{O} (1)} n\) space.
\subsubsection{Alphabet partitioning} \label{subsec:alpha_partition}
The sequence representation of Barbay et al~\cite{BCGNN13} uses a technique called alphabet partitioning.
The alphabet $[1,\sigma]$ is partitioned into at most $\lceil\log^2n\rceil$ sub-alphabets. A character $c$ occuring
$n_c$ times will belong to sub-alphabet $\lceil\log(n/n_c)\log n\rceil$. Then the sub-alphabet mapping table $m[1..\sigma]$
is such that $m[c]$ stores the sub-alphabet to which character $c\in[1,\sigma]$ belongs. The sequence $t[1..n]$ over $[1..\log^2n]$ is built from $S$ by replacing every $S[i]$ by the value $m[S[i]]$ (replace every character of $S$ by the sub-alphabet it belongs to). Finally subsequences $S_i[1..t_i]$ of characters over alphabet $[1..\sigma_i]$ are built as follows.
Let $\sigma_i$, be the number of occurrences of character $i$ in $m$.
For every value $i\in[1..\log^2n]$ start with an empty sequence $S_i$, scan the sequence $S$ in left-to-right order and for every character $c=S[k]$ such that $m[c]=i$ append $c$ at the end of $S_i$.
Answering rank, access and select queries on the original sequence $S$ is now achieved through combinations of rank, access
and select queries on sequences $m$, $t$ and $S_i$. The sequences $m$ and $t$ are represented using zero-order compressed multi-ary wavelet tree supporting constant time rank access and selet queries~\cite{FMMN07}. The subsequences $S_i$ are represented
either using a variant of Golynski et al.'s structure~\cite{GMR06} or Grossi et al's result~\cite{GOR10} achieving $O(\log\log\sigma)$ time for rank queries and either constant time select and $O(\log\log\sigma)$ time access (for the former) or
$O(\log\log\sigma)$ select and constant time access (for the latter).
\subsection{Coloured range listing} \label{subsec:listing}
Motivated by the problem of document listing, Muthukrishnan~\cite{Mut02} showed how we can store \(S [1..n]\) such that, given the endpoints of a range, we can quickly list the distinct elements in that range and the positions of their leftmost occurrences therein. This is the special case of one-dimensional coloured range listing in which the points' coordinates are the integers from 1 to $n$. Let \(C [1..n]\) be the array in which \(C [k]\) is the position of the last occurrence of the distinct element \(S [k]\) in \(S [1..k - 1]\) --- i.e., the last occurrence before \(S [k]\) itself --- or 0 if there is no such occurrence. Notice \(S [k]\) is the first occurrence of that distinct element in a range \(S [i..j]\) if and only if \(i \leq k \leq j\) and \(C [k] < i\). We store $C$, implicitly or explicitly, and a data structure supporting $\Oh{1}$-time range-minimum queries on $C$ that returns the position of the leftmost occurrence of the minimum in the range.
To list the distinct elements in a range \(S [i..j]\) given $i$ and $j$, we find the position $m$ of the leftmost occurrence of the minimum in the range \(C [i..j]\); check whether \(C [m] < i\); and, if so, output \(S [m]\) and $m$ and recurse on \(C [i..m - 1]\) and \(C [m + 1..j]\). This procedure is online --- i.e., we can stop it early if we want only a certain number of distinct elements --- and the time it takes per distinct element is $\Oh{1}$ plus the time to access $C$.
Suppose we already have data structures supporting access, select and partial rank queries on $S$, all in $\Oh{t}$ time. Notice \(C [k] = S.\select_{S [k]} \left( \rule{0ex}{2ex} S.\rank_{S [k]} (k) - 1 \right)\), so we can also support access to $C$ in $\Oh{t}$ time. Sadakane~\cite{Sad07} and Fischer~\cite{Fis10} gave $\Oh{n}$-bit data structures supporting $\Oh{1}$-time range-minimum queries. Therefore, we can implement Muthukrishnan's solution using $\Oh{n}$ extra bits such that it takes $\Oh{t}$ time per distinct element listed.
\subsection{Minimal perfect hashing} \label{subsec:mphf}
Given a set $X\subset [1..U]$ such that $|X|=n$, a minimal perfect hash function (mphf for short)
is a bijective function from $X$ onto $[1..n]$.
It is well-knwon result that any general scheme capable of representing
an mphf for any given subset $X$ of $U$ of size $n$ requires exactly $n\log_2 e+\Theta(\log\log U)$ bits~\cite{Fr84}
to represent such an mphf. This bound is almost achieved in \cite{HT01} with a randomized
linear time construction and space $n\log_2 e+\Theta(\log\log U)+o(n)$ bits.
\subsection{Monotone minimal perfect hashing} \label{subsec:mmphf}
A monotone minimal perfect hash function (mmphf) is a mphf
which in addition to being bijective, is also monotone.
That is given a set $X\subset [1..U]$ such that $|X|=n$, an mmphf
$f$ over the set $X$ is a bijective function from $X$ onto $[1..n]$
and such for any pair $(x,y)\in X^2$ we have that $f(x)<f(y)$
if and only if $x<y$. In~\cite{BBPV09} two general schemes for
generating mmphf representations were proposes.
The first one allows query time $O(1)$ and representation
space $O(n\log\log U)$ bits. The second allows query time $O(\log\log U)$
and uses space $O(n\log\log\log U)$.
\subsection{Prefix sum data structures} \label{subsec:prefsum_ds}
Given an array $A$ of $n$ values that sum up to $U$, a prefix-sum
data structure uses answers to the following queries:
given index $i$, return the sum
of all the values of indices ranging from $1$ to $i$.
It is possible to get a prefix sum that uses $(n+U)(1+o(1))$ bits
of space and that answers to queries as follows. Create a bivector $V$
that contains $n$ ones and $U$ zeros by scanning the original array
and for each value $A[i]$ append $A[i]$ zeros followed by a one.
Then the prefix sum up to position $i$ can be answered by a $\select_1(i)$ query on the vector $V$,
fininding the position of the $j$th one in the bitvector.
The answer is then the number of zeros that precede that position
which is then $j-i$.
It is possible to improve the space of the above scheme to use only
$n(2+\lceil \log(U/n)\rceil)+o(n)$ bits of space as follows. Build a bitvector
that contains $n+U/\lceil U/n\rceil\leq 2n$ bits, where the $i$th one
in the bitvector is preceded by $\lfloor((\sum_{1\leq j\leq i}A[j])/\lceil U/n\rceil )\rfloor$ zeros
We then build another vector $B$ of $n$ values of $\lceil \log(U/n)\rceil$
bits each, where $B[i]$ stores the value
$(\sum_{1\leq j\leq i}A[j])-\lfloor((\sum_{1\leq j\leq i}A[j])/\lceil U/n\rceil )\rfloor$.
In other words, the bitvector $V$ stores the prefix sums divided by
$\lceil U/n\rceil$ and the vector $B$ stores the values modulo $\lceil U/n\rceil$.
A query is ansered by using a select operaton on $V$ followed by
reading one cell from $B$.
\subsection{Indexable dictionaries} \label{subsec:indexable_dict}
Given a set $X\subset [1..U]$ with $|X|=n$, an indexable dictionary ~\cite{RRR07} is data
structure that uses $O(n\log(U/n))$ bits of space and that answers to membership queries
in constant time. A membership query asks given any element $x\in U$, whether $x\in X$
or not. In addition the dictionary associates a unique number to each element in $[1..n]$
to each element of $X$.
\subsection{Predecessor data structures} \label{subsec:pred_struct}
Given a set $X\subset [1..U]$ with $|X|=n$, a predecessor
data structure answers to the following query. Given an element
$y\in U$ return the greatest element $x\in X$ such that
$x\leq y$. The y-fast trie~\cite{Wi83} achieves linear space $O(n\log U)$
bits with query time $O(\log\log U)$. The rank of $y$ is defined as the
number of elements of $X$ no greated than $y$.
The rank of $y$ being the same as that of its predecessor $x$,
it is easy to modify a (static) predecessor data structure to return
the rank of the queried element by explicitly storing the rank of every
element $x\in X$ and return it whenever element $x$ is returned.
\ignore{OJO MORE things to the basic discussion: mmphf (incl space), prefix sum using
bits (by appending the cardinalities of the intervals in a bitmap $B_\ell$ in
unary (i.e., cardinality $c$ is stored as $1^{c-1}0$) and using $\select$ to
get prefix sums, incl space), predecessor ds incl y-fast trie and how it
returns ranks, mphf (no mmphf), dictionaries using $\Oh{n\log(U/n)}$ bits and
answer membership in constant time.
This paragraph is useful for related work on Sec \ref{sec:pred}:}
A {\em short-distance sensitive} predecessor data structure for the set of points that, given an element $x\in U$, returns the predecessor of $x$ in $\Oh{\log\log d}$ time, where $d$ is the minimum of the distances from $x$ to its predecessor and to its successor in $S$.
The first such data structure was proposed by Johnson~\cite{Jo81}.
Then Bose et al.\ \cite{BDDHM10,BKDHM12}, improved the space to $\Oh{n\log U\log\log\log U}$ bits.
Both Johnson and Bose et al. solutions support insetions and deletions.
Recently by Belazzougui et al.\ \cite{BBV11} proposed a more space-efficient static variant that uses space $\Oh{n\log U}$ bits
only.
\ignore{This is about the result in Sec \ref{sec:count2}:}
This bound can be considered as the one dimensional
counterpart of the counting bound in~\cite{CW13},
where adaptive counting time $\Oh{\frac{\log(occ+1)}{\log\log(occ+1)}}$ was achieved
for the two-dimensional problem. We notice that both bounds
converge to the lower bounds for 2D and 1D range counting, which are
respectively $\Omega\left(\frac{\log(n+1)}{\log\log(n+1)}\right)$ and
$\Omega\left(\sqrt{\frac{\log(n+1)}{\log\log(n+1)}}\right)$.
\section{Predecessors in a Range}
\label{sec:pred}
Assume we have a vector $X$ that contains $n$ elements from universe $[1,U]$ in
sorted order. We consider the problem of, given an interval $[i,j]$ of the
universe that does contain elements of $X$, finding the predecessor of $j$ (the
answer can be arbitrary, even wrong, if the interval contains no point of $X$).
Our aim is to perform better when the range is smaller. We start with a basic
solution that requires time $\Oh{\lg\lg(j-i+1)}$ and $\Oh{n(\lg\lg U)^2}$ bits
of space. Then we use it as a building block to design a more elaborate
variant that improves on both time and space.
\subsection{A Simple Data Structure} \label{sec:dist-sens}
Our data structure has $\log\log U$ {\em levels}. At a level $\ell$, we divide the universe into $\lceil U/2^{2^{\ell}}\rceil$ overlapping intervals, so that interval $k$ will be $[k\cdot 2^{2^{\ell}}+1,(k+2)2^{2^{\ell}}]$. We consider separately the intervals with even and odd $k$ (we call them even and odd intervals, respectively). For each of the two categories, the set of intervals will be disjoint. For each category, we use a mmphf $F_\ell$ that stores the values $k$ corresponding to nonempty intervals, and a prefix sum data structure $B_\ell$ to store the number of elements in each nonempty interval $k$. With $F_\ell$ and $B_\ell$ we map in constant time from a nonempty interval $k$ to its corresponding area in $X$ (say $p=F_\ell(k)$, then the area is $X[sum(B_\ell,p-1)+1~..~sum(B_\ell,p)]$). Since there are at most $n$ nonempty intervals of each category, $F_\ell$ uses $\Oh{n\log\log U}$ bits. Structure $B_\ell$ uses $\Oh{n}$ bits.
In addition, for each nonempty interval with more than $2^\ell$ elements, we store a {\em local predecessor search data structure (lpsds)}.
The lpsds of an interval
samples one every $2^\ell$ elements in the interval and stores them in a local y-fast trie. The y-fast trie of elements $x\in[k\cdot 2^{2^{\ell}}+1,(k+2)2^{2^{\ell}}]$ will store keys $x-k\cdot 2^{2^{\ell}}-1$, and thus will range over a universe of size
$\Oh{2^{2^\ell}}$. Since they store, in total, $\Oh{n/2^\ell}$ elements over a
universe of size $\Oh{2^{2^\ell}}$, the space of all the lpsds adds up to $\Oh{n}$ bits at level $\ell$.
Since a lpsds storing $m_r$ elements uses at most $cm_r$ bits, for some constant $c$, we store them one after the other, reserving $cm_r$ bits for each lpsds storing $m_r$ elements. We store a partial sum data structure $P_\ell$ on the $m_r$ values (if there are less than $2^\ell$ elements, then $m_r=0$ and no lpsds is stored). Then we can find in constant time, using $sum$ on $P_\ell$, the starting point of each lpsds. Structure $P_\ell$ uses at most $\Oh{n}$ bits.
Then, to carry out a predecessor search on interval $[i,j]$, we proceed as
follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We compute $\ell = \lceil \log\log (j-i+1) \rceil$, so that the
query is for sure contained in an (even or odd) interval $k$ of level $\ell$.
Number $k$ is found algebraically in constant time.
\item We use $F_\ell$ to map $k$ to its position $p$ in the nonempty intervals,
and then $B_\ell$ to find the corresponding range $X[i_k..j_k]$. This takes
constant time.
\item If $j_k-i_k+1 \le 2^\ell$, we complete the query with a binary search
on $X[i_k..j_k]$, in time $\Oh{\ell}$, and finish.
\item We use the local predecessor search data structure of interval $p$,
found using $P_\ell$, to determine the subinterval $[i'_k..j'_k] \subseteq [i_k..j_k]$ of size $2^\ell$ where the answer lies. This takes time
$\Oh{\log\log 2^{2^\ell}} = \Oh{\ell}$.
\item We complete the query using binary search on $X[i'_k..j'_k]$, in time
$\Oh{\ell}$.
\end{enumerate}
Our data structures use in total $\Oh{n\log\log U}$ bits for a given level $\ell$, which adds up to $\Oh{n(\log\log U)^2}$ bits in total. They answer queries in time $\Oh{\ell} = \Oh{\log\log(j-i+1)}$ on nonempty intervals. Note that on empty intervals our mmphf $F_\ell$ could return an arbitrary value.
\subsection{A Faster and Smaller Data Structure}
Now we divide $X$ into $\lceil n/b\rceil$ {\em blocks}, each containing $b=\log U$ keys. We build a set $S'$ of {\em sampled} keys by selecting the first element of each block ($X[1],X[b+1],X[2b+1]\ldots$). Thus $S'$ will contain in total $\lceil n/b\rceil$ keys.
Now we use the scheme of Section~\ref{sec:dist-sens}, except for the lpsds implementation, which differs in the choice of the keys it stores. This time we will only have $\log\log (U/n)+1$ levels: we collapse all the levels $\ell$ such that $2^\ell\geq \log (U/n)$. At at each level we will have the same associated mmphf $F_\ell$ and the same partial sums $B_\ell$, but the lpsds are built differently and a smarter encoding yields a space usage of $\Oh{n(\log\log (U/n))^2}$ bits, instead of $\Oh{n(\log\log U)^2}$. The new strategy is to store an lpsds for every interval that contains at least one sampled element (i.e., from $S'$) and to store all the sampled elements in the interval in a fast predecessor search data structure that supports queries in time $\Oh{\log\frac{2^\ell}{\log w}}$. Note that for levels where $2^\ell\geq \log (U/n)$, it is sufficient to achieve time $\Oh{\lg\frac{\log(U/n)}{\log w}}$. All these levels are collapsed, as anticipated, into a singe level where a predecessor search data
structure is built on the on the $\Oh{n/b}$ sampled keys (each of length $\log U$), which answers queries in time $\Oh{\lg\frac{\log(U/n)}{\log w}}$ and uses $\Oh{(n/b)\cdot\log U}=\Oh{n}$ bits (e.g., \cite{BN12}).
Each of the non-collapsed levels $\ell \le \log\log (U/n)$ stores the same kind of predecessor data structure \cite{BN12}, over $\lceil n/b\rceil$ keys of length $2^\ell$. Each such structure uses $\Oh{(n/b)\cdot 2^\ell} =
\Oh{(n/b)\lg(U/n)} = \Oh{n}$ bits, and answers queries in time
$\Oh{\lg\frac{2^\ell}{\lg w}}$. Added over all the non-collapsed levels, the
space is $\Oh{n\log\log (U/n)}$ bits.
Note that those lpsds are built on universes of size $2^{2^\ell} \le U/n$, and
hence the keys require only $\lg (U/n)$ bits.
Since the lpsds are only built on sampled keys, they can only determine a predecessor among the sampled keys. The real answer will be inside the block that separates two sampled keys. To complete the search inside a block of $b$ keys, we store a predecessor data structure \cite[Lem.~3.3]{GRR09} for each block. The structure is an index that uses $\Oh{b\log\log (U/n)}$ bits per block (in addition to a global precomputed table of $\Oh{U^\epsilon}$ bits, any constant $\epsilon>0$) and computes the predecessor in constant time for any $b$ polylogarithmic in
$U$, with $O(1)$ accesses to the data.
Added over all the levels, the space of these structures
is $\Oh{n(\log\log (U/n))^2}$ bits.
\subsubsection{Queries}
In a level $\ell\leq \log\log (U/n)$, and given the range $[i,j]$ determined by $F_\ell$ and $B_\ell$, we first construct a range $[i_0,j_0]$, which is the largest subinterval of $[i,j]$ aligned to block boundaries. We first use the
predecessor structure of the block $[j_0,j_0+b]$ to look for a predecessor of $j$. If it
exists, this is the answer. Otherwise, we carry out a query on the interval
$[i_0-b,j_0]$, which cannot be empty if $[i,j]$ is nonempty and is handled with
the proper lpsds in time $\Oh{\lg\frac{2^\ell}{\lg w}} =
\Oh{\lg\frac{\lg(j-i+1)}{\lg w}}$.
A query on the collapsed level, on the other hand, simply uses the predecessor data structure for that level. This gives our result.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:distpred}
Given $n$ points in the discrete universe $[1,U]$ stored in an array $X$,
there exists a data structure using $\Oh{n(\lg\lg(U/n))^2}$ bits of space that
and solves in time $\Oh{\lg\frac{\lg(j-i+1)}{\lg w}}$, and with $\Oh{1}$
accesses to the array $X$, the following query: Given a range $[i,j]$ known to
contain some element in $X$, return the predecessor of $j$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Number of Points in a Range}
\label{sec:count}
In this section we describe a {\em one-dimensional range counting data
structure} that handles $n$ points in $[1,U]$ and can count the number $occ$
of points in any range $[i,j]$, faster when the range is shorter and when there
are more points to count. We start with a simple solution that takes time
$\Oh{\lg\lg\frac{j-i+1}{occ+1}}$ and $\Oh{n\lg U}$ bits of space. Then we
improve upon it to obtain a faster and smaller data structure, which in
particular requires sublinear space overhead on top of any representation of
the array.
\subsection{A Simple Data Structure} \label{sec:linear-datastructure}
We use $\lceil \log n\rceil-1$ {\em levels}. At each level $\ell \ge 2$ we build a data structure that efficiently answers queries of length between $2^{\ell-2}+1$ and $2^{\ell-1}$. Our structure defines specific {\em intervals} and {\em subintervals}. For clarity we will refer to {\em ranges} to denote any other range of the universe.
Given a level $\ell$, we divide the universe into $\lceil U/2^{\ell-1}\rceil$ overlapping {\em intervals} of size $2^\ell$, so that interval number $k$ will be $[2^{\ell-1}k+1,2^{\ell-1}k+2^\ell]$. It is clear that any range of size at most $2^{\ell-1}$ will be included in at least one interval.
We only consider nonempty intervals. We can have at most $2n$ nonempty intervals, as each point belongs to 2 intervals. We use a mphf $f_\ell$ that maps the $n'\leq 2n$ nonempty intervals into unique numbers in $[1,n']$. The mphf uses $\Oh{n'+\log\log U}=\Oh{n+\log\log U}$ bits of space and answers queries in constant time \cite{HT01}. It gives a correct answer only if we query it for a
nonempty interval.
We consider how to solve queries on nonempty intervals. Suppose that an interval $k$ contains $n_k$ elements. We cut the interval into $n_k$ equally-sized {\em subintervals}, of size $\lceil2^\ell/n_k\rceil$ (the last subinterval can be shorter).
We use a prefix sum data structure to store the number of elements in each subinterval of the interval $k$. That prefix sum structure uses $\Oh{n_k}$ bits. The space usage over all the prefix-sum data structures for all the intervals is $\Oh{n}$ bits. We concatenate the memory areas of the prefix-sum data structures of the intervals (in the order given by the mphf) and store another bitmap $D_\ell$ that marks the beginning of the prefix-sum data structure of each interval. This new bitmap also uses $\Oh{n}$ bits.
We store one instance of this data structure for levels
$\ell=2$ to $\ell=\lceil\log n\rceil$.
Each structure uses $\Oh{n+\log\log U}$ bits of space, resulting in
$\Oh{n\log n + \log n \log\log U}$ bits overall. In addition, we store one
instance of the predecessor data structure of Section~\ref{sec:pred}, and a
{\em range-emptiness} data structure, which tells in constant time whether a
range $[i,j]$ contains any point, using $\Oh{n\log U}$ bits \cite{ABR01}.
\subsubsection{Queries.} \label{sec:linear-queryanswer}
We first perform a range-emptiness query to determine whether the query range $[i,j]$ contains at least one element. If not, we immediately return $0$.
Otherwise we compute $\ell=\lceil\log(j-i+1)\rceil+1$ and algebraically determine the interval of level $\ell$ that encloses $[i,j]$. We answer the query using that interval, which we denote $[I,J]$.
We first use $f_\ell$ to find the index $k$ of the interval $[I,J]$. Because we the interval is nonempty, the mphf gives a meaningful answer. Next we use $D_\ell$ to recover the prefix-sum data structure for the interval $[I,J]$. Then, we find the subinterval $[I_0,J_0]$ of $[I,J]$ that contains $i$ and the subinterval $[I_1,J_1]$ that contains $j$. The number of elements in $[i,j]$ equals the sum of the the number of elements in the three ranges $[i,J_0]$, $[J_0+1,I_1-1]$ and $[I_1,j]$. The count of the range $[J_0+1,I_1-1]$ is found in constant time using the prefix sum structure associated to interval $[I,J]$, as the range $[J_0+1,I_1-1]$ is aligned to subinterval boundaries.
What remains is to determine the counts in the two tail ranges $[i,J_0]$ and
$[I_1,j]$. We only show how to determine the count in range $[i,J_0]$; the
other case is symmetric. First we query the range-emptyness data structure to
determine whether the subinterval $[J_0-\lceil 2^\ell/n_k\rceil+1,i-1]$ is
empty. If it is, then the count in $[i,J_0]$ is the same as in
$[J_0-\lceil 2^\ell/n_k\rceil+1,J_0]$, and thus can be computed from the prefix
sum data structure. Otherwise, we can carry out two predecessor queries, using
the structure of Section~\ref{sec:pred}, for the intervals
$[J_0-\lceil 2^\ell/n_k\rceil+1,i-1]$ and $[J_0-\lceil 2^\ell/n_k\rceil+1,J_0]$,
knowing that both intervals are nonempty. We count the number of elements in
$[i,J_0]$ by subtracting the rank of the predecessor of $i-1$ from the rank of
the predecessor of $J_0$.
The query time is dominated by that of the predecessor search,
$\Oh{\log\frac{\log\lceil2^\ell/n_k\rceil}{\log w}}$ according to
Theorem~\ref{thm:distpred}. Now note that $n_k$, the number of elements in
$[I,J]$, is at least $occ$. On the other hand $J-I+1=2^\ell$ is at most
$4(j-i+1)$. We thus conclude that the query time is
$\Oh{\log\frac{\log\frac{j-i+1}{occ+1}}{\log w}}$, as promised. The space,
however, is still $\Oh{n\lg U}$ bits. Now we introduce an improved solution
that reduces it to $\Oh{n\sqrt{\log (U/n)}}$ bits.
\subsection{A Smaller Data Structure}\label{subsec:compressed_fast_maj}
We now modify the data structure of Section~\ref{sec:linear-datastructure}.
We only build this structure up to level $\ell_0 =
\sqrt{\log\delta}+\log\log\delta$, where $\delta=\lceil U/n\rceil$, and assume
$\delta\geq\log n$ (the case $\delta<\log n$ will be considered at the end of
the section). That is, we only build data structures to handle
intervals of sizes $2,4,\ldots,2^{\ell_0}=2^{\sqrt{\log\delta}}\log\delta$. The structure now uses $\Oh{n\sqrt{\log\delta}}$ bits of space, since at each level it uses $\Oh{n}$ bits. In Section~\ref{sec:range_emptiness}, we also build a more space-efficient range-emptiness index using $\Oh{n\sqrt{\log\delta}}$ bits (on top of a table of keys in sorted order) and answering range emptiness queries in constant time.
We now describe how the upper levels $\ell > \ell_0$ are handled. For any such upper level we store only intervals that have {\em density} at least $1/2^{\sqrt{\log\delta}}$. As every interval of an upper level
is of size at least $2^{\sqrt{\log\delta}}\log\delta$, we only store intervals
that contain at least
$\frac{2^{\sqrt{\log\delta}}\log\delta}{2^{\sqrt{\log\delta}}}=\log\delta$
elements. More generally, in level $\ell = \ell_0 + \ell'$, stored intervals
contain at least $2^{\ell'}\lg\delta$ elements. Thus, we can store these
intervals in dictionaries $R_\ell$ (instead of weaker mmphfs $F_\ell$), which
use $\Oh{\log(U/n)}=\Oh{\log\delta}$ bits per stored interval and answer to
membership queries in constant time. At level $\ell = \ell_0 + \ell'$, there
are $\Oh{n/\left(2^{\ell'}\lg\delta\right)}$ stored intervals, so dictionary
$R_\ell$ uses $\Oh{n/2^{\ell'}}$ bits. This adds up to $\Oh{n}$ bits over all
the upper levels.
At query time, if we do not find the query interval $[I,J]$ in $R_\ell$, we
conclude that the interval is of density less than $1/2^{\sqrt{\log\delta}}$.
Since $[i,j] \subseteq [I,J]$, it follows that $\frac{occ}{j-i+1} <
1/2^{\sqrt{\log\delta}}$, and thus $\lg\lg\delta =
\Oh{\lg\lg\frac{j-i+1}{occ+1}}$. This means that we can answer the counting
query within the promised time using predecessor searches on $X$, in particular
using the structure of Belazzougui and Navarro~\cite{BN12}, which takes
$\Oh{\log\frac{\log\delta}{\log w}}$ time. To reduce its space, we partition
the universe $U$ into $n$ pieces of length $\delta$, and divide the elements
in each piece into slices of $\lg \delta$ elements. If we have more than one
slice, we build the predecessor structure \cite{BN12} on the first elements of
the slices. Inside each slice we will use another predecessor structure for
small blocks \cite[Lem~3.3]{GRR09}. Then, upon a predecessor query, an
$O(n)$-bit partial sums structure leads us to the right piece, the predecessor
structure of the piece leads us to the right slice, and the predecessor
structure of the slice gives the final predecessor. The time is dominated by
the $\Oh{\log\frac{\log\delta}{\log w}}$ complexity of the predecessor structure
of the piece. As for the space, we have $O(n)$ bits for the partial sums,
$O(n\log \delta / \log\delta) = O(n)$ for the predecessor structures on the
pieces, and $O(n\log\log\delta)$ bits for the predecessor structures on the
slices.
We now describe how the dense upper intervals are handled to answer to
queries using only $\Oh{n\sqrt{\log\delta}}$ bits. For every interval $c_i$ at
level $i$ with density $d$ (where $d$ is rounded to the nearest smaller power
of two) we do not necessarily store the bitmap (the one that stores the
cardinalities of the subintervals of the interval), but instead point (using a
pointer) to $c_j$, which is the interval of highest level $j$ such that
(1) the density (also rounded to the nearest smaller power of two) of $c_j$ is
at least $d$, and (2) $c_j$ fully encloses $c_i$.
If $c_i=c_j$ then we store the bitmap of $c_i$. Therefore, at query time, we
simply determine whether the query interval $c_i$ is stored explicitly or has
a pointer to another interval $c_j$. In the second case, we can correctly
solve the query using the data of $c_j$, within the same time complexity (as
it depends only on the rounded density of the interval, which is the same for
$c_i$ and $c_j$). The rest of the section is devoted to analyze the space
usage.
We note that the pointer from $c_i$ to $c_j$ can be encoded using just
$\log\log n+1$ bits: we need only to store the level pointed to,
which requires $\log\log n$ bits, and then we know that only two intervals at
any level $\ell$ can enclose $c_i$, thus the pointer can be uniquely determined
using one additional indicator bit (saying whether the interval is the left or
the right one). Since there are only
$\Oh{n/\left(2^{\ell'}\lg\delta\right)}$ intervals stored at level
$\ell=\ell_0+\ell'$, and
in addition it holds $\delta \ge \lg n$, it follows that there are
$\Oh{n/\left(2^{\ell'}\lg\lg n\right)}$ stored intervals at upper level
$\ell$, and hence the
pointers add up to $\Oh{n}$ bits over all the upper levels.
Now we upper bound the space used by the explicitly stored intervals.
The key issue is to prove that a point appears in at most $2\sqrt{\log\delta}$ bitmaps. To see why, we will first prove that a point appears in at most two bitmaps of a given rounded density $d$.
In order to prove this let us first prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:levels}
There are no three distinct intervals (from any levels) such that the three
pairs of distinct intervals partially overlap each other.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume otherwise. Let the 3 intervals $c_\alpha,c_\beta,c_\gamma$, from levels
$\alpha\le\beta\le\gamma$, respectively. First note that $c_\beta$ overlapping
$c_\alpha$ means that $c_\alpha$ starts at or ends before the middle of
$c_\alpha$. The reason is that $c_\beta$ starts on or ends before multiples of
$2^\beta/2\geq 2^\alpha/2$. Thus in order to overlap with $c_\alpha$ it must
start on or end before a point somewhere strictly inside $c_\alpha$ and the
only point that can be a multiple of $2^\alpha/2$ (and thus possibly a multiple of $2^\beta/2$) is the middle of the interval.
The same argument holds for $c_\gamma$, which must start on or end before the
middle of $c_\alpha$. We now compare $c_\beta$ and $c_\gamma$. If $c_\beta$
(respectively $c_\gamma$) starts in the middle of $c_\alpha$ and $c_\gamma$
(respectively $c_\beta$) ends before the middle of of $c_\alpha$, then they
are not overlapping. It remains to consider the case that both $c_\beta$ and
$c_\gamma$ start on or end before the middle of $c_\alpha$. In this case,
clearly $c_\beta$ is enclosed in $c_\gamma$, simply because they start or end at the same point and $c_\beta$ is bigger than $c_\gamma$.
\qed
\end{proof}
From the lemma we can now prove our next goal.
\begin{lemma}
There cannot be a point that participates in three distinct interval
bitmaps with the same rounded density.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume otherwise.
Let a point participate in distinct intervals $c_i,c_j,c_k$ at levels $i\leq
j\leq k$ with the same rounded density $d$. We prove that if this was the case
then the three intervals $c_i,c_j,c_k$ should be partially overlapping, which
is impossible by Lemma~\ref{lem:levels}. First of all, the three intervals
must include the same point, so they must clearly be overlapping. Also, no
interval can be included in the other, as if this was the case then the
included interval would not be explicit but instead point to some of the
intervals that enclose it, as they have the same rounded density. Thus, each
pair of intervals is overlapping and no interval is enclosed in the other, which means that the pairs of intervals are partially overlapping.
\qed
\end{proof}
As we have exactly $\sqrt{\log\delta}$ distinct levels, we conclude that each
point participates in at most $2\sqrt{\lg\delta}$ explicit bitmaps, and thus
the total space used by all those bitmaps (which store $\Oh{1}$ bits per point
included) is $\Oh{n\sqrt{\log\delta}}$ bits.
\paragraph{The case $\delta < \log n$.} If $\delta = U/n < \log n$, then
$U < n\log n$. In this case we use a different solution. We split the universe
into $n$ intervals of length $\delta < \log n$. A partial sums data structure
accumulates the number of points in each interval using $O(n)$ bits. Inside
each interval, we store one predecessor data structure \cite[Lem.~3.3]{GRR09},
which will add up to $O(n\log\log\delta)$ bits (plus a global precomputed
table of $O(\delta^\epsilon)$ bits), and will solve predecessor queries in
constant time within the intervals. Then the range counting is easily done in
constant time and using $O(n\log\log(U/n))$ bits.
\subsection{Space-Efficient Range Emptiness}
\label{sec:range_emptiness}
A range-emptiness index that uses $\Oh{n\sqrt{\log U}}$ bits already exists
\cite{BBPV10}. Its space can be trivially improved to $\Oh{n\sqrt{\log (U/n)}}=
\Oh{\sqrt{\log\delta}}$ bits by dividing $U$ into $n$ intervals of
size $\lceil U/n\rceil$ and storing in a prefix sum data structure the number
of elements in each interval. Then we build a local range
emptiness index on the elements that belong to each interval. The index will
thus use $\Oh{\sqrt{\log (U/n)}}$ bits per element, for a total of
$\Oh{n\sqrt{\log (U/n)}}$ bits over all the local indexes. Now, given a query
range, it fully contains zero or more consecutive intervals and partially
overlaps one or two intervals. The emptiness of the fully contained
intervals is established using the prefix sum structure, while the
partially overlapped intervals are queried using the local range emptiness
indexes. Thus a range emptiness query can be decided in constant time, and
our final result is proved.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:rangecount}
Given $n$ points in the discrete universe $[1,U]$ stored in an array $X[1..n]$, there exists a data structure
using $\Oh{n\sqrt{\log (U/n)}}$ bits of space that returns the number $occ$ of points in any range $[i,j]$ in time $\Oh{\log\frac{\log\frac{j - i + 1}{\occ +1}}{\log w}}$ and in $\Oh{1}$ accesses to the array $X$. The data structure uses precomputed tables that occupy $\Oh{U^\epsilon}$ bits of space (where $0<\epsilon<1$ is any constant), which are independent of the point set.
\end{theorem}
We can slightly adapt this procedure to return some element when the range
is nonempty. The structure used within the intervals \cite{BBPV10} is a weak
prefix search data structure, so it will return some element when it finds
that the interval is nonempty. In case the only elements are in the sequence
of whole consecutive intervals covered by the partial sum data structure, we
can use the structure to find the first nonempty interval in the sequence
(by searching for the interval where the sum reaches $x+1$, being $x$ the sum
up to the first interval in the sequence, not including it). Once we
have identified a nonempty interval, the weak prefix search data structure
\cite{BBPV10} of this interval will give us one element in it. This feature
will be useful later in the paper.
\section{Number of Points in a Range, Again}
\label{sec:count2}
We propose a different range counting data structure, which performs better
when there are fewer points in the count. Namely, we count in time
$\Oh{\sqrt{\frac{\log(occ+1)}{\log\log(occ+1)}}}$ using $\Oh{n\sqrt{\lg(U/n)}}$
bits.
We use the finger-search data structure of Andersson and Thorup~\cite{AT07}.
Given $n$ elements in the discrete universe $[1,U]$, it uses $\Oh{n\lg U}$ bits
and answers the following variant of the predecessor query: Given a ``finger''
element $k$ and a query for the predecessor of $x$, it answers in time
$\Oh{\sqrt{\frac{\log(rd(x,k)+1)}{\log\log(rd(x,k)+1)}}}$, where $rd(x,k)$ is
the number of points lying between $k$ and $x$. In addition, we will use the
range emptiness data structure of Section~\ref{sec:range_emptiness}.
First, we cut the universe into $\lceil U/n\rceil$ intervals of equal size and
store in a prefix sum data structure the number of elements in each interval.
Given a range counting query, we use the prefix sums to count the number of elements in the intervals that are fully contained in the query range. What remains is to count the number of elements in the up to two intervals that are not fully contained in the query range.
To that end, we sample one every $b$ keys, with $b=\log (U/n)$, inside each
interval, and store the sampled keys in a finger-search data structure for that
interval. We do not store the full keys, but only the least significant
$\log (U/n)$ bits, since the $\log n$ upper bits of all the keys inside an
interval are the same. If an interval contains less than $b$ keys, we do not
store the finger-search data structure. Overall, the finger-search data
structures store up to $n/b$ keys, each of $b$ bits, for a total space usage
of $\Oh{n}$ bits.
The elements between two sampled keys form a {\em block},
and we store one predecessor structure \cite[Lem.~3.3]{GRR09} for each block. These
will add up to $\Oh{n\lg\lg(U/n)}$ bits of space, plus a fixed shared table
of $\Oh{(U/n)^\epsilon}$ bits, for some constant $\epsilon$. The range-emptiness
data structure of Section~\ref{sec:range_emptiness} uses other
$\Oh{n\sqrt{\log (U/n)}}$ bits, which dominate the overall space.
Given a range $[i,j]$ fully contained in an interval, we first ask if the range
is empty. If it is, the count is zero. Otherwise, the range emptiness data structure returns some element $k\in[i,j]$. Then we perform two queries on the finger-search data structure, for the points $i$ and $j$, using the finger $k$. Since $rd(i,k),rd(j,k)\leq occ$, the queries take time time at most $\Oh{\sqrt{\frac{\log(occ+1)}{\log\log(occ+1)}}}$, and give us the predecessor $j_0$ of $j$ and the successor $i_0$ of $i$ among the sampled keys stored in the finger-search data structure. Finally, the ranges $[i,i_0]$ and $[j_0,j]$ are contained in blocks, so a predecessor search on each takes constant time using the predecessor structures.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:rangecount2}
Given $n$ points in the discrete universe $[1,U]$ stored in an array $X[1..n]$, there exists a data structure
using $\Oh{n\sqrt{\log (U/n)}}$ bits of space that returns the number $occ$ of points in any range $[i,j]$ in time $\Oh{\sqrt{\frac{\log(occ+1)}{\log\log(occ+1)}}}$ and in $\Oh{1}$ accesses to the array $X$. The data structure uses precomputed tables that occupy $\Oh{(U/n)^\epsilon}$ bits of space (where $0<\epsilon<1$ is any constant), which are independent of the point set.
\end{theorem}
\section{Counting Elements in a Range}
We now switch to another scenario, where instead of points in a universe we
have a sequence $S[1..n]$ of elements over a discrete alphabet of symbols in
$[1,\sigma]$.
We use the results of the previous sections to answer queries on $S$, on top
of a representation of $S$ that can answer access, rank and select queries.
In this section we show how to count the number of occurrences of a given
symbol in an array interval, in time that improves with its frequency in
the interval, and using compressed space.
The basic idea is to create, for each symbol $1 \le c \le \sigma$, a point set
$P_c = \{ i,~S[i]=c\}$ over universe $[1,n]$, and reduce the counting for
symbol $c$ to range counting on $P_c$. We call $n_c$ the number of occurrences
of $c$ in $S$, and $\delta_c = n/n_c$ its inverse relative frequency. We will
use the range counting structure of Theorem~\ref{thm:rangecount} for each
$P_c$, using $\delta=\delta_c$.
We represent $S$ using alphabet partitioning \ignore{(OJO must explain this in more depth in Sec 2; this explanation is right after Thm 10)}, which distributes the alphabet into subalphabets according to the
value of $\lceil \lg \delta_c \cdot \lg n \rceil$. Thus any pair of symbols
$c$ and $c'$ belonging to the same subalphabet satisfy $\delta_c = \Theta(\delta_{c'})$. In the alphabet partitioned representation, the subalphabets of
polylogarithmic size are represented so that access, rank and select take
constant time, and thus we can solve the counting for those symbols in constant
time using rank queries. Note that if $\delta_c\leq\log n$, it follows that
$n_c \ge n/\lg n$, and thus there cannot be more than $\lg n$ symbols where
that holds. Therefore all those subalphabets are of logarithmic size, and
we can focus only on the case $\delta_c>\log n$.
Note that, on those symbols with larger $\delta_c$, rank queries on the
partitioned representation take time $\Oh{\log\frac{\log\delta_c}{\log w}}$,
and those can be used to solve the counting query. This time is good enough
for intervals of density below $1/2^{\sqrt{\log\delta_c}}$, so this replaces
the predecessor data structure used in Section~\ref{sec:count}.
We also note that the range emptiness data structure needs to access the
array of ``points'' $P_c$. This is simulated with select operations on $S$.
As for the space when $\delta_c>\log n$, the data structure of
Theorem~\ref{thm:rangecount} uses $\Oh{n_c\sqrt{\lg\delta_c}}$ bits.
We let $nH=n'H'+n''H''$, where $n'H'=\sum n_c\log(\delta_c)$ for all $c$ with
$\delta_c>\log n$ is the contribution of characters $c$ with $\delta_c>\log n$
to the total entropy of the sequence $S$
and $n'$ is the total number of occurrences of such characters ($n''$ and $H''$
are similarly defined for the remaining symbols). It is easy to see
that $H'\geq \log\log n$.
By convexity of the logarithm, the total space used for all $c$ with $\delta_c>\log n$ adds up to
$\Oh{n' \sqrt{H'}}\leq O(n'\frac{H'}{\sqrt{\log\log n}})\leq O(nH/\sqrt{\log\log n})=o(nH)$ bits.
We also build the precomputed tables for $\log^2 n$ different values of
$\delta$, thus
all the precomputed tables for the predecessor structures \cite[Lem.~3.3]{GRR09} occupy $\Oh{n^\epsilon\log^2 n}=o(n)$ bits of space.
Therefore, the space is dominated by the (alphabet partitioned) representation
of $S$. Apart from operation rank, it supports select and access in constant
time if we let it use $(1+\epsilon)nH$ bits of space.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:counting}
For any positive constant $\epsilon$, we can store a sequence $S[1..n]$ over
alphabet $[1,\sigma]$ and with per-symbol entropy $H$,
within \((1 + \epsilon) n H+o(n)\) bits, such that it
supports operations access and select in $\Oh{1}$ time and rank in
time $\Oh{\lg\lg\sigma}$. Moreover, given endpoints $i$ and $j$ and a symbol
$c \in [1,\sigma]$, it computes \(occ=\occ (a, S [i..j])\) in time
$\Oh{\log \frac{\log \frac{j - i + 1}{occ+1}}{\log w}}$.
\end{theorem}
\ignore{OJO I changed the lglg n in the denominator to lg w, is this somehow wrong?
If not, this improves Thm 12.
OJO it also said that one can use Thm 3 and obtain another result; I have not
developed this.}
\section{Parameterized Range Minority} \label{sec:minority}
Recall from Section~\ref{sec:intro} that a $\tau$-minority for a range is a distinct element that occurs in that range but is not one of its $\tau$-majorities. The problem of parameterized range minority is to preprocess a string such that later, given the endpoints of a range and $\tau$, we can quickly return a $\tau$-minority for that range if one exists. Chan et al. gave a linear-space solution with $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ query time even for the case of variable $\tau$. They first build a list of \(\lfloor 1 / \tau \rfloor + 1\) distinct elements that occur in the given range (or as many as there are, if fewer) and then check those elements' frequencies to see which are $\tau$-minorities. There cannot be more than \(\lfloor 1 / \tau \rfloor\) $\tau$-majorities so, if there exists a $\tau$-minority for that range, then at least one must be in the list. In this section we show how to implement this idea using compressed space.
To support parameterized range minority on \(S [1..n]\) in $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ time, we store data structures supporting $\Oh{1}$-time access, select and partial rank queries on $S$ and a data structure supporting $\Oh{1}$-time range-minimum queries on $C$. For any positive constant $\epsilon$, we can store these data structures in a total of \((1 + \epsilon) n H + \Oh{n}\) bits. Given $\tau$ and endpoints $i$ and $j$, in $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ time we use Muthukrishnan's algorithm to build a list of \(\lfloor 1 / \tau \rfloor + 1\) distinct elements that occur in \(S [i..j]\) (or as many as there are, if fewer) and the positions of their leftmost occurrences therein. We check whether these distinct elements are $\tau$-minorities using the following lemma:
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:check}
Suppose we know the position of the leftmost occurrence of a distinct element in a range. We can check whether that distinct element is a $\tau$-minority or a $\tau$-majority using a partial rank query and a select query on $S$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $k$ be the position of the first occurrence of $a$ in \(S [i..j]\). If \(S [k]\) is the $r$th occurrence of $a$ in $S$, then $a$ is a $\tau$-minority for \(S [i..j]\) if and only if the \((r + \lceil \tau (j - i + 1) \rceil - 1)\)th occurrence of $a$ in $S$ is strictly after \(S [j]\); otherwise $a$ is a $\tau$-majority. That is, we can check whether $a$ is a $\tau$-minority for \(S [i..j]\) by checking whether
\[S.\select_a \left( \rule{0ex}{2.5ex} S.\rank_a (k) + \lceil \tau (j - i + 1) \rceil - 1 \right) > j\,;\]
since \(S [k] = a\), computing \(S.\rank_a (k)\) is only a partial rank query.
\qed
\end{proof}
To avoid storing $C$, which is used in Muthukrishnan's algorithm, we use
Sadakane's variant \cite{Sad07}, which marks the values found in a bitmap of
size $\sigma$, and stops the recursion when the new symbol to consider is
already marked (for this to work he must first process the left and then the
right interval of the minimum).
This gives us the following theorem, which improves Chan et al.'s solution to use nearly optimally compressed space with no slowdown.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:fast min}
For any positive constant $\epsilon$, we can store $S$ in \((1 + \epsilon) n H + \Oh{n}\) bits such that later, given the endpoints of a range and $\tau$, we can return a $\tau$-minority for that range (if one exists) in $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ time.
\end{theorem}
Alternatively, for any function \(f (n) = \omega (1)\), we can store our data structures for access, select and partial rank on $S$ and range-minimum queries on $C$ in a total of \(n H + \Oh{n} + o (n H)\) at the cost of select queries taking $\Oh{f (n)}$ time.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:small min}
For any function \(f (n) = \omega (1)\), we can store $S$ in \(n H + \Oh{n} + o (n H)\) bits such that later, given the endpoints of a range and $\tau$, we can return a $\tau$-minority for that range (if one exists) in $\Oh{(1 / \tau)\,f (n)}$ time.
\end{theorem}
To reduce the space bound of this t to \(n H + o (n (H + 1))\) bits, improving Chan et al.'s solution to use optimally compressed space with nearly no slowdown, we must reduce the space of the range-minority data structure to $o(n)$.
We do this via sparsification. We cut the sequence into blocks of length $f(n)$, choose the $n/f(n)$ minimum values of each block, and build the RMQ data structure on the new array $C'[1..n/f(n)]$. This requires $\Oh{n/f(n)} = o(n)$ bits.
Muthukrishnan's algorithm is then run over $C'$ as follows. We find the minimum
position in $C'$, then recursively process its left interval, then process the
minimum of $C'$ by considering the $f(n)$ corresponding cells in $C$, and
finally process the right part of the interval. The recursion stops when the
interval becomes empty or when all the $f(n)$ elements in the block of $C$
are marked. In addition we must sequentially process the $2f(n)$ cells of $S$
that only partially overlap blocks in $C'$.
We note that a similar technique is proposed by Hon et
al.~\cite{HSV09}, but it lacks sufficient detail to ensure correctness. We
prove such correctness next.
\begin{lemma}
The procedure described correctly identifies all the distinct points in
$S[i..j]$, working over at most $f(n)$ cells per new element discovered.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We show by induction on the size of the current subinterval $[\ell..r]$ that,
if we start the procedure with the elements that already appear in $[i..\ell-1]$
marked, then we find and mark the leftmost occurrence of each distinct symbol
not yet marked, spotting at least one new element per block scanned.
This is trivial for the empty interval. Now consider
the minimum position in $C'[k']$, which contains the leftmost occurrence of some
element $S[k]$, for some $k$ within the block of $C'[k']$. If $S[k]$ is already
marked, it means it appears in $[i..\ell-1]$, and thus the leftward pointer
$C[k] \ge i$, and so holds for all the values in $C[\ell..r]$. Thus if all the
elements in the block of $C'[k']$ are marked, we can safely stop the procedure.
Otherwise,
before doing any marking, we recursively process the interval to the left of
block $k'$, which by inductive hypothesis marks the unique elements in that
interval. Now we process the current block of size $f(n)$, finding at least
the new occurrence of element $S[k]$ (which cannot appear to the left of $k'$).
Once we mark the new elements of the current block, we process the interval
to the right of $k'$, where the inductive hypothesis again holds. \qed
\end{proof}
By using this procedure to obtain any $\lfloor 1/\tau\rfloor+1$
distinct elements, we obtain the improved result.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:small min better}
For any function \(f (n) = \omega (1)\), we can store $S$ in \(n H + o(n)(H+1))\) bits such that later, given the endpoints of a range and $\tau$, we can return a $\tau$-minority for that range (if one exists) in $\Oh{(1 / \tau)\,f (n)}$ time.
\end{theorem}
\section{Parameterized Range Majority with Fixed $\tau$} \label{sec:fixed maj}
The standard approach to finding $\tau$-majorities, going back to Misra and Gries' work, is to build a list of $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ candidate elements and then verify them. For parameterized range majority, an obvious way to verify candidates is to use rank queries. The problem with this approach is that, as noted in Section~\ref{subsec:queries}, we cannot support general rank queries in \(o (\log (\log \sigma / \log w))\) time while using \(n \log^{\mathcal{O} (1)} n\) space; e.g., with only linear space, we cannot support general rank queries in $\Oh{1}$ time when the alphabet is super-polylogarithmic. If we can find the position of candidates' first occurrences in the range, however, then by Lemma~\ref{lem:check} we can check them using only partial rank and select queries.
Suppose we want to support parameterized range majority on \(S [1..n]\) for a fixed threshold $\tau$. We first store data structures that support access, select and partial rank on $S$ in $\Oh{1}$ time, which takes $\Oh{n}$ space. For \(0 \leq b \leq \lfloor \log n \rfloor\), let \(F_b [1..n]\) be the binary string in which \(F_b [k] = 1\) if the distinct element \(S [k]\) occurs at least \(\tau 2^b\) times in \(S [k..k + 2^{b + 1} - 1]\); and let $S_b$ and $C_b$ be the subsequences of $S$ and $C$, respectively, consisting of those elements flagged by 1s in $F_b$. We store $F_b$ in $\Oh{n}$ bits such that we can support access, rank and select queries on $F_b$ in $\Oh{1}$ time. Notice we can implement an access query on $S_b$ or $C_b$ as a select query on $F_b$ and access queries on $S$ or $C$, respectively. As described in Section~\ref{subsec:listing}, we can implement an access query to $C$ as access, select and partial rank queries on $S$. We also store an $\Oh{1}$-time range-minimum data
structure for $C_b$, which takes $\Oh{|S_b|}$ bits.
With these data structures, given endpoints $i$ and $j$ with \(\lfloor \log (j
- i + 1) \rfloor = b\), we use Muthukrishnan's algorithm to list the distinct
elements in \(S_b [F_b.\rank_1 (i)..\)
\(F_b.\rank_1 (j)]\) and the positions of their leftmost occurrences therein; we then use select queries on $F_b$ to find the positions of those elements in $S$. That is, we list the distinct elements in \(S [i..j]\) that are flagged by 1s in $F_b$ and the positions of their leftmost flagged occurrences therein. We then apply Lemma~\ref{lem:check} to each of these elements, treating the positions of their leftmost flagged occurrences as the positions of their leftmost occurrences. Since each distinct element in \(S [i..j]\) that is flagged in $F_b$ occurs at least \(\tau 2^b\) times in \(S [i..j + 2^{b + 1} - 1] \subset S [i..i + 2^{b + 2}]\), there are $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ of them and we use a total of $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ time.
Notice that the leftmost flagged occurrences of a distinct element $a$ in \(S [i..j]\) may not necessarily be the leftmost occurrence therein. However, if $a$ is a $\tau$-majority in \(S [i..j]\) then, by definition, $a$ occurs at least \(\tau (j - i + 1) \geq \tau 2^b\) times in \(S [i..j] \subset S [i..i + 2^{b + 1} - 1]\), so $a$'s leftmost occurrence in \(S [i..j]\) is flagged by a 1 in $F_b$ and, therefore, we apply Lemma~\ref{lem:check} to it. It follows that we return each $\tau$-majority in \(S [i..j]\).
We store only one set of data structures supporting access, select and partial rank on $S$. Summing over $b$ from 0 to \(\lfloor \log n \rfloor\), the data structures for range-minimum queries take a total of $\Oh{n \log n}$ bits, which is $\Oh{n}$ words. Therefore, we have the first linear-space data structure with worst-case optimal $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ query time for Karpinski and Nekrich's original problem of parameterized range majority with fixed $\tau$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:fixed maj}
Given a threshold $\tau$, we can store a string in linear space and support parameterized range majority in $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ time.
\end{theorem}
\section{Parameterized Range Majority with Variable $\tau$} \label{sec:variable maj}
\subsection{Nearly linear space with optimal query time} \label{subsec:fast maj}
Suppose we have an instance of the data structure from Theorem~\ref{thm:fixed maj} for each threshold \(1, 1 / 2, 1 / 4, \ldots, 1 / 2^{\lceil \log n \rceil}\), which takes a total of $\Oh{n \log n}$ space. Given endpoints $i$ and $j$ and a threshold $\tau$, we can use the instance for threshold \(1 / 2^{\lceil \log (1 / \tau) \rceil}\) to build a list of $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ candidate elements and then check them with Lemma~\ref{lem:check}; this takes a total of $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ time and returns all the $\tau$-majorities in \(S [i..j]\). Gagie et al. used a variant of this idea to obtain the first data structure for variable $\tau$. We can easily reduce our space bound to $\Oh{n \log \sigma}$ because, if \(1 / \tau \geq \sigma\), then we can simply use Muthukrishnan's algorithm with $S$ and $C$ to list in \(\Oh{\sigma} = \Oh{1 / \tau}\) time all the distinct elements in \(S [i..j]\) and the positions of their leftmost occurrences therein, then check them with Lemma~\ref{lem:check}.
Notice that we need store only one set of data structures supporting access, select and partial rank on $S$. Also, if \(S [k]\) is a \((1 / 2^t)\)-majority in a range, then it is also a \((1 / 2^{t'})\)-majority for all \(t' \geq t\). It follows that if, instead of querying only the instance for the threshold \(1 / 2^{\lceil \log (1 / \tau) \rceil}\), we query the instances for all the thresholds \(1, 1 / 2, 1 / 4, \ldots, 1 / 2^{\lceil \log (1 / \tau) \rceil}\) --- which still takes \(\Oh{\sum_{t = 0}^{2^{\lceil \log (1 / \tau) \rceil}} 2^t} = \Oh{1 / \tau}\) time --- then we can modify the instances to reduce the total number of 1s in their binary strings. Specifically, for \(0 \leq t \leq \lceil \log \sigma \rceil\), let $F_b^t$ be the binary string $F_b$ in the instance for threshold \(1 / 2^t\); we modify $F_b^t$ such that \(F_b^t [k] = 1\) if and only if the number of occurrences of the distinct element \(S [k]\) in \(S [k..k + 2^{b + 1} - 1]\) is at least $2^{b - t}$ times but less than $2^{b - t +
1}
$.
For \(0 \leq b \leq \lfloor \log n \rfloor\) and \(1 \leq k \leq n\), we have
\(F_b^t [k] = 1\) for at most one value of $t$. Therefore, all the binary
strings contain a total of at most \(n (\lfloor \log n \rfloor + 1)\) copies of 1,
so all the range-minimum data structures take a total of $\Oh{n \log n}$ bits.
Since the binary strings have total length \(n \lceil \log n \rceil \lceil
\log \sigma \rceil\), we can use P\v{a}tra\c{s}cu's data structure to store
them in a total of $\Oh{n \log (n) \log \log \sigma}$ bits. A slightly neater
approach is to represent all the binary strings \(F_b^0, \ldots, F_b^{\lceil
\log \sigma \rceil}\) as a single string \(T_b [1..n]\) in which \(T_b [k] =
t\) if \(F_b^t [k] = 1\), and $\infty$ if there is no such value $t$. We can
implement access, rank and select queries on \(F_b^0, \ldots, F_b^{\lceil \log
\sigma \rceil}\) by access, rank and select queries on $T_b$. Since $T_b$ is
an alphabet of size $\Oh{\log \sigma}$, we can use Ferragina et al.'s data
structure to store it in $\Oh{n \log \log \sigma}$ bits and support access, rank and select queries in $\Oh{1}$ time. Either way, in total we use $\Oh{n \log \log \sigma}$ space.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:fast maj}
We can store $S$ in $\Oh{n \log \log \sigma}$ space such that later, given the endpoints of a range and $\tau$, we can return the $\tau$-majorities for that range in $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ time.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Optimally compressed space with nearly optimal query time} \label{subsec:small maj}
To be able to apply Lemma~\ref{lem:check}, we must be able to find the leftmost occurrence of each $\tau$-majority in a range. For this reason, we may flag many occurrences of the same distinct element even when they appear in close succession, because we cannot know in advance where the query range will start. As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:fixed maj}, however, if we have a data structure that supports rank queries on $S$, then it is sufficient for us to build a list of $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ candidate elements that includes all the $\tau$-majorities --- without any information about positions --- and then verify them using rank queries. This lets us flag fewer elements and so reduce our space bound, at the cost of using slightly suboptimal query time.
We store an instance of Barbay et al.'s data structure \cite{BCGNN13} supporting access on $S$ in $\Oh{1}$ time and rank and select on $S$ in $\Oh{\log \log \sigma}$ time, which takes \(n H + o (n (H + 1))\) bits. For \(0 \leq t \leq \lceil \log \sigma \rceil\) and \(\lfloor \log (2^t \log \log \sigma) \rfloor \leq b \leq \lfloor \log n \rfloor\), we divide $S$ into blocks of length $2^{b - 1}$ and store data structures supporting access, rank and select on the binary string \(G_b^t [1..n]\) in which \(G_b^t [k] = 1\) if, first, the distinct element \(S [k]\) occurs at least $2^{b - t}$ times in \(S [k - 2^{b + 1}..k + 2^{b + 1}]\) and, second, \(S [k]\) is the leftmost or rightmost occurrence of that distinct element in its block. We also store an $\Oh{1}$-time range-minimum data structure for the subsequence of $C$ consisting of elements flagged by 1s in $G_b^t$.
The number of distinct elements that occur at least $2^{b - t}$ times in a range of size $\Oh{2^b}$ is $\Oh{2^t}$, so there are $\Oh{2^t}$ elements in each block flagged by 1s in $G_b^t$. It follows that we can store an instance of P\v{a}tra\c{s}cu's data structure supporting $\Oh{1}$-time access, rank and select on $G_b^t$ in $\Oh{n 2^{t - b} (b - t) + n / \log^3 n}$ bits in total; we need $\Oh{n2^{t-b}}$ bits for the corresponding range-minimum data structure. Summing over $t$ from 0 to \(\lceil \log \sigma \rceil\) and over $b$ from \(\lfloor \log (2^t \log \log \sigma) \rfloor\) to \(\lfloor \log n \rfloor\), calculation shows we use a total of \(\Oh{\frac{n \log \sigma \log \log \log \sigma}{\log \log \sigma} + \frac{n}{\log n}} = o (n \log \sigma)\) bits for the binary strings and range-minimum data structures. Therefore, including the instance of Barbay et al.'s data structure for $S$, we use \(n H + o (n \log \sigma)\) bits altogether.
Given endpoints $i$ and $j$ and a threshold $\tau$, if
\[\lfloor \log (j - i + 1) \rfloor
< \left\lfloor \log \left( 2^{\lceil \log (1 / \tau) \rceil} \log \log \sigma \right) \right\rfloor\,,\]
then we simply run Misra and Gries' algorithm on \(S [i..j]\) in \(\Oh{j - i} = \Oh{(1 / \tau) \log \log \sigma}\) time. Otherwise, we use Muthukrishnan's algorithm to list the distinct elements flagged by 1s in $G_b^t$, where \(t = \lceil \log (1 / \tau) \rceil\) and \(b = \lfloor \log (j - i + 1) \rfloor \geq \lfloor \log (2^t \log \log \sigma) \rfloor\), and use rank queries on $S$ to check whether each of them is a $\tau$-majority in \(S [i..j]\). Since \(S [i..j]\) overlaps at most 5 blocks of length $2^{b - 1}$, it contains $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ distinct elements flagged by 1s in $G_b^t$; therefore, Muthukrishnan's algorithm takes $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ time and we use a total of $\Oh{(1 / \tau) \log \log \sigma}$ time for all the rank queries on $S$.
Since \(S [i..j]\) cannot be completely contained in a block of length $2^{b - 1}$, if \(S [i..j]\) overlaps a block then it includes one of that block's endpoints. Therefore, if \(S [i..j]\) contains an occurrence of a distinct element $a$, then it includes the leftmost or rightmost occurrence of $a$ in some block. Suppose $a$ is a $\tau$-majority in \(S [i..j]\). For all \(i \leq k \leq j\), $a$ occurs at least $\tau 2^b \ge 2^{b - t}$ times in \(S [k - 2^{b + 1}..k + 2^{b + 1}]\), so some occurrence of $a$ in \(S [i..j]\) is flagged by a 1 in $G_b^t$. Therefore, we return $a$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:small maj}
We can store $S$ in \(n H + o (n \log \sigma)\) bits such that later, given the endpoints of a range and $\tau$, we can return the $\tau$-majorities for that range in $\Oh{(1 / \tau) \log \log \sigma}$ time.
\end{theorem}
In order to reduce the space further, we open the black-box of Barbay et al.'s
data structure. This separates the sequence symbols into $\lg^2 n$ classes
according to their frequencies. A sequence $K[1,n]$, where $K[i]$ is the class
to which $S[i]$ is assigned, is represented using a (multi-ary) wavelet tree
\cite{FMMN07}, which supports constant-time access, rank, and select, since
the alphabet of $K$ is of polylogarithmic size. For each class $c$, a sequence
$S_c[1..n_c]$ contains the subsequence of $S$ of the symbols $S[i]$ where
$K[i]=c$ (note that if $S[i]=S[j]$ then $K[i]=K[j]$). They represent $K$, and
the subsequences $S_c$ where $\sigma_c \le \lg n$, using
wavelet trees. The subsequences $S_c$ over larger alphabets are represented
using Golynski et al.'s structure \cite{GMR06}. The wavelet tree for $K$
takes $nH_K+o(n)$ bits, where $H_K$ is the entropy of $K$, the wavelet trees
for the strings $S_c$ take $n_c\lg\sigma_c + o(n_c)$ bits, and Golynski et
al.'s structures take $n_c\lg\sigma_c + o(n_c\lg\sigma)$ bits.
Barbay et al.\ show that these spaces
add up to $nH + o(n)(H+1)$ and that one can support access, rank and select on
$S$ via access, rank and select on $K$ and some $S_c$.
We will solve a $\tau$-majority query on $S[i..j]$ as
follows. We first run a $\tau$-majority query on string $K$. This will yield
the at most $1/\tau$ classes of symbols that, together, occur at least
$\tau(j-i+1)$ times in $S[i..j]$. The classes excluded from this result cannot
contain symbols that are $\tau$-majorities. Now, for each included class $c$,
we map the interval $S[i..j]$ to $S_c[i_c..j_c]$ in the subsequence of its
class, since $i_c = K.\rank_c(i-1)+1$ and $j_c = K.\rank_c(j)$, and then
run a $\tau_c$-majority query on $S_c[i_c..j_c]$, for
$\tau_c = \tau(j-i+1)/(j_c-i_c+1)$. The results obtained for each
considered class $c$ are reported as $\tau$-majorities in $S[i..j]$.
To run the $\tau_c$-majority queries on the sequences $S_c$ that are
implemented with Golynski et al.'s structure, we store our representation of
Theorem~\ref{thm:small maj}. This will add $o(n_c\log\sigma_c)$ bits, which
does not change the asymptotic space of the data structure. Therefore we will
take $\Oh{(1/\tau_c)\log\log \sigma}$ time to solve those majority queries.
Added over all the possible $\tau_c$ values, we have
$\sum_c (1/\tau_c) \Oh{\log\log\sigma} =
\sum_c (j_c-i_c+1)/(\tau(j-i+1)) \Oh{\log\log\sigma} =
\Oh{(1/\tau)\lg\lg\sigma}$ total time on those sequences.
Let us now consider the case of the query on $K[i..j]$.
Since the alphabet size is $\log^2 n$, we will partition it
into $\lg^{2/3} n$ classes of $\lg^{4/3} n$ consecutive symbols, and
subpartition these new classes into $\lg^{2/3} n$ classes of $\lg^{2/3} n$
symbols. This works just like the general partitioning into classes: we
perform a $\tau$-majority query in the first level, then several queries
adding up to cost $1/\tau$ on the second level, and then several queries
adding up to cost $1/\tau$ on the third level, and then go to the subsequences
$S_c$. It is sufficient to show that we can perform a $\tau$-majority query on
any sequence with alphabet size $\lg^{2/3} n$ to obtain the result. The
entropies of the three sequences add up to $nH_K+o(n)$ (indeed, this leveled
partitioning is how the wavelet tree is actually organized).
To solve a $\tau$-majority query on a sequence with alphabet size
$\sigma' = \lg^{2/3} n$, we will use again Theorem~\ref{thm:small maj}, with a
slightly larger block size,
$\lfloor \lg(2^t \lg\lg\sigma \lg n / \lg\lg n) \rfloor$ $\le b \le \lfloor \lg n
\rfloor$, and for $0 \le t \le \lceil \lg\sigma' \rceil$.
Thus the structures $G_b^t$ and
the range-minimum data structures add up to
$\Oh{\frac{n\lg\sigma' (\lg\lg n)^2}{\lg\lg\sigma \lg n}} =
\Oh{\frac{n(\lg\lg n)^3}{\lg n}} = o(n)$.
Since the wavelet tree implements rank, select and access in constant time,
the $\tau$-majority operation is solved in time $\Oh{1/\tau}$, except on
blocks of size $b_0 = \Oh{(1/\tau) \lg\lg\sigma \lg n / \lg\lg n}$, which have
to be solved sequentially in time $\Oh{(1/\tau)\lg\lg\sigma}$. As before, we
can find the majorities in time $O(\sigma')$ by using rank over all the
symbols, so if $1/\tau \ge \sigma'$ we can simply do this to
achieve $\Oh{1/\tau}$ time. Otherwise, we can maintain counters for
all the $\sigma'$ distinct symbols, each using $\Oh{\lg\lg n}$ bits to
distinguish values from $0$ to $b_0 = \Oh{\sigma'\lg n}$, using $o(\lg n)$
bits overall. Therefore a universal table lets us read chunks of
$(\lg_{\sigma'} n)/2 = \Theta(\lg n / \lg\lg n)$ symbols and increase the
corresponding counters in constant time. Thus the block can be
processed sequentially in time $\Oh{(1/\tau) \lg\lg\sigma}$.
Finally, the same technique used for string $K$ can be used for the sequences
$S_c$ that are represented with wavelet trees, since their alphabet size is
just $\lg n$. Overall, we have managed to reduce the redundancy of our
representation.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:small maj better}
We can store $S$ in \(n H + o(n)(H+1)\) bits such that later, given the endpoints of a range and $\tau$, we can return the $\tau$-majorities for that range in $\Oh{(1 / \tau) \log \log \sigma}$ time.
\end{theorem}
Since our solution includes an instance of Barbay et al.'s data structure, we can also support $\Oh{1}$-time access to $S$ and $\Oh{\log \log \sigma}$-time rank and select.
\subsection{Faster query time with nearly optimally compressed space} \label{subsec:linear maj}
Recall from Section~\ref{subsec:fast maj} that, if \(1 / \tau \geq \sigma\), then we can simply use Muthukrishnan's algorithm to list all the distinct elements in a range and then check them with Lemma~\ref{lem:check}; therefore, we can assume \(1 / \tau < \sigma\). In this subsection we use our new data structure with density-sensitive query time for one-dimensional range counting of Theorem~\ref{thm:counting} to obtain a nearly optimally compressed data structure for parameterized range majority with $\Oh{(1 / \tau) \log \frac{\log (1 / \tau)}{\log w}}$ query time.
To obtain a compressed data structure for parameterized range majority with $\Oh{(1 / \tau) \log \frac{\log (1 / \tau)}{\log w}}$ query time, we combine our solution from Theorem~\ref{thm:small maj better} with Theorem~\ref{thm:counting}. Instead of using $\Oh{\log \log \sigma}$-time rank queries to check each of the $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ candidate elements returned by Muthukrishnan's algorithm, we use range-counting queries. We can make all $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ range-counting queries each take $\Oh{\log \frac{\log (1 / \tau)}{\log w}}$ time because, if one starts taking too much time, then the distinct element we are checking cannot be a $\tau$-majority and we can stop the query early. (In fact, as we will show in the full version of this paper, our data structure from Theorem~\ref{thm:counting} does not need such intervention.)
This gives us our final result:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:sensitive maj}
We can store $S$ in \((1 + \epsilon) n H + o(n)\) bits such that later, given the endpoints of a range and $\tau$, we can return the $\tau$-majorities for that range in $\Oh{(1 / \tau) \log \frac{\log (1 / \tau)}{\log w}}$ time.
\end{theorem}
Notice our solution in Theorem~\ref{thm:sensitive maj} takes optimal $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ time when \(1 / \tau = \log^{\mathcal{O} (1)} n\). Again, we can also support access and select in $\Oh{1}$ time and rank in $\Oh{\log \log \sigma}$ time.
\section{Frequent Range Modes}
We note that we can use our data structures from Theorem~\ref{thm:small maj better} to find a range mode quickly when it is actually reasonably frequent. Suppose we want to find the mode $x$ of \(S [i..j]\). To do this, we perform multiple range $\tau$-majority queries on \(S [i..j]\), starting with \(\tau = 1\) and repeatedly reducing it by a factor of 2 until we find at least one $\tau$-majority. This takes
\[\Oh{\left(1 + 2 + 4 + \ldots + 2^{\left\lceil \log \frac{j - i + 1}{\occ (x, S [i..j])} \right\rceil} \right) \log \log \sigma}
= \Oh{\frac{(j - i + 1) \log \log \sigma}{\occ (x, S [i..j])}}\]
time and returns a list of the $\Oh{\frac{j - i + 1}{\occ (x, S [i..j])}}$ elements that occur at least \(\frac{j - i + 1}{2^{\left\lceil \log \frac{j - i + 1}{\occ (x, S [i..j])} \right\rceil}}\) times in \(S [i..j]\). We use rank queries to determine which of these elements is the mode $x$, again in \Oh{\frac{(j - i + 1) \log \log \sigma}{\occ (x, S [i..j])}} time.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:frequent modes}
We can store $S$ in \(n H + o (n) (H + 1)\) bits such that later, given endpoints $i$ and $j$, we can return the mode $x$ of \(S [i..j]\) in $\Oh{\frac{(j - i + 1) \log \log \sigma}{\occ (x, S [i..j])}}$ time.
\end{theorem}
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions}
We have given the first linear-space data structure for parameterized range majority with query time $\Oh{1 / \tau}$, which is worst-case optimal in terms of $n$ and $\tau$. Moreover, we have improved the space bounds for parameterized range majority and minority in the important case of variable $\tau$. For parameterized range majority with variable $\tau$, we have achieved nearly linear space and worst-case optimal query time, or compressed space with a slight slowdown. For parameterized range minority, we have improved Chan et al.'s solution to use nearly compressed space with no slowdown or compressed space with nearly no slowdown. We leave as an open problem achieving linear or compressed space with $\Oh{1 / \tau}$ query time for variable $\tau$, or showing that this is impossible.
\begin{acks}
Many thanks to Patrick Nicholson for helpful comments.
\end{acks}
\bibliographystyle{authordate1}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Orbit equivalence is a branch of ergodic theory that focuses on the dynamical properties of equivalence relations. Its fruitful interactions with other mathematical fields are numerous: operator algebra theory \cite{mvn, p}, foliation theory \cite{c,levitt}, descriptive set theory \cite{jkl,km}\dots\
Among the many concepts of the field, a fundamental one is the notion of \emph{ergodicity}: an equivalence relation defined on a probability space is said to be ergodic if every saturated set has measure 0 or 1. It is striking to see how a definition that is usually given in the group action context can be easily stated in the seemingly static framework of equivalence relations.
The other fundamental notion considered in this note, \emph{indistinguishability}, belongs to percolation theory, a branch of statistical physics. Percolation is concerned with the study of random subgraphs of a given graph. These subgraphs are generally far from connected, and one is naturally interested in their infinite connected components --- or infinite clusters. A difficult theorem due to Lyons and Schramm \cite{ls} states that, under some hypotheses, if several infinite clusters are produced, they all ``look alike''. This is the indistinguishability theorem (see theorem~\ref{ls}).
Its equivalence to some form of ergodicity should not be surprising: in both cases, when one asks a nice question, all the objects --- in one case the points of the space lying under the relation, in the other one the infinite clusters --- give the same answer. This connection is well-understood (see \cite{gdir,gl} and proposition~\ref{ergind}).
In the orbit equivalence world, a hard theorem due to Chifan and Ioana (see \cite{ci} and theorem~\ref{corocf}) allows to get from this ergodicity a \emph{stronger} form of ergodicity .
In this article, we define a notion of strong indistinguishability and prove its equivalence to strong ergodicity: this is theorem~\ref{ergindfort}. In particular, Bernoulli percolation satisfies the strong indistinguishability property (see corollary~\ref{corollaire}).
\vspace{0.3 cm}
This note is self-contained, so that the orbit equivalence part can be read without prerequisite by a percolation theorist and vice versa. The first section presents what will be needed of orbit equivalence theory. The second one deals with percolation theory. The third and last section recalls the classic correspondence between ergodicity and indistinguishability and explores the correspondence between strong ergodicity and the notion of strong indistinguishability defined in this note.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank Vincent Beffara and Damien Gaboriau for the care with which they have followed and commented this work. I am also grateful to the orbit equivalence community of Lyon for fruitful discussions, in particular to Damien Gaboriau and Fran\c{c}ois Le Ma\^itre. I have been supported by the grants ANR MAC2 and ANR AGORA.
\subsubsection*{Terminology}
If $R$ is an equivalence relation defined on a set $X$, the \emph{$R$-class} of $x$ is
$$
[x]_R:=\{y\in X : xRy\}.
$$
A subset $A$ of $X$ is said to be \emph{$R$-saturated}, or \emph{$R$-invariant}, if
$$
\forall x\in A, [x]_R\subset A.
$$
The \emph{$R$-saturation} of a subset $A$ of $X$ is the smallest subset $R$-saturated subset of $X$ that contains $A$. Concretely, it is $\bigcup_{x\in A} ~[x]_R$.
\newpage
\section{Orbit equivalence theory}
\setcounter{subsection}{-1}
This section presents standard definitions and theorems from orbit equivalence theory. For details relative to subsection~\ref{count}, one can refer to \cite{k}. For subsections~\ref{cber} to \ref{sub:graphings}, possible references are \cite{gicm} and \cite{km}.
\subsection{Generalities on the standard Borel space}
\label{count}
A measurable space $X$ is called a \emph{standard Borel space} if it can be endowed with a Polish topology inducing its $\sigma$-algebra. For instance, $\{0,1\}^\N$ endowed with the product $\sigma$-algebra is a standard Borel space.
A measurable subset of a standard Borel space is called a \emph{Borel subset}.
\vspace{0.3 cm}
The following general results on standard Borel spaces will be used without explicit mention.
\begin{thm}
Any Borel subset of a standard Borel space is itself a standard Borel space.
\end{thm}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be two measurable spaces. A bijection $f:X\to Y$ is a \emph{Borel isomorphism} if $f$ and $f^{-1}$ are measurable. If $X=Y$, we speak of \emph{Borel automorphism}.
\begin{thm}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be standard Borel spaces. If $f:X\to Y$ is a measurable bijection, then $f^{-1}$ is automatically measurable, hence a Borel isomorphism.
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
\label{unicbor}
Every non-countable standard Borel space is isomorphic to $[0,1]$. In particular, the continuum hypothesis holds for standard Borel spaces.
\end{thm}
\subsection{Countable Borel equivalence relations}
\label{cber}
Let $\G$ be a countable group and $\G\acts X$ be a Borel action of it on a standard Borel space. By \emph{Borel action}, we mean that every $\gamma\in\G$ induces a Borel automorphism of $X$.
Such an action induces a partition of $X$ into orbits. Let us consider $R$ (or $R_{\G\agit X}$) the relation ``being in the same orbit'' and call it the \emph{orbit equivalence relation} of $\G \acts X$. It is a subset of $X^2$. Since $\G$ is countable, the following assertions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item $R$ is \emph{countable}, i.e.\ every $R$-class is (finite or) countable,
\item $R$ is Borel, as a subset of $X^2$.
\end{itemize}
The following theorem provides the converse:
\begin{thm}[Feldman-Moore, \cite{fm}]
\label{fm}
Every countable Borel equivalence relation on a standard Borel space is induced by a Borel action of some countable group.
\end{thm}
In other words, every countable Borel equivalence relation on a standard Borel space is an orbit equivalence relation. This is why the theory of ``countable Borel equivalence relations'' is called ``orbit equivalence theory''.
\subsection{Measure invariance}
When dealing with a Borel action of $\G$ on a probability space, it makes sense to speak of invariance of the probability measure. The purpose of this subsection is to define this notion for countable Borel equivalence relations. To begin with, one needs to know how the standard Borel space behaves when it is endowed with a probability measure.
\begin{defi}
A \emph{standard probability space} is a standard Borel space endowed with a probability measure.
\end{defi}
\begin{thm}
\label{unicprob}
Every atomless standard probability space $(X,\mu)$ is isomorphic to $[0,1]$ endowed with its Borel $\sigma$-algebra and the Lebesgue measure, i.e. there exists a measure-preserving Borel isomorphism between $(X,\mu)$ and $([0,1],\emph{d}x)$.
\end{thm}
\textsc{Throughout this paper, standard probability spaces will implicitly be assumed to be atomless.}
\vspace{0.5 cm}
Having a nice measured space to work on is not enough to provide a notion of invariance of the measure: to do so, one needs relevant transformations, presented below.
\begin{defi}
If $R$ is a countable Borel equivalence relation, $[R]$ denotes the group of the Borel automorphisms of $X$ whose graph is included in $R$. A \emph{partial Borel automorphism} of $X$ is a Borel isomorphism between two Borel subsets of $X$. One denotes by $[[R]]$ the set of partial Borel automorphisms whose graph is included in $R$.
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}
In the literature, $X$ is often equipped with a ``nice'' probability measure\footnote{Here, ``nice'' means ``$R$-invariant'', which will be defined using $[R]$ (as defined above).}, and one often uses $[R]$ and $[[R]]$ to denote the objects defined above quotiented out by almost everywhere agreement. In this paper, we will stick to the definition we gave, which can be found in \cite{km}.
\end{rem}
As exemplified by the theorem below, these Borel automorphisms allow us to mimic intrinsically the ``group action'' definitions in the ``orbit equivalence'' setting.
\begin{thm}
Let $R$ be a countable Borel equivalence relation on a standard probability space $(X,\mu)$. The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item there exist $\G$ a countable group and $\G\agit X$ a measure-preserving Borel action of it such that $R=R_{\G\agit X}$,
\item every Borel action of a countable group that induces $R$ preserves $\mu$,
\item every element of $[R]$ preserves $\mu$,
\item every element of $[[R]]$ preserves $\mu$.
\end{itemize}
When any of these equivalent properties is satisfied, we say that the measure $\mu$ is \emph{preserved} by $R$, or that it is $R$-\emph{invariant}.
\end{thm}
\vspace{0.5 cm}
\textsc{Henceforth, $(X,\mu)$ will always be an atomless standard probability space and the equivalence relations we will consider on it will always be measure-preserving countable Borel equivalence relations.}
\vspace{0.5 cm}
\begin{rem}
There is no uniqueness theorem (analogous to theorems \ref{unicbor} or \ref{unicprob}) for the object $(X,\mu,R)$. This is why orbit equivalence theory is not empty. Another fact to keep in mind is that the space $X/R$ essentially never bears a natural standard Borel structure, even though $R$ is Borel.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Amenability and hyperfiniteness}
Amenability of a group can be defined in many equivalent ways. For our purpose, the following characterization will be enough.
\begin{thm}
A countable group $\G$ is amenable if and only if there exists a \emph{Reiter sequence}, i.e. $f_n\in \ell^1(\G)$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\forall n, f_n \geq 0$ and $\|f_n\|_1=1$,
\item $\forall \gamma\in\G, \|f_n-\gamma\cdot f_n\|_1\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}0.$
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{small}
In the theorem above, $\G$ acts on $\ell^1(\G)$ via $\gamma\cdot f(\eta):=f(\gamma^{-1}\eta)$. Taking the inverse of $\gamma$ guarantees that this defines a left action. Besides, the action it induces on indicator functions corresponds to the natural action $\G\acts\text{Subsets}(\G)$, i.e.\ we have $\gamma\cdot 1_A=1_{\gamma\cdot A}$.
\end{small}
\vspace{0.3 cm}
This theorem in mind, the following definition of amenability for equivalence relations is natural.
\begin{defi}
Let $R$ be a countable Borel equivalence relation on $(X,\mu)$. One says that $R$ is \emph{$\mu$-amenable} if and only if there exists a sequence of \emph{Borel} functions $f_n : R \to \mathbb{R}^+$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\forall x\in X,~ \sum_{y\in [x]_R} f_{n}(x,y)=1$,
\item there exists a full-measure $R$-invariant Borel subset $A\subset X$ such that $$\forall (x,y) \in (A\times A)\cap R, \sum_{z\in[x]_R}|f_n(x,z)-f_{n}(y,z)| \underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0.$$
\end{itemize}
\end{defi}
\begin{small}
\begin{comm}
In the definition above (and in others), one can indifferently impose $A$ to be $R$-invariant or not. Indeed, it can be deduced from theorem~\ref{fm} that the $R$-saturation of a $\mu$-negligible set is still $\mu$-negligible. (Recall that all considered equivalence relations are tacitly assumed to preserve the measure.)
\end{comm}
\end{small}
Proposition~\ref{gener} shows that this definition is a nice extension of the classic notion of amenability (for countable groups) to equivalence relations.
\begin{nota}
Let $\G\acts X$ be a Borel action of a countable group on a standard Borel space. If $X$ is endowed with an atomless probability measure $\mu$ that is $\G$-invariant, we will write $\G\acts (X,\mu)$.
\end{nota}
\begin{prop}
\label{gener}
Let $\G\agit (X,\mu)$ be a measure-preserving action of a countable group. If $\G$ is amenable, then $R_{\G\agit X}$ is $\mu$-amenable. Besides, if $\G\acts X$ is free, then the converse holds.
\end{prop}
It is easy to see that \emph{finite} equivalence relations (i.e.\ whose classes are finite) are amenable: one just needs to set $f_{n}(x,y)=\frac{1}{|[x]_R|}1_{y\in[x]_R}$. The proof naturally extends to hyperfinite equivalence relations, defined below.
\begin{defi}
An equivalence relation $R$ on a standard Borel space $X$ is said to be \emph{hyperfinite} if it is a countable increasing union of finite Borel equivalence subrelations. (No measure appears in this definition.) If $\mu$ is an $R$-invariant probability measure on $X$, the relation $R$ is \emph{hyperfinite $\mu$-almost everywhere} if there exists a full-measure Borel subset $A\subset X$ such that $R\cap (A\times A)$ is hyperfinite.
\end{defi}
\begin{exem}
The group $\G_\infty := \bigoplus_{n\in \N} \Z/2\Z$ is the increasing union of the subgroups $\G_N := \bigoplus_{n\leq N} \Z/2\Z$. Hence, any $R_{\G_\infty\agit X}$ is hyperfinite. Besides, $\G_\infty$ is amenable: set $f_n = \frac{1_{\G_n}}{|\G_n|}$. Hence, any $R_{\G_\infty\agit (X,\mu)}$ is $\mu$-amenable.
\end{exem}
\begin{thm}[Connes-Feldman-Weiss, \cite{cfw}]
Let $R$ be a Borel countable equivalence relation on $(X,\mu)$. The relation $R$ is $\mu$-amenable if and only if it is hyperfinite $\mu$-almost everywhere.
\end{thm}
\subsection{Ergodicity}
\label{ergodicity}
\begin{defi}
Let $\G\acts(X,\mu)$ be a measure-preserving action. It is said to be \emph{ergodic} if, for every $\Gamma$-invariant Borel subset $B$ of $X$, either $\mu(B)=0$ or $\mu(B)=1$.
\end{defi}
\begin{defi}
An equivalence relation $R$ on a standard probability space $(X,\mu)$ is said to be \emph{ergodic} (or \emph{$\mu$-ergodic}) if, for every $R$-invariant Borel subset $B$ of $X$, either $\mu(B)=0$ or $\mu(B)=1$.
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}
Let $\G\acts (X,\mu)$ be a measure-preserving group action. Let $B$ be a subset of $X$. Notice that it is the same for $B$ to be $\G$-invariant or $R_{\G\acts X}$-invariant. This means that the following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\forall \gamma\in\G, \gamma\cdot B= B$,
\item $\forall x\in B, \forall y \in X, x R_{\G\acts X}y \implies y\in B$.
\end{itemize}
In particular, $\G\acts X$ is ergodic if and only if $R_{\G\acts X}$ is ergodic.
\end{rem}
\begin{bexem}
Let $\G$ be an infinite countable group and $(\Sigma, \nu)$ denote either $([0,1],\text{Leb})$ or $(\{0,1\}, \text{Ber}(p))=(\{0,1\}, (1-p)\delta_0+p\delta_1)$. Let $A$ denote either $\G$ or the edge-set of a Cayley graph of $\G$. (The notion of Cayley graph is introduced in subsection~\ref{gendef}.) Let $\mathcal{S}$ be the equivalence relation induced by the shift action of $\G$ on $ \left(\Sigma^A,\nu^{\otimes A}\right)$ defined by $$\gamma\cdot(\sigma_a)_{a\in A}=(\sigma_{\gamma^{-1}\cdot a})_{a\in A}.$$ This equivalence relation preserves $\nu^{\otimes A}$ and is ergodic.
\end{bexem}
The following theorem states that the amenable world shrinks to a point from the orbital point of view.
\begin{thm}[Dye, \cite{d}] Every countable Borel equivalence relation that is ergodic and hyperfinite $\mu$-almost everywhere is isomorphic to the orbit equivalence relation of the Bernoulli shift $\left(\Z\agit\left(\{0,1\}^\Z,\text{\emph{Ber}}(1/2)^{\otimes \Z}\right)\right)$. This means that if $R$ is such a relation on a standard probability space $(X,\mu)$, there exist
\begin{itemize}
\item a full-measure $R$-invariant Borel subset $A$ of $X$,
\item a full-measure $\Z$-invariant Borel subset $B$ of $\{0,1\}^{\Z}$,
\item a measure-preserving Borel isomorphism $f:A\to B$
\end{itemize}
such that
$
\forall x,y \in A, x R y \Longleftrightarrow f(x)R_{\Z\agit \{0,1\}^{\Z}} f(y).
$
\end{thm}
\subsection{Strong ergodicity}
The notion of strong ergodicity, presented in this subsection, is due to Schmidt \cite{st}.
\begin{defi}
Let $\G\agit (X,\mu)$ be a measure-preserving action. A sequence $(B_n)$ of Borel subsets of $X$ is said to be \emph{asymptotically $\G$-invariant (with respect to $\mu$)} if
$$
\forall \gamma\in\G,~ \mu((\gamma\cdot B_n)\triangle B_n) \underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}0.
$$
The action $\G\agit (X,\mu)$ is said to be \emph{strongly ergodic} if, for every asymptotically $\G$-invariant sequence of Borel sets $(B_n)$,
$$\mu(B_n)(1-\mu(B_n))\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}0.$$
\end{defi}
Making use of $[R]$, one can extend this notion to equivalence relations.
\begin{defi}
Let $R$ be an equivalence relation on a standard probability space $(X,\mu)$.
A sequence $(B_n)$ of Borel subsets of $X$ is said to be \emph{asymptotically $R$-invariant (with respect to $\mu$)} if
$$
\forall \phi\in[R],~ \mu(\phi(B_n)\triangle B_n)\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}0.
$$
The equivalence relation $R$ is said to be \emph{strongly ergodic} if, for every asymptotically $R$-invariant sequence of Borel sets $(B_n)$,
$$\mu(B_n)(1-\mu(B_n))\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}0.$$
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}
One can check that if $\G\acts (X,\mu)$ is a measure-preserving action, then $(B_n)$ is asymptotically $\G$-invariant if and only if it is asymptotically $R_{\G\acts X}$-invariant. In particular, $\G\acts (X,\mu)$ is strongly ergodic if and only if $R_{\G\acts X}$ is strongly ergodic.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
It is clear that strong ergodicity implies ergodicity: if $B$ is invariant, set $B_n := B$ for all $n$ and apply strong ergodicity. What may be less clear is that the converse does not hold. In fact, the unique ergodic amenable relation is not strongly ergodic. To prove this, consider an ergodic measure-preserving action of $\Gamma_\infty := \bigoplus_{n\in \N} \Z/2\Z$ on a standard probability space $(X,\mu)$, for example the Bernoulli shift. For $N\in \N$, set as previously $\G_N := \bigoplus_{n\leq N} \Z/2\Z$. Since $\G_N$ is finite, the restricted action $\G_N\acts (X,\mu)$ admits a fundamental domain $D_N$, that is a Borel subset that intersects each orbit in exactly one point\footnote{To get such a fundamental domain, one can think of $X$ as $[0,1]$ and keep a point iff it is the smallest in its orbit for the usual ordering of the interval.}. One can find a Borel subset of $D_N$ of measure $\frac{\mu(D_N)}2$. Then, define $B_N$ as the $R_{\G_N\acts X}$-saturation of $D_N$. Each $B_N$ has measure $\frac 1 2$ and is $\Gamma_M$-invariant for $M\leq N$, which completes the demonstration.
\end{rem}
\vspace{0.2 cm}
The following theorem will be crucial in section~\ref{third} because it allows, under certain conditions, to deduce strong ergodicity from ergodicity. In its statement, $\mathcal S$ stands for the relation introduced in the Bernoulli example of subsection \ref{ergodicity} and $(X,\mu)$ for its underlying standard probability space.
\begin{thm}[Chifan-Ioana, \cite{ci}]
\label{corocf}
Let $B$ be a non-$\mu$-negligible Borel subset of $X$. Any ergodic equivalence subrelation of $\left(\mathcal{S}_{|B},\frac{\mu}{\mu(B)}\right)$ that is not $\frac{\mu}{\mu(B)}$-amenable is strongly ergodic.
\end{thm}
\begin{comm}
In fact, \cite{ci} proves a lot more. But since we do not need the full result of Chifan and Ioana --- whose statement is more technical ---, we will stick to the stated version.
\end{comm}
\subsection{Graphings}
\label{sub:graphings}
A \emph{graphing} of a relation $R$ on $X$ is a countable family $(\varphi_i)$ of partial Borel automorphisms of $X$ that generates $R$ as an equivalence relation: this means that the smallest equivalence relation on $X$ that contains the graphs of the $\varphi_i$'s is $R$. In particular, the Borel partial automorphisms that appear in a graphing belong to $[[R]]$.
The notion of graphing generalizes to relations the notion of generating system.
Notice that the data of a graphing endows each $R$-class with a structure of connected graph: put an edge from $x$ to $x'$ if there is an $i$ such that $x$ belongs to the domain of $\varphi_i$ and $x'=\varphi_i(x)$. One can do this with multiplicity.
\begin{exem}
Let $\G$ be a finitely generated group and $S$ a finite generating system of $\Gamma$. Let $\G\agit X$ be a Borel action on a standard Borel space. For $s\in S$, let $\varphi_s$ denote the Borel automorphism implementing the action of $s^{-1}$. Then, $(\varphi_s)_{s\in S}$ is a graphing of $R_{\G\agit X}$. Let us take a closer look at the graph structure.
Let $\mathcal G=(V,E)=(\G,E)$ denote the Cayley graph of $\G$ relative to $S$ (see subsection~\ref{gendef} for the definition). In this example, we will use the concrete definition of Cayley graphs and take the vertex-set to be $\G$. If the action is free, then, for every $x$, the mapping $\gamma\mapsto \gamma^{-1}\cdot x$ is a graph isomorphism between $\mathcal G$ and the graphed orbit of $x$. The only point to check is that the graph structure is preserved: for all $(\gamma,\eta,x)\in \G\times\G\times X$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\gamma,\eta ) \in E& \Longleftrightarrow & \exists s\in S, \eta=\gamma s\\
& \Longleftrightarrow & \exists s\in S, \eta^{-1}=s^{-1}\gamma^{-1}\\
& \Longleftrightarrow & \exists s\in S, \eta^{-1}\cdot x=s^{-1}\gamma^{-1}\cdot x\\
& \Longleftrightarrow & (\eta^{-1}\cdot x,\gamma^{-1}\cdot x)\text{ is an edge}.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
The point in putting all these inverses is that, this way, we only work with Cayley graphs on which the group acts from the lef
. If the action is not assumed to be free, the map $\gamma\mapsto \gamma^{-1}\cdot x$ is only a graph-covering.
\end{exem}
To describe how a graph behaves at infinity, a useful notion is the one of end.
\begin{defi}
Let $\mathcal{G}=(V,E)$ be a countable graph. An \emph{end} of $\mathcal{G}$ is a map $\xi$ that associates to each finite subset $K$ of $V$ an infinite connected component of its complement, and that satisfies the following compatibility condition:
$$
\forall K,K',~K\subset K' \implies \xi(K')\subset \xi(K).
$$
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}
Every end is realized by some infinite injective path: for every $\xi$, there exists an infinite injective path $c:\N\to V$ such that, for every finite subset $K$ of $V$, the path $c$ eventually lies in $\xi(K)$. This results from a diagonal extraction argument.
\end{rem}
We now have all the vocabulary needed to state the following theorem, the graph-theoretic flavor of which will allow us to travel between the world of orbit equivalence and the one of percolation.
\begin{thm}
\label{gbouts}
Let $R$ be a countable Borel equivalence relation on $X$ that preserves the atomless probability measure $\mu$.
\begin{itemize}
\item If it admits a graphing such that, for $\mu$-almost every $x$, the class of $x$ has two ends (seen as a graph), then $R$ is hyperfinite $\mu$-almost everywhere.
\item If it admits a graphing such that, for $\mu$-almost every $x$, the class of $x$ has infinitely many ends, then $R$ is not ``hyperfinite $\mu$-almost everywhere''.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
This theorem is corollaire IV.24 in \cite{gcost}. It is a statement among several of the kind (see \cite{a,ghys}).
\newpage
\section{Percolation}
Percolation is a topic coming originally from statistical mechanics (see \cite{grim}). After a foundational paper by Benjamini and Schramm \cite{bs}, strong connections with group theory have developed. This section presents the objects and theorems that will be needed in section~\ref{third}. For more information about this material, one can refer to \cite{gdir}, \cite{l} and \cite{lp}.
\subsection{General definitions}
\label{gendef}
\vspace{0.5 cm}
\textsc{From here on, $\G$ will be assumed to be finitely generated.}
\vspace{0.5 cm}
Let $S$ be a finite generating set of $\G$. Define a graph by taking $\G$ as vertex-set and putting, for each $\gamma\in\G$ and $s\in S$, an edge from $\gamma$ to $\gamma s$. This defines a locally finite connected graph $\mathcal G = (V,E)$ that is called the \emph{Cayley graph} of $\G$ relative to $S$. The action of $\G$ on itself by multiplication from the left induces a (left) action on $\mathcal G$ by graph automorphisms. It is free and transitive as an action on the vertex-set. In fact, a locally finite connected graph $\mathcal G$ is a Cayley graph of $\G$ if and only if $\G$ admits an action on $\mathcal G$ that is free and transitive on the vertex-set.
We have defined $\mathcal G$ explicitly to prove that $\G$ admits Cayley graphs, but further reasonings shall be clearer if one forgets that $V=\G$ and just remembers that $\mathcal G$ is endowed with a free vertex-transitive action of $\G$. Thus, in order to get an element of $\G$ from a vertex, one will need a reference point.
Let $\rho$ be a vertex of $\mathcal G$ that we shall use as such a reference or anchor point. Any vertex $v\in V$ can be written uniquely in the form $\gamma\cdot\rho$.
The action $\G\agit E$ induces a shift action $\G\acts \Omega:=\{0,1\}^E$.
A \emph{(bond) percolation} will be a probability measure on $\Omega$. It is said to be \emph{$\G$-invariant} if it is as a probability measure on $\Omega$.
\vspace{0.5 cm}
\textsc{In what follows, all considered percolations will be assumed to be $\G$-invariant.
Besides, for simplicity, we will work under the implicit assumption that $\Pp$ is atomless, so that $(\Omega,\Pp)$ will always be a standard probability space. }
\vspace{0.5 cm}
A point $\omega$ of $\Omega$ is seen as a subgraph of $\mathcal G$ the following way: $V$ is its set of vertices and $\omega^{-1}(\{1\})$ its set of edges. In words, keep all edges whose label is 1 and throw away the others. The connected components of this graph are called the \emph{clusters} of $\omega$.
If $v\in V$, its $\omega$-cluster will be denoted by $\mathcal{C}(\omega,v)$. For $v\in V$, the map $\omega\mapsto \mathcal{C}(\omega,v)$ is Borel, the set of finite paths in $\mathcal G$ being countable. If $(u,v)\in V^2$, we will use $u\underset{\omega}{\fleche}v$ as an abbreviation for ``$u$ and $v$ are in the same $\omega$-cluster''. The number of infinite clusters of $\omega$ will be denoted by $N_\infty(\omega)$. The function $N_\infty$ is Borel.
\subsection{Independent percolation}
\label{percoindep}
The simplest interesting example of percolation is the product measure $\text{Ber}(p)^{\otimes E}$, for $p\in(0,1)$. It will be denoted by $\Pp_p$. Such percolations are called \emph{independant} or \emph{Bernoulli} percolations.
One is interested in the emergence of infinite clusters when $p$ increases. To study this phenomenon, introduce the \emph{percolation function} of $\mathcal{G}$, defined as $$\theta_\mathcal{G}:p\mapsto \Pp_p[|\mathcal{C}(\omega,\rho)|=\infty].$$
Endow $[0,1]^E$ with the probability measure $\Pp_{[0,1]} :=\text{Leb}([0,1])^{\otimes E}$. Notice that $\Pp_p$ is the push-forward of $\Pp_{[0,1]}$ by the following map
$$
\begin{array}{lccl}
\pi_p : & [0,1]^E & \longrightarrow & \{0,1\}^E \\
& x & \longmapsto & (1_{x(e) < p})_{e\in E}.\end{array}
$$
Realizing probability measures as distributions of random variables suitably defined on a same probability space is called a \emph{coupling}. A fundamental property of this coupling is that, when $x\in[0,1]^E$ is fixed, $p\mapsto \pi_p(x)$ is non-decreasing for the product order. One deduces the following proposition.
\begin{prop}
The function $\theta_\mathcal{G}$ is non-decreasing.
\end{prop}
\begin{coro}
There exists a unique real number $p_c(\mathcal{G})\in[0,1]$ such that the following two conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\forall p < p_c(\mathcal{G}),~ \theta_\mathcal{G}(p)=0$,
\item $\forall p > p_c(\mathcal{G}),~ \theta_\mathcal{G}(p)>0$.
\end{itemize}
One calls $p_c(\mathcal{G})$ the \emph{critical probability} of $\mathcal{G}$.
\end{coro}
\begin{rem}
When $p_c(\mathcal{G})$ is not trivial (neither 0 nor 1), this result establishes the existence of a \emph{phase transition}. One cannot have $p_c(\mathcal{G}) = 0$, but $p_c(\mathcal{G})=1$ may occur (e.g.\ it does for $\mathbb{Z}$).
\end{rem}
The following theorems describe almost totally the phase transitions related to the number of infinite clusters.
\begin{prop}
For all $p\in(0,1)$, the random variable $N_\infty$ takes a $\Pp_p$-almost deterministic value, which is 0, 1 or $\infty$. This value is 0 if $p< p_c(\mathcal{G})$ and 1 or $\infty$ if $p>p_c(\mathcal{G})$.
\end{prop}
\begin{thm}[H\"aggstr\"om-Peres, \cite{hp}]
There exists a unique real number $p_u(\mathcal{G})\in[p_c(\mathcal{G}),1]$ such that the following two conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\forall p < p_u(\mathcal{G}), \Pp_{p}[N_\infty=1]=0$,
\item $\forall p > p_u(\mathcal{G}), \Pp_{p}[N_\infty=1]=1$.
\end{itemize}
One calls $p_u(\mathcal{G})$ the \emph{uniqueness probability} of $\mathcal{G}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
If $\G$ is amenable, proposition~\ref{unicite} gives $p_c(\mathcal{G})=p_u(\mathcal{G})$. The converse is conjectured to hold. A weak form of the converse has been established by Pak and Smirnova-Nagnibeda \cite{psn} and used in \cite{gl}.
\end{rem}
\begin{prop}[\cite{blps2}]
If $\G$ is non-amenable, then $p_c(\mathcal{G})<1$ and there is no infinite cluster $\Pp_{p_c(\mathcal{G})}$-almost surely.
\end{prop}
\begin{conj}
If $p_c(\mathcal{G})<1$, then there is no infinite cluster $\Pp_{p_c(\mathcal{G})}$-almost surely.
\end{conj}
\vspace{0.25 cm}
The phase transition theorems are roughly summarized in the picture below. Remember that the quantities $p_c$, $p_u$ and 1 may coincide.
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
\thicklines
\begin{picture}(100,10)
\put(0,0){
\line(1,0){100}
}
\put(33,5){$p_c$}
\put(33,-1.5){
\line(0,1){3}
}
\put(67,5){$p_u$}
\put(67,-1.5){
\line(0,1){3}
}
\put(0,5){$0$}
\put(0,-1.5){
\line(0,1){3}
}
\put(100,5){1}
\put(100,-1.5){
\line(0,1){3}
}
\put(10,3){$N_\infty = 0$}
\put(43,3){$N_\infty = \infty$}
\put(77,3){$N_\infty = 1$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.1 cm}
\subsection{Generalized percolation}
The notion of generalized percolation that is presented in this subsection is due to Gaboriau \cite{gdir}.
\vspace{0.3 cm}
Let $\G \agit (X,\Pp)$ be a Borel action on a standard probability space. Assume that it is provided together with a $\G$-equivariant map $$\pi : X \to \Omega = \{0,1\}^E,$$
the space $\{0,1\}^E$ being endowed with the shift action. This will be called a \emph{generalized ($\G$-invariant) percolation}. As for percolations, we will omit the ``$\G$-invariant'' part of the denomination.
To begin with, let us see how this notion is connected to the one presented in subsection~\ref{gendef}. If a generalized percolation is given, then $\pi_\star \Pp$ --- the pushforward of $\Pp$ by $\pi$ --- is a $\G$-invariant percolation that may have atoms. Conversely, if one is given a $\G$-invariant atomless percolation, one can consider the Bernoulli shift action $\G \agit X = \Omega$ together with $\pi : X \to \Omega$ the identity. Via this procedure, one can redefine in the percolation setting any notion introduced in the generalized framework.
Notice that the $\pi_p$'s of the standard coupling, introduced at the beginning of subsection~\ref{percoindep}, provide interesting examples of such generalized percolations.
This setting provides the same atomless measures on $\Omega$ as the previous one, but it allows more flexibility in our way to speak of them. In the next subsection, we will discuss properties of clusters. The usual setting allows to speak of properties such as ``being infinite'', ``having three ends'', ``being transient for simple random walk''. The generalized one will allow us, if we consider $\G\agit [0,1]^E$ together with $\pi_{p_1}$, to speak of ``the considered $p_1$-cluster contains an infinite $p_0$-cluster''.
\subsection{Cluster indistinguishability}
\label{indisclus}
In this subsection, we work with a given generalized percolation. The action is denoted by $\G\agit (X,\Pp)$ and the equivariant map by $\pi$.
\begin{nota}
We call \emph{vertex property} --- or \emph{property} --- a Borel \textsc{$\G$-invariant} Boolean function on $X\times V$, i.e. a Borel function
$$
P:X\times V \to \{\text{true},\text{false}\}
$$
that is invariant under the diagonal action of $\G$. If $S\subset V$, we write $P^+(x,S)$ for ``all the vertices in $S$ satisfy $P(x,.)$''. More formally, we define
$$P^+(x,S) := ``\forall v\in S, P(x,v)\text{''}.$$ We also set
\begin{itemize}
\item $P^-(x,S) := ``\forall v\in S, \lnot P(x,v)$'',
\item $P^\pm(x,S) := ``P^+(x,S)\vee P^-(x,S)$''.
\end{itemize}
The expression $P^\pm(x,S)$ means ``all the vertices in $S$ agree on $P(x,.)$''.
\end{nota}
\begin{exem}The degree of a vertex in a graph is its number of neighbors.
``The vertex $v$ has degree 4 in $\pi(x)$ seen as a subgraph of $\mathcal G$'' is a property.
\end{exem}
\begin{defi}
We call \emph{cluster property} a property $P$ such that $P(x,v) \Longleftrightarrow P(x,u)$ as soon as $u\overset{\pi(x)}{\fleche}v$. In words, it is a vertex property such that, for any $x$, the function $P(x,.)$ is constant on $\pi(x)$-clusters.
\end{defi}
\begin{exem}
The previous example is usually not a cluster property: for most Cayley graphs $\mathcal{G}$, there exist subgraphs of $\mathcal G$ where some component has some vertices of degree 4 and others of other degree. ``The $\pi(x)$-cluster of $v$ is infinite'', ``the $\pi(x)$-cluster of $v$ is transient'', ``the $\pi(x)$-cluster of $v$ has a vertex of degree 4'' are cluster properties.
\end{exem}
\begin{cex}
``The $\pi(x)$-cluster of $v$ contains $\rho$'' is \emph{not} a cluster property, because of the lack of $\G$-invariance. It is to avoid such ``properties'' that $\G$-invariance is required in the definition of vertex properties: allowing them would automatically make any indistinguishability theorem false since they can distinguish the cluster of the origin from the others.
\end{cex}
\begin{exem}
Here is another example of cluster property, which can be (directly) considered only in the generalized setting. Consider $X=[0,1]^E$ and $0<p_0<p_1<1$. We take $\pi=\pi_{p_1}$ (see subsection~\ref{percoindep}). The property ``the $\pi_{p_1}(x)$-cluster of $v$ contains an infinite $\pi_{p_0}(x)$-cluster'' is a cluster property. It has been considered by Lyons and Schramm in \cite{ls} to derive the H\"aggstr\"om-Peres theorem from indistinguishability.
\end{exem}
To formalize the indistinguishability of infinite clusters, one needs to speak of cluster properties and infinite clusters. Thus, we set $$\proptoop(x):= \{v\in V :|\mathcal{C}(\pi(x),v)|=\infty\}.$$
\begin{defi}
The considered generalized percolation will be said to satisfy \emph{(infinite cluster) indistinguishability} (or one will say that its infinite clusters are indistinguishable) if, for every cluster property $P$,
$$
\Pp[P^\pm(x,\proptoop(x))]=1.
$$
\end{defi}
Of course, this notion is empty as soon as $\Pp[N_\infty(\pi(x))\leq 1]=1$, e.g.\ for $\Pp_p$ when $\G$ is amenable.
\begin{rem}
Assume momentarily that $\G\agit (X,\Pp)$ is ergodic
and that the infinite clusters are indistinguishable. Then for every cluster property $P$, by indistinguishability,
$$
\Pp[P^+(x,\proptoop(x)) \text{ or } P^-(x,\proptoop(x))]=1.
$$
Besides, by ergodicity,
$\Pp[P^+(x,\proptoop(x))]$ and $ \Pp[P^-(x,\proptoop(x))]$ are 0 or 1. Altogether, these identities guarantee that
$$
\Pp[P^+(x,\proptoop(x))]=1\text{~~~or~~~}\Pp[P^-(x,\proptoop(x))]=1.
$$
\end{rem}
To state the indistinguishability theorem in its natural form, we need to introduce the notion of insertion-tolerance.
\subsection{Insertion-tolerance}
In this subsection, we work with non-generalized percolations.
\begin{defi}
If $(\omega,e)\in \Omega\times E$, one denotes by $\omega^e$ the unique element of $\Omega$ equal to $\omega$ on $E\backslash \{e\}$ and taking the value 1 at $e$. One sets $\Pi^e : \omega \mapsto \omega^e$.
A percolation is said to be \emph{insertion-tolerant} if for every Borel subset $B\subset \Omega$, for every edge $e$, $$\Pp[B]>0\implies\Pp[\Pi^e(B)]>0.$$
\end{defi}
\begin{exem}
For any $p\in(0,1)$, the percolation $\Pp_p$ is insertion-tolerant.
\end{exem}
\begin{prop}
\label{unicite}
If $\G$ is amenable and if $\Pp$ is an insertion-tolerant percolation on $\mathcal G$, then $\Pp[N_\infty(\omega)\leq 1]=1$.
\end{prop}
\begin{rem}
Proposition~\ref{unicite} improves results obtained in \cite{bk, gkn}. For a proof of the general statement, see \cite{lp}.
\end{rem}
\begin{prop}[\cite{ls}, proposition 3.10]
\label{lsbouts}
If $\Pp$ is an insertion-tolerant percolation on $\mathcal G$ that produces a.s. at least two infinite clusters, then it produces a.s. infinitely many infinite clusters and each of them has infinitely many ends.
\end{prop}
Now that insertion-tolerance has been introduced, we can state the indistinguishability theorem of Lyons and Schramm (\cite{ls}).
\begin{thm}[Lyons-Schramm,~\cite{ls}]
\label{ls}
Any insertion-tolerant percolation has indistinguishable infinite clusters.
\end{thm}
\subsection{Percolation and orbit equivalence}
\label{percorbit}
In this subsection, we work with a generalized percolation, where the action is denoted by $\G\agit (X,\Pp)$ and the equivariant map by $\pi$.
The \emph{cluster equivalence relation} is defined as follows: two configurations $x$ and $x'$ in $X$ are said to be $R_{cl}$\emph{-equivalent} if there exists $\gamma\in\G$ such that $\gamma^{-1}\cdot x=x'$ and $\gamma\cdot \rho \overset{\pi(x)}{\fleche}\rho$.
In words, an $R_{cl}$-class is a configuration up to $\G$-translation and with a distinguished cluster --- the one of the root $\rho$.
Every generalized percolation is $R_{cl}$-invariant, since $R_{cl}$ is a subrelation of $R_{\G\agit X}$.
Let $S$ denote the generating set associated to the choice of the Cayley graph $\mathcal G$. For $s \in S$, let $\tilde \varphi_s$ denote the restriction of $ x \mapsto s^{-1}\cdot x$ to the $x$'s such that the edge $(\rho,s\cdot\rho)$ is $\pi(x)$-open. If the action of $\Gamma$ on $X$ is free, this graphing induces on $[x]_{R_{cl}}$ the graph structure of the $\pi(x)$-cluster of the anchor point $\rho$. This remark, together with theorem~\ref{gbouts} and proposition~\ref{lsbouts}, provides the following proposition.
\begin{prop}
\label{themm}
Let $\Pp$ denote an insertion-tolerant classic percolation. Assume that
\begin{itemize}
\item $N_\infty$ is infinite $\Pp$-almost surely,
\item for $\Pp$-almost every $\omega$, the map $\gamma\mapsto \gamma\cdot \omega$ is injective.
\end{itemize}
Then $R_{cl}$ is not $\Pp$-amenable.
\end{prop}
\begin{rem}
This proposition applies to Bernoulli percolations that yield infinitely many infinite clusters.
\end{rem}
\newpage
\section{Ergodicity and indistinguishability}
\label{third}
Throughout this section, we will work with a generalized percolation. The underlying standard probability space will be denoted by $(X,\Pp)$ and the equivariant map by $\pi$.
\setcounter{subsection}{-1}
\subsection{The dictionary}
\label{dico}
The following array presents concisely the correspondence between percolation theory and orbit equivalence theory. In the following sections, no knowledge of this array will be assumed and we will start from scratch. Though, we think it may be useful to the reader to have all the data compactly presented in a single place, hence this subsection.
In the following ``dictionary'', the bijection $\psi:\Gamma\backslash (X\times V) \to X$ induced by $(x,\gamma\cdot \rho)\mapsto \gamma^{-1}\cdot x$ is the translator.
\vspace{0.7 cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|ccc|}
\hline
Orbit equivalence & & Percolation\\
\hline
$X$ &$\overset{\psi}{\fleche} $ & $\Gamma\backslash(X\times V)$ \\
$\gamma^{-1}\cdot x$ & & $[(x,\gamma\cdot \rho)]$\\
$x\in X_\infty$&&$\rho\overset{\pi(x)}{\fleche}\infty$\\
Borel subset & & vertex property\\
$R_{cl}$-class & & cluster \\
$R_{cl}$-invariant & & cluster property \\
ergodicity of $R$ &$\simeq$ & indistinguishability \\
$\phi$ s.t. $\text{gr}(\phi)\subset R_{cl}$ & & rerooting \\
$\phi \in [R]$ && vertex-bijective rerooting\\
asymptotically $R_{cl}$-invariant && asymptotic cluster property \\
strong ergodicity of $R$ &$\simeq$& strong indistinguishability \\
graphing & & graph structure\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.2 cm}
\subsection{Classic connection}
The map $P\mapsto B_P:=\{x\in X : P(x,\rho)\}$ realizes a bijection from the set of properties onto the set of Borel subsets of $X$. Its inverse map is $B\mapsto \left(P_B:(x,\gamma\cdot \rho)\mapsto ``(\gamma^{-1}\cdot x,\rho)\in B\text{''}\right)$. It induces a bijection between the set of cluster properties and the set of $R_{cl}$-invariant Borel subsets of $X$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lemmaF}
Let $P$ denote a property and $\Lambda$ a subset of $\Gamma$. For any $x\in X$,
$$
P^\pm(x,\proptoop(x)\cap (\Lambda^{-1}\cdot\rho)) \Longleftrightarrow \forall y,z\in X_\infty \cap (\Lambda\cdot x),~ (y\in B_P\Longleftrightarrow z\in B_P).
$$
\end{lem}
\vspace{0.2 cm}
\begin{proof}
It results from the fact that, for any cluster property $P$ and any $x\in X$, if one sets $\Delta:= \Lambda^{-1}$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{l}
P^\pm(x,\proptoop(x)\cap (\Delta\cdot\rho))\Longleftrightarrow\left\{\forall u,v\in\proptoop(x)\cap (\Delta\cdot\rho),P(x,u)\Longleftrightarrow P(x,v)\right\}\\
~~\Longleftrightarrow~\left(\forall \gamma_0,\gamma_1\in \Delta,~\left\{\begin{tiny}\begin{array}{c} \gamma_0\cdot\rho\overset{\pi(x)}{\longleftrightarrow}\infty \\ \text{ and }\\ \gamma_1\cdot\rho\overset{\pi(x)}{\longleftrightarrow}\infty\end{array}\end{tiny}\right\} \implies \left(P(x,\gamma_0\cdot\rho)\Longleftrightarrow (P(x,\gamma_1\cdot\rho)\right) \right)\\
~~\Leftrightarrow~\forall \gamma_0,\gamma_1\in \Delta,~\left\{\begin{tiny}\begin{array}{c}\rho\xleftrightarrow{\pi(\gamma_0^{-1}\cdot x)}\infty \\ \text{ and }\\ \rho\xleftrightarrow{\pi(\gamma_1^{-1}\cdot x)}\infty\end{array}\end{tiny}\right\} \implies \left(P(\gamma_0^{-1}\cdot x,\rho)\Longleftrightarrow (P(\gamma_1^{-1}\cdot x,\rho)\right) \\
~~\Longleftrightarrow \forall y,z\in X_\infty \cap (\Lambda\cdot x),~ (y\in B_P\Longleftrightarrow z\in B_P).\hfill\phantom{word}\\
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
Taking $\Lambda=\Gamma$ gives the following proposition.
\begin{prop}
\label{one}
Consider a generalized percolation defined by $\G\agit (X,\Pp)$ and a $\G$-equivariant map $\pi : X\to\Omega$.
Then the considered generalized percolation has indistinguishable infinite clusters if and only if for every Borel subset $B$ of $X$, for $\Pp$-almost every $x\in X$, the following holds: $$\forall y\in X_\infty\cap (\Gamma\cdot x), ~x\in B \Longleftrightarrow y\in B.$$
\end{prop}
We define the \emph{infinite locus} as $$X_{\infty}:= \{x\in X : |\mathcal{C}(\pi(x),\rho)|=\infty\}.$$
This definition coincides with the usual orbit-equivalence definition $$\{x\in X : |[x]_{R_{cl}}|=\infty\}$$ as soon as $\Gamma\acts X$ is free.
Remember that if there is no $\pi$ in the second description, it is because it is hidden in $R_{cl}$.
Let $R$ denote the restriction of $R_{cl}$ to $X_\infty\times X_\infty$.
\begin{prop}
\label{two}
Consider a generalized percolation defined by $\G\agit (X,\Pp)$ and a $\G$-equivariant map $\pi : X\to\Omega$.
Assume that $\Pp[X_{\infty}]>0$. Then $R$ is $\frac{\Pp}{\Pp[X_\infty]}$-ergodic if and only if for every cluster property $P$, the conditional probability $\Pp\left[P(x,\rho)|\rho\overset{\pi(x)}{\longleftrightarrow}\infty\right]$ is either 0 or 1.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The relation $R$ is $\frac{\Pp}{\Pp[X_\infty]}$-ergodic if and only if, for every $R_{cl}$-invariant Borel subset $B$ of $X$, $\Pp[B\cap X_\infty]\in\{0,\Pp[X_\infty]\}$. The proposition results from the fact that, for any $R_{cl}$-invariant Borel subset of $X$ and any $x\in X$,
$$
\Pp[B\cap X_\infty]\in\{0,\Pp[X_\infty]\}\Leftrightarrow \Pp[P_B(x,\rho)\text{ and }\rho\overset{\pi(x)}{\longleftrightarrow}\infty]\in\left\{0,\Pp\left[\rho\overset{\pi(x)}{\longleftrightarrow}\infty\right]\right\}.
$$
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}[Gaboriau-Lyons, \cite{gl}]
\label{ergind}
Consider a generalized percolation defined by $\G\agit (X,\Pp)$ and a $\G$-equivariant map $\pi : X\to\Omega$.
Assume that $\G \agit (X,\Pp)$ is ergodic and $\Pp[X_{\infty}]>0$. Then the considered generalized percolation has indistinguishable infinite clusters if and only if $R$ is $\frac{\Pp}{\Pp[X_{\infty}]}$-ergodic.
\end{prop}
As a preliminary to the next subsection, we detail the proof of this theorem, which can be found in \cite{gl}.
\vspace{0.35 cm}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $R$ is ergodic.
Let $B$ be a $R_{cl}$-invariant Borel subset of $X$. Then, some $B'\in \{B,X\backslash B\}$ satisfies $\Pp[B'\cap X_\infty]=0$. Hence, $\Pp\left[\bigcup_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\gamma^{-1}\cdot(B'\cap X_\infty)\right]=0$, so that
$$
\Pp\left[\{x\in X:\forall y\in X_\infty\cap (\Gamma\cdot x),~ y\in X\backslash B'\}\right]=1.
$$
The first implication is thus a consequence of proposition~\ref{one}.
The converse statement stems directly from the remark at the end of subsection~\ref{indisclus} --- which makes crucial use of the ergodicity of $\Gamma\acts X$ --- and proposition~\ref{two}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Two lemmas on asymptotic invariance}
To translate properly the notion of strong ergodicity from orbit equivalence theory to percolation theory, we will need the following lemma. Since it holds with a high level of generality, and since the symbols $X$ and $R$ have a specific meaning in this section, we denote by $(Y,\mu)$ a standard probability space and by $R_Y$ a countable Borel equivalence relation on $Y$ that preserves the measure $\mu$.
\begin{lem}
\label{noinjectivity}
A sequence $(B_n)$ of Borel subsets of $Y$ is $\mu$-asymptotically $R_Y$-invariant if and only if for every Borel (not necessarily bijective) map $\phi : Y\to Y$ whose graph is included in $R_Y$, the $\mu$-measure of $\phi^{-1}(B_n)\triangle B_n$ converges to 0 as $n$ goes to infinity.
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
This result is false if we replace $\phi^{-1}(B_n)$ with $\phi(B_n)$. Indeed, a Borel map whose graph is included in $R_Y$ may have a range of small measure. For instance, take the ``first-return in $[0,\epsilon[$ map'' for an action of $\Z$ on $\R/\Z \simeq [0,1[$ by irrational translation.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
One implication is tautological. To establish the other, assume that $(B_n)$ is asymptotically invariant and take $\phi$ a Borel map from $Y$ to $Y$ whose graph is included in $R_Y$.
There exist
\begin{itemize}
\item a partition $Y=\bigsqcup_{i\in\N} Y_i$ of $Y$ into countably many Borel subsets
\item and countably many $\varphi_i\in [R_Y]$
\end{itemize}
such that for all $i$, the maps $\phi$ and $\varphi_i$ coincide on $Y_i$. (This can be proved using theorem~\ref{fm}.)
Let $\epsilon$ be a positive real number. Take $N$ such that $\mu\left(\bigsqcup_{i>N} Y_i\right)<\epsilon$.
For every $i$ and $n$, we have,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi^{-1}(B_n)\triangle B_n & \overset{\epsilon}{\simeq} & \bigsqcup_{i\leq N} Y_i \cap (\phi^{-1}(B_n)\triangle B_n)\\
& = & \bigsqcup_{i\leq N} Y_i \cap (\varphi_{i}^{-1}(B_n)\triangle B_n)\\
&\subset & \bigcup_{i\leq N} \varphi_{i}^{-1}(B_n)\triangle B_n,\\
\end{eqnarray*}
where $A\overset{\epsilon}{\simeq}B$ means that $\mu(A\triangle B)\leq \epsilon$.
Since $\mu\left(\bigcup_{i\leq N} \varphi_{i}^{-1}(B_n)\triangle B_n\right)$ goes, by hypothesis, to 0 as $n$ goes to infinity, the lemma is established.
\end{proof}
We will also need the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{restriction}
If $\Gamma\acts (Y,\mu)$ is a strongly ergodic action and if $Z$ is a Borel subset of $Y$ of positive measure, then $(Z,\frac{\mu}{\mu(Z)},(R_{\Gamma\acts Y})_{|Z})$ is strongly ergodic.
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
If one replaces ``strongly ergodic'' with ``ergodic'' in the above statement, the proof is straightforward: one just needs to take $B$ an $R$-invariant set and apply ergodicity to $\Gamma\cdot B$. The proof gets a bit more technical in the strong case because one needs to take a \emph{suitable} $\Gamma$-saturation of $B$.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
Set $R:=(R_{\Gamma\acts Y})_{|Z}$. Let $(B_n)$ denote a $\frac{\mu}{\mu(Z)}$-asymptotically $R$-invariant sequence of Borel subsets of $Z$. It is enough to show that there exists a sequence $(B'_n)$ of $\mu$-asymptotically $\Gamma$-invariant subsets of $Y$ satisfying the following condition:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq}\tag{$\star$}
\mu(B_n\triangle(B'_n\cap Z))\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}0.
\end{equation}
Indeed, by strong ergodicity of the action, the sequence $(\mu(B_n'))$ would then have no accumulation point other than 0 and 1, so that $\mu(B_n'\cap Z)$ would have no accumulation point other than 0 and $\mu(Z)$, which ends the proof together with condition (\ref{eq}).
For any finite subset $\Lambda$ of $\Gamma$, set
$$
B_{n,+}^{\Lambda} := \bigcap_{\gamma\in\Lambda} \gamma\cdot(B_n\cup(Y\backslash Z))~~~~\text{and}~~~~B_{n,-}^{\Lambda} := \bigcap_{\gamma\in\Lambda} \gamma\cdot((Z\backslash B_n)\cup(Y\backslash Z)).
$$
If $\Lambda$ is fixed and finite, the measure of $B_{n,+}^\Lambda\cup B_{n,-}^\Lambda$ converges to 1 as $n$ goes to infinity.
\vspace{0.2 cm}
\begin{small}
Proceeding by contradiction, we assume that there exist $\eta$ and $\gamma$ in $\Lambda$ such that
$$
\limsup_n \mu(\{y\in Y : \eta\cdot y \in B_n\text{ and }\gamma\cdot y \in Z\backslash B_n\})>0.
$$
The measure $\mu$ being $\Gamma$-invariant, it follows that $$\limsup_n \mu(\{y\in Y : y \in B_n\text{ and }\gamma\eta^{-1}\cdot y \in Z\backslash B_n\})>0$$which contradicts the $\frac{\mu}{\mu(Z)}$-asymptotic $R$-invariance of $(B_n)$. More precisely, the mapping $\varphi : Z\to Z$ that sends $y$ to $\gamma\eta^{-1}\cdot y$ if the latter belongs to $Z$ and to $y$ otherwise contradicts lemma~\ref{noinjectivity}.
\end{small}
\vspace{0.2 cm}
By a diagonal argument, one can find a sequence $(\Lambda_n)$ of finite subsets of $\Gamma$ such that, setting $\Lambda_n^{(2)}:=\{\gamma\eta:\gamma,\eta\in\Lambda_n\}$, the following two conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item the sequence $(\Lambda_n)$ is non-decreasing and its union is $\Gamma$,
\item $\mu(B_{n,+}^{\Lambda_n^{(2)}}\cup B_{n,-}^{\Lambda_n^{(2)}})\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}1$.
\end{itemize}
Set $B'_n:=B_{n,+}^{\Lambda_n}$.
For $n$ large enough, $\Lambda_n$ contains the identity element, so that
$$
B_n\cap\left(B_{n,+}^{\Lambda_n}\cup B_{n,-}^{\Lambda_n}\right)=B_n\cap B_{n,+}^{\Lambda_n}=Z\cap B_{n,+}^{\Lambda_n}.
$$
It follows from this and the second condition that condition (\ref{eq}) is satisfied. To show that $(B'_n)$ is $\mu$-asymptotically $\Gamma$-invariant, take $\gamma\in\Gamma$. Taking $n$ large enough guarantees that $\gamma\in\Lambda_n$. The measure $\mu$ being $\Gamma$-invariant, we only need to show that $\mu(B'_n\backslash \gamma\cdot B'_n)$ tends to 0. To do so, it is enough to establish that the measure of $B'_n\backslash B_{n,+}^{\Lambda_n^{(2)}}$ tends to 0. Notice that
$$
B'_n\backslash B_{n,+}^{\Lambda_n^{(2)}}\subset Y\backslash\left(\left(B_{n,+}^{\Lambda_n^{(2)}}\cup B_{n,-}^{\Lambda_n}\right)\cap (\Lambda_n\cdot Z)\right).
$$
\vspace{0.2 cm}
\begin{small}Indeed, the sets $B_{n,+}^{\Lambda_n}\cap (\Lambda_n \cdot Z)$ and $ B_{n,-}^{\Lambda_n}\cap (\Lambda_n \cdot Z)$ are disjoint.\end{small}
\vspace{0.2 cm}
Since $Z$ has positive measure and $\Gamma\acts (Y,\mu)$ is ergodic, the measure of $\Lambda_n\cdot Z$ converges to 1. We conclude using the second condition.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Strong version}
\label{strong}
Consider $\Pp_p$ for $p \in (p_c(\mathcal{G}),p_u(\mathcal{G}))$.
By theorems~\ref{corocf}, \ref{ls} and \ref{themm} and proposition~\ref{ergind}, its cluster equivalence relation is strongly ergodic on the infinite locus.
One would like to deduce from this information a strong form of indistinguishability of $\Pp_p$. This idea is due to Damien Gaboriau.
Another way to describe our goal is to say that we look for a proposition similar to proposition~\ref{ergind} for strong notions. This is achieved in theorem~\ref{ergindfort}.
Again, everything will be stated for a generalized percolation, with the same notation as previously.
\begin{defi}
We call \emph{re-anchoring}, or \emph{rerooting}, a Borel map
$$
\begin{array}{lccl}
\alpha : & X\times V & \longrightarrow & V \\
& (x,v) & \longmapsto & u_{x,v}^\alpha \end{array}
$$
that is $\G$-equivariant under the diagonal action and such that $$\forall (x,v)\in X\times V,~ u_{x,v}^\alpha \overset{\pi(x)}{\longleftrightarrow} v.$$
\end{defi}
In words, a re-anchoring is a $\G$-equivariant way of changing of position within one's cluster.
\begin{exem}
If $\gamma\in \G$, setting
$$u_{x,v}^{\alpha_\gamma} := \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\gamma\cdot v & \mbox{if } v\overset{\pi(x)}{\fleche}\gamma\cdot v \\
v & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array}\right. $$ defines a re-anchoring.
\end{exem}
\begin{defi}
Let $(P_n)$ be a sequence of vertex properties. Let $\Pp$ be a percolation. We will say that $(P_n)$ is an \emph{asymptotic cluster property} (for $\Pp$) if, for any rerooting $\alpha$,
\begin{equation*}
\label{convv}
\forall v\in V,~\Pp\left[\left\{x\in X:P_n(x,v)\Longleftrightarrow P_n\left(x,u^\alpha_{x,v}\right)\right\}\right]\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}1.
\end{equation*}
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}
For a given rerooting, the convergence (\ref{convv}) holds for all $v$ as soon as it holds for one, by $\G$-invariance and -equivariance.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
This definition of ``depending asymptotically only on one's cluster'' is quite natural if one looks for a translation of strong ergodicity, but it may not be the clearest definition from a probabilistic point of view.
For a probabilistically more natural definition, see subsection~\ref{natural}.
\end{rem}
\begin{nota}
In what follows, $A\Subset B$ means that $A$ is a finite subset of $B$.
\end{nota}
\begin{defi}
We will say that $\Pp$ satisfies the \emph{strong indistinguishability property} if, for every $\Pp$-asymptotic cluster property $(P_n)$ and every $F\Subset V$,
$$
\Pp[P_n^\pm(x,\proptoop(x)\cap F)]\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}1.
$$
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}
Subsection~\ref{natural} makes the definition of asymptotic cluster property look like the conclusion of strong indistinguishability.
\end{rem}
\begin{lem}
\label{bij}
The map $(B_n)\mapsto (P_{B_n})$ is a bijection from the set of the $\Pp$-asymptotically $R_{cl}$-invariant sequences of Borel subsets of $X$ onto the set of $\Pp$-asymptotic cluster properties. Its inverse map is $(P_n)\mapsto (B_{P_n})$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
First, let $(B_n)$ be a $\Pp$-asymptotically $R_{cl}$-invariant sequence of Borel subsets of $X$ and set $P_n:=B_{P_n}$. We show that $(P_n)$ is a $\Pp$-asymptotic cluster property.
Let $\alpha$ be a rerooting.
Since $(x,v)\mapsto (x,u_{x,v}^\alpha)$ is $\G$-equivariant, it induces a map $\overline{\alpha}:\G\backslash (X\times V)\to \G\backslash (X\times V)$. Set $$\phi := \psi\circ\overline{\alpha}\circ\psi^{-1},$$ where $\psi$ is the bijection introduced in subsection~\ref{dico}. More explicitly, we have $\phi : x\mapsto \gamma_x^{-1}\cdot x$, where $\gamma_x$ is defined by $$u^\alpha_{x,\rho}=\gamma_x\cdot \rho.$$
The graph of this Borel map is a subset of $R$. By lemma~\ref{noinjectivity}, the probability of $B_n\triangle\phi^{-1}(B_n)$ goes to 0 as $n$ goes to infinity.
As a consequence, $(P_n)$ is an asymptotic cluster property.
\vspace{0.15 cm}
Now, let $(P_n)$ be a $\Pp$-asymptotic cluster property and set $B_n:=B_{P_n}$. We show that $(B_n)$ is $\Pp$-asymptotically $R_{cl}$-invariant.
Let $\phi \in [R]$. Since $R_{cl}\subset R_{\G\acts X}$, one can define a Borel map
$$
\begin{array}{l|ccl}
& X_\infty & \longrightarrow & \G \\
& x & \longmapsto & \gamma_x \end{array}
$$
such that
$
\forall x\in X,~ \phi(x)=\gamma_x^{~-1}\cdot x.
$
Define $\alpha$ by $u_{x,\eta\cdot \rho}^\alpha:=\eta\cdot \gamma_{\eta^{-1}\cdot x}$. This is a rerooting.
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi^{-1}(B_n)&=&\left\{x\in X : P_n(\phi(x),\rho)\right\} \\
&=&\left\{x\in X : P_n(\gamma_x^{-1}\cdot x,\rho)\right\} \\
&=&\left\{x\in X : P_n(x,\gamma_x\cdot\rho)\right\}\text{~~~~~~~by }\G\text{-invariance of }P_n\\
&=&\left\{x\in X : P_n(x,u^{\alpha}_{x,\rho})\right\} \\
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $(P_n)$ is a $\Pp$-asymptotic cluster property, we deduce from this that the probability of $B_n\triangle \phi^{-1}(B_n)$ tends to 0.
Since this holds for every $\phi\in[R]$, the sequence $(B_n)$ is ${\Pp}$-asymptotically $R_{cl}$-invariant.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
In the previous proof, the use of lemma~\ref{noinjectivity} allows us to obtain the asymptotic-cluster-property condition for all rerootings, while a ``literal translation'' would have given it only for the vertex-bijective ones --- the rerootings $(x,v)\mapsto u_{x,v}$ such that, for every $x$, the map $v\mapsto u_{x,v}$ is bijective. From the percolation point of view, vertex-bijective rerootings are absolutely non-natural objects: the use of such a lemma was unavoidable.
\end{rem}
From lemmas~\ref{lemmaF} and \ref{bij}, one deduces the following statement.
\begin{prop}
\label{strongone}
A generalized percolation satisfies the strong indistinguishability property if and only if for every $\Pp$-asymptotically $R_{cl}$-invariant sequence $(B_n)$ of Borel subsets of $X$, for every $\Lambda\Subset \Gamma$,
$$
\Pp\left[\{x\in X:\forall y,z\in X_\infty \cap (\Lambda\cdot x), ~y\in B_n\Longleftrightarrow z\in B_n\}\right]\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}1.
$$
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}
\label{strongtwo}
Consider a generalized percolation such that $\Pp[X_{\infty}]>0$.
The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the relation $R$ is $\frac{\Pp}{\Pp[X_\infty]}$-strongly ergodic,
\item for every asymptotic cluster property $(P_n)$, there exists $(\epsilon_n)\in\{-,+\}^\N$ such that
$$
\forall F \Subset V,~\Pp\left[P_n^{\epsilon_n}(x,\proptoop(x)\cap F)\right]\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}1,
$$
\item for every asymptotic cluster property $(P_n)$, there exists $(\epsilon_n)\in\{-,+\}^\N$ such that
$$
\Pp\left[P_n^{\epsilon_n}(x,\rho)|\rho\overset{\pi(x)}{\fleche}\infty\right]\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}1.
$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\vspace{0.2 cm}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $R$ is strongly ergodic. Let $(P_n)$ be an asymptotic cluster property. Set $B_n:=B_{P_n}$. By strong ergodicity, there exists $(\epsilon_n)\in\{-,+\}^\N$ such that $\Pp[B^{-\epsilon_n}\cap X_\infty]$ tends to 0. (We denote by $B^+$ the set $B$ and $B^-$ its complement.) Hence, for any $\Lambda\Subset \Gamma$, $\Pp\left[\bigcup_{\gamma\in \Lambda} \gamma\cdot(B^{-\epsilon_n}\cap X_\infty)\right]$ tends to 0. This establishes the second statement: specifying the previous sentence for a particular $\Lambda$ solves the case $F=\Lambda^{-1}\cdot\rho$.
Taking $F=\{\rho\}$ gives $(\text{ii}) \implies (\text{iii})$ and $(\text{iii})\implies (\text{i})$ is straightforward.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{ergindfort}
Consider a generalized percolation such that $\G \agit (X,\Pp)$ is strongly ergodic and $\Pp[X_{\infty}]>0$. It satisfies the strong indistinguishability property if and only if $R$ is $\frac{\Pp}{\Pp[X_{\infty}]}$-strongly ergodic.
\end{thm}
\vspace{0.3 cm}
\begin{proof}
If $R$ is strongly ergodic, proposition~\ref{strongtwo} implies that strong indistinguishability holds.
Conversely, assume strong indistinguishability to hold. Let $(B_n)$ be a $\frac{\Pp}{\Pp[X_\infty]}$-asymptotically $R$-invariant sequence of Borel subsets of $X_\infty$.
Strong indistinguishability implies that for every $\gamma$,
$$
\Pp\left[\{x\in X_\infty:\gamma\cdot x \in X_\infty \implies (x\in B_n\Longleftrightarrow \gamma\cdot x\in B_n)\}\right]\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}\Pp[X_\infty].
$$
This means that $(B_n)$ is $\frac{\Pp}{\Pp[X_\infty]}$-asymptotically $(R_{\Gamma\agit X})_{|X_\infty}$-invariant.
By lemma~\ref{restriction}, the strong ergodicity of $R_{\Gamma\agit X}$ entails that the only possible accumulation points of $(\Pp[B_n\cap X_\infty])$ are $0$ and $\Pp[X_\infty]$. This ends the proof.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.3 cm}
From this theorem and the few lines at the beginning of the current subsection, we can derive the following corollary --- even for $p=p_u(\mathcal G)$ if the assumption of the corollary is satisfied for this parameter.
\begin{coro}
\label{corollaire}
As soon as $\Pp_p$ produces infinitely many infinite clusters, it satisfies the strong indistinguishability property.
\end{coro}
\subsection{Classic and strong indistinguishability do not coincide}
Obviously, strong indistinguishability implies the classic one: take $P_n=P$ for all $n$. The following proposition proves that the converse does not hold.
\begin{prop}
There exist generalized percolations that satisfy indistinguishability but not strong indistinguishability.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\G_0 \acts (X_0,\mu_0)$ be a weakly mixing action of a finitely generated group that is not strongly ergodic, e.g. $\G_0\acts \left(\{0,1\}^{\G_0},\text{Ber(1/2)}^{\otimes \G_0}\right)$ with $\G_0$ an infinite finitely-generated amenable group. Recall that $\G_0 \acts (X_0,\mu_0)$ being \emph{weakly mixing} means that the diagonal action
$$
\G_0 \acts (X_0\times X_0,\mu_0\otimes\mu_0)
$$
is ergodic (see \cite{bg}). Consider $\G := \G_0\times \Z/2\Z$. To avoid problems of additive/multiplic\-ative notation, we will think of $\Z/2\Z$ as $\langle a | a^2 = 1\rangle$.
The action of $\G$ is defined as follows: we take $(X,\Pp) := (X_0\times X_0,\mu_0\otimes\mu_0)$, let $\G_0$ act diagonally and let $\Z/2\Z$ act by permutation of the coordinates. Since these two actions commute, this defines an action of $\G$ on $(X,\Pp)$.
Let $S$ be a finite generating system of $\G_0$. We will define a generalized percolation on the Cayley graph $\mathcal G=(V,E)$ of
$\G$ associated to the generating system $$S\times \{1\}\cup \{(1_{\G_0},a)\}.$$ Say that the edges of the first kind are blue and the other ones are red.
Let $\pi:X\to\Omega$ be the constant map whose unique value is $$e\mapsto 1_{e\text{ is blue}}.$$ This map is $\G$-equivariant, since its unique value is left invariant by the $\G$-action. In a nutshell, we consider the deterministic percolation with two clusters --- $\G_0\times\{1\}$ and $\G_0\times \{a\}$ --- but properties are allowed to depend on the information that the random element $x$ of $X$ contains.
First, let us prove that this generalized percolation satisfies the indistinguishability condition. It results from the choice of $\pi$ that a cluster property is precisely a property $P$ such that, for every $x\in X$, the map $\gamma\mapsto P(x,\gamma)$ is $\Gamma_0$-invariant. Consequently, if $P$ is a cluster property, by ergodicity of $\G_0\acts (X,\Pp)$, the Boolean value of $P(x,(1_{\G_0},1))$ must be almost deterministic. By $\Z/2\Z$-invariance, it is the same as the one of $P(x,(1_{\G_0},a))$ and indistinguishability is established.
Now, let us prove that this generalized percolation does not satisfy the strong indistinguishability condition.
Take $(B_n)$ a sequence of Borel subsets of $X_0$ that is $\mu_0$-asymptotically $\G_0$-invariant but such that $\mu_0(B_n)$ stays away from 0 and 1: it exists, since we assumed $\G_0\acts (X_0,\mu_0)$ not to be strongly ergodic. Set
$$
P_n((x_0,x_1),(\gamma_0,b)):=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
``\gamma_0^{-1}\cdot x_0 \in B_n\text{''} & \text{ if }b=1,\\
``\gamma_0^{-1}\cdot x_1 \in B_n\text{''} & \text{ if }b=a.\\
\end{array}\right.
$$
Since $(B_n)$ is asymptotically $\G_0$-invariant and by definition of $\pi$, the sequence $(P_n)$ forms an asymptotic cluster property. Besides, for any $n$, the events $P_n(x,(1_{\G_0},1))$ and $P_n(x,(1_{\G_0},a))$ are independent and of measure bounded away from 0 and 1. Thus, the probability of the event ``$P_n(x,(1_{\G_0},1))\not = P_n(x,(1_{\G_0},a))$'' stays away from 0. This proves that the considered generalized percolation does not satisfy the strong indistinguishability condition.
\end{proof}
Let us take a closer look at what happens when we take $\Gamma_0\acts (X_0,\mu_0)$ to be $\Z\acts (\{0,1\}^\Z,\text{Ber(1/2)}^{\otimes \Z}).$ In this case, one can set
$P_n(x,(k,b))$ to be ``the restriction of $x$ to $\{k-n,\dots,k+n\}\times\{b\}$ contains more ones than zeros''.
Indeed, if $k$ and $k'$ are fixed, for $n$ big enough, the probability that
$$
P_n(x,(k,b)) \not= P_n(x,(k',b))
$$
is less than the probability that a simple random walk on $\Z$ that takes $2n+1-|k-k'|$ steps ends up in $\{-2|k-k'|,\dots,2|k-k'|\}$. This is known to go to zero as $n$ goes to infinity (as $n^{-1/2}$).
This counterexample can be turned into a classic-percolation counterexample as follows. Take $\G := \Z\times \Z/4\Z$ and endow it with the generating system
$\{(1,0),(0,1)\}$. Toss a fair coin to decide which one of the following edge-sets you definitely erase:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{[(k,0);(k,1)];k\in\Z\}\cup\{[(k,2);(k,3)];k\in\Z\}$,
\item $\{[(k,1);(k,2)];k\in\Z\}\cup\{[(k,3);(k,0)];k\in\Z\}$.
\end{itemize}
Decide to keep automatically all edges of the form $[(k,z);(k+1,z)]$. For all remaining edges, toss independent fair coins to decide if they are kept or destroyed. This classic percolation satisfies indistinguishability but not strong indistinguishability.
\begin{rem}One can also adapt this idea to establish that strong indistinguishability does not hold for the following percolation. Define $\Gamma$ to be the free group $\langle a, b\rangle$ and endow it with the generating system $\{a,b\}$. For each element $\gamma$ of $\Gamma$, choose uniformly an element $s_\gamma$ in $\{a,b\}$, and make theses choices independently. The percolation configuration is defined by connecting each $\gamma$ to $\gamma s_\gamma$. The analogous model for $\Z^2$ instead of $\langle a, b\rangle$ has been extensively studied, see e.g. \cite{finr} and references therein.
The $s$\emph{-directed path} launched at $\gamma$ is defined by $\gamma_0:=\gamma$ and $\gamma_{k+1}:=\gamma_k s_{\gamma_k}$. The elements $s_{\gamma_k}$ are called the \emph{steps} of the directed path.
Set $P_n(s,\gamma)$ to be ``there are more $a$'s than $b$'s in the first $2n+1$ steps of the $s$-directed path launched at $\gamma$''. Once again, $(P_n)$ is an asymptotic cluster property but $P_n(s,a)$ and $P_n(s,b)$ are independent of probability $1/2$. Since the considered percolation produces only infinite clusters, it cannot satisfy the strong indistinguishability property.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Complements on asymptotic cluster properties}
\label{natural}
This subsection provides equivalent definitions of asymptotic cluster properties. We stick to the usual notation for generalized percolations.
\begin{nota}
If $x\in X$, denote by $\clusters(x)$ the set of the clusters of $\pi(x)$.
\end{nota}
\begin{prop}\label{propopo} Let $(P_n)$ be a sequence of properties.
The following assertions are equivalent
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(P_n)$ is a $\Pp$-asymptotic cluster property,
\item $\forall F \Subset V, \Pp\left[\forall C \in \clusters(x), P_n^\pm(x,C\cap F)\right]\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}1$,
\item $\exists u\in V, \forall v\in V, \Pp[P_n^\pm(x,\{u,v\})|u\overset{\pi(x)}{\fleche}v]\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}1$,
\item $\forall u\in V, \forall v\in V, \Pp[P_n^\pm(x,\{u,v\})|u\overset{\pi(x)}{\fleche}v]\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{rem}
Above, we set $P[A|B]:=1$ when $\Pp[B]=0$.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
The assertions (iii) and (iv) are equivalent by $\G$-invariance.
Rewriting (ii) as follows
$$
\forall F \Subset V, \Pp\left[\forall (u,v)\in F^2, \left(u\overset{\pi(x)}{\fleche}v\right) \implies P_n^\pm(x,\{u,v\})\right]\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow} 1
$$
clarifies its equivalence\footnote{Remember that $\Pp[Q_n|Q]\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}1$ is equivalent to $\Pp[Q\implies Q_n]\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}1$.} with (iv): one way, take $F := \{u,v\}$; the other way, write $F$ as the \emph{finite} union of the pairs it contains.
Now assume (i) and establish (iii). We will do so for $u=\rho$.
Let $v=\gamma\cdot\rho$ be a vertex.
Applying (i) to the $\alpha_\gamma$ introduced at the beginning of subsection~\ref{strong}, one gets
$$
\Pp\left[\left\{x\in X : P_n(x,\rho)= P_n\left(x,u^{\alpha_\gamma}_{x,\rho}\right)\right\}\right]\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}1.
$$
Hence, if $A:=\{x\in X: \rho\overset{\pi(x)}{\fleche}\gamma \cdot \rho\}$,
$$
\Pp\left[\left\{x\in A : P_n(x,\rho)= P_n\left(x,u^{\alpha_\gamma}_{x,\rho}\right)\right\}\right]\underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}\Pp[A].
$$
But, on $A$, ``$P_n(x,\rho)= P_n\left(x,u^{\alpha_\gamma}_{x,\rho}\right)$'' means that ``$P_n(x,\rho)= P_n(x,v)$'', so that (iii) is established.
\vspace{0.15 cm}
It is now enough to show that (ii) implies (i). Assume (ii). Let $\alpha$ be a rerooting. Set $w(x) := u^\alpha_{x,\rho}$ and take $\epsilon > 0$. Let $F\Subset V$ be such that $\Pp[w\not\in F]<\epsilon$.
We have
$$
(w \in F\text{ and }\forall C\in\clusters(x),P_n^\pm(x,F\cap C))\implies P_n^\pm\left(x,\left\{\rho, w\right\}\right).
$$
\begin{small}(Apply the second hypothesis to the common cluster of $\rho$ and $w$.)\end{small}
\vspace{0.15 cm}
The condition on the left hand side being satisfied with probability asymptotically larger than $1-2\epsilon$ (by (ii) and choice of $F$), $$\liminf_{n} \Pp\left[ P_n^\pm\left(x,\left\{\rho, w\right\}\right) \right]\geq 1-2\epsilon.$$ Since this holds for any value of $\epsilon$, the proof is over.
\end{proof}
\newpage
\small
|
\section{Computations}
\tiny
\begin{center}
\begin{longtable}{p{0.13\textwidth}@{}p{0.85\textwidth}}
\caption{Groups of links with identical integral Khovanov homology
that are distinguished by $St(L)$.}\label{table}\\*
\toprule
$L$ & $\mathit{St}(L)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}12n41$ & $(-4, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -3) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, 1) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(0, 3) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}13n2067$ & $(-4, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -3) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 1) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(0, 3) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}11n70$ & $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, -1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}13n2566$ & $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 0, 0, 1)$, $(0, -1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}13n1529$ & $(2, 9) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 1)$, $(3, 11) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(4, 13) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(5, 15) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(6, 17) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(7, 19) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n2037$ & $(1, 7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 9) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 11) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(4, 13) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(5, 15) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(6, 17) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(7, 19) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}12n404$ & $(2, 9) \mapsto (0, 0, 0, 1)$, $(3, 11) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(4, 13) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(5, 15) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(6, 17) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(7, 19) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n3610$ & $(1, 7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 9) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(3, 11) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(4, 13) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(5, 15) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(6, 17) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(7, 19) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n1294$ & $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n6955$ & $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}13n2733$ & $(-5, -11) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -9) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -3) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, -1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n7720$ & $(-5, -11) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -9) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 0, 0, 1)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, -3) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, -1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n850$ & $(-7, -15) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -11) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -9) \mapsto (0, 0, 0, 1)$, $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n8393$ & $(-7, -15) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -11) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -9) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n7757$ & $(-8, -17) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-7, -15) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-6, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -11) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -9) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 1)$, $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n8785$ & $(-8, -17) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-7, -15) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-6, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -11) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -9) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$, $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}13n1588$ & $(-5, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -1) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(1, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n8980$ & $(-5, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -1) \mapsto (0, 2, 0, 0)$, $(-1, 1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(1, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 0, 1)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}13n3238$ & $(0, 3) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(1, 5) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 7) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 9) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(4, 11) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(5, 13) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n9757$ & $(1, 5) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 7) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(4, 11) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(5, 13) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n8607$ & $(-5, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -5) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -3) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, 1) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(0, 3) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n10081$ & $(-5, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -5) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 1) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(0, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n5017$ & $(-4, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n11311$ & $(-4, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n11629$ & $(-4, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}13n420$ & $(-4, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n12524$ & $(-4, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n10093$ & $(-7, -15) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -11) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -9) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -3) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$, $(0, -1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n12910$ & $(-7, -15) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -11) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -9) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 1)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -3) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$, $(0, -1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n11433$ & $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 7) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n16819$ & $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 0, 0, 1)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 7) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n8204$ & $(-4, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n17084$ & $(-4, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n2034$ & $(-4, -9) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(1, 1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 3) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n17221$ & $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 1)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -3) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(1, 1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 3) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n15618$ & $(-3, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(1, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n17366$ & $(-3, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(1, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n11196$ & $(-2, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n17546$ & \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n6916$ & $(-7, -17) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -15) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-5, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -11) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$, $(-3, -9) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n19966$ & $(-6, -15) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-5, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -11) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$, $(-3, -9) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n11173$ & $(-2, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n21047$ & \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n13802$ & $(-7, -15) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -11) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -9) \mapsto (0, 0, 0, 1)$, $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n22446$ & $(-7, -15) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -11) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -9) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n8346$ & $(-3, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(1, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n22981$ & $(-3, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 3) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(1, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n6791$ & $(-2, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n23970$ & \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n6737$ & $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(3, 7) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n24482$ & $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 2, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(3, 7) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{K}14n3200$ & $(-6, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-5, -11) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -9) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 1)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, -1) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
$\text{K}14n25327$ & $(-5, -11) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -9) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -7) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -5) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -3) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, -1) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}12n1896$ & $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}13n5114$ & \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n5891$ & $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}13n7268$ & $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}12n1605$ & $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}13n7796$ & $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n9606$ & $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}13n10830$ & $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n8151$ & $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}13n11023$ & $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n9897$ & $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}13n11547$ & \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n14550$ & $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}13n15049$ & $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$, $(2, 5) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n5159$ & $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n51382$ & $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 0, 0, 1)$, $(0, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n10279$ & $(-8, -20) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-7, -18) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -12) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n52944$ & $(-8, -20) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-7, -18) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-6, -16) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-5, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -12) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n53487$ & $(0, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(2, 8) \mapsto (0, 2, 0, 0)$, $(3, 10) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(4, 12) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(5, 14) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n54597$ & $(0, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(1, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(2, 8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 1)$, $(3, 10) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(4, 12) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(5, 14) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n5841$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n55353$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n57847$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n58062$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n57847$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n58064$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n56236$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n58236$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n10365$ & $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n58700$ & $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 0, 0, 1)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n5841$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n59419$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n9005$ & $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n60134$ & $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 0, 0, 1)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n54779$ & $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 0, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n60630$ & $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n9392$ & $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n62123$ & $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n10694$ & $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(1, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n63587$ & $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(1, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n54779$ & $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 0, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n65702$ & $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}12n1705$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n65798$ & $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n65800$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 4, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 4, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 4, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 4, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n65845$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}12n2087$ & $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n66759$ & $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 0, 0, 1)$, $(0, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}12n1705$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n67238$ & $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n65800$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 4, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 4, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 4, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 4, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n67307$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n57456$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 0, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n67332$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}12n1705$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n67403$ & $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n69907$ & $(-7, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -11) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -9) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -7) \mapsto (0, 4, 3, 0)$, $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 4, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n70350$ & $(-7, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -11) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -9) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -7) \mapsto (0, 4, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 4, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 2, 4, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n69531$ & $(-7, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -11) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -9) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -7) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 4, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n70409$ & $(-7, -13) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -11) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -9) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -7) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -5) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -3) \mapsto (0, 4, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -1) \mapsto (0, 2, 4, 0)$, $(0, 1) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 3) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n51519$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n29215$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n52677$ & $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n29292$ & $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n54613$ & $(-7, -16) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n29341$ & $(-7, -16) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n55623$ & $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n29498$ & $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n55223$ & $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n30315$ & $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n62508$ & $(-4, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(1, 6) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(2, 8) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(3, 10) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(4, 12) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n31239$ & $(-4, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(1, 6) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(2, 8) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(3, 10) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(4, 12) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n62100$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n31934$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n62100$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n31945$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n62100$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n31964$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n58372$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n32277$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n62100$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n32286$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n53846$ & $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n33440$ & $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 0, 0, 1)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n9924$ & $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n34164$ & $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n10861$ & $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n34413$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n66113$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n35083$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n35268$ & $(-8, -18) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-7, -16) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 3, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n35278$ & $(-8, -18) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-7, -16) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 3, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n34090$ & $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n35300$ & $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 4, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 4, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n66813$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n35973$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n56236$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n36028$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n66813$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n36172$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n34544$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 4, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n36292$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 4, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n61630$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n36383$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n60064$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n36920$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n30173$ & $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n37179$ & $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(1, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n31315$ & $(-9, -20) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-8, -18) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-7, -16) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 2, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n37404$ & $(-9, -20) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-8, -18) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-7, -16) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n31296$ & $(-8, -16) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n37521$ & $(-8, -16) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 4, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n10357$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n37913$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n31401$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n37969$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n31367$ & $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n37975$ & $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n37804$ & $(-9, -20) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-8, -18) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-7, -16) \mapsto (0, 4, 2, 0)$, $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 4, 4, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n37995$ & $(-9, -20) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-8, -18) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-7, -16) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 4, 3, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 2, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n31699$ & $(-8, -16) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n38082$ & $(-8, -16) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 4, 2, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 4, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 4, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n32105$ & $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n38551$ & $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n59058$ & $(-2, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(0, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(1, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(2, 8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(3, 10) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(4, 12) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n38581$ & $(-2, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(1, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 8) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 10) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(4, 12) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n35446$ & $(-9, -20) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-8, -18) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-7, -16) \mapsto (0, 4, 1, 0)$, $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n38894$ & $(-9, -20) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-8, -18) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-7, -16) \mapsto (0, 3, 1, 0)$, $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n30489$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 4, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 4, 4, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 4, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 4, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n38927$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 4, 3, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n35446$ & $(-9, -20) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-8, -18) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-7, -16) \mapsto (0, 4, 1, 0)$, $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n38951$ & $(-9, -20) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-8, -18) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-7, -16) \mapsto (0, 3, 1, 0)$, $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n30794$ & $(-4, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(0, 4) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(1, 6) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(2, 8) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(3, 10) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(4, 12) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n39084$ & $(-4, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, 0) \mapsto (0, 4, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(0, 4) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(1, 6) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(2, 8) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(3, 10) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(4, 12) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n31786$ & $(-9, -20) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-8, -18) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-7, -16) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 2, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n39089$ & $(-9, -20) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-8, -18) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-7, -16) \mapsto (0, 4, 2, 0)$, $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n10357$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n39124$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 0, 2, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n60064$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n39181$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n34675$ & $(-6, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 3, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n39581$ & $(-6, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n38954$ & $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n39660$ & $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n34402$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 3, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(4, 10) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n39731$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(3, 8) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(4, 10) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n34675$ & $(-6, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 3, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 3, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n39940$ & $(-6, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n30794$ & $(-4, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, 0) \mapsto (0, 3, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(0, 4) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(1, 6) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(2, 8) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(3, 10) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(4, 12) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n40076$ & $(-4, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-3, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, 0) \mapsto (0, 4, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 2) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(0, 4) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(1, 6) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(2, 8) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(3, 10) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(4, 12) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n38954$ & $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 4, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 3, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n40371$ & $(-7, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-6, -12) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 3, 2, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-3, -6) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 3, 3, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(1, 2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n61690$ & $(-6, -16) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -12) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n41136$ & $(-4, -12) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n62633$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n41170$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n49005$ & $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n41183$ & $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n49005$ & $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n41193$ & $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n62633$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n41228$ & $(-5, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -4) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 2, 2, 0)$, $(-1, 0) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(0, 2) \mapsto (0, 2, 1, 0)$, $(1, 4) \mapsto (0, 1, 2, 0)$, $(2, 6) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n8084$ & $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n41273$ & $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n8278$ & $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n41447$ & $(-5, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-4, -8) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -4) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-1, -2) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(0, 0) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n8093$ & $(-6, -16) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -12) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n41590$ & $(-4, -12) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}13n8882$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -2) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n43160$ & $(-4, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$ \\
\midrule
$\text{L}14n43292$ & $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 0, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
$\text{L}14n47662$ & $(-6, -14) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-5, -12) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$, $(-4, -10) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-3, -8) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-2, -6) \mapsto (0, 1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, -4) \mapsto (0, 0, 1, 0)$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}
\end{center}
\normalsize
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The studies on depth intensity problem of high energy muons have been one of the most important subjects in traditional cosmic ray physics, relating to elucidation on unknown character of high energy cosmic ray muons, and still have never been lost its importance. Menon and Ramana Murthy~\cite{Menon} wrote an excellent review on this subject at greater depths which describes from the first experiment carried out Simizu tunnel in Japan (1940-1945)~\cite{Miyaz} to the last experiment related to the neutrino carried out in Kolar Gold Mine, India (Up to 1964)~\cite{Miyake1}. Bugaev et al.~\cite{Buga} have discussed this problem related to the charm production mechanism, adding new data, from, such as, DUMAND, Baikal, MACRO, LVD, NESTOR and others up to 1977. Now, the gigantic projects for neutrino astrophysics called as KM3 detectors are now being developed in the lake, Antarctic and Ocean. In the analysis of these KM3 detectors, the depth intensity relation for high energy muon is utilized for the confirmation of their experimental reliabilities related to other experiments different depths
\footnote{For examples,
http://baikalweb.jinr.ru/, \\
http://icecube.wisc.edu/, \
http://antares.in2p3.fr/ }.
The theories of range fluctuation of high energy muons are indispensable means in the analysis of the depth intensity relation of high energy muons at certain depths. The theories of range fluctuation are studied in three different manners. The first one is analytical manner~\cite{Mand1}-~\cite{Naumov}, the second one is numerical one~\cite{Oda} and the third one is the Monte Carlo manner~\cite{Bolin}-~\cite{Chirkin}.
At the same time, the theories of range fluctuation of high energy muons offer essential tools for energy determination of high energy muon events from neutrino interactions in KM3 detectors. Their energies, in particular higher energies, are estimated from Cherenkov light signals from muon induced electromagnetic cascade showers, not rather than from muons themselves, but, in spite of this situation, examination of behaviors of muons themselves are essentially important, because they are origins of electromagnetic cascade showers from different modes of interactions due to muons.
At present time, studies on the fluctuation of high energy muons have been made by the Monte Carlo method, using electronic computers with great performance, because only this method can clarify fluctuation characters of muons correctly, while the analytical method and numerical one provide essentially their average behavior. The detailed studies around fluctuation of high energy muon events are inevitable, owing to small number of physical events concerned in addition to sharp steepness of the parent neutrino energy spectrum which are the origin of fluctuation. The studies on the range fluctuation of high energy muons by Monte Carlo method had been made even before appearance of electronic computer with great performance~\cite{Bolin}-~\cite{Miyake2}. However, then, they were forced to put more simplified, even more artificially assumptions on their stochastic processes concerned for saving both man powers and computer ones at the period for computation.
In 1983 to 84, Takahashi et al.~\cite{Taka1,Taka2} had developed a new Monte Carlo technique where every stochastic process for high energy muon concerned is treated exactly from the stochastic point of view. Namely, the interaction points and the energy division due to interactions concerned (bremsstrahlung, direct electron-positron pair production and photonuclear interaction) are exactly treated in stochastic manner. In the present paper, we call it tentatively \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}.
In 1991, Lipari and Stanev~\cite{Lipari} developed another technique, from a point of the philosophy of Monte Carlo method. They put the diffusion equation on the fluctuation in the form of differential-integral equation and treat it by Monte Carlo technique. They divided the part which is the origin of fluctuation into two parts, namely, the "hard" part (radiation loss part) and the "soft" part ("continuous" energy loss part). In radiation loss part only, they treat fluctuation in Monte Carlo way, but in the "soft" part they deal with the part as "continuous" energy loss. This technique has been adopted by subsequent authors~\cite{Antoni}-~\cite{Chirkin}. In the present paper, we call it tentatively \textit{the} $V_{cut}$\textit{ Procedure}. Now, \textit{the} $V_{cut}$\textit{ Procedure}~\cite{Lipari}-~\cite{Chirkin} has been extensively utilized in the analysis of muon neutrino events in KM3 detectors [for example, footnote 1].
However, in our opinion, taking into account of the fact that Cherenkov light signals due to high energy muons mostly come from the muon induced electromagnetic cascade showers whose origin is either bremsstrahlung or direct electron-positron pair production or photonuclear interaction than from muons themselves in KM3 detector, the energy determinations of high energy muon events inevitably include more ambiguity in the case of \textit{the} $V_{cut}$\textit{ Procedure}, compared with the case of \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} (see, the section 3 and 4 Conclusion and Outlook ).
In the present paper, we try to revitalize \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} in 1983 for the more accurate analysis of high energy muon events in KM3 detector, comparing to the results obtained by \textit{the} $V_{cut}$\textit{ Procedure} which has been well distributed. Here, we restrict our concern to the fundamental and its application will be reported in subsequent papers.
In the present paper, we propose a new method for more accurate calculation on the range fluctuation of high energy muons and conjecture the possible application of this method to the measurements on Cherenkov light in KM3 physics, but we never propose any kind of the code for the practical applications, which is out of the scope of the present paper and it will be discussed in subsequent papers, if necessary.
\section{Fundamental Structure of \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} and its Validity}
\label{sec:2}
Here, in order to clarify characteristics of \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} in contrast to \textit{the} $V_{cut}$\textit{ Procedure}, we reproduce our procedure which had already been published in 1984 (in Japanese)~\cite{Taka2}.
\subsection{The mean free paths for stochastic processes and their resultant mean free path}
\label{sec:2.1}
Behaviors of high energy muons are stochastically determined from the elementary processes of bremsstrahlung~\cite{Kelner}, direct electron-positron pair production~\cite{Kokoulin} and photonuclear interaction processes~\cite{Borg}.
Further information on the cross sections concerned is found in \cite{Groom}.
We treat these processes as stochastic ones as exactly as possible, without introducing any approximation in the energy region in which we are interested
\footnote{
We adopt, $1$ GeV, the minimum energy of the muon for simulation throughout the present paper. The numerical value of $1$ GeV is adopted for the same purpose in \cite{Lipari}.
}.
In our procedure, these stochastic processes are prepared as independent ones and, therefore, they are easily replaced by the most advanced ones, if necessary, keeping exactness of our logical structure.
Let us denote, differential cross sections for bremsstrahlung, direct electron-positron pair production, and photonuclear interaction, $\sigma_{b}\left(E,E_{b}\right)dE_{b}$, $\sigma_{d}\left(E,E_{d}\right)dE_{d}$ and $\sigma_{n}\left(E,E_{n}\right)dE_{n}$, respectively. Here, $E$ denotes the energy of muon concerned, $E_{b}$, the energy of photon due to bremsstrahlung, $E_{d}$, the energy of electron pair due to direct electron-positron pair production, $E_{n}$, the energy of the hadronic part due to photonuclear interaction, respectively. Then, the mean free paths for different stochastic processes are energy dependent of the muon concerned and they are given as follows:
\\
For bremsstrahlung processes,
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{b}\left(E\right)= \frac{1}{\frac{N}{A}\int_{E_{b,min}}^{E_{b,max}} \sigma_{b}\left(E,E_{b}\right)dE_{b}}\\
\end{equation}
Here, $E_{b,min}$, the lower limit of the integral of Eq.(1), the minimum energy for the emitted photons, is taken $1.02$ MeV which denotes the minimum energy for electron pair production by photon.
The integrations for direct electron-positron pair production and photonuclear interaction are performed over kinematically allowable ranges.
\\
For direct electron-positron pair production processes,
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{d}\left(E\right)= \frac{1}{\frac{N}{A}\int_{E_{d,min}}^{E_{d,max}} \sigma_{d}\left(E,E_{d}\right)dE_{d}}\\
\end{equation}
For photonuclear interaction processes,
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{n}\left(E\right)= \frac{1}{\frac{N}{A}\int_{E_{n,min}}^{E_{n,max}} \sigma_{n}\left(E,E_{n}\right)dE_{n}}\\
\end{equation}
, where $N$ and $A$ denote Avogadro number and atomic mass number, respectively.
Similarly, $E_{d,min}/E$ and $E_{n,min}/E$ are always chosen in such a way that the differential cross sections concerned are expressed exactly above $E_{min}$.
Also, $\lambda_{total}\left(E\right)$, the resultant mean free path for these stochastic processes are given as,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\lambda_{total}\left(E\right)}= \frac{1}{\lambda_{b}\left(E\right)}+\frac{1}{\lambda_{d}\left(E\right)}+\frac{1}{\lambda_{n}\left(E\right)}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Determination of the kind of the stochastic process and the real free path for the stochastic process concerned}
\label{sec:2.2}
By using Eq.(1) to (4), we can determine the interaction points of muons for different stochastic processes in the following. The first, for the purpose, lets us define
$\xi_{b}\left(E\right)$ and $\xi_{d}\left(E\right)$ as follows;
\begin{equation}
\xi_{b}\left(E\right)=\frac{1/\lambda_{b}\left(E\right)}{1/\lambda_{total}\left(E\right)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\xi_{d}\left(E\right)=\frac{1/\lambda_{b}\left(E\right)+1/\lambda_{d}\left(E\right)}{1/\lambda_{total}\left(E\right)}
\end{equation}
The second, we sample randomly $\xi_{1}$, a uniform random number between (0,1). If $\xi_{1} \le \xi_{b}\left(E\right)$, then we recognize the interaction occurs due to bremsstrahlung. If $\xi_{b}\left(E\right) < \xi_{1} \le \xi_{d}\left(E\right)$, then, we understand the direct electron-positron pair production occurs. If $\xi_{1} > \xi_{d}\left(E\right)$, then, we understand that photonuclear interaction occurs.
Again, we sample a new $\xi_{2}$, randomly from uniform random number between (0,1). Then, we can determine the interaction points $\Delta t\left(E\right)$ for the specified stochastic processes according the following criterion. In the case of the occurrence of bremsstrahlung processes ( for $\xi_{1} \le \xi_{b}\left(E\right)$ ),
\begin{equation}
\Delta t_{b}\left(E\right) = -\lambda_{total}\left(E\right)log\xi_{2}
\end{equation}
In the case of the occurrence of direct electron-positron pair production processes (for $\xi_{b}\left(E\right) < \xi_{1} \le \xi_{d}\left(E\right)$ ),
\begin{equation}
\Delta t_{d}\left(E\right) = -\lambda_{total}\left(E\right)log\xi_{2}
\end{equation}
In the case of the occurrence of photonuclear interaction processes ( for $\xi_{1} > \xi_{d}\left(E\right)$ )
\begin{equation}
\Delta t_{n}\left(E\right) = -\lambda_{total}\left(E\right)log\xi_{2}
\end{equation}
\subsection{The effect of both the "continuous" energy losses and the usual ionization loss over the muon propagation in the Time Sequential Procedure.}
We are taken into account of the "continuous" energy loss (the first term (the "soft" part) of Eq.(14)) in addition to the usual ionization loss. The effect of the "continuous" energy loss may be evaluated in two ways. One is Tamura's method \cite{Tamura} in which "continuous" energy loss is treated together with the usual ionization loss. The other is Adachi's method \cite{Adachi} in which bremsstrahlung cross section is deformed so as to neglect the "continuous" energy loss \cite{Adachi}. Then, the effect due to the "soft" part the first term of Eq.(14) is compensated by the increase of the "hard" part due to bremsstrahlung.
Then, we adopt the Tamura's method which is essentially the same as Lipari and Stanev \cite{Lipari}.
In $the Time Sequential Procedure$, $v_{cut}$ is defined in the same way as \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} and $ v_{cut} = E_{b,min}/E$, where $E$ and $E_{b,min}$, denote the energy of the muon concerned and the minimum energy of the emitted photons due to bremsstrahlung, respectively. Due to the adoption of $1.02$ MeV ($\sim 10^{6}$ eV) as the lower limit of the integrals of Eqs.(1) and (10), the "continuous" energy loss per muon radiation length($\sim 1500$ meter in water) is $1.02$ MeV ($\sim 10^{6}$ eV) by the definition, irrespective of the energies of the muons concerned, which is far smaller compared with the usual ionization loss, $\sim 3\times 10^{11}$ eV per muon radiation length ($\sim 2$ MeV/(g/cm$^{2}$)) by the five order of the magnitude.
Consequently, we can completely neglect the "continuous" energy loss due to bremsstrahlung even compared with the usual ionization loss, irrespective of the energies of the muons concerned. Furthermore, it should be noticed that we have concern in the behaviors of the muons whose primary energies extend from $10^{9}$ eV ($1$ GeV) to $10^{18}$ eV for KM3 physics. Considering the dimension of the KM3 detector is of one kilometer, we can neglect the usual ionization for the muons above $10^{13}$ eV. However, we consider the usual ionization loss as well as the "continuous" energy loss in our procedure.
Thus, we can state that the energy losses due to muons come essentially from the "radiative" processes (bremsstrahlung, direct electron-positron pair production and photo nuclear interaction) in our procedure. Namely, we can simulate exactly the energies of the emitted photons down to $1$ MeV (due to bremsstrahlung and photo nuclear interaction) as well as the electrons (positrons) (due to direct electron-positron pair production). Thus, these emitted energies of the particles (electrons and photons) induce the photon initiated electromagnetic cascade showers and the electron(positron) initiated electromagnetic cascade showers which are the sources of the Cherenkov light yields. The capability of the complete neglect of the "continuous" energy loss is the characteristics of our \textit{Time Sequential Procedure} by which our algorithm makes it possible to be constructed in consistent manner.
The main subject of the present paper is to discuss the behavior of the muon and, therefore, the behaviors of the electromagnetic showers as well as those of the subsequent Cherenkov light yields will be examined in the subsequent papers.
\subsection{Determination of the emitted energy loss ($E_{b}$ or $E_{d}$ or $E_{n}$) from the specified stochastic processes}
\label{sec:2.3}
Under the determination of the interaction points due to the specified stochastic processes, by using $\xi_{1}$ and $\xi_{2}$, in the previous subsection, here, the energy losses $E_{b}$ , $E_{d}$ and $E_{n}$ from the specified stochastic processes are given as follows. For sampled $\xi_{3}$ which is obtained randomly from the uniform random number between (0,1), we solve the following equations for respective interactions in order to obtain $E_{b}$ or $E_{d}$ or $E_{n}$.
For bremsstrahlung process,
\begin{equation}
\label{xi_b}
\xi_{3} = \frac{\int_{E_{b,min}}^{E_{b}} \sigma_{b}\left(E,E_{b}\right)dE_{b}}{\int_{E_{b,min}}^{E_{b,max}} \sigma_{b}\left(E,E_{b}\right)dE_{b}}
\end{equation}
$E_{b}$, the emitted photon stochastically sampled from Eq.(10), is expected to generate the electromagnetic cascade shower. The reason why the minimum energy is taken $1.02$ MeV is that the minimum of the electromagnetic cascade shower initiated photons is of two electrons from the electron pair production by photons. The energy dissipation below $E_{b,min}$, $1.02$ MeV, is treated in the same way like the soft term (the "continuous" energy loss) in the [$dE/dx$] method (see, the soft term of Eq.(14) in the present paper)
For direct electron-positron pair production,
\begin{equation}
\label{xi_d}
\xi_{3} = \frac{\int_{E_{d,min}}^{E_{d}} \sigma_{d}\left(E,E_{d}\right)dE_{d}}{\int_{E_{d,min}}^{E_{d,max}} \sigma_{d}\left(E,E_{d}\right)dE_{d}}
\end{equation}
For photonuclear interaction,
\begin{equation}
\label{xi_n}
\xi_{3} = \frac{\int_{E_{n,min}}^{E_{n}} \sigma_{n}\left(E,E_{n}\right)dE_{n}}{\int_{E_{n,min}}^{E_{n,max}} \sigma_{n}\left(E,E_{n}\right)dE_{n}}
\end{equation}
In Eq.(10) to (12) for respective interaction, the quantities to be obtained are $E_{b,d,n}$, emitted energy losses for given $E$, energy of the muon concerned. The quantities of $E_{b,d,n}$ are extended to $E_{b,d,n,min}$ to $E_{b.d,n,max}$. For sampled $\xi_{3}$, we can solve these equation numerically and obtain $E_{b,d,n}$ finally. Thus, we can determine $E_{b,d,n}$, the energy losses for the specified stochastic process at determined interaction point. A flow chart for the fundamental structure of \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} is given Fig.1.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f01_flowchart.eps}}
\caption{Flow Chart for the fundamental structure of \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}.}
\label{Flow}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{On the validity of \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}}
\label{sec:2.4}
Generally speaking, the verification of the validity of the Monte Carlo method concerned is pretty difficult.
For the verification of our procedure, it is desirable to compare the physical results obtained by \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} with the corresponding results obtained by the analytical method which is methodologically independent of the Monte Carlo method concerned.
Once, Misaki and Nishimura~\cite{Misaki1} had developed an analytical theory for range fluctuation of high energy cosmic ray muons based on the Nishimura-Kamata formalism on electron shower theory to apply to study depth intensity relation muon underground.
The analytical theory could be solved rigorously only under the incident muon energy spectrum whose indices (in integral) $\gamma $= 2, 3, 4, , , . For the comparison of the results obtained by \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} with those obtained by the analytical theory, Takahashi et al.~\cite{Taka1,Taka2} had calculated the depth dependence of the average energies of muons at various depths under the same incident muon energy spectrum which the analytical theory utilized and compared their results with corresponding ones obtained by the analytical theory.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f02_AVERAGE_ENERGY.eps}}
\caption{The average energies of the muons. The lines denote Misaki and Nishimura, while symbols ours.}
\label{fig}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We reproduce them in Fig.2 from the previous work~\cite{Taka2}. The agreement between them is quite well, taking into account of the difference in both the cross sections concerned and their numerical evaluation method. Namely, we can say the logical structure of \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} is well established from the point of the validity of Monte Carlo method concerned. It is needless to say that \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} can be applicable to any incident muon energy spectrum.
\subsection{Results directly derived by \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}}
\subsubsection{The diversity of individual muon behavior 'Needle' structure of the energy losses from high energy muons}
\label{sec:2.4.1}
In subsections \textit{2.2} and \textit{2.3}, by random sampling procedure, we show how to determine both interaction points for the specified stochastic processes and subsequent their energy losses for the interactions concerned. In the present subsections, we show some examples of the energy losses along the passage of the high energy muons.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f03_ELS12.eps}}
\caption{The fractional energy loss with \textit{the shortest range} as the function of the depth for $10^{12}$eV muon. A line graph in the upper denotes fractional muon energy as the function of the depth. [\textbf{b}] denotes the fractional energy loss due to bremsstrahlung, [\textbf{d}] due to direct electron-positron pair production and [\textbf{n}] due to photonuclear interaction. [\textbf{b}], [\textbf{d}] and [\textbf{n}] are utilized as the same meaning up to Figure 13.}
\label{fig:ELS12}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f04_ELA12.eps}}
\caption{The fractional energy loss with \textit{the average-like range} for $10^{12}$eV muon muon together with the fractional energy of the muon.}
\label{fig:ELA12}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f05_ELL12.eps}}
\caption{The fractional energy loss with \textit{the longest range} for $10^{12}$eV muon muon together with the fractional energy of the muon.}
\label{fig:ELL12}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
In Fig.3 to Fig.13, we show three different categories of the 'Needle' structure of the energy losses for the same primary energies. 'Needles' denote fractional energy losses due to a specified stochastic processed such as, bremsstrahlung, direct electron-positron pair production or photonuclear interaction at respective interaction points.
We illustrate several typical structures of the energy loss of muons which start, having primary energy $E_{0}$ and reaching $E_{min}$, namely the behaviors of the muons with \textit{the shortest range}, with \textit{the longest range} and with \textit{the average-like range} for the same primary energy and the same starting point.
\textit{The shortest range} denotes the muon with the shortest range among all sampled muons, while \textit{the longest range} does the muon with the longest range among all sampled muons, and \textit{the average-like range} does the muon with the range whose is the nearest to the averaged range among all sampled muons. Total sampling numbers per respective primary energy are 100,000.
In these figures, we can recognize the diversities of muon behaviors for the same primary muon energies with regard to their ranges (or their energy losses). All interaction points due to the processes of bremsstrahlung, direct electron-positron pair production and photonuclear interaction and all energy losses due to these elementary processes at respective points due to these processes are recorded. In order to clarify the diversities among the real range distributions (or real energy loss distributions), we examine the muons with \textit{the shortest range}, the muons with \textit{the longest range} and the muons with \textit{the average-like range} in more detail.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\caption{The details of the characteristics on the muons with \textit{the shortest range}, \textit{the average-like range},\textit{the longest range} and \textit{the average range}.}
\label{tab:ELT}
\scalebox{0.9}[0.85]{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
& Range & Energy loss & Number of & Energy loss by & Number of & Energy loss & Number of \\
$E_{0}=10^{12}eV$ & [km] & by brems[eV] & interaction & direct pair[eV] & interaction & by nuclear[eV] & interaction \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
$<$Average$>$ & 2.43 & 1.10$\times 10^{11}$ & 4.74 & 1.57$\times 10^{11}$ & 243 & 4.54$\times 10^{10}$ & 3.44\\ \hline
Average-like & 2.43 & 8.97$\times 10^{10}$ & 4 & 1.34$\times 10^{11}$ & 221 & 8.86$\times 10^{10}$ & 3 \\ \hline
Shortest & 2.09 & 2.15$\times 10^{11}$ & 6 & 1.52$\times 10^{11}$ & 208 & 3.72$\times 10^{10}$ & 3 \\ \hline
Longest & 3.14 & 3.80$\times 10^{9}$ & 5 & 1.04$\times 10^{11}$ & 299 & 1.19$\times 10^{9}$ & 3 \\ \hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
$E_{0}=10^{15}eV$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
$<$Average$>$ & 1.78$\times 10^{1}$ & 3.53$\times 10^{14}$ & 48.1 & 4.74$\times 10^{14}$ & 6.80$\times 10^{3}$ & 1.67$\times 10^{14}$ & 5.50$\times 10^{1}$\\ \hline
Average-like & 1.78$\times 10^{1}$ & 7.50$\times 10^{14}$ & 49 & 2.35$\times 10^{14}$ & 5489 & 9.31$\times 10^{12}$ & 37\\ \hline
Shortest & 9.44$\times 10^{-1}$ & 8.66$\times 10^{14}$ & 2 & 1.34$\times 10^{14}$ & 367 & 5.90$\times 10^{10}$ & 1\\ \hline
Longest & 3.50$\times 10^{1}$ & 7.53$\times 10^{13}$ & 71 & 8.02$\times 10^{14}$ & 13722 & 1.11$\times 10^{14}$ & 105\\ \hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
$E_{0}=10^{18}eV$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
$<$Average$>$ & 3.28$\times 10^{1}$ & 3.37$\times 10^{17}$ & 1.08$\times 10^{2}$ & 4.39$\times 10^{17}$ & 2.57$\times 10^{4}$ & 2.25$\times 10^{17}$ & 1.72$\times 10^{2}$\\ \hline
Average-like & 3.28$\times 10^{1}$ & 1.68$\times 10^{17}$ & 118 & 5.58$\times 10^{17}$ & 29321 & 2.74$\times 10^{17}$ & 196\\ \hline
Shortest & 7.72$\times 10^{0}$ & 8.75$\times 10^{17}$ & 28 & 1.19$\times 10^{17}$ & 5760 & 6.23$\times 10^{15}$ & 40\\ \hline
Longest & 5.78$\times 10^{1}$ & 5.71$\times 10^{16}$ & 162 & 5.77$\times 10^{17}$ & 46542 & 3.66$\times 10^{17}$ & 277\\ \hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
In Table 1, we show numerically the characteristics of an individual muon with \textit{the shortest range}, \textit{the average-like range}, \textit{the longest range}, in addition to their average range for $10^{12}$eV, $10^{15}$eV and $10^{18}$eV.
In Fig.3 to Fig.5, we give the characteristic behaviors with \textit{the shortest range}, \textit{the average-like range} and \textit{the longest range}, that is, their energy loss for the specified interaction as the function of the depth traversed for the primary energy of $10^{12}$eV in water
\footnote{In order to understand the situation visually the characteristic behaviors of high energy muons which are shown Fig.3 to Fig.13, we suggest the readers to look at the pictures with colors in the WEB page.}
.
In these figures, we utilize the same scale in depth to clarify the diverse behaviors by the same incident energies, namely, those with \textit{the shortest range}, with \textit{the average-like range} and with \textit{the longest range}, respectively. In figures, the abscissa denotes the depths where the specified interactions occur. The 'needles' (expressed in ordinate) with different colors at different depths denote ratios of the energy losses due to direct electron-positron pair production (green, \textbf{d}), bremsstrahlung (red, \textbf{b}) and photonuclear interaction (blue, \textbf{n}) to their primary energy, respectively. The abrupt changes in them are due to the catastrophic energy losses for muons (see, footnote 3). It is easily understood that one sees the fluctuation effect rather weak in the energy of $10^{12}$eV.
It is seen from figures and Table 1 that there is not so big difference between the case with \textit{the shortest range} and one with \textit{the longest range} for $10^{12}$eV. In the case with \textit{the shortest range} (Fig.3), we find two catastrophic energy losses (at $\sim 910$ meters and $\sim 1870$ meters) due to two bremsstrahlungs play the important role in the range. In the case with \textit{the average-like range} (Fig.4), we can find one catastrophic energy loss due to bremsstrahlung at $\sim 1.48$ kilometer. However, in the case of \textit{the longest range }(Fig.5), we cannot find the catastrophic energy losses due to bremsstrahlung and, instead, we can find that almost energy losses are due to many number($\sim 300$) of direct electron-positron pair production events.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f06_ELS15_2km.eps}}
\caption{The fractional energy loss with \textit{the shortest range} for $10^{15}$eV muon together with the fractional energy of the muon. The figure is a magnification of Figure 7.}
\label{fig:ELS15_2km}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f07_ELS15.eps}}
\caption{The fractional energy loss with \textit{the shortest range} for $10^{15}$eV muon together with the fractional energy of the muon.}
\label{fig:ELS15}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f08_ELA15.eps}}
\caption{The fractional energy loss with \textit{the average-like range} for $10^{15}$eV muon together with the muon energy.}
\label{fig:ELA15}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f09_ELL15.eps}}
\caption{The fractional energy loss with \textit{the longest range} for $10^{15}$eV muon together with the fractional energy of the muon.}
\label{fig:ELL15}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
In Fig.7 to Fig.9, we give the typical diversities for primary energy of $10^{15}$eV similarly for primary energy of $10^{12}$eV. In these figures, the diversities for \textit{the shortest range}, \textit{the average-like range} and \textit{the longest range} are compared explicitly expressed in the same scale. Fig.6 shows the same in Fig.7 in extended scale. Combined with Table 1, \textit{the shortest range}, $\sim 940$ meter (Fig.6), is far shorter compared with \textit{the longest range}, $\sim 35.0$ kilometers (Fig.9). It is seen from Fig.6 and the Table 1 that bremsstrahlung plays a decisive role as the cause of catastrophic energy loss in the case of \textit{the shortest range}, ( $\sim 96.5$\% of total energy up to$ \sim 450$ meters). $86.6$\% of the total energy is lost by $2$ bremsstrahlungs, $13.4$\% by $367$ direct electron-positron pair productions and $5.9 \times10^{-3}$\% by $1$ photonuclear interaction. In Fig.9, we give the case for \textit{the longest range}. Here, large numbers of direct electron-positron pair production with rather small energy loss play an important role, as shown similarly in Fig.5. Here, $80.2$\% of the total energy is lost by $13722$ direct electron-positron pair productions, $7.53$\% by $71$ bremsstrahlungs and $11.1$\% by $105$ photonuclear interactions. In Fig.8, combined with Table 1, we give the case with \textit{the average-like range}. Here, $23.5$\% of the total energy is lost by $5489$ direct electron-positron pair productions, $75.0$\% by $49$ bremsstrahlungs and $0.93$\% by $37$ photonuclear interactions, while in the real averages ($100,000$ samples), $47.4$\% of the total energy is lost by $6800$ direct electron-positron pair productions, $35.3$\% by $48.1$ bremsstrahlungs and $16.7$\% by $55.0$ photonuclear interactions.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f10_ELS18_10km.eps}}
\caption{The fractional energy loss with \textit{the shortest range} for $10^{18}$eV together with fractional energy of the muon. The figure is a magnification of Figure 11.}
\label{fig:ELS18_10km}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f11_ELS18.eps}}
\caption{The fractional energy loss with \textit{the shortest range} for $10^{18}$eV muon together with the fractional energy of the muon.}
\label{fig:ELS18}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f12_ELA18.eps}}
\caption{The fractional energy loss with \textit{the average-like range} for $10^{18}$eV muon together with the fractional energy of the muon. }
\label{fig:ELA18}
\resizebox{1.0\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f13_ELL18.eps}}
\caption{The fractional energy loss with \textit{the longest range} for $10^{18}$eV muon together with the fractional energy of the muon.}
\label{fig:ELL18}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
In Fig.10 to Fig.13, combined with Table 1, we show the similar relations for $10^{18}$eV muons as shown in $10^{15}$eV. We can say the case with \textit{the shortest range} in Fig.10 (or Fig.11) has a strong contrast to that with \textit{the longest range}. The manner of the energy loss in Fig.10 is drastic with two big catastrophic energy losses due to bremsstrahlungs ($\sim 0.8$km and $4.74$km), while that in Fig.13 is very moderate with no catastrophic energy loss. \textit{The shortest range}, $\sim 7.7$ kilometers (Fig.11), is far shorter compared with \textit{the longest range}, $\sim 57.8$ kilometers (Fig.13). It is seen from Fig.10 and Table 1 in the case of \textit{the shortest range} that bremsstrahlung plays a decisive role as the cause of catastrophic energy loss. $87.5$\% of the total energy is lost by $28$ bremsstrahlungs, $11.9$\% by $5760$ direct electron-positron pair productions and $0.623$\% by $40$ photonuclear interactions. In Fig.13, we give the case with \textit{the longest range}. Here, $57.7$\% of the total energy is lost by $46542$ direct electron-positron pair productions, $36.6$\% by $277$ photonuclear interactions and only $5.71$\% by $162$ bremsstrahlungs in the complete absence of catastrophic energy losses. In Fig.12, we give the case with \textit{the average-like range}. Here, $55.8$\% of the total energy is lost by $29321$ direct electron-positron pair productions, $16.8$\% by $118$ bremsstrahlungs and $27.4$\% by $196$ photonuclear interactions, while, in the real averages ($100,000$ samples), $43.9$\% of the total energy is lost by $2.57 \times 10^{4}$ direct electron-positron pair productions, $33.7$\% by $108$ bremsstrahlungs and $22.5$\% by $172$ photonuclear interactions. Thus, it can be concluded that the diversity among muon propagation with the same primary energy should be noticed.
\subsubsection{Average characteristics of high energy muons with the shortest range, the average-like range, the longest range around the average range}
\label{sec:2.4.2}
In Table 2 (a), we give the ratios of energy losses due to respective stochastic processes to total energy loss in the typical ranges (\textit{the average}, \textit{the average-like}, \textit{the shortest} and \textit{the longest}) for $10^{12}$eV, $10^{15}$eV and $10^{18}$eV. It is clear from the Table that, averagely speaking, high energy muons are lost $\sim 50$\% in the direct electron-positron pair production, $\sim 30$\% in bremsstrahlung and $\sim 20$\% in photonuclear interaction. It is clear from Table 2(a) that the muon with \textit{the longest range} loses $\sim 70$ \% in direct electron-positron pair productions, in long chain of electron pairs induced electromagnetic cascade showers with rather smaller energies, while the muon with \textit{the shortest range} loses $\sim 70$\% to $100$\% of their energy in a few number of bremsstrahlungs (catastrophic energy loss).
\begin{table*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\caption{The ratios of energies transferred from bremsstrahlung, direct electron-positron pair production and photonuclear interaction to the total energy loss (a) and their ratios expressed in respective average values (b).}
\label{tab:ratio}
\scalebox{0.85}[0.9]{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Brems} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Direct Pair} & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{Nuclear}\\
\hline
$E_{0}=10^{12}eV$ & (a) & (b) & (a) & (b) & (a) & (b) \\
\hline
$<$Average$>$&3.37$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.00 $&5.26$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.00 $&1.37$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.00 $\\ \hline
Average-like &2.87$\times 10^{-1}$&$0.872$&4.30$\times 10^{-1}$&$0.688 $&2.83$\times 10^{-1}$&$2.51 $\\ \hline
Shortest &5.32$\times 10^{-1}$&$2.96 $&3.76$\times 10^{-1}$&$9.14 \times 10^{-4} $&9.20$\times 10^{-2}$&$2.96 \times 10^{-3} $\\ \hline
Longest &3.50$\times 10^{-2}$&$0.875$&9.54$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.33 $&1.10$\times 10^{-2}$&$5.87 \times 10^{-2} $\\ \hline
$E_{0}=10^{15}eV$\\
\hline
$<$Average$>$&3.40$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.00 $&4.98$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.00 $&1.62$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.00 $\\ \hline
Average-like &7.54$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.25 $&2.37$\times 10^{-1}$&$0.960$&9.36$\times 10^{-3}$&$0.600 $\\ \hline
Shortest &8.66$\times 10^{-1}$&$2.53 $&1.34$\times 10^{-1}$&$0.178$&5.90$\times 10^{-5}$&$0.321$\\ \hline
Longest &7.62$\times 10^{-2}$&$0.541$&8.11$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.52 $&1.12$\times 10^{-1}$&$0.364$\\ \hline
$E_{0}=10^{18}eV$\\
\hline
$<$Average$>$&3.24$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.00 $&4.59$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.00 $&2.17$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.00 $\\ \hline
Average-like &1.68$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.30 $&5.58$\times 10^{-1}$&$0.858$&2.74$\times 10^{-1}$&$0.848$\\ \hline
Shortest &8.75$\times 10^{-1}$&$2.17 $&1.19$\times 10^{-1}$&$0.634$&6.23$\times 10^{-3}$&$2.20 \times 10^{-2} $\\ \hline
Longest &5.71$\times 10^{-2}$&$0.209$&5.77$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.49 $&3.66$\times 10^{-1}$&$1.13 $\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
In Table 2(b), the ratios of fractional energy lose for specified stochastic processes are divided by the corresponding averaged ones. It is clear from the Table 2(b) that the divisions of energy loss to the specified processes in \textit{the average-like range} are clearly different from that of the real averaged. It shows that the energy divisions for different processes are different, even if the ranges are same. This fact makes the ejection of the Cherenkov light influence, even if the paths of the high energy muons are same.
In Table 2(b), it is also clear from the characteristics of the typical showers from the point of energy dissipation that energy losses ratios of showers concerned to their averages due to bremsstrahlung in \textit{the shortest ranges} lose their energies are $2.96$, $2.53$, $2.17$ for primaries $10^{12}$eV, $10^{15}$eV and $10^{18}$eV, respectively. Namely, these showers with \textit{the shortest range} essentially lose their energies almost due to bremsstrahlung, while the corresponding ratios due to direct electron-positron pair production in the showers with \textit{the longest range} are $1.33$, $1.52$, $1.49$. Also, these showers with \textit{the longest range} lose their pretty energies owing to direct electron-positron pair production.
\subsubsection{Range Distributions and Hypothetical Range Distributions for high energy muons}
\label{sec:2.4.3}
As shown, for example, in Fig.3 to Fig.13, we can pursue three kinds of the typical types of the behaviors of high energy muons with definite primary energies in stochastic manner exactly, recording the locations of the interaction points for specified interactions and their dissipated energies exactly. However, we pursue the behaviors of all sampled muons exactly, including three different types of the muons. We can construct the range distributions from ensemble of $100,000$ individual muons for respective primary muon's energy, as shown in Fig.14. In the figure, we give $P(R;E_{0})$, the probabilities for the range distribution in water with primary energies, $10^{12}$eV to $10^{15}$eV and $10^{18}$eV in water whose minimum energy is $10^{9}$eV(1GeV), respectively. It is clear from the figure that the width of the range distribution increases rapidly, as their primary energy increases. Also, as the primary energy decreases, the width of range distribution becomes narrower and approaches to a $\delta $ function-type, the limit of which denotes no fluctuation. It is interesting that the range distributions can be well approximated as the normal distribution above $\sim 10^{14}$eV where the total Cherenkov light yields comes almost from the muon induced electromagnetic cascade showers and they are given as,
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f14_RF131518.eps}}
\caption{Range distributions for $10^{12}$eV to $10^{18}$eV muons in water. The minimum observation energies are taken as $10^{9}$ eV. Each sampling number is 100,000.}
\label{fig:RF131518}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{equation}
\label{PRE}
P\left(R;E_{0}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}exp\left(-\frac{R-<R>}{2\sigma^{2}}\right),
\end{equation}
, where $E_{0}$, $R$, $<R>$ and $\sigma $ are primary energy, real range, the average value of ranges and the standard deviations, respectively. Their average ranges, standard deviations and relative variances (standard deviations divided by averages) in water are given in Table 3. Also, it is interesting that their relative variances decrease slightly as their primary energies increase. It should be noticed from Table 3 that the standard deviation increases as primary energy increases, but, the relative variance of the range distribution decreases inversely.
\begin{table}[!t]
\begin{center}
\caption{The average values, the standard deviations and the relative variances of the range distributions of muons from $10^{11}$eV to $10^{18}$eV in water.}
\label{tab:AVE}
\scalebox{0.9}[0.9]{
\begin{tabular}{c|l|l|c}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
$E_{0}$ [eV] & $<R>$ [km] & $\sigma$ [km] & $\sigma/<R>$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
$10^{11}$ & 3.56$\times 10^{-1}$ & 2.52$\times 10^{-2}$ & 7.07$\times 10^{-2}$ \\ \hline
$10^{12}$ & 2.43 & 4.71$\times 10^{-1}$ & 1.94$\times 10^{-1}$ \\ \hline
$10^{13}$ & 7.28 & 2.02 & 2.78$\times 10^{-1}$ \\ \hline
$10^{14}$ & 1.26$\times 10^{1} $ & 3.49 & 2.77$\times 10^{-1}$ \\ \hline
$10^{15}$ & 1.78$\times 10^{1} $ & 4.57 & 2.57$\times 10^{-1}$ \\ \hline
$10^{16}$ & 2.30$\times 10^{1} $ & 5.41 & 2.36$\times 10^{-1}$ \\ \hline
$10^{17}$ & 2.79$\times 10^{1} $ & 6.14 & 2.20$\times 10^{-1}$ \\ \hline
$10^{18}$ & 3.29$\times 10^{1} $ & 6.81 & 2.07$\times 10^{-1}$ \\ \hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
In order to examine each characteristic of the stochastic process, such as the bremsstrahlung, direct electron-positron pair production and photonuclear interaction, we construct the hypothetical range distribution in which a specified stochastic process only is assumed to occur and the other two stochastic processes are assumed not to occur. To clarify the characteristics of the specified stochastic processes, we can compare this hypothetical range distribution with that of real range distribution in which every specified stochastic process is realized as the competition effect among these three processes. We compare the hypothetical range distribution with the real range distribution in Fig.15 to Fig.17.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f15_RF13Sp.eps}}
\caption{Hypothetical range distributions in water for $10^{13}$eV muons together with the real range distribution.}
\label{fig:RF13Sp}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f16_RF15Sp.eps}}
\caption{Hypothetical range distributions in water for $10^{15}$eV muons together with the real range distribution.}
\label{fig:RF15Sp}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f17_RF18Sp.eps}}
\caption{Hypothetical range distributions in water for $10^{18}$eV muons together with the real range distribution.}
\label{fig:RF18Sp}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig.15, we compare three different hypothetical range distributions with the real range distribution for primary energy of $10^{13}$eV. Here, the symbol \textbf{d} in these figures means the hypothetical range distribution in which only direct electron-positron pair production is taken into account and both the bremsstrahlung and photo nuclear interaction are neglected. The symbols \textbf{b} and \textbf{n} have similar meaning to that of \textbf{d}. The symbol \textbf{t} means the real range distribution in which all interactions are taken into account (The true distribution). From the shapes of the distributions and their maximum frequencies for different stochastic processes in the figures, it is clear that energy losses in the direct electron-positron pair production are of small fluctuation, while both the bremsstrahlung and photonuclear interaction are of bigger fluctuation, and the fluctuation in photonuclear interaction becomes bigger when compared with bremsstrahlung as primary energy increases. The smaller fluctuation in direct electron-positron pair production suggests us that energy loss from this process may be treated as something like "continuous" energy loss in the special situation
\subsubsection{Other physical quantities obtained from \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}}
\label{sec:2.4.4}
In Fig.18 to Fig.20, we give the survival probabilities for different cutoff energies with primary energies of $10^{12}$eV, $10^{15}$eV and $10^{18}$eV, respectively. The values for cutoff energies are given in respective figures. The sampling number utilized is $100,000$ for each primary energy.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f18_SP12.eps}}
\caption{The survival probabilities for $10^{12}$eV muon.
Curves labels correspod to following set of cutoff energies:
(1)$10^{9}$eV, (2)$10^{10}$eV, (3)$10^{11}$eV.}
\label{fig:SP12}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f19_SP15.eps}}
\caption{The survival probabilities for $10^{15}$eV muon.
Curves labels correspod to following set of cutoff energies:
from (1)$10^{9}$eV to (6)$10^{14}$eV.}
\label{fig:SP15}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f20_SP18.eps}}
\caption{The survival probabilities for $10^{18}$eV muon.
Curves labels correspod to following set of cutoff energies:
from (1)$10^{9}$eV to (9)$10^{17}$eV.}
\label{fig:SP18}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig.21 to Fig.23, we give the differential energy spectrum of muons for primary energies, $10^{12}$eV, $10^{15}$eV and $10^{18}$eV, respectively. The energy spectra of the survival muons obtained by \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} are surmised to become different from those by \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}.
As the primary energies of the mouns increase and/or the depths increase, the magnitude of the energy spectra of the muons obtained by \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} is surmised to decrease particularly at lower energies due to the constant $v_{cut}$, compared with those obtained by \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}. See, further discussion in the next section.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f21_ES12.eps}}
\caption{Energy spectrum in water at the different depths, initiated by $10^{12}$eV muons.}
\label{fig:ES12}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f22_ES15.eps}}
\caption{Energy spectrum in water at the different depths, initiated by $10^{15}$eV muons.}
\label{fig:ES15}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f23_ES18.eps}}
\caption{Energy spectrum in water at the different depths, initiated by $10^{18}$eV muons.}
\label{fig:ES18}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{\textit{The} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure}: The fundamental structure and its application limit}
\label{sec:3}
Here, we examine the fundamental structure of \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} from a different point of view.
Lipari and Stanev~\cite{Lipari} and subsequent authors, P.Antonioli, S.Iyer et al., Klimushin et al., D.Chirkin et al., S.Bottai et al.~\cite{Antoni}-~\cite{Chirkin} formulate \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{dEdx_rad}
\frac{dE}{dx} &=&\left[\frac{dE}{dx}\right]_{soft}+\left[\frac{dE}{dx}\right]_{hard} \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{N}{A}E\int_{0}^{v_{cut}}dv\cdot v\frac{\sigma\left(v,E\right)}{dv}
\nonumber \\
&+&\frac{N}{A}E\int_{v_{cut}}^{1}dv\cdot v\frac{d\sigma\left(v,E\right)}{dv},
\end{eqnarray}
, where $v$ denotes the fractional emitted energy. They introduce $v_{cut}$ , a certain constant value, into the diffusion equation, in such a way that the effective energy loss, for example, the emitted energies above $v_{cut} \times E$, is treated stochastically in the "hard" part, while that below $v_{cut} \times E$ they are put into "continuous" energy losses (the "soft" part), which are simply subtracted from the muons concerned.
Here, let us summarize the values of $v_{cut}$ utilized in \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} in the following. [a] Lipari and Stanev adopt $v_{cut}$= $0.01$~\cite{Lipari}, [b] Antonioli et al. adopt $v_{cut}$ = $10^{-3}$~\cite{Antoni}, [c] Dutta et al. adopt $v_{cut}$ =$10^{-3}$~\cite{Dutta}, [d] Sokalski et al. adopt $v_{cut}$= $10^{-3}$ to $0.2$~\cite{Sokal}, [e] Chirikin and Rohde adopt $v_{cut}$ = $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-3}$~\cite{Chirkin}.
Relating to its application limit in \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure}, the problems to be examined are as follows:
\subsection{The inconsistent treatment in the separation of the "hard" part from the "soft" part}
It should be pointed that the separation of the "soft" part from the "hard" part is treated in inconsistent manner in \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} as for fixed energy muon. Namely, the muon with the some energy is treated in the "soft" part in some case, while the muon with the same energy is treated in the "hard" part in another case. Such the treatment lacks in consistency for description on muon behavior, because the effectiveness of fluctuation depends on the absolute values of muon energies.
\textit{The} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} pursues the change of energy state by step by step method with regard to the depth $dx$. Consequently, by the constancy of $v_{cut}$ ($10^{-4}$ under examination), their stochastic energy loss part (the "hard" part) shifts toward lower energy region, as $dx$ advances. In other words, as already mention, the muons with some energy belongs to the "hard" part (stochastic energy loss part) at certain depth, but belongs to the "soft" part ("continuous" energy loss part) at another depth, owing to the shift of the boundary line between the "hard" part and the "soft" part. Such a description on the behavior of the muon in \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} clearly lacks in consistency as for the range fluctuation of high energy muon.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f24_vcut.eps}}
\caption{(a) The separation of stochastic energy loss part (the "hard" part) from "continuous" energy loss part (the "soft" part) in the case $v_{cut}=10^{-4}$ for $10^{18}$eV. (b) The separation of stochastic energy loss part (the "hard" part) from "continuous" energy loss part (the "soft" part) in the case $v_{cut}=10^{-4}$ for $10^{15}$eV}
\label{fig:Vcut}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For example, comparing Fig.24(a) with Fig.24(b), it is clear that the region from $10^{14}$eV to $10^{11}$eV for $E_{0}=10^{18}$eV belongs to the "soft" part, while the same region belong to the "hard" part for $E_{0}=10^{15}$eV. This is also an example that the stochastic process is not treated in the unified manner.
The inconsistent description of \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} is clarified by the examination on the interrelation among the $v_{cut}$, the "continuous" energy loss, $E_{b,min}$, the minimum energy of the emitted photon due to bremsstrahlung and $E$, the energy of the muon concerned. In the relation of $v_{cut} = E_{b,min} /E$, there is two choices for given E, namely, which quantities should be chosen as constant (or variable), $v_{cut}$ ? or $E_{b,min}$ ?
In \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure}, they adopt $v_{cut}$ to be constant, then, $E_{b,min}$ is the function of $E$. In other word, the values of $E_{b,min}$ change as $E$ change so as to keep $v_{cut}$ to be constant. This denote the borderlines which separate the "soft" part from "hard" part (Eq.(14)) change as $E$ change as shown in Figure 24. Namely, the value of "continuous" energy loss change as the muons concerned change. It should be noted that the "continuous" energy losses are treated as dissipated energies which "flow out" merely from the system for muons towards the outside and neither contribute to the muon propagation any more, nor produce "seeds" for the electromagnetic cascade showers, just as the same in the usual ionization losses. Considering such the character of the "continuous" energy loss, the results that the borderline shift owing to the choice of both $v_{cut}$ and $E$ denote the inconsistent treatment in \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} (see, Figure 24, too). Originally, the borderline should be decided owing to the physical reasons, but it is reluctantly decided in artificial manner.
In Figure 25, the "continuous" energy losses per muon radiation length shown as the function of $v_{cut}$ for given the energies of the muons concerned. Here [\textbf{a1}], [\textbf{a2}], [\textbf{a3}], [\textbf{a4}] and [\textbf{a5}] denote the "continuous" energy loss per muon radiation length ($\sim 1500$ meter in water) for the muons with $10^{18}$ eV, $10^{17}$ eV, $10^{16}$ eV, $10^{15}$ eV and $10^{14}$ eV as the function of $v_{cut}$, respectively. For example, we consider the case of a muon with $10^{16}$ eV ([\textbf{a3}]). In the case of $v_{cut} = 10^{-2}$ [25] and, $10^{-4}$ [31], the "continuous" energy loss per muon radiation length $\sim 10^{14}$ eV and $\sim 10^{12}$ eV, respectively. Also, we show the energies of the muons concerned where the "continuous" energy losses attain at the usual ionization loss as the function of $v_{cut}$ marked with [c]. It is clear from the figure that the "continuous" energy losses exceed over the usual ionization loss at the energies of the muons concerned for $\sim 3\times 10^{13}$ eV, $\sim 3 \times 10^{14}$ eV, and $\sim 3 \times 10^{15}$ eV for $v_{cut}=10^{-2}$, $10^{-3}$ and $10^{-4}$, respectively, because $E_{b,min}$ increases linearly with $E$. These "continuous" energy losses obtained by \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} are far higher than $\sim 10^{6}$ eV, that obtained by \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} (see, the section 2.3 and the discussion in the end of this section, too).
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f25_Vcut2.eps}}
\caption{The interrelation among $v_{cut}$, the "continuous" energy loss per muon radiation loss in \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} and \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}, and the "continuous" energy loss at which become equal to the usual ionization loss in \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure}.
}
\label{fig:Vcut2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It should be noted that the large spread of the numerical values of the "continuous" energy losses obtained by \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} shown in Figure 25 is not owing to the real physical causes, and the introduction of $v_{cut}$ treatment into the muon struggling is made artificially for the sake of convenience to remove the infrared catastrophe in the bremsstrahlung. Namely, the "continuous" energy loss is a kind of artificial product and, therefore, its numerical value is desirable taken to be as small as possible for avoidance of the divergence in bremsstrahlung. Otherwise, the "continuous" energy loss may distort the nature of the original bremsstrahlung. It is easily understood from the figure that \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} is not described in consistent manner owing to the great change in the "continuous" energy loss.
On the other hand, we adopt $E_{b,min}$ to be constant ($1.02$ MeV) in the relation of $v_{cut} = E_{b,min} / E$ in \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}, instead of $v_{cut}$ to be constant in \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure}. Then, $v_{cut}$ is the function of $E$ in our procedure, while $E_{b,min}$ is the function of $E$ in \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure}. Owing to the adoption of $E_{b,min}$ to be constant, the "continuous" energy loss per muon radiation unit is $E_{b,min}$ ($1.02$ MeV) by the definition, irrespective of the energies of the muons concerned in \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} and furthermore, the numerical value $\sim 10^{6}$ eV is far smaller even compared with the usual ionization loss, $\sim 3 \times 10^{11}$ eV. (see, the section 2.3, too). Consequently, the introduction of $v_{cut}$ in \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} allow us to treat the every energy loss as those really coming from the "radiative" part except for the muons with below $\sim 10^{13}$ eV where we cannot the neglect the effect of the usual ionization loss. Thus, it is conclude that \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} is described in consistent manner.
\subsection{From where the differences in the survival probabilities come between \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} and \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} ?}
For higher energy muons and/or larger $v_{cut}$, for example, in the case of bremsstrahlung, the emitted higher photons may be contained in the "soft" part in which they are subtracted from the muon concerned, being treated "continuous" energy loss and don't contribute to the muon's future behavior any more. However, some part of such the higher photons may not be consumed as dissipated energies, if $v_{cut}$ is taken up smaller.
Then the muons concerned should maintain them in the "hard" part and their energy loss may be treated in stochastic manner. As the result of it, the emitted photons may be correctly taken into account in the "hard" part so that the muon concerned can maintain higher energy than that in the case of larger $v_{cut}$ and, consequently, more muons may survive than in the case of larger $v_{cut}$.
It may be possible to re-state the matter mentioned above in the following.
When one adopts larger $v_{cut}$, one may expect the some deficit in the lower energies above $E_{min}$ in the energy spectrum of the survived muon. This deficits of the lower energies in the energy spectrum of the muons concerned above $E_{min}$ due to larger $v_{cut}$ lead to smaller survival probabilities. The deficits are the another representation which the larger energy loss is put into the "continuous" energy loss. Conclusively speaking, the numerical values in the survival probabilities obtained by \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} are expected to approach to those obtained by \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} as the ratios of the "soft" part to the "hard" part in \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} decrease, as far as the survival probability is concerned.
Thus, in the case of higher energy muons and/or larger $v_{cut}$, we expect the deformed high energy photons (or electrons) spectrum due to the high energy muons which, in turn, may result in the deformed Cherenkov light spectra, compared with the corresponding ones which can be obtained by \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}.
\subsection{The difference between \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} and \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} in the light of the Monte Carlo method}
\label{sec:3.2}
Apart from the largeness of $v_{cut}$ values in \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure}, we discuss the difference in the Monte Carlo method between \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} and \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}.
On the sampling of energy loss in the radiation part (the "hard" part) in \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure}, they utilize the corresponding total cross sections, namely, the sum of the bremsstrahlung, direct electron-positron pair production and photo nuclear interaction, but not utilize the cross section for the respective interaction. As far as one is interested exclusively in the energy loss of the muons concerned, this treatment seems to be reasonable. However, in the case when one is interested in the energy determination of the muons through the Cherenkov light yields due to the muons concerned, one need the detailed information around the respective interaction.
In the treatment of the Cherenkov light yields, they considered only in the fluctuation around the total cross section, while we consider the fluctuation around the respective interaction (see, the discussion in the 4. Conclusion and Outlook)
\subsection{Comparison of the survival probabilities obtained by \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} with those obtained by \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure}}
In the previous section, we examine the inconsistency problems involved in \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure}. However, \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} may be useful within their application limit.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f26_survLipari.eps}}
\caption{The comparison of our result with that of Lipari and Stanev\cite{Lipari}. The survival probabilities of muons of energy from $1$ TeV to $10^{6}$ TeV. The numerical figures attached each curve denote the primary energies. Curves labels correspond to following set of primay energies of muon: (1)$1$TeV, (2)$10$TeV, (3)$10^{2}$TeV, (4)$10^{3}$TeV, (5)$10^{4}$TeV, (6)$10^{5}$TeV, (7)$10^{6}$TeV. Symbols are due to Lipari and Stanev and curves are due to ours.}
\label{fig:Lipari}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f27_survproKlimushin.eps}}
\caption{The comparison of our results with that of Klimushin et al\cite{Klimu}.
The continuous lines are obtained by us, while symbols are readout from those by Klimushin et al. for primary energies from $10^{13}$ eV to $3\times 10^{16}$ eV. The numerical figures attached each curve denote the threshold energy is 10 TeV. Curves labels correspond to following set of depths: (1)1.15km, (2)3.45km, (3)8.05km, (4)12.65km, (5)17.25km, (6)21.39km.}
\label{fig:Buga}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig.26 and Fig.27, we give the comparison of our results by \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} for survival probabilities with those of Lipari and Stanev and those of Klimushin et al. by \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure}, respectively. We discuss the agreement or disagreement between the results obtained by \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} and \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure}. The agreement between Lipari and Stanev's (Fig.26) and ours is quite well in the energies from 1 TeV to $10^{4}$TeV, while the disagreement between them become clear beyond $10^{5}$TeV. As indicated in the subsection 3.2 the photons contained the "soft" part, should be involved in the muon spectrum, if the stochastic processes concerned down to $E_{min}$ are taken into account. Therefore, this fact leads increase of survival probability and muon spectrum.
If $v_{cut}$ of Lipari and Stanev in higher primary muon energies is taken smaller value, then, their results are expected to approach to us. The rather nice agreement in lower primary energies between them and us indicates that \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} functions well within its application limit, while the disagreement between them and us in higher primary energies that \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} functions beyond its application limit.
The agreement and disagreement between Klimushin et al's (Fig.27) and ours can be explained similarly. The figure shows that the discrepancies between them and us become larger as the depths become lager. This indicates that the deficit of the lower energies part in survived muon energy spectrum become larger, as the depths increase. Namely, if they adopt smaller $v_{cut}$, their numerical values are expected to approach to us.
Also, it should be noticed that fluctuation effect in the muons' behavior depends entirely on the absolute values of muon's energy.
In \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure}, as the Monte Carlo procedure, the calculations are performed by step by step method in $dx$, which inevitably introduce uncertainties due to the accumulation effect in calculation error. One may call their procedure \textit{the differential method}. On the contrast to it, \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} can determine interaction point directly (\textit{the integral method}). Consequently, its accuracy is independent of the errors due to the accumulation effect coming from $dx$. One may call our procedure as \textit{the integral method} on the contrast to \textit{the differential method}, the relation of which is complementary.
\section{Conclusion and Outlook}
\label{sec:4}
From the methodological point of view, \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} is classified as \textit{the integral method}, while \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedures} are done as \textit{the differential method}. They are complementary each other and the results obtained by the present $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} approach to those obtained by \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}, when both $dx$ and $v_{cut}$ are sufficiently small in the latter.
We surmise that it takes less time for\textit{ the Time Sequential Procedure} to perform the computation than for \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} to do, when both procedures utilize the same boundary conditions for computation and the results obtained by the both procedures maintain the same accuracy of the computation.
Main purpose of the development of \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} is the application to KM3 physics. However, another ones are the application to both the energy spectrum of muons underground or underwater and to the range energy fluctuation problem under different photonuclear interactions (~\cite{Dutta},~\cite{Groom},~\cite{Butk},~\cite{Buga2},~\cite{Petru},~\cite{Kuzm}) because the muon-nucleus inelastic scattering (photonuclear interaction) is of prime interest in another aspect.
In Fig.28, we give the ratios of the Cherenkov light yields due to muon induced electromagnetic cascades showers to the total Cherenkov light ones as the function of the depth traversed for $10^{11}$eV to $10^{16}$ eV. It is clear from the figure that $\sim 10^{11}$eV, the most of the Cherenkov light yield comes from the muon itself, while above $\sim 10^{14}$eV the most Cherenkov light yield comes from the muon induced electromagnetic cascade shower and, consequently, the Cherenkov light yield from the original muon is essentially negligible.
Namely, above $\sim 10^{14}$eV, the Cherenkov light yields are produced essentially from the electromagnetic cascade showers due to the bremsstrahlung, direct electron-positron pair production or photo nuclear interaction.
Now, we discuss this problem in more detail. The electromagnetic cascade showers due to bremsstrahlung, direct electron-positron pair production and photo nuclear interaction are photon induced one, electron pair induced one and aggregate of $\pi_{0}-2\gamma$ induced one, respectively. These different kinds of electromagnetic cascade showers have the different characteristics in their respective behaviors, which show different characteristics in the respective Cherenkov light yields. In \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}, we simulate exactly these electromagnetic cascade showers in stochastic manner and calculate the Cherenkov light yields produced from the respective electron segments in the electromagnetic cascade showers concerned (see, Eqs.(5) and (6)).
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f28_RCR.eps}}
\caption{Ratio of Cherenkov lights due to the accompanied cascade showers to the Cherenkov light.}
\label{fig:RCR}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the case that they sample $v$ which is larger than $v_{cut}$ from Eq.(14) in the Monte Carlo simulation of \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure}, $v \times E$ denotes the sum of energy losses from bremsstrahlung, direct elctron pair production and photo nuclear interaction with some relative weights, because they are essentially interested in the total energy loss for bremsstrahlung, direct electron-positron pair production and photo nuclear interaction.
Considering the differences in the treatment of the Cherenkov light production through the respective electromagnetic showers among bremsstrahlung, direct electron-positron pair production and photo nuclear interaction in addition to adoption of larger $v_{cut}$ value, the difference in the Cherenkov light production spectrum between \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} and \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} will become apparent, which is just the main subject in our subsequent papers. A part of the correlations between the energy losses of the high energy muons and their Cherenkov light yields was reported elsewhere~\cite{Okumura}.
However, as far as one is interested in the muons behavior exclusively, the situation mentioned above may be not influential. This is the reason why there are no significant difference in the survival probabilities between \textit{the} $V_{cut}$ \textit{Procedure} and \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure} (see, Figures 26 and 27).
Up to now, our discussion still remains to single high energy muon problem. However, really, muon does not exist singly, but they exist in the form of energy spectrum which is directly reflection of parent neutrino spectrum through the interactions.
In \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}, for given primary muon, we exactly simulate the muon behaviors in stochastic manner, without introducing the "soft" part and, consequently, we obtain accurate muon energy spectrum at arbitrary depths as well as the energy spectrum of 'primary' (in the sense of origin of electromagnetic cascade showers) electrons and photons energy spectrum due to the muons concerned at arbitrary depths. The existence of the energy spectrum of primary muons brings more difficulty into the elucidation of fluctuation effect even in \textit{the Time Sequential Procedure}. These effects intermingle with each other and we could not discuss them separately.
Up to now, we restrict our discussion around electromagnetic cascade showers which the primary muons produce in the case of Bethe-Heitler shower. However, we could not neglect LPM effects, related to the interpretation of extremely high energy muon events in future. One is related to electrons~\cite{Koni1}-\cite{Misaki4} and other is related to muon~\cite{Poly1,Poly2}. We cannot neglect the LPM effect on the behaviors of electromagnetic cascade themselves above $\sim 10^{15}$eV in water~\cite{Misaki5}. However, the LPM effect is supposed to be effective above $\sim 10^{18}$eV in the case of muon induced electromagnetic cascade showers
In such extremely high energies, range fluctuation of muon may alter their feature essentially compared with that of present situation. Furthermore, above $10^{21}$eV, we cannot neglect the LPM effect related to the muons~\cite{Poly1,Poly2}. Namely, above $10^{21}$eV, the Cherenkov light spectrum is supposed to become essentially different from those in the absence of two kinds of LPM effects at present.
In the present paper, we restrict our discussion to muons themselves in high energies. In subsequent papers, we will extend our examination to the Cherenkov light yield via electromagnetic cascade showers from different interactions, such as, bremsstrahlung, direct electron-positron pair production and photonuclear interaction, taking into account of muon energy spectrum for imaging KM3 detector. There, the main subject will be the examination of the Cherenkov light yeilds from the muon induced electromagnetic cascade showers.
In discussion of the problems around high energy neutrino spectrum from the universe, it should be noticed that the reliable results are obtained essentially through the utilization of the stochastically correct tools, taking into account of very few number of experimental events and the steepness of high energy neutrino spectrum.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
One of authors (A.M.) would like to express his thanks to The Institute for China-Japan Culture Study for providing the research fund and for stimulating him.
|
\section{Immersed Boundary Modeling}
\label{sec:IBModeling}
In this section we review the components needed for an immersed
boundary model of platelets. Our focus here is on the computation of
normal vectors and on the modeling of elasticity.
For a discussion of how
forces generated from immersed objects are transferred to the
underlying Eulerian mesh and how the fluid velocity is updated see,
for example,\cite{Newren2007}.
Normal vectors do not play a prominent role in most
traditional IB calculations. Our interest in them is
motivated by their other uses in the modeling of platelet aggregation.
In addition to the fluid-structure interactions modeled using the IB
method, the platelet problem requires solution of
advection-diffusion equations for chemicals in the fluid domain
outside of the moving platelets, along with boundary conditions on
the chemical concentration at the fluid-platelet interface. Normal
vectors along the platelet boundary are needed for determining when
an Eulerian grid point is inside or outside of the platelet, and for
imposing the boundary conditions. For further discussion of this,
see \cite{YaoFogelson2011}.
\subsection{Components for 2D}
We denote the 2D platelet using the parametric representation
$ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda)$ given in \eqref{eq:2D_obj} and define
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\tau} := \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda) = \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} x(\lambda),\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} y(\lambda)\right) = (\boldsymbol{\tau}_x,\boldsymbol{\tau}_y).
\label{eq:tngt_2d}
\end{align}
The unit tangent and normal vectors to $ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda)$ are then given as
\begin{align}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\tau}}: &= \frac{\boldsymbol{\tau}}{\|\boldsymbol{\tau}\|} = (\hat{\boldsymbol{\tau}}_x,\hat{\boldsymbol{\tau}}_y), \label{eq:utngt_2d} \\
\hat{\boldsymbol{\eta}}: &= (-\hat{\boldsymbol{\tau}}_y,\hat{\boldsymbol{\tau}}_x) \label{eq:unnrml_2d}
\end{align}
For the force model in 2D, we use the fiber model defined
in~\cite{Peskin:2002}. According to this model, the elastic force
density on $ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda)$ at the location $ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda_i)$ is given by
\begin{align}
\mathbf{F}( \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda_i)) = \left.\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} (T\hat{\boldsymbol{\tau}})\right|_{\lambda_i}, \label{eq:force_full_2d}
\end{align}
\noindent where $T = K (\|\boldsymbol{\tau}\|)$ is the fiber tension. In our
platelet model, we choose $K$ as a linear function, $K =
K_0\|\boldsymbol{\tau}\|$, where $K_0$ is the Hookean spring constant. In this
case, \eqref{eq:force_full_2d} reduces to
\begin{align}
\mathbf{F}( \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda_i)) = K_0 \left.\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} \left(\|\boldsymbol{\tau}\| \hat{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\right) \right|_{\lambda_i} = K_0 \left.\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \lambda^2} \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda) \right|_{\lambda_i}. \label{eq:force_2d}
\end{align}
The 2D spring force model traditionally used in piecewise linear
representations is a scaled second-order, central-difference
approximation to the above fiber model (assuming springs of zero rest
length). From the physical standpoint, each IB point in a 2D object is
thought to be connected to each of its neighbors via springs. For
tension forces, there are only two neighbors attached to each IB point
via springs. This spring force is expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{F}( \boldsymbol{x} _i) = K_0( \boldsymbol{x} _{i+1} - 2 \boldsymbol{x} _i + \boldsymbol{x} _{i-1}). \label{eq:spring_2d}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Components for 3D}
We denote the 3D platelet using the parametric representation $ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta)$ given in \eqref{eq:3D_obj} and define
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\lambda} := & \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta) = \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} x(\lambda,\theta),\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} y(\lambda,\theta),\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} z(\lambda,\theta)\right), \label{eq:tngt1_3D}\\
\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\theta} := & \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta) = \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} x(\lambda,\theta),\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} y(\lambda,\theta),\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} z(\lambda,\theta)\right). \label{eq:tngt2_3D}
\end{align}
The unit tangent vectors to $ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta)$ are then given by
\begin{align}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\tau}}^{\lambda} := \frac{\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\lambda}}{\|\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\lambda}\|}\quad\text{and}\quad\hat{\boldsymbol{\tau}}^{\theta} := \frac{\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\theta}}{\|\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\theta}\|}, \label{eq:utngt_3d}
\end{align}
while the unit normal vector is given by
\begin{align}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\eta}} := \frac{\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\lambda} \times \boldsymbol{\tau}^{\theta}}{\|\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\lambda} \times \boldsymbol{\tau}^{\theta}\|}.
\label{eq:unrml_3d}
\end{align}
The force model we use in 3D differs depending on whether a piecewise
linear representation for the object is used or a parametric
representation. Traditionally, piecewise linear representations
(triangulated surfaces) in 3D have been used in conjunction with
spring forces. In this model, a spring is assumed to be placed along
each triangle edge (again, we assume these springs have a rest length
of zero). Then, the total force acting on an IB point at $ \boldsymbol{x} _i$ due
to its \(k\) nearest neighbors is:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{F}( \boldsymbol{x} _i) = K_0\sum_{j\neq i}( \boldsymbol{x} _i - \boldsymbol{x} _j), \label{eq:spring_3d}
\end{equation}
where the sum is over $k$ IB points. The nearest neighbors are
typically defined from the triangulation, i.e. as members of the
adjacency list of $ \boldsymbol{x} _i$. This is the same strategy that we follow.
For our parametric representation of platelets, we use surface tension
as the model to compute tension forces.
The force due to surface tension is then given by
\begin{align}
\mathbf{F} = \gamma(2H)\hat{\boldsymbol{\eta}}, \label{eq:force_3d}
\end{align}
where $\gamma$ is the coefficient of surface tension. $H$ is the mean
curvature of the surface, and can be computed as~\cite[\S 16.5]{Gray:1997}
\begin{align}
H = \frac{eG-2fF+gE}{2(EG-F^2)}, \label{eq:mean_curvature}
\end{align}
where $E$, $F$, and $G$ are coefficients of the first fundamental form,
\begin{align}
E = \boldsymbol{\tau}^{\lambda} \cdot \boldsymbol{\tau}^{\lambda},\; F = \boldsymbol{\tau}^{\lambda} \cdot \boldsymbol{\tau}^{\theta},\; G = \boldsymbol{\tau}^{\theta} \cdot \boldsymbol{\tau}^{\theta},
\label{eq:first_fund_form}
\end{align}
and $e$, $f$, and $g$ are coefficients of the second fundamental form,
\begin{align}
e = \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda}\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\lambda} \right)\cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{\eta}},\; f = \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\lambda} \right)\cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{\eta}},\;
g = \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\boldsymbol{\tau}^{\theta} \right)\cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{\eta}}. \\
\label{eq:second_fund_form}
\end{align}
\section{Implementation Details}
\label{sec:implementation}
In this section we present the implementation details for evaluating
the positions on the Lagrangian objects, computing normals to the surface
of the object, and computing the internal forces as presented in the previous
section. For the piecewise linear representation, these surface normals and
forces are computed at the IB points. For the parametric
representations using Fourier and RBF models, these values are computed at
some set of \emph{sample sites}, which do not necessarily correspond to
the \emph{data sites}. With these operations defined, it is possible to
employ the traditional spreading and interpolation operators for transferring
the forces and velocity respectively between the Lagrangian and Eulerian
discretizations.
\subsection{Piecewise Linear Models}
\label{sec:implementation_pwl}
In 2D, normals are computed at the IB points using the piecewise
quadratic representation presented in Section
\ref{sec:modeling_pwl}. For each IB point, we first solve for the
coefficients in \eqref{eq:pquad1} and \eqref{eq:pquad2} using the IB
point and its two neighbors. Using \eqref{eq:pquad1} and
\eqref{eq:pquad2}, we next compute the tangent vector at each IB point
using \eqref{eq:utngt_2d} and then determine the normal vector using
\eqref{eq:unnrml_2d}.
In 3D, we compute the normal vectors at each IB point by first
computing the normal vector at the circumcenter of each of
the triangles. We then obtain the normal vector at a vertex (IB point) by
a weighted average of the values of the normal vectors
at the circumcenters of the triangles connected to the vertex. Specifically,
we weight these facet normals by the angle at which that facet is incident
on the vertex at which we require a normal. This approach takes into account
the geometric configuration of each facet~\cite{ThurmerWuthrich98}.
The implementation of the forces follows directly from the simple
spring force model in both 2D \eqref{eq:spring_2d} and 3D
\eqref{eq:spring_3d}. We note that while the 2D implementation follows
naturally from a constitutive model, the 3D implementation is a purely
algorithmic extension of the 2D case.
\subsection{Parametric Models}
\label{sec:implementation_param}
For the parametric models, we use the continuous representations of
the objects from either the Fourier or RBF based interpolants to
approximate the normal vectors and forces. This involves analytically
computing derivatives of these interpolants and then evaluating the
derivatives at some set of $M$ locations in the parametric space that
corresponds to the set of sample sites. In 2D, we denote the set of
sample sites by $\{ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda^{\rm e}_j)\}_{j=1}^M$ and refer to the set of
parametric values $\{\lambda^{\rm e}_j\}_{j=1}^M$ as the \emph{evaluation
points}. Similarly for 3D, we denote the sample sites by
$\{ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda^{\rm e}_j,\theta^{\rm e}_j)\}_{j=1}^M$ and refer to
$\{(\lambda^{\rm e}_j,\theta^{\rm e}_j)\}_{j=1}^M$ as the \emph{evaluation points}. The
method we use is similar to the pseudospectral or spectral collocation
method ({\em e.g.}~\cite{Fornberg:1996:PGPM,Trefethen:2000:SMM}),
except that the derivatives are not evaluated at interpolation nodes.
Before describing the implementation details for the Fourier and RBF models, we discuss the node and evaluation points used.
\subsection{Node and Evaluation points}
For our 2D objects, we use $N$ equally-spaced points on the interval
$(-\pi,\pi]$ as the node set $\{\lambda_k\}_{k=1}^{N}$, and take $N$ to
be even. This gives a uniform sampling in the parametric space and
allows fast algorithms to be used for computing the interpolants as
discussed below. Additionally, since the shape of our target objects are near circular or elliptical, these nodes give a good distribution of data sites on the object. We also use $M >> N$
equally-spaced points in the interval $(-\pi,\pi]$ as the set of evaluation
points $\{\lambda^{\rm e}_j\}_{j=1}^{M}$ since this also results in a set of sample sites that are well distributed over the object.
To get a good sampling of our nearly ellipsoidal or
spherical objects in 3D, we cannot resort to using equally spaced
points in the spherical coordinate system as our node sets
$\{(\lambda_k,\theta_k)\}_{k=1}^{N}$ because of the inherent ``pole
problem''. Instead we use node sets that give a quasi-uniform
distribution of data sites on the unit sphere. Since only a maximum
of 20 points can be evenly distributed on a sphere, there are a myriad
of methods to define and generate a quasi-uniform distribution for
larger numbers of points~\cite{HardinSaff:2004}. We use two of these
methods: maximal determinant (MD) for our spherical harmonic models
and minimal energy (ME) for our RBF models. Both of these methods are
discussed in~\cite{WomersleySloan:2001} and many of these
two point sets for various $N$ can be downloaded
from~\cite{WomerSloan:2003}. The MD points are generated by finding a
distribution of points that maximize the determinant of a certain
``Gram matrix'' related to \eqref{eq:sph_linsys}. The ME points are
generated by finding a distribution of nodes that minimize an
electrostatic type energy potential. For spherical harmonic
interpolation, the MD points lead to much better results both in terms
of accuracy and stability~\cite{WomersleySloan:2001}. For RBF
interpolation, the ME points typically yield better results in terms
of accuracy~\cite{FlyerWright:2007,FlyerWright:2009} for larger shape
parameters $\varepsilon$. For smaller values, the MD points give better
results because of the connection to spherical harmonics as
$\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$~\cite{FornbergPiret:2007}. For the set of
evaluation points, $\{(\lambda^{\rm e}_j,\theta^{\rm e}_j)\}_{j=1}^M$, we use $M >> N$ ME
points for both the spherical harmonic and RBF models, which again
results in a well distributed set of sample sites on the object.
\subsubsection{Fourier Models}\label{sec:implementation_trig}
The first step in computing the normal vectors and forces for the 2D
trigonometric model \eqref{eq:2D_obj_trig} is to compute the
interpolation coefficients $c_k^x$ and $c_k^y$, $k=1,\ldots,N$ (see
\eqref{eq:trig_interp}). Since we are using equally spaced node
points $\{\lambda_k\}_{k=1}^N$, we can avoid having to solve
\eqref{eq:trig_linsys} directly for these coefficients and can instead
compute them by means of the fast Fourier transforms ({\em
e.g.}~\cite[\S 3]{Trefethen:2000:SMM}) at a cost of $O(N\log N)$.
We next compute the derivatives of the interpolants to obtain the
following approximation to \eqref{eq:tngt_2d}:
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda)\bigr|_{\lambda = \lambda^{\rm e}_j} \approx \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda}{ \boldsymbol{p} }(\lambda)\bigr|_{\lambda = \lambda^{\rm e}_j},\;j=1,\ldots,M.
\label{eq:trig_deriv1}
\end{align}
We then determine the normal vector at $ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda^{\rm e}_j)$ by normalizing
the vector above and switching the components according to
\eqref{eq:utngt_2d} and \eqref{eq:unnrml_2d}. We similarly obtain an
approximation of the force \eqref{eq:force_2d} from the second
derivative of the interpolants:
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \lambda^2} \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda)\bigr|_{\lambda = \lambda^{\rm e}_j}
\approx \frac{\partial^2}{\partial
\lambda^2}{ \boldsymbol{p} }(\lambda)\bigr|_{\lambda =
\lambda^{\rm e}_j},\;j=1,\ldots,M.
\label{eq:trig_deriv2}
\end{align}
For the 3D spherical harmonic model \eqref{eq:3D_obj_sph}, the first
step in computing the normal vectors and forces is again to compute
the interpolation coefficients $c_k^x$, $c_k^y$, and $c_k^z$,
$k=1,\ldots,N$, (see \eqref{eq:sph_interp}). Unlike the trigonometric
interpolant, there are unfortunately no fast algorithms for computing
these coefficients. Since we use relatively small values of $N$, we
thus resort to determining the coefficients by solving the linear
system \eqref{eq:sph_linsys} using a direct $LU$ factorization of the
interpolation matrix. By using the MD points as the nodes in this
model, we are guaranteed that this system is non-singular and
relatively well conditioned~\cite{WomersleySloan:2001}. We note that
in context of the IB method simulation, the node points will stay
fixed throughout the simulation so that the $LU$ factorization of the
interpolation matrix from \eqref{eq:sph_linsys} needs to be done
only once at the initial time-step and then stored. Thus,
for all other time-steps the coefficients can be determined in
$O(N^2)$ computations.
After the coefficients are determined, we compute the following six
derivatives to obtain approximations to \eqref{eq:tngt1_3D} and
\eqref{eq:tngt2_3D}:
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta)\bigr|_{(\lambda,\theta) = (\lambda^{\rm e}_j,\theta^{\rm e}_j)} & \approx \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda}{ \boldsymbol{p} }(\lambda,\theta)\bigr|_{(\lambda,\theta) = (\lambda^{\rm e}_j,\theta^{\rm e}_j)},\;j=1,\ldots,M,
\label{eq:sph_deriv1}\\
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta)\bigr|_{(\lambda,\theta) = (\lambda^{\rm e}_j,\theta^{\rm e}_j)} & \approx \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}{ \boldsymbol{p} }(\lambda,\theta)\bigr|_{(\lambda,\theta) = (\lambda^{\rm e}_j,\theta^{\rm e}_j)},\;j=1,\ldots,M.
\label{eq:sph_deriv2}
\end{align}
We then compute the normal vectors using these approximations in \eqref{eq:utngt_3d} and \eqref{eq:unrml_3d}.
The computation of the force requires the approximation to the normal
vectors and an approximation to the mean curvature
\eqref{eq:mean_curvature}. For the values of $E$, $F$, and $G$ in the
mean curvature computation (see \eqref{eq:first_fund_form}), we use the
approximations \eqref{eq:sph_deriv1} and \eqref{eq:sph_deriv2}. For
the values of $e$, $f$, and $g$, we use the approximations
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \lambda^2} \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta)\bigr|_{(\lambda,\theta) = (\lambda^{\rm e}_j,\theta^{\rm e}_j)} & \approx \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \lambda^2}{ \boldsymbol{p} }(\lambda,\theta)\bigr|_{(\lambda,\theta) = (\lambda^{\rm e}_j,\theta^{\rm e}_j)},\;j=1,\ldots,M,
\label{eq:sph2_deriv1}\\
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \theta \partial \lambda} \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta)\bigr|_{(\lambda,\theta) = (\lambda^{\rm e}_j,\theta^{\rm e}_j)} & \approx \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \theta \partial \lambda}{ \boldsymbol{p} }(\lambda,\theta)\bigr|_{(\lambda,\theta) = (\lambda^{\rm e}_j,\theta^{\rm e}_j)},\;j=1,\ldots,M,
\label{eq:sph3_deriv1}\\
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \theta^2} \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta)\bigr|_{(\lambda,\theta) = (\lambda^{\rm e}_j,\theta^{\rm e}_j)} & \approx \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \theta^2}{ \boldsymbol{p} }(\lambda,\theta)\bigr|_{(\lambda,\theta) = (\lambda^{\rm e}_j,\theta^{\rm e}_j)},\;j=1,\ldots,M.
\label{eq:sph2_deriv2}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{RBF Models}\label{sec:implementation_rbf}
The normal vectors and forces for the RBF models are computed in the
same fashion as for the Fourier models discussed above; one
just needs to replace the Fourier interpolants
${ \boldsymbol{p} }(\lambda)$ and ${ \boldsymbol{p} }(\lambda,\theta)$ with
the RBF interpolants ${ \boldsymbol{s} }(\lambda)$ from
\eqref{eq:2D_obj_rbf} and ${ \boldsymbol{s} }(\lambda,\theta)$ from
\eqref{eq:3D_obj_rbf}, respectively. We thus omit a full description.
We will, however, discuss the shape parameter $\varepsilon$ and the
computation of the interpolation coefficients.
Infinitely smooth radial kernels like the MQ \eqref{eq:mq} and IMQ
\eqref{eq:imq} feature a free shape parameter $\varepsilon$. It has generally
been reported in the literature that there is typically an optimal
value of $\varepsilon$ that produces the best accuracy in the interpolants
with these kernels and that this value tends to decrease with
increasing smoothness of the underlying function being approximated
({\em e.g.}~\cite{Rippa:1999}). However, as $\varepsilon$ decreases to zero
these smooth kernels become increasingly flat and the shifts of $\phi$
in \eqref{eq:circ_rbf_interp} and \eqref{eq:sph_rbf_interp} become
less and less distinguishable from one another. If one follows the
direct approach of solving for the expansion coefficients via
\eqref{eq:rbf_linsys} and then evaluating the interpolant via
\eqref{eq:circ_rbf_interp} or \eqref{eq:sph_rbf_interp} (which is
denoted by RBF-Direct in the current literature) for $\varepsilon$ in this
flat regime, then ill-conditioning can entirely contaminate the
computation. For RBF interpolation on a sphere, this ill-conditioning
can be completely bypassed by replacing the RBF-Direct algorithm with
the RBF-QR algorithm of Fornberg and Piret~\cite{FornbergPiret:2007}.
The framework for this algorithm can also naturally be adapted to the
task of computing RBF interpolants on the unit circle in a stable
manner for all $\varepsilon$.
We have implemented both the RBF-QR algorithm and the RBF-Direct
approach and present results in Sections \ref{sec:results2d_shape} and
\ref{sec:results3d_shape} illustrating the behavior of the RBF
interpolants for the full range of $\varepsilon$ and the connection to Fourier
based methods. However, we have opted to use the RBF-Direct approach
in implementation since it is computationally more efficient and the
coding is much less involved for computing the normals and forces.
Additionally, we have found that with the RBF-Direct approach and the
values of $N$ that we considered it is possible to get as good or
better results than the Fourier based methods. For increasingly large
values of $N$, or objects whose parameterizations are very smooth, it
may be necessary to switch to the RBF-QR algorithms to exploit the
better accuracy that can sometimes be achieved for increasingly small
values of $\varepsilon$.
For the RBF-Direct approach, the interpolation coefficients for both
the 2D and 3D objects can be determined by solving the
linear system \eqref{eq:rbf_linsys} (with the appropriate choice of
$r_{j,k}$ for the dimension of interest). In the case of 2D objects with equally spaced points,
solving this system directly can be bypassed by means of the fast
Fourier transform and the coefficients can be computed in $O(N\log N)$
operations~\cite{HubbertMuller:2006}. This follows by observing that
the matrix in \eqref{eq:rbf_linsys} is \emph{circulant} (for any
radial kernel $\phi$) and can be diagonalized via the discrete Fourier
transform matrix~\cite[\S 4.7.7]{GolubVanLoan:1996}. For the 2D
models, we use the MQ radial kernel \eqref{eq:mq}.
As in the case of the spherical harmonic model, there are no fast
direct algorithms for determining the interpolation coefficients for the 3D
RBF model \eqref{eq:3D_obj_rbf} and we thus resort to using a direct
method. However, unlike the spherical harmonic model the system is
symmetric and, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:modeling_rbf}, for the
right choice of $\phi$ it is positive definite. Thus, a Cholesky
factorization of the matrix can be used which reduces the memory costs
and the need for pivoting over the $LU$ factorization method used in
the spherical harmonic model. We also note that the initial cost of
computing the Cholesky factorization is lower than the $LU$
factorization, but since this is only done once initially there is no
real savings in an IB simulation. We have opted to use the IMQ
kernel \eqref{eq:mq} to exploit the use of the Cholesky factorization.
\section{Introduction}
The Immersed Boundary (IB) Method was introduced by Charles Peskin
in the early 1970's to solve the coupled equations of motion of a
viscous, incompressible fluid and one or more massless, elastic
surfaces or objects immersed in the fluid~\cite{Peskin:1977}.
Rather than generating a body-fitted grid for both exterior and
interior regions of each surface at each timestep and using these
to determine the fluid motion, Peskin instead employed a uniform
Eulerian Cartesian grid over the entire domain and discretized the immersed
boundaries by a set of points that are \textit{not} constrained to
lie on the grid. In Peskin's work as well as many of the follow-on
works, this set of points was connected via piecewise linear segments
with Hookean spring models being used for approximating structural forces.
Spreading and interpolation operations are then defined for
transferring force and velocity information between the Lagrangian-defined
structures and the Eulerian-discretized equations of motion.
The IB method was originally developed to model blood flow in the
heart and through heart valves~\cite{Peskin:1977,Peskin:1980,Peskin:1989},
but has since been used in a wide variety of other applications, particularly in
biofluid dynamics problems where complex geometries and immersed
elastic membranes or structures are present and make traditional
computational approaches difficult. Examples include platelet
aggregation in blood clotting~\cite{Fauci_Fogelson:1993,Fogelson:1984,Fogelson2008},
swimming of organisms~\cite{Fauci_Fogelson:1993,Fauci_Peskin:1988}, biofilm
processes~\cite{Dillon:1996}, mechanical properties of
cells~\cite{Agresar:1998}, cochlear dynamics~\cite{Beyer:1992},
and insect flight~\cite{Miller_Peskin:2004b,Miller_Peskin:2004}.
We are motivated by the application of the IB method to platelet
aggregation in blood clotting. Real platelets circulate with
the blood in an inactive state in which they have a discoidal shape.
In order to participate in clot formation, a platelet must undergo
an activation process, one aspect of which is that the platelet
changes shape and becomes more spherical. In IB modeling, inactive
platelets are approximately elliptical or ellipsoidal in 2D and 3D,
respectively, while activated platelets are approximately circular
in 2D and spherical in 3D. Piecewise linear approximations
of platelets are currently used within IB methods applied to platelet
aggregation ({\em e.g.}
\cite{Fauci_Fogelson:1993,Fogelson:1984,Fogelson2008}). We seek
to explore alternative methods for the modeling of platelets that
might decrease the computational time necessary to maintain and update
platelet geometry and motion with comparable or better error
characteristics to the standard piecewise linear models.
In this paper, we examine two alternative representations for
platelets: interpolation with Fourier-based techniques (trigonometric
polynomials in 2D and spherical harmonics in 3D) and interpolation
with radial basis functions (restricted to the unit circle in 2D and
unit sphere in 3D). Fourier methods have frequently been used for the
modeling of circular and spherical objects ({\em
e.g.}~\cite{mcpeek-shen-farid09a}). A recent result of Fornberg and
Piret shows that both trigonometric polynomials and spherical
harmonics are just special cases of radial basis functions (RBFs) when
one chooses the shape parameter in a particular limit
\cite{FornbergPiret:2007}. Additionally, error estimates for RBF
interpolation on the circle and sphere have been given for a much
wider range of target functions than just
$C^{\infty}$~\cite{HubbertMorton:2004,JetterStocklerWard:1999,NarcSunWard:2007}.
To perform a platelet IB computation, one must (1) have a
representation of the surface of the platelet and (2) be able to
compute forces (internal structural forces) at a specified collection
of material points on the platelet surface. Once forces are
determined, they are ``projected'' to an Eulerian mesh in which they
are incorporated into the solution of the Navier-Stokes equations for
determining the motion of the fluid. Based upon the updated fluid
velocity field, the platelet's position and shape are updated. We
will not detail how the projection and interpolation are accomplished
as this has been amply discussed in other works ({\em e.g.}
\cite{Newren2007}). Our focus is instead restricted to
models for representing the platelet objects and how these can be used
for constructing and maintaining the object's representation,
computing the normal vectors to the object, and computing the internal
structural forces.
For results, we will compare the piecewise linear, Fourier, and RBF
based methods for two different shapes in 2D and two different
shapes in 3D that typify observed platelet geometries. We
compare the errors in reconstructing these shapes, computing the
normal vectors, and computing the forces. We provide a discussion of
the engineering trade-offs we observe with respect to error and
computational costs. Our results indicate that the RBF and Fourier
models are viable alternatives to the piecewise linear models for
platelet-like geometries in terms of errors versus computational cost. We
furthermore find that the RBF models give better results for objects
of varying smoothness than the Fourier models, and thus appear to be
more promising in applications.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:modeling} we
present the three different modeling approaches: piecewise linear,
Fourier, and RBFs. In Section \ref{sec:IBModeling} we review the
components necessary for handling immersed elastic structures in the
IB method. In Section \ref{sec:implementation} we provide
implementation details for all three models in terms of computing
normal vectors and forces for the platelets. Results are partitioned
into two sections by spatial dimension. In Section
\ref{sec:Results2D} we present our comparison of the three modeling
methodologies for 2D platelet objects, while in Section
\ref{sec:Results3D} we present our comparison for 3D platelet objects.
Section \ref{sec:summary} contains a summary of our findings.
\section{Geometric Modeling Strategies}
\label{sec:modeling}
In this section we present the three different geometric modeling
approaches to be examined. We first present the (traditional)
piecewise linear approach for modeling two and three dimensional
platelet structures. We then present our two alternative strategies
based on a parametric representation of the surface: Fourier-based
models (trigonometric series in 2D and spherical harmonic series in
3D) and radial basis function (RBF) models. Implementation details for
all three methodologies are provided in Section
\ref{sec:implementation}.
\subsection{Piecewise Linear Models}\label{sec:modeling_pwl}
In the traditional (IB) method, parametric representations of
the surface are rarely formed explicitly. Typically, a piecewise
linear representation of the boundary is maintained. In 2D, the piecewise linear interpolant is a set of line segments between pairs of IB points.
However, to perform secondary computations (such as computing normals) with a greater level of accuracy than what the piecewise linear interpolant would offer,
piecewise quadratic interpolants are typically fitted to a set of IB points({\em e.g.}~\cite[\S 3.1.1]{Yang2005}).
Given a parameter \(\lambda\), the piecewise quadratic representation is
therefore defined as:
\begin{align}
x(\lambda) &\approx a_x{\lambda}^2 + b_x{\lambda} + c_x, \label{eq:pquad1} \\
y(\lambda) &\approx a_y{\lambda}^2 + b_y{\lambda} + c_y. \label{eq:pquad2}
\end{align}
The coefficients are computed by solving two linear systems of equations
for each IB point; the right hand sides to these systems of equations are
simply the x and y coordinates of the three IB points to which the piecewise
quadratics are fitted to. Once the coefficients are obtained, one can now
compute derivatives (and therefore normals and other quantities) at each IB
point.
In 3D, the piecewise linear interpolant is a triangulation of the IB points ({\em e.g.}~\cite{Fogelson2008}). An example of such a
triangulated surface is given in Figure \ref{fig:3D_triangles}.
Secondary computations, such as computing normals and forces are
computed from the triangulation as discussed in Section
\ref{sec:implementation_pwl}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{3DTriangulation.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of the triangulation of a set of IB points in 3D.}
\label{fig:3D_triangles}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Parametric models}\label{sec:parametric_modeling}
The Fourier and RBF models we propose are both based on explicit
parametric representations of the objects. Since our target objects
are platelets, which in 2D models are nearly elliptical or
circular and in 3D models are nearly ellipsoidal or spherical, we
choose circular (or polar) and spherical parameterizations in 2D and
3D, respectively. Before discussing the two modeling approaches, we
introduce some notation and put the modeling problem in the context of
a reconstruction problem using interpolation.
In 2D, we use the following polar parametric notation to represent any of the objects:
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{x} (\lambda) = (x(\lambda),y(\lambda)),
\label{eq:2D_obj}
\end{align}
where $-\pi \leq \lambda \leq \pi$ and $ \boldsymbol{x} (-\pi)= \boldsymbol{x} (\pi)$. In the case
the object is a circle of radius $r$, $ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda) = (r \cos\lambda,r \sin
\lambda)$. In general, given a finite collection of values of the
object, $\{ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda_k)\}_{k=1}^{N}$ =
$\{(x(\lambda_k),y(\lambda_k))\}_{k=1}^{N}$, our goal is to reconstruct
$ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda)$ from smooth interpolations of each of its components. We
refer to these values as the \emph{data sites} and the set of values
$\{\lambda_k\}_{k=1}^N$ as the \emph{nodes}. Figure
\ref{fig:2D_illustration} illustrates this reconstruction problem, of
which the main ingredient is the interpolation of a function defined
on the unit circle.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{2DReconstruction}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of the parametric representation of a 2D object
$ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda)$ and the reconstruction from a finite number of data
sites. The top figure shows the 2D object together with discrete data
sites $ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda_k) = (x_k,y_k)$. The bottom left figure shows the $x$
component of the object in parametric space and its values at the
node set $\{\lambda_k\}_{k=1}^{N}$, while the right figure shows the
$y$ component and its corresponding values. The goal is to
reconstruct $x(\lambda)$ and $y(\lambda)$ from interpolations of these
values at the node sets shown and then use these to reconstruct
$ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda)$.}
\label{fig:2D_illustration}
\end{figure}
In 3D, we represent any of the objects using the following spherical
parametric notation:
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta) = (x(\lambda,\theta),y(\lambda,\theta),z(\lambda,\theta)),
\label{eq:3D_obj}
\end{align}
where $-\pi \leq \lambda \leq \pi$ and $-\pi/2 \leq \theta \leq \pi/2$.
Here the end conditions on $ \boldsymbol{x} $ in $\lambda$ are $ \boldsymbol{x} (-\pi,\theta) =
\boldsymbol{x} (\pi,\theta)$, while the end conditions in $\theta$ are
$ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\pi/2)= \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda+\pi,\pi/2)$ and $ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,-\pi/2)= \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda+\pi,-\pi/2)$
for $-\pi \leq \lambda \leq 0$ and $ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\pi/2) = \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda-\pi,\pi/2)$ and
$ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,-\pi/2) = \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda-\pi,-\pi/2)$ for $0 < \lambda \leq \pi$. These end
conditions on $\theta$ are to enforce continuity of $ \boldsymbol{x} $ at the poles of the
spherical coordinate system. In the case the object is a sphere of radius $r$, $ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta) =
(r\cos\lambda\cos\theta,r\sin\lambda\cos\theta,r\sin\theta)$. Similar to 2D, our
goal is to reconstruct a general object $ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta)$ from smooth
interpolations of each of its components which are given at some
finite collection of locations $\{ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda_k,\theta_k)\}_{k=1}^{N}$ =
$\{(x(\lambda_k,\theta_k),y(\lambda_k,\theta_k),z(\lambda_k,\theta_k))\}_{k=1}^{N}$.
We again refer to these values as the \emph{data sites} and
$\{(\lambda_k,\theta_k)\}_{k=1}^N$ as the \emph{nodes}. Figure
\ref{fig:3D_illustration} illustrates this reconstruction problem, of
which the main ingredient is the interpolation of a function defined
on the unit sphere.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{3DReconstruction}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of the parametric representation of a 3D object
$ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta)$ and the reconstruction from a finite number of data
sites. Top left figure shows the 3D object together with discrete
data sites
$\{(x(\lambda_k,\theta_k),y(\lambda_k,\theta_k),z(\lambda_k,\theta_k)\}_{k=1}^{N}$
represented as black solid spheres. Top right figure shows the $x$
component of the object in spherical parametric space and its values
at the node set $\{(\lambda_k,\theta_k)\}_{k=1}^N$ (marked by black
solid spheres), while the bottom left and right figures show the
respective $y$ and $z$ components and their corresponding values.
The goal is to reconstruct $x(\lambda,\theta)$, $y(\lambda,\theta)$, and
$z(\lambda,\theta)$ from interpolations of the values at the node sets
shown and then use these to reconstruct $ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta)$.}
\label{fig:3D_illustration}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Fourier Models} \label{sec:modeling_trig} Since the
modeling problems involve interpolation on the unit circle in 2D and
the unit sphere in 3D, a natural choice for constructing these
interpolants are Fourier based methods: trigonometric function for 2D
objects and spherical harmonics for 3D objects. These methods have
been used extensively for geometric modeling (see for
example~\cite{mcpeek-shen-farid09a} and the references therein). We
briefly review both of these interpolation techniques in the context
of Figures \ref{fig:2D_illustration} and \ref{fig:3D_illustration}.
Using the notation from Figure \ref{fig:2D_illustration}, we first
discuss the case of reconstructing the $x(\lambda)$ component of
$ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda)$. In the case that the number of nodes $N$ is even, we
consider a trigonometric interpolant to this data of the form
\begin{align}
p^x(\lambda) = c^x_{0} + \sum_{k=1}^{N/2}c^x_{2k-1} \cos k\lambda + \sum_{k=1}^{N/2-1}c^x_{2k} \sin k\lambda.
\label{eq:trig_interp}
\end{align}
While there is an analogous formula for odd values of $N$, we omit
this discussion and limit our current study to even values of $N$.
The coefficients $c^x_k$ are determined by the interpolation
conditions $p^x(\lambda_k) = x(\lambda_k)$, $k=1,\ldots,N$. The solution
to this problem can be written in terms of the following linear
system:
\begin{align}
\begin{bmatrix}
\vspace{0.1in}1 & \cos \lambda_1 & \sin \lambda_1 & \cdots & \cos \dfrac{N-2}{2}\lambda_1 & \sin \dfrac{N-2}{2}\lambda_1 & \cos \dfrac{N}{2}\lambda_1 \\
1 & \cos \lambda_2 & \sin \lambda_2 & \cdots & \cos \dfrac{N-2}{2}\lambda_2 & \sin \dfrac{N-2}{2}\lambda_2 & \cos \dfrac{N}{2}\lambda_2 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
1 & \cos \lambda_N & \sin \lambda_N & \cdots & \cos \dfrac{N-2}{2}\lambda_N & \sin \dfrac{N-2}{2}\lambda_N & \cos \dfrac{N}{2}\lambda_N
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
c_0^x\vspace{0.1in} \\
c_1^x\vspace{0.1in} \\
\vdots \\
c_{N-1}^x
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
x_1\vspace{0.1in} \\
x_2\vspace{0.1in} \\
\vdots \\
x_{N}
\end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:trig_linsys}
\end{align}
where $x_k = x(\lambda_k)$, $k=1,\ldots,N$. A similar construction to
\eqref{eq:trig_interp} is given for the $y(\lambda)$ component of
$ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda)$, which we denote by $p^{y}(\lambda)$. Our trigonometric
representation of a 2D object like the one in Figure
\ref{fig:2D_illustration} is given by
\begin{align}
{ \boldsymbol{p} }(\lambda) = (p^x(\lambda),p^y(\lambda)) \label{eq:2D_obj_trig}.
\end{align}
We turn our attention now to interpolation with spherical harmonics
and use the notation from Figure \ref{fig:3D_illustration} to describe
the reconstruction of the $x(\lambda,\theta)$ component of
$ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta)$. The dimension of the space of all spherical
harmonics of degree $M$ is given by $(M+1)^2$. For simplicity, we
thus restrict our attention to the case that the number of nodes is
given by $N = (M+1)^2$. In this case, we look for a spherical
harmonic interpolant of the form
\begin{align}
p^x(\lambda,\theta) = \sum_{\ell=0}^{M}\left[\sum_{m=0}^{\ell}c^x_{\ell,2m} Y_{\ell}^{2m}(\lambda,\theta) + \sum_{m=1}^{\ell}c^x_{\ell,2m-1}Y_{\ell}^{2m-1}(\lambda,\theta)\right],
\label{eq:sph_interp}
\end{align}
where $Y_{\ell}^{2m}$ and $Y_{\ell}^{2m-1}$ are defined as follows:
\begin{align}
Y_{\ell}^{2m}(\lambda,\theta) &:= \sqrt{\frac{2\ell +1}{4\pi}\frac{(\ell-m)!}{(\ell+m)!}}\cos(m\lambda)P_{\ell}^{m}(\sin\theta),\quad m=0,\ldots,\ell, \\
Y_{\ell}^{2m-1}(\lambda,\theta) &:= \sqrt{\frac{2\ell +1}{4\pi}\frac{(\ell-m)!}{(\ell+m)!}}\sin(m\lambda)P_{\ell}^{m}(\sin\theta),\quad m=1,\ldots,\ell.
\end{align}
Here $P_{\ell}^m$ is an associated Legendre function of degree $\ell$
and order $m$. The coefficients $c^x_k$ are determined by the
interpolation conditions $p^x(\lambda_k,\theta_k) = x(\lambda_k,\theta_k)$,
$k=1,\ldots,N$. The linear system corresponding to these conditions
is given by
\begin{align}
\begin{bmatrix}
Y_{0}^{0}(\lambda_1,\theta_1) & Y_{1}^{0}(\lambda_1,\theta_1) & Y_{1}^{1}(\lambda_1,\theta_1) & Y_{1}^{2}(\lambda_1,\theta_1) & \cdots \\
Y_{0}^{0}(\lambda_2,\theta_2) & Y_{1}^{0}(\lambda_2,\theta_2) & Y_{1}^{1}(\lambda_2,\theta_2) & Y_{1}^{2}(\lambda_2,\theta_2) & \cdots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
Y_{0}^{0}(\lambda_N,\theta_N) & Y_{1}^{0}(\lambda_N,\theta_N) & Y_{1}^{1}(\lambda_N,\theta_N) & Y_{1}^{2}(\lambda_N,\theta_N) & \cdots \\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
c^x_1 \\
c^x_2 \\
\vdots \\
c^x_N
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
x_1 \\
x_2 \\
\vdots \\
x_{N}
\end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:sph_linsys}
\end{align}
where $x_k = x(\lambda_k,\theta_k)$, $k=1,\ldots,N$. Unlike the
trigonometric case, this linear system can be singular depending on how
the nodes are arranged~\cite[\S 2]{FasshauerSchumaker:1998}. We avoid
this possibility by choosing the nodes in an ``optimal'' manner as
discussed in Section \ref{sec:implementation_param}. For a good
review of the properties of spherical harmonic interpolants
see~\cite{WomersleySloan:2001}. A similar construction to
\eqref{eq:sph_interp} is given for the $y(\lambda,\theta)$ and
$z(\lambda,\theta)$ components of $ \boldsymbol{x} (\lambda,\theta)$, which we denote by
$p^{y}(\lambda,\theta)$ and $p^{z}(\lambda,\theta)$. Our spherical harmonic
representation of a 3D object like the one in Figure
\ref{fig:3D_illustration} is given by
\begin{align}
{ \boldsymbol{p} }(\lambda,\theta) = (p^x(\lambda,\theta),p^y(\lambda,\theta),p^z(\lambda,\theta)).
\label{eq:3D_obj_sph}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{RBF Models}
\label{sec:modeling_rbf}
The RBF method is a popular tool for approximating multidimensional
scattered data. An excellent overview of the theory and application of
this method can be found in the two relatively recent books of
Fasshauer~\cite{Fasshauer:2007} and Wendland~\cite{Wendland:2004}. The
restriction of the RBF method to interpolation on a circle and on a
sphere began to receive considerable attention from a theoretical
standpoint starting in the mid 1990s (see~\cite[\S
6]{FasshauerSchumaker:1998} for a discussion). When restricted to
these domains, the RBF method is sometimes referred to as the
\emph{zonal basis function} (ZBF) or \emph{spherical basis function}
(SBF) method in the literature~\cite[Ch. 17]{Wendland:2004}. We will,
however, use the more popular term RBF to describe the interpolation
technique. Several studies have been devoted to providing error
estimates for RBF interpolation on circles and spheres; see, for
example,~\cite{JetterStocklerWard:1999,NarcSunWard:2007}. In the
first of these papers, it is shown these interpolants can provide
spectral accuracy provided the underlying target function is
sufficiently smooth. The latter of these studies gives error
estimates in the case that the target function belongs to some Sobolev
space. Recently, the RBF method has been successfully used for
approximating derivatives of scalar and vector-valued quantities on
the surface of a sphere and incorporated into methods for
solving partial differential equations numerically in
spherical
geometries~\cite{Gia:2005,FlyerWright:2007,FlyerWright:2009}.
The construction of the 2D and 3D RBF models of the objects is similar, so we discuss them together. Using the notation of Figures \ref{fig:2D_illustration} and \ref{fig:3D_illustration}, and focusing on the reconstructions of the $x(\lambda)$ and $x(\lambda,\theta)$ components of the objects, the corresponding RBF interpolants are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{2D}:&\quad s^x(\lambda) &= \sum_{k=1}^{N} c^x_k \phi\left(\sqrt{2 - 2\cos(\lambda-\lambda_k)}\right),
\label{eq:circ_rbf_interp} \\
\text{3D}:&\quad s^{x}(\lambda,\theta) &= \sum_{k=1}^{N} c^{x}_k \phi\left(\sqrt{2(1-\cos \theta \cos \theta_{k}\cos (\lambda -\lambda_{k})-\sin\theta \sin \theta_{k})}\right).
\label{eq:sph_rbf_interp}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\phi$ is some scalar-valued, positive (semi-) definite radial
kernel. The square root term in \eqref{eq:circ_rbf_interp} is just
the Euclidean distance between the points described in polar
coordinates by $\lambda$ and $\lambda_k$, while the square root term in
\eqref{eq:sph_rbf_interp} is similarly the Euclidean distance between
the points described in spherical coordinates by $(\lambda,\theta)$ and
$(\lambda_k,\theta_k)$. The coefficients $c^x_k$ in either
\eqref{eq:circ_rbf_interp} or \eqref{eq:sph_rbf_interp} are again
determined by the interpolation conditions. These conditions lead to
the following linear system of equations:
\begin{align}
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
\phi\left(r_{1,1}\right) & \cdots & \phi\left(r_{1,N}\right) \\
\phi\left(r_{2,1}\right) & \cdots & \phi\left(r_{2,N}\right) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\phi\left(r_{N,1}\right) & \cdots & \phi\left(r_{N,N}\right)
\end{bmatrix}}_{\displaystyle A}
\begin{bmatrix}
c^x_1 \\
c^x_2 \\
\vdots \\
c^x_N
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
x_1 \\
x_2 \\
\vdots \\
x_N
\end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:rbf_linsys}
\end{align}
where $x_k = x(\lambda_k)$ and $r_{j,k} = \sqrt{2 - 2\cos(\lambda_j -
\lambda_k)}$ for 2D objects, and $x_k = x(\lambda_k,\theta_k)$ and
$r_{j,k}$ $= \sqrt{2(1-\cos \theta_j \cos \theta_{k}\cos (\lambda_j
-\lambda_{k})-\sin\theta_j \sin \theta_{k})}$ for 3D objects. Note that
$r_{j,k} = r_{k,j}$ so that the linear system \eqref{eq:rbf_linsys} is
symmetric. More importantly, this linear system is guaranteed to be
non-singular for the appropriate choice of $\phi$. In this study we
restrict our attention to the multiquadric (MQ) and inverse
multiquadric (IMQ) radial kernels, which are popular in applications
and are given explicitly by
\begin{align}
\text{MQ:}\quad & \phi(r) = \sqrt{1 + (\varepsilon r)^2}, \label{eq:mq} \\
\text{IMQ:}\quad& \phi(r) = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{1 + (\varepsilon r)^2}}. \label{eq:imq}
\end{align}
Here $\varepsilon$ is called the shape parameter. For both the MQ and IMQ,
the linear system \eqref{eq:rbf_linsys} is guaranteed to be
non-singular (provided $\varepsilon > 0$). Furthermore, for the IMQ, the $A$
matrix in this linear system is guaranteed to be positive definite. A
full discussion of the non-singularity of \eqref{eq:rbf_linsys} for
various radial kernels can be found in either~\cite{Fasshauer:2007}
or~\cite{Wendland:2004}. We postpone the discussion of choosing $\varepsilon$
to Section \ref{sec:implementation_rbf}. We do, however, note that in
the limit that $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$ a RBF interpolant on a circle
converges to a trigonometric interpolant, while a RBF interpolant on a
sphere converges to a spherical harmonic
interpolant~\cite{FornbergPiret:2007} (strictly speaking this was only
shown for the case of the sphere, but the arguments
from~\cite{FornbergPiret:2007} carry directly over to the case of the
circle as well). Thus, trigonometric and spherical harmonic
interpolation can be viewed as a special case of RBF interpolation.
We denote the RBF representations of a 2D object like the one in
Figure \ref{fig:2D_illustration} by
\begin{align}
{ \boldsymbol{s} }(\lambda) = (s^x(\lambda),s^y(\lambda)),
\label{eq:2D_obj_rbf}
\end{align}
where $s^y(\lambda)$ interpolates $y(\lambda)$ and has the form of \eqref{eq:circ_rbf_interp}. Similarly we denote the RBF representation of a 3D object like the one in Figure \ref{fig:3D_illustration} by
\begin{align}
{ \boldsymbol{s} }(\lambda,\theta) = (s^x(\lambda,\theta),s^y(\lambda,\theta),s^z(\lambda,\theta)),
\label{eq:3D_obj_rbf}
\end{align}
where $s^y(\lambda,\theta)$ and $s^z(\lambda,\theta)$ interpolate $y(\lambda,\theta)$ and $z(\lambda,\theta)$, respectively, and have the form of \eqref{eq:sph_rbf_interp}.
We conclude this section by noting that the RBF method is more
flexible than the Fourier-based methods in regard to altering the
parameterization for the objects. For example, if one were to find
that a more general ellipse or ellipsoid provided a better
parameterization of the object than a circle or sphere, then the RBF
method can be naturally extended to this new parameterization. The
only change to \eqref{eq:circ_rbf_interp} or \eqref{eq:sph_rbf_interp}
would be to replace the distance measure in the argument of
$\phi$ with the appropriate (Euclidean) distance measure on the target
object for the parametrization. More general objects, including ones
with higher genus, are also possible; see~\cite{FuselierWright:2010}
for a theoretical and numerical discussion.
\section{2D Platelet Modeling Results}
\label{sec:Results2D}
In this section, we present the results of our comparative study
between using the piecewise linear approach as traditionally
used within the IB method and our two alternative parametric
approaches in 2D: RBF and Fourier (trigonometric polynomials)
interpolation. Recall that within an IB timestep, the typical
procedure employed is as follows. Given the locations of the immersed
boundaries, both the normals and forces on an object are computed. The
forces are then projected to an Eulerian grid and used as
right-hand-side forcing to the Navier-Stokes equations. Based upon an
update velocity field, the positions of the IB points are updated. In
our comparison, we thus examine the geometric modeling capabilities,
accuracy of the normal computations, and accuracy of the computation
of the forces. As discussed in the previous section, we distinguish
between the data sites and sample sites for the parametric models.
Data sites are the positions along the object at which the parametric
models are interpolating. It is at these positions that we propose
updating the geometric information of the object (for instance, at the
conclusion of a timestep when the object's movement within
the flow field is updated). Sample sites (which are normally more
numerous compared to the data sites) are the positions along the
object at which normals and forces are computed. It is from these
positions that we propose projecting the IB forces. In all
experiments, $100$ sample sites are used as this represents the
typical number of IB points that would be used per platelet object in
a traditional 2D immersed boundary computation (and hence a reasonable
standard against which to compare our new methods for the purposes of
determining the feasibility of replacement). All errors are computed
by taking the maximum of the two-norm difference between the
approximations and the true values.
\subsection{Test Cases}
\label{sec:results2d_testcases}
We consider 2 prototypical test objects and define them based upon
perturbations of idealized shapes (an ellipse and a circle). Let
\(\textbf{x}_{ideal}\) be a function representing the idealized,
unperturbed shapes as given by the following equation:
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{x} _{ideal} = (x_c + a \cos \lambda, y_c + b \sin \lambda)
\end{equation}
where $-\pi \leq \lambda \leq \pi$. Here $(x_c,y_c)$ denotes the object
center and $a$ and $b$ denote the radii. The two objects used for our
comparison are defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{\underline{Object 1}:}\quad \boldsymbol{x} _{2d\,obj 1} &=& \left[1.0 + A \exp\left(\frac{-(1-\cos \lambda)^2}{\sigma_1}\right)\right] \, \boldsymbol{x} _{ideal}, \label{eq:obj1_2d}\\
\text{\underline{Object 2}:}\quad \boldsymbol{x} _{2d\,obj 2} &=& \left[1.0 + B \exp\left(\frac{(-(1-\cos^{2}\lambda)^{1.5})}{\sigma_2}\right)\right] \, \boldsymbol{x} _{ideal} \label{eq:obj2_2d}.
\end{eqnarray}
For Object 1, we use the following parameters: $x_c = y_c = 0.9$,
$a=0.04$, $b=0.05$, $A = 0.09$ and $\sigma_1 = 0.1$. For Object 2, we
use the following parameters: $x_c = y_c = 0.2$, $a=b=0.1$, $B = 0.04$
and $\sigma_2 = 0.9$.
Figure \ref{fig:diagram2d} displays the two test objects
\eqref{eq:obj1_2d} and \eqref{eq:obj2_2d}. Object 1 is a smooth (in
terms of regularity) yet highly perturbed ellipse, while Object 2 is a
non-smooth perturbation of a circle. It can be shown that the
parameterization \eqref{eq:obj2_2d} for this object has only
two continuous derivatives.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6.0in]{2d_Objects.png}
\end{center}
\caption{The test objects \eqref{eq:obj1_2d} and \eqref{eq:obj2_2d} for the 2D study.}
\label{fig:diagram2d}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison of Reconstructing the Objects}
\label{sec:results2d_geoerror}
We first examine the errors in reconstructing the objects using the
RBF and Fourier approaches. In Figure \ref{fig:geom2d} we present the
errors in reconstructing the objects as a function of the number of
data sites. The error at the sample sites gives an indication of the
modeling capability of the RBF and Fourier methods. We can see from
this figure that both the RBF and Fourier models are converging at a
spectral rate for Object 1 (left figure), but at a much slower rate
for Object 2 (right figure). This is expected since Object 1 is
infinitely smooth, while Object 2 has only two continuous derivatives.
The RBF and Fourier models perform similarly for Object 1. For Object
2, the RBF model shows better reconstruction properties as the number
of sample sites increases above 20. No direct comparison with the
piecewise linear model is given as the piecewise linear IB method
always samples at the interpolating points.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{Obj1_R.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{Obj2_R.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Error in the reconstruction of the shape of the objects (left
is Object 1 and right is Object 2) evaluated at $M=100$ sample sites
as a function of the number of data sites. Circles denote the errors
in the RBF model and squares denote the errors for the Fourier
model. For the RBF model, the shape parameter for Object 1 was set
to $\varepsilon=0.9$ and for Object 2, it was set to $\varepsilon=3.6$.}
\label{fig:geom2d}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Shape Parameter Study}
\label{sec:results2d_shape}
In this section, we examine the impact of the shape parameter on the
reconstruction errors of the RBF model. Figure \ref{fig:2dshape1}
displays the reconstruction errors for the two objects as a function
of the shape parameter using $N=24$ data sites. A similar comparison
for $N=56$ data sites is given in Figure \ref{fig:2dshape2}. For $\varepsilon
\lesssim 0.85$, it was necessary to use the RBF-QR
algorithm~\cite{FornbergPiret:2007} (adapted to the unit circle) to
compute the model in a numerically stable manner for the $N=56$ case.
We can see from both figures that the errors are smallest for
$\varepsilon\approx 0$ for the smooth Object 1 and increase quite dramatically
as $\varepsilon$ increases. For the non-smooth Object 2, there is a much
larger range of $\varepsilon$ for which the errors are small, and this range
includes values for which the RBF-Direct approach can be used without
issues of numerical instabilities.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{RvsE_24.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Errors in the RBF reconstructions of the objects using $N=24$ data sites and $M=100$ sample sites as a function of the shape parameter.}
\label{fig:2dshape1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{RvsE_56.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Errors in the RBF reconstructions of the objects using $N=56$
data sites and $M=100$ sample sites as a function of the shape
parameter.}
\label{fig:2dshape2}
\end{figure}
We used Figures \ref{fig:2dshape1} and \ref{fig:2dshape2} to
help guide our selection of $\varepsilon$ for the numerical experiments.
However, we found from extensive tests on other objects, that if the
object is smooth, and RBF-Direct is to be used, then one generally
wants to choose $\varepsilon$ as small as the numerical conditioning allows.
For non-smooth objects there is much more freedom in the choice and
the results will not vary that greatly. It is unclear if we should
expect smooth or non-smooth objects in an IB simulation.
We conclude this section by noting that there are several algorithms
that have been devoted to selecting an ``optimal'' shape
parameter~\cite[\S 17]{Fasshauer:2007}. However, these are too costly
to be used every time-step of an IB simulation. We are thus
advocating using a fixed $\varepsilon$ for all time-steps. This value could
be selected based on an expected typical shape for the immersed
objects and one of the algorithms from~\cite[\S 17]{Fasshauer:2007} or
from trial and error. We will report on these strategies in a follow
up paper where the RBF models are used in actual IB method
simulations.
\subsection{Comparison of Normal Vectors and Forces}
\label{sec:results2d_force}
We next focus on the errors in the parametric models in the
approximation of the normal vectors to the objects and the forces. In
this case, we compare the results to the traditional piecewise linear
models.
Figure \ref{fig:normals2d} displays the errors in the normal vectors
at $M=100$ sample sites as a function of the number of data sites $N$
for both the RBF and Fourier models. A solid line denoting the errors
in the normal vectors for $100$ IB points is given for comparison
using the method for the piecewise linear models discussed in Section
\ref{sec:implementation_pwl}. We can see from this figure that at
about $N=18$ data sites the errors for both the RBF and Fourier models
of Object 1 are lower than the piecewise linear model. The errors are
similar between both parametric models and decrease rapidly with
increasing $N$. The results for Object 2 are even more favorable for
the parametric models compared to the piecewise linear model. For
increasing $N$ the RBF model appears to have an advantage over the
Fourier model.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{Obj1_N.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{Obj2_N.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Errors in the approximations of the normal vectors to the
objects at $100$ sample sites as a function of the number of
data sites $N$. The left plot is for Object 1, while the right one
is for Object 2. The line denotes the error for the method used in
the piecewise linear model with $100$ IB points. Circles denote the
errors for the RBF model and squares denote the Fourier model. For
the RBF model, $\varepsilon=0.9$ for Object 1 and $\varepsilon=3.6$ for Object 2.}
\label{fig:normals2d}
\end{figure}
We lastly examine the errors in the force computation incurred by the
two parametric models and the traditional piecewise linear
model. Figure \ref{fig:force2d} shows the errors in forces evaluated
at $100$ sample sites as a function of the number of data sites
$N$. In all experiments, the force constant $K_0$ is set to $0.2$.
The solid line in Figure \ref{fig:force2d} denotes the error for the
piecewise linear model computed at $100$ IB points. For Object 1, we
can see from the left plot of this figure that the errors for both
parametric models are lower than the piecewise linear model starting
at about $N=30$ data sites. Again, both the RBF and Fourier models
give similar results for this object. For the non-smooth Object 2, it
requires about $N=32$ data sites for the RBF model to match the errors
of the piecewise linear model, while it takes approximately $N=56$
data sites for the Fourier model to give similar errors. We note
that the errors for both the RBF and Fourier models do not fall as sharply
for the non-smooth Object 2 as the number of datasites is increased. This is
because Object 2 is generated from a function that has only two derivatives,
and the force computation involves computing a second derivative. It therefore
follows that these global methods would therefore not converge as they would
in the case of the smooth Object 1.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{Obj1_F.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{Obj2_F.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Errors in the approximation of the forces evaluated at
$M=100$ sample sites as a function of the number of data sites $N$
for Object 1 (left) and Object 2 (right). The black line denotes the
errors for a piecewise linear model with $100$ IB points. Circles
denote the errors for the RBF model and squares denote the errors
for the Fourier model. For the RBF model, $\varepsilon=0.9$ for Object 1 and $\varepsilon=3.6$ for
Object 2.}
\label{fig:force2d}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison of the Computational Cost}
\label{sec:results2d_compcost}
We conclude the 2D results experiments with an examination of the
computational cost associated with the three methods. We measure the
computational cost as the elapsed wallclock time required to compute
the interpolation coefficients, evaluate the interpolants, compute the
normal vectors and compute the forces. Under the assumption that all
objects will be evaluated at the same parametric sites at each
timestep, for both parametric models we pre-compute the matrices for
evaluating the interpolants, the derivatives, and the force operator
once the interpolation coefficients have been determined (see Section
\ref{sec:implementation_param} for details). We do not account for
this setup time in our timing results.
Since for the piecewise linear model the number of evaluation sites is
the same as the number of data sites, the total computational cost
includes only the time required to compute the normal vectors and
forces (see Section \ref{sec:implementation_pwl} for details).
All computations were performed in \textsc{Matlab\;} version 7.10.0499 (64-bit)
on a Windows desktop with a Intel Core i7 Sandy Bridge 3.4 GHz
processor and 4 GB of 1600 MHz RAM. Times were measured using the tic
and toc functions in \textsc{Matlab\;}. All results presented are averages of a
100 trials and are in seconds.
Figure \ref{fig:results2d_compcost} displays the elapsed time between
the RBF, Fourier, and traditional piecewise linear models. The results
for the RBF and Fourier models are displayed as a function of the
number of data sites $N$ for a fixed number of $M=100$ sample sites.
The results for the piecewise linear model are for a fixed number of
$100$ IB points. We can see from the figure that the parametric
models require significantly less time than the piecewise linear
model. For $N=56$ data sites, the parametric models are over one order
of magnitude faster.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{Timings_2D.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Elapsed wallclock time (in seconds) for one object to perform
interpolation, evaluation, the computation of normal vectors, and
the computation of forces at $M=100$ sample sites as a function of
the number of data sites $N$. The piecewise linear computations
were done with $100$ IB points for comparison.}
\label{fig:results2d_compcost}
\end{figure}
We note that all the evaluation and derivative computations for the
parametric models can be formulated in terms of matrices in order to
avoid the need to first solve for the coefficients every time step of
the IB simulation. Thus, the results we present are not optimal in
terms of computational time. If, however, during the IB simulation
the sample sites change, then the step of going first through the
coefficients as we have done will be necessary.
\section{3D Platelet Modeling Results}
\label{sec:Results3D}
Following a similar approach to the last section, we present here the results from a comparative study between using the traditional piecewise linear approach as used within the IB method and our two alternative parametric approaches in 3D: RBF and Fourier (spherical harmonics) interpolation. We examine the reconstruction capabilities of the models and the accuracy in computing normal vectors and forces. As in the 2D tests, we distinguish between data sites and sample sites. In all experiments unless otherwise specified, $M=1024$ sample sites are used as this represents the typical number of IB points that would be used per platelet object in a traditional 3D IB computation (and hence a reasonable standard against which to compare our new methods for the purposes of determining the feasibility of replacement). All errors are computed by taking the maximum of the two-norm difference between the approximations and the true values.
\subsection{Test Cases}
\label{sec:results3d_testcases}
We again consider 2 prototypical test objects and define them based on perturbations of idealized shapes (an ellipsoid and a sphere). Let \(\textbf{x}_{ideal}\) be a function representing the idealized, unperturbed shapes as given by the following equation:
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{x} _{ideal} = (x_c + a \cos \lambda \cos \theta, y_c + b \sin \lambda \cos \theta, z_c + c \sin \theta),
\end{equation}
where $-\pi \leq \lambda \geq \pi$ and $-\frac{\pi}{2}\leq \theta \leq \frac{\pi}{2}$. Here $(x_c,y_c,z_c)$ denotes the object center, $a$ and $b$ are the equatorial radii, and $c$ is the polar radius. The two objects used for our comparison are defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{\underline{Object 1}: }\quad \boldsymbol{x} _{3d\,obj 1} &=& \left[1.0 + A \exp\left(\frac{r_c^2}{\sigma_1}\right)\right]\, \boldsymbol{x} _{ideal}, \label{eq:obj1_3d}\\
\text{\underline{Object 2}: }\quad \boldsymbol{x} _{3d\,obj 2} &=& \left[1.0 + B \exp\left(\frac{r_c^{2.5}}{\sigma_2}\right)\right]\, \boldsymbol{x} _{ideal}. \label{eq:obj2_3d}
\end{eqnarray}
where $r_c = 1-\cos \theta \cos \theta_c \cos(\lambda-\lambda_c)-\sin \theta \sin \theta_c$.
For Object 1, we use the following parameters: $x_c = y_c = z_c = 0.9$,
$a=0.1$, $b=0.2$, $c=0.09$, $A = 0.09$ and $\sigma_1 = 0.2$.
For Object 2, we use the following parameters:
$x_c = y_c = 0.1$, $z_c = 0.2$, $a = b= c = 0.1$, $B = 0.04$ and $\sigma_2 = \frac{16}{25}$.
For both objects $\lambda_c = 0$ and $\theta_c = \frac{\pi}{2}$.
Figure \ref{fig:diagram3d} displays the two test objects
\eqref{eq:obj1_3d} and \eqref{eq:obj2_3d}. Object 1 is a smooth (in
terms of regularity) yet highly perturbed ellipsoid, while the Object
2 is a non-smooth perturbation of a sphere. It can be shown that the
parameterization \eqref{eq:obj2_3d} has only three continuous derivatives.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6.0in]{3d_Objects.png}
\end{center}
\caption{The test objects \eqref{eq:obj1_3d} and \eqref{eq:obj2_3d} for the 3D study.}
\label{fig:diagram3d}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison of Reconstructing the Objects}
\label{sec:results3d_geoerror}
As in the 2D results, we first examine the errors in reconstructing
the objects using the two parametric models. Figure \ref{fig:geom3d}
displays the errors in reconstructing the objects as a function of the
square root of the number of data sites $N$. We use $\sqrt{N}$ since
these are 2D objects and thus the reciprocal of this value
gives a good measure of the spacing between data sites. These errors
give a indication of the modeling capability of the RBF and Fourier
methods. The results are similar to what we observed in 2D. For the
smooth Object 1 (left plot in Figure \ref{fig:geom3d}), the RBF and
Fourier models are converging at a spectral rate, but at a much slower
rate for non-smooth Object 2. The RBF and Fourier models are giving
similar errors for Object 1, with a few values of $N$ where the spherical
harmonic method is clearly better. For Object 2, the RBF model
consistently gives better results than the spherical harmonic model as
$N$ increases. No direct comparison with the piecewise linear model is
given as the piecewise linear IB method always samples at the
interpolating points.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{3dObj1_R.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{3dObj2_R.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Error in the reconstruction of the shape of the objects (left is Object 1 and right is Object 2) evaluated at $M=1024$ sample sites
as a function of the square root of the number of data sites $N$. Circles denote the errors in the RBF model and squares denote the errors for the Fourier model. For the RBF model, the shape parameter for Object 1 was set to $\varepsilon=0.9$ and for Object 2 was
set to $\varepsilon=1.5$. Data sites for the RBF model are the ME points, while the data sites for the Fourier model are the MD points.}
\label{fig:geom3d}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Shape Parameter Study}
\label{sec:results3d_shape}
Figures \ref{fig:3dshape1} and \ref{fig:3dshape2} display the reconstruction errors of the RBF model for the two objects as a function of the shape parameter using $N=256$ data sites and $N=529$ data sites, respectively. The left plot of each of these figures contains the results for the ME points, while the right plot contains the results for the MD points. For $\varepsilon \lesssim 0.85$, it was necessary to use the RBF-QR algorithm~\cite{FornbergPiret:2007} to compute the model in a numerically stable manner for the $N=529$ case. We see similar results to the 2D shape parameter study from Section \ref{sec:results2d_shape}. For the smooth Object 1 and the MD points the errors decrease rapidly as $\varepsilon$ decreases and reach a minimum near $\varepsilon=0$ (at $\varepsilon=0$ in the $N=256$ case), which correspond to a spherical harmonic interpolant on these nodes. For the ME points we see the error rise right as $\varepsilon$ gets to zero. For the non-smooth Object 2 and both types of nodes, we see that the error reaches a minimum at a larger value of $\varepsilon$ that is well within the numerically safe range of RBF-Direct. The errors then increase slightly as $\varepsilon$ decreases toward zero (with a jump up at $\varepsilon=0$ in the case of the ME points). From both Figures \ref{fig:3dshape1} and \ref{fig:3dshape2}, we see that the errors in the RBF model are much better for the MD points when $\varepsilon$ is near zero, but as $\varepsilon$ increases away from zero the errors are better for the ME points.
We make similar comments to those at the end of Section \ref{sec:results2d_shape} in regards to selection of the shape parameter for the 3D case, and thus refer the reader there.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{RvsE_256_ME.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{RvsE_256_MD.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Error in the shape at $1024$ sample sites
as a function of the shape parameter for $256$ data sites
on Object 1 (solid circles) and Object 2 (open circles) using
minimal energy points (left) and maximal determinant points (right)
for the data sites.}
\label{fig:3dshape1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{RvsE_529_ME.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{RvsE_529_MD.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Error in the shape at $1024$ sample sites
as a function of the shape parameter for $529$ data sites
on Object 1 (solid circles) and Object 2 (open circles) using
minimal energy points (left) and maximal determinant points (right)
for the data sites.}
\label{fig:3dshape2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison of Normal Vectors and Forces}
\label{sec:results3d_force}
We next focus on the errors in the parametric models in the approximation of the normal vectors to the objects and the forces. In the case of computing the normal vectors, we compare the results to the traditional piecewise linear models based on triangulations of the surface. As discussed in Section \ref{sec:implementation_pwl}, a comparison against the traditional piecewise linear 3D force model is not appropriate since this model is described purely algorithmically, and hence the underlying material constitutive model is not known and cannot be computed exactly even though the shape is known analytically.
Figure \ref{fig:normals3d} displays the errors in the normal vectors at $M=1024$
sample sites as a function of the square root of the number of data sites $N$. The solid and dashed lines in both plots from this figure denote the errors in the normal vectors at $1024$ and $10242$ IB points. We see that increasing the number of IB points, decreases the errors in the normal vectors. However, unlike the 2D case, both parametric models always give better results in the normal vector computations even for the high value of $10242$ IB points. Additionally, the errors in these computations for Object 1 are similar for the RBF and Fourier models. For Object 2, the RBF model gives consistently better results for increasing data sites $N$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{3dObj1_N.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{3dObj2_N.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Errors in the approximations of the normal vectors to the 3D objects at $M=1024$ sample sites as a function of the square root of the number of data sites $N$. The left plot is for Object 1, while the right one is for Object 2. The solid line denotes the error for the method used in the piecewise linear model with $1024$ IB points and the dashed line corresponds to the error with $10242$ IB points. Circles denote the errors for the RBF model and squares denote the Fourier model. For the RBF model, $\varepsilon=0.9$ for Object 1 and $\varepsilon=1.5$. Data sites for the RBF model are the ME points, while the data sites for the Fourier model are the MD points.}
\label{fig:normals3d}
\end{figure}
We lastly focus on the errors in the computation of the forces that occur in both parametric models. Figure \ref{fig:force3d} displays the errors in forces evaluated at $1024$ sample sites as a function of the square root of the number of data sites $N$. In all experiments, both the coefficient of surface tension $\gamma$ and the spring constant $K_0$ are set to 0.2. We see that the results between smooth and non-smooth objects are consistent with those from the shape reconstruction and normal vector approximations.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{3dObj1_F.png}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{3dObj2_F.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Errors in the approximations of the forces evaluated at $M=1024$ sample sites
as a function of the square root of the number of data sites $N$
for Object 1 (left) and Object 2 (right). Circles denote the errors for the RBF model and
squares denote the Fourier model. For the RBF model, $\varepsilon=0.9$ for Object 1 and $\varepsilon=1.5$. Data sites for the RBF model are the ME points, while the data sites for the Fourier model are the MD points.}
\label{fig:force3d}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison of the Computational Cost}
\label{sec:results3d_compcost}
We conclude the 3D results experiments by examining the computational cost associated with the three methods. As in the 2D experiments, we measure the computational cost as the elapsed wallclock time required to compute the interpolation coefficients, evaluate the interpolants, compute the normal vectors and compute the forces. We pre-compute and store the $LU$ decomposition of the spherical harmonic interpolation matrix \eqref{eq:sph_linsys} and the Cholesky decomposition $LL^T$ of the RBF interpolation matrix \eqref{eq:rbf_linsys}. We also pre-compute matrices for evaluating the interpolants, the derivatives, and the force operator once the interpolation coefficients have been determined (see Section \ref{sec:implementation_param} for details). We do not account for these pre-computations in our timing results. As in 2D, all computations were performed in \textsc{Matlab\;} using the machine described in Section \ref{sec:results2d_compcost}.
Since for the piecewise linear model the number of evaluation sites is the
same as the number of data sites, the total computational cost includes only the time required to compute the normal vectors and forces (see Section \ref{sec:implementation_pwl} for details), we do not include the time to compute the triangulation of the surface.
Figure \ref{fig:timings3d} displays the elapsed time between the RBF, Fourier, and traditional piecewise linear models. The results for the RBF and Fourier models are displayed as a function of the number of data sites $N$ for a fixed number of $M=1024$ sample sites. Two results are presented for the piecewise linear model: one with $1024$ IB points (solid) line and one with $10242$ IB points (dashed line). We can see from the figure that the parametric models require significantly less time than the piecewise linear model, especially for the $10242$ case. For $N=529$ data sites, the parametric models are over one order of magnitude faster than the piecewise linear model with $1024$ IB points and nearly 3 orders of magnitude better with $10242$ IB points.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{Timings_3D.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Elapsed wallclock time (in seconds) for one object
to perform interpolation, evaluation, the computation of normal vectors, and
the computation of forces at $M=1024$ sample sites as a function of the number
of data sites $N$. The piecewise linear computations were done with $1024$ IB points (solid line) and $10242$ IB points (dashed line) for comparison.}
\label{fig:timings3d}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary}\label{sec:summary}
The IB method is a common numerical methodology for applications involving fluid structure interactions. Our particular interest in this method is in simulating platelet aggregation during blood clotting. In this application, the platelets are modeled as immersed elastic structures whose shape changes dynamically in response to blood flow and chemistry. One of the fundamental ingredients of this application of the IB method (and many others involving immersed structures) is how to model the platelets geometrically, so that internal structural forces can be computed at specified locations on the platelet surface. The current strategy is to use piecewise linear models for representing the platelets. In this paper we have presented two alternative geometric models for platelets: RBFs and Fourier-based methods. Both of these models are based on a parametric representation of the surface using polar coordinates in 2D and spherical coordinates in 3D. This choice of parameterization is motivated by the observed shape of platelets both during their inactive and active states. We have described how these new models can be used for constructing and maintaining the platelet's representation, computing the normal vectors to the platelet surface, and computing the internal structural forces. We have presented numerical comparisons between the traditional piecewise linear models and the new RBF and Fourier-based models in both 2D and 3D. Our findings indicate that both the RBF and Fourier methods provide viable alternatives to the traditional approach in terms of geometric modeling accuracy, force accuracy, and computational efficiency.
Although both the RBF and Fourier-based methods provided comparable results in terms of error characteristics and computational efficiency, we would advocate the use of the RBF-based models for the following reasons:
\begin{itemize}
\item they are easier to implement;
\item they have accuracy similar to that of Fourier methods for smoothly-perturbed objects with similar computational costs;
\item they are more accurate than Fourier methods for roughly perturbed objects with similar computational costs;
\item they are more flexible than Fourier methods in terms of changing the underlying parameterizations of the objects (\emph{e.g.} changing to an elliptical parameterization rather than polar)~\cite{FuselierWright:2010}.
\end{itemize}
One issue with the RBF models is how to choose an appropriate shape parameter. We will study this issue as part of our next step in applying the RBF-based models in an IB simulation. This step will involve implementing the RBF-based models in a full IB simulation of platelet aggregation. The simulation will require projection of the forces from the sample points to the Eulerian mesh, computation of the Navier-Stokes system with forcing based upon the platelets, and then movement of the platelets via updating of the RBF data points. We will study how the shape parameter affects the simulations and compare the results of these simulations to those based on the traditional piecewise linear models for platelets. |
\section{Introduction}
Lattice spin models have attracted continuous research activity, from
the early days of quantum mechanics until the present. Unfortunately,
only very few spin models can be solved analytically and in the
thermodynamic limit, with geometries usually restricted to one
dimension~\cite{Bax82,MC10}. Numeric methods, therefore, are
indispensable for an understanding of quantum spin models. Density
matrix renormalisation~\cite{Wh92} and related variational approaches
have revolutionised the study of one-dimensional systems and are able to
deliver very precise results for eigenstates and correlation
functions. However, two-dimensional spin systems, systems with
frustrated interactions~\cite{LMM11}, and dynamic correlations in such
systems are still a domain for ``exact'' iterative methods that
operate with the full Hamiltonian matrix of a finite cluster. Taking
advantage of symmetries increases the accessible cluster size,
which is crucial for significant results.
In this work we consider spin models on finite lattices with periodic
boundary conditions and describe an efficient approach for the
construction of a translation symmetric basis of the corresponding
Hilbert space. The underlying ideas are related to divide-and-conquer
strategies and fast Fourier transform. The core decomposition trick we
use was invented more than two decades ago by H.\,Q.~Lin~\cite{Li90},
but for unknown reasons did not really catch on. For many years the
symmetrised Hilbert space dimensions reached in studies of quantum
spin models therefore lagged behind, compared to simulations of
Hubbard-type models or electron-phonon models.
\section{Standard approach}\label{sec:tradition}
Let us start with a short review of the common method for the
construction of translation symmetric spin states and the performance
issues connected to it. Consider a quantum spin model with translation
symmetry on a one-dimensional lattice with $n$ sites and periodic
boundary conditions, $\vec{s}_n \equiv \vec{s}_0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ham}
H = \sum_{i,j} J_{j-i}\ \vec{s}_i\cdot\vec{s}_j\,.
\end{equation}
The Hamiltonian $H$ commutes with the total spin and its components
$S^\alpha=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} s_i^\alpha$, $\alpha\in\{x,y,z\}$, and with
the translation operator
\begin{equation}\label{eq:trans}
T: \vec{s}_i \to \vec{s}_{i+1}\,.
\end{equation}
Assuming local spins with amplitude $|\vec{s}_i| = 1/2$, the Hilbert
space of the $n$-site system is the product of $n$ two-dimensional
spaces and has dimension $2^n$. Using the conservation of $S^z$, this
space can be decomposed into $n+1$ subspaces corresponding to the
eigenvalues of $S^z$, $-n/2,-n/2+1,\dots,n/2$. Fixing $u=S^z+n/2$, a
subspace is spanned by all products of $u$ up-spins and $n-u$
down-spins (the two eigenstates of $s_i^z$) and its dimension is
$\binom{n}{u}$, where obviously $\sum_{u=0}^{n} \binom{n}{u} = 2^n$.
On a computer, these states are usually represented as bit patterns of
length $n$, and the above decomposition is equivalent to grouping
patterns according to their digit sum. Understanding bit patterns as
integers defines an order and allows for the construction of ordered
lists, which can be efficiently searched for specific patterns.
The above Hamiltonian also conserves the amplitude of the total spin,
$\vec{S}^2$, but the construction of the corresponding eigenstates is
more involved and rarely adopted in numeric computations on finite
clusters. Instead, lattice symmetries are used to further decompose
spaces of given $S^z$ into smaller subspaces. As the title implies,
in this work we focus on the translation symmetry.
Since the Hamiltonian $H$ commutes with the translation $T$, the
matrix elements of $H$ between different eigenspaces of $T$
vanish. Thus, if $H$ is expressed in an orthonormal basis of
eigenstates of $T$, the original problem splits into $n$ independent
pieces, each having a dimension roughly a factor of $n$ smaller. The
projection operator
\begin{equation}
P_k = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} e^{2\pi i j k/n} T^j
\end{equation}
maps an arbitrary state onto an eigenstate of $T$ with eigenvalue
$\exp(-2\pi i k/n)$, namely
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
T P_k \ket{\psi} & =
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} e^{2\pi i j k/n} T^{j+1} \ket{\psi}\\
& = \exp(-2\pi i k/n)\,P_k \ket{\psi}\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here we used $T^n=1$, which also implies $\exp(-2\pi i k) = 1$ and
$k\in\mathbb{Z}$. Due to the periodicity there are only $n$ distinct
projectors and it suffices to consider the momenta
$k=0$, $1$, $\dots$, $(n-1)$.
The projector $P_k$ maps states, which are related to each other by an
arbitrary translation, $\ket{\phi} = T^j \ket{\psi}$, onto the
same eigenstate of $T$ (up to a phase factor). To avoid this ambiguity
and to obtain a symmetrised basis we need to partition the set
of all $S^z$ eigenstates, $\mathcal{S}$, into orbits, i.e., disjoint
subsets $\mathcal{S}_r$ that are closed under the translation group,
\begin{equation}
\forall \ket{\psi} \in \mathcal{S}_r:
\ T^j \ket{\psi} \in \mathcal{S}_r \,.
\end{equation}
Each orbit can be represented by one of its elements. For instance, if
we use bit patterns to represent $S^z$ eigenstates, we can sort all
elements of an orbit by the corresponding integer values and choose
the smallest as the representative of the orbit. All other members of
this orbit are obtained from the representative by applying all
translations $T^j$, $j=1, \dots, (n-1)$. Figure~\ref{fig:orbits4}
illustrates this decomposition for the case $n=4$, where $\mathcal{S}$
contains $2^4=16$ elements which belong to $6$ disjoint orbits. The
sizes of the orbits differ, since some of the bit patterns are
invariant under non-trivial subgroups of the full translation group of
the $n$-site lattice. The orbit size is then given by $n$ divided by
the order of the subgroup.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[<-,>=stealth,node distance=4mm,semithick,
dot dashed/.style={dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt on 3pt off 1pt}]
\node (n1) {\textbf{0000}};
\node (n2) [below of=n1] {\textbf{0001}};
\node (n3) [below of=n2] {0010};
\node (n4) [below of=n3] {\textbf{0011}};
\node (n5) [below of=n4] {0100};
\node (n6) [below of=n5] {\textbf{0101}};
\node (n7) [below of=n6] {0110};
\node (n8) [below of=n7] {\textbf{0111}};
\node (n9) [below of=n8] {1000};
\node (n10) [below of=n9] {1001};
\node (n11) [below of=n10] {1010};
\node (n12) [below of=n11] {1011};
\node (n13) [below of=n12] {1100};
\node (n14) [below of=n13] {1101};
\node (n15) [below of=n14] {1110};
\node (n16) [below of=n15] {\textbf{1111}};
\path (n1) edge [loop left] (n1);
\path[densely dashed] (n2) edge [bend left=90] (n3);
\path[densely dashed] (n3) edge [bend right=90] (n5);
\path[densely dashed] (n5) edge [bend left=90] (n9);
\path[densely dashed] (n9) edge [bend left=90] (n2);
\path[dot dashed] (n4) edge [bend left=90] (n7);
\path[dot dashed] (n7) edge [bend right=90] (n13);
\path[dot dashed] (n10) edge [bend left=90] (n4);
\path[dot dashed] (n13) edge [bend right=90] (n10);
\path (n6) edge [bend left=90] (n11);
\path (n11) edge [bend left=90] (n6);
\path[densely dotted] (n8) edge [bend right=90] (n15);
\path[densely dotted] (n12) edge [bend right=90] (n8);
\path[densely dotted] (n14) edge [bend left=90] (n12);
\path[densely dotted] (n15) edge [bend right=90] (n14);
\path (n16) edge [loop left] (n16);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Decomposition of the set of $S^z$
eigenstates with $n=4$ into orbits. Arrows indicate the action of
the translation $T$. The six representatives are shown in bold
face.}\label{fig:orbits4}
\end{figure}
Let us denote the set of all representatives with $\mathcal{R}$ and
the size of the orbit of $\ket{r}\in\mathcal{R}$ with
$\omega_r$. Then, for given momentum $k$ a translation symmetric basis
of the Hilbert space is formed by the states
\begin{equation}\label{eq:krstate}
\ket{k,r} = \sqrt{\nu_{k,r}}\ P_k \ket{r},\ \ket{r}\in\mathcal{R}\,.
\end{equation}
The prefactor $\sqrt{\nu_{k,r}}$ ensures that $\ket{k,r}$ is
normalised, $\langle k,r|k,r\rangle = 1$, or it is zero, which means
that for momentum $k$ the representative $\ket{r}$ does not
contribute to the basis. More precisely,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:krnorm}
\nu_{k,r} = \begin{cases}
0 & \text{if $n/\omega_r$ divides $k$,}\\
\omega_{r} & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Of course, we can restrict the set $\mathcal{R}$ to states with a
given eigenvalue of $S^z$ (i.e., patterns with given digit sum), which
yields a basis that makes use of both symmetries of $H$, $S^z$, and
$T$.
\section{The Problem}\label{sec:problem}
The recipe for the construction of the symmetrised basis
$\{\ket{k,r}\}$ does not look particularly complicated. However,
following it becomes very time-consuming for large $n$. To find all
representatives $\mathcal{R}$ we can loop over the $2^n$ eigenstates
of $S^z$ in $\mathcal{S}$ (or at least the $\binom{n}{S^z+n/2}$
eigenstates of fixed $S^z$), apply all $n$ translations, and check if
the considered bit pattern has the minimal integer value within its
orbit. If this is the case, it qualifies for the set
$\mathcal{R}$. The process can be improved by memorising bit patterns
that were already encountered in previous orbits and apply the
translations only to new ones. Still, we need to perform of the order
of $2^n$ translations and store all the patterns.
The performance issues become more serious once we start to calculate
matrix elements of the Hamiltonian $H$ with respect to the basis
$\{\ket{k,r}\}$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bra{k,r'} H \ket{k,r} & =
\sqrt{\nu_{k,r'}\nu_{k,r}}\ \bra{r'} P_k H P_k \ket{r} \\
& = \sqrt{\nu_{k,r'}\nu_{k,r}}\ \bra{r'} P_k H \ket{r}\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The application of $H$ on a representative $\ket{r}$ yields many
different bit patterns---usually their number is some multiple of the
lattice size $n$. In general, these bit patterns are not
representatives, and we need to find the orbit they belong to as well
as the translation, which maps the pattern to the representative of
its orbit. The latter tells us which part of the projector $P_k$
contributes to the matrix element, in particular, which phase
factor. If we apply all translations to all bit patterns generated by
$H$ and then look up the observed representatives in a list, the
construction of the (sparse) matrix representation of $H$ requires
huge amounts of bit operations and processing time.
In contrast, for lattice models such as the Hubbard model or
electron-phonon models, the Hilbert space is the product of subspaces
which can be symmetrised individually. The subspaces are small enough
such that orbit representatives can be identified through simple table
look-ups, and it is common practise to construct the Hamiltonian
matrix on-the-fly in each step of an iterative calculation. Methods
such as the Lanczos eigenvalue solver~\cite{La50} then need memory
only for a few vectors with the dimension of the Hilbert space, and
huge problems can be studied.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{rr}
$n$ & Dimension \\
\hline
36 & 252\thsep088\thsep496\\
38 & 930\thsep138\thsep522\\
40 & 3\thsep446\thsep167\thsep860\\
42 & 12\thsep815\thsep663\thsep844\\
44 & 47\thsep820\thsep447\thsep028\\
46 & 178\thsep987\thsep624\thsep514
\end{tabular}
\vspace{3pt}
\caption{Problem dimensions for $S^z=0$, $k=0$ as a function of
the chain length $n$.}\label{tab:dims}
\end{table}
With the standard approach for quantum spin models this is
impractical. Instead, the matrix has to be kept in memory or stored on
disk. The former limits the accessible system sizes, and the latter is
not efficient either, since disk access is slow and the matrix
dimensions are huge (cf. Table~\ref{tab:dims}).
The program SPINPACK~\cite{spinpack}, which employs many symmetries and is
frequently used to calculate the lowest eigenstates of spin models,
follows the above strategies, and the problem of identifying the orbit
and representative for a given bit pattern seriously limits its
performance. The authors of the code even considered implementing the
required bit operations with specialised hardware based on
field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA)~\cite{spinpack-fpga}. The
authors of Ref.~\cite{LSS11}, on the other hand, argue that the
overhead for using symmetries outweighs the benefits of the reduced
problem dimensions, and in their large-scale exact diagonalisation
study make no use of translation symmetries.
Below we resolve all these issues and present an answer to the
following problem: \emph{Find a fast and memory-efficient algorithm,
which for a given arbitrary bit pattern identifies the orbit the
pattern belongs to and the translation that maps it to the
representative of this orbit.}
\section{Divide-and-conquer approach}\label{sec:divnconq}
\subsection{The basic idea}
Let us assume that the number of lattice sites $n$ is even. We can
then divide the set of all sites into two subsets of equal size, such
that the neighbours of a given site all belong to the other sublattice.
The translation $T$ of the entire lattice is then decomposed into two
operations: the exchange of the two sublattices and a translation
within one of the two. In Figure~\ref{fig:transdeco} we illustrate
this concept for a lattice of $n=8$ sites.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5,>=stealth]
\tikzstyle{site}=[draw,inner sep=3pt]
\foreach \i in {0,...,7} \node[site] at (\i,0) {$\i$};
\draw[->] (3.5,-0.7) -- node[right] {split} (3.5,-2.3);
\foreach \i in {1,3,...,7} \node[site] at (\i,-3) {$\i$};
\foreach \i in {0,2,...,6} \node[site] at (\i,-4) {$\i$};
\draw[->] (3.5,-4.7) -- node[right] {exchange} (3.5,-6.3);
\foreach \i in {1,3,...,7} \node[site] at (\i-1,-7) {$\i$};
\foreach \i in {0,2,...,6} \node[site] at (\i+1,-8) {$\i$};
\draw[->] (3.5,-8.7) -- node[right] {translate upper} (3.5,-10.3);
\foreach \i/\v in {1/7,3/1,5/3,7/5} \node[site] at (\i-1,-11) {$\v$};
\foreach \i in {0,2,...,6} \node[site] at (\i+1,-12) {$\i$};
\draw[->] (3.5,-12.7) -- node[right] {reassemble} (3.5,-14.3);
\foreach \i/\v in {0/7,1/0,2/1,3/2,4/3,5/4,6/5,7/6} \node[site] at (\i,-15) {$\v$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The action of a translation on a lattice decomposed into two intertwined sublattices.}\label{fig:transdeco}
\end{figure}
Such a decomposition---termed ``sublattice coding''---was used by
H.\,Q.~Lin~\cite{Li90} to construct the orbit representatives in exact
diagonalisation studies of translation symmetric spin clusters with up
to $32$ sites. Unfortunately, the description of his algorithm is
rather brief and details of the implementation remain
vague. Therefore, the potential of this trick seems to have been
missed (see, e.g., the discussion of Ref.~\cite{Li90} in
Refs.~\cite{Sa10,Lae11}).
An improved implementation of the Lin decomposition was proposed by
Schulz, Ziman, and Poilblanc in Ref.~\cite{SZP96}. Here an
arbitrary spin state is decomposed into its sublattice states and the
representatives of the sublattice orbits are determined through
look-ups in moderately sized tables. The operation that maps one
sublattice state to its representative is then applied to the other
sublattice, which in most cases ($80$~\% according to Ref.~\cite{SZP96})
yields the correct orbit representative of the full lattice. However,
an ambiguity remains and additional symmetry operations can be necessary
to identify the correct representative.
In what follows we explain our interpretation and extension of the Lin
approach, which has been used for a couple of years and efficiently
handles very large spin systems. We properly decompose all symmetry
operations and for each given spin state arrive at a unique orbit
representative purely through look-ups in moderately sized
tables. There is no need to apply symmetry operations to spin states
on the full lattice, i.e., the above ambiguity is resolved.
As a starting point, we formalise the above decomposition of lattice
translations by introducing the ``zipper product'' of two bit patterns
$\ket{a}=(a_0,\dots,a_{n/2-1})$ and $\ket{b}=(b_0,\dots,b_{n/2-1})$,
\begin{multline}
(a_0,\dots,a_{n/2-1})\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;(b_0,\dots,b_{n/2-1}) \\
:= (a_0,b_0,\dots,a_{n/2-1},b_{n/2-1})\,.
\end{multline}
For clarity, we indicate the size of the translated lattice as an
index to the translation operator, $T_n$, and assume that it
translates patterns to the right,
\begin{equation}
T_n (a_0,\dots,a_{n-1}) = (a_{n-1},a_0,\dots,a_{n-2})\,.
\end{equation}
Then, the above procedure can be summarised as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:transdeco}
T_n(\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\; \ket{b}) = (T_{n/2}\, \ket{b})\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\; \ket{a}\,.
\end{equation}
This equation relates the translations on the $n$-site lattice to the
translations on the $n/2$-site sublattice, and we can use it to derive
orbits and representatives of the full lattice from the orbits and
representatives of the sublattice. Multiple application of $T_n$
on a state $\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;\ket{b}$ yields
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
T_n^{2j} (\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\; \ket{b}) & = (T_{n/2}^j \ket{a})\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;(T_{n/2}^j \ket{b})\,,\\
T_n^{2j+1} (\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\; \ket{b}) & = (T_{n/2}^{j+1} \ket{b})\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;(T_{n/2}^j \ket{a})\,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with $j=0,\dots,(n/2-1)$, which illustrates how the orbit of
$\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\; \ket{b}$ is built from the sublattice orbits of $\ket{a}$
and $\ket{b}$.
Let us now consider two representatives of the sublattice $\ket{r},
\ket{r'}\in\mathcal{R}_{n/2}$ subject to two conditions: First,
$r<r'$, where the order is defined in terms of the integer value of
the bit patterns. Second, the orbits of both representatives have
maximal size $n/2$, i.e., $T_{n/2}^j\ket{\psi} \ne \ket{\psi}$
$\forall j=1,\dots,(n/2-1)$ and $\ket{\psi}\in\{\ket{r},\ket{r'}\}$. Then,
the $n/2$ states
\begin{equation}\label{eq:genreps}
\ket{r,r',j} = \ket{r} \;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\; (T_{n/2}^j \ket{r'})\text{ with }
j = 0,\dots,(n/2-1)
\end{equation}
are representatives for orbits of the full translation group on the
$n$-site lattice. Since the translation $T_n$ involves the exchange of
the two sublattices (see Eq.~\ref{eq:transdeco}), the orbit of
$\ket{r,r',j}$, which is given by $T_n^i \ket{r,r',j}$ with $i=0,\dots,(n-1)$, contains
all $n^2/2$ states that can be obtained by combining the sublattice
orbits of $\ket{r}$ and $\ket{r'}$, namely
$(T_{n/2}^j\ket{r})\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;(T_{n/2}^l\ket{r'})$ \emph{and}
$(T_{n/2}^l\ket{r'})\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;(T_{n/2}^j\ket{r})$, with
$j,l=0,\dots,(n/2-1)$. This explains the above condition $r<r'$.
For $r=r'$, the range of $j$ needs to be reduced,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:equreps}
\ket{r,r,j} = \ket{r} \;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\; (T_{n/2}^j \ket{r})\text{ with }
j = 0,\dots,\lfloor (n-1)/4\rfloor\,,
\end{equation}
as otherwise we would count states twice. Note, that for $n/2$ odd one
of the generated representatives is invariant under $T_{n}^{n/2}$,
i.e., the orbit has size $n/2$ only.
The general case, where $r\le r'$ and $\ket{r}$ or $\ket{r'}$ are
invariant under non-trivial subgroups of the $n/2$-site translation
group, leads to further restrictions on the values of $j$. In
addition, the generated representatives $\ket{r,r',j}$ will be
invariant under subgroups of the $n$-site translation group. It is
then convenient to identify all subgroups of the $n/2$-site
translations (which correspond to the divisors of $n/2$) and to
tabulate all possible combinations and the resulting restrictions on
$j$. These tables are small and can also hold other basic details,
like the orbit size $\omega_{r,r',j}$ of $\ket{r,r',j}$, which does
not depend on $r$ and $r'$ directly but only on the maximal subgroups
that $\ket{r}$ and $\ket{r'}$ are invariant under.
What are the advantages of the decomposition into two sublattices?
First, the number of representatives of the sublattice is
approximately equal to the square root of the number of
representatives of the full lattice, $|\mathcal{R}_{n/2}| \approx
\sqrt{|\mathcal{R}_{n}|}$. Hence, the construction of
$\mathcal{R}_{n}$ from $\mathcal{R}_{n/2}$ is much faster than the
traditional approach we described earlier. Second,
$|\mathcal{R}_{n/2}|$ is small enough, that we can store in memory the
map $\ket{\psi}\to T_{n/2}^j\ket{r}$ from an arbitrary state
$\ket{\psi}\in\mathcal{S}_{n/2}$ to its representative
$\ket{r}\in\mathcal{R}_{n/2}$ and the corresponding exponent
$j$. Moreover, we can use these tables to directly identify the
representative $\ket{r}\in\mathcal{R}_{n}$ and the exponent $j$ for an
arbitrary state $\ket{\psi}\in\mathcal{S}_{n}$ on the full lattice.
Hence, we can solve the problem of Section~\ref{sec:problem} with a
few look-ups in moderately sized tables (typically a few megabytes).
\subsection{Implementation}
We start from a lattice with $n/2$ sites and determine all subgroups
of the translation group generated by $T_{n/2}$. They are given by the
divisors of $n/2$, namely, if $d\mid n/2$ then $T_{n/2}^d$ generates a
subgroup. For example, setting $n/2=4$ we find three subgroups indexed with $g$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:subgroups4}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
$\quad g\quad$ & $\quad d=\omega_g\quad$ & Example\\
\hline
0 & 1 & 0000 \\
1 & 2 & 0101 \\
2 & 4 & 0001
\end{tabular}
\end{equation}
which match the three different orbit types
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:orbits4} and the corresponding orbit sizes
$\omega_g$.
Next, we construct representatives for all orbits in
$\mathcal{S}_{n/2}$. Since we are dealing with only half of the target
lattice size $n$, we can use the approach sketched in the first
paragraph of Section~\ref{sec:problem}. For each representative
$\ket{r}\in\mathcal{R}_{n/2}$, we also determine the maximal subgroup $g$
it is invariant under, i.e., we find the minimal non-zero $d\mid n/2$ such that
$T_{n/2}^d\ket{r} = \ket{r}$. For the example $n/2=4$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reps4}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
$\quad r\quad$ & $\quad\ket{r}\quad$ & $\quad d\quad$ & $\quad g\quad$\\
\hline
0 & 0000 & 1 & 0\\
1 & 0001 & 4 & 2\\
2 & 0011 & 4 & 2\\
3 & 0101 & 2 & 1\\
4 & 0111 & 4 & 2\\
5 & 1111 & 1 & 0\\
\end{tabular}
\end{equation}
Having selected a set of representatives $\mathcal{R}_{n/2}$, we can
tabulate the map $\ket{\psi}\to T_{n/2}^j\ket{r}$, i.e., we can
construct an array which takes the integer value of a bit pattern as
the index and returns both, the index $r$ of the corresponding
representative $\ket{r}$ and the exponent $j$. For the example $n/2=4$
this looks as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reverse4}
\begin{tabular}{rccc}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{$\psi\equiv\ket{\psi}$} & $\quad r\quad$ & $\quad j\quad$ \\
\hline
0 & 0000 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 0001 & 1 & 0\\
2 & 0010 & 1 & 3\\
3 & 0011 & 2 & 0\\
4 & 0100 & 1 & 2\\
5 & 0101 & 3 & 0\\
6 & 0110 & 2 & 3\\
7 & 0111 & 4 & 0\\
8 & 1000 & 1 & 1\\
9 & 1001 & 2 & 1\\
10 & 1010 & 3 & 1\\
11 & 1011 & 4 & 1\\
12 & 1100 & 2 & 2\\
13 & 1101 & 4 & 2\\
14 & 1110 & 4 & 3\\
15 & 1111 & 5 & 0\\
\end{tabular}
\end{equation}
Knowing all details about the sublattice with $n/2$ sites, we can
construct a set of tables, which characterise the symmetrised states
of the full $n$-site lattice. Consider an arbitrary state
$\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;\ket{b}$ on the full lattice: For both sublattice states,
$\ket{a}$ and $\ket{b}$, we can immediately look up the indices $r_a$ and
$r_b$ of corresponding representatives $\ket{r_a}$ and $\ket{r_b}$, as
well as the exponents $j_a$ and $j_b$. In addition, given $r_a$ and
$r_b$ we know the subgroups $g_a$ and $g_b$ of the representatives
$\ket{r_a}$ and $\ket{r_b}$. The only information missing for locating
$\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;\ket{b}$ within its orbit,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fullorbit}
\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;\ket{b} = T_{n}^i \ket{r,r',j}
= T_{n}^i \left[\ket{r}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\; (T_{n/2}^j\ket{r'})\right]\,,
\end{equation}
are the exponents $i$ and $j$. These exponents depend only on the
values of $j_a$, $j_b$, $g_a$, and $g_b$, and on the order of $r_a$ and
$r_b$, namely, whether $r_a<r_b$, $r_a=r_b$ or $r_a>r_b$. When we
defined the representatives $\ket{r,r',j}$ of the full lattice in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:genreps}), we demanded $r<r'$. Thus, if we encounter
$r_a>r_b$, then $\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;\ket{b}$ is created from the representative
$\ket{r_b,r_a,j}$ by a translation $T_n^i$ with odd exponent $i$. For
$r_a<r_b$, the representative is $\ket{r_a,r_b,j}$ and the exponent $i$
is even. For $r_a=r_b$ other restrictions apply, as discussed in
the paragraph of Eq.~(\ref{eq:equreps}). We can tabulate all possible
cases in three arrays,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:explookup}
\begin{aligned}
e^{<}&: j_a, j_b, g_a, g_b \to i,j\,,\\
e^{=}&: j_a, j_b, g \to i,j\,,\\
e^{>}&: j_a, j_b, g_a, g_b \to i,j\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
At first glance these four-dimensional arrays appear large, but the
$j$ indices take only $n/2$ different values, and the $g$ indices even
fewer. In the Appendices~\ref{sec:elt} to~\ref{sec:egt} we show the maps
$e^{<}$, $e^{=}$, and $e^{>}$ for the lattice with $n=8$ sites. To
build the arrays we perform a double-loop over the subgroups in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:subgroups4}), which fixes $g_a$ and $g_b$. Then, for each
combination of subgroups we pick two matching representatives, $r_a$
and $r_b$, and loop in reverse order over $i$ and $j$ in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:fullorbit}). Looking up the exponents $j_a$ and $j_b$ of
the resulting state $\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;\ket{b}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:reverse4})
completes the data required for the arrays. In particular, for each
input $j_a$, $j_b$, $g_a$, and $g_b$, the stored values of $i,j$ are the
minimal ones.
In Figure~\ref{fig:lookup} we summarise the algorithm to identify
both the orbit of an arbitrary state $\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;\ket{b}$ and its
translation relative to the orbit's representative. Let us remark
that, in general, the representative $\ket{r,r',j}$ is not the
state with minimal integer value within its orbit. Using direct
table look-ups, this property is no longer needed, and in our programs
the components of zipped states are usually stored in separate
variables.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[>=stealth]
\node (S) at (0,9.5) {$\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;\ket{b}$};
\node[anchor=base] (Ra) at (-2,8.3) {$r_a, j_a$};
\node[anchor=base] (Rb) at ( 2,8.3) {$r_b, j_b$};
\draw [->] (S) -- node[anchor=south east] {(\ref{eq:reverse4})} (Ra);
\draw [->] (S) -- node[anchor=south west] {(\ref{eq:reverse4})} (Rb);
\node[anchor=base] (ga) at (-2,7.7) {$g_a$};
\node[anchor=base] (gb) at ( 2,7.7) {$g_b$};
\path (Ra) edge [->,bend right=90] node[anchor=east] {(\ref{eq:reps4})} (ga);
\path (Rb) edge [->,bend left=90] node[anchor=west] {(\ref{eq:reps4})} (gb);
\node (comp) at (0,6.8) {$r_a\lesseqqgtr r_b?$};
\draw [->,dashed] (-1.9,8) -- (comp);
\draw [->,dashed] ( 1.9,8) -- (comp);
\node (Sl) at (-2,5) {$T^i\ket{r_a,r_b,j}$};
\node (Sq) at ( 0,5) {$T^i\ket{r,r,j}$};
\node (Sg) at ( 2,5) {$T^i\ket{r_b,r_a,j}$};
\draw (comp) edge [->,bend right=20] node[anchor=south east] {\hyperref[sec:elt]{$e^{<}$}} (Sl);
\draw [->] (comp) -- node[anchor=east] {\hyperref[sec:equ]{$e^{=}$}} (Sq);
\draw (comp) edge [->,bend left=20] node[anchor=south west] {\hyperref[sec:egt]{$e^{>}$}} (Sg);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic view of the table look-ups (solid lines) required to
locate an arbitrary state $\ket{a}\protect\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;\ket{b}$
within its orbit.}\label{fig:lookup}
\end{figure}
The tables $e^{<}$ and $e^{=}$ can also be used to identify the values
of $j$, for which $\ket{r,r',j}$ is a valid representative. In this
case the set $(j_a=0, j_b=j, g_a, g_b)$ is mapped to $(i=0, j)$, i.e.,
$\ket{r,r',j}$ is not part of the orbit of some other representative
$\ket{r,r',j'}$ with $j'<j$. We can store this information together
with the size of the orbit of $\ket{r,r',j}$, which depends only on
the corresponding subgroups $g$ and $g'$. Similar to the previous
arrays, we need to distinguish two cases, $\omega_{g,g',j}^{<}$ for
$r<r'$ and $\omega_{g,j}^{=}$ for $r=r'$. If $j$ is invalid, we set
$\omega$ to zero, otherwise it will have some integer value $d\mid
n$. In Appendix~\ref{sec:omegas} we list the latter quantities for $n=8$.
In analogy to Eqs.~(\ref{eq:krstate}) and~(\ref{eq:krnorm}), we now
know the normalised, translation-symmetric basis states of the
$n$-site lattice,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fullkrstate}
\ket{k,r,r',j} =\sqrt{\nu_{k,r,r',j}}\, P_k \ket{r,r',j}\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fullkrnorm}
\nu_{k,r,r',j} = \begin{cases}
0 & \text{if $n/\omega$ divides $k$}\\
\omega & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and $\omega$ is $\omega_{g,g',j}^{<}$ or $\omega_{g,j}^{=}$,
respectively. Note that for large $n$ the number of representatives
with $\omega<n$ is negligible compared to those with $\omega=n$
introduced in Eq.~(\ref{eq:genreps}). Therefore, in a practical
calculation a loop over the whole basis can include all $r\le r'$ and
$j=0,\dots,(n/2-1)$, and the few inactive states with $\omega=0$ will
waste hardly any resources.
In the preceding paragraphs we did not take into account the $S^z$
symmetry of the original spin model~(\ref{eq:ham}). However, its
inclusion is easy: When constructing the representatives of the
sublattice, $\mathcal{R}_{n/2}$, we also calculate the $S^z$
eigenvalue of each $\ket{r}$. Then, for the representatives of the
full lattice, $\ket{r,r',j}$, we combine only those $r$ and $r'$,
whose spin values add to the desired $S^z$ of the full lattice. This
requires a little extra book keeping, but does not affect the overall
performance.
\section{Generalisations}
\subsection{Two-dimensional lattices}
Up to now we considered only one-dimensional lattices, but the
generalisation to two dimensions is straightforward. Again
we demand $n=n_x\times n_y$ to be even. Hence, one or both of $n_x$
and $n_y$ are even, and we can apply the decomposition into
sublattices along one of the two space directions. Another option is
the decomposition into a chequerboard pattern, which can also be used
for quadratic clusters with rotated unit cell~\cite{OB78} and an even
number of sites fulfilling $n=n_1^2 + n_2^2$ with
$n_1,n_2\in\mathbb{Z}$. The main condition for the decomposition is
that the sublattices each have the same translation group. In
Figure~\ref{fig:2Ddecomp} we show the lattice with $20=5\times 4$
sites decomposed along the $y$-direction and the lattice with
$10=3^2+1^2$ sites decomposed in chequerboard fashion.
The construction of representatives for the orbits of the full-lattice
translation group then follows the route described in
Section~\ref{sec:divnconq}. Merely the number and structure of the
subgroups of the translation group differs slightly, since now the
group is generated by two commuting elementary translations $T_x$ and
$T_y$. Also, the condition for vanishing norm $\nu_{k,r,r',j}$ is more
complicated and will usually be tabulated.
\subsection{Reflection symmetry}
Apart from being translation symmetric, most of the considered quantum
spin models are also invariant under reflections, i.e., the full
lattice symmetry is described by the dihedral group or, in higher
dimensions, by products thereof. In one dimension the reflection
operator reads
\begin{equation}
R: \vec{s}_i \to \vec{s}_{n-1-i}\,.
\end{equation}
It is fully compatible with the lattice decomposition introduced in
Section~\ref{sec:divnconq}, since $R$ can be written as reflections
of both sublattices and exchange of the two,
\begin{equation}
R(\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;\ket{b}) = (R\ket{b})\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;(R\ket{a})\,.
\end{equation}
Hence, the reflections can be incorporated into the divide-and-conquer
approach and used for a further reduction of the Hilbert space
dimension, or to make the matrix representation real~\cite{Sa10}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
\foreach \i in {0,2} \fill[black!20!white] (0,\i) rectangle (5, \i+1);
\foreach \n in {0,...,19} {
\pgfmathsetmacro{\i}{mod(\n,5)};
\pgfmathsetmacro{\j}{floor(\n/5)};
\node at (\i+0.5,\j+0.5) {$\n$};
\draw (\i,\j) rectangle (\i+1, \j+1);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{7mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
\draw[thick] (0.5, 0.5) -- (3.5, 1.5) -- (2.5, 4.5) -- (-0.5, 3.5) -- cycle;
\path[fill=black!20!white, draw=black] (0, 0) rectangle (1, 1);
\node at (0.5,0.5) {$0$};
\foreach \n in {1,...,9} {
\pgfmathsetmacro{\i}{floor((\n-1)/3)};
\pgfmathsetmacro{\j}{mod(\n-1,3)+1};
\pgfmathsetmacro{\c}{20*mod(\n-1,2)};
\path[fill=black!\c!white, draw=black] (\i,\j) rectangle (\i+1, \j+1);
\node at (\i+0.5,\j+0.5) {$\n$};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The decompositions of lattices with $20 = 5\times 4$ and
with $10 = 3^2 + 1^2$ sites into two
sublattices.}\label{fig:2Ddecomp}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\begin{tabular}{ccc|r|r|crr|r}
$n$ & $S_z$ & $\dfrac{2\pi k}{n}$ & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Dimension} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$E_{\text{min}}$}
& Cores & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Memory}
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\dfrac{\text{Time}}{\text{MVM}}$}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{0}{\text{SPINPACK}}{\text{build matrix}}$}\\[2mm]
\hline
$1\times 32$ & 0 & $0$ & 18\thsep784\thsep170 & -14.2065274389 & 1 & 290~MB & 10.76~s & $\approx 280$~s\\
$1\times 34$ & 0 & $\pi$ & 68\thsep635\thsep478 & -15.0912964656 & 1 & 1~GB & 50.03~s & $\approx 1100$~s\\
$1\times 36$ & 0 & $0$ & 252\thsep088\thsep496 & -15.9762358220 & 1 & 3.8~GB & 225.15~s & $\approx 4600$~s\\
$6\times 6$ & 0 & $(0,0)$ & 252\thsep091\thsep362 & -24.4393973993 & 1 & 3.8~GB & 342.43~s\\
\hline
$1\times 36$ & 0 & $0$ & 252\thsep088\thsep496 & -15.9762358220 & 16 & 7.18~GB & 65.32~s\\
$6\times 6$ & 0 & $(0,0)$ & 252\thsep091\thsep362 & -24.4393973993 & 16 & 7.20~GB & 112.64~s\\
$1\times 38$ & 0 & $\pi$ & 930\thsep138\thsep522 & -16.8613184638 & 16 & 26.2~GB & 270.63~s\\
$1\times 40$ & 0 & $0$ & 3\thsep446\thsep167\thsep860 & -17.7465227882 & 24 & 97.1~GB & \ 1299.15~s\ \\
\hline
$1\times 40$ & 0 & $0$ & 3\thsep446\thsep167\thsep860 & -17.7465227883 & 64 & 76.1~GB & 174.53~s\\
$1\times 42$ & 0 & $\pi$ & 12\thsep815\thsep663\thsep844 & -18.6318313306 & 256 & 249~GB & 207.19~s\\
$1\times 44$ & 0 & $0$ & 47\thsep820\thsep447\thsep028 & -19.5172298175 & 1024 & 1209~GB & 322.60~s\\
$1\times 46$ & 0 & $\pi$ &\ 178\thsep987\thsep624\thsep514\ &\ -20.4027064699\ & 1024 & 3522~GB & 1172.84~s\\
\end{tabular}
\vspace{3pt}
\caption{Lanczos calculations of the ground state of the Heisenberg model using
one core of a desktop computer with Intel Xeon 5150 processors at 2.66~GHz,
many cores of a compute server with 8 quad-core Opteron 8384 processors at 2.7~GHz,
and several nodes of a high-performance cluster with Power6 processors at 4.7~GHz.
The eighth column shows the time required for one matrix vector multiplication (MVM), which
includes on-the-fly generation of the Hamiltonian matrix. For comparison, in the last column
we list the time SPINPACK 2.43 needs to generate the matrix (stored in RAM for these system sizes).
}\label{tab:lanczostiming}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Odd lattice size}
The key prerequisite for the decompositions presented in the preceding
sections, is the even number of lattice sites. In practise, this
condition is not particularly restrictive, since many of the quantum
spin models studied are anti-ferromagnetic. Fitting long-range order
or correlations of this type into a finite cluster usually requires
even $n$. However, lattices with an odd number of sites could be of
interest for certain interaction types, geometries, or spin amplitudes
other than one-half.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5,>=stealth]
\tikzstyle{site}=[draw,inner sep=3pt]
\foreach \i in {0,...,8} \node[site] at (\i,0) {$\i$};
\draw[->] (4.0,-0.7) -- node[right] {decompose} (4.0,-2.3);
\foreach \i in {2,5,...,8} \node[site] at (\i,-3) {$\i$};
\foreach \i in {1,4,...,7} \node[site] at (\i,-4) {$\i$};
\foreach \i in {0,3,...,6} \node[site] at (\i,-5) {$\i$};
\draw[->] (4.0,-5.7) -- node[right] {rotate sublattices} (4.0,-7.3);
\foreach \i in {2,5,...,8} \node[site] at (\i-2,-8) {$\i$};
\foreach \i in {1,4,...,7} \node[site] at (\i+1,-9) {$\i$};
\foreach \i in {0,3,...,6} \node[site] at (\i+1,-10) {$\i$};
\draw[->] (4.0,-10.7) -- node[right] {translate upper} (4.0,-12.3);
\foreach \i/\v in {2/8,5/2,8/5} \node[site] at (\i-2,-13) {$\v$};
\foreach \i in {1,4,...,7} \node[site] at (\i+1,-14) {$\i$};
\foreach \i in {0,3,...,6} \node[site] at (\i+1,-15) {$\i$};
\draw[->] (4.0,-15.7) -- node[right] {reassemble} (4.0,-17.3);
\foreach \i/\v in {0/8,1/0,2/1,3/2,4/3,5/4,6/5,7/6,8/7} \node[site] at (\i,-18) {$\v$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The action of a translation on a lattice decomposed into three
sublattices of equal size.}\label{fig:deco3}
\end{figure}
As long as $n$ is not prime, we can take a small factor $m\mid n$ and
split the lattice into $m$ equal sublattices, such that the left and
the right neighbor of a site belongs to the previous and the next
sublattice, respectively. An arbitrary translation of the full lattice
then corresponds to a cyclic permutation of the sublattices and
internal translations within the sublattices.
Consider, for instance, a lattice where the number of sites is a
multiple of $3$. We can decompose this lattice into 3 sublattices, as
illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:deco3}. Now, the translation of the full
lattice by a single site is equivalent to a cyclic permutation of the
three sublattices and an internal translation within one of the three,
or
\begin{equation}
T_n(\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;\ket{b}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;\ket{c}) = (T_{n/3}\ket{c})\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;\ket{a}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;\ket{b}\,.
\end{equation}
Knowing the representatives $\ket{r}$ for the sublattice with $n/3$ sites,
we can build representatives for the full lattice,
\begin{equation}
\ket{r,r',r'',j',j''} = \ket{r}\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;(T_{n/3}^{j'}\ket{r'})\;\tikz[baseline=(C.base)]\node[draw,circle,inner sep=0.5pt](C){\small{z}};\;(T_{n/3}^{j''}\ket{r''})\,.
\end{equation}
The restrictions needed to avoid double counting are more intricate,
compared to the bi-partition. There are 6 permutations of 3 objects,
and the cycle $(123)$ connects the even and the odd permutations among
each other. Thus, starting from $r\le r' \le r''$ or $r>r'>r''$ we can
reach all possible combinations of sublattice states. The exponents,
in general, can take all values $j',j''=0,\dots,(n/3-1)$, but some
will be switched off with appropriate norm factors, if two or all
representatives are equal or have a higher symmetry. When we construct
the corresponding tables of the orbit sizes
$\omega_{g,g',g'',j',j''}$, we need to differentiate between a number
of different cases. The three states $r$, $r'$, and $r''$ can all be
different and arranged in ascending or descending order, there can be
equal pairs, or all three can be the same. Similarly, the three tables
$e^{<}$, $e^{=}$, and $e^{>}$, which for the bi-partite lattice were
sufficient to identify the orbit and the phase factor of an arbitrary
state on the full lattice, now generalise to a whole set of tables
covering all possible orderings of $r$, $r'$, and $r''$.
As yet we did not have a good incentive to study lattices with an odd
number of sites and, therefore, cannot comment on the performance of
this setup. An implementation of the decomposition into three
sublattices appears feasible, but the benefits of decompositions into
five or more sublattices seem to be rather limited.
\subsection{Higher spin}
The translation symmetry of the lattice and the structure of the local
Hilbert space at each site are more or less independent. Therefore,
the construction of the translation symmetric basis can easily be
extended to systems with spins of amplitude larger than $1/2$. The
efficient storage of the map from sublattice states to sublattice
representatives, $\ket{\psi}\to T_{n/2}^j\ket{r}$, may require some
care. Otherwise, all steps of the algorithm work as described above.
\section{Performance}
We implemented the divide-and-conquer approach for spin-$1/2$
chains and rectangular two-dimensional lattices ($n=n_x\times n_y$)
already a few years ago, and used it mainly for the study of
correlation functions. The latter can be efficiently calculated using
Chebyshev expansion methods~\cite{WWAF06,WF08b}, which at their
core require fast matrix vector multiplications. For example, we
calculated a set of static correlation functions~\cite{BDGKSW08} and
the dynamic ESR-response~\cite{BGKKW11,BGKKW12} of the one-dimensional
XXZ model at finite temperature and finite magnetic field.
Of course, the described basis construction can also be used in
Lanczos calculations of low-energy eigenstates. To give an impression
of the performance of the algorithm, in Table~\ref{tab:lanczostiming}
we show the time and memory consumption of several ground-state
calculations for the Heisenberg model on one- and two-dimensional
lattices. Taking into account the translation and the $S_z$
symmetries, the Hamilton matrix is computed on-the-fly in each
iteration. For the momenta considered the matrix is real. Systems with
up to $36$ sites can be simulated on desktop computers or powerful
laptops, as illustrated by the single-core data for an older Xeon
CPU. For systems with up to $40$ sites, we use a compute server with
eight quad-core CPUs, and on a decent high-performance
cluster~\cite{top500} we are able to handle systems with $46$ sites,
corresponding to a matrix dimension of $1.8\times 10^{11}$. The main
limiting parameter for these calculations is the memory required for
two double vectors with the dimension of the Hilbert space. On the
largest clusters currently available one could certainly study systems
with $50$ sites, which requires approximately $40$~TB of memory and
is well below present limits.
A direct comparison of our timings with SPINPACK is difficult, since
this code usually precomputes the entire Hamilton matrix and stores it
in memory or on disk for later use in the Lanczos recursion. In the
last column of Table~\ref{tab:lanczostiming} we show matrix generation
times for not too large systems, where the matrix fits into available
memory. These calculations take much longer than the matrix vector
multiplication (MVM) in our approach, which includes on-the-fly matrix
generation.
\section{Summary}
We present an efficient algorithm to construct translation symmetric
basis states for quantum spin models on finite lattices with periodic
boundary conditions. The approach extends an old trick by
H.\,Q.~Lin~\cite{Li90} and employs a divide-and-conquer strategy, such
that direct table look-ups can be used to map an arbitrary spin state
to its orbit with respect to the translation group. The Hamiltonian
matrix, which in iterative calculations like Lanczos or Chebyshev
expansion needs to be applied repeatedly to a few quantum states, can
then be constructed on-the-fly. This saves large amounts of memory or
disk space and considerably increases the system size accessible to
these types of simulations.
We thank Rechenzentrum Garching of the Max Planck Society for providing
computing time on their high-performance clusters.
While this article was under review we learned of unpublished
exact diagonalisation results~\cite{laeuchli12} for systems with $48$ spins
(dimension $2.5\times 10^{11}$), which were obtained with an extended version
of the method in Ref.~\cite{SZP96}.
|
\section{Introduction}
The disordered pinning model has attracted significant attention in
recent years. One reason is that it is one of the very few models where
the effect of disorder on the critical properties can be identified
with large precision. In particular, there exists a fairly satisfactory
knowledge on whether and how much the critical point, which separates
its localized and delocalized regime, changes under the presence of
disorder \cite{A,GLT2}. Furthermore, the mechanism that defines it is
present in multiple physical models, and therefore it provides a step
to understand the effect of disorder in more complicated systems---we
refer to the recent monograph \cite{G} for related references.
Before going into detail let us define the model. We first consider a
sequence of i.i.d. variables $(\omega_n)_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$, which play
the role of disorder. The assumptions on this sequence are in general
mild, for example, mean zero and exponential moments. We denote the
joint distribution of this sequence by $\mathbb{P}$. The model involves
also a renewal sequence $(\tau_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ on
$\mathbb{N}=\{0,1,2,\ldots\}$, that is, a point process such that the
gaps (or interarrival times) $\sigma_n:=\tau_{n+1}-\tau_n$ are
independent and identically distributed. This renewal process should be
viewed physically as the set of contact points with $\{0\}\times
\mathbb{N}$ of the space-time trajectory of a Markov process
$(X_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ whose state space contains a designated site
0, with this trajectory representing the spatial configuration of the
polymer. Since the interaction between the Markov process and the
disorder comes only at contact times with $\{0\} \times\mathbb{N} $,
the only relevant information is the renewal sequence
$\tau=(\tau_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$, consisting of the contact points of
the path $(X_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ with $\{0\} \times\mathbb{N} $.
Therefore we only need to define the statistics of this renewal
process, whose law we will denote by $P$. In particular, we define
$\tau_0=0$ and assume that for some $\alpha\geq0$ and slowly varying
function~$\phi(n)$,
\[
K(n):=P(\tau_1=n)=\frac{\phi(n)}{n^{1+\alpha}},\qquad n\geq1.
\]
We will assume that $\sum_{n\geq1}K(n)=1$, that is, that the renewal
is recurrent. We will~also need the quantity $K^+(l) = \sum_{n>l} K(n)$.
The polymer measure can now be defined by
\[
dP_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h}:=\frac{1}{Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega
}}e^{\mathcal{H}_{n,\omega}^{\beta,u}}\,dP,
\]
where $\mathcal{H}_{n,\omega}^{\beta,u}:=\sum_{i=0}^n(\beta\omega
_i+h)\delta_i$ and $\delta_i=1_{i\in\tau}$.
The partition function $ Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega }$ is defined by
\[
Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega } = E \bigl[e^{\mathcal{H}_{N,\omega}^{\beta,h}}
\bigr].
\]
The polymer measure rewards paths for which the $\omega_i$ values are
large at the times of renewals. It will also be useful to consider the
constrained polymer measure
\[
dP_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h,c}:=\frac{1}{Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n,\omega
}}e^{\mathcal{H}_{n,\omega}^{\beta,u}}
\delta_n\,dP,
\]
where we restrict the polymer to have a renewal at time $n$. Here the
constrained partition function is
\[
Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n,\omega } = E \bigl[e^{\mathcal{H}_{N,\omega
}^{\beta,h}}\delta_n
\bigr].
\]
More generally for a collection $A$ of trajectories we define
\[
Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega }(A) = E \bigl[e^{\mathcal{H}_{N,\omega
}^{\beta,h}}; A \bigr].
\]
We will also need the notation
\[
Z^{\beta,h}_{[m,n],\omega }=Z^{\beta,h}_{n-m,\theta_{m}\omega },
\]
where $n\geq m$ and $\theta_m\omega (i)=\omega (i+m)$, for
$i=1,2,\ldots\,$.
As already mentioned, the pinning polymer exhibits a nontrivial
localization/delocalization transition, which is often
quantified via the strict positivity of the free energy. To be more
precise, let us define the quenched free energy of the pinning
polymer to be the $\mathbb{P}$-a.s. limit
\[
f_q(\beta,h)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log
Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega }.
\]
We refer the reader to \cite{G}, Chapter~3, for the existence of this
limit. The localized regime is defined as
\[
\mathcal{L}= \bigl\{(\beta,h)\dvtx f_q(\beta,h)>0 \bigr\},
\]
and the delocalized regime as
\[
\mathcal{D}= \bigl\{(\beta,h)\dvtx f_q(\beta,h)=0 \bigr\}.
\]
The free energy is monotone in $h$ so the two regimes are separated by
a critical line and we can define the quenched critical point
$h_c(\beta)$ as
\[
h_c(\beta)=\sup \bigl\{h\dvtx f_q(\beta,h)=0 \bigr\}.
\]
Let $M(\beta)=\mathbb{E}[e^{\beta\omega_1}]$ be the moment
generating function of $\omega_1$. For the corresponding annealed
model, with partition function $\mathbb{E}Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega }$
and free energy
\[
f_a(\beta,h)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log
\mathbb{E}Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega },
\]
the corresponding critical point is
\begin{equation}
\label{hcan} h_c^{\mathrm{ann}}(\beta) = -\log M(\beta).
\end{equation}
The question of the path behavior of the quenched model for
$h<h_c(\beta)$ is of particular interest when $h_c^{\mathrm{ann}}(\beta
)<h_c(\beta)$, so we summarize what has been proved about such an inequality.
It is known from~\cite{A,T} (for Gaussian disorder) and
from~\cite{L} (for general disorder) that for small $\beta$, $h_c(\beta
)=h_c^{\mathrm{ann}}(\beta)$, for $\alpha<1/2$ as well as for $\alpha=1/2$
and $\sum_{n\geq1}(n\phi(n)^2)^{-1}<\infty$. On the other hand,
from \mbox{\cite{A,AZ09,DGLT,AS},} for Gaussian
disorder, for $1/2<\alpha< 1$, there exists a constant $c$ and a
slowly varying function $\psi$ related to $\phi$ and $\alpha$ such
that for all small $\beta$,
\[
c^{-1}\beta^{2\alpha/(2\alpha-1)}\psi \biggl(\frac{1}{\beta
}
\biggr)<h_c(\beta)-h_c^{\mathrm{ann}}(\beta)< c
\beta^{2\alpha/(2\alpha-1)}\psi \biggl(\frac{1}{\beta} \biggr),
\]
while for $\alpha=1$,
\[
c^{-1}\beta^2\psi \biggl(\frac{1}{\beta} \biggr) <
h_c(\beta )-h_c^{\mathrm{ann}}(\beta).
\]
A matching upper bound is also expected to hold but has not been proved.
For $\alpha> 1$,
\[
c^{-1}\beta^2<h_c(\beta)-h_c^{\mathrm{ann}}(
\beta)< c\beta^2.
\]
The case $\alpha=1/2$ is marginal and not fully understood. It is
believed that $h_c(\beta)>h_c^{\mathrm{ann}}(\beta)$ for every $\beta$, as
long as $\sum_n 1/(n\phi(n)^2)=\infty$. This inequality has been
confirmed under some stronger hypotheses in \cite{AZ09,GLT1},
for Gaussian disorder, and (most nearly optimally, for general
disorder) in \cite{GLT2}.
For all $\alpha>0$, for large $\beta$ the critical points are shown
in \cite{To} to be distinct provided the disorder is unbounded, but
for $\alpha=0$ they are equal for all $\beta>0$ \cite{AZ10}. Theorem
1.5 of \cite{CdH} shows that for $\alpha>1/2$ the critical points are
different for all values of $\beta>0$.
The use of the terms localization/delocalization can be understood
better by relating the quenched free energy to the portion of time the
polymer spends on the defect line $\{0\}\times\mathbb{N}$. In
particular, from \cite{GT}, $f_q(\beta,\cdot)$ is differentiable for
all $h\neq h_c(\beta)$ with
\[
\frac{d}{dh}f_q(\beta,h)=\lim_{n\to\infty}
E^{P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h}} \Biggl[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n
\delta_i \Biggr],
\]
and therefore we can interpret the localized regime as the regime where
the polymer spends a positive fraction of time on the defect line,
while in the delocalized regime it spends a zero fraction of time on
the defect line. While this is quite satisfactory in the localized
regime, and further detailed studies on the path properties in the
localized regime have been made in \cite{GT}, it provides a rather
incomplete picture in the delocalized one---it only allows one to
conclude that the number of contacts is $o(n)$. It was proven in
\cite{GT2} that the number of contacts is at most of order $\log n$ in
the delocalized regime. This was actually done for the related
copolymer model, but its extension to the pinning model is
straightforward \cite{G}. More precisely, for every $h<h_c(\beta)$,
there exists a constant $C_{\beta,h}$ such that
\[
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{E}P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h}
\bigl(\bigl|\tau \cap[1,n]\bigr|>C_{\beta,h}\log n \bigr)=0.
\]
This result was further extended to an a.s. statement in \cite{M}: for
$h<h_c(\beta)$ and for every $C>(1+\alpha)/(h_c(\beta)-h)$, we have
\[
\limsup_{n\to\infty} P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h} \bigl(\bigl|\tau\cap
[1,n]\bigr|>C\log n \bigr)=0,\qquad\mathbb{P}\mbox{-a.s.}
\]
By analogy to the homogeneous pinning model (see \cite{G}, Chapter~8),
one might expect that the number of contacts with the defect line
should remain bounded in the whole delocalized regime. Nevertheless,
the picture has been unclear in the disordered case, since stretches of
unusual disorder values could typically attract the polymer back to the
defect line a number of times growing to infinity with $n$. The open
questions are discussed in \cite{G}, Section~8.5.
In this work we clarify and complete the picture for behavior in
probability. In fact, we will prove a stronger result, namely, that the
last contact of the polymer happens at distance $O(1)$ from the origin.
In particular, let
\[
\tau_{\last}=\max\{j\leq n\dvtx\delta_j=1 \}.
\]
We then have the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{delocalization}
Suppose $\alpha>0$, $\sum_n K(n)=1$ and that $\omega_1$ has exponential
moments of all orders. For all $\beta$, $\varepsilon >0$ and for all
$h<h_c(\beta)$ we have that
\[
\limsup_{N\to\infty}\limsup_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P}
\bigl(P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h} (\tau_{\last}>N )>\varepsilon
\bigr)=0.
\]
\end{theorem}
One may ask whether this can be made an almost-sure result for
$h<h_c(\beta)$, of the form
\[
\limsup_{N\to\infty}\limsup_{n\to\infty}P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h}
(\tau_{\last}>N )=0, \qquad\mathbb{P}\mbox{-a.s.},
\]
or if the number of contacts is a.s. finite, that is,
\[
\limsup_{N\to\infty}\limsup_{n\to\infty}P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h}
\bigl(\bigl|\tau\cap[0,n]\bigr|>N \bigr)=0, \qquad\mathbb{P}\mbox{-a.s.}
\]
The next theorem shows that the answer is no, at least for large $\beta
$. Instead, for $h$ between $h_c^{\mathrm{ann}}(\beta)$ and $h_c(\beta)$,
infinitely often as $n\to\infty$, there will be an exceptionally rich
segment of $\omega $ near $n$, which will (with high $P_{n,\omega
}^{\beta,h}$-probability) induce the polymer to come to 0 and then
make a number of returns of order $\log n$. For $t>0$ let
\begin{equation}
\label{htdef} h_t(\beta):= -(1+t\alpha)\log M \biggl(
\frac{\beta}{1+t\alpha} \biggr).
\end{equation}
Since $\log M$ is nondecreasing and convex on $[0,\infty)$ with $\log
M(0)=0$, it is easy to see that $h_t(\beta)$ is nondecreasing in $t$
for fixed $\beta$. Recall \eqref{hcan}; by \cite{Ca},
equation~(3.7), for all $\beta>0$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{hcbeta} -\log M(\beta)=h_c^{\mathrm{ann}}(
\beta)=h_0(\beta) \leq h_c(\beta) \leq h_1(
\beta).
\end{equation}
By \cite{To}, Theorem 3.1, given $0<\varepsilon<1$, for large $\beta$
we have
\begin{equation}
\label{hcbeta2} h_c(\beta) > h_{1-\varepsilon}(\beta).
\end{equation}
We are now ready to state our second main result.
\begin{theorem} \label{longreturns}
Suppose $\omega $ is unbounded with all exponential moments finite.
Given $\varepsilon >0$, there exists $\beta_0(\varepsilon)$ and $\nu
(\beta,h)>0$ such that for
\[
\beta>\beta_0 \quad\mbox{and} \quad h>h_\varepsilon(\beta),
\]
we have
\[
\limsup_{n\to\infty}P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h} \bigl(\bigl|\tau\cap
[0,n]\bigr|>\nu\log n \bigr)=1, \qquad\mathbb{P}\mbox{-a.s.}
\]
\end{theorem}
By \eqref{hcbeta2}, Theorem \ref{longreturns} with $\varepsilon <1/2$
includes at least the interval of values $h\in[h_\varepsilon(\beta
),h_c(\beta)]$ below $h_c(\beta)$, which in turn (for large $\beta$)
includes $h\in[h_\varepsilon(\beta),h_{1-\varepsilon}(\beta)]$. The
path behavior in the regime of Theorem \ref{longreturns} is therefore
in contrast with that for $h<h_c^{\mathrm{ann}}(\beta)$, where, in fact, the
number of contacts remains tight for the measures averaged over the
disorder; see \cite{GT2}, Remark 1.5.
The next two sections are devoted to the proofs of each theorem, respectively.
\section{\texorpdfstring{Proof of Theorem \protect\ref{delocalization}}
{Proof of Theorem 1.1}}
It will be convenient to introduce generic constants. Specifically, $C$
will denote a generic constant whose value might be different in
different appearances. If we want to distinguish between constants we
will enumerate them, for example,~$C_1$,~$C_2$, etc. When we want to
emphasize the dependence of a generic constant on some parameters, we
will include the symbols of these parameters as a subscript. In
particular, we use the notation $C_\alpha$ for a generic constant which
will depend on the parameter $\alpha$ and the slowly varying function
$\phi$ of the renewal process. To simplify the notation we will also
defer from using the integer part $[x]$ and simply write $x$, which
should not lead to any confusion in the contexts where we use it. Let
us define the events
\[
E_{n,N}= \bigl\{\bigl|\tau\cap[0,n]\bigr|>N \bigr\}, \qquad E_{[m,n],N}=
\bigl\{\bigl|\tau\cap [m,n]\bigr|>N \bigr\}.
\]
In proving Theorem \ref{delocalization} we will make use of the
following theorem, which was proved in \cite{M}.
\begin{theorem}[(\cite{M})] \label{Mourrat}
Let $\beta\geq0$ and $h<h_c(\beta)$. Then:
\begin{longlist}[(iii)]
\item[(i)] For $\mathbb{P}$-a.e. environment $\omega $, we have
\[
\sum_{n=0}^\infty Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n,\omega }<+
\infty.
\]
\item[(ii)] For every $\varepsilon >0$ and for $\mathbb{P}$-a.e.
environment $\omega $, there exists $N_\varepsilon (\omega)>0$
such that for all $N\geq N_\varepsilon $, we have that
\[
\sum_{n=0}^\infty Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n,\omega }(E_{n,N})
\leq\sum_{k=N}^\infty e^{-k(h_c(\beta)-h-\varepsilon )}.
\]
\item[(iii)] For every constant $C>\frac{1+\alpha}{h_c(\beta)-h}$
and for $\mathbb{P}$-a.e. environment $\omega $, we have
\[
P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h,c}(E_{n,C\log n})\longrightarrow0,\qquad\mbox{as
} n\to\infty.
\]
\end{longlist}
\end{theorem}
The quantity $\mathcal{Z}(\omega )=\sum_{n=0}^\infty Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n,\omega }$, which is a.s. finite, will play an important role,
as will the reversed process $\mathcal{Z}_n(\omega)=\sum_{m=-\infty}^n
Z^{\beta,h,c}_{[m,n],\omega }$, which for any fixed $n$ has the same
distribution as $\mathcal{Z}(\omega )$. Note that we think here of the
polymer path starting at point $n$ and going backwards in time, which
is why we have defined the disorder on the whole of~$\mathbb{Z}$.
Here is a sketch of the proof. The event $\{\tau_{\last}>N\}$ is
contained in the union of the following events, where $C_1$, $b>0$ are
constants, with $b$ small:
\begin{longlist}[(a)]
\item[(a)] there are more than $C_1\log n$ returns by time $n$;
\item[(b)] there are fewer than $C_1\log n$ returns, and no gap
between returns exceeds~$bn$;
\item[(c)] $\tau_{\last}>N$, there are fewer than $C_1\log n$
returns, and some gap between returns inside $[0,n]$ exceeds
$bn$;
\item[(d)] $\tau_{\last}>N$, there are fewer than $C_1\log n$
returns, and the incomplete gap $[\tau_{\last},n]$ exceeds
$bn$.
\end{longlist}
The Gibbs probability of (a) can be controlled by a variant of Theorem
\ref{Mourrat}(iii), (b)~can be controlled using the small probability
of the event under the free measure and (d) is relatively
straightforward, so the main work is (c). The segment to the left of
the size-$bn$ gap corresponds to a term in the sum $\mathcal {Z}(\omega
)$, and (after we ``tie down'' the right end of the polymer by adding a
visit at time $n$) the segment to the right corresponds to a term in
$\mathcal{Z}_n(\omega )$, so we make use of Theorem~\ref{Mourrat}(i)
and a bound for the probability of a big gap under the free measure.
Let us make note here of the trivial lower bound
\begin{equation}
\label{onejump} Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega } \geq K^+(n)e^{\beta\omega_0+h},
\end{equation}
which comes from the trajectory having no renewals after time 0.
We will need the following analog of Theorem \ref{Mourrat}(iii), for
the free polymer measure.
\begin{lemma}\label{Muncon}
Let $\beta\geq0$ and $h<h_c(\beta)$. Then for all $C_1>\frac{\alpha
}{h_c(\beta)-h}$ and for $\mathbb{P}$-a.e. environment $\omega $, we
have
\[
P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h}(E_{n,C_1\log n})\longrightarrow0,\qquad\mbox{as
} n\to\infty.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf}
Let $\varepsilon >0$ satisfy $C_1>\frac{\alpha+\varepsilon }{h_c(\beta
)-h-\varepsilon }$. Using Theorem \ref{Mourrat}(ii) and
\eqref{onejump}, for some $C_2=C_2(\beta,h,\varepsilon,\alpha)$, we
have for large $n$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{numbounda} Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega }(E_{n,C_1\log n}) &=& \sum
_{j=1}^n Z^{\beta,h,c}_{j,\omega }(E_{j,C_1\log n})
K^+(n-j)
\nonumber
\\
&\leq&\sum_{k=C_1\log n}^\infty e^{-k(h_c(\beta)-h-\varepsilon )}
\nonumber
\\
&\leq& C_2n^{-(\alpha+\varepsilon )}
\\
&\leq& C_2 K^+(n)e^{\beta\omega_0+h}n^{-\varepsilon /2}
\nonumber
\\
&\leq& C_2 n^{-\varepsilon /2} Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega },
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and the lemma follows.
\end{pf}
Proposition \ref{nojump} below will show that the probability is small
for having fewer than $C_1\log n$ renewals without some gap $\sigma$
exceeding $bn$, when $b$ is chosen sufficiently small. Let us denote
this gap event by $A_{b,n}$; more precisely, let
\begin{eqnarray}\label{adef}
A_{b,n}'&=& \bigl\{\mbox{$\tau$: there exist $i,j\in[0,n]$, $j-i\geq bn$,}\nonumber
\\
&&\hspace*{49pt}\mbox{ such that } \tau\cap[i,j]=\{i,j\} \bigr\}
\\
A_{b,n}''&=& \{ \tau\dvtx
\tau_{\last} \leq n-bn \}\nonumber
\\
A_{b,n} &=& A_{b,n}' \cup A_{b,n}''.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We first prove an analogous statement for the free renewal process.
\begin{lemma}\label{decaybig}
Given $C_1$ as in Lemma \ref{Muncon} and $b \in(0,1/2)$, for
sufficiently large~$n$, we have
\[
P \bigl(E_{n,C_1\log n}^{c}\cap A_{b,n}^c
\bigr)\leq n^{-\alpha/9b}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf}
When the event $E_{n,C_1\log n}^{c}\cap A_{b,n}^c$ occurs, there exists
$l \leq C_1 \log n$ such that
\[
\sigma_1+\cdots+\sigma_l = \tau_{\last}
\in(n-bn,n] \quad\mbox{and}\quad\max_{i \leq l} \sigma_i
< bn.
\]
Among these first $l$ jumps, the total length of all jumps having
individual length $\sigma_i \leq n/4C_1\log n$ is at most $n/4$, so the
total length of all jumps with individual length $\sigma_i \in
[n/4C_1\log n,bn)$ is at least $n/4$. This means there must be at least
$1/4b$ values $\sigma_i \geq n/4C_1\log n$ among $\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_{C_1\log n}$. Presuming $n$ is large, we have
\[
p_n:= P \biggl(\sigma_1 \geq\frac{n}{4C_1\log n} \biggr)
\leq n^{-\alpha/2}.
\]
Let $k_n$ be the integer part of $C_1\log n$, and let $r$ be the least
integer greater than or equal to $1/4b$. Then for large $n$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
P \bigl(E_{n,C_1\log n}^{c}\cap A_{b,n}^c
\bigr) &\leq& P \biggl( \biggl\vert \biggl\{ i \leq k_n\dvtx
\sigma_i \geq\frac
{n}{4C_1\log n} \biggr\} \biggr\vert \geq r \biggr)
\\
&\leq& \pmatrix{k_n \cr r} p_n^r
\leq(k_np_n)^r \leq n^{-\alpha/9b}.
\end{eqnarray*}\upqed
\end{pf}
\begin{proposition} \label{nojump}
Given $C_1>0$ as in Lemma \ref{Muncon} and given $\beta,h$, for $b>0$
sufficiently small,
\[
P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h} \bigl(E_{n,C_1\log n}^{c}\cap
A_{b,n}^c \bigr) \to0 \qquad\mbox{a.s. as } n \to\infty.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{pf}
We have from Lemma \ref{decaybig} that if $b$ is sufficiently small,
then for large~$n$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{meandecay} && \frac{1}{K^+(n)} \mathbb{E} \bigl[ Z^{\beta,h}
\bigl(E_{n,C_1\log
n}^{c}\cap A_{b,n}^c \bigr)
\bigr]
\nonumber
\\
&&\qquad \leq \frac{C_\alpha n^\alpha}{\phi(n)} e^{(\log M(\beta)+h)C_1\log
n} P \bigl(E_{n,C_1\log n}^{c}
\cap A_{b,n}^c \bigr)
\\
&&\qquad \leq \frac{1}{n^3}.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore for all $\eta>0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{io1} && \mathbb{P} \bigl(P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h}
\bigl(E_{n,C_1\log
n}^{c}\cap A_{b,n}^c \bigr) >
\eta\mbox{ i.o.} \bigr)
\nonumber
\\[3pt]
&&\qquad \leq\mathbb{P} \bigl(Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega }
\bigl(E_{n,C_1\log
n}^{c}\cap A_{b,n}^c \bigr) >
\eta K^+(n)e^{\beta\omega_0+h} \mbox{ i.o.} \bigr)
\nonumber
\\[-5pt]
\\[-5pt]
&& \qquad \leq\mathbb{P} \bigl(Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega }
\bigl(E_{n,C_1\log
n}^{c}\cap A_{b,n}^c \bigr) >
\eta K^+(n)n^{-1} \mbox{ i.o.} \bigr)
\nonumber
\\[3pt]
&&\quad\qquad{} + \mathbb{P} \biggl(e^{\beta\omega_0+h} < \frac{1}{n} \mbox{
i.o.} \biggr).
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Now the second probability on the right-hand side of \eqref{io1} is 0,
and by \eqref{meandecay}, for the first probability on the right-hand
side, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathbb{P} \bigl(Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega } \bigl(E_{n,C_1\log
n}^{c}
\cap A_{b,n}^c \bigr) > \eta K^+(n)n^{-1} \bigr)
\nonumber
\\[3pt]
&&\qquad \leq\frac{n}{\eta K^+(n)} \mathbb{E} \bigl[ Z^{\beta,h}
\bigl(E_{n,C_1\log n}^{c}\cap A_{b,n}^c \bigr)
\bigr]
\\[3pt]
&&\qquad \leq\frac{1}{\eta n^2}.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Summing over $n$ and applying the Borel--Cantelli lemma completes the
proof.
\end{pf}
The next proposition, together with Lemma \ref{Muncon} and Proposition
\ref{nojump}, shows that with probability tending to one, the first
big gap, of length at least $bn$, brings the polymer out of $[0,n]$.
\begin{proposition} \label{bigjump}
For every $b,\varepsilon >0$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{limsups} \lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P} \bigl(P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h}
\bigl(A_{b,n}' \bigr) > \varepsilon \bigr)=0.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{pf}
Let $0<\theta<1$. Then, summing over possible locations $[n_1,n_2]$
for the interval of the first long jump, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{prop25eq1}
Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega} \bigl(A_{b,n}'
\bigr) &\leq& \sum_{n_1}\sum
_{n_1+bn<n_2\leq n} Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega} K(n_2-n_1)
Z^{\beta,h}_{[n_2,n],\omega}
\nonumber
\\[3pt]
&=& \sum_{n_1=0}^n\sum
_{\max(n_1+bn,n-n^\theta)<n_2\leq n} Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega}K(n_2-n_1)
Z^{\beta,h}_{[n_2,n],\omega}
\\[3pt]
&&{} + \sum_{n_1=0}^n\sum
_{n_1+bn <n_2\leq n-n^\theta} Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega}K(n_2-n_1)
Z^{\beta,h}_{[n_2,n],\omega}.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Using \eqref{onejump}, we can bound the first term on the right-hand
side of \eqref{prop25eq1} by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{prop25eq2} \hspace*{20pt}&& \sum_{n_1}\sum
_{\max(n_1+bn,n-n^\theta)<n_2\leq n}\ \sum_{l\leq n-n_2}
Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega}\,K(n_2-n_1)\,Z^{\beta,h,c}_{[n_2,n-l],\omega}\,K^+(l)
\nonumber
\\
&&\qquad \leq C K(bn) \sum_{n_1}\sum
_{\max(n_1+bn,n-n^\theta)<n_2\leq n}\ \sum_{l\leq n-n_2}
Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega}\,Z^{\beta,h,c}_{[n_2,n-l],\omega}\,K^+(l)
\nonumber
\\
&&\qquad \leq \frac{C}{b^{1+\alpha}} K(n) n^\theta \sum
_{n_1}\sum_{\max(n_1+bn,n-n^\theta)<n_2\leq n}\ \sum
_{l\leq n-n_2} Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega}\,Z^{\beta,h,c}_{[n_2,n-l],\omega}\,K(l)
\\
&&\qquad \leq \frac{C}{b^{1+\alpha}} K^+(n) n^{\theta-1} e^{-(\beta\omega_n+h)}\sum
_{n_1}\sum_{\max(n_1+bn,n-n^\theta)<n_2\leq n}
Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega}\,Z^{\beta,h,c}_{[n_2,n],\omega}
\nonumber
\\
&&\qquad \leq \frac{C}{b^{1+\alpha}} Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega} n^{\theta-1}
e^{-(\beta\omega_0+h)}e^{-(\beta\omega_n+h)} \mathcal{Z}(\omega) \mathcal{Z}_n(
\omega).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The second term on the right-hand side of \eqref{prop25eq1} is bounded
by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{prop25eq3} \qquad&& \sum_{n_1}\sum
_{n_1+bn <n_2<n-n^\theta}\ \sum_{l\leq n-n_2}
Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega }\,K(n_2-n_1)
\,Z^{\beta,h,c}_{[n_2,n-l],\omega }\,K^+(l)
\nonumber
\\
&&\qquad \leq C K(bn)\sum_{n_1}\sum
_{n_1+bn <n_2\leq n-n^\theta}\ \sum_{l\leq n-n_2}
Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega }\,Z^{\beta,h,c}_{[n_2,n-l],\omega }\,K^+(l)
\nonumber
\\
&&\qquad \leq \frac{C}{b^{1+\alpha}} K(n) n \sum_{n_1}
\sum_{n_1+bn
<n_2\leq n-n^\theta}\ \sum_{l\leq n-n_2}
Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega
}\,Z^{\beta,h,c}_{[n_2,n-l],\omega }\,K(l)
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
&&\qquad \leq \frac{C}{b^{1+\alpha}} K^+(n) e^{-(\beta\omega_n+h)} \sum
_{n_1}\sum_{n_1+bn <n_2\leq n-n^\theta}
Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega }\,Z^{\beta,h,c}_{[n_2,n],\omega }
\nonumber
\\
&&\qquad \leq \frac{C}{b^{1+\alpha}} Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega}
e^{-(\beta\omega_0+h)}e^{-(\beta\omega_n+h)} \sum_{n_1=0}^\infty
Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega } \sum_{n_2=-\infty}^{n-n^\theta}
Z^{\beta,h,c}_{[n_2,n],\omega }
\nonumber
\\
&&\qquad \leq \frac{C}{b^{1+\alpha}} Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega}
e^{-(\beta\omega_0+h)}e^{-(\beta\omega_n+h)} \mathcal{Z}(\omega ) \sum
_{n_2=-\infty}^{n-n^\theta} Z^{\beta,h,c}_{[n_2,n],\omega }.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
From \eqref{prop25eq1}, \eqref{prop25eq2} and \eqref{prop25eq3} we
have that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{twoterms} P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h} \bigl(A_{b,n}'
\bigr)&\leq& \frac{C}{b^{1+\alpha}} n^{\theta-1} e^{-(\beta\omega
_0+h)}e^{-(\beta\omega_n+h)}
\mathcal{Z}(\omega) \mathcal {Z}_n(\omega)
\nonumber
\\[-9pt]
\\[-9pt]
&&{} + \frac{C}{b^{1+\alpha}} e^{-(\beta\omega_0+h)}e^{-(\beta
\omega_n+h)} \mathcal{Z}(\omega )
\sum_{n_2=-\infty
}^{n-n^\theta} Z^{\beta,h,c}_{[n_2,n],\omega }.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Now $\mathcal{Z}(\omega )$ and $\mathcal{Z}_n(\omega )$ are finite
almost surely and equidistributed, so the first term on the right in
\eqref{twoterms} converges to 0 in $\mathbb{P}$-probability. The sum
on the right-hand side of \eqref{twoterms} has the same distribution as
\[
\sum_{m=n^\theta}^\infty Z^{\beta,h,c}_{m,\omega },
\]
so by Theorem \ref{Mourrat}(i), it converges to 0 in probability.
Hence the second term on the right-hand side of \eqref{twoterms} also
converges to 0 in probability, and the proof is complete.
\end{pf}
We can now complete the proof of our first theorem.
\begin{pf*}{Proof of Theorem \ref{delocalization}}
For $b>0$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h}(\tau_{\last}>N) &\leq&
P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h} \bigl(E_{n,C_1\log n}^c\cap
A_{b,n}^c \bigr)+ P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h}(E_{n,C_1\log n})
\\[-2pt]
&&{}+
P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h} \bigl(A_{b,n}' \bigr) +P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h} \bigl(\{\tau_{\last}>N \cap
A_{b,n}'' \bigr).
\end{eqnarray*}
By Proposition \ref{nojump}, with the choice of sufficiently small
$b>0$, and Lemma \ref{Muncon}, respectively, we have that the first and
second terms in the above expression converge to zero $\mathbb
{P}$-a.s., while by Proposition \ref{bigjump}, the third term converges
to 0 in $\mathbb{P}$-probability. Therefore, it only remains to check
that
\[
\limsup_{N\to\infty}\limsup_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P}
\bigl(P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h} \bigl(\{\tau_{\last}>N\} \cap
A_{b,n}'' \bigr) >\varepsilon \bigr)=0.
\]
To this end we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \mathbb{P} \bigl(P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h} \bigl(\{\tau_{\last}
\geq N\} \cap A_{b,n}'' \bigr) >\varepsilon
\bigr)
\\[-2pt]
&&\qquad \leq \mathbb{P} \bigl(Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega } \bigl(\{
\tau_{\last}\geq N\} \cap A_{b,n}''
\bigr) >\varepsilon K^+(n) e^{\beta\omega_0+h} \bigr)
\\[-2pt]
&&\qquad =\mathbb{P} \biggl(\sum_{N\leq n_1<n-bn}Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega
}K^+(n-n_1)
>\varepsilon K^+(n) e^{\beta\omega_0+h} \biggr)
\\[-2pt]
&&\qquad \leq \mathbb{P} \biggl(\sum_{N\leq n_1<n-bn}Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega }
>\varepsilon C_{\alpha,b}\,e^{\beta\omega_0+h} \biggr)
\\[-2pt]
&&\qquad \leq\mathbb{P} \biggl(\sum_{n_1\geq N}Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega }
>\varepsilon C_{\alpha,b}\,e^{\beta\omega_0+h} \biggr),
\end{eqnarray*}
and by Theorem \ref{Mourrat}(i), the latter tends to 0 as $N\to\infty$.
\end{pf*}
The analog of Theorem \ref{delocalization} also holds for the
constrained case, that is, for~$P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h,c}$, in the sense
that the rightmost contact point in $[0,\frac{n}{2}] $ and the leftmost
contact point in $[\frac{n}{2},n]$ occur at distances $O(1)$ from 0 and
$n$, respectively. To quantify things, let us denote
\[
\hat\tau_{\last}=\max \biggl\{j \in \biggl[0, \frac{n}{2} \biggr]
\dvtx\delta_j=1 \biggr\}
\]
and
\[
\check\tau_{\last}=\min \biggl\{j \in \biggl[\frac{n}{2},n \biggr]
\dvtx\delta_j=1 \biggr\}.
\]
Then we have the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{consdel}
Suppose $\alpha>0$, $\sum_n K(n)=1$ and that $\omega_1$ has exponential
moments of all orders. For all $\beta,\varepsilon,\delta
>0$ and for all $h<h_c(\beta)$ there exist $n_0(\varepsilon,\delta
)$, $N_0(\varepsilon,\delta)$ and $M_0(\varepsilon,\delta)$, such
that for all $n>n_0(\varepsilon,\delta)$, $N>N_0(\varepsilon,\delta)$, $M>M_0(\varepsilon,\delta)$
\[
\mathbb{P} \bigl(P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h,c} \bigl(\{\hat\tau
_{\last}>N\}\cup\{\check\tau_{\last}<n-M\} \bigr)>\varepsilon
\bigr)<\delta.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
Notice that in the constrained case $A_{b,n}=A_{b,n}'$, and we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h,c} \bigl(\{\hat\tau_{\last}>N\}\cup\{
\check \tau_{\last}<n-M\} \bigr)
\\
&&\qquad \leq P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h,c} \bigl(E_{n,C_1\log n}^c
\cap A_{b,n}^c \bigr)+ P^{\beta,h,c}_{n,\omega} (E_{n,C_1\log n})
\\
&&\qquad\quad{} + P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h,c} \bigl( \bigl(\{\hat
\tau_{\last}>N\} \cup\{\check\tau_{\last}<n-M\} \bigr) \cap
A_{b,n}' \bigr).
\end{eqnarray*}
By a straightforward modification of Proposition \ref{nojump},
Theorem~\ref{Mourrat}(iii) and Lemma~\ref{Muncon}, the first two terms converge
to zero as $n$ tends to infinity, once $b$ is chosen small enough.
Regarding the third term, notice that by symmetry it is sufficient to
control $Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n,\omega } (\{\hat\tau_{\last}>N\} \cap
A_{b,n}' )$. We make two sums according to whether the first big gap
$[n_1,n_2]$ ends before or after the midpoint $n/2$. Specifically, we
have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n,\omega
} \bigl(\{\hat\tau_{\last}>N\} \cap
A_{b,n}' \bigr)
\\
&&\qquad \leq \sum_{n_1>N} \sum_{\max(n_1+bn,n/2)<n_2\leq n} Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega}
K(n_2-n_1) Z^{\beta,h,c}_{[n_2,n],\omega }
\\
&&\quad\qquad{}+ \sum_{n_1}\sum_{n_1+bn<n_2\leq n/2}
Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n_1,\omega} K(n_2-n_1)
Z^{\beta,h,c}_{[n_2,n],\omega }.
\end{eqnarray*}
Following the same (and actually more direct) steps as in the proof of
Proposition~\ref{bigjump} we can bound the above by
\[
C_b e^{-(\beta\omega_0+h)}e^{-(\beta\omega_n+h)}Z^{\beta,h,c}_{n,\omega
} \biggl(\sum_{n_1>N} Z^{\beta,h}_{n_1,\omega } \mathcal{Z}_n(\omega )
+\mathcal{Z}(\omega )\sum _{n_2<n/2}Z^{\beta ,h,c}_{[n_2,n],\omega }
\biggr),
\]
and the rest follows as in Proposition \ref{bigjump}.
\end{pf}
\section{\texorpdfstring{Proof of Theorem \protect\ref{longreturns}}
{Proof of Theorem 1.2}}
We begin again with a sketch. Assume for simplicity that $K(1)>0$.
Suppose there is a ``rich segment'' of $[0,n]$ of length at least
$\gamma\log n$ in which the average of the disorder is at least $u$;
here $\gamma$ is small and $u$ is large. (We show that such a rich
segment exists for infinitely many $n$.) We consider the contribution
to the partition function from two different sets of trajectories:
\begin{longlist}[(a)]
\item[(a)] the single trajectory which returns at every site of the
rich segment, and nowhere else;
\item[(b)] those trajectories which make at most $\nu\log n$ returns,
with $\nu$ small.
\end{longlist}
We show that (up to slowly varying correction factors) the contribution
from (a) is at least a certain inverse power $n^{-\alpha+\kappa}$,
while a.s., except for finitely many $n$, the contribution from (b) is
bounded by the smaller inverse power $n^{-\alpha+\kappa/2}$. The
Gibbs probability of (b) is bounded by the ratio of the two
contributions, hence by~$n^{-\kappa/2}$, so it approaches~0.
We will need the following lemma, which is an elementary fact about
convex functions.
\begin{lemma} \label{convex}
Suppose $\Psi$ is nondecreasing and convex on $[0,\infty)$ with $\Psi
(0)=0$ and $\Psi'(x) \to\infty$ as $x \to\infty$. Then for all $s>1$,
\[
\Psi(sx) - s\Psi(x) \to\infty\qquad\mbox{as } x \to\infty.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf}
Since $\Psi'$ is nondecreasing, for $s>1$ and $x>1$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{derives} \Psi(sx) - s\Psi(x) &=& (s-1) \int_0^x
\bigl( \Psi' \bigl(x+(s-1)t \bigr) - \Psi'(t) \bigr)
\, dt
\\
&\geq& (s-1) \int_0^1 \bigl(
\Psi' \bigl(x+(s-1)t \bigr) - \Psi'(t) \bigr)\, dt
\\
&\geq& (s-1) \bigl(\Psi'(x) - \Psi'(1) \bigr)
\\
&\to& \infty \qquad \mbox{as } x \to \infty.
\end{eqnarray}
Here the first inequality follows from the fact that the integrand in
nonnegative.\vadjust{\goodbreak}
\end{pf}
\begin{pf*}{Proof of Theorem \ref{longreturns}}
Recall the definition of $h_t(\beta)$ from \eqref{htdef}. Suppose
$h=h_t(\beta)$ with $t>\varepsilon $. If $t\geq1$, then $h \geq
h_c(\beta)$ by \eqref{hcbeta}, so we need only consider $t<1$. Let $r =
\min\{j\dvtx K(j)>0\}$, let $\gamma,u>0$ to be specified, define
\[
J_n = \{n-ir\dvtx 0\leq i \leq\gamma\log n - 1\}, \qquad \overline{
\omega}_{J_n} = \frac{1}{|J_n|}\sum_{j\in J_n}
\omega_j,
\]
and define the event
\[
D_n^{u,\gamma} = \{\omega \dvtx \overline{\omega}_{J_n}
\geq u\}.
\]
We can bound $Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega }$ below by the contribution from
the path which makes returns precisely at the times in $J_n$, obtaining
that for large $n$, for all \mbox{$\omega \in D_n^{u,\gamma}$},
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Zlower} Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega } &\geq& e^{(\beta u + h)|J_n|} K(n-
\gamma r\log n)K(r)^{|J_n|-1}
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
&\geq& \frac{1}{2}n^{-(1+\alpha)}\phi(n) \exp \biggl(\gamma \biggl(\beta
u + h - \log\frac{1}{K(r)} \biggr)\log n \biggr).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Let $\Phi$ be the large deviation rate function related to $\omega $,
and let $\delta>0$ to be specified. For large $n$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{largedev} \mathbb{P} \bigl(D_n^{u,\gamma} \bigr) \geq
e^{-(1+\delta)\Phi(u)\gamma\log n}.
\end{equation}
Since all exponential moments of $\omega$ are finite, we have $\Phi
(u)/u\to\infty$ as $u\to\infty$.
Recalling that $\log M(\beta) = \sup\{\beta u - \Phi(u)\dvtx u\in
\mathbb{R}\}$, we can therefore choose \mbox{$u=u_\beta$} to satisfy
\[
\beta u - \Phi(u) = \log M(\beta).
\]
For $\beta$ sufficiently large (depending on $\varepsilon $), since
$\Phi'(u) \to\infty$ as $u\to\infty$, we have by Lemma \ref{convex}
that
\begin{equation}
\label{Krcost} \log M(\beta) - (1+\varepsilon \alpha)\log M \biggl(
\frac{\beta
}{1+\varepsilon \alpha} \biggr) > \log\frac{1}{K(r)}
\end{equation}
or equivalently,
\[
\beta u_\beta+ h_{\varepsilon }(\beta) - \log\frac{1}{K(r)} >
\Phi (u_\beta).
\]
We now choose $\delta$ to satisfy
\[
\beta u_\beta+ h_{\varepsilon }(\beta) - \log\frac{1}{K(r)} > (1+
\delta)\Phi(u_\beta)
\]
and then $\gamma$ to satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{gamma} \beta u_\beta+ h_{\varepsilon }(\beta) - \log
\frac{1}{K(r)} > \frac
{1}{\gamma} > (1+\delta)\Phi(u_\beta).
\end{equation}
Define $\kappa>0$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{kappadef} \gamma \biggl(\beta u_\beta+ h_{\varepsilon }(\beta)
- \log\frac
{1}{K(r)} \biggr) &=& 1+\kappa,
\end{eqnarray}
so that by \eqref{Zlower}, for all $\omega \in D_n^{u,\gamma}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{kappabound} Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega } \geq\tfrac{1}{2}n^{-\alpha+\kappa}
\phi(n).
\end{equation}
We select a subsequence of the events $\{D_n^{u,\gamma}\}$ that are
independent, as follows. Fix $n_0$ and given $n_0,\ldots,n_j$ define
$n_{j+1} = n_j + 2r\gamma\log n_j$. Then $n_j \sim2r\gamma j\log j$ as
$j\to\infty$, and it is easily checked that, provided $n_0$ is
sufficiently large, the events $\{D_{n_j}^{u,\gamma}, j\geq0\}$ are
independent. With \eqref{largedev} and \eqref{gamma} this shows that
\begin{equation}
\label{io} \sum_j \mathbb{P}
\bigl(D_{n_j}^{u,\gamma} \bigr) = \infty\quad\mbox{so}\quad
\mathbb{P} \bigl(D_n^{u,\gamma} \mbox{ i.o.} \bigr) = 1.
\end{equation}
Let us now choose
\begin{equation}
\label{mlambdanu} m > \frac{4}{\kappa}, \qquad\lambda=2 \biggl(
\frac{1}{m}\log M(m\beta)+h \biggr), \qquad\nu= \frac{\kappa}{2\lambda},
\end{equation}
with $m$ an integer. We claim that
\begin{equation}
\label{polybound} \mathbb{P} \bigl(Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega }
\bigl(E_{n,\nu\log n}^c \bigr) > n^{-\alpha+\lambda\nu}\phi(n) \mbox{
i.o.} \bigr) =0.
\end{equation}
This is plausible because for appropriate $\lambda$, $\nu\log n$
visits should not likely yield more than $\lambda\nu\log n$ energy
above the ``immediate escape'' value, which is approximately the log of
$K^+(n)$, that is, approximately $-\alpha\log n$.
Assuming this claim, we use \eqref{io} to conclude that
\[
\mathbb{P} \bigl(D_n \cap \bigl\{ Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega }
\bigl(E_{n,\nu\log n}^c \bigr) < n^{-\alpha+\lambda\nu}\phi(n) \bigr\}
\mbox{ i.o.} \bigr) = 1,
\]
which with \eqref{kappabound} shows that
\[
\mathbb{P} \bigl(P_{n,\omega}^{\beta,h} \bigl(E_{n,\nu\log n}^c
\bigr) < 2n^{-\kappa/2} \mbox{ i.o.} \bigr)=1,
\]
which proves the theorem.
It remains to prove \eqref{polybound}. Observe that by Chebyshev's
inequality we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{polybound2}
&& \mathbb{P} \bigl(Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega }
\bigl(E_{n,\nu\log
n}^c \bigr) > n^{-\alpha+\lambda\nu}\phi(n) \bigr)
\nonumber\\[-8pt]\\[-8pt]
&&\qquad \leq
\bigl(n^{-\alpha}\phi(n) \bigr)^{-m} n^{-m\lambda\nu} \mathbb{E}
\bigl[ \bigl(Z_{n,\omega }^{\beta,h} \bigl(E_{n,\nu\log n}^c
\bigr) \bigr)^m \bigr].\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Denoting by $E^{\otimes m}$ the expectation over $m$ independent copies
of the renewal $\tau$, we see
that the expectation on the right-hand side of \eqref{polybound2} can
be written as
\[
E^{\otimes m} \bigl[ e^{\sum_{i=1}^n (\log M(\beta(\delta
_i^{(1)}+\cdots+\delta_i^{(m)})) +h(\delta_i^{(1)}+\cdots+\delta
_i^{(m)}) )}; \bigl(E_{n,\nu\log n}^c
\bigr)^{\otimes m} \bigr],
\]
where $(E_{n,\nu\log n}^c)^{\otimes m}$ is the $m$-fold product of
$E_{n,\nu\log n}^c$. Using the convexity of $\log M(\beta)$ we have
\[
\log M(\beta k) \leq\frac{k}{m} \log M(\beta m) \qquad\mbox{for all } k
\leq m,
\]
so we can bound the above expectation by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{mfoldmean} && E^{\otimes m} \bigl[ e^{\sum_{i=1}^n ((1/m)\log M(m\beta
) +h )(\delta_i^{(1)}+\cdots+\delta_i^{(m)})};
\bigl(E_{n,\nu\log
n}^c \bigr)^{\otimes m} \bigr]
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
&& \qquad< e^{ ((1/m)\log M(m\beta) +h ) m\nu\log n} P \bigl(E_{n,\nu
\log n}^c
\bigr)^m.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We use $A_{b,n}$ from \eqref{adef}. By Lemma \ref{decaybig} we have
for $b$ sufficiently small and then $n$ sufficiently large,
\begin{eqnarray}
P \bigl(E_{n,\nu\log n}^c \bigr) &\leq& P \bigl(E_{n,\nu\log n}^c
\cap A_{b,n}^c \bigr) + \sum_{j=1}^{\nu\log n}
P(\sigma_j >bn)
\nonumber
\\
&\leq& n^{-2\alpha} + \nu K^+(bn)\log n
\nonumber
\\
&\leq& C_b\nu\log n \frac{\phi(n)}{n^\alpha}.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Inserting this into \eqref{mfoldmean} and the result into \eqref
{polybound2}, and considering our choice of $\lambda,m,\nu$, we
obtain that
\[
\mathbb{P} \bigl(Z^{\beta,h}_{n,\omega } \bigl(E_{n,\nu\log n}^c
\bigr) > n^{-\alpha+\lambda\nu}\phi(n) \bigr) \leq (C_b\nu\log
n)^m n^{-m\kappa/4},
\]
which, by the choice of $m$ in \eqref{mlambdanu} and the
Borel--Cantelli lemma, completes the proof.
\end{pf*}
If we do not assume $\beta$ large in Theorem \ref{longreturns}, then in
the proof, the entropy cost $\log1/K(r)$ per visit to $J_n$ will not be
exceeded by the energy gain; in more concrete terms, \eqref {Krcost}
will fail. The entropy cost can be reduced by visiting only a small
fraction of the sites in an interval of form $[n-\gamma\log n,n]$, but
then the interval length $\gamma\log n$ (where the disorder average
exceeds $u_\beta$) must be much larger than in the large-$\beta$ proof,
reducing the probability of such an interval. It is not clear whether
there is a strategy (in place of the present ``visit all sites of
$J_n$'') of sufficiently low entropy cost so that the interval of large
average disorder values can be exploited, and therefore it seems
unclear whether a variant of Theorem \ref{longreturns} should be true
for small~$\beta$.\looseness=1
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank the referee for improved proofs of
Lemmas \ref{decaybig} and \ref{convex}.
Part of this work was
done during the School and Conference on Random Polymers and Related
Topics, at the National University of Singapore. The authors would like
to thank the institute for the hospitality.
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{table}[b]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c||r|l|l}
Contribution & $\hspace{-0.6cm}a_\mu\times 10^{11}\hspace{0.5cm}$ &
$\hspace{0.5cm}\dfrac{a_\mu^i}{a_\mu^{SM}}$ & $\left(\dfrac{\delta a_\mu^i}{\delta a_\mu^{SM}}\right)^2$ \\
\hline\hline
QED & $116\,584\,718.1\,(\,\,\,0.2)$ & $99.99390\%$ & $00.00098\%$ \\
\hline
weak & $153.2\,(\,\,\,1.8)$ & $00.00013\%$ & $00.07910\%$ \\
\hline
QCD LOHVP & $6\,949.1\,(58.2)$ & $00.00596\%$ & $82.69628\%$ \\
\hline
QCD HOHVP & $-98.4\,(\,\,\,1.0)$ & $00.00008\%$ & $00.02441\%$ \\
\hline
QCD LBL & $105\,\,\,\,\,\,(26\,\,\,\,)$ & $00.00009\%$ & $16.50391\%$ \\
\hline
Standard Model & $116\,591\,827.0\,(64\,\,\,\,)$ & $100\%$ & $100\%$ \\
\hline
Experiment & $116\,592\,089\,\,\,\,\,\,(63\,\,\,\,)$ &\\
\hline\hline
Exp-Theo & $262\,\,\,\,\,\,(89\,\,\,\,)$ &
\end{tabular}
\caption{Standard Model contributions to the muon $g-2$.}
\label{tab:DiffContrToAm}
\end{table}
The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $a_\mu$ is an observable that furnishes
a precision test of the electromagnetic (EM) interaction, the weak interaction
and the strong interaction. The relative size of the different theoretical parts
and comparison with the experimental results of the E821 experiment at
Brookhaven~\cite{Bennett:2006fi,Roberts:2010cj} are shown in
table~\ref{tab:DiffContrToAm}. The dominant contribution of more than $99\%$ is
due to the EM interaction as described by quantum electrodynamics (QED), which
has been evaluated up to order $\alpha^5$ in the fine structure constant
\cite{Aoyama:2012wk}. In addition, given the theoretical and experimental
precision available, the weak interaction yields significant contributions
\cite{Czarnecki:2002nt}.
An interesting feature of the observable $a_\mu$ is its sensitivity to non-perturbative
QCD corrections. The leading QCD contribution amounts to about $0.006\%$ which is about
two orders of magnitude larger than the total theory uncertainty. Together, the leading
and sub-leading QCD contributions dominate the error of the
total Standard Model prediction as can be seen in the table. This is because
perturbation theory is not applicable and the methods used lead to a
substantial error here. The two most relevant hadronic contributions are the hadronic
vacuum polarisation (HVP) and the light-by-light (LBL) scattering contribution. The
former is related to experimentally available $e^+ e^- \rightarrow hadrons$ data via
dispersion relations (see \cite{Jegerlehner:2009ry}) and as such the error can be
systematically reduced. This quantity is furthermore the subject of several recent
lattice studies~\cite{Feng:2011zk,Boyle:2011hu,DellaMorte:2011aa}. Furthermore, we
have applied the method of Dyson-Schwinger equations (DSEs) to this quantity and were
able to reproduce the dispersion analysis result on the ten percent
level~\cite{Goecke:2011pe}. The result for HVP quoted in Table~\ref{tab:DiffContrToAm}
is taken from Ref.~\cite{Hagiwara:2011af}.
Whilst presently the uncertainty is dominated by HVP, the LBL contributions
(shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:LBLContribution}) are potentially more problematic in the long
run since it is extremely hard to determine these in a model-independent way. The LBL
contributions have been investigated from the view point of low-energy effective
models such as the
Extended Nambu--Jona-Lasinio (ENJL) model~\cite{Bijnens:1995xf}, the Hidden Local
Symmetry (HLS) model~\cite{Hayakawa:1995ps}, vector meson dominance (VMD)
approaches~\cite{Knecht:2001qf,Melnikov:2003xd}, the non-local chiral quark
model (NL$\chi$QM) \cite{Dorokhov:2008pw,Dorokhov:2012qa}, the chiral constituent
quark model ($\chi$CQM)~\cite{Greynat:2012ww}, in holographic models~\cite{Cappiello:2010uy}
and Dyson-Schwinger Equations~\cite{Fischer:2010iz,Goecke:2010if}. The lattice
calculations of LBL are still at an exploratory stage \cite{Hayakawa:2005eq}.
The LBL-contribution quoted in Table~\ref{tab:DiffContrToAm} is taken from Ref.
\cite{Prades:2009tw}. There different groups, pursuing the strategy of
hadronic models, agreed on this number.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{hadroniclbl}
\end{center}
\caption{The light-by-light scattering contribution to the muon $g-2$.
The main ingredient is the hadronic photon four-point function $\Pi_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$ to be
discussed below.}
\label{fig:LBLContribution}
\end{figure}
A future experiment, to be conducted at Fermilab, will measure the anomalous magnetic
moment of the muon $a_\mu$ to a precision of $0.14\,\textrm{ppm}$~\cite{E989exper}.
It is thus mandatory to work towards getting the LBL contribution under sufficient
control. For this undertaking we require mature non-perturbative methods that are
well-rooted in QCD, such as DSE's and lattice QCD. We believe that a promising way
for the future is to combine these methods in a complementary fashion.
In previous works we have determined important parts of the hadronic LBL
contributions such as pseudoscalar meson exchange and non-transverse contributions
to the quark-loop part of LBL \cite{Fischer:2010iz,Goecke:2010if}. What has been left
out so far are the transverse structures of the quark-photon coupling due to numerical
complexity. From vector-meson dominance models, however, these contributions are
believed to be sizable and negative and therefore lead to a substantial overall
reduction of the LBL contribution to the muons anomalous magnetic moment. A complete
approach towards LBL therefore has to include these contributions explicitly. In this
work we provide a further step into this direction. The main focus of this article is,
however, on the comparison between our approach and models like the ENJL or chiral
quark model. We will argue that such models provide simple tools to give important
qualitative insights into the significance of different contributions to LBL. However,
in order to provide more precise quantitative results, more elaborate approaches
that take into account the full momentum dependence of dressing functions are mandatory.
This paper is organized as follows. First we briefly introduce the quantity under
question and give the Dyson-Schwinger
Equations (DSE) and the particular truncation used in this work, together with some
notation, in section~\ref{sec:DSEBasics}.
In section~\ref{sec:ContentofLBL} we
introduce the hadronic four-point function that lies at the heart of the LBL
contribution and define it in terms of Green's functions. The main
body of this work, the quark loop contribution to LBL, is discussed at length in
section~\ref{sec:QuarkLoopResultAndDiscussion}. Here we make comparison between
the DSE and the ENJL approach in order to highlight similarities and differences.
This is followed by a detailed discussion of our numerical results in
section~\ref{sec:Results}, where the main focus is on the influence of momentum
dependent dressing functions and the different structures in the self-consistent
quark photon vertex that are a vital part of our calculation. Details concerning
the quark-photon vertex and the derivation of the hadronic four-point tensor in
the present truncation are given in the appendix.
\section{Basics}
\label{sec:DSEBasics}
To obtain the LBL contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment
$a^\mathrm{LBL}_\mu$ one must consider its contribution to the
muon-photon vertex shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:LBLContribution}.
On the muon mass-shell this vertex can be decomposed as
\begin{align}
\parbox{1cm}{\includegraphics[width=0.08\textwidth]{Muon_Vertex}}\quad
&=\bar{u}(p\prime)
\left[F_1(q^2)\gamma_\alpha+iF_2(q^2)\frac{\sigma_{\alpha\beta}q^\beta}{2 m_\mu}\right]u(p),
\label{eqn:MuonPhotonVertexDecomposition}
\end{align}
where $p$ and $p^\prime$ are the muon momenta, $q$ is the photon
momentum and $\sigma_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{i}{2}[\gamma_\alpha,\gamma_\beta]$. The
anomalous magnetic moment is defined as
\begin{align}
a_\mu = \frac{g-2}{2}=F_2(0),
\label{eqn:DefOfAnomaly}
\end{align}
which is obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eqn:MuonPhotonVertexDecomposition})
in the limit of vanishing photon momentum, $q^2$. Here we will use the
technique advocated in Ref.~\cite{Aldins:1970id} which simplifies the
numerics by ensuring that all integrals are explicitly finite, see
Ref.~\cite{Goecke:2010if} for details.
In the following we introduce the Dyson-Schwinger equations for the quark propagator
and the quark-photon vertex, together with the truncation scheme used in our
calculations.
The dressed quark propagator is given by
\begin{equation}
S^{-1}(p) = Z_f^{-1}(p^2) \left( -i\sh{p} + M(p^2) \right)\,\,,
\label{eqn:inverse_quark_propagator}
\end{equation}
where $Z_f(p^2)$ is the quark wave-function renormalisation and $M(p^2)$
is the quark mass function. These scalar functions are obtained
as solutions to the quark DSE,
\begin{equation}
S^{-1}(p)=Z_2 S_0^{-1} + g^2 Z_{1f} \frac{4}{3}\!\int\!
\overline{dk} \gamma^\mu S(k) \Gamma^\nu(k,p) D_{\mu\nu}(q)\,,
\label{eqn:quark_DSE}
\end{equation}
where $\overline{dk}=d^4k/(2\pi)^4$ and $q=k-p$ is the gluon's momentum. The bare
inverse quark propagator is $S_0^{-1}(p) = - i\sh{p} + m_0$. This bare mass is
related to the renormalized one by $Z_2 m_0 = Z_2 Z_m m_q$, with $Z_2$ and $Z_m$
the wave-function and quark-mass renormalisation constants. The renormalisation
constant for the quark-gluon vertex is $Z_{1f}$. To solve Eq.~(\ref{eqn:quark_DSE})
we need the gluon propagator $D_{\mu\nu}(q)$ and the quark-gluon vertex $\Gamma^\nu(k,p)$.
The quark-gluon interaction that appears in the DSE for the quark reads:
\begin{equation}\label{DSEkernel}
Z_{1f}\,\frac{g^2}{4\pi}\,D_{\mu\nu}(q)\,\Gamma_\nu(k,p) \,.
\end{equation}
In Landau gauge, $D_{\mu\nu} = T_{\mu\nu}(q) Z(q^2)/q^2$ where the transverse
projector is $T_{\mu\nu}(q) = \delta_{\mu\nu} - q_\mu q_\nu/q^2$. The quark-gluon
vertex $\Gamma_\nu(k,p)$ can be decomposed into twelve Dirac covariants. However,
we will employ the rainbow-ladder (RL) truncation, which requires that we replace
the complicated structure of the quark-gluon vertex with just its $\gamma_\mu$
component. Hence Eq.~(\ref{DSEkernel}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:trunc2}
Z_{1f}\,\frac{g^2}{4\pi}\,
T_{\mu\nu}(q) \,\frac{Z(q^2)}{q^2}\, \Lambda(q^2)
\gamma_\nu\,\,,
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda(q^2)$ is the non-perturbative dressing of the $\gamma_\nu$ part
of the quark-gluon vertex, restricted to depend only on the exchanged gluon
momentum.
Combining all scalar dressings into one effective running coupling, $\alpha_{\rm eff}(q^2)$ we have
\begin{equation}
Z_{1f}\,\frac{g^2}{4\pi} \,D_{\mu\nu}(q) \,\Gamma_\nu(k,p)
= Z_2^2 \, T_{\mu\nu}(q) \,\frac{\alpha_{\rm eff}(q^2)}{q^2}\,\gamma_\nu\,,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ is a renormalization group invariant.
The factor $Z_2^2$ ensures multiplicative renormalizability.
In contemporary Dyson-Schwinger studies one employs the Bethe-Salpeter equations to
study bound states of two particles, with the interaction described by a two-body kernel.
To provide a realistic description of pseudoscalar mesons one requires that the
dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry is encoded into the truncation.
The symmetry-preserving two-body kernel corresponding to this yields
the `ladder' part of RL. For simplicity we quote this in terms of
$\alpha_{\rm eff}$,
\begin{equation}
K_{rs,tu}(q)= 4\pi \,Z_2^2 \,\frac{\alpha_{\rm eff}(q^2)}{q^2}\,
T_{\mu\nu}(q)\,\left[\gamma^\mu\right]_{rt} \left[\gamma^\nu\right]_{us}\,\,.
\label{eqn:ladder}
\end{equation}
Note that it is possible to employ a beyond-RL truncation here, see
Refs.~\cite{Fischer:2008wy,Fischer:2009jm,Alkofer:2008et,Chang:2009zb,Bashir:2012fs}.
In practice such an extension complicates the numerics considerably
and is therefore not yet viable in the context of $g-2$.
We will employ an effective interaction called the Maris-Tandy (MT)
model which has much phenomenological success for pseudoscalar and
vector meson masses, decay constants and form factors
~\cite{Maris:1997tm,Maris:1999nt,Maris:1999bh,Jarecke:2002xd,Maris:2002mz}.
Success in the meson sector has led to its widespread use in the calculation of
baryon properties
\cite{Eichmann:2009qa,Eichmann:2011vu,Eichmann:2011pv,SanchisAlepuz:2011jn}.
This effective running coupling is given by
\begin{align}
\alpha_{\rm eff}(q^2) &=
\pi\frac{D}{\omega^2}\,x^2 \, e^{-x}+\frac{2\pi\gamma_m \big(1-e^{-y}\big)}{\log\,[e^2-1+(1+z)^2]}\,, \\
x &= q^2/\omega^2\,, \quad
y = q^2/\Lambda_{t}^2\,, \quad
z = q^2/\Lambda_{QCD}^2\,, \nonumber
\end{align}
and features a Gaussian distribution in the infrared that provides dynamical
chiral symmetry breaking. It is characterized by an energy scale
$\left(\omega D\right)^{1/3}=0.72$~GeV, fixed to give the pion decay constant,
and we choose $\omega =0.4$~GeV. The second part reproduces the one-loop
running coupling at large perturbative momenta. It includes the anomalous
dimension $\gamma_m=12/(11N_C-2N_f)$ of the quark propagator, and we use
$\gamma_m=12/25$, $\Lambda_{QCD}=0.234$ GeV and $\Lambda_t=1$ GeV. Note that we
also employ a Pauli-Villars like regulator with a mass scale of $316$~GeV.
We focus here on the two lightest quarks whose mass at $\mu=19$~GeV is $3.7$~MeV.
The equation for the quark-photon vertex can be written in the form of an inhomogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation in rainbow-ladder truncation, dependent upon the same two-body ladder kernel Eq.~(\ref{eqn:ladder})
\begin{align}
[\Gamma_\mu(P,k)]_{rs}=& Z_1 \gamma_\mu \label{eqn:LadderQEDVertexBSE} \\
- Z_2^2\frac{4}{3}&\int \overline{dq}
\,[S(q_+)\Gamma_\mu(P,q) S(q_-)]_{ut}K_{tu,rs}(k-q) \,, \nonumber
\end{align}
where $\overline{dq}=d^4q/(2\pi)^4$, $P$ is the outgoing photon momentum,
$q_\pm = q \pm P/2$, and $Z_1$ (by the Ward identity $Z_1=Z_2$) is the renormalization constant of the
quark-photon vertex. The use of rainbow-ladder here ensures that the
important vector and axial-vector Ward-Takahashi identities (WTIs)
hold~\cite{Maris:1997hd,Munczek:1994zz}.
For our purposes it is reassuring to have a description that is able to reproduce
a number of observables whilst at the same time being sufficiently simple that we
can define unambiguously the hadronic four-point function.
Furthermore, this approach describes at the same time both the perturbative and
non-perturbative regime. This unification of IR and UV scales is very important
for the problem of LBL and is not shared by effective low-energy descriptions
of the strong interaction. The importance of this feature will be elaborated
in section \ref{sec:QuarkLoopResultAndDiscussion}.
\section{Content of the hadronic four-point function.}
\label{sec:ContentofLBL}
Now we turn to the structure of the hadronic photon four-point function
$\Pi_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$, central to the computation of the hadronic LBL
contributions.
Using the rainbow-ladder truncation as introduced above, this object can
be written exactly in the form (see Appendix~\ref{appB})
\begin{align}
\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.84\columnwidth]{4photonvertex2}
\end{array}\,,
\label{eqn:Hadr4PointFunctionDecomposition}
\end{align}
where the factors $6$ and $12$ indicate the number of permutations of the
diagrams that one must consider.
We see that there are two classes of diagrams:
\begin{itemize}
\item The second
class of diagram contains the T-matrix that describes all kinds of quark-antiquark
interactions including the dynamical propagation of mesons. In our earlier work,
the T-matrix was approximated by pseudoscalar meson
exchange~\cite{Fischer:2010iz,Goecke:2010if} in reasonable agreement with
low energy effective models
\cite{Bijnens:1995xf,Bijnens:2001cq,Hayakawa:1996ki,Hayakawa:1997rq,Hayakawa:2001bb,
Knecht:2001qf,Melnikov:2003xd,Nyffeler:2009uw,Prades:2009tw,Dorokhov:2008pw,Dorokhov:2011zf,Greynat:2012ww}.
\item The first diagram, which we refer to as the quark-loop topology, will constitute
the main focus of this work. This object is composed entirely of fully dressed
quark propagators and quark-photon vertices. In our previous
publications~\cite{Fischer:2010iz,Goecke:2010if} we were not in a position to
employ here the full quark-photon vertex as described by
Eq.~(\ref{eqn:LadderQEDVertexBSE}) due to the numerical complexity. Instead, we
were limited to the Ball-Chiu construction~\cite{Ball:1980ay} that fixes the
first four components of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:QPVMarisTandyBasis}) exactly in terms
of the quark dressing functions, see Eq.~(\ref{eqn:BCVertex}).
\end{itemize}
In this work we will investigate the leading transverse structure
that, amongst other things, dynamically yield the picture of vector meson
dominance (VMD)~\cite{Maris:1999bh}. This is the case since these structures
couple to the vector meson channel and hence one finds time-like poles
corresponding to bound states. The leading component will be extracted and
compared with its ENJL equivalent. Note that we will limit the considerations
to the case of two degenerate flavors for simplicity.
The contributions of strange and charm quarks are only
included for our best estimate of the LBL contribution in section \ref{best}.
Note that there are contributions in the four-point function
that are not accounted for in the representation of \Eq{eqn:Hadr4PointFunctionDecomposition}.
These include unquenching effects due to internal quark lines that can be connected to the
dynamical back-coupling of hadronic degrees of freedom~\cite{Fischer:2007ze}. In effective
descriptions such contributions show up as pion-loops that organise themselves
into a counting scheme within chiral perturbation theory.
These contributions are typically considered to be sub-leading. A recent investigation,
however, finds that next-to-leading order contributions might be more important than expected
due to the somewhat accidental smallness of the leading terms \cite{Engel:2012xb}.
\section{Quark loop: comparing DSE to ENJL}
\label{sec:QuarkLoopResultAndDiscussion}
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{LBLContribution_QL_nolabels}
\end{center}
\caption{The quark loop contribution to the muon $g-2$. The quarks
and vertices are dressed according to Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:quark_DSE},\ref{eqn:LadderQEDVertexBSE}).}
\label{fig:LBLQLcontribution}
\end{figure}
In principle we have all of the ingredients at our disposal, see
Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:MuonPhotonVertexDecomposition},\ref{eqn:DefOfAnomaly})
to calculate the quark-loop contribution to LBL shown in Fig. \ref{fig:LBLQLcontribution}.
We note that this
involves a three-loop integration over fully dressed quark propagators
and quark-photon vertices which poses a considerable numerical
challenge. Thus, to err on the side of caution we present a step-wise
investigation of going beyond the tree-level approximation reported
in~\cite{Fischer:2010iz}.
Additionally, it is useful to put our calculation in perspective so that
a greater understanding of our approach can be conveyed. To this end, we
will present a comparison between the DSE approach and the, in many ways
similar, ENJL model \cite{Bijnens:1995ww,Bijnens:1995ww}. There are of
course subtle differences between the two, and we will here point out,
contrast, and discuss the consequences of each. This we further cement
by testing ENJL-inspired vertices within our approach to explicate their
kinematical differences.
\subsection{The ENJL perspective}
The inverse quark propagator in the ENJL model is just
\begin{align}
S^{-1}_{\mathrm{ENJL}}(p) = -i\, \sh{p}+M\,,
\label{eqn:NJLQuark}
\end{align}
with $p$ a Euclidean momentum and $M$ the constituent quark mass. Note
that the wave function renormalisation is just unity and the mass function
is independent of momentum.
The quark-photon vertex is given here by a bubble sum
\begin{align}
\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{qedVertexNJL}
\end{array}
\, , \label{eqn:NJLBubbleSum}
\end{align}
see Refs.~\cite{Bijnens:1995xf,Bijnens:1994ey} for details.
Owing to the simple structure of the effective four-quark vertices,
the contributions can be resummed as a simple geometric series of
one-loop amplitudes $\sum_n \mathrm{Bubble}^n = 1/(1-\mathrm{Bubble})$.
As a result, the quark-photon vertex depends only on the photon momentum
$Q^2$ and not on the relative momentum of the quarks\footnote{
Note that a similar simplification happens for the four-quark T-matrix,
which essentially reduces to a bubble sum sandwiched between two pairs
of quark legs. The resulting mesons are point-like objects.}.
Thus we have
\begin{align}
\Gamma_\mu^\mathrm{ENJL}(Q) = \gamma_\mu - g_\mathrm{ENJL} \Pi_{\mu\nu}(Q) \gamma_\nu\,,
\label{eqn:NJLVertex}
\end{align}
where $g_\mathrm{ENJL}$ is derived from standard NJL couplings.
The bubble sum $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(Q)$ has the transverse structure
\begin{align}
\Pi_{\mu\nu}(Q^2) = \left( Q^2\delta_{\mu\nu}-Q_\mu Q_\nu \right) \Pi^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}}(Q^2)\,,
\label{eqn:NJLMesonPropagatorDecomposition}
\end{align}
since a potential longitudinal piece $\Pi^\mathrm{L}(Q^2)$ vanishes for
identical quark masses~\cite{Bijnens:1994ey}.
According to Ref.~\cite{Bijnens:1994ey} the transverse part in the VMD limit
has the form
\begin{align}
\Pi^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}}(Q^2)= \frac{2 f_V^2 M_V^2}{M_V+Q^2}\,,
\label{eqn:TransverseNJLMesonPropagator}
\end{align}
where the momentum dependence of the mass function $M_V$ and decay
constant $f_V$ are neglected, which is reported to be a rather good
approximation to the momentum dependent case. In the limit we consider
here, $2f_V^2M_V^2= 1/g_{\mathrm{ENJL}}$ and so
\begin{align}
\Gamma_\mu^\mathrm{ENJL} = \gamma_\mu - \gamma^T_\mu \frac{Q^2}{Q^2+M_V^2}\,,
\label{eqn:NJLVertexLT}
\end{align}
where $\gamma_\mu^{T}=\gamma_\nu\,T_{\mu\nu}(Q)$ and $M_V$ is identified with
the mass of the $\rho$-meson. Together with the quark propagator \Eq{eqn:NJLQuark}
the vertex satisfies the vector Ward-Takahashi identity (WTI), Eq.~(\ref{eqn:QEDWTI}).
Note that the vertex in \Eq{eqn:NJLVertexLT} can be written as $\sim \gamma_\mu M_V^2/(Q^2+M_V^2)$
if the quark loop is transverse. This explicates why a suppression is found
for VMD inspired transverse dressings compared to a bare vertex $\gamma_\mu$.
\begin{comment}
With the final hadronic photon four-point function
assumed to be transverse, the dressed quark-photon vertex in the ENJL
model reduces to
\begin{align}
\Gamma_\mu^\mathrm{ENJL} = \gamma_\mu^T \frac{M_V^2}{Q^2+M_V^2}\,,
\label{eqn:NJLVertexCombined}
\end{align}
which gives rise to a clear VMD-like suppression when compared to the the
bare vertex.
Given that for a quark propagator with momentum independent dressing function
the bare vertex satisfies the vector Ward-Takahashi identity (WTI),
Eq.~(\ref{eqn:QEDWTI}) we see a direct comparison between the ENJL model and
our DSE framework which consists of a piece fixed by the WTI and a component
that is dominated by a vector meson pole.
\end{comment}
\subsection{The DSE perspective}
In the DSE approach, the inverse quark propagator has the following covariant
decomposition
\begin{align}
S^{-1}_{\mathrm{DSE}}(p) = Z_f^{-1}(p^2)\,(-i\, \sh{p}+M(p^2))\,,
\label{eqn:DSEQuarkProp}
\end{align}
where in contrast to Eq.~(\ref{eqn:NJLQuark}) we have a
momentum dependent wave function $Z_f(p^2)$ and mass function
$M(p^2)$.
In the rainbow-ladder truncation employed here, the quark-photon vertex is
a dressed ladder-resummation of effective gluons
\begin{align}
\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.82\columnwidth]{qedVertexDSE}
\end{array}\,.
\label{eqn:DSELAdderSum}
\end{align}
If we replace the gluon exchange by a momentum independent contact interaction
we arrive at a picture similar to the ENJL model above. Keeping the
exchange as is, the calculation is somewhat more involved as we can no longer
have a simple geometric series.
The full quark-photon vertex is given by
\begin{align}
\Gamma_\mu(Q,k) = \sum_{i=1}^{4} \lambda^{(i)}L_\mu^{(i)}(Q,k) + \sum_{i=1}^{8} \tau^{(i)}T_\mu^{(i)} (Q,k)\,,
\label{eqn:VertexDecomposition}
\end{align}
with $\lambda^{(i)}=\lambda^{(i)}(Q^2,k^2,Q\cdot k)$ and
$\tau^{(i)}=\tau^{(i)}(Q^2,k^2,Q\cdot k)$ the longitudinal and transverse
scalar coefficients respectively that correspond to the basis elements given
in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:QPVMarisTandyBasis}). Additionally $\Gamma^{\mathrm{BC}}_\mu =\sum_{i=1}^{4} \lambda^{(i)}L_\mu^{(i)}(Q,k)$ defines the Ball-Chiu vertex with the coefficients fixed
by the vector WTI \cite{Ball:1980ay}.
Our main interest here lies in the eight transverse components $T_\mu^{(i)} (Q,k)$
which couple to vector bound-states. For the sake of comparison with the ENJL
model, we will take only the leading transverse component $T_\mu^{(1)}(Q,k)=\gamma_\mu^T$ under
consideration in this work.
While we are mainly working with the full numerical result for the quark-photon vertex
it is sometimes useful to also have a simple analytical form at hand, which captures
the main features of the numerical solution.
An approximate form for the leading component of the transverse part has been given in
Ref.~\cite{Maris:1999bh} which depends on both the relative and total momenta
of the vertex
\begin{align}
\Gamma_\mu(Q,k) \simeq\Gamma_\mu^\mathrm{BC}\!-\!
\gamma_\mu^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}} \frac{\omega^4N_V}{\omega^4+k^4}
\frac{f_V}{M_V}\frac{Q^2}{Q^2+M_V^2}\, e^{-\alpha(Q^2+M_V^2)}.
\label{eqn:QEDVertexFitToLeadingTransverse}
\end{align}
This form has been fitted to the full numerical solution for the quark-photon
vertex obtained from its BSE. Here, $\omega$ and $\alpha$ describe the suppression
of the amplitude for large relative and total momentum respectively. We find
reasonable agreement with the numerical solution with $\omega = 0.66\,\mbox{GeV}$,
$\alpha=0.15$ and $N_V f_V/M_V = 0.152$, see Fig. \ref{fig:TransverseVertexDSENJL}.
Additionally, $N_V$ is a normalization factor. We consider this formula to be the
VMD limit of the DSE quark-photon vertex. In addition to this BSE inspired fit,
we will also employ the $T^{(1)}_\mu$ component of the vertex as extracted from
the full calculation of the quark-photon vertex BSE.
\subsection{Differences between DSE and ENJL}
One of the key differences between the ENJL and DSE approaches is that in the former we
have a contact interaction, whilst the latter features an interaction that
features momentum exchange. This has far-reaching consequences as we discuss below.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth,angle=-90]{QuarkMASS_DSE_NJL}\vspace*{6mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth,angle=-90]{Quark_Z_DSE_NJL}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison of the mass function $M$ and the wave function
$Z_f$ for DSE and ENJL quarks.}
\label{fig:QuarkMandZdseANDnjl}
\end{figure}
Firstly we look at the differences in the quark propagator, see Fig.~\ref{fig:QuarkMandZdseANDnjl}.
In the ENJL model we have $Z_f(p^2)=1$ and $M(p^2)=M_{\textrm{const}}$
as opposed to the fully momentum dependent functions from the DSE.
For the quark mass function, we see that in the DSE it saturates
in the IR at about $M(0)\approx 450\,$MeV and continuously connects to its
perturbative running at large momenta. The ENJL model, in contrast features a
constituent-like quark mass of $\sim 300\,$MeV at all scales up until the model
cut-off $\sim 1$~GeV.
For the quark wave function renormalisation, we see that for a large momentum range
$Z_f(p^2)<1$ which constitutes a suppression of the quark propagator with respect
to the constant $Z$ of the ENJL model.
This can have several
consequences for the quark-loop contribution to $g-2$, Fig.~\ref{fig:LBLQLcontribution},
where there are four quark propagators. With $Z_f(p^2)<1$ in the DSE approach, we may expect
a suppression of the contribution by a factor $Z_f(s)^4$ for some representative, `average'
momentum scale $s$. On the other hand, the momentum dependent quark-mass function allows
for quark masses smaller than $M(p^2=0)$ to be probed. Naively, this leads to an enhancement
of the contribution. This may be equivalent to using a momentum-independent quark mass $M(s)$
where $s$ is some representative momentum scale. This `effective' mass may be surprisingly
small and, indeed, such small quark masses have been observed to be necessary in several
models \cite{Dorokhov:2008pw,Greynat:2012ww,Boughezal:2011vw}. We come back to this point below.
If we now compare the ENJL vertex, Eq.~(\ref{eqn:NJLVertexLT}) and its DSE equivalent,
Eq.~(\ref{eqn:QEDVertexFitToLeadingTransverse}) we see that there is a similar structure. That
is, there is a part dictated by the WTI (gauge part) and a part that represents the VMD physics of the
transverse vertex. Whilst in the case of the DSE we have functions that depend on both the
photon and relative quark momenta, in the case of the ENJL model we have trivial momentum
dependence for the gauge-part, and reduced momentum dependence for the transverse part.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth,angle=-90]{1BCDressing}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth,angle=-90]{1BCDressingkk}
\end{center}
\caption{The leading $\lambda^{(1)}$ component of the quark-photon vertex constrained by the Ward-Takahashi identity of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:QEDWTI}) and given in Eq~(\ref{eqn:1BCVertex}). We show two slices as
a function of the total and relative momenta $Q^2$ (with $k=0$) and $k^2$
(with $Q=0$), respectively. Note that the
constant dressing corresponds to the ENJL model.}
\label{fig:1BCVertexDSENJL}
\end{figure}
First, let us discuss the gauge part of the quark-photon vertices. The
leading coefficient of $\gamma_\mu$ has the form
\begin{align}
\lambda^{(1)}(Q^2,k^2,k\cdot Q) = \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{1}{Z_f(k_+^2)}+\frac{1}{Z_f(k_-^2)}\right)\,,
\label{eqn:1BCVertex}
\end{align}
where $k_\pm = k \pm Q/2$. Based on the difference in behavior of the
quark propagators, we see for the ENJL model that $\lambda_1=1$,
whilst for the DSE $\lambda_1>1$. Thus, for the DSE we expect the gauge part
of the vertex to yield an enhancement of the quark-loop $\sim 1/Z_f(s)^4$ as
to the bare vertex approximation. A comparison of
these components of the vertex is shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:1BCVertexDSENJL}.
Now we take a look at the dominant transverse component of the quark-photon
vertex. In Fig.~\ref{fig:TransverseVertexDSENJL} we show the dressing function
as calculated self-consistently from the DSE for the quark-photon vertex, together
with the fit function of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:QEDVertexFitToLeadingTransverse}) and
the equivalent part of the ENJL vertex, Eq.~(\ref{eqn:NJLVertexLT}). We see that
the fit to the DSE, as a function of the total momentem $Q$, behaves very similarly
as the full numerical solution in the dominant region around the scale $M_V=0.77\,$GeV.
Small deviations occur at large momenta due to the exponential fall-off of the fit function. The dressing
function of the ENJL model has a similar behavior except at large momenta where no
fall-off is seen and instead it tends to a constant. However, due to the weighting
of the integrand in the calculation of $a_\mu$ it transpires that such deviations
at large $Q^2$ are not relevant.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth,angle=-90]{TransverseDressing}
\end{center}
\caption{The dependence of the dominant transverse dressing $\tau^{(1)}$ on
the photon momentum $Q^2$ is shown for the explicit solution of the quark-photon
vertex BSE, Eq.~(\ref{eqn:LadderQEDVertexBSE}), the fit to this given in
Eq.~(\ref{eqn:QEDVertexFitToLeadingTransverse}), and the transverse part of the ENJL vertex,
Eq.~(\ref{eqn:NJLVertexLT}).}
\label{fig:TransverseVertexDSENJL}
\end{figure}
However, differences between the DSE and ENJL approach become readily apparent when one
considers the impact of the relative momentum on the kinematics. In the DSE approach the
transverse VMD-piece is suppressed for momenta $k^2\gtrsim \omega^2 \approx \Lambda^2_\ensuremath{\mathrm{QCD}}$,
an effect which is not present in the ENJL approach due to its contact interaction.
As a consequence, we expect smaller negative contributions to LBL in the DSE approach
as compared to ENJL. The degree of overestimation of negative contributions in ENJL
depends upon the kinematical weighting of the integrand, and can be
estimated in our approach by systematically removing the dependence on the relative
momentum in our quark-vertex dressing function. This will be detailed in the next section.
\section{Results}\label{sec:Results}
Here we present a more quantitative analysis of the difference between the ENJL and DSE
approaches, with respect to various approximations that can be made in the calculation
of the quark loop. In order to compare the two approaches we need a means to find the
most important and therefore representative momentum scales. This we achieve by averaging
over the dressing functions, as weighted by the importance sampling of the VEGAS Monte-Carlo
\cite{Hahn:2004fe} we use to evaluate the quark-loop contribution to LBL.
For the calculation in the DSE-framework we use an IR-cutoff of $10^{-3}$ GeV and an UV-cutoff
of $10^{3}$ GeV for all three loop variables. No additional splitting into a perturbative
and a nonperturbative region is necessary, since these regions are continuously connected,
see the discussion around Fig.~\ref{fig:QuarkMandZdseANDnjl}. In contrast, this is different
for the ENJL model where the calculation is split into a low and a high-energy part
\cite{Bijnens:1995xf}. In the former, constituent quarks
Eq.~(\ref{eqn:NJLQuark}) with $M=0.3$ GeV are used together with the vertex construction
Eq.~(\ref{eqn:NJLVertexLT}). This low-energy part is cut off by requiring the photon
momenta to be $q\leq \mu$, where $\mu$ is varied in the range between $0.7$ GeV
and $4$ GeV. The high-energy contribution is approximated by a
bare quark-loop (bare propagators and bare vertices) where the mass of the quarks
is given by the same scale $\mu$ which is supposed to act as an effective IR-cutoff.
It was found in \cite{Bijnens:1995xf} that the result is rather stable against a variation of $\mu$
in the considered range. The final result is quoted as
\begin{align}
a_\mu^{\mathrm{LBL,ql, ENJL}}=21(3)\times 10^{-11}
\label{eqn:ENJLQuarkLoopResult}.
\end{align}
Note that if $\mu=4$ GeV is taken, almost the complete contribution comes from
the low-energy part. While this value is usually considered to be inappropriately
high for an NJL type model, we find this viewpoint useful since it facilitates
the comparison to the DSE case, where there is no separation in high and low-energy
parts. We will later see that the contribution Eq.~(\ref{eqn:ENJLQuarkLoopResult})
can be roughly reproduced even with the much higher cutoff we use in our
calculations\footnote{
Note furthermore that Eq.~(\ref{eqn:ENJLQuarkLoopResult}) includes strange quarks
which we neglect in this work. These give, however, a few percent correction \cite{Bijnens:1995xf}
such that this detail is not important for the more general analysis we present here.}.
The results presented in this work are obtained within Landau gauge for QED
($\xi=0$ in the photon propagator apparent in fig. \ref{fig:LBLQLcontribution}), in contrast
to our earlier work \cite{Fischer:2010iz,Goecke:2010if} where we used Feynman gauge for QED ($\xi=1$).
It turns out that all the results presented here are affected only mildly by this choice, as
can be seen in Table \ref{tab:quarkloopMTAWWcomparison}.
\subsection{Impact of a dynamical $Z_f$ and $M$}
To gauge the impact of momentum dependent quark dressing functions, we compare
several calculations in the bare-vertex approximation,
see Table \ref{tab:LBLResultsBareVertex}. Note that we attach a renormalisation constant
to the bare vertex e.g. $Z_2\gamma_\mu$ to ensure multiplicative renormalisability.
For a momentum independent quark wave-function we also supplement the quark by a factor
$Z_2^{-1}$ for the same reason. These extra factors cancel in all but the first line
of Table \ref{tab:LBLResultsBareVertex}. The corresponding case of bare vertex with
fully dressed quark thus differs from our earlier results \cite{Fischer:2010iz,Goecke:2010if} by a factor of $Z_2^4\approx0.89$
in addition to the different QED gauge and the smaller number of quark flavours.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
Quark dressing
& $\langle Z_f\rangle$
& $\sqrt{\langle M^2\rangle} $~[GeV]
& $a_\mu [10^{-11}]$ \\
\hline
\hline
$Z_f$ and $M$ dynamical & $0.83$ & $0.14$ & $47$ \\
%
$Z_f=Z_2^{-1}$, $M$ dynamical &-- & $0.18$ & $102$\\
%
$Z_f=Z_2^{-1}$, $M=0.477$ &-- & -- & $22$ \\
%
$Z_f=Z_2^{-1}$, $M=0.300$ &-- & -- & $51$ \\
%
$Z_f=Z_2^{-1}$, $M=0.200$ &-- & -- & $104$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The quark-loop contribution to hadronic LBL together with effective average values for
the $Z_f$ and $M$ functions determined with a bare quark-photon vertex $Z_2\gamma_\mu$. We compare results for
dynamical quark dressing functions to those with static ENJL-like equivalents. The quark wave-function
renormalisation constant $Z_2\approx 0.97$ for the cutoff and renormalisation point used.}
\label{tab:LBLResultsBareVertex}
\end{table}
Let us first compare the first two lines of Table \ref{tab:LBLResultsBareVertex}. Replacing the dynamical quark wave function
by $Z_f=Z_2^{-1}$ we note an enhancement of the contribution to $a_\mu$ roughly by a factor of 2.
This is in good agreement with the expectation discussed above: since there are four
quark propagators in the quark loop, the full calculation contains an extra factor of the order
$\langle Z_f\rangle^4$ with $\langle Z_f \rangle$ the average value of the wave-function
that is probed. Indeed, one finds $\left< Z_f \right>^4 \simeq (0.83)^4 \sim 0.5$.
To explore the impact of the momentum dependent quark mass function, we keep $Z_f=Z_2^{-1}$
fixed and compare several constant values of $M$ to the dynamical case.
For $M=0.477$ GeV, the infrared plateau of the dynamical mass function, we
obtain less than $1/5$th of the dynamical result (with $Z_f=Z_2^{-1}$). A quark mass of
$M=0.3$ GeV gives a result commensurate with the calculation of Ref. \cite{Kinoshita:1984it}
which yields $a_\mu^{LBL,ql,N_f=2}=49.1(3.4)\times 10^{-11}$
for the contribution
of bare $u$ and $d$ quarks of the same mass $M=0.3\,$GeV \footnote{This number
is extracted from Table I of Ref. \cite{Kinoshita:1984it}}.
Only a significantly smaller constant mass $\sim0.2$ GeV close to
the average one probed under the integrand leads to a result that compares with
the dynamical one. Note, however, that this does not work in general, i.e. the
fully dynamical result of $47 \times 10^{-11}$ is not reproduced by a static approach
with $Z=0.83$ and $M=0.14$ GeV.
\subsection{Impact of dressed vertices: Gauge Part}
Here we focus upon the gauge part of the vertex. In the case of the ENJL
model this part is just bare since $Z_f=1$. In the DSE approach for the leading
part, Eq.~(\ref{eqn:1BCVertex}), we give the fully dynamical result in
Table~\ref{tab:LBLResults1BCVertex}. By comparison with the first value of
Table \ref{tab:LBLResultsBareVertex} we find an increase by more than a factor of 2
when the vertex dressing is included. Again, this is roughly what one expects,
since the contribution from the vertices gives a factor $\sim \langle Z_f \rangle^{-4}$.
Note that the enhancement from the gauge-part of the vertex is comparable to the
suppression due to a non-trivial $Z_f$ in the quark propagator.
In principle, we should include not only the leading term of the gauge part of
the vertex but the full Ball-Chiu vertex as fixed by the Ward-Takahashi identity.
However, this is currently not possible due to numerical instabilities which
are currently not under control\footnote{The corresponding results given in
Ref.~\cite{Goecke:2010if} are presumably not correct as will be detailed in an erratum.}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
Quark Dressing & $\langle Z_f\rangle$ & $a_\mu [10^{-11}]$ \\
\hline
$Z_f$ and $M$ dynamical
&$0.76$ & $100$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{The quark-loop contribution to hadronic LBL with the 1BC dressing and the average of the $Z_f$ function. These are to be compared with the bare-vertex results in the previous table. }
\label{tab:LBLResults1BCVertex}
\end{table}
\subsection{Impact of dressed vertices: VMD Part}
To better compare with the ENJL model we consider first the case where
the quark-photon vertex is taken to be of the form
\begin{align}
\Gamma_\mu(Q,k) = Z_2\gamma_{\mu} + \tau^{(1)}(Q,k)\; T_\mu^{(1)}(Q,k)\,,
\end{align}
with the leading transverse component $T_\mu^{(1)}(Q,k) = \gamma_\mu^T$, and $\tau^{(1)}(Q,k)$
its dressing function. The quark wave function renormalisation constant $Z_2$ is necessary
to maintain multiplicative renormalizability.
For the transverse dressing function $\tau^{(1)}(Q,k)$ we study three choices: (i)
the ENJL model, Eq.~(\ref{eqn:NJLVertexLT}), which we also supplement by an additional
factor
\begin{equation}
f(k^2)=1/(1+k^4/0.66^4)
\end{equation}
to simulate a relative momentum dependence, (ii)
the DSE approach with the numerical solution to Eq.~(\ref{eqn:LadderQEDVertexBSE}) and
(iii) the DSE approach with the analytic fit function Eq.~(\ref{eqn:QEDVertexFitToLeadingTransverse})
to the numerical result. Both, (ii) and (iii) already include a relative momentum dependence
in contrast to the original ENJL approach. Our results are presented in
Table~\ref{tab:bareANDtransverseVertexResults}.
First of all note that the result where a bare vertex $Z_2\gamma_\mu$ is used
together with the ENJL type transverse part (first line) is quite close to the
ENJL result shown in Eq. (\ref{eqn:ENJLQuarkLoopResult}). We are thus able to
reproduce the ENJL result numerically, despite the very different UV cutoff, that
obviously does not matter much.
Taking a closer look at Table \ref{tab:bareANDtransverseVertexResults} we see a common pattern.
When the vertices do not depend on the relative
momentum between the two quarks, the contribution is around $a_\mu\sim (14-16)\times 10^{-11}$.
Compared to the corresponding result with bare-vertex of $47\times 10^{-11}$ we therefore
find a reduction of similar size as the one from $\sim 60\times 10^{-11}$ to $\sim 20\times 10^{-11}$ reported by \cite{Bijnens:1995xf}. We obtain this large suppression in our ENJL type
calculation as well as in the DSE approach with momentum dependent quark propagators.
However, when we take into account the relative momentum dependence in the full DSE
calculation and including the additional factor $f(k)$ in the ENJL model we find that
the suppression due to transverse parts is much reduced. We find results in the range
of $a_\mu\sim (41-46) \times 10^{-11}$. This is at most a reduction of just $\sim 15\%$
and constitutes one of the main results of this work.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c}
Vertex Dressing &
$a_\mu [10^{-11}]$ \\
\hline\hline
$Z_2\gamma_\mu+\gamma^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}}_\mu \tau_{\mathrm{ENJL}}$ &
$14$ \\
\hline
$Z_2\gamma_\mu+\gamma^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}}_\mu \tau_{\mathrm{ENJL}}f(k^2)$ &
$45$ \\
\hline\hline
$Z_2\gamma_\mu+\gamma^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}}_\mu \tau^{(1)}_{\textrm{fit}}(k=0)$ &
$16$ \\
\hline
$Z_2\gamma_\mu+\gamma_\mu^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}} \tau^{(1)}_{\textrm{fit}}$ &
$46$ \\
\hline\hline
$Z_2\gamma_\mu+\gamma^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}}_\mu \tau^{(1)}_{\textrm{calc}}(k=0)$ &
$14$ \\
\hline
$Z_2\gamma_\mu+\gamma_\mu^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}} \tau^{(1)}_{\textrm{calc}}$ &
$41$
%
\end{tabular}
\caption{Bare and leading transverse vertex component, with dressing functions
from the ENJL model, VMD like fit from DSE/BSE ($\tau^{(1)}_{\textrm{fit}}$), and
from an explicit calculation of the quark-photon DSE ($\tau^{(1)}_{\textrm{calc}}$).
Results are shown with, and without the inclusion of a
dependence on the relative momentum.}
\label{tab:bareANDtransverseVertexResults}
\vspace*{4mm}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c}
Vertex Dressing &
$a_\mu [10^{-11}]$ \\
\hline\hline
$\gamma_\mu \lambda^{(1)}+\gamma^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}}_\mu \tau_{\mathrm{ENJL}}$ &
$43$ \\
\hline
$\gamma_\mu \lambda^{(1)}+\gamma^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}}_\mu \tau_{\mathrm{ENJL}} f(k^2)$ &
$103$ \\
\hline\hline
$\gamma_\mu \lambda^{(1)}+\gamma^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}}_\mu \tau_\mathrm{fit}^{(1)}(k=0)$ &
$43$ \\
\hline
$\gamma_\mu \lambda^{(1)}+\gamma_\mu^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}} \tau_\mathrm{fit}^{(1)} $ &
$105$ \\
\hline\hline
$\gamma_\mu \lambda^{(1)}+\gamma^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}}_\mu \tau_\mathrm{calc}^{(1)} (k=0)$ &
$41$ \\
\hline
$\gamma_\mu \lambda^{(1)}+\gamma^\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}}_\mu \tau_\mathrm{calc}^{(1)} $ &
$96$
%
\end{tabular}
\caption{1BC and leading transverse vertex component, with dressing functions
from the ENJL model, VMD like fit from DSE/BSE ($\tau^{(1)}_{\textrm{fit}}$), and
from an explicit calculation of the quark-photon DSE ($\tau^{(1)}_{\textrm{calc}}$).
Results are shown with, and without the inclusion of a
dependence on the relative momentum.}
\label{tab:1BCandTransverseVertexResults}
\end{table}
Finally, we give the same comparison with the inclusion of the
leading $L_1$ dressing $\lambda^{(1)}$ from \Eq{eqn:1BCVertex} given by the WTI, see Table~\ref{tab:1BCandTransverseVertexResults}.
We see that the trend here is very similar as for the bare vertex, except now with
an enhancement due to the non-trivial dressing function of the gauge part.
This enhancement is of the order of $2-3$. It differs slightly for the cases with and
without relative momentum dependence, which shows that there is also interference
between the different vertex components. Note that the $\lambda^{(1)}$ dressing
is always used with its full kinematics.
\subsection{Best result and electromagnetic gauge invariance}\label{best}
Our most reliable estimate for the contribution from the quark-loop to
the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon is the one obtained with
full dynamics in the quark propagator, the leading gauge-part $\lambda^{(1)}$
and the leading transverse part $\tau^{(1)}_{calc}$ of the quark-photon
vertex. For two light quark flavors we obtained
\begin{align}
a_\mu^{\mathrm{LBL,L1+T1},N_f=2} = (96 \pm 2) \times 10^{-11},
\label{eqn:1BCplusLeadingTransverseLBLResult}
\end{align}
where the error is purely numerical. Compared to the corresponding value
$a_\mu^{\mathrm{LBL,L1},N_f=2} = (100 \pm 2) \times 10^{-11}$
for the
1BC vertex without transverse parts we thus find a suppression of the order
of five percent due to the VMD physics. This is much less than in simple
models. If we additionally include the strange and charm quark contributions
we arrive at
\begin{align}
a_\mu^{\mathrm{LBL,L1+T1},N_f=4} = (107 \pm 2) \times 10^{-11},
\label{eqn:1BCplusLeadingTransverseLBLResultudsc}
\end{align}
which compares to the 1BC $N_f=4$ case (in Landau gauge)
$a_\mu^{\mathrm{LBL,L1},N_f=4} = (111 \pm 2) \times 10^{-11}$.
Note once more that the corresponding result in \cite{Goecke:2010if}
differs slightly due to QED Feynman-gauge, see discussion below.
We are currently working on the further inclusion of the other transverse
terms $\tau^{(2..8)}$, corresponding results will be presented elsewhere.
The potential impact of these terms is hard to gauge without an explicit
calculation. Nevertheless, from a systematic point of view, the omission
of these terms is unproblematic. This is different for the non-transverse
part of the vertex. Strictly speaking, the presence of all three Ball-Chiu
components $\lambda^{(1..3)}$ are necessary to maintain electromagnetic gauge
invariance. As mentioned above, this is currently not possible due to
severe numerical problems with the terms $\lambda^{(2)}$ and $\lambda^{(3)}$.
We therefore have to gauge the error in the present calculation due to
violations of gauge invariance. This is conveniently done by varying the
QED gauge parameter $\xi$. Results for Feynman and Landau gauge are
shown in table \ref{tab:quarkloopMTAWWcomparison}. The variations with
$\xi$ are on the two percent level and therefore reassuringly small.
The insensitivity with respect to the gauge parameter is an indicator
for the (almost) transversality of the resulting quark-loop part of the
photon four-point function $\Pi_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
Interaction & $\xi$ & $a_\mu^{\mathrm{LBL,QL}}\times 10^{11}$ \\
\hline\hline
MT & $0$ & $96$ \\
MT & $1$ & $94$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results for the 1BC+transverse vertex dressings. We compare different
photon gauge parameters $\xi=\{0,1\}$, i.e. Landau and Feynman gauge.}
\label{tab:quarkloopMTAWWcomparison}
\end{table}
We emphasize, however, that the smallness of the gauge violations
due to the omission of $\lambda^{(2)}$ and $\lambda^{(3)}$ cannot be taken
as an indication that these terms will not contribute much to the
physical, transverse part of the photon four-point functions. As already
mentioned above, our previous calculation of these contributions in
Ref.~\cite{Goecke:2010if} is presumably not correct and needs to be
thoroughly reinvestigated. This will be done in future work.
\section{Summary and conclusion}
In this work we investigated in detail key similarities and differences between
the ENJL and DSE approaches. Whereas the ENJL model features a contact interaction
giving rise to a trivial quark wave-function renormalisation and a constant quark
mass function, in the DSE approach these are both momentum dependent. The same is
true for the gauge part of the vertex, that is determined by a Ward-Takahashi Identity.
Whereas in the ENJL model this part is
trivial, the corresponding Ball-Chiu terms in the DSE approach are nontrivial
and momentum dependent. In both approaches there are transverse parts in the vertex
which are dominated by the vector meson poles leading to a characteristic behavior
also in the space-like momentum region.
When assessing the influence of the different momentum dependent dressing functions
of the DSE approach as compared to ENJL we found partial cancellations. Dressing effects
due to the non-trivial wave-function on the level of $50\%$ are
cancelled by opposite effects due to the dressing of the gauge part of the vertex.
An important effect that is not cancelled is the one of the dynamical mass function.
We found that this function is not tested predominantly at its large infrared
plateau of $M(0)\sim0.48$~GeV but rather at smaller values at intermediate momenta
commensurate with $M~\sim0.2$~GeV. This gives rise to a larger contribution than
expected from constituent quark-loop calculations. Our finding may serve to explain
the surprisingly small (constituent) quark masses needed in chiral models to obtain
sensible results \cite{Greynat:2012ww}. Our most interesting result, however,
is related to the transverse part of the vertex. These are of high interest
because they dynamically include the phenomenology of vector meson dominance and are
expected to reduce the overall light-by-light contribution. As in the ENJL model
the corresponding behavior of the transverse part of the vertex in the DSE-approach is
generated dynamically. A key difference is, however, that in the DSE case the dependence
on the relative momentum of the quarks is taken into account. On the level of mesons
(as e.g. the $\rho$-meson that is the vital ingredient in VMD) this takes the distribution
of quarks inside the bound state into account, which is not the case in the ENJL
model \cite{Tandy:1997qf}. The inclusion of this effect,
either in the full DSE calculation or by a suitable modification of the VMD-term in
the ENJL model has important consequences: the reduction of the quark-loop contribution
to $a_\mu$ due to VMD effects, observed in previous calculations \cite{Bijnens:1995xf},
is drastically reduced.
Thus we can pinpoint the differences between the DSE and ENJL calculations to be down
to the contact interaction limiting the momentum dependence of dressing functions. We
believe that ignoring the relative quark momentum in the quark-photon vertex overestimates
the suppression that the transverse part of the vertex provides and thus lowers
significantly it's numerical contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon.
Our present best result for the quark-loop contribution has been discussed in section
\ref{best}. Combined with our result for the pseudoscalar meson exchange diagram from
Ref.~\cite{Goecke:2010if}, $a_\mu^{LBL;PS} \approx (81 \pm 2) \times 10^{-11}$,
we arrive at the estimate
\begin{align}
a_\mu^{\mathrm{LBL}} = (188 \pm 4) \times 10^{-11},
\label{final}
\end{align}
for the total LBL contribution. Again, the error is purely statistical due to our numerics.
Since at present any guess of the systematic error of this number is clearly subjective
(due to the omission of terms in the quark-photon vertex), we do not attempt such an estimate.
It has to be emphasized, however, that our determination of the quark loop contribution
to light-by-light, Eq.~(\ref{final}) is by far not complete since several terms in the vertex dressing are
still missing. The study if the influence of these terms is an important task for the future.
Nevertheless we hope that the systematics of the present work serves to give the reader
a better understanding of the technical and physical mechanisms at work in the complicated
light-by-light scattering contribution. Furthermore we have shown that our best results
at present are stable under variations of the photon gauge parameter and therefore serve
as an important intermediary step towards a full calculation to come.
\vspace*{3mm}
{\bf Acknowledgments}\\
We are grateful to Fred Jegerlehner and Andreas Nyffeler for discussions.
This work was supported by the Helmholtz International Center for FAIR within
the LOEWE program of the State of Hesse, the Helmholtz Young Investigator Group
under contract VH-NG-332 and DFG under contract FI 970/8-1, and the Austrian
Science Fund FWF under project M1333-N16.
|
\section{Introduction}
The theoretical possibility that quark matter made of up, down and
strange quarks (so-called strange quark matter (\cite[Farhi \& Jaffe
1984]{farhi84:a})) may be more stable than ordinary nuclear matter has
been pointed out by \cite{bodmer71:a}, \cite{terazawa79:a}, and
\cite{witten84:a}. This so-called strange matter hypothesis
constitutes one of the most startling possibilities regarding the
behavior of superdense matter, which, if true, would have implications
of fundamental importance for cosmology, the early universe, its
evolution to the present day, and astrophysical compact objects such
as neutron stars and white dwarfs (see \cite[Alcock \& Farhi
1986]{alcock86:a}, \cite[Alcock \& Olinto 1988]{alcock88:a},
\cite[Aarhus 1991]{aarhus91:proc}, \cite[Weber 1999]{weber99:book},
\cite[Madsen 1999]{madsen98:b}, \cite[Glendenning 2000]{glen97:book},
\cite[Weber 2005]{weber05:a}, \cite[Page \& Reddy
2006]{page06:review},
\cite[Sagert et al. 2006]{sagert06:a},
and references therein). The properties of quark
stars are compared with those of neutron stars in
Table~\ref{tab:comparison} and Fig.\ \ref{fig:nsss}. Even to the
present day there is no sound scientific basis on which one can either
confirm or reject the hypothesis so that it is a serious possibility
of fundamental significance for various (astro) physical phenomena.
The multifaceted properties of these
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Theoretical properties of quark stars and neutron stars
compared.}
\label{tab:comparison}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}\hline
{\bf Quark Stars} & {\bf Neutron Stars} \\ \hline
Made entirely of deconfined up, down, strange &Nucleons, hyperons, boson condensates, \\
quarks, and electrons &deconfined quarks, electrons, and muons \\ \hline
Quarks ought to be color superconducting &Superfluid neutrons \\
&Superconducting protons \\ \hline
Energy per baryon $\lsim 930$~MeV &Energy per baryon $> 930$~MeV \\ \hline
Self-bound ($M \propto R^3$) &Bound by gravity \\ \hline
Maximum mass $\sim 2 \, \msun$ &Same \\ \hline
No minimum mass &$\sim 0.1 \, \msun$ \\ \hline
Radii $R\lsim 10- 12 $~km &$R \gsim 10 - 12$~km \\ \hline
Baryon number $B \lsim 10^{57}$ &$10^{56} \lsim B \lsim 10^{57}$ \\ \hline
Electric surface fields $\sim 10^{18}$ to $\sim 10^{19}$~V/cm &Absent \\ \hline
Can be bare (pure quark stars) or enveloped &Not possible \\
in thin nuclear crusts (mass $10^{-5}\, \msun$) &Always possess nuclear crusts \\ \hline
Density of crust is less than neutron drip &Density of crust above neutron drip \\
i.e., posses only outer crusts &i.e., posses inner and outer crusts \\ \hline
Form two-parameter stellar sequences &Form one-parameter stellar sequences \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
objects are reviewed in this paper. Particular emphasis is is put on
stellar properties such as rapid rotation, ultra-high electric surface
fields, and rotational vortex expulsion, which may allow one to
observationally discriminate between quark stars and neutron stars
and--ultimately--prove or disprove the strange quark matter
hypothesis. Futher information on the existence of qark stars may come
from quark novae, hypothetical types of supernovae which could occur
if neutron stars spontaneously collapse to quark stars (\cite[Ouyed et
al. 2002]{ouyed02:a}).
\goodbreak
\section{Quark-Lepton Composition of Quark Stars}\label{sec:qlc}
Quark star matter is composed of the three lightest quark flavor
states (up, down, and strange quarks). Per hypothesis, the energy per
baryon of such matter is lower than the energy per baryon of the most
stable atomic nucleus, $^{56}{\rm Fe}$. Since stars in their lowest
energy state are electrically charge neutral to very high precision,
any net positive quark charge must be balanced by electrons. The
concentration of electrons is largest at low densities due to the
finite strange-quark mass, which leads to a deficit of net negative
quark charge. If quark star matter forms a color superconductor
(\cite[Rajagopal \& Wilczek 2001]{rajagopal01:a}, \cite[Alford
2001]{alford01:a}, \cite[Alford et al. 2008]{alford08:a}, and
references therein) in the Color-Flavor-Locked (CFL) phase
the interiors of quarks stars will be rigorously electrically neutral
with no need for electrons, as shown by \cite{rajagopal01:b}. For
sufficiently large strange quark masses, however, the low density
regime of quark
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm,angle=0]{nsss.eps}
\caption{Schematic structures of quark stars and neutron stars.}
\label{fig:nsss}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
star matter is rather expected to form other condensation patterns
(e.g.\ 2SC, CFL-$K^0$, CFL-$K^+$, CFL-$\pi^{0,-}$) in which electrons
will be present (\cite[Rajagopal \& Wilczek 2001]{rajagopal01:a},
\cite[Alford 2001]{alford01:a}, \cite[Alford et
al. 2008]{alford08:a}). The presence of electrons in quark star
matter is crucial for the possible existence of a nuclear crust on
quark stars. As shown by \cite{alcock86:a,kettner94:b}, and
\cite{alcock88:a}, the electrons, because they are bound to strange
matter by the Coulomb force rather than the strong force, extend
several hundred fermi beyond the surface of the strange star.
Associated with this electron displacement is a electric dipole layer
which can support, out of contact with the surface of the strange
star, a crust of nuclear material, which it polarizes (\cite[Alcock et
al. 1986]{alcock86:a}, \cite[Alcock \& Olinto 1988]{alcock88:a}). The
maximum possible density at the base of the crust (inner crust
density) is determined by neutron drip, which occurs at about
$4.3\times 10^{11}~\gcmt$.
\section{Bare versus Dressed Quark Stars and Eddington Limit}
A bare quark star differs qualitatively from a neutron star which has
a density at the surface of about 0.1 to $1~\gcmt$. The thickness of
the quark surface is just $\sim 1~\fm$, the length scale of the strong
interaction. The electrons at the surface of a quark star are held to
quark matter electrostatically, and the thickness of the electron
surface is several hundred fermis. Since neither component, electrons
and quark matter, is held in place gravitationally, the Eddington
limit to the luminosity that a static surface may emit does not apply,
so that bare quark stars may have photon luminosities much greater than
$10^{38}~\ergs$. It was shown by \cite{usov98:a} that this value
may be exceeded by many orders of magnitude by the luminosity of $e^+
e^-$ pairs produced by the
Coulomb barrier at the surface of a hot strange star. For a surface
temperature of $\sim 10^{11}$~K, the luminosity in the outflowing pair
plasma was calculated to be as high as $\sim 3 \times 10^{51}~\ergs$.
Such an effect may be a good observational signature of bare strange
stars (\cite[Usov 2001a]{usov01:c},
\cite[Usov 2001b]{usov01:b},
\cite[Usov 1998]{usov98:a}, and
\cite[Cheng \& Harko 2003]{cheng03:a}). If the strange star
is enveloped in a nuclear crust, however, which is gravitationally
bound to the strange star, the surface, made of ordinary atomic
matter, would be subject to the Eddington limit. Hence the photon
emissivity of such a ``dressed'' quark star would be the same as for
an ordinary neutron star. If quark matter at the stellar surface is
in the CFL phase the process of $e^+ e^-$ pair creation at the stellar
quark matter surface may be turned off.
This may be different for the early stages of a very hot CFL quark
star (\cite[Vogt et al. 2004]{vogt03:a}).
\goodbreak
\section{Mass-Radius Relationship of Quark Stars}
The mass-radius relationship of bare quark stars is shown in Fig.\
\ref{fig:mr_bare}. In contrast to neutron stars, the radii of
self-bound quark stars decrease the lighter the stars, according to $M
\propto R^3$. The existence of nuclear crusts on quark stars changes
the situation drastically (\cite[Glendenning et al. 1995]{weber95:a},
\cite[Weber 1999]{weber99:book}, and \cite[Weber 2005]{weber05:a}).
Since the crust is bound gravitationally, the mass-radius relationship
of quark stars with crusts is then qualitatively similar to neutron
stars.
In general, quark stars with or without nuclear crusts possess smaller
radii than neutron stars. This feature implies that quark stars posses
smaller mass shedding periods than neutron stars. Due to the smaller
radii of quarks stars, the complete sequence of such objects--and not
just those close to the mass peak, as it is the case for neutron
stars--can sustain extremely rapid rotation (\cite[Glendenning et
al. 1995]{weber95:a}, \cite[Weber 1999]{weber99:book}, and \cite[Weber
2005]{weber05:a}). In particular, a strange star with a typical
pulsar mass of around $1.45\,\msun$ can rotate at Kepler (mass
shedding) periods as small as $0.55\lsim{P_{\rm K}}/{\rm msec}\lsim
0.8$
(\cite[Glendenning \& Weber 1992]{glen92:crust}, and \cite[Glendenning
et al. 1995]{weber93:b}). This range is to be compared with ${P_{\rm
K}} \sim 1~{\rm msec}$ obtained for neutron stars of the same mass
(\cite[Weber 1999]{weber99:book}).
Another novelty of the strange quark matter hypothesis concerns the
existence of a new class of white-dwarf-like objects, referred to as
strange (quark matter) dwarfs (\cite[Glendenning et
al. 1995]{weber93:b}). The mass-radius relationship of the latter may
differs somewhat from the mass-radius relationship of ordinary
white-dwarf, which may be testable in the future. Until
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.0cm,angle=0]{qs2.eps}
\caption{Mass-radius relationship of bare quark stars (from
\cite[Orsaria et al. 2011]{orsaria11:a}).}
\label{fig:mr_bare}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
recently, only rather vague tests of the theoretical mass-radius
relation of white dwarfs were possible. This has changed dramatically
because of the availability of new data emerging from the Hipparcos
project (\cite[Provencal 1998]{provencal98:a}). These data allow the
first accurate measurements of white dwarf distances and, as a result,
establishing the mass-radius relation of such objects empirically.
\goodbreak
\section{Pulsar Glitches}
\label{ssec:crust}
Of considerable relevance for the viability of the strange matter
hypothesis is the question of whether strange stars can exhibit
glitches in rotation frequency. From the study performed by
\cite[Glendenning \& Weber (1992)]{glen92:crust} and \cite[Zdunik et
al. (2001)]{zdunik01:a} it is known that the ratio of the crustal
moment of inertia to the total moment of inertia varies between
$10^{-3}$ and $\sim 10^{-5}$. If the angular momentum of the pulsar
is conserved in a stellar quake one obtains for the change of the
star's frequency ${{\Delta \Omega} / {\Omega}} \sim (10^{-5} -
10^{-3}) f$, where $0 < f < 1$ (\cite[Glendenning \& Weber
1992]{glen92:crust}). The factor $f$ represents the fraction of the
crustal moment of inertia that is altered in the quake. Since the
observed glitches have relative frequency changes $\Delta
\Omega/\Omega = (10^{-9} - 10^{-6})$, a change in the crustal moment
of inertia of $f\lsim 0.1$ would cause a giant glitch
(\cite[Glendenning \& Weber 1992]{glen92:crust}). Moreover it turns
out that the observed range of the fractional change in the spin-down
rate, $\dot \Omega$, is consistent with the crust having a small
moment of inertia and the quake involving only a small fraction $f$ of
that. For this purpose we write $ { {\Delta \dot\Omega} / {\dot\Omega
} } > (10^{-1}\; {\rm to} \; 10) f$ (\cite[Glendenning \& Weber
1992]{glen92:crust}). This relation yields a small $f$ value, i.e., $f
< (10^{-4} \; {\rm to} \; 10^{-1})$, in agreement with $f\lsim 0.1$
established just above. For these estimates, the measured values of
$(\Delta \Omega / \Omega)/(\Delta\dot\Omega/\dot\Omega) \sim 10^{-6}$
to $10^{-4}$ for Crab and Vela, respectively, have been used.
\goodbreak
\section{Possible Connection to CCOs}
One of the most amazing features of quark stars concerns the possible
existence of ultra-high electric fields on their surfaces, which, for
ordinary quark matter, is around $10^{18}$~V/cm. If strange matter
forms a color superconductor, as expected for such matter, the
strength of the electric field may increase to values that exceed
$10^{19}$~V/cm. The energy density associated with such huge electric
fields is on the same order of magnitude as the energy density of
strange matter itself, which alters the masses and radii of strange
quark stars at the 15\% and 5\% level, respectively (\cite[Negreiros
et al. 2009]{negreiros09:a}). Such mass increases facilitate the
interpretation of massive compact stars, with masses of around $2 \,
M_\odot$, as strange quark stars (see also \cite[Rodrigues et
al. 2011]{rodrigues11:a}).
The electrons at the surface of a quark star are not necessarily in a
fixed position but may rotate with respect to the quark matter star
(\cite[Negreiros et al. 2010]{negreiros10:a}). In this event magnetic
fields can be generated which, for moderate effective rotational
frequencies between the electron layer and the stellar body, agree
with the magnetic fields inferred for several Compact Central Objects
(CCOs). These objects could thus be interpreted as quark stars whose
electron atmospheres rotate at frequencies that are moderately
different ($\sim 10$~Hz) from the rotational frequency of the quark
star itself.
Last but not least, we mention that the electron surface layer may be
strongly affected by the magnetic field of a quark star in such a way
that the electron layer performs vortex hydrodynamical oscillations
(\cite[Xu et al. 2012]{xu12:a}). The frequency spectrum of these
oscillations has been derived in analytic form by \cite{xu12:a}. If the
thermal X-ray spectra of quark stars are modulated by vortex
hydrodynamical oscillations, the thermal spectra of compact stars,
foremost central compact objects (CCOs) and X-ray dim isolated neutron
stars (XDINSs), could be used to verify the existence of these
vibrational modes observationally. The central compact object 1E
1207.4-5209 appears particularly interesting in this context, since
its absorption features at 0.7 keV and 1.4 keV can be comfortably
explained in the framework of the hydro-cyclotron oscillation model
(\cite[Xu et al. 2012]{xu12:a}).
A study which looks at the thermal evolution of CCOs is presently
being carried out by \cite{shuhua12:a}. Preliminary results indicate
that the observed temperatures of CCOs can be well reproduced if one
assumes that these objects are small quark matter objects with radii
less than around 3~km.
\goodbreak
\section{Possible Connection to SGRs, AXPs, and XDINs}
If quarks stars are made of color superconducting quark matter rather
than normal non-superconducting quark matter. If rotating,
superconducting quark stars ought to be threaded with rotational
vortex lines, within which the star's interior magnetic field is at
least partially confined. The vortices (and thus magnetic flux) would
be expelled from the star during stellar spin-down, leading to
magnetic reconnection at the surface of the star and the prolific
production of thermal energy. \cite{niebergal10:a} have shown
that this energy release can re-heat quark stars to exceptionally high
temperatures, such as observed for Soft Gamma Repeaters (SGRs),
Anomalous X-Ray pulsars (AXPs), and X-ray dim isolated neutron stars
(XDINs). Moreover, numerical investigations of the temperature
evolution, spin-down rate, and magnetic field behavior of such
superconducting quark stars suggest that SGRs, AXPs, and XDINs may be
linked ancestrally (\cite[Niebergal et al 2010]{niebergal10:a}).
\acknowledgments M. Orsaria thanks CONICET for financial
support. H. Rodrigues thanks CAPES for financial support under
contract number BEX 6379/10-9. F. Weber is supported by the National
Science Foundation (USA) under Grant PHY-0854699. S.-H. Yang is
supported by the China Scholarship Council (CSC) and by NFSC under Grant
No.\ 11147170.
|
\section{Introduction}
A geon is a classical solution to the vacuum Einstein equations representing a localized and non-dispersing lump of gravitational energy held together by its own gravitational attraction. Geons were originally conjectured to exist by Wheeler, and the first serious attempt to construct them was made by Brill and Hartle \cite{BrillHartle}. Their geon, however, has only a finite lifetime; at late times the gravitational waves comprising the geon will break free and disperse. This is a common feature of asymptotically flat geons \cite{Louko}. The tendency of geons to disperse can be remedied with a negative cosmological constant, as anti-de Sitter (AdS) space acts like a confining box. Perturbative geons in global AdS in four dimensions have been recently constructed in \cite{Dias1}. This provides strong evidence that associated with every individual linearized graviton mode in global AdS, there is a one parameter family of exact nonsingular geons\footnote{This is not true for generic perturbations of AdS containing superpositions of modes \cite{Dias1,Bizon}.}.
One should be able to construct geons starting with gravitational perturbations of any locally asymptotically AdS ground state. In particular, one can start with the AdS soliton \cite{Witten,HorowitzMyers}, which has seen several applications in gauge/gravity duality. It was originally introduced to describe the ground state of a confining gauge theory \cite{Witten}, but in more recent condensed matter applications it has been used to construct the gravitational dual of an insulator/superconductor quantum phase transition \cite{Nishioka,HorowitzWay}.
In this note we perturbatively construct a class of geons starting with the five-dimensional AdS soliton.
Although the geons we find are interesting in their own right, perhaps the most intriguing aspect of these solutions is the potential connection with a $d$-wave superconductor. The possibility of obtaining a gravitational dual of a $d$-wave superconductor is exciting because this is what is seen in the high-$T_c$ cuprates. While the original holographic superconductor exhibited an $s$-wave order parameter \cite{HHH}, and later a model with a $p$-wave order parameter was constructed in \cite{GubserPufu}, the $d$-wave case remains elusive. The major obstacle to building a $d$-wave superconductor is that there is no known consistent action for a charged, massive, spin-2 field minimally coupled to gravity. Various authors \cite{Chen,Benini} have worked with incomplete actions and found $d$-wave superconducting condensates, but as of yet no consistent holographic model has been found.
An alternative approach towards constructing a $d$-wave holographic superconductor is to study metric perturbations in Kaluza-Klein theory. Upon dimensional reduction, gravitons carrying momentum along a compact direction become charged under a gauge group that corresponds to the isometry group of the internal manifold. Kaluza-Klein gravity therefore provides a natural framework to find a consistent theory of charged spin-2 fields coupled to gravity. We will explore the feasibility of this approach using the geons we construct\footnote{During this work we learned that the Kaluza-Klein approach to $d$-wave superconductivity is also being studied by Kim et al \cite{Kim}, who consider dimensionally reduced supergravity in 10 and 11 dimensions.}.
The AdS soliton is a particularly interesting background to consider because in addition to the $U(1)$ gauge field coming from the dimensional reduction along its $S^1$, the linearized metric perturbations may be decomposed into scalar, vector, and tensor types, corresponding to $s$, $p$, and $d$-wave excitations in the boundary theory. The Kaluza-Klein approach applied to the AdS soliton thus provides the exciting possibility of being able to describe a range of qualitatively different superconductors using just pure gravity. Unfortunately, we find that $d$-wave superconductors are not described by the perturbative geons we construct because the condensates are never thermodynamically preferred. This result is in contrast to the one obtained when one puts a Maxwell field and charged scalar field in the soliton background (rather than obtain them by Kaluza-Klein reduction). In that case, there is a continuous phase transition which turns on the scalar field as one increases the chemical potential. We discuss a likely explanation for the different behavior.
This paper is organized as follows. In section two the linearized metric perturbations of the AdS soliton are reviewed and the perturbative construction of the geons is described. In section three holographic superconductors based on the AdS soliton background are briefly reviewed, and the possibility that the dimensionally reduced geons could describe $d$-wave superconductors is considered.
\section{Geons Built from the AdS Soliton }
\subsection{Linearized Metric Perturbations}
We study five-dimensional gravity described by the simple action
\begin{equation}
S = \int d^5x \sqrt{-g} \Big(R+\frac{12}{L^2}\Big),
\end{equation}
where
we have set $16\pi G = 1$. The AdS soliton is a solution of the above action with line element
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = \frac{L^2}{r^2 f(r)}dr^2 + \frac{r^2}{L^2}\Big(f(r)d\tilde y^2 + \sum_{\mu,\nu=0}^2 \eta_{\mu\nu} dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu} \Big), \qquad f(r) = 1 - \Big(\frac{r_0}{r}\Big)^{4}.
\end{equation}
This solution can be obtained from the planar black hole via a double Wick rotation. The geometry smoothly caps off at $r=r_0$ if the $\tilde y$-coordinate is chosen to be periodic with period $ \pi L^2/r_0$.
The conformal boundary is the direct product of three-dimensional Minkowski spacetime with a circle, $\mathbb{M}^{3}\times S^1$.
Throughout this paper we work in perturbation theory around the background of the AdS soliton. For this purpose an expansion parameter $\epsilon$ is introduced and the metric is expanded as
\begin{equation}
g_{AB}(\epsilon) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \epsilon^i g_{AB}^{(i)},
\end{equation}
where $g_{AB}^{(0)}$ is the AdS soliton metric. Since the Einstein equations will need to be solved numerically, it will be useful to work with a compactified radial coordinate and to scale the dimensionful constants out of the metric. The background line element then becomes
\begin{equation}
g^{(0)}_{AB}dx^A dx^B = \frac{1}{z^2}\Bigg[\frac{dz^2}{(1-z^4)} + \frac{1}{4}(1-z^4)dy^2 -dt^2 + dx_1^2 + dx_2^2 \Bigg].
\end{equation}
The circle coordinate has been rescaled so that $y\sim y + 2\pi$. The radial coordinate takes values in the range $z \in [0,1]$. The conformal boundary is at $z=0$ and the tip is located at $z=1$.
Next, we briefly review linearized metric perturbations of the AdS soliton background. A comprehensive treatment may be found in \cite{ConstableMyers}. The perturbations are decomposed into scalar, vector, and tensor types according to their transformation properties under the $SO(1,2)$ Lorentz symmetry of the soliton. We shall focus on tensor perturbations, which can be parametrized as
\begin{equation}\label{graviton}
g^{(1)}_{AB} = \varepsilon_{AB} \frac{H(z)}{z^2} \cos(qy - \omega t).
\end{equation}
Here $q \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $\varepsilon_{AB}$ is a polarization tensor. In five-dimensions, there are two independent polarizations,
\begin{equation}\label{pol}
\varepsilon_{x_1 x_2} = 1, \qquad \text{all other components zero},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{x_1 x_1} = - \varepsilon_{x_2 x_2} = 1, \qquad \text{all other components zero}.
\end{equation}
With the above ansatz for the metric perturbation, the Einstein equations reduce to a single second order ODE for the function $H(z)$. Requiring that the perturbation be regular at the tip and normalizable at the boundary yields a Sturm-Liouville eigenvalue problem. Solutions only exist for a discrete set of frequencies $\omega \in \mathbb{R}$. These solutions are the normal modes and the $\omega$ are the normal mode frequencies. The tensor perturbations may therefore be characterized by two integers, the radial overtone number and the momentum $q$.
The perturbation breaks some, but not all, of the symmetries of the background. Translational invariance in the $t$ and $y$ directions is broken, but the perturbation remains invariant under the helical Killing field $K=\partial_t + (\omega/q) \partial_y$. Since $\omega > 2q$, this Killing field is timelike near the tip and spacelike near the boundary. The perturbation also remains invariant under translations in the $x_1, x_2$ directions and under the combined discrete operations of $t\rightarrow -t$ and $y\rightarrow-y$.
\subsection{Perturbative Construction of Geons}
We now extend the study of the previous section to higher orders in perturbation theory. We will call the resulting metrics geons as they are solutions describing nonlinear, non-dispersing concentrations of gravitational waves. The structure of the perturbative construction is very similar to Gubser's study of the non-uniform black string \cite{Gubser}. For every distinct linear perturbation there should exist a corresponding one-parameter family of geons, $g_{AB}(\epsilon)$, with symmetries similar to those of the linearized mode. The expansion parameter will be chosen so that the momentum of the geon is $P = \epsilon^2 V_2$, where $V_2$ is the coordinate volume of the $x_1$-$x_2$ plane, although other choices are also possible. The metric ansatz is
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = \frac{1}{z^2}\Bigg[Ady^2 + Bdz^2 + Cdt^2 + D(dx_1^2+dx_2^2) + E dt dy + F dz dt + G dz dy + H dx_1 dx_2 \Bigg].
\end{equation}
This ansatz corresponds to a geon seeded by a tensor perturbation with polarization (\ref{pol}). Here $A$ through $H$ are functions of the coordinates $z,t$, and $y$, as well as the expansion parameter $\epsilon$. Periodicity of the circle coordinate implies that the $y$-dependence of these functions will be organized into a Fourier series, while the existence of the helical Killing vector implies that the functions will depend on $y$ and $t$ only through the combination $(q y -\omega t)$. Thus the expansions for $A$ through $E$ take the form
\begin{equation}
A(z,y,t,\epsilon) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} A_{2n}(z,\epsilon) \cos\Big(2n(q y - \omega t)\Big),
\end{equation}
while the expansions for $F$ and $G$ take the form
\begin{equation}
F(z,y,t,\epsilon) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} F_{2n}(z,\epsilon) \sin\Big(2n(qy -\omega t)\Big).
\end{equation}
Whether a given metric function is written as a sum of sines or cosines is determined by requiring that the line element be invariant under the discrete symmetry $(y,t) \rightarrow (-y,-t)$. The amplitude of each Fourier mode may also be expanded in powers of $\epsilon$. The expansions for $A_{2n}$ through $G_{2n}$ take the form
\begin{equation}
A_{2n}(z,\epsilon) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \epsilon^{2n+2i}A_{2n}^{(2i)}(z).
\end{equation}
The structure of the perturbative equations dictates that only even Fourier modes and even powers of $\epsilon$ appear in the above expansions. The function $H$ differs from functions $A$ through $G$ because it seeds the geon. It is expanded in odd Fourier modes and in odd powers of $\epsilon$,
\begin{equation}
H(z,y,t,\epsilon) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}H_{2n+1}(z,\epsilon)\cos\Big((2n+1)(qy-\omega t)\Big),
\qquad H_{2n+1}(z,\epsilon) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\epsilon^{2n+2i+1} H_{2n+1}^{(2i)}(z).
\end{equation}
Note that although an infinite number of Fourier modes will be needed to describe the solution, the higher modes only enter at higher orders in perturbation theory.
When constructing geons in global AdS, there was a potential problem due to resonances. Since all the normal mode frequencies were integer multiples of the lowest one, there were resonances at higher orders in the perturbative construction which threatened to introduce growing modes into the solution. It was found however, that this could be avoided by letting $\omega$ depend on $\epsilon$, provided one starts with individual graviton modes \cite{Dias1}.
The normal mode frequencies in the AdS soliton are not integer multiples of each other, so there are no exact resonances. Nevertheless $\omega$ still depends on $\epsilon$ for the following reason: recall that for the linearized perturbation, the value of $\omega$ was determined by requiring that $H(z)$ be regular at the tip and normalizable at the boundary. This linear perturbation then seeds the nonlinear geon, and is relabelled $H_1^{(0)}(z)$. At second order, the background geometry is altered, and at third order, the original seed Fourier mode is corrected because the function $H_{1}^{(2)}(z)$ is turned on. The original value for $\omega$ does not allow $H_{1}^{(2)}(z)$ to be both regular and normalizable, therefore $\omega$ must also be corrected. These corrections will be determined from odd orders in perturbation theory, but the corrections to $\omega$ will be in even powers of $\epsilon$,
\begin{equation}
\omega(\epsilon) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\epsilon^{2i}\omega_{2i}.
\end{equation}
The geon is not invariant under the action of the vectors $\partial_t$ or $\partial_y$ individually, but these are asymptotic Killing vectors and therefore the geon will carry the corresponding conserved charges of energy and momentum. These charges also have an expansion in even powers of $\epsilon$,
\begin{equation}
E(\epsilon) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\epsilon^{2i} E_{2i}, \qquad P(\epsilon) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\epsilon^{2i} P_{2i}.
\end{equation}
In the above expansions, $\epsilon$ appears as a formal expansion parameter. In order to relate the expansion parameter to a physical quantity, we define $\epsilon$ to make $P(\epsilon) = \epsilon^2 V_2$.
At each order in perturbation theory the Einstein equations reduce to a set of coupled ODE's. The first order equations are homogeneous, while all the higher order equations have inhomogeneous source terms consisting of powers of the lower order functions and their derivatives. We choose boundary conditions that enforce regularity at the tip and leave the boundary metric unchanged. We also fix the periodicity of the circle to be $2\pi$.
We numerically solved the perturbative hierarchy of Einstein's equations to third order. The energy and momentum were obtained using the AdS stress tensor formalism of Ref. \cite{Balasubramanian}. We find that the geon has larger energy than the background, $E_2 > 0$, in accord with the positive energy conjecture \cite{HorowitzMyers}. As a numerical check, we verified that the solutions obey the first law of thermodynamics to $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^4)$. Since there are no horizons (and hence no entropy) and the solution is invariant under $\partial_t + \omega/q\ \partial_y$, this is simply \cite{Wald:1993ki}
\begin{equation}\label{firstlaw}
dE = \frac{\omega}{q}dP.
\end{equation}
We also checked that the boundary stress tensor is traceless. Odd-dimensional asymptotically locally AdS spacetimes may have a conformal anomaly, but not when the boundary is Ricci flat, as it is for these geons. Since there are no exact resonances, there should be no obstructions to extending the perturbative solution to all orders and constructing a one parameter family of exact solutions for each linearized mode.
For later reference, we now consider how the frequency changes with the Kaluza-Klein excitation $q$: $\omega(q) = \omega_0(q) + \omega_2(q)\epsilon^2 + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^4)$. For large $q$, one finds $\omega_0 \rightarrow 2 q$. This is a simple consequence of the fact that as $q\rightarrow \infty$, the support of the first order normal mode becomes both squeezed (in the coordinate $z$) and pushed further away from the tip (see Fig. 1). For arbitrarily large $q$, the normal mode is effectively localized on the boundary, and so its equation of motion becomes that of a massless scalar field on $\mathbb{M}^3\times S^1$. This leads to the dispersion relation $\omega_0 = 2 q$. The factor of 2 arises from the fact that the $y$ coordinate has been rescaled to make its period $2\pi$. As discussed above, the second order term in the frequency expansion, $\omega_2$, is found by requiring that the function $H_1^{(2)}(z)$ be regular at the tip and normalizable at the boundary. The result is always negative (see Fig. 2). With our choice of expansion parameter, $P=\epsilon^2 V_2 $, the second order change asymptotes to $0$ as $q\rightarrow \infty$. This is simply a reflection of the fact that as $q$ gets larger, the amplitude of the linearized perturbation must decrease to maintain a fixed $P$. Thus the second order backreaction becomes smaller and hence there is a smaller change in the frequency. The fact that $\omega_2 < 0$ will play an important role in the next section. The global AdS geons also had $\omega_2 < 0$ \cite{Dias1}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.8]{HvsQ.pdf}
\caption{The linearized tensor perturbation for three different choices of $q$. As $q$ increases the function becomes squeezed and pushed towards $z=0$. These functions correspond to the lowest overtone number, and have been normalized so that the area under the curve is 1.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.8]{omega2vsQ.pdf}
\caption{Plot of the second order change in frequency, $\omega_2(q)$. For all $q$ studied, $\omega_2 < 0$. Normalization is fixed so that $P = \epsilon^2 V_2$ is constant.}
\end{figure}
\section{Geons and Holographic Superconductors}
\subsection{AdS Soliton Superconductors}
In this section we briefly review the holographic superconductor in the AdS soliton background \cite{Nishioka, HorowitzWay}. This system has many features in common with the dimensionally reduced geons, and the review will be useful when we investigate the possibility that geons could model holographic superconductors. We also present a simple characterization of the superconducting phase transition and show that it is {\it not} caused by a linear instability towards scalar condensation.
Consider the Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory defined by the following action
\begin{equation}
S = \int d^5x \sqrt{-g}\Big(R+\frac{12}{L^2} -\frac{1}{4}F^2-|(\nabla -i q A) \Psi|^2- m^2 |\Psi|^2 \Big).
\end{equation}
The possibility that this theory could describe a $T=0$ insulator/superconductor phase transition in the background geometry of the AdS soliton was first considered in Ref.\ \cite{Nishioka}. They worked in the probe limit in which the backreaction of the metric is neglected but the nonlinearities of the Maxwell and scalar fields is preserved. A superconducting phase transition was found to occur as the chemical potential $\mu$ was increased from zero to some critical value, $\mu_c$. Then \cite{HorowitzWay} considered the full backreaction and found the complete phase diagram. Both groups either explicitly or implicitly considered the following ansatz for the matter fields
\begin{equation}
A=\phi(r)dt, \qquad \Psi = \psi(r)e^{-i\omega t}.
\end{equation}
As a result of gauge invariance, the equations of motion are invariant under the transformation
$ \phi \rightarrow \phi + C,$ $\omega \rightarrow \omega - q C, $
where $C$ is a constant.
In both papers $C$ was chosen to set $\omega=0$. Since the chemical potential is defined to be the leading term in the near-boundary expansion of the gauge field, $\phi = \mu - \rho/2r^2 + \mathcal{O}(r^{-4})$, this corresponds to a choice of chemical potential.
The critical chemical potential found in the probe limit in Ref.\ \cite{Nishioka} simply corresponds to the smallest normal mode frequency of a charged scalar field in the AdS soliton background (divided by the charge $q$). To see this, consider the system in the probe limit right at the critical point, $\phi = \mu_c$. The Maxwell field is pure gauge, and the scalar field is negligibly small, so the equations of motion reduce to a single linear ODE for the static scalar field $\Psi = \psi(r)$. By using the above symmetry this field configuration can be transformed to $\phi = 0$, $\Psi = \psi(r)\exp(-iq\mu_c t)$. The $\phi$ equation of motion is trivially satisfied, and the $\psi$ equation is identical to that determining the normal modes, except with $\omega\rightarrow q\mu_c$. So the determination of $\mu_c$ is equivalent to the problem of finding the normal mode frequencies of a scalar field in the AdS soliton background. This connection between the critical chemical potentials and the normal mode frequencies was first discussed in $\cite{Cai}$.
There is a crucial difference between the superconducting phase in the AdS soliton background and the original holographic superconductor based on the Schwarzschild AdS solution \cite{HHH}. In the latter case, below a critical temperature, the black hole becomes unstable to forming charged scalar hair. In the AdS soliton there is no instability for any value of the chemical potential. Instead, the insulator/superconductor phase transition reflects which configuration has lower free energy and hence dominates a grand canonical ensemble. If there were an unstable linearized mode growing exponentially in time for some $\phi = \mu > \mu_c$, then the above shift symmetry could be used to set $\phi = 0$ at the cost of shifting the real part of $\omega$. This shift would not affect the exponentially growing behaviour of the mode, so it would therefore be an unstable perturbation of the AdS soliton. But it is known that the AdS soliton is stable to linearized perturbations of both the metric and a free massless scalar field \cite{HorowitzMyers,ConstableMyers}. So such a growing linearized mode cannot exist, and the appearance of a new branch of static solutions (the superconducting condensates) is not related to any linear instability.
\subsection{Holographic Dual of the Geons}
We now investigate the possibility that the dimensional reduction of the geons could model a holographic superconductor.
Recall the standard Kaluza-Klein reduction of a five dimensional metric with a $U(1)$ symmetry. One can write the metric in the form
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = g_{AB}dx^Adx^B = \phi^2 (dy + A_a dx^a)^2 + \frac{1}{\phi} g_{ab}^{(4)} dx^a dx^b,
\end{equation}
where $x^a = (r,x^{\mu})$ and the functions depend on the $x^a$ coordinates only. This parametrization leads to a four-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theory in the Einstein frame. The off-diagonal part of the metric, $A_a$, is interpreted as a Maxwell field. Five-dimensional coordinate transformations of the form $y \rightarrow y + \lambda(x)$ correspond to four-dimensional gauge transformations, $A_a(x) \rightarrow A_a(x) + \partial_a \lambda(x)$.
The AdS soliton can, of course, be written in the above form\footnote{The four dimensional Einstein metric will be singular at the location of the tip and is not asymptotically AdS. However in terms of applications to gauge/gravity duality, both of these problems can be resolved by applying holography directly to the five dimensional solution \cite{Skenderis}.} with $A_a = 0$. A simple five-dimensional coordinate transformation $y\rightarrow y + \mu t$ generates a nonzero gauge field $A_t = \mu$. If there is a phase transition to forming the geon at a critical value $\mu = \mu_c$, then near $\mu_c$ the amplitude of the geon will be small and it can be approximated by the leading ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$ correction to the metric (\ref{graviton}). When $\mu = \omega/q$ (where $\omega$ is the frequency of the linearized graviton mode) the dimensional reduction of this mode corresponds to a static, charged spin-2 field. In the dual boundary theory, this corresponds to turning on a charged spin-2 condensate $\langle {O}_{x_1x_2} \rangle$. Since the AdS soliton is stable to linearized metric perturbations, the appearance of this new branch of static solutions is analogous to turning on the superconducting condensate in Ref.'s \cite{Nishioka,HorowitzWay}; in neither case is the condensation the result of a linearized instability.
The key question is whether the condensate has lower free energy than the original state with no condensate. To compute this, one needs to construct the geon to higher order as we have done in the previous section. Consider the five-dimensional theory in the zero temperature grand canonical ensemble. The relevant free energy functional is the Gibbs free energy, which, in the absence of any black hole horizons or true five-dimensional Maxwell fields, takes the form $G = E-(\omega/q) P$. Making use of the first law (\ref{firstlaw}),
the Gibbs free energy obeys
\begin{equation}
dG = -\frac{P}{q}d\omega = -\frac{2P_2\omega_2}{q} (1 + \mathcal{O} (\epsilon^2)) V_2 \epsilon^3 d\epsilon.
\end{equation}
Since $P_2 > 0$, the sign of the free energy depends on the sign of $\omega_2$, which we have found is always negative (see Fig. 2). Therefore, at least in perturbation theory, the geon will always have a larger free energy than the AdS soliton. Since the free energy is unaffected by dimensional reduction, we conclude that the spin-2 condensate will also have a larger free energy than the field theory state with no condensate. This result spoils the hope that the perturbative geon could model a $d$-wave superconductor.
What is the key difference between this case and the earlier result that there is a phase transition when the Maxwell field and charged scalar field are added to the five dimensional action? The most likely explanation is that when a charged scalar is added, one can increase the charge $q$ keeping the mass fixed, while in the Kaluza-Klein case, increasing $q$ also increases the effective mass in the four dimensional theory. Indeed, it was shown in \cite{HorowitzWay} that for $m^2 = -15/4$ and $q=1$ the free energy increases when the scalar turns on. It decreases only for larger $q$ (with the same $m$). However, even for $q=1$, it turns out that as the amplitude of the scalar field increases, the change in free energy eventually becomes negative and there is a first order phase transition \cite{HorowitzWay}.
It remains possible that the exact geon solutions will behave like the $q=1$ charged scalar. However, even if the change in free energy eventually becomes negative, the condensate will not be pure spin-2. From the structure of the perturbative Einstein equations, it is clear that the first order seed perturbation $H_1^{(0)}(z)$ sources an infinite number of higher Fourier modes, and that the higher order perturbations are complicated combinations of scalar, vector, and tensor modes. Therefore, the corresponding state in the dual field theory is a nonlinear combination of spin-0, 1, and 2 condensates of various charges. This is conveniently described in terms of $\langle T_{\mu\nu}\rangle$. Since the metric is the only nonzero bulk field in five dimensions, the only dual operator with a nonzero expectation value is the (traceless) stress tensor. The Maxwell field on the boundary arises from Kaluza-Klein reduction of the (fixed) boundary metric.
To summarize, we have perturbatively constructed a class of geons in the background geometry of the AdS soliton to third order. We only considered geons seeded by tensor perturbations; vector and scalar perturbations would lead to different classes of geons. These solutions have an exact helical Killing vector $K = \partial_t + (\omega/q) \partial_y$. We considered the dimensional reduction of the geons and found some features suggestive of $d$-wave superconductors. However, these geons do not provide a gravitational dual of a continuous phase transition to a superconductor.
We have also seen that the previously studied phase transition in the AdS soliton is not the result of a linear instability. The dimensionally reduced spin-2 condensate we construct is also not the result of a linear instability. Perhaps the Kaluza-Klein approach towards holographic superconductivity would be more successful if the gravitational background became linearly unstable to a metric perturbation as some control parameter is varied. This possibility deserves further investigation.
\vskip 1cm
\centerline{\bf Acknowledgements}
\vskip 1cm
We would like thank J. Santos and B. Way for useful discussions. We are especially grateful to J. Santos for suggesting this project. This work was supported in part by NSF grant PHY12-05500.
\vskip 3cm
|
\section{Introduction}
The fundamental nature of dark matter remains mysterious to this day. The impressive consistency with the dark matter paradigm on a wide range of scales is tempered by the fact that only its universal gravitational interactions have been observed. To go further in our understanding, obtaining solid evidence of dark matter interactions with the Standard Model would be of enormous value. One promising approach to test such interactions is observing cosmic gamma rays. Dark matter can produce gamma rays through annihilation or decay and is currently being searched for by experiments such as Fermi-LAT~\cite{Falcone:2010fk} and HESS~\cite{Raue:2009vp}.
Another dark matter gamma ray signal that is less well known is gamma rays produced in collisions of dark matter with high energy cosmic particles. This indirect signal was proposed initially by Ellliot and Wells \cite{Bloom:1997vm} and has been reinvestigated more recently. Specifically, gamma rays from collisions between cosmic ray (CR) and dark matter (DM) particles have been studied in regions with concentrated dark matter and high energy cosmic ray
flux, near the center of active galactic nuclei (AGN)~\cite{Gorchtein:2010xa, Huang:2011dg} and also the central region of the Milky Way~\cite{Profumo:2011jt}.
Refs.~\cite{Bloom:1997vm, Gorchtein:2010xa, Huang:2011dg}
investigated the parton-level radiation and showed that the scattering between
dark matter and the cosmic electrons in AGNs can be a promising gamma ray signal. On the other hand, \cite{Gorchtein:2010xa} found that proton-wimp interactions lead to a less promising signal due to the quark's fractional charge and momentum distribution in the proton. However, this analysis was a parton-only calculation and neglects important effects, such as showering and hadronization.
In this study, we demonstrate that the hadronic shower contributes a large number of photons from hadron decays. Notably, this photon production is enhanced relative to the parton-only calculation due to large multiplicity and the lack of suppression by $\alpha_{QED}$.
Furthermore, these photons have a substantially altered energy spectra, with energies extending to higher values compared to those from the hard scattering process.
The hard scattering occurs at an energy scale related to the dark matter mass, which can be much lower
than the total incoming proton energy. The showering from the rest of the proton, which does not participate
in the hard scattering and is likely to carry the majority of the incoming energy, can emit very energetic photons
in the forward direction. For AGNs, this enhancement allows the small fraction of protons directed towards the Earth to give
a significant gamma ray contribution.
To summarize, we find that the photons of the shower are an important modification to the gamma ray signal from proton-dark matter scattering which greatly enhances
the rate and modifies the shape of the energy spectrum.
In our analysis we adopt a toy model of a Majorana fermion dark matter,
that couples to the right-handed up quark through a heavy charged scalar.
This simple model serves as a template for models where the dark matter - cosmic ray
collisions give an important photon signal, while other signals, like dark matter
annihilation, become suppressed.
With a heavy partner to a standard model quark, the collision
process can undergo an s-channel resonance, leading to a large scattering cross-section. This can be consistent with bounds from direct detection experiments where the $\sim$keV recoil energy is much lower
than the resonance energy. Interestingly, as most of the photon radiation is emitted on resonance,
the photon spectral structure is determined by the mass difference between the DM and
the heavy $p/e^-$ partner, instead of the mass of DM itself.
This creates freedom in the signal's energy scale that differs from that from DM
annihilation and decay cases.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sect:theory} we discuss the
resonant scattering process in the toy model.
We take into account the allowed mass range from the latest XENON100 constraints~\cite{Aprile:2012nq}, to determine allowed signal benchmarks. Section~\ref{sect:spectrum} outlines the calculation of the gamma ray spectrum.
In Section~\ref{sect:AGN} we study the signal from collisions off cosmic rays for the AGN Centaurus A. In Section~\ref{sect:diffuse} we comment on the enhancement on the gamma rays from dark matter collisions with diffuse cosmic rays. A summary is presented in Section~\ref{sect:summary}. Finally, in the Appendix~\ref{app:source_spec}, we list some important formulas for diffuse cosmic ray scattering.
\section{Resonant Cosmic Ray-Dark Matter scattering}
\label{sect:theory}
The rates of cosmic ray-dark matter scattering production of gamma rays are particularly
interesting when there is an $s$-channel resonance enhancement \cite{Gorchtein:2010xa}.
For example, a heavy scalar partner to the up quark, $\phi$, can mediate an s-channel
resonance as shown in the left column of
Fig.\ref{fig:feynman_diagrams}. This should be compared with
the three processes in the right column which illustrate the leading
parton-level photon emission.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{wimp_p_1}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{wimp_p_2}
\caption{Resonant s-channel diagrams. The charged $u$-partner, $\phi$, can also radiate photons. The left panel is the
leading 2 to 2 collision and the right panel shows the leading $\chi u\rightarrow \chi u\gamma$ processes
that dominates the hard event's photon emissions.}
\label{fig:feynman_diagrams}
\end{figure}
In the galaxy, the dark matter $\chi$ is non-relativistic. Thus, the condition on the up-quark's energy to hit the resonance is (neglecting the up quark mass)
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\phi}^2 = s= (p_{\chi}+ p_{u})^2 = M_{\chi}^2 + 2 E_u M_\chi
\hspace {1cm} \text{or}\hspace{1cm} E_u=E_{res}&\equiv&\frac{M_{\phi}^2-M_{\chi}^2}{2M_{\chi}}
\label{eq:res}
\end{eqnarray}
where $s$ is the square of the center-of-mass (COM) frame energy.
To realize this signal, we will consider a theory with a Majorana fermion dark matter with the interaction,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{int}=y \, \bar{\chi}P_R u\, \phi^* + h.c.
\end{equation}
where the dark matter $\chi$ only couples right-handedly to the up quark via the scalar $\phi$,
a colored partner to the up quark that carries the same electric charge.
We choose the dark matter to be Majorana to avoid
inducing large spin-independent scattering which would be strongly excluded by direct detection experiments.
Furthermore, the right-handed coupling ensures that non-relativistic annihilation $\chi \chi \to u\bar{u}$ is
chirality suppressed.
For proton energies above $E_{res}$, integrating out the parton distribution function (PDF) always ensures hitting the s-channel
resonance. Due to the enhancement at the resonance, the total high energy scattering cross-section increases as $\sim y^2$. As we will show, the direct detection bounds are more stringent at larger coupling, which can be avoided by taking a larger mass gap between $\chi$ and $\phi$. However, since this mass gap also determines the gamma ray spectra, there is a complicated interplay between satisfying direct detection limits and enhancing the gamma ray signal.
Thus, to be concrete, we set $y=1$ throughout this paper and will choose the mass gap to be consistent with direct detection limits.
The $\phi$ decay width is
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\phi}=\frac{y^2}{16\pi}M_{\phi}\left(1-\frac{M_\chi^2}{M_\phi^2} \right)^2
\end{equation}
which is less than ${\cal O}(10^{-2} M_{\phi})$ in our analysis. For such a narrow width,
the s-channel resonance dominates when
kinematically allowed and
the total $\sigma_{\chi p}$ shoots up for $E_p>E_{res}$.
While $\sigma_{\chi p}$ continues to grow with proton
energy, the cosmic proton flux normally decreases as a power-law spectrum. Thus the total gamma ray signal
depends on the energy where $\sigma_{\chi p}$ turns up,
which is determined by the mass gap between $\chi,\phi$.
This mass gap has a lower bound from direct detection \ck{experiments} since the scattering
rate is enhanced in the squeezed limit \ck{\cite{Hisano:2011um}}. \ck{In Fig.~\ref{fig:masses}, we show the minimal mass differences allowed by recent XENON100
results~\cite{Aprile:2012nq} \ck{at 90\% confidence level}.}
We have included the spin-dependent (SD) scattering and also the spin-independent (SI) scattering induced by the twist-2 operator \cite{Drees:1993bu}, which are comparable in importance near the bound. Due to the resultant change in the energy spectrum, we cannot use XENON100's limit which is based on a profile likelihood. To construct our own limit, we use XENON100's hard discrimination cut acceptance shown in their Fig.~1 \cite{Aprile:2012nq} and require less than 5.3 expected signal events, which is the 90\% CL limit given their two observed events. As a cross check, our derived limit on the SI cross section $\sigma_{\chi N}$ is slightly weaker than their observed profile likelihood limit, but consistent within the 1$\sigma$ expected sensitivity band in their Fig.~3 \cite{Aprile:2012nq}. We refer to ~\cite{Hisano:2010ct, Hisano:2011um} for further details of the SD and SI cross section
calculations.
As two benchmarks, we use points
A and B at $(m_\chi,m_\phi)=$(300, 405) GeV and (1, 1.04) TeV,
While a narrower mass gap can be allowed for a lower $y$, the scattering cross-section
decreases faster than the gain from a lower resonance CR energy
(for the assumed $E^{-2}$ spectrum in this paper).
Thus the gamma ray signal turns out to be less favorable with smaller couplings.
At the sample points, non-relativistic annihilation $\chi\chi\rightarrow u\bar{u}$ is
chirality suppressed by the small u-quark mass.
The leading annihilation process is
$\chi\chi\rightarrow u\bar{u}g$, with a sub-picobarn $\left<v\sigma\right>$
that is allowed by PAMELA~\cite{Adriani:2010rc} results on the local $\bar{p}/p$ ratio.
Although a light dark matter at multi-GeV mass may evade the direct detection bounds \cite{lightdm},
in our SUSY-inspired toy model the charged scalar partner $\phi$ is required to have a very small mass difference from
the dark matter candidate, in order avoid detection at LEP and LHC. While such a scenario
is possible, it is beyond the scope of this paper to fully study the collider bound at a narrow corner of our toy model.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{masses}
\caption{Dark matter and u-partner masses allowed by 2012 XENON100 results at 90\% C.L.
\ck{Sample mass points are marked above the $y=1$ bound. The XENON100
constraint with $y=0.5$ (dotted) is also shown as the dotted curve for comparison.}}
\label{fig:masses}
\end{figure}
\section{Prompt gamma spectrum}
\label{sect:spectrum}
When cosmic rays collide off dark matter, photons are emitted either
directly from the hard scattering process or produced during the shower.
The parton level spectrum has been studied in detail in Ref.~\cite{Gorchtein:2010xa}.
The high energy photons are emitted in different ways during $\chi,e^-$
and $\chi,p$ collisions, as described below.
In the case of $\chi,e^-$ collision, the leading photon emission is
through the $\chi e^-\rightarrow \chi e^- \gamma$ process.
When the electrons energy is above $E_{res}$,
the initial state radiation (ISR) diagram takes over,
with a hard ISR photon in the collinear direction that puts
both the internal $e^-$ and $\phi$
propagators on resonance (under the approximation where the electron is massless).
However, the total cross-section is
suppressed at large incoming
electron energy, where $\sigma\sim E_{e^-}^{-1}$. As a result, the integrated photon
spectrum over a power-law spectrum for incoming CR electrons
falls sharply for $E_{\gamma}> M_\phi-M_\chi$.
For the case of wimp-proton collisions, the up quark's PDF in the proton takes the role of
reducing the center-of-mass frame energy between the parton and dark matter
without the necessity of extra radiation. This lifts the
$E_{CR}$ suppression on scattering cross-section at large proton energy.
\ck{Final state} photons
originate in the hadronic showers around the scattered quark, but more importantly,
from the proton remnants that carry off most of the incoming energy.
However, the PDF preference on relatively low parton momentum fraction suppresses
$\sigma_{\chi p}$ for $E_{p}\sim E_{res}$ and below. The $\sigma_{\chi p}$ shows a steep up-turn
near $E_{res}$ and continues to increase with $E_p$, which can be seen in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:e_p_comparison}. Thus there is a larger contribution of high energy photons compared to the case of dark matter scattering
off electrons.
The prompt photons in $\chi, p$ collision fall into two major categories:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Final state radiation (non-remnant FSR). Photons emitted by the hard-scattered u-quark and its shower
belong to this category.
As the proton PDF ensures the s-channel $\phi$ resonance, the final state (non-remnant) energy add up to the
$\phi$ mass, and the FSR photons typically has energy below $\delta M =M_\phi-M_\chi$. However, since $\phi$ and $\chi$
are comparable in mass, the resonance $u-\chi$ system has small boost and the FSR photons can point
at any direction and dominate the gamma ray signal at large scattering angles. The shower photons, resulting from hadron decays inside the hadronized jet, have in addition an enhancement due to large multiplicity and the lack of suppression by the QED fine structure constant. \\
\item Shower from proton remnants.
Similar to the ISR photon in $\chi,e^-$ collisions, at $E_{CR} > E_{res} $ the remnants are emitted along the
proton's incoming direction. These photons can be emitted at energy much higher than $M_\phi-M_\chi$ but are mainly confined
in this forward region. Notably, the number of the photons emitted in proton collisions exceed that in $\chi,e^-$ ISR. At lower incoming
energy $E_{CR} \sim E_{res} $ or less, the collision does not hit resonance. Here, we find that the photons from remnants also
are less energetic than $M_\phi-M_\chi$ but have greater freedom in their direction.
\end{enumerate}
We calculated the photon spectrum from $\chi,p$ collisions with
the Monte Carlo generator {\it Sherpa}~\cite{Gleisberg:2008ta}, and
its $Amegic$~\cite{Krauss:2001iv} and $Photons$~\cite{Schonherr:2008av} packages for
showering and photon radiation. The dark matter Lagrangian is implemented
with the $FeynRules$~\cite{Christensen:2009jx} package.
We use the hadronization model included in {\it Ahadic} \cite{Winter:2003tt} as implemented in {\it Sherpa}. It is designed to allow the study of deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) processes\footnote{We thank Stefan Hoeche for enabling
Wimps as initial-state particles in the event generation in {\it Sherpa}.}\cite{Bjorken:1969ja}. The resulting partons of our DIS-like hard process, $p \chi \to \chi+X$, and the proton remnants are first showered and then transformed into primordial hadrons during the cluster hadronization process. The subsequent decays of unstable hadrons are also handled by {\it Sherpa}. In fact, most of the photons produced in the simulation emerge from the decay of neutral mesons, such as $\pi^0$ or through final state radiation in hadron decays. Admittedly, the modeling for remnants is not experimentally tested for proton collisions with an neutral exotic particle. Thus, we warn that the theoretical uncertainties on the photon production can be large, especially in the forward region.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{event_spec_300_405}
\caption{
Photon $E\frac{d\phi}{dE}$ spectrum at a near-threshold (125 Gev, solid) and high
($10^5$ GeV, dashed) proton energy. The spectra for parton level $\chi u\rightarrow \chi u \gamma$
are shown in blue color, where $\frac{d\phi}{dE}$ is normalized to one photon in each collision.
Black curves are for fully showered $\chi p \rightarrow \chi X$ with remnants and have
more photons per event. For all spectra, the dark matter mass is 300 GeV and the up quark partner is at 405 GeV.
}
\label{fig:xspec}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:xspec} shows the photon spectrum from one $\chi,p$ collision event,
comparing the fully showered $\chi u \rightarrow \chi u$ case with the hard photon
spectrum from a parton level
calculation of $\chi u\rightarrow \chi u \gamma$.
For the parton level $\chi u\rightarrow\chi u\gamma$ calculation we imposed these cuts: photon $E,P_T > 1$
GeV and the invariant mass between $u,\gamma$ greater than 1 GeV. Since the photon bremsstrahlung
has a logarithmic dependence on the charged particle (u-quark) mass, these cuts may cause a
factor of order ${\cal O}(1)$ to the normalization of parton level radiation, and do not
qualitatively impact the results.
Here we assume an isotropic distribution
of incoming protons, at 125 GeV that is close to $E_{res}$ (solid curves). This produces photons mostly below the mass gap $M_\phi-M_\chi$. This should be contrasted with the high energy case of $E_p=10^5$ GeV (dashed curves.
Note that the gap between the fully showered and parton level
spectra widens for higher energy incoming protons, due to extra hard photons from remnants. For $E_p$ above resonance energy,
while the FSR photons remain below $M_\phi-M_\chi$, ISR and proton remnants photons
continue to higher energies.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{ang_dists_300_405}
\caption{
Angular distribution of photons with $E_\gamma >1$ GeV at cosmic ray energy near (left panel) and above (right panel)
the resonance energy.
$\theta$ denotes the photon's scattering angle off the incoming proton direction.
Showered spectra are normalized to the
number of final state photons, $\tilde{N}_\gamma$ (above 1 GeV).
Parton level curves
are normalized to one photon per event and their gap to the fully
showered curve at large scattering angle is due to $\tilde{N}_\gamma$.
Note that above $E_{res}$ the ISR dominates the $\chi e^-\rightarrow \chi e^-\gamma$
spectrum and emission at large angle diminishes. Furthermore, the behavior at small $\theta$ show how proton remnants provide extra forward photons.
For incoming particles near resonance energy (left), photons from hard event are less peaked in the
forward direction. The $\chi e^-$ collision results are also shown for comparison. For all spectra, the dark matter mass is 300 GeV and the \ck{up quark (electron)} partner is at 405 GeV. The parton level spectra have kinematic cuts
that require both photon $P_T$ and $u/e^-,\gamma$ invariant mass above 1 GeV.
}
\label{fig:ang_dists}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:ang_dists}, we show the distribution of photons ($E_\gamma > 1$ GeV) over the scattering angle.
Here the scattering angle $\theta$ is between the photon and the incoming proton's direction.
Note that the remnants give a more pronounced peak in the forward direction for $\chi,p$ collisions,
as exemplified by the 1 TeV incoming proton. Although
$\chi e^-$ collisions for high incoming electron energy also favors a forward ISR photon,
the distribution of $\chi,e^-$
signal is dominated by $\sigma_{\chi e^-}$ near $E_{res}$, as seen in left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:e_p_comparison}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{event_xsec_300_405}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{unit_vol_flux_300_405}
\caption{
(left:) Dark matter - cosmic $p/e^-$
scattering cross-sections. The parton-level $\chi u\rightarrow \chi u \gamma$ cross-section
depends on the kinematic cut on the final state photon, besides a generic $\alpha_{QED}$
suppression in comparison to that of the leading order $\chi u\rightarrow \chi u$.
(right:) Unit-volume gamma ray spectra from full proton shower,
parton level $\chi u \rightarrow \chi u \gamma$ and
$\chi e^- \rightarrow \chi e^- \gamma$.
In the right panel, the integrated flux
$I(E_\gamma)$ is given in Eq.~\ref{eq:energy_integral} with a reference
energy $E_0=10$ GeV. The CR flux is taken
as Eq.~\ref{eq:CR_flux} with normalizations $k_p=1$ and $k_{e^-}=0.01$.
In both panels the $\sigma_{\chi e^-}$ is scaled up by a factor of $\sim$3
to compensate for the kinematic cuts. For all spectra, the dark matter mass is 300 GeV and the \ck{up quark (electron)} partner is at 405 GeV.
}
\label{fig:e_p_comparison}
\end{figure}
The cross-sections for $\chi, p$ scattering are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:e_p_comparison}. Scattering with
an electron is also plotted as a comparison for the high energy behavior of the cross section.
The
$\chi (u/e^-) \rightarrow \chi (u/e^-) \gamma$ processes
use the same set of cuts as in Fig.~\ref{fig:xspec}.
In the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:e_p_comparison},
the photon spectra from dark matter collisions with galactic cosmic rays is generated by convolving with a $E^{-2.7}$
proton spectrum ($E^{-3}$ for $e^-$) that is typical for the cosmic rays in the central region
of our Galaxy. The normalization on the electron flux is $10^{-2}$ of that of protons;
see Appendix ~\ref{app:source_spec}
for the definition of $I(E)$. Due to the lack of peaking near $E_{res}$, $\chi,p^-$ scattering
yields a harder gamma ray signal above $M_\phi-M_\chi$. Compared to the parton level $\chi u\rightarrow \chi u\gamma$ prediction, we see that the showers
give a roughly two order of magnitude enhancement in photons for proton-dark matter scattering. As previously mentioned, this difference is due to
the $\alpha_{QED}$ suppression of the parton level cross section and a
higher final state photon multiplicity $\tilde{N}_\gamma$
from full hadronization/showering.
\section{The AGN case: Centaurus A}
\label{sect:AGN}
An interesting place to look for $\chi p$ collision is at the center of nearby AGNs,
where dark matter halo is assumed to exist and luminous jets provide high energy protons.
We take Centaurus A for our calculations.
Although the proton composition of the AGN jet has large modeling uncertainty,
protons can make up a majority of jet particles and the energy output in protons, $L_p$, from Cen.~A can be
more than $10$ times higher than in leptons~\cite{Falcone:2010fk}.
In this section, we compute the gamma ray signal arising from proton-dark matter collisions,
with a focus on the contribution from proton remnants.
We make an assumption that protons are isotropic in the AGN's `blob' frame, similar to the jet electrons.
The spectrum of protons are not well known. We assume that the protons also
undergo Fermi acceleration and their isotropic spectrum in
the `blob' frame is a power-law $E^{-s}$, where the index $s = 2$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\dot{N}_p}{d\tilde{E}d\tilde{\Omega}}&=& \frac{K_p}{4\pi}\left(\frac{\tilde{E}}{E_0}\right)^{-s}
\label{eq:AGN_powerlaw}
\end{eqnarray}
The tilde $\tilde{\ }$ denotes variables in the boosted `blob' frame. $K_p$ is the normalization
that is determined by AGN's proton output.
The `blob' frame moves at a Lorentz boost factor $\Gamma_B$ relative to the
central black hole. Following the analyses in \cite{Gorchtein:2010xa, Huang:2011dg}, we take $\Gamma_B = 3$.
Boosting back to the black hole frame where the
wimps are non-relativistic, the proton spectrum is
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\dot{N}_p}{d{E}d\Omega}
=\frac{d\dot{N}_p}{d\tilde{E}d\tilde{\Omega}}\cdot \frac{1}{\Gamma_B(1-\beta_B \cos\theta)}
\label{eq:jacobian}
\end{equation}
where the $\beta_B = 0.94$ is the `blob' frame's velocity. The energy and zenith angle before/after the boost are related by
\begin{equation}
\cos\tilde{\theta}=\frac{\cos\theta-\beta_B}{1-\beta_B \cos\theta} \hspace{1cm} \tilde{E}=E\cdot\Gamma_B(1-\beta_B \cos\theta).
\label{eq:variable_change}
\end{equation}
with $\theta=0$ along the jet axis.
Combining Eq.~\ref{eq:jacobian} and~\ref{eq:variable_change}, the black-hole frame proton spectrum is
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{d\dot{N}_p}{dE~d\cos\theta}=\frac{K_p}{4\pi} \left(\frac{E}{E_0}\right)^{-s}
\cdot \left[\Gamma_B~(1-\beta_B\cos\theta)\right]^{-(s+1)},
\label{eq:BHspectrum}
\end{equation}
which is still a power-law and has the same index as that in the `blob' frame,
while its intensity now varies with direction. For relativistic particles,
the reference energy $E_0$ is irrelevant and can be absorbed into the normalization.
Keeping a nonzero mass leads to
a ${\cal O}(\gamma_{p}^{-2})$ correction to the formulae above, \ck{where $\gamma_{p}= E/m_p$.}
Integrating Eq.~\ref{eq:BHspectrum} with proton energy gives the
total proton energy output as
\begin{eqnarray}
L_p&=&
K_p\cdot \frac{E_0^s}{2s(2-s)\beta_B\Gamma_B^{s+1}}
\left(
E_{max}^{2-s}-E_{min}^{2-s}
\right)
\left[
(1-\beta_B)^{-s}-(1+\beta_B)^{-s}
\right],\\
\text{or}~K_p&=&\frac{L_p}{E_0^{2}~\Gamma_B~\ln(E_{max}/E_{min})},~\text{for }s=2.
\end{eqnarray}
As Eq.~\ref{eq:BHspectrum} shows, while the flux along the jet direction is greatly enhanced,
the Jacobian suppression at large
angles $\propto \Gamma_B^{-3}$.
The Cen.~A jet is $68^\circ$ ($\cos\theta=0.37$) from the Earth;
in this direction, the Jacobian from the Lorentz boost suppresses
the proton flux by a factor of 0.14 compared to the unboosted flux.
Most protons are along the jet axis, thus their gamma ray contribution towards the Earth is
through large angle scattering. In terms of phase-space, for these `along-axis' protons,
a $4\pi$ integration of the Jacobian $\int \left|J\right| \text{d}\Omega$ is of order ${\cal O}(10^2)$ times
favored by the Lorentz boost, in comparison to the Jacobian integrated around an angular window $\Delta\cos\theta<0.1$
centered on the protons pointed towards the Earth.
Given the significant
enhancement from proton remnants,
the ${\cal O}(10-10^2)$ higher photon flux
can negate/overcome this suppression at large incoming proton energy. While the low $E_\gamma$
spectrum is still dominanted by radiation from the protons along the jet axis,
protons that point near to the Earth also make considerable contribution to the gamma ray signal,
especially when $E_\gamma>M_\phi-M_\chi$.
Admittedly the Lorentz boosted `blob frame' is a simplistic picture for the protons inside
the AGN jet. If the AGN jet is more collimated than our assumption, less protons would point towards the Earth
and the photons in the forward region would play a less important role. To illustrate this uncertainty in the AGN proton distribution, our signal prediction will also be shown with just the `along-axis' protons with $\cos \theta_p >0.8$.
Including radiation from protons in all directions, the photon flux towards Earth is
\begin{equation}
\left.\frac{d\phi_\gamma}{dE_\gamma d\Omega}\right|_{\vec{\theta}_\oplus}=\frac{1}{R^2}
\frac{\delta_{DM}}{M_\chi}
\int d\Omega_p
\int dE_p ~\sigma(E_p)\frac{dN_p}{dE_p d\Omega_p}
\left.\frac{d\tilde{N_\gamma}}{dE_\gamma d\Omega_{\gamma, sc}}
\right|_{\theta_{\gamma,sc}=<\vec{\theta}_p,\vec{\theta}_\oplus >} .
\label{eq:AGN_sig}
\end{equation}
Throughout this paper we denote angular-integrated cosmic ray flux as $\phi$ and its angular differential form as
${d\phi}/{d\Omega}$.
The direction of the incoming proton $\vec{\theta}_p=\{\theta_p,\phi_p \}$ is not limited to the vicinity of the jet axis.
$\theta_{\gamma, sc}$ denotes the `real' photon scattering angle in a frame where
the proton momentum is along the $z$-axis. $\theta_{\gamma, sc}$ is determined by the proton direction
$\vec{\theta}_p$ and the Earth's direction $\vec{\theta}_\oplus$.
\ck{$R=3.7$~Mpc is the Earth's distance to Cen. A}.
The integrand in Eq.~\ref{eq:AGN_sig} determines the contribution from protons at angle $\theta_p$ off the AGN jet axis.
$\delta_{DM}=\left< \rho_{\chi}(r)\cdot r \right>$ is the dark matter halo density integrated over the distance range
where collisions occur; $\delta_{DM}$ at Cen. A can be as high as $10^{11} M_\odot/$pc$^2$~\cite{Gorchtein:2010xa}.
For \ck{the jet output in protons}, we use $L_p=$\sci{1}{45} erg~s$^{-1}$ \ck{and an energy range
$[E_{min},E_{max}]=[10,10^7]$ GeV}~\cite{Falcone:2010fk}. $\frac{d\tilde{N}}{d E_{\gamma}d\Omega_{\gamma,sc}}$
denotes the final state photon distribution from an average collision event. $\frac{d\tilde{N}}{d E_{\gamma}d\Omega_{\gamma,sc}}$ is normalized
to the total number of photons above 1 GeV per collision and is Monte Carlo generated.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:AGN_sig_contour}, the protons along the jet axis ($\cos\theta_p \sim 1$)
suffices for parton level radiation (shown in blue dotted contours). The showered spectra (shown in black solid contours) shows that
the forward photons, with $\cos \theta_p \sim 0.37 $, mostly from proton remnants, account for a significant portion or even the
majority of the signal, especially at large $E_\gamma$. Even at low $E_\gamma$, contributions from
protons along the jet axis are still significant.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=.7]{integrand_contours}
\caption{
Emission intensity contours in terms of proton energy and proton's angle
off the jet axis. Black and blue
contours denote the showered (solid) and parton level (dotted) calculations, respectively.
The azimuthal angle $\phi_p=0$ in both panels, i.e. protons are in the Earth - jet axis plane.
The Earth's direction \ck{is} $\cos \theta_p$=0.37. Emission intensity $f$ is the integrand in Eq.~\ref{eq:AGN_sig},
in units of pb$\cdot$GeV$^{-2}\cdot$sr$^{-2}\cdot\left.K_p\right|_{E_0=10~\text{GeV}}$.
For all spectra, the dark matter mass is 300 GeV and the up quark partner is at 405 GeV.
}
\label{fig:AGN_sig_contour}
\end{figure}
The resulting gamma ray signal at the Earth is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:cenA} in black. The signal is noticeably enhanced over the parton-level calculation shown in blue. Furthermore, the shape is substantially altered. At low energies, $E_{\gamma}<M_\phi-M_\chi$, the spectra is softer than the parton-level result and has less of a peaking structure.
At high energies, $E_{\gamma} > M_\phi-M_\chi$, the fully showered
spectrum is a power law at high energy which receives a
significant contribution from protons along the jet axis.
In comparison, the parton level photons drop abruptly after
reaching $M_\phi-M_\chi$. Thus, taking into hadronization and showering
has both significantly enhanced the signal and altered its spectral shape.
Note that due to numeric stability issues in Monte Carlo, we do not plot $E_\gamma$ above
1 TeV, yet the $E^{-2}$ power-law spectrum is expected to extend to higher energy, as a fragmentation
from the the total incoming proton energy.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{cenA_samples_high_withHess}
\caption{
$\chi,p$ collision induced gamma ray signal from
Cen. A, for sample point A (solid) and B (dotted).
The full collision and parton level $E^2\frac{d\phi}{dE}$ spectra are plotted in black and blue colors, respectively.
The orange curves show the component of the fully showered spectra that originate from protons along the AGN jet axis, $\cos \theta_p >0.8$.
Signal levels assume optimistic AGN parameters: $L_p=10^{45}$erg~s$^{-1}$ and
$\delta_{DM}=2\times 10^{11} M_\odot$pc$^{-2}$~\cite{Gorchtein:2010xa}.
Fermi~\cite{Falcone:2010fk} and Hess~\cite{Raue:2009vp} measurements are shown for comparison.
}
\label{fig:cenA}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:cenA} , we have also plotted the signal component from the protons that are just along the AGN jet axis (shown in orange), integrating over $\cos\theta_p>0.8$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:AGN_sig}. This demonstrates the situation for a more highly collimated AGN jet, where only large-angle
scattering gamma rays contribute. Thus, the high energy tail above $M_\phi-M_\chi$ is sensitive to the theoretical uncertainties of the AGN jet angular distribution as well as the photon contribution from proton remnants. As these curves show, for large angle scattering, the major difference is that such photons drop much
more abruptly when $E_\gamma$ approaches to $M_\phi-M_\chi$. The parton-level curves, while their normalizations
are suppressed by $\alpha_{QED}/\tilde{N}_\gamma$, also demonstrate this high energy behavior of photons from hard scattering.
The overall signal level scales linearly with $\delta_{DM}$ and the AGN's energy output in protons.
In illustrating the gamma ray signal we assumed an optimistic scenario
with regards to the values of the dark matter density, the AGN's proton energy output and the interaction coupling.
The resulting gamma ray signal level for sample point A is comparable to the uncertainties in the Fermi data
and future observation may constrain the coupling to lower values.
More optimistically, with further enhancements to the dark matter signal,
the high energy tail could explain the HESS data points without
modifying the lower energy Fermi points and thus resolve the discrepancy
in power law observed by the HESS and Fermi-LAT analyses~\cite{Falcone:2010fk}.
\section{Diffuse protons}
\label{sect:diffuse}
For an isotropic distribution of protons, e.g. the diffuse protons inside the Milky Way,
there is no prefered direction and the contribution from proton remnants are present
in the $4\pi$-averaged prompt spectrum. However, due to relatively low CR flux inside the Milky Way
plus a high energy threshold for resonance scattering,
the gamma ray signal is much below galactic background levels.
In this section we only describe the calculations with two template profiles of
galactic protons.
The photon signal is given by,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\phi_\gamma}{dE_\gamma}=\int d{r}\frac{\rho_{\chi}({r})}{M_\chi}
\int_{E_{\gamma}}^{+\infty} dE_{p} \sigma_{\chi p}\frac{d\phi_p}{d E_p}\frac{d\tilde{N}}{dE_\gamma}
\label{eq:int_spec}
\end{equation}
where $\rho({\bf r})$ is the dark matter halo density, $\frac{d \phi_p}{d E_p}$
is the cosmic ray flux. At the center of the Milky Way galaxy, these
fluxes can be parametrized~\cite{Cirelli:2010xx} as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d \phi_p}{d E_p d\Omega}&=& k_p\left(\frac{E_p}{\text{GeV}}\right)^{-2.7}
\text{GeV}^{-1}\text{cm}^{-2}\text{s}^{-1}\text{sr}^{-1}\hspace{1cm}\text{for protons} \nonumber \\
\frac{d \phi_{e^-}}{d E_{e^-}d\Omega}&=& k_{e^-}\left(\frac{E_{e^-}}{\text{GeV}}\right)^{-3}
\text{GeV}^{-1}\text{cm}^{-2}\text{s}^{-1}\text{sr}^{-1}\hspace{.6cm}\text{for electrons}
\label{eq:CR_flux}
\end{eqnarray}
Note: the flux normalizations $k_{p/e^-}$ in lower-case are not to be confused with that of the AGN
jet.
Since the diffuse spectrum is isotropic, the forward photons are readily present
and their spectrum is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:xspec}.
For protons, its power law index only varies slightly during
propagation and the spatial and energy
parts in Eq.~\ref{eq:int_spec} can be separated,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\phi_{\gamma}}{d E_{\gamma}d\Omega}({\bf \theta})=
{ J}({\bf \theta})\cdot I(E_\gamma)
\end{equation}
where ${J(\theta)}$ integrates over the dark matter distribution along
the direction ${\bf \theta}$, while $I(E_\gamma)$ is the prompt gamma spectrum
convoluted with the proton energy spectrum.
For details see Appendix~\ref{app:source_spec}.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hline
CR model &\ \ $\alpha_p$\ \ & \ \ $M_\chi\cdot\bar{J}(\theta)$ Central\ \ & \ \ $M_\chi\cdot\bar{J}(\theta)$ Inner\ \ \\
\hline
Plain diffusion~\cite{Ptuskin:2005ax} & -2.68 & 3.8 & 0.65 \\
Diffusion reacc.~\cite{bib:reacc} & -2.75 & 9.9 & 1.5 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
\ck{Angular averaged $M_\chi\cdot \bar{J}$ in central ($|\theta|< 1^\circ$ ) and inner
($|l|<80^\circ,|b|<8^\circ$) galactic regions. $\alpha_p$ is the power index of the proton flux.
$J$ is evaluated with reference energy $E_0$ at 10 GeV. See Eq.~\ref{eq:def_J} for definitions.
The dark matter profile is given in Eq.~\ref{eq:enaisto}.
$M_\chi\cdot J(\theta)$ values are in the unit of $10^{28} $s$^{-1}$m$^{-4}$sr$^{-1}.$}}
\label{tab:int_J}
\end{table}
We choose two template Galprop CR \ck{profiles}, the plain diffusion model 999726~\cite{Ptuskin:2005ax}
and diffusion-reacceleration model 599278~\cite{bib:reacc} to calculate the integrated strength
of gamma ray source, $\int J(\theta) d\theta$ in Fermi's angular
windows~\cite{FermiLAT:2012aa}, as shown in Tab.~\ref{tab:int_J}. For the dark matter
halo we pick the Einasto profile~\cite{Navarro:2008kc} as an example for cuspy dark matter distribution,
\begin{equation}
\rho_\chi=\rho_{\odot}\text{e}^{-\frac{2}{\alpha}[(r^{\alpha}-r_{\odot}^\alpha)/r_s^\alpha] },
\hspace{1cm}
\label{eq:enaisto}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha=1.7$, $r_\odot=8.3, r_s=25$~kpc and the local halo density $\rho_\odot=0.3$ GeV/cm$^3$.
Inside the Milky Way, however, the proton-dark matter scattering is at an disadvantage to due the relatively
low level of cosmic ray flux. Small mass splitting between $\phi, \chi$ may face increasingly stringent
constraint from direct detection experiments.
As Eq.~\ref{eq:res} and Fig.~\ref{fig:masses} illustrate, only cosmic protons
of \ck{${\cal O}(10-100)$} GeV or above significantly contribute to the gamma ray signal for our toy Lagrangian.
As the result the $p,\chi$ collision
signal is dwarfed in comparison to the astrophysical background.
\section{Summary}
\label{sect:summary}
In this paper we investigated the gamma ray signal from the collision between dark matter
and high energy cosmic ray protons, including the effects of hadronization and showering.
This extends previous parton-level only calculations, with a substantial modification of the rate and energy spectrum of the photons.
The rate is significantly enhanced, since the photons produced in hadronic decays have a high multiplicity and are not suppressed by the fine structure constant.
In particular, we emphasize the contribution
from the energetic proton remnants, which boost the high energy tail of the gamma ray spectra. To illustrate the shower enhancement
to a parton level photon radiation, we implemented a simple Majorana
fermion dark matter that couples right-handedly to the up-quark, to avoid
large annihilation rates. We used the latest XENON100 limits to select
viable test masses for the dark matter and scalar $u$ partner for the
cosmic signal from Cen A as an AGN candidate, and the case of diffuse
protons in our Milky Way galaxy.
We use the Monte Carlo generator Sherpa to simulate one-sided proton
remnant in a $\chi, p$ collision event and subsequent showering.
Due to limited choice of generators that allow remnant showering with
exotic particle beams, it is of interest to further test
the photon radiation from proton remnants with alternative means of
calculation. This will help to determine whether there are large theory uncertainties on this gamma ray signal.
An additional source of uncertainty is the amount of AGN protons which are pointed towards the Earth. This also affects the high energy photons and thus, improvements in AGN modeling will also help pin down this part of the spectrum.
To summarize, we find that hadronization and showering substantially enhance the signal and in particular, the proton remnants significantly enhance the signal rate for the energy range $E_\gamma > M_\phi-M_\chi$, making the protons pointed directly
towards the Earth the major contributor at large photon energy.
The gamma ray signals from proton-dark matter collision is found to be at a
level which could be potentially constrained by forthcoming Fermi measurements. In contrast,
collisions with diffuse protons inside the Milky Way suffers from the
low proton flux at energies high enough to reach
resonance scattering. However, if the dark matter candidate and the mediator are light the signal from diffuse protons may become more prominent. \\
{\bf \noindent Acknowledgements}
\label{acknowledgements}
We thank Stefan Hoeche for his help with exotic beams in Sherpa, \ck{and Chris Savage for providing codes that implement
the spin dependent form factor.} We also thank Frank Kraus, Tim Tait and Jinrui Huang for helpful discussions. This paper is supported by DOE under grant \# DE-FG02-96ER40969.
|
\section{Introduction\label{sect-intro}}
A complex two-plane Grassmannian $G_{2}(C^{m+2})$ is the set of all $2
-dimensional linear subspaces in $C^{m+2}$. It is a symmetric space and is
equipped with both a Kaehler structure $J$ and a quaternionic Kaehler
structure $J$ with a canonical local basis $\{J_{1},J_{2},J_{3}\}$, which
does not contain $J$. \medskip
Let $M$ be a real hypersurface in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$, $N$ a unit normal
vector field of $M$ and $A$ the shape operator of $M$ with respect to $N$.
The Reeb vector field of $M$ is the structure vector field given by $\xi
=-JN $. Apart from the Reeb vector field, there are three more vector fields
given by $\xi _{\nu }=-J_{\nu }N$, $\nu =1,2,3$. Consequently, we have two
distributions on $M$ given by $[\xi ]={\rm Span}\{\xi \}$ and ${\frak D
^{\perp }={\rm Span}\{\xi _{1},\xi _{2},\xi _{3}\}$. We denote by ${\frak D}$
the orthogonal complement of the distribution ${\frak D}^{\perp }$ such that
$T_{p}M={\frak D}_{p}\oplus{\frak D}^{\perp }_{p}$, for each point $p \in M$.
\medskip
An important geometric condition for real hypersurfaces is the invariantness
of the distributions $[\xi ]$ and ${\frak D}^{\perp }$ under the action of
the shape operator. Under this condition, using a result due to Alekseevskii
\cite{Alekseevski-68}, Berndt and Suh classified the real hypersurfaces in
the following:
\begin{th}
\label{th-A} {\em (Theorem 1, \cite{Berndt-Suh-99})} Let $M$ be a connected
real hypersurface in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$, $m\geq 3$. Then both the
distributions $\left[ \xi \right] $ and ${\frak D}^{\perp }$ are invariant
under the shape operator of $M$ if and only if either
\begin{itemize}
\item $M$ is of type {\bf (A)}, that is $M$ is an open part of a tube around
a totally geodesic $G_{2}\left( {\Bbb C}^{m+1}\right) $ in $G_{2}({\Bbb C
^{m+2})$, or
\item $M$ is of type {\bf (B)}, that is $m$ is even, say $m=2n$, and $M$ is
an open part of a tube around a totally geodesic ${\Bbb H}P^{n}$ in
G_{2}\left( {\Bbb C}^{2n+2}\right) $.
\end{itemize}
\end{th}
A real hypersurface $M$ in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ is said to be a Hopf
hypersurface if the Reeb vector field $\xi $ is principal, that is $A\xi
=\alpha \xi $, where $\alpha =g(A\xi ,\xi )$ is the corresponding principal
curvature to $\xi $. In such a case the integral curves of the Reeb vector
field $\xi $ are geodesics (Berndt and Suh \cite{Berndt-Suh-02}). Of course,
all of hypersurfaces in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ mentioned in Theorem~\re
{th-A} are Hopf hypersurfaces.
\medskip
In \cite{Berndt-91}, Berndt introduced the notion of {\em normal Jacobi
operator}
\[
\overline{R}_{N}(X)=\overline{R}(X,N)N\in {\rm End}(T_{x}M),\qquad x\in M,
\
for a real hypersurface $M$ in quaternionic projective spaces ${\Bbb H}P^{m}$
and in quaternionic hyperbolic spaces ${\Bbb H}H^{m}$, where $\overline{R}$
is the curvature tensor of the ambient space. He also proved the equivalence
of the commutation of $\overline{R}_{N}$ with the shape operator $A$ with
the fact that the distributions ${\frak D}$ and ${\frak D}^{\perp }$ are
invariant under the shape operator $A$.
\medskip
The classification of real hypersurfaces in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$, whose
normal Jacobi operator $\overline{R}_{N}$ satisfies certain geometric
conditions, is one of great importance in the area of Differential Geometry.
In \cite{Perez-Jeong-Suh-2007}, Perez et. al. proved that ${\frak D^{\perp }}
$-invariant real hypersurfaces in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$, whose normal
Jacobi operator commutes with both the structure tensor $\varphi $ and the
shape operator $A$ are locally congruent to one of type (A). Recently in
\cite{Jeong-Suh-Tripathi-2012}, Jeong, Suh and the second author considered
Hopf hypersurfaces in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ which satisfy the following
two commuting conditions
\[
\varphi A\overline{R}_{N}X=\overline{R}_{N}\varphi AX,\;\; X\in TM \qquad
{\rm and}\qquad A\varphi \varphi _{1}X=\varphi \varphi _{1}AX,\;\; X\in
{\frak D}^{\perp };
\
and proved that such real hypersurfaces are locally congruent to one of type
(A). The first condition is equivalent to $({\cal L}_{\xi}\overline{R
_{N})X=(\nabla_{\xi}\overline{R}_{N})X$.
\medskip
There are many interesting results concerning the non-existence of real
hypersurfaces in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ under certain geometric conditions
on the normal Jacobi operator. In \cite{Jeong-Suh-2008}, Jeong and Suh
examined cases of real hypersurfaces in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$, when the
normal Jacobi operator is Lie $\xi $-parallel, that is ${\cal L}_{\xi
\overline{R}_{N}=0$. More precisely, they proved the non-existence of real
hypersurfaces in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ with ${\cal L}_{\xi}\overline{R
_{N}=0$ and one of the conditions $\xi \in {\frak D}^{\perp }$ and $\xi \in
{\frak D}$. They also proved the non-existence of Hopf hypersurfaces in
G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ with ${\cal L}_{\xi}\overline{R}_{N} = 0$ and
commuting shape operator on the distribution ${\frak D}^{\perp}$.
\medskip
In \cite{Jeong-Lee-Suh-2011}, it was proved that a Hopf hypersurface in
G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ does not exist if the normal Jacobi operator is Lie
parallel and the integral curves of ${\frak D}$- and ${\frak D}^{\perp }$-
components of the Reeb vector field are totally geodesic. In \cit
{Machado-Perez-Suh-2011}, Machado et.~al.\ proved the non-existence of Hopf
hypersurfaces in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ whose normal Jacobi operator is of
Codazzi type (that is, $(\nabla_{X}\overline{R}_{N})Y=(\nabla_{Y}\overline{R
_{N})X$ for any $X,Y\in TM$) and ${\frak D}$- or ${\frak D}^{\bot}
-component of $\xi$ is invariant by the shape operator. In \cit
{Jeong-Kim-Suh-2010}, Jeong et.~al.$\!$ proved the non-existence of Hopf
hypersurfaces in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ with parallel normal Jacobi
operator, that is $\nabla _{X}\overline{R}_{N}=0$. In \cite{Jeong-Suh-2011},
the non-existence of Hopf hypersurfaces in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ whose
normal Jacobi operator is $\left( [\xi ]\cup {\frak D}^{\perp }\right)
-parallel, which is a weaker condition then the previous one, was proved.
\medskip
A tensor field $P$ of type $(1,s)$ on a Riemannian manifold is said to be
{\em semi-parallel} if $R\cdot P=0$, where $R$ is the curvature tensor of
the manifold and acts as a derivation on $P$ \cite{CK}. In the geometry of
real hypersurfaces in complex space form the following results concerning
the semi-parallelism conditions have been proved. In \cite{PS1}, Perez and
Santos proved that there exist no real hypersurfaces in complex projective
space $CP^{n}$, $n\geq 3$, with semi-parallel structure Jacobi operator
(that is $R\cdot R_{\xi }=0$, where $R_{\xi} = R(\cdot ,\xi)\xi$ and $\xi$
is the structure vector field). Later, Cho and Kimura \cite{CK} generalized
this work and proved that there do not exist real hypersurfaces in complex
space forms equipped with semi-parallel structure Jacobi operator. Finally,
Niebergall and Ryan in \cite{NR1} studied real hypersurfaces in complex
space forms equipped with the semi-parallel shape operator $A$.
\medskip
Motivated by these studies the following question is raised naturally:
\begin{prob-new}
Do there exist real hypesurfaces in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$, $m\geq 3$,
whose normal Jacobi operator, structure Jacobi operator or shape operator is
semi-parallel?
\end{prob-new}
In the present paper we give the answer partially and prove the following:
\begin{th}
\label{th-main} There does not exist any connected Hopf hypersurface $M$ in
G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$, $m\geq 3$, equipped with semi-parallel normal Jacobi
operator, if $\alpha \neq 0$ and ${\frak D}$- or ${\frak D^{\bot }}$-
-component of the Reeb vector field $\xi $ is invariant by the shape
operator $A$.
\end{th}
The paper is organized as follows. In section~\ref{sect-Riem-Geom-of-CTPG},
we give a brief description of complex two plane Grassmanians. In section
\ref{sect-real-hyp-in-CTPG} basic relations for real hypersurfaces in $G_{2}
{\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ are presented. Section~\ref{sect-key-lemmas} contains some
key results for further use. Finally, in section~\ref{sect-main-th}, we give
the proof of Theorem~\ref{th-main}.
\section{Riemannian Geometry of $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ \labe
{sect-Riem-Geom-of-CTPG}}
The complex two-plane Grassmannian $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ is the Grassmann
manifold of all complex $2$-dimensional linear subspaces in ${\Bbb C}^{m+2}
. The special unitary group $G=SU(m+2)$ acts transitively on $G_{2}({\Bbb C
^{m+2})$ with stabilizer isomorphic to $K=S(U(2)\times U(m))\subset G$. Thus
$G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ can be identified with the homogeneous space $G/K$,
which can be equipped with the unique analytic structure for which the
natural action of $G$ on $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ becomes analytic. Denote by
${\frak g}$ and ${\frak l}$ the Lie algebra of $G$ and $K$, respectively.
Let ${\frak m}$ be the orthogonal complement of ${\frak l}$ in ${\frak g}$
with respect to the Cartan-Killing form $B$ of ${\frak g}$. Then ${\frak g}
{\frak l}\oplus {\frak m}$ is an $Ad(K)$-invariant reductive decomposition
of ${\frak g}$. we put $o=eK$ and identify $T_{o}G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ with
${\frak m}$ in the usual manner. Since $B$ is negative definite on ${\frak g}
$, therefore the restriction $(-B)|_{{\frak m}\times {\frak m}}$ yields a
positive definite inner product on ${\frak m}$. By $Ad(K)$-invariance of $B$
this inner product can be extended to a $G$-invariant Riemannian metric $g$
on $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$. In this manner $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ becomes a
Riemannian homogeneous symmetric space. For computational reasons we
normalize the Riemannian metric $g$ such that the maximal sectional
curvature of $(G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2}),g)$ becomes $8$.
\medskip
When $m=1$, $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{3})$ is isometric to the $2$-dimensional
complex projective space ${\Bbb C}P^{2}$ with constant holomorphic sectional
curvature $8$. When $m=2$, the isomorphism ${\rm Spin}(6)\backsimeq SU(4)$
provides an isometry between $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{4})$ and the real Grassmann
manifold $G_{2}^{+}({\Bbb R}^{6})$ of oriented $2$-dimensional linear
subspaces of ${\Bbb R}^{6}$. Therefore, we usually assume that $m\geq 3$.
\medskip
The Lie algebra ${\frak l}$ has the direct sum decomposition ${\frak l}
{\frak su}(m)\oplus {\frak su}(m)\oplus \Re $, where $\Re $ is the center of
${\frak l}$. Regarding ${\frak l}$ as the holonomy algebra of $G_{2}({\Bbb C
^{m+2})$, the center $\Re $ induces a Kaehler structure $J$ and the ${\frak
su}(2)$-part induces a quaternionic Kaehler structure ${\frak J}$ on $G_{2}
{\Bbb C}^{m+2})$. If $J_{\nu }$ is any almost Hermitian structure in ${\frak
J}$, then \thinspace $JJ_{\nu }=J_{\nu }J$, and $JJ_{\nu }$ is a symmetric
endomorphism with $(JJ_{\nu })^{2}=I$ and ${\rm tr}(JJ_{\nu })=0$.
\medskip
A canonical local basis $\{J_{1},J_{2},J_{3}\}$ of ${\frak J}$ consists of
three local almost Hermitian structures $J_{\nu }$ in ${\frak J}$ such that
J_{\nu }J_{\nu +1}=J_{\nu +2}=-J_{\nu +1}J_{\nu }$, where the index is taken
modulo $3$. Since ${\frak J}$ is parallel with respect to the Riemannian
connection $\overline{\nabla }$ of $(G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2}),g)$, there exist
for any canonical local basis $J_{1}$, $J_{2}$, $J_{3}$ of ${\frak J}$ three
local \thinspace $1$-forms $q_{1}$, $q_{2}$, $q_{3}$, such that
\begin{equation}
\overline{\nabla }_{X}J_{\nu }=q_{\nu +2}(X)J_{\nu +1}-q_{\nu +1}(X)J_{\nu
+2} \label{eq-G2-der}
\end{equation
for all vector fields $X$ on $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$.
\medskip
The Riemann curvature tensor $\overline{R}$ of $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ is
locally given by \cite{Berndt-97}
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{R}(X,Y)Z &=&g(Y,Z)X-g(X,Z)Y\frac{{}}{{}} \nonumber \\
&&+\ g\left( JY,Z\right) JX-g\left( JX,Z\right) JY-2g\left( JX,Y\right) JZ
\nonumber \\
&&+\ \sum_{\nu =1}^{3}\left\{ g\left( J_{\nu }Y,Z\right) J_{\nu }X-g\left(
J_{\nu }X,Z\right) J_{\nu }Y-2g\left( J_{\nu }X,Y\right) J_{\nu }Z\right\}
\nonumber \\
&&+\ \sum_{\nu =1}^{3}\left\{ g\left( J_{\nu }JY,Z\right) J_{\nu }JX-g\left(
J_{\nu }JX,Z\right) J_{\nu }JY\right\} \label{eq-G2-curvature}
\end{eqnarray
for all vector fields $X,Y,Z$ on $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$, where $\left\{
J_{1},J_{2},J_{3}\right\} $ is any canonical local basis of ${\frak J}$.
This expression involves the Riemannian curvature tensor of $S^{4m}$, ${\Bbb
C}P^{2m}$ and ${\Bbb H}P^{m}$.
\section{Real hypersurfaces in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ \labe
{sect-real-hyp-in-CTPG}}
Let $M$ be a real hypersurface in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$, that is a
hypersurface of $G_{2}(C^{m+2})$ with real codimension one. The induced
Riemannian metric on $M$ is denoted by $g$ and $\nabla $ denotes the induced
Riemannian connection of $\left( M,g\right) $. Let $N$ be a local unit
normal field of $M$ and $A$ the shape operator of $M$ with respect to $N$.
\medskip
Now let us put
\begin{equation}
JX=\varphi X+\eta (X)N,\qquad J_{\nu }X=\varphi _{\nu }X+\eta _{\nu }(X)N
\label{eq-JX}
\end{equation
for any tangent vector $X$ of a real hypersurface $M$ in $G_{2}({\Bbb C
^{m+2})$.
\medskip
The Kaehler structure $J$ of $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ induces a local almost
contact metric structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi ,\eta ,g\right) $ on $M$ in
the following way
\[
\varphi ^{2}X=-X+\eta (X)\xi ,\;\eta (X)=1,\;\varphi \xi =0,\;\eta
(X)=g(x,\xi ).
\]
If $M$ is orientable then $\xi $ is globally defined and is the induced Reeb
vector field on $M$. Furthermore, let $\left\{ J_{1},J_{2},J_{3}\right\} $
be a canonical local basis of ${\frak J}$. Then each $J_{\nu }$ induces an
almost contact metric structure $\left( \varphi _{\nu },\xi _{\nu },\eta
_{\nu },g\right) $ on $M$. Locally, the orthogonal complement of the real
span of $\xi $ in $TM$ is denoted by ${\frak H}$ and the orthogonal
complement of the real span of $\xi _{1}$, $\xi _{2}$, $\xi _{3}$ in $TM$ is
denoted by ${\frak D}$.
\medskip
In view of (\ref{eq-G2-curvature}), the Gauss equation is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
R(X,Y)Z &=&g(Y,Z)X-g(X,Z)Y \nonumber \\
&&+\ g\left( \varphi Y,Z\right) \varphi X-g\left( \varphi X,Z\right) \varphi
Y-2g\left( \varphi X,Y\right) \varphi Z \nonumber \\
&&+\ \sum_{\nu =1}^{3}\left\{ g\left( \varphi _{\nu }Y,Z\right) \varphi
_{\nu }X-g\left( \varphi _{\nu }X,Z\right) \varphi _{\nu }Y-2g\left( \varphi
_{\nu }X,Y\right) \varphi _{\nu }Z\right\} \nonumber \\
&&+\ \sum_{\nu =1}^{3}\left\{ g\left( \varphi _{\nu }\varphi Y,Z\right)
\varphi _{\nu }\varphi X-g\left( \varphi _{\nu }\varphi X,Z\right) \varphi
_{\nu }\varphi Y\right\} \nonumber \\
&&-\ \sum_{\nu =1}^{3}\left\{ \eta (Y)\eta _{\nu }(Z)\varphi _{\nu }\varphi
X-\eta (X)\eta _{\nu }(Z)\varphi _{\nu }\varphi Y\right\} \nonumber \\
&&-\ \sum_{\nu =1}^{3}\left\{ \eta (X)g\left( \varphi _{\nu }\varphi
Y,Z\right) -\eta (Y)g\left( \varphi _{\nu }\varphi X,Z\right) \right\} \xi
_{\nu } \nonumber \\
&&+\ g\left( AY,Z\right) AX-g\left( AX,Z\right) AY \label{eq-Gauss-real-hyp}
\end{eqnarray
where $R$ denotes the curvature tensor of the real hypersurface $M$ in
G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$.
\medskip
It is straightforward to verify the following identitie
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c}
\varphi _{\nu }\xi _{\nu +1}=\xi _{\nu +2},\qquad \varphi _{\nu +1}\xi _{\nu
}=-\,\xi _{\nu +2},\medskip \\
\varphi \xi _{\nu }=\varphi _{\nu }\xi ,\qquad \eta _{\nu }\left( \varphi
X\right) =\eta \left( \varphi _{\nu }X\right) ,\medskip \\
\varphi _{\nu }\varphi _{\nu +1}X=\varphi _{\nu +2}X+\eta _{\nu +1}(X)\xi
_{\nu },\medskip \\
\varphi _{\nu +1}\varphi _{\nu }X=-\,\varphi _{\nu +2}X+\eta _{\nu }(X)\xi
_{\nu +1}
\end{array}
\label{eq-induced-hyp}
\end{equation}
\medskip
In view of (\ref{eq-JX}), (\ref{eq-G2-der}) and (\ref{eq-induced-hyp}), it
is known that
\[
\left( \nabla _{X}\varphi \right) Y=\eta (Y)AX-g\left( AX,Y\right) \xi
,\qquad \nabla _{X}\xi =\varphi AX,
\
\[
\nabla _{X}\xi _{\nu }=q_{\nu +2}(X)\xi _{\nu +1}-q_{\nu +1}(X)\xi _{\nu
+2}+\varphi _{\nu }AX,
\
\[
\left( \nabla _{X}\varphi _{\nu }\right) Y=-\,q_{\nu +1}(X)\varphi _{\nu
+2}Y+q_{\nu +2}(X)\varphi _{\nu +1}Y+\eta _{\nu }(Y)AX-g\left( AX,Y\right)
\xi _{\nu }.
\
Summing up these formulas, we also find the following
\begin{eqnarray*}
\nabla _{X}\left( \varphi _{\nu }\xi \right) &=&\left( \nabla _{X}\varphi
_{\nu }\right) \xi +\varphi _{\nu }\left( \nabla _{X}\xi \right) \\
&=&-\,q_{\nu +1}(X)\varphi _{\nu +2}\xi +q_{\nu +2}(X)\varphi _{\nu +1}\xi \\
&&+\,\eta _{\nu }\left( \xi \right) AX-g\left( AX,\xi \right) \xi _{\nu
}+\varphi _{\nu }\varphi AX.
\end{eqnarray*
Moreover, from $JJ_{\nu }=J_{\nu }J$, $\nu =1,2,3$, it follows that
\[
\varphi _{\nu }\varphi X=\varphi \varphi _{\nu }X-\eta _{\nu }(X)\xi +\eta
(X)\xi _{\nu }.
\
\noindent For more details we refer to \cite{Alekseevski-68}, \cit
{Berndt-97}, \cite{Berndt-Suh-99} and \cite{Berndt-Suh-02}. \medskip
\section{Key Lemmas\label{sect-key-lemmas}}
We consider a connected, orientable, Hopf hypersurface $M$ in
G_{2}(C^{m+2}) $ with $\alpha \neq 0$ and semi-parallel normal Jacobi
operator. The normal Jacobi operator $\overline{R}_{N}$ for a real
hypersurface $M$ in $G_{2}(C^{m+2})$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{R}_{N}(X) &=&X+3\eta (X)\xi +3\sum_{\nu =1}^{3}\eta _{\nu }(X)\xi
_{\nu } \nonumber \\
&&-\sum_{\nu =1}^{3}\{\eta _{\nu }(\xi )\left( \varphi _{\nu }\varphi X-\eta
(X)\xi _{\nu }\right) -\eta _{\nu }(\varphi X)\varphi _{\nu }\xi \}
\label{eq-normal-Jacobi-operator}
\end{eqnarray
for any vector field $X$ tangent to $M$. Furthermore, semi-parallelism
condition of it, that is $R(X,Y)\cdot \overline{R}_{N}=0$, implies
\begin{equation}
R(X,Y)\overline{R}_{N}Z=\overline{R}_{N}(R(X,Y)Z) \label{eq-semi-parallel}
\end{equation
for all vector fields $X,Y,Z$ tangent to $M$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem-1} Let $M$ be a Hopf hypersurface in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ such
that ${\frak D}$- or ${\frak D}^{\bot }$-component of $\xi $ is invariant by
the shape operator $A$ and $\alpha \neq 0$. If the normal Jacobi operator is
semi-parallel, then $\xi \in {\frak D}$ or $\xi \in {\frak D}^{\bot }$.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} Suppose that $\xi $ is written as
\begin{equation}
\xi =\eta (U)U+\eta (\xi _{1})\xi _{1}+\eta (\xi _{2})\xi _{2}+\eta (\xi
_{3})\xi _{3}, \label{eq-xi-representation}
\end{equation
where $U$ is a unit vector in ${\frak D}$ and $\eta (U)\neq 0$ and $\eta
(\xi _{\kappa })\neq 0$ for at least one $\kappa \in \left\{ 1,2,3\right\}
. Then relation (\ref{eq-xi-representation}) implies that
\begin{equation}
\varphi _{\kappa }\xi =\eta (U)\varphi _{\kappa }U+\eta (\xi _{\kappa
+1})\xi _{\kappa +2}-\eta (\xi _{\kappa +2})\xi _{\kappa +1}.
\label{eq-phi-k-xi-representation}
\end{equation
From (\ref{eq-normal-Jacobi-operator}), we get
\begin{equation}
\overline{R}_{N}(\xi )=4\xi +4\sum_{\nu =1}^{3}\eta (\xi _{\nu })\xi _{\nu },
\label{eq-RN-xi}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
\overline{R}_{N}(\xi _{\kappa })=4\xi _{\kappa }+4\eta (\xi _{\kappa })\xi
+2\eta (\xi _{\kappa +1})\varphi _{\kappa +2}\xi -2\eta (\xi _{\kappa
+2})\varphi _{\kappa +1}\xi , \label{eq-RN-xi-k}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
\overline{R}_{N}(\varphi _{\kappa }\xi )=2\eta (\xi _{\kappa +1})\xi
_{\kappa +2}-2\eta (\xi _{\kappa +2})\xi _{\kappa +1}.
\label{eq-RN-phi-k-xi}
\end{equation
Since the normal Jacobi operator is semi-parallel, from (\re
{eq-semi-parallel}) and (\ref{eq-RN-xi}), we get
\begin{equation}
\overline{R}_{N}(R(\xi ,\xi _{\kappa })\xi ) = 4R(\xi ,\xi _{\kappa })\xi
+4\sum_{\nu =1}^{3}\eta (\xi _{\nu })R(\xi ,\xi _{\kappa })\xi _{\nu }.
\label{eq-RN(R(xi,xi-{kappa})xi)}
\end{equation
Since ${\frak D}$- or ${\frak D}^{\bot }$-component of $\xi $ is assumed to
be invariant by the shape operator $A$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
AU=\alpha U\quad {\rm and}\quad A\xi _{\kappa }=\alpha \xi _{\kappa },\qquad
\kappa \in \left\{ 1,2,3\right\} . \label{eq-A-invariant}
\end{equation
In view of (\ref{eq-A-invariant}), from relation (\ref{eq-Gauss-real-hyp})
we get
\begin{equation}
R(\xi ,\xi _{\kappa })\xi =\alpha ^{2}\eta (\xi _{\kappa })\xi -\alpha
^{2}\xi _{\kappa }+2\eta (\xi _{\kappa +1})\varphi _{\kappa +2}\xi -2\eta
(\xi _{\kappa +2})\varphi _{\kappa +1}\xi . \label{eq-R(xi,xi-{kappa})xi}
\end{equation
Substituting (\ref{eq-R(xi,xi-{kappa})xi}) in (\re
{eq-RN(R(xi,xi-{kappa})xi)}), we lead to the following
\begin{eqnarray}
4\sum_{\nu =1}^{3}\eta (\xi _{\nu })R(\xi ,\xi _{\kappa })\xi _{\nu }
&=&\alpha ^{2}\eta (\xi _{\kappa })\overline{R}_{N}(\xi )-\alpha ^{2
\overline{R}_{N}(\xi _{\kappa }) \nonumber \\
&&+2\eta (\xi _{\kappa +1})\overline{R}_{N}(\varphi _{\kappa +2}\xi )-2\eta
(\xi _{\kappa +2})\overline{R}_{N}(\varphi _{\kappa +1}\xi ) \label{eq-D7}
\\
&&-4\alpha ^{2}\eta (\xi _{\kappa })\xi +4\alpha ^{2}\xi _{\kappa }
\nonumber \\
&&-8\eta (\xi _{\kappa +1})\varphi _{\kappa +2}\xi +8\eta (\xi _{\kappa
+2})\varphi _{\kappa +1}\xi . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray
Taking the inner product of (\ref{eq-D7}) with $U$, in view of (\re
{eq-RN-xi-k}), (\ref{eq-RN-phi-k-xi}) and (\ref{eq-phi-k-xi-representation})
we obtain
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\nu =1}^{3}\eta (\xi _{\nu })g(R(\xi ,\xi _{\kappa })\xi _{\nu
},U)=-\alpha ^{2}\eta (\xi _{\kappa })\eta (U). \label{eq-D9}
\end{equation
We calculate $R(\xi ,\xi _{\kappa })\xi _{\nu }$ from relation (\re
{eq-Gauss-real-hyp}) taking into account (\ref{eq-A-invariant}) and then we
take the inner product with $U$ and we lead to the following relation
\begin{equation}
g(R(\xi ,\xi _{\kappa })\xi _{\nu },U)=\alpha ^{2}\eta _{\kappa }(\xi _{\nu
})\eta (U). \label{eq-D10}
\end{equation
From (\ref{eq-D9}) and (\ref{eq-D10}) we get
\[
\alpha ^{2}\eta (\xi _{\kappa })\eta (U)=0,\qquad \kappa \in \left\{
1,2,3\right\} ,
\
which is a contradiction. $\blacksquare $
\medskip
Now, we examine the case when the Reeb vector field $\xi $ belongs to the
distribution ${\frak D}^{\perp }$. In fact, we have the following
\begin{lem}
\label{lem-2} Let $M$ be a Hopf hypersurface in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$ and
\alpha \neq 0$, with semi-parallel normal Jacobi operator and $\xi \in
{\frak D}^{\bot }$ then $g(A{\frak D},{\frak D}^{\bot })=0$.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\bf Proof.} Let $W\in {\frak D}$ arbitrarily. In order to prove
that $g(A{\frak D},{\frak D}^{\bot })=0$, it suffices to prove that
g(AW,\xi _{\kappa })=0$, $\kappa =1,2,3$. Since $\xi \in {\frak D^{\bot }}$,
we have that $JN\in {\frak J}N$. Let $J_{1}$ be an almost Hermitian
structure of ${\frak J}$ such that $JN=J_{1}N$. Then we obtain that $\xi
=\xi _{1}$ and $\eta (\xi _{2})=\eta (\xi _{3})=0$. Furthermore, $\varphi
\xi _{2}=-\xi _{3}$, $\varphi \xi _{3}=\xi _{2}$ and $\varphi ({\frak D})
\subset {\frak D}$.
\medskip
Due to the fact that $M$ is a Hopf hypersurface, we have that $A\xi =\alpha
\xi $ and so $g(AW,\xi )=g(AW,\xi _{1})=0$. Thus, it remains to prove that
\[
g(AW,\xi _{\kappa })=0,\qquad \kappa =2,3{\frak .}
\
From (\ref{eq-normal-Jacobi-operator}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\overline{R}_{N}(\xi )=8\xi ,\qquad \overline{R}_{N}(W)=W-\varphi
_{1}\varphi W. \label{eq-f4}
\end{equation
Using (\ref{eq-f4}) in (\ref{eq-semi-parallel}) we get
\begin{equation}
8R(W,\xi )\xi =\overline{R}_{N}(R(W,\xi )\xi ). \label{eq-f5}
\end{equation
In view of $A\xi =\alpha \xi $, from (\ref{eq-Gauss-real-hyp}), it follows
that
\begin{equation}
R(W,\xi )\xi =W+\alpha AW-\varphi _{1}\varphi W. \label{eq-f6}
\end{equation
Substituting (\ref{eq-f6}) in (\ref{eq-f5}) and taking into consideration
\ref{eq-f4}) we lead to the following
\begin{equation}
8W+8\alpha AW-8\varphi _{1}\varphi W=\overline{R}_{N}(W)+\alpha \overline{R
_{N}(AW)-\overline{R}_{N}(\varphi _{1}\varphi W). \label{eq-f7}
\end{equation
From (\ref{eq-normal-Jacobi-operator}) we also get
\[
\overline{R}_{N}(AW)=AW+2\eta _{2}(AW)\xi _{2}+2\eta _{3}(AW)\xi
_{3}-\varphi _{1}\varphi AW,
\
\[
\overline{R}_{N}(\varphi _{1}\varphi W)=\varphi _{1}\varphi W-\varphi
_{1}\varphi (\varphi _{1}\varphi W).
\
Substitution of the previous two relations in (\ref{eq-f7}) gives
\[
7W+7\alpha AW-6\varphi _{1}\varphi W=2\alpha \eta _{2}(AW)\xi _{2}+2\alpha
\eta _{3}(AW)\xi _{3}+\varphi _{1}\varphi (\varphi _{1}\varphi W)-\alpha
\varphi _{1}\varphi AW.
\
Taking the inner product of the last relation with $\xi _{\kappa }$, $\kappa
=2,3$, and because of $\alpha \neq 0$ implies
\[
\eta _{\kappa }(AW)=0,\qquad \kappa =2,3,
\
and this completes the proof. $\blacksquare $
\medskip
Finally, in the case when the Reeb vector field $\xi $ belongs to the
distribution ${\frak D}$, we refer to the following
\begin{prop}
\label{prop-0} {\em (Proposition 3.1, \cite{Lee-Suh-2010})} Let $M$ be a
connected orientable Hopf hypersurface in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$. If the
Reeb vector $\xi $ belongs to the distribution ${\frak D}$, then the
distribution ${\frak D}$ is invariant under the shape operator $A$ of M,
that is $g(A{\frak D},{\frak D}^{\bot })=0$.
\end{prop}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\protect\ref{th-main}\label{sect-main-th}}
In the previous section, because of Lemma \ref{lem-2}, Proposition \re
{prop-0} and Theorem \ref{th-A}, we lead to the conclusion that real
hypersurfaces in $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$, under some additional assumptions,
whose normal Jacobi operator is semi-parallel are locally congruent to real
hypersurfaces of type {\bf (A)} or {\bf (B)}. Now, we check if the normal
Jacobi operator of such real hypersurfaces satisfies the semi-parallelism
condition.
\medskip
First, we recall the following proposition due to Berndt and Suh (\cit
{Berndt-Suh-99}).
\begin{prop}
\label{prop-A} {\em (Proposition 3, \cite{Berndt-Suh-99})} Let $M$ be a
connected real hypersurface of $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$. Suppose that $
{\frak D}\subset {\frak D}$, $A\xi =\alpha \xi $ and $\xi $ is tangent to
{\frak D}^{\perp }$. Let $J_{1}\in {\frak J}$ be the almost Hermitian
structure such that $JN=J_{1}N$. Then $M$ has three (if $r=\frac{\pi }{
\sqrt{8}}$) or four (otherwise) distinct constant principal curvatures
\[
\alpha =\sqrt{8}\cot (\sqrt{8}r),\;\;\beta =\sqrt{2}\cot (\sqrt{2
r),\;\;\lambda =-\sqrt{2}\tan (\sqrt{2}r),\;\;\mu =0,
\
with some $r\in (0,\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{8}})$. The corresponding multiplicities
are
\[
m(\alpha )=1,\;\;m(\beta )=2,\;\;m(\lambda )=2m-2=m(\mu ),
\
and the corresponding eigenspaces are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&T_{\alpha }={\Bbb R}\xi ={\Bbb R}\xi _{1}={\Bbb R}JN={\rm Span}\{\xi \}
{\rm Span}\{\xi _{1}\}, \nonumber \\
&&T_{\beta }={\Bbb C}^{\perp }\xi ={\Bbb C}^{\perp }N={\Bbb R}\xi _{2}\oplus
{\Bbb R}\xi _{3}={\rm Span}\{\xi _{2},\xi _{3}\}, \nonumber \\
&&T_{\lambda }=\{X/X\perp {\Bbb H}\xi ,\;\;JX=J_{1}X\}, \nonumber \\
&&T_{\mu }=\{X/X\perp {\Bbb H}\xi ,\;\;JX=-J_{1}X\},\ \nonumber
\end{eqnarray
where ${\Bbb R}\xi $, ${\Bbb C}\xi $ and ${\Bbb H}\xi $ respectively denotes
real, complex, quaternionic span of the structure vector field $\xi $ and
{\Bbb C}^{\perp }\xi $ denotes the orthogonal complement of the ${\Bbb C}\xi$
in ${\Bbb H}\xi $.
\end{prop}
In this case we have $\xi =\xi _{1}$. From (\ref{eq-normal-Jacobi-operator})
we obtain
\begin{equation}
\overline{R}_{N}(\xi )=8\xi \qquad {\rm and}\qquad \overline{R}_{N}(\xi
_{2})=2\xi _{2}. \label{eq-B1}
\end{equation}
Since the normal Jacobi operator is semi-parallel, from (\re
{eq-semi-parallel}) and the second relation of (\ref{eq-B1}) we obtain:
\begin{equation}
2R(\xi_{2},\xi)\xi_{2} = \overline{R}_{N}(R(\xi_{2},\xi)\xi_{2}),
\label{eq-B2}
\end{equation}
Relation (\ref{eq-Gauss-real-hyp}) for $X=\xi _{2}$, $Y=\xi $ and $Z=\xi
_{2} $ taking into account the fact that $A\xi =\alpha \xi $ and $A\xi
_{2}=\beta \xi _{2}$ implies
\begin{equation}
R(\xi _{2},\xi )\xi _{2}=-(2+\alpha \beta )\xi. \label{eq-B3}
\end{equation}
Substitution of relation (\ref{eq-B3}) in (\ref{eq-B2}) leads to
\[
(2+\alpha \beta )\xi =0.\
\]
The last relation taking into account that $\alpha=\sqrt{8}\cot(\sqrt{8}r)$
and $\beta=\sqrt{2}\cot(\sqrt{2}r)$ implies
\[
\cot ^{2}(\sqrt{2}r) = 0,
\
which is a contradiction. So real hypersurfaces of type {\bf (A)} do not
have semi-parallel normal Jacobi operator.
\medskip
Next we check that whether real hypersurfaces of type {\bf (B)} are equipped
with semi-parallel normal Jacobi operator. We recall the following
proposition due to Berndt and Suh (\cite{Berndt-Suh-99}).
\begin{prop}
\label{prop-B} {\em (Proposition 2, \cite{Berndt-Suh-99})} Let $M$ be a
connected real hypersurface of $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$. Suppose that $
{\frak D}\subset {\frak D}$, $A\xi =\alpha \xi $ and $\xi $ is tangent to
{\frak D}$. Then the quaternionic dimension $m$ of $G_{2}({\Bbb C}^{m+2})$
is even, say $m=2n$, and $M$ has five distinct constant principal curvatures
\[
\alpha =-2\tan (2r),\;\;\beta =2\cot (2r),\;\;\gamma =0,\;\;\lambda =\cot
(r),\;\;\mu =-\tan (r),
\
with some $r\in (0,\pi /4)$. The corresponding multiplicities are
\[
m(\alpha )=1,\;\;m(\beta )=3=m(\gamma ),\;\;m(\lambda )=4n-4=m(\mu ),
\
and the corresponding eigenspaces are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&T_{\alpha }={\Bbb R}\xi ={\rm Span}\{\xi \}, \nonumber \\
&&T_{\beta }={\frak J}J\xi ={\rm Span}\{\xi _{1},\xi _{2},\xi _{3}\},
\nonumber \\
&&T_{\gamma }={\frak J}\xi ={\rm Span}\{\varphi _{1}\xi ,\varphi _{2}\xi
,\varphi _{3}\xi \}, \nonumber \\
&&T_{\lambda },\;\;T_{\mu },\ \nonumber
\end{eqnarray
where
\[
T_{\lambda }\oplus T_{\mu }=({\Bbb H}{\Bbb C}\xi )^{\perp },\;\;{\frak J
T_{\lambda }=T_{\lambda },\;\;{\frak J}T_{\mu }=T_{\mu },\;\;JT_{\lambda
}=T_{\mu }.
\]
\end{prop}
From (\ref{eq-normal-Jacobi-operator}) we obtain
\begin{equation}
\overline{R}_{N}(W)=W,\;\;\;\;\overline{R}_{N}(\xi )=4\xi \;\;{\rm and}\;\
\overline{R}_{N}(\xi _{\nu })=4\xi _{\nu },\;\;\nu =1,2,3, \label{eq-B4}
\end{equation
where $W\in T_{\lambda }$. Due to the semi-parallelism of the normal Jaocbi
operator, from (\ref{eq-semi-parallel}) and the first relation of (\re
{eq-B4}) we get:
\begin{equation}
R(W,\xi )W=\overline{R}_{N}(R(W,\xi )W), \label{eq-B5}
\end{equation
The Gauss equation (\ref{eq-Gauss-real-hyp}) for $X=W$, $Y=\xi $ and $Z=W$,
because of $A\xi =\alpha \xi $ and $AW=\lambda W$ implies
\begin{equation}
R(W,\xi )W=-\left( 1+\alpha \lambda \right) \xi +\sum_{\nu =1}^{3}g(\varphi
_{\nu }\varphi W,W)\xi _{\nu }. \label{eq-B6}
\end{equation
Substituting (\ref{eq-B6}) in (\ref{eq-B5}) and taking into account relation
(\ref{eq-B4}), we lead to the following
\[
\lbrack 1+\alpha \lambda ]\xi -\sum_{\nu =1}^{3}g(\varphi _{\nu }\varphi
W,W)\xi _{\nu }=0.\
\
The inner product of the last relation with $\xi $ and substitution of
\alpha =-2\tan (2r)$ and $\lambda =\cot (r)$ yield
\[
1-2\tan (2r)\cot (r)=0,
\
from which we obtain
\[
3 + \tan ^{2}(r)=0,
\
which is a contradiction. So real hypersurfaces of type {\bf (B)} do not
admit semi-parallel normal Jacobi operator and this completes the proof.
\blacksquare $
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements.} The first author would like to express her
gratitude to Professor Ph. J. Xenos. Second author is thankful to Professor
Oldrich Kowalski for academic hospitality provided by him at Charles
University during June 9-24, 2012.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The nature of superfluidity of Bose systems is the result of a remarkable interplay between Bose--Einstein condensation and particle-particle interaction. The complex phenomena of superfluids had been explained by a remarkably simple two fluid model \cite{PitaevskiiBook}. One of the key concepts is the critical velocity, that is, the limit velocity of an obstacle immersed in the superfluid and moving against it without exciting density waves, therefore the motion is exempt from damping. In Landau's original argumentation for the critical velocity only Galilean invariance and energy and momentum conservation were taken into account besides a specific dispersion relation of the elementary excitations \cite{PitaevskiiBook}. Later it was shown by Bogoliubov that such dispersion relation is indeed the consequence of Bose-Einstein condensation and the critical velocity is the speed of sound of density waves. In gases of ultracold atoms the critical velocity has been measured experimentally both for bosons \cite{Raman99Critvel} and also for fermions \cite{Miller07Critvel}. Though some doubt due to the inhomogeneity of the condensate and the finite size of the disturbing potential remains, the experiments confirm a speed of sound around that of the Landau criterion. Recently Navez and Graham showed for a spinless Bose gas in a dynamically consistent Hartree--Fock-RPA approximation \cite{Navez06Critical} that at the critical velocity not only the quasiparticle energy becomes zero but also the damping rate changes sign signaling the onset of a dynamical instability.
Here we show for antiferromagnetic spin-1 Bose gases that the critical velocity is the speed of spin-wave instead of the sound wave. In typical experiments with ultracold gases the spin waves are usually two orders of magnitude slower than sound waves. Therefore the critical velocity is much smaller than in a scalar gas. A direct physical consequence is that when a spinor Bose condensate moves faster than the speed of the spin wave, it emits a cone of spin polarized excitations instead of density waves, which can lead to spin texture formation and can be measured in experiments.
\section{The formulation of the problem of an antiferromagnetic spin-1 Bose gas with a moving condensate}
\label{sec:form}
We consider an ultracold, dilute, homogeneous, spin-1 Bose gas in a homogeneous magnetic field. The interparticle
interaction is modeled by s-wave scattering, i.e. we neglect the relatively weak dipolar interaction of the gas. The grand-canonical Hamiltonian of the system reads as
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:ham}
{\mathcal H}=\sum_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{2}{\vec{k}}{r,s}}
\Big[(e_{\vec{k}}-\mu)\delta_{rs} -g \mu_{\mathrm{B}} B\,
(F_z)_{rs}\Big] a_r^\dagger(\vec{k})
a_s(\vec{k})\\+\frac{1}{2V}\sum_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{2}{\vec{k}_1+
\vec{k}_2=\vec{k}_3+\vec{k}_4}{r,s,r',s'}}a^\dagger_{r'}(\vec{k}_1)
a^\dagger_r(\vec{k}_2)V^{r's'}_{rs}a_s(\vec{k}_3)a_{s'}
(\vec{k}_4),
\end{multline}
where $a_r(\vec{k})$ is the annihilation operator of plane wave states with momentum $\vec{k}$ and spin projection
$r$. The spin index $r$ refers to the eigenvalue of the \textit{z}-component of the
spin operator and can take values from $+,0,-$. Correspondingly $F_z=\mathrm{diag}(1,0,-1)$ is a 3x3 diagonal matrix. In Eq. \eqref{eq:ham} $e_{\vec{k}}=\hslash^2k^2/(2M)$ refers to the kinetic energy of an atom, $\mu$ to the chemical potential, $g$ to the gyromagnetic ratio, $\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$ to the Bohr magneton, $B$ to the modulus of the homogeneous magnetic field. $V$ is the volume of the system and $V^{r's'}_{rs}$ the amplitude of the two particle interaction, given for spin-1 bosons by \cite{Ho98Spinor,Ohmi98Spinor,Stamper-Kurn2001Lecture}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pseudopot}
V^{r's'}_{rs}=c_n\delta_{rs}\delta_{r's'}+c_s(\vec{F})_{rs}
(\vec{F})_{r's'},
\end{equation}
with $c_n=4\pi\hslash^2(a_0+2a_2)/(3M)$ , and $c_s=4\pi\hslash^2(a_2-a_0)/(3M)$.
The parameters $a_0$ and $a_2$ are the scattering lengths in the total hyperfine
spin channel zero and two, respectively. The constant $c_n>0$, while $c_s$ can
both be positive or negative, depending on the relative values of $a_0$ and $a_2$.
For $c_s>0$ a zero net spin is energetically favorable (in the absence of a magnetic field). For
this reason systems with $c_s>0$ are called antiferromagnetic or polar gases \cite{Ho98Spinor}. For instance the ultracold
gas of ${}^{23}\mathrm{Na}$ in the $f=1$ hyperfine state is antiferromagnetic \cite{Crubellier99Na}.
Even in the presence of a homogeneous magnetic field the \textit{z}\ component of the total spin is a conserved quantity. This conservation law can be resolved similarly as that for the particle number [i.e., with the introduction of a Lagrange multiplier in the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:ham}]. This multiplier shows up in the same way as the magnetic field does, therefore an effective magnetic field can be introduced as a sum of the external magnetic field plus the Lagrange multiplier. In the following, $B$ will mean this kind of effective field even when the physical magnetic field is zero. In the following, we assume that either such is the case, or the external magnetic field is so small that the quadratic Zeeman effect can be neglected.
In the presence of a Bose-Einstein condensate moving with velocity $\vec{v_0}=\hslash \vec{k}_0/M$ the annihilation and creation operators have a nonzero mean value $a_r(\vec{k}_0)=\sqrt{N_c}\zeta_r$, where $N_c$ is the number of atoms in the condensate, and $\zeta_r=(\zeta_+,\zeta_0,\zeta_-)$ is the condensate spinor normalized to unity \cite{Ho98Spinor}. It is convenient to define new annihilation operators with the canonical transformation $b_r(\vec{k})=a_r(\vec{k})-\sqrt{N_c}\zeta_r\delta_{\vec{k},\vec{k}_0}$ which have zero mean values for all $\vec{k}$. The finite temperature Green's function of the system is introduced as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:greensfn}
\mathcal{G}^{rs}_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{k},\tau)=-\left\langle T_\tau b^\alpha_r(\vec{k},\tau)b^{\beta\dagger}_s(\vec{k},0)\right\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ is the imaginary time, $T_\tau$ is the $\tau$ ordering operator and the Greek indices take the values $\pm1$ and are introduced for a shorthand notation, namely $b^{1}_r(\vec{k},\tau)=b_r(\vec{k},\tau)$ and $b^{-1}_r(\vec{k},\tau)=b^\dagger_r(2\vec{k}_0-\vec{k},-\tau)$. The Green's function can be conveniently arranged into a matrix form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:grmat}
\tens{G}=\left[
\begin{array}{l r|l r}
\mathcal{G}^{++}_{11}&\mathcal{G}^{++}_{1,-1}&\mathcal{G}^{+-}_{11}&\mathcal{G}^{+-}_{1,-1}\\
\mathcal{G}^{++}_{-1,1}&\mathcal{G}^{++}_{-1,-1}&\mathcal{G}^{+-}_{-1,1}&\mathcal{G}^{+-}_{-1,-1}\\
\hline
\mathcal{G}^{-+}_{11}&\mathcal{G}^{-+}_{1,-1}&\mathcal{G}^{--}_{11}&\mathcal{G}^{--}_{1,-1}\\
\mathcal{G}^{-+}_{-1,1}&\mathcal{G}^{-+}_{-1,-1}&\mathcal{G}^{--}_{-1,1}&\mathcal{G}^{--}_{-1,-1}
\end{array}
\right].
\end{equation}
In Matsubara representation the inverse of the Green's function is expressed from the Dyson-Beliaev equations with the help of the free propagator and the self-energy
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dysonbel}
\tens{G}^{-1}(\vec{k},i\omega_n)=\tens{G}^{-1}_0(\vec{k},i\omega_n)-\tens{\Sigma}(\vec{k},i\omega_n).
\end{equation}
The self-energy matrix $\tens{\Sigma}$ is arranged from its components in a similar way than the Green's function \eqref{eq:grmat}.
The inverse of the free propagator is given by the diagonal matrix
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:freeprop}
\tens{G}^{-1}_0(\vec{k},i\omega_n)=\left[
\begin{array}{l c c r}
\Xi+\omega_L&0&0&0\\
0&\tilde\Xi+\omega_L&0&0\\
0&0&\Xi-\omega_L&0\\
0&0&0&\tilde\Xi-\omega_L
\end{array}
\right],
\end{equation}
with $\Xi=i\omega_n-\hslash^{-1}(e_{\vec{k}}-\mu)$, $\tilde\Xi=-i\omega_n-\hslash^{-1}(e_{\vec{\tilde{k}}}-\mu)$ and $\omega_L=\hslash^{-1}g\mu_{\mathrm{B}} B$ the Larmor frequency related to the effective magnetic field. The self-energy $\tens{\Sigma}(\vec{k},i\omega_n)$ is to be chosen according to some approximation scheme. The dispersion relation $\omega(\vec{k})$ of the quasiparticles is provided by the poles of the retarded Green's function, that is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:disprel}
\det\tens{G}^{-1}(\vec{k},\omega+i\eta)=0.
\end{equation}
To obtain the retarded Green's function we analytically continue in the frequency variable $i\omega_n\rightarrow\omega+i\eta$ (with $\eta\rightarrow +0$) through the upper half complex plane. In the following sections we are going to evaluate the self-energy first in the Bogoliubov approximation valid at zero temperature, and later in the Hartree-RPA approximation in order to study also the temperature dependence of the critical velocity.
Though we investigate the Green's functions it is important that they are coupled to the propagators describing collective motion and as a result their excitations hybridize \cite{Szepfalusy01Structure}.
\section{Bogoliubov theory of a spin-1 Bose gas with a moving condensate}
\label{sec:bogo}
The simplest possible approximation is the Bogoliubov approximation, which is valid at zero temperature or very close to it. In the Bogoliubov approximation the noncondensed atom fraction is assumed to be negligible, therefore the condensate atom number is approximately equal to the total number of atoms: $N_c\approx N$.
There are two distinct phases distinguished by the number of condensate components, which we call as P1 and P2 phases in analogy to the case of superfluid ${}^3\mathrm{He}$. When the gas sample is maximally polarized all of the condensate atoms are in a single spin component and the condensate spinor is $\zeta_r^{\mathrm{P1}}=(1,0,0)$ \cite{Kis-Szabo07Polar,Szirmai12Hydro}. In spite of the antiferromagnetic coupling the condensate is maximally magnetized due to the initial preparation and the conservation of the magnetization. When the polarization of the gas is decreased the condensate wavefunction becomes multicomponent $\zeta_r^{\mathrm{P2}}=(\zeta_+,\zeta_0,\zeta_-)$. Note that the component $\zeta_0=0$ always in the Bogoliubov approximation, which is the consequence that the magnetization of the condensate points in the direction of the magnetic field (although our case it is just a Lagrange multiplier). Consequently the \textit{x}\ and \textit{y}\ components of the condensate magnetization have to vanish and therefore $\zeta_0=0$ \cite{Szirmai12Hydro}. In this paper we restrict the discussion to the P2 phase.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering
\includegraphics{bogovel}
\caption{Dispersion relation of spin waves in the Bogoliubov approximation. The dashed (red) line is for $v_0=0$, the solid (green) line is for $v_0=v_{0,c}=c_2$, the dotted (blue) line is for $v_0=1.2\times v_{0,c}$. The parameters are $T=0$, $\hslash \omega_L=0.1 c_s n$, and $c_s=3\times10^{-2}c_n$.}
\label{fig:bogodisp}
\end{figure}
The equation of state follows from the generalized Hugenholtz-Pines theorem \cite{Kis-Szabo07Polar}. When the condensate is not fully polarized, that is when $\zeta_-\neq0$, we have two separate equations, one for the chemical potential and one for the magnetic field.
\begin{subequations}
\label{eqs:eqstate}
\begin{align}
\mu&=e_{\vec{k}_0}+n c_n,\\
\hslash\omega_L&= m c_s,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $n=n_c=n_{c,+}+n_{c,-}$ is the total denstiy of atoms, and $m=n_{c,+}-n_{c,-}$ is the total magnetization density. The condensate density in spin component $r$ is given by $n_{c,r}=n_c\,\zeta_r$. Equations \eqref{eqs:eqstate} relate the chemical potential ($\mu$), the magnetic field ($\hslash\omega_L$) to the density $n$, the magnetization $m$ and the velocity of the fluid ($\hslash \vec{k}_0/M$).
The self-energy in the Bogoliubov approximation is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:slefenergB}
\Sigma^{rs}_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{k},i\omega_n)=\hslash^{-1}\big[(n\,c_n+r\,m\,c_s)\delta_{\alpha\beta}\delta_{rs}+\sqrt{n_{c,r}\,n_{c,s}}(c_n+r\,s\,c_s)\big].
\end{equation}
Combining Eqs. \eqref{eq:dysonbel}, \eqref{eq:freeprop}, \eqref{eq:disprel} and \eqref{eq:slefenergB} and performing some straightforward algebra one obtains the following equations for the dispersion relation of the quasiparticles:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:dispreleqB}
\begin{align}
0&=\rho^2-\rho(c_n+c_s)n+4 c_n c_s n_{c,+} n_{c,-},\label{eq:dispreleq1}\\
\rho\Big(\Delta e+\widetilde{\Delta e}\Big)&=\Big(\omega-\Delta e\Big)\Big(\omega+\widetilde{\Delta e}\Big).\label{eq:dispreleq2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Where we have introduced the quantity $\rho$, which is provided by the solution of Eq. \eqref{eq:dispreleq1}. We have also introduced $\Delta e=e_{\vec{k}}-e_{\vec{k}_0}$ and $\widetilde{\Delta e}=e_{\vec{\tilde{k}}}-e_{\vec{k}_0}$. By measuring the wave number relative to the condensate $\vec{k}'=\vec{k}-\vec{k}_0$, the solution of Eq. \eqref{eq:dispreleq2} is
\begin{subequations}
\label{eqs:bogodisprelfinal}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dispB}
\omega_{\vec{k}'}=\vec{k}'\cdot\vec{v}_0\pm\hslash^{-1}\sqrt{e_{\vec{k}'}^2+2\rho e_{\vec{k}'}},
\end{equation}
from which we see that the speed of the quasiparticle for the condensate in rest, i.e. the proportionality constant in the starting linear part of the dispersion relation, is simply $c_{1,2}=\sqrt{\rho_{1,2}/M}$. The quantity $\rho$ is obtained from the quadratic equation \eqref{eq:dispreleq1}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rho}
\rho_{1,2}=\frac{(c_n+c_s)n}{2}\pm\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(c_n-c_s)^2 n^2+4 c_n c_s m^2}.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
It is easy to see that both solutions \eqref{eq:rho} are positive. The dispersion relation Eqs. \eqref{eqs:bogodisprelfinal} for $\vec{v}_0=0$ are in complete agreement with the results of Ohmi and Machida \cite{Ohmi98Spinor}. The two solutions correspond to the density wave (with the + sign) and spin wave (with the - sign) excitations. When $c_s\ll c_n$ the speed of the spin waves is proportional to $(c_s)^{1/2}$, while the speed of sound is proportional to $(c_n)^{1/2}$.
The dispersion relation \eqref{eq:dispB} is very intuitive in accordance with Landau's idea: the first term in Eq. \eqref{eq:dispB} is just what we expect after a Galilean transformation to the frame moving with the condensate, while the second therm coincides with the result in the frame where the condensate is at rest.
When the condensate moves with velocity $\vec{v}_0$, excitations with wavenumber parallel to the condensate have a steeper dispersion while those which move against the condensate have a flatter one. The critical velocity $\vec{v}_{0,c}$ is where the dispersion of the oppositely moving quasiparticles is horizontal. Since the spin wave velocity is smaller than the speed of sound, the instability due to the motion of the condensate appears in the spin wave dispersion first. Therefore the critical velocity is the speed of spin wave for a condensate at rest: $v_{0,c}=c_2$. In Fig. \ref{fig:bogodisp} we show the spin wave dispersion for the three cases.
\section{Mean-field approximation at finite temperature}
\label{sec:hartree}
In order to evaluate both the temperature and magnetization dependence of the critical velocity we use the Landau criterion generalized to the spinor case according to the previous section. Here we use the finite temperature excitation spectrum of a spinor Bose gas in the P2 phase, worked out earlier in \cite{Kis-Szabo07Polar}, and evaluate the speed of spin wave of a condensate at rest, i.e. the critical velocity, at different temperature regions. At finite temperatures the condensate densities depend both on temperature and magnetic field. The partially polarized P2 phase occupies a finite region in the space of temperature and magnetic field (or rather magnetization). When the magnetization is zero the P2 phase goes directly to the noncondensed phase. However, when the gas sample is polarized the P2 phase first goes to a diefferent BEC phase, the P1 phase, where the condensate spinor is single component. The phase diagram is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:hartree} (a). This approximation takes into account the effect of thermal excitations in a dynamically consistent way: this approximation is conserving and gapless and also accounts for the hybridization of one-particle and collective excitations \cite{Szepfalusy01Structure}. Note that to ensure the coincidence of one particle and collective motions already in the Hartree approximation one needs to sum up bubble diagrams \cite{Szepfalusy01Structure}.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering
\includegraphics{phdiag}
\caption{a) The phase diagram in the Bogoliubov-Hartree approxmiation. $B_c(0)=c_s n/(g\mu_{\mathrm{B}} )$ is the critical value of the magnetic field separating the P1 and P2 phases at $T=0$. b) the dependence of the square of the critical velocity (in units of $c_s n/M$) on the temperature and magnetic field in the P2 phase.}
\label{fig:hartree}
\end{figure}
For further discussions we consider the experimentally relevant situation, when $c_s\ll c_n$. In fact, for ${}^{23}\mathrm{Na}$ the ratio of coupling constants is $\epsilon\equiv c_s/c_n\approx3\times10^{-2}$.
Besides the thermal wavelength, we can introduce two other characteristic lengths: $\xi_B=\hslash/(4Mc_sn_{c,-})^{1/2}$ is the mean-field coherence length, and $\xi'=Mk_BT/(4\pi\hslash^2n_{c,-})$ is the characteristic length governing the phase fluctuations of the order parameter. As discussed in \cite{Kis-Szabo07Polar}, at sufficiently low temperature, where the longest characteristic length is the thermal wavelength $\Lambda\gg\xi_B,\xi'$,
the excitation energies are linear in wavenumber: $\omega_{1,2}=\sqrt{\rho_{1,2}/M}k'$, where $\rho_1=n (c_n+c_s)-4c_sn_+n_-/n$ is for conventional sound waves, and $\rho_2=n_0c_s+4c_s n_+n_-/n$ describes spin waves. The zero temperature limit agrees with the the results \eqref{eq:rho} and with \cite{Ohmi98Spinor}, however here $n_r$ is the total particle density in spin component $r=\lbrace0,+,-\rbrace$ coming from the condensate contribution $n_{c,r}$ and the thermal one $n'_r$. Note that $n_0=n_0'$ is entirely thermal. It is remarkable that at medium temperatures, characterized by $\xi_b\ll\xi',\Lambda$, the square of the spin wave velocity becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:spinvelH2}
c_2^2=\frac{\rho_2}{M}=\frac{4n_{c,+}n_{c,-}}{n}\frac{c_s}{M},
\end{equation}
but now an essential difference is that the densities appearing in Eq. \eqref{eq:spinvelH2} are those of the condensate, that is they exhibit significant temperature dependence. We do not discuss the critical region where the mean-field theory breaks down, anyhow, one expects that the critical velocity tends to zero there. Fig \ref{fig:hartree} (b) shows the temperature and magnetic field dependence of the square of the critical velocity $c_2$. The critical velocity vanishes at the P1-P2 phase boundary but even in the P2 phase its value can be very small when $n_{c,-}$ is small.
We have discussed the problem of critical flow in spin-1 Bose gases in the P2 phase. We have shown that the critical velocity is the speed of spin waves and is much smaller than the critical velocity in scalar gases. We have not dicussed the P1 phase, but one can expect, that there, close to the P1-P2 phase boundary the gap of the spin wave plays the role of critical velocity
\begin{acknowledgement}
It is my pleasure to thank P\'eter Sz\'epfalusy for many useful discussions. This work was supported by the Hungarian National Research Fund (OTKA T077629). Support from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Lend\"ulet Program, LP2011-016), from the Hungarian National Office for Research and
Technology (ERC\_HU\_09 OPTOMECH) and from the J\'anos Bolyai Scholarship is also kindly acknowledged.
\end{acknowledgement}
|
\section{Introduction}
The notion of percolation is widely used to explain the formation of a macroscopic spanning cluster in diverse
systems \cite{stauffer}. In percolation, as the control parameter, i.e., the density of occupied nodes (in site percolation) or
bonds (in bond percolation), is increased, a macroscopic spanning cluster emerges at the percolation threshold.
This behavior is referred to as the percolation transition (PT), which is conventionally continuous.
More generally, the term PT is used for the emergence of a macroscopic cluster in growing networks, and is occasionally referred to as PT. In the random graph model introduced by Erd\H{o}s and R\'enyi (ER) \cite{er}, the control parameter is the number of bonds (links), and a macroscopic giant cluster is found to emerge at a critical point.
That is, PT occurs at a finite percolation threshold. Recently, Achlioptas {\it et al.} \cite{ap} proposed a modified
ER model, in which the growth of the largest cluster is suppressed during the dynamical evolution.
In this model, the macroscopic giant cluster emerges at a delayed transition point and the transition occurs in a rather
explosive manner. Thus, the PT in this model is claimed to be discontinuous. Following the proposal of this explosive percolation model, many studies have been performed on discontinuous PT; however, whether such explosive percolation transitions are indeed discontinuous in the thermodynamic limit is still a matter of debate and sensitive to detailed dynamic rules
\cite{friedman, fortunato, dorogovtsev, hklee, grassberger, science, suppression, souza, hermann, choi, ziff}.
Nonetheless, the introduction of such explosive percolation models has led to intensive studies of discontinuous PT. In this circumstance, we wonder whether such discontinuous PTs indeed can be observed in real-world systems.
In our previous work \cite{dlca}, we studied the diffusion-limited cluster aggregation (DLCA) model following Brownian motion in two dimensions for simplicity, as an example of a real-world system showing discontinuous PT.
Here, the PT means the formation of a giant component, as conventionally used in the evolution of random graphs,
instead of the formation of a spanning cluster, as conventionally used in regular lattice.
We monitored the PT as a function of the number of cluster aggregations. Because real-world systems can be three dimensional, here we extend our previous study to three- and four-dimensional cases. Moreover, we study the PT for the case of cluster velocity being in the general form $v_{s} \propto s^{\eta}$ and find that the PT type changes from discontinuous to continuous as $\eta$ increases. In the last part of this paper, we extend our study to the reaction-limited cluster aggregation (RLCA) model in which clusters diffuse following Brownian motion, and when two clusters come into contact with each other, they merge with a certain probability $r$ and remain separate with the remaining probability $1-r$. We find that the discontinuous PT behavior
can also be observed in this RLCA model in two and three dimensions but that the PT remains continuous in four dimensions.
\section{Diffusion-limited cluster aggregation model}
The DLCA model was introduced by Meakin {\it et al.} \cite{meakin} and Kolb {\it et al.} \cite{kolb}. Initially, $N$ particles are placed randomly in a $d$-dimensional lattice space with linear size $L$. The density of the particles is fixed as $\rho=N/L^d$, whereas the system size $L$ is controllable. Simulations start from $N$ monoparticles.
When an $s$-sized cluster moves in the Brownian process, its velocity is given as $v_s \sim s^{-1/2}$, and
the collision rate per cluster becomes $\sigma v_s \sim s^{1/6}$ in three dimensions when the cluster is
regarded as a hard sphere \cite{kim}. This originates from the fact that a Brownian particle with mass $m$ has
mean velocity $\overline{v}=0$ and velocity fluctuations $\overline{v^2} \sim k_BT/m$ when the particle is in
thermal equilibrium with temperature $T$, where the overbar means ensemble average over thermal fluctuations
and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant. Thus, we obtain $\sqrt{\overline{v^2}}\sim 1/\sqrt{m}$,
which leads to $v_s \sim s^{-1/2}$ when cluster mass is regarded as being linearly proportional to cluster size.
Accordingly, the choice of a cluster of size $s$ with probability $s^{-1/2}/\sum_s N_s s^{-1/2}$ leads to
$v_s \sim s^{-1/2}$.
To implement this velocity in simulations, we perform a simulation in the following steps: Initially, all particles are single. (i) An $s$-sized cluster is picked up with a probability proportional to $s^{-1/2}$, and it is moved to one of the nearest-neighbor positions. All particles in a mobile cluster move together with the cluster shape unchanged. After this move, when two distinct clusters come into contact, those clusters merge with probability one, forming a larger cluster. (ii) Time is advanced by $\delta t=1/(\sum_s N_s s^{-1/2})$, whenever the cluster moves irrespective of whether a contact occurs, but the control parameter $p$ is advanced by $1/N$ only when the cluster is placed next to another cluster and the two clusters merge. When all particles merge into a single cluster, the dynamics ends.
We presume that cluster aggregations take place irreversibly. Then the number of cluster merging events during the whole process is $N-1$. For example, if two immobile clusters are merged by one mobile cluster, and thus the three clusters become one, then the number of merging events is counted as two, and $p$ is advanced by $2/N$. Thus, the number of merging events corresponds to the number of inter-cluster edges connected. When a created cluster contains loop structure, then the number of cluster merging events is not same as the number of occupied bonds in bond percolations.
The parameter $p$ represents the number of cluster merging events per total particle number, and corresponds to the number of links connecting two distinct clusters per network size in the random graph model. The variable $p$ turns out to differ from time $t$ in a nontrivial way. The order parameter of the PT is the giant cluster size per system size $N$, denoted as $G_N \equiv G$. To examine the PT, $G_N$ is measured as a function of $p$, which becomes nonzero beyond the transition point $p_c$, where PT is discontinuous if $G_N(p_c^+)-G_N(p_c^-) > 0$ and continuous if it is zero.
\subsection{Brownian motion}
We begin by recalling our previous work in two dimensions. The giant cluster size increases monotonically as a function of time $t$; however, it increases drastically when monitored as a function of the variable $p$ as shown in Figs.\ref{fig1}(a) and 1(b), respectively. This indicates that the difference originates from the nonlinear relationship between $t$ and $p$ shown in Fig.\ref{fig1}(c). In particular, the time interval between two successive cluster merging events becomes long when $p$ approaches one, because few clusters remain and they hardly ever contact each other. Thus, such a nontrivial relationship between $t$ and $p$ arises.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a)-(f) Simulation results of the DLCA model in two dimensions with velocity
exponent $\eta = -0.5$ for Brownian motion. (a) Plot of $G$ vs $t$.
$G$ grows monotonically from $t = 0$ with increasing $t$. (b) $G$ grows discontinuously near $p \approx 1$ with respect to $p$. (c) Relation between $t$ and $p$. $t$ grows rapidly as $p$ approaches $p=1$, by which a discontinuous PT occurs with respect to $p$. (d)-(f) Finite-size scaling analysis for the discontinuous PT of $G$, $\chi_1$, and $\chi_2$ using Eqs.~(\ref{g_scaling}-\ref{susc2}). Data of different-size systems collapse well onto a single curve, which implies that a discontinuous PT occurs. We use the system sizes $L/10^2 = 6, 10, 14, 18, 22$, and $26$ with density $\rho = 0.05$ for numerical simulations.
(g) Numerical estimations of $k^{\prime}_i/C^{\prime}$ at $p_d$ for $\eta = -0.5 (\square)$,
$\eta = 0 (\diamond)$, $\eta = 0.4 (\triangle)$, and $\eta = 0.8 (\nabla)$. Simulations are performed in systems with $N = 8000$ and $L = 400$. Slopes of the guidelines are $-0.23 \pm 0.02$, $0.32 \pm 0.04$, $0.62 \pm 0.01$, and $0.88 \pm 0.01$ from above.
(h) Numerical estimations of $k_i/C$ with the same symbols as in (g) used for each $\eta$. Here $N = 8000$ and $L = 400$ are used for simulations. Slopes of the guidelines are $0.35 \pm 0.04$, $0.32 \pm 0.04$, $0.2 \pm 0.01$, and $0.05 \pm 0.01$ from above.
(i) Plot of $G$ vs $p$ of different size systems with $\eta = 1.5$ in two dimensions. A giant component emerges continuously near $p \approx 0.45$.
Data of $N/10^3 = 8, 32, 72, 128$, and $200$ with $\rho = 0.05$ are shown in this plot.
(j) Finite-size scaling analysis for continuous PT for the data used in plot (i). $p_c(\infty) = 0.43$, $1/\nu = 0.29$, and $\beta/\nu = 0.5$ are estimated.}\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
To verify the discontinuity of the order parameter, we use the finite-size scaling approach, which is different from
the conventional one used for the continuous PT \cite{fss}.
In this approach, a particular point $p_d(N)$ was introduced as a triggering
\begin{equation}
p_d(N)=p_c(N)-\Big(\frac{dG_N(p)}{dp}\Big|_{p_c}\Big)^{-1}G_N (p_c), \label{eq1}
\end{equation}
where $p_c(N)$ is the point at which the slope of $G_N(p)$ becomes maximum.
It is found that $dG_N(p)/dp |_{p_c}$ increases in a power-law manner $\sim N^{1/\overline{\nu}}$
with $1/\overline{\nu} \approx 0.86 \pm 0.02$. Then, since the giant component size
grows as $G_N(p_f)-G_N(p_d) \sim \mathcal{O}(1)$, where $p_f$ is the final step of cluster aggregation,
during the interval $p_f-p_d \sim \mathcal{O}(N^{-1/\overline{\nu}})$, the transition is indeed discontinuous.
The above behavior is also checked by using the scaling ansatz for the discontinuous PT,
\begin{equation}
G_N(p)\propto N^{-\beta/{\bar \nu}}f_0((p-p_d(N))N^{1/{\bar \nu}}),\label{g_scaling}
\end{equation}
where $\beta/\overline{\nu}=0$ for the discontinuous transition.
This scaling form differs from that conventionally used for continuous transitions, which is written as
Eq.~(\ref{cont_fss}) shown later.
Thus a discontinuous PT can be confirmed by checking whether the data of $G_N(p)$ versus $f_0(\overline p)$ with
$\overline{p}=(p-p_d)N^{1/\overline{\nu}}$ for different system sizes collapse onto a single curve or not.
Indeed, we find that the data from different system sizes collapse onto a single curve
in two dimensions when using the value $1/\overline{\nu}=0.86$ in Fig.~\ref{fig1}(d).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Finite-size scaling analysis for discontinuous PT of the DLCA model in the Brownian process $(\eta = -0.5)$ in three dimensions having linear sizes $L/10 = 25, 30, 35, 40,
45$, and $50$ with $\rho = 0.004$.
(a) Data collapse of $G$ by using Eq.~(\ref{g_scaling}) for different size systems.
(b) The estimation of the exponent $1/\overline{\nu}$ defined in the relation
$dG(p)/dp |_{p_c} \sim N^{1/\overline{\nu}}$. We obtain $1/\overline{\nu}=0.70\pm0.02$.
(c) Plot of $\chi_1$ for different system sizes in a scaling form.
(d) The estimation of the exponent $\gamma_{1}/\overline{\nu}$ defined in the relation $\chi_{1}(p_{c1}) \sim N^{\gamma_{1}/\overline{\nu}}$. We obtain $\gamma_{1}/\overline{\nu} = 0.90 \pm 0.02$. (e) Data collapse of $\chi_{2}$ of different system sizes in a scaling form.
(f) The estimation of the exponent $\gamma_{2}/\overline{\nu}$ defined in the relation $\chi_{2}(p_{c2}) \sim N^{\gamma_{2}/\overline{\nu}}$. We obtain $\gamma_{2}/\overline{\nu}=1.00 \pm 0.02$.
In particular, we can find that the peak height of the standard deviation of the largest cluster increases proportionally to the system size, which is a feature of the first-order transition.}\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Finite-size scaling analysis for discontinuous PT of the DLCA model in Brownian motion $(\eta = -0.5)$ in four dimensions.
We use the scaling forms of Eq.~(\ref{g_scaling}) for $G$ in (a), Eq.~(\ref{susc1}) for $\chi_1$ in (c), and Eq.~\ref{susc2} for $\chi_2$ in (e). Here, the systems having linear size
$L/10 = 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18$, and $20$ with $\rho = 0.0004$ are used for simulations.
These data are well collapsed in each scaling form, which confirms that the PT is indeed a discontinuous PT. (b), (d), and (f) Numerical estimations of the exponents used in each scaling form. In particular, we can find $\gamma_2/\overline{\nu}=1$, which is a feature of the first-order transition.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Plots of (a) $k^{\prime}_i/C^{\prime}$ and (b) $k_i/C$ vs $i$ at $p_d$ of the DLCA model in three dimensions. The system of $N=4000$ and $L=100$ is used. (a) The estimated slopes are $-0.08 \pm 0.03$ $( \eta = -0.5 )$ $(\square)$, $0.43 \pm 0.02$ $(\eta = 0.0)$ $(\circ)$, $0.85 \pm 0.01$ $(\eta = 0.4)$ $(\triangle)$, and $1.35 \pm 0.01$ $(\eta = 1.0 )$ $(\triangledown)$.
(b) The estimated slopes are $0.43 \pm 0.03$ $(\square)$, $ 0.45 \pm 0.03$ $(\circ)$, $0.34 \pm 0.03$ $(\triangle)$, and $0.20 \pm 0.03$ $(\triangledown)$.}\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig5.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Plots of (a) $k^{\prime}_i/C^{\prime}$ and (b) $k_i/C$ vs $i$ at $p_d$ of the DLCA model in four dimensions. Simulations are carried out in the system of $N=5184$ and $L=60$.
(a) The estimated slopes are $0.04 \pm 0.02 $ $(\eta = -0.5)$ $(\square)$, $0.64 \pm 0.02 $ $(\eta = 0.0)$ $(\circ)$, $0.97 \pm 0.04$ $(\eta = 0.4)$ $(\triangle)$, and $1.33 \pm 0.02$ $(\eta = 0.8)$ $(\triangledown)$ from above.
(b) The estimated slopes are $0.64 \pm 0.03 (\square)$, $0.64 \pm 0.02 (\circ)$, $0.57 \pm 0.02 (\triangle)$, and $0.38 \pm 0.04 (\triangledown)$.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig6.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Finite-size scaling analysis for the discontinuous PT based on the numerical simulation results of the Smoluchowski equation. Collision kernels obtained from the data in Fig.~\ref{fig1}, Fig.~\ref{fig4}, and Fig.~\ref{fig5} for the Brownian case are used in two, three, and four
dimensions, respectively. The system sizes we used are $N/10^4 = 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024$,
and $2048$. (a)-(c) In two dimensions, $dG(p_c)/dp$ behaves as $\sim N$. By using this result, data collapse
behaviors are obtained for (a) the giant cluster size, and the susceptibilities (b) $\chi_1$ and (c) $\chi_2$.
(d)-(f) Similar analyses are carried out for three dimensions, in which $dG(p_c)/dp \sim N$.
(g)-(i) Similar analyses are carried out for four dimensions, in which $dG(p_c)/dp \sim N^{0.54}$.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig7.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Snapshot of clusters in a three-dimensional lattice at $p = 0.997$ with
the system size $N = 4000$ and $L = 100$. There are eleven clusters for each snapshot.
We find that cluster sizes are more heterogeneous as $\eta$ grows. This means that the
rate of growth of the largest cluster increases as $\eta$ increases.}\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig8.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Plots of the cluster size distribution $n_s(p_c^+) \sim s^{-\tau}$
for several $\eta$ around the tricritical point $\eta_c$.
The slopes of the guidelines are (a) $-1.8$, $-2.0$, and $-2.3$ in two dimensions,
(b) $-1.7$, $-2.0$, and $-2.4$ in three dimensions, and (c) $-1.7$, $-2.0$, and $-2.4$ in four
dimensions. The system sizes we used are (a) $N=8,000$, $L=400$, (b) $N = 13,500$, $L = 150$, and (c) $N = 40,000$, $L = 100$.}\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig9.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Plot of the giant cluster size $G$ vs $p$ of the DLCA model
with velocity exponent $\eta=1.0 > \eta_c \approx 0.8$ in three dimensions. Data are obtained
by Monte Carlo simulations. (b) Numerical simulation of the Smoluchowski equation.
In (b), we use the collision kernel $k^{\prime}_i/C^{\prime} \sim i^{1.35}$ and
$k_i/C \sim i^{0.20}$. Inset in (a): Data collapse of the data plotted in (a). Linear sizes of the systems are $L/10 = 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35$, and $40$ and the density of particles is $\rho = 0.004$.
Data of different system sizes collapse well onto a single curve predicted theoretically for a continuous transition in which we use $p_c(\infty)=0.56$, $1/\nu=0.2$, and $\beta/\nu=0.6$. The behavior of the data collapse indicates
that the transition is indeed continuous. Inset in (b): Data collapse of the data plotted in (b). We use system sizes
$N/10^4 = 8, 32, 128, 512$, and $2048$ and substitute $p_c(\infty)=0.66$, $1/\nu=0.14$, and
$\beta/\nu=0.55$ for data collapse. Again the data-collapse behavior indicates a continuous PT.}
\label{fig9}
\end{figure}
We also studied the susceptibility, defined as $\chi_1(p)\equiv \sum_s^{\prime} s^2 n_s(p)/\sum_s^{\prime} sn_s(p)$,
where the prime represents the exclusion of the giant component in summation. This function can be
represented in the scaling form,
\begin{equation}
\chi_1(p)\propto N^{\gamma_1/\overline{\nu}}f_1((p-p_d)N^{1/\overline{\nu}}).\label{susc1}
\end{equation}
It was found that the data from different system sizes collapsed well onto a single curve with
the exponent value $\gamma_1/\overline{\nu}=0.95$ in Fig. \ref{fig1}(e).
We also attempt a scaling analysis for another quantity of the susceptibility $\chi_2$ defined as
$\chi_2 \equiv N\sqrt{\langle(G(p)-\langle G(p) \rangle)^2 \rangle}$.
This quantity is the standard deviation of $G(p)$ for a given $p$. We can check that $\chi_2$ also
collapses well onto a single curve,
\begin{equation}
\chi_2(p) \propto N^{\gamma_2/\overline{\nu}} f_2((p-p_d)N^{1/\overline{\nu}}).\label{susc2}
\end{equation}
with $\gamma_2/\overline{\nu} = 1$ in Fig. \ref{fig1}(f).
This result suggests that the PT is indeed discontinuous.
Similar analyses are carried out in three and four dimensions.
In three dimensions, we obtain results similar to those of two dimensions but with different exponent values,
i.e., $1/\overline{\nu}=0.70\pm 0.02$, $\gamma_1/\overline{\nu}=0.90\pm 0.02$,
and $\gamma_2/\overline{\nu}=1.00\pm 0.02$. The data from different system sizes
collapse well onto the scaling functions, which are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
In four dimensions, we obtain similar results but with different exponent values,
i.e., $1/\overline{\nu}=0.60\pm 0.02$, $\gamma_1/\overline{\nu}=0.92\pm 0.01$,
and $\gamma_2/\overline{\nu}=1.00\pm 0.01$. The data from different system sizes
collapse well onto the scaling functions as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}.
These results verify the discontinuity of PT in three and four dimensions.
We also investigate the discontinuous PT in a different approach via the Smoluchowski
equation, which describes the dynamics of cluster aggregations.
In particular, we introduce an asymmetric Smoluchowski equation in which the collision kernel
is different depending on whether cluster is mobile \cite{dlca} as follows:
\begin{equation}
\frac{dn_s}{dp}=\sum_{i+j=s}\frac{k^{\prime}_ik_j}
{C^{\prime}(p)C(p)}n_i n_j-\frac{n_sk^{\prime}_s}{C^{\prime}(p)}-\frac{n_sk_s}{C(p)},\label{smolo}
\end{equation}
where $n_s \equiv N_s/N$ is the concentration of $s$-sized clusters, and $k^{\prime}_i/C^{\prime}$ and
$k_j/C$ are the collision kernels of immobile and mobile clusters, respectively.
$C^{\prime} \equiv \sum_{s}k^{\prime}_sn_s$ and $C \equiv \sum_{s}k_sn_s$ are the
normalization factors.
The first term on the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{smolo}) represents the
aggregation of a mobile cluster of size $i$ and an immobile cluster of size $j$ with $s=i+j$. The
second term represents a mobile cluster of size $s$ merging with an immobile cluster of any size
including the largest cluster, in which $\sum_j k_jn_j = C(p)$ is used. The third term represents an
immobile cluster of size $s$ merging with a mobile cluster of any size including the largest size,
in which $\sum_j k_j^{\prime} n_j = C^{\prime}(p)$ is used. The summation runs
only for finite clusters. Once an infinite-sized cluster is formed, the dynamics is terminated.
We also do not need to consider finite clusters and infinite cluster separately as in sol-gel transitions
\cite{ziff_1983}.
The collision kernel is determined by intuitive argument
as the perimeter of clusters and thus $k^{\prime}_i/C^{\prime} \sim i^{\eta + 1- 1/d_f}$
for mobile and $k_i/C \sim i^{1-1/d_f}$ for immobile clusters, where $d_f$ is the fractal dimension
of clusters \cite{ernst} and $\eta =-0.5$ for the Brownian case.
In two dimensions, using $d_f \approx 1.4$, it is estimated that $k_i^{\prime}\sim i^{-0.2}$
and $k_i\sim i^{0.3}$, which are in agreement with the numerical estimations
of $k_i^{\prime}\sim i^{-0.2}$ and $k_i\sim i^{0.4}$ shown in Figs.~\ref{fig1}(g) and 1(h), respectively.
In three dimensions, $d_f \approx 1.8$ \cite{three_fdim},
and thus $k^{\prime}_i \sim i^{-0.1}$ and $k_i \sim i^{0.4}$ are expected, which are again in
agreement with the measured values $k^{\prime}_i \sim i^{-0.1}$ and $k_i \sim i^{0.4}$
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig4}. In four dimensions, $d_f \approx 2.0$ \cite{three_fdim}, and thus
$k^{\prime}_i \approx {\rm const}$ and $k_i \sim i^{0.5}$ are expected, which are again in
agreement with the measured values $k^{\prime}_i \sim i^{0.0}$ and $k_i \sim i^{0.6}$
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig5}.
Next, we investigate the growth of the giant component size $G$ by simulating the Smoluchowski equation
numerically with the collision kernels we measured. Starting from $N$ monomers initially,
numerical simulations are carried out as a function of $p$ for different system sizes.
We plot the giant cluster size $G(p)$ and the susceptibilities $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ as a function of $p$
in scaling forms, and we find that the data of different system sizes collapse well onto a single curve with the
critical exponents previous obtained as shown in Fig.\ref{fig6}.
\subsection{Generalization of velocity scaling}
In this section, we study the PT of the DLCA model. Here, the scaling of the collision rate is generalized
for computational simplicity by shifting the scaling with cluster size entirely into the scaling of
the cluster velocity: $v_s \sim s^{\eta}$. It is then necessary to know whether the scaling exponent
of the cluster velocity $\eta$ can be positively valued.
Consider the motion of a small solid sphere introduced into a non-uniform electric field in air.
This arrangement is readily realized in a corona discharge \cite{corona}, for example, between a grounded
hollow cylinder and a thin wire along the cylinder's axis, when the wire is charged to a negative high voltage
with respect to the cylinder. The corona current sustains drifting negative ions towards the cylinder walls.
The sphere attracts the ions onto its surface by the image charge effect until the Coulomb repulsion
by the accumulated ions prohibits it. The sphere is accelerated by the local electric field while its motion
is resisted by the Stokes drag \cite{stokes}, reaching a terminal velocity that scales as the radius of the
sphere. In 3-D the mean velocity scales as $v_s \sim s^{1/3}$, and the collision rate scales as $\sigma v_s \sim
s$ for solid spheres. For fractal spheres, as in the DLCA model, $\eta$ can become positive.
To implement the effect of this velocity in simulations, we select an $s$-sized cluster with a probability proportional to $s^{\eta}$, allow the cluster to diffuse to a nearest neighbor,
and make time pass by $\delta t=1/(\sum_s N_s s^{\eta})$.
If the cluster comes into contact with another cluster, the variable $p$ is advanced by $1/N$, regardless of the
cluster size $s$. As $\eta$ increases in positive region, the velocity of large clusters becomes large,
so that they have higher
probability of merging with another cluster. Thus, the growth rate of larger clusters is higher.
This behavior was originally observed by Meakin {\it et al}.~\cite{meakin}. They argued that
the exponent of cluster size distribution increases as the velocity exponent increases.
In this case, the PT is continuous, because the giant cluster grows continuously. In contrast, when $\eta$ is negative,
large-sized clusters are suppressed in growth, and their number is reduced. Instead, medium-sized clusters become
abundant. As $p$ increases, such medium-sized clusters merge suddenly and create a giant cluster.
Thus, the PT is discontinuous. Fig. \ref{fig7} shows the snapshots of clusters for different values of $\eta$
just before the percolation threshold.
From these properties, one can guess that the transition type changes from discontinuous to continuous
as $\eta$ increases across a certain value $\eta_c$.
To determine the tricritical point $\eta_c$, we start from $\eta = -0.5$ and
observe the change of the cluster size distribution by increasing $\eta$.
In our previous study~\cite{precan}, it was shown that discontinuous (continuous) PT occurs
when $n_s(p_c^+) \sim s^{-\tau}$ satisfies $\tau < 2$ $(\tau > 2)$.
We use this result to determine the tricritical point $\eta_c$.
Fig.~\ref{fig8} shows the cluster size distribution for several values of $\eta$ near $\eta_c$.
We estimate $\eta_c \approx 1.3$ in two dimensions [Fig.~\ref{fig8}(a)],
$\approx 0.8$ in three dimensions [Fig.~\ref{fig8}(b)] and $\approx 0.4$ in four dimensions
[Fig.~\ref{fig8}(c)] based on numerical data.
To confirm the continuity of PT in the region $\eta > \eta_c$, we perform finite-size analysis for $G(p)$.
The behavior of $G(p)$ with $\eta=1.5 > \eta_c\approx 1.3$ in two dimensions is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig1}(i).
As we can observe in Fig.~\ref{fig1}(i), the crossing point of $G$ between two different sizes
decreases as the system size increases, which means that the transition is continuous. But this tendency
cannot be seen clearly in this figure. Thus we attempt a finite-size scaling analysis for continuous transition.
In Fig.~\ref{fig1}(j), the $G(p)$ of the different system sizes used in Fig.~\ref{fig1}(i) is collapsed
onto a single curve in the scaling form.
\begin{equation}
G_N(p) \propto N^{-\beta/\nu}f_0((p-p_c(\infty))N^{1/\nu}).\label{cont_fss}
\end{equation}
A similar analysis is carried out in three dimensions, which is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig9}(a).
In this analysis, we use the system of $\eta=1.0 > \eta_c \approx 0.8$.
In the inset, we use the scaling form given by Eq.~(\ref{cont_fss}).
To verify the continuous transition in an alternative way, we use the Smoluchowski equation.
Similar to what we found in the previous subsection, we obtain $k^{\prime}_i/C^{\prime}\approx i^{1.35}$
and $k_i/C \approx i^{0.20}$ at $p_d$ in Fig.~\ref{fig4}.
Fig.~\ref{fig9}(b) shows the simulation result of the Smoluchowski equation for various system
sizes. In the inset, we use the scaling form given by Eq.~(\ref{cont_fss}) to verify continuity and find
that data are well collapsed on a single curve.
These results confirm that the transition is indeed continuous in the region $\eta > \eta_c \approx 0.8$
in three dimensions.
A similar analysis used for three dimensions is also applied for four dimensions, which is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig10}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig10}(a), the $G(p)$ of various system sizes are plotted and these data are well collapsed
onto a single curve if we use the previous scaling form given by Eq.~(\ref{cont_fss}), which is shown in the inset.
Second, we take $k^{\prime}_i \sim i^{1.30}$ and $k_i \sim i^{0.40}$ from Fig.~\ref{fig5} to simulate
the Smoluchowski equation in Fig.~\ref{fig10}(b). In the inset, the data are well collapsed in the
previous scaling form Eq.~\ref{cont_fss}. These results again confirm the continuous transition in the region
$\eta > \eta_c \approx 0.4$ in four dimensions.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig10.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Simulation result of DLCA with velocity exponent
$\eta=0.8 > \eta_c \approx 0.4$ in four dimensions.
(b) Numerical simulation of the Smoluchowski equation using the collision kernel $k^{\prime}_i/C^{\prime} \sim i^{1.30}$ and
$k_i/C \sim i^{0.40}$.
Inset in (a): Data collapse of the data used in (a). We perform simulations with linear sizes $L/10 = 6, 8, 10, 12$, and $16$ with particle density $\rho = 0.0004$. Data of different system sizes collapse well onto a single curve predicted theoretically for a continuous transition in which we use $p_c(\infty)=0.56$, $1/\nu=0.22$, and $\beta/\nu=0.43$.
The behavior of the data collapse indicates that the transition is indeed continuous.
Inset in (b): Data collapse of the data used in (b). Sizes of the systems are $N/10^4 = 8, 32, 128, 512$ and $2048$. We use $p_c(\infty)=0.64$, $1/\nu=0.25$, and $\beta/\nu=0.3$ for data collapse. Again the data-collapse behavior indicates a continuous PT.}
\label{fig10}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig11.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a)-(d) Plot of the RLCA model in the Brownian process in two dimensions. (a) Plot of $k^{\prime}_i/C^{\prime}$ and $k_i/C$ vs $i$ at $p_d$. $N = 2000$ and $L = 100$ are used in the simulations.
The two collision kernels are estimated as $k^{\prime}_i/C^{\prime} \sim i^{-0.12 \pm 0.06}$ and $k_i/C \sim i^{0.50 \pm 0.03}$. (b)-(d) Plots of finite-size scaling behaviors of (b) $G$, (c) $\chi_1$, and (d) $\chi_2$.
simulations of the Smoluchowski equation are performed using $N/10^4 = 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024$, and $2048$. Data are well collapsed onto the scaling curves for the discontinuous transition with
$dG(p_c)/dp \sim N$ in two dimensions, which indicates that the PT of the RLCA model in the Brownian process is discontinuous.
Plots (e)-(h) correspond to plots (a)-(d) but in three dimensions. For (e), $N = 4000$ and $L = 100$ are used.
The collision kernels are estimated as $k^{\prime}_i/C^{\prime} \sim i^{-0.04 \pm 0.03}$ and $k_i/C \sim i^{0.70 \pm 0.04}$.
In (f)-(h), the system sizes are $N/10^4 = 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024$ and $2048$. Data collapse is well behaved using the formulas for the discontinuous transition with $dG(p_c)/dp \sim N^{0.75}$.
Plots (i)-(l) correspond to the plots (a)-(d) but in four dimensions. For (i), $N = 5184$ and $L = 60$ are used.
The collision kernels are estimated as $k^{\prime}_i/C^{\prime} \sim i^{0.29 \pm 0.01}$ and $k_i/C \sim i^{0.90 \pm 0.00}$.
For (j)-(l), the system sizes are $N/10^4 = 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024$ and $2048$. Data are well collapsed on the scaling formulas for the continuous transition. It is estimated that $p_c(\infty) = 0.95$, $1/\nu = 0.21$, and $\beta/\nu = 0.05$.}\label{fig11}
\end{figure*}
\section{Reaction-limited cluster aggregation model}
Here, we perform similar studies for the reaction-limited cluster aggregation (RLCA) model in the Brownian process in two, three, and four dimensions. In this model, two adjoining clusters merge irreversibly with probability $r$, but with the remaining with probability $1-r$, they can move independently. As $r$ goes to 0, a cluster can penetrate inside the area between branches of another cluster, becoming trapped and irreversibly stuck within it. As a result, the resulting cluster becomes less ramified, and its fractal dimension is increased \cite{rlca}. Here we use $r = 10^{-3}$, in which the dynamics of cluster aggregations of the RLCA observed is different from that of the DLCA.
To obtain the giant cluster size $G$, we measure the collision kernels $k^{\prime}_i/C^{\prime}$ and $k_i/C$ at $p_d$ and simulate the Smoluchowski equation using these collision kernels. Monte Carlo simulations of the RLCA model take extremely long computation times for us to understand the finite-size scaling behavior of the PT. Thus, we measure the collision kernels in two, three, and four dimensions, and then investigate the finite-size scaling behavior of numerical data of the Smoluchowski equations. The measured collision kernels are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig11}. The collision kernel may be written in a power-law form, $k^{\prime}_i k_j \sim i^{\omega^{\prime}}j^{\omega}$. Then the exponents ($\omega^{\prime}$, $\omega$) are estimated as ($-0.12 \pm 0.06, 0.50 \pm 0,03$), ($-0.04 \pm 0.03, 0.70 \pm 0.04$) and ($0.29 \pm 0.10, 0.90 \pm 0.00$) in two, three and four dimensions, respectively. It is noteworthy that in the conventional Smoluchowski equation, clusters are immobile, and thus the collision kernel is symmetric as $k_ik_j$. If $k_ik_j \sim (ij)^{\zeta}$, then for $\zeta > 0.5$, the percolation transition is continuous. In this case, the cluster-size distribution follows a power law at the critical point as $n_s \sim s^{-\tau}$,
where $\tau > 2$~\cite{ziff_1983}. However, for the asymmetric case above, the criterion for continuous transitions is
not known specifically to our knowledge. We find that the cluster size distribution for the asymmetric Smoluchowski
equation for the RLCA model with the numerically estimated kernels at the transition point follows a power law,
$n_s \sim s^{-0.60}$ in two dimensions, $n_s \sim s^{-1.25}$ in three dimensions up to finite-size cutoffs,
and $n_s \sim s^{-2.05}$ in four dimensions.
Thus, the percolation transition for four dimensions can be expected to be continuous.
We also remark that the collision kernel for the RLCA does not agree well with the one obtained from the formulas $k^{\prime}_i \sim i^{1-1/d_f+\eta}$ and $k_i \sim i^{1-1/d_f}$. If we use $d_f=1.7$, $d_f=2.0$, and $d_f=2.4$ for two, three and four dimensions, respectively, and $\eta=-0.5$ \cite{rlca2}. This difference is because merging of
two clusters does not occur at their perimeters in the RLCA process. Using these obtained collision kernels, we perform numerical simulations of the Smoluchowski equation, and we find that the giant cluster size $G$ and the susceptibilities $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ behave following the scaling functions
for the discontinuous PT in Eqs.(\ref{g_scaling}-\ref{susc2}) in two and three dimensions. However, in four dimensions, the obtained data do not collapse onto the scaling functions of the discontinuous transition, but rather collapse onto Eq.~(\ref{cont_fss}), valid for continuous transitions.
This different behavior is caused by the large exponent values of the collision kernels.
\section{Summary}
In this paper, we extended the previous study of discontinuous PT of the diffusion-limited cluster aggregation (DLCA) model to three and four dimensions. We showed that the discontinuous PT also occurs even in three and four dimensions for Brownian motion. In this case, the discontinuous PT is caused by the natural suppression effect of Brownian motion to the growth of large clusters.
Moreover, we studied PT for the DLCA model with general velocity $v_s \sim s^{\eta}$ for various values of $\eta$, where $s$ is the cluster size. As $\eta$ increases, the suppression effect becomes weak, so that there exists a tricritical point $\eta_c$, across which the PT type changes from
discontinuous to continuous. Finally, we briefly studied the PT for the reaction-limited cluster aggregation (RLCA) model in Brownian motion in two, three and four dimensions. By simulating the Smoluchowski equation with the obtained collision kernels, we find that the PT is discontinuous in two and three dimensions but continuous in four dimensions.
In this work, $p_c \rightarrow 1$ for the cases of discontinuous transitions, otherwise $p_c < 1$ in the cases of continuous transitions. Conclusively, we expect that the discontinuous PT can be observed in many modified DLCA models owing to the suppression effect of Brownian motion.
\ack
This study was supported by NRF grants funded by MEST (Grant No. 2010-0015066), the Brain pool program (YWK), and the Seoul Science Foundation and the Global Frontier program (YSC).
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
Lorentz spaces were introduced in \cite{Lor1, Lor2} as a generalization of classical Lebesgue spaces and have become a standard tool in mathematical analysis, cf. \cite{AM,CPSS, BS, Grafaneu}.
For an introduction to Lorentz spaces we refer e.g. to \cite[Chapter V]{SW}, \cite[Chapter 4]{BS} or \cite[Chapter 1]{Grafaneu}.
One of the main ingredients of the theory of Lorentz spaces is the celebrated Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem, which states that under certain conditions one can deduce
the strong boundedness of a sublinear operator $T$ on the interpolation spaces provided that the operator is weakly bounded at the endpoints of the interpolation pair.
This approach was used for example in the classical book of Stein \cite{S} to prove the boundedness of the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator on $L_p(\mathbb{R}^n)$ for $1<p\le \infty$.
Another classical topic we shall touch in our work are the Lebesgue spaces $L_{{p(\cdot)}}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ of variable integrability. The study of this class of function spaces
goes back to Orlicz \cite{Orlicz}. After the survey paper of Kov\'a\v{c}ik and R\'akosn\'\i k \cite{KoRa}, there has been an enormous interest in these spaces
(and in Sobolev spaces $W^1_{{p(\cdot)}}(\Omega)$ built on $L_{{p(\cdot)}}(\Omega)$) especially in connection with the application
in modeling of electrorheological fluids \cite{Ruz1}.
Moreover, the spaces $L_{{p(\cdot)}}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ possess interesting applications in the theory of PDE's, variational calculus, financial mathematics and image processing. A recent overview of this vastly growing field is given in \cite{DHHR}.
A fundamental breakthrough concerning spaces of variable integrability was the observation that, under certain regularity assumptions on ${p(\cdot)}$, the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator is also bounded on
$L_{{p(\cdot)}}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, see \cite{Max1}. This result has been generalized to wider classes of exponents ${p(\cdot)}$ in \cite{CruzUribe03}, \cite{Max3} and \cite{Max4}.
Unfortunately, it turned out that the standard proof of Stein \cite{S} for spaces with constant indices breaks down and completely different methods had to be used to achieve this result, see \cite{DHHR}.
The main aim of this paper is to return to this topic and to study the validity of the Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem in the frame of Lebesgue spaces with variable integrability.
For this reason, we first explore the possibility of extending the definition of Lorentz spaces to the setting of variable integrability exponents.
We show, that there is really a natural way to define the Lorentz spaces $L_{{p(\cdot)},{q(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})$, which extends the scale of Lebesgue spaces with variable exponents, i.e. $L_{{p(\cdot)},{p(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})=L_{{p(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})$
for ${p(\cdot)}={q(\cdot)}$. Later on, we study the interpolation properties of this new scale of spaces. A special case (see Remark \ref{rem:4}) of Theorem \ref{thm:interpol} shows that
$$
(L_{{p(\cdot)}}(\mathbb{R}^n),L_\infty(\mathbb{R}^n))_{\theta,q}=L_{\tilde p(\cdot),q}(\mathbb{R}^n)
$$
for $0<\theta<1$ and
$$
\frac{1}{\tilde p(\cdot)}=\frac{1-\theta}{{p(\cdot)}}.
$$
Finally, we discuss the validity of the Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem in the context of this new scale of function spaces, an open question posed in \cite{DHN}. It turns out that the answer is negative
and we provide a detailed counterexample to this conjecture.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 collects classical definitions of Lorentz spaces with constant indices and of Lebesgue spaces with variable integrability. Furthermore, the definition of Lorentz spaces
with variable integrability is given. After collecting some basic properties of this new scale of function spaces in Section 3, we study the real interpolation properties of this scale in Section 4.
Section 5 is devoted to Marcinkiewicz interpolation and contains the counterexample to \cite[Question 2.8]{DHN}. Finally, Section 6 collects some possible research directions and open problems.
At the end of this introduction we would like to mention that another definition of Lorentz spaces $\mathcal{L}^{{p(\cdot)},{q(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})$ with variable exponents was recently given in \cite{EphreKoki} with \cite{KokiSamko} and \cite{IsraKoki}
as forerunners. Their definition works with non-increasing rearrangement and two variable exponents ${p(\cdot)},{q(\cdot)}:[0,\infty)\to [1,\infty]$.
Due to this effect, the important and natural identity $\mathcal{L}^{{p(\cdot)},{p(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})=L_{{p(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})$ does not hold in this scale of variable Lorentz spaces. This is a consequence of the definition of $L_{{p(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})$ where the variable exponent ${p(\cdot)}$ is defined on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$ and not on $[0,\infty)$.
We return to this topic in detail in Remark \ref{rem:Samko}.
\section{Old and new definitions}
In this section we collect the very well known definitions of classical Lorentz spaces (Section \ref{def_sec:Lorentz}) and Lebesgue spaces of variable exponents (Section \ref{def_sec:Lebesgue}). Finally, in Section \ref{def_sec:Lorentz_var},
we provide the definition of Lorentz spaces with variable exponents. For simplicity, we start in Definition \ref{dfn2} with the more intuitive spaces $L_{{p(\cdot)},q}({\mathbb{R}^n})$. The Lorentz spaces $L_{{p(\cdot)},{q(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})$ with both exponents variable
are introduced shortly after in Definition \ref{dfn3}.
\subsection{Lebesgue spaces with variable exponents}\label{def_sec:Lebesgue}
Let us now recall the definition of the variable Lebesgue spaces $L_{{p(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})$.
A measurable function $p:{\mathbb{R}^n}\to(0,\infty]$ is called a variable exponent function if
it is bounded away from zero. For a set $A\subset{\mathbb{R}^n}$ we denote $p_A^+=\operatornamewithlimits{ess\,sup}_{x\in A}p(x)$ and $p_A^-=\operatornamewithlimits{ess\,inf}_{x\in A}p(x)$; we
use the abbreviations $p^+=p_{{\mathbb{R}^n}}^+$ and $p^-=p_{{\mathbb{R}^n}}^-$. The variable exponent Lebesgue space $L_{p(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n})$ consists of
all measurable functions $f$ such that there exist an $\lambda>0$ such that the modular
\begin{align*}
\varrho_{L_{p(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n})}(f/\lambda)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}^n}}\varphi_{p(x)}\left(\frac{|f(x)|}{\lambda}\right)dx
\end{align*}
is finite, where
\begin{align}
\varphi_p(t)=\begin{cases}t^p&\text{if}\ p\in(0,\infty),\\
0&\text{if}\ p=\infty\ \text{and}\ t\le 1,\\\label{Formelphi}
\infty&\text{if}\ p=\infty\ \text{and}\ t>1.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
This definition is nowadays standard and was used also in \cite[Section 2.2]{AlHa10} and \cite[Definition 3.2.1]{DHHR}.
If we define $\mathbb{R}^n_\infty=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:p(x)=\infty\}$ and $\mathbb{R}^n_0={\mathbb{R}^n}\setminus\mathbb{R}^n_\infty$, then the Luxemburg norm of a function $f\in L_{p(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n})$ is given by
\begin{align*}
\norm{f}{L_{p(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n})}&=\inf\{\lambda>0:\varrho_{L_{p(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n})}(f/\lambda)\leq1\}\\
&=\inf\left\{\lambda>0:\int_{\mathbb{R}^n_0}\!\!\!\left(\frac{|f(x)|}{\lambda}\right)^{p(x)}\!\!\!\!\!\!dx\leq1\ \text{and}\ |f(x)|\le \lambda \ \text{for a.e.}\ x\in\mathbb{R}^n_\infty\right\}.
\end{align*}
It constitutes a norm if $p(\cdot)\geq1$, but it is always a quasi-norm if at least $p^->0$. Furthermore, the spaces $L_\p(\Rn)$ are complete, hence they are (quasi-) Banach spaces if $p^->0$, see \cite{KoRa} for details and further properties.
We denote the class of all measurable functions $p:{\mathbb{R}^n}\to(0,\infty]$ such that $p^->0$ by $\P$ and the corresponding modular is denoted by $\varrho_{p(\cdot)}$ instead of $\varrho_{L_{p(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n)}$.
\subsection{Classical Lorentz spaces}\label{def_sec:Lorentz}
Next, we recall the definition of classical Lorentz spaces as it can be found in \cite{BS} or \cite{Grafaneu}.
This definition makes use of the so-called \emph{non-increasing rearrangement} $f^*$ of a function $f$. For a measurable function $f:{\mathbb{R}^n}\to\mathbb{C}$, we define first the \emph{distribution function} $\mu_f:[0,\infty)\to[0,\infty]$ by
\begin{align*}
\mu_f(s)=\mu\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|>s\}, \quad s\ge 0,
\end{align*}
where $\mu$ denotes the Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$.
The distribution function $\mu_f$ provides information about the size of $f$ but not about the local behavior of $f$.
The (generalized) inverse function to the distribution function is called \emph{non-increasing rearrangement} $f^*:[0,\infty)\to[0,\infty]$ and is defined by
\begin{align*}
f^*(t)=\inf\{s>0:\mu_f(s)\leq t\}.
\end{align*}
Equipped with these tools, we are now ready to give the definition of the classical Lorentz spaces with constant indices.
\begin{dfn}\label{dfn1}
Given a measurable function $f$ on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$ and real parameters $0<p,q\leq\infty$, we define
\begin{align*}
\norm{f}{L_{p,q}({\mathbb{R}^n})}=\begin{cases}\displaystyle
\left(\int_0^\infty\left(t^{1/p}f^*(t)\right)^q\frac{dt}{t}\right)^{1/q},& \text{if }q<\infty\\
\displaystyle\sup_{t>0}t^{1/p}f^*(t),&\text{if }q=\infty.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
The space of all measurable $f:{\mathbb{R}^n}\to\mathbb{C}$ with $\norm{f}{L_{p,q}({\mathbb{R}^n})}<\infty$ is denoted by $L_{p,q}({\mathbb{R}^n})$. The spaces are complete and they are normable for $1<p<\infty$ and $1\leq q\leq\infty$, see \cite[Theorem 1.4.11 and Exercise 1.4.3]{Grafaneu}.
\end{dfn}
The use of non-increasing rearrangement makes it rather difficult to extend Definition \ref{dfn1} to variable exponents ${p(\cdot)},{q(\cdot)}:{\mathbb{R}^n}\to(0,\infty]$.
It is very well known that the spaces $L_\p(\Rn)$ are not translation invariant (see Proposition 3.6.1 in \cite{DHHR}) and therefore the membership of $f$ in $L_\p(\Rn)$ cannot be characterized by any condition on $f^*$ only.\\
To avoid this obstacle, we look for an equivalent characterization of Lorentz spaces $L_{p,q}({\mathbb{R}^n})$ which does not make use of the notion of non-increasing rearrangement.
Therefore we calculate for $p,q<\infty$ using Fubini's theorem and the substitution $s^{p/q}:=t$ (cf. Proposition 1.4.9 in \cite{Grafaneu})
\begin{align}
\norm{f}{L_{p,q}({\mathbb{R}^n})}&=\left(\int_0^\infty\left(t^{1/p}f^*(t)\right)^q\frac{dt}{t}\right)^{1/q}=\left(\int_0^\infty\frac pq f^*(s^{p/q})^{q}{ds}\right)^{1/q}\notag\\
&=\left(\frac pq\right)^{1/q}\left(\int_0^\infty\mu\{s\geq0:f^*(s^{p/q})^{q}> t\}dt\right)^{1/q}\notag\\
&=\left(\frac pq\right)^{1/q}\left(\int_0^\infty\mu\{s\geq0:f^*(s^{p/q})> t^{1/q}\}dt\right)^{1/q}\notag\\
&=p^{1/q}\left(\int_0^\infty\lambda^q \mu\{s\geq0:f^*(s^{p/q})> \lambda\}\frac{d\lambda}{\lambda}\right)^{1/q}\notag\\
&=p^{1/q}\left(\int_0^\infty\lambda^q\mu\{s\geq0:f^*(s)> \lambda\}^{q/p}\frac{d\lambda}{\lambda}\right)^{1/q}\notag\\
&=p^{1/q}\left(\int_0^\infty\lambda^q \norm{\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|> \lambda\}}}{L_p({\mathbb{R}^n})}^{q}\frac{d\lambda}{\lambda}\right)^{1/q}\label{Formel1}.
\end{align}
Here, $\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|> \lambda\}}$ stands for the characteristic function of the set $\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|> \lambda\}$. If no confusion is possible, this will also be denoted by
$\chi_{\{|f|>\lambda\}}$.
The equation \eqref{Formel1} can be discretized and we derive
\begin{align}
\norm{f}{L_{p,q}({\mathbb{R}^n})}
&\sim p^{1/q}\left(\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{kq}\norm{\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|>2^k\}}}{L_p({\mathbb{R}^n})}^q\right)^{1/q}.\label{Formel2}
\end{align}
\subsection{Lorentz spaces with variable exponents}\label{def_sec:Lorentz_var}
The expression \eqref{Formel1} for the norm can be generalized quite easily to variable exponent ${p(\cdot)}$ with $q$ constant. Surprisingly enough, even $q$ can be considered variable when we use the spaces
${\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}$ of Almeida and H\"ast\"o \cite{AlHa10} and the discretized equation \eqref{Formel2}.
Furthermore we do not destroy the local properties of the function $f$, since it gets not rearranged and the exponents map from ${\mathbb{R}^n}$.
\begin{dfn}\label{dfn2}
Let $p\in\P$ be a variable exponent with range $0<p^-\leq p^+\leq\infty$ and let $0<q\leq\infty$. Then $L_{p(\cdot),q}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is the collection of all measurable functions $f:{\mathbb{R}^n}\to\mathbb{C}$ such that
\begin{align}\label{LorentzNormqconst}
\norm{f}{L_{{p(\cdot)},q}({\mathbb{R}^n})}=
\begin{cases}\displaystyle
\left(\int_0^\infty \lambda^q\norm{\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|>\lambda\}}}{L_\p(\Rn)}^q\frac{d\lambda}{\lambda}\right)^{1/q},&\text{ if }q<\infty\\
\displaystyle\sup_{\lambda>0}\lambda\norm{\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|>\lambda\}}}{L_\p(\Rn)},&\text{ if }q=\infty
\end{cases}
\end{align}
is finite.
\end{dfn}
Using the ${\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}$ spaces introduced recently in \cite{AlHa10}, we may even consider the situation, where also $q$ is variable.
Let us recall their approach. For a sequence $(f_k)_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}$ we define the modular
\begin{align*}
\varrho_{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}((f_k)_k)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\inf\left\{\lambda_k>0:\varrho_{p(\cdot)}\left(\frac{f_k}{\lambda_k^{1/{q(\cdot)}}}\right)\leq1\right\},
\end{align*}
with the convention $\lambda^{1/\infty}=1$. If $q^+<\infty$ or if ${q(\cdot)}\leq{p(\cdot)}$ we can replace this by a simpler expression
\begin{align}\label{EasyModular}
\varrho_{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}((f_k)_k)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\norm{\varphi_{q(\cdot)}(|f_k(\cdot)|)}{L_{\frac{p(\cdot)}{q(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})},
\end{align}
which is much more intuitive. Here $\varphi_q(t)$ equals basically $t^q$, see \eqref{Formelphi}. The norm in these spaces gets defined as usual as the Luxemburg norm
\begin{align*}
\norm{(f_k)_k}{{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}}=\inf\{\mu>0:\varrho_{{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}}\left({f_k}/{\mu}\right)\leq1\}.
\end{align*}
Up to now, it is not completely clear under which conditions on ${p(\cdot)}$ and ${q(\cdot)}$ the expression above becomes a norm. It was shown in \cite{AlHa10} that it always constitutes a quasi-norm if $p^-,q^->0$.
Further it is known (see \cite{KV11}) that it is a norm if either $\frac1{p(\cdot)}+\frac1{q(\cdot)}\leq1$ holds pointwise for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}$ or if $1\leq{q(\cdot)}\leq{p(\cdot)}\leq\infty$ holds pointwise. Also in this work there is given
an example where $\min({p(\cdot)},{q(\cdot)})\geq1$ but the triangle inequality does not hold. Let us mention that it is an open question if there exists an equivalent norm on ${\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}$
whenever $\min({p(\cdot)},{q(\cdot)})\geq1$. Nevertheless, since our exponents are between $(0,\infty]$ we generally work with quasi-norms and there are no obstacles with that.\\
We use now the modular $\varrho_{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}$ and \eqref{Formel2} to define the variable Lorentz spaces $L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)$.
\begin{dfn}\label{dfn3}
Let $p,q\in\P$ be two variable exponents with range $0<p^-\leq p^+\leq\infty$ and $0<q^-\leq q^+\leq\infty$. Then $L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)$ is the collection of all measurable functions $f:{\mathbb{R}^n}\to\mathbb{C}$ such that
\begin{align}\label{def:norm1}
\norm{f}{L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)}=\inf\Bigl\{\lambda>0:\varrho_{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}\Bigl(2^k\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)/\lambda|>2^k\}}\Bigr)\le 1\Bigr\}<\infty.
\end{align}
\end{dfn}
Before we discuss the properties of these new function spaces we derive an equivalent expression for $\norm{f}{L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)}$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:equiv}Let $p,q\in\P$ be two variable exponents with range $0<p^-\leq p^+\leq\infty$ and $0<q^-\leq q^+\leq\infty$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{def:norm2}
\norm{f}{L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)}\approx \norm{\left(2^k\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|>2^k\}}\right)_{k=-\infty}^\infty}{{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If $\lambda=2^j$ for some $j\in\mathbb{Z}$, we obtain
$$
\varrho_{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}\Bigl(2^k\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)/\lambda|>2^k\}}\Bigr)=
\varrho_{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}\biggl(\frac{2^k\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|>2^k\}}}{\lambda}\biggr).
$$
The rest of the proof then follows by simple monotonicity arguments.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The somehow more complicated definition of the quasi-norm in Definition \ref{dfn3} was necessary. Only the expression in \eqref{def:norm1} is homogeneous; i.e.~
\begin{align*}
\norm{\lambda f}{L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)}=|\lambda|\cdot \norm{f}{L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)}\quad\text{for all $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$.}
\end{align*}
Easy examples show that the right-hand side of \eqref{def:norm2} fails to have this property.
Nevertheless due to Lemma \ref{lem:equiv}, both expressions are equivalent and therefore define the same spaces $L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)$.
In majority of our considerations, we shall work with the somehow simpler expression \eqref{def:norm2}.
\end{rem}
If $q(\cdot)=q$ is a constant function, then the Proposition 3.3 in \cite{AlHa10} shows that $\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})$ is really an iterated space, i.e.
$$
\|(f_k)_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}|\ell_{q}(L_{p(\cdot)})\|=\Bigl(\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\|f_k|L_{{p(\cdot)}}(\mathbb{R}^n)\|^q\Bigr)^{1/q}
$$
(with an appropriate modification if $q=\infty$). By \eqref{Formel2} and \eqref{def:norm2}, we obtain that Definitions \ref{dfn2} and \ref{dfn3} are equivalent.
Moreover, we observe by \eqref{Formel1} and \eqref{Formel2} that for constant functions $p(x)=p$ and $q(x)=q$ we get an equivalent norm for the usual Lorentz spaces $L_{p,q}({\mathbb{R}^n})$, whenever $p,q<\infty$.
A similar calculation justifies this fact also if $p<q=\infty$. If $p=\infty$, then the usual Lorentz spaces $L_{\infty,q}({\mathbb{R}^n})$ defined by Definition \ref{dfn1} consist only of the zero function whenever $0<q<\infty$, see Section 1.4.2 in \cite{Grafaneu}.
It is easy to see, that Definition \ref{dfn2} applied to $p(\cdot)=\infty$ and $q<\infty$ gives $L_{\infty,q}({\mathbb{R}^n})=L_\infty({\mathbb{R}^n})$.
Nevertheless, we will show that $L_{{p(\cdot)},{p(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})=L_\p(\Rn)$ and therefore the case $p=q=\infty$ is also included for $p=\infty$.\\
Summarizing, our spaces $L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)$ are equivalent to the usual Lorentz spaces $L_{p,q}({\mathbb{R}^n})$ if ${p(\cdot)}=p$ and ${q(\cdot)}=q$ are constant functions. The only exception is the case if $p=\infty$ and $0<q<\infty$, see Theorem \ref{thm:embedding}.
\begin{rem}\label{rem:Samko}
Another approach to generalize this definition to variable exponents was given in \cite{EphreKoki}, with forerunners \cite{KokiSamko} and \cite{IsraKoki}.
They introduced the spaces ${\mathcal L}^{{p(\cdot)},{q(\cdot)}}(\Omega)$ by the corresponding quasi-norm
$$
\|f|{\mathcal L}^{{p(\cdot)},{q(\cdot)}}(\Omega)\|=\|t^{\frac{1}{p(t)}-\frac{1}{q(t)}}f^*(t)|L_{{q(\cdot)}}(0,|\Omega|)\|,
$$
where $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}^n}$ is a measurable set, $|\Omega|$ is its Lebesgue measure and $p,q:(0,|\Omega|)\to (0,\infty)$ are variable exponents.
The spaces ${\mathcal L}^{{p(\cdot)},{q(\cdot)}}(\Omega)$ coincide with usual Lorentz spaces $L_{p,q}(\Omega)$ if ${p(\cdot)}=p$ and ${q(\cdot)}=q$ are constant.
On the other hand, in this scale there is no hope for the identity ${\mathcal L}^{{p(\cdot)},{p(\cdot)}}(\Omega)=L_{p(\cdot)}(\Omega)$ to hold, since in the definition of the Lebesgue spaces the variable exponent ${p(\cdot)}$ is defined on whole $\Omega$.
\end{rem}
\section{Basic properties}
In this section, we prove several basic properties of the new scale of function spaces.
\begin{thm} Let $p,q\in \P$. Then $L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)$ are quasi-Banach spaces.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
To prove that \eqref{def:norm1} defines a quasi-norm, we only have to show the quasi-triangle inequality. We use the estimate
\begin{align*}
\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)+g(x)|>2^k\}&\subset\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|+|g(x)|>2^k\}\\
&\subset\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|>2^{k-1}\}\cup\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|g(x)|>2^{k-1}\}
\end{align*}
to obtain
\begin{align*}
\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)+g(x)|>2^k\}}&\leq \chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|>2^{k-1}\}}+\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|g(x)|>2^{k-1}\}}.
\end{align*}
This in turn implies
\begin{align*}
&\norm{f+g}{L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)}\approx\norm{\left(2^k\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)+g(x)|> 2^k\}}\right)_{k=-\infty}^\infty}{{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}}\\
&\qquad\le \norm{\left(2^k\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|>2^{k-1}\}}\right)_{k=-\infty}^\infty+\left(2^k\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|g(x)|>2^{k-1}\}}\right)_{k=-\infty}^\infty}{{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}}\\
&\qquad\le c\biggl\{ \norm{\left(2^k\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|>2^{k-1}\}}\right)_{k=-\infty}^\infty}{{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}}+\norm{\left(2^k\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|g(x)|>2^{k-1}\}}\right)_{k=-\infty}^\infty}{{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}}\biggr\}\\
&\qquad\lesssim \norm{f}{L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)}+\norm{g}{L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)},
\end{align*}
where $c$ is the constant from the quasi-triangle inequality of ${\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}$.
To show that the spaces $L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)$ are complete we take a Cauchy sequence $(f_l)_{l\in\mathbb{N}}\subsetL_{\p,\q}(\Rn)$.
We chose a subsequence (which we denote by $(f_l)_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$ again) with
$$
\|f_{l+1}-f_l|L_{{p(\cdot)},{q(\cdot)}}\|\le \frac{1}{2^{2l}},\quad l\in\mathbb{N}.
$$
For notational reasons, we put $f_0=0.$
We consider the function
$$
g(t):=\sum_{l=0}^\infty |f_{l+1}(t)-f_l(t)|.
$$
As $\chi_{\{g>\lambda\}}(x)\le \sum_{l=0}^\infty \chi_{\{|f_{l+1}-f_l|>\lambda/2^{l+1}\}}(x)$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|\chi_{\{g>\lambda\}}|L_\p(\Rn)\|^r&\le \sum_{l=0}^\infty \|\chi_{\{|f_{l+1}-f_l|>\lambda/2^{l+1}\}}|L_\p(\Rn)\|^r\\
&\le \sum_{l=0}^\infty \frac{2^{(l+1)r}}{\lambda^r}\cdot \|f_{l+1}-f_l|L_{{p(\cdot)},\infty}\|^r
\lesssim \sum_{l=0}^\infty \frac{2^{(l+1)r}}{\lambda^r} 2^{-2lr}
\end{align*}
where $r=\min(p^-,1)$ and we have used the embedding $L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)\hookrightarrow L_{{p(\cdot)},\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})$, see Theorem \ref{thm:embedding}.
As the last sum converges, we get $\|\chi_{\{g>\lambda\}}|L_\p(\Rn)\|\to 0$ for $\lambda\to \infty$ and $g$ is finite almost everywhere.
Therefore, the series
$$
f(x)=\sum_{l=0}^\infty f_{l+1}(x)-f_l(x)\quad \text{and}\quad \tilde f(x)=\sum_{l=1}^\infty f_{l+1}(x)-f_l(x)=f(x)-f_1(x), \quad x\in\mathbb{R}^n
$$
converge also almost everywhere.
It remains to show that $f\inL_{\p,\q}(\Rn)$ and $f_l\to f$ in $L_{\p,\q}(\Rn).$
The estimate $\displaystyle 2^k \chi_{\{|\tilde f|>2^k\}}\le \sum_{l=1}^\infty 2^k\chi_{\{|f_{l+1}-f_l|>2^{k-l}\}}$ implies that
\begin{align*}
\|2^k \chi_{\{|\tilde f|>2^k\}}|{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}\|^\varrho&\lesssim \sum_{l=1}^\infty \|2^k\chi_{\{|f_{l+1}-f_l|>2^{k-l}\}}|{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}\|^\varrho\\
&= \sum_{l=1}^\infty 2^{l\varrho}\|2^{k-l}\chi_{\{|f_{l+1}-f_l|>2^{k-l}\}}|{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}\|^\varrho\lesssim\sum_{l=1}^\infty 2^{l\varrho}\cdot 2^{-2l\varrho}<\infty,
\end{align*}
where $\varrho>0$ is chosen small enough, cf. \cite[Theorem 3.8]{AlHa10}
Therefore, $\tilde f\inL_{\p,\q}(\Rn)$ and $f=\tilde f+f_1\in L_{\p,\q}(\Rn).$
Finally, for $l\in\mathbb{N}$ fixed, we consider
$$
f-f_l=\sum_{m=l}^\infty (f_{m+1}-f_m).
$$
The estimate $\chi_{\{|f-f_l|>2^k\}}\le \sum_{m=l}^\infty \chi_{\{|f_{m+1}-f_m|>2^{k-(m-l+1)}\}}$ implies the convergence $\|f-f_l|L_{\p,\q}(\Rn)\| \to0$ for $l\to\infty$ in a similar manner as above.
\end{proof}
We continue with a theorem showing that the scale of variable Lorentz spaces
includes the scale of Lebesgue spaces with variable exponent. We would like to emphasize, that the identity $L_{{p(\cdot)},{p(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})=L_\p(\Rn)$ holds without any restrictions on ${p(\cdot)}$ with $0<p^-\leq p^+\leq\infty$.
\begin{thm}
If $p\in\P$, then it holds $L_{{p(\cdot)},{p(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})=L_\p(\Rn)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We want to show
\begin{align}\label{ModulareInequality}
\varrho_{p(\cdot)}(f/2)\leq\varrho_{\ell_{p(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}\left((2^k\chi_{\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n:|f(x)|>2^k\}})_{k=-\infty}^\infty\right)\leq\varrho_{p(\cdot)}(cf),
\end{align}
where $c=(1-2^{-p^-})^{-1/p^-}$. From the inequalities above we conclude easily
\begin{align*}
\frac12\norm{f}{L_\p(\Rn)}\lesssim\norm{f}{L_{{p(\cdot)},{p(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim c\norm{f}{L_\p(\Rn)},
\end{align*}
which proves the theorem. We first treat the case $|{\mathbb{R}^n}_{\!\!\!\infty}|=|\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:p(x)=\infty\}|=0$. At the end we comment on the case $|{\mathbb{R}^n}_{\!\!\!\infty}|>0$.
Since ${p(\cdot)}={q(\cdot)}$ we can use the easy expression \eqref{EasyModular} for the modular and then the first inequality in \eqref{ModulareInequality} follows from
\begin{align*}
\varrho_{\ell_{p(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}\left((2^k\chi_{\{|f|>2^k\}})_{k=-\infty}^\infty\right)&=\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty\norm{|2^k\chi_{\{|f|>2^k\}}|^{p(x)}}{L_1({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\sum_{\{k\in \mathbb{Z}:2^k<|f(x)|\}}2^{kp(x)}dx.
\end{align*}
For fixed $x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}$ with $|f(x)|>0$ we choose the unique $k_x\in\mathbb{Z}$ with $2^{k_xp(x)}<|f(x)|^{p(x)}\leq2^{(k_x+1)p(x)}$ and obtain
\begin{align}\label{fkZero}
\sum_{\{k\in\mathbb{Z}:2^k<|f(x)|\}}2^{kp(x)}=\sum_{k=-\infty}^{k_x}\left(2^{-p(x)}\right)^{-k}=2^{k_xp(x)}\frac{1}{1-2^{-p(x)}}.
\end{align}
Using $1\leq\frac{1}{1-2^{-p(x)}}$ we get from \eqref{fkZero}
\begin{align*}
\varrho_{\ell_{p(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}\left((2^k\chi_{\{|f(x)|>2^k\}})_{k=-\infty}^\infty\right)&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\sum_{\{k\in\mathbb{Z}:2^k<|f(x)|\}}2^{kp(x)}dx\\
&\geq\int_\Rn2^{k_xp(x)}dx=\int_\Rn2^{(k_x+1)p(x)}2^{-p(x)}dx\\
&\ge\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\frac12f(x)|^{p(x)}dx=\varrho_{p(\cdot)}(f/2).
\end{align*}
The converse inequality uses again \eqref{fkZero} with $\frac{1}{1-2^{-p(x)}}\leq\frac{1}{1-2^{-p^-}}$ and follows in a similar way
\begin{align*}
\varrho_{\ell_{p(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}\left((2^k\chi_{\{|f(x)|>2^k\}})_{k=-\infty}^\infty\right)&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\sum_{\{k\in\mathbb{Z}:2^k<|f(x)|\}}2^{kp(x)}dx\\
&\hspace{-5em}=\int_\Rn2^{k_xp(x)}\frac{1}{1-2^{-p(x)}}dx\leq\int_\Rn2^{k_xp(x)}\frac{1}{1-2^{-p^-}}dx\\
&\hspace{-5em}\leq\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|f(x)|^{p(x)}\left(\frac{1}{1-2^{-p^-}}\right)^{\frac{p(x)}{p^-}}dx=\varrho_{p(\cdot)}(cf),
\end{align*}
with $c=(1-2^{-p^-})^{-1/p^-}$.
Now, we come back to the case, where $|{\mathbb{R}^n}_{\!\!\!\infty}|>0$. First, we split our function $f=f_0+f_\infty:=f\cdot\chi_{{{\mathbb{R}^n}_{0}}}+f\cdot\chi_{{\mathbb{R}^n}_{\!\!\!\infty}}$. Then we use the considerations above and
\begin{align*}
\norm{f_0}{L_\p(\Rn)}+\norm{f_\infty}{L_\p(\Rn)}&\leq 2\norm{f_0+f_\infty}{L_\p(\Rn)},
\intertext{see \cite[Remark 3.2.3]{DHHR}, and}
\norm{f_0}{L_{{p(\cdot)},{p(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})}+\norm{f_\infty}{L_{{p(\cdot)},{p(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})}&\leq 2\norm{f_0+f_\infty}{L_{{p(\cdot)},{p(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})},
\end{align*}
which is implied by
\begin{align*}
\varrho_{\ell_{p(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}((2^k\chi_{\{|f_0+f_\infty|>2^k\}})_{k=-\infty}^\infty)&=\varrho_{\ell_{p(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}((2^k\chi_{\{|f_0|>2^k\}})_{k=-\infty}^\infty)\\
&+\varrho_{\ell_{p(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}((2^k\chi_{\{|f_\infty|>2^k\}})_{k=-\infty}^\infty).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Next we show that the new scale of function spaces satisfies some elementary embeddings, which are very well know in the case of constant exponents.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:embedding}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Let $p,q_0,q_1\in \P$ with $q_0(\cdot)\leq q_1(\cdot)$ pointwise. Then $L_{{p(\cdot)},q_0(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n})\hookrightarrow L_{{p(\cdot)},q_1(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n})$.
\item[(ii)] Let $q\in\P$. Then $L_{\infty,q(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n)=L_{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$.
\item[(iii)] Let $p_0,p_1,q_0,q_1\in \P$ with $p_0^+<\infty$ and $\alpha:=(p_1/p_0)^->1$. Then the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bddsupp1}
\|f|L_{p_0(\cdot),q_0(\cdot)}\| \le c \|f|L_{p_1(\cdot),q_1(\cdot)}\|
\end{equation}
holds for all measurable $f$ with ${\rm supp\ } f\subset [0,1]^n$ with $c$ independent of $f$.
\item[(iv)] Let $p_0,p_1,q\in\P$ with $p_0(\cdot)\le p_1(\cdot)$ pointwise. Then the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bddsupp3}
\|f|L_{p_0(\cdot),q(\cdot)}\| \le c \|f|L_{p_1(\cdot),q(\cdot)}\|
\end{equation}
holds for all measurable $f$ with ${\rm supp\ } f\subset [0,1]^n$ with $c$ independent of $f$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The first statement follows from Lemma \ref{lem:equiv} and the embedding $\ell_{q_0(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})\hookrightarrow\ell_{q_1(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})$ which has been proven in \cite{AlHa10}.\\
To prove the second part of the theorem, it is enough to use the above embedding in the form
\begin{align*}
L_{\infty,q^-}({\mathbb{R}^n})\hookrightarrow L_{\infty,{q(\cdot)}}({\mathbb{R}^n})\hookrightarrow L_{\infty,\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})=L_\infty({\mathbb{R}^n})
\end{align*}
and the simple embedding $L_\infty({\mathbb{R}^n})\hookrightarrow L_{\infty,q^-}({\mathbb{R}^n})$, which follows directly from Definition \ref{dfn3} and Lemma \ref{lem:equiv}.\\
The proof of the third statement is based on the following simple fact. For every $A\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ with $\mu(A)\le 1$ the following inequality holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bddsupp2}
\|\chi_A|L_{p_0(\cdot)}\|\le \|\chi_A|L_{p_1(\cdot)}\|^\alpha,
\end{equation}
where again $\alpha=(p_1/p_0)^->1.$
To show \eqref{eq:bddsupp1}, it is enough to assume that $q_1(\cdot)=\infty$ and
\begin{equation*}
\|f|L_{p_1(\cdot),\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)\|\approx \sup_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} 2^k\|\chi_{\{|f|>2^k\}}|L_{p_1(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n)\|=1.
\end{equation*}
Using \eqref{eq:bddsupp2}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|f|L_{p_0(\cdot),q_0(\cdot)}\|^{q_0^-}&\lesssim \|f|L_{p_0(\cdot),q_0^-}\|^{q_0^-}\le \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{kq_0^-}\|\chi_{\{|f|>2^k\}}|L_{p_0(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n)\|^{q_0^-}\\
&\le \sum_{k=-\infty}^0 2^{kq_0^-}+\sum_{k=1}^\infty 2^{kq_0^-}\|\chi_{\{|f|>2^k\}}|L_{p_1(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n)\|^{\alpha q_0^-}\\
&\le c+\sum_{k=1}^\infty 2^{kq_0^-}(2^{-k}\|f|L_{p_1(\cdot),\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)\|)^{\alpha q_0^-}\le c'
\end{align*}
with an obvious modification if $q_0^-=\infty.$ This justifies \eqref{eq:bddsupp1}.
The proof of the forth statement follows a similar pattern. We start with $f$ such that
$$
\|f|L_{p_1(\cdot),q(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n)\| \approx \norm{\left(2^k\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|>2^k\}}\right)_{k=-\infty}^\infty}{\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p_1(\cdot)})}=1.
$$
We use again the splitting into two parts, namely with $k\le 0$ and $k\ge 1$, respectively. In the first case, we use the bounded support of $f$ to obtain.
\begin{align*}
\|(2^k\chi_{\{|f|>2^k\}})_{k=-\infty}^0|\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p_0(\cdot)})\|&\le \|(2^k\chi_{[0,1]^n})_{k=-\infty}^0|\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p_0(\cdot)})\|\\
&\lesssim \|(2^k\chi_{[0,1]^n})_{k=-\infty}^0|\ell_{q^-}(L_{p_0(\cdot)})\|\lesssim 1
\end{align*}
The second part with $k\in \mathbb{N}$ may be estimated directly as
\begin{align*}
\|(2^k\chi_{\{|f|>2^k\}})_{k=1}^\infty|\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p_0(\cdot)})\|\le
\|(2^k\chi_{\{|f|>2^k\}})_{k=1}^\infty|\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p_1(\cdot)})\|\lesssim 1,
\end{align*}
which finishes the proof of \eqref{eq:bddsupp3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The second part of this theorem is in contrast to \cite[Section 1.4.2]{Grafaneu}, where $L_{\infty,q}({\mathbb{R}^n})=\{0\}$ is stated.
But this is also not surprising since we did not take the extra factor $p^{1/q}$ appearing in \eqref{Formel1} and \eqref{Formel2} into our Definitions \ref{dfn2} and \ref{dfn3} of our variable Lorentz spaces.
\end{rem}
\section{Interpolation}
We stated already in the introduction that the main importance of Lorentz spaces lies in their connection with (real) interpolation theory. In this section, we shall explore the interpolation properties
of Lorentz spaces with variable exponents. But before we come to this, we recall some basics of the interpolation theory, as they may be found for example in the classical monographs \cite{BerghL} and \cite{Triebel}.
We shall touch only the two most important interpolation methods - the real interpolation and the complex interpolation. Complex interpolation of variable exponent spaces has already been treated in \cite{DHN}.
It turned out that the expected result
\begin{align*}
[L_{p_0(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n}),L_{p_1(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n})]_{\theta}=L_{p_\theta(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n})
\end{align*}
does hold for all $0<\theta<1$ and all $\frac1{p_\theta(\cdot)}=\frac{1-\theta}{p_0(\cdot)}+\frac{\theta}{p_1(\cdot)}$ with $p_0^-,p_1^-\geq1$.\\
This complex interpolation result has been complemented in \cite{Kop09} by showing
\begin{align*}
[L_{p(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n}), BMO({\mathbb{R}^n})]_\theta=L_{p_\theta(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n})\quad\text{and}\quad[L_{p(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n}), H_1({\mathbb{R}^n})]_\theta=L_{p_\theta(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n})
\end{align*}
under some regularity conditions on ${p(\cdot)}$.
We shall therefore concentrate on the real interpolation method (the so-called \emph{K-method}). Let $X_0$ and $X_1$ be two (quasi-)Banach spaces, which are both embedded into a topological vector space $Y$.
Then the spaces $X_0+X_1$ is defined as the set of all $x\in Y$, which may be written as $x=x_0+x_1$ with $x_0\in X_0$ and $x_1\in X_1.$
For any $x\in X_0+X_1$ and any $0<t<\infty$, the so-called \emph{Peetre K-functional} is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:K}
K(x,t,X_0,X_1)=\inf\{\|x_0|X_0\|+t\|x_1|X_1\|:x=x_0+x_1, x_0\in X_0, x_1\in X_1\}.
\end{equation}
If the spaces $X_0$ and $X_1$ are fixed and no confusion is possible, then we abbreviate this to $K(x,t)$. If $0<\theta<1$ and $0<q\le\infty$, then the \emph{real interpolation space} $(X_0,X_1)_{\theta,q}$ is defined
as the set of all $x\in X_0+X_1$, such that
\begin{align*}
\|x|(X_0,X_1)_{\theta,q}\|=\begin{cases} \displaystyle \biggl(\int_0^\infty t^{-\theta q} K(x,t)^q \frac{dt}{t}\biggr)^{1/q},\quad &\text{if\ }q<\infty,\\
\displaystyle \sup_{t>0}t^{-\theta}K(x,t),&\text{if\ }q=\infty
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
is finite.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:interpol} Let $p,q_0\in\P$ with $p^+<\infty$. Let $0<q\le\infty$ and $0<\theta<1$ and put
$$
\frac{1}{\tilde p(\cdot)}=\frac{1-\theta}{p(\cdot)}.
$$
Then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:interpol1}
(L_{{p(\cdot)},q_0(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n),L_\infty(\mathbb{R}^n))_{\theta,q}=L_{\tilde p(\cdot),q}(\mathbb{R}^n)
\end{equation}
in the sense of equivalent quasi-norms.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
To prove \eqref{eq:interpol1}, we will justify the following chain of embeddings.
\begin{align}
\notag L_{\tilde p(\cdot),q}(\mathbb{R}^n)&\hookrightarrow
(L_{{p(\cdot)},q_0^-}(\mathbb{R}^n),L_\infty(\mathbb{R}^n))_{\theta,q}\hookrightarrow
(L_{{p(\cdot)},q_0(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n),L_\infty(\mathbb{R}^n))_{\theta,q}\\
\label{eq:review1}&\hookrightarrow
(L_{{p(\cdot)},\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n),L_\infty(\mathbb{R}^n))_{\theta,q}\hookrightarrow
L_{\tilde p(\cdot),q}(\mathbb{R}^n).
\end{align}
The second and third embedding in \eqref{eq:review1} follow by monotonicity, cf. Theorem \ref{thm:embedding}.
The last embedding in \eqref{eq:review1}, namely
\begin{equation}\label{eq:interpol2}
(L_{{p(\cdot)},\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n),L_\infty(\mathbb{R}^n))_{\theta,q}\hookrightarrow L_{\tilde p(\cdot),q}(\mathbb{R}^n),
\end{equation}
will be proven in Step 1.
Finally, in Step 2 we shall prove that
$$
L_{\tilde p(\cdot),q}(\mathbb{R}^n)\hookrightarrow
(L_{{p(\cdot)}}(\mathbb{R}^n),L_\infty(\mathbb{R}^n))_{\theta,q}.
$$
The proof of this embedding only works with norms of characteristic functions, which do not depend on the second parameter of the Lorentz space.
This is very well known for classical Lorentz spaces, follows from Definition \ref{dfn2} for Lorentz spaces with variable $p(\cdot)$ and $q$ constant,
and finally follows by monotonicity also for Lorentz spaces with both indices variable. Therefore, the proof given in Step 2 also justifies the first embedding in \eqref{eq:review1}.
\emph{Step 1.} We shall prove \eqref{eq:interpol2}, i.e. that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:interpol3}
\int_0^\infty \lambda^q\norm{\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|> \lambda\}}}{L_{\tilde p(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n)}^q\frac{d\lambda}{\lambda}\lesssim
\int_0^\infty t^{-\theta q} K(f,t)^q \frac{dt}{t}.
\end{equation}
We shall use that
\begin{align*}
K(f,t)&=\inf\{\|f^0\|_{{p(\cdot)},\infty}+t\|f^1\|_\infty:f=f^0+f^1\}\\
&=\inf_{\mu>0}\{\|(|f(x)|-\mu)_+\|_{p(\cdot),\infty}+t\|\min(|f(x)|,\mu)\|_\infty\}\\
&\ge \inf_{\mu>0}\{\mu \|\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|\ge 2\mu\}}\|_{p(\cdot)}+t\|\min(f(x),\mu)\|_\infty\}
\end{align*}
for every fixed $t>0$.
We denote $h(\lambda)=\|\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|\ge \lambda\}}\|_{{p(\cdot)}}$ for $\lambda>0$ and $f_*(t)=\sup\{\lambda>0:h(\lambda)\ge t\}$ its generalized inverse function.
Using the assumption $p^+<\infty$, we obtain that $h(f_*(t))\ge t$ for all $t>0$.
Then we choose $\mu$ by $\mu=f_*(t)/2$. This leads to $K(f,t)\ge f_*(t)h(f_*(t))/2\ge tf_*(t)/2.$
The proof is then a consequence of the following two estimates on the left and right hand side of \eqref{eq:interpol3}
\begin{align*}
LHS\eqref{eq:interpol3}&=\int_0^\infty \lambda^q h(\lambda)^{(1-\theta)q}\frac{d\lambda}{\lambda}\approx \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty \int_{\lambda:2^k< h(\lambda)\le2^{k+1}}\lambda^q h(\lambda)^{(1-\theta)q}\frac{d\lambda}{\lambda}\\
&\lesssim \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{k(1-\theta)q}\int_{\lambda:2^k\le h(\lambda)}\lambda^q \frac{d\lambda}{\lambda}
\le \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{k(1-\theta)q}\int_{0}^{f_*(2^k)}\lambda^q \frac{d\lambda}{\lambda}\lesssim \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{k(1-\theta)q}f_*(2^k)^q
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
RHS\eqref{eq:interpol3}&\ge \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty \int_{2^k}^{2^{k+1}}t^{(1-\theta)q}f_*(t)^q\frac{dt}{t}\gtrsim \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{k(1-\theta)q}\int_{2^k}^{2^{k+1}}f_*(t)^q\frac{dt}{t}\\
&\gtrsim\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{(k+1)(1-\theta)q}f_*(2^{k+1})^q =\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{k(1-\theta)q}f_*(2^{k})^q.
\end{align*}
If $q=\infty$, only notational modifications are necessary.
\emph{Step 2.} Next, we prove that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:interpol10}
L_{\tilde p(\cdot),q}(\mathbb{R}^n)\hookrightarrow (L_{{p(\cdot)}}(\mathbb{R}^n),L_\infty(\mathbb{R}^n))_{\theta,q},
\end{equation}
i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:interpol11}
\int_0^\infty t^{-\theta q} K(f,t)^q \frac{dt}{t}\lesssim\int_0^\infty \lambda^q\norm{\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|> \lambda\}}}{L_{\tilde p(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n)}^q\frac{d\lambda}{\lambda}.
\end{equation}
We start again with a reformulation of $K(f,t)$.
\begin{align*}
K(f,t)&=\inf\{\|f^0\|_{{p(\cdot)}}+t\|f^1\|_\infty:f=f^0+f^1\}\\
&=\inf_{\mu>0}\{\|(|f(x)|-\mu)_+\|_{p(\cdot)}+t\|\min(|f(x)|,\mu)\|_\infty\}\\
&\le \inf_{\mu>0}\{\|f\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|> \mu\}}\|_{p(\cdot)}+t\mu\}\\
&\lesssim \inf_{\mu>0}\{\|\sum_{j=0}^\infty 2^j\mu\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|> 2^j\mu\}}\|_{p(\cdot)}+t\mu\}\\
&\le \inf_{\mu>0}\{\sum_{j=0}^\infty 2^j\mu\|\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|> 2^j\mu\}}\|_{p(\cdot)}+t\mu\}\\
&= \inf_{\mu>0}\{\sum_{j=0}^\infty 2^j\mu h(2^j\mu)+t\mu\},
\end{align*}
where we denoted $h(\lambda):=\|\chi_{\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}:|f(x)|> \lambda\}}\|_{p(\cdot)}$. Let us remark, that we have assumed $p^-\ge 1$ in the calculation above to be able to use the triangle inequality without additional powers.
The modification in the case $p^-<1$ is straightforward and left to the reader.
For fixed $t>0$, we choose $\mu=\mu(t)$ by
$$
\mu(t):=\inf\{\mu>0:\sum_{j=0}^\infty 2^j h(2^j\mu)\le t\}.
$$
As the function $h$ is right-continuous, we obtain immediately $\sum_{j=0}^\infty 2^j h(2^j\mu(t))\le t$.
We first estimate the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:interpol11} as
\begin{align*}
RHS\eqref{eq:interpol11} \gtrsim \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{kq}h(2^k)^{(1-\theta)q}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, we discretize the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:interpol11} as
\begin{align*}
LHS\eqref{eq:interpol11}&\le\int_0^\infty t^{-\theta q} t^q\mu(t)^q \frac{dt}{t}
=\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{kq}\int_{t:2^k< \mu(t)\le 2^{k+1}}t^{(1-\theta)q}\frac{dt}{t}\\
&\le \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{kq}\int_{t:2^k< \mu(t)}t^{(1-\theta)q}\frac{dt}{t}.
\end{align*}
If $\mu(t)>2^k$, we obtain
$$
t\le \sum_{j=0}^\infty 2^j h(2^{j+k}).
$$
Therefore, we continue
\begin{align*}
LHS\eqref{eq:interpol11}&\lesssim \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{kq}\int_{0}^{\sum_{j=0}^\infty 2^j h(2^{j+k})}t^{(1-\theta)q}\frac{dt}{t}
\lesssim \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{kq} \left(\sum_{j=0}^\infty 2^j h(2^{j+k})\right)^{(1-\theta)q}.
\end{align*}
If $(1-\theta)q\le 1$, we may write ($l=j+k$)
\begin{align*}
LHS\eqref{eq:interpol11}&\lesssim \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{kq} \sum_{j=0}^\infty 2^{j(1-\theta)q} h(2^{j+k})^{(1-\theta)q}\\
&=\sum_{l=-\infty}^\infty \sum_{j=0}^\infty 2^{(l-j)q} 2^{j(1-\theta)q}h(2^l)^{(1-\theta)q}\\
&=\sum_{l=-\infty}^\infty 2^{lq}h(2^l)^{(1-\theta)q}\sum_{j=0}^\infty 2^{-j\theta q}\lesssim \sum_{l=-\infty}^\infty 2^{lq}h(2^l)^{(1-\theta)q}.
\end{align*}
If $(1-\theta)q>1$, we use a similar approach combined with H\"older's inequality
\begin{align*}
LHS\eqref{eq:interpol11}&\lesssim \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty 2^{kq} \sum_{j=0}^\infty 2^{j(1+\varepsilon)(1-\theta)q} h(2^{j+k})^{(1-\theta)q}\\
&=\sum_{l=-\infty}^\infty \sum_{j=0}^\infty 2^{(l-j)q} 2^{j(1+\varepsilon)(1-\theta)q}h(2^l)^{(1-\theta)q}\\
&=\sum_{l=-\infty}^\infty 2^{lq}h(2^l)^{(1-\theta)q}\sum_{j=0}^\infty 2^{jq(-1 + (1+\varepsilon)(1-\theta))}\lesssim \sum_{l=-\infty}^\infty 2^{lq}h(2^l)^{(1-\theta)q},
\end{align*}
where we have assumed that $\varepsilon>0$ was small enough to obtain $-1 + (1+\varepsilon)(1-\theta)=-\theta+\varepsilon(1-\theta)<0$.
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:4}
\begin{itemize} \item[(i)]
Let us point out that the assumption $p^+<\infty$ is forced mainly be the technique of generalized inverse functions used in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:interpol}.
We leave it as an open problem if this assumption might be removed.
\item[(ii)] Of course, taking $q_0(\cdot)=p(\cdot)$ in Theorem \ref{thm:interpol} leads immediately to the following special case
\begin{equation*}
(L_{{p(\cdot)}}(\mathbb{R}^n),L_\infty(\mathbb{R}^n))_{\theta,q}=L_{\tilde p(\cdot),q}(\mathbb{R}^n).
\end{equation*}
Therefore the spaces $L_{\tilde p(\cdot),q}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ from Definition \ref{dfn2} naturally arise by real interpolation between $L_{{p(\cdot)}}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ and $L_\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
\section{Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem}\label{sec:Marcinkiewicz}
Let $T$ be an operator defined on measurable functions on $\mathbb{R}^n$. We say, that $T$ is sublinear, if
$$
|T(f+g)(x)|\le |Tf(x)|+|Tg(x)|
$$
holds for (almost) every $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$. One of the most important tools in analysis of (sub-)linear operators is the Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem. Let us recall its statement
as it may be found for example in \cite[Corollary 1.4.21]{Grafaneu}.
\begin{thm}\label{Marcin} Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a measurable set and let $T$ be a sublinear operator, which maps $L_{p_0}(\Omega)$ to $L_{q_0,\infty}(\Omega)$ and $L_{p_1}(\Omega)$ to $L_{q_1,\infty}(\Omega)$, where
$0<p_0\neq p_1\le\infty$ and $0<q_0\neq q_1\le\infty$. Let $0<\theta<1$ and put
$$
\frac{1}{p}:=\frac{1-\theta}{p_0}+\frac{\theta}{p_1},\quad \frac{1}{q}:=\frac{1-\theta}{q_0}+\frac{\theta}{q_1}.
$$
If
\begin{equation}\label{central}
p\le q,
\end{equation}
then $T$ maps boundedly $L_p(\Omega)$ into $L_q(\Omega)$.
\end{thm}
One of the prominent applications of Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem was given by Stein in his classical book \cite{S}.
The Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator is defined for every locally-integrable function $f$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$ by
$$
Mf(x)=\sup_{B\ni x}\frac{1}{|B|}\int_B |f(x)|dx,\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^n,
$$
where the supremum is taken over all balls in $\mathbb{R}^n$ containing $x$. It is easy to see that $M$ acts boundedly from $L_\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$ into $L_\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$.
Furthermore, one shows that $M$ maps $L_1(\mathbb{R}^n)$ into $L_{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$. These two facts, combined with Theorem \ref{Marcin}, lead immediately to the boundedness
of $M$ on $L_p(\mathbb{R}^n)$ for every $1<p\le\infty$.
The study of the maximal operator in the frame of Lebesgue spaces with variable exponents attracted a lot of attention with the most important breakthroughs being achieved in \cite{Max1, Max2, Max3, Max4, CDF}.
It turned out, cf. \cite[Theorem 4.3.8]{DHHR}, that $M$ is bounded on $L_{p(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ if $p^->1$ with the function $1/p(\cdot)$ satisfying the so-called \emph{$\log$-H\"older continuity} conditions.
Under the same regularity conditions on $p$ it was proven in \cite{CDF}, that if $p^-\ge 1$ the maximal operator maps $L_{p(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ into $L_{p(\cdot),\infty}(\mathbb{R}^n)$.
Quite naturally, this raises the question if the boundedness of $M$ on Lebesgue spaces of variable integrability could be deduced from this weak-type estimate and some version of the Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem.
In its abstract setting, the same question was already posed as an open problem in \cite{DHN}.
We recall their notation first. We say, that the sublinear operator $T$ is of weak-type
$(\pi_0(\cdot),\pi_1(\cdot))$, if
$$
\lambda \|\chi_{\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n:|Tf(x)|>\lambda\}}\|_{\pi_1(\cdot)}\le c\|f\|_{\pi_0(\cdot)
$$
holds for some $c>0$ and all $f\in L_{\pi_0(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ and all $\lambda>0$.
Let $\pi_0(\cdot)$ and $\pi_1(\cdot)$ be two variable exponents and let $0<\theta<1$ be a real number. Then we put
$$
\frac{1}{\pi_\theta(x)}:=\frac{1-\theta}{\pi_0(x)}+\frac{\theta}{\pi_1(x)}.
$$
The Question 2.8 from \cite{DHN} becomes
{\bf Question 2.8}(\cite{DHN}, Marcinkiewicz Interpolation) Let $T$ be a sublinear operator that is of weak type
$(\pi_0(\cdot),\pi_0(\cdot))$ and $(\pi_1(\cdot),\pi_1(\cdot))$. Is $T$ then bounded from $L_{\pi_\theta(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ to $L_{\pi_\theta(\cdot)}(\mathbb{R}^n)$?
We shall prove that the answer to Question 2.8 is negative.
The basic idea of our construction is based on the observation that the condition
\eqref{central} is necessary for the Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem on usual $L_p({\mathbb{R}^n})$ with constant exponent, cf. \cite{H}.
It means that there are $0<p_0\not=p_1\le\infty$ and $0<q_0\not=q_1\le\infty$ and $0<\theta<1$ such that
$T$ is of weak type $(p_0,q_0)$ and $(p_1,q_1)$, $p>q$ and $T$ is not bounded from $L_p[0,1]$ to $L_q[0,1]$.
Then we set
$$
\tilde Tf(x):= \begin{cases} T(\chi_{[0,1]}f)(x-1), \quad x\in[1,2],\\
0 , \quad x\in[0,1).\end{cases}
$$
We put
$$
\pi_0(x):=\begin{cases}p_0,x\in[0,1),\{q(\cdot)}_0,x\in[1,2]\end{cases}\quad\text{and}\quad
\pi_1(x):=\begin{cases}p_1,x\in[0,1),\{q(\cdot)}_1,x\in[1,2].\end{cases}
$$
We obtain that $\tilde T$ is of weak type $(\pi_0(\cdot),\pi_0(\cdot))$ and of weak type $(\pi_1(\cdot),\pi_1(\cdot))$
but not of strong type $(\pi_\theta(\cdot),\pi_\theta(\cdot))$. Furthermore, a simple modification of this argument allows to construct
a counterexample even for smooth parameters $\pi_0(\cdot)$ and $\pi_1(\cdot)$. To make the presentation self-contained, we provide a simple
construction of $T$ with the properties mentioned above.
\subsection{Specific counterexample for $T$}
In this section, we shall provide more details on the above given construction. Especially, we shall construct an operator $T$ which satisfies the assumptions from our counterexample.
Following the work of Hunt \cite{H,HW}, we define for $\alpha>0$ the following Hardy type operator
$$
(T_\alpha f)(x)=x^{-\alpha-1}\int_0^x f(t)dt, \quad 0<x<1.
$$
We observe first that $T_\alpha$ is linear and defined on all $L_1(0,1)$. Using the estimate $|\int_0^x f(t)dt|\le \int_0^x f^*(t)dt$ and H\"older's inequality
\begin{align*}
\|T_{1/2}f\|_{1,\infty}\le \sup_{0<x<1} x\cdot x^{-3/2}\int_0^x f^*(t)dt\le
\sup_{0<x<1}x^{-1/2}\Bigl(\int_0^x (f^*(t))^2dt\Bigr)^{1/2}\cdot x^{1/2}=\|f\|_2,
\end{align*}
we obtain also the weak-type estimate $T_{1/2}:L_2(0,1)\to L_{1,\infty}(0,1)$. Furthermore, the boundedness of $T_{1/2}$ from $L_\infty(0,1)$ into $L_{2,\infty}(0,1)$
follows by
\begin{align*}
\|T_{1/2}f\|_{2,\infty}\le \sup_{0<x<1} x^{1/2}\cdot x^{-3/2}\int_0^x f^*(t)dt=\sup_{0<x<1}x^{-1}\cdot\int_0^x f^*(t)dt\le \|f\|_\infty.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, it is easy to see, that $T_{1/2}$ is not bounded from $L_4(0,1)$ into $L_{4/3}(0,1)$. Just take $f(t)=t^{-1/4}|\ln(t)|^{-1/4-\varepsilon}\chi_{[0,1/2]}(t)\in L_4(0,1)$ for $\varepsilon>0$
and calculate
\begin{align*}
\|T_{1/2}f\|_{4/3}&=\Bigl(\int_0^1 x^{-2} \Bigl(\int_0^x f(t)dt\Bigr)^{4/3}dx\Bigr)^{3/4}\\
&\ge \Bigl(\int_0^{1/2} x^{-2} \Bigl(\int_0^x t^{-1/4}|\ln(t)|^{-1/4-\varepsilon}dt\Bigr)^{4/3}dx\Bigr)^{3/4}\\
&\approx \Bigl(\int_0^{1/2} x^{-2} \Bigl(x^{3/4}|\ln(x)|^{-1/4-\varepsilon}\Bigr)^{4/3}dx\Bigr)^{3/4}\\
&=\Bigl(\int_0^{1/2}x^{-1}\cdot |\ln(x)|^{-1/3-\varepsilon\cdot 4/3}dx\Bigr)^{3/4}=\infty
\end{align*}
for $0<\varepsilon\le 1/2.$
\section{Open problems}
Although we presented some basic properties of the scale of Lorentz spaces with variable exponents, many questions remained opened for further investigations.
The first obvious generalization is to treat Lorentz spaces $L_{{p(\cdot)},{q(\cdot)}}(\Omega,\mu)$ on arbitrary measure spaces $(\Omega,\mu)$
as it is usually done for Lorentz spaces with constant exponents, cf. \cite{Grafaneu}. We believe that the considerations above are also true in this case
and we have studied mainly spaces on $\mathbb{R}^n$ to simplify the notation.
It would be also highly desirable to obtain further results on real interpolation in this scale, complementing Theorem \ref{thm:interpol}.
Especially, it would be useful to have two variable exponent spaces as interpolation couple, i.e. to characterize $(L_{p_0(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n}),L_{p_1(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n}))_{\theta,q}$.
The use of ${\ell_{q(\cdot)}(L_{p(\cdot)})}$ spaces suggests yet another interesting idea, namely to allow for interpolation with variable parameter ${q(\cdot)}$.
This option was already noticed in the introduction of \cite{AlHa10}. Unfortunately it turns out, and it is also mentioned in \cite{AlHa},
that the real interpolation spaces with variable parameter ${q(\cdot)}$ lack in general the interpolation property.
On the other hand, it is possible, that under suitable conditions on the endpoint spaces, the real interpolation method with variable ${q(\cdot)}$
works well and the interpolation property is restored again.
The last open problem is the starting point of this paper. If the Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem would work in the scale of variable exponent spaces,
we would have found a very elegant way to prove the boundedness of the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator on $L_\p(\Rn)$. Combining the weak estimate from \cite{CDF}
\begin{align*}
M&:L_{p_0(\cdot)}({\mathbb{R}^n}) \to L_{p_0(\cdot),\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})\\
\intertext{with the trivial boundedness}
M&:L_\infty({\mathbb{R}^n})\to L_\infty({\mathbb{R}^n})
\end{align*}
we could get the boundedness of $M$ on $L_\p(\Rn)$, with $\frac1{p(\cdot)}=\frac{1-\theta}{p_0(\cdot)}$. Unfortunately the previous counterexample tells us, that Marcinkiewicz does not work on variable $L_\p(\Rn)$ spaces.
On the other hand, using Theorem \ref{thm:interpol}, we may easily show that
\begin{align*}
M:L_{{p(\cdot)},q}({\mathbb{R}^n})\to L_{{p(\cdot)},q}({\mathbb{R}^n})
\end{align*}
under the regularity assumptions on ${p(\cdot)}$ as used in \cite{CDF}. This implies especially by chosing $q$ within $p^-\leq q\leq p^+$ the boundedness
\begin{align*}
M:L_{{p(\cdot)},p^-}({\mathbb{R}^n})\to L_{{p(\cdot)},p^+}({\mathbb{R}^n}).
\end{align*}
This seems to be very suggestive as to why Marcinkiewicz interpolation might fail for the maximal operator. We would therefore be very much interested if it is possible to find additional conditions
on the sublinear operator $T$, which would ensure the validity of Marcinkiewicz interpolation.
\textbf{Acknowledgement:} The first author acknowledges the financial support by the DFG grants HA 2794/5-1 and KE 1847/1-1.
The second author acnowledges the support by the DFG Research Center MATHEON ``Mathematics for key technologies'' in Berlin.
Moreover we are very grateful for the comments of the anonymous referee which helped to improve our paper.
\thebibliography{99}
\bibitem{AlHa10} A. Almeida, P. H{\"a}st{\"o}, \emph{Besov spaces with variable smoothness and integrability},
J. Funct. Anal. \textbf{258} no. 5 (2010), 1628--1655.
\bibitem{AlHa} A. Almeida, P. H{\"a}st{\"o}, \emph{Interpolation in variable exponent spaces}, to appear in Rev. Mat. Complut.
\bibitem{AM} M.~A.~Ari\~no, B.~Muckenhoupt, \emph{Maximal functions on classical Lorentz spaces and Hardy's inequality with weights for nonincreasing functions},
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. \textbf{320} no. 2 (1990), 727--735.
\bibitem{BS} C.~Bennett, R.~Sharpley, \emph{Interpolation of operators}, Academic Press, San Diego, 1988.
\bibitem{BerghL} J.~Bergh, J.~L\"ofstr\"om, \emph{Interpolation spaces. An introduction}, Springer, Berlin, 1976.
\bibitem{CPSS} M.~Carro, L.~Pick, J.~Soria, V. D. Stepanov, \emph{On embeddings between classical Lorentz spaces}, Math. Inequal. Appl. \textbf{4} no.~3 (2001), 397--428.
\bibitem{CDF} D.~Cruz-Uribe, L.~Diening, A.~Fiorenza,
\emph{A new proof of the boundedness of maximal operators on variable Lebesgue spaces},
Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. (9) \textbf{2} no.~1 (2009), 151--173.
\bibitem{Max2} D.~Cruz-Uribe, A.~Fiorenza, J.~Martell, C.~P\'erez, \emph{The boundedness of classical
operators in variable $L^p$ spaces}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. \textbf{31} (2006), 239--264.
\bibitem{CruzUribe03} D. Cruz-Uribe, A. Fiorenza, C. J. Neugebauer, \emph{The maximal function on variable $L^p$ spaces}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. \textbf{28} (2003), 223--238.
\bibitem{Max1} L. Diening, \emph{Maximal function on generalized Lebesgue spaces $L^{p(\cdot)}$}, Math. Inequal. Appl. \textbf{7} (2004), 245--253.
\bibitem{DHN} L. Diening, P.~H\"ast\"o, A. Nekvinda, \emph{Open problems in variable exponent Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces}, Proceedings FSDONA 2004, Academy of Sciences, Prague, 38--52.
\bibitem{Max4} L. Diening, P. Harjulehto, P. H\"ast\"o, Y. Mizuta, T. Shimomura,
\emph{Maximal functions in variable exponent spaces: limiting cases of the exponent}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. \textbf{34} (2009), 503--522.
\bibitem{DHHR} L. Diening, P. Harjulehto, P. H\"ast\"o, M. R{\accent23 u}\v{z}i\v{c}ka,
\emph{Lebesgue and Sobolev Spaces with Variable Exponents},
Lecture Notes in Mathematics \textbf{2017}, Springer, Berlin, 2011.
\bibitem{EphreKoki} L. Ephremidze, V. Kokilashvili, S. Samko, \emph{Fractional, maximal and singular operators in variable exponent Lorentz spaces}, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. \textbf{11} no. 4 (2008), 407--420.
\bibitem{Grafaneu} L. Grafakos, \emph{Classical Fourier analysis}, Second edition, Grad. Texts Math. \textbf{249}, Springer, Berlin, 2008.
\bibitem{H} R. A. Hunt, \emph{An extension of the Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem to Lorentz spaces},
Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. \textbf{70}, (1964) 803--807.
\bibitem{HW} R. A. Hunt and G. Weiss, \emph{The Marcinkiewicz interpolation theorem},
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. \textbf{15}, (1964) 996--998.
\bibitem{IsraKoki} D.M. Israfilov, V. Kokilashvili, N.P. Tuzkaya, \emph{The classical integral operators in weighted Lorentz spaces with variable exponent}, IBSU Scientific Journal \textbf{1} issue 1, (2006), 171--178.
\bibitem{KokiSamko} V. Kokilashvili, S. Samko, \emph{Singular integrals and potentials in some Banach spaces with variable exponent},
J. Funct. Spaces and Appl. \textbf{1} (1), (2003), 45--59.
\bibitem{KV11} H. Kempka, J. Vyb\'\i ral, \emph{A note on the spaces of variable integrability and summability of Almeida and H\"ast\"o},
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. \textbf{141} (9) (2013), 3207--3212.
\bibitem{Kop09} T. Kopaliani, \emph{Interpolation theorems for variable exponent {L}ebesgue spaces}, J. Funct. Anal. \textbf{257} (2009), 3541--3551.
\bibitem{KoRa}O. Kov\'{a}\v{c}ik, J. R\'{a}kosn\'{i}k, \emph{On spaces $L^{p(x)}$ and $W^{1,p(x)}$},
Czechoslovak Math. J. \textbf{41} ({116}) (1991), 592--618.
\bibitem{Lor1} G. G. Lorentz, \emph{Some new functional spaces}, Ann. of Math. (2) \textbf{51} (1950), 37--55.
\bibitem{Lor2} G. G. Lorentz, \emph{On the theory of spaces $\Lambda$}, Pacific J. Math. \textbf{1} (1951), 411--429.
\bibitem{Musielak} J. Musielak, \emph{Orlicz spaces and modular spaces}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics \textbf{1034}, Springer, Berlin, 1983.
\bibitem{Max3} A. Nekvinda, \emph{Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator on $L^{p(x)}(\mathbb{R}^n)$}, Math. Inequal. Appl. \textbf{7} (2004), 255--266.
\bibitem{Orlicz} W. Orlicz, \emph{\"Uber konjugierte Exponentenfolgen},
Studia Math. \textbf{3} (1931), 200--212.
\bibitem{Ruz1} M. R{\accent23 u}\v{z}i\v{c}ka, \emph{Electrorheological fluids: modeling and mathematical theory},
Lecture Notes in Mathematics \textbf{1748}, Springer, Berlin, 2000.
\bibitem{Saw} E.~Sawyer, \emph{Boundedness of classical operators on classical Lorentz spaces}, Studia Math. \textbf{96} no. 2 (1990), 145--158.
\bibitem{S} E.~M.~Stein, \emph{Singular integrals and differentiability properties of functions}, Princeton Mathematical Series, No. 30 Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. 1970.
\bibitem{SW} E.~M.~Stein, G.~Weiss, \emph{Introduction to Fourier analysis on Euclidean spaces}, Princeton Mathematical Series, No. 32. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1971.
\bibitem{Triebel} H.~Triebel, \emph{Interpolation theory, function spaces, differential operators}, {V}erlag der {W}issenschaften, Berlin, 1978.
\end{document}
|
\section*{1. Introduction}
This paper is about one basic problem. This is the problem for defining the notion of Artificial Intelligence. It is surprising that such basic problem can be still open. For example from a long time we have a definition of the notion of the computer. As such definition can be accepted the Turing's machine [6]. Not long time after the definition of the computer the first computer was made.
The same person Alan Turing made the most widely spread definition of AI. This is the so called Turing's test [7, 8, 9]. It is quite simple. We place something behind a curtain and it speaks with us. If we can't make difference between it and a human being then it will be AI. However, this definition is not formal. Another problem is that this definition does not separate the knowledge from the intellect. Imagine that you give a definition of the computer which does not separate the software from the hardware. Such definition would sound something like: ``Computer is a box and when you switch on the power you see windows and buttons. It include some nice games. You can also use it to watch movies.'' Such definition of a computer defines something much more complicated than the Turing's machine. It is much easier to built a computer following the Turing's definition than by following the second one.
\section*{2. Definition of AI}
We will offer a new formal definition of AI. In this definition we are going to exclude the knowledge from the intelligence and define something that knows nothing but which can learn. So according to our definition a newly born baby is also an Intellect.
Before giving a formal definition of AI we will make three acceptable assumptions. First assumption is the thesis of Church [1], stating that every calculating device can be modelled by a program. This means that we are going to look for AI in the set of programs. Second assumption is that AI is a step device\footnote{illustrations - Konstantin Lakov} and on every step it inputs from outside a portion of information (a letter from a finite alphabet $\Sigma$) and outputs a portion of information (a letter from a finite alphabet $\Omega$). The third assumption is that AI is in some environment which gives it a portion of information on every step and which receives the output of AI. Also we assume that the environment will be influenced of the information which AI outputs. This environment can be natural or artificial and we will refer to it as ``world''.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{Sl_002.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The step device}
\end{figure}
Now we can state informally our definition: {\bf AI will be such a program which in an arbitrary world will cope not worse than a human.}
In order to formalise this definition we need to formalise the notion of ``world'' and to say when one program copes in one world better than another. First, what is a world for us? These will be one set $S$, one element $s_{0}$ of $S$ and two functions $World(s, d)$ and $View(s)$. The set $S$ contains the internal states of the world and it can be finite or infinite. The element $s_{0}$ of $S$ will be the world's starting state. The function $World$ will take as arguments the current state of the world and the influence that our device has on the world at the current step. As a result, this function will return the new state of the world (which it will obtain on the next step). The function $View$ will inform us what does our device see. An argument of this function will be the world's state and the returned value will be the information that the device will receive (at a given step). We can suppose that the function $View$ is inaction but this assumption is too strong because in this case the set $S$ has to be finite and because in this case AI see all in its world. For example for us this is not true. We do not see behind our back.
If we have a world and a program then we can start it in this world. We will say that the program is living in this world. The life will start from the state $s_{0}$. This will be the world's state when our program was born. During its life the world will go through the states $s_{0},\ s_{1},\ s_{2},\ \ldots\ $. The program will influence the world with the information it works out at each step $d_{0},\ d_{1},\ d_{2},\ \ldots\ $. Also, our program will receive information from the world $v_{0},\ v_{1},\ v_{2},\ \ldots\ $. It is clear that $s_{i+1}=World(s_{i} , d_{i})$ and $v_{i}=View(s_{i})$.
To obtain a better idea for the world let us define the tree of the obtainable states. This will be infinite tree with countably many knots where every knot has $k$ inheritors. Here $k$ is the number of all possible actions (the number of the letters in $\Omega$). To the tree's root we are going to juxtapose the state $s_{0}$. This world's state will be reached at the moment of birth. To the inheritors of the root we will juxtapose the states $World(s_{0}, d_{i})$ where $d_{i}$ runs through the alphabet $\Omega$. These states can be reached in a moment one (if the action in moment zero was the respective one). By analogy, we continue with the inheritors of the inheritors and so on. In this way to every knot of the tree we juxtapose one obtainable state of the world. Of course, one state can be juxtaposed to more than one knot.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{Schemi_en_k.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The tree of the obtainable states}
\end{figure}
On figure 3 you can see a more rough picture of this tree. In this figure only two knots are denoted. This is the moment of birth and the present moment. The path between these two knots we will call ``the life'' or ``life experience until the present moment''.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{Schemi_en2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Rough picture of the tree of the obtainable states}
\end{figure}
From the tree of the obtainable states we can easily get another tree, which we will call ``the tree of the life''. This will be the same tree but at each knot instead some state $s_{i}$ we will juxtapose $View(s_{i})$, i.g. instead the respective world's state we will juxtapose the information the device gets as an entrance when it is in that state (what it sees). Why did we call this tree with the pretentious name ``tree of the life''? It is because it describes completely the current life of the device together with all possible variant for the past and for the future. If we have two different worlds and if they have the same tree of the life then these worlds are absolutely indistinguishable from the point of view of the device. No matter what experiment it would carry out, it would get the same result in both worlds because with the same sequence of actions it would see the same things.
One interesting question is whether we consider the function $World$ as determined or not. The answer is that it does not matter because we consider that we live our life only once and we cannot check on the second time is it determined or not. It would be better to ask is there a dependence which determines the function $World$. If we do not know this dependence then we can consider that such dependence does not exist and that the function $World$ is random. For example, the semi-random numbers generated by the computer are not random but they are generated by enough difficult dependence so we can consider them random. Also if we have real random numbers then we can consider that they are generated by some very complicated dependence which we do not know.
Our next goal will be to compare two lives and say which one is better. This means to define a linear order in the set of finite rows $v_{0},\ v_{1},\ \ldots\ ,\ v_{t}$. We will compare only finite rows because every life is finite and even if it is potentially unfinite then we will compare it until the present moment because we do not know what will happen in the future. Our order will not depend from the rows $d_{0},\ d_{1},\ \ldots\ ,\ d_{t}$ and $s_{0},\ s_{1},\ \ldots\ ,\ s_{t}$ because it does not matter what we do and what are the actual states of the world in which we are. The only thing that matters is what we view as a result of our activity.
We will choose one linear order of the set of finite rows $v_{0},\ v_{1},\ \ldots\ ,\ v_{t}$ and we will call this order the meaning of life. We suppose that the meaning of life is given beforehand. The reason for that is that we cannot hope that our device will cope well in one world without knowing what is to cope well. So the meaning of life is given beforehand and we do not expect that AI will find it itself. With the humans the situation is similar. They receive the meaning of life by some instincts and by the education.
To simplify the definition we will choose one concrete meaning of life. We will suppose that alphabet $\Sigma$ has two prior given subsets $\Sigma_{1}$ and $\Sigma_{2}$. Let $\Sigma_{1}$ will be the subset of the good things and $\Sigma_{2}$ will be the subset of the bad things. We will evaluate one life $v_{0},\ v_{1},\ \ldots\ ,\ v_{t}$ with the number of the good things in it minus the number of the bad thing in it. We will say that one life is better than another if its value is bigger, i.e. if in this life we saw more good thing and less bad. We do not suggest that the intersection of $\Sigma_{1}$ and $\Sigma_{2}$ is empty but if one element is in both $\Sigma_{1}$ and $\Sigma_{2}$ then it is the same as if it was not in any of them.
Now our definition is almost formal because we formalized the world and the meaning of the life. The only thing which is not formal is that we compare AI with a human being. We cannot say simply that in any world AI copes well because there are worlds in which no one can cope well. Imagine that the function $World(s, d)$ do not depend on $d$. In this case it will happen the same dose not matter what we do. In such a world everybody will cope equally. Also we have to suppose that there are not fatal errors in the world. This mean that we give enough time for education to our device. Other problem is that the world can be too complicated. Of course, we can suppose that AI is more intelligent than any human being and that if one human will manage in one world then AI will manage too. Anyway, for any program we can find world which is enough complicated so the program cannot cope in it.
We will say that one world is good if there are not fatal errors in it and if it is not too complicated for a human being.
\section*{3. Algorithm for searching of AI}
If we had a formal definition of AI we would have an algorithm for searching of AI. The reason is that the set of programs is countable and if we have decidable or semi-decidable test which to recognize AI then we can start checking all programs one by one until we find AI. (In the case of semi-decidable test the algorithm is a little bit more complicated.) Really, such algorithm is useless due to the combinatory explosion but anyway, the existence of such algorithm is interesting.
Although our definition is not completely formal we can make a test for intelligence and this means that we can make an algorithm for searching of AI. The idea is the same as the student exams. We give them several tasks and consider intelligent this students who manage with all tasks. In our test the tasks will be good worlds which are artificial (programs made by people). (Two examples of artificial world can be found in the examples of the compiler Strawberry Prolog [2].) We will start the candidate program in such world and give it enough time for education. After that time we will see how well it copes in this world and does it cover requirements for this world (for example, in the next hundred steps the relation victory to loss to be at least 9 to 1).
If the requirements are not too tough for the human and if AI exists then it will pass our test. The problem is that AI is not the only program which will pass this test. For any finite number of good worlds there is a program which copes in these worlds but which is not AI. For example, if this program is written especially for the test worlds. We have the same problem with the students' exams. Many people who have learned all the tasks by heart will pass the exam but this people are not intellects but crammers.
Actually, what we propose is not a test for AI but if worlds included in this test are enough numerous and varied, then the shortest program which will pass it will be AI. (Because the crammer program will be more complicated). We will consider that our algorithm orders the programs according to their length. So the first (the simplest) which will be worked out from our algorithm will be AI.
As we said the algorithm described above for searching for AI is entirely useless due to the combinatory explosion but it is not so with the definition of AI. After learning what is AI we can try to build it directly. Really, even if we have AI then we cannot use it directly because first we have to train it. The same is with the computer. The hardware is nothing without software. Anyway the training will be not a problem because we have big experience with training people.
\section*{References}
.
[1] C\,h\,u\,r\,c\,h, A. (1941) {\it The Calculi of Lambda-Conversion.} Princeton: Princeton University Press
[2] D\,o\,b\,r\,e\,v D. {\it Strawberry Prolog}, http://www.dobrev.com
[3] D\,o\,b\,r\,e\,v D. {\it AI Project}, http://www.dobrev.com/AI
[4] D\,o\,b\,r\,e\,v D. (2000) {\it AI - What is this}, PC Magazine - Bulgaria, November'2000
[5] D\,o\,b\,r\,e\,v D. (2001) {\it AI - How does it cope in an arbitrary world}, PC Magazine - Bulgaria, February'2001
[6] T\,u\,r\,i\,n\,g, A. M. (1936) {\it On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem.} Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Series 2, 42 (1936-37), pp.230-265.
[7] T\,u\,r\,i\,n\,g, A. M. (1948) {\it Intelligent machinery}, report for National Physical Laboratory, in Machine Intelligence 7, eds. B. Meltzer and D. Michie (1969)
[8] T\,u\,r\,i\,n\,g, A. M. (1950) {\it Computing machinery and intelligence}, Mind 49: pp 433-460
[9] T\,u\,r\,i\,n\,g, A. M. (1956) {\it Can a Machine Think}, in volume 4 of The World of Mathematics, ed. James R. Newman, pp 2099-2123, Simon \& Schuster
\end{document} |
\section{Introduction}\label{s:}
In 1970s black hole physics took a dramatic change due to the discovery (Hawking 1975) that a black hole behaves as a black body and emits thermal radiation (in the semi-classical description).The temperature (known as Hawking temperature)and the entropy are proportional to the surface gravity at the horizon and area of the horizon (Hawking 1975;Bekenstein 1973),respectively.Further,the Hawking temperature, entropy and mass of the black hole satisfy the first law of thermodynamics (J.M.Bardeen et al 1973).Jacobson (1995) first explored this inter relationship of the physical quantities namely temperature and entropy with the geometry of space-time by showing the equivalence between the Einstein field equations and the first law of thermodynamics.He was able to derive the Einstein field equations from the first law of thermodynamics for all local Rindler casual horizons.Subsequently,Padmanavan (2002) on the other way derived the first law of thermodynamics on the horizon starting from Einstein equations for a general static spherically symmetric space time.\\
Motivated by this thermodynamical prescription universal thermodynamics bounded by the apparent horizon has been developed with $T_{A}=\frac{1}{2\pi R_{A}}$ and $S_{A}=\frac{\pi R_{A}^{2}}{G}$ as the Hawking temperature and entropy ($R_{A}=$radius of the apparent horizon)of the horizon respectively.It was shown (Cai and Kim 2005;Akbar and Cai 2006;Paranjape et al 2006)that the first law of thermodynamics on the apparent horizon and the Friedmann equations are equivalent for Einstein gravity as well as for other gravity theories.\\
In the usual standard big bang cosmological model event horizon does not exist.In recent past Type Ia Supernova observational data(A.G.Riess 2004;ennett et al,2003;M.Tegmark et al 2004;S.W.Allen et al 2004) suggest that the universe is dominated by dark energy and at present cosmological event horizon is distinct from apparent horizon due to accelerating phase of the universe.So it is relevant to study universal thermodynamics bounded by the event horizon.\\
It is found that the first law of thermodynamics is not in general satisfied on the event horizon and the universe bounded by the event horizon is not a Bekenstein system (Wang et al 2006).It was argued (Wang et al 2006) that the breakdown of the first law may be due to the possibility that the first law may only apply to variations between nearby states of local thermodynamic equilibrium,while the event horizon reflects the global space-time properties.\\
Now the basic question is that ''is the universal thermodynamics really reversible process and is in quasi equilibrium?'' Normally,the process of energy flux crossing the horizon (apparent or event) is irreversible and one should take care of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.As a result,an internal entropy production will be generated by this irreversibility.Due to increase of the total entropy,Gong et al(2009) showed that the radius of the apparent horizon increases,depending on the constant equation of state of the dark energy and the irreversible process parameters.\\
In this paper, we shall attempt to extend the work of Gang et al(2009) for universal thermodynamics bounded by the event horizon. In the next section(i.e. section 2)a general prescription will be given for the irreversible process for the universe bounded by the event horizon as a non-Bekenstein system.Section 3 deals with two example of dark energy fluid - one with constant equation of state and the other a holographic dark energy model with non-interacting dark matter.Finally,at the end (section 4)there is short discussion and concluding remarks.
\section{A General prescription for the Irreversible process}\label{s:}
The section deals with irreversible thermodynamical process for the universe bounded by the event horizon.The radius of the event horizon for the FRW model is given by
\begin{equation}
R_{E}=a\int_{t}^{\infty}\frac{dt}{a}
\end{equation}
which exists for the accelerating phase of the evolution of the universe.We assume the inside dark energy fluid with barotropic equation of state: $p=\omega\rho$,$\omega$,a variable.Further as the universe bounded by the event horizon is not a Bekenstein system (Wang et al 2006),so we choose the entropy of the event horizon as
\begin{equation}
S_{E}=f(R_{E})
\end{equation}
where the function 'f' is unknown.\\
Due to irreversibility the general entropy change of the thermodynamical system can be written as
\begin{equation}
dS=dS_{e}+dS_{i}
\end{equation}
where $dS_{e}$ represents the exchange of entropy between the system and its surroundings while $dS_{i}$ arises from the internal production process and it exists only in an irreversible process.In a non equilibrium thermodynamical system if $\sigma$ denotes the internal entropy source production and $\overrightarrow{J_{s}}$ corresponds to an entropy flow density then assuming local equilibrium we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{dS_{e}}{dt}=-\int_{\Sigma}\overrightarrow{J_{s}}.d\overrightarrow{\Sigma}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\frac{dS_{i}}{dt}=\int_{V}\sigma dv
\end{equation}
Here $d\overrightarrow{\Sigma}$ is the oriented surface element with V be the volume bounded by the horizon having surface area $\Sigma$.
Normally,the entropy flow $\overrightarrow{J_{s}}$ and internal entropy source production $\sigma$ may be caused due to convection,\\heat conduction,diffusion and other processes.But due to simplicity we consider only the heat conduction as the dominant contributor.\\
So we have
\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{J_{s}}=\frac{\overrightarrow{J_{q}}}{T}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\sigma=\overrightarrow{J_{q}}.\nabla(\frac{1}{T})
\end{equation}
where $\overrightarrow{J_{q}}$ is the heat current due to conduction and T is the temperature on the horizon.\\Further assuming the heat current $\overrightarrow{J_{q}}$ and $\sigma$ to be uniform across the surface of the event horizon and the volume bounded by the event horizon respectively we have from equation (4) using (6)
\begin{equation}
\frac{dS_{e}}{dt}=|\overrightarrow{J_{q}}|\frac{A_{e}}{T}
\end{equation}
and also from equation (5) using (7)
\begin{equation}
\frac{dS_{i}}{dt}=\sigma .V_{e}
\end{equation}
Here $A_{e}$ and $V_{e}$ are the surface area of the horizon and the volume bounded by the horizon respectively.Now using the non-Bekenstein entropy (2) in equation (8) we obtain the heat current as
\begin{equation}
|\overrightarrow{J_{q}}|=\frac{T f'(R_{E})\dot{R_{E}}}{4\pi R_{E}^{2}}
\end{equation}
Due to non-equilibrium thermodynamics there is spontaneous heat flow between the horizon and the dark energy and it is described by the Fourier law which shows the equivalence of heat current $\overrightarrow{J_{q}}$ and temperature gradient by the relation
\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{J_{q}}=-\lambda \nabla(T),
\end{equation}
$\lambda$ the thermal conductivity.\\
Using (10) and (11) in equation (7) we obtain
\begin{equation}
\sigma=\frac{\{f'(R_{E})\}^{2}\dot{R_{E}}^{2}}{16\pi^{2}\lambda R_{E}^{4}}
\end{equation}
Now substituting this value of $\sigma$ into equation (9) we get
\begin{equation}
\frac{dS_{i}}{dt}=\frac{\{f'(R_{E})\}^{2}\dot{R_{E}}^{2}}{12\pi \lambda R_{E}}
\end{equation}
Hence the total entropy change of the event horizon can be written as
\begin{equation}
\frac{dS_{T}}{dt}=f'(R_{E})\dot{R}_{E}\left[1+\frac{f'(R_{E})\dot{R}_{E}}{12\pi\lambda R_{E}}\right]
\end{equation}
which shows the dependence on the non equilibrium factor $\lambda$.
\section{Example of Dark Energy models}\label{s:}
In this section we shall discuss the variation of entropy at the cosmological event horizon that has been derived in the previous section for the following dark energy models:
\paragraph{I.~~~~~~Dark Energy as perfect fluid with constant equation of state}
~~~~\\\\Here we have
\begin{equation}
p_{D}=\omega_{D}\rho_{D},~~~-1<\omega_{D}<-1/3
\end{equation}
Then solving the flat Friedmann equations:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\dot{a}^{2}}{a^{2}}=\frac{8\pi G}{3} \rho_{D},~~~~
\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G}{3}\left( \rho_{D}+3p_{D}\right),
\end{equation}
we obtain
\begin{equation}
a=t^{\frac{1}{\alpha}},~~~~\rho_{D}=\frac{3}{8\pi G \alpha^{2}t^{2}}
\end{equation}
with $\alpha=\frac{3}{2}\left(1+\omega_{D}\right)$,~~$0<\alpha<1$.\\\\
The radius of the event horizon is given by
\begin{equation}
R_{E}=a\int_{t}^{\infty}\frac{dt}{a}=\frac{\alpha t}{1-\alpha}
\end{equation}
So from equation (14) we get
\begin{equation}
\frac{dS_{T}}{dt}=f'(R_{E})\left(\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}\right)\left[1+
\frac{f'(R_{E})}{12\pi \lambda t}\right]
\end{equation}
~\\In particular assuming Bekenstein entropy at the event horizon i.e. $f(R_{E})=\frac{\pi R_{E}^{2}}{G}$~we have\\
\begin{equation}
\frac{dS_{T}}{dt}=\frac{2\pi R_{E}}{G}\left(\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}\right)\left[1+\frac{\alpha}{6G\lambda (1-\alpha)}\right]
\end{equation}
This can be considered as the entropy change of the shifted event horizon $(\widetilde{R}_{E})$~with
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{R}_{E}=R_{E}\left[1+\frac{\alpha}{6G\lambda (1-\alpha) }\right]
\end{equation}
and it depends on the equation of state on the equation of state parameter $\alpha$~and the thermal conductivity $\lambda$.This change of entropy of the event horizon is very similar to that for apparent horizon (Gong et al,2009).\\
\paragraph{II.~~~Dark Energy with variable equation of state:\\Holographic Dark energy Model}~\\\\
We shall consider holographic dark energy (DE) model with non interacting dark matter.Recent cosmological observations demand an accelerating phase of the present universe which is driven by a missing energy density with negative pressure-the dark energy (DE).An approach to the problem of DE is holographic model (M.Li 2004;Setare and Shafei 2006;Wang et al 2005;Nojiri and Odinstov 2006;E.N.Sarikadas 2008;Pavon and Zimdahl 2005;Kim et al 2006). The holographic principle states that the no. of degrees of freedom for a system within a finite region should be finite and is bounded roughly by the area of its boundary.From the effective quantum field theory one obtains the holographic energy density as (A.G.Cohen et al 1999)
\begin{equation}
\rho_{D}=3C^{2}M_{p}^{2}L^{-2}
\end{equation}
where L is an IR cut-off in units $M_{p}^{2}=1$.
Li shows that (2004)if we choose L as the radius of the future event horizon,we can get the correct equation of state and the desired accelerating universe.Also in the above expression for $\rho_{D}$,C is any free dimensionless parameter whose value is determined by observational data (Huang and Li 2004;Z.Chang et al 2006;X.Zhang and F.-Q.Wu 2005;X.Zhang and F.-Q.Wu,2007;Saridakis and Setare 2008).However,in the present work we have taken C to be arbitrary.\\
Now the radius of the event horizon has the expression
\begin{equation}
R_{E}=a\int_{a}^{\infty}\frac{da}{aH^{2}}=\frac{C}{\sqrt{\Omega_{D}}H}
\end{equation}
~\\with $\Omega_{D}=\frac{\rho_{D}}{3H^{2}}$ is the density parameter.\\\\
The equation of state parameter of the holographic DE has the form [13]
\begin{equation}
\omega_{D}=-\frac{1}{3}-\frac{2\sqrt{\Omega_{D}}}{3C}
\end{equation}
and the variation of the density parameter is given by
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{D}'=\Omega_{D}^{2}(1-\Omega_{D})\left[\frac{1}{\Omega_{D}}+\frac{2}{C\sqrt{\Omega_{D}}}\right]
\end{equation}
with $'=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$,~~$x=lna$.\\
Hence the entropy change is now given by\\
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dS_{T}}{dt}\nonumber~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~\\
=f'(R_{E})\left(\frac{C}{\sqrt{\Omega_{D}}}-1\right)\left[
1+\frac{f'(R_{E})H}{12\pi\lambda}\left(1-\frac{\sqrt{\Omega_{D}}}{C}\right)\right] \end{eqnarray}
It should be noted that $C\neq\sqrt{\Omega_{D}} ,$because otherwise from equation (23) we have $R_{E}=\frac{1}{H}=R_{A}$~and it contradicts the restriction $R_{A}=\frac{1}{H}<R_{E}$~for flat FRW model.\\
Secondly for $C=\sqrt{\Omega_{D}}$,$R_{E}$ has an extreme value (a maximum)as well as for $S_{T}$.Then in the neighbourhood of the instant at which $R_{E}$ has an extreme value, we have $R_{E}<R_{A}$,again a contradiction.
\section{Short Discussion and Concluding Remarks}\label{s:}
The equilibrium thermodynamical properties of the universe bounded by the event horizon has been studied exhaustively in recent past (Wang et al 2006;N.Mazumder and S.Chakraborty 2009,2010a,2010b;S.Chakraborty et al 2011;J.Dutta and S.Chakrabory 2010c,2010d,).In most of the studies assuming the first law of thermodynamics the validity of the generalized second law of thermodynamics has been examined for various fluid distribution as well as for different gravity theory.It is found that in most of the cases generalized second law of thermodynamics hold with some realistic conditions.\\
In the present work,instead of considering the universe bounded by the event horizon as a reversible process we have chosen the system to be an irreversible process.In course of studying non equilibrium thermodynamical phenomena we have assumed for simplicity the heat conduction to be the dominant contribution for heat transfer both inside and on the surface of the horizon.Due to Wang et al (Wang et al 2006)as the universe bounded by the event horizon is not a Bekenstein system so we have assumed entropy as an arbitrary function of the radius of the event horizon and obtain a general expression for the time variation of the modified entropy of the event horizon.\\
Subsequently,we have presented two particular models namely DE with constant equation of state and holographic DE model with non-interacting dark matter.As a particular case choosing Bekenstein entropy area relation on the event horizon we have obtained a shift in the radius of the event horizon and similar to the apparent horizon case the net amount of change in the radius depends on the equation of state and the thermal conductivity.Finally,in the holographic DE model,the result remains same if we consider interaction in the holographic dark energy model.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Past theoretical models have demonstrated that the tidal interactions between a
protoplanetary disk and an embedded giant planet
clean out the region around the planet's orbit and open up a gap
\citep[e.g.][]{LP93,Ward97}. Therefore, the presence of a cavity in a
protoplanetary disk as revealed by dust continuum emissions
has at times been postulated as a potential signpost of an embedded gas giant
planet \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{Andrews11}. Non-planetary explanations
have also been proposed, e.g. grain growth, fast radial drift of dust, and
photoevaporation \citep[e.g.][]{WC11, TCL05}. Evidently, a thorough understanding
of the dust dynamics in a gaseous disk is essential for interpretation of such
observational results.
The aerodynamic drag is a well-known interaction between gas and dust in
protoplanetary disks. The presence of a radial pressure gradient causes the
azimuthal gas velocity to deviate from the circular Keplerian motion, resulting in
the super-Keplerian or sub-Keplerian motion. On the other hand, dust particles are
unaffected by the pressure within the disk. The resulting discrepancy in the
velocities gives rise to the drag force and hence a drift of the particles toward
the pressure maxima \citep[e.g.][]{HB03}.
This dust trapping mechanism has been previously applied to a circular disk with an
embedded gas giant planet. For instance, the outer edge of the gap opened up by the
planet can act as a filter to stall the radial drift of large particles in the
outer disk \citep{Riceet06}. In addition, dust that is well-coupled to the gas can
be temporarily trapped by the spiral density waves excited by the planet as the
waves pass by \citep{PM06}.
If the planet is sufficiently massive,
the disk exterior to the planet's orbit can become moderately eccentric and start
precessing on the secular timescale, depending on the disk mass and viscosity
\citep{Papa01,KD06}. Eccentric protoplanetary disks in binary systems have also
been observed in simulations as a result of the influence of a companion star
\citep[e.g.][]{MK12}. This phenomenon is reminiscent of eccentric disks in the SU
Ursae Majoris systems, which have been long proposed to account for the superhump
light curves \citep[e.g.][]{Wh88}. The eccentricity is excited exponentially and
secularly by the tidal forcing of the companion star via the 3:1 eccentric Lindblad
resonance \citep{Lubow91}. \citet{GO06} carried out a linear analysis for the
secular perturbations with the azimuthal mode number $m=1$, and derived the
so-called eccentricity equation for a gaseous disk. The equation
describes the eccentric instability in terms of ``eccentric modes", with the growth
and precession rates determined by given disk properties such as sound-speed and
density profiles \citep[also see][]{Lubow10}. In the presence of dissipation that
damps eccentricity\footnote{\citet{GO06} introduced a bulk viscosity to
parameterize the eccentricity damping. It should be kept in mind that shear
viscosity may facilitate eccentricity growth rather than damping
\citep{Kato78,O01}. Furthermore, viscosity also affects how a disk is tidally
truncated and thus determines the density at the eccentric resonances, which in
turn factors the eccentricity excitation \citep{MK12}. Nonlinear dissipation
through shocks or tidal stresses also affect the saturation of the eccentricity
growth \citep{Paardet08}.},
the slowly precessing
disk finally settles into a steady state in which the eccentricity and longitude of
pericenter are smooth functions of the disk radius.
In such an eccentric protoplanetary disk harboring a massive planet, the orbits of
dust particles would be eccentric as well due to the gas drag. The standard
gas-dust dynamics as analyzed for circular orbits \citep[e.g.][]{W77,TL02} is
unable to yield the dust velocity and the corresponding spatial density
distribution accurately. One straightforward approach for studying the dust
behavior in eccentric disks is to utilize two-fluid (gas + dust) hydrodynamic
simulations such as SPH codes and RODEO \citep{PM06}. In fact, because several
giant planets have been discovered in close stellar binaries (binary separation $<$
20 AU), a large body of the literature and considerable attention have been devoted
to eccentric circumstellar disks in these binaries to examine the outcome of
planetesimal collisions on the formation of giant planets \citep[e.g.][and
references therein]{Paardet08}. For dust particles, \citet{Fouchet10} performed 3D
SPH simulations to investigate the dynamics of dust with sizes from 0.1 mm to 1 cm
in protoplanetary disks, including an eccentric disk driven by a planet of 5
Jupiter masses on a fixed circular orbit at 40 AU. After about 100 planetary
orbits, they found that 1 cm-sized dust had accumulated in the strong spiral
density waves just around the outer region of the gap in the disk in which the
eccentricity is still evolving.
At present, SPH simulations are still computationally expensive. For a small
perturber like a planet, a tremendous length of time is required to reach
quasi-steady states for the study of any features related to secular effects.
Therefore, for the sake of convenience, we run the FARGO code \citep{M00} to obtain
the gas profile in a two-dimensional disk with a massive planet, and then employ
the secular perturbation theory and incorporate aerodynamic drag \citep{Paardet08}
to estimate the dust velocity and density that will in turn reveal the
asymmetric structures inherent to an eccentric disk.
The purpose of this study is to focus only on the secular behaviors of dust
associated with an eccentric protoplanetary disk in the presence of a massive giant
planet. Therefore, non-secular effects, such as dust-gas dynamics in the horseshoe
orbit and whether dust particles can drift toward the peaks of spiral density waves
in an eccentric disk \citep{Fouchet10}, are not studied in this work.
The paper is organized as follows. In \S2, we first describe the fiducial disk
model for the study. We then briefly review the eccentricity equation for dust and
explain our approach for solving the problem in \S3. The results for the fiducial
models of a protoplanetary disk and for a simple transition disk are presented in
\S4. We finally summarize the results and discuss the limitations of our work in
\S5.
\section{DISK MODELS}
A geometrically thin protoplanetary disk with an embedded gas giant planet is
numerically simulated using the FARGO code, a two-dimensional hydrodynamic code
employing an efficient modification of standard transport algorithm \citep{M00}.
Therefore, the disk pressure and density are vertically integrated quantities. The
simulations are conducted in polar coordinates $(r, \phi)$ centered on the
protostar.
The quantities in FARGO are dimensionless. The semi-major axis of the planet $a_p$
is taken to be the length unit and the mass of the central protostar $M_\star$ is
adopted as the mass unit. The time unit is obtained from
$\Omega_p^{-1}=(a_p^3/GM_\star)^{1/2}$ and the gravitational constant $G$ is set to 1 in
FARGO.
In this study, we consider the following fiducial model with standard parameters
for a locally isothermal and initially axi-symmetric gas disk \citep[cf.][]{KD06}:
$M_\star = 1 M_\odot$, $a_p = 5$ AU, and a constant aspect ratio $H/r = 0.05$,
where $H$ is the vertical pressure scale height of the disk. We adopt $\nu = 1
\times 10^{-5}$ and $\Sigma(t=0) = 1\times 10^{-4}$ to be the values of the
dimensionless kinematic viscosity and initial uniform surface density,
respectively. The surface density corresponds to about 35.6 g cm$^{-2}$, amounting
to approximately a disk mass of $5.03\times 10^{-3} M_\odot$ inside $4a_p=20$ AU.
Because all the quantities are dimensionless in FARGO, we also lower the surface
density by using the larger length-scale $a_p=100$ AU to simulate a simplified
model that resembles a ``transition disk"\footnote{Transition disks are commonly
referred to as a class of protoplanetary disks containing an optically thin inner
region and an optically thick outer disk, as implied from their infrared and
(sub)millimeter spectral energy distributions \citep[e.g.][]{WC11}. In this work,
the term ``transition disks" is loosely used for an idealized disk with an overall
low surface density, which may bare a resemblance to ``anemic" or ``homologously
depleted" disks discussed in the literature \citep[e.g.][]{Andrews11}.} with an
embedded gas giant planet far away from its protostar. That is, with the same disk
mass $5.03\times 10^{-3} M_\odot$ inside $4a_p=400$ AU, the surface density of the
transition disk is about 0.09 g cm$^{-2}$. A number of gas giants have been
directly imaged at $a_p
>$ 50-100 AU around their main-sequence host stars (see The Extrasolar Planets
Encyclopedia website at http://exoplanet.eu). How and when these planets lie on the
current large orbits is still an open question. Some planet formation and migration
models \citep[e.g.,][]{Boss11,Crida09} suggest that these planets could have been
situated on the large orbits back to their T Tauri epochs when their protoplanetary
disks were still present, as is considered here for the transition disk.
To excite a noticeable disk eccentricity even for a planet on a circular orbit, we
employ the initial mass ratio $q\equiv m_p/M_\star = 5 \times 10^{-3}$
\citep{KD06}. The planet mass $m_p$ is allowed to grow by setting the inverse of
the accretion timescale to $2$ \citep{K99}\footnote{Namely, in each normalized time
step $\Delta t$, the surface density of the gas inside the Roche radius of the
planet is reduced by about a factor of $2\Delta t$, which is added to the planet
mass.}.
The softening length is 0.4
times of the Hill radius of the planet. Disk self-gravity is neglected. We force
the planet on a fixed circular/eccentric orbit with the apocenter located in the
$\phi=0$ direction; namely, we omit the gravitational force exerted by the disk on
the planet and the increments in momentum due to the mass accretion. Hence,
planetary migration is not considered. Ignoring planetary migration is justified
because we are interested in physical properties of an eccentric disk on secular
timescales. These timescales are shorter than the typical Type II planetary
migration timescale $\sim r^2/\nu$ \citep{Ward97}, which is about a few $10^5$
dynamical time in our model. In the simulation, the planet initially orbits the
central star counterclockwise from $\phi=0$.
The computational domain in the $r$ and
$\phi$ is $[0.4, 4.0] \times [0, 2\pi]$ with resolutions $(N_r, N_\phi) =
(256,768)$. At both the inner and outer boundaries, we apply the non-reflecting
boundary condition to avoid unphysical reflecting waves.
As for dust particles in the gaseous disk, we do not consider any dust size
distributions. For the dust of a given size, we simply assume that the dust-to-gas
ratio of the unperturbed disk (i.e., the disk in the absence of a planet) is 0.01.
Modelling dust dynamics in the presence of a planet is described in the next
session.
\section{SECULAR EVOLUTION OF THE DUST}
Since FARGO is a hydrodynamical code and not formulated to simulate dust particles,
our approach for dust dynamics in an eccentric gaseous disk is to consider the
secular evolution of the dust using the secular perturbation theory, which gives
rise to the eccentricity equation. The equation describes the secular evolution of
a massless particle perturbed by a companion. Given the drag force, the dust motion
and surface density can then be deduced from the gas dynamics in the quasi-steady
state of an eccentric disk in FARGO. However, to compute the secular evolution of
dust particles, we need to filter out the short-term evolution on the orbital
timescale of the planet in the gas simulation. As noted in the Introduction, the
eccentric equation has been modified to include the gas drag and applied to
planetesimals in a protoplanetary disk in binaries \citep{Paardet08}. As per
Paardekooper et al., we adopt the same eccentricity equation for solids, but with
the perturbed potential in terms of the Lapalace coefficients
\citep[e.g.][]{Tremaine98,MD99} and the gas drag appropriate for small particles
(i.e. micron to meter instead of km size). The details are described as follows.
\subsection{Eccentricity equation for the dust}
In the subsection, we briefly review the eccentricity equation for dust particles
in accordance with the the linear analysis for a gas disk by \citet{GO06}, in which
the variables such as velocities and density are expanded as power series in terms
of $\epsilon \equiv H/r$.
\citet{GO06} considered a 2D gaseous disk with the axi-symmetric basic state
allowing for a small deviation from the Keplerian circular angular velocity
$\Omega_K$ to the accuracy of the order $\epsilon^2 \equiv (H/r)^2$, due to the
small background pressure gradient and orbit-averaged planet potential. After
introducing the $m=1$ perturbations in the form of
$\mathcal{R}[x'(r,t)\exp(-i\phi)]$, where $\mathcal{R}$ denotes the real part, they
showed that the complex eccentricity is related to the perturbed velocities at the
zeroth order of $\epsilon$ (denoted by the subscript 0):
\begin{equation}
u_{g,0}' = ir\Omega_K E_g, \qquad v_{g,0}' = \frac{1}{2}r\Omega_K E_g,
\label{eq:epic_g}
\end{equation}
where $u$ and $v$ are the radial and azimuthal velocities. $E_g$ is the complex
eccentricity of the form $e_g\exp(i\varpi_g)$ with the eccentricity, $e_g(r,t)$, as
the amplitude, and the longitude of pericenter, $\varpi_g(r,t)$, as the phase
angle. The subscript $g$ represents the gas to distinguish it from the subscript
$d$ for dust to be used later in the paper. The above equation describes the
Keplerian motion of the gas with a small eccentricity $e_g$, thus giving the
following relation for the epicyclic motion
\begin{equation}
u_{g,0}'=2iv_{g,0}'.\label{eq:epic_g_2}
\end{equation}
In order to examine the secular evolution of an eccentric disk resulting from the
weak companion potential and small radial pressure gradient, \citet{GO06} proceeded
to the next order (i.e. at $O(\epsilon^2)$, denoted by the subscript 2) and
obtained the evolutionary equation for the complex eccentricity $E_g$.
Likewise, the eccentricity equation for dust particles can be obtained from the
linearized equations with zero pressure. In the basic state, the dust particles in
a disk are assumed to be steady, non-self-gravitating, and axi-symmetrically
distributed. As such, the basic state of the dust motion reads\footnote{The same
expansion in terms of $\epsilon$ applied to dust equations implies that the dust
forms the same disk as the gaseous disk with the same $H/r$ under the assumption of
the constant dust-to-gas ratio in a 2D disk.}
\begin{equation}\label{bg_d_1}
r\Omega_{d,0} = \frac{\partial \Phi_0}{\partial r} = r\Omega_K,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{bg_d_2}
2r\Omega_{d,0}\Omega_{d,2} = \frac{\partial \Phi_2}{\partial r} + {1\over t_s}
(u_{d,2}-u_{g,2}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{bg_d_3}
u_{d,2}\Omega_{d,0} = - \frac{2r}{t_s}(\Omega_{d,2} - \Omega_{g,2}),
\end{equation}
In the above equations, $\Phi_0$ is the primary potential from the central
protostar, $\Omega_{d,2}$ is the dust angular velocity departure from $\Omega_K$
due to the orbit-averaged planet potential $\Phi_2$ and the radial gas drag, and
$\Omega_{g,2}=(1/\Sigma_g)(dp_g/dr)/(2r\Omega_K)$ is the gas angular velocity
departure from $\Omega_K$ due to the radial pressure gradient $dp_g/dr$
\citep{GO06}. $u_{d,2}$ is the radial drift velocity arising from the gas drag
characterized by the stopping time in the Epstein regime \citep{W77}
\begin{equation}
t_s=\frac{\rho_d a_d}{\rho_g \bar{v}_{th}} \qquad {\rm if}\quad a_d<\frac{9}{4}
\lambda_g,
\end{equation}
where $a_d$ is the mean radius of the dust grains, $\rho_g$ is the gas mass
density, $\rho_d$ is the density of a dust particle, $\bar v_{th}$ is the mean
thermal velocity of the gas,
and $\lambda_g$ is the mean free path of the gas.
The stopping time $t_s$ measures the timescale for the coupling between the dust
and gas in the disk. Note that in the other regimes where $\lambda_g$ is much
smaller than $a_d$, the gas drag is fluid-like.
Therefore both the dust and gas velocities need to be known in advance to determine
the stopping time \citep{W77}. Because the dust velocities in eccentric orbits are
what we are solving for and thus not known beforehand, in this work, we therefore
focus only on the dust in the Epstein regime,
which can be verified in advance. As a matter of the fact, the Epstein drag is
adequate for the dust sizes and disk parameters considered in this study.
Combining Equations (\ref{bg_d_1})-(\ref{bg_d_3}), we obtain the radial drift
velocity in the basic state \citep[cf.][]{TL02}
\begin{equation}
u_{d,2}={\tau_s^{-1}u_{g,2}-\eta r\Omega_K - (1/\Omega_K)(d\Phi_2/dr) \over \tau_s
+ \tau_s^{-1}},\label{eq:u_d2}
\end{equation}
where $\tau_s=t_s \Omega_K$ is the dimensionless stopping time and
$\eta=-(c_s^2/r^2\Omega_K^2)(d\ln p_g/d\ln r)$ with the isothermal sound speed
$c_s^2=p_g/\Sigma_g$. For the rest of the work, we neglect $u_{g,2}$, which can be
related to the slow accretion flow \citep{O01}.
For the $m=1$ secular perturbations, the dust perturbed velocity at the zeroth
order can be expressed in terms of the dust eccentricity $E_d=e_d \exp(i\varpi_d)$
as has been done for the gas component:
\begin{equation}\label{dust_form}
u_{d,0}' = ir\Omega_K E_d \quad\quad v_{d,0}' = \frac{1}{2}r\Omega_K E_d,
\end{equation}
which describe the epicyclic motion with the relation
\begin{equation}\label{dust_relation}
u_{d,0}' = 2iv_{d,0}'.
\end{equation}
The eccentricity equation for dust particles can then be derived at $O(\epsilon^2)$
\citep[cf.][]{GO06}, as can be found in \citet{Paardet08}:
\begin{equation}
2r\Omega_K \frac{\partial E_d}{\partial (\epsilon^2 t)} =
-i\frac{E_d}{r}\frac{\partial }{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial
\Phi_2}{\partial r}\right) + {i\over r^2} {\partial \over \partial r} \left( r^2
\Phi'_2 \right)- \frac{2r\Omega_K}{t_s}(E_d-E_g),\label{eq:E_d}
\end{equation}
where the terms associated with resonant interactions and the radial drift velocity
$u_{d,2}$ are ignored because we focus only on secular evolutions of eccentric
orbits. The effect of the radial drift will be estimated separately by Equation
(\ref{eq:u_d2}). In the above equation, $\Phi'_2$ is the $m=1$ component of the
planet's potential due to the planetary eccentricity $E_p$ ($=e_p
\exp(i\varpi_p)$).
Equation (\ref{eq:E_d}) presents the complex form of the eccentricity equation in
terms of $h\equiv e\sin \varpi$ and $k \equiv e\cos \varpi$ derived from the
Lagrange's planetary equation in the secular perturbation theory
\citep[e.g.,][]{Tremaine98,MD99,MS00}. Hence, we can express $\Phi_2$ and $\Phi'_2$
in terms of the Lapalace coefficients,
and simplify Equation (\ref{eq:E_d}) to
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial E_d}{\partial (\epsilon^2 t)} = i
\frac{E_d}{t_{prec,d}}+i\frac{E_p}{t_{f}} -\frac{E_d-E_g}{t_s}, \label{eq:E_d_t}
\end{equation}
where $t_{prec,d}$ and $t_f$ are given by \citep[e.g.][]{Tremaine98,MD99}
\begin{eqnarray}
t_{prec,d}&=& \frac{4}{q}\left( \frac{r}{a_p} \right) \left(
\frac{1}{b_{3/2}^{(1)}\left( \frac{a_p}{r} \right)} \right) \frac{1}{\Omega_K},\\
t_{f}&=& \frac{4}{q}\left( \frac{r}{a_p} \right) \left(
\frac{1}{b_{3/2}^{(2)}\left( \frac{a_p}{r} \right)} \right) \frac{1}{\Omega_K},\\
\end{eqnarray}
and the Laplace coefficients $b_{3/2}^{(1)}$ and $b_{3/2}^{(2)}$ can be computed
numerically by Carlson's algorithm \citep{Presset92}. $t_{prec,d}$ is the
precession timescale of a free particle on an eccentric orbit, whereas $t_{f}$ is
related to the forced eccentricity in the secular perturbation theory (see below).
We consider the steady-state situation for dust particles. The eccentricity
equation (\ref{eq:E_d_t}) is then reduced to \citep[cf.][]{Paardet08}
\begin{equation}
E_d=E_f {1\over \sqrt{1+1/\tau_{s,sec}^2}} \exp [i\arctan (-(1/\tau_{s,sec})] + E_g
{1\over \sqrt{1+\tau_{s,sec}^2}} \exp [ i \arctan (\tau_{s,sec})].\label{EccEq}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_{s,sec} &\equiv &\frac{t_s}{t_{prec,d}},\label{eq:A} \\
E_f &\equiv &\frac{t_{prec,d}}{t_f} E_p.\label{eq:E_f}
\end{eqnarray}
In the above equations, $E_f$ is the forced eccentricity from the secular
perturbation theory, with the amplitude $e_f<e_p$. In addition, we define the
dimensionless ``secular" stopping time $\tau_{s,sec}$, the ratio of the stopping
time to the precession timescale of a free particle. In analogy to the definition
of $\tau_s$, $\tau_{s,sec}$ measures the degree of the coupling between a dust and
the gas in the secular evolution.
In the case of the planet on a circular orbit, $E_f=0$ and Equation (\ref{EccEq})
implies that $\varpi_d$ lags $\varpi_g$ by the phase angle $=\arctan
(\tau_{s,sec})$. When $\tau_{s,sec}\ll 1$, $E_d \approx E_g$ and therefore
particles are well-coupled to the gas on the secular timescale.
In this case, the dust orbit is almost identical to the gas eccentric orbit.
When $\tau_{s,sec}>1$, the particles are weakly coupled to the gas, and the drag
force wields no or little effects. Thus, the dust particles are in near-Keplerian
circular motion, provided that the planetary eccentricity is zero. Nevertheless,
all dust orbits with different eccentricities and pericenters precess with the gas
at the same rate in a steady state.
On the other hand, for eccentric planet orbits ($e_p \neq 0$), $E_f$ in Equation
(\ref{EccEq}) may affect $E_d$ significantly depending on $\tau_{s,sec}$. In the
regime where $\tau_{s,sec} \ll 1$, the dust is strongly coupled to the gas and thus
$E_d \approx E_g$. In the other regime where $\tau_{s,sec} > 1$, the gas drag does
not dominate the dust motion but plays a role secondary to the planet's potential
in providing the free eccentricity to dust particles in the steady state
\citep{Paardet08}.
When $\tau_{s,sec}|E_f|> |E_g|$ for a given dust size, Equation (\ref{EccEq})
describes pericenter alignment of the dust with a libration rate equal to the
precession rate of the gas disk $\dot \varpi_g$. If $\tau_{s,sec}$ is moderately
larger than 1 as well, the alignment is close to the planet's pericenter.
\subsection{Calculations of dust velocity and density to the zeroth order}
Once $E_d$ is known from Equation (\ref{EccEq}), the secular solution of the dust
velocity as a function of $r$ and $\phi$ can be obtained as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
u_d &=& \mathcal{R}(u'_{d,0}e^{-i\phi}) + O(\epsilon^2) \nonumber \\
&=& r\Omega_K[\mathcal{R}(E_d) \sin\phi - \mathcal{I}(E_d) \cos\phi ] +
O(\epsilon^2),\\
v_d &=& r\Omega_K + \mathcal{R}(v'_{d,0}e^{-i\phi}) + O(\epsilon^2) \nonumber \\
& =& r\Omega_K + \frac{1}{2} r\Omega_K[\mathcal{R}(E_d) \cos\phi + \mathcal{I}(E_d) \sin\phi ] + O(\epsilon^2),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{R}$ and $\mathcal{I}$ denote the real and
imaginary parts, respectively.
To compute $E_d$ in Equation (\ref{EccEq}), we need the complex gas eccentricity
$E_g=e_g\exp(i\varpi_g)$. The values of $e_g$ and $\varpi_g$ can be derived from
the velocity fields in the simulation.
Time averaging is first performed to reveal the secular $m=1$ results associated
with the eccentric disk. We then calculate the eccentricity from the eccentricity
vector and compute the longitude of pericenter from $\phi = f + \varpi$, where
$\phi$ is the true longitude and $f$ is the true anomaly. In the FARGO code, the
direction of reference points to $\phi=0$
and for the case of $e_p \neq 0$,
$\varpi_p=\pi$ (i.e. $E_p=-e_p$).
To evaluate the stopping time, we employ the mean free path
\citep{Riceet06}
\begin{equation}
\lambda_g = \frac{4 \times 10^{-9}}{\rho_g}\text{ cm},
\end{equation}
where $\rho_g=\Sigma_g/(\sqrt{2}\pi H)$, $\Sigma_g$ is the gas surface density, and
$\rho_d = 1.25 \text{ g cm$^{-3}$}$ \citep{TL02}.
The non-axisymmetric dust spatial distribution associated with the secular
evolution in an eccentric disk is of great interest because it can be observed by
mapping the dust continuum emissions from a disk. The perturbed dust surface
density to the zeroth order is estimated from the $m=1$ linearized continuity
equation \citep{O01}:
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{d,0}'=r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(\Sigma_{d,0}E_d).\label{dust_den_pert}
\end{equation}
Consequently, the total dust surface density in the eccentric disk is given by
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_d = \Sigma_{d,0} + \mathcal{R}(\Sigma_{d,0}' e^{-i\phi})+ O(\epsilon^2).
\label{eq:Sigma_d}
\end{equation}
To obtain the zeroth-order basic state of dust density $\Sigma_{d,0}$ in the above
equation, we first take the azimuthal average of the gas density in the simulation
as the zeroth-order basic state, and assume the dust-to-gas ratio to be $0.01$
everywhere. Since we omit the size distribution of the particles, the computed dust
density does not represent the true magnitude.
\section{RESULTS}
We present the results for two different planetary eccentricities, $e_p=0$ and 0.1,
for a disk of standard parameters (a protoplanetary disk) and for a low-density
disk (a transition disk). The general gas dynamics in the dimensionless units for
our fiducial model is shown and described first. The physical units are then
considered to present the results for the dust velocities and the resulting dust
surface densities in both the protoplanetary and transition disks.
\subsection{General gas dynamics}
We present the results for the cases of $e_p=0$ and $e_p=0.1$ at $t=3000$ orbits to
illustrate the typical gas dynamics in a quasi-steady state. At this time, the
planetary mass increases by about 6.8\% in the $e_p=0$ case and by about 16\% in
the $e_p=0.1$ case. The gas surface density are shown in the top panels of Figure
\ref{fig:density_g}, where the planet lies at $(r,\phi)=(1,0)$ for $e_p=0$ and at
(1.1,0) for $e_p=0.1$. We plot the densities color-coded on the logarithmic scale
to clearly display the structure of the gap. The gas disk exterior to the planetary
orbit apparently becomes eccentric, especially in the gap region. Furthermore, the
exterior disk precesses slowly at the rate of $\dot \varpi_g \approx
-(1/399)\Omega_p$ for $e_p=0$ and $-(1/152.8)\Omega_p$ for $e_p=0.1$. The absolute
values of $\dot \varpi_g$ are much smaller than $\Omega_p$ indicative of the
secular behavior of the eccentric mode with $m=1$. The negative value implies
regression, i.e. retrograde precession. According to the linear theory by
\citet{GO06} and the simulation by \citet{KPO08}, the disk regression in our
simulation is probably due to the fact that the disk global pressure
gradient\footnote{The vertically integrated pressure of the 2-D disk is
proportional to $\epsilon^2 \Sigma_{g,0}/r$. In our model with prescribed constant
values of $\epsilon$ and $\Sigma_{g,0}$, the global pressure gradient is simply
proportional to $\epsilon^2 \Sigma_{g,0} /r^2$.} plays a more important role than
the planetary potential in contributing to $\dot \varpi_g$.
In contrast, the disk interior to the planetary orbit remains almost circular.
Besides the eccentric mode, the planetary potential also induces the short-period
features manifested by tightly wound spiral density waves in the top panels of
Figure \ref{fig:density_g}. The interior disk is dominated by the $m=2$ waves, as
has been typically seen in the simulations for a circular disk \citep[e.g.][]{K99},
whereas the exterior disk is dominated by the $m=1$ waves that are distorted by the
eccentric shape of the disk. These short-period features are associated with the
predominant modes with pattern speeds equal to $\Omega_p$ and $\Omega_p/2$
\citep{Lubow91,KD06}. As a result, the gas motions associated with the density
waves are periodic and would be cancelled out when averaged over one orbital cycle
of the planet to reveal secular features.
Because of the disk regression,
the time averaging is performed in the non-rotating frame for each grid point over
the period of $0.9975 \times 2\pi/\Omega_p$ for $e_p=0$ and $0.9935 \times
2\pi/\Omega_p$ for $e_p=0.1$, instead of one planetary orbital period
$2\pi/\Omega_p$.\footnote{Owing to the non-uniform angular motion along an
eccentric orbit, the time averaging in the $e_p=0.1$ case is less perfect than that
in the $e_p=0$ case. Nevertheless, the difference between the average over one
planetary period and over the smaller period taking into consideration the disk
regression is minuscule because the disk regression is slow.}
The resulting time-averaged gas density is presented in the bottom panels of Figure
\ref{fig:density_g}. At this point, the short-period features due to the tightly
wound spiral density waves are almost removed, albeit not completely. It is likely
due to the quasi-steady results. The color-coded density maps suggest that the gap
of the disk with the planet on an eccentric orbit appears wider but shallower than
that with the planet on a circular orbit. We plot the azimuthal average of the gas
densities in Figure \ref{fig:DenAve_vs_ep}, which confirms the gap shape in
relation to the planetary eccentricity. Note that the disk starts to become tidally
truncated roughly at the 3:1 eccentric outer and inner Lindblad resonances at
$r\approx 2.08$ and at $r \approx 0.48$, respectively. Hereafter in the paper, the
gap is referred to the region from $r \approx 0.5$ to 2.
The time-averaged density distribution of the exterior disk is predominated by the
$m=1$ azimuthal distribution, a feature associated with the eccentric mode.
However, the time-averaged gas flows inside the gap from $r\approx 0.5$ to 2 is
more complicated than the eccentric motions.
We examine whether Equation~(\ref{eq:epic_g_2}) is satisfied by an eccentric disk
at 3 different disk radii ($r=$ 1.5, 2, and 3) for the time-averaged flow. This is
illustrated in Figure \ref{check} for the $e_p=0$ (left panels) and $e_p=0.1$
(right panels) cases. For $r=1.5$, the black curves show that
Equation~(\ref{eq:epic_g_2}) is poorly satisfied,
likely a result of the irregular horseshoe orbit associated with an eccentric disk
and the non-linear effects due to the strong planetary potential. Secular effects
should be predominant away from the co-orbital region within the gap. Indeed,
farther away from the planet, all the curves become much smoother as shown for
$r=2$ and 3, indicating that the eccentric mode has become predominant. In view of
the complicated gas motion inside the gap, for the rest of study, we focus only on
the secular results outside $r=2$ where the azimuthal average of gas density
$\Sigma_{g,0}
> 9\times 10^{-5}$ for $e_p=0$ and $> 5\times 10^{-5}$ for $e_p=0.1$ as indicated
in Figure \ref{fig:DenAve_vs_ep}.
The departures of the gas velocity from the Keplerian circular motion (i.e. the
perturbed velocity) for the time-averaged disk are displayed in
Figure~\ref{fig:v_gas}. Both the perturbed radial velocity $u'_g=u_g$ and the
perturbed azimuthal velocity $v'_g=v_g-r\Omega_K$ exhibit $m=1$ azimuthal profiles,
as to be expected from the bottom panels of Figure \ref{fig:density_g}. Moreover,
Figure~\ref{fig:v_gas} shows that the phase difference between $u_g$ and
$v_g-r\Omega_K$ is $90^\circ$, in agreement with the epicyclic motion for an
eccentric disk described by Equation (\ref{eq:epic_g_2}). Namely, $u_g\approx
u'_{g,0}$ and $v_g-r\Omega_K \approx v'_{g,0}$ as has been verified in Figure
\ref{check}. According to the color coding, the perturbed velocities are larger
around the outskirts of the gap region (i.e. $r\gtrsim 2$) and become progressively
smaller toward the edge of the simulated disk, implying that the disk eccentricity
decreases with the radius. This is confirmed by the azimuthally averaged
eccentricity profile of the gas disk as shown in the solid lines in
Figure~\ref{fig:ecc_ep=0}, which is similar to the eccentricity profile shown in
\citet{KD06}. Note that the eccentricity profile is calculated and plotted all the
way into the gap and inner disk region in order to facilitate comparison with the
results from \citet{KD06}. The fast decay of the eccentricity profile with radius
beyond the planet's orbit seems to be in agreement with that of a confined
eccentric mode in the linear secular theory by \citet{GO06}, even though an
eccentric disk is not a good description of a horseshoe flow within the gap (see
Figure \ref{check}). In the exterior disk, the magnitudes of the epicyclic
velocities and the corresponding disk eccentricities are similar between the
$e_p=0$ and 0.1 cases.
\subsection{Protoplanetary Disks}
Now we turn to the specific case for the protoplanetary disk with $a_p=5$ AU.
The values of the gas velocities in the eccentric disk can be obtained by
multiplying the velocities in Figure \ref{fig:v_gas} by $1.33\times 10^6$ cm
s$^{-1}$.
Figure \ref{vrd_8000_5} illustrates the perturbed velocities for the particles with
the size of $1\times10^{-2}$ cm and $100$ cm in the $e_p=0$ case. The figure shows
the $m=1$ distribution due to the eccentric exterior disk. The results for the two
particle sizes are indistinguishable because $\tau_{s,sec}\ll 1$ in
Equation~(\ref{EccEq}). More specifically, $\tau_{s,sec}$ is $1.67 \times
10^{-(6-7)}$ for the 0.01 cm-sized dust particles and
$1.67\times 10^{-(2-3)}$ for the 100 cm-sized dust particles.
Hence the particles smaller than one meter are well coupled to the gas by the
strong gas drag.
It is further validated in Figure \ref{fig:vd-vg}, which shows small fractional
differences ($\ll 1$) between the dust velocities in Figure \ref{vrd_8000_5} and
the gas velocities in the left panels of Figure~\ref{fig:v_gas}.\footnote{The
fractional velocity differences for the meter-sized particles become larger than
0.1 in the narrow black regions (i.e. out of the top scale) in the right panels of
Figure~\ref{fig:vd-vg}. It is because in these regions $u_g$ or $v'_g$ is close to
zero (see Figure~\ref{fig:v_gas}) such that the slight phase difference in the
velocity for the larger particle (i.e. meter-sized) leads to the larger fractional
differences. Hence, the narrow black regions do not indicate weak coupling between
the gas and particles.} Similar results for strong dust-gas coupling are also found
for the $e_p=0.1$ case; the perturbed dust velocities (not shown) are almost
identical to those displayed in the right panels of Figures~\ref{fig:v_gas} and the
values of $\tau_{s,sec}$ are on the same order as those for the $e_p=0$ case.
Figure~\ref{fig:ecc_ep=0} shows that in both the $e_p=0$ and $e_p=0.1$ cases, the
eccentricity profile of the gas disk and that of the well-coupled dust coincide and
decrease outwards from $e=0.08$ at $r=2$. Consequently, as in the case for the gas
disk, the $m=1$ velocity fields for dust particles are more prominent in the region
around the outer edge of the gap where the radial velocity associated with the
eccentric orbit is up to about 744.8 m/s. The forced eccentricity $e_f=|E_f|$ is
also plotted in the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:ecc_ep=0} for comparison with
the case where $e_p$ is non-zero. It is apparent that in the region that our study
focuses on (i.e. $r\geq 2$), the dust particles with size smaller than 1 m are so
well-coupled to the gas that their eccentricity profiles are clearly distinct from
$e_f$, i.e. $E_d\approx E_g$ for $\tau_{s,sec} \ll 1$ from Equation (\ref{EccEq}).
Consequently, all particles smaller than 1 m regress with the gas disk at the same
rate in the steady state.
The time-averaged surface densities for the 0.01 cm- and 100 cm-sized particles are
shown in Figure \ref{den_8000_5}. The $e_p=0$ case is plotted in the left panels
and the $e_p=0.1$ case is presented in the right panels.
By comparison with the bottom panels of Figure \ref{fig:density_g}, we can see that
the $m=1$ distributions of the dust and gas density look similar. In fact, a more
careful comparison indicates that the dust density distributions for all the cases
are almost identical to the gas density distribution, as one would expect for
well-coupled dust particles. The dust distributions are asymmetric in the exterior
eccentric disk.
The location of the azimuthally averaged longitude of pericenter $\varpi_{d,ave}$
is illustrated on the disk by the plus signs, which are almost $180^{\circ}$ apart
from the dust density peak as shown in the figure. It can be easily understood by
inspecting Equations~(\ref{dust_den_pert}) \& (\ref{eq:Sigma_d}). The perturbed
dust density $\Sigma'_{d,0}$ is approximately equal to $\Sigma_{d,0} E_d (d\ln e_d/
d\ln r$), where $d\varpi_d /dr$ has been neglected, as can be validated from Figure
\ref{den_8000_5}. Since $d\ln e_d/ d\ln r <0$ from Figure \ref{fig:ecc_ep=0},
$\Sigma'_{d,0} \propto -E_d.$\footnote{It is worthy noting that since $E_d \propto
-iu'_{d,0}$, it explains why the dust pericenters $\varpi_{d,ave}$ trace the same
radial contour as $u'_{d,0}=0$ in the first quarter of the velocity map as shown in
Figure \ref{vrd_8000_5}.} Hence the phase difference between $\Sigma'_{d,0}$ and
$E_d$ is $180^{\circ}$, implying that the density peak lies more or less at the
location of the apocenter of the disk. The result can be found quite intuitive by inspecting
the divergence of the dust velocity fields shown in Figure \ref{vrd_8000_5}.
As the dust particles move toward
the apocenter (pericenter), the divergence of the velocity fields is negative (positive)
and thus the streamlines
are being compressed (rarefied), therefore
finally reaching the maximum (minimum) surface density at the apocenter (pericenter).
We see from Figure \ref{den_8000_5} that after time averaging, there still exist
residual density fluctuations associated with short-period density waves, as has
already been noted for Figure \ref{fig:density_g} in the paper. Nevertheless, the
residual density is small enough to reveal the density profiles corresponding to
the secular $m=1$ eccentric disk. It is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:Den_1D},
which shows the background and perturbed density profiles along the polar direction
where the time-averaged dust density $\Sigma'_{d,0}$ is at its maximum.
Corresponding to $\phi=110^\circ$ and $300^\circ$ respectively for the $e_p=0$ and
$0.1$ cases in Figure \ref{den_8000_5}, Figure~\ref{fig:Den_1D} shows that although
the residual waves are present, they are small enough for the identification of the
secular value of $\Sigma'_{d,0}$ from order-of-magnitude estimates.
In terms of the dimensionless units, the background dust surface density
$\Sigma_{d,0}$ is about $10^{-6}$. Figure \ref{fig:Den_1D} indicates that the
excess/deficit of the dust density $\Sigma'_{d,0}$ associated with the $m=1$
eccentric disk is about $10^{-7}$ (i.e. $\sim 0.1\Sigma_{d,0}$).
Other than the secular density perturbations of dust due to the eccentric disk, we
also estimate the local density perturbations of dust due to the tightly wound gas
density waves for comparison. The perturbed gas density of the spiral density waves
$\Sigma'_{g,wave}$ is about $0.1 \Sigma_{g,0}$ from the hydrodynamical simulation.
Given the dust-to-gas ratio 0.01, the perturbed dust density associated with the
density waves is then given by $0.01\Sigma'_{g,wave} \sim 0.001 \Sigma_{g,0} = 0.1
\Sigma_{d,0}$, which is about the same order as the secular density perturbations
of dust $\Sigma'_{d,0}$.
The above 2D dust analysis does not take into account the background radial drift
with the speed described by $u_{d,2}$ in Equation (\ref{eq:u_d2}). The importance
of the radial drift can be evaluated by comparing the radial drift timescale
$t_{drift}\sim r/u_{d,2}$ to the precession time $t_{prec}=2\pi(399/\Omega_p)$ for
$e_p=0$ and $2\pi (152.8/\Omega_p)$ for $e_p=0.1$. Using Equation (\ref{eq:u_d2})
with $u_{g,2}=0$ and $d\ln p_g/d\ln r=-5/4$ in our isothermal model,
we find that $t_{prec}/t_{drift}$ is about $5\times 10^{-(3-4)}$ for 0.01 cm-sized
dust particles and about 0.3-0.5 for 100 cm-sized particles. Meter-sized particles
drift inwards relatively fast at a rate almost comparable to the precession rate
because the dimensionless stopping time $\tau_s \sim 1$ for meter-sized particles
\citep{W77} in contrast to $\tau_s\ll 1$ for 0.01 cm-sized dust particles. The
values of $t_{prec}/t_{drift}$ imply that the particles smaller than 1 m slowly
drift inwards to the adjacent eccentric orbit after a number of orbital regressions
in the protoplanetary disk.
\subsection{Transition Disks}
To study the dust behavior in a ``transition" disk defined simply by a disk with a
low gas density, we apply $a_p = 100$ AU as the new length unit to the
dimensionless simulation results presented in \S4.1. The initial gas density is
then reduced to about $8.89\times 10^{-2}$\ g cm$^{-2}$. The resulting disk accretion rate $\sim
\nu \Sigma$ is diminished by a factor of 90 or so.
The drag force is weakened accordingly due to the low gas density. Hence, the
spatial distribution of the dust particles with different sizes would be
significantly different.
The departures from the Keplerian circular velocity for particles of 3 different
sizes (0.01, 1, and 100 cm) are shown in Figure \ref{fig:vrd_8000_100_ep=0} for
$e_p=0$ and in Figure \ref{fig:vrd_4000_100_ep=0.1} for $e_p=0.1$. In comparison to
the results from the gas velocity map in Figure \ref{fig:v_gas}, particles smaller
than 1 cm are still tightly coupled to the gas but meter-sized particles become
weakly coupled in the transition disk. As a result, the radial velocity of the gas
and that of the well-coupled dust can reach about 167-171 m/s around the outer edge
of the gap, while the radial velocity of meter-sized particles exhibit different
magnitudes; namely, 40-53 m/s for $e_p=0$ and 145-152 m/s for $e_p=0.1$ at the
outer edge of the gap. The larger velocity for the meter-sized particles in the
$e_p=0.1$ case is due to excitation by the planet eccentricity.
There exists a pronounced azimuthal phase difference in the velocities between the
small and large particles.
Figure \ref{fig:den_100} shows the dust density distributions for the 3 different
particle sizes in the transition disk. The dust density distribution is similar to
that for the gas in the cases of the 0.01 cm-sized and 1 cm-sized dust particles.
In both the $e_p=0$ and $e_p=0.1$ cases, the value of $\tau_{s,sec}$ in the exterior
disk is about
$10^{-(3-4)}$ for the 0.01 cm-sized particles, which is 100 times smaller than that
for the 1 cm-sized particles and 4 orders of magnitude smaller than that for 100
cm-sized particles. Meter-sized particles are still in the Epstein regime but
become weakly coupled to the gas due to the low gas density (i.e.
$\tau_{s,sec}>1$).
As a result, the spatial distribution appears to be distinctly different between
small dust grains and meter-sized particles. The location of the pericenter at each
annulus is denoted by the plus sign in Figure \ref{fig:den_100}. As in the case for
the standard disk discussed in \S4.2, the apocenters of the transition disk are
almost aligned. Further, the density excess (deficit) resides around the apocenter
(pericenter) of the dust.
In the $e_p=0$ case, the corresponding phase difference between the 1 cm- and 100
cm-sized particles is about 80$^\circ$, as shown in the left panels of Figure
\ref{fig:den_100}, in agreement with $\arctan (\tau_{s,sec})\approx
\arctan (10)$ as described in \S3.1. Despite the phase difference, particles of
different sizes regress with the gas disk at the same rate in the steady state. In
the $e_p=0.1$ case, the pericenters of meter-sized particles are always close to
the pericenter of the planet even though Figure \ref{fig:den_100} only shows a snap
shot.
The azimuthal averages of dust and gas eccentricities are shown in Figure
\ref{ecc_8000_100} for comparison. In the exterior disk for $e_p=0$ (left panel),
the eccentricity of the weakly coupled particles marked in red (1 m) is smaller
than that of well-coupled grains marked in blue (0.01 cm) and green (1 cm). In
contrast, in the case of $e_p=0.1$ (right panel), the eccentricity of meter-sized
particles become larger than that of the smaller dust in the region
that our study focuses on (i.e. $r\geq 2$); the $e_d$ of the meter-sized particles
is close to $e_f$, while the well-coupled dust (i.e. sizes smaller than 1 cm) still
lies on the same eccentric orbits of the gas and thus regress with the gas disk.
Because $\tau_{s,sec} \geq 1$ for meter-sized particles and Figure
\ref{ecc_8000_100} shows that $e_f
> e_g $, we have $\tau_{s,sec}e_f > e_g$. Thus, the orbits of the large particles librate instead
of regressing with the gas. The libration rate equals the regression rate, as noted
in \S3.1. Additionally, at $r\gtrsim 2$, the value of $\tau_{s.sec}$ of meter-sized
particles is the largest. It explains why the pericenters of meter-sized particles
at such distances are close to the planetary pericenter.
As the dust particles become less coupled to the gas, the drag force wields less
influence on the orbital motions of them. Therefore, the eccentric mode for dust
excited by aerodynamic drag becomes less pronounced.
It follows that in the absence of $e_p$, the weakly coupled particles are in
near-Keplerian circular motions and thus their spatial distribution is close to
axi-symmetric as manifested in the lower color contrast in the lower left panel of Figure
\ref{fig:den_100}. This leads to the lower density contrast for the meter-sized
particles along the azimuthal direction of the disk. In the dimensionless unit, the
density contrast for meter-sized particles is only about 5$\times 10^{-8}$ ($\sim
0.05\Sigma_{d,0}$), which is only a fraction of the density contrast $10^{-7}$ ($\sim
0.1\Sigma_{d,0}$) for smaller particles.
In the case of $e_p=0.1$,
the density contrast for the asymmetric distribution of meter-sized particles shown
in the bottom right panel of Figure \ref{fig:den_100} is also about $5\times
10^{-8}$ ($\sim 0.05\Sigma_{d,0}$), despite the fact that their orbits are actually
more eccentrically forced by the planetary eccentricity. This is because the eccentric
gradient $de_d/dr$ is smaller, as shown in the right panel of Figure
\ref{ecc_8000_100}, leading to less compressive streamlines near the apocenter for
meter-sized particles.
Finally we estimate the effect of the radial drift of the dust particles on their
secular eccentric motion in the transition disk. We find that $t_{prec}/t_{drift}$
is on the order of $10^{-(0-2)}$ for the 0.01 cm-sized dust particles and $10^{-3}$
for the 100-cm particles. The ratio $t_{prec}/t_{drift} \sim 1$ for the 0.01
cm-sized dust only occurs near the location of $r=2$ where $\tau_s \sim 1$ and thus
the radial drift is fast enough \citep{W77} to be comparable to the precession
timescale. In contrast, the meter-sized dust drifts relatively slowly in the
transition disk because their $\tau_s \gg 1$. Overall, in most of the region of the
exterior disk, the ratio $t_{pres}/t_{drift}$ is small. This means that as in the
case of the protoplanetary disk, particles smaller than 1 m drift slowly inwards to
the adjacent eccentric orbit after a number of precessions in the transition disk.
\section{SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIONS}
We investigate the secular behavior of dust particles in a 2D eccentric
protoplanetary disk harboring a massive planet. One fiducial model is considered
with the following parameters: $M_\star=1\ M_\odot$, $M_p/M_\star\approx 5\times
10^{-3}$, $H/r=0.05$, $a_p=5$ AU, $\Sigma_g(t=0)=10^{-4}\times M_*/a_p^2=35.6$
g/cm$^2$, $\nu=10^{-5}\times a_p^2\Omega_p$, and the dust-to-gas ratio of the
unperturbed disk is 0.01 everywhere.
The disk is assumed to be non-self-gravitating. We apply
the fiducial model to the planet on a fixed circular and on a fixed eccentric orbit
with $e_p=0.1$.
We employ the FARGO code to extract the gas velocity and density from the 2-D
hydrodynamical simulation, and then apply the eccentricity equation with the gas drag
in the Epstein regime to study the dust dynamics. The simulations are performed for
a sufficient length of time for the gas disk to attain quasi-steady states. To reveal the secular
features of the disk, we average the gas properties over almost one planetary orbit
in order to eliminate most of the short-period features associated with the spiral
density waves driven by the orbital motion of the planet. Because the disk interior
to the planet remains nearly circular in the model and the gas motions inside the
gap deviate considerably from simple eccentric motions, we focus our study on the
eccentric disk almost exterior to the gap, i.e. $2\leq r/a_p \leq 4$. The gap of
the gas disk opened up by the planet on the eccentric orbit is slightly wider but a
little shallower than that by the planet on the circular orbit. The gas disk
regresses at the rate of about $(1/399)\Omega_p$ in the $e_p=0$ case and about
$(1/152.8)\Omega_p$ in the $e_p=0.1$ case.
The most important parameter for determining the gas-dust coupling on the secular
timescale in an eccentric disk is $\tau_{s,sec}$, the secular stopping time defined
as the ratio of the stopping time to the precession timescale for a free particle.
In our fiducial model for both the $e_p=0$ and $e_p=0.1$ cases, the spatial density
distribution and velocity fields of dust particles of size smaller than 1 m are
almost identical to those of the gas component due to the strong coupling through
the gas drag (i.e. $\tau_{s,sec}\ll 1$). The perturbed velocities, defined as the
velocity departures from the Keplerian circular orbit, are non-axisymmetric and
exhibit the $m=1$ azimuthal profile with the phase difference of 90 degrees between
the perturbed radial and azimuthal velocities as a consequence of the eccentric
disk. The density also exhibits the $m=1$ distribution, with a $180^\circ$ phase
difference relative to the perturbed azimuthal velocity. As a result, the density
excess (deficit) lies around the apocenter (periceter) of the disk, with a
magnitude of about 10\% of the background dust density. Because the eccentricity
decreases outwards from $e\approx 0.8$ at the outer edge of the gap, the $m=1$
structure is more prominent around the outer edge of the gap region. The perturbed
velocity in this region is about 744.8 m/s.
We also apply the fiducial model to the transition disk defined in our work loosely
by a protoplanetary disk with the overall low gas density equal to $8.89\times
10^{-2}$ g cm$^{-2}$. This is achieved by simply using the dimensionless results
from the same simulation but with the planet placed at $a_p=100$ AU as the new
length unit. In this low-density disk, meter-sized particles become weakly coupled
to the gas (i.e. $\tau_{s,sec} >1$), while smaller particles still move closely
with the gas on eccentric orbits (i.e. $\tau_{s,sec}\ll 1$). The velocity
departures from the Keplerian circular motion for small dust particles can be as
high as 167-171 m/s, and for meter-sized particles only reaches about 40-53 m/s in
the $e_p=0$ case but can be excited to about 145-152 m/s in the $e_p=0.1$ case.
Consequently in the $e_p=0$ case, meter-sized particles move in near-Keplerian
circular orbits, which, in the steady state, regress at the same rate as the orbits
of smaller dust particles but lag behind by about $80^\circ$. In the case of
$e_p=0.1$, the orbits of the meter-sized particles are more eccentrically excited
by the planetary eccentricity, with the pericenters roughly aligned with the
pericenter of the planet's orbit. The orbits of the meter-sized particles do not
regress with the gas disk but librate around the location close to the pericenter
of the planet. The $m=1$ density contrast resulting from the eccentric orbits is
about 5\% for meter-sized particles and about 10\% for the smaller particles.
The presence of gas drag also causes radial drift of the dust. In our fiducial
model for the protoplanetary and transition disks, the radial drift timescale is
smaller than the precession timescale of dust particles smaller than 1 m in most
regions of the eccentric disk.
Therefore, the particles under consideration do not migrate inwards noticeably
during the time for a few disk regressions. However, we anticipate that on the even
longer timescale the dust eventually drifts to the outer edge of the gap, as in the
case of a circular disk. Thus, the gap can act as a filter to stall the radial
drift of large particles as proposed by \citet{Riceet06}. We should also note that
in our model for the transition disk, the slow radial drift of particles results
from $\tau_s \gg 1$; namely, the gas becomes so tenuous that the particles are
almost decoupled from the gas in one orbit. When taking into account any long-term
disk evolution, it is conceivable that before the disk gradually loses mass and
evolves to the transition disk, $\tau_s$ of dust particles of certain sizes is
about 1. As a result, the eccentric disk almost loses dust particles of particular
sizes before it becomes a transition disk. This happens to some extend in the
simulation by \citet{Fouchet10}, where cm-sized particles are almost depleted in
most part of the disk by radial drift as the disk evolves. By comparison, our model
focuses on a particular stage with particles of all sizes present in the disk from
$r=2$-4$a_p$, implying that we have assumed that dust particles are continuously
replenished from the outer boundary. The evidence of gas replenishment to a
protoplanetary disk at late stages has been suggested by the observation of the AB
Aurigae disk \citep{Tang12}.
Although the simulated gas disk in our model is not turbulent, the large kinematic
viscosity $\nu$ is normally attributed to a turbulent flow. When the particles are
well coupled to the gas such that $\tau_s \ll 1$, turbulent diffusion may be
effective in smearing out the density inhomogeneity of dust. In a 2D disk, the rate
for the turbulent diffusion is proportional to the divergence of $\Sigma_g
(\nu/{\rm Sc}) \nabla (\Sigma_d/\Sigma_g)$ \citep[e.g.][]{TL02}, where Sc is the
Schmidt number given approximately by $1+\tau_s^2$ \citep{YL07}. In our model,
where a constant and uniform dust-to-gas ratio in the basic state is assumed,
$\nabla (\Sigma_d/\Sigma_g)$ is almost zero for well coupled dust particles and
thus the effect of turbulent diffusion is negligible. For meter-sized particles
sufficiently decoupled from the gas in the transition disk, $\tau_s \gg 1$ and the
timescale for the turbulent diffusion $\sim 10^5 \tau_s^2 (r/a_p)^2/\Omega_p$,
which is much larger than the regression/libration time $399/\Omega_p$ and
$152.8/\Omega_p$.
Therefore, turbulent diffusion is not important for the secular effects of our
analysis.
In a circular disk, well-coupled dust particles can be temporarily trapped in the
peaks of spiral density waves and more permanently in the Lindblad resonances
\citep{PM06}. The eccentric disk harboring a planet of 5 Jupiter masses simulated
by \citet{Fouchet10} exhibited a great concentration of 1 cm-sized dust particles
in the strong spiral wave just outside of the gap. In this work, we limit ourselves
to the secular evolution of dust. Hence, whether these transient and resonant
effects for dust trapping can also occur in an eccentric gaseous disk is not
addressed.
\citet{MK12} simulated eccentric circumstellar disks in binary star systems and
investigated how different physical parameters affect disk evolutions. They showed
that the gas eccentricity of a realistic radiative disk is smaller than that of a
locally isothermal disk. As a result, the dust eccentricity is expected to be
smaller than that in our results, and hence the asymmetric dust distribution in an
eccentric disk would present more of a challenge for detection.
Other than the aforementioned effects that are ignored, several phenomena have also
been left out in this work. In reality, dust particles can settle toward the
mid-plane and influence the disk gas. The efficiency of the dust settling depends
also on the stopping time, which evolves with the gas disk \citep{Fouchet10}. The
resulting thin, dense disk for dust with its relative motion to the gas leads to
the streaming instability, which clumps the dust \citep{YG05}. We are unable to
consider in our 2D model these effects involving vertical motions. In our model,
dust of various sizes are assumed to be uniformly distributed after the planet-disk
system settles into a quasi-steady state. We simply assume that the dust-to-gas
ratio is so small that dust motions are passively influenced by the gas motions
without any feedback to the gas dynamics. Another limitation of our model is that
dust growth/fragmentation have not been taken into account. Collisions among large
particles can produce smaller particles, which have the effect of smearing
out the distinct phase
differences of the asymmetric features between well and weakly coupled particles.
Orbital crossing between strongly and weakly coupled dust particles surely enhances
dust collisions and hence facilitates dust growth/fragmentation. Without
considering these effects, the dust size distribution is thus not modelled in our
study. Nevertheless, our work focussing only on secular dynamics of dust presents a
framework for future studies to explore more complicated gas-dust dynamics in an
eccentric disk.
Having described the limitations of our analysis, our results may render a basic
picture for ALMA (Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimer Array) and EVLA (Karl G.
Jansky Very Large Array) observations. The short-period features, such as the
tightly wound density waves, probably present formidable challenges to be
observationally resolved, but the secular features discussed in this study are more
large-scale, comparable to the gap size, and thus more promising detection-wise.
There exists a phase correlation for the $m=1$ structure between the gas velocity
fields and dust density distribution in an eccentric disk with an embedded massive
planet. The velocity departure from the Keplerian circular motion in our model can
be larger than 150 m/s, which is probably high enough for ALMA detectability. In
addition, the maximum dust emissions should be aligned with the apocenter of the
eccentric gap in an eccentric disk. We show that particles with sizes of 1 m and 1
cm may be distributed differently in the azimuthal direction of an eccentric disk
with a low gas density. Although large particles may be broken down into small dust
particles, perhaps an attempt to measure the spectral energy distribution with EVLA
in different azimuthal directions covering the wavelengths from 1 to tens of cm and
to ascertain whether the dust sizes depend on the azimuthal angle of a transition
disk with an eccentric gap is feasible.
The gap of the gaseous disk for $e_p=0.1$ is slightly shallower but wider than that
for $e_p=0$ in our model for $q\approx 5\times 10^{-3}$. This outcome seems to be
consistent with the parameter study by \citet{Hosseinbor07} for smaller planetary
masses $q\leq 10^{-3}$ on fixed orbits. Since we are concerned with dust dynamics
exterior to the gap, the gap shape does not introduce significant differences in the
results between the $e_p=0$ and $e_p=0.1$ cases.
Nonetheless, it has been known from theories that in the presence of eccentricity,
the planet-disk interaction does not depend only on the 3:1 eccentric Lindblad
resonance but may rely on other resonances \citep{GT80}. Using the same code with
the standard disk parameters, \citet{Hosseinbor07} suggested that the planetary
eccentricity enhances the
torques on the gas via eccentric corotation resonances against
the
opposite torques from Lindblad resonances and thus results in more gas in the gap.
The account does not explain why the gap opened up by an eccentric planet is wider,
which occurs beyond the disk radius $r\approx 1.2$-1.3 as shown in their Figure 4
and in our Figure \ref{fig:DenAve_vs_ep}. Note that at $r\approx 1.587$, the 2:1
eccentric corotation resonance overlaps with the 4:2 eccentric Lindblad resonance
as well as the 2:1 ordinary Lindblad resonance. Unfortunately, one is unable to
deduce sufficient information from resonant torques \citep{GT80} to determine the
evolution of the system when both the disk and planet possess eccentricity
\citep{O07}. Investigation following the method provided by \citet{O07} is
desirable for understanding the gap opening due to mean-motion resonances in an
eccentric disk.
In addition, \citet{Hosseinbor07} has cautioned that it is not self-consistent to
assume a fixed planetary orbit in their study. Our work, based on the same
assumption, is certainly plagued with the same problem. The eccentricity evolutions
of the disk and the planet should be coupled \citep{dAngelo06}, especially when the
disk-to-planet mass ratio is not negligibly small \citep{Papa01,Riceet08}. In the
linear secular theory solving for eccentric modes of a coupled planet-disk system,
the pericenter of the planet's orbit should not stand still as is assumed in our
model but rather precess as well. The precession rate is the eigenvalue of the
coupled planet-disk problem \citep{GO06} and therefore should be the same as that of
the disk. A self-consistent linear calculation as well as numerical works should be
conducted in the context that we have presented here.
Needless to say, our fiducial model for protoplanetary and transition disks only
presents suggestive results for azimuthal asymmetry of dust distributions in an
eccentric disk. Parameter studies built on our fiducial model should be conducted
to provide a more complete picture that encompasses a large variety of physical
conditions for protoplanetary disks at different stages.
\acknowledgments We thank Xuening Bai, Cl\'ement Baruteau,
Shigehisa Takakuwa, and Ya-Wen Tang for useful discussions. This work is partly supported by the NSC
grant in Taiwan through NSC 100-2112-M-001-005-MY3.
|
\section{Supplementary Information: Filtering of time-series steady-state data}
\begin{figure}[!th]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{params.eps}
\caption{\label{params}Optimal filter parameters at a constant near-threshold parametric drive. Solid lines indicate theoretical parameters for $\chi=57\mathrm{Hz}$,$\gamma=2.6\mathrm{Hz}$ and $\Delta=63\mathrm{Hz}$. Circles indicate parameters obtained from post-processing.}
\end{figure}
Optimal estimation was performed on quadrature measurements acquired while the cantilever was in thermal equilibrium. At each SNR of the low-fidelity measurement, simultaneous 45-second traces of the lock-in outputs $X,Y,\tilde X,\tilde Y$ were recorded using a data acquisition unit with no parametric drive applied to the cantilever, and with the fundamental mode frequency $f_0$ kept within 5Hz of the lock-in reference frequency. Data acquisition was then repeated using parametric drives of various detunings at the same SNR values. The lock-in reference frequency --- now shifted by the parametric drive detuning $\Delta$ --- was kept phase-locked to the drive voltage. A lock-in time constant of $\tau_c=300\mu\mathrm{s}$ was used so that the output oscillations (limited in frequency to $\Delta$) were contained within the output bandwidth.
In post-processing, the conditional variances $V_X$ and $V_Y$ were found by convolving the time series with a filter function (truncated to $22.5$ seconds) and calculating $\langle(X-X_{est})^2\rangle$ and $\langle(Y-Y_{est})^2\rangle$ over the second half of the data. The optimum conditional variance was then found by minimizing computationally over all filter parameters. The filter function, in both driven and undriven cases, has the general form
\begin{equation}\label{eq}
\left[\begin{matrix}
X_{\alpha, est} \\
Y_{\alpha, est}
\end{matrix}\right]
= \mathbf{H}(t)*\left[\begin{matrix}
\tilde X_\alpha(t) \\
\tilde Y_\alpha(t)
\end{matrix}\right] \; ,
\end{equation}
and the optimal filter matrix $\mathbf{H}(t)$ takes the general form\cite{njp}
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
\mathbf{H}(t) = \left[\begin{matrix}
g_1\cos(\Omega t-\phi) & g_2\sin(\Omega t)\\
g_3\sin(\Omega t) & g_4\cos(\Omega t+\phi)
\end{matrix}\right]e^{-\Gamma t} \; .
\end{equation}
where $g_n$, $\Omega$, and $\phi$ are positive real numbers. This filter function, in the parametrically driven case, assumes that $\chi<\Delta$ and that the quadratures are rotated by an angle $\alpha$ such that $X_\alpha-\tilde X_\alpha$ is maximally squeezed.
In the undriven case, the filter is simplified by the restrictions $g_n=g_0$ (for all $n$), and $\alpha=\phi=0$. Here, the rotation frequency $\Omega$ is kept to account for drifts in $f_0$. The remaining parameters $\Gamma$ and $g_0$ are functions of SNR.
In the parametrically driven case, the measurement quadratures were initially rotated to be aligned with the unconditional squeezing. The additional rotation angle $\alpha$ for which maximum conditional squeezing occurs was included as an optimisation parameter. This angle, as well as the filter parameters, are functions of SNR, decay rate $\gamma$, drive strength $\chi$ and detuning $\Delta$. Initial estimates of the filter parameters were calculated based on these known quantities according to theory derived in Ref.\ \cite{njp}.
Fig.\ \ref{params} compares the initial estimates of filter parameters to the converged optimal values used to obtain the results in Fig.\ \ref{fig4} (left). The optimised filter agrees reasonably well with theoretical estimates, although is more likely to converge to consistent values in the higher-fidelity regime and in regions with more distinct minima. This demonstrates that the optimal filter parameters described in Ref.\ \cite{njp} agree quantitatively with experiment.
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Constructions of LCK metrics}
\definition
A {\bf locally conformally K\"ahler} (LCK) manifold is a
complex manifold $M$, $\dim_{\mathbb C} M >1$, admitting
a K\"ahler covering $(\tilde M, \tilde \omega )$, with
the deck transform group acting on $(\tilde M, \tilde \omega)$
by holomorphic homotheties.
\hfill
For equivalent definitions and examples, see
\cite{_Dragomir_Ornea_} or \cite{_OV:survey_}.
\hfill
A (linear) Hopf manifold $H$ is a quotient of ${\mathbb C}^n\backslash 0$
by an action of ${\mathbb Z}$ generated by a linear map
$A:\; {\mathbb C}^n {\:\longrightarrow\:} {\mathbb C}^n$, with all eigenvalues
satisfying $|\alpha_i|<1$. It is easy to see that
the Hopf manifold is diffeomorphic to $S^1\times S^{2n-1}$.
Since $b_1(H)=1$ (an odd number), $H$ is non-K\"ahler.
In fact, this manifold is probably the earliest example
of a non-K\"ahler complex manifold known in mathematics.
However, any Hopf manifold is locally conformally
K\"ahler. This observation originated in works of Izu
Vaisman of 1970-ies; Vaisman defined and studied a strictly smaller class
of manifolds, called by him ``generalized Hopf''. Now these
manifolds are known as ``Vaisman manifolds'', because the name ``generalized Hopf manifold'' was already used by Brieskorn and van de Ven (see \cite{bvv}) for some products of homotopy spheres which do not bear Vaisman's structure. Besides, now it is known that not all Hopf manifolds belong to this smaller class.
These constructions are non-elementary.
In fact, even the existence of locally conformally
K\"ahler metrics on many Hopf surfaces is quite
non-trivial. A clean but complicated argument
was given in \cite{go}, where such metrics were constructed
in dimension 2; when the map $A$ is diagonal, the constructed metric is Vaisman. For non-diagonal
$A$ the construction was much less explicit; in fact,
the LCK metric on these Hopf surfaces was obtained
only by deformation.
In the present paper we use the formalism
of ``locally conformally K\"ahler metrics with potential'',
that we built in previous papers, {\em e.g.} \cite{_OV:LCK_pot_}, to obtain an explicit,
computation-free and extremely simple
construction of LCK metrics
on manifolds which are obtained as ${\mathbb Z}$-quotients
of algebraic varieties.
This gives, among other things, the first
explicit ({\em i.e.} not by deformations) construction of an LCK metric on a
non-diagonal Hopf manifolds.
\subsection{LCK manifolds}
This section contains the definitions to be used in
the paper. Unless otherwise stated, we only refer to
compact, connected manifolds (although the definitions
work also for noncompact manifolds).
\hfill
\definition
A complex Hermitian manifold
$(M,J,g)$ is {\bf locally
conformally K\"ahler} if its fundamental
two-form $\omega:=g\circ J$ satisfies
$$d\omega=\theta\wedge\omega, \quad d\theta=0;$$
here $\theta$ is called {\bf the Lee form.}
This definition is equivalent to the one given above.
A particular subclass of LCK manifolds is described in the following:
\hfill
\definition
A {\bf Vaisman manifold} is a LCK manifold whose Lee form is parallel with respect to the Levi Civita connection of $g$.
\hfill
Compact Vaisman manifolds are equipped with
a Riemannian submersion (a suspension in fact) to the circle with
the fibers isometric to a Sasakian manifold $N$, see
\cite{ov03} (and see \cite{bg} for an introduction to Sasakian geometry). Their universal coverings are Riemannian
cones $N\times {\mathbb R}^{>0}$ on which the deck transform group,
isomorphic to ${\mathbb Z}$, acts by $(x,t)\mapsto (\varphi(x),
qt)$, where $\varphi$ is a Sasakian automorphism of $N$
and $q\in{\mathbb N}$. The diagonal Hopf manifold is a typical
example, see \S \ref{surv}. On the other hand, it is
known, \cite{belgun}, that non-diagonal Hopf surfaces can
never be Vaisman (although they are LCK, see \cite{go,
_OV:LCK_pot_}).
A still wider subclass is the following:
\hfill
\definition
An LCK manifold $M$ which admits a K\"ahler covering
$(\tilde M, \tilde \omega)$ with the
K\"ahler form $\tilde \omega$ having a global, automorphic potential is
called {\bf LCK manifold with potential}.
Here, by {\bf an automorphic potential} we understand
a function $\psi:\; \tilde M {\:\longrightarrow\:} {\mathbb R}$ satisfying
$dd^c \psi=\tilde \omega$, with the monodromy of $\tilde
M$ mapping $\psi$ to $\operatorname{\text{\sf const}} \cdot \psi$.
\hfill
All Vaisman manifolds are LCK with potential (given by the squared norm of the Lee form with respect to the K\"ahler metric). As for Vaisman manifolds, the monodromy of LCK with potential manifolds is isomorphic to ${\mathbb Z}$. And hence this subclass is strict, as shown by the example of the LCK Inoue surfaces and of the LCK Oeljeklaus-Toma manifolds (see \cite{ot}).
\hfill
In this paper we shall be concerned with the {\bf linear Hopf
manifolds.} These are quotients of ${\mathbb C}^n\setminus\{0\}$ by
the cyclic group generated by a linear operator with
eigenvalues strictly smaller than $1$ in absolute value. It is known that
Hopf manifolds are LCK with potential, see
\cite{_OV:LCK_pot_}, and Vaisman if the operator is
diagonal.
\subsection{Survey of literature}\label{surv}
There are several papers where explicit constructions
of LCK metric on diagonal Hopf manifolds appear.
The first one is \cite{vai1}, where the metric (therein named after W. Boothby) $\displaystyle\frac{\sum dz_i\otimes dz_i}{|\sum z_i\bar z_i|^2}$ was considered on ${\mathbb C}^n\setminus\{0\}/\langle z_i\mapsto 2z_i\rangle$.
More than twenty years took to pass from operators $A=\alpha\cdot I_n$, $\alpha\in\mathbb{C}$, to diagonal operators with complex non-equal eigenvalues. In \cite{go}, a LCK metric was constructed on diagonal
Hopf surfaces $H_{\alpha,\beta}:={\mathbb C}^2\setminus \{0\}/\langle(u,v)\mapsto(\alpha u, \beta v)\rangle$. The construction is based on
finding a K\"ahler potential on ${\mathbb C}^2\setminus \{0\}$ in terms
of $\alpha, \beta$, but the formula is only implicit. This
procedure was generalized in \cite{belgun}. The
construction of Vaisman metrics in the present paper
can also be considered as a generalization of \cite{go}
to arbitrary dimensions.
In \cite{ko} a construction was done for LCK metrics on
${\mathbb C}^n\setminus\{0\}/\langle z_i\mapsto \alpha_iz_i\rangle$, starting from a deformation of the standard Sasakian structure of $S^{2n-1}$ according to the $S^1$ action with weights $\alpha_i$ (cf. also \cite[Section 3]{go}). The paper \cite{ko} also contains a very useful criterion to decide when a conformal class of LCK metrics on a complex manifold contains a Vaisman representative, in terms of the existence of a holomorphic complex flow which lifts to a non-trivial flow of homotheties of the K\"ahler covering.
A different construction on the same manifold, writing explicitly a K\"ahler
potential on ${\mathbb C}^n\setminus \{0\}$,
appeared in \cite{_Verbitsky_vanishing_} and since then it
was cited in almost all our subsequent papers. However, as
observed by Matei Toma and Ryushi Goto, that metric is
singular.
To correct this error we provide here a general
construction of LCK metrics on Hopf manifolds. Our
approach works for LCK manifolds with potential, giving
a complete list of LCK metrics with potential in terms
of a pseudoconvex shells in the covering (\ref{_pseudoco_shell_Definition_}).
For the time being, we don't know whether is
it possible or not to write a formula for a potential
for an LCK metric on a Hopf manifold; in the present
paper, as well as in \cite{go}, the potential is written as
a solution of a certain differential equation.
\section{Algebraic cones and LCK manifolds with potential}
\subsection{Algebraic cones}
\definition\label{_algebra_cone_intro_Definition_}
{\bf A closed algebraic cone} is an
affine variety $C$ admitting a ${\mathbb C}^*$-action $\tau$
with a unique fixed point $x_0$ (called {\bf the origin}), which satisfies
the following.
\begin{description}
\item[1.] $C$ is smooth outside of $x_0$.
\item[2.] $\tau$ acts on the Zariski tangent
space $T_{x_0}{\cal C}$ diagonally, with all eigenvalues
$|\alpha_i|<1$.
\end{description}
\noindent {\bf An open algebraic cone} is a closed algebraic cone with the origin removed: $C \setminus \{x_0\}$.
\hfill
\definition
Let $X$ be a projective
orbifold, and let $L$ be an ample line bundle on $X$.
Assume that the total space of $L$ is smooth
outside of the zero divisor. The {\bf algebraic
cone ${\cal C}(X,L)$ of $X,L$} is the total space
of non-zero vectors in $L^*$.
A {\bf cone structure} on ${\cal C}(X,L)$ is the ${\mathbb C}^*$-action
arising this way (by fiberwise multiplication).
\hfill
In \cite[Section 4]{_OV:Sasakian_on_CR_}, it was shown that
any open algebraic cone $C$ is isomorphic to ${\cal C}(X,L)$,
for appropriate $X$ and $L$. This was shown
by the following argument. Given the algebraic cone $C$, one obtains $X$ as the quotient
of $C$ by ${\mathbb C}^*$, and then the
cone $C$ is naturally identified with the total
space of a principal ${\mathbb C}^*$-bundle $L_1$. Ampleness
of this bundle follows, because the corresponding
closed algebraic cone $C_c$ is an affine variety,
and algebraic functions on $C_c$ are identified with the
section of the line bundle $L$ associated with $L_1$.
\hfill
\definition
Let $\gamma$ be an automorphism of a closed algebraic cone.
It is called {\bf a holomorphic contraction} if for any
compact subset $K\subset C$, and any open neighbourhood
$U$ of the origin, there exists a number
$N$ sufficiently big such that $\gamma^N(K)\subset U$.
\hfill
\definition
Let $C$ be a closed algebraic cone, and $\rho:\; {\mathbb R}^{>0}{\:\longrightarrow\:} \operatorname{Aut}(C)$
a ${\mathbb R}^{>0}$-action. We say that ${\mathbb R}^{>0}$ acts {\bf by holomorphic
contractions}, if $\rho(t)$ is a holomorphic contraction
for all $t<1$.
\hfill
\example
Let $C={\mathbb C}^n={\cal C}({\mathbb C} P^{n-1}, {\cal O}(1))$.
Then any linear automorphism of $C$ with all
eigenvalues $|\alpha_i|<1$ acts on $C$
by holomorphic contractions.
\hfill
\example
Let $\rho:=\tau\restrict{{\mathbb R}^{>0}}$
be the action of ${\mathbb R}^{>0}$ on an algebraic cone
provided by the cone structure, ${\mathbb R}^{>0}\subset {\mathbb C}^*$.
Since $\rho$ acts on the tangent space
$T_cC$ to the origin with eigenvalues
smaller than 1, it acts on $C$ by holomorphic contractions
(\cite[Theorem 3.3]{_OV:LCK_pot_}).
\hfill
\remark
As shown in \cite[Theorem 3.3]{_OV:LCK_pot_},
the quotient of an algebraic cone by a contraction
is an LCK manifold with potential, and, conversely,
any LCK manifold with potential is obtained
by taking the quotient of an open algebraic cone by
a holomorphic contraction. Such a contraction, being
{\em a priori} a ${\mathbb Z}$--action, can be extended
to a ${\mathbb R}^{>0}$--action by holomorphic contractions.
\hfill
Further on, we use the following version of this result.
\hfill
\theorem
Let $M$ be a locally conformally K\"ahler manifold with potential.
Then $\tilde M$, as a complex manifold,
is isomorphic to an open algebraic cone $C$, equipped
with an action $\rho$ of ${\mathbb R}^{>0}$ by holomorphic
contractions, and the quotient $\tilde M/\langle \rho(2^n)\rangle$
is isomorphic (as a complex manifold) to $M$.
\hfill
{\bf Proof:} In \cite[Theorem 2.1]{_OV:top_}, it is shown that
$M$ can be deformed into a Vaisman manifold. From its
proof it is apparent that this deformation preserves
$\tilde M$ (in fact, only the ${\mathbb Z}$-action is deformed).
Therefore, $\tilde M$ is a covering of a Vaisman manifold.
Then, it is an algebraic cone, as follows from
\cite[Proposition 4.6]{_OV:LCK_immer_}.
\blacksquare
\subsection{CR-geometry and Sasakian manifolds}
In this subsection,
we introduce the Sasakian manifolds and some
related notions of CR-geometry. We follow
\cite{_OV:Sasakian_on_CR_}.
\hfill
\definition
A {\bf CR-structure} (Cauchy-Riemann structure) on a manifold
$M$ is a subbundle $H\subset T M \otimes {\mathbb C}$ of the complexified tangent bundle, which is closed
under commutator:
$[H, H ] \subset H$
and satisfies $H \cap \bar H = 0$.
A function $f:M\rightarrow {\mathbb C}$ is {\bf CR-holomorphic} if $D_Vf=0$ for any vector field $V\in \bar H$.
\hfill
On a CR manifold $(M,H)$, the bundle $H\oplus \bar H$ is preserved by complex conjugation and hence it is obtained as a complexification of a real subbundle $H_{\mathbb R}$. Then $I_H:=-\sqrt{-1}\text{Id}_{\bar H}$ defines a complex structure on $H_{\mathbb R}$ and $H$ is its $\sqrt{-1}$-eigenspace of its extension to the complexification $H_{\mathbb R} \otimes {\mathbb C}$.
If $\text{codim}_{TM}H_{\mathbb R}=1$, and the {\em Frobenius tensor} $L:H_{\mathbb R}\times H_{\mathbb R}\rightarrow TM/H_{\mathbb R}$, $L(X,Y)=[X,Y] \mod H_{\mathbb R}$ is nondegenerate, then $(M,H)$ is a {\bf CR contact manifold} and $H_{\mathbb R}$ is its contact structure (or distribution). In this context, $L$ is called the {\bf Levi form}.
As $L$ vanishes on $H$ and $\bar H$, $L$ is $(1,1)$ with respect to $I_H$.
\hfill
\definition
A contact CR-manifold $(M, H_{\mathbb R} , I_ H )$ is called {\bf
pseudo-convex}
if the Levi form is positive or negative, depending on the choice of orientation. If
this form is also sign-definite, then $(M, H_{\mathbb R} , I_H )$ is called {\bf strictly pseudoconvex}.
\hfill
\definition
Let $S$ be a CR-manifold.
A CR-holomorphic vector field $v\in TS$
is called {\bf transversal} if it is transversal to
the CR-distribution $H_{\mathbb R}\subset TS$.
\hfill
\theorem\label{_S^1_equiv_Sasakian_Theorem_} \cite[Theorem 1.2]{_OV:Sasakian_on_CR_}
Let $M$ be a compact pseudoconvex contact CR-manifold.
Then the following conditions are equivalent.
\begin{description}
\item[(i)] $M$ admits a Sasakian metric, compatible
with the CR-structure.
\item[(ii)] $M$ admits a proper, transversal
CR-holomorphic $S^1$-action.
\item[(iii)] $M$ admits a nowhere degenerate, transversal
CR-holomorphic vector field.
\end{description}
\hfill
\theorem\label{_Sasa_unique_Theorem_} \cite[Theorem 1.3]{_OV:Sasakian_on_CR_}
Let $M$ be a compact, strictly pseudoconvex CR-manifold
admitting a proper, transversal CR--ho\-lo\-mor\-phic $S^1$--ac\-tion.
Then $M$ admits a unique (up to an automorphism)
$S^1$-invariant CR-embedding into an algebraic cone $({\cal C},\tau)$.
Moreover, a Sasakian metric on $M$ can be induced
from a K\"ahler metric $\tilde\omega$ on this
cone, which is automorphic in the following sense:
for some constant $c>1$, one has $\tau(t)^*\tilde\omega=|t|^c\tilde\omega$.
\hfill
\subsection{Pseudoconvex shells in algebraic cones}
\hfill
\definition\label{_pseudoco_shell_Definition_}
Let $C$ be an algebraic cone, equipped
with an action $\rho$ of ${\mathbb R}^{>0}$ by holomorphic
contractions. A {\bf pseudoconvex shell}
in $C$ is a strictly pseudoconvex submanifold
in $C$, intersecting each orbit
of $\rho$ exactly once.
\hfill
\remark
Please note that the action of $\rho$ may bear no
relation to the cone action $\tau: {\mathbb C}^* {\:\longrightarrow\:} \operatorname{Aut}(C)$.
\hfill
\theorem\label{_shell_bijective_to_potentials_Theorem_}
Let $M=C/\langle\rho(q)\rangle$ where $(C,\tau)$ be an algebraic cone,
equipped with the action $\rho$ of ${\mathbb R}^{>0}$ by holomorphic
contractions and $q>1$. Let $\vec{r}$ be the infinitesimal generator of $\rho$ and let $S$ be a pseudoconvex shell in $C$.
Then for each $\lambda\in{\mathbb R}$ there exists a unique function $\phi_\lambda$ such that $\operatorname{Lie}_{\vec{r}}\phi_\lambda=\lambda\phi_\lambda$ and $\phi_\lambda\restrict{S}=1$. Moreover, such $\varphi_\lambda$ is plurisubharmonic for sufficiently big $\lambda>\!\!>0$.
Conversely, any LCK manifold with potential admits a metric obtained this way.
\hfill
{\bf Proof:} For each $\rho$-orbit and each $\rho$-equivariant potential $\phi$, one has:
$$\rho(t)\cdot \phi_\lambda=e^{t\lambda} \phi_\lambda, \qquad t\in {\mathbb R}^{>0}.$$
Let $S$ be a pseudoconvex shell in $C$. Then $S\times {\mathbb R}^{>0}\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} C$, as orbits intersect the shell only once. Hence for any $s\in S$ and for any $t\in{\mathbb R}^{>0}$ we have:
\begin{equation}\label{rot}
\phi_\lambda(\rho(t)\cdot s)=e^{\lambda t},
\end{equation}
and this equation uniquely defines $\phi_\lambda$. The problem is to prove that $dd^c\varphi_\lambda>0$ and this is not automatic for $\varphi_\lambda$, but it holds for some power of it.
Now let $B:=e^{{\mathbb R}\vec{r}} \cdot (TS\cap I(TS)) \subset TC$ be the subbundle obtained by
translating $TS\cap I(TS)$ with all $e^{t\vec{r}}$. Then, by construction, $dd^c\varphi_\lambda \restrict{B}$ is the Levi form of $B$ and hence it is positive definite.
It will now suffice to show that $dd^c\varphi_{2a\lambda}\restrict{S}=dd^c\varphi_\lambda ^{2a}\restrict{S}>0$ for sufficiently big $a$. But
$$dd^c\varphi_\lambda^{2a}=\varphi_\lambda^{2a-2}\big(2a\varphi_\lambda \cdot dd^c\varphi_\lambda +2a(2a-1)d\varphi_\lambda\wedge d^c\varphi_\lambda \big).$$
As the shell $S$ is compact, the result is implied by the following elementary linear algebra lemma:
\hfill
\lemma\label{linear} Let $h_1$, $h_2$ be pseudo-Hermitian forms on a complex vector space $V$ and let $W\subset V$ be a codimension 1 subspace. Assume that $h_1\restrict{W}$ and $h_2\restrict{V/W}$ are strictly positive
(that is, positive definite), and $h_2\restrict{W}=0$.
Then there exists $u_0\in{\mathbb R}$, depending continuously on $h_1, h_2$, such that $h_u:=h_1+uh_2$ is positive definite for any $u>u_0$.
\hfill
The direct part of the Theorem now follows by applying \ref{linear} (whose proof we postpone) to $V=TM$, $W=B$, $h_1=\varphi_\lambda dd^c\varphi_\lambda $, $h_2=d\varphi_\lambda\wedge d^c\varphi_\lambda $.
For the converse, let $\varphi_\lambda$ be any automorphic potential, thus satisfying $(\gamma^k)^*=e^\lambda\varphi_\lambda$, and let $\vec{r}$ be the holomorphic vector field which is the logarithm of the monodromy action. Let then $\rho(t)=e^{-t\lambda}\big(e^t\vec{r}\big)^*$ the corresponding endomorphism of ${\cal C} ^{\infty}(M)$. Then $\rho(k+t)(\varphi_\lambda)=\rho(t)\varphi_\lambda$ and hence the orbit of $\rho$ through $\varphi$ is compact. We then average $\rho(t)\varphi$ on $\mathbb{R}$ and obtain a $\rho(t)$-invariant K\"ahler potential $\varphi_{\lambda 0}$. This $\varphi_{\lambda 0}$ is obtained from a pseudoconvex shell $S=\varphi_{\lambda 0}^{-1}(1)$ and from $\vec{r}$ as in the direct part of the Theorem.
\hfill
Let us now give the proof of \ref{linear}. For simplicity, we work in the real setting, and we consider $h_1, h_2$ as bilinear symmetric forms. Let $y\in V$ be a vector such that $h_2(y,y)=1$. Then any $x\in V$ can be written as $x=ay+z$, for some $z\in W$. This translates to:
\begin{equation*}
h_u(x,x)=ua^2+a^2h_1(y,y)+h_1(z,z)+2ah_1(z,y)
\end{equation*}
which we view as a polynomial in $a$. This one is positive definite for all $a$ if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{**}
(h_1(z,y))^2-(u+h_1(y,y))\cdot h_1(z,z)<0.
\end{equation}
Choose $y'\in W$ such that $h_1(z,y')=h_1(z,y)$ for all $z\in W$ and let $u>u_0:=h_1(y',y')-h_1(y,y)$. Then \eqref{**} becomes
$$(h_1(z,y'))^2-h_1(y',y')h_1(z,z)<0,$$
which is satisfied by Cauchy-Buniakovski-Schwarz inequality, as $h_1$ is positive definite on $W$.
\hfill \blacksquare
\example Let $A$ be a linear operator on ${\mathbb C}^n$ with
eigenvalues of absolute values strictly smaller than
$1$. Let $C={\mathbb C}^n\setminus \{0\}$ and let $\rho(t)=e^{t\log
A}$. Take a sphere $S=S^{2n-1}\subset {\mathbb C}^n$; it is easy to
see that $S$ is a pseudoconvex shell. Applying
\ref{_shell_bijective_to_potentials_Theorem_}, we obtain
an automorphic potential $\phi$ on ${\mathbb C}^n\backslash 0$,
giving an LCK metric on $M=({\mathbb C}^n\backslash 0)/\langle
A\rangle$.
\hfill
\remark
When $n=2$ and $A$ is diagonal, the same potential
was obtained in \cite{go}.
In particular, we recover the result proven in
\cite{go,ko, _OV:LCK_pot_} that {\em all Hopf manifolds
$({\mathbb C}^n\setminus \{0\})/\langle A\rangle$ are LCK}.
\subsection{Vaisman metrics and pseudoconvex shells}
\remark Vaisman manifolds are LCK with potential and hence
they have canonical pseudoconvex shells (levels of the
potential).
\hfill
\definition
Let $(M,I, g)$ be a Vaisman manifold, let
$(C, \rho)$ be the associated algebraic cone,
equipped with the action $\rho$ of ${\mathbb R}^{>0}$ by holomorphic
contractions, and let $S$ be its pseudoconvex shell.
The {\bf Reeb field} of $M$ is the CR-holomorphic vector
field $I\theta^\sharp\in TS$
obtained from $\rho$ by complex conjugation.
\hfill
\remark
For Vaisman manifolds, the Reeb field is always transversal
(\cite{_OV:Sasakian_on_CR_}).
\hfill
\proposition
Let $v\in TS$ be a CR-holomorphic vector field on $S$,
where $S$ is a pseudoconvex shell in an algebraic cone $C$.
Then $v$ can be uniquely extended to a holomorphic
vector field on the whole of $C$. \footnote{This is called
{\bf the holomorphic extension} of $v$.}
\hfill
{\bf Proof:} Let ${\cal O}_S$, respectively
${\cal O}_{{S^\circ}}$ be the ring of CR-holomorphic
functions on $S$, respectively on the interior ${S^\circ}$
of the shell $S$. By the solution of the Neumann problem,
$L^2({\cal O}_S)=L^2({\cal O}_{{S^\circ}})$ and hence, if we
restrict to bounded functions, ${\cal O}_{{S^\circ}}={\cal O}_S$
as rings. As vector fields on $S$ and ${S^\circ}$ are
derivations of the above rings, the result follows.
\blacksquare
\hfill
\theorem\label{explicit_construction}
Let $(M,I,g)$ be an LCK manifold obtained (as in
\ref{_shell_bijective_to_potentials_Theorem_})
from an algebraic cone $C$ and a pseudoconvex shell $S$,
and let $\gamma:\; {\mathbb Z} {\:\longrightarrow\:} \operatorname{Aut}(C)$ be the deck transform map.
Then the Hermitian
manifold $(M,I,g)$ is conformally equivalent to
a Vaisman one if and only if
$S$ admits a transversal CR-holomorphic
vector field $\xi$, such that its holomorphic extension
to $C$ is $\gamma(1)$--invariant and $\exp(-I\xi)\cdot\gamma(1)$ preserves $S$.
\hfill
{\bf Proof:} Suppose $(M,I,g)$ is Vaisman. Then
$\xi=I\theta^\sharp$ is an isometry of the LCK
metric. The K\"ahler metric on $C$ is $dd^c\varphi$, with $\varphi$
given by the equation
$$e^{t\theta^\sharp}(S)=\varphi^{-1}(t),$$
where $S$ is the level set of $\varphi$.
Then $S$ is Sasakian and $I\theta^\sharp$ is the Reeb
field of the underlying contact structure, hence it is
transversal by definition. By construction,
$M=C/\langle\gamma(1)\rangle$, and the extension of $\xi$ to
$C$ is the lift to $C$ and is $\gamma(1)$ invariant by
definition. We have checked all the conditions of
\ref{explicit_construction}, except the last one:
$\exp(-I\xi)\cdot\gamma(1)(S)=S$.
The Lee field $-I\xi=\theta^\sharp$ acts by
homotheties on the potential $\varphi$, hence
$\operatorname{Lie}_{\exp(-I\xi)}\varphi=c\varphi$ for some contant $c$. The
monodromy map $\gamma(1)$ also acts by homotheties on $\varphi$:
$\operatorname{Lie}_{\rho(1)}\varphi=c'\varphi$ for another constant $c'$. What we
have to do is to homothetically modify the initial metric
$g$ such that $c$ becomes $1/c'$; in this case
$\exp(-I\xi)\cdot\gamma(1)$ will preserve the potential $\varphi$
and hence will preserve $S$.
Conversely, the vector field $\xi$ is tangent to $S$ and
its flow $\exp(t\xi)$ acts by contractions, hence defining
a metric on the cone $C$ over $S$. As $\gamma(1)$
maps a shell $S_\lambda$ to $S_{\operatorname{\text{\sf const}} \cdot\lambda}$,
if follows that $\gamma(1)$ acts
by homotheties on $C$. This means that the complex flow
generated on $M=C/\langle\gamma(1)\rangle$ by $\xi$ and
$I\xi$ lifts to a flow of non-trivial homotheties on the
cone. By \cite{ko} this ensures the existence of a Vaisman
metric in the conformal class of $g$.
\blacksquare
\subsection{Examples and {\em erratum}}
As an application, we add an {\em erratum} to several papers
where we have given a wrong formula for an LCK-metric
on diagonal Hopf manifolds ({\em e.g.} \cite{_Verbitsky_vanishing_}, \cite{ornea}), and give a general
and almost explicit construction of a Vaisman metric
on any diagonal Hopf manifold. This constructions originates in the ones in \cite{go, belgun, ko}, but unifies them and presents them in a
much more synthetic and transparent way.
\hfill
We apply \ref{explicit_construction}. The data to start
with are the cone $C$, the shell $S$, the vector field
$\xi$ and the monodromy $\gamma$.
Let $A=\mathrm{diag}(\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_n)$, with
$0<|\alpha_1|\leq |\alpha_2|\leq\cdots\leq|\alpha_n|<1$. Denote by
$A_{|\cdot|}$ the matrix
$\mathrm{diag}(|\alpha_1|,\cdots,|\alpha_n|)$
(in the same basis).
Let $C$ be ${\mathbb C}^n\setminus \{0\}$. As a shell $S$, we take the
sphere $S^{2n-1}$, but one can take for $S$ the boundary of any
strictly pseudoconvex body containing 0 and
satisfying $A_{|\cdot|}A^{-1}(S)=S$.
The transversal CR-holomorphic vector field $\xi$ is
\begin{equation}\label{def_xi}
\xi=\sqrt{-1}\mathrm{Re} \log A=\sqrt{-1}\log\mathrm{diag}(|\alpha_1|,\ldots,|\alpha_n|)
\end{equation}
and the monodromy map $\gamma$ is given by $\gamma(z)=A\cdot z$, $z\in C$.
To apply \ref{explicit_construction} we need to verify that $\xi$ is $\gamma(1)$--invariant and $\exp(-I\xi)\cdot\gamma(1)$ preserves $S$. An easy computation shows that $\exp(-I\xi)\cdot\gamma(1)$ acts as $A_{|\cdot|}A^{-1}=\mathrm{diag}(\frac{\alpha_1}{|\alpha_1|},\cdots,\frac{\alpha_n}{|\alpha_n|})$ and thus it preserves the norm of vectors, hence preserving the spheres. Finally, as the action of $\gamma(1)$ is linear, the $\gamma(1)$--invariance of $\xi$ amounts to $A\cdot\xi_z=\xi_{A\cdot z}$ which is immediate from \eqref{def_xi}.
This gives an explicit construction of Vaisman structure on diagonal Hopf manifolds. On the other hand, \ref{_shell_bijective_to_potentials_Theorem_} provides a rather explicit construction of LCK metrics on non-diagonal Hopf manifolds, avoiding the argument by deformations in \cite{_OV:LCK_pot_}.
\hfill
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgments:} We thank Matei Toma and
Ryushi Goto for drawing our attention to the wrong formula
which originated this paper, and to Max Planck Institute for Mathematics
(Bonn), where this paper was finished, for the excellent research environment.
\hfill
{\scriptsize
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $\rho_{AB}$ be a bipartite quantum state on registers $A$ and $B$, and assume that an arbitrary number of copies of $\rho_{AB}$ are shared between two parties Alice and Bob. The goal of Alice and Bob is to generate some bipartite state $\sigma_{EF}$ under local operations but without communication. That is for some $n$, they want to apply local super-operators $\Phi_{A^n\rightarrow E}$ and $\Psi_{B^{n}\rightarrow F}$ such that
$$\Phi\otimes \Psi (\rho_{AB}^{\otimes n})= \sigma_{EF}.$$
Typical examples of this problem are entanglement distillation and common randomness distillation under local operations, in which case $\sigma_{EF}$ is an ebit or one bit of shared randomness.
To answer this question one cannot look for such local operators by brute-force search since we assume $n$, the number of copies of the resource state $\rho_{AB}$ is arbitrarily large. On the other hand to obtain some necessary conditions on the existence of $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ one may
compare the strength of correlations of $\rho_{AB}^{\otimes n}$ and $\sigma_{EF}$. If $\sigma_{EF}$ is more correlated than $\rho_{AB}^{\otimes n}$, then such operations do not exists since local transformations do not generate correlation. Nevertheless again since $n$ can be arbitrarily large, the standard measures of correlation provide us with no bound. For instance the data processing inequality of mutual information states that if $\rho_{AB}^{\otimes n}$ can be locally transformed to $\sigma_{EF}$ then
\begin{align}\label{eq:add}
nI(A; B)_{\rho} = I(A^n; B^n)_{\rho^{\otimes n}} \geq I(E; F)_{\sigma},
\end{align}
where $I(\cdot , \cdot)$ denotes the quantum mutual information. This inequality is loose for sufficiently large $n$ and gives us no bound if $I(A; B)_{\rho}\neq 0$.
In the classical case (where $\rho_{AB}$ and $\sigma_{EF}$ are bipartite random variables) there is a measure of correlation called \emph{Hirschfeld-Gebelein-R\'enyi maximal correlation} or simply the maximal correlation~\cite{Hirschfeld, Gebelein, Renyi1, Renyi2}.
Maximal correlation has two main properties that are useful for the problem of local state transformation described above. Firstly, it is \emph{not} additive on independent copies of a bipartite distribution, and indeed gives the same number when computed on independent copies. Secondly, it satisfies a data processing inequality. Using these two properties maximal correlation gives a non-trivial bound on our problem in the classical case.
The main contribution of this paper is to generalize maximal correlation to the quantum case.
\section{A new measure of correlation}\label{sec:new}
Let $\mathcal{H}_A$ be the Hilbert space corresponding to register $A$, and denote the space of linear operators acting on $\mathcal{H}_A$ by $\mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)$. Similarly define $\mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)$ and equip these two spaces with the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product, i.e., $\langle M, N\rangle = \text{\rm{tr}}(M^{\dagger}N)$. This inner product induces a norm on the space of linear operators which we denote by $\|\cdot\|_2$.
For a bipartite quantum state $\rho_{AB}$ we define its \emph{maximal correlation} by
\begin{align}
\mu(\rho_{AB})=\max\,\, & \vert \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB} X_A\otimes Y^{\dagger}_{B})\vert\nonumber\\
& \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_AX_A) = \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_B Y_B) =0,\label{eq:con1}\\
& \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_A X_AX_A^{\dagger}) = \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_B Y_BY_B^{\dagger}) =1.\label{eq:con2}
\end{align}
Here $\rho_A$ and $\rho_B$ are the reduced density matrices on subsystems $A$ and $B$ respectively, and $X_A\in \mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)$ and $Y_B\in \mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)$. Roughly speaking $\mu(\rho_{AB})$ is the maximum of the (absolute value of the) expectation of the tensor product of two observables that have zero expectation and variance $1$.
Maximal correlation in the classical case, where $\rho_{AB}$ is a joint distribution, is first introduced by
Hirschfeld~\cite{Hirschfeld} and Gebelein~\cite{Gebelein} and then studied by R\'enyi~\cite{Renyi1, Renyi2}. Witsenhausen in~\cite{Witsenhausen} proved that maximal correlation of several independent copies of a joint distribution equals to that of a single copy. This parameter has recently been revisited by several authors, see e.g.~\cite{KangUlukus, Kumar, Polyanskiy, KamathAnantharam}.
To study properties of $\mu(\rho_{AB})$ let us define
$$\widetilde \rho_{AB} = (I_A\otimes \rho_B^{-1/2}) \rho_{AB} (\rho_A^{-1/2}\otimes I_B),$$
where inverses of $\rho_A$ and $\rho_B$ are defined on their supports. Note that $\widetilde \rho_{AB}$ is not even hermitian, so is not a density matrix.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:schmidt}
$\mu(\rho_{AB})$ is equal to the \emph{second} Schmidt coefficient of $\widetilde \rho_{AB}$ as a vector in the bipartite Hilbert space $\mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)\otimes \mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $R_A=\rho_A^{1/2}X_A$ and $S_B = Y_B^{\dagger} \rho_B^{1/2}$. Using these changes of variables $\mu(\rho_{AB})$ is equivalently equal to
\begin{align}
\mu(\rho_{AB}) = \max\,\, & |\text{\rm{tr}}(\widetilde \rho_{AB} R_A\otimes S_B) |\nonumber\\
& \langle \rho_A^{1/2} , R_A\rangle = \langle \rho_B^{1/2}, S_B\rangle =0,\label{eq:1}\\
& \|R_A\|_2=\|S_B\|_2=1.\label{eq:2}
\end{align}
Let
$$\widetilde \rho_{AB} = \sum_{i} \lambda_i M_{i}\otimes N_{i},$$
be the Schmidt decomposition of $\widetilde \rho_{AB}\in \mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)\otimes \mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)$ where $\lambda_1\geq \lambda_2\geq \cdots $ are the Schmidt coefficients and $\{ M_i\}$ and $\{ N_i\}$ are orthonormal bases for $\mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)$ and $\mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)$ respectively.
Note that
$$\lambda_1 = \max_{\|V\|_2=\|W\|_2=1} \text{\rm{tr}}\left( \widetilde \rho_{AB} V_A\otimes W_B \right), $$
and using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we have
\begin{align*}
\lambda_1 & = \text{\rm{tr}}\left( M_{1}^{\dagger}\otimes N_1^{\dagger} \widetilde \rho_{AB} \right)\\
& = \text{\rm{tr}}\left[ \left(\rho_A^{-1/2}M_1^{\dagger}\right)\otimes \left(N_1^{\dagger}\rho_B^{-1/2}\right) \rho_{AB} \right]\\
& = \text{\rm{tr}}\left[ \left( \rho_{AB}^{1/2} \big(\rho_A^{-1/2}M_1^{\dagger}\otimes I_B\big) \right) \left( \big(I_A\otimes N_1^{\dagger}\rho_B^{-1/2}\big) \rho_{AB}^{1/2} \right) \right]\\
& \leq \left[\text{\rm{tr}}\left( \rho_{AB} \big(\rho_A^{-1/2}M_1^{\dagger}M_1\rho_A^{-1/2}\otimes I_B\big) \right)\right]^{1/2} \cdot \left[\text{\rm{tr}}\left( \rho_{AB} \big( I_A\otimes \rho_B^{-1/2}N_1N_1^{\dagger}\rho_B^{-1/2}\big) \right)\right]^{1/2}\\
& = \left[\text{\rm{tr}}\left( \rho_{A} \big( \rho_A^{-1/2}M_1^{\dagger}M_1\rho_A^{-1/2} \big) \right)\right]^{1/2} \cdot \left[\text{\rm{tr}}\left( \rho_{B} \big(\rho_B^{-1/2}N_1N_1^{\dagger}\rho_B^{-1/2} \big) \right)\right]^{1/2}\\
& = \left[ \text{\rm{tr}}\big( M_1^{\dagger}M_1 \big) \right]^{1/2} \cdot \left[ \text{\rm{tr}}\big( N_1N_1^{\dagger} \big) \right]^{1/2}\\
&= 1.
\end{align*}
On the other hand observe that $\|\rho_A^{1/2}\|_2=\|\rho_B^{1/2}\|_2=1$ and $|\text{\rm{tr}}(\widetilde \rho_{AB} \rho_A^{1/2}\otimes \rho_B^{1/2})| =|\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB})|=1$. As a result,
$$\lambda_1=1,$$
and we can take $M_1=\rho_A^{1/2}$ and $ N_1=\rho_B^{1/2}$.
Now for $R_A$ and $S_B$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:1} and~\eqref{eq:2} we have
\begin{align*}
|\text{\rm{tr}}(\widetilde \rho_{AB} R_A\otimes S_B)| & = \left|\sum_{i\geq 1} \lambda_i \langle R^{\dagger}, M_i\rangle \langle S^{\dagger} , N_i \rangle\right|\\
& = \left|\sum_{i\geq 2} \lambda_i \langle R^{\dagger}, M_i\rangle \langle S^{\dagger} , N_i \rangle\right|\\
& \leq \left( \sum_{i\geq 2} \lambda_i | \langle R^{\dagger}, M_i\rangle |^2 \right)^{1/2} \left( \sum_{i\geq 2} \lambda_i | \langle S^{\dagger}, N_i\rangle |^2 \right)^{1/2} \\
&\leq \lambda_2,
\end{align*}
where in the last line we use $1=\|R\|_2^2 = \sum_{i\geq 2} | \langle R^{\dagger}, M_i\rangle |^2$ and similarly
$1= \sum_{i\geq 2} | \langle S^{\dagger}, N_i\rangle |^2 $.
These inequalities are tight for
$R=M_2^{\dagger}$ and $S = N_2^{\dagger}$. We conclude that $\mu(\rho_{AB}) = \lambda_2$.
\end{proof}\\
Let us consider the special case where $A$ and $B$ are classical registers. If $\{\ket i: 1\leq i\leq d_A\}$ and $\{\ket k: 1\leq k\leq d_B\}$ are computational bases of $\mathcal{H}_A$ and $\mathcal{H}_B$ respectively, then $\rho_{AB}$ is diagonal in the basis $\{\ket i\ket k: 1\leq i\leq d_A, 1\leq k\leq d_B \}$. Let us denote $p_{ik} = \bra i\bra k \rho_{AB}\ket i\ket k$, so we can think of a joint distribution $P_{AB}$ with marginals $P_A$ and $P_B$.
Then it is easy to see that
\begin{align*}
\mu(P_{AB}) = \max\,\, & \mathbb E (f(i)g(k))\\
& \mathbb E(f(i)) = \mathbb E(g(k))=0,\\
& \mathbb E(f(i)^2) = \mathbb E(g(k)^2)=1,
\end{align*}
where the maximum is taken over all real functions $f$ and $g$ defined on $\{1, \dots, d_A\}$ and $\{1, \dots, d_B\}$ respectively, and $\mathbb E$ denotes the expectation value with respect to $P_{AB}$.
Maximal correlation can be reformulated using Theorem~\ref{thm:schmidt}. Define
$$\widetilde p_{ik} = p_i^{-1/2}p_k^{-1/2} p_{ik},$$
and let $\widetilde P_{AB}$ be a $d_A\times d_B$ matrix whose $ik$-th entry is $\widetilde p_{ik}$. It is easy to see that Schmidt coefficients of $\widetilde \rho_{AB}$ are in one-to-one correspondence with singular values of $\widetilde P_{AB}$. So in the classical case $\mu(P_{AB})$ is equal to the second singular value of $\widetilde P_{AB}$. For example if $P_{AB}$ denotes two perfectly correlated random variables, then $\widetilde P_{AB}$ is the identity matrix and $\mu(P_{AB})=1$.
This latter formulation of maximal correlation in the classical case is found by Kang and Ulukus~\cite{KangUlukus} and Kumar~\cite{Kumar}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:ab} $\mu(\cdot)$ satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm(a)}] $\mu(\rho_{AB}\otimes \sigma_{A'B'}) = \max\{ \mu(\rho_{AB}), \mu(\sigma_{A'B'}) \}$.
\item[{\rm(b)}] Let $\Phi_{B}:\mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)\rightarrow \mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_{B'})$ be a completely positive trace-preserving super-operator. Let $\sigma_{AB'} = \mathcal{I}_A\otimes \Phi_B(\rho_{AB})$. Then
$\mu( \sigma_{AB'} ) \leq \mu(\rho_{AB})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(a) Let $\lambda_1=1\geq \lambda_2\geq \cdots$ and $\zeta_1=1\geq \zeta_2\geq \cdots$ be the Schmidt coefficients of $\widetilde \rho_{AB}$ and $\widetilde \sigma_{A'B'}$ respectively. By Theorem~\ref{thm:schmidt}, $\mu(\rho_{AB}\otimes \sigma_{A'B'})$ is equal to the second Schmidt coefficient of $\widetilde \rho_{AB}\otimes \widetilde\sigma_{A'B'}$ which is equal to
$$\max \{ \lambda_1\zeta_2, \zeta_1 \lambda_2 \} = \max\{ \lambda_2, \zeta_2 \} = \max \{\mu(\rho_{AB}), \mu(\sigma_{A'B'})\}.$$
\noindent (b) Any completely positive trace-preserving map is a composition of an isometry and a partial trace. Local isometries obviously do not change $\mu(\rho_{AB})$. Moreover $\mu(\sigma_{AB}) \leq \mu(\sigma_{AA'B})$ is easy to prove. Here we present a proof for the case where $\Phi_B$ is only 2-positive and not necessarily completely positive.
Let $X_A$ and $Y_{B'}$ be the optimizers for $\sigma_{AB'}$ satisfying \eqref{eq:con1} and \eqref{eq:con2}. Let $\Phi^{*}$ be the adjoint of $\Phi$, i.e.,
$\text{\rm{tr}}(\Phi(M)N) = \text{\rm{tr}}(M \Phi^*(N))$. Note that $\Phi^*$ is 2-positive since $\Phi$ is 2-positive, and $\Phi^*(I)= I$ because $\Phi$ is trace-preserving. Define $Z=\Phi^{*}(Y)$. Observe that $\sigma_A=\rho_A$ and $\sigma_{B'}= \Phi(\rho_B)$. Thus $\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_A X) = \text{\rm{tr}}(\sigma_A X) =0$ and $\text{\rm{tr}}( \rho_AXX^{\dagger} ) = \text{\rm{tr}}(\sigma_AXX^{\dagger})=1.$
Moreover,
$$\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_B Z) =\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_B \Phi^{*}(Y)) = \text{\rm{tr}}(\Phi(\rho_B)Y) = \text{\rm{tr}}(\sigma_BY) = 0,$$
and
\begin{align*}
\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB}X\otimes Z^{\dagger}) & = \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB}X\otimes \Phi^*(Y^{\dagger}))\\
& = \text{\rm{tr}}(\mathcal{I}_A\otimes \Phi_B(\rho_{AB})X\otimes Y^{\dagger})\\
& = \text{\rm{tr}}(\sigma_{AB'} X\otimes Y^{\dagger})\\
& = \mu(\sigma_{AB'}),
\end{align*}
where we use the fact that both $\Phi$ and $\Phi^*$ are hermitian-preserving. Therefore, we conclude that $\mu(\rho_{AB})\geq \mu(\sigma_{AB'})$ if $\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_BZZ^{\dagger})\leq 1$. To prove the latter, observe that
\begin{align*}
\begin{pmatrix}
YY^{\dagger} & Y\\
Y^{\dagger} & I
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}
Y\\
I
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
Y^{\dagger} & I
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
is positive semidefinite. Since $\Phi^{*}$ is 2-positive,
\begin{align*}
\begin{pmatrix}
\Phi^*(YY^{\dagger}) & \Phi^*(Y)\\
\Phi^*(Y^{\dagger}) & \Phi^*(I)
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}
\Phi^*(YY^{\dagger}) & \Phi^*(Y)\\
\Phi^*(Y^{\dagger}) & I
\end{pmatrix},
\end{align*}
is positive semidefinite.
This means that $\Phi^*(YY^{\dagger}) \geq \Phi^{*}(Y)\Phi^*(Y^{\dagger})$. Now using $\rho_B\geq 0$ we have
\begin{align*}
\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_BZZ^{\dagger}) & = \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_B \Phi^*(Y)\Phi^*(Y^{\dagger}))\\
& \leq \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_B \Phi^*(YY^{\dagger})) \\
& = \text{\rm{tr}}(\Phi(\rho_B) YY^{\dagger} )\\
& = \text{\rm{tr}}(\sigma_B YY^{\dagger})\\
& =1.
\end{align*}
We are done.
\end{proof}\\
The following corollary is the main result of this paper and is a direct consequence of the above theorem.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:1} Suppose that $\rho_{AB}^{\otimes n}$, for some $n$, can be locally transformed to $\sigma_{EF}$ (under completely positive trace-preserving super-operators). Then
$$\mu(\rho_{AB}) \geq \mu(\sigma_{EF}).$$
\end{corollary}
\vspace{.15in}
The following example reveals the strength of this corollary. Let $\ket \psi_{AB} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{00} + \ket {11})$ be the Bell state on two qubits. Define
$$\rho^{(p)}_{AB} = (1-p) \frac{I_{AB}}{4} + p\,\ket \psi\bra\psi_{AB},$$
where $0\leq p\leq 1$ and $I_{AB}/4$ is the maximally mixed state. Note that $\rho_A^{(p)} = I_A/2$ and $\rho_B^{(p)} = I_B/2$ for every $p$. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\mu(\rho_{AB}^{(p)}) = \max \,\, & \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB}^{(p)}X\otimes Y^{\dagger})\\
& \text{\rm{tr}}(X) = \text{\rm{tr}}(Y)=0,\\
& \text{\rm{tr}}(XX^{\dagger}) = \text{\rm{tr}}(YY^{\dagger}) = 2.
\end{align*}
For $X$ and $Y$ satisfying the above equations we have
\begin{align*}
|\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB}^{(p)}X\otimes Y^{\dagger})| & = \left|\frac{1-p}{4}\text{\rm{tr}}(X\otimes Y^{\dagger}) + p\bra \psi X\otimes Y^{\dagger} \ket \psi\right|\\
&= \frac{p}{2}\, |\text{\rm{tr}}(X^TY^{\dagger})|\\
& \leq \frac{p}{2} \|X\|_2\cdot \|Y\|_2\\
& = p.
\end{align*}
This upper bound is achievable at $X=Y=\ket 0\bra 0 - \ket 1\bra 1$. Therefore,
$$\mu(\rho_{AB}^{(p)}) = p.$$
We conclude that entanglement cannot be distilled from $\rho_{AB}^{(p)}$ for $p< 1$ under local operations (but no communication) because for the maximally entangled state we have $\mu(\ket{\psi}\bra{\psi}_{AB})= \mu(\rho_{AB}^{(1)}) =1$. In fact even common randomness cannot be extracted from these states (under local operations) since for two perfectly correlated bits $U, V$, we have $\mu(P_{UV})=1$. Moreover, having infinitely may copies of $\rho_{AB}^{(p)}$ one cannot locally generate a single copy of $\rho_{AB}^{(q)}$ if $q>p$.
\section{Other Schmidt coefficients}
In this section we generalize the data processing inequality of the previous section for $\mu(\cdot)$ to other Schmidt coefficients of $\widetilde \rho_{AB}$. These new inequalities however, do not hold in the $n$-letter case in the sense of Corollary~\ref{cor:1}.
Let $1=\mu_1(\rho_{AB})\geq \mu(\rho_{AB})=\mu_2(\rho_{AB}) \geq \mu_3(\rho_{AB})\geq \cdots$ be Schmidt coefficients of $\widetilde\rho_{AB}$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:higher-coeff}
Let $\Phi_{B}:\mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_{B})\rightarrow \mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_{B'})$ be a completely positive trace-preserving super-operator and let $\sigma_{AB'} = \mathcal{I}_A\otimes \Phi_{B}(\rho_{AB})$. Then for every $i$ we have
$$\mu_i(\rho_{AB})\geq \mu_i(\sigma_{AB'}).$$
\end{theorem}
To prove this theorem it is more convenient to use the isomorphism between the Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{V}\otimes \mathcal{W}$ and $\mathbf{L}(\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{W})$, and the fact that Schmidt coefficients are mapped to singular values under this isomorphism. To be more precise let us fix an orthonormal basis $\{\ket 0, \dots, \ket{d-1}\}$ for $\mathcal{H}_A$. Then for every $Z_{AB}\in \mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)\otimes \mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)$ there exists a super-operator
$\Omega_Z: \mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)\rightarrow \mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)$ such that
$$ Z_{AB} = \sum_{i,j=0}^{d-1} \ket i\bra j_A\otimes \Omega_Z(\ket j\bra i)_B.$$
Using the fact that $\{\ket i\bra j: i,j=0,\dots, d-1\}$ is an orthonormal basis for $\mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)$ it is easy to see that Schmidt coefficients of $Z_{AB}$ are equal to singular values of $\Omega_Z$.
By the above notation we may consider super-operators $\Omega_{\rho}$ and $\Omega_{\widetilde \rho}$. Observe that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i,j} \ket i\bra j \otimes \rho_{B}^{-1/2} \Omega_{\rho}(\rho_A^{-1/2} \ket j\bra i) & = \sum_{i,j, k} \ket i\bra j \otimes \rho_B^{-1/2} \Omega_\rho(\ket k\bra k \rho_A^{-1/2} \ket j\bra i)\\
& = \sum_{i,j, k} \ket i\bra k \rho_A^{-1/2} \ket j\bra j \otimes \rho_B^{-1/2} \Omega_\rho(\ket k\bra i)\\
& = \sum_{i, k} \ket i\bra k \rho_A^{-1/2} \otimes \rho_B^{-1/2} \Omega_\rho(\ket k\bra i)\\
&= (I_A\otimes \rho_B^{-1/2}) \left( \sum_{i,k} \ket i\bra k\otimes \Omega_{\rho}(\ket k\bra i) \right) (\rho_A^{-1/2}\otimes I_A)\\
&=(I_A\otimes \rho_B^{-1/2}) \rho_{AB} (\rho_A^{-1/2}\otimes I_A)\\
& = \widetilde \rho_{AB}.
\end{align*}
Therefore by definition we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:omega-tilde}
\Omega_{\widetilde\rho}(X) = \rho_B^{-1/2}\Omega_\rho(\rho_A^{-1/2}X).
\end{align}
We are now ready to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:higher-coeff}.\\
\begin{proof}
From the definitions it is clear that $\Omega_\sigma= \Phi\circ \Omega_\rho$, and then from~\eqref{eq:omega-tilde} and $\sigma_A=\rho_A$ we have
\begin{align*}
\Omega_{\widetilde \sigma}(X) & = \sigma_{B'}^{-1/2} \Omega_{\sigma} (\sigma_A^{-1/2} X)\\
& = \sigma_{B'}^{-1/2} \Phi \left(\Omega_{\rho} (\rho_A^{-1/2} X)\right)\\
&=\sigma_{B'}^{-1/2} \Phi\left( \rho_B^{1/2} \Omega_{\widetilde \rho}(X) \right).
\end{align*}
This means that if we define $\Psi:\mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)\rightarrow \mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_{B'})$ by $\Psi(Y) = \sigma_{B'}^{-1/2} \Phi(\rho_B^{1/2}Y)$ then
$$\Omega_{\widetilde \sigma} = \Psi\circ \Omega_{\widetilde \rho}.$$
Thus given the correspondence between singular values and Schmidt coefficients we conclude that
$$\mu_i(\sigma_{AB'}) \leq \|\Psi\|\cdot \mu_i(\rho_{AB}),$$
where $\|\Psi\| = \|\Psi\|_{\infty}$ denotes the operator norm of $\Psi$, and we use (for example) Problem III.6.2 of~\cite{Bhatia-M}. Thus it suffices to show that $\|\Psi\|\leq 1$.
Fix an orthonormal basis $\{\ket 0, \ket 1, \dots, \ket{d'-1}\}$ for $\mathcal{H}_B$ and define
$$\tau_{BB'} = \sum_{k,l=0}^{d-1} \ket k\bra l\otimes \Phi\left( \rho_B^{1/2}\ket k\bra l\rho_B^{1/2} \right).$$
It is easy to verify that $\tau_{BB'}$ is a density matrix with marginals $\tau_{B'}=\Phi(\rho_B)=\sigma_B$ and $\tau_B= \rho_B^{\ast}$ where by $\rho_B^{*}$ we mean the entry-wise complex conjugate of $\rho_B$ (with respect to the chosen basis). Moreover we have $\Omega_{\tau}(X) = \sigma_B^{-1/2}\Phi(\rho_B^{1/2} X^T)$ and then $\Omega_{\widetilde \tau} (X) = \Psi(X^T)$. As a result $\|\Psi\| = \|\Omega_{\widetilde \tau}\|$ which we know is equal to the maximum Schmidt coefficient of $\widetilde \tau_{BB'}$ which is $1$.
\end{proof}
\section{Extreme values}
In this section we study the extreme values of maximal correlation. In particular we show that $\mu=1$ characterizes all bipartite states with a \emph{common data}. Let us start by a lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:hermitian}
The optimizers $X_A$ and $Y_B$ in the definition of $\mu(\rho_{AB})$ can be chosen to be hermitian.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By restricting the local Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{H}_A$ and $\mathcal{H}_B$ to the supports of $\rho_A$ and $\rho_B$ we may assume that they are invertible. Let $\widetilde{\mathbf{L}}_A\subseteq \mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)$ be the space of operators $V$ such that $\rho_A^{-1/2}V$ is hermitian. Moreover, let $\widetilde{\mathbf{L}}_B\subseteq \mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)$ the the set of operators $W$ such that $W\rho_B^{-1/2}$ is hermitian. Then $\widetilde{\mathbf{L}}_A$
and $\widetilde{\mathbf{L}}_B$ are subspaces of $\mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)$ and $\mathbf{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)$, respectively, as \emph{real} vector spaces. Observe that $\widetilde{\rho}_{AB}$ is in $\widetilde{\mathbf{L}}_A\otimes \widetilde{\mathbf{L}}_B$. Thus the vectors in the Schmidt decomposition of $\widetilde{\rho}_{AB}$ can be chosen in $\widetilde{\mathbf{L}}_A$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf{L}}_B$. In fact we may assume that the optimizer $R_A=\rho_A^{1/2}X_A $ and $S_B= Y_B^{\dagger}\rho_B^{1/2}$ defined in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:schmidt} belong to $ \widetilde{\mathbf{L}}_A$ and $ \widetilde{\mathbf{L}}_B$ respectively. This equivalently means that $X_A$ and $Y_B$ can be chosen to be hermitian.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:extreme}
$0\leq \mu(\rho_{AB})\leq 1$ and the followings hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[\rm{(a)}] $\mu(\rho_{AB})=0$ if and only if $\rho_{AB}= \rho_A\otimes \rho_B$, i.e., $\rho_{AB}$ contains neither classical nor quantum correlation.
\item[\rm{(b)}] $\mu(\rho_{AB})=1$ if and only if there exist local measurements $\{M_A, I_A-M_A\}$ and $\{N_B, I_B-N_B\}$ such that $\text{\rm{tr}}\left(\rho_{AB} M_A\otimes N_B\right)\neq 0,1$, and
$$\text{\rm{tr}}\left(\rho_{AB} (M_A\otimes (I_B- N_B))\right) = \text{\rm{tr}}\left( \rho_{AB} ((I_A- M_A) \otimes N_B) \right) =0.$$
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} $\mu(\rho_{AB})\geq 0$ is clear from the definition and $\mu(\rho_{AB})=\lambda_2\leq \lambda_1=1$ follows from the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:schmidt}.
(a) $\mu(\rho_{AB})=0$ if and only if all Schmidt coefficients of $\widetilde \rho_{AB} $ except the first one ($\lambda_1=1$) are zero, which means that
$$\widetilde \rho_{AB} = M_1\otimes N_1 = \rho_A^{1/2}\otimes \rho_B^{1/2},$$
or equivalently $\rho_{AB}=\rho_A\otimes \rho_B$.
(b) Suppose such measurements $\{M_A, I_A-M_A\}$ and $\{N_B, I_B-N_B\}$ exist and let $P_{UV}$ be the bipartite distribution corresponding to the outcomes of these measurements applied to $\rho_{AB}$. Then by Corollary~\ref{cor:1} we have $\mu(\rho_{AB}) \geq \mu(P_{UV})$. On the other hand by assumption binary random variables $U$ and $V$ have perfect correlation, so we have $\mu(P_{UV})=1$. Thus $\mu(\rho_{AB})=1$.
Conversely, suppose $\mu(\rho_{AB})=1$, so there exist $X_A$ and $Y_B$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:con1} and~\eqref{eq:con2}, and $\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB}X_A\otimes Y_B^{\dagger})=1$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:hermitian} we can take $X_A$ and $Y_B$ to be hermitian. Moreover, without loss of generality we may assume that $\rho_A$ and $\rho_B$ are invertible.
Define $Z_{AB} = X_A\otimes I_B - I_A\otimes Y_B$. Observe that
\begin{align*}
\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB} ZZ^{\dagger} )
& = \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB}XX^{\dagger}\otimes I_B) + \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB} I_A\otimes YY^{\dagger}) - 2\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB} X\otimes Y^{\dagger} )\\
& = \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_A XX^{\dagger}) + \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_B YY^{\dagger}) - 2\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB} X\otimes Y^{\dagger})\\
&= 0.
\end{align*}
Since both $\rho_{AB}$ and $ZZ^{\dagger}$ are positive semidefinite we conclude that $\rho_{AB}ZZ^{\dagger}=0$ and in fact
$\rho_{AB}Z=0$. Equivalently we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:x-to-y}
\rho_{AB}(X_A\otimes I_B) = \rho_{AB}(I_A\otimes Y_B).
\end{align}
Observe that
\begin{align*}
\rho_{AB}(X_A^2\otimes I_B) & = \rho_{AB}(X_A\otimes I_B) (X_A\otimes I_B) \\
& = \rho_{AB}(I_A\otimes Y_B) (X_A\otimes I_B) \\
& = \rho_{AB} (X_A\otimes I_B) (I_A\otimes Y_B)\\
& = \rho_{AB} (I_A\otimes Y_B)(I_A\otimes Y_B)\\
& = \rho_{AB} (I_A\otimes Y_B^2).
\end{align*}
More generally for every polynomial $q(t)$ we have $\rho_{AB}(q(X_A)\otimes I_B) = \rho_{AB}(I_A\otimes q(Y_B))$.
Using~\eqref{eq:con1}, $X_A$ is not a multiple of identity and has a non-trivial eigenspace. On the other hand orthogonal projections on eigenspaces of a hermitian operator can be written as polynomials in terms of that operator with \emph{real} coefficients. Therefore
there exists a non-zero orthogonal projection $q(X_A)=M_A\neq I_A$ and a hermitian operator $q(Y_B)=N_B$ such that
$$\rho_{AB}(M_A\otimes I_B) = \rho_{AB}(I_B\otimes N_B).$$
Replacing $N_A$ with $N_A^2$, we may assume that $N_B$ is positive semidefinite because
$$\rho_{AB}(I_B\otimes N_A^2) = \rho_{AB}(M_A^2\otimes I_B) = \rho_{AB}(M_A\otimes I_B).$$
Note that
$$\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_B N_B^n) = \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB} (I_A\otimes N_B^n)) = \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB}(M_A\otimes I_B))= \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_AM_A).$$
Moreover since $\rho_A$ is full-rank and $M_A$ is a non-trivial projection, $0< \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_A M_A) < 1$. Now if $N_A$ has an eigenvalue greater than $1$, since $\rho_B$ is full-rank, $\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_B N_B^n)$ would tend to infinity as $n$ goes to infinity. We conclude that all eigenvalues of $N_B$ are less than or equal to $1$ and $N_B\leq I_B$.
Consider the local measurements $\{M_A, I_A-M_A\}$ and $\{N_B, I_B-N_B\}$ to be applied on $\rho_{AB}$. The probability of obtaining $M_A$ and $I_B-N_B$ is equal to
\begin{align*}
\text{\rm{tr}}\left(\rho_{AB} (M_A\otimes (I_B-N_B))\right) & = \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB} (M_A\otimes I_B)) - \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB}(M_A\otimes N_B)) \\
& = \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB} (M_A\otimes I_B)) - \text{\rm{tr}}\left(\rho_{AB} (I_A\otimes N_B) (M_A\otimes I_B) \right)\\
& = \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB} (M_A\otimes I_B)) - \text{\rm{tr}}\left(\rho_{AB} (M_A\otimes I_B) (M_A\otimes I_B) \right)\\
& = \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB} (M_A\otimes I_B)) - \text{\rm{tr}}\left(\rho_{AB} (M_A\otimes I_B) \right)\\
& = 0.
\end{align*}
Similarly we have $\text{\rm{tr}}\left( \rho_{AB}((I_A-M_A)\otimes N_B) \right) =0$. We have $\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB}M_A\otimes N_B)\neq 0, 1$ because
$$\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB}M_A\otimes N_B) = \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB} M_A^2\otimes I_B) = \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_AM_A)$$
is strictly between $0$ and $1$.
\end{proof}\\
Part (b) of this theorem states that if $\mu(\rho_{AB})=1$, then some common data can be extracted from $\rho_{AB}$ by local measurements. That is, two parties who has shared $\rho_{AB}$ can apply two local binary measurements whose outcomes are non-trivial and perfectly correlated. It is not hard to see that the converse of this statement also holds; If one bit of common data can be extracted from $\rho_{AB}$, then $\mu(\rho_{AB})$ is at least as large as that of two perfectly correlated bits, which is $1$. Now the question is what happens if common data can be distilled from $\rho_{AB}$ in the sense of asymptoticly vanishing probability of error? To address this question more precisely we start by a definition.
We say that $\rho_{AB}$ has a common data in the asymptotic sense if for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists $n$ and local measurements $\{M_0, M_1=I-M_0\}$ and $\{N_0, N_1=I-N_0\}$ with outcomes $U, V$ such that
$$\text{Pr}(U\neq V)=\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB}^{\otimes n} M_0\otimes N_1) + \text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB}^{\otimes n} M_1\otimes N_0)\leq \epsilon,$$
and $\text{Pr}(U=0, V=0), \text{Pr}(U=1, V=1)\geq c$ where $c>0$ is a constant independent of $n$ and $\epsilon$.
In the classical case a joint distribution $P_{UV}$ has a common data if it is \emph{decomposable}. Decomposability means that $\mathcal U$ and $\mathcal V$, the ranges (set of alphabets) of $U, V$, can be decomposed as \emph{disjoint} unions $\mathcal U = \mathcal U_0 \cup \mathcal U_1$ and $\mathcal V = \mathcal V_0 \cup \mathcal V_1$ such that
$\text{Pr} [ \mathcal U_i \times \mathcal V_j]$
is equal to zero if $i\neq j$ and is positive otherwise. It is shown in~\cite{Witsenhausen} that decomposability is equivalent to having a common data even in the asymptotic sense, and that both of these are equivalent to $\mu(P_{UV})=1$. Here we prove this statement for quantum states.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:contin} Let $U, V$ be two binary random variables such that $p_{01}, p_{10}\leq \epsilon$. Then
$$\mu(P_{UV}) \geq 1 - \frac{\epsilon}{p_{00}p_{11}} - \frac{2\epsilon^2}{p_{00}p_{11}}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
$\mu(P_{UV})$ is equal to the second singular value of
\begin{align*}
\widetilde P_{UV}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{p_{00}}{\sqrt{(p_{00}+p_{01})(p_{00}+p_{10})}} & \frac{p_{01}}{\sqrt{(p_{00}+p_{01})(p_{01}+p_{11})}}\\
\frac{p_{10}}{\sqrt{(p_{10}+p_{11})(p_{00}+p_{10})}} & \frac{p_{11}}{\sqrt{(p_{10}+p_{11})(p_{01}+p_{11})}}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align*}
We know that the first singular value of $P_{UV}$ is $1$, so the second singular value is equal to
\begin{align*}
\mu(P_{UV}) & = |\text{det}\, \widetilde P_{UV}|\\
& = \frac{|p_{00}p_{11} - p_{01}p_{10}|}{ \sqrt{(p_{00}+p_{01})(p_{00}+p_{10})(p_{10}+p_{11})(p_{01}+p_{11})} }\\
& \geq \frac{p_{00}p_{11}}{(p_{00}+\epsilon)(p_{11}+\epsilon)} -\frac{p_{01}p_{10}}{p_{00}p_{11}}\\
& \geq 1- \frac{\epsilon(p_{00}+p_{11}) + \epsilon^2}{p_{00}p_{11}} - \frac{\epsilon^2}{p_{00}p_{11}}\\
& \geq 1 - \frac{\epsilon}{p_{00}p_{11}} - \frac{2\epsilon^2}{p_{00}p_{11}}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:common-data} $\rho_{AB}$ has a common data (in the asymptotic sense) if and only if $\mu(\rho_{AB})=1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} If $\mu(\rho_{AB})=1$ then by part (b) of Theorem~\ref{thm:extreme} common data exists. Conversely if $\rho_{AB}$ has a common data in the asymptotic sense, then by definition for every $\epsilon>0$ and sufficiently large $n$, $\rho_{AB}^{\otimes n}$ under local measurements can be transformed to random variables $U$ and $V$ such that $\text{Pr}(U\neq V)\leq \epsilon$ and $\text{Pr}(U=0, V=0), \text{Pr}(U=1, V=1)\geq c$ for some constant $c>0$ that is independent of $n$ and $\epsilon$. Thus using Lemma~\ref{lem:contin} and Corollary~\ref{cor:1} we have
$$\mu(\rho_{AB}) \geq 1 - \frac{\epsilon}{c^2} - \frac{2\epsilon^2}{c^2},$$
The claim follows since this inequality holds for all $\epsilon>0$.
\end{proof}\\
In the example at the end of Section~\ref{sec:new} we see that maximal correlation can indeed take any value between $0$ and $1$. On pure states however it takes only the extreme values.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:pure}
\begin{itemize}
\item[\rm{(i)}] Suppose $\rho_{AB}$ is pure. Then $\mu(\rho_{AB})=0$ if $\rho_{AB}$ is separable and $\mu(\rho_{AB})=1$ if $\rho_{AB}$ is entangled.
\item[\rm{(ii)}] If $\| \rho_{AB} - \tau_{AB} \|_{\text{\emph{tr}}} \leq \epsilon$ where $\tau_{AB}$ is a maximally entangled state and $\epsilon \leq 1/10$, then
$\mu(\rho_{AB}) \geq 1- 9 \epsilon$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} (i) If $\rho_{AB}$ is separable, $\mu(\rho_{AB})=0$ follows from part (a) of Theorem~\ref{thm:extreme}. Thus suppose $\rho_{AB}=\ket \psi\bra \psi_{AB}$ where $\ket \psi_{AB}$ is entangled with Schmidt decomposition
$$\ket\psi_{AB} = \sum_i \alpha_i \ket{v_i}_A\otimes \ket{w_i}_B.$$
Since $\ket \psi_{AB}$ is entangled at least two of the Schmidt coefficients (say) $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are non-zero.
Define
$$X_A = c\alpha_2^2\ket {v_1}\bra {v_1} - c\alpha_1^2\ket {v_2}\bra{v_2},$$
and
$$Y_A = c\alpha_2^2\ket {w_1}\bra {w_1} - c\alpha_1^2\ket {w_2}\bra{w_2},$$
where $c^{-1}=\alpha_1\alpha_2(\alpha_1^2+\alpha_2^2)^{1/2}$. Then $X_A$ and $Y_B$ satisfy~\eqref{eq:con1}, \eqref{eq:con2} and $\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB} X_A\otimes Y_B)=1$. As a result $\mu(\rho_{AB})=1.$
(ii) Since $\tau_{AB}$ is a maximally entangled state, there are local measurements $\{M_A^0, M_A^1\}$ and $\{N_B^0, N_B^1\}$ such that $\text{\rm{tr}}(\tau_{AB}M_A^0\otimes N_B^1) = \text{\rm{tr}}(\tau_{AB}M_A^1\otimes N_B^0)=0$ and
$$\text{\rm{tr}}(\tau_{AB}M_A^0\otimes N_B^0) = \frac{1}{d} \left\lfloor \frac{d}{2}\right\rfloor, \quad\quad \text{\rm{tr}}(\tau_{AB}M_A^1\otimes N_B^1) = \frac{1}{d} \left\lceil \frac{d}{2}\right\rceil,$$
where $d$ is the minimum of the dimensions of registers $A$ and $B$. Let
$$p_{uv} =\text{\rm{tr}}(\rho_{AB}M_A^u\otimes N_B^v).$$
Then using $\|\rho_{AB}- \tau_{AB}\|_{\text{\rm{tr}}}\leq \epsilon$ we find that
\begin{align*}
\left| p_{00}-\frac{1}{d} \left\lfloor \frac{d}{2}\right\rfloor\right| + \left| p_{11} - \frac{1}{d} \left\lceil \frac{d}{2}\right\rceil \right| + p_{01} + p_{10} \leq \epsilon,
\end{align*}
which using $\epsilon\leq 1/10$ implies
\begin{align}\label{eq:rt1}
p_{00}p_{11}\geq \left(\frac{1}{d} \left\lfloor \frac{d}{2}\right\rfloor -\epsilon \right)\left( \frac{1}{d} \left\lceil \frac{d}{2}\right\rceil - \epsilon\right) \geq \left(\frac{1}{3}-\epsilon\right)\left(\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon\right)\geq \frac{7\times 17}{30^2},
\end{align}
and
$p_{01} + p_{10}< \epsilon$.
By Corollary~\ref{cor:1} we have $\mu(\rho_{AB}) \geq \mu(P_{UV})$. So it suffices to show that $\mu(P_{UV}) \geq 1-9\epsilon$ which is a simple consequence of Lemma~\ref{lem:contin}.
\end{proof}
Although part (ii) of this proposition states the continuity of $\mu(\cdot)$ at maximally entangled states, by part (i) it takes values $0$ or $1$ on pure states and is not continuous at separable states. Here we argue that such a seemingly undesirable property is unavoidable.
The main point is that for every entangled pure state
$\ket\psi_{AB}$, its $n$-fold tensor product $\ket{\psi}_{AB}^{\otimes n}$ is close to a maximally entangled state.
Then considering the continuity of $\mu(\cdot)$ at maximally entangled states, we conclude that $\mu(\ket \psi\bra\psi_{AB})= 1$.
\section{Concluding remarks}
In this paper we generalized a measure of bipartite correlation called maximal correlation to quantum states.
We showed that this measure satisfies $\mu(\rho_{AB}^{\otimes n})= \mu(\rho_{AB})$, and proved a data processing type inequality for it. We showed that this measure fully characterizes quantum states with a common data. Here we should emphasize that maximal correlation in defined in terms of a semidefinite program, so can be computed efficiently.
$\mu(\cdot)$ is a measure of total classical and quantum correlations and takes its maximum value on two perfectly correlated bits. This implies that $\mu(\cdot)$ is not well-behaved under (even one bit of) classical communication. It is tempting to look for a measure of \emph{quantum} correlation with the above properties that vanishes on classically correlated states. In that case we could use such a measure to study the problem of entanglement distillation under LOCC maps. Even proving the nonexistence of such a measure would be interesting. \\
\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgements.} The author is thankful to Amin Gohari for introducing~\cite{KangUlukus}, and to Yury Polyanskiy for sending a copy of~\cite{Polyanskiy}. The author is also grateful to the unknown referee who pointed an error in the statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:common-data}.
This research was in part supported by National Elites Foundation and by a grant from IPM (No.\ 91810409).
|
\section{Introduction}
The arithmetic version of the Nullstellensatz states that
if $f_1,...,f_s$ belong to $\mathbb Z[X_1,...,X_n]$ without a common zero in $\mathbb C$, then
there exist $a$ in $\mathbb Z \setminus \{0\}$ and
$g_1,...,g_s$ in $\mathbb Z[X_1,...,X_n]$
such that $a=f_1g_1+...+f_sg_s.$ Finding degree and height bounds for $a$ and
$g_1,...,g_s$ has received continuous attention using computational methods.
By $\deg f$, we mean the total degree of the polynomial $f$ in several variables.
T. Krick, L. M. Pardo and
M. Sombra \cite{KPS} prove that:
If $f_1,...,f_s$
are as above with
$D:=\displaystyle\max_{i} \deg (f_i)$ and $H:=\displaystyle\max_{i} h(f_i)$
where $h(f_i)=$ logarithm of the maximum module of its coefficients, then
there exist $a \in \mathbb Z \setminus \{0\}$ and $g_1,...,g_s \in \mathbb Z[X_1,...,X_n]$
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $a=f_1g_1+...+f_sg_s$
\item[(ii)] $\deg(g_i) \leq 4nD^n$
\item[(iii)] $h(a),h(g_i) \leq 4n(n+1)D^n(H+\log s + (n+7)\log (n+1)D).$
\end{itemize}
This result is sharp and efficient.
For similar results we refer the reader to \cite{Ber, BS}.
On the other hand finding bounds in mathematics using nonstandard extensions
have been studied often, for example:
Given a field $K$,
if $f_0,f_1,...,f_s$ in $K[X_1,...,X_n]$ all have degree less than $D$ and
$f_0$ in $\langle f_1,...,f_s \rangle$, then
$f_0=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{s}f_ih_i$ for certain ${h_i}$ whose degrees are bounded
by a constant $C=C(n,D)$ depending only on $n$ and $D$.
This result was first established in a paper of G. Hermann \cite{Her} using algorithmic tools.
Then the same result was proved by L. van den Dries and K. Schmidt \cite{DS} using
nonstandard methods, and they paved the way for how nonstandard methods can be used
for such bounds. Their work in \cite{DS} influenced us
to apply nonstandard methods in order to prove the existence of
bounds for the complexity of the coefficients of $h_i$ as above by taking $f_0=1.$
We also define an abstract height function which generalizes
the absolute value function
and measures the complexity of the coefficients of polynomials over
$R[X_1,...X_n]$, where $R$ is an integral domain.
Using nonstandard methods, we will generalize the result of \cite{KPS}
to any integral domain and height function and furthermore our constant $c_2$
for the height function does not depend on $R$ or $s$,
but it is ineffective.
\\
Let $K$ be a field and $I$ an ideal of $K[X_1,...,X_n].$
We say that $I$ is a $D$-type ideal if the degree of all the generators of $I$ is bounded by $D.$
By \cite{DS} it is known that there is a bound $B(n,D)$
such that if $I$ is a $D$-type ideal then $I$ is prime
iff $1 \notin I$, and for all $f$, $g$ in $K[X_1,...,X_n]$ of degree less than $B(n,D)$, if
$fg \in I$ implies $f$ or $g$ is in $I.$
Here we show that it is enough to check the primality up to a certain height bound.
Let $\overline{\mathbb Q}$ be the set of algebraic numbers.
We say that an ideal $I$ of $\overline{\mathbb Q}[X_1,...,X_n]$ is a $(D,H)$-type ideal if it
is a $D$-type ideal and the logarithmic height of all generators of $I$ is bounded by $H.$
\\
We assume that all rings are commutative with unity.
Moreover throughout this article $R$ stands
for an integral domain and $K$ for its field of fractions.
The symbol $h=h_R$ denotes a height function on $R$ which will be defined in the next section.
We prove the following theorems:
\begin{thA} Let $R$ be a ring with a height function.
For all $n \geq 1$, $D \geq 1$, $H \geq 1$ there are two constants $c_1(n,D)$ and $c_2(n,D,H)$
such that if $f_1,...,f_s$ in $R[X_1,...X_n]$ have no common zero in $K^{alg}$ with
$\deg(f_i) \leq D$ and $h(f_i) \leq H$, then there exist nonzero $a$ in $R$ and
$h_1,...,h_s$ in $R[X_1,...X_n]$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $a=f_1h_1+...+f_sh_s$
\item[(ii)] $\deg(h_i) \leq c_1$
\item[(iii)] $h(a),h(h_i) \leq c_2.$
\end{itemize}
\end{thA}
\begin{thB}
Let $h$ be the logarithmic height function.
There are bounds $B(n,D)$ and $C(n,D,H)$ such that if $I$
is a $(D,H)$-type ideal of $\overline{\mathbb Q}[X_1,...,X_n]$ then $I$ is prime
iff $1 \notin I$, and for all $f$, $g$ in $\overline{\mathbb Q}[X_1,...,X_n]$
of degree less than $B(n,D)$ and height less
than $C(n,D,H)$,
$fg \in I$ implies $f$ or $g$ is in $I.$
\end{thB}
\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Height Function}
Let $\theta:{\mathbb N} \rightarrow \mathbb N$ be a function.
We say that
$$h:R \rightarrow [0,\infty)$$
is a height function of $\theta$-type if
for any $x$ and $y$ in $R$ with $h(x) \leq n$ and $h(y) \leq n$,
then both $h(x+y)\leq \theta(n)$
and $h(xy) \leq \theta(n)$.
We say that $h$ is a height function on $R$ if $h$ is
a height function of $\theta$-type for some
$\theta:{\mathbb N} \rightarrow \mathbb N.$
We can extend the height function $h$ to the polynomial ring $R[X_1,...X_n]$ by
$$
h\bigg(\displaystyle\sum_{\alpha}a_{\alpha}X^{\alpha}\bigg)
=\displaystyle\max_{\alpha}h(a_{\alpha}).
$$
Note that this extension does not have to be a height function,
it is just an extension of functions.
Now we give some examples of height functions.
\textbf{Examples:}
For the following examples of height functions, one can take
$\theta(n)=(n+1)^2$.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $(R,|\cdot|)$ is an absolute valued ring
then $h(x)=|x|$ is a height function.
Moreover $h(x)=|x|+1$ and $h(x)=\max(1,|x|)$
are also height functions on $R.$
\item The degree function on
$R[X_1,...,X_n]$ is a height function.
\item Let $\lambda$ be a positive real number.
On ${\mathbb Z}[X]$, define
$$h(a_0+a_1X+...+a_kX^k)=\displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^{k} |a_i|{\lambda}^i.$$
Then this is a height function on ${\mathbb Z}[X].$
\item Let $h:R \rightarrow [0,\infty)$ be a function such that
the sets
$$A_n=\{x \in R: h(x) \leq n\}$$
are all finite for all $n \geq 1.$
Then $h$ is a height function of $\theta$-type where
$\theta(n)=\displaystyle\max_{x,y \in A_n}\{h(x+y)+h(xy)\}.$
\item The $p$-adic valuation on $\mathbb Z$ is not a height function.
Note that
$1$ and $p^n - 1$ are not divisible by $p$ but
but their sum is divisible by $p^n.$
\end{itemize}
\subsection{The Logarithmic Height Function}
For the details of this subsection we refer the reader to
\cite{Bom, Eisenbud, HS, Lang}.
\\
For $f(x)=a_d(X-{\alpha}_1)...(X-{\alpha}_d) \in {\mathbb C}[X]$
the Mahler measure of $f$ is defined as
$$M(f)=\displaystyle|a_d|\prod_{|\alpha_j| \geq 1}|\alpha_j|.$$
For $\alpha$ in $\overline{\mathbb Q}$ with minimal polynomial $f(x) \in \mathbb Z[X]$,
we define its Mahler measure as
$M(\alpha)=M(f).$
The absolute non-logarithmic height of $\alpha$ is defined as
$$H(\alpha)= M(\alpha)^{1/d}.$$
Then the logarithmic height of $\alpha$ is defined as
$$h(\alpha)=\log H(\alpha)=\frac{\log M(\alpha)}{d}.$$
It is not known whether there exists an absolute constant $c>1$ such that
if $M(\alpha)>1$ then $M(\alpha) \geq c$.
This question was posed by D. Lehmer \cite{Leh} around 1933.
The best known example of the smallest Mahler measure
greater than 1 so far was also given by Lehmer:
if $\alpha$ is a root of the polynomial
$$X^{10} + X^9 - X^7 - X^6 - X^5 - X^4 - X^3 + X + 1$$
then $M(\alpha) \approx 1.17628.$
For detailed results on Mahler measure and Lehmer's problem, see \cite{S}.
The logarithmic height function is a function
that measures the complexity of an algebraic number.
The logarithmic height function behaves well
under arithmetic operations but using this definition it is not
immediate to see. So we will give an equivalent definition using absolute values.
Let $K$ be a number field containing $\alpha.$
We define the relative height
$$H_K(\alpha)=\displaystyle\prod_{v \in M_K} max\{1,||\alpha||_v\}$$
where $M_K$ is a set of absolute values extending the absolute values on $\mathbb Q$,
satisfying the product formula with multiplicities $N_v=[K_v:{\mathbb Q}_v]$
and $||\alpha||_v={|\alpha|_v}^{N_v}.$
Then absolute non-logarithmic height becomes $${H_K(\alpha)}^{1/[K:{\mathbb Q}]}$$
and this does not depend the choice of $K.$
Now one can see the height function behaves well under arithmetic operations:
\begin{itemize}
\item $H(\alpha+\beta)\leq 2H(\alpha)H(\beta)$
\item $H(\alpha\beta) \leq H(\alpha)H(\beta)$
\item $H(1/\alpha)=H(\alpha)$
\end{itemize}
\begin{lemma} \label{mahler}
Suppose $f=a_0+...+a_dX^d \in {\mathbb C}[X].$
Put $|f|=\max_{i}\{|a_i|\}.$
Then $2^{-d}|f| \leq M(f) \leq 2^{2d+1}|f|.$
\end{lemma}
Now we give the Gauss lemma.
First put $|f|_v=\max_{i}\{|a_i|_v\}.$
\begin{lemma} \label{gauss}
Let $K$ be a number field and
suppose $f$, $g$ are in $K[X].$
For a non-archimedean absolute value $v$ on $K$, we have
$|fg|_v=|f|_v|g|_v$
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Height inequality}
There is a relation between height of a polynomial and height of its roots.
Define $H(f)=\max_{i} H(a_i)$ as before.
Then if $f$ is a polynomial over a number field $K$, we have
$$H_K(f)=\displaystyle\prod_{v \in M_K} max\{1,||f||_v\}$$
and $H(f)={H_K(f)}^{1/[K: \mathbb Q]}.$
\begin{lemma} \label{heightt}
For $$f(x)=(X-{\alpha}_1)...(X-{\alpha}_d)=a_0+...+X^d \in \overline{\mathbb Q}[X],$$
$H({\alpha}_i)$ is uniformly bounded by $H(f)$ and $d$ i.e
$$2^{-d}H(f) \leq \prod_{i} H({\alpha}_i) \leq 2^{2d+1}H(f).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $K$ be a number field containing ${\alpha}_i,a_j.$
By \eqref{mahler} we see that $ 2^{-d}|f| \leq M(f) \leq 2^{2d+1}|f|.$
For non-archimedean $v \in M_K$, by \eqref{gauss} we see that
$|f|_v=\prod_{i \leq d}\max\{1, |{\alpha}_i|_v \}$.
Therefore since $M(f) \geq 1$, we obtain that
$$ 2^{-d}\prod_{v}\max\{1,|f|_v\} \leq \prod_{i,v}\max\{1,|{\alpha}_i|_v\} \leq 2^{2d+1}\prod_{v}\max\{1,|f|_v\}.$$
Hence we get
$$ 2^{-d}H(f) \leq \prod_{i} H({\alpha}_i) \leq 2^{2d+1}H(f).$$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Nonstandard Extensions and Height Function}
Now we define a nonstandard extension following
\cite{Hen}.
\begin{definition}[Nonstandard Extension of a Set] Let $\mathbb M$ be a nonempty
set. A nonstandard extension of $\mathbb M$ consists of a mapping that
assigns a set $^*A$ to each $A$ in ${\mathbb M}^m$ for all $m \geq 0$,
such that $^*{\mathbb M}$ is non-empty
and the following conditions are satisfied for all $m,n \geq 0$:
\\
(E1) The mapping preserves Boolean operations on subsets of ${\mathbb M}^m$:
if $A \subseteq {\mathbb M}^m$, then $^*A \subseteq (^*{\mathbb M})^m$;
if $A;B \subseteq {\mathbb M}^m$, then
$^*(A \cup B) = {^*A} \cup {^*B}$, $^*(A \cap B) = {^*A} \cap {^*B}$ and
$^*(A \setminus B) = {^*A} \setminus {^*B}.$
(E2) The mapping preserves basic diagonals:
if $1 \leq i < j \leq m$ and $\Delta = \{(x_1,..., x_m) \in {\mathbb M}^m:
x_i = x_j \}$ then
$^*{\Delta} = \{(x_1,..., x_m) \in (^*{\mathbb M})^m:
x_i = x_j \}.$
(E3) The mapping preserves Cartesian products:
if $A \subseteq {\mathbb M}^m$ and $B \subseteq {\mathbb M}^n$,
then $^*(A \times B) = {^*A} \times {^*B}.$ (We regard $A \times B$ as a
subset of ${\mathbb M}^{m+n}$.)
(E4) The mapping preserves projections that omit the final coordinate:
let $\pi$ denote projection of $n+1$-tuples on the first $n$ coordinates;
if $A \subseteq {\mathbb M}^{n+1}$
then $^*(\pi(A)) = \pi(^*A).$
\end{definition}
The set $^*{\mathbb M}$ will denote the nonstandard extension of $\mathbb M$.
For example, an ultrapower of ${\mathbb M}$ which
respect to a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $\mathbb N$ is
a proper nonstandard extension of $\mathbb M.$
Subsets of $^*{\mathbb M}$ of the form $^*A$ for some
subset $A$ of ${\mathbb M}$ are called internal. Not every subset
of $^*{\mathbb M}$ need to be internal.
We list the basic properties of nonstandard extensions with no proof.
\begin{itemize}
\item For each $n \geq 0$, $^*({\mathbb M}^n)=(^*{\mathbb M})^n$ and $^*{\emptyset}=\emptyset.$
\item For any $A,B \subseteq {\mathbb M}^n$, $^*A={^*B}$ iff $A=B.$
\item For each $x \in {\mathbb M}$, the set $^*{\{x\}}$ has exactly one element.
\\
Using the properties above, we can embed ${\mathbb M}$ into $^*{\mathbb M}.$
So without loss of generality we may assume that ${\mathbb M}$
is a subset of $^*{\mathbb M}.$ Moreover, if $A \subseteq {\mathbb M}^n$ then
${^*A} \cap {\mathbb M}^n=A^n$, in particular, $A \subseteq {^*A}.$
Also every function on $A$ extends to a function on $^*A.$
The new function is denoted by $^*f$, but without confusion we write $f$
instead. Lastly we give the most important property of nonstandard extensions.
\item \textbf{Transfer formula:} The two sets ${\mathbb M}$ and $^*{\mathbb M}$ satisfy
the same first order sentences. Moreover if $\phi(v_1,...,v_n)$ is a formula
over ${\mathbb M}$ and
$B=\{(x_1,...,x_m)\in {\mathbb M}^n: \phi(x_1,...,x_n) \text{ is true in } {\mathbb M}^n\}$
then
$^*B=\{(x_1,...,x_m) \in {^*{\mathbb M}}^n:
{^*{\phi}(x_1,...,x_n)} \text{ is true in } {^*{\mathbb M}}^n\}$,
where $^*{\phi}(v_1,...,v_n)$ is the corresponding formula of $\phi(v_1,...,v_n).$
\end{itemize}
The notion of a nonstandard extension and its properties can be generalized to
many sorted structures. This will be significant for the definition of the height function
which takes values in $\mathbb R.$
By a structure we mean a set equipped with some functions and relations on it.
For example, a ring is a structure with addition and multiplication.
A subset of a structure ${\mathbb M}$ which
is given by a first order formula is called a definable subset of ${\mathbb M}$.
We say that a structure ${\mathbb M}$ is $\aleph_1$-saturated if
whenever a collection of definable subsets
$(A_i)_{i \in I}$
whose parameters come from a countable set satisfies the finite intersection property
(that means for any finite subset $I_0$ of $I$ we have $\bigcap_{i \in I_0}A_i$ is not empty )
then $\bigcap_{i \in I}A_i$ is not empty.
\\
We assume all nonstandard extensions are $\aleph_1$-saturated.
Let
$$^*(K[X_1,...X_n])$$
be a proper nonstandard extension of $K[X_1,...X_n].$
For instance an ultrapower of $K[X_1,...X_n]$
which respect to a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $\mathbb N$ is $\aleph_1$-saturated.
Ultraproducts of structures automatically become $\aleph_1$-saturated.
Note that $^*(R[X_1,...X_n])$, $^*R$ and $^*K$ are internal sets.
The height function $h$ on $R[X_1,...X_n]$ extends to
$^*(R[X_1,...X_n])$ which takes values in $^*{\mathbb R}$ though
this extension is no longer a height function if $h$ is unbounded.
Moreover it satisfies the same first order properties as $h$. In particular
if $x$, $y$ in $^*R$ with $h(x) \leq n$ and $h(y) \leq n$, where $n \in {^*{\mathbb N}}$,
then we have both $h(x+y) \leq \theta(n)$ and $h(xy) \leq \theta(n).$
Note that $^*K[X_1,...X_n] \subsetneq {^*(K[X_1,...X_n])}.$
Define
$$R_{fin}=\{x \in {^*{R}}: h(x) \in {\mathbb R}_{fin}\}$$
where ${\mathbb R}_{fin}=\{x \in {^*{\mathbb R}}: |x|<n \text{ for some } n \in {\mathbb N}\}$ and
${^*{\mathbb R}}$ is a nonstandard extension of ${\mathbb R}.$ The elements in
${^*{\mathbb R}} \setminus {\mathbb R}$ are called infinite.
\\
By the properties of the height function, if there is a height function on $R$,
we see that $R_{fin}$ is a subring of $^*R$ and it contains $R.$
The next lemma shows when $R_{fin}$ is internal.
\begin{lemma}
The set $R_{fin}$ is an internal subset of $^*R$ if and only if the height function on $R$ is bounded.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $R_{fin}={^*A}$ for some subset $A$ of $R$.
First we show that the height function on
$A$ must be bounded. To see this, if there is a sequence $(a_n)_n$ in $A$ such that
$\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}h(a_n)=\infty,$ then by saturation there is an element in
$^*A$ whose height is infinite. This contradicts the fact that all the elements in
$R_{fin}$ have bounded height. So the height function on $A$ is bounded.
Therefore the height function on $^*A$ is also bounded. However since $R_{fin}$ contains $R$,
the height function on $R$ must be bounded.
Conversely if the height function on $R$ is bounded, then we have
$R_{fin}={^*R}$ and so $R_{fin}$ is internal.
\end{proof}
Now we fix some more notations.
Put $L=Frac(R_{fin})$ which is a subfield of $^*{K}$.
Note that $^*{K}$ is the fraction field of $^*{R}.$
Also we fix some algebraic closure $K^{alg}$ of $K.$
\\
For more detailed information about Nonstandard Analysis and Model Theory, the reader might
consult \cite{Gold}, \cite{Hen} and \cite{Mar}.
In fact of being a height function is very related to the set $R_{fin}.$
The following proposition is the nonstandard point of view
definition of a height function. However it is ineffective, i.e. it does not provide
the $\theta$-type of the height function.
\begin{prop} \label{height}
A function $h:R \rightarrow [0,\infty)$ is a height function on $R$
if and only if $R_{fin}$ is a subring of $^*R.$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We have seen that if $h$ is a height function then $R_{fin}$ is a subring.
Conversely suppose $R_{fin}$ is a subring and $h$ is not a height function.
This means there is some $N \in \mathbb N$ such that we have two sequences
$(r_n)$ and $(s_n)$ in $R$ with $h(r_n) \leq N$ and $h(s_n) \leq N$, but
$\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}h(r_n \star s_n)=\infty$,
where the binary operation $\star$ means either addition or
multiplication.
By saturation, we get two elements $r$ and $s$ in $^*R$ such that
$h(r) \leq N$, $h(s) \leq N$ but $h(r \star s)$ is infinite. This contradicts the fact that
$R_{fin}$ is a subring.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Faithfulness and degree bounds}
In this subsection, we list some results from commutative algebra and
in particular about faithful extension of modules.
We refer the reader to \cite{Bour}, \cite{Mat} or \cite{Mat2}.
Moreover we give the results in \cite{DS}
that lead to the existence
of the constant $c_1.$
\begin{lemma}\label{czero}
Let $F$ be a field and $f_1,...,f_s \in F[X_1,...X_n].$
Then $1 \in \langle f_1,...,f_s\rangle$ if and only if $f_1,...,f_s$ have no
common zeros in $F^{alg}.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
$\Rightarrow:$ Clear.
\\
$\Longleftarrow:$
By Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, there are $g_1,...,g_s \in {F^{alg}}[X_1,...,X_n]$
such that
$1=f_1g_1+...+f_sg_s.$
This is a linear system when we consider the coefficients of all the polynomials.
Therefore $1=f_1Y_1+...+f_sY_s$ has a solution in $F^{alg}.$
Now by the Gauss-Jordan Theorem, this linear system has a solution in $F.$
So there are $h_1,...,h_s \in F[X_1,...,X_n]$
such that
$$1=f_1h_1+...+f_sh_s.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{definition} Let $A$ and $B$ be two rings and
$A \subseteq B$. We say that $B$ is a faithful extension of $A$,
if the ideal $BI$ is proper in $B$
whenever $I \subset A$ is a proper ideal.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma} \label{faith}
Let $A$ and $B$ be two rings.
Suppose $A \subseteq B$ and $B$ is a faithful extension of $A$.
If $a,a_1,...,a_k$ are in $A$ and the linear equation
$$a_1x_1+...+a_kx_k=a$$
has a solution in $B$, then
it has a solution in $A.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma} \label{faithful}
Let $F \subseteq F_1$ be a field extension. Then the extension
$F[X_1,...X_n]\subseteq F_1[X_1,...X_n]$ is faithful.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $I \subset F[X_1,...X_n]$ be a proper ideal.
Then since $I$ is finitely generated, $I=\langle f_1,...f_s \rangle$
for some $f_1,...,f_s \in F[X_1,...X_n].$
By \eqref{czero}, $f_1,...,f_s$ have a common zero in $F^{alg}.$
Since we may assume ${F}^{alg} \subseteq {F_1}^{alg}$,
there is a common zero of $f_1,...,f_s$ in ${F_1}^{alg}.$
So by \eqref{czero} again, $IF_1[X_1,...X_n] \neq F_1[X_1,...X_n].$
\end{proof}
\textbf{Fact:} The theory of algebraically closed fields is model complete.
\\
For more on this see \cite{Mar}.
\begin{lemma} \label{irreducible}
Let $F_1 \subset F_2$ be a field extension such that both are algebraically closed.
Let $V$ be an irreducible variety in ${F_1}^n$.
Then the Zariski closure of $V$ in ${F_2}^n$ (which respect to the Zariski topology on ${F_2}^n$)
is an irreducible variety in ${F_2}^n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $V$ is a variety in ${F_1}^n$, there are some polynomials $p_1,...,p_s$ such that
$V$ is the zero set of $p_1,...,p_s$. Then clearly the Zariski closure
of $V$ in ${F_2}^n$ is the zero set of $p_1,...,p_s$ in ${F_2}^n$.
Call this closure $cl(V).$
Thus both $V$ and $cl(V)$ are defined by the formula
$$\phi(x)= \displaystyle\bigwedge_{i \leq s} p_i(x).$$
Now suppose that $cl(V)$ is not irreducible,
so there are two proper subvarieties $V_1$, $V_2$
of $cl(V)$ such that $cl(V)={V_1}\cup{V_2}.$
Then since the theory of algebraically closed fields is model complete,
we deduce that $V$ is reducible also.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor} \label{prime}
Let $F_1 \subset F_2$ be a field extension such that $F_1$ is
algebraically closed. Then
$I$ is a prime ideal in $F_1[X_1,...,X_n]$ iff $I{F_2}[X_1,...,X_n]$
is a prime ideal in ${F_2}[X_1,...,X_n].$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $I=(f_1,...,f_s)$ is a prime ideal in $F_1[X_1,...,X_n].$
Let $V=V(I)$ be the variety given by $I.$
Then by Nullstellensatz $V$ is irreducible.
So by \eqref{irreducible}, the variety $cl(V)$ is also irreducible in ${F_2}^n$.
Again by Nullstellensatz, $I{F_2}[X_1,...,X_n]$ is prime.
The converse is true by \eqref{faithful} since
$(I{F_2}[X_1,...,X_n]) \cap F_1[X_1,...,X_n]=I.$
\end{proof}
For the following Lemma see \cite[1.8]{DS}.
\begin{lemma} \label{Kfaith}
The extension $^*{K}[X_1,...X_n] \subset {^*(K[X_1,...X_n])}$ is faithful.
\end{lemma}
Using \eqref{Kfaith}, we can obtain the existence of the constant $c_1.$
The original proof in \cite{DS} also uses the concept of flatness to prove the
existence of the constant $c_1$. For the details see \cite[1.11]{DS}.
\begin{theorem}
If $f_0,f_1,...,f_s$ in $K[X_1,...,X_n]$ all have degree less than $D$ and
$f_0$ is in $\langle f_1,...,f_s \rangle$, then
$f_0=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{s}f_ih_i$ for certain ${h_i}$ whose degrees are bounded
by a constant $c_1=c_1(n,D)$ depending only on $n$ and $D$.
\end{theorem}
This is also from \cite[2.5]{DS}:
\begin{theorem} \label{sd-prime}
$I$ is a prime ideal in ${^*K}[X_1,...,X_n]$ iff $I{^*(K[X_1,...,X_n])}$
is a prime ideal in ${^*(K[X_1,...,X_n])}.$
\end{theorem}
\subsection{UFD with the p-property}
\begin{definition} We say that $R$ is a UFD with the p-property if
$R$ is an unique factorization domain endowed with an absolute value such that
every unit has absolute value 1 and if there are primes $p$ and $q$ satisfying
$$|p|<1<|q|,$$
then there is another prime $r$ non-associated to $p$
with $|r|<1.$
\end{definition}
\textbf{Examples}
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathbb Z$ is a UFD with the p-property whose primes have absolute value bigger than 1.
\item $\mathbb Z_p$ ($p$-adic integers) is a UFD with the p-property whose only prime has
absolute value $1/p.$
\item Let $\gamma \in (0,1)$ be a transcendental number.
Then the ring $S={\mathbb Z}[\gamma]$ is a unique factorization domain since it is isomorphic
to ${\mathbb Z}[X]$ and its units are only 1 and -1.
We put the usual absolute value on $S.$
Then $S$ has infinitely many primes $p$ with $|p|<1$ and
infinitely many primes $q$ with $|q|>1.$
So $S$ is a UFD with the p-property.
\end{itemize}
\begin{lemma} \label{primes}
Suppose $R$ is a UFD with the p-property. If there are primes $p$ and $q$
with $|p|<1<|q|$,
then there are
infinitely many non-associated primes with absolute value strictly less than 1
and infinitely many non-associated primes with absolute value strictly bigger than 1.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We know there are at least two non-associated primes with absolute value less than 1.
Let $p_1,...,p_k$ (for $k \geq 2$) be non-associated primes with absolute value less than 1.
Put $A=p_1...p_k$. Now choose $m$ large enough such that
$\bigg|\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{k}(A/p_i)^m\bigg| < 1.$
Since this element is not a unit, it must be divisible by a prime whose absolute
value strictly less than 1.
This gives us a new prime. For the second part, given $q_1,...,q_k$
primes of absolute value larger than 1,
for large $n$ the element ${q_1}^nq_2...q_k + 1$
provides a new prime that has absolute value greater than 1.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem A and Theorem B}
In this section we will give the proofs of Theorem A and Theorem B.
\begin{thA}
Let $R$ be a ring with a height function of $\theta$-type.
For all $n \geq 1$, $D \geq 1$, $H \geq 1$ there are two constants $c_1(n,D)$ and $c_2(n,D,H,\theta)$
such that if $f_1,...,f_s$ in $R[X_1,...X_n]$ have no common zero in $K^{alg}$ with
$\deg(f_i) \leq D$ and $h(f_i) \leq H$, then there exist nonzero $a$ in $R$ and
$h_1,...,h_s$ in $R[X_1,...X_n]$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $a=f_1h_1+...+f_sh_s$
\item[(ii)] $\deg(h_i) \leq c_1$
\item[(iii)] $h(a),h(h_i) \leq c_2$
\item[(iv)] If $R$ is a UFD with the p-property
and $h(x)=|x|$ is the absolute value on $R$,
then we can choose $a$ such that $\gcd (a,a_1,...,a_m)=1$ where $a_1,...,a_m$
are all elements that occur as some coefficient of some $h_i.$
\end{itemize}
\end{thA}
\begin{remark}
The constant $c_1$ does not depend on $s$ because the vector space
$$
V(n,D)=\{f \in K[X_1,...X_n]: \deg(f) \leq D\}
$$
is finite dimensional
over $K$. In fact the dimension is $q(n,D)={{n+D} \choose {n}}$.
Given $1=f_1h_1+...+f_sh_s$, we may always assume
$s \leq q=q(n,D)$ because if $s>q$ then $f_1,...,f_s \in V(n,D)$
are linearly dependent over $K$.
Assume first that $r \leq q$ many of them are linearly independent.
Therefore the other terms $f_{r+1},...,f_s$ can be written
as a linear combination of $f_1,...,f_r$
over $K.$ Thus the equation $1=f_1h_1+...+f_sh_s$ may be transformed into another
equation $1=f_1g_1+...+f_rg_r.$ Consequently if $1 \in \langle f_1,...,f_s\rangle$,
then $1 \in \langle f_{i_1},...,f_{i_r}\rangle$ where $r \leq q$ and $i_j \in \{1,...,s\}.$
Hence, we can always assume $s=q.$ Similarly the constant $c_2$ does not depend on $s.$
Moreover, none of the constants depend on $R.$
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
There is also a direct proof of Theorem A as follows:
Using the degree bound $B(n,D)$
for the polynomials
$g_1,...,g_s$ in a Bezout expression $1=f_1g_1+...+g_sf_s$, we can
derive a height bound since the degree bound allows
to translate the problem to solving a linear system of equations with precise number
of unknowns equations and the height function satisfies some additive and multiplicative properties.
However this computational method is also complicated
since the bounds for the height function depend on $\theta$ which is implicitly given.
Thus in practice this method is ineffective.
For this reason and to show how the problem is related to Model Theory,
we prefer nonstandard methods as in \cite{DS}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
If $R$ is a ring with absolute value which has arbitrarily small nonzero elements,
then we can multiply
both sides of the equation
$$a=f_1h_1+...+f_sh_s$$
by some small $\epsilon \in R$.
Therefore the height bound $c_2$ can be taken 1
and the result becomes trivial.
Note that $(iv)$ in Theorem A prevents us from doing this
if there are no small units in $R.$
However if there is a unit $u$ with $|u|<1$, then multiplying
both sides of the equation with powers of
$u$ the height can be made small again. So the interesting case is when
there are no small units
which is equivalent to all the units having absolute value 1.
Note also that if $|ab| <1$ then $|a|$ can be
very big and $|b|$ can be very small.
So cancellation can make the height larger
if there are sufficiently small and big elements
in the ring. Thus for the equation
$$a=f_1h_1+...+f_sh_s,$$ simply
dividing by $\gcd(a,a_1,...,a_m)$ may not work
in order to obtain $(iv)$ in Theorem A.
\end{remark}
\textbf{Proof of Theorem A:}
If $s=1$ then by Nullstellensatz, $f_1$ must be a nonzero constant.
Thus we may assume that $s \geq 2$ and $f_1f_2$ is not 0.
By Theorem 2.9, the constant $c_1$ exists and it only depends on $n$ and $D.$
Now we prove the existence of the constant $c_2.$
Assume $n$, $D$ and $H$ are given and there is no bound $c_2.$
Therefore for every $m \geq 1$ there exists an integral domain
$R_m$ with a height function $ht_m$ of $\theta$-type
and $f_1,...,f_s$ in $R_m[X_1,...X_n]$ with $\deg f_i \leq D$ and $ht_m(f_i) \leq H$ witnessing to this.
Thus in the field of fractions $K_m$ of $R_m$,
there exist $g_1,...,g_s$ in $K_m[X_1,...,X_m]$ with $\deg g_i \leq c_1$ and
$$1=f_1h_1+....+f_sg_s,$$
but for all $h_1,...,h_s \in K_m[X_1,...,X_n]$
with $\deg h_i \leq c_1$,
$$1=f_1h_1+...+f_sh_s$$ implies
$\displaystyle\max_j{ht_m(a_j)} > m$ where $a_j \in R_m$
is an element that occurs as a numerator
or denominator of some $h_i$.
Set
$$V_m(n,A)=\{f \in K_m[X_1,...,X_n]: \deg (f) \leq A\}$$ where $A \in \mathbb N.$
By Remark 3.1, this is a finite dimensional vector space over $K$ and the dimension is $q(n,A).$
So we can consider its elements as a finite tuple over $K_m$ and
any element of $V_m(n,A)$ is of the form $(a_1,...,a_{q(n,A)}).$
Also put $V_{R_m}(n,A):= V_m(n,A) \cap R_m[X_1,...,X_n].$
Note that the height of a tuple in $V_{R_m}(n,A)$ is the maximum of its coordinates.
Our language contains a symbol $h$ for the height function and
also the ring operations.
Consider the formula $\phi_m(v_1,...,v_s)$:
$$
\exists a^1_1\exists b^1_1 ...
\exists a^1_{q(n,c_1)}\exists b^1_{q(n,c_1)}...
\exists a^s_1\exists b^s_1 ... \exists a^s_{q(n,c_1)}\exists b^s_{q(n,c_1)}
$$
$$
\bigg(\bigg(\bigwedge_{i=1}^{s} (h(v_i)\leq H)\bigg)
\wedge\bigg(1=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{s}v_i\bigg(\frac {a^i_1}{b^i_1}
,...,\frac {a^i_{q(n,c_1)}}{b^i_{q(n,c_1)}}\bigg)\bigg) \bigg)
$$
$$
\wedge\bigg(\forall d^1_1\forall e^1_1 ...\forall d^1_{q(n,c_1)}\forall e^1_{q(n,c_1)}
...\forall d^s_1\forall e^s_1 ...\forall d^s_{q(n,c_1)}\forall e^s_{q(n,c_1)}
$$
$$
\bigg(\bigg(\bigwedge_{i}(\max_j(h(d^i_j),h(e^i_j)) \leq m)\bigg)
\rightarrow
\bigg(1 \neq \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{s}v_i\bigg(\frac{d^i_1}{e^i_1},...,
\frac{d^i_{q(n,c_1)}}{e^i_{q(n,c_1)}}\bigg)\bigg) \bigg).
$$
Note that this formula can be seen as a formula in $R_m$
by seeing each $v_i$ as the tuple of variables representing the polynomial $f_i$.
We see that $R_m \models \psi_m$ where
$\psi_m=\exists v_1...\exists v_s \phi_m(v_1,...,v_s).$
By compactness there is an integral domain $R$ with a height function
$h_R$ of $\theta$-type that satisfies all $\psi_m.$
Now we consider the set of formulas
$$p(v_1,...,v_s)=\{\phi_m(v_1,...,v_s): m=1,2,3...\}.$$
This is a set of formulas over $^*V_R(n,D)$ using countably many parameters.
This set is finitely consistent, so by saturation there is a realization
$f_1, ..., f_s$ in $^*(R[X_1,...,X_n])$.
But according to $p(v_1,...,v_s)$, the polynomials $f_1, ..., f_s$ are in $R_{fin}[X_1,...,X_n]$
and their degrees are less than $D$.
Furthermore the linear system
$$f_1Y_1+...+f_sY_s = 1$$
has a solution in $^*K[X_1,...,X_n]$
(because bounded degree polynomials of $^*(K[X_1,...,X_n])$
are in $^*K[X_1,...,X_n]$) but not in $L[X_1,...,X_n]$.
This contradicts \eqref{faith} because the extension
$L[X_1,...,X_n] \subset {^*K[X_1,...,X_n]}$ is faithful by \eqref{faithful}.
Hence we know that given $f_1,...f_s \in R[X_1,..,X_n]$
with no common zeros in $K^{alg}$ with $\deg(f_i) \leq D$ and $h(f_i) \leq H$,
there are $h_1,...,h_s$ in $K[X_1,...X_n]$ such that
$1=f_1h_1+...+f_sh_s$ and $\deg(h_i) \leq c_1(n,D).$ Moreover $s \leq q(n,D)$ and
$h(e) \leq c_3(n,D,H,\theta)$ where $e \in R$ is an element
which occurs as a numerator or denominator for some coefficient of some $h_i.$
Let $b_1,...,b_m$ be all the elements in $R$
that occur as a denominator for some coefficient of some $h_i.$
Note that $m=m(n,D) \leq q^2$ depends on $n$ and $D$ only.
Also we know that $h(b_i) \leq c_3.$ Put
$$a=b_1...b_m.$$
By the multiplicative properties of the height function,
we get $h(a) \leq c_4(n,D,H,\theta)$ for some $c_4.$
Now we see that
$$a=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{s}f_i(ah_i),$$
$f_i$ and $ah_i$ are in $R[X_1,..,X_n]$ and $\deg(ah_i)=\deg(h_i) \leq c_1.$
Moreover, again by the multiplicative properties of the height function,
we have $h(ah_i) \leq c_5(n,D,H,\theta).$ Now take $c_2=\max(c_4,c_5).$
Therefore we obtain $(i)$, $(ii)$ and $(iii).$
\\
Now we prove $(iv)$.
Assume $R$ is a UFD with the p-property.
We need to choose $a$ such that
$\gcd (a,a_1,...,a_m)=1$ where $a_1,...,a_m$
are all elements that occur as some coefficient of some $h_i.$
If all the primes in $R$ have absolute value bigger than 1 or smaller than 1, then
we can divide both sides of the equation
$$a=f_1h_1+f_2h_2+...+f_sh_s$$
by $\gcd(a,a_1,...,a_m)$ and get the result because
if all the primes in $R$ have absolute value bigger than 1, then
cancellation makes the height smaller and if
all the primes in $R$ have absolute value less than 1
then height is bounded by 1.
The remaining case is when there are primes of absolute value bigger than 1
and primes of absolute value smaller than 1.
By \eqref{primes}, there are infinitely many primes with absolute value
strictly less than 1. Now choose a prime $p$ such that $|p|<1$ and $p$ does
not divide $a.$
Let $d$ be the greatest common divisor of all coefficients of $f_1$ and $f_2.$
Then, the coefficients of $f_1/d$ and $f_2/d$ have no common divisor.
On the other hand, since there are both small and large
elements in the ring, $d$ can be very small and so
$f_1/d$ and $f_2/d$ may have very large absolute values.
Thus choose a natural number $k$ such that $p^kf_1/d$ and $p^kf_2/d$ have absolute value
less than 1. Put $v=c_1(n,D)+1.$
Then we have
$$0=f_1({X_1}^vp^kf_2/d)+f_2(-{X_1}^vp^kf_1/d).$$
Therefore we obtain that
$$a=f_1(h_1+{X_1}^vp^kf_2/d)+f_2(h_2 -{X_1}^vp^kf_1/d )+...+f_sh_s$$
$$=f_1g_1+f_2g_2+...+f_sg_s$$
where $\deg g_i \leq D(c_1 +1)=c(n,D)$ and $h(g_i)\leq c_2$.
Observe that
$$\gcd (a,a_1,...,a_m)=1$$
where $a_1,...,a_m$
are all elements that occur as some coefficient of some $g_i.$
\qed
Next we prove Theorem B.
\\
From now on, K denotes the algebraic numbers $\overline{\mathbb Q}$ and $^*K$ its nonstandard extension.
Set $$L=K_{fin}=\{x \in {^*{K}}: h(x) \in {\mathbb R}_{fin}\}.$$
Before proving Theorem B we need one more lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{alg}
L is an algebraically closed field.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since the logarithmic height function behaves under algebraic operations and inverse, $L$ is a field.
By height inequality \eqref{heightt} we see that $L$ is algebraically closed.
\end{proof}
\textbf{Proof of Theorem B:}
First note that if $J=(f_1,...,f_s)$ is an ideal of $D$-type then the number
of generators of $J$ can be taken less than
$$q=q(n,D)=\dim_{K}\{f \in K[X_1,...,X_n]: \deg f \leq D \}.$$
So we can always assume $s \leq q.$
We know the existence of the bound B=$B(n,D)$ by \cite{DS}.
Now we prove the existence of the bound $C(n,D,H).$
Suppose there is no such a bound. This means for all $m>0$
there is an ideal $I_m$ of $(D,H)$-type of $\overline{\mathbb Q}[X_1,...,X_n]$ which is not prime
such that for all $f,g$ with $\deg f$, $\deg g$ less than $B$ and
$h(f)$, $h(g)$ less than $m$, $fg\in I$ implies $f$ or $g$ in $I$.
Then by compactness there is an ideal $I$ of $(D,H)$-type of
$^*(\overline{\mathbb Q}[X_1,...,X_n])$ such that I is not prime but for all
$m>0$ if $f,g$ are of degree less than $B$ and are of height
less than $m$, $fg\in I$ implies $f$ or $g$ in $I$.
Now we see that the ideal $I$ is prime in $L[X_1,...,X_n].$
However it is not prime in ${^*K}[X_1,...,X_n]$ by \eqref{sd-prime}.
This contradicts to \eqref{prime} since $L$ is algebraically closed by \eqref{alg}.
\\
\textbf{Question:} Can we compute $C(n,D,H)$ in Theorem B effectively?
\section{Further Results}
In this section we prove some consequences on Theorem B.
For details we refer the reader to \cite{Bour, Eisenbud}.
First recall the followings:
\begin{itemize}
\item An ideal $J$ is a primary ideal if and only if
$Ass_{R}(R/J)$ has exactly one element.
\item Every ideal $J$ (through primary decomposition)
is expressible as a finite intersection of primary ideals.
The radical of each of these ideals is a prime ideal
and these primes are exactly the elements of $Ass_{R}(R/J)$ .
\item Any prime ideal minimal with respect to containing an ideal $J$ is in $Ass_{R}(R/J)$.
These primes are precisely the isolated primes.
\end{itemize}
\begin{cor} Let $n \in \mathbb N$, $X=(X_1,...,X_n)$, $I$ be an ideal of $L[X].$
\begin{itemize}
\item [(1)]If $p_k,...p_m$ are the distinct minimal primes of $I$ then
$${p_1}{^*K}[X],... ,{p_m}{^*K}[X]$$
are the distinct minimal primes of $I{^*K}[X_1,...,X_n].$
\item [(2)] $\sqrt{I{^*K}[X]}={\sqrt{I}}{^*K}[X].$
\item [(3)] If $M$ is an $L[X]$-module, then
$$Ass_{{^*K}[X]}(M \otimes_{L[X]} {^*K}[X])=\{p{^*K}[X]: p \in Ass_{L[X]}(M)\}.$$
\item [(4)]$I$ is primary ideal iff $I{^*K}[X]$ is primary ideal of ${^*K}[X].$
\item [(5)] Let $I=I_1 \cap...\cap I_m$ be a reduced primary decomposition, $I_k$ being a
$p_k$-primary ideal.
Then $$I{^*K}[X]=I_1{^*K}[X]\cap...\cap I_m{^*K}[X]$$
is a reduced primary decomposition of $I{^*K}[X],$ and
$I_k{^*K}[X]$ is a $p_k{^*K}[X]$-primary ideal.
\end{itemize}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
(1) is an immediate consequence of Theorem B.
(2) follows from (1) since radical of an ideal is the intersection of minimal prime ideals
which contain the ideal. Since $L[X]$ is noetherian,
(3) follows from \cite[Chapter 4, 2.6, Theorem 2]{Bour} and \eqref{faithful}.
To prove (4), suppose that $I$ is a $p$-primary ideal.
So we get $Ass_{L[X]}(L[X]/I)=\{p\}.$
Applying (3) with $M=L[X]/I$ we obtain that
$Ass_{{^*K}[X]}({^*K}[X]/I)=\{p{^*K}[X]\}.$
This proves (4). The converse of (4) is true by \eqref{faithful}.
(5) follows from (4).
\end{proof}
Now we give the standard corollaries.
For the following corollary, the existence of the constant
$E(n,D,H)$ is new.
\begin{cor}
There are constants $B(n,D)$, $C(n,D)$ and $E(n,D,H)$ such that
if $I$ is an ideal of $(D,H)$-type, then
\begin{itemize}
\item [(1)]$\sqrt{I}$ is generated by polynomials of degree less than $B$ and
height less than $E$, if $f \in \sqrt{I}$ then $f^C \in I.$
\item [(2)]There are at most $B$ associated primes of $I$ and each
generated by polynomials of degree less than $B$ and height less than $E.$
\item[(3)] $I$ is primary iff $1 \notin I$, and for all $f,g$ of degree less than $B$
and height less than $E$, if $fg \in I$ then $f \in I$ or $g^C \in I.$
\item[(4)] There is a reduced primary decomposition of $I$ consisting of at most $B$
primary ideals, each of which is generated by polynomials of degree at most $B$
and height at most $E.$
\end{itemize}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We know the existence of $B(n,D)$ and $C(n,D)$ by \cite{DS}.
The existence of $E(n,D,H)$
follows from the previous corollary.
Proofs are similar to the proof of Theorem B.
Details are left to the reader.
\end{proof}
\textbf{Question:} Can we compute $E(n,D,H)$ effectively in Corollary 4.2?
\section{Concluding Remarks and Further Discussion of Theorem A}
In this section we discuss the Theorem A in terms of unique factorization domains,
valuations and some arithmetical functions.
Also we give some counter examples for the Theorem A for non-height functions.
\subsection{UFD with the 1-property}
\begin{definition}
We say that $R$ is a UFD with the 1-property if
$R$ is an unique factorization domain endowed with an absolute value such that
every unit has absolute value 1 and there is only one prime $p$ of
absolute value less than 1 and infinitely many primes $q$ of absolute value greater than 1.
\end{definition}
\
\textbf{Example:}
Let $R$ be an unique factorization domain and
$p$ be a prime in $R$.
Put the $p$-adic absolute value on $R$ with $|p|_p=1/2.$
Let $c>1$ be any real number.
On $R[X]$ we define
$$|a_0+a_1X+...+a_kX^k|=\max_{i}c^i|a_i|_p. $$
Then $R[X]$ is a UFD with the 1-property whose only small prime is $p.$
\\
We proved the Theorem A for UFD with the p-property.
Thus the remaining case is when $R$ is a UFD with the 1-property.
Now we show the Theorem A is not true for a UFD with the 1-property.
The reason behind this is the fact that an element has small absolute value if and
only if its $p$-adic valuation is very large where $p$ is the unique prime of
absolute value less than 1.
\begin{prop}
Let $R$ be a UFD with the 1-property.
Then we cannot ensure the correctness of $(iii)$ and $(iv)$ simultaneously in Theorem A.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $p$ be the unique small prime in $R$ of absolute value less than 1.
Let $B$ be an element in $R$ of absolute value very big which is coprime to $p.$
Choose $m$ minimal such that $|p^mB| \leq 1$.
Similarly choose $k$ minimal such that $|p^kB| \leq c_2$.
Note that as B is very large then so are $m$ and $k.$
Set $f_1=p^{2m+1}+p^{2m}X$ and $f_2=p^{m}B-p^{m}BX.$
Clearly $f_1$ and $f_2$ have no common zero
since
$$p^{2m}B(p+1)=Bf_1 +p^mf_2$$
and $p$ is not -1.
Whenever we write $a=f_1h_1+f_2h_2$, we get that $p^m$ divides $h_2$ and $B$ divides $h_1.$
Also we have that $p^{2m}B$ divides $a.$
Now suppose $|h_i| \leq c_2$ for $i=1,2.$
Since $B$ divides $h_1$, we see that $p^k$ divides $h_1$ since $p$ is the unique small prime in $R.$
Thus $p^k$ divides $a$, $h_1$ and $h_2.$
Furthermore we may assume that the only prime divisor of $a$, $h_1$ and $h_2$ is
$p$, because if there is $q$ dividing all of them
which is coprime to $p$, then there is $l \geq k$ such that $p^l$ divides $h_1$
in order to make the absolute value of $h_1$ less than $c_2.$
Similar observation shows that $p^l$ also divides $h_2$ and $a.$
Therefore, in order to satisfy $(iv)$ in Theorem A, we need to divide
$a$, $h_1$ and $h_2$ by $p^k.$ So the absolute value of $h_1/p^k$
becomes very large.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Valuations}
\begin{definition}
A valuation $v$ on an integral domain $R$ is a function
$v:R\rightarrow \Gamma \cup \{\infty \}$ from $R$ into an ordered abelian group $\Gamma$
that satisfies the followings:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $v(a)=\infty$ if and only if $a=0$
\item[(ii)] $v(xy)=v(x)+v(y)$
\item[(iii)] $v(x+y) \geq \min(v(x),v(y)).$
\end{itemize}
Here $\infty$ is some element that is bigger than every element in $\Gamma.$
\end{definition}
For a nonzero polynomial in $n$-variable we define its valuation as follows:
$$v\bigg(\displaystyle\sum_{\alpha}a_{\alpha}X^{\alpha}\bigg)
=\displaystyle\max_{\alpha}\{v(a_{\alpha}): a_{\alpha} \neq 0 \}.$$
Note that this may not be a valuation that satisfies the three conditions above.
Take $R=\mathbb Z$ and as a valuation we put a $p$-adic valuation for some prime $p.$
Set $f_1=1+X+(1-p^m)X^2$ and $f_2=X^3$ where $m$ is some large integer.
Then the valuations of $f_1$ and $f_2$ are 0 and
clearly they have no common zero in $\mathbb C$.
One can see that 1 is a linear combination of
$f_1$ and $f_2$ and so every integer is.
However, whenever we write $a=f_1h_1+f_2h_2$ where $a$ is nonzero,
then $h_1$ must have degree bigger than 2 and the first three coefficients of $h_1$ are
uniquely determined: if $h_1(x)=b_0+b_1X+b_2X^2+...+b_kX^k$ then
automatically we have $b_0=a$, $b_1=-a$ and $b_2=ap^m.$
So the valuation of $b_2$ can be very large.
The main nonstandard reason behind this is the fact that
$$R_{vfin}=\{x \in {^*R}: v(x) \in {\mathbb R}_{fin}\} \cup \{0\}$$
is not a ring, because
for nonstandard $N \in {^*{\mathbb N}}$ the elements $p^N - 1$ and 1 is in $R_{vfin}$ but
not their sum. Therefore by \eqref{height}, we know that the $p$-adic valuation on
$\mathbb Z$ is not a height function.
\\
If we take $g_1=p^m-1 + X$ and $g_2=1-X$ then they have no common zero and
whenever we write $a=g_1h_1+g_2h_2$, then $h_1$ and $h_2$ must have the same degree and
same leading coefficient. This implies that $p^m$ divides $a$ which means that valuation
of $a$ can be very big even if the valuations of $g_1$ and $g_2$ are 0.
\\
A valuation is called trivial if for all nonzero $x$ we have $v(x)=0.$
We say that a valuation is a height function if the set
$R_{vfin}$ is a subring.
In fact we can determine when a valuation is a height function.
\begin{lemma}
A valuation $v$ on $R$ is a height function if and only if it is trivial.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If the valuation is trivial then clearly it is a height function.
Conversely is $v$ is not trivial, then it is unbounded.
So by saturation there is an element $a$ in $^*R$ whose valuation is infinite.
Then
$$v(a-1)=0$$
because if two elements have different valuation then the valuation of their sum
is the minimum of their valuations. So the elements $a-1$ and 1 are in $R_{vfin}$,
but not their sum.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Arithmetical Functions}
Now we discuss some arithmetical functions and which of them are height functions.
\begin{definition}
A function $g: \{1,2,3,...\} \rightarrow \mathbb C$ is called an arithmetical function.
\end{definition}
Every arithmetical function $g$ extends to $\mathbb Z$ by defining $g(n)=g(-n)$ and $g(0)=0.$
Such a function on $\mathbb Z$ is called an arithmetical function on $\mathbb Z.$
Similarly for an an arithmetical function $g$ on $\mathbb Z$, we extend it to ${\mathbb Z}[X]$ by
$$g(a_0+a_1X+...+a_kX^k)=\max_{i}g(a_i).$$
Let $^*{\mathbb Z}$ be a proper nonstandard extension of $\mathbb Z.$
Note that
$${\mathbb Z}_{fin}=\{x \in {^*{\mathbb Z}}: |x|<n \text{ for some } n \in {\mathbb N}\}= \mathbb Z.$$
For an arithmetical function $g$, we define
$${\mathbb Z}_{gfin}=\{x \in {^*{\mathbb Z}}: |g(x)|<n \text{ for some } n \in {\mathbb N}\}.$$
By \eqref{height}, $|g|$ is a height function if and only if ${\mathbb Z}_{gfin}$ is a subring.
Now we give some examples of arithmetical functions.
\\
\textbf{Examples: }
\begin{itemize}
\item $\varphi(n)= |\{1\leq k \leq n: (k,n)=1\}|$
\item $\pi(n)= \text{ number of primes less than n}$
\item $d(n)=\text{ number of divisors of n}$
\item $\omega(n)=\text{ number of distinct prime factors of n}.$
\end{itemize}
\begin{lemma}
Let $g$ be an arithmetical function and assume
that
$$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}g(n)= \infty.$$
Then $|g|$ is a height function.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $N$ is an infinite number in $^*{\mathbb Z}$ then $g(N)$ is also infinite.
This shows that ${\mathbb Z}_{gfin}={\mathbb Z}_{fin}=\mathbb Z$ which is a subring of $^*{\mathbb Z}.$
Hence by \eqref{height}, $|g|$ is a height function on $\mathbb Z.$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
For all $n \geq 1$, we have $\frac{\sqrt{n}}{2} \leq \varphi(n).$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\varphi(n) = \displaystyle\prod_{p|n}n(1-\frac{1}{p})$, we get
$\varphi(n) \geq \frac{n}{2^{\omega(n)}} \geq \frac{n}{d(n)}.$
Finally since $d(n) \leq 2\sqrt{n}$, we get the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
The functions $\pi(n)$ and $\varphi(n)$ are height functions.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Since there are infinitely many primes and $\frac{\sqrt{n}}{2} \leq \varphi(n)$, these two functions
are height functions.
\end{proof}
For the other two functions $d(n)$ and $\omega(n)$, they take small values when $n$ is a prime number.
\\
\textbf{Fact:} Every sufficiently large odd integer can be written
as a sum of three primes. This was proved by I. M. Vinogradov.
For more about this theorem, we refer the reader to \cite{Dav}.
\begin{lemma}
The functions $d(n)$ and $\omega(n)$ are not height functions.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By three primes theorem and the transfer formula,
there is an odd infinite $N$ in $^*{\mathbb Z}$ which
can be written as a sum of three primes in $^*{\mathbb P}$ where $\mathbb P$
is the set of all primes.
Furthermore we can choose $N$ such that
$\omega(N)$ is infinite.
This shows that the sets ${\mathbb Z}_{\omega{fin}}$ and ${\mathbb Z}_{dfin}$
are not closed under addition. So by \eqref{height}, they cannot be height functions on $\mathbb Z.$
\end{proof}
The next two Corollaries are also true for the function $\omega(n).$
For simplicity, we just give the proofs for the divisor function.
\begin{cor} \label{divisor}
There exist a natural number $A$ and two sequences $\{a_n\}$ and $\{b_n\}$
in $\mathbb N$ such that
$d(a_n) \leq A$ and $d(b_n) \leq A$ but
$$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}{d(a_n + b_n)}=\infty.$$
\end{cor}
\begin{cor}
Theorem A is not true for the function $d(n).$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Set $f_1=a_n+X+{{b_n}^2}X^2$ and $f_2=X^3$ where $a_n$ and $b_n$ are as in \eqref{divisor}.
Then $d(f_1)$ and $d(f_2)$ are bounden by $A^2$ and
they have no common zero in $\mathbb C.$
However, whenever we write $a=f_1h_1+f_2h_2$ where $a$ is nonzero,
then $h_1$ must have degree bigger than 2 and the first three coefficients of $h_1$ are
uniquely determined: if $h_1(x)=c_0+c_1X+c_2X^2+...+c_kX^k$ then
automatically we have $c_0=a$, $c_1=-a_na$ and $c_2=a(a_n - b_n)(a_n+b_n).$
Hence $d(c_2)$ can be very large.
Moreover if we put $g_1=a_n + X$ and $g_2=b_n-X$ then they have no common zero.
However, whenever
we write $a=g_1h_1+g_2h_2$, then $d(a) \geq d(a_n+b_n).$
Thus $a$ has many divisors although $d(g_1)$ and $d(g_2)$ are bounded by $A.$
\end{proof}
\textbf{Acknowledgements.} The author thanks Amador Martin-Pizarro and Frank Wagner for very fruitful discussions related to this paper.
|
\section{Introduction}
The Marcum $Q$-function, defined as the integral~\cite{Simon2003}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:marcumq}
Q_{1}(a,b) = \int_{b}^{\infty} x \exp\left( -\frac{x^{2}+a^{2}}{2}\right)
I_{0}(ax) \mathrm{d}x
\end{equation}
for $a,b\geq0$ where $I_{0}(x)$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind, is a
fundamental function that arises in the performance evaluation of a wide class
of communication systems \cite{Simon2003, Odriscoll2009a, Fu2011}.
From a mathematical point of view, this function represents the
complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of the power of a Rician
distribution. The
integral representation of the function given by~\eqref{eq:marcumq} cannot be
manipulated easily to provide simple expressions for the performance of communication systems, especially when the function $Q_1(a,b)$ must be integrated
with respect to one of its arguments \cite{Simon2003}. To solve this issue,
numerous works have proposed alternative representations of $Q_1(a,b)$
to facilitate analysis (see, e.g.,~\cite{Zhao2008, Fu2011} and references therein).
Exponential-type bounds, provided they are tight, have been particularly
attractive, especially when evaluating the bit error rate at high signal to noise ratio (SNR) \cite{Simon2000,
Fu2011}. In other situations, approximations may be more suitable than bounds \cite{Ding2008, Sofotasios2010a}. However, such approximations may have complicated mathematical structures and/or be inaccurate in certain domains of their arguments.
In this paper, a simple exponential approximation of the first order Marcum $Q$-function is
presented that yields small approximation error over a large domain in its two arguments.
The approximation is designed such that it can be used in situations where $Q_1(a,b)$ must be integrated over its second argument.
In what follows, a heuristic approach is first employed to find the right form of the
approximation, which is parameterized by two functions of $a$. An analytical framework for determining the correct parameterization is then explored, which is shown to be accurate for $0 \leq a \ll 1$. For $a \gg 1$, the optimal parameterization is calculated numerically. Although the proposed approximation is useful in its own right, it is particularly helpful in situations where the
$Q$-function must be integrated.
To illustrate this fact, we present an
example application of our results whereby the proposed approximation is used
to analyze the connectivity probability of a random ad hoc network operating
in Rician fading channels.
The structure of this paper is as follows. In Section
\ref{sec:proposed_approx}, the proposed approximation and means of deriving
the optimal $a$-dependent parameters are presented. An example application of the approximation is given in Section \ref{sec:application},
while the accuracy of the approximation is presented in Section
\ref{sec:results}. Finally, some concluding remarks are given in Section
\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Approximation of $Q_{1}(a,b)$}
\label{sec:proposed_approx} By plotting $Q_1(a,b)$ as a function of $b$ for various values of $a$, it can be readily observed that $Q_{1}(a,b)$ decays exponentially with $b$, where the value of $a$ roughly defines the shift of $Q_1$ along the $b$-axis.
Consequently, we propose to approximate $Q_{1}(a,b)$ by the functio
\begin{equation}
\tilde{Q}_{1}(a,b)=\exp\left( -e^{\nu(a)}b^{\mu(a)}\right) \label{eq:approx
\end{equation}
where $\nu(a)$ and $\mu(a)$ are nonnegative parameters dependent upon $a$. The
key is to choose these parameters such that the accuracy of the approximation
is high.
As previously discussed, we are concerned with obtaining an approximation that
is useful over the range of the argument $b$ for some fixed $a$. Thus, we
define the approximation error as the functio
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}(a)=\int_{0}^{\infty}(Q_{1}(a,b)-\tilde{Q}_{1}(a,b))^{2
\mathrm{d}b.\label{eq:approx_error
\end{equation}
Furthermore, we define $\mu(a)$ and $\nu(a)$ to be polynomials of order $m$,
where a larger value of $m$ yields a better approximation. Thus, we hav
\begin{align*}
\mu(a) & =\mu_{0}+\mu_{1}a+\mu_{2}a^{2}+\cdots+\mu_{m}a^{m}\\
\nu(a) & =\nu_{0}+\nu_{1}a+\nu_{2}a^{2}+\cdots+\nu_{m}a^{m
\end{align*}
in which case the approximation become
\begin{equation}
\tilde{Q}_{1}(a,b)=\exp\left( -e^{\sum_{n=0}^{m}(\mu_{n}\ln b+\nu_{n})a^{n
}\right) .\label{eq:approx_expand
\end{equation}
The goal is now to choose the coefficients $\{\mu_{0},\ldots,\mu_{m},\nu
_{0},\ldots,\nu_{m}\}$, independent of $b$, such that $\mathcal{E}(a)$ is minimized. Depending on
the value of the argument $a$, this can be done analytically or numerically.
\subsection{Analytical Approach for Small Arguments}
First, consider the case where $0\leq a\ll1$. It is logical to expand $Q_{1}(a,b)$
and $\tilde{Q}_{1}(a,b)$ about $a=0$ and equate the coefficients term by term.
Of course, if the expansions for $Q$ and $\tilde{Q}$ converge and the
corresponding coefficients match to arbitrary order, then $Q=\tilde{Q}$. Since
this is clearly not the case, it is advisable to equate coefficients
recursively, from lowest to highest order.
For example, let $m=4$. To leading order, we have $Q_{1}(0,b)=\exp(-b^{2}/2)$
and $\tilde{Q}_{1}(0,b)=\exp(-e^{\nu_{0}}b^{\mu_{0}})$. It follows that we
should choose $\mu_{0}=2$ and $\nu_{0}=-\ln2$ since this ensures the
approximation is exact at $a=0$. Next, we can equate the first order terms to
obtain the equation\footnote{The details of the calculations are
straightforward but lengthy, and are thus omitted here for brevity.} $\mu
_{1}\ln b+\nu_{1}=0$. But we see from (\ref{eq:approx_expand}) that this
formula implies there is no $O(a)$ term in the second exponent of $\tilde{Q}$.
Thus, we may take $\mu_{1}=\nu_{1}=0$ to maintain independence of $b$. This
process can be continued in a straightforward manner. However, when we equate
the fourth order terms, we obtain the equation $\mu_{4}\ln b+\nu_{4}=b^{2
/32$, and thus either $\mu_4$ or $\nu_4$ is
dependent upon $b$, a condition that is not allowed by our
definition of the polynomials $\mu$ and $\nu$. Instead, we can optimize $\mathcal{E}(a)$ over $\mu_{4}$ and
$\nu_{4}$ by differentiating with respect to each variable, setting the
results to zero, and solving for $\mu_{4}$ and $\nu_{4}$. This yields
the optimal fourth order polynomial
\begin{align*}
\mu(a) & =2+\frac{9}{8(9\pi^{2}-80)}a^{4}\\
\nu(a) & =-\ln2-\frac{a^{2}}{2}+\frac{45\pi^{2}+72\ln2+36C-496}{64(9\pi
^{2}-80)}a^{4
\end{align*}
which are independent of $b$, and thus satisfy the conditions of our
approximation\footnote{The symbol $C$ denotes the Euler-Mascheroni constant,
where $C\approx0.5772$.}. By substituting these expressions for $\mu(a)$ and
$\nu(a)$ into $\tilde{Q}$ and evaluating the integral in
(\ref{eq:approx_error}) for small $a$, it is apparent that $\mathcal{E}(a)\approx
7.5\times10^{-5}a^{8}$. Thus, the fourth order result is very accurate for
$a\ll1$, an observation that is corroborated by Fig.~\ref{fig:approximation_error_small_a}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{approximation_error_small_a.eps}\caption{Approximation error derived from fourth order polynomial representation of $\mu(a)$ and $\nu(a)$ for small $a$.
\label{fig:approximation_error_small_a
\end{figure}
\subsection{Numerical Approach for General Arguments}
While a closed-form expression for the coefficients of $\mu$ and $\nu$ can be obtained for small $a$, performing a similar analysis for larger values of $a$ is somewhat problematic. On that account, a numerical approach is followed instead. In particular, we propose to determine the appropriate values of $\mu$ and $\nu$ such that the following error is minimized:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathcal{E}} = \delta\sum_{\beta=0}^{\infty}\left( Q_{1}(a,\delta\beta)-\exp\left(-e^{\nu}(\delta\beta)^{\mu}\right) \right) ^{2}
\label{eq:SSE_sum}
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ is small and $\hat{\mathcal{E}} \rightarrow \mathcal{E}$ as $\delta\rightarrow 0$. Such optimization problems can be solved using numerical techniques \cite{Bjorck1996}. It should be noted that the problem of minimizing the error term defined in (\ref{eq:SSE_sum}) is not a convex optimization problem. As such, numerical methods may not always converge to the global optimum. Nevertheless, we find that the observed optimum is often adequate, as illustrated in Section \ref{sec:results}.
Since $Q_{1}(a,b)$ decays exponentially with $b$, we argue that we can ignore terms in the summation in~\eqref{eq:SSE_sum} corresponding to values of $b$ larger than some $b_{\max}$ in order to facilitate optimization. This is particularly justified by noting that we are interested in obtaining an accurate
expression for $Q_{1}$ that captures most of its mass. Thus, the upper limit
on the summation in (\ref{eq:SSE_sum}) can be replaced by $\beta_{\max} =
b_{\max}/\delta$. As an example, we set $\delta=10^{-4}$ and $b_{\max}=12$, and solved the above optimization problem using a line-search algorithm for several values of $a$. Results are shown in Table \ref{tab:nu_tab}.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Suitable $\nu$ and $\mu$ for different $a$
\centering
\label{tab:nu_tab}
\begin{tabular}[c]{ccc}\hline\hline
$a$ & $\nu$ & $\mu$\\[0.5ex]\hline
$1.0000$ & $-1.1739$ & $2.0921$\\
$2.0000$ & $-2.5492$ & $2.7094$\\
$3.0000$ & $-4.6291$ & $3.6888$\\
$4.0000$ & $-7.1668$ & $4.7779$\\
$5.0000$ & $-10.0339$ & $5.9074$\\
$6.0000$ & $-13.2014$ & $7.0794$ \\[1ex]\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Using the values listed in Table~\ref{tab:nu_tab}, it is possible to derive an approximate expression for $\mu(a)$ and $\nu(a)$ using polynomial regression \cite{Luxmoore1979}. For instance, assuming that $\mu(a)$ is a polynomial of fourth order in $a$, the regression model for $\mu(a)$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\mu(a_j) = \tilde{\mu}_0 + \tilde{\mu}_1 a_j + \tilde{\mu}_2 a^2_j + \tilde{\mu}_3 a^3_j + \tilde{\mu}_4 a^4_j + \epsilon_j
\end{equation}
for $j = 1,\ldots,N$ where $\epsilon_j$ is the error in the approximation, $\{\tilde{\mu}_i\}_{i=1}^4$ are the estimation coefficients, and $N$ is the number of observed instances (c.f.~Table~\ref{tab:nu_tab}). The above expression can be written in matrix form as $\boldsymbol{\mu} = \mathbf{A} \tilde{\boldsymbol{\mu}} + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}$, where $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\mu}} = \left[\tilde{\mu}_0,\cdots,\tilde{\mu}_4 \right]^T$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ is similarly defined, $\mathbf{A}$ is an $N\times 5$ matrix with $k$th column being $\left[a_1^{k-1},\cdots, a_N^{k-1} \right]^T $ for $k=1,\ldots,5$, and $\boldsymbol{\epsilon} = \left[{\epsilon}_1,\cdots,\tilde{\epsilon}_N \right]^T$. Using ordinary least squares estimation, the coefficients can be obtained using
$\tilde{\boldsymbol{\mu}} = \left(\mathbf{A}^T \mathbf{A} \right)^{-1}\mathbf{A}^T \boldsymbol{\mu}$. For $m=4$, this approach yields
\begin{align}
\mu(a) & = 2.174 -0.592a +0.593a^{2} -0.092a^{3} +0.005a^{4} \nonumber \\
\nu(a) & = -0.840 + 0.327 a -0.740 a^2 + 0.083 a^3 - 0.004 a^4.
\label{eq:approx_mu
\end{align}
Fig. \ref{fig:mu_nu_a_plot} depicts the comparison between
the optimized values (from Table \ref{tab:nu_tab}) and approximated values of
the two parameters given in (\ref{eq:approx_mu}). It can be observed from the plots that the two sets of
values are very close, indicating the suitability of the above two equations.
Such approximations are convenient if fast computation of the parameters
$\nu(a)$ and $\mu(a)$ are required.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{mu_nu_a_plot.eps}
\caption{Plots of $\mu(a)$ and $\nu(a)$ obtained through a numerical approach. The solid lines represent the optimized values, while the squares and circles
show the approximate values from (\ref{eq:approx_mu}).
\label{fig:mu_nu_a_plot
\end{figure}
\section{An Application of the Proposed Approximation}
\label{sec:application}
As previously stated, the presented approximation can
be particularly useful when the CCDF of the power of a Rician
channel needs to be
integrated over the second argument. The power of a Rician channel is noncentral-$\chi^{2}$
distributed, whose CCDF is given by
\begin{equation}
F_{X}(x) = Q_{1}\Big( \sqrt{2K},\sqrt{{2\omega^{-1}(K+1)x}} \Big)
\end{equation}
where $K$ is the Rice factor and $\omega$ is a channel dependent parameter.
Given that $a = \sqrt{2K}$ in this case and, in general, $1\leq K \leq10$
\cite{Proakis2000}, it follows that $a< 5$. On that account, the
approximations of the parameters $\mu(a)$ and $\nu(a)$ presented above can
readily be used.
To demonstrate the use of the proposed approximation of the Marcum
$Q$-function, we consider the analysis of the full connection probability of a
random ad hoc network, similar to the work presented in \cite{Miorandi2008,
Coon2012a}. Consider the connection probability of two nodes in a system,
which we denote by $H$, given a minimum data rate requirement of $R_{0}$. By
adopting an information theoretic definition of connectivity, we define
\begin{equation}
H = P\left( \log_{2}(1+\gamma|h|^{2}) \geq R_{0} \right)
\end{equation}
where $|h|^{2}$ is the channel gain between the two nodes and $\gamma$ is the
SNR which is dependent upon the distance between the two nodes and other
parameters such as the path loss exponent and antenna gains. Under the
assumption of a Rician fading channel with Rice factor $K$ and a path loss
exponent of two for illustration, we have $H(r) = Q_{1}\big( \sqrt{2K}, r\alpha\big)$
where $r$ is the distance between the two nodes and $\alpha$ is a function of
the system parameters. To derive the probability that the
network is fully connected, it is necessary
to average $H(r)$ over the configuration space \cite{Coon2012a}. For a
homogeneous system, this amounts to averaging $H(r)$ over all distances
between nodes. Such a calculation would involve an integral of the form (c.f.,
(19)-(21) in \cite{Coon2012a} for Rayleigh fading)
\begin{align}
\int_{r_{1}}^{r_{2}} r H(r) dr & = \int_{r_{1}}^{r_{2}} r Q_{1}\Big(
\sqrt{2K}, r\alpha\Big) dr \nonumber\\
& \approx\int_{r_{1}}^{r_{2}} r e^{-e^{\nu}(r\alpha)^{\mu}} dr\nonumber\\
& = \frac{1}{\mu}\lambda^{-\frac{2}{\mu}} \left( \gamma(\frac{2}{\mu
},\lambda r_{2}^{\mu}) - \gamma(\frac{2}{\mu},\lambda r_{1}^{\mu}) \right)
\end{align}
where $\lambda = e^{\nu}\alpha^{\mu}$, $r_{1}$ and $r_{2}$ are the minimum and maximum distances between nodes
within the system, and $\gamma(x,y)$ is the lower incomplete gamma function.
The complete analysis of the full connection probability is beyond the scope
of this letter. What is important to note is that without the approximation
derived in this paper, solving the integral stated above would be very
challenging if not impossible.
\section{Accuracy of the Approximation}
\label{sec:results}
To demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed approximation, we compare the proposed method to existing approximations in the literature \cite{Sofotasios2010a, Li2010} that generally yield small approximation errors. The comparisons are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:comparison_apprx}. For the approximation presented in \cite{Sofotasios2010a}, the value of $k$ was set to $50$ in equation (6) therein. On the other hand, the approximation in \cite{Li2010} is obtained by taking the average of the lower and upper bounds of the $Q-$function as presented by the authors. It can be observed from the plot that, for small $a$, the approximations are close to the Marcum $Q$-function. However, as $a$ increases, divergence from the actual curve is seen for the approximation of \cite{Sofotasios2010a}. Nevertheless, the proposed approximation still adequately represents the mass of the Marcum $Q$-function over the range of $b$ values; consequently, our approximation is robust with respect to changes in $a$, similar to \cite{Li2010}. It should be noted that, although the integral of the approximation in \cite{Li2010} is possible, the resulting mathematical expressions are considerably more complicated than the proposed method and thus do not easily lend themselves to further manipulations and calculations.
For large values of $b$, we note that existing bounds and approximations in the literature often provide a more accurate representation of $Q_1(a,b)$ compared to the proposed method. This can easily be observed graphically, but we omit the results here due to space constraints. We would also like to point out that some existing approximations \cite{Pent1968} lead to very accurate representations of $Q_1(a,b)$ for all $a$ and small values of $b$. As $b$ increases however, such approximations diverge.
For applications that require a closer approximation for large $b$, the expressions in \cite{Sofotasios2010a, Zhao2008} and references therein would be more appropriate. However, if the integral of the Marcum $Q$-function over the domain of the second argument is sought, the approximation presented in this paper is more suitable.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{comparison_apprx4.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the Marcum $Q$-function with the proposed approximation and that presented in \cite{Sofotasios2010a} and \cite{Li2010}. For larger $a$, the approximation in \cite{Sofotasios2010a} diverges from the actual curve for small $b$. Parameters for the proposed approximations are obtained from (\ref{eq:approx_mu}).}
\label{fig:comparison_apprx}
\end{figure}
We next compare $\hat{\mathcal{E}}$ for our proposed approximation and the one given in~\cite{Sofotasios2010a,Li2010}. Results shown in Fig. \ref{fig:SSE_plot} for different values of $a$ demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed scheme. As mentioned in the previous section, the range of $a$ values considered in the plot is the range that would typically be encountered in practice in communication system analysis with Rician fading \cite{Proakis2000}. However, for the problem defined in (\ref{eq:SSE_sum}), it is guaranteed that the solution would minimize the error term for any value of $a$.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, a simple
approximation of the first order Marcum $Q$-function was presented that can
be used in network connectivity analysis. For small input argument $a$, an analytical approach was
presented for finding the approximation parameters, while for larger $a$,
a numerical procedure based on an optimization problem was proposed.
Equations for approximating these parameters were then presented. Simulation results demonstrated that the
approximations led to an accurate representation of the Marcum $Q$-function,
especially for small values of $b$. As $b$ tends to infinity however, existing
bounds of $Q_{1}(a,b)$ yield to a closer representation of the function.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The authors would like thank Toshiba Telecommunications Research Laboratory
and the EPSRC (grant EP/H500316/1) for their continued support.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{SSE_plot3.eps}\caption{Comparison
of the approximation error $\hat{\mathcal{E}}$ using the proposed approach and the ones given in \cite{Sofotasios2010a} and \cite{Li2010}. The proposed approximation remains robust to changes in $a$.
\label{fig:SSE_plot
\end{figure}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{\bf Introduction}
\lb{int}
Since the works of A. R. Bodmer \cite{Bod} and E. Witten \cite{Wit}, the existence of strange quark
matter (SQM) has been largely investigated.
SQM is a particular form of matter comprising roughly equal amounts of $u$, $d$ and $s$ quarks.
It is presumed that SQM has been produced at extreme conditions of high temperatures and
densities in the beginning of the universe and/or latter at low temperatures and high
densities in compact stellar interiors (e. g., neutron stars and quark stars).
In this regard, it is of importance to mention the pioneer work of N. Itoh, who investigated
the possibilities for the existence of hypothetical quark stars \cite{Ito}.
According to the Bodmer-Witten conjecture, SQM might be more stable than ordinary nuclear matter.
In a pioneer work, E. Farhi and R. L. Jaffe \cite{Far} investigated SQM in equilibrium with respect to
weak interactions, at zero temperature and pressure, in the context of the MIT Bag Model \cite{MIT}.
In this model, quarks enter in the respective equation of state (EOS) as a free quark gas with a
Fermi-Dirac distribution.
The confinement is represented by a bag enclosing the free quarks with a constant $B$
which gives the vacuum energy density difference between the confined and deconfined phases.
Improvement of the model is obtained by the inclusion of corrections to first order in
the QCD coupling constant in the $\alpha_c<1$ (perturbative) regime (see \cite{Far} and
references therein).
Until now, SQM properties in dense nuclear matter and compact stars interiors have mostly been
considered in the framework of the MIT Bag Model
\cite{Far,HZS,AFO,KWW,Mad,DPM1,DPM2,Koh,Alb,Bur1,Bur2,Bur3,Sag,Boe,Pag,Min}.
Applications of the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio \cite{NJL1,NJL2} quantum field theoretical approach have
also been done to describe quark matter properties in compact stars interiors
\cite{DPM1,DPM2,BB1,BB2,BB3,LBT,Bla}.
In alternative investigations, in which quark masses are density dependent, SQM is also taken as a
free Fermi gas mixture of quarks and anti-quarks \cite{BeL,LuB}.
These approaches are used to describe $u$, $d$ and $s$ quark matter at zero and (not so high) nonzero
temperatures and large density regions where the approximation of free quarks can be considered.
However, this is not so at all densities and (low) temperatures.
Quarks strongly interact subjected to a potential that is large when the ${\rm q\bar q}$ distances
are large.
In this case, nonperturbative methods must be considered.
QCD, the fundamental theory of strong interactions, due to its nonlinearity has been taken
as an inappropriate theory for the purposes of practical applications as, for instance,
the calculation of an EOS to describe quark matter at all finite temperatures and densities,
including nonperturbative effects of confinement.
Asymptotically, the description of quark matter becomes simple, but at low temperatures and
(or moderate) densities the attempts to obtain an EOS including the confinement have appeared
as a difficult task to be achieved.
However, since 1987, the investigations of Yu. A. Simonov \cite{Si1} and H. G. Dosch
\cite{HGD,DSi,DPS} have resulted in the construction of an important method based on vacuum
field correlators functions that is being continuously developed up to now.
Recently the nonperturbative EOS of quark-gluon plasma was derived in the framework of the
Field Correlator Method (FCM) \cite{Si6}, also called Stochastic Vacuum Model.
FCM (for a review see \cite{DiG} and references therein) is a nonperturbative approach which
naturally includes from first principles the dynamics of confinement in terms of color electric
and color magnetic correlators.
The parameters of the model are the gluon condensate $G_2$ and the ${\rm q\bar q}$ interaction
potential $V_1$ which govern the behavior of the EOS, at fixed quark masses and temperature.
FCM has been used to describe the quark-gluon plasma dynamics and phase transition
\cite{ST1,ST2,KS1,KS2}.
An important feature of the model is that it covers the entire phase
diagram plane, from the large temperature and small density region to the small temperature and
large density region.
In the connection between FCM and lattice simulations, the critical temperature at
$\mu_c=0$ turns out to be $T_c\sim170$ MeV for $G_2\simeq0.006-0.007\;{\rm GeV}^4$ \cite{ST1,ST2}.
In a previous work, the existence of stable SQM on strange star surfaces (see Sec.3.3 in
\cite{Fla}) was shortly considered in the FCM framework.
In the present work, we perform a more detailed investigation of SQM on the same line.
The system is a gas of $u$, $d$ and $s$ quarks and gluons subjected to the interaction
potential $V_1$.
The vacuum energy density difference between confined and deconfined phases,
$\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|$, is a nonperturbative quantity expressed in terms of $G_2$.
The main parameters of our calculation are $\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|$(or $G_2$) and $V_1$,
and the strange quark mass $m_s$ (assuming $m_u=m_d=0$).
We first investigate the energy per baryon, from which we obtain the stability window with
respect to the $^{56}F_\ex$ nucleus.
Strangeness, hadronic electric charge and density are also addressed.
This application of the FCM to the study of the bulk properties of SQM (not considered before)
shows the role of the method to provide alternative indications for its parameters.
In \cite{Fla} we have shown the importance of the comparison of the FCM calculations with
astrophysical observations of some strange star candidates.
Similarly, in the present work, the main purpose is the relevance of the FCM predictions for
the SQM properties to be compared with lattice simulations and/or the results at RHIC and LHC
experiments.
This paper is organized as follows.
In Sec. \ref{beqs} we summarize the theoretical framework of the FCM and show the equations to
be used in our calculation.
In Sec. \ref{res} we show the results and in Sec. \ref{frem} we give the final remarks and
conclusions.
\section{Basics equations}
\lb{beqs}
In the FCM approach, the confined-deconfined phase transition is dominated by the
nonperturbative correlators \cite{DiG}.
The dynamic of deconfinement is described by Gaussian (quadratic in $F^a_{\mu\nu}F^a_{\mu\nu}$)
colorelectric and colormagnetic gauge invariant Fields Correlators $D^E(x)$, $D^E_1(x)$,
$D^H(x)$, and $D^H_1(x)$.
The main quantity which governs the nonperturbative dynamics of deconfinement is given by the
two point functions (after a decomposition is made)
\bqn
g^2\bigg<\hat tr_f[E_i(x)\Phi(x,y)E_k(x)\Phi(y,x)]\bigg>_B&=&\delta_{ik}
[D^E+D^E_1+u^2_4\frac{\partial D^E_1}{\partial u^2_4}]+
u_iu_k\frac{\partial D^E_1}{\partial u^2}
\lb{gEE}
\eqn
\bqn
g^2\bigg<\hat tr_f[H_i(x)\Phi(x,y)H_k(x)\Phi(y,x)]\bigg>_B&=&\delta_{ik}
[D^H+D^H_1+u^2_4\frac{\partial D^H_1}{\partial u^2_4}]-
u_iu_k\frac{\partial D^H_1}{\partial u^2}
\lb{gHH}
\eqn
where $u=x-y$ and
\bq
\Phi(x,y)=P\exp\bigg[ig\int^y_xA_\mu dx^\mu\bigg]
\lb{29}
\eq
is the parallel transporter (Schwinger line) to assure gauge invariance.
In the confined phase (below $T_c$), $D^E(x)$ is responsible for confinement with string
tension $\sigma^E=(1/2)\int D^E(x)d^2x$.
Above $T_c$ (deconfined phase), $D^E(x)$ vanishes while $D^E_1(x)$ remains nonzero being
responsible (toghether with the magnetic part due to $D^H(x)$ and $D^H_1(x)$) for nonperturbative
dynamics of the deconfined phase.
In lattice calculations, the nonperturbative part of $D^E_1(x)$ is parametrized in the form
\cite{Si5,DiG}
\bq
D^E_1(x)=D^E_1(0)\ex^{-|x|/\lambda}\;,
\lb{DE1}
\eq
where $\lambda=0.34\;{\rm fm}$ {\rm(full QCD)} is the correlation length, with the normalization
fixed at $T=\mu=0$,
\bq
D^E(0)+D^E_1(0)=\frac{\pi^2}{18}G_2\;,
\lb{DEDE1}
\eq
where $G_2$ is the gluon condensate \cite{SVZ}.
The generalization of the FCM at finite $T$ and $\mu$ provides expressions for the
thermodynamics quantities where the leading contribution is given by the interaction of
the single quark and gluon lines with the vacuum (called single line approximation (SLA)).
As in \cite{Fla}, from \cite{Si6} and standard thermodynamical relations \cite{Kap}, we here
explicitly rewrite in more convenient forms (for our purposes) the expressions (for one quark
system, $N_f=1$) for the pressure
\bq
p^{SLA}_q=\frac{1}{3}
\frac{2N_c}{(2\pi)^3}\int d^3k\frac{k^2}{E}
\bigg[f^{SLA}_q(T,J^E_1,\mu_q)+{\bar f}^{SLA}_q(T,J^E_1,\mu_q)\bigg]\;,
\lb{p}
\eq
energy density
\bq
\varepsilon^{SLA}_q=
\frac{2N_c}{(2\pi)^3}\int d^3kŜ
\bigg[E-T(T\frac{\partial J^E_1}{\partial T}+\mu_q\frac{\partial J^E_1}{\partial\mu_q})\bigg]
\bigg[f^{SLA}_q(T,J^E_1,\mu_q)+{\bar f}^{SLA}_q(T,J^E_1,\mu_q)\bigg]\;,
\lb{e}
\eq
and include the number density of the quark system
\bqn
n^{SLA}_q&=&
\frac{2N_c}{(2\pi)^3}\int d^3k
\bigg[f^{SLA}_q(T,J^E_1,\mu_q)-{\bar f}^{SLA}_q(T,J^E_1,\mu_q)\bigg]\nonumber\\
&-&T\frac{\partial J^E_1}{\partial\mu_q}\frac{2N_c}{(2\pi)^3}\int d^3k
\bigg[f^{SLA}_q(T,J^E_1,\mu_q)+{\bar f}^{SLA}_q(T,J^E_1,\mu_q)\bigg]\;,
\lb{dens}
\eqn
where
\bqn
f^{SLA}_q(T,\mu_q,J^E_1)=\frac{1}{\ex^{\beta(E+TJ^E_1-\mu_q)}+1}\;\;&{\rm and}&\;\;
{\bar f}^{SLA}_q(T,\mu_q,J^E_1)=\frac{1}{\ex^{\beta(E+TJ^E_1+\mu_q)}+1}\;
\lb{nJE}
\eqn
($q=u,d,s$), $E=\sqrt{k^2+m^2_q}$, $\beta=1/T$, and $J^E_1\equiv V_1/2T$ is the exponent of the
Polyakov loop in the fundamental representation, where
\bq
V_1=\int^\beta_0d\tau(1-\tau T)\int^\infty_0\xi d\xi D^E_1(\sqrt{\xi^2+\tau^2})\;.
\lb{V1}
\eq
is the large distance static ${\rm q\bar q}$ potential \cite{Si5,Si6,DiG}.
The pressure and energy density of gluons are given by
\bq
p^{SLA}_{gl}=\frac{(N_c^2-1)}{3}\frac{2}{(2\pi)^3}\int d^3k
\frac{k}{\ex^{\beta(k+T{\tilde J}^E_1)}-1}
\lb{pgl}
\eq
and
\bq
\varepsilon^{SLA}_{gl}=3\;p_{gl}-T^2\frac{\partial\tilde{J}^E_1}{\partial T}(N_c^2-1)
\frac{2}{(2\pi)^3}\int d^3k\frac{1}{\ex^{\beta(k+T{\tilde J}^E_1)}-1}\;,
\lb{egl}
\eq
where ${\tilde J}^E_1=\frac{9}{4}J^E_1$ is the exponent of the Polyakov loop in the adjoint
representation.
In Eqs.(\ref{nJE}), (\ref{pgl}) and (\ref{egl}), when $V_1=0$ we recover the ordinary Fermi
and Bose gases.
In order to give Eqs.(\ref{p})-(\ref{egl}) in its most general forms, it was assumed
that $V_1$ is, in principle, a function of temperature and chemical potential.
However, according to the parametrization given by Eq. (\ref{V1}), $V_1$ does not depend
on the chemical potential.
As pointed out in \cite{ST1}, the expected $\mu$-dependence of $V_1$ should be weak
for values of $\mu$ much smaller than the scale of vacuum fields (which is of the order
of $\sim 1.5$ GeV) and is partially supported by the lattice simulations \cite{Dor}.
As in \cite{Bal,Bur,Fla}, we take $V_1$ independent of the chemical potential, so
$\;\partial J^E_1/\partial\mu_q=0\;$ in Eqs. (\ref{e}) and (\ref{dens}).
In order to take into account the presence of electrons to keep the quark matter in
$\beta$-equilibrium and with charge neutrality, we also include the equations for the
pressure, energy density and number density of electrons given by
\bq
p_{\rm e}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{2}{(2\pi)^3}\int d^3k\frac{k^2}{E_\ex}
[f_{\rm e}(T,\mu_{\rm e})+{\bar f}_{\rm e}(T,\mu_{\rm e})]\;,
\lb{pel}
\eq
\bq
\varepsilon_{\rm e}=\frac{2}{(2\pi)^3}\int d^3k\;E_\ex
[f_{\rm e}(T,\mu_{\rm e})+{\bar f}_{\rm e}(T,\mu_{\rm e})]\;,
\lb{eel}
\eq
\bq
n_{\rm e}=\frac{2}{(2\pi)^3}\int d^3k
[f_{\rm e}(T,\mu_{\rm e})-{\bar f}_{\rm e}(T,\mu_{\rm e})]\;,
\lb{nel}
\eq
where
\bqn
f_{\rm e}(T,\mu_{\rm e})=\frac{1}{\ex^{\beta(E_\ex-\mu_{\rm e})}+1}\;\;&,&\;\;
{\bar f}_{\rm e}(T,\mu_{\rm e})=\frac{1}{\ex^{\beta(E_\ex+\mu_\ex)}+1}\;
\lb{fdel}
\eqn
and $E_\ex=\sqrt{k^2_\ex+m^2_\ex}$ .
The composition of SQM is maintained in $\beta$-equilibrium with respect to weak
interactions and in electric charge neutrality.
The weak interactions reactions are given by
\bq
d\rightarrow u+\ex+{\bar\nu}_\ex
\lb{due}
\eq
and
\bq
s\rightarrow u+\ex+{\bar\nu}_\ex\;.
\lb{sue}
\eq
As pointed out in \cite{Far}, the neutrino gas is so dilute that it play no role in the
dynamics of the system.
So, by neglecting the neutrino chemical potential, the chemical equilibrium equations are
given by
\bq
\mu_d=\mu_u+\mu_\ex\;
\lb{mud}
\eq
and
\bq
\mu_s=\mu_d\;.
\lb{mus}
\eq
The overall charge neutrality requires that
\bq
\frac{1}{3}(2n^{SLA}_u-n^{SLA}_d-n^{SLA}_s)-n_\ex=0\;.
\lb{chn}
\eq
By numerically solving Eqs. (\ref{mud})-(\ref{chn}), for each value of the input
total density
\bq
n=n^{SLA}_u+n^{SLA}_d+n^{SLA}_s+n_\ex\;,
\lb{nT}
\eq
the unknown chemical potentials $\mu_{\rm u}$, $\mu_{\rm d}$, $\mu_{\rm s}$ and
$\mu_{\rm e}$ are determined for fixed values of $T$, $G_2$ and $V_1$.
However, our calculation here is slightly different from that in \cite{Fla}, as
explained below.
The total pressure and energy density of the quark-gluon system, including electrons
are given by
\bq
p=p^{SLA}_{gl}+\sum_{q=u,d,s}p^{SLA}_{q}-\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|+p_{\rm e}\;,
\lb{pqgl}
\eq
\bq
\varepsilon=\varepsilon^{SLA}_{gl}+\sum_{q=u,d,s}\varepsilon^{SLA}_{q}+
\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|+\varepsilon_{\rm e}\;,
\lb{eqgl}
\eq
where
\bq
\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|=\frac{11-\frac{2}{3}N_f}{32}\Delta G_2\;,
\lb{dvac}
\eq
is the vacuum energy density defference between confined and deconfined phases in terms of
the respective difference between the values of the gluon condensate,
$\Delta G_2=G_2(T<T_c)-G_2(T>T_c)\simeq \frac{1}{2}G_2$ \cite{ST1,ST2}, and $N_f$ is the
number of flavors.
We follow the same line of \cite{Far} to investigate the behavior of the SQM at zero
temperature\footnote{In reality, we take $T=0.001$ GeV in Eqs. (\ref{p}-\ref{nel}) which
is a good approximation or, alternatively, by using Eqs.(\ref{pqT0}) - (\ref{nqT0}).}
and total pressure by solving the above equations for constant values of the energy per
baryon, $E/A=\varepsilon/n_A$, where $n_A=(n_u+n_d+n_s)/3$ is the baryon number density.
We perform our calculation in the $m_u=m_d=0$ approximation\footnote{For our purposes
here, it is irrelevant if electrons are assumed massless or not.} (in Sec. \ref{res},
larger values of $m_u$ and $m_d$ are speculated in order to look for strangeness
excess and negative electric charge possibilities).
By using the constant $E/A$ constraint in the above equations, $m_s$ and
$\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|$ (or $G_2$) are determined for fixed values of $V_1$ in the
range $0\leq V_1\leq0.5$ GeV (where $V_1=0.5$ GeV is the value of $V_1$ at $T=T_c$
obtained from lattice investigations \cite{KaZ}).
As in \cite{Bur,Bal,Fla}, our calculation here is made for $V_1$ constant, so
$\;T^2\partial J^E_1/\partial T=-V_1/2\;$ in Eq. (\ref{e}).
\subsection{\bf Quark matter at ${\bf T=0}$ and constant ${\bf V_1}$.}
\lb{eosT0}
For pedagogical purposes, we show the previous equations for the quark system at zero
temperature and constant $V_1$ for the general case of nonzero quark masses.
Zero temperature implies that
\bq
f_q^{SLA}(T,\mu_q,J^E_1)\T0lim\Theta(\mu_q-E-TJ^E_1)
\lb{T0lim}
\eq
and Eqs.(\ref{p})-(\ref{dens}) lead to
\bq
p_q^{SLA}=\frac{N_c}{3\pi^2}\Bigg\{\frac{k_q^3}{4}\sqrt{k_q^2+m_q^2}-
\frac{3}{8}\;m_q^2\bigg[k_q\sqrt{k_q^2+m_q^2}-m_q^2\;\ln\bigg(\frac{k_q+\sqrt{k_q^2+m_q^2}}{m_q}\bigg)
\bigg]\Bigg\}\;,
\lb{pqT0}
\eq
\bqn
\varepsilon_q^{SLA}&=&\frac{N_c}{\pi^2}\Bigg\{\frac{k_q^3}{4}\sqrt{k_q^2+m_q^2}+
\frac{m_q^2}{8}\;\bigg[k_q\sqrt{k_q^2+m_q^2}-m_q^2\;\ln\bigg(\frac{k_q+\sqrt{k_q^2+m_q^2}}{m_q}
\bigg)\bigg]\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{V_1}{2}\;\frac{k_q^3}{3}
\Bigg\}
\lb{eqT0}
\eqn
and
\bq
n_q^{SLA}=\frac{N_c}{\pi^2}\;\frac{k_q^3}{3}\;,
\lb{nqT0}
\eq
where
\bq
k_q=\sqrt{(\mu_q-V_1/2)^2-m_q^2}\;,\;\;\;\;(q=\rm{u,d,s}).
\lb{kq}
\eq
When $V_1=0$, the ordinary Fermi momentum $k_F$ is recovered.
\subsubsection{ Zero mass approximation}
\lb{eosT0m0}
In order to better understand the role of $G_2$ and $V_1$ in the study of stability of
quark matter, it is instructive to apply the above equations to quark matter at zero
temperature and pressure, assuming that all quark species are massless particles.
This simple case serve to help us to understand the behavior of the constant $E/A$
curves in Fig. \ref{msevG2}, as well as the shrinking of the stability window in panel (a)
of Fig. \ref{fewin}, at $m_s=0$.
For massless quarks, Eqs.(\ref{pqT0})-(\ref{nqT0}) (with $N_c=3$), by using Eq.(\ref{kq}), are reduced to
\bq
p_q^{SLA}=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\;\bigg(\mu_q-\frac{V_1}{2}\bigg)^4\;,
\lb{pqT0m0}
\eq
\bqn
\varepsilon_q^{SLA}&=&\frac{1}{\pi^2}\bigg\{\frac{3}{4}\bigg(\mu_q-\frac{V_1}{2}\bigg)^4+
\;\frac{V_1}{2}\;\bigg(\mu_q-\frac{V_1}{2}\bigg)^3
\bigg\}
\lb{eqT0m0}
\eqn
and
\bq
n_q^{SLA}=\frac{1}{\pi^2}\;\bigg(\mu_q-\frac{V_1}{2}\bigg)^3.
\lb{nqT0m0}
\eq
At total zero pressure, the sum of the quark pressures is balanced by the vacuum
energy density,
\bq
\sum_q\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\;\bigg(\mu_q-\frac{V_1}{2}\bigg)^4-\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|=0\;,
\lb{}
\eq
and the energy density is
\bqn
\varepsilon&=&\sum_q\varepsilon_q+\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|\nonumber\\
&=&3\sum_q p_q+\frac{V_1}{2\pi^2}\sum_q\bigg(\mu_q-\frac{V_1}{2}\bigg)^3+\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{3}{2}\;V_1\;n_A+4\;\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|
\lb{}
\eqn
where (here, in this section) the baryon number density is $n_A=(n_u+n_d+n_s)/3$ for SQM and
$n_A=(n_u+n_d)/3$ for nonstrange quark matter.
Notice the presence of the additional term $(3/2)V_1n_A$ with respect to the corresponding
expressions in the MIT Bag Model \cite{Mad}.
Also noticed is that the sum of the quark pressures and energy densities are given in terms of
$\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|$ (or $G_2$) and $V_1\;$ (differently from the MIT Bag Model where they
are given solely in terms of the bag constant $B$).
Now, let us particularize the above equations for two and three flavor quark matter.
\centerline{Two flavor}
For a gas of $u$ and $d$ quarks, charge neutrality (neglecting the not important cotribution
of electrons as in \cite{Mad}) requires that $n_d^{SLA}=2\;n_u^{SLA}$, from which it follows that
$(\mu_d-V_1/2)=2^{1/3}(\mu_u-V_1/2)\;$.
The two-flavor vacuum energy density (for $N_f=2$ in Eq.(\ref{dvac})) is
$\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|_{ud}=(29/192)\;G_2$.
Thus, the energy per baryon of the $ud$ system is
\bqn
\bigg(\frac{E}{A}\bigg)_{\;ud}&=&
(1+2^{4/3})^{3/4}(4\pi^2)^{1/4}(\;\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|_{ud}\;)^{1/4}+\frac{3}{2}V_1\nonumber\\
&=&6.441\;(\;\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|_{ud}\;)^{1/4}+\frac{3}{2}V_1\nonumber\\
&=&4.016\;G_2^{\;1/4}+\frac{3}{2}V_1\;.
\lb{EAud}
\eqn
\centerline{Three flavor}
The three flavor quark system (SQM) is naturally charge neutral, with
$n_u^{SLA}=n_d^{SLA}=n_s^{SLA}\;$, $\mu_u=\mu_d=\mu_s=\mu\;$, and $n_\ex=\mu_\ex=0\;$.
The vacuum energy density (for $N_f=3$) is $\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|=(9/64)\;G_2\;$,
and the energy per baryon becomes (using the previous notation for the SQM system,
without subscripts)
\bqn
\bigg(\frac{E}{A}\bigg)&=&
3^{3/4}(4\pi^2)^{1/4}(\;\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|\;)^{1/4}+\frac{3}{2}V_1\nonumber\\
&=&5.714\;(\;\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|\;)^{1/4}+\frac{3}{2}V_1\nonumber\\
&=&3.499\;G_2^{\;1/4}+\frac{3}{2}V_1\;.
\lb{EASQM}
\eqn
In Eqs.(\ref{EAud}) and (\ref{EASQM}), for fixed $E/A$, the increase of $V_1(G_2)$ is
compensated by the corresponding decrease of $G_2(V_1)$.
As shown below in Fig. \ref{msevG2}, (at $m_s=0$ and a given $E/A$) the maximum value of $G_2$ is obtained
for $V_1=0$\;.
The energy per baryon of $^{56}F_\ex$ is 930.4 MeV, so in this simple analysis the
stability of SQM relative to iron corresponds to $G_2<(0.266-0.428V_1)^4$.
As a result, we obtain $G_2<0.005\;{\rm GeV}^4$ for $V_1=0$, $G_2<0.002\;{\rm GeV}^4$ for
$V_1=0.1\;$GeV, and so on, until a very small value of $G_2$ ($\gappl10^{-5}\;{\rm GeV}^4$)
for $V_1=0.5\;$GeV.
This behavior explains the shrinking of the stability window at $m_s=0\;$ shown in panel (a)
of Fig.\ref{fewin}.
Finally, from Eqs. (\ref{EAud}) and (\ref{EASQM}) we obtain
\bqn
\frac{(E/A)}{(E/A)_{\;ud}\;\;\;}&=&
\frac{3^{3/4}(4\pi^2)^{1/4}(\;\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|\;)^{1/4}\;+\;1.5\;V_1}
{(1+2^{4/3})^{3/4}(4\pi^2)^{1/4}(\;\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|_{ud}\;)^{1/4}\;+\;1.5\;V_1}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{5.714\;(\;\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|\;)^{1/4}+\;1.5\;V_1}
{6.441\;(\;\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|_{ud}\;)^{1/4}+\;1.5\;V_1}
\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{3.499\;G_2^{\;1/4}+\;1.5\;V_1}{4.016\;G_2^{\;1/4}+\;1.5\;V_1}\;.
\lb{SQMud}
\eqn
It is evident that $(E/A)<(E/A)_{ud}$ (for the same values of $G_2$ and $V_1$ in SQM and ud systems).
From the last line of Eq.(\ref{SQMud}) it follows that $(E/A)/(E/A)_{ud}=0.87$ for $V_1=0$.
On the other hand, for the MIT Bag Model, with the correspondences
$\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|=\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|_{ud}\equiv B$ and $V_1=0$, we obtain
$(E/A)/(E/A)_{ud}=0.89$ as in \cite{Mad}.
\section{Results}
\lb{res}
We are concerned with the bulk properties of SQM and concentrate ourselves to investigate
the stability with respect to the $^{56}F_\ex$ nucleus.
In our investigation, $m_s$ enters as input parameter and
$\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|$(or $G_2$) is determined for fixed values of $E/A$ and $V_1$.
By this way, as in \cite{Fla}, but with a different logic, we obtain a scenario for the model parameters,
independently of what the results of lattice calculation may be.
We discuss the relations between the parameter values required for the SQM stability and the
values obtained by comparison with lattice predictions in \cite{ST1,ST2}.
In Fig. \ref{msevG2}, the constant $E/A$ contours give $m_s$ vs $\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|$
(for the purpose of comparison with MIT Bag Model results in \cite{Far,KWW,Mad}) for
different values of $V_1$.
In order to understand the role the gluon condensate, we use the relation between
$\Delta|\varepsilon_{vac}|$ and $G_2$, given by Eq. (\ref{dvac}), to plot $m_s$ vs $G_2$ for
the same values of $V_1$.
The contours are very sensitive to the values of $V_1$, being shifted towards lower values of
$\Delta|\varepsilon_{\rm vac}|$ and/or $G_2$ as shown for $V_1=0$ (panels (a) and (b)) and
$V_1=0.01$ GeV (panels (c) and (d)).
To the right of the $E/A=0.93$ GeV contour (in reality, 930.4 MeV corresponding to the energy per
nucleon of $\;^{56}F_\ex$), SQM is unstable with respect to the iron nuclei.
The vertical line at the left of each panel is the limit of $\Delta|\varepsilon_{\rm vac}|$
and/or $G_2$ when $m_s$ becomes large, so the strangeness per baryon goes to zero (see panel (a)
in Fig. \ref{str}).
In this case, there is no distinction between strange and non-strange quark matter.
Contours with $E/A<930.4$ MeV terminate at the crossing with the vertical line of
$^{56}F_\ex$.
For $V_1=0$, the results shown in panel (a) are numerically equivalent to the ones found in the case
of the MIT Bag Model.
However, we remark that in the FCM the vacuum energy difference $\Delta|\varepsilon_{\rm vac}|$ is
essentially a nonperturbative quantity given in terms of the gluon condensate.
Also shown is the $E/A=0.939$ GeV contour corresponding to the nucleon mass.
Stability window of the SQM is the region of allowed values of $m_s$ and
$\Delta|\varepsilon_{\rm vac}|$ (or $G_2$) where the energy per particle is lower than the
one of $^{56}F_\ex$ (bounded by the $E/A=0.93$ GeV contour and the respective vertical line).
In the FCM, the stability of SQM depends on the values of $V_1$ and/or $G_2$.
For a given value of $E/A$, the higher $V_1$, the lower $G_2$ (cf. Eq.(\ref{EASQM}) for
the case $m_s=0$).
Moreover, even for $V_1=0$ (for which the contours present the maximum $G_2$ at $m_s=0$),
the values of $G_2$ within the stability window are lower than $0.006-0.007\;{\rm GeV}^4$
obtained from lattice data on the critical temperature \cite{ST1,ST2}.
The possibility of the SQM be more bound than $^{56}F_\ex$ is realized only for $G_2<0.005\;{\rm GeV}^4\;$.
This has also been the case for $m_u=5$ MeV, $m_d=7$ MeV and $m_s=150$ MeV for which we have shown that
$G_2<0.0041\;{\rm GeV}^4$ for the existence of stable SQM in strange star surfaces \cite{Fla}.
Even if we take stability with respect to the nucleon mass ($E/A=0.939\;$GeV), instead of
$^{56}F_\ex$, the values of $G_2$ remain lower than the one in \cite{ST1,ST2}.
Fig. \ref{str} shows for the given value of $E/A$ (the same as in \cite{Far}) the strangeness
per baryon (defined as in \cite{Far}) in panel (a) as function of $m_s$ for some values $V_1$.
The strangeness per baryon is always lower then unity, going to zero at $m_s\sim0.3$ GeV (however,
strangeness excess might be possible for nonzero $m_u$ and/or $m_d$ as shown in panel (a) of
Fig. \ref{strqe}).
For the same values of $V_1$, panel (b) shows the decrease of the baryon number density from
its maximum at $m_s=0$ until a constant value around $m_s\sim0.3$ GeV.
We must be aware that for larger values of $V_1$ and at some value of $m_s$, the baryon number
density $n_A$ might becomes lower than a critical value (if it exists) at which the phase transition
takes place.
However, the determination of such a critical value is not the scope of the present work.
We have also calculated the hadronic electric charge per baryon,
\bq
\frac{Z}{A}=\frac{2n_u-n_d-n_s}{n_u+n_d+n_s}=\pm\frac{n_\ex}{n_A}\;,
\lb{ZA}
\eq
shown in panel (c).
For $m_s=0$ the equilibrium configuration is given by an equal number of $u$, $d$ and $s$
quarks ($n_u=n_d=n_s$ and $n_{\rm e}=0$) with zero electric charge.
When $m_s$ and/or $V_1$ grow, the system develops a positive hadronic electric charge.
For large $m_s$, the hadronic electric charge per baryon saturates at a constant value
which also depends on $V_1$ (cf. panel (b) of Fig. \ref{festr}).
For $V_1=0$, this saturation point is $\sim0.0056$ at $m_s\sim0.3$ GeV as in \cite{Far}.
Given that all $E/A<0.93$ GeV contours are within the stability window, it is instructive
to consider some features of SQM at $E/A=0.93$ GeV of $^{56}F_\ex$.
In panel (a) of Fig. \ref{fewin} we show that the overall effect of the confining forces is
to shift the stability windows towards lower values of $G_2$ for increasing values of $V_1$.
The windows not only narrow as $m_s$ grows at a fixed $V_1$, but they also narrow as $V_1$
grows at the same value of $m_s$.
In particular, for $V_1=0.5$ GeV the vertical line is located at a negligible
value of $G_2$ and the stability window width is very small (not visible in the scale of the figure) .
From the locations (at fixed values of $V_1$) of the constant $E/A$ contours and the respective
vertical lines on the horizontal axis at $m_s=0$, where each window presents its maximum width,
we construct two plots $V_1$ vs $G_2$ as shown in panel (b).
The region between the dashed and solid curves illustrates the decrease of the stability window
width with $V_1$.
In panel (c), we show the baryon number density for $0\leq V_1\leq0.5\;$GeV.
For $V_1=0.5$ GeV, it is nearly zero.
So, as we have observed above, due to the decreasing of $n_A$ it might happens that a
quark-hadron phase transition occurs at some value of $V_1$ and $m_s$.
Fig. \ref{festr} shows the strangeness per baryon (in panel (a)) and the hadronic electric charge
per baryon (in panel (b)), at the energy per baryon of $\;^{56}F_\ex$, as function of $m_s$ for
$V_1=0$ and $V_1=0.5$ GeV.
For all values of $V_1$ in the region $0\leq V_1\leq0.5$ GeV and $m_s$ in the region
$0\leq m_s\gappl0.35\;$GeV, the strangeness per baryon is always less than unity.
Depending on the values of $V_1$, the saturation of the hadronic electric charge per baryon is
between $0.0056$ for $V_1=0$ and $\sim0.006$ for $V_1=0.5$ GeV (this variation is not visible in
panel (c) of Fig. \ref{str} because of the low values of $V_1$).
Let us now consider the question of the strangeness excess.
We have performed our calculation assuming that $m_u=m_d=0$.
However, for nonzero $m_u$ and/or $m_d$, strangeness excess can be obtained which is
more sensitive to $m_d$ than it is to $m_u$.
For the usual values of $u$ and $d$ quark masses, $m_u=5$ MeV and $m_d=7$ MeV, the strangeness
excess is less than 1\%, but it can be larger for larger $m_u$ and $m_d$.
As an ilustrative example, we have (speculatively) extrapolated $m_u$ and $m_d$ beyond its
usual values in order to obtain a strangeness excess around 9-14 \% as shown in panel (a) of
Fig. \ref{strqe}, for the given quark masses, $V_1$ and $E/A$.
Generally speaking, this excess only occurs for low values of $m_s$ ($\gappl0.02\;$GeV) and
large values of $V_1$ which, in turn, correspond to very small values of
$G_2$ ($\sim10^{-6}\;{\rm GeV}^4$) (the increase of $u$ and $d$ quark masses also shifts the
$E/A$ contours towards lower values of $G_2$).
Correspondingly, we also speculate the possibility of negative hadronic electric charge.
The change of the hadronic electric charge is more sensitive to $m_u$ and $m_s$ than it is
to $m_d$.
For large values of $V_1$, it can happen that strange quarks are more abundant than the massless
$u$ and $d$ quarks in the region of small values of $m_s$.
So, negative hadronic electric charge appears to be allowed for large values of $V_1$, $m_u$
and $m_d$ (as for the case of strangeness excess), but for small $m_s$, as shown in panel (b).
In this case, instead of electrons, a sea of positrons neutralizes the negative hadronic
electric charge.
We also remark that, at the same values of $V_1$, $m_u$ and $m_d$, larger values of $S/A$ and
lower (negative) $Z/A$ are allowed for $E/A<0.899$ GeV and $m_s$ in the region
$0\leq m_s\gappl0.02\;$GeV.
Summarizing the above results, strangeness excess and negative hadronic electric charge per
baryon are realized only for large values of $m_u$ and/or $m_d$ and $V_1$ (say, $V_1\gappr0.3$ GeV),
but for values of $G_2$ much lower than the one in \cite{ST1,ST2}.
For $m_u=m_d=0$ as well as for the usual $m_u=5$ MeV and $m_d=7$ MeV, we observe that the values
of the model parameters obtained in the present paper do not favor the existence of neither
nonnegative nor negative SQM with energy per baryon lower than the one of the $^{56}F_\ex$ nucleus.
\section{Final remarks and conclusions}
\lb{frem}
In this work we have investigated the bulk properties of SQM by using the quark-gluon
plasma EOS derived in the FCM nonperturbative approach \cite{Si6}.
The important parameters of the model are the gluon condensate $G_2$ (which enters the
EOS through the vacuum energy difference $\Delta|\varepsilon_{\rm vac}|$ between confined
and deconfined phases) and the large distance ${\rm q}\bar{\rm q}$ interaction potential $V_1$.
The results have shown that confinement plays an important role for the stability of SQM.
We have performed the calculation in the $m_u=m_d=0$ approximation and assumed SQM in
$\beta$-equilibrium and charge neutrality, at zero temperature and pressure.
We have been mainly concerned with the absolute stability of SQM with respect to $^{56}F_\ex$
nucleus.
In order to look for stability windows of SQM, we have started our investigation by
drawing contours of constant energy per baryon, $E/A$, in the
$m_s$ vs $\Delta|\varepsilon_{\rm vac}|$ (and/or $m_s$ vs $G_2$) plane for fixed
values of $V_1$.
Strangeness and hadronic electric charge have also been considered.
Our study revealed remarkable features which we summarize as follows.
The general trend is that the SQM stability is very sensitive to the values of the model
parameters responsible by the confining forces.
A remarkable aspect is that the behavior of the stability window strongly depends on the
values of $V_1$.
For increasing values of this parameter, the constant $E/A$ contours and also the respective
stability windows as a whole are shifted towards lower and lower values of
$\Delta|\varepsilon_{\rm vac}|$ (and/or $G_2$) until to $\sim0$ at $V_1=0.5$ GeV.
Moreover, the width of the stability windows diminish when $V_1$ becomes larger.
At $m_s=0$, it has the maximum width between $G_2=0.003\;{\rm GeV}^4$ and $G_2=0.005\;{\rm GeV}^4$
for $V_1=0$ and a nearly zero width at $G_2\sim0$ for $V_1=0.5$ GeV.
This amounts to say that absolutely stable SQM would exists, in principle, for $0\leq V_1\leq0.5$
GeV (although somewhat problematic at $V_1=0.5$ GeV due to the smallness of the corresponding value
of $G_2$).
However, a striking point is that the values of $G_2$ are lower than the one in the range
$0.006-0.007\;{\rm GeV}^4$ obtained from comparison with the lattice data at the critical temperature
\cite{ST1,ST2}.
This point puts a severe restriction for the existence of absolutely stable SQM with respect to
$^{56}F_\ex$.
We have also calculated the strangeness per baryon and the hadronic electric charge per baryon.
As $m_s$ grows, the strangeness per baryon decreases from $S/A=1$ at $m_s=0$ to $S/A=0$
for some value of $m_s$ which depends on $E/A$ and $V_1$.
Correspondingly, the hadronic electric charge per baryon is always nonnegative, rising from
$Z/A=0$ up to a constant value which depends on the value of $V_1$.
Another remarkable feature (in the $m_u=m_d=0$ approximation) is that $S/A\leq1$ and $Z/A\geq0$
for all values of $m_s$ within the stability window.
In the attempt to find strangeness excess and negative hadronic electric charge, we have
observed that $S/A>1$ and $Z/A<0$ appear to be allowed only for very large values of $m_u$ and/or
$m_d$ (beyond the usual ones), but for small $m_s$ ($\gappl0.02$ GeV) and large $V_1$ (say, between 0.3 GeV and
0.5 GeV).
However, the corresponding values of $G_2$ remain lower than the one in \cite{ST1,ST2}, as in
the case of $m_u=m_d=0$.
From the above, in the context of the FCM approach, it appears that the values of the model
parameters obtained in our investigation do not favor the existence of absolutely stable SQM.
Of course the above results depend on the constant $V_1$ assumption, in the present
work.
Taking into account the importance of experiments at RHIC and LHC, it is instructive at this
point to consider finite temperature effects on the SQM properties.
In order to check the influence of nonzero temperatures on the SQM stability at zero pressure,
we have applied the same procedure employed for the $T=0$ case to study the behavior of the
stability window shown in Fig. \ref{fewin}, but for $T\neq0$.
We have taken several values of $T$ up to 30 MeV for constant $V_1$ and for $V_1(T)$ parametrized in
\cite{ST2} for $T\geq T_c\;$ as
\bq
V_1(T)=\frac{0.175\;{\rm GeV}}{1.35\;T/T_c-1}\;,\;\;\;\;V_1(T_c)=0.5\;{\rm GeV}\;,
\lb{V1T}
\eq
for $T=T_c,\;2T_c,\;3T_c$ and some arbitrary values of $T_c$ along the phase diagram transition curve.
In both cases, the results are qualitatively analogous to those in Fig. 1 of \cite{KWW} and
Fig. 3 of \cite{LuB}.
However, $V_1(T)$ is decreasing with the growth of $T$, so the shift of the stability window
towards lower values of $G_2$ takes place as $T\rightarrow T_c$.
For $V_1(T=T_c)$ the result is the same as for constant $V_1=0.5$ GeV at $T=0$ shown in panel
(a) of Fig. \ref{fewin}.
Generally speaking, our results appear to be consistent with the fact that absolutely stable
SQM has not been observed up to the present.
The experiment with STAR at RHIC has not confirmed the existence of SQM nor proved that it does
not exist \cite{Sdw,STAR,MBl}.
The low values of $G_2$ with respect to the ones in \cite{ST1,ST2} would provide a possible
explanation for the absence of absolutely stable SQM signature.
However, before any conclusion towards the nonexistence of absolutely stable SQM, we must
have in mind that our theoretical results should be a consequence of the approximations
contained in the development of the FCM nonperturbative EOS.
FCM is a robust theoretical approach where the dynamics of confinement is one of the most
important aspects of the model.
Therefore, we must be aware that the FCM nonperturbative EOS is presently developed in the
so called Single Line Approximation, where the confinement dynamics include only single quarks
and gluons interactions with the vacuum \cite{Si6}.
On the other hand, in our calculations, $V_1$ and $G_2$ were taken as $\mu$-independent
parameters.
As pointed out in \cite{Bal,Bur}, the $\mu$-independence of $V_1$ should be a questionable
assumption.
Also, in the large density domain, important effects should be related to a possible density
dependence of $G_2$ \cite{BCZ}.
In our opinion, these aspects are very interesting possibilities to be considered.
However, this does not have been the scope of the present work.
\centerline{\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
This work was done with the support provided by the Minist\'erio da Ci\^encia , Tecnologia
e Inova\c c\~ao (MCTI).
|
\section{Introduction and preliminaries}
All graphs considered in this paper are simple finite graphs. We use
$V(G)$ for the vertex set and $E(G)$ for the edge set of a graph
$G$. The \emph{\ neighborhood} $N(x)$ (or more precisely $N_{G}(x)$,
when needed) of a vertex $x$ is the set of vertices adjacent to $x$,
and the \emph{degree} $d(x)$ of $ x$ is $|N(x)|$, i.e. the size of
the neighborhood of $x$. By $C_{n}$ we denote a cycle on $n$
vertices.\newline
\emph{Distance magic labeling} (also called \emph{sigma labeling}) of a
graph $G=(V(G),E(G))$ of order $n$ is a bijection $\ell \colon V\rightarrow
\{1,\ldots ,n\}$ with the property that there is a positive integer $k$
(called \emph{magic constant}) such that $w(x)=\sum_{y\in N_{G}(x)}\ell
(y)=k $ for every $x\in V(G)$, where $w(x)$ is the \emph{weight} of $x $. If
a graph $G$ admits a distance magic labeling, then we say that $G$ is a
\emph{distance magic graph}.\newline
The concept of distance magic labeling of a graph has been motivated
by the construction of magic squares. However, finding an $r$-regular
distance magic labeling is equivalent to finding equalized
incomplete tournament $\mathrm{EIT}(n, r)$ \cite{FKK1}. In an \emph{equalized incomplete tournament} $\mathrm{EIT}(n, r)$ of $n$ teams with $r$
rounds, every team plays exactly $r$ other teams and the total
strength of the opponents that team $i$ plays is $k$. For a survey, we refer the reader to \cite{AFK}.\\
The following observations were proved independently:
\begin{myobservation}[\protect\cite{Ji}, \protect\cite{MRS}, \protect\cite%
{Rao}, \protect\cite{Vi}]
\label{obvious}Let $G$ be an $r$-regular distance magic graph on $n$
vertices. Then $k=\frac{r(n+1)}{2}$.
\end{myobservation}
\begin{myobservation}[\protect\cite{Ji}, \protect\cite{MRS}, \protect\cite%
{Rao}, \protect\cite{Vi}]
No $r$-regular graph with an odd $r$ can be a distance magic graph.\label%
{nieparzyste}
\end{myobservation}
We recall three out of four standard graph products (see \cite{IK}). Let $G$
and $H$ be two graphs. All three, the \emph{Cartesian product} $G\square H$,
the \emph{lexicographic product} $G\circ H$, and the \emph{direct product} $
G\times H$ are graphs with vertex set $V(G)\times V(H)$. Two vertices $(g,h)$
and $(g^{\prime },h^{\prime })$ are adjacent in:
\begin{itemize}
\item $G\square H$ if and only if either $g=g^{\prime }$ and $h$ is adjacent
with $h^{\prime }$ in $H$, or $h=h^{\prime }$ and $g$ is adjacent with $
g^{\prime }$ in $G$;
\item $G\circ H$ if and only if either $g$ is adjacent with $g^{\prime }$ in
$G$ or $g=g^{\prime }$ and $h$ is adjacent with $h^{\prime }$ in $H$;
\item $G\times H$ if and only if $g$ is adjacent with $g^{\prime }$ in $G$
and $h$ is adjacent with $h^{\prime }$ in $H$.
\end{itemize}
For a fixed vertex $g$ of $G$, the subgraph of any of the above products
induced by the set $\{(g,h)\,:\,h \in V(H)\}$ is called an \emph{$H$-layer}
and is denoted $^g\!H$. Similarly, if $h \in H$ is fixed, then $G^h$, the
subgraph induced by $\{(g,h)\,:\, g \in V(G)\}$, is a \emph{$G$-layer}.
The main topic of this paper is the direct product (that is known also by
many other names, see \cite{IK}). It is the most natural graph product in
the sense that each edge of $G\times H$ projects to an edge in both factors $
G$ and $H$. This is also the reason that many times this product is the most
difficult to handle among (standard) products. Even the distance formula is
very complicated with respect to other products (see \cite{Kim}) and $%
G\times H $ does not need to be connected, even if both factors are.
More precisely, $G\times H$ is connected if and only if both $G$ and
$H$ are connected and at least one of them is non-bipartite
\cite{Weich}.
The direct product is commutative, associative, and has attracted a
lot of attention in the research community in last 50 years.
Probably the biggest challenge (among
all products) is the famous Hedetniemi's conjecture:%
\begin{equation*}
\chi (G\times H)=\min \{\chi (G),\chi (H)\}.
\end{equation*}%
This conjecture suggests that the chromatic number of the direct product
depends only on the properties of one factor and not both. This is not so
rare and also in this work we show that it is enough for one factor to be a
distance magic graph with one additional property and then the product with
any regular graph will result in a distance magic graph. For more about the
direct product and products in general we recommend the book \cite{IK}.
Some graphs which are distance magic among
(some) products can be seen in \cite{Be,Cic,MRS,RSP}. The following product cycle and product related results were proved by
Miller, Rodger, and Simanjuntak.
\begin{mytheorem}[\protect\cite{MRS}]
\label{MRSC4} The cycle $C_n$ of length $n$ is a distance magic graph if and
only if $n = 4 $.
\end{mytheorem}
\begin{mytheorem}[\protect\cite{MRS}]
\label{lex_pr} Let $G$ be an $r$-regular graph and $C_{n}$ the cycle of
length $n$ for $r\geq 1$ and $n\geq 3$. The lexicographic product $G\circ
C_{n}$ admits a distance magic labeling if and only if $n=4$.
\end{mytheorem}
In particular we have:
\begin{myobservation}
The lexicographic product $C_n \circ C_m$, $n, m\geq3$ is a distance magic
graph if and only if $m =4$.
\end{myobservation}
Rao, Singh and Parameswaran characterized distance magic graphs
among Cartesian products of cycles.
\begin{mytheorem}[\protect\cite{RSP}]
\label{cart_cycle1}The Cartesian product $C_{n}\square C_{m}$, $n,m\geq 3$,
is a distance magic graph if and only if $n=m\equiv 2\imod 4)$.
\end{mytheorem}
In the next section we introduce a natural subclass of distance magic
graphs. For this class of graphs we were able to generalize the Theorem \ref%
{lex_pr} and show that it is closed for the direct product with
regular graphs. In the last section we characterize distance magic
graphs among direct products of cycles. In particular, we prove that
a graph $C_{m}\times C_{n}$ is distance magic if and only if $n=4$
or $m=4$ or $m,n\equiv 0 \imod 4) $.
\section{Balanced distance magic graphs}
In order to obtain a large class of graphs for which their direct product is
a distance magic graph we introduce a natural subclass of distance magic
graphs.
A distance magic graph $G$ with an even number of vertices is
called\emph{\ balanced} if there exists a bijection $\ell
:V(G)\rightarrow \{1,\ldots ,|V(G)|\}$ such that for every $w\in
V(G)$ the following holds: if $u\in N(w) $ with $\ell (u)=i$, there
exists $v\in N(w)$ with $\ell (v)=|V(G)|+1-i$ . We call $u$ the
\emph{twin vertex} of $v$ and vice versa (we will also say that $u$
and $v$ are \emph{twin vertices}, or shortly \emph{twins}) and $\ell
$ is called a \emph{\ balanced distance labeling}. Hence a distance
magic graph $G$ is balanced if for any $w\in V(G)$ either both or
none of vertices $u$ and $v$ with labels $ \ell (u)=i$ and $\ell
(v)=|V(G)|+1-i$ are in the neighborhood of $w$ . It also follows
from the definition that twin vertices of a balanced distance magic
graph cannot be adjacent and that $N_{G}(u)=N_{G}(v)$.
It is somewhat surprising that the condition $N_{G}(u)=N_{G}(v)$
plays an important role in finding the factorization of the direct
product, see Chapter 8 of \cite{IK}. In particular, if a
non-bipartite connected graph has no pairs of vertices with the
property $N_G(u)=N_G(v)$, then it is easier to find the prime factor
decomposition. Similarly, such pairs generate very simple
automorphisms of $G$ and have been called unworthy in \cite{Wils}.
However in both above mentioned cases not all vertices need to have
a twin vertex as in our case.
It is easy to see that a balanced distance magic graph is an $r$-regular
graph for some even $r$. Recall that the magic constant is $\frac{r}{2}%
(|V(G)|+1)$ by Observation \ref{obvious}. Trivial examples of balanced
distance magic graph are graphs with no edges and even number of vertices.
Not all distance magic graphs are balanced distance magic graphs. The
smallest example is $P_{3}$. More examples (regular graphs with an even
number of vertices) will be presented in next section.
The graph $K_{2n,2n}$, $n\geq 1$, is a balanced distance magic
graph. To verify this let $V(K_{2n,2n})=\{v_{1},\ldots ,v_{4n}\}$.
Assume that the vertices are enumerated in such a way that the sets
$U=\{v_{i}:i(\mathop{\rm mod}\nolimits 4)\in \{0,1\}\}$ and
$W=V(K_{2n,2n})-U$ form the bipartition of $V(K_{2n,2n})$. It is
easy to see that the labeling
\begin{equation*}
\ell(v_{i})=i \text{ for } i\in \{1,\ldots ,4n\}
\end{equation*}
\noindent{}is the desired balanced distance magic labeling for $n\geq 2$. In
particular, for $n=1$ note that $K_{2,2}$ is isomorphic to $C_{4}$ and
consecutive vertices receive labels $1,2,4,3$.
Also $K_{2n}-M$ is a balanced distance magic graph if $M$ is a perfect
matching of $K_{2n}$. Indeed, if $u$ and $v$ form an $i$-th edge of $M$, $
i\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}$, we set $\ell (u)=i$ and $\ell (v)=2n+1-i$ which is a
balanced distance magic labeling.
The distance magic graphs $G\circ C_{4}$ described in Theorem \ref{lex_pr}
are also balanced distance magic graphs. Let $V(G)=\{g_{1},\ldots ,g_{p}\}$
be the vertex set of a regular graph $G$ and $V(C_{4})=
\{h_{1},h_{2},h_{3},h_{4}\}$ where indices of vertices in $V(C_{4})$
correspond to labels of a distance magic labeling of $C_{4}$. It is not hard
to verify that the labeling
\begin{equation*}
\ell ((g_{i},h_{j}))=\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
(j-1)p+i, & \text{if} & j\in \{1,2\}, \\
jp-i+1, & \text{if} & j\in \{3,4\},%
\end{array}%
\right.
\end{equation*}%
is a balanced distance magic labeling of $G\circ C_{4}$. Using similar
labeling we obtain a larger family of balanced distance magic graphs.
\begin{mytheorem}
\label{lex-BDM} Let $G$ be a regular graph and $H$ a graph not isomorphic to
$\overline{K_{n}}$ where $n$ is odd. Then $G\circ H$ is a balanced distance
magic graph if and only if $H$ is a balanced distance magic graph.
\end{mytheorem}
\noindent \textit{Proof.}\ Let $G$ be an $r_G$-regular graph and $H$
a graph not isomorphic to $\overline{K_{n}}$ for an odd $n$. Let
first $H$ be a balanced distance magic graph with the vertex set
$V(H)=\{h_{1},\ldots ,h_{t}\}$ and let $\varphi $ defined by
$\varphi (h_{j})=j$ be a balanced distance magic labeling of $H$ (we
can always enumerate the vertices in an appropriate way). Recall
that $t=|V(H)|$ is an even number, $H$ is an $r_{H}$ -regular graph
where $r_{H}$ is also even and that for $j\leq \frac{t}{2}$,
$h_{t+1-j} $ is the twin vertex of $h_{j}$. Let $V(G)=\{g_{1},\ldots
,g_{p}\}$.
For $i\in \{1,\ldots ,p\}$ and $j\in \{1,\ldots ,t\}$ define the following
labeling $\ell $:{}
\begin{equation*}
\ell (g_{i},h_{j})=\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
(j-1)p+i, & \text{if} & j\leq \frac{t}{2}, \\
jp-i+1, & \text{if} & j>\frac{t}{2}.%
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
It is straightforward to see that $\ell$ is a bijection. For $j\leq \frac{t%
}{2}$ we have
$\ell(g_i,h_j)+\ell(g_i,h_{t+1-j})=(j-1)p+i+(t+1-j)p-i+1=tp+1$. The
fact that $H$ is a balanced distance magic graph and the structure
of the graph $G\circ H$ together imply that if $(g_i,h_j)$ is a
neighbor of some vertex $(g,h)\in V(G\circ H)$ then also
$(g_i,h_{t+1-j})$ is a neighbor of this vertex. We derive that
$(g_i,h_j)$ and $(g_i,h_{t+1-j})$ are twin vertices.
To finish the proof that $G\circ H$ is a balanced distance magic graph we
now only need to verify that the weights of all the vertices $(g,h)$ in $%
G\circ H$ are equal:
\begin{eqnarray*}
w(g,h) &=&\sum_{(g_{i},h_{j})\in N_{G\circ H}((g,h))}\ell (g_{i},h_{j})= \\
&=&\sum_{g_{i}\in N_{G}(g)}\sum_{h_{j}\in V(H)}\ell
(g_{i},h_{j})+\sum_{h_{j}\in N_{H}(h)}\ell (g,h_{j}) = \\
&=&r_{G}\frac{t}{2}(tp+1)+\frac{r_{H}}{2}(tp+1)=\frac{(tr_{G}+r_{H})(tp+1)}{2%
}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Conversely, let $G\circ H$ be a balanced distance magic (and hence a
regular) graph. If $H$ is an empty graph on even number of vertices, it is
balanced distance magic graph.
In the case when $H$ is not an empty graph we claim that the twin vertex of
any $(g,h)\in V(G\circ H)$ lies in $^g\!H$. Suppose to the contrary that
there exist twin vertices $(g,h)$ and $(g^{\prime},h^{\prime})$ such that $%
g\neq g^{\prime}$. Then $g$ and $g^{\prime}$ are at distance $2$ in
$G$ ($gg^{\prime}\in E(G)$ would imply that $(g,h)$ and
$(g^{\prime},h^{\prime})$ are adjacent, which is impossible).
Assumption that $h$ is not an isolated vertex in $H$ leads to a
contradiction, since if there is an edge $hh^{\prime\prime}\in
E(H)$,
then $(g,h^{\prime\prime})\in N_{G\circ H}((g,h))$ but $(g,h^{\prime\prime})%
\notin N_{G\circ H}((g^{\prime},h^{\prime}))$ (recall that twin vertices
have the same neighborhood). Since $H$ is a regular graph (it is easy tho
see that if it was not, then $G\circ H$ would not be regular either) we
derive that $H$ is an empty graph, a contradiction. Thus two twin vertices
of $G\circ H$ lie in the same $H$-layer.
This implies that $H$ has an even number of vertices $t=|V(H)|$. Let
$V(H)=\{v_{1},\ldots ,v_{\frac{t}{2}},v_{1}^{\prime
},\ldots ,v_{\frac{t}{2}}^{\prime }\}$ where we use this notation to indicate that $(g,v_{i})$ and $%
(g,v_{i}^{\prime })$ are the twin vertices in $^{g}\!H$, $i\in \{1,\ldots ,%
\frac{t}{2}\}$. To prove that $H$ is a balanced distance magic graph we need
to see that the function $\ell :V(H)\rightarrow \{1,\ldots ,t\}$ defined by $%
\ell (v_{i})=i$ and $\ell (v_{i}^{\prime })=t-i+1$ for $i\in \{1,\ldots ,%
\frac{t}{2}\}$ is a magic distance labeling of $H$.
Obviously, $\ell $ is a bijection. As $H$ is a regular, nonempty graph, each
pair of twin vertices $(g,v_{i})$ and $(g,v_{i}^{\prime })$ appears in the
neighborhood of some vertex $(g,u)$, where $u\neq v_{i}$ and $u\neq
v_{i}^{\prime }$, thus $v_{i}$ and $v_{i}^{\prime }$ are neighbors of $u$ in
$H$. Since $H$ is an $r_{H}$-regular graph, we deduce that every vertex $v$
in $H$ has $r_H/2$ pairs $(v_{i},v_{i}^{\prime })$ of neighbors, and each
such pair contributes $t+1$ to the weight of $v$. Hence $w(v)=\frac{%
r_{H}(t+1)}{2}$ and $H$ is a balanced distance magic graph.\hfill \rule%
{0.1in}{0.1in}\medskip
Note that in order to prove the equivalence in the above theorem we
needed to exclude $H$ as an empty graph with odd number of vertices.
Namely, it
is not hard to see that for positive integer $k$, $C_4\circ \overline{%
K_{2k-1}}$ is a balanced distance magic graph, but
$\overline{K_{2k-1}}$ is not (recall that by the definition an empty
graph is balanced distance magic if it has an even order). As an
example see the labeling of $C_4\circ \overline{K_{3}}$ in the table
below, where rows and columns represent labeling of vertices in
$C_{4}$-layers and $\overline{K_{3}}$-layers, respectively (the
latter ones refer to consecutive vertices of $C_4$).
\begin{tabular}[t]{|c|c|c|c|}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{} \\ \hline
3 & 6 & 10 & 7 \\ \hline
2 & 5 & 11 & 8 \\ \hline
1 & 4 & 12 & 9 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
\medskip
The situation is even more challenging when we turn to the direct
product. If one factor, say $H$, is an empty graph, also the product
$G\times H$ is an empty graph. Hence for any graph $G$ on even
number of vertices $G\times
\overline{K_{2k-1}}$ is a balanced distance magic graph, while $\overline{%
K_{2k-1}}$ is not. However, we can still obtain the result only
slightly weaker than Theorem \ref{lex-BDM}. For this we need the
following observations.
\begin{mylemma}
\label{lemma1} Let $G\times H$ be a balanced distance magic graph
and let $(g,h)$ and $(g',h')$ with $g\neq g'$ and $h\neq h'$ be twin
vertices for some balanced distance magic labeling. The labeling in
which we exchange the labels of $(g',h')$ and $(g',h)$ is a balanced
distance magic labeling with $(g,h)$ and $(g',h)$ as twin vertices.
\end{mylemma}
\noindent \textit{Proof.}\ Let $\ell: V(G\times H)\rightarrow
\{1,\ldots,|V(G)||V(H)|\}$ be a balanced distance magic labeling
where $(g,h)$ and $(g',h')$ are twin vertices with $g\neq g'$ and
$h\neq h'$. Recall that $N_{G \times H}(a,b)=N_G(a)\times N_H(b)$
for every $(a,b)\in V(G \times H)$ and that twin vertices have the
same neighborhood. Thus we derive
\begin{equation*}
N_{G\times H}(g,h)=N_{G\times H}(g',h')=N_{G\times H}(g',h)=N_{G\times H}(g,h').
\end{equation*}
Using this property we can show that the labeling $ \widehat{\ell}:
V(G\times H) \rightarrow \{1,\ldots,|V(G)||V(H)|\}$ defined by
$\widehat{\ell}(g',h)=\ell(g',h')$,
$\widehat{\ell}(g',h')=\ell(g',h)$ and
$\widehat{\ell}(a,b)=\ell(a,b)$ for every $(a,b)\in V(G\times
H)\setminus \{(g',h'), (g',h)\}$ is a balanced distance magic
labeling of $V(G\times H)$. To show this let $(g'',h'')$ be the twin
vertex of $(g',h)$, and $(g''',h''')$ the twin vertex of $(g,h')$
with respect to the labeling $\ell$.
If $(a,b)$ is a vertex that is not adjacent to any vertex in
$$S=\{(g,h),(g,h'),(g',h),(g',h'),(g'',h''),(g''',h''')\},$$ then the
label under $\widehat{\ell}$ of every neighbor of $(a,b)$ remains
the same as under $\ell$ and since $\ell$ is a balanced distance
magic labeling every vertex in $N_{G\times H}(a,b)$ has its twin
vertex in $N_{G\times H}(a,b)$.
(Note that also the case when $(a,b)\in S$ is
included here.)
If $(a,b)$ is adjacent to at least one vertex from $S$, one can
observe that $(a,b)$ is in fact adjacent to all vertices in $S$.
Hence also in this case we derive that every
vertex in the open neighborhood of $(a,b)$ has its twin vertex
within this neighborhood.
Since $\widehat{\ell}$ is obviously a bijection we have proved that
$\widehat{\ell}$ is a balanced distance magic labeling where $(g,h)$
and $(g',h)$ are twin vertices. \hfill \rule{0.1in}{0.1in}\medskip
This lemma has clearly a symmetric version if we exchange the labels of
$(g',h')$ and $(g,h')$.
\begin{mylemma}
\label{lemma2} Let $G\times H$ be a balanced distance magic graph,
and let $(g,h)$ and $(g',h)$ be twin vertices as well as $(g,h_1)$
and $(g,h_2)$ for some balanced distance magic labeling. The
labeling in which we exchange the labels of $(g,h_2)$ and $(g',h_1)$
is a balanced distance magic labeling with twins $(g,h_1)$ and
$(g',h_1)$.
\end{mylemma}
\noindent \textit{Proof.}\ Let
$\ell: V(G\times H)\rightarrow \{1,\ldots,|V(G)||V(H)|\}$ be a balanced distance
magic labeling of $G\times H$ where $\{(g,h),(g',h)\}$ and $\{(g,h_1),(g,h_2)\}$
are pairs of twin vertices. As in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma1} we have
\begin{equation*}
N_{G\times H}(g,h_1)=N_{G\times H}(g,h_2)=N_{G\times H}(g',h_1)=N_{G\times H}(g',h_2).
\end{equation*}
By the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma1} it is
easy to see that the labeling $ \widehat{\ell}:V(G\times H)
\rightarrow \{1,\ldots,|V(G)||V(H)|\}$ defined by
$\widehat{\ell}(g,h_2)=\ell(g',h_1)$,
$\widehat{\ell}(g',h_1)=\ell(g,h_2)$ and
$\widehat{\ell}(a,b)=\ell(a,b)$ for every $(a,b)\in V(G\times
H)\setminus \{(g',h_1), (g,h_2)\}$ is a balanced distance magic
labeling of $V(G\times H)$. Clearly, $(g,h_1)$ and $(g',h_1)$ are
twins for $ \widehat{\ell}$. \hfill \rule{0.1in}{0.1in}\medskip
\begin{mylemma}
\label{lemma3} Let $G\times H$ be a balanced distance magic graph,
and let $(g,h)$ and $(g',h)$ be twin vertices as well as $(g,h')$
and $(g'',h')$, $g''\neq g'$, for some balanced distance magic
labeling. The labeling in which we exchange the labels of $(g',h')$
and $(g'',h')$ is a balanced distance magic labeling where $(g,h')$
and $(g',h')$ are twin vertices.
\end{mylemma}
\noindent \textit{Proof.}\ Let $\ell: V(G\times H)\rightarrow
\{1,\ldots,|V(G)||V(H)|\}$ be a balanced distance magic labeling of
$G\times H$ where $\{(g,h),(g',h)\}$ and $\{(g,h'),(g'',h')\}$ are
pairs of twin vertices for $g''\neq g'$. One can observe that
\begin{equation*}
N_{G\times H}(g,h')=N_{G\times H}(g',h')=N_{G\times H}(g'',h').
\end{equation*}
Using similar arguments as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma1} it is
easy to see that the labeling $ \widehat{\ell}:V(G\times H)
\rightarrow \{1,\ldots,|V(G)||V(H)|\}$ defined by
$\widehat{\ell}(g',h')=\ell(g'',h')$,
$\widehat{\ell}(g'',h')=\ell(g',h')$ and
$\widehat{\ell}(a,b)=\ell(a,b)$ for every $(a,b)\in V(G\times
H)\setminus \{(g',h'), (g'',h')\}$ is a balanced distance magic
labeling of $V(G\times H)$. Clearly, $(g,h')$ and $(g',h')$ are
twins with respect to the labeling $ \widehat{\ell}$. \hfill
\rule{0.1in}{0.1in}\medskip
\begin{mytheorem}
\label{str_pr} The direct product $G\times H$ is a balanced distance
magic graph if and only if one of the graphs $G$ and $H$ is a
balanced distance magic and the other a regular graph.
\end{mytheorem}
\noindent \textit{Proof.}\ Assume first, without loss of generality,
that G is a regular and $H$ is a balanced distance magic graph with
$V(H)=\{h_{1},\ldots ,h_{p}\}$, where a suffix
indicates the label of a balanced distance magic labeling of $H$. Thus for $%
j\leq \frac{p}{2}$, $h_{p+1-j}$ is the twin vertex of $h_{j}$. Recall that $r_{H}$ is even. Let $V(G)=\{g_{1},\ldots
,g_{t}\}$.
For $i\in \{1,\ldots ,t\}$ and $j\in \{1,\ldots ,p\}$ define the following
labeling $\ell $:{}
\begin{equation*}
\ell (g_{i},h_{j})=\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
(j-1)t+i, & if & j\leq \frac{p}{2}, \\
jt-i+1, & if & j>\frac{p}{2}.%
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
\noindent{}It is straightforward to see that
$\ell :V(G\times H)\rightarrow \{1,\ldots ,pt\}$ is a bijection.
Moreover, note that for any $j\leq \frac{p}{2}$ we have $\ell
(g_{i},h_{j})+\ell (g_{i},h_{p+1-j})=(j-1)t+i+(p+1-j)t-i+1=pt+1$. Moreover, if $%
(g_{i},h_{j})\in N_{G\times H}(g,h)$, then also
$(g_{i},h_{p+1-j})\in N_{G\times H}(g,h)$, since $h_{j}\in N_{H}(h)$
implies that $h_{p+1-j}\in N_{H}(h)$. Hence $ (g_{i},h_{j})$ is the
twin vertex of $(g_{i},h_{p+1-j})$.
Finally, we finish the proof of the first implication by the
following calculation for an arbitrary vertex $(g,h)\in V(G\times H)$:%
\begin{eqnarray*}
w(g,h) &=&\sum_{(g_{i},h_{j})\in N_{G}(g)\times N_{H}(h)}\ell
(g_{i},h_{j})=\sum_{g_{i}\in N_{G}(g)}\sum_{h_{j}\in N_{H}(h)}\ell
(g_{i},h_{j})= \\
&=&\sum_{g_{i}\in N_{G}(g)}\sum_{h_{j}\in N_{H}(h),\ j\leq \frac{p}{2}}(\ell
(g_{i},h_{j})+\ell(g_{i},h_{p+1-j})) = \\
&=&\sum_{g_{i}\in N_{G}(g)}\sum_{h_{j}\in N_{H}(h),\ j\leq \frac{p}{2}%
}(pt+1)= \\
&=&\frac{r_{H}r_{G}}{2}(pt+1).
\end{eqnarray*}
Conversely, let $G\times H$ be a balanced distance magic graph (this
implies that $G\times H$ is a regular graph and hence also both $G$
and $H$ are regular). There exists a balanced distance magic
labeling $\ell: V(G\times H) \rightarrow \{1,\ldots,|V(G)||V(H)|\}$.
First we show the following.
\noindent\textbf{Claim}
\textit{There exists a balanced distance labeling of $G\times H$ such that
one of the following is true:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\textit{There exists an $H$-layer $^{g}\!H$, such that the twin vertex of any $(g,h)\in {^{g}\!H}$ lies in $^{g}\!H$.}
\item
\textit{There exists a $G$-layer $G^{h}$, such that the twin vertex of any $(g,h)\in {G^{h}}$ lies in $G^{h}$.}
\end{enumerate}
If there exists an $H$-layer or a $G$-layer such that the twin
vertex of any vertex in this layer also lies within this layer, then
we are done. Hence assume that this is not the case, i.e. for every
$H$-layer $^{g}\!H$ there exists a vertex $(g,h)$ such that its twin
vertex $(g',h')$ has the property $g'\neq g$.
We use Algorithm \ref{alg_couple} to rearrange the labels of
vertices in $V(G\times H)$ in such a way that we either obtain an
$H$-layer closed for twin vertices or we couple all the $H$-layers,
i.e. we find pairs of $H$-layers $\{^{g}\!H,{^{g'}\!H}\}$ with the
property that the twin vertex of a vertex $(g,h)\in ^g\!H$ lies in
${^{g'}\!H}$ and is of the form $(g',h)$. The latter case implies
that all the $G$-layers (and in particular one of them, say $G^h$)
are closed for twins, and the claim is proved.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Coupling $H$-layers}\label{alg_couple}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[Step 1:]
Set $A=V(G)$. Go to step $2$.
\item[Step 2:]
If $A=\{g\}$ for some $g$, then STOP, $^{g}\!H$ is closed under twin
vertices. If $A=\emptyset$ then STOP, all the $H$-layers are matched
in such a way that in any pair $\{^{g}\!H,{^{g'}\!H}\}$ for every
vertex $(g,h)$ its twin vertex is of the form $(g',h)$. If $|A|\geq
2$, then proceed to step 3.
\item[Step 3:]
Choose any $g\in A$. If $^{g}\!H$ is closed for twin vertices, then
STOP. Otherwise, there is a vertex $(g,h)\in {^{g}\!H}$ having the
twin $(g',h')$, where $g'\in A$ and $g'\neq g$. If $h'\neq h$, then
use Lemma \ref{lemma1} to obtain a new labeling with $(g,h)$ and
$(g',h)$ being twins. If every vertex $(a,b)\in {^{g}\!H}\cup
{^{g'}\!H}$ has its twin vertex $(a',b')$ also in ${^{g}\!H}\cup
{^{g'}\!H}$, then go to step 6. Otherwise go to step 4.
\item[Step 4:]
For every vertex $(g,h_1)\in {^{g}\!H}$ with the twin vertex
$(g'',h_2)$, where $g''\notin\{g,g'\}$, $h_2\neq h_1$, use Lemma
\ref{lemma1} to obtain a new labeling where $(g,h_1)$ and
$(g'',h_1)$ are twin vertices. Go to step 5.
\item[Step 5:]
For every vertex $(g,h_1)\in {^{g}\!H}$ with the twin vertex
$(g'',h_1)$, where $g''\notin\{g,g'\}$, use Lemma \ref{lemma3} to
obtain a new labeling with twin vertices $(g,h_1)$ and $(g',h_1)$.
Proceed to step 6.
\item[Step 6:]
Until there exists a pair of twin vertices $(g,h_1),(g,h_2)\in
{^{g}\!H}$ with the property $h_2\neq h_1$, use Lemma \ref{lemma2}
to obtain a new labeling where $(g,h_1)$ and $(g',h_1)$ are twin
vertices. Proceed to step 7.
\item[Step 7:]
Set $A\gets A\setminus\{g,g'\}$ and go back to step 2.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algorithm}
Assume that some $H$-layer, say $^{g}\!H$, is closed for twins. In
this case $H$ has an even number of vertices $p=|V(H)|$. We
enumerate the vertices as follows $V(H)=\{v_{1},\ldots
,v_{\frac{p}{2}},v_{1}^{\prime },\ldots ,v_{\frac{p}{2}}^{\prime
}\}$ in such a way that $(g,v_{i})$ and $(g,v_{i}^{\prime })$ are
twin vertices in $^{g}H$, for $i\in \{1,\ldots ,\frac{p}{2}\}$. To
prove that $H$ is a balanced distance magic graph we need to see
that the function $\ell :V(H)\rightarrow \{1,\ldots ,p\}$ defined by
$\ell (v_{i})=i$ and $\ell (v_{i}^{\prime })=p-i+1$ for $i\in
\{1,\ldots ,\frac{p}{2}\}$ is a magic distance labeling of $H$.
Obviously, $\ell $ is a bijection. Note that any pair of twin vertices $%
(g,v_{i})$ and $(g,v_{i}^{\prime })$ appears in the neighborhood of some
vertex $(g,u)$, where $u\neq v_{i}$ and $u\neq v_{i}^{\prime }$, thus $v_{i}$
and $v_{i}^{\prime }$ are both neighbors of $u$ in $H$. Since $H$ is an $%
r_{H}$-regular graph, we deduce that every vertex $v$ in $H$ has $r_H$ pairs
$(v_{i},v_{i}^{\prime })$ of neighbors, and each such pair contributes $p+1$
to the weight of $v$. Hence $w(v)=\frac{r_{H}(p+1)}{2} $ and $H$ is a
balanced distance magic graph.
In the case when some $G$-layer $G^{h}$ is closed for twins, we can
prove in an analogous way that $G$ is a balanced distance magic
graph. ~\hfill \rule{0.1in}{0.1in}\medskip
\section{Distance magic graphs $C_{m}\times C_{n}$}
Let $V(C_{m}\times C_{n})=\{v_{i,j}:0\leq i\leq m-1,0\leq j\leq
n-1\}$, where
$N(v_{i,j})=\{v_{i-1,j-1},v_{i-1,j+1},v_{i+1,j-1},v_{i+1,j+1}\}$ and
operation on the first suffix is taken modulo $m$ and on the second
suffix modulo $n$. We also refer to the set of all vertices
$v_{i,j}$ with fixed $i$ as $i$-th row and with fixed $j$ as $j$-th
column.
We start with direct products of cycles that are not distance magic.
\begin{mytheorem}
\label{notdm}If $m\not\equiv 0\imod 4$ and $n\neq 4$ or $n\not\equiv
0\imod 4$ and $m\neq 4$, then $C_{m}\times C_{n}$ is not distance
magic.
\end{mytheorem}
\noindent \textit{Proof.}\ By commutativity of the direct product we
can assume that $m\not\equiv 0\imod 4$ and $n\neq 4$. Assume that
$C_{m}\times C_{n}$ is distance magic with some magic constant $k$,
which means there is a distance magic labeling $\ell$. Let us
consider the neighborhood sum of labels of $v_{i+1,j+1}$ and
$v_{i+3,j+1}$ for any $i\in\{0,\dots,m-1\}$ and
$j\in\{0,\dots,n-1\}$:
\begin{equation*}
w(v_{i+1,j+1})=\ell (v_{i,j})+\ell (v_{i,j+2})+\ell (v_{i+2,j})+\ell
(v_{i+2,j+2})=k,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
w(v_{i+3,j+1})=\ell (v_{i+2,j})+\ell (v_{i+2,j+2})+\ell (v_{i+4,j})+\ell
(v_{i+4,j+2})=k.
\end{equation*}
It implies that
\begin{equation*}
\ell (v_{i,j})+\ell (v_{i,j+2})=\ell (v_{i+4,j})+\ell (v_{i+4,j+2}).
\end{equation*}
Repeating that procedure we obtain that
\begin{equation*}
\ell (v_{i,j})+\ell (v_{i,j+2})=\ell (v_{i+4\alpha ,j})+\ell (v_{i+4\alpha
,j+2})
\end{equation*}%
for any natural number $\alpha $.
It is well known that if $a,b\in \mathop\mathbb{Z}\nolimits_m$ and $%
\mathop{\rm gcd}\nolimits(a,m)=\mathop{\rm gcd}\nolimits(b,m)$, then $a$ and
$b$ generate the same subgroup of $\mathop\mathbb{Z}\nolimits_m$, that is, $%
\langle a\rangle=\langle b\rangle$.
Since $m\not\equiv 0\imod 4$ we
have $\mathop{\rm gcd} \nolimits(2,m)=\mathop{\rm gcd}\nolimits(4,m)$ and $%
2\in \langle 4\rangle $, which implies that there exists $\alpha
^{\prime }$ such that $4\alpha ^{\prime }\equiv 2\imod m$. We deduce
that
\begin{equation*}
\ell(v_{i,j})+\ell (v_{i,j+2})=\ell (v_{i+2,j})+\ell (v_{i+2,j+2})=\frac{k}{2%
}.
\end{equation*}
Substituting $j$ with $j+2$ we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\ell (v_{i,j+2})+\ell (v_{i,j+4})=\frac{k}{2}.
\end{equation*}
\noindent{}Thus for every $i, j$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\ell(v_{i,j})=\ell(v_{i,j+4}),
\end{equation*}
which leads to a contradiction, since $n\neq 4$ and $\ell$ is not a
bijection.~\hfill \rule{0.1in}{0.1in}\medskip
Next we show that some of direct products of cycles are distance
magic but not balanced distance magic. Used constructions are
similar to those by Cichacz and Froncek in \cite{CicFro}.
\begin{mytheorem}
\label{0mod4}If $m,n\equiv 0\imod 4$
and $m,n>4$, then $C_{m}\times C_{n}$ is distance magic but not balanced
distance magic graph.
\end{mytheorem}
\noindent \textit{Proof.}\ First we show that $C_{m}\times C_{n}$ is
distance magic. We define the labeling $\ell $ by starting conditions (every
second vertex of the row zero) followed by recursive rules that cover all
the remaining vertices.
\begin{equation*}
\ell (v_{0,4j+t})=\left\{
\begin{array}{lclcl}
2j+1, & \text{if} & 0\leq j \leq \lceil\frac{n}{8}\rceil-1 & \text{and} &
t=0, \\
\frac{n}{2}-2j, & \text{if} & \lceil\frac{n}{8}\rceil\leq j \leq \frac{n}{4}%
-1 & \text{and} & t=0, \\
mn-2j-1, & \text{if} & 0\leq j \leq \lfloor\frac{n}{8}\rfloor-1 & \text{and}
& t=2, \\
mn-\frac{n}{2}+2j+2, & \text{if} & \lfloor\frac{n}{8}\rfloor\leq j \leq
\frac{n}{4}-1 & \text{and} & t=2.%
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
Note that we have used every label between $1$ and $\frac{n}{4}$ as well as
between $mn-\frac{n}{4}+1$ and $mn$ exactly once for the starting conditions.
In the first recursive step we label every second vertex of row two
in the order that is in a sense opposite to the one of row zero:
\begin{equation*}
\ell (v_{2,j})=\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\ell (v_{0,n-2-j})+\frac{n}{4}, & \text{if} & \ell (v_{0,n-2-j})\leq \frac{mn%
}{2}, \\
\ell (v_{0,n-2-j})-\frac{n}{4}, & \text{if} & \ell (v_{0,n-2-j})>\frac{mn}{2}%
,%
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
for $j\in \{0,2,\ldots ,n-2\}$. Clearly we use in this step every label
between $\frac{n}{4}+1$ and $\frac{n}{2}$ and between $mn-\frac{n}{2}+1$ and
$mn-\frac{n}{4}$ exactly once.
We continue with every second vertex in every even row. Hence for $2\leq
i\leq \frac{m}{2}-1$ and for $j\in \{0,2,\ldots ,n-2\}$ let
\begin{equation*}
\ell (v_{2i,j})=\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\ell (v_{2i-4,j})+\frac{n}{2}, & \text{if} & \ell (v_{2i-4,j})\leq \frac{mn}{%
2}, \\
\ell (v_{2i-4,j})-\frac{n}{2}, & \text{if} & \ell (v_{2i-4,j})>\frac{mn}{2}.%
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}%
Again all labels here are used exactly once and are between $\frac{n}{2}+1$
and $\frac{mn}{8}$ and between $mn-\frac{mn}{8}+1=\frac{7mn}{8}+1$ and $mn-%
\frac{n}{2}$.
Next we label every second vertex of every odd row and complete with this
all even columns. For $0\leq i\leq \frac{m}{2}-1$ and for $j\in
\{0,2,\ldots,n-2\}$ we set:
\begin{equation*}
\ell (v_{2i+1,j})=\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\ell (v_{2i,j})+\frac{mn}{8} & \text{if} & \ell (v_{2i,j})\leq \frac{mn}{2},
\\
\ell (v_{2i,j})-\frac{mn}{8} & \text{if} & \ell (v_{2i,j})>\frac{mn}{2}.%
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
Labels used here are between $\frac{mn}{8}+1$ and $\frac{mn}{4}$ and between
$\frac{3mn}{4}+1$ and $\frac{7mn}{8}$.
Finally we use all the remaining labels between $\frac{mn}{4}+1$ and $\frac{%
3mn}{4}$ for all the vertices in every odd column. Thus for $0\leq i\leq m-1$
and $j\in \{1,3,\ldots ,n-1\}$ let:
\begin{equation*}
\ell (v_{i,2j+1})=\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\ell (v_{i,2j})+\frac{mn}{4}, & \text{if} & \ell (v_{i,2j})\leq \frac{mn}{2},
\\
\ell (v_{i,2j})-\frac{mn}{4}, & \text{if} & \ell (v_{i,2j})>\frac{mn}{2}.%
\end{array}%
\right.
\end{equation*}%
Obviously the labeling $\ell $ is a bijection from $V(C_{m}\times C_{n})$ to
$\{1,\ldots ,mn\}$. It is also straightforward to see that $k=2mn+2$ is the
magic constant. Hence $\ell $ is distance magic labeling.
However, $\ell$ is not balanced distance magic, as none of the
cycles $C_m, C_n$ is (see Theorem \ref{MRSC4}) and thus their
product cannot be balanced distance magic due to Theorem
\ref{str_pr}. ~\hfill \rule{0.1in}{0.1in}\medskip
The example of distance magic labeling of $C_{16}\times C_{16}$ is shown
below, where $v_{0,0}$ starts in lower left corner and the first index is
for the row and the second for the column:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}
196 & 132 & 62 & 126 & 194 & 130 & 64 & 128 & 193 & 129 & 63 & 127 & 195 &
131 & 61 & 125 \\
228 & 164 & 30 & 94 & 226 & 162 & 32 & 96 & 225 & 161 & 31 & 95 & 227 & 163
& 29 & 93 \\
57 & 121 & 199 & 135 & 59 & 123 & 197 & 133 & 60 & 124 & 198 & 134 & 58 & 122
& 200 & 136 \\
25 & 89 & 231 & 167 & 27 & 91 & 229 & 165 & 28 & 92 & 230 & 166 & 26 & 90 &
232 & 168 \\
204 & 140 & 54 & 118 & 202 & 138 & 56 & 120 & 201 & 137 & 55 & 119 & 203 &
139 & 53 & 117 \\
236 & 172 & 22 & 86 & 234 & 170 & 24 & 88 & 233 & 169 & 23 & 87 & 235 & 171
& 21 & 85 \\
49 & 113 & 207 & 143 & 51 & 115 & 205 & 141 & 52 & 116 & 206 & 142 & 50 & 114
& 208 & 144 \\
17 & 81 & 239 & 175 & 19 & 83 & 237 & 173 & 20 & 84 & 238 & 174 & 18 & 82 &
240 & 176 \\
212 & 148 & 46 & 110 & 210 & 146 & 48 & 112 & 209 & 145 & 47 & 111 & 211 &
147 & 45 & 109 \\
244 & 180 & 14 & 78 & 242 & 178 & 16 & 80 & 241 & 177 & 15 & 79 & 243 & 179
& 13 & 77 \\
41 & 105 & 215 & 151 & 43 & 107 & 213 & 149 & 44 & 108 & 214 & 150 & 42 & 106
& 216 & 152 \\
9 & 73 & 247 & 183 & 11 & 75 & 245 & 181 & 12 & 76 & 246 & 182 & 10 & 74 &
248 & 184 \\
220 & 156 & 38 & 102 & 218 & 154 & 40 & 104 & 217 & 153 & 39 & 103 & 219 &
155 & 37 & 101 \\
252 & 188 & 6 & 70 & 250 & 186 & 8 & 72 & 249 & 185 & 7 & 71 & 251 & 187 & 5
& 69 \\
33 & 97 & 223 & 159 & 35 & 99 & 221 & 157 & 36 & 100 & 222 & 158 & 34 & 98 &
224 & 160 \\
1 & 65 & 255 & 191 & 3 & 67 & 253 & 189 & 4 & 68 & 254 & 190 & 2 & 66 & 256
& 192%
\end{array}%
\end{equation*}
Next theorem that completely describes distance magic graphs among
direct product of cycles follows immediately by
Theorems~\ref{notdm}, \ref{0mod4}, and \ref{str_pr}.
\begin{mytheorem}
A graph $C_{m}\times C_{n}$ is distance magic if and only if $n=4$ or $m=4$
or $m,n\equiv 0\imod 4$. It is
balanced distance magic if and only if $n=4$ or $m=4$.~\hfill \rule%
{0.1in}{0.1in}\label{main1}
\end{mytheorem}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction}
In this paper we present the results from the GRavitational lEnsing Accuracy Testing 2010 (GREAT10) Star Challenge.
GREAT10 was an image analysis challenge for cosmology that focused on
the task of measuring the shapes of distant galaxies.
Light from distant galaxies is deflected during its journey to us via
gravitational lensing, and the images appear distorted into
characteristic patterns \citep{hu99,bs01}.
The amount of distortion depends on the intervening distribution of
matter (including dark matter) and the geometry of spacetime (which is
currently governed by dark energy).
Such measurements thus probe directly the invisible dark sector and
the fundamental nature of gravity --- see reviews by
\citet{arev,rrev,hrev,mrev,wrev}.
All real imaging data are necessarily seen after convolution with
(i.e. blurring by) a telescope's Point Spread Function (PSF).
The PSF arises from the finite aperture of the telescope, charge
diffusion within digital detectors, any imperfect elements along the
optical path, and turbulence in the Earth's atmosphere (unless the
telescope is in space).
This increases the size of faint galaxies, and can spuriously change
their ellipticity by an order of magnitude more than gravitational
lensing \citep{bj02,henkpsf,sph08,sparsity,mhk12}.
To recover the shape of the galaxy after only cosmological effects, it
is necessary to (1) model the PSF and (2) somehow correct for its
effect on the images of galaxies.
The second half of this task has been widely addressed by teams
analysing individual surveys and, as a vital community effort, through
the public Shear TEsting Programme (STEP) \citep{step1,step2}, the
GRavitational lEnsing Accuracy Testing (GREAT) galaxy challenges
\citep{great08,g10res} and the Mapping Dark Matter challenge \citep{kaggle}.
The first task (modelling the PSF) has so far only been investigated
internally within teams
\citep[e.g.][]{bac03,hyg04,lvw05,rho07,sch10,henkpsf,lvw05,rowe10,jj05}.
Here we present the results of the first blind, public trial of
methods to model and interpolate the PSF of a typical astronomical
telescope.
The PSF in an astronomical image can be measured from stars that happen to fall inside the field of view.
Stars are so small that they are intrinsically point-like, and adopt the size and shape of the telescope's PSF.
However, the PSF typically varies across the field of view, and stars
only sparsely cover the extragalactic sky
\citep{jj05,jain06,cfhtpsf,lsstpsf}.
It is therefore necessary to model the shapes of stars, then
interpolate their shapes to the locations of galaxies (where there is
necessarily not a bright star, because otherwise the galaxy could not
be seen).
In practice the PSF also varies as a function of the wavelength of
observed light, due to diffraction, reflection and transmission effects
in the telescope optics, filters and CCDs and so must also be
interpolated from the colours of the
stars to the colours of the galaxy \citep{cyp09,voi11,plaz}. Colour
dependence is an important second order effect but in this paper we do
not address this, focussing only on the primary changes in PSFs.
We simulated the spatial variation in the PSF of generic
but realistic ground-, balloon-, and space-based telescopes
\citep[][and see \url{www.greatchallenges.info}]{great10}.
We realised a large suite of sparse stellar fields in these different
observing regimes, and publicly released {\em most} of the star
images. Entrants were asked to then reconstruct the images of the
missing stars on a pixel grid, at pre-defined locations.
The performance of each entry was measured in real time using a single
number, `quality factor', which was designed to provide a crude ranking
such that it could not be reverse-engineered to reveal the full
solutions.
In this paper, we analyse in detail the quantitative performance
of $12$ distinct algorithms submitted to model and interpolate the
simulated PSFs. In particular we quantify how well the ellipticity and
size of a spatially varying PSF can be reconstructed in a blind
challenge.
This paper is organised as follows. In Section~\ref{Description of the
Simulations}, we describe the simulations and competition in
detail. In Section~\ref{Results}, we present results. We discuss and
conclude in Section \ref{Conclusions}.
\section{Method}
\label{Description of the Simulations}
In this Section we describe the simulations and the competition. For a
full exposition of the background of the Star Challenge see \citet{great10}.
\subsection{Simulation Structure}
\label{Simulation Structure}
In the simulations we aimed to generate simplified representations of
possible observing scenarios and telescopes, such that through analysis we
could make general statements about how methods perform in a coarse-grained
sense in each of these categories.
The simulations contained two possible types of PSF function: a Moffat
function (Moffat, 1969) and an Airy disk, parameterized by a FWHM size.
To simulate diffraction spikes caused by obscuration of the telescope
pupil the intensity distributions of these functions were optionally
combined with single-slit diffraction intensity patterns,
approximating the effects of rectangular obscurations
in the pupil plane as would be caused by struts supporting a secondary
mirror. The
dimensions of these single slit obscurations were chosen to produce
simulated PSFs of reasonable realism on visual inspection; for the
Airy disk this corresponded to a strut obscuration of width 4\% the
pupil diameter. The configurations chosen for these diffraction spike
patterns were a `plus-sign' four-fold symmetric mask $+$, or an
`asterisk-sign' six-fold symmetric pattern $\ast$\footnote{We use
the term `mask' to label such configurations, but we remind that
reader that for the $\ast$ pattern a telescope would only have $3$ struts
arranged in a trefoil shape - it is the slit diffraction that results in
six spikes in the images.}. The
combined pattern was then given a linear coordinate shear to create
elliptical PSF patterns, and the PSF spatial variation for any image
then contained three components, similar to the PSF described in
Kitching et al. (2012b: Appendix C, where we refer the reader to
Figures that show the PSF variation):
\begin{itemize}
\item
{\bf Static Component.} These were spatially constant across the image
and consisted of i) a Gaussian smoothing kernel that added to the PSF
size, this had a variance of $0.1$ present in all images, ii) a static
additive ellipticity component of $0.05$ in $e_{1,{\rm PSF}}$ and
$e_{2,{\rm PSF}}$, to simulate tracking error ($e_1$ and $e_2$ are
defined in Section \ref{Competition Structure}). Details are explained
in Kitching et al. (2012b).
\item
{\bf Deterministic Component.} This was to simulate the impact of the
telescope on the spatially varying PSF size and ellipticity. We used
the \citet{jsj08} model with fiducial parameters given in \citet{g10res}
$(a_0= 0.014$, $a_1= 0.0005$, $d_0=-0.006$, $d_1= 0.001$,
$c_0=-0.010)$, which is dominated by primary astigmatism ($a_0$),
primary de-focus ($d_0$) and coma ($c_0$).
\item
{\bf Random Component.} To simulate the random turbulent effect of the
atmosphere we additionally included a random
Gaussian field in some images in the ellipticity only, with a Kolmogorov-like power spectrum of
$C_{\ell}=\ell^{-11/6}$. In fact subsquent to the formulation
of this challenge, and launch in 2010, Heymans et al. (2012) found that $C_{\ell}\propto
\ell^{-11/3}$, the exact power was not know
accurately beforehand hence we refer to the $C_{\ell}\propto
\ell^{-11/6}$ as Kolomogorov-like; this is approximately similar to short
exposures from a ground-based observatory for a Moffat PSF, or balloon-based if an Airy
PSF is used. We note that the amplitude of the power is also very high, corresponding to
exposures of $\simeq 1$ second (see Heymans et al., 2012): we leave an investigation into the
impact of varying amplitudes of Kolmogorov power to future work.
\end{itemize}
The integration of the PSF
intensity distribution onto square pixels was achieved by
multiplication with a Sinc function in Fourier space (equivalent to
convolution with a square boxcar function in real space), followed by
sampling at the locations of pixel centres.
\subsection{Data Structure}
The simulation was designed within the constraint that both the
download size of the simulation and the upload size of the submissions
should be manageable (we limited the download size to $50$ Gb).
Participants were provided with FITS \citep{fits} images containing
`known-stars' that were delta functions convolved with a spatially varying
PSF. Each star within each image was embedded in a postage stamp of
48x48 pixels, and to reduce the size of the images there was no noise
in between postage stamps.
Participants were then asked to submit a 2D image of the
reconstructed PSF at positions in between the known-stars; these
positions were provided as a catalogue of `asked-star' positions.
Participants were asked to submit FITS
cubes of the reconstructed PSFs (the x and y dimensions
representing the 2D image and the z dimension varying the asked-star
positions).
For each image $1000$ asked-stars were required.
The images were subdivided into $26$ sets of $50$ images where in each set
the the properties of the spatial variation, telescope and static
components of the PSF were kept statistically constant,
but each had a different realisation of any random component, and
each also had the asked- and known-star positions varying. The
properties of each set are summarised in Table \ref{sets}. One aspect to note is that when varying the
size of the PSF in the total flux was kept constant for each profile;
with an integrated signal to noise of $100$.
\clearpage
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{The properties of each set of images. Details are described
in Section \ref{Simulation Structure}. Each category allows a
different test: PSF Size allows us to test
under-sampling; Atmosphere tests ground-based exposure time dependence;
$N_{\rm Stars}$ tests spatial sampling; Mask tests telescope
structure dependence; PSF-Type tests the impact of high spatial
frequencies in the PSF profile vs smooth profiles; Telescope
variation allows us to test the impact of three typical distortions
found in data. The set order was semi-random so as to prevent
participants exploiting any pattern in the set numbering. We label
the fiducial sets for the Moffat and Airy profiles. \label{sets}}
\begin{tabular}{crrrrrr}
\tableline\tableline
Set & Atmosphere & PSF-Type & Mask & $N_{\rm Stars}$ & PSF
Size/pixels&Telescope Variation\\
\tableline
1 (fid. Airy) & No & Airy & None & 1000 & 3& None \\
2 & No & Airy & $+$ & 1000 & 3& None \\
3 & No & Airy &$\ast$& 1000 & 3& None \\
4 & No & Airy & None & 2000 & 3& None \\
5 & No & Airy & None & 500 & 3& None \\
6 & No & Airy & None & 1000 & 1.5& None \\
7 & No & Airy & None & 1000 & 6& None \\
8 (fid. Moffat) & No & Moffat & None & 1000 & 3& None \\
9 & Yes & Airy & None & 1000 & 3& None \\
10 & Yes & Moffat & $+$ & 1000 & 3& None \\
11 & Yes & Moffat &$\ast$& 1000 & 3& None \\
12 & Yes & Moffat & None & 2000 & 3& None \\
13 & Yes & Moffat & None & 500 & 3& None \\
14 & Yes & Moffat & None & 1000 & 1.5& None \\
15 & Yes & Moffat & None & 1000 & 6& None \\
16 & No & Airy & None & 1000 & 3&astigmatism $a_0$ \\
17 & Yes & Moffat & None & 1000 & 3&astigmatism $a_0$ \\
18 & No & Airy & None & 1000 & 3&de-focus $d_0$ \\
19 & Yes & Moffat & None & 1000 & 3&de-focus $d_0$ \\
20 & No & Airy & None & 1000 & 3&coma $c_0$ \\
21 & Yes & Moffat & None & 1000 & 3&coma $c_0$ \\
22 & No & Moffat & $+$ & 1000 & 3& None \\
23 & No & Moffat &$\ast$& 1000 & 3& None \\
24 & No & Moffat & None & 2000 & 3& None \\
25 & No & Moffat & None & 500 & 3& None \\
26 & No & Moffat & None & 1000 & 1.5& None \\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Competition Structure}
\label{Competition Structure}
The competition started in December 2010 and ran for 9 months until
September 2011; this was concurrent with the GREAT10 Galaxy challenge
\citep{great10,g10res}. As stated previously
the total simulation size was $\sim 50$ Gb and the
total size of the uploaded submissions was $\sim 1$ Gb (we allowed
participants to tar, zip or FITS-compress\footnote{{\tt
http://heasarc.nasa.gov/fitsio/fpack/}} submissions to
reduce size). Data and example code were provided online for
participants\footnote{{\tt http://great.roe.ac.uk/data}}.
The two parameters of the PSF that most directly impact the ability
to interpret observations of galaxies are the ellipticity and the size
of the PSF; any residual difference between the ellipticity or size of
true PSF, and the respective quantities of the modelled PSF at any
particular position, will result in errors and biases in parameters
assigned to any galaxy at that position.
Weak gravitational lensing is particularly sensitive to
these types of error \citep{mhk12,sph08,sparsity}.
The ellipticity and size are defined here using the second order brightness moments of the image as
\begin{equation}
q_{ij}=\frac{\sum_p w_p I_p (\theta_i - \bar \theta_i)(\theta_j - \bar
\theta_j)}{\sum_p w_p I_p}, \,\,\,\, i,j\in\{1,2\},
\end{equation}
where the sums are over pixels, $I_p$ is the flux in the $p^{\rm th}$
pixel and $\theta$ is a pixel position ($\theta_1=x_p$ and
$\theta_2=y_p$).
In order to regularise the results with regard to the impact of noise
but not to constrain the interpretation to compact objects in the
postage stamp, we include a weight function $w_p$ chosen to be a broad
Gaussian with a width of $24$ pixels (we leave an investigation of
how results vary as a function of weight for future work). These are
almost unweighted quadrupole moments in this respect, and as a result,
smooth analytical functions may be favoured compared to models that try to reproduce
details in the wings of the PSF. The weighted ellipticity (or
technically the `polarisability') for a PSF in complex notation is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
e &=& \frac{q_{11} - q_{22} + 2{\rm i}q_{12}}{q_{11} + q_{22} + 2(q_{11}q_{22}-q^2_{12})^{1/2}}\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used a definition of ellipticity $|e|=(1-r)(1+r)^{-1}$,
where $r$ is the ratio of minor to major axes of the ellipse.
For the weighted size we have a similar expression
\begin{equation}
R^{2} = q_{11} + q_{22}.
\end{equation}
We can calculate the variance between the ellipticity of the model
and true PSF $\sigma^2(e)\equiv \langle(e - e_{\rm
PSF}^{{\rm t}})^2\rangle$ and similarly for the size
$\sigma^2(R)\equiv\langle(R - R_{\rm
PSF}^{{\rm t}})^2\rangle$. Submissions were scored in real-time on a leaderboard that displayed
the metric $P\equiv \frac{1}{\frac{1}{2}\langle\sigma^2(R)+\sigma^2(e)\rangle}$
where the average was taken over images in a set but not over
objects asked-star positions, such
that a mean variance of $10^{-3}$ in both ellipticity and size would
have $P\sim 1.0$.
The $P$ metric, whilst indicatively ranking the methods, does not offer
any insight into the performance of a method on ellipticity and size
reconstruction. In this paper we will present quantities that relate
to the principal properties of the PSF more directly. These are the
standard deviation of mean of the residuals of the ellipticity $\sigma(e)$ and size-squared
$\sigma(R^2)/R^2$ over all asked-stars i.e. we compute the error on the mean of the
residuals (the sample
variance computed using centred second order moments). We assume that
any mean bias could be removed through cross-validation, in this sense it
is a generous analysis to those methods with a mean
residual. We average these quantities
over the $50$ images in each set, but in fact for all methods we find
that the fractional error between images in a set is $\ls 10\%$.
\section{Results}
\label{Results}
In total $30$ submissions were made from $9$ teams. As a baseline
benchmark, a method in which all stars were simply stacked in an image
was created, where no spatial variation in the reconstructed stars was
present. Several methods generated low scores due to misunderstanding of
simulation details, resulting in scores below the benchmark,
and in this paper we summarise only those not affected by these issues.
In the following we choose the best performing submission, for size, for each of the
$12$ distinct method entries. All of the submitted methods are
described in Appendix A. We show the results on the fiducial Airy set (set
1 in Table \ref{sets}) and the fiducial Moffat set (set 8 in Table
\ref{sets}) in Tables \ref{set1} and \ref{set8} respectively. In
Figures \ref{fig00} and \ref{fig0} we present general behaviours of
methods over the sets as categories were change, but for a
quantitative presentation of each method we refer the reader to
Figures \ref{fig1} to
\ref{fig5} where we show pictographic tables of results.
\clearpage
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{The results for ellipticity and size-squared on set 1 (the
fiducial Airy set) for each method tested in this paper.\label{set1}}
\begin{tabular}{crrrrrr}
\tableline\tableline
Method Name & $1/\sigma(e)$ & $\sigma(e)/10^{-4}$& $1/[\sigma(R^2)/R^2]$ & $[\sigma(R^2)/R^2]/10^{-3}$\\
\tableline
B-Splines & $ 3953 $ & $ 2.53 $ & $ 1348 $ & $ 0.742 $\\
IDW & $ 3448 $ & $ 2.90 $ & $ 1212 $ & $ 0.825 $\\
RBF & $ 3155 $ & $ 3.17 $ & $ 1259 $ & $ 0.794 $\\
RBF-thin & $ 2985 $ & $ 3.35 $ & $ 1258 $ & $ 0.795 $\\
Kriging & $ 1049 $ & $ 9.53 $ & $ 490 $ & $ 2.042 $\\
Gaussianlets & $ 1473 $ & $ 6.79 $ & $ 392 $ & $ 2.548 $\\
IDW Stk & $ 1058 $ & $ 9.45 $ & $ 277 $ & $ 3.604 $\\
PSFEx & $ 1279 $ & $ 7.82 $ & $ 378 $ & $ 2.647 $\\
Shapelets & $ 1256 $ & $ 7.96 $ & $ 379 $ & $ 2.642 $\\
PCA+Kriging & $ 1339 $ & $ 7.47 $ & $ 314 $ & $ 3.180 $\\
MoffatGP & $ 2545 $ & $ 3.93 $ & $ 429 $ & $ 2.331 $\\
Stacking & $ 1441 $ & $ 6.94 $ & $ 309 $ & $ 3.237 $\\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{The results for ellipticity and size-squared on set 8 (the
fiducial Moffat set) for each method tested in this paper.\label{set8}}
\begin{tabular}{crrrrrr}
\tableline\tableline
Method Name & $1/\sigma(e)$ & $\sigma(e)/10^{-4}$& $1/[\sigma(R^2)/R^2]$ & $[\sigma(R^2)/R^2]/10^{-3}$\\
\tableline
B-Splines & $ 3690 $ & $ 2.71 $ & $ 1406 $ & $ 0.711 $\\
IDW & $ 3215 $ & $ 3.11 $ & $ 1309 $ & $ 0.764 $\\
RBF & $ 2967 $ & $ 3.37 $ & $ 1167 $ & $ 0.857 $\\
RBF-thin & $ 2809 $ & $ 3.56 $ & $ 1163 $ & $ 0.860 $\\
Kriging & $ 1477 $ & $ 6.77 $ & $ 645 $ & $ 1.551 $\\
Gaussianlets & $ 2041 $ & $ 4.90 $ & $ 476 $ & $ 2.099 $\\
IDW Stk & $ 1250 $ & $ 8 $ & $ 362 $ & $ 2.759 $\\
PSFEx & $ 610 $ & $ 16.40 $ & $ 296 $ & $ 3.374 $\\
Shapelets & $ 1931 $ & $ 5.18 $ & $ 696 $ & $ 1.436 $\\
PCA+Kriging & $ 1161 $ & $ 8.61 $ & $ 351 $ & $ 2.853 $\\
MoffatGP & $ 2857 $ & $ 3.50 $ & $ 139 $ & $ 7.209 $\\
Stacking & $ 1259 $ & $ 7.94 $ & $ 309 $ & $ 3.236 $\\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\clearpage
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{.90}
\plotone{test_visformat4_mask_e.eps}
\caption{The change in the inverse variance in the residual ellipticity for
each method for each category varied. The sets used in differencing
the categories are shown in the upper panels (Set$_i$-Set$_j$), and
we refer the reader to Table \ref{sets}. Each point represents a
method, the stars represent method B-Spline, points
within a bin are randomised within an x-bin for clarity. The log of the
change is shown, with the sign preserved
(i.e. $sgn[x]\log_{10}[|x|]$ where $x=(1/\sigma(e)_{\rm
fiducial})-(1/\sigma(e))$) so that negative values
represent a decrease in accuracy and positive values an increase in
accuracy. The first seven vertical panels show changes for the
Moffat (red) and Airy profile (blue), the rightmost panel
shows the change in accuracy when the profile is changed from Airy
to Moffat but all other aspects of the PSF at kept the same. The parameters varied are the mask (4-arm or 6-arm;
changed from no mask),
number of stars (500 or 2000; changed from 1000), PSF size (1.5 or
6.0 pixels; changed from 3.0 pixels) and the addition of
Kolmogorov power in ellipticity. \label{fig00}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{.90}
\plotone{test_visformat4_mask_r.eps}
\caption{The change in the inverse variance in the residual size-squared for
each method for each category varied. The sets used in differencing
the categories are shown in the upper panels (Set$_i$-Set$_j$), and
we refer the reader to Table \ref{sets}. Each point represents a
method, the stars represent method B-Spline, points
within a bin are randomised in within an x-bin for clarity. The log of the
change is shown, with the sign preserved
(i.e. $sgn[x]\log_{10}[|x|]$ where $x=(1/[\sigma(R^2)/R^2]_{\rm
fiducial})-(1/[\sigma(R^2)/R^2])$) so that negative values
represent a decrease in accuracy and positive values an increase in
accuracy. The first seven vertical panels show changes for the
Moffat (red) and Airy profile (blue), the rightmost panel
shows the change in accuracy when the profile is changed from Airy
to Moffat but all other aspects of the PSF at kept the same. The parameters varied are the mask (4-arm or 6-arm;
changed from no mask),
number of stars (500 or 2000; changed from 1000), PSF size (1.5 or
6.0 pixels; changed from 3.0 pixels) and the addition of
Kolmogorov power in ellipticity. \label{fig0}}
\end{figure*}
Overall we find that the B-Splines, IDW and RBF methods reconstruct
the ellipticity and size most accurately (see Gentile et al., 2012),
with $\sigma(e)\approx 2.5$x$10^{-4}$ and
$\sigma(R^2)/R^2\approx 7.4$x$10^{-4}$ over all sets\footnote{B-Splines
also achieved the highest leaderboard $P$ value.}. We note however
that this is a snapshot of performance and that
further investigations into tunable aspects of code
could result in improvements in all methods.
We summarise the behaviour of the submissions below. In each test all
other parameters are kept fixed except those discussed (with fiducial
values of $1000$ known star positions, no mask, and telescope
parameters given in Section \ref{Description of the Simulations}). We
refer to Figures \ref{fig00} and \ref{fig0} that show the change in
the inverse variance of
the reconstructed PSFs over the fiducial sets (set 1 for Airy, and set
8 for Moffat profiles, see Table \ref{set1})
when each of the categories is varied. In Figures \ref{fig1} to
\ref{fig5} we show pictographic tables of results.
\begin{itemize}
\item
{\bf PSF Type}.
For the best performing methods we find a trend that both ellipticity
and size are estimated more accurately for the Airy PSF than for the the
Moffat PSF.
\item
{\bf Addition of Kolmogorov Power}. For each set combination where
both Moffat and Moffat-plus-Kolmogorov power are available (e.g. the
4-arm $+$ masks) we find evidence for methods performing less well
with the addition of Kolmogorov power (see also Figures \ref{fig1},
\ref{fig2}, \ref{fig3}). In Figure \ref{fig4} we also show the impact
of adding a Kolmogorov power spectrum to a set that uses an
Airy PSF profile. We find that the addition of this random
component degrades the residual ellipticity reconstruction by a
factor of $\gs 2-5$, but has less impact on size reconstruction, as
expected since the power is in ellipticity only. These
results will necessarily depend on the amplitude of the assumed power
spectrum, this will vary for each ground-based telescope, and
knowledge/information about this is improving
(e.g. Heymans et al. 2012).
In addition atmospheric turbulence also changes the PSF size, but we
do not simulate this here. It is possible that, depending on the site
and weather, the impact of turbulence may be weaker or stronger than
that simulated for this study.
\item
{\bf Masks}. We show results for the mask variation in Figure
\ref{fig1}. We find that for all methods the presence of diffraction
spikes does not degrade the ability to measure the ellipticity of the
PSF. For the Airy function the diffraction
spikes act to increase the effective size of the PSF, this enables
methods to measure the fractional error $\sigma(R^2)/R^2$ more
accurately; but note that for a fixed $\sigma(R^2)$ a large size will
decrease the fractional error by definition. For the Moffat PSF
the diffraction spikes impact the size estimation significantly.
We note however this was a simple addition of a mask
with no commensurate change in the variation of ellipticity or size
across a field of view, also the diffraction spikes contained low
flux (only observable with the eye if one stacked all stars) higher
signal-to-noise stars would change this, we leave an investigation of
these effects for future work.
\item
{\bf Number of Stars}. We find that all methods are only weakly dependent, or
insensitive to the number of stars used to reconstruct the PSF in these
simulations, except for those sets
in which we include a Kolmogorov power spectrum where we find that a
larger number of stars results in a better reconstruction for the best
methods (see Figure
\ref{fig2}). This indicates that PSFs with spatial power on smaller scales
require more stars for a particular reconstruction accuracy than PSFs
without power on small spatial scales.
\item
{\bf Size of PSF} For the Airy profile we find that the larger
the PSF the more accurately its size can be measured, for the Moffat
we find a weak dependence with size.
This is understandable because a larger PSF
is better sampled and hence the size is easier to measure.
However we stress that an increase of the size of the PSF relative to
the apparent size of galaxies will cause the galaxies to be less
well-resolved, losing information and placing greater demands on
shape measurement \citep{sph08}. Also with the simulations presented
the impact of sampling on weak lensing shape measurement was not tested,
only the performances of the PSF interpolation methods.
We show results for the PSF size variation in Figure
\ref{fig3}. When trading requirements of PSF model residuals against requirements
for resolution (i.e. the absolute size of the ellipticity and PSF)
such behaviour should be noted.
\item
{\bf Telescope Parameters}. We show results for the PSF size variation in Figure
\ref{fig5}. In varying the telescope parameters in the
\citet{jsj08} model we change the fiducial parameters respectively
$(a_0= 0.014$, $d_0=-0.006$, $c_0=-0.010)$, to $a_0= -0.011$,
$d_0=0.009$ and $c_0=-0.011$ i.e. an opposite astigmatism, a positive
de-focus and a $10\%$ increased coma. We find that methods in this
experiment were not affected by the change in defocus, but performed
better with the change in these astigmatism and coma parameters.
\end{itemize}
We discuss each method individually in Appendix A.
\clearpage
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{.48}
\plotone{test_visformat1_mask_e.eps}
\epsscale{.48}
\plotone{test_visformat1_mask_r.eps}
\caption{The inverse variance in the residual ellipticity and size-squared for
each method (horizontal panels) for the three mask cases
(no mask, 4-arm $+$ and 6-arm
$\ast$) for the Moffat-plus-Kolmogorov case (green), Moffat with no
Kolmogorov (red), and the Airy (blue) profile. The circles
represent the inverse variance of the residual ellipticity and
size-squared where the area scales in proportion to these
parameters and the numbers are given next to each circle;
a key is given in the top panel. Where no number/circle is provided
there was no set for this combination of PSF type and mask
type. Fractional errors on the inverse variances are $\approx 10\%$
for all methods.\label{fig1}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{.48}
\plotone{test_visformat1_nstar_e.eps}
\epsscale{.48}
\plotone{test_visformat1_nstar_r.eps}
\caption{The inverse variance in the residual ellipticity and size-squared for
each method (horizontal panels) for the three known-star number cases
(500, 1000, 2000 stars) for the Moffat-plus-Kolmogorov case (green), Moffat with no
Kolmogorov (red), and the Airy (blue) profile. The circles
represent the inverse variance of the residual ellipticity and
size-squared where the area scales in proportion to these
parameters and the numbers are given next to each circle;
a key is given in the top panel. Where no number/circle is provided
there was no set for this combination of PSF type and number of
stars.
Fractional errors on the inverse variances are $\approx 10\%$
for all methods.\label{fig2}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{.48}
\plotone{test_visformat1_psize_e.eps}
\epsscale{.48}
\plotone{test_visformat1_psize_r.eps}
\caption{The inverse variance in the residual ellipticity and size-squared for
each method (horizontal panels) for the three PSF size cases
(1.5, 3.0 and 6.0 pixels) for the Moffat-plus-Kolmogorov case (green), Moffat with no
Kolmogorov (red), and the Airy (blue) profile. The circles
represent the inverse variance of the residual ellipticity and
size-squared where the area scales in proportion to these
parameters and the numbers are given next to each circle;
a key is given in the top panel. Where no number/circle is provided
there was no set for this combination of PSF type and PSF
size. Fractional errors on the inverse variances are $\approx 10\%$
for all methods. \label{fig3}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{.48}
\plotone{test_visformat1_km_e.eps}
\epsscale{.48}
\plotone{test_visformat1_km_r.eps}
\caption{The inverse variance in the residual ellipticity and size-squared for
each method (horizontal panels) for the two cases
where a Kolmogorov power is added, or not to a set with a Airy
(blue) profile. The circles
represent the inverse variance of the residual ellipticity and
size-squared where the area scales in proportion to these
parameters and the numbers are given next to each circle;
a key is given in the top panel. Fractional errors on the inverse variances are $\approx 10\%$
for all methods.\label{fig4}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{.48}
\plotone{test_visformat1_telescope_e.eps}
\epsscale{.48}
\plotone{test_visformat1_telescope_r.eps}
\caption{The inverse variance in the residual ellipticity and size-squared for
each method (horizontal panels) for the cases
where the telescope parameters are varied for the Airy
(blue) profile and the Moffat-plus-Kolmogorov profile (green). The circles
represent the inverse variance of the residual ellipticity and
size-squared where the area scales in proportion to these
parameters and the numbers are given next to each circle;
a key is given in the top panel. Where no number/circle is provided
there was no set for this combination of PSF type and telescope
parameter. Fractional errors on the inverse variances are $\approx 10\%$
for all methods.\label{fig5}}
\end{figure*}
\clearpage
\section{Conclusions}
\label{Conclusions}
This paper presents the first blind simulation challenge aimed to
test optical PSF reconstruction methods. Simulations were generated
in which participants were presented with a spatially
varying PSF, sparsely sampled by stars, and asked to reconstruct the
PSF at non-star positions. The competition, the GREAT10 Star
Challenge, attracted 30 submissions from 9 teams; several of these
teams were from non-astronomy backgrounds. The simulation presented
participants with $27$,$500$ stars over 1300 images subdivided into 26
sets, where in each set a category change was made in the type or
spatial variation of the PSF. The simulations were intentionally simplistic, so
as to present the problem in an approachable way; in
particular the spatial variation of the PSF and the form of
the PSF use simple analytic functions. In addition only spatial
variation, not temporal variation, was tested; hence these results
should not be used to make specific statements about any particular
experiment but should provide a benchmark with which methods can be
tested and improved\footnote{Data is available for download here {\tt
http://great.roe.ac.uk/data/solutions/}.}
In this paper we analyse the submissions by testing how well each one
can measure the ellipticity and size of the PSF. We quantify this as
the inverse variance in the modelled PSF in each image for ellipticity and
sized-squared -- defined using weighted quadrupole moments. This study
was motivated by a desire to find methods that will be of use for weak
gravitational lensing, where the PSF must be reconstructed to high
accuracy \citep{sph08,sparsity} at galaxy positions, but these results
should also
be of more general interest for any science case that analyses
galaxy images with optical data.
The submissions, and this paper, present a snapshot of any methods'
ability to model the PSF. Due to the nature of the competitive
blind submissions post-challenge tuning of methods, that
may yield significant improvements for any given
method over the results presented here (see Gentile et al., 2012 for example), were not
investigated. Each method submitted is summarised
in Appendix A. We can however make some general statements about
regimes in which methods tend to perform well or poorly when run in a blind way.
The functional form of the PSF was either a Moffat function or a
Airy function, the spatial variation of the PSF
was modelled using the analytic function given in \citet{jsj08}, in
addition we optionally included diffraction spikes ($+$ or $\ast$
forms), changed the PSF size (from 3.0 pixels to 1.5 or 6.0 pixels),
changed the number of stars (from 1000 to 500 or 2000), and added an
atmospheric turbulence pattern in ellipticity (with a Kolmogorov power
spectrum). To summarise the conclusions we find that
\begin{itemize}
\item
The best methods can reconstruct the PSF with an accuracy of $\sigma(e)\approx 2.5$x$10^{-4}$ and
$\sigma(R^2)/R^2\approx 7.4$x$10^{-4}$ over all sets.
\item
Methods that performed poorly did so in part because the functional
form of the PSF was not modelled correctly (in particular the
Airy function).
\item
Smaller PSFs were more difficult to model than larger PSFs for the
Airy function. But we add a caution that this does not mean
larger PSFs are better for weak lensing, because information on a
target object is lost; instead this means that well sampled PSFs are
better for weak lensing.
\item
Diffraction spikes caused the size of Moffat PSFs to be modelled less
accurately, but Airy PSFs more accurately, due to the increase
in the effective size.
\item
The addition of atmospheric Kolmogorov power (equivalent to short
exposure PSFs, see Heymans et al., 2012) made ellipticity and size
reconstruction less accurate by a factor of $\gs 2-5$ for all methods.
We add the caveat that the temporal nature of varying PSFs was not
investigated, therefore
methods such as cross-correlation between sequential images, that
could potentially improve modelling, were not investigated.
\end{itemize}
For subsequent blind PSF modelling challenges the
realism of the temporal and wavelength dependent nature
of PSF variation could be included,
and the simulations could be tailored to specific experiments.
Modelling the PSF is of critical importance in efforts to understand
the nature of dark energy and dark matter using weak gravitational
lensing; where any inaccuracy in the modelled PSF can cause biases, and
increased errors of cosmological parameters of interest. To address
this crucial open problem this initial
presentation of a blind PSF reconstruction challenge will hopefully provide a
benchmark upon which methods can continue to be refined and tested.
\newpage
\acknowledgements{\small {\em Acknowledgements:} TDK is supported by a Royal Society
University Research Fellowship, and was supported by an Royal
Astronomical Society 2010 Fellowship for some of this
work. BR and CH acknowledge support from the the European Research Council
in the form of a Starting Grant with numbers 24067 (BR) and 240185 (CH).
RM is supported by a Royal Society University Research
Fellowship.
DG was supported by SFB-Transregio 33 ‘The Dark Universe’ by the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the DFG cluster of
excellence `Origin and Structure of the Universe' and thanks Gary
Bernstein and Stella Seitz for helpful discussions. MGe, GC, GM are
supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). GL thanks
Wei Cui for useful discussions. GL and BX were supported in part by the
U.S. Department of Energy through Grant DE-FG02-91ER4068 and GL is also
supported by the one-hundred talents program of the Chinese Academy of
Sciences (CAS). MK thanks Liping Fu.
This work was funded by a EU FP7 PASCAL 2 Challenge
Grant. Workshops for the GREAT10 challenge were funded by the eScience
STFC Theme and the by NASA JPL, and hosted at the eScience Institute
Edinburgh and by IPAC Caltech Pasadena. We thank Francesca
Ziolkowska, Harry Teplitz and Helene Seibly for local organization of
the workshops. We thank the GREAT10 Advisory team, co-authors of
GREAT10 handbook \citep{great10}, for discussions before and after the challenge.}
{\small {\em Contributions:} All authors contributed to the writing
and analysis presented. TDK was PI of GREAT10, defined and created the
simulations, and lead the analysis.
TDK, BR, MG, CH, RM were active members of the GREAT10 team during (12/2010 to 09/2011)
and after the challenge. BR created the FITS image simulation code.
MGe, FC, GM, DG, MK, KG, AS, AM, GL, BX submitted entries to the GREAT10 star challenge.
DW maintained the GREAT10 leaderboard and processed submissions with
TDK during the challenge.}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
For the past five decades, a lot of classification theorems of subcategories of abelian categories and triangulated categories have been given in ring theory, representation theory, algebraic geometry and algebraic topology; see, for instance, \cite{Ba,Ba2,BIK,crspd,FP,G,HS,H,K,KS,N0,St,stcm,crs,T} and the references therein.
Reconstruction of an object from its {\em support} in the spectrum of a suitable commutative ring plays a crucial role in the proofs of those theorems.
On the other hand, the notions of the dimensions of triangulated categories have been introduced by Bondal--Van den Bergh and Rouquier \cite{BV,R} and analogues for abelian categories by Dao--Takahashi \cite{radius,dim}.
These essentially indicate the number of {\em extensions} necessary to build all objects out of a single object.
There are many related studies; for example, see \cite{ddc,ABIM,AI2,BFK,BIKO,BC,Cd,KK,sing,Op,Or,R2,S,res}.
In this paper, we study reconstructing a given module from its Koszul homology and counting the number of necessary operations.
Our main result is the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{main}
Let $R$ be a commutative noetherian ring, and let $M$ be a finitely generated $R$-module.
Let $\xx=x_1,\dots,x_n$ be a sequence of elements of $R$ such that $M$ is locally free on $\d(\xx)$.
Then there exists a positive integer $k$ such that the Koszul complex $\K(\xx^k,M)$ is equivalent to a complex of finitely generated $R$-modules
$$
(0 \to N \to P_{n-1} \to \cdots \to P_0 \to 0),
$$
where $P_0,\dots,P_{n-1}$ are projective and $M$ is a direct summand of $N$.
In particular, $M$ can be built out of the Koszul homologies $\H_0(\xx^k,M),\dots,\H_n(\xx^k,M)$ by taking $n$ syzygies, $n$ extensions and $1$ direct summand.
\end{thm}
Note that since the free locus of a finitely generated $R$-module is an open subset of $\spec R$ in the Zariski topology, there exist many such sequences $\xx$ that satisfy the assumption of the theorem.
We shall prove a more general result in Theorem \ref{181627}.
Theorem \ref{main} has a lot of applications.
To state some of them, we fix notation.
Let $\mod R$ be the category of finitely generated $R$-modules and $\db(R)$ the bounded derived category of $\mod R$.
We denote by $\ds(R)$ the {\em singularity category} of $R$.
This category has been introduced and studied by Buchweitz \cite{B} in connection with Cohen--Macaulay modules over Gorenstein rings.
In recent years, it has been investigated by Orlov \cite{O1,O2,O3,O,O5} in relation to the Homological Mirror Symmetry Conjecture.
Let $\s(R)$ be the set of prime ideals $\p$ of $R$ such that $R_\p$ is not a field, and denote by $\sing R$ the singular locus of $R$.
Applying Theorem \ref{main}, we can prove the following result on classification of subcategories.
\begin{cor}\label{301200}
Let $R$ be a commutative noetherian ring.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(1)]
\item
There is a one-to-one correspondence between:
\begin{itemize}
\item
the specialization-closed subsets of $\s(R)$,
\item
the resolving subcategories of $\mod R$ generated by a Serre subcategory of $\mod R$.
\end{itemize}
\item
There are one-to-one correspondences among:
\begin{itemize}
\item
the specialization-closed subsets of $\sing R$,
\item
the thick subcategories of $\db(R)$ generated by $R$ and a Serre subcategory of $\mod R$,
\item
the thick subcategories of $\ds(R)$ generated by a Serre subcategory of $\mod R$.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
When $R$ is local, let $\mod^\circ(R)$ (respectively, $\db^\circ(R)$, $\ds^\circ(R)$) be the full subcategories of $\mod R$ (respectively, $\db(R)$, $\ds(R)$) consisting of modules (respectively, complexes) that are locally free (respectively, perfect, zero) on the punctured spectrum of $R$.
Applying Theorem \ref{main}, we can prove the following result on generation of subcategories.
\begin{cor}\label{011103}
Let $R$ be a commutative noetherian local ring of Krull dimension $d$ with residue field $k$.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(1)]
\item
Every object in $\mod^\circ(R)$ is built out of a module of finite length by taking $d$ extensions in $\mod R$, up to finite direct sums, direct summands and syzygies.
\item
Every object in $\ds^\circ(R)$ is built out of a module of finite length by taking $d$ extensions in $\ds(R)$, up to finite direct sums, direct summands and shifts.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, one has that $\mod^\circ(R)$ is generated by $k$ as a resolving subcategory of $\mod R$, that $\db^\circ(R)$ is generated by $R$ and $k$ as a thick subcategory of $\db(R)$, and that $\ds^\circ(R)$ is generated by $k$ as a thick subcategory of $\ds(R)$.
\end{cor}
Corollary \ref{011103} yields variants of results shown by Schoutens \cite{S} and Takahashi \cite{res,stcm}.
It also recovers a result on isolated singularities given by Keller--Murfet--Van den Bergh \cite{KMV}.
Furthermore, utilizing it, one can show the following result.
\begin{cor}\label{301201}
Let $R$ be a commutative noetherian ring.
The following are equivalent for a resolving subcategory $\X$ of $\mod R$:
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(1)]
\item
$\X$ is generated by a Serre subcategory of $\mod R$;
\item
$\X$ is closed under tensor products and transposes.
\end{enumerate}
Hence there is a one-to-one correspondence between the specialization-closed subsets of $\s(R)$ and the resolving subcategories of $\mod R$ closed under tensor products and transposes.
\end{cor}
The last assertion of this corollary highly improves the main result of \cite{crs}.
Indeed, it removes the superfluous assumptions that $R$ is local and that $R$ is Cohen--Macaulay.
The organization of this paper is as follows.
In the next Section \ref{Bd} we prepare some fundamental notions.
In Section \ref{Rap} we state and prove the most general result in this paper, which includes Theorem \ref{main}.
In the final Section \ref{gene} we apply the results shown in the preceding section to find out the structure of certain subcategories, and give several results including Corollaries \ref{301200}, \ref{011103} and \ref{301201}.
\section{Basic definitions}\label{Bd}
This section is devoted to stating the definitions and basic properties of notions which we will {\em freely} use in the later sections.
We begin with our convention.
\begin{conv}
Throughout the present paper, let $R$ be a commutative noetherian ring with identity.
We assume that all $R$-modules are finitely generated, that all $R$-complexes are homologically bounded, and that all subcategories of categories are full.
\end{conv}
In what follows, $\T$ and $\A$ denote a triangulated category and an abelian category with enough projective objects, respectively.
\begin{dfn}
(1) For a subcategory $\X$ of an additive category $\C$, the {\em additive closure} $\add_\C\X$ of $\X$ is defined to be the smallest subcategory of $\C$ containing $\X$ and closed under finite direct sums and direct summands.\\
(2) A {\em Serre subcategory} of $\A$ is defined to be a subcategory of $\A$ closed under subobjects, quotients and extensions.\\
(3) A {\em thick subcategory} of $\T$ is by definition a triangulated subcategory of $\T$ closed under direct summands.
The {\em thick closure} of a subcategory $\X$ of $\T$ is defined as the smallest thick subcategory of $\T$ containing $\X$, and denoted by $\thick_\T\X$ or simply by $\thick\X$.
When $\X$ consists of a single object $M$, we denote it by $\thick_\T M$ or $\thick M$.\\
(4) We denote by $\proj\A$ the subcategory of $\A$ consisting of projective objects.\\
(5) Let $P=(\cdots \xrightarrow{d_3} P_2 \xrightarrow{d_2} P_1 \xrightarrow{d_1} P_0 \to 0)$ be a projective resolution of $M\in\A$.
Then for each $n>0$ we define the {\em $n$-th syzygy} $\syz^nM$ of $M$ (with respect to $P$) as the image of $d_n$.
This is uniquely determined up to projective summands.\\
(6) We define a {\em resolving subcategory} of $\A$ as a subcategory of $\A$ containing $\proj\A$ and closed under direct summands, extensions and syzygies.
The {\em resolving closure} of a subcategory $\X$ of $\A$ is by definition the smallest resolving subcategory of $\A$ containing $\X$, and denoted by $\res_\A\X$ or simply by $\res\X$.
When $\X$ consists of a single object $M$, we denote it by $\res_\A M$ or $\res M$.\\
(7) Let $X,Y$ be complexes of objects of $\A$.\\
(a) A homomorphism $f:X\to Y$ of complexes is called a {\em quasi-isomorphism} if the induced map $\H_i(f):\H_i(X)\to\H_i(Y)$ on the $i$-th homologies is an isomorphism for all integers $i$.\\
(b) We say that $X$ is {\em equivalent} to $Y$ if there exists a sequence $X=X^0,X^1,\dots,X^n=Y$ of complexes having a quasi-isomorphism between $X^i$ and $X^{i+1}$ for all $0\le i\le n-1$.
Then we write $X\simeq Y$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rem}
(1) A Serre subcategory is defined for an arbitrary abelian category.\\
(2) A resolving subcategory is usually defined as a subcategory containing the projective objects and closed under direct summands, extensions and kernels of epimorphisms.
This definition and ours are equivalent.\\
(3) Let $\X$ be a resolving subcategory of $\A$.
Let $M$ be an object of $\X$ and $n>0$ an integer.
The $n$-th syzygy of $M$ with respect to {\em some} projective resolution of $M$ is in $\X$ if and only if the $n$-th syzygy of $M$ with respect to {\em every} projective resolution of $M$ is in $\X$.
\end{rem}
We recall the notions of balls in $\T$ and $\A$ introduced in \cite{BV,radius,R}.
\begin{dfn}
(1)(a) For a subcategory $\X$ of $\T$ we denote by $\langle\X\rangle$ the smallest subcategory of $\T$ containing $\X$ that is closed under finite direct sums, direct summands and shifts, i.e., $\langle\X\rangle=\add_\T\{\,X[i]\mid i\in\ZZ,\,X\in\X\,\}$.
When $\X$ consists of a single object $M$, we simply denote it by $\langle M\rangle$.\\
(b) For subcategories $\X,\Y$ of $\T$ we denote by $\X\ast\Y$ the subcategory of $\T$ consisting of objects $M$ which fits into an exact triangle $X \to M \to Y \rightsquigarrow$ in $\T$ with $X\in\X$ and $Y\in\Y$.
We set $\X\diamond\Y=\langle\langle\X\rangle\ast\langle\Y\rangle\rangle$.\\
(c) Let $\C$ be a subcategory of $\T$.
We define the {\it ball of radius $r$ centered at $\C$} as
$$
\langle\C\rangle_r=
\begin{cases}
\langle\C\rangle & (r=1),\\
\langle\C\rangle_{r-1}\diamond\C=\langle\langle\C\rangle_{r-1}\ast\langle\C\rangle\rangle & (r\ge2).
\end{cases}
$$
If $\C$ consists of a single object $M$, then we simply denote it by $\langle M\rangle_r$.
We write $\langle\C\rangle_r^{\T}$ when we should specify that $\T$ is the ground category where the ball is defined.\\
(2)(a) For a subcategory $\X$ of $\A$ we denote by $[\X]$ the smallest subcategory of $\A$ containing $\proj\A$ and $\X$ that is closed under finite direct sums, direct summands and syzygies, i.e., $[\X]=\add_\A(\proj\A\cup\{\,\syz^iX\mid i\ge0,\,X\in\X\,\})$.
When $\X$ consists of a single object $M$, we simply denote it by $[M]$.\\
(b) For subcategories $\X,\Y$ of $\A$ we denote by $\X\circ\Y$ the subcategory of $\A$ consisting of objects $M$ which fits into an exact sequence $0 \to X \to M \to Y \to 0$ in $\A$ with $X\in\X$ and $Y\in\Y$.
We set $\X\bullet\Y=[[\X]\circ[\Y]]$.\\
(c) Let $\C$ be a subcategory of $\A$.
We define the {\it ball of radius $r$ centered at $\C$} as
$$
[\C]_r=
\begin{cases}
[\C] & (r=1),\\
[\C]_{r-1}\bullet\C=[[\C]_{r-1}\circ[\C]] & (r\ge2).
\end{cases}
$$
If $\C$ consists of a single object $M$, then we simply denote it by $[M]_r$.
We write $[\C]_r^\A$ when we should specify that $\A$ is the ground category where the ball is defined.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rem}\cite{BV,radius,R}
(1) Let $\X,\Y,\Z,\C$ be subcategories of $\T$.\\
(a) An object $M\in\T$ belongs to $\X\diamond\Y$ if and only if there is an exact triangle $X \to Z \to Y \rightsquigarrow$ with $X\in\langle\X\rangle$ and $Y\in\langle\Y\rangle$ such that $M$ is a direct summand of $Z$.\\
(b) One has $(\X\diamond\Y)\diamond\Z=\X\diamond(\Y\diamond\Z)$ and $\langle\C\rangle_a\diamond\langle\C\rangle_b=\langle\C\rangle_{a+b}$ for all $a,b>0$.\\
(2) Let $\X,\Y,\Z,\C$ be subcategories of $\A$.\\
(a) An object $M\in\A$ belongs to $\X\bullet\Y$ if and only if there is an exact sequence $0 \to X \to Z \to Y \to 0$ with $X\in[\X]$ and $Y\in[\Y]$ such that $M$ is a direct summand of $Z$.\\
(b) One has $(\X\bullet\Y)\bullet\Z=\X\bullet(\Y\bullet\Z)$ and $[\C]_a\bullet[\C]_b=[\C]_{a+b}$ for all $a,b>0$.
\end{rem}
\begin{dfn}
An $R$-complex is called {\em perfect} if it is a bounded complex of projective $R$-modules.
The {\em singularity category} $\ds(R)$ of $R$ is defined as the Verdier quotient of $\db(R)$ by the perfect complexes.
For the definition of a Verdier quotient, we refer to \cite[Remark 2.1.9]{N}.
Whenever we discuss the singularity category $\ds(R)$, we identify each object or subcategory of $\mod R$ with its image in $\ds(R)$ by the composition of the canonical functors $\mod R\to\db(R)\to\ds(R)$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rem}\cite[Lemma 2.4]{sing}
(1) For all $X\in\db(R)$ there exists an exact triangle $P \to X \to M[n] \rightsquigarrow$ in $\db(R)$ such that $P$ is a perfect complex, $M$ is a module and $n$ is an integer.
In particular, $X\cong M[n]$ in $\ds(R)$.\\
(2) For every $M\in\mod R$ and every $n\ge0$ there is an isomorphism $M\cong\syz^nM[n]$ in $\ds(R)$.
Hence, for a subcategory $\C$ of $\mod R$ and an integer $k>0$, each module in ${[\C]}_k^{\mod R}$ belongs to ${\langle\C\rangle}_k^{\ds(R)}$.
\end{rem}
We introduce subcategories which will be investigated in Section \ref{gene}.
\begin{dfn}
Let $\Phi$ be a subset of $\spec R$.
Set $\Phi^{\rm c}=\spec R\setminus\Phi$.
We denote by $\M^\Phi(R)$ (respectively, $\mod^\Phi(R)$) the subcategory of $\mod R$ consisting of $R$-modules $M$ such that $M_\p=0$ (respectively, $M_\p$ is $R_\p$-free) for all $\p\in\Phi^{\rm c}$.
Also, $\db^\Phi(R)$ (respectively, $\ds^\Phi(R)$) denotes the subcategory of $\db(R)$ (respectively, $\ds(R)$) consisting of $R$-complexes $X$ such that $X_\p$ isomorphic to a perfect $R_\p$-complex in $\db(R_\p)$ (respectively, $X_\p\cong0$ in $\ds(R_\p)$) for all $\p\in\Phi^{\rm c}$.
We have that $\M^\Phi(R)$ is a Serre subcategory of $\mod R$, that $\mod^\Phi(R)$ is a resolving subcategory of $\mod R$, and that $\db^\Phi(R), \ds^\Phi(R)$ are thick subcategories of $\db(R),\ds(R)$ respectively.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}
(1) For an $R$-module $M$ we denote by $\nf(M)$ the {\em nonfree locus} of $M$, that is, the set of prime ideals $\p$ of $R$ such that the $R_\p$-module $M_\p$ is nonfree.
As is well-known, $\nf(M)$ is a closed subset of $\spec R$ in the Zariski topology.\\
(2) For an $R$-complex $M$ we denote by $\ipd(M)$ the {\em infinite projective dimension locus} of $M$, that is, the set of prime ideals $\p$ of $R$ such that the $R_\p$-complex $M_\p$ has infinite projective dimension.\\
(3) For a subcategory $\X$ of $\mod R$ we set $\supp\X=\bigcup_{M\in\X}\supp M$ and $\nf(\X)=\bigcup_{M\in\X}\nf(M)$.\\
(4) For a subcategory $\X$ of $\db(R)$ we set $\ipd(\X)=\bigcup_{M\in\X}\ipd(M)$.\\
(5) For a subcategory $\X$ of $\ds(R)$ we set $\ssupp(\X)=\bigcup_{M\in\X}\ipd(M)$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}
(1) Let $M$ be an $R$-module.\\
(a) Let $\xx$ be a sequence of elements of $R$.
Then $\K(\xx,M)$ denotes the {\em Koszul complex} of $M$ with respect to $\xx$.
We call $\H_i(\xx,M):=\H_i(\K(\xx,M))$ the $i$-th {\em Koszul homology} ($i\in\ZZ$) and $\H(\xx,M):=\bigoplus_{i\in\ZZ}\H_i(\xx,M)$ the {\em Koszul homology} of $M$ with respect to $\xx$.\\
(b) Let $P_1 \xrightarrow{d} P_0 \to M \to 0$ be a projective presentation of $M$.
Then the cokernel of the $R$-dual map of $d$ is called the {\em transpose} of $M$ and denoted by $\tr M$.
This is uniquely determined up to projective summands.\\
(3) A subset $\Phi$ of $\spec R$ is called {\em specialization-closed} if $\v(\p)\subseteq\Phi$ for all $\p\in\Phi$.
This is nothing but a union of closed subsets of $\spec R$ in the Zariski topology.\\
(4) We denote by $\sing R$ the {\em singular locus} of $R$, namely, the set of prime ideals $\p$ of $R$ such that $R_\p$ is not a regular local ring.\\
(5) A local ring $R$ with maximal ideal $\m$ is called an {\em isolated singularity} if $\sing R\subseteq\{\m\}$.
\end{dfn}
\section{Reconstruction from Koszul homology}\label{Rap}
In this section, we consider reconstructing a given module from its Koszul homology by taking direct summands, extensions and syzygies.
We start by stating and proving the most general result in this paper; actually, almost all of the other results given in this paper are deduced from this.
\begin{thm}\label{181627}
Let $M$ be an $R$-module.
Let $\xx=x_1,\dots,x_n$ be a sequence of elements of $R$ such that $x_p\Ext_R^q(M,\syz^rM)=0$ for all $1\le p\le n$ and $1\le q,r\le p$.
Let $P$ be a projective resolution of $M$.
Then $\K(\xx,M)$ is equivalent to a complex
$$
X=(0 \to X_n \to X_{n-1} \to \cdots \to X_1 \to X_0 \to 0)
$$
such that $X_i=\bigoplus_{j=0}^i{P_j}^{\oplus\binom{n}{i-j}}$ for each $0\le i\le n-1$ and $X_n=\bigoplus_{j=0}^n(\syz^jM)^{\oplus\binom{n}{j}}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We prove the theorem by induction on $n$.
Let us first consider the case where $n=1$.
Multiplication by $x_1$ makes a pullback diagram:
$$
\begin{CD}
\phantom{x_1}\sigma:\quad @. 0 @>>> \syz M @>>> P_0 @>>> M @>>> 0\phantom{.} \\
@. @. @| @AAA @A{x_1}AA \\
x_1\sigma:\quad @. 0 @>>> \syz M @>>> N @>>> M @>>> 0.
\end{CD}
$$
Since $x_1\Ext_R^1(M,\syz M)=0$, we see that the exact sequence $x_1\sigma$ splits and get an isomorphism $N\cong\syz M\oplus M$.
Thus we obtain a short exact sequence of complexes
$$
0 \to W \to X \to \K(x_1,M) \to 0,
$$
where $W=(0 \to \syz M \xrightarrow{=} \syz M \to 0)$ and $X=(0 \to \syz M\oplus M \to P_0 \to 0)$.
As $W$ is acyclic, $\K(x_1,M)$ is equivalent to $X$.
Next, we assume $n\ge2$.
The induction hypothesis implies that $\K(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1},M)$ is equivalent to a complex
$$
Y=(0 \to Y_{n-1} \xrightarrow{f} Y_{n-2} \to \cdots \to Y_1 \to Y_0 \to 0)
$$
with $Y_i=\bigoplus_{j=0}^i{P_j}^{\oplus\binom{n-1}{i-j}}$ for $0\le i\le n-2$ and $Y_{n-1}=\bigoplus_{j=0}^{n-1}(\syz^jM)^{\oplus\binom{n-1}{j}}$.
In general, taking a tensor product with a perfect complex preserves equivalence of complexes (cf. \cite[(A.4.1)]{C}).
Hence we have
\begin{align*}
&\K(\xx,M)
=\K(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1},M)\otimes_R\K(x_n,R)
\simeq Y\otimes_R\K(x_n,R)\\
&=(0 \to Y_{n-1} \xrightarrow{g} Y_{n-1}\oplus Y_{n-2} \xrightarrow{d_{n-1}} Y_{n-2}\oplus Y_{n-3} \xrightarrow{d_{n-2}} \cdots \xrightarrow{d_2} Y_1\oplus Y_0 \xrightarrow{d_1} Y_0 \to 0)=:Z,
\end{align*}
where $g=\binom{(-1)^{n-1}x_n}{f}$.
Note that there is an exact sequence $0 \to \syz Y_{n-1} \to Q \xrightarrow{\pi} Y_{n-1} \to 0$ with $Q=\bigoplus_{j=0}^{n-1}{P_j}^{\oplus\binom{n-1}{j}}$.
Consider the pullback diagram
$$
\begin{CD}
\phantom{g^\ast()}\tau:\quad @. 0 @>>> \syz Y_{n-1} @>>> Q\oplus Y_{n-2} @>{h}>> Y_{n-1}\oplus Y_{n-2} @>>> 0\phantom{,} \\
@. @. @| @AAA @A{g}AA \\
g^\ast(\tau):\quad @. 0 @>>> \syz Y_{n-1} @>>> L @>>> Y_{n-1} @>>> 0,
\end{CD}
$$
where $h=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\pi & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and $g^\ast=\Ext_R^1(g,\syz Y_{n-1})$.
As $Y_{n-2}$ is projective, the map $g^\ast$ can be identified with the multiplication map $\Ext_R^1(Y_{n-1},\syz Y_{n-1})\xrightarrow{(-1)^{n-1}x_n}\Ext_R^1(Y_{n-1},\syz Y_{n-1})$.
There are isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\Ext_R^1(Y_{n-1},\syz Y_{n-1})
&\textstyle\cong\bigoplus_{j,k=0}^{n-1}\Ext_R^1(\syz^jM,\syz(\syz^kM))^{\oplus\left(\binom{n-1}{j}+\binom{n-1}{k}\right)}\\
&\textstyle\cong\bigoplus_{j,k=0}^{n-1}\Ext_R^{j+1}(M,\syz^{k+1}M)^{\oplus\left(\binom{n-1}{j}+\binom{n-1}{k}\right)},
\end{align*}
and hence $x_n$ annihilates $\Ext_R^1(Y_{n-1},\syz Y_{n-1})$.
Therefore $g^\ast(\tau)$ is a split exact sequence, and we obtain a commutative diagram
$$
\begin{CD}
0 @>>> \syz Y_{n-1} @>>> Q\oplus Y_{n-2} @>h>> Y_{n-1}\oplus Y_{n-2} @>>> 0\phantom{,} \\
@. @| @AlAA @AgAA \\
0 @>>> \syz Y_{n-1} @>>> \syz Y_{n-1}\oplus Y_{n-1} @>>> Y_{n-1} @>>> 0,
\end{CD}
$$
with exact rows.
We observe that the complex $Z$ is equivalent to the complex
$$
X=(0 \to \syz Y_{n-1}\oplus Y_{n-1} \xrightarrow{l} Q\oplus Y_{n-2} \xrightarrow{d_{n-1}h} Y_{n-2}\oplus Y_{n-3} \xrightarrow{d_{n-2}} \cdots \xrightarrow{d_2} Y_1\oplus Y_0 \xrightarrow{d_1} Y_0 \to 0).
$$
There are equalities $\syz Y_{n-1}\oplus Y_{n-1}=\bigoplus_{j=0}^n(\syz^jM)^{\oplus\binom{n}{j}}$, $Q\oplus Y_{n-2}=\bigoplus_{j=0}^{n-1}{P_j}^{\oplus\binom{n}{(n-1)-j}}$, $Y_i\oplus Y_{i-1}=\bigoplus_{j=0}^i{P_j}^{\oplus\binom{n}{i-j}}$ for $1\le i\le n-2$ and $Y_0=P_0$.
Thus we are done.
\end{proof}
Using Theorem \ref{181627}, we obtain the following corollary.
\begin{cor}\label{241142}
Let $M$ and $\xx$ be as in Theorem \ref{181627}.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(1)]
\item
If $\xx$ is a regular sequence on $M$, then $\syz^n(M/\xx M)\cong\bigoplus_{k=0}^n(\syz^kM)^{\oplus\binom{n}{k}}$ in $\mod R$.
\item
For each $1\le i\le n$ there exists an exact sequence of $R$-modules
$$
0 \to \H_i(\xx,M) \to E_i \to \syz E_{i-1} \to 0
$$
with $E_0=\H_0(\xx,M)$ such that $M$ is a direct summand of $E_n$.
Hence $M$ is built out of $\H_0(\xx,M),\dots,\H_n(\xx,M)$ by taking $n$ syzygies, $n$ extensions and $1$ direct summand.
In particular, $M$ belongs to the ball $[\H(\xx,M)]_{n+1}^{\mod R}$.
\item
There is an exact triangle
$$
\textstyle
F \to \K(\xx,M) \to \bigoplus_{k=0}^n(\syz^kM)^{\oplus\binom{n}{k}}[n] \rightsquigarrow
$$
in $\db(R)$, where $F=(0 \to F_{n-1} \to \cdots \to F_0 \to 0)$ is a perfect complex.
\item
The module $M$ belongs to the ball ${\langle R\oplus\K(\xx,M)\rangle}_{n+1}^{\db(R)}$.
\item
One has $\K(\xx,M)\cong\bigoplus_{k=0}^nM^{\oplus\binom{n}{k}}[k]$ in $\ds(R)$.
In particular, $M$ is a direct summand of $\K(\xx,M)$ in $\ds(R)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We use the notation of Theorem \ref{181627} and its assertion.
(1) Since $\xx$ is regular on $M$, we have an equivalence $\K(\xx,M)\simeq M/\xx M$.
There is an exact sequence
$$
0 \to X_n \to X_{n-1} \to \cdots \to X_0 \to M/\xx M \to 0
$$
of $R$-modules.
As $X_n=\bigoplus_{j=0}^n(\syz^jM)^{\oplus\binom{n}{j}}$ and $X_i$ is projective for all $0\le i\le n-1$, the module $X_n$ is the $n$-th syzygy of $M/\xx M$ as an $R$-module.
(2)
For each $0\le i\le n$ take a truncation $X^i=(0 \to X_n \to \cdots \to X_{i+1} \to X_i \to 0)$ of $X$ with $(X^i)_j=X_{i+j}$ for $0\le j\le n$.
Then there is a short exact sequence
$$
0 \to X_{i-1} \to X^{i-1} \to X^i[1] \to 0
$$
of complexes for each $1\le i\le n$.
The homology long exact sequence gives an exact sequence $0 \to \H_1(X^{i-1}) \to \H_0(X^i) \to X_{i-1} \to \H_0(X^{i-1}) \to 0$ of modules.
As $X_{i-1}$ is projective, we have an exact sequence
$$
0 \to \H_1(X^{i-1}) \to \H_0(X^i) \to \syz\H_0(X^{i-1}) \to 0
$$
for all $1\le i\le n$.
Notice $\H_1(X^{i-1})=\H_i(\xx,M)$, $\H_0(X^0)=\H_0(\xx,M)$ and $\H_0(X^n)=X_n$.
Setting $E_i=\H_0(X^i)$ for $0\le i\le n$, we obtain desired exact sequences.
(3) Truncating the complex $X$ provides such an exact triangle.
(4) Decomposing $F$ into short exact sequences of complexes, we observe that $F$ is in ${\langle R\rangle}_n^{\db(R)}$.
As $M$ is a direct summand of $\bigoplus_{k=0}^n(\syz^kM)^{\oplus\binom{n}{k}}$, the assertion follows from (3).
(5) By (3) we have an isomorphism $\K(\xx,M)\cong\bigoplus_{k=0}^n(\syz^kM)^{\oplus\binom{n}{k}}[n]$ in $\ds(R)$.
Since $M\cong\syz^kM[k]$ in $\ds(R)$, we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
(1) Corollary \ref{241142}(1) is a refinement of \cite[Proposition 2.2]{stcm}, which shows the same conclusion under the additional assumption that $\xx$ is a regular sequence on $R$ annihilating more Ext modules.\\
(2) Corollary \ref{241142}(5) can also be shown by using the proof of \cite[Proposition 2.3]{sing}.
It also implies that $M$ belongs to ${\langle R\oplus\K(\xx,M)\rangle}_m^{\db(R)}$ for {\em some} integer $m>0$.
However, it cannot determine how big/small $m$ is, while Corollary \ref{241142}(4) can.
\end{rem}
We are interested in existence of a sequence $\xx$ as in Theorem \ref{181627}.
The lemma below guarantees that such a sequence always exists.
Moreover, one can make such a sequence as a power of an arbitrary sequence whose defining closed subset covers the nonfree locus.
\begin{lem}\label{181842}
Let $M$ be an $R$-module.
Let $\xx=x_1,\dots,x_n$ be a sequence of elements of $R$ with $\nf(M)\subseteq\v(\xx)$.
Then there exists an integer $k>0$ such that the sequence $\xx^k=x_1^k,\dots,x_n^k$ annihilates $\Ext_R^i(M,N)$ for all $i>0$ and all $N\in\mod R$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $I$ be an ideal of $R$ with $\nf(M)=\v(I)$.
Then by \cite[Remark 5.2(1)]{dim} there exists an integer $p>0$ such that $I^p\Ext_R^i(M,N)=0$ for all $i>0$ and all $N\in\mod R$.
By assumption, we have $(\xx^q)\subseteq I$ for some $q>0$.
Setting $k=pq$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}
Combining Theorem \ref{181627}, Corollary \ref{241142}(2) and Lemma \ref{181842}, we immediately obtain the following result, which includes Theorem \ref{main}.
\begin{cor}\label{231851}
Let $M$ be an $R$-module.
Let $\xx=x_1,\dots,x_n$ be a sequence of elements of $R$ with $\nf(M)\subseteq\v(\xx)$.
Then there exists an integer $k>0$ such that $\K(\xx^k,M)$ is equivalent to a complex
$$
(0 \to N \to P_{n-1} \to \cdots \to P_0 \to 0),
$$
where each $P_i$ is projective and $M$ is a direct summand of $N$.
Hence, $M$ is built out of $\H_0(\xx^k,M),\dots,\H_n(\xx^k,M)$ by taking $n$ syzygies, $n$ extensions and $1$ direct summand.
In particular, $M$ is in $[\H(\xx^k,M)]_{n+1}^{\mod R}$.
\end{cor}
\section{Generation of subcategories}\label{gene}
In this section, we apply our results obtained in the previous section to investigate generation of subcategories.
To be precise, for a subset $\Phi$ of $\spec R$ we analyze the structure of the subcategories $\mod^\Phi(R)$, $\db^\Phi(R)$ and $\ds^\Phi(R)$.
We also consider classification of these subcategories.
First of all, we want to make a generator of $\mod^\Phi(R)$ as a resolving subcategory of $\mod R$ and generators of $\db^\Phi(R), \ds^\Phi(R)$ as thick subcategories of $\db(R),\ds(R)$.
In fact, $\M^\Phi(R)$ gives generators of these three subcategories:
\begin{thm}\label{190906}
Let $\Phi$ be a subset of $\spec R$.
Then one has equalities
\begin{align}
\mod^\Phi(R)&=\res_{\mod R}(\M^\Phi(R)),\\
\db^\Phi(R)&=\thick_{\db(R)}(\{R\}\cup\M^\Phi(R)),\\
\ds^\Phi(R)&=\thick_{\ds(R)}(\M^\Phi(R)).
\end{align}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
(1) It is obvious that $\M^\Phi(R)$ is contained in $\mod^\Phi(R)$, and hence so is its resolving closure.
To show the opposite inclusion, let $M$ be an object of $\mod^\Phi(R)$.
Then by definition $\nf(M)$ is contained in $\Phi$.
It is seen from Corollary \ref{231851} that there is a sequence $\xx=x_1,\dots,x_n$ of elements of $R$ with $\nf(M)=\v(\xx)$ such that $M$ belongs to $\res_{\mod R}\H(\xx,M)$.
Since $\H(\xx,M)$ is annihilated by $\xx$, we have
$$
\supp\H(\xx,M)\subseteq\v(\xx)=\nf(M)\subseteq\Phi,
$$
which shows $\H(\xx,M)\in\M^{\Phi}(R)$.
Consequently, $M$ is in $\res_{\mod R}(\M^\Phi(R))$.
(2) Clearly, $\db^\Phi(R)$ contains $R$ and $\M^\Phi(R)$, and the thick closure of $\{R\}\cup\M^\Phi(R)$.
Let $X$ be an object of $\db^\Phi(R)$.
Then there is an exact triangle
$$
P \to X \to M[n] \rightsquigarrow
$$
in $\db(R)$ such that $P$ is a perfect $R$-complex, $M$ is an $R$-module and $n$ is an integer.
We use the {\em large restricted flat dimension}
$$
\Rfd_RM=\sup_{\p\in\spec R}\{\depth R_\p-\depth_{R_\p}M_\p\}
$$
of $M$.
By \cite[Theorem 1.1]{AIL} this is finite.
Put $r=\Rfd_RM$.
Let $\p$ be a prime ideal in $\Phi^{\rm c}$.
Localizing the above exact triangle at $\p$, we see that the $R_\p$-module $M_\p$ has finite projective dimension.
Hence $\pd_{R_\p}M_\p=\depth R_\p-\depth_{R_\p}M_\p\le r$.
Setting $N=\syz^rM$, we observe that $N$ belongs to $\mod^\Phi(R)$, hence to $\res_{\mod R}(\M^\Phi(R))$ by (1).
Therefore $N$ is in $\thick_{\db(R)}(\{R\}\cup\M^\Phi(R))$, and so is $M$.
As $P\in\thick_{\db(R)}R$, the object $X$ belongs to $\thick_{\db(R)}(\{R\}\cup\M^\Phi(R))$ by the above exact triangle.
(3) This equality is obtained by using (2).
\end{proof}
One can describe the structure of $\M^\Phi(R)$ in more detail, which makes more visible representations of $\mod^\Phi(R)$, $\db^\Phi(R)$ and $\ds^\Phi(R)$.
\begin{cor}\label{040950}
Let $\Phi$ be a subset of $\spec R$.
Then $\M^\Phi(R)$ is the smallest subcategory of $\mod R$ containing $R/\p$ for all $\p\in\Phi^{\rm sp}$ and closed under extensions.
Here $\Phi^{\rm sp}$ denotes the largest specialization-closed subset of $\spec R$ contained in $\Phi$.
Hence
\begin{align*}
\mod^\Phi(R)&=\res_{\mod R}\{\,R/\p\mid\p\in\Phi^{\rm sp}\,\},\\
\db^\Phi(R)&=\thick_{\db(R)}\{\,R,R/\p\mid\p\in\Phi^{\rm sp}\,\},\\
\ds^\Phi(R)&=\thick_{\ds(R)}\{\,R/\p\mid\p\in\Phi^{\rm sp}\,\}.
\end{align*}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The last assertion follows from Theorem \ref{190906}.
We claim that $\Phi^{\rm sp}=\supp(\M^\Phi(R))$ holds.
Indeed, it is evident that $\supp(\M^\Phi(R))$ is a specialization-closed subset of $\spec R$ contained in $\Phi$.
Let $\Psi$ be a specialization-closed subset of $\spec R$ contained in $\Phi$.
Then we have $\M^\Psi(R)\subseteq\M^\Phi(R)$, and hence $\Psi=\supp(\M^\Psi(R))\subseteq\supp(\M^\Phi(R))$.
Thus the claim holds.
Let $\X$ be the smallest subcategory of $\mod R$ containing $R/\p$ for all $\p\in\Phi^{\rm sp}$ and closed under extensions.
First, let $\p$ be a prime ideal in $\Phi^{\rm sp}$.
As $\Phi^{\rm sp}$ is specialization-closed, we have $\supp(R/\p)=\v(\p)\subseteq\Phi^{\rm sp}\subseteq\Phi$, whence $R/\p$ belongs to $\M^\Phi(R)$.
Since $\M^\Phi(R)$ is closed under extensions, $\M^\Phi(R)$ contains $\X$.
Next, let $M$ be a module in $\M^\Phi(R)$.
Take a filtration
$$
M=M_0\supsetneq M_1\supsetneq\cdots\supsetneq M_n=0
$$
of submodules of $M$ such that $M_{i-1}/M_i\cong R/\p_i$ with $\p_i\in\spec R$ for each $1\le i\le n$.
Then $\p_i$ is in $\supp M$, and so in $\supp(\M^\Phi(R))$.
By the claim, we have $\p_i\in\Phi^{\rm sp}$ for all $1\le i\le n$.
Decomposing the above filtration into short exact sequences, we see that $M$ is in $\X$.
Therefore $\X$ contains $\M^\Phi(R)$, and the proof is completed.
\end{proof}
Corollary \ref{040950} immediately gives the following, which includes part of Corollary \ref{011103}.
Note that the objects of $\mod^{\{\m\}}(R)$ are the $R$-modules that are locally free on the punctured spectrum of $R$.
\begin{cor}\label{191104}
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(1)]
\item
The equalities $\db(R)=\thick\{\,R,R/\p\mid\p\in\sing R\,\}$ and $\ds(R)=\thick\{\,R/\p\mid\p\in\sing R\,\}$ hold.
\item
Suppose that $R$ is a local ring with maximal ideal $\m$ and residue field $k$.
Then $\mod^{\{\m\}}(R)=\res(k)$, $\db^{\{\m\}}(R)=\thick(R\oplus k)$ and $\ds^{\{\m\}}(R)=\thick(k)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\begin{rem}
(1) Corollary \ref{191104}(1) can also be shown by using \cite[Theorem VI.8]{S}.\\
(2) Similar results to Corollary \ref{191104}(2) are obtained in \cite[Theorem 2.4]{stcm} and \cite{AI}.
\end{rem}
As a common consequence of the two assertions of Corollary \ref{191104}, one can recover \cite[Proposition A.2]{KMV}:
\begin{cor}\label{192102}
Let $R$ be an isolated singularity with residue field $k$.
Then $\db(R)=\thick(R\oplus k)$ and $\ds(R)=\thick(k)$.
\end{cor}
Next, we make a closer investigation on the inner structure of subcategories.
In fact, we can refine the assertions as to $\mod^{\{\m\}}(R)$ and $\ds^{\{\m\}}(R)$ in Corollary \ref{191104}(2) in terms of balls in the abelian category $\mod R$ and the triangulated category $\ds(R)$.
Denote by $\fl(R)$ the subcategory of $\mod R$ consisting of modules of finite length.
The following theorem holds, which is the main part of Corollary \ref{011103}.
\begin{thm}\label{231924}
Let $R$ be a $d$-dimensional local ring with maximal ideal $\m$.
Then there are equalities $\mod^{\{\m\}}(R)=[\fl(R)]_{d+1}^{\mod R}$ and $\ds^{\{\m\}}(R)={\langle\fl(R)\rangle}_{d+1}^{\ds(R)}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
(1) Let us show the first equality.
It clearly holds when $d=0$, so we assume $d>0$.
Let $M$ be an $R$-module in $\mod^{\{\m\}}(R)$.
Take any system of parameters $\xx=x_1,\dots,x_d$ of $R$.
As $M$ is in $\mod^{\{\m\}}(R)$, we have $\nf(M)\subseteq\{\m\}=\v(\xx)$.
Corollary \ref{231851} implies that $M$ belongs to $[\H(\xx^k,M)]_{d+1}$ for some $k>0$.
Since the $R$-module $\H(\xx^k,M)$ is annihilated by the $\m$-primary ideal $(\xx^k)$, it has finite length.
Thus we obtain $M\in[\fl(R)]_{d+1}$, and the first equality follows.
(2) We prove the second equality.
Let $X$ be an $R$-complex in $\ds^{\{\m\}}(R)$.
Note that $X\cong\syz^d M[n]$ in $\ds(R)$ for some $R$-module $M$ and some integer $n$.
By the Auslander--Buchsbaum formula, we see that $\syz^dM$ belongs to $\mod^{\{\m\}}(R)=[\fl(R)]_{d+1}$.
Now the second equality follows from the first one.
\end{proof}
Here is an immediate consequence of Theorem \ref{231924}.
\begin{cor}\label{020945}
Let $R$ be a $d$-dimensional isolated singularity.
Then $\ds(R)={\langle\fl(R)\rangle}_{d+1}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{rem}
(1) Rewording the second equality in Theorem \ref{231924} by the terminology introduced in \cite{ddcm}, one has the following inequality:
$$
\fl(R)\operatorname{\text{-tri.dim}}\ds^{\{\m\}}(R)\le\dim R.
$$
(2) The result \cite[Theorem A]{res} constructs {\em some} object in $\mod^{\{\m\}}(R)$ from {\em every} object in $\mod R$ and counts the number of necessary operations (containing syzygies).
In contrast to this, Theorem \ref{231924} constructs {\em every} object in $\mod^{\{\m\}}(R)$ from {\em some} object in $\fl(R)$ and counts the number of necessary operations.\\
(3) Similar equalities to the first equality in Theorem \ref{231924} are given for $\mod R$ in \cite[Theorem VI.8]{S} and \cite[Theorem 2]{BC}, but these are different from ours in respect of how to count operations.
The biggest difference is that neither of those two results counts the number of necessary extensions.\\
(4) In the case where $R$ is Cohen--Macaulay, Corollary \ref{020945} also follows from \cite[(4.5.1)]{ddcm}, because every maximal Cohen--Macaulay $R$-module is a direct summand of the $d$-th syzygy of some module of finite length by \cite[Proposition 2.2]{stcm}.
\end{rem}
Finally, we are interested in classifying resolving and thick subcategories by using $\mod^\Phi(R)$, $\db^\Phi(R)$ and $\ds^\Phi(R)$.
For this purpose, we prepare a lemma:
\begin{lem}\label{301519}
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(1)]
\item
The assignments $\X\mapsto\supp\X$ and $\Phi\mapsto \M^\Phi(R)$ make a one-to-one correspondence between the Serre subcategories of $\mod R$ and the specialization-closed subsets of $\spec R$.
\item
Let $\Phi$ be a specialization-closed subset of $\spec R$.
Then $\nf(\mod^\Phi(R))=\Phi\cap\s(R)$ and $\ipd(\db^\Phi(R))=\ssupp(\ds^\Phi(R))=\Phi\cap\sing R$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(1) This is nothing but Gabriel's classification theorem of Serre subcategories \cite{G}.
(2) Let $\p\in\Phi$.
Then $\ipd(R/\p)\subseteq\nf(R/\p)\subseteq\v(\p)\subseteq\Phi$.
Hence $R/\p$ belongs to $\mod^\Phi(R)$, $\db^\Phi(R)$ and $\ds^\Phi(R)$.
If $\p$ is in $\s(R)$ (respectively, $\sing R$), then $\p$ is in $\nf(R/\p)$ (respectively, $\ipd(R/\p)$).
The assertion now follows.
\end{proof}
We can obtain the following theorem, which includes Corollary \ref{301200}.
\begin{thm}\label{301626}
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(1)]
\item
The assignment $\Phi\mapsto\mod^\Phi(R)$ makes a bijection from the set of specialization-closed subsets of $\spec R$ contained in $\s(R)$ to the set of resolving closures $\res_{\mod R}\X$, where $\X$ runs through the Serre subcategories of $\mod R$.
\item
The assignment $\Phi\mapsto\db^\Phi(R)$ makes a bijection from the set of specialization-closed subsets of $\spec R$ contained in $\sing R$ to the set of thick closures $\thick_{\db(R)}(\{R\}\cup\X)$, where $\X$ runs through the Serre subcategories of $\mod R$.
\item
The assignment $\Phi\mapsto\ds^\Phi(R)$ makes a bijection from the set of specialization-closed subsets of $\spec R$ contained in $\sing R$ to the set of thick closures $\thick_{\ds(R)}\X$, where $\X$ runs through the Serre subcategories of $\mod R$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
In view of Theorem \ref{190906}, the three assignments make well-defined maps, and they are injective by Lemma \ref{301519}(2).
Thus it only remains to show that they are surjective.
(1) Let $\X$ be a Serre subcategory of $\mod R$.
According to Lemma \ref{301519}(1), we have $\X=\M^Z(R)$ for some specialization-closed subset $Z$ of $\spec R$.
Putting $\Phi=Z\cap\s(R)$, we easily see that $\Phi$ is a specialization-closed subset of $\spec R$ which is contained in $\s(R)$ and satisfies $\mod^Z(R)=\mod^\Phi(R)$.
Theorem \ref{190906} implies $\res_{\mod R}\X=\mod^\Phi(R)$.
(2)(3) We use the proof of (1).
Set $\Psi=Z\cap\sing R$.
Then $\Psi$ is a specialization-closed subset of $\spec R$ contained in $\sing R$ such that the equalities $\db^Z(R)=\db^\Psi(R)$ and $\ds^Z(R)=\ds^\Psi(R)$ hold.
Hence the surjectivity of the map follows from Theorem \ref{190906}.
\end{proof}
The result below is now ready to be given, which includes Corollary \ref{301201}.
Here, (1) and the equivalence of (b)--(d) in (2) are proved in \cite[Theorem 1.1 and Proposition 4.6]{crs} under the assumption that $R$ is a Cohen--Macaulay local ring.
Our results show that this assumption is superfluous.
\begin{cor}\label{301355}
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(1)]
\item
The assignments $\Phi\mapsto\mod^\Phi(R)$ and $\X\mapsto\nf(\X)$ make mutually inverse bijections between
\begin{itemize}
\item
the specialization-closed subsets of $\spec R$ contained in $\s(R)$, and
\item
the resolving subcategories of $\mod R$ closed under tensor products and transposes.
\end{itemize}
\item
Let $\X$ be a resolving subcategory of $\mod R$.
Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item
$\X$ is the resolving closure of a Serre subcategory of $\mod R$;
\item
$\X$ is closed under tensor products and transposes;
\item
$R/\p$ belongs to $\X$ for all $\p\in\nf(\X)$;
\item
For all $\p\in\nf(\X)$ there exists $M\in\X$ such that $\kappa(\p)$ is a direct summand of $M_\p$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Recall that we have proved in Corollary \ref{191104}(2) that if $R$ is a local ring with maximal ideal $\m$ and residue field $k$, then the equality $\mod^{\{\m\}}(R)=\res_{\mod R}(k)$ holds.
Hence, in view of \cite[Lemma 3.2]{crspd}, we see that all the ten assertions in \cite[Lemma 2.5]{crs} hold without the assumption that $R$ is Cohen--Macaulay.
Therefore, it is observed from \cite[Proposition 3.3]{crspd} and the proof of \cite[Proposition 3.1]{crs} that one can remove from \cite[Proposition 3.1]{crs} the two assumptions that $R$ is local and that $R$ is Cohen--Macaulay.
Thus, the proof of \cite[Theorem 3.3]{crs} actually proves that the statement \cite[Theorem 3.3]{crs} holds without the assumption that $R$ is a Cohen--Macaulay local ring.
Since \cite[Lemma 4.5]{crs} (repsectively, \cite[Lemma 4.4]{crs}) is still valid for an arbitrary commutative noetherian ring (respectively, local ring) $R$, so are \cite[Proposition 4.6 and Theorem 4.7]{crs}.
Now our Theorem \ref{301626} completes the proof of the corollary.
\end{proof}
\begin{ac}
The author is grateful to Osamu Iyama for giving him helpful suggestions and letting him know about \cite{AI}.
The author thanks Takuma Aihara and Xiao-Wu Chen for useful comments.
The author also thanks the referee for reading the paper carefully.
\end{ac}
|
\section{Introduction}
It was proved by Cao \cite{Cao}, Panda \cite{Panda} and do
\'O \cite{doo1} that\\
\noindent {\bf Theorem A} {\it
Let $\alpha_{n}=n\omega_{n-1}^{\frac{1}{n-1}}$, where $\omega_{n-1}$ is the measure of the unit sphere in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$.
Then for any $\alpha<\alpha_{n}$ there holds
\begin{align}\label{e1-1}
\sup_{u\in W^{1,n}(\mathbb{R}^n),\,\,\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}(|\nabla \
u|^{n}+|u|^{n})dx\leq1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\le(e^{\alpha|u|^{\frac{n}{n-1}}}-\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}\frac{\alpha^{k}|u|^{\frac{nk}{n-1}}}{k!}\ri)dx<\infty.
\end{align}
}
This result has various extensions, among which we mention Adachi and Tanaka \cite{AT}, Ruf \cite{Ruf}, Li-Ruf \cite{LiRuf},
Adimurthi-Yang \cite{Adi-Yang}. To the authors' knowledge, all the existing proofs of such an inequality are based on rearrangement argument with respect to
functions in the Sobolev space $W^{1,n}(\mathbb{R}^n)$. The purpose of this short note is to provide a new method to reprove Theorem A. Namely, we use a technique
of the analogy of unity decomposition. More precisely, for any $u\in W^{1,n}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, we first take a cut-off function
$\phi_i\in C_0^\infty(B_R(x_i))$ such that $0\leq\phi_i\leq 1$ on $B_R(x_i)$, $\phi_i\equiv 1$ on $B_{R/2}(x_i)$.
Then, using the usual Trudinger-Moser inequality \cite{Moser,Pohozaev,Trudinger} for bounded domain, we prove a key estimate
\be\label{key}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\le(e^{\alpha|\phi_iu|^{\frac{n}{n-1}}}-\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}\frac{\alpha^{k}|\phi_iu|
^{\frac{nk}{n-1}}}{k!}\ri)dx\leq \int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\nabla (\phi_iu)|^ndx\ee
under the condition that
$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}|\nabla (\phi_i u)|^{n}dx\leq1.$$
The power of (\ref{key}) is evident. It permits us to approximate $u$ by $\sum_i\phi_i u$, where every $\phi_i$ is supported in $B_{R}(x_i)$,
$\mathbb{R}^n=\cup_{i=1}^\infty B_{R/2}(x_i)$, and any fixed $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ belongs to at most $c(n)$ balls $B_R(x_i)$ for some universal constant $c(n)$.
If we further take $\phi_i$ such that $|\nabla\phi_i|\leq 4/R$.
Note that for any $\epsilon>0$ there exists a constant $C(\epsilon)$ such that
$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}|\nabla (\phi_i u)|^{n}dx\leq (1+\epsilon)\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}|\nabla u|^{n}dx+\f{C(\epsilon)}{R^n}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}|u|^{n}dx.$$
Selecting $\epsilon>0$ sufficiently small and $R>0$ sufficiently large, we get the desired result. \\
Similar idea was used by the first named author to deal with similar problems on complete Riemannian manifolds \cite{manifold}
or the entire Heisenberg group \cite{Y-Heisenberg}. Note that due to the complicated geometric structure, we have not obtained Theorem A on manifolds,
but a weaker result. Namely\\
\noindent{\bf Theorem B} {\it Let $(M,g)$ be a complete noncompact Riemannian $n$-manifold.
Suppose that its Ricci curvature has lower bound, namely
${\rm Rc}_{(M,g)}\geq Kg$ for some constant $K\in\mathbb{R}$, and its injectivity radius is strictly positive,
namely ${\rm inj}_{(M,g)}\geq i_0$ for some constant $i_0>0$. Then
we have
\noindent $(i)$ for any $0\leq\alpha<\alpha_n$ there
exists positive constants $\tau$ and $\beta$ depending only on $n$, $\alpha$, $K$ and $i_0$ such that
\be\label{Tm-hold}\sup_{u\in W^{1,n}(M),\,\|u\|_{1,\tau}\leq 1}
\int_M\le(e^{\alpha|u|^{\f{n}{n-1}}}-\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}\f{\alpha^k|u|^{\f{nk}{n-1}}}{k!}\ri)dv_g
\leq \beta,\ee
where \be\label{1tau}\|u\|_{1,\tau}=\le(\int_M|\nabla_g u|^ndv_g\ri)^{1/n}+
\tau\le(\int_M|u|^ndv_g\ri)^{1/n}.\ee
As a consequence, $W^{1,n}(M)$ is embedded in $L^q(M)$ continuously
for all $q\geq n$;
\noindent $(ii)$ for any $\alpha>\alpha_n$ and any $\tau>0$, the supremum in (\ref{Tm-hold}) is
infinite;
\noindent $(iii)$ for any $u\in W^{1,n}(M)$ and any $\alpha>0$, the integrals in (\ref{Tm-hold}) are still finite.\\}
We say more words about this method. For Sobolev inequalities on complete noncompact Riemannian manifolds, unity decomposition was employed by
Hebey et al. \cite{Hebey}. In the case of Trudinger-Moser inequality, it is not evidently applicable. We are lucky to find its analogy
(\cite{manifold}, Lemma 4.1).
\section{Preliminary lemmas}
We first give a local estimate concerning the Trudinger-Moser functional. Precisely we have\\
\noindent{\bf Lemma 1} {\it
For any $x_0\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and any $u\in W_{0}^{1,n}(B_{R}(x_0))$, $\int_{B_{R}(x_0)}|\nabla u|^{n}dx\leq1$, we have
\begin{align}\label{e2-1}
\int_{B_{R}(x_0)}\le(e^{\alpha_{n}|u|^{\frac{n}{n-1}}}
-\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}\frac{\alpha_{n}^{k}|u|^{\frac{nk}{n-1}}}{k!}\ri)dx
\leq C(n)R^{n}\int_{B_{R}(x_0)}|\nabla u|^{n}dx,
\end{align}
where $C(n)$ is a constant depending only on $n$.}\\
\noindent{\it Proof.} Essentially this is the same as (\cite{manifold}, Lemma 4.1). For reader's convenience we give the
details here. It is well known \cite{Moser,Pohozaev,Trudinger} that
\begin{align}\label{e2-2}
\sup_{u\in W_{0}^{1,n}(B_{R}(x_0)),
\int_{B_{R}(x_0)}|\nabla u|^{n}dx\leq1}\int_{B_{R}(x_0)}e^{\alpha_{n}|u|^{\frac{n}{n-1}}}
dx
\leq C(n)R^{n}.
\end{align}
Letting $\widetilde{u}=\frac{u}{||\nabla u||_{L^{n}({B_{R}(x_0)})}}$ for any $u\in W_{0}^{1,n}(B_{R}(x_0))\setminus\{0\}$, we have
\bea\label{e2-3}
\int_{B_{R}(x_0)}\le(e^{\alpha_{n}|\widetilde{u}|^{\frac{n}{n-1}}}
-\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}\frac{\alpha_{n}^{k}|\widetilde{u}|^{\frac{nk}{n-1}}}{k!}\ri)dx
&\geq&\frac{1}{||\nabla u||_{L^{n}({B_{R}(x_0)})}}\int_{B_{R}(x_0)}\sum_{k=n-1}^{\infty}\frac{\alpha_{n}^{k}|u|^{\frac{nk}{n-1}}}{k!}dx\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{||\nabla u||_{L^{n}({B_{R}(x_0)})}}\int_{B_{R}(x_0)}\le(e^{\alpha_{n}|u|^{\frac{n}{n-1}}}
-\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}\frac{\alpha_{n}^{k}|u|^{\frac{nk}{n-1}}}{k!}\ri)dx.\quad
\eea
Combining (\ref{e2-2}) and (\ref{e2-3}), we get the desired result. $\hfill\Box$\\
Also we need a covering lemma of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, see for example (\cite{Hebey}, Lemma 1.6). \\
\noindent{\bf Lemma 2} {\it
For any $R>0$, there exists a sequence $\{x_{i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}$
such that\\
$(i)$ $\cup_{i=1}^{\infty}B_{{R}/{2}}(x_{i})=\mathbb{R}^{n}$;\\
$(ii)$ $\forall i\neq j,\, B_{{R}/{4}}(x_{i})\cap B_{{R}/{4}}(x_{j})=\varnothing$;\\
$(iii)$ $\forall x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $x$ belongs to at most $N$ balls $B_{R}(x_{i})$ for some integer $N$.}
\section{Proof of Theorem A}
We shall obtain a global inequality (\ref{e1-1}) by gluing local estimates (\ref{e2-1}). \\
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem A.} Let $R>0$ to be determined later.
Let $\phi_{i}$ be the cut-off function satisfies the following conditions:
$(i)$ $\phi_{i}\in C_{0}^{\infty}(B_{R}(x_{i}))$;
$(ii)$ $0\leq\phi_{i}\leq1$ on $B_R(x_i)$ and $\phi_{i}\equiv 1$ on $B_{{R}/{2}}(x_{i})$;
$(iii)$ $|\nabla \phi_{i}(x)|\leq{4}/{R}$.
For $u\in W^{1,n}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ satisfying
\begin{align}\label{e3-1}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}(|\nabla u|^{n}+|u|^{n})dx\leq1,
\end{align}
we have $\phi_{i}u\in W_{0}^{1,n}(B_{R}(x_{i}))$, using Cauchy inequality with $\epsilon$ term we obtain
\begin{align}\label{e3-2}
\int_{B_{R}(x_{i})}|\nabla(\phi_{i}u)|^{n}dx\leq&(1+\epsilon)\int_{B_{R}(x_{i})}\phi_{i}^{n}|\nabla u|^{n}dx
+C(\epsilon)\int_{B_{R}(x_{i})}|\nabla \phi_{i}|^{n}|u|^{n}dx\nonumber\\
\leq&(1+\epsilon)\int_{B_{R}(x_{i})}|\nabla u|^{n}dx
+\frac{C(\epsilon)}{R^{n}}\int_{B_{R}(x_{i})}|u|^{n}dx\nonumber\\
\leq&(1+\epsilon)\int_{B_{R}(x_{i})}(|\nabla u|^{n}+|u|^{n})dx,
\end{align}
where in the last inequality we choose a sufficiently large $R$ to make sure $\frac{C(\epsilon)}{R^{n}}\leq(1+\epsilon)$.
Let $\alpha_{\epsilon}=\frac{\alpha_{n}}{(1+\epsilon)^{1/(n-1)}}$ and $\widetilde{\phi_{i}u}=\frac{\phi_{i}u}{(1+\epsilon)^{1/n}}$.
Noting that $\widetilde{\phi_{i}u}\in W_{0}^{1,n}(B_{R}(x_{i}))$, we have by (\ref{e3-2}) and Lemma 1
\begin{align}\label{e3-3}
\int_{B_{\frac{R}{2}}(x_{i})}\le(e^{\alpha_{\epsilon}|u|^{\frac{n}{n-1}}}-\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}\frac{\alpha_{\epsilon}^{k}|u|^{\frac{nk}{n-1}}}{k!}\ri)dx
\leq&\int_{B_{R}(x_{i})}\le(e^{\alpha_{\epsilon}|\phi_{i}u|^{\frac{n}{n-1}}}-\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}\frac{\alpha_{\epsilon}^{k}|\phi_{i}u|^{\frac{nk}{n-1}}}{k!}\ri)dx\nonumber\\
=&\int_{B_{R}(x_{i})}\le(e^{\alpha_{n}|\widetilde{\phi_{i}u}|^{\frac{n}{n-1}}}-\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}\frac{\alpha_{n}^{k}|\widetilde{\phi_{i}u}|^{\frac{nk}{n-1}}}{k!}\ri)dx
\nonumber\\
\leq&C(n)R^{n}\int_{B_{R}(x_{i})}|\nabla(\widetilde{\phi_{i}u})|^{n}dx\nonumber\\
\leq&C(n)R^{n}\int_{B_{R}(x_{i})}(|\nabla u|^{n}+|u|^{n})dx.
\end{align}
By Lemma 2 and (\ref{e3-3}), we have
\begin{align}\label{e3-4}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\le(e^{\alpha_{\epsilon}|u|^{\frac{n}{n-1}}}-\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}\frac{\alpha_{\epsilon}^{k}|u|^{\frac{nk}{n-1}}}{k!}\ri)dx
\leq&\int_{\cup_{i=1}^{\infty}B_{\frac{R}{2}}(x_{i})}\le(e^{\alpha_{\epsilon}|u|^{\frac{n}{n-1}}}-\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}\frac{\alpha_{\epsilon}^{k}|u|^{\frac{nk}{n-1}}}{k!}\ri)dx\nonumber\\
\leq&\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\int_{B_{\frac{R}{2}}(x_{i})}\le(e^{\alpha_{\epsilon}|u|^{\frac{n}{n-1}}}-\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}\frac{\alpha_{\epsilon}^{k}|u|^{\frac{nk}{n-1}}}{k!}\ri)dx\nonumber\\
\leq&\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}C(n)R^{n}\int_{B_{R}(x_{i})}(|\nabla u|^{n}+|u|^{n})dx\nonumber\\
\leq&C(n)R^{n}N\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}(|\nabla u|^{n}+|u|^{n})dx\nonumber\\
\leq&C(n)R^{n}N.
\end{align}
For any $\alpha<\alpha_n$, we can choose $\epsilon>0$ sufficiently small such that $\alpha<\alpha_\epsilon$.
This ends the proof of Theorem A. $\hfill\Box$
\section{Concluding remarks}
Using the same idea to prove Theorem A, we can also prove the subcritical Adams inequality in $\mathbb{R}^n$ \cite{Adams,Ruf-Sani,Yang-JDE},
which strengthen (\cite{manifold}, Theorem 2.6). Since
the proof is completely analogous to our proof of Theorem A, we leave it to the reader.\\
{\bf Acknowledgement.} This work is supported by the NSFC 11171347.
|
\section{Introduction:}
Generic non extremal black hole spacetime is a different class than the extremal spacetime, it has been proved by several authors for Reissner Nordstr\"om(RN) blackhole\cite{pp1,pp3} and Kerr blackhole\cite{pp2}. There are certain number of features which has been present in the non extremal case but in the extremal case they are completely absent. For example the `bifurcate 2-sphere' which exists in near extremal spacetime to compare the `macroscopic' entropy of a class of extremal black holes solutions of the supergravity limit of string theories, to the `microscopic' entropy obtained from counting of string states\cite{sen} but the extremal spacetimes does not have any such `bifurcate 2-sphere'.
It is well known that extremal spacetime do not have any trapped surface\cite{pp1,pp2} inside the event horizon (itself usually a marginal outer trapped surface ), whereas the near extremal black hole spacetime have filled up with the trapped surface.
Indeed, it is also true that\cite{bek} the proper spatial distance on a constant time slices from event horizon to Cauchy horizon in the extremal Kerr geometry is actually infinity but in the near extremal situation the proper distance is finite.
It has been found that\cite{pp2} in the extremal geometry, there exists a class of stable circular orbit so called ISCO on the event horizon of the extremal spacetime which coincides with the null geodesic generator of the event horizon\cite{pp1,pp2} but the near extremal black hole spacetime does not admit this class of geodesics. Lastly, the extremal black hole spacetime have zero Hawking temperature due to the zero surface gravity which measures the equilibrium temperature for the thermal distribution of the radiation, whereas the non extremal blackhole possesses Hawking temperature.
In this \emph{letter}, we show an interesting feature of the {\it Kerr} spacetime, is
that the effective potential for timelike circular geodesics and null circular geodesics \emph{coalesce into zero energy geodesics} and therefore direct ISCO coalesce with the \emph{principal null geodesic congruences}. This happens only in extremal spacetime, near extremal spacetime does not admit such type of features. In particular, the class of geodesics close to the event horizon in the extremal case does not overlap with the class in the case infinitesimally close to the extremal.
The plan of the paper is as follows: In section 2 we explicitly derive the effective potential in universal like coordinates and discuss the subtleties of the coordinates on the horizon. In section 3 we calculate the principal null geodesic congruences . Finally, we conclude our discussions in section 5.
Consider the Kerr metric in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates,
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2 &=& -\frac{\Delta}{\rho^2} \, \left[dt-a\sin^2\theta d\phi \right]^2+\frac{\sin^2\theta}{\rho^2} \,
\left[(r^2+a^2) \,d\phi-a dt\right]^2
+\rho^2 \, \left[\frac{dr^2}{\Delta}+d\theta^2\right] ~.\label{nkm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a \equiv \frac{J}{M}$, $\rho^2 \equiv r^2+a^2\cos^2\theta$
$\Delta \equiv r^2-2Mr+a^2\equiv(r-r_{+})(r-r_{-})$. The horizon occurs at $r_{\pm}=M\pm\sqrt{M^2-a^2} $. The outer horizon $r_{+}$ is called event horizon and the inner horizon $r_{-}$ is called Cauchy horizon.
\section{Zero Energy Geodesics:}
The extremal Kerr metric is adapted from the work \cite{pp2}( See for details: arXiv:1108.2333v1). Therefore on the equatorial plane $\theta=\pi/2$ the metric can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2 &=& {\cal A}\left(\sec^4U\, dU^2+\csc^4V\,dV^2 \right)+{\cal B}\sec^2U \, \csc^2VdUdV +{\cal C}\,(d\phi^{\star})^2 \nonumber \\[4mm] &&
+{\cal D}\left(\sec^2U\, dU+\csc^2V\, dV\right)d\phi^{\star} ~.\label{metex}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}&=&\frac{1}{8}(1-\frac{M}{r})^2 \left(\frac{r^2}{r^2+M^2}+\frac{1}{2}\right) \left(\frac{r^2-M^2}{r^2+M^2}\right)+\frac{(M^2-r^2)^2}{16M^2r^2} ~.\label{a}\\
{\cal B}&=&\frac{(M^2-r^2)^2}{8M^2r^2}-\frac{1}{2}(1-\frac{M}{r})^2 \, \left[\frac{r^4}
{(r^2+M^2)^2}+\frac{1}{4}\right] ~.\label{b}\\
{\cal C}&=&\frac{(r^2+M^2)^2}{r^2}-M^2 \, (1-\frac{M}{r})^2 \,,
{\cal D}=\frac{1}{2}M \, (1-\frac{M}{r})^2-\frac{(M^4-r^4)}{2Mr^2} ~.\label{d}
\end{eqnarray}
The spacetime (\ref{metex}) has a timelike isometry generated by the timelike
Killing vector field ${\bf \xi}$ whose projection along the 4-velocity ${\bf u}$ of geodesics: $\xi \cdot {\bf u} = -{\cal E}$, is conserved along such geodesics. Now,
${\bf \xi}$ has non-vanishing components $\xi^U, \xi^V$ which can be easily derived
from the fact that in the Schwarzschild coordinate basis ${\bf \xi} =
{\bf \partial}_t$. One obtains $\xi^U= \cos^2 U~,~\xi^V = \sin^2 V$.
Thus, in this coordinate chart, ${\cal E}$ can be expressed as
${\cal E}=-({\cal A}+{\cal B}/2) \, \left[\sec^2U \, u^U+\csc^2V \, u^V \right]+2{\cal D} \, u^{\phi}$.
There is also the `angular momentum' $L \equiv \zeta \cdot {\bf u}$ (where $\zeta
\equiv \partial_{\phi}$) which is similarly conserved. It can be expressed as
$L = {\cal D} \, \left[\sec^2U \, u^U+\csc^2V \, u^V\right]+{\cal C} \, u^{\phi}$.
From normalization condition
\begin{eqnarray}
u^2 &=& {\cal A} \, \left[\sec^4U \, (u^U)^2+\csc^4V \, (u^V)^2\right]+{\cal B} \, \sec^2U \, \csc^2V \, u^U \, u^V \nonumber \\[4mm] &&
+{\cal D} \, \left[\sec^2U \, u^U+\csc^2V \, u^V \right] \, u^{\phi}+{\cal C} \, (u^{\phi})^2~. \label{u2u2}
\end{eqnarray}
For {\it circular} geodesics; the radial component of the 4-velocity vanishes:
$u^r=0$. In terms of components in our chosen coordinate chart, this
translates into $r_U u^U + r_V u^V =0$ where $r_U \equiv \partial r / \partial
U$ etc. So that one can obtain for circular geodesics
\begin{eqnarray}
{u^U \over u^V} &=& \cos^2 U \, \csc^2 V ~. \label{uux}\\
{\cal E} &=& -\left [2({\cal A}+{\cal B}/2) \, \sec^2U \, u^U+2{\cal D}\, u^{\phi}\right]~.\label{enm}\\
L &=& 2{\cal D} \, \sec^2U \, u^U+{\cal C} \, u^{\phi} ~.\label{metld}
\end{eqnarray}
From normalization of the geodesics equation we get
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf u}^2 &=& -(u^U \, \sec^2U) \, {\cal E} +{\cal C} \, (u^{\phi})^2 .~ \label{frvt}
\end{eqnarray}
For timelike circular geodesics ${\bf u}^2=-1$, Using (\ref{enm},~\ref{metld}) one can obtain the energy equation for timelike circular geodesics is
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha \, {\cal E}^2+\beta \, \cal{E}+\gamma &=& 0 ~.\label{e2}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha = G\,{\cal C}\,{\cal D}^2-{\cal C}\,{\cal H}^2, ~~
\beta =2{\cal C}\,{\cal D}GL\,({\cal A}+{\cal B}/2)-2{\cal D}L{\cal H}^2 \nonumber\\
\gamma = {\cal C}\,GL^2 \, ({\cal A}+{\cal B}/2)^2-G \, {\cal H}^2 ,~~
G = 4{\cal D}^2-2{\cal C} \, ({\cal A}+{\cal B}/2),~~
{\cal H} = {\cal C} \, ({\cal A}+{\cal B}/2)-4{\cal D}^2 ~.\label{gh}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore the effective potential for timelike circular geodesics may be
written as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal E} = ({\cal V}_{eff})_{Horizon} = \frac{-\beta+\sqrt{{{\beta}^2-4\alpha\gamma}}}{2\alpha}
~.\label{vef}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly the effective potential for null circular geodesics can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal E} = ({\cal U}_{eff})_{Horizon} = \frac{-\beta+\sqrt{{{\beta}^2-4\alpha\gamma_{0}}}}{2\alpha} ~.\label{uef}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\gamma_{0} = {\cal C}\,GL^2\,({\cal A}+{\cal B}/2)^2$
Observe that the future horizon of the spacetime is given by $U=\pi/2$ with $V$ arbitrary: in other words $r(\pi/2, V)=M$, which is the direct ISCO for extremal Kerr blackhole also. One can compute the derivatives, it turns out that $r_U (\pi/2,V)= 2M^2$, while the other derivative of $r$ is regular on the horizon. Now on the future horizon or at $r=M$(direct ISCO)
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}\rightarrow0,~~{\cal B}\rightarrow 0,~~{\cal C}\rightarrow 4M^2,~~ {\cal D}\rightarrow 0,~~
{\alpha}\rightarrow 0,~~{\beta} \rightarrow 0,~~{\gamma} \rightarrow 0,~~G \rightarrow 0,~~ {\cal H} \rightarrow 0 \nonumber\\
{\cal E} \rightarrow 0 ,~~
{u^U \over u^V} = \cos^2 U \csc^2 V \rightarrow 0 ~.\label{limt}
\end{eqnarray}
which implies $u^U\rightarrow 0$ and $u^V\rightarrow \infty$ on the horizon. It follows that $L$ is a finite quantity which indeed does not vanish on the horizon.
It can also easily seen that the effective potential for timelike circular geodesics and
null circular geodesics \emph{coalesce into zero energy geodesics.} i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal E} = ({\cal V}_{eff})_{Horizon}=({\cal U}_{eff})_{Horizon}\rightarrow 0 ~.\label{zeroE}
\end{eqnarray}
Since both massive particles and photons are coincident to the zero energy geodesics, therefore they must mold themselves to the spacetime curvature. Thus Weyl conformal tensor and its dual are vanished on that curvature, so they are called doubly degenerate principal null congruences.
\section{Principal Null Congruences:}
In Boyer-Lindquist coordinates the principal null congruences are
\begin{eqnarray}
k^{t} &\equiv & \frac{dt}{d\lambda}=\frac{(r^{2}+a^2)E}{\Delta} \nonumber\\
k^{r} &\equiv & \frac{dr}{d\lambda}=\pm E \nonumber\\
k^{\theta} &\equiv& \frac{d\theta}{d\lambda}=0 \nonumber\\
k^{\phi}&\equiv& \frac{d\phi}{d\lambda}=\frac{aE}{\Delta} ~.\label{pnc}
\end{eqnarray}
These photon geodesics mold themselves to the spacetime curvature in such a way that, if
$C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$ is the Weyl conformal tensor and ${\ast}C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}=\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}C^{\mu\nu}_{\gamma\delta}$
is its dual, then
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{\alpha\beta\gamma}[{\delta} k_{\epsilon}]k^{\beta}k^{\nu}=0\, ,
{\ast}C_{\alpha\beta\gamma }[{\delta} k_{\epsilon}]k^{\beta}k^{\nu}=0 ~.\label{weyl}
\end{eqnarray}
This implies, these photon geodesics are doubly degenerate principal null congruences.
The fact that the proper spatial distance\cite{pp2} from ISCO to horizon tends to non zero and diverges at the extremal limit. But the proper time interval for in-falling radial geodesics for zero angular momentum on the horizon at the extremal limit will
be $\frac{dr}{d\tau}= \pm \sqrt{\frac{2M}{r}(1+\frac{a^2}{r^2})}$. Now at the horizon at the extremal limit this can be $\frac{dr}{d\tau}= \pm 2$. $+$ sign for outgoing geodesics and $-$ sign for ingoing geodesics. Therefore in-falling proper time from photon orbit or ISCO or marginal bound orbit to the horizon becomes zero. This implies the fact that these orbits both coincides to the principal null congruences of the future event horizon.
\section{Discussion:}
Therefore the issue of direct ISCO on the horizon must \emph{coincides} with the principal null geodesic congruences of the event horizon. Thus the effective potential for timelike circular geodesics and null circular geodesics \emph{coalesce into zero energy geodesics} . This zero energy geodesics are hovering on the horizon but does not fall in or out. They eventually mold themselves to the spacetime curvature. This happens only in extremal blackhole spacetime. The possible existence of this zero energy trajectory on the event horizon of an extremal Kerr spacetime is a surprising feature. The evidence of this is that it appears as a global minimum of the effective potential. Notice that, the location of the ISCO on the event horizon is clearly indicated by the effective potential, its actual existence may illusory\cite{bpt}, since generically the black hole event horizon has a spatial foliation as a marginal outer trapped surface. Further, it is the limit of an infinite set of outer trapped surface `inside' it i.e. for $r<M$. This implies that any stable circular orbit of massive particle and null circular orbit of massless particles on and encircling the horizon must end up with the null geodesic generators of the future horizon.
\vglue .5cm
|
\section{Introduction}
After the completion of the Palomar-QUEST northern sky survey in September 2008 the QUEST Large Field Camera (\cite[Baltay et al. 2007]{Baltay_etal07})
was moved and installed on the 1.0-m ESO Schmidt in La Silla and had first light on April 24, 2009. Since September 2009, the southern survey has been
in routine observations (\cite[Andrews et al. 2008]{Andrews_etal08}) and the telescope and camera are controlled from Yale and fully robotic. We have 90$\%$ of the time
on the telescope with 10$\%$ allocated to Chile.
The QUEST camera consists of 112 CCDs of 600 $\times$ 2400 Sarnoff thinned pixels, back illuminated devices with 13 $\mu$m x 13 $\mu$m pixel pitch.
The camera covers an area of 4.6$^\circ$ $\times$ 3.6$^\circ$ on the sky and a plate scale of 0.86 arcsec/pixel. The survey covers $\sim$1000 square degrees per night, primarily between $\pm$25$^\circ$ to allow for follow up from both hemispheres.
The LSQ variability (SN and transient) survey uses 60 sec exposures (and the TNO survey-180 sec) taken twice a night with a cadence of 2 nights in one broad band filter of 4000 to 7000{\AA} (Qst*-band). The seeing at La Silla for the 60 sec exposures is 1.7 arcsec FWHM, reaching depth of 20.5 mag. The LSQ survey subtraction pipeline has started producing between 400 and 900 transient candidates each night (Fig.\,\ref{fig3}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.2in]{subtr1.eps}
\caption{A possible supernova. From left -- reference image, night1, subtracted image.)}
\label{fig3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Transient Detections}
\subsection{RR Lyrae Variables}
The LSQ RR Lyrae star (RRLS) survey is searching the galactic halo for RRLS that have V magnitudes between roughly 14 and 20. Because RRLS are excellent standard candles, they provide a powerful probe of the density distribution of the halo, which is being examined for halo substructure. Plotted are the V magnitude light-curves for three type ab RRLS (Fig.\,\ref{fig5}(a)), which illustrate the typical photometric precisions at these magnitudes. From their mean V magnitudes, we estimate that RRab 12574, 10770, and 5381 lie 7, 13, and 52 kpc from the Sun, respectively.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\subfigure[RR Lyrae V magnitude light curves for RRab 12574, 10770 and 5381.]{\includegraphics[width=2.3in]{LSQ_RR2.eps}}
\subfigure[Relative Qst*-band brightness versus orbital phase $\theta$, from LSQ observations.]{\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{CV_Rabinowitz1.eps}}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{LSQ Example Transient Detections.}\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
\subsection{A Deep Eclipsing CV}
A deep eclipsing cataclysmic variable (\cite[Rabinowitz et al. 2011a]{Rabinovitz_etal11a}) was discovered with eclipse depths $>$5.7
magnitudes, orbital period 94.657 min, and peak brightness V$\sim$18 at J2000 position 17h 25m
54.8s, -64 deg 38 min 39 sec. Light curves in B, V, R, I, z and J were obtained with SMARTS 1.3-m and 1.0-m
telescopes at Cerro Tololo and spectra from 3500 to 9000{\AA} with the SOAR 4.3-m telescope at Cerro Pachon.
The optical light curves (Fig.\,\ref{fig5}(b)) show a deep, 5-min eclipse immediately followed by a
shallow 38-min eclipse and then sinusoidal variation. No eclipses appear in J. During the deep eclipse
the measure of V-J $>$ 7.1 corresponds to a spectral type M8 or later secondary. The spectra show strong
Hydrogen emission lines, Doppler broadened by 600 - 1300 km s-1, oscillating with radial velocity that
peaks at mid deep eclipse with semiamplitude 500 $\pm$ 22 km s-1. It is suggested that LSQ172554.8-643839
is a polar with a low-mass secondary viewed at high inclination.
\subsection{A Dwarf Novae}
An apparent dwarf nova was discovered (\cite[Rabinowitz et al. 2011b]{Rabinovitz_etal11b}) on June 11.046 (when the variable was at magnitude R = 16.3) and
June 11.063 UT (at R = 16.0)(Fig.\,\ref{fig6}(a) and (b)). A faint source is reported at this position in the Guide Star Catalog V2.3.2
(with Bj = 20.76). Simultaneous visible and J-band observations were taken with ANDICAM on the 1.3-m SMARTS
telescope at Cerro Tololo. A spectrum
(range 0.350-0.966 nm) taken on June 26 with GMOS on the Gemini South telescope reveals strong H-alpha and
H-beta emission lines, with H-alpha clearly double-peaked, indicating the presence of an accretion disk
with rotational velocity 1000 km/s.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\subfigure[Before and after discovery images of the dwarf novae.]{\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{20110612bDisc4.eps}}
\subfigure[Relative Qst* light curve of LSQ J16531857-1617542, upper limits and error barred detections.]{\includegraphics[width=1.9in]{lcJune27med2.eps}}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The first followed up LSQ subtraction pipeline transient candidate.}\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
\smallskip\par
\smallskip\par
\smallskip\par
This work has been made possible with the help of NERSC computer resources as well as funding from DOE and NASA.
|
\section{Introduction}
Precise measurements of matter power spectrum in the large-scale structure are a powerful tool not only to investigate the details of the structure formation, but also to estimate the cosmological parameters.
For example, the precise measurements of the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) in the matter power spectrum observed by
the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
has emerged as a powerful tool to estimate cosmological parameters
\citep{Eisenstein/etal:1998tu,Matsubara:2004fr, Eisenstein/etal:2005,Seo:2003pu,Blake:2003rh,Glazebrook:2005mb,Shoji:2008xn,Padmanabhan:2008ag}.
Also the observation of cosmic shear in the near future is expected to give a useful constraint on the nature of dark energy.
Obviously, proper understanding of the observed power spectrum becomes possible
only if an accurate theoretical prediction is available which requires a good
understanding of the non-linear evolution of dark matter perturbation,
the relation between dark matter and baryonic matter (bias effect) and the redshift distortion effect.
There have been various studies and much progress on the theoretical calculations of the power spectrum,
but it is still useful and required to have more accurate theoretical treatment. In this paper,
we give a new approach to describe the non-linear evolution of dark matter.
It is called the ``Wiener Hermite (WH) expansion method'',
where the stochastic nature of the cosmological density perturbation is manifestly used and the stochastic variables are expanded in terms of an orthonormal basis in the space of stochastic functions. The method was developed in the 1970s for application to turbulent theory in fluid dynamics and applied to cosmological turbulent theory by one of the authors of this paper. The method gives us a coupled equation at each perturbative order, even at the first order in such a way that the lower order quantities are modified by higher order quantities. This is totally different from the usual perturbation theory where lower order quantities are never influenced by higher order quantities. Thus, it gives us a prescription
for the renormalization of higher order effects, and the precise meaning is described below.
Each expansion coefficient has a clear statistical meaning; namely, the coefficients of the first, second and third terms in the expansion express the amplitude of Gaussianity, the skewness and kurtosis, respectively. Thus each term corresponds directly to an appropriate $n$-point correlation function.
We mention here some details on the previous approaches relation to ours.
It has been known for some time that the standard perturbation theory (SPT) of cosmological perturbation
can be analytically solved in the Einstein-de Sitter universe in integral forms
\citep{Fry:1983cj,Goroff:1986ep,Suto:1990wf,Makino:1991rp,Jain:1993jh,Scoccimarro:1996se,Bernardeau:2001qr}.
When it is considered up to the third order in SPT (1-loop level), the analytical predictions describe the nonlinearity well at sufficiently high redshifts \citep{Jeong:2006xd,Jeong:2008rj}.
However, the predictions are still insufficient at the observable low redshifts ($z=$ 0 -- 3), and we need to consider further non-linear effects.
Furthermore, it is computationally expensive to deal with the higher order corrections in SPT.
Therefore, various modification of SPT have been proposed in the past. One of the main approach is the ``Renormalized Perturbation Theory''
(RPT; \citep{Crocce:2005xy,Crocce:2005xz,Crocce:2007dt}),
where the basic equations for fluid describing matter perturbation are rewritten in a convenient compact form
in order to use a diagrammatic technique developed in quantum field theory
\citep{Scoccimarro:1997gr}. Further modification have been considered, such as, e.g.,
the ``Closure Theory'' \citep{Taruya:2009ir,Hiramatsu:2009ki},
the ``Time Renormalization Group'' approach \citep{Pietroni:2008jx},
and the ``$\Gamma$-expansion approach'' using Multi-Point Propagators
\citep{Bernardeau:2008fa,Bernardeau:2010md,Bernardeau:2011vy,Bernardeau:2011dp}.
Many other new methods have also been studied \citep{McDonald:2006hf,Valageas:2003gm,Matarrese:2007wc}.
On the other hand, there is also an approach to the large-scale structure in the framework of the Lagrangian picture, called ``Lagrangian Resummation Theory'' (LRT; \citep{Matsubara:2007wj,Matsubara:2011ck,Matsubara:2008wx,Okamura:2011nu}).
It will be shown that our approach is mathematically equivalent to the $\Gamma$-expansion approach, but it still has the features described above and gives us a very convenient expression for the matter power spectrum described below.
In almost all modified perturbation theories, the resummation of nonlinear effects, which means the partial summation of the infinite order
in SPT,
is considered. This implies that any modified perturbative expansion methods should be described in the context of SPT.
In this paper, we use only SPT, and prove again various properties of cosmological perturbations, e.g., their behavior in the small-scale limit (high-$k$ limit)
proved in the context of RPT \citep{Crocce:2005xy,Crocce:2005xz,Bernardeau:2011vy}.
Since low-$k$ solutions can be safely computed using SPT,
the derivation of more precise solutions of cosmological perturbations by interpolating
between the 1-loop results and the high-$k$ behavior \citep{Crocce:2005xz,Bernardeau:2011dp} has been attempted.
However, some arbitrariness have remained for this prescription.
To resolve this problem, we propose a unique interpolation between the low-$k$ solutions and the high-$k$ ones by assuming that the higher order solutions in perturbation theory are well approximated by the ones in the high-$k$ limit.
Then, we precisely compute only up to 1-loop level corrections in SPT
and replace the higher order corrections with the ones calculated in the high-$k$ limit.
In this way we obtain an approximate full power spectrum,
and the power spectrum shows
a very good agreement with $N$-body results up to rather high-$k$ (about $\lesssim$ 0.2--0.4 $h$Mpc$^{-1}$) within 1 \% or 2 \% accuracy.
This paper is organized as follows.
In Section 2, we first explain the stochastic properties which should be satisfied by
the density and velocity perturbations of dark matter.
In Section 3, we briefly review SPT, which will be used later. Then the WH expansion technique is explained in our context in Section 4. The relationship between SPT and the WH expansion method is established there, and we also show the mathematical equivalence between the WH expansion and the $\Gamma$-expansion.
In Section 5, we prove again
the high-$k$ limit behavior of the cosmological perturbations in the context of SPT and propose an approximate full power spectrum,
where the lower order corrections are calculated only up to 1-loop levels in SPT and
the higher order corrections are replaced with the high-$k$ solutions.
In Section 6, we compare our result with some other analytic predictions and $N$-body simulations.
We compute the two-point correlation function in Section 7.
We summarize our work and discuss future works in Section 8.
\section{Stochastic Nature of Cosmological Perturbations}
After decoupling, baryon and dark matter fluctuations are tightly coupled by the gravitational force,
and the evolution can then be described by pressureless fluid equations (continuity equation and Euler equation) with
the Poisson equation for the Newton gravity. Thus our basic equations are as follows \citep{Bernardeau:2001qr}:
\begin{align}
& \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot [\rho \mathbf{v}] = 0 , \notag \\
& \frac{\partial \mathbf{v}}{\partial t} + \mathbf{v} \cdot \nabla \mathbf{v} = -\nabla \phi , \notag \\
& \nabla^2 \phi + \Lambda c^2 = 4 \pi G \rho ,
\label{ori}
\end{align}
where $\rho$, $\mathbf{v}$, and $\phi$ denote the mass density, velocity and gravitational potential, respectively,
and $\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant.
When we transform the spatial coordinates as $\mathbf{x} \to a \mathbf{x}$ and redefine the velocity as $\mathbf{v} \equiv \dot{a}\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{u}$,
where $a$ is the scale factor and $\mathbf{u}$ is the peculiar velocity,
we can express Eq.~(\ref{ori}) as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \rho(\tau,\mathbf{x})}{\partial \tau} + 3\mathcal{H}(\tau) \rho(\tau,\mathbf{x}) + \nabla \cdot \big[ \rho(\tau,\mathbf{x}) \mathbf{u}(\tau,\mathbf{x}) \big] = 0 ,
\label{ori1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \mathbf{u}(\tau,\mathbf{x})}{\partial \tau} + \mathcal{H}(\tau) \mathbf{u}(\tau,\mathbf{x}) + \left[ \mathbf{u} \cdot \nabla \right] \mathbf{u}(\tau,\mathbf{x}) = - \nabla \Phi(\tau,\mathbf{x}) ,
\label{ori2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{a^2} + \Lambda c^2 = 4 \pi G \rho ,
\label{ori3}
\end{equation}
where the conformal time $\tau$ is defined as $a d\tau \equiv dt$,
and the conformal Hubble parameter $\mathcal{H}$ is defined as $\mathcal{H} = a H$, where $H$ is the Hubble parameter.
We further defined the cosmological gravitational potential as $\Phi \equiv \phi + \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{H}' x^2$.
In the standard cosmological perturbation theory,
physical quantities are decomposed into the background part and the perturbative part.
The background part of the mass density $\bar{\rho}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\bar{\rho}(t) \equiv \langle \rho(\mathbf{x},t) \rangle = \langle \rho(0,t) \rangle .
\label{}
\end{equation}
where $\langle \cdots \rangle$ denotes the ensemble average and
we used the translation symmetry of the ensemble average.
On the other hand, the peculiar velocity $\mathbf{u}$ has no background part because
of rotation symmetry in the average sense.
Therefore, the perturbative part of the mass density and the peculiar velocity
has the property that their ensemble average are zero by definition:
\begin{equation}
\langle \delta \rho \rangle = \langle \mathbf{u} \rangle = 0 .
\label{stochastic}
\end{equation}
Averaging the above set of equations, we obtain the following background equations.
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \bar{\rho}}{\partial \tau} + 3 \mathcal{H} \bar{\rho} = 0,
\label{}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial \tau} = -\frac{4 \pi G}{3} \bar{\rho} a^2 + \frac{1}{3}\Lambda c^2 a^2 ,
\label{H'}
\end{equation}
Integrating Eq.~(\ref{H'}), we find the usual Friedman equation,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}^2 + c^2{\cal K} = \frac{8 \pi G}{3} a^2 \bar{\rho} + \frac{1}{3} \Lambda c^2 a^2,
\label{}
\end{equation}
where the integral constant ${\cal K}$ is interpreted as the spatial curvature.
By subtracting the background equations from Eq.~(\ref{ori1}) (\ref{ori2}),
we find our basic equations in Fourier space as follows;
\begin{equation}
\delta^{\prime} (\tau,\mathbf{k}) + \theta(\tau,\mathbf{k}) =
- \int \frac{dk_1^3}{(2\pi)^3} \int \frac{dk_2^3}{(2\pi)^3} (2\pi)^3 \delta_D(\mathbf{k}_1 + \mathbf{k}_2 -\mathbf{k})
\alpha(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2) \theta(\tau,\mathbf{k}_1) \delta(\tau,\mathbf{k}_2) ,
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\theta^{\prime} (\tau,\mathbf{k})+ \mathcal{H} \theta(\tau,\mathbf{k}) + \frac{3}{2} \Omega_m \mathcal{H}^2 \delta(\tau,\mathbf{k})
= - \int \frac{dk_1^3}{(2\pi)^3} \int \frac{dk_2^3}{(2\pi)^3}
(2\pi)^3\delta_D(\mathbf{k}_1 + \mathbf{k}_2 - \mathbf{k}) \beta(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2) \theta(\tau,\mathbf{k}_1) \theta(\tau,\mathbf{k}_2) ,
\label{eq2}
\end{align}
where $\delta \equiv \delta \rho/\bar{\rho}$ and
$\theta \equiv \partial_i \mathbf{u}^i$ denotes the divergence of velocity,
and $\delta_D$ denotes the three-dimensional Dirac delta distribution.
We neglected the vorticity ${\bf w} \equiv \nabla \times \mathbf{u}$ because the vorticity is zero if its initial value is zero,
and even if its initial value is non-zero, it decays due to the expansion of the universe.
The functions
\begin{equation}
\alpha(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2) \equiv \frac{(\mathbf{k}_1 + \mathbf{k}_2)\cdot \mathbf{k}_1}{k_1^2} ,
\label{}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\beta(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2) \equiv \frac{|\mathbf{k}_1 + \mathbf{k}_2|^2(\mathbf{k}_1 \cdot \mathbf{k}_2)}{2k_1^2k_2^2},
\label{}
\end{equation}
encode the nonlinearity of the evolution and satisfy the conditions
\begin{equation}
\alpha(\mathbf{k},-\mathbf{k}) = \beta(\mathbf{k},-\mathbf{k}) = 0.
\label{albe}
\end{equation}
Note that this decomposition between background and perturbation is exact in Newtonian gravity, namely there are no backreaction terms generated from the ensemble average in Newtonian gravity, and the perturbative parts $\delta$ and $\theta$ obeying Eqs.~(\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2})
naturally satisfy the stochastic condition in Eq.~(\ref{stochastic}): $\langle \delta \rangle = \langle \theta \rangle = 0$. More specifically,
when the solutions for nonlinear equations are expanded perturbatively,
the property that their ensemble averages are zero is not guaranteed in general, and
thus a redefinition of the perturbation variables such as $\delta \to \delta - \langle \delta \rangle$ is necessary.
In the case of cosmological SPT, the average, such as $\langle \delta (\mathbf{k}) \rangle$ being proportional to $\delta_D(\mathbf{k})$,
is interpreted as the vacuum bubble diagram in the diagrammatical picture
and contributes only in infinitely large scales. This means we really need to redefine of the cosmological background.
However, we do not need to consider this prescription for perturbative variables in Eq.~(\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}).
This is a special feature of Newtonian gravity. It will be interesting to see how the backreaction look like in the case of general relativistic gravity in our approach.
\section{Review of Standard Perturbation Theory}
We here explain SPT very briefly which will be used later.
The solutions in the case of an Einstein de Sitter universe, where $\Omega_m = 1$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0$,
can be described by analytically integral forms in SPT. More explicitly,
the solution may be written in the following perturbative form,
\begin{equation}
\delta(z,\mathbf{k}) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a^n \delta_n(\mathbf{k}) , \hspace{1cm}
\theta(z,\mathbf{k}) = - \mathcal{H} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a^n \theta_n(\mathbf{k}),
\label{SPT}
\end{equation}
where the scale factor $a$ is a growing mode solution in the linearized theory.
When the scale factor $a$ is small,
the series are dominated by their first term, that is, by linearized theory.
The relation between the time-independent coefficients $\delta_1(\mathbf{k})$ and $\theta_1(\mathbf{k})$
is shown from the continuity equation ~(\ref{eq1}) as $\delta_1(\mathbf{k}) = \theta_1(\mathbf{k}) \equiv \delta_L(\mathbf{k})$,
and the time-independent linear power spectrum for $\delta_L(\mathbf{k})$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\langle \delta_L(\mathbf{k}) \delta_L(\mathbf{k}') \rangle
= (2\pi)^3 \delta_D(\mathbf{k} + \mathbf{k}') P_L(k) ,
\label{}
\end{equation}
where the amplitude of the wave vector is expressed as $k \equiv |\mathbf{k}|$.
Then, the coefficients $\delta_n(\mathbf{k})$ and $\theta_n(\mathbf{k})$ are described as follows,
\begin{equation}
\delta_n(\mathbf{k})
= \int \frac{d^3q_1}{(2\pi)^3} \cdots\frac{d^3q_n}{(2\pi)^3}
(2\pi)^3\delta_D(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}_{1n}) F_{n}(\mathbf{q}_1,\dots,\mathbf{q}_n)
\delta_L(\mathbf{q}_1) \cdots \delta_L(\mathbf{q}_n) ,
\label{solution-del}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\theta_n(\mathbf{k})
= \int \frac{d^3q_1}{(2\pi)^3} \cdots\frac{d^3q_n}{(2\pi)^3}
(2\pi)^3\delta_D(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}_{1n}) G_{n}(\mathbf{q}_1,\dots,\mathbf{q}_n)
\delta_L(\mathbf{q}_1) \cdots \delta_L(\mathbf{q}_n),
\label{solution-the}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{q}_{1n} \equiv \mathbf{q}_1 + \mathbf{q}_2 + \dots + \mathbf{q}_n$ and
$F_n$ and $G_n$ are completely symmetrized functions for the wave vectors $\{\mathbf{q}_1,\mathbf{q}_2,\dots, \mathbf{q}_n\}$.
The functions $F_n$ and $G_n$ are constructed according to the following recursion relations ($n \geq 1$) \citep{Goroff:1986ep,Bernardeau:2001qr}:
\begin{align}
F_{n+1}(\mathbf{q}_1, \dots, \mathbf{q}_{n+1})
= \sum_{m=1}^{n} \frac{G_m(\mathbf{q}_1,\dots,\mathbf{q}_m)}{(2n+5)n}
& \Bigg[(2n+3)\alpha(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2) F_{n+1-m}(\mathbf{q}_{m+1},\dots,\mathbf{q}_{n+1}) \notag \\
&\hspace{2cm} + 2\beta(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2) G_{n+1-m}(\mathbf{q}_{m+1},\dots,\mathbf{q}_{n+1})\Bigg] ,
\label{chikujiF}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
G_{n+1}(\mathbf{q}_1, \dots, \mathbf{q}_{n+1})
= \sum_{m=1}^{n} \frac{G_m(\mathbf{q}_1,\dots,\mathbf{q}_m)}{(2n+5)n}
& \Bigg[3\alpha(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2) F_{n+1-m}(\mathbf{q}_{m+1},\dots,\mathbf{q}_{n+1}) \notag \\
&\hspace{2cm} + (2n+2)\beta(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2) G_{n+1-m}(\mathbf{q}_{m+1},\dots,\mathbf{q}_{n+1})\Bigg],
\label{chikujiG}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{k}_1 \equiv \mathbf{q}_1 + \cdots + \mathbf{q}_m$,
$\mathbf{k}_2 \equiv \mathbf{q}_{m+1} + \cdots + \mathbf{q}_{n+1}$, and $F_1 = G_1 =1$.
For $n=1$, we have
\begin{equation}
F_2(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2)
= \frac{5}{7} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathbf{k}_1\cdot\mathbf{k}_2}{k_1k_2}\left( \frac{k_1}{k_2} + \frac{k_2}{k_1} \right)
+ \frac{2}{7} \frac{(\mathbf{k}_1\cdot \mathbf{k}_2)^2}{k_1^2k_2^2} ,
\label{F2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
G_2(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2)
= \frac{3}{7} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathbf{k}_1\cdot\mathbf{k}_2}{k_1k_2}\left( \frac{k_1}{k_2} + \frac{k_2}{k_1} \right)
+ \frac{4}{7} \frac{(\mathbf{k}_1\cdot \mathbf{k}_2)^2}{k_1^2k_2^2} .
\label{G2}
\end{equation}
The stochastic property $\langle \delta \rangle = \langle \theta \rangle = 0$
is specifically shown from these solutions.
When we consider the average of Eq.~(\ref{solution-del}),
we only have to consider both coefficients $\delta_n$ and $\theta_n$
due to the linearity of the ensemble average.
The ensemble average for $\delta_n$ is
\begin{align}
\langle \delta_n(\mathbf{k}) \rangle
& = \int \frac{d^3q_1}{(2\pi)^3} \cdots\frac{d^3q_n}{(2\pi)^3}
(2\pi)^3\delta_D(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}_{1n}) F_{n}(\mathbf{q}_1,\dots,\mathbf{q}_n)
\langle \delta_L(\mathbf{q}_1) \cdots \delta_L(\mathbf{q}_n) \rangle \notag \\
& = \int \frac{d^3q_1}{(2\pi)^3} \dots\frac{d^3q_n}{(2\pi)^3}
(2\pi)^3\delta_D(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}_{1n}) F_{n}(\mathbf{q}_1,\dots,\mathbf{q}_n)
(2\pi)^2 \delta_D(\mathbf{q}_{1n}) B(\mathbf{q}_1,\dots,\mathbf{q}_n) ,
\label{shiki}
\end{align}
where $B(\mathbf{q}_1,\dots,\mathbf{q}_n)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\langle \delta_L(\mathbf{q}_1) \cdots \delta_L(\mathbf{q}_n) \rangle
\equiv (2\pi)^3 \delta_D(\mathbf{q}_{1n}) B(\mathbf{q}_1, \dots , \mathbf{q}_n) .
\label{}
\end{equation}
When the function $F_n$ in Eq.~(\ref{chikujiF}) substitute into Eq.~(\ref{shiki}),
$\mathbf{k}_1 + \mathbf{k}_2 = \mathbf{q}_{1n} = 0$
is satisfied due to the Dirac delta function in Eq.~(\ref{shiki}),
and the functions $\alpha(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2)$ and $\beta(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2)$ become zero from Eq.~(\ref{albe}) .
Then, it is shown that the function $F_n$ in Eq.~(\ref{shiki}) becomes zero,
and $\langle \delta \rangle = 0$.
A similar analysis can be applied to $\theta$.
Note that this stochastic property is independent of the initial conditions of $\delta_L$,
that is, the initial condition can have primordial non-Gaussianity.
\section{The Wiener Hermite Expansion}
Now, we explain our expansion method for $\delta$ and $\theta$.
Our expansion scheme should satisfy the following two properties.
First, it is known observationally and theoretically that the cosmological perturbations in the universe have a nearly Gaussian distribution.
Thus the first order in our expansion should express the Gaussian distribution.
Second, the expansion scheme should respect the stochastic condition of the cosmological perturbations,
$\langle \delta \rangle = \langle \theta \rangle = 0$.
Based on these two conditions, we adopt the WH expansion as our expansion method.
\subsection{Definition of the Wiener Hermite expansion}
In the WH expansion,
the perturbation variables $\delta$ and $\theta$ are expanded as follows,
\begin{equation}
\delta(z,\mathbf{k}) = \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}
\int \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi)^3} \cdots \int \frac{d^3p_r}{(2\pi)^3}
(2\pi)^3 \delta_D(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{p}_{1r}) \delta^{(r)}_{\rm WH}(z,\mathbf{p}_1,\dots,\mathbf{p}_r)
H^{(r)}(\mathbf{p}_1,\dots,\mathbf{p}_r) ,
\label{}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\theta(z,\mathbf{k}) = \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}
\int \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi)^3} \cdots \int \frac{d^3p_r}{(2\pi)^3}
(2\pi)^3 \delta_D(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{p}_{1r}) \theta^{(r)}_{\rm WH}(z,\mathbf{p}_1,\dots,\mathbf{p}_r)
H^{(r)}(\mathbf{p}_1,\dots,\mathbf{p}_r) ,
\label{}
\end{equation}
where the functions $H^{(r)}$ $\{r = 1,2,\dots\}$ are the stochastic variables.
The first-order $H^{(1)}$ is a white noise function which satisfies the Gaussian distribution,
\begin{equation}
\langle H^{(1)}(\mathbf{k}_1) H^{(1)}(\mathbf{k}_2) \rangle = (2\pi)^3 \delta_D(\mathbf{k}_1 + \mathbf{k}_2) ,
\label{}
\end{equation}
and we further define higher order bases $H^{(r)}$ $\{r = 2,3,4, \dots \}$ in the expansion as follows:
\begin{align}
& H^{(2)}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2) \equiv H^{(1)}(\mathbf{k}_1) H^{(1)}(\mathbf{k}_2) - (2\pi)^3 \delta_D(\mathbf{k}_1 + \mathbf{k}_2) ,\notag \\
& H^{(3)}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2,\mathbf{k}_3) \equiv H^{(1)}(\mathbf{k}_1) H^{(1)}(\mathbf{k}_2) H^{(1)}(\mathbf{k}_3) - H^{(1)}(\mathbf{k}_1)(2\pi)^3\delta_D(\mathbf{k}_2 + \mathbf{k}_3) ,\notag \\
& \hspace{3cm} - H^{(1)}(\mathbf{k}_2)(2\pi)^3\delta_D(\mathbf{k}_1 + \mathbf{k}_3) - H^{(1)}(\mathbf{k}_3)(2\pi)^3\delta_D(\mathbf{k}_1 + \mathbf{k}_2) , \notag \\
& H^{(4)}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2,\mathbf{k}_3,\mathbf{k}_4) \equiv \dots \ \ .
\label{}
\end{align}
Thus they become an orthonormal basis in the space of stochastic functions, where the ensemble average of $H^{(r)}$ is clearly zero.
\begin{equation}
\langle H^{(r)}(\mathbf{k}_1 \dots \mathbf{k}_r) \rangle = 0 , \ \ \ \mbox{ \{ $r$ = 1, 2, 3, \dots \} } .
\label{}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\langle H^{(r)}(\mathbf{k}_1 \dots \mathbf{k}_r) H^{(s)}(\mathbf{k}'_1 \dots \mathbf{k}'_s)\rangle = 0 , \ \ \ \{ r \neq s \} .
\end{equation}
Therefore, the stochastic property in Eq.~(\ref{stochastic})
is satisfied by the definition of the WH expansion.
The coefficients of the WH expansion are derived by
averaging $\delta$ and $\theta$ after
multiplying the stochastic variable $H^{(r)}$
:
\begin{align}
& \langle \delta(\mathbf{k}) H^{(r)}(-\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,-\mathbf{k}_r) \rangle
= (2\pi)^3 \delta_D(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r}) r! \delta^{(r)}_{\rm WH}(z,\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_r) , \notag \\
& \langle \theta(\mathbf{k}) H^{(r)}(-\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,-\mathbf{k}_r) \rangle
= (2\pi)^3 \delta_D(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r}) r! \theta^{(r)}_{\rm WH}(z,\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_r) .
\label{coef}
\end{align}
The power spectrum is described in the WH expansion by
\begin{align}
P(z,k) & = \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} (r+1)! \int \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi)^3} \cdots \int \frac{d^3p_{r}}{(2\pi)^3}
[\delta^{(r+1)}_{\rm WH}(z,\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{p}_{1r}, \mathbf{p}_1, \dots,\mathbf{p}_{r})]^2 \notag \\
& = \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} P_{\rm WH}^{(r+1)}(z,k),
\label{full_Power}
\end{align}
where the contribution of the $(r+1)$th order in the WH expansion to
the power spectrum $P_{\rm WH}^{(r+1)}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm WH}^{(r+1)}(z,k) \equiv (r+1)! \int \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi)^3} \cdots \int \frac{d^3p_{r}}{(2\pi)^3}
[\delta^{(r+1)}_{\rm WH}(z,\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{p}_{1r}, \mathbf{p}_1, \dots,\mathbf{p}_{r})]^2 .
\label{Hpower}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Relation between the Standard PT and Wiener Hermite Expansion}
Since the solutions for any order of SPT are given in an Einstein de Sitter universe analytically,
any new expansion for $\delta$ and $\theta$ must be described in the context of SPT.
For the linear order, we assume
\begin{equation}
\delta_L(\mathbf{k}) = \delta^{(1)}_1 (k) H^{(1)}(\mathbf{k}) , \hspace{1cm}
P_L(k) = [\delta^{(1)}_1(k)]^2,
\label{}
\end{equation}
where the superscript and script indices for $\delta^{(1)}_1$ denote the order of the WH expansion and SPT, respectively. It is straightforward to include the intrinsic non-Gaussianities as higher order contributions in the WH expansion.
From now on, we express $\delta^{(1)}_1(k) \to \delta_L(k)$.
Substituting the solutions in the SPT Eqs.~(\ref{SPT}), (\ref{solution-del}), and (\ref{solution-the}) into Eq.~(\ref{coef}),
we find the general relation of the solutions between SPT and the WH expansion as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta^{(r+1)}_{\rm WH}(z,\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_{r+1})&=& \sum^{\infty}_{n=0} a^{2n+r+1}\delta^{(r+1)}_{2n+r+1}(\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_{r+1}), \notag \\
\theta^{(r+1)}_{\rm WH}(z,\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_{r+1})&=&-\mathcal{H} \sum^{\infty}_{n=0} a^{2n+r+1}\theta^{(r+1)}_{2n+r+1}(\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_{r+1}),
\label{WH-SPT-1}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{align}
\delta^{(r+1)}_{2n+r+1}(\mathbf{k}_1, \dots, \mathbf{k}_{r+1}) &\equiv
\frac{1}{(r+1)!} \frac{(2n+r+1)!}{(2n+1)!} (2n+1)!! \delta_L(k_1) \dots \delta_L(k_{r+1}) \notag \\
&\times\int \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi)^3} \cdots \frac{d^3p_n}{(2\pi)^3}
F_{2n+r+1}(\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_{r+1},\mathbf{p}_1,-\mathbf{p}_1, \dots , \mathbf{p}_n,-\mathbf{p}_n)
P_L(p_1) \cdots P_L(p_n) , \notag \\
\theta^{(r+1)}_{2n+r+1}(\mathbf{k}_1, \dots, \mathbf{k}_{r+1}) &\equiv
\frac{1}{(r+1)!} \frac{(2n+r+1)!}{(2n+1)!} (2n+1)!! \delta_L(k_1) \dots \delta_L(k_{r+1}) \notag \\
&\times\int \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi)^3} \cdots \frac{d^3p_n}{(2\pi)^3}
G_{2n+r+1}(\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_{r+1},\mathbf{p}_1,-\mathbf{p}_1, \dots , \mathbf{p}_n,-\mathbf{p}_n)
P_L(p_1) \cdots P_L(p_n). \notag \\
\label{WH-SPT}
\end{align}
This expression means that the density fluctuation with order $(r+1)$ in the WH expansion
is the sum of all the density fluctuations with order $(2n+r+1)$ in SPT.
We can understand the relation between SPT and the WH expansion through a diagrammatical representation,
where there is no non-dimensional coupling constant and
the order of the loop is determined by the order of the linear power spectrum $P_L(k)$,
that is, the $n$-loop contributions contains the terms proportional to $(P_L)^{n+1}$.
Each order of the WH expansion includes
all vertex loop contributions which come from the $\delta^{(r)}$ coefficients themselves.
The order of the vertex loop is expressed by $n$ ($n \geq 0$).
On the other hand,
the loop contributions from irreducible diagrams, where the loop order is expressed by $r$ ($r\geq 0$),
arise only after calculating the power spectrum in Eqs.~(\ref{full_Power}) and (\ref{Hpower})
(see \citep{Bernardeau:2008fa,Bernardeau:2011dp} for details).
\subsection{Relation between the $\Gamma$-expansion and Wiener Hermite expansion}
The relation given in Eq.~(\ref{coef}) corresponds to Eq.~(17) in \citep{Bernardeau:2008fa}.
That is, the WH expansion method coincides with
the $\Gamma$-expansion approach:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{(r+1)}(z,\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_{r+1}) = \delta^{(r+1)}_{\rm WH}(z,\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_{r+1})/(\delta_L(k_1)\cdots\delta_L(k_{r+1})).
\label{gamma-WH}
\end{equation}
For $r=0$ in Eqs.~(\ref{WH-SPT-1}) (\ref{WH-SPT}) and (\ref{gamma-WH}),
we have
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{(1)}(k) &= \delta_{\rm WH}^{(1)}(z,k)/\delta_L(k) \notag \\
&= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a^{2n+1}(2n+1)!! \int \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi)^3} \cdots \frac{d^3p_n}{(2\pi)^3}
F_{2n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{p}_1,-\mathbf{p}_1, \dots , \mathbf{p}_n,-\mathbf{p}_n)
P_L(p_1) \cdots P_L(p_n) .
\label{}
\end{align}
Thus, the first order of the WH expansion, $\delta^{(1)}_{\rm WH}$, corresponds to
the propagator in RPT.
Furthermore,
$\delta^{(r+1)}_{r+1}$ denotes the irreducible diagrams,
and this is expressed in the $\Gamma$-expansion as
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\rm tree}^{(r+1)}(z,\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_{r+1}) =
a^{r+1}\delta_{r+1}^{(r+1)}(\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_{r+1})/\left( \delta_L(k_1)\dots\delta_L(k_{r+1}) \right).
\label{delta_gamma}
\end{equation}
Note that since we focus only on SPT, we consider only growing solutions, unlike RPT.
\section{Behavior of the solutions in the high-$k$ limit}
Although the WH expansion is defined and
the interpretation is physically and mathematically useful for understanding the nonlinear evolution of dark matter,
we need to truncate the expansion at some order, most probably at a lower order such as $r=2$ or $3$ in order to perform the actual calculation.
However, the validity of the truncation is not guaranteed immediately.
Furthermore, the computational difficulties for the power spectrum increase very rapidly when we increase the order of truncation.
In order to resolve these difficulties, we propose in this section an approximate semi-analytic expression for the full power spectrum including all order in the WH expansion by adopting the following assumption:
The high-order solutions in SPT become dominant in the high-$k$ limit.
Therefore, they are approximated well enough by the ones in the high-$k$ limit.
Here, we show the exponential behavior of the solutions using SPT,
which have been proved in RPT \citep{Crocce:2005xy,Crocce:2005xz,Bernardeau:2011vy}.
\subsection{Functions $F_n$ and $G_n$ in the High-$k$ Limit}
We prove that the functions $F_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_1,\dots,\mathbf{p}_n)$ and $G_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_1,\dots,\mathbf{p}_n)$ take
the following expression in the high-$k$ limit:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
F_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_1,\dots,\mathbf{p}_n) &\to& \frac{(r+1)!}{(r+n+1)!}F_{r+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_r)
\gamma(\mathbf{p}_1)\dots \gamma(\mathbf{p}_n), \\
G_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_1,\dots,\mathbf{p}_n) &\to& \frac{(r+1)!}{(r+n+1)!}G_{r+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_r)
\gamma(\mathbf{p}_1)\dots \gamma(\mathbf{p}_n),
\label{theorem}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
\gamma(\mathbf{p}) \equiv \frac{\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{k}}{p^2}.
\label{}
\end{equation}
Here, we define the high-$k$ limit as
\begin{equation}
|\mathbf{k}| \gg \{|\mathbf{p}_i|, \ i = 1,2,\dots,n \}.
\label{high-k}
\end{equation}
From now on, we shall simplify the notations:
$F_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_1,\dots,\mathbf{p}_n) = F_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_n)$ and
$G_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_1,\dots,\mathbf{p}_n) = G_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_n)$.
We prove this by induction in $n$ as follows.
For $n=0$, Eq.~(\ref{theorem}) is clearly satisfied.
For some $n$, we assume
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
F_{r+n}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_{n-1}) &\to& \frac{(r+1)!}{(r+n)!}F_{r+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r) \gamma(\mathbf{p}_1)\dots \gamma(\mathbf{p}_{n-1}), \\
G_{r+n}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_{n-1}) &\to& \frac{(r+1)!}{(r+n)!}G_{r+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r) \gamma(\mathbf{p}_1)\dots \gamma(\mathbf{p}_{n-1}).
\label{nFG}
\end{eqnarray}
Then we show that the $n+1$ order satisfies the same limit.
The functions $F_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_n)$ and $G_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_n)$ are given by Eqs.~(\ref{chikujiF}) and (\ref{chikujiG}).
Then, let us examine which terms become dominant in the high-$k$ limit in these recursion relations.
From Eq.~(\ref{high-k}), we keep only terms with scale dependence as $(k/p_1)\cdots(k/p_n)$.
Then, we have the terms proportional to $F_{r+n}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_{i},\mathbf{p}_n)$, $G_{r+n}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_{i},\mathbf{p}_n)$ for $i \leq r$, and
$\gamma(\mathbf{p}_n) F_{r+n}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_{n-1})$ and $\gamma(\mathbf{p}_n) G_{r+n}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_{n-1})$ in the high-$k$ limit.
This means that the recursion relation for $F_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_n)$ in the high-$k$ limit becomes:
\begin{align}
& F_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_n) \to \frac{1}{(2(r+n)+5)(r+n)} \Bigg\{\notag \\
&(2(r+n)+3) \frac{C(r,m)}{C(n+r+1,m)}
\Bigg[\sum_{m=1}^{r} G_m(\mathbf{k}_m)\alpha(\mathbf{k}_{1m},\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}_{(m+1)r}+\mathbf{p}_{1n})
F_{r+n+1-m}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_{m+1},\dots,\mathbf{k}_{r},\mathbf{p}_n) \notag \\
& \hspace{4cm} + \sum_{m=1}^{r} G_{r+n+1-m}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_{m+1},\dots,\mathbf{k}_{r},\mathbf{p}_n)
\alpha(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}_{(m+1)r}+\mathbf{p}_{1n},\mathbf{k}_{1m}) F_{m}(\mathbf{k}_m) \Bigg] \notag \\
&\hspace{1.5cm} + 4\frac{C(r,m)}{C(n+r+1,m)}
\Bigg[\sum_{m=1}^{r} G_{m}(\mathbf{k}_m)\beta(\mathbf{k}_{1m},\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}_{(m+1)r}+\mathbf{p}_{1n}) G_{r+n+1-m}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_{m+1},\dots,\mathbf{k}_{r},\mathbf{p}_n)\Bigg] \notag \\
&\hspace{1.5cm} + (2(r+n)+3) \left( \frac{n}{r+n+1} \right)
\alpha(\mathbf{p}_n,\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}_{1r}+\mathbf{p}_{1(n-1)}) F_{r+n}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_{n-1}) \notag \\
& \hspace{1.5cm} + 4\left( \frac{n}{r+n+1} \right)
\beta(\mathbf{p}_n,\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}_{1r}+\mathbf{p}_{1(n-1)}) G_{r+n}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_{n-1}) \Bigg\},
\label{recursion1}
\end{align}
where we denote $\mathbf{k}_{(m+1)r} \equiv \mathbf{k}_{m+1} + \dots + \mathbf{k}_r$ and $\mathbf{p}_{1(n-1)} \equiv \mathbf{p}_1 + \dots + \mathbf{p}_{n-1}$,
and define as
\begin{equation}
C(n,r) \equiv \frac{n!}{r!(n-r)!}.
\label{}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the behavior of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in the high-$k$ limit is
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
\alpha(\mathbf{k}_{1m},\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}_{(m+1)r}+\mathbf{p}_{1n}) &\to&\alpha(\mathbf{k}_{1m},\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}_{(m+1)r}), \\
\nonumber
\alpha(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}_{(m+1)r}+\mathbf{p}_{1n},\mathbf{k}_{1m}) &\to& \alpha(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}_{(m+1)r},\mathbf{k}_{1m}), \\
\nonumber
\beta(\mathbf{k}_{1m},\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}_{(m+1)r}+\mathbf{p}_{1n}) &\to& \beta(\mathbf{k}_{1m},\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}_{(m+1)r}), \\
\nonumber
\alpha(\mathbf{p}_n,\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}_{1r}+\mathbf{p}_{1(n-1)}) &\to& \gamma(\mathbf{p}_n), \\
\nonumber
\beta(\mathbf{p}_n,\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}_{1r}+\mathbf{p}_{1(n-1)}) &\to& \frac{\gamma(\mathbf{p}_n)}{2},
\end{eqnarray}
and Eq~(\ref{recursion1}) becomes
\begin{align}
& F_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_n) \to \frac{1}{(2(r+n)+5)(r+n)} \left(\frac{(r+1)!}{(r+n+1)!} \right) \gamma(\mathbf{p}_1)\dots\gamma(\mathbf{p}_n)\notag \\
&\times \Bigg\{(2(r+n)+3)\Bigg[\sum_{m=1}^{r} G_m(\mathbf{q}_m)\alpha(\tilde{\mathbf{k}}_{1},\tilde{\mathbf{k}}_2) F_{r+1-m}(\mathbf{q}_{m+1},\dots,\mathbf{q}_{r+1}) \Bigg]
\notag \\
&\hspace{2.5cm} + 2 \Bigg[\sum_{m=1}^{r} G_m(\mathbf{q}_m)\beta(\tilde{\mathbf{k}}_{1},\tilde{\mathbf{k}}_2) G_{r+1-m}(\mathbf{q}_{m+1},\dots,\mathbf{q}_{r+1}) \Bigg] \notag \\
&\hspace{2.5cm} + (2(r+n)+3) n F_{r+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r) + 2n G_{r+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r) \Bigg\},
\label{recursion2}
\end{align}
where $\{\mathbf{q}_1,\dots,\mathbf{q}_{r+1}\} = \{ \mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_r\}$
and $\tilde{\mathbf{k}}_1 = \mathbf{q}_{1m}$, $\tilde{\mathbf{k}}_2 \equiv \mathbf{q}_{(m+1)(r+1)}$.
From Eq.~(\ref{chikujiF}) and Eq.~(\ref{chikujiG}),
we can show the following relations.
\begin{align}
\Bigg[\sum_{m=1}^{r} G_m(\mathbf{q}_m)\alpha(\tilde{\mathbf{k}}_{1},\tilde{\mathbf{k}}_2) F_{r+1-m}(\mathbf{q}_{m+1},\dots,\mathbf{q}_{r+1}) \Bigg]
=(r+1)F_{r+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r) - G_{r+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r)
\label{FF}
\end{align}
\begin{equation}
\Bigg[\sum_{m=1}^{r} G_m(\mathbf{q}_m)\beta(\tilde{\mathbf{k}}_{1},\tilde{\mathbf{k}}_2) G_{r+1-m}(\mathbf{q}_{m+1},\dots,\mathbf{q}_{r+1}) \Bigg]
= -\frac{1}{2} \left( 3F_{r+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r) - (2r+3) G_{r+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r) \right)
\label{GG}
\end{equation}
Substituting Eq.~(\ref{FF}) and Eq.~(\ref{GG}) into Eq.~(\ref{recursion2}),
we can finally derive the following relation in the high-$k$ limit,
\begin{equation}
F_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_n) \to \frac{(r+1)!}{(r+n+1)!} \gamma(\mathbf{p}_1)\dots\gamma(\mathbf{p}_n) F_{r+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r).
\label{}
\end{equation}
Similarly, for $G_{r+n+1}$ we can show the following relation
\begin{equation}
G_{r+n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r,\mathbf{p}_n) \to \frac{(r+1)!}{(r+n+1)!} \gamma(\mathbf{p}_1)\dots\gamma(\mathbf{p}_n) G_{r+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_r).
\label{}
\end{equation}
This ends the proof.
\subsection{Power Spectrum in the High-$k$ Limit}
We calculate the coefficients of the WH expansion in the high-$k$ limit,
\begin{align}
\delta^{(r+1)}_{\rm WH}(z,\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r},\mathbf{k}_r) & = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a^{2n+r+1} \delta_{2n+r+1}^{(r+1)}(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r},\mathbf{k}_r) \notag \\
& \to \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a^{2n+r+1}
\delta_L(|\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r}|) \delta_L(k_1) \dots \delta_L(k_r) \notag \\
& \ \ \ \ \times F_{r+1}(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r},\mathbf{k}_r)
\frac{1}{2^n n!}\left[ - \frac{k^2}{6\pi^2} \int dp P_L(p) \right]^n \notag \\
& = \exp\left( -\frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{2} \right)
\delta_L(z,|\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r}|)\delta_L(z,k_1) \dots \delta_L(z,k_r) F_{r+1}(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r},\mathbf{k}_r) \notag \\
& = \exp\left( -\frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{2} \right) \delta^{(r+1)}_{r+1}(z,\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r},\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_r),
\label{exp}
\end{align}
where we have used Eqs.~(\ref{WH-SPT}), (\ref{theorem}), and $(2n)!! = 2^n n!$.
We define $\sigma_v^2$ as
\begin{equation}
\sigma_v^2 \equiv\frac{1}{6\pi^2} \int dp P_L(z,p) .
\label{}
\end{equation}
Note that we define the $z$-dependent quantities such as $\delta_L(z,k)$ and $P_L(z,k)$ by multiplying the scale factor $a$,
but we assume that the scale factor can be replaced by the growth factor $D(z)$
in the general cosmological models, for which $\Omega_{\Lambda} \neq 0$:
$\delta_L(z,k) \equiv a\delta_L(k) \to D(z)\delta_L(k)$ and $P_L(z,p) \equiv a^2 P_L(p) \to D^2P_L(p)$.
This relation in Eq.~(\ref{exp}) is equivalent to Eq.~(42) in \citep{Bernardeau:2008fa}
from the relation between $\delta_{r+1}^{(r+1)}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm tree}$ in Eq.~(\ref{delta_gamma}).
Then, we describe the full power spectrum in the high-$k$ limit as
\begin{align}
P(z,k) \to \exp\left( -k^2 \sigma_v^2 \right)
\sum_{r=0}^{\infty} P_{\rm irr}^{(r+1)}(z,k),
\label{high-k power}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
P_{\rm irr}^{(r+1)}(z,k) & \equiv (r+1)! \int \frac{d^3k_1}{(2\pi)^3} \dots \int \frac{d^3k_{r}}{(2\pi)^3}
[\delta^{(r+1)}_{r+1}(z,\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r}, \mathbf{k}_1, \dots,\mathbf{k}_{r})]^2 \notag \\
& = (r+1)! \int \frac{d^3k_1}{(2\pi)^3} \dots \int \frac{d^3k_{r}}{(2\pi)^3}
\left[ F_{r+1}(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r},\mathbf{k}_r) \right]^2 P_L(z,|\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r}|) P_L(z,k_1) \dots P_L(z,k_r).
\label{tree}
\end{align}
$P_{\rm irr}$ includes the contributions from all the irreducible diagrams.
Here, we take further high-$k$ limits in Eq.~(\ref{tree}).
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{k} \gg \{|\mathbf{k}_i|,\ i = 1,\dots,r \}.
\label{limit-k}
\end{equation}
Using Eq.~(\ref{theorem}),
we show
\begin{align}
P_{\rm irr}^{(r+1)} & \to (r+1)! (r+1) \int \frac{d^3k_1}{(2\pi)^3} \dots \int \frac{d^3k_{r}}{(2\pi)^3}
[\delta^{(r+1)}_{r+1}(z,\mathbf{k}, \mathbf{k}_1, \dots,\mathbf{k}_{r})]^2 \notag \\
& \to \frac{(k^2 \sigma_v^2)^r}{r!} P_L(z,k).
\label{further limit}
\end{align}
Note that the limit of $\mathbf{k} \gg \mathbf{k}_r$ $(r \geq 1)$ is equal to
the approximation that the most effective region of $\mathbf{k}_r$ to each integral is around $\mathbf{k}_r \to 0$.
However, since $\mathbf{k}_r$ have integral range of $0 \leq k_r < \infty$,
there necessarily exist the case of $\mathbf{k}_r \sim \mathbf{k}$ in the integral.
For $\mathbf{k}_1 \sim \mathbf{k} \gg \mathbf{k}_r$ $(\mathbf{k}_r \geq 2)$, we have
\begin{align}
P_{\rm irr}^{(r+1)} & = (r+1)! \int \frac{d^3k_1}{(2\pi)^3} \dots \int \frac{d^3k_{r}}{(2\pi)^3}
[\delta^{(r+1)}(z,\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r}, \mathbf{k}_1, \dots,\mathbf{k}_{r})]^2 \notag \\
& \to (r+1)! \int \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{d^3k_2}{(2\pi)^3} \dots \int \frac{d^3k_{r}}{(2\pi)^3}
[\delta^{(r+1)}(z,\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}_2, \dots,\mathbf{k}_{r})]^2 ,
\label{}
\end{align}
where we define $\mathbf{k}$ as $\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r} \sim \mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_1 \equiv \mathbf{q}$.
This is equal to the case of the high-$k$ limit.
The same analysis is applied to arbitrary $\mathbf{k}_r$.
Therefore, the factor $(r+1)$ is multiplied in Eq.~(\ref{further limit}).
From Eq.~(\ref{further limit}) and Eq.~(\ref{high-k power}),
we finally derive
\begin{align}
P(z,k) &\to P_L(z,k)\exp(-k^2 \sigma_v^2)\sum_{r=0}^{\infty}\frac{(k^2 \sigma_v^2)^r}{r!} \notag \\
& = P_L(z,k).
\label{P_L}
\end{align}
Surprisingly, the solutions in the high-$k$ limit cancel each other, and the full power spectrum reduces to the linear power spectrum.
This fact is well known in the 1-loop level of SPT~\citep{Makino:1991rp},
but it is interesting that this cancellation also applies for the dominant terms in the high-$k$ limit in the full power spectrum.
Of course, it is really not that the full power spectrum becomes the linear power spectrum in the high-$k$ limit,
because we have chosen only dominant terms in the high-$k$ limit in the proof of Eq.~(\ref{theorem}) and Eq.~(\ref{further limit}),
and the subleading terms can also affect the full power spectrum even in the high-$k$ limit.
This result implies that the nonlinear corrections for the power spectrum generally tend to cancel each other,
and result in small corrections as specifically known for 1 and 2-loop cases of SPT.
\subsection{Approximate Full Power Spectrum}
We now propose an appropriate interpolation between the low-$k$ and high-$k$ solutions.
The low-$k$-solutions are the 1-loop solutions in SPT,
while the high-$k$ solutions are given by Eq.~(\ref{high-k power}) derived in the previous subsection.
In order to have an expression applicable for the case of $r=0$,
we use Eq.~(\ref{theorem}) in the following
\begin{equation}
F_{2n+1}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{p}_1,-\mathbf{p}_1,\dots,\mathbf{p}_n,-\mathbf{p}_n)
\to \frac{3!}{(2n+1)!} F_3(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{p},-\mathbf{p}) \gamma(\mathbf{p}_2)\gamma(-\mathbf{p}_2)\dots\gamma(\mathbf{p}_n)\gamma(-\mathbf{p}_n).
\label{wh1ap}
\end{equation}
Then, for $n \geq 1$, we show
\begin{align}
\delta_{2n+1}^{(1)}(k)
&\to \frac{2(2n+1)!!}{(2n+1)!} \bigg[\delta_L(k) 3\int \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi)^3} F_3(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{p}_1,-\mathbf{p}_1)P_L(p_1) \bigg]
\left[ \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \gamma(\mathbf{p}) \gamma(-\mathbf{p}) P_L(p)\right]^{n-1} \notag \\
& =\delta^{(1)}_3(k)\frac{2}{2^nn!}\left[- \frac{k^2}{6\pi^2} \int dp P_L(p) \right]^{n-1},
\label{}
\end{align}
where we have denoted the 1-loop correction term in SPT as
\begin{equation}
\delta_3^{(1)}(k) = 3\delta_L(k) \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} F_3(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{p},-\mathbf{p}) P_L(p).
\label{}
\end{equation}
Then, we derive the approximate solution of $\delta^{(1)}_{\rm WH}$ as
\begin{align}
\delta^{(1)}_{\rm WH}(z,k) & = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} D^{2n+1} \delta_{2n+1}^{(1)}(k) \notag \\
& \to \delta_L(z,k) + \delta_3^{(1)}(z,k)
\left( \frac{2}{-k^2 \sigma_v^2} \right)\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n!}\left( -\frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{2} \right)^{n} \notag \\
& = \delta_L(z,k) - \frac{2\delta_3^{(1)}(z,k)}{k^2 \sigma_v^2} \left[ \exp\left(-\frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{2}\right) -1 \right].
\label{h1}
\end{align}
where we have used the general growth factor $D$ instead of the scale factor $a$.
The contribution to the power spectrum $P_{\rm WH}^{(1)}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Hpower}) is
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm WH}^{(1)}(z,k) \to \left[
\delta_L(z,k) - \frac{2\delta_3^{(1)}(z,k)}{k^2 \sigma_v^2} \left( \exp\left(-\frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{2}\right) -1 \right) \right]^2.
\label{H1}
\end{equation}
For low-$k$,
we can expand the exponential term as $e^{-k^2 \sigma^2_v/2} \sim 1 - k^2 \sigma^2_v/2$,
and this lead the 1-loop correction,
\begin{equation}
\delta^{(1)}_{\rm WH}(z,k) \to \delta_L(z,k) + \delta_3^{(1)}(z,k).
\label{}
\end{equation}
While, for the high-$k$ limit, $\delta^{(1)}_{\rm WH}$ becomes coincident with $\delta_Le^{-k^2 \sigma_v^2/2}$
due to the good convergence of $\delta_L + 2 \delta_3^{(1)}/(k^2 \sigma_v^2) \to 0$.
Next, for $r \geq 1$, we use the approximation of Eq.~(\ref{high-k power}).
Here, we further approximate $P_{\rm irr}^{(r+1)}$ because
it is expensive to compute the terms in the case of $(r > 2)$ due to their large multiple integrals.
Using the following approximation from Eq.~(\ref{theorem}),
\begin{equation}
F_{r+1}(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r},\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_r)
\to \frac{2!}{(r+1)!} \gamma(\mathbf{k}_2) \dots, \gamma(\mathbf{k}_r) F_2(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_1, \mathbf{k}_1),
\label{whrap}
\end{equation}
we derive the approximate solution of $P_{\rm WH}^{(r+1)}$ as,
\begin{align}
P_{\rm WH}^{(r+1)}(z,k) & \to\exp\left( -k^2 \sigma_v^2 \right) (r+1)! \int \frac{d^3k_1}{(2\pi)^3} \dots \frac{d^3k_r}{(2\pi)^3}
\left[ \delta_{r+1}^{(r+1)}(z,\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_{1r},\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_r) \right]^2 \notag \\
& \to \exp\left( -k^2 \sigma_v^2 \right) (r+1)! \frac{2!}{(r+1)!} \frac{2!}{(r+1)!} \left( \frac{r+1}{2} \right)
\int \frac{d^3k_1}{(2\pi)^3}
\left[ \delta_{2}^{(2)}(z,\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_1) \right]^2 (k^2 \sigma_v^2)^{r-1}\notag \\
& \to \exp\left( -k^2 \sigma_v^2 \right) \frac{P_{22}(z,k)}{k^2 \sigma_v^2} \frac{1}{r!}(k^2 \sigma_v^2)^{r},
\label{WH r>1}
\end{align}
where we multiply in the factor $(r+1)/2$ for the same reason as in Eq.~(\ref{further limit}).
We have denoted another 1-loop correction term in the SPT as,
\begin{equation}
P_{22}(z,k) = 2 \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \left[ F_2(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{p},\mathbf{p}) \right]^2 P_L(z,|\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{p}|) P_L(z,p).
\label{}
\end{equation}
Indeed, if for $r=1$ the exponential factor is expanded as $e^{-k^2 \sigma_v^2} \sim 1 $,
the 1-loop correction, $P_{22}$, is reproduced in Eq.~(\ref{WH r>1}).
Finally, we achieve the approximate full power spectrum,
\begin{eqnarray}
P(z,k) & =& \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} P_{\rm WH}^{(r+1)}(z,k) \notag \\
& \to&\left[ \delta_L(z,k) - \frac{2\delta_3^{(1)}(z,k)}{k^2 \sigma_v^2}
\left( \exp\left(-\frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{2}\right) -1 \right) \right]^2
+ \exp\left( -k^2 \sigma_v^2 \right) \frac{P_{22}(z,k)}{k^2 \sigma_v^2} \sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{r!}(k^2 \sigma_v^2)^{r},
\notag \\
P_{\rm AF}(z,k) & \equiv &\left[ \delta_L(z,k) - \frac{2\delta_3^{(1)}(z,k)}{k^2 \sigma_v^2}
\left( \exp\left(-\frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{2}\right) -1 \right) \right]^2
+ \frac{P_{22}(z,k)}{k^2 \sigma_v^2}\left[ 1 - \exp\left( -k^2 \sigma_v^2 \right) \right].
\label{result1}
\end{eqnarray}
This is the main result of this paper.
This gives an appropriate interpolation between the low-$k$ solutions and the high-$k$ limit ones.
We can derive the approximate solutions of each order in the WH expansion
and SPT using approximation such as Eq.~(\ref{wh1ap}) and Eq.~(\ref{whrap}),
and therefore we call this method as the ``Approximate Full Wiener Hermite (AFWH)'' expansion method
or ``Approximate Full Perturbation Theory''.
We can easily compute the solution of Eq.~(\ref{result1}) numerically, because the solution has only single or double integrals.
\section{Comparison with Other Analytic Predictions and $N$-body Simulations}
We compare the approximate full power spectrum, $P_{\rm ap}$, in Eq.~(\ref{result1}) with
some other analytic predictions and $N$-body simulations.
We mainly use $N$-body simulations presented in \citep{Taruya:2009ir},
but in Sec.~\ref{closure} we also use other $N$-body results with higher resolutions in \citep{Valageas:2011up}.
It is plotted for the cosmological models with the
{\it Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe} ($WMAP$) five year \citep{Komatsu:2008hk}.
cosmological parameters:
$\Omega_m = 0.279$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.721$, $\Omega_b = 0.046$, $h = 0.701$, $n_s = 0.96$, $\sigma_8 = 0.817$.
The $N$-body simulation data with low-resolutions and high-resolutions in \citep{Taruya:2009ir} and \citep{Valageas:2011up}
were created by a public $N$-body code {\it GADGET2} \citep{Springel:2005mi}.
Their initial conditions were generated by the {\it 2LPT} code \citep{Crocce:2006ve} at $z_{\rm ini} = 31$ and $z_{\rm ini}=99$, respectively.
While the $N$-body simulations with low-resolutions
were computed with a cubic box of size $1 h^{-1} {\rm Gpc}$ containing $512^3$ particles,
the $N$-body results with high resolutions, called L11-N11 and L12-N11,
contain $2048^{3}$ particles and were computed by combining the results with different box sizes,
2,048 $h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ and 4096 $h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$.
Although the realization of the simulations with high resolutions is only 1,
the simulations with low resolutions have the output data of 30 independent realizations,
and consider the correction of the finite-mode sampling by \citep{Nishimichi:2008ry}.
Therefore, the size of each error bar for $N$-body results with low-resolutions becomes hard to see visually.
For details of the $N$-body simulation used in this paper,
see Taruya et al. \citep{Taruya:2009ir} and Okamura et al. \citep{Okamura:2011nu}.
\subsection{Comparison with Other Analytical Predictions: 1-loop Level}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\epsscale{0.75}
\plotone{f1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ Comparison between $P_{\rm WH}^{(1)}$ in Eq.~(\ref{H1}) (red line) and
$[ P_{\rm WH}^{(1)} ]_{\rm Reg}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Hreg1}) (black line) for $P_{\rm WH}^{(1)}/P_L$ at $z=1$.
The fractional difference, $( P_{\rm WH}^{(1)} - [ P_{\rm WH}^{(1)} ]_{\rm Reg} )/ P_L$,
is also plotted.
}
\label{fig:propagator}
\end{figure}
\cite{Bernardeau:2011dp}
proposed a simple scheme to interpolate between the low-$k$ and high-$k$ solutions, based on the $\Gamma$-expansion method.
In the scheme,
the solutions are regularized
so that the low-$k$ solutions become the ones in SPT and the high-$k$ solutions become Eq.~(\ref{high-k power}).
We call this scheme ``regularized $\Gamma$-expansion''.
From Eqs.~(20) (51) in \citep{Bernardeau:2011dp,Taruya:2012ut},
its 1-loop solution for the power spectrum is given by
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm Reg} = \exp(-k^2 \sigma_v^2) \left[ \left( \delta_L + \delta_3 + \frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{2} \delta_L \right)^2 + P_{22} \right].
\label{Reg}
\end{equation}
Since the WH expansion and the $\Gamma$-expansion are completely equivalent to each other,
we can understand this solution as the truncation up to the second order in the WH expansion
and write $P_{\rm WH}^{(1)}$ using the regularized $\Gamma$-expansion as
\begin{equation}
\left[P_{\rm WH}^{(1)} \right]_{\rm Reg}
= \exp\left( -k^2 \sigma_v^2 \right) \left[ \delta_L + \delta_3 + \frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{2} \delta_L \right]^2.
\label{Hreg1}
\end{equation}
The difference between Eq.~(\ref{H1}) and Eq.~(\ref{Hreg1}) is manner of interpolating between the solutions.
Since the regularized $\Gamma$-expansion method is a heuristic scheme,
we have used the approximation of Eq.~(\ref{wh1ap}).
When we ignore the contributions of $P_{\rm WH}^{(r+1)} (r > 2)$,
we derive the solution of the approximate WH expansion corresponding to the regularized $\Gamma$-expansion in Eq.~(\ref{Reg}) as
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm WH}^{(1)} + P_{\rm WH}^{(2)} = \left[ \delta_L(z,k) - \frac{2\delta_3^{(1)}(z,k)}{k^2 \sigma_v^2}
\left( \exp\left(-\frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{2}\right) -1 \right) \right]^2
+ \exp(-k^2 \sigma_v^2)P_{22}(z,k).
\label{wh12}
\end{equation}
We plot these two solutions, $P_{\rm WH}^{(1)}/P_L$ and $[P_{\rm WH}^{(1)}]_{\rm Reg}/P_L$, and their fractional difference,
$(P_{\rm WH}^{(1)}- [ P_{\rm WH}^{(1)} ]_{\rm Reg} )/P_{L}$, at $z=1$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:propagator}.
On BAO scales ($\sim 0.2 h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$), the fractional difference is within 1 \%.
At high $k$, our solution becomes slightly larger than the regularized $\Gamma$-expansion.
However, there is no means of investigating which results are more accurate in detail,
because on such scales the amplitude of $P_{\rm WH}^{(1)}$ decays enough due to the exponential factor
to not largely contribute to the full power spectrum.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\epsscale{0.75}
\plotone{f2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{
Comparison between $N$-body results and some analytical predictions in the case of WMAP 5 year cosmological parameters.
The results at redshifts $z = 1$ up to $k = 0.4\ h{\rm Mpc^{-1}}$ are shown.
We show the ratio of the predicted power spectra to the smoothed reference spectra, $P(k)/P_{\rm nw}(k)$,
(Blue dashed, green dashed, black solid, orange solid, red solid lines, and black symbols are, respectively,
1-loop SPT, Regularized $\Gamma$-expansion, LRT, 2nd order of WH expansion in Eq.~(\ref{wh12})
and AFWH in Eq.~(\ref{result1}) predictions
and $N$-body simulation result.),
and the fractional difference between $N$-body and analytic predicted results, $[P_{\rm Nbody}(k)-P(k)]/P_{\rm nw}(k)$,
(Blue, green, orange, black and red symbols are the fractional difference between $N$-body
and 1-loop, Regularized $\Gamma$-expansion, 2nd order of WH expansion, LRT, and AFWH. ).
}
\label{fig:1loop}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:1loop},
we plot the various analytic solutions with the 1-loop level corrections and $N$-body simulation result
(blue dashed: SPT, green dashed: Regularized $\Gamma$-expansion,
black solid: LRT, orange solid: $P_{\rm WH}^{(1)} + P_{\rm WH}^{(2)}$ in Eq.~(\ref{wh12});
red solid: AFWH in Eq.~(\ref{result1}); and black symbols: $N$-body result) at $z=1$.
\footnote{The power spectra of SPT and LRT~\citep{Matsubara:2007wj} are given by
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm 1loop} = P_L + P_{13} + P_{22},
\label{}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm Lag} = \exp\left( -k^2 \sigma_v^2 \right) \left( P_L + P_{13} + P_{22} + k^2 \sigma_v^2 P_L \right),
\label{Lag}
\end{equation}
where we denote as $P_{13} = 2 \delta_L \delta_3^{(1)}$.
Although LRT is very similar to the regularized $\Gamma$-expansion
and our result, the complete correspondence (e.g., the origin of the exponential factor) is not trivial.
}
To easily see the BAO,
we plot the ratio of power spectrum to a smooth reference spectrum, $P(k)/P_{\rm nw}(k)$,
where the function $P_{\rm nw}(k)$ is the linear power spectrum calculated from
the smoothed transfer function neglecting the BAO feature in \citep{Eisenstein:1997ik}.
To investigate the agreement with $N$-body results in more quantitative ways,
we also plot the fractional differences between $N$-body simulations and the predicted power spectrum $P(k)$
, i.e., $[P_{\rm Nbody}(k)-P(k)]/P(k)$
(blue: $N$-body results versus 1-loop SPT; green: regularized $\Gamma$-expansion;
black: LRT; orange: $P_{\rm WH}^{(1)} + P_{\rm WH}^{(2)}$; red: AFWH in Eq.~(\ref{result1})).
The regularized $\Gamma$-expansion,
LRT, and $P_{\rm WH}^{(1)} + P_{\rm WH}^{(2)}$ are very similar that
we can hardly see any difference.
Their solutions improve the overestimation of SPT, but decay at low $k$ soon because of their exponential factor.
On the other hand, we can find that the main difference of our result from the previous works with 1-loop level is
the higher order of the WH expansion, $P_{\rm WH}^{(r+1)} (r \geq 2)$.
Because of these terms,
the AFWH in Eq.~(\ref{result1}) (red solid line) does not decay and keeps the values well around those from $N$-body simulations on BAO scales.
\subsection{Comparison with 2-loop solutions in SPT}
One merit of our interpolation is that
we can directly compare our approximate solutions with ones of each order in the perturbation theory.
In previous works, the validity of the predicted power spectra has been verified only by comparing with the $N$-body results.
However, we can verify the validity of our approximations, such as Eq.~(\ref{h1}) and Eq.~(\ref{WH r>1})
by comparing with the 2-loop solutions in SPT.
The 2-loop corrections are given by
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm 2loop} = P_{15} + P_{24} + P_{33} + \left[ \delta_3^{(1)} \right]^2,
\label{}
\end{equation}
where each term is calculated, respectively, as
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
P_{15}(z,k) &=& 30 P_L(z,k) \int \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{d^3p_2}{(2\pi)^3} F_5(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{p}_1,-\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,-\mathbf{p}_2) P_L(z,p_1) P_L(z,p_2), \\
\nonumber
P_{24}(z,k) &=& 24 \int \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{d^3p_2}{(2\pi)^3}
F_2(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_1) F_4(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,-\mathbf{p}_2) P_L(z,|\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{p}_1|) P_L(z,p_1) P_L(z,p_2),\\
P_{33}(z,k) &=& 6 \int \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{d^3p_2}{(2\pi)^3} \left[ F_3(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{p}_1-\mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2) \right]^2
P_L(z,|\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{p}_1-\mathbf{p}_2|) P_L(z,p_1) P_L(z,p_2).
\label{2-loop}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, we show the corresponding approximate solutions using Eq.~(\ref{wh1ap}) and Eq.~(\ref{whrap}) as follows,
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
P_{15} &\to& \left[ P_{15} \right]_{\rm ap} = \frac{1}{2}\left( - \frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{2} \right) P_{13}, \\
\nonumber
P_{24} &\to& \left[ P_{24} \right]_{\rm ap} = -(k^2 \sigma_v^2)P_{22} , \\
P_{33} &\to& \left[ P_{33} \right]_{\rm ap} = \left( \frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{2} \right) P_{22},\\
P_{\rm 2loop} &\to&\left[ P_{\rm 2loop} \right]_{\rm ap}
=- \frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{4}P_{13} - \frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{2}P_{22} +\left[ \delta_3^{(1)} \right]^2.
\label{2-loop apro}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, we have not considered the approximation of the term $\left[ \delta_3^{(1)} \right]^2$,
because it is the square of the 1loop term and we can easily compute it.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\epsscale{0.90}
\plotone{f3_1.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\epsscale{0.90}
\plotone{f3_2.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\\
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\epsscale{0.90}
\plotone{f3_3.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\epsscale{0.90}
\plotone{f3_4.eps}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison between the approximate solutions and precise ones in the SPT 2-loop level
in the case of WMAP 5 year cosmological parameters at $z = 1$.
We show the ratio of the power spectra to the smoothed reference spectra, $P/P_{\rm nw}$, $[P]_{\rm ap}/P_{\rm nw}$,
and the fractional difference, $[P_{\rm ap} - P]/P_{\rm nw}$
(top left: $P = P_{15}$, top right: $P_{24}$, bottom left: $P_{33}$, bottom right: $P_{\rm 2loop}$).}
\label{fig:2loop}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:2loop},
we plot the correct 2-loop solutions, their approximate solutions,
and their fractional difference, $[ [P]_{\rm ap} - P]/P_{\rm nw}$, ($P = P_{15}$, $P_{24}$, $P_{33}$, and $P_{\rm 2loop}$), in each panel.
We plot the solutions up to $0.2 h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ at $z=1$,
because the 2-loop corrections give a good result up to about these scales (see~\citep{Okamura:2011nu}).
For $P_{15}$ and $P_{24}$ in the top panels, the approximate solutions
respectively, are overestimated and underestimated by about 5\% at $k = 0.2 h {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.
On the other hand, for $P_{33}$ in the bottom left panel, the approximate solution
coincides very well with the precise solution within 1\%.
One may think that since there is a large difference between $P_{15}$ and $P_{24}$, our approximation is not valid.
However, remember that each correction term in the perturbation theory tends to cancel out, resulting in small corrections.
Therefore, if the approximate solution for $P_{15}$ is overestimated,
it would be natural that there is an underestimation in other solutions such as $P_{24}$ to cancel out the overestimated solutions.
As a result, for the full 2-loop corrections in the bottom right panel,
the fractional difference becomes within 1\% up to $0.2 h {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.
\subsection{Comparison with closure theory}
\label{closure}
Finally, we compare with the closure theory (second Born) in \citep{Taruya:2009ir}, which is one of the best predictions at the moment.
In addition, we plot high-resolution $N$-body simulations presented by~\citep{Valageas:2011up}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{f4.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{
This figure is the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:1loop},
but here we compare the predictions of the AFWH (red solid) with those of the closure theory (purple dashed)
and $N$-body simulation results (green: high-resolution, black: low-resolution)
at some redshifts ($z=0.5,\ 1,\ 2,\ 3$).
We also the fractional difference between the predicted power spectra and $N$-body results.
The red, green and purple symbols are respectively
$N$-body (low-resolution) vs. AFWH, $N$-body (high-resolution) vs. AFWH,
and $N$-body (low-resolution) vs. closure theory.}
\label{fig:closure}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:closure},
we plot the power spectra from closure theory (purple dashed), AFWH in Eq.~(\ref{result1}) (red solid), and $N$-body results with
error bars (black symbols: low resolution; green symbols: high resolution) at some redshifts ($z=3.0$, $2.0$, $1.0$, $0.5$).
The range of plotted scales is $k\leq 0.4 {\rm h Mpc^{-1}}$.
We also plot the fractional differences
(purple: $N$-body result with low resolution versus closure; red: AFWH;
green: $N$-body result with high-resolution versus AFWH)
Overall,
the predictions of AFWH tend to overestimate the $N$-body simulations at low-$k$ (BAO scales) slightly,
and then begin to underestimate at high $k$.
The overestimation is due to the fact that
we computed only the 1-loop level in SPT precisely.
In fact, our approximate solutions are slightly larger than the 2-loop SPT solutions as shown Fig.~\ref{fig:2loop}.
Therefore, to derive more precise prediction on BAO scales,
we need to calculate up to the 2-loop level corrections.
The reason for the underestimation is that
either the expression for the high $k$ limit would not apply perfectly to the range of calculation
or the subleading contributions on small scales would become effective.
We would need to compute the higher order of the WH expansion without the approximation to derive the precise nonlinearity in the high-$k$ range.
Although our results certainly give slightly less accuracy
than that of closure theory, the difference is controlled within 1\% on BAO scales.
\section{ Correlation function}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{f5.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The left and right panels are the same as the botton left panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:closure}.
We compare the finite truncation of the WH expansion in Eq.~(\ref{WH6th}) (red dashed)
with the AFWH in Eq.~(\ref{result1}) (red line) at $z=1$.
In the right panel, we further plot the 5th, 6th and 7th order of the WH expansion up to $k=1[h/{\rm Mpc}]$.}
\label{fig:AFPT}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{f6.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison between the predicted correlation functions and $N$-body results
(red line: AFWH, black dashed: linear theory, and black symbols: $N$-body simulations).
The results at some redshits ($z$=0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0) with the range of $70 \leq r [{\rm Mpc}/h]\leq135 $ are shown.
We further plot the fractional difference between the predictions of the AFWH and $N$-body results,
$[\xi_{\rm Nbody}(r)-\xi(r)]/\xi(r)$.}
\label{fig:correlation}
\end{figure}
We compute the two-point correlation function calculated from the power spectrum in Eq.~(\ref{result1}),
which is given by
\begin{equation}
\xi(z,r) = \int_0^{\infty} \frac{k^2 dk}{2 \pi^2} \frac{\sin(kr)}{kr} P_{\rm AF}(z,k).
\label{correlation}
\end{equation}
Usually, we are not able to compute the correlation function in SPT, because the integrand function diverge.
For example, in the 1-loop level of SPT, the predicted solution has the scale dependence of $k^2 P_L(k)$
at high $k$, because the approximate solutions of $P_{13}$ and $P_{22}$ are proportional to $k^2 P_L(k)$.
Therefore, the integrand in Eq.~(\ref{correlation}) has the scale-dependence of $\sin(kr)\ln^2(k)$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{k^2}{2 \pi^2} \frac{\sin(kr)}{kr} P_{\rm 1loop}(z,k)
\propto \frac{k^2}{2 \pi^2} \frac{\sin(kr)}{kr} k^2 P_L(k)
\propto \sin(kr) \ln^2(k),
\label{}
\end{equation}
where we have used the behavior of the linear power spectrum at high-$k$, $P_L(k)\to \ln^2(k)/k^3$.
This solution diverge at high $k$, and we are not able to evaluate the integration in the range of $0\leq k \leq \infty$.
On the other hand, we are able to compute the correlation function for AFWH because the solution has the
scale dependence like the linear power spectrum at high $k$:
\begin{align}
P_{\rm AF}(z,k) &\to \left[ \delta_L(z,k) + \frac{2\delta_3^{(1)}(z,k)}{k^2 \sigma_v^2} \right]^2
+ \frac{P_{22}(z,k)}{k^2 \sigma_v^2}, \notag \\
& \propto P_L(z,k).
\label{}
\end{align}
In the first line, we dropped the terms including exponential factor.
The scale-dependence of $\delta_3^{(1)}$ and $P_{22}$ at high-$k$ are proportional to $k^2 \delta_L(k)$ and $k^2 P_L(k)$.
As a result, $P_{\rm AF}$ (red line in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:AFPT})
is proportional to $P_L$ (black dashed in Fig.~\ref{fig:AFPT}),
and the integrand of Eq.~(\ref{correlation}) converge like the linear power spectrum.
Furthermore, as long as we focus on the BAO scales in real space ($60 \lesssim r \lesssim 140 [{\rm Mpc}/h]$),
the behavior of the power spectrum on small scales in Fourier space ($k \geq 0.2{\rm -}0.4 [h/{\rm Mpc}]$)
contributes very little to the result of the correlation function.
Therefore, we may truncate the WH expansion up to the appropriate order
so that the integrand function converge to zero due to the exponential factor and we can easily compute the correlation function:
\begin{align}
P_{\rm AF}(z,k) \to & \left[ \delta_L(z,k) - \frac{2\delta_3^{(1)}(z,k)}{k^2 \sigma_v^2}
\left( \exp\left(-\frac{k^2 \sigma_v^2}{2}\right) -1 \right) \right]^2 \notag \\
& + \exp(-k^2 \sigma_v^2) P_{22}\left( 1 + \frac{1}{2}(k^2 \sigma_v^2) + \frac{1}{3!} (k^2 \sigma_v^2)^2 +
\frac{1}{4!} (k^2 \sigma_v^2)^3 +\frac{1}{5!} (k^2 \sigma_v^2)^4\right),
\label{WH6th}
\end{align}
where we have truncated the WH expansion up to the sixth order.
We plot the solution of Eq.~(\ref{WH6th}) in Fig.~\ref{fig:AFPT} at $z=1$,
where the difference between the AFWH in Eq.~(\ref{result1}) (red line) and the solution of Eq.~(\ref{WH6th})
(red dashed) up to $k \lesssim0.25[h/{\rm Mpc}]$ is not visible,
and the solution behaves like the ones of closure theory at high-$k$.
In the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:AFPT},
we further plot the solutions of the fifth (orange line) and seventh (orange dashed) order in the WH expansion.
Here, we adopt the sixth order solution of the WH expansion to compute the correlation function in Eq.~(\ref{correlation}).
In Fig.~\ref{fig:correlation},
we plot the analytic predictions of the correlation function, $\xi(r)$
(red line: AFWH; black dashed: linear theory; black symbols: $N$-body results),
and the fractional difference between the predicted correlation functions from AFWH and the $N$-body simulation results,
$[\xi_{\rm Nbody}(r)-\xi(r)]/\xi(r)$.
Our predictions explain the displacement of the location of the BAO peaks
and the smoothing of their amplitudes due to the non-linear effects.
As a result, the fractional difference against the $N$-body results is within 1--3\%.
Almost the same results are derived even for the second order of the WH expansion in Eq.~(\ref{wh12}),
because on small scales there is very little contribution to the correlation function around the BAO peak.
This fact is also well known also in other modified perturbation theories (e.g., \citep{Taruya:2009ir,Okamura:2011nu}).
\section{Conclusion}
We have applied the WH expansion to the evolution equation of dark matter in Newtonian gravity.
It diagrammatically corresponds to the classification of the power spectrum in which each order includes all of the vertex loop contributions.
It is proved that the WH expansion is mathematically equivalent to the $\Gamma$-expansion approach in the Multi-Point Propagators method.
Even if WH expansion method is physically and mathematically useful for understanding the non-linearity of the evolution of dark matter,
the validity of the finite truncation of the expansion is not clear
and the difficulty in the calculation will remain.
To resolve these difficulties, we proposed a way to include the effect of all orders by assuming that the high non-linear solutions are well approximated by the ones in the high-$k$ limit. Namely we calculate only low order terms precisely
and replace the high order solutions with the ones in the high-$k$ limit.
It has been known in RPT
that the matter density and velocity fluctuations of dark matter are exponential in the high-$k$ limit.
We proved again this behavior in the context of SPT using the WH expansion
by proving that the kernel functions $F$ and $G$ take the form of Eq.~(\ref{theorem}) in the high-$k$ limit.
Using the approximate kernel functions $F$ and $G$,
we proposed an appropriate interpolation between high-$k$ and low-$k$ solutions,
and the approximate full power spectrum in Eq.~(\ref{result1}), which approximately include the full order of SPT.
We compared our results with some other analytic predictions (e.g., regularized $\Gamma$-expansion, LRT, SPT, and closure theory)
and $N$-body simulation results.
Since the WH expansion is equivalent to the $\Gamma$-expansion and the regularized $\Gamma$-expansion bases on the $\Gamma$-expansion,
we can describe the first order of the WH expansion, $P_{\rm WH}^{(1)}$, using the regularized $\Gamma$-expansion in Eq.~(\ref{Hreg1}).
One of the difference between our result and the regularized $\Gamma$-expansion
is the manner of interpolating between the high-$k$ and low-$k$ solutions,
but this difference slightly affects the predicted power spectrum.
Another difference is that we consider the higher order of the WH expansion approximately.
As a result, even for the 1-loop level,
the predicted power spectrum in Eq.~(\ref{result1}) does not decay due to the exponential factor as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1loop},
and results in good agreement with the $N$-body simulation on BAO scales.
The validity of the various modified perturbation theory (e.g., LRT, RPT, closure theory, \dots ) predictions
is usually verified only by comparing with the $N$-body simulations.
However, we can also verify our approximation by comparing with the solutions with the SPT 2loop level.
In Fig.\ref{fig:2loop}, we showed that the fractional difference between the approximate solutions and the precise solutions with
the SPT 2-loop level is within 1 \% on BAO scales ($\leq 0.2 h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$) for the $WMAP$ five year cosmological parameters at $z=1$.
We also compared with the closure theory which is one of the best prediction at a moment,
and the accuracy of AFWH in Eq.~(\ref{result1}) is comparable to or slightly less than the ones in the closure theory,
with the fractional difference within 1\% on BAO scales.
Finally, we computed the two-point correlation function for AFWH.
We can compute the correlation functions because the predicted power spectrum in AFWH converges like the one from linear theory.
Since the contributions on small scales do not affect the values of the correlation function,
one may use Eq.~(\ref{WH6th}) to compute the correlation function.
This solution has the same behavior as Eq.~(\ref{result1}) on BAO scales and decay on small scales due to the exponential factor
in Fig.~\ref{fig:AFPT}.
The predicted correlation functions from the AFWH agree very well with the $N$-body simulation results,
and the fractional difference is within $1-3$\%.
We could use and apply our results to various studies of the nonlinear evolution of dark matter
(e.g., redshift distortion effect, bias effect, and bispectrum, etc.),
because our prescription is easy and gives good results that are comparable to closure theory,
and furthermore the computational time is very rapid.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank T. Nishimichi and A. Taruya for providing us with the numerical simulation results and useful comments
and Y. Itoh, and T. Okamura for useful discussion. This work is supported in part by the GCOE Program ``Weaving Science Web beyond
Particle-matter Hierarchy'' at Tohoku University and
by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from JSPS
(No. 24-3849 for NSS and Nos. 18072001, 20540245 for TF) as well as by Core-to-Core Program
``International Research Network for Dark Energy.''
TF thanks Luc Branchet and the Institute of Astronomical Observatory, Paris for warm hospitality during his stay in the last stage
of the present work.
\bibliographystyle{JHEP}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright |
\subsection{User Distribution in Mobile Networks}
The user distribution is an important factor in the management and planning of mobile networks. However, relatively few analytical models are available in the literature. The uniform user distribution has been widely adopted for mathematical convenience, but it does not account for non-homogeneity in the physical topology and is incorrect in some cases. For example, it is well known that the user distribution is non-uniform under the random waypoint model \cite{Mobility-RWP-Analytical}.
Other previous works have proposed analytical models using stochastic queueing networks to derive the user distribution in different environments, including wireless multimedia networks \cite{Mobility-Core2}, vehicular ad-hoc networks \cite{Mobility-Core5}, and WLANs \cite{Mobility-Core4,Mobility-Core1}. However, they do not allow arbitrary mobility or arbitrary session patterns. In terms of user movement, \cite{Mobility-Core2}, \cite{Mobility-Core5}, and \cite{Mobility-Core1} assume that users move from one cell to another probabilistically and memorylessly, while \cite{Mobility-Core4} focuses on scattered single cells, so that user movement among multiple cells is not discussed. None of them consider the arbitrary user movement patterns. In terms of channel holding times, \cite{Mobility-Core2} uses the sum of hyper-exponentials or the Coxian distribution to approximate arbitrary distributions; \cite{Mobility-Core4} assumes generally distributed channel holding times but concerns only a single cell; and \cite{Mobility-Core5} and \cite{Mobility-Core1} consider generally but independently distributed channel holding times in different cells. None of the above works consider the dependence among channel holding times.
Note that the authors of \cite{Mobility-Core1} have also observed a surprising match between analysis and real-life user mobility traces from the Dartmouth study \cite{Trace-Dartmouth-Data03}, even though their analysis assumes simple $M/G/\infty$ mobility and session models without considering arbitrary user movement patterns or dependent channel holding times.
No analytical explanation is given in \cite{Mobility-Core1} for this observation. In contrast, our work provides theoretical support for it, since we show that the stationary user distribution is also insensitive to arbitrary user movement patterns and dependent channel holding times.
\subsection{Insensitivity Property}
The insensitivity of queueing networks indicates the situation where the stationary distribution remains unchanged while the distribution of service times takes arbitrary forms. When the service times are assumed independent among different queues, there are several well known conditions for insensitivity. For example, networks with symmetric queues are insensitive \cite{Book-Reversibility}. In \cite{Insensitivity1} and \cite{Insensitivity2}, the partial balance of probability flows is shown to be a sufficient condition for insensitivity. In \cite{Insensitivity4}, partial reversibility is shown to be a necessary and sufficient condition for insensitivity. However, none of these known results consider the case where the service times between different queues are dependent. For example, the queueing network closely related to ours is one with $M/G/\infty$ queues. It is known to be insensitive when the service times are independent \cite{Book-Reversibility}, but to the best of our knowledge, there is no further general result for dependent service times.
\subsection{Preliminary Version}
A preliminary version of this work has appeared as \cite{infocom_version}. This full version includes the following extensions: First, we provide more detailed derivation and discussion in the analysis of the single-route network in Sections \ref{single}. Second, we fully expand the analysis of the multiple-route network by proving the theorem of insensitivity and deriving the stationary user distribution of multicell networks in Section \ref{multiple}. Third, we include new experimental studies in Section \ref{section_experiment}.
\section{Stationary User Distribution in Single-Route Network} \label{single}
We first derive the stationary user distribution on a single route. We construct a reference single-route memoryless network, where all the channel holding times are independently and exponentially distributed. We prove insensitivity by showing an equivalence between the original network and the memoryless network in terms of stationary user distribution.
\subsection{Queueing Network Model for Single-Route Network}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.45}{ \input{queue01.pstex_t} }
\caption{Single-route network.}
\label{queue11}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Consider exclusively the $l$th route in the network. Throughout this section, we will carry the route index $l$ in most symbols, since they will be re-used in the analysis of multiple-route networks.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{queue11}(a), we model the route as a tandem-liked queueing network, except with early exists. The node labeled with $0$ represents the exogenous world. The $j$th queue, $1\leq j\leq N_l$, represents the $j$th stage of the route, and units in this queue represent sessions in the $j$th stage. Each queue has infinite servers, since the sessions are served in parallel with no waiting\footnote{Users move into and out of each cell in parallel. Therefore, when considering the channel holding time as the service time of a queue that models mobility, this is equivalent to all users being served at the same time by its own dedicated server, which is the same as having infinite servers. In terms of active user sessions, this model is accurate for communication systems with no admission control (e.g., WiFi) and gives reasonable approximation to systems with many available channels.}.
The channel holding time of a session in the $j$th stage, $t_{lj}$, is equivalent to the service time of the $j$th queue. The handoff of a session from the $j$th stage to the $(j+1)$th stage is equivalent to a unit movement from the $j$th queue to the $(j+1)$th queue. The termination of a session is equivalent to the movement from a queue to node $0$.
Let $p_{lk}$ denote the probability that a session lasts for $k$ stages. It is given by
\[
p_{lk}=P\Big[\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \tau_{lj}< T_l\leq \sum_{j=1}^{k}\tau_{lj}\Big], \text{ for } 2\leq k \leq N_l-1 ,
\]
with $p_{l1}=P\left[ T_l\leq \tau_{l1}\right]$ and $p_{lN_l}=P\left[\sum_{j=1}^{N_l-1} \tau_{lj}< T_l\right]$.
Note that we have $\sum_{k=1}^{N_l}p_{lk}=1$. Given a session in the $k$th stage, it enters the $(k+1)$th stage with probability $\frac{\sum_{j=k+1}^{N_l}p_{lj}}{\sum_{j=k}^{N_l}p_{lj}}$ and terminates with probability $\frac{p_{lk}}{\sum_{j=k}^{N_l}p_{lj}}$.
\subsection{Reference Single-Route Memoryless Network}
We define a reference \emph{single-route memoryless network}, as a Jackson network with the same topology as the original single-route network, where each queue has infinitely many independent and exponential servers. An illustration is shown in Fig.~\ref{queue11}(b).
By matching the mean service times in this memoryless network with those of the original network, we see that its external arrival rate is $\lambda_{l0}$, the service rate of the $j$th queue is $\lambda_{lj}=\frac{1}{\overline{t}_{lj}}$. The routing probability from the $k$th queue to the $(k+1)$th queue is the probability that a session enters the $(k+1)$th stage conditioned on it is in the $k$th stage, $\frac{\sum_{j=k+1}^{N_l}p_{lj}}{\sum_{j=k}^{N_l}p_{lj}}$. The routing probability from the $k$th queue to node $0$ is $\frac{p_{lk}}{\sum_{j=k}^{N_l}p_{lj}}$.
Thus, the service rate from the $k$th queue to the $(k+1)$th queue is $\frac{\sum_{j=k+1}^{N_l}p_{lj}}{\sum_{j=k}^{N_l}p_{lj}}\lambda_{lk}$, and the service rate from the $k$th queue to node $0$ is $\frac{p_{lk}}{\sum_{j=k}^{N_l}p_{lj}}\lambda_{lk}$.
Let $w_{lj}'$ denote the positive invariant measure of the $j$th queue that satisfies the routing balance equations of the single-route memoryless network. $w_0'$ is the positive invariant measure of the node $0$. We adopt the convention that $w_0'=1$. It can be derived from the topology of Fig.~\ref{queue11}(b) that
\begin{align}
w_{0}'=&\lambda_{l0}w_{l1}',\\
\frac{\sum_{n=j}^{N_l}p_{ln}}{\sum_{n=j-1}^{N_l}p_{ln}}w_{lj-1}'=&w_{lj}', \quad 2 \leq j \leq N_l,
\end{align}
which leads to
\begin{align}
w_{l1}'=&\lambda_{l0},\\
w_{lj}'=&\lambda_{l0} (1- \sum_{n=1}^{j-1} p_{ln}), \quad 2 \leq j \leq N_l.
\end{align}
Because each queue has infinite servers, the departure intensity at the $j$th queue is $\lambda_{lj}x_{lj}$ when there are $x_{lj}$ users in it. Let $w_{lj} = \frac{w_{lj}'}{\lambda_{lj}}$.
Then the stationary user distribution w.r.t. $\mathbf{x}$ of this network is \cite{Book-StochasticNetwork}
\begin{equation}
\pi_0(\mathbf{x})=\prod_{j=1}^{N_l} e^{-w_{lj}} w_{lj}^{x_{lj}}\frac{1}{x_{lj}!}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Insensitivity of Single-Route Network}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.45}{ \input{queue03.pstex_t} }
\caption{Decoupled network.}
\label{queue13}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.45}{ \input{queue04.pstex_t} }
\caption{Reference memoryless decoupled network.}
\label{queue14}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For the original single route network, we employ a decomposition-composition approach to derive its stationary user distribution.
Given that one session lasts for $k$ stages, we denote the channel holding times as a $k$-dimensional random vector $\mathbf{\widehat{t}_{lk}}=\{\widehat{t}_{lk1}, \ldots \widehat{t}_{lkj}, \ldots ,\widehat{t}_{lkk}\}$, where $\widehat{t}_{lkj}$ is the channel holding time at the $j$th stage. We assume that $\mathbf{\widehat{t}_{lk}}$ is an arbitrarily distributed discrete random vector
with $M_{lk}$ possible realizations\footnote{For a vector of continuous channel holding times, we can use a sequence of discrete distributions with decreasing granularity to approach its distribution.}. For any $i$, $1\leq i\leq M_{lk}$, we define a $k$-dimensional deterministic vector $\mathbf{\widetilde{t}_{lki}}=[\widetilde{t}_{lki1},\ldots, \widetilde{t}_{lkij},\ldots, \widetilde{t}_{lkik}]^T$ corresponding to the $i$th realization of $\mathbf{\widehat{t}_{lk}}$. Let $q_{lki}$ be the probability of the $i$th realization given that the session lasts for $k$ stages.
Also, let $P_{lki}=p_{lk}q_{lki}$ denote the probability that a session lasts for $k$ stages and it is in the $i$th realization.
By doing so, we decompose the original network into a multiple-branch queueing network as shown in Fig. \ref{queue13}, which is referred to as the \emph{decoupled network}. In this network, there are $N_l$ main branches, where the $k$th main branch represents the event that a session lasts for $k$ stages. The $k$th main branch contains $M_{lk}$ sub-branches, where the $i$th sub-branch represents the realization where $\mathbf{\widehat{t}_{lk}}=\mathbf{\widetilde{t}_{lki}}$. Furthermore, the $j$th queue in the $i$th sub-branch of the $k$th main branch represents the $j$th stage of the $i$th realization of the sessions that last for $k$ stages.
Hence, each queue of the decoupled network has infinite servers with \emph{deterministic} service time, $\widetilde{t}_{lkij}$, for the $j$th stage of the $i$th sub-branch of the $k$th main branch. Furthermore, the arrival rate of the $i$th sub-branch of the $k$th main branch is $\widetilde{\lambda}_{lki0}= P_{lki} \lambda_{l0}$.
Let $\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}=[\{\widetilde{x}_{lkij}: 1\leq k\leq N_l, 1\leq j\leq k, 1\leq i\leq M_{lk}\}]^T$ be the vector of number of sessions in the $j$th stage of the $i$th sub-branch of the $k$th main branch. Denote by $\pi_D(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}})$ the stationary user distribution of the decoupled network.
Note that the stationary distribution of a Jackson network with infinite servers at each queue is insensitive with respect to the distribution of the service times \cite{Insensitivity1}. Therefore, $\pi_D(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}})$ remains unchanged if we create a reference Jackson network by replacing each queue with \emph{deterministic service time} in the decoupled network with a queue that has \emph{exponential distributed memoryless service time} with the same mean (e.g., the service rate at the $j$th queue of the $i$th sub-branch of the $k$th main branch $\widetilde{\lambda}_{lkij}=\frac{1}{\widetilde{t}_{lkij}}$), as shown in Fig. \ref{queue14}, which is referred to as the \emph{reference memoryless decoupled network}.
Let $\widetilde{w}_{lkij}'$ be the positive invariant measure of the $j$th queue of the $i$th sub-branch of the $k$th main branch of the reference memoryless decoupled network, which satisfies the routing balance equations with the convention that at node $0$, $w_0'=1$. Since each sub-branch is a chain network, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{fomula_wkij_0}
\widetilde{w}_{lkij}'=P_{lki}\lambda_{l0}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $\widetilde{w}_{lkij} = \frac{\widetilde{w}_{lkij}'}{\widetilde{\lambda}_{lkij}}$. Then the stationary user distribution of the decoupled network as well as the reference memoryless decoupled network is
\begin{align}
\pi_D(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}})=\prod_{j=1}^{N_l}\prod_{k=j}^{N_l}\prod_{i=1}^{M_{lk}}e^{-\widetilde{w}_{lkij}}\widetilde{w}_{lkij}^{\widetilde{x}_{lkij}}\frac{1}{\widetilde{x}_{lkij}!}.
\end{align}
The stationary user distribution of the original single route network, $\pi(\mathbf{x})$, is the sum of $\pi_D(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}})$ satisfying $x_{lj}=\sum_{k=j}^{N_l}\sum_{i=1}^{M_{lk}}\widetilde{x}_{lkij}$, $\forall j$.
To derive $\pi(\mathbf{x})$, we first introduce the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{thm:JacksonComposition}
Consider a stationary open Jackson network with $N$ queues each with an infinite number of servers.
Let $x_j$ be the number of units in the $j$th queue and $\mathbf{x}=[x_1,\ldots x_N]^T$.
Suppose $\{\mathcal{J}_1, \mathcal{J}_2, \ldots \mathcal{J}_M\}$ is a set of mutually exclusive subsets of $\{1,2, \ldots, N\}$. Let $z_i=\sum_{j\in \mathcal{J}_i}x_j$, $i=1,2,\ldots, M$, denoting the sum of units in the queues inside $\mathcal{J}_i$. Then, the distribution of $\mathbf{z}=[z_1,\ldots z_M]^T$ is
\begin{align}
\pi(\mathbf{z})=\prod_{i=1}^{M}e^{-v_i}v_i^{z_i}\frac{1}{z_i!},
\end{align}
where $v_i=\sum_{j\in \mathcal{J}_i}w_j$, and $w_j$ is the expected number of units in the $j$th queue.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For a Jackson network with infinite servers at each queue, the stationary queue lengths are independent Poisson random variables with mean $w_j$ for the $j$th queue. Hence, $z_i$ is Poisson with mean $v_i=\sum_{j\in \mathcal{J}_i}w_j$ for all $i$. Furthermore, since $\{\mathcal{J}_i\}$ are mutually exclusive, $\{z_i\}$ are independent.
\end{proof}
Next, we note that the expected service time spent in the $j$th stage given that the $j$th stage exists, i.e., $j\leq k$ for the $k$th main branch, can be computed as
\begin{align}\label{fomula_t_j}
\nonumber\overline{t}_{lj}&=\frac{\sum_{k=j}^{N_l}\sum_{i=1}^{M_{lk}}P_{lki}\widetilde{t}_{lkij}}{\sum_{k=j}^{N_l}\sum_{i=1}^{M_{lk}}P_{lki}}\\
&=\frac{\sum_{k=j}^{N_l}\sum_{i=1}^{M_{lk}}P_{lki}\widetilde{t}_{lkij}}{1- \sum_{n=1}^{j-1} p_{ln}}.
\end{align}
Combining this with \eqref{fomula_wkij_0}, we have
\begin{align}\label{fomula_wkij}
\nonumber\sum_{k=j}^{N_l}\sum_{i=1}^{M_{lk}}\widetilde{w}_{lkij}&=\sum_{k=j}^{N_l}\sum_{i=1}^{M_{lk}}\frac{\lambda_{l0} P_{lki}}{\widetilde{\lambda}_{lkij}}\\
\nonumber&=\sum_{k=j}^{N_l}\sum_{i=1}^{M_{lk}}\lambda_{l0} P_{lki}\widetilde{t}_{lkij}\\
\nonumber&=\lambda_{l0}(1-\sum_{n=1}^{j-1} p_{ln})\overline{t}_{lj}\\
\nonumber&=\frac{\lambda_{l0}}{\lambda_{lj}}(1-\sum_{n=1}^{j-1} p_{ln})\\
&=w_{lj}.
\end{align}
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{thm:JacksonComposition}, we have
\begin{align}
\nonumber\pi(\mathbf{x})&=\sum_{\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}: x_{lj}=\sum_{k=j}^{N_{l}}\sum_{i=1}^{M_{lk}}\widetilde{x}_{lkij}, \forall j}\pi_{D}(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}})\\
&=\prod_{j=1}^{N_l}e^{-w_{lj}}\frac{w_{lj}^{x_{lj}}}{x_{lj}!},
\end{align}
which is restated as the following theorem:
\theorem
The single-route network has the same stationary user distribution as that of the corresponding single-route memoryless network: $\pi(\mathbf{x})=\pi_0(\mathbf{x})$.
\section{Stationary User Distribution in Multiple-Route Network}\label{multiple}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.45}{ \input{queue2.pstex_t} }
\caption{Multiple-route network.}
\label{queue2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In this section, we study the general case with multiple routes. We first extend the results from the previous section to show $\pi(\mathbf{x})=\pi_{0}(\mathbf{x})$ in a multiple-route network. We then derive the stationary user distribution $\pi_1(\mathbf{y})$ with respect to cells and show its insensitivity.
\subsection {Queueing Network Model for Multiple-Route Network}
Since the $L$ routes are independent, we model the multiple-route network as a paralleling of $L$ single-route networks, as shown in Fig.~\ref{queue2}.
Similar to Section \ref{single}, we consider a reference multiple-route memoryless network, which is a paralleling of $L$ corresponding single-route memoryless networks. Then, we construct the decoupled multiple-route network, which is a paralleling of $L$ corresponding single-route decoupled networks.
\subsection{Insensitivity of $\pi(\mathbf{x})$}
\theorem
The multiple-route network has the same stationary user distribution as that of the corresponding multiple-route memoryless network.
\begin{proof}
\setcounter{paragraph}{0}
Since the routes are independent, the stationary user distribution of the multiple-route network can be computed as the product of the stationary user distribution of single-route networks:
\begin{align}\label{fomula_pi}
\pi(\mathbf{x})=\prod_{l=1}^{L}\prod_{j=1}^{N_l} e^{-w_{lj}}w_{lj}^{x_{lj}}\frac{1}{x_{lj}!} .
\end{align}
Since the same holds for the multiple-route memoryless network, we have $\pi(\mathbf{x})=\pi_{0}(\mathbf{x})$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Insensitivity of $\pi_1(\mathbf{y})$}
Let $\overline{\lambda}_n$ be the average total arrival rate to cell $n$, including both new and handoff arrivals. Let $\overline{\mathfrak{t}}_n$ be the average channel holding time in cell $n$, considering all routes and stages. Thus,
\begin{align}
\overline{\lambda}_n&=\sum_{l,j:c(l,j)=n}\sum_{k=j}^{N_l}\sum_{i=1}^{M_{lk}}\lambda_{l0}P_{lki},\\
\overline{\mathfrak{t}}_n&=\frac{\sum_{l,j:c(l,j)=n}\sum_{k=j}^{N_l}\sum_{i=1}^{M_{lk}}\lambda_{l0}P_{lki}\widetilde{t}_{lkij}}{\sum_{l,j:c(l,j)=n}\sum_{k=j}^{N_l}\sum_{i=1}^{M_{lk}}\lambda_{l0}P_{lki}}.
\end{align}
Then from (\ref{fomula_wkij}), we have
\begin{align}
\nonumber\overline{\lambda}_n\overline{\mathfrak{t}}_n&=\sum_{l,j:c(l,j)=n} \sum_{k=j}^{N_l}\sum_{i=1}^{M_{lk}} \lambda_{l0}P_{lki}\widetilde{t}_{lkij}\\
\nonumber&=\sum_{l,j:c(l,j)=n} \sum_{k=j}^{N_l}\sum_{i=1}^{M_{lk}} \widetilde{w}_{lkij}\\
&=\sum_{l,j:c(l,j)=n} w_{lj}.
\end{align}
The joint stationary user distribution among all cells can be computed as a summation over those entries of $\pi_0(\mathbf{x})$ satisfying $y_n=\sum_{l,j:c(l,j)=n} x_{lj}$, $\forall n$. Then from Lemma \ref{thm:JacksonComposition}, we obtain
\begin{align} \label{fomula_sd}
\nonumber \pi_{1}(\mathbf{y})&=\sum_{\mathbf{x}: y_n=\sum_{l,j:c(l,j)=n}x_{lj}, \forall n}\quad \prod_{l=1}^{L}\prod_{j=1}^{N_l} e^{-w_{lj}}w_{lj}^{x_{lj}}\frac{1}{x_{lj}!}\\
\nonumber&=\prod_n e^{-\left(\sum_{l,j:c(l,j)=n} w_{lj}\right)}\left(\sum_{l,j:c(l,j)=n} w_{lj}\right)^{y_{n}}\frac{1}{y_{n}!}\\
&=\prod_{n} e^{-\left(\overline{\lambda}_n\overline{\mathfrak{t}}_n\right)}\left(\overline{\lambda}_n\overline{\mathfrak{t}}_n\right)^{y_{n}}\frac{1}{y_{n}!}.
\end{align}
We make the following observations from \eqref{fomula_sd}:
\begin{itemize}
\item The number of users in each cell is independent and Poisson. This is in accordance with Theorem 9.27 in \cite{Book-StochasticNetwork}.
\item The stationary user distribution depends only on the average arrival rates and average channel holding times in individual cells, having the exact same form of an $M/M/\infty$ open Jackson network. It is insensitive with respect to the distribution of channel holding times, or the correlation among them. Furthermore, it is insensitive with respect to movement patterns, since the exact routing in the network is irrelevant.
\item The marginal distribution within a single cell depends only on the average arrival rate and average channel holding time at that cell. This useful property facilitates efficient system management and planning in practice, helping to avoid the need for collecting a large amount of user location data.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Requirements and the Dartmouth Traces}
There are serval publicly available traces online, including the Dartmouth traces \cite{Trace-Dartmouth-Data01}\cite{Trace-Dartmouth-Data02}\cite{Trace-Dartmouth-Data03}, the UCSD traces \cite{Trace-UCSD2}, the IBM-Watson traces \cite{Trace-IBMWatson}, and the Montreal traces \cite{Trace-Montreal}. To choose proper traces, we need to consider the following requirements. \emph{First}, there should be a large amount of sample points to facilitate an estimation of the user distribution by relative frequency, which is to be compared with the distribution derived by the proposed analysis. Note that the support of the user distribution increases exponentially with the number of cells. Most available traces do not have a large enough data set. \emph{Second}, the location of cells should be close enough so that there is enough handoff traffic among them to create strong dependency between channel holding times. Data from already independently operated cells can be analyzed using exiting techniques and hence are not challenging enough to test our analytical model.
To the best of our knowledge, the Dartmouth traces are the most recent public traces satisfying both requirements. They have been widely studied in the literature \cite{Trace-Dartmouth-Paper01}\cite{Trace-Dartmouth-Paper}\cite{Experiment2}\cite{Mobility-Core1}.
We use data from the academic area in the Dartmouth traces \cite{Trace-Dartmouth-Data03}, a comprehensive record of network activities in a large wireless
LAN (using 802.11b) in Dartmouth College. The traces includes the data of 152 APs and more than 5000 users, during a 17-week period (Nov.~1, 2003 to Feb.~28, 2004). Most users are students walking on campus.
We focus on the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) logs of the traces, which are constructed every five minutes, when each AP polls all the users attached to it. Each polling message includes the information such as the name of AP, timestamp, the MAC and IP addresses of users attached to it, signal strength, and the number of packets transmitted. By analyzing such data, we can derive the average arrival rate, average channel holding time, and the user distribution by relative frequency.
\subsection{Data Preprocessing} \label{sec:preproc}
\subsubsection{Data Extraction}
Since the behavior of users may change greatly between daytime and nighttime, or workdays and holidays, we focus on data accumulated from 9 am to 5 pm on Monday to Friday. We also discard the data accumulated during the periods of holiday breaks, including Thanksgiving (Nov. 26, 2003 to Nov. 30, 2003) and Christmas and New Year (Dec. 17, 2003 to Jan. 4, 2004).
In addition, for some APs, we observed periods when they are temporally power off. If the total service time of an AP on a certain day is less than 1/3 of its average value, we discard the data for this day.
\subsubsection{Trace Gap Padding}
The session duration is defined as the period of time during which a user is continuously connected to the network. The user may move from one AP to another during a session. Occasionally, a user may disappear from the SNMP report and soon reappear. This may be caused by the user departing and then returning to the network, or due to the missing of an SNMP report. Following the solution proposed in \cite{Mobility-Core1}, we set a departure length threshold $T_d=10$ minutes. Only if a user disappears and reappears within $T_d$, it is regarded as staying in the network and the missing SNMP logs are padded.
\subsubsection{Multiple Association and Ping-Pong Effect}
We also observe that some users are simultaneously associated with multiple APs within a small time interval. Some even ping-pong among multiple APs. We use two methods to offset these effects. First, when multiple associations occur, we check the number of packets exchanged with the user. We deem the user is associated with the AP which has exchanged the largest number of packets with the user during its multiple association period. In addition, if a user leaves one AP and then returns within $5$ minutes, it is regarded as having stayed in the AP.
\subsubsection{Open Users}
a fraction of the users may stay in the system during almost all working hours. These users are regarded as closed users. Since our analytical model assumes an open network, the closed users are excluded in our experiment. If a user stays for greater than or equal to $7.5$ hours during working hours on a valid day, it is regarded as a closed user. In our experiment, we observe that $9.91\%$ of all users are closed users. An analytical model for accommodating closed users is provided in \cite{Mobility-Core1}, which can also be applied to our work.
\subsection{Trace Analysis}
\subsubsection{Poisson Arrivals} \label{section_arrival}
Analysis of the Dartmouth trace in \cite{Mobility-Core1} has shown that the overall \emph{new} session arrivals into the network are well modeled by a Poisson process. In this work, we further test the arrival process of new sessions \emph{at each AP} against the Poisson assumption. This is divided into two steps. In the first step, we run an \emph{independence test}, which indicates whether the numbers of arrivals in different time intervals are independent. Since it is not practical to account for all time intervals, we test the independence of arrivals in two consecutive hours at each AP. If the AP passes the test, we regard the arrivals at this AP to be sufficiently independent. Let $H_2$ denote the entropy in the number of new arrivals in two consecutive hours and $H_1$ denote the entropy in the number of arrivals in one hour. Let $\eta=\frac{2H_1-H_2}{H_2}$ be the normalized entropy gap. If $\eta<0.15$, we regard the AP as passing the independence test. We observe that $144$ of the $152$ APs pass the independence test.
In the second step, we run a \emph{Poisson distribution test}, which indicates whether the number of arrivals is Poisson distributed in a fixed time interval. For each AP that passes the independence test, we count the number of new arrivals in each hour and calculate its real distribution. Furthermore, by using the actual average arrival rate per hour, we can determine the corresponding theoretical Poisson distribution. Then, we compute the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence $H_{0}$ between the real distribution and the theoretical distribution\footnote{Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence is a standard approach to measure the difference between two probability distributions $X$ and $Y$. It can be regarded as a measure of the information lost (in bits) when $Y$ is used to represent $X$. When KL divergence is $0$, $Y$ is exactly the same with $X$. {If the KL divergence is small compared with the entropy of the distribution $X$, the distribution $Y$ is a close approximation of that of $X$.}}. Let $\theta=\frac{H_{0}}{H_1}$ be the normalized KL value. If $\theta<0.15$, we regard the AP as passing the Poisson distribution test. We observe that $124$ of the $144$ APs pass the Poisson distribution test.
Those $124$ APs are referred to as \emph{valid APs}, as the new arrivals at these APs can be well approximated as Poisson. The other $28$ APs are referred to as \emph{invalid APs}. In our experiments, we study the effects of both including and excluding the non-Poisson new sessions. We emphasize that the Poisson test is for new arrivals only. Even for those APs that pass the Poisson test, the overall session arrival process includes both new arrivals and handoff arrivals and hence is non-Poisson.
From the SNMP logs, we observe that the invalid APs tend to have occasional bursty arrivals. Since they are within the academic area, we conjecture that they correspond to large classrooms, which experience periodic rushes a the beginning of lecture hours. Even though such APs do not match our analytical model, their user distribution is likely easy to predict in practice.
\subsubsection{Number of Stages and Channel Holding Times}
\begin{table}[tbp]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\caption{Number of stages}
\label{table2}
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c| }
\hline
\bfseries Stages & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ & $\geq 5$ \\
\hline
\bfseries Observations & $80448$ & $15767$ & $7410$ & $3553$ & $6107$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We have collected the distributions of number of stages in each route, which is shown in Table \ref{table2}. It can be seen that there is a large percentage of sessions staying for just one stage. To rigorously test the analytical stationary user distribution, we will later present different cases where one-stage sessions are either included or excluded.
Note that if the channel holding times are independently exponentially distributed, our conclusions on the stationary user distribution trivially holds. Therefore, more challenging channel holding times (i.e., arbitrarily distributed and correlated) are necessary to test our analytical results. Fig.~\ref{servicetime} shows the real distributions of channel holding times in different stages. This figure illustrates that none of them are exponentially distributed. Furthermore, we check the dependency of channel holding times in different stages. The entropies of the distributions of channel holding times at stages $1, 2, 3$ and $4$ are $4.0657$, $3.4172$, $3.3942$ and $2.9792$, respectively, in bits. The entropy of their joint distribution is $10.2998$ bits. Hence, the entropy gap is $4.0657+3.4172+3.3942+2.9792-10.2998=3.5565$ bits, much larger than $0$. This shows that the channel holding times at different stages are dependent.
\subsubsection{AP Locations and Distance Constraint}
APs that are far away are likely to have little effect on each other, regardless of the mobility and session patterns. Therefore, to rigorously test the joint distribution of multiple APs, we are more interested in selecting adjacent APs with spatial correlation. We set a \emph{distance constraint}, under which APs are located pairwisely less than $500$ meters from each other. In the experiments, when we study the joint distribution over multiple APs, this distance constraint is enforced by default, unless otherwise stated. However, we will also present comparison results for
cases with and without it.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering \hspace{0pt}
\includegraphics[scale=0.47]{Pdfservicetime.eps}
\caption{The pdf of channel holding time in different stages.}
\label{servicetime}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Marginal User Distribution at a Single AP}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering \vspace*{0pt}
\includegraphics[scale=1.15]{show1.eps}
\caption{Comparison of distributions for single APs. Real distributions are in solid lines; analytical distributions are in dashed lines.}
\label{SD1}
\end{figure}
We first show the marginal user distribution at individual APs. For this test, we applied all data after the pre-processing described in Section \ref{sec:preproc}, without further exclusions.
We show a sampling of the $152$ APs. In order to avoid selection bias, we choose APs according to their numeric identity. For each building (with at least one AP), we select the AP with the smallest identity number (i.e., \emph{AP1} if it exists; otherwise, we select \emph{AP2} if it exists; and so forth). There are $32$ buildings with at least one AP, and thus $32$ APs are selected accordingly.
Fig.~\ref{SD1} shows a comparison between the real distributions and the analytical distributions of these APs. Each subplot is labeled with \emph{Y} or \emph{N}, where \emph{Y} indicates that the AP passes the two-step Poisson test and \emph{N} indicates the opposite.
The figure illustrates that the real distributions and the analytical distributions agree well with each other for those APs that pass the Poisson test.
\subsection{KL Divergence and Entropy Gap for Multiple APs}
In this paper, we use KL divergence $H_{kl}$ to compare the real and analytical joint distributions of multiple APs.
We also test the independence of the numbers of users in different cells by computing
the entropy gap $H_{gap}$, between the sum of the entropies of real marginal distributions and the entropy of the real joint distribution. The entropy of the real joint distribution $H_{real}$ is also presented for reference. {Note that if $H_{kl}$ is much smaller than $H_{real}$, the analytical distribution is a close approximation of the real distribution; if $H_{gap}$ is much smaller than $H_{real}$, the numbers of users of single APs are approximately independent.}
Given $n$, the number of APs we aim to study, we randomly choose $n$ different APs. Then we compute $H_{kl}$, $H_{gap}$, and $H_{real}$ with respect to these APs. By running this procedure $100$ times, we obtain the sample mean and sample standard deviation of $H_{kl}$, $H_{gap}$, and $H_{real}$. In subsequent studies, we plot the sample mean versus $n$, along with bars showing one sample standard deviation, in Fig. \ref{result1}-\ref{result4}. Note that the plot points are slightly shifted to avoid overlaps. Because the sample space of user distribution increases exponentially with the number of cells, and the real user distribution is counted through its relative frequency, we limit $n\leq5$ in the experiment in order to ensure enough data are counted for each sample point.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{fig1.eps}
\caption{$H_{kl}$ and $H_{real}$ under the influence of non-Poisson arrivals.}
\label{result1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{fig2.eps}
\caption{$H_{gap}$ and $H_{real}$ under the influence of non-Poisson arrivals.}
\label{result2}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Influence of Non-Poisson Arrivals} \label{sec:EffectNon-Poisson}
Clearly, excluding non-Poisson arrivals could improve the accuracy of the analytical model.
We compare $H_{kl}$, $H_{gap}$, and $H_{real}$ under the conditions of either including or excluding non-Poisson arrivals.
A direct method to exclude non-Poisson session arrivals is to remove from the data set all sessions that are initiated at invalid APs. However, this will reduce the number of handoff session arrivals even in valid APs, hence biasing the analysis. An alternate approach is to simply remove the invalid APs from the data set, while allowing those non-Poisson sessions to be counted in the valid APs that they pass through. In this way, accurate average arrival rates at the valid APs are maintained.
Thus, we study the following three cases: 1) Excluding sessions initiating at invalid APs (i.e., invalid sessions); 2) Excluding invalid APs; and 3) Without exclusion. Fig.~\ref{result1} illustrates $H_{kl}$ compared with $H_{real}$ for the three cases, and
Fig.~\ref{result2} illustrates $H_{gap}$ compared with $H_{real}$ for the three cases.
{We observe that both $H_{kl}$ and $H_{gap}$ are much smaller than $H_{real}$, when we either exclude invalid sessions or exclude invalid APs, illustrating that the real distributions are close to the analytical distributions,} and the numbers of users of single APs are approximately independent.
When we do not exclude invalid sessions or invalid APs, $H_{kl}$ and $H_{gap}$ become larger, showing that the analytical distribution is influenced by the non-Poisson arrivals. {However, $H_{kl}$ and $H_{gap}$ remain much smaller than $H_{real}$, illustrating that the analytical distribution is still valid to approximate the real distribution,} even the arrivals are not strictly Poisson.
In addition, excluding invalid sessions only brings small decrements in $H_{kl}$ and $H_{gap}$ compared with excluding invalid APs. Note that when we exclude invalid sessions, both the one-stage and multiple-stage non-Poisson arrival sessions are excluded; when we exclude invalid APs, only the one-stage non-Poisson arrival sessions are excluded. This illustrates that multiple-stage non-Poisson arrival sessions have only weak influence on the modeling accuracy.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{fig3.eps}
\caption{$H_{kl}$, $H_{gap}$ and $H_{real}$ under the influence of distance restriction.}
\label{result3}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Influence of Distance Constraint}
Fig.~\ref{result3} shows $H_{kl}$, $H_{gap}$, and $H_{real}$ with and without the distance constraint. For both cases, we exclude the invalid APs. We observe that $H_{kl}$, $H_{gap}$, and $H_{real}$ are nearly unchanged with or without the distance constraint, confirming our expectation that the distance constraint does not influence the accuracy of the analytical model, since the analytical model predicts that the numbers of users of adjacent APs are independent.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{fig4.eps}
\caption{$H_{kl}$, $H_{gap}$ and $H_{real}$ under the influence of one-stage sessions.}
\label{result4}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Influence of One-Stage Sessions}
Fig.~\ref{result4} shows $H_{kl}$, $H_{gap}$, and $H_{real}$ with and without the one-stage sessions. For both cases, we exclude the invalid APs.
We observe that when we exclude the one-stage sessions, $H_{kl}$ and $H_{gap}$ becomes smaller, suggesting that our model is even more accurate in this case. This is an apparently counter-intuitive result, since the analytical distribution trivially holds for one-stage sessions. An explanation for this is the following. Since one-stage sessions are more likely to be new sessions corresponding to attending lectures in a classroom, they are more likely to be non-Poisson. Since not all non-Poisson arrivals can be excluded by removing the invalid APs, when we further exclude one-stage sessions, we obtain more accurate analytical results.
Note that one-stage sessions can be analyzed as a single-queue model \cite{Mobility-Core4}. Thus, in practice, one may separately analyze one-stage and multiple-stage sessions and combine the resultant user distributions.
\section{Conclusion and Discussion}\label{section_conclusion}
In this paper, we have studied the user distribution in multicell network by establishing a precise analytical model, considering arbitrary user movement and arbitrarily and dependently distributed channel holding times. We have derived the stationary distribution of the number of users in each cell, which is only related to the average arrival rate and the average channel holding time of each cell, and hance is insensitivity with respect to the general movement and session patterns. We have used the Dartmouth trace to validate our analysis, which shows that the analytical model is accurate when new session arrivals are Poisson and remains useful when non-Poisson session arrivals are also included in the data set.
The demonstration of modeling accuracy using an open $M/M/\infty$ Jackson network implies that the number of users in each cell is independently Poisson. This spatial non-homogeneous Poisson model is commonly used in the geometric analysis of interference in wireless networks \cite{Book-StochasticGeometry1, Book-StochasticGeometry2}. It can alternatively be inferred from associating the user trajectory as location-dependent marks to a space-time Poisson process representing the entry location and time of the users \cite{Book-StochasticNetwork}. Our results additionally show that the mean values for the Poisson distributions in different cells are insensitive to the arbitrary and dependent channel holding times. This enables simple yet accurate computation of related performance measures in a complex mobile system.
|
\section*{Table of Contents}
\@starttoc{toc}
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\newcommand{\rmnum}[1]{\romannumeral #1}
\newcommand{\Rmnum}[1]{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral #1@}
\makeatother
\pagestyle{fancy}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{2}
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{document}
\title{Partiality and Recursion in Higher-Order Logic}
\author{\L{}ukasz Czajka}
\institute{
Institute of Informatics, University of Warsaw\\
Banacha 2, 02-097 Warszawa, Poland\\
\email{<EMAIL>}
}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
We present an illative system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ of classical higher-order logic
with subtyping and basic inductive types. The system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ allows
for direct definitions of partial and general recursive functions,
and provides means for handling functions whose termination has not
been proven. We give examples of how properties of some recursive
functions may be established in our system. In a technical appendix
to the paper we prove consistency of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$. The proof is by model
construction. We then use this construction to show conservativity
of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ over classical first-order logic. Conservativity over
higher-order logic is conjectured, but not proven.
\end{abstract}
\begin{paragraph}
{\bf Note:} This paper is an extended technical report based on a
conference paper with the same title published by Springer-Verlag in
the proceedings of FoSSaCS~2013. The final publication is available
at \mbox{springerlink.com}.
\end{paragraph}
\tableofcontents
\renewcommand{\ensuremath{{\cal T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathbb T}}
\renewcommand{\ensuremath{\stackrel{*}{\rightarrow}}}{\ensuremath{\twoheadrightarrow}}
\newcommand{\Is}[2]{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Is}\,#1\,#2\,}}
\newcommand{\uipreduces}[1]{\ensuremath{\stackrel{\;\;*\;#1}{\Rightarrow\;\;}}}
\newcommand{\udipreduces}[2]{\ensuremath{\stackrel{*\;#1}{\Rightarrow_{#2}\;\,}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{o}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{o}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{c}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{c}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{d}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{d}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{0}}{\ensuremath{0}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{0}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{0}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Op}}}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Op}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\mathrm{A}}}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{A}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\mathrm{S}}}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{S}}}
\section{Introduction}
We present an illative $\lambda$-calculus system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ of classical
higher-order logic with subtyping and basic inductive types. Being
illative means that the system is a combination of higher-order logic
with the \emph{untyped} $\lambda$-calculus. It therefore allows for
unrestricted recursive definitions directly, including definitions of
possibly non-terminating partial functions. We believe that this
feature of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ makes it potentially interesting as a logic for an
interactive theorem prover intended to be used for program
verification.
Most popular proof assistants allow only total functions, and totality
must be ensured by the user, either by very precise specifications of
function domains, restricting recursion in a way that guarantees
termination, explicit well-foundedness proofs, or other means.
Obviously, there is a reason why most proof assistants do not handle
partial functions directly. This is to ensure consistency of the
system. Combining an expressive higher-order logic with unrestricted
recursion is a non-trivial problem.
There are various indirect ways of dealing with general recursion in
popular theorem provers based on total logics. There are also many
non-standard logics allowing partial functions directly. We discuss
some related work in Sect.~\ref{sec_related}.
In Sect.~\ref{sec_I_s} we introduce the system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$. Our approach
builds on the old tradition of illative combinatory logic
\cite{illat01,Seldin2009,Czajka2013Accepted,Czajka2011}. This
tradition dates back to early inconsistent systems of Sh\"onfinkel,
Church and Curry proposed in the 1920s and the
1930s~\cite{Seldin2009}. However, after the discovery of paradoxes
most logicians abandoned this approach. A notable exception was
Haskell Curry and his school, but not much progress was made in
establishing consistency of illative systems strong enough to
interpret traditional logic. Only in the 1990s some first-order
illative systems were shown consistent and complete for traditional
first-order logic~\cite{illat01,illat02}. The system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$, in terms
of the features it provides, may be considered an extension of the
illative system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_\omega$ from~\cite{Czajka2013Accepted}. We briefly
discuss the relationship between~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ and~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_\omega$ in
Sect.~\ref{sec_related}.
Because~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ is based on the untyped $\lambda$-calculus, its
consistency is obviously open to doubt. In an appendix we give a proof
by model construction of consistency of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$. Unfortunately, the
proof is too long to fit within the page limits of a conference
paper. In Sect.~\ref{sec_consistent} we give a general overview of the
proof. The model construction is similar to the one
from~\cite{Czajka2013Accepted} for the traditional illative
system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_\omega$. It is extended and adapted in a non-trivial way to
account for additional features of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$. To our knowlege~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ is
the first higher-order illative system featuring subtypes and some
form of induction, for which there is a consistency proof.
In Sect.~\ref{sec_partiality} we provide examples of proofs in~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$
indicating possible applications of our approach to the problem of
dealing with partiality, non-termination and general recursion in
higher-order logic. We are mainly interested in partiality arising
from non-termination of non-well-founded recursive definitions.
For lack of space we omit proofs of most of the lemmas and theorems we
state. The proofs of non-trivial results may be found in technical
appendices to this paper.
\section{The Illative System}\label{sec_I_s}
In this section we present the system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ of illative classical
higher-order logic with subtyping and derive some of its basic
properties.
\begin{definition}\label{def_I_s} \rm
The system $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ consists of the following.
\begin{itemize}
\item A countably infinite set of variables $V_s = \{x, y, z, \ldots
\}$ and a set of constants~$\Sigma_{s}$.
\item The set of sorts $\ensuremath{{\cal S}} = \{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}, \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}\}$.
\item The set of \emph{basic inductive types}~$\ensuremath{{\cal T}}_I$ is defined
inductively by the rule: if
$\iota_{1,1},\ldots,\iota_{1,n_1},\ldots,\iota_{m,1},\ldots,\iota_{m,n_m}
\in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}_I \cup \{\star\}$ then
\[
\mu(\langle \iota_{1,1},\ldots,\iota_{1,n_1} \rangle, \ldots,
\langle \iota_{m,1},\ldots,\iota_{m,n_m} \rangle) \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}_I
\]
where $m \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}_+$ and $n_1,\ldots,n_m \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}$.
\item We define the sets of \emph{constructors}~$\ensuremath{{\cal C}}$,
\emph{destructors}~$\ensuremath{{\cal D}}$, and \emph{tests}~$\ensuremath{{\cal O}}$ as follows. For
each $\iota \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}_I$ of the form
\[
\iota = \mu(\langle \iota_{1,1},\ldots,\iota_{1,n_1} \rangle,
\ldots, \langle \iota_{m,1},\ldots,\iota_{m,n_m} \rangle) \in
\ensuremath{{\cal T}}_I
\]
where $\iota_{i,j} \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}_I \cup \{\star\}$, the set~$\ensuremath{{\cal C}}$
contains~$m$ distinct constants~$c_1^\iota,\ldots,c_m^\iota$. The
number~$n_i$ is called the \emph{arity} of~$c_i^\iota$, and
$\langle \iota_{i,1},\ldots,\iota_{i,n_i} \rangle$ is its
\emph{signature}. With each $c_i^\iota \in \ensuremath{{\cal C}}$ of arity~$n_i$ we
associate~$n_i$ distinct
destructors~$d_{i,1}^\iota,\ldots,d_{i,n_i}^\iota \in \ensuremath{{\cal D}}$ and one
test $o_i^\iota \in \ensuremath{{\cal O}}$. When we use the symbols $c_i^\iota$,
$o_i^\iota$ and $d_{i,j}^\iota$ we implicitly assume that they
denote the constructors, tests and destructors associated
with~$\iota$. When it is clear from the context which type~$\iota$
is meant, we use the notation~$\iota_{i,j}^*$ for~$\iota_{i,j}$ if
$\iota_{i,j} \ne \star$, or for~$\iota$ if $\iota_{i,j} = \star$.
\item The set of \emph{$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$-terms}~$\ensuremath{{\cal T}}$ is defined by the
following grammar.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\ensuremath{{\cal T}} &::=& V_s \;|\; \Sigma_{s} \;|\; \ensuremath{{\cal S}} \;|\; \ensuremath{{\cal C}} \;|\; \ensuremath{{\cal D}}
\;|\; \ensuremath{{\cal O}} \;|\; \ensuremath{{\cal T}}_I \;|\; \lambda V_s \,.\, \ensuremath{{\cal T}} \;|\; (\ensuremath{{\cal T}} \ensuremath{{\cal T}})
\;|\; \mathrm{Is} \;|\; \mathrm{Subtype} \;|\; \mathrm{Fun}
\;|\; \\ && \forall \;|\; \vee \;|\; \bot \;|\; \epsilon \;|\;
\mathrm{Eq} \;|\; \mathrm{Cond}
\end{eqnarray*}
We assume application associates to the left and omit spurious
brackets.
\item We identify $\alpha$-equivalent terms, i.e. terms differing
only in the names of bound variables are considered identical. We
use the symbol~$\equiv$ for identity of terms up to
$\alpha$-equivalence. We also assume without loss of generality
that all bound variables in a term are distinct from the free
variables, unless indicated otherwise.\footnote{So e.g. in the
axiom~$\beta$ the free variables of~$t_2$ do not become bound in
$t_1[x/t_2]$.}
\item In what follows we use the abbreviations:
\begin{eqnarray*}
t_1 : t_2 &\equiv& \mathrm{Is}\, t_1\, t_2 \\
\set{x : \alpha}{\varphi} &\equiv& \mathrm{Subtype}\, \alpha\,
\lambda x \,.\, \varphi \\
\alpha \to \beta &\equiv& \mathrm{Fun}\, \alpha\, \beta \\
\forall x : \alpha \,.\, \varphi &\equiv& \forall\, \alpha\, \lambda x
\,.\, \varphi \\
\forall x_1,\ldots,x_n : \alpha \,.\, \varphi &\equiv& \forall x_1 :
\alpha \,.\, \ldots \forall x_n : \alpha \,.\, \varphi \\
\varphi \supset \psi &\equiv& \forall x : \set{y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}}{\varphi}
\,.\, \psi \;\; \mathrm{where\ } x, y \notin FV(\varphi, \psi)
\\
\neg \varphi &\equiv& \varphi \supset \bot \\
\top &\equiv& \bot \supset \bot \\
\varphi \vee \psi &\equiv& \vee \varphi \psi \\
\varphi \wedge \psi &\equiv& \neg (\neg \varphi \vee \neg \psi) \\
\exists x : \alpha \,.\, \varphi &\equiv& \neg \forall x : \alpha
\,.\, \neg \varphi
\end{eqnarray*}
We assume that~$\neg$ has the highest precedence.
\item The system $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ is given by the following rules and axioms,
where $\Gamma$ is a finite set of terms, $t, \varphi, \psi,
\alpha, \beta$, etc. are arbitrary terms. The notation $\Gamma,
\varphi$ is a shorthand for $\Gamma \cup \{\varphi\}$. We use
Greek letters $\varphi$, $\psi$, etc. to highlight that a term is
to be intuitively interpreted as a proposition, and we use
$\alpha$, $\beta$, etc. when it is to be interpreted as a type,
but there is no a priori syntactic distinction. All judgements
have the form $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t$ where~$\Gamma$ is a set of terms
and~$t$ a term. In particular, $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t : \alpha$ is a
shorthand for $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \mathrm{Is}\, t\, \alpha$,
according to the convention from the previous point.
\medskip
{\bf Axioms}
\begin{itemize}
\item[1:] $\Gamma, \varphi \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi$
\item[2:] $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{t}{t}$
\item[3:] $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}$
\item[4:] $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \iota : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}$ for $\iota \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}_I$
\item[5:] $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} o_i^\iota (c_i^\iota t_1 \ldots
t_{n_i})$ if $c_i^\iota \in \ensuremath{{\cal C}}$ has arity~$n_i$
\item[6:] $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \neg (o_i^\iota (c_j^\iota t_1 \ldots
t_{n_j}))$ if $i \ne j$ and $c_j^\iota \in \ensuremath{{\cal C}}$ has arity~$n_j$
\item[7:] $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{(d_{i,k}^\iota (c_i^\iota t_1 \ldots
t_{n_i}))}{t_k}$ for $k=1,\ldots,n_i$, if $c_i^\iota \in \ensuremath{{\cal C}}$
has arity~$n_i$
\item[$\bot_t$:] $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \bot : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$
\item[$c$:] $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall p : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \,.\, p \lor \neg p$
\item[$\beta$:] $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{((\lambda x \,.\, t_1)
t_2)}{(t_1[x/t_2])}$
\end{itemize}
{\bf Rules}
\begin{longtable}{cc}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{\forall_i:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash}
\alpha : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}} \\ \Gamma, x : \alpha \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \\ x
\notin FV(\Gamma, \alpha)}{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x : \alpha \,.\, \varphi}
\)
}
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{\forall_e:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x : \alpha
\,.\, \varphi \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t : \alpha}
{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi[x/t]}
\)
}
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{\forall_t:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash}
\alpha : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}} \\ \Gamma, x : \alpha \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \\ x
\notin FV(\Gamma, \alpha)}{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} (\forall x : \alpha
\,.\, \varphi) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}}
\)
}
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{\exists_i:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash}
\alpha : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}} \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t : \alpha \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi[x/t]
}
{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \exists x : \alpha \,.\, \varphi}
\)
}
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{\exists_e:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \exists x : \alpha
\,.\, \varphi \\ \Gamma, x : \alpha, \varphi \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi \\ x
\notin FV(\Gamma, \psi, \alpha)}
{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi}
\)
}
\\
& \\
\(
{\vee_{i1}:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi}
{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \vee \psi}
\)
&
\(
{\vee_{i2}:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi}
{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \vee \psi}
\)
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{\vee_{e}:}\; \inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi_1 \vee \varphi_2 \\ \Gamma, \varphi_1
\ensuremath{\vdash} \psi \\ \Gamma, \varphi_2 \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi
}
\)
}
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{\vee_{t}:}\; \inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} (\varphi \vee \psi) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}
}
\)
}
\\
& \\
\(
{\wedge_{e1}:}\;
\inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \wedge \psi
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi
}
\)
&
\(
{\wedge_{e2}:}\;
\inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \wedge \psi
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi
}
\)
\\
& \\
\(
{\supset_{t2}:}\;
\inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} (\varphi \supset \psi) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}
}
\)
&
\(
{\bot_{e}:}\;
\inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \bot
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi
}
\)
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{\to_i:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash}
\alpha : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}} \\ \Gamma, x : \alpha \ensuremath{\vdash} t : \beta \\ x
\notin FV(\Gamma, \alpha, \beta)}{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} (\lambda x \,.\, t) :
\alpha \to \beta}
\)
}
\\
& \\
\(
{\to_e:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t_1 : \alpha \to \beta \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t_2 : \alpha}{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t_1
t_2 : \beta}
\)
&
\(
{\to_t:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \alpha : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}} \\ \Gamma
\ensuremath{\vdash} \beta : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}}
{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} (\alpha \to \beta) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}}
\)
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{s_i:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \{ x : \alpha \;|\; \varphi \} : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}} \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t : \alpha \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash}
(\lambda x \,.\, \varphi) t \\ x \notin FV(\alpha)}
{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t : \{ x : \alpha \;|\; \varphi \} }
\)
}
\\
& \\
\(
{s_e:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t : \{ x :
\alpha \;|\; \varphi \}}{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi[x/t]}
\)
&
\(
{s_{et}:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t : \{ x :
\alpha \;|\; \varphi\}}{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t : \alpha}
\)
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{s_t:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \alpha : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}
\\ \Gamma, x : \alpha \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \\ x \notin FV(\alpha)}
{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \{ x : \alpha \;|\; \varphi\} : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}}
\)
}
\\
& \\
\(
{\epsilon_i:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \exists x : \alpha \,.\, \top}
{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} (\epsilon \alpha) : \alpha}
\)
&
\(
{p_i:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi}
{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}}
\)
\\
& \\
\(
{c_1:}\; \inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{(\Cond{\varphi}{t_1}{t_2})}{t_1}
}
\)
&
\(
{c_2:}\; \inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \neg\varphi
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{(\Cond{\varphi}{t_1}{t_2})}{t_2}
}
\)
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{c_3:}\; \inferrule{
\Gamma, \varphi \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{t_1}{t_1'} \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash}
\varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{(\Cond{\varphi}{t_1}{t_2})}{(\Cond{\varphi}{t_1'}{t_2})}
}
\)
}
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{c_4:}\; \inferrule{
\Gamma, \neg\varphi \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{t_2}{t_2'} \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash}
\varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{(\Cond{\varphi}{t_1}{t_2})}{(\Cond{\varphi}{t_1}{t_2'})}
}
\)
}
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{c_5:}\; \inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{(\Cond{\varphi}{t}{t})}{t}
}
\)
}
\\
& \\
\(
{\mbox{eq}:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash}
\Eq{\varphi}{\varphi'}}{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi'}
\)
&
\(
{\mbox{eq-sym}:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash}
\Eq{t_1}{t_2}}{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{t_2}{t_1}}
\)
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{\mbox{eq-trans}:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash}
\Eq{t_1}{t_2} \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{t_2}{t_3}}{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{t_1}{t_3}}
\)
}
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{\mbox{eq-cong-app}:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash}
\Eq{t_1}{t_1'} \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{t_2}{t_2'}}{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{(t_1 t_2)}{(t_1' t_2')}}
\)
}
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{\mbox{eq-$\lambda$-$\xi$}:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash}
\Eq{t}{t'} \\ x \notin FV(\Gamma)}{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{(\lambda x \,.\, t)}{(\lambda x \,.\, t')}}
\)
}
\end{longtable}
\[
{i_i^\iota:}\; \inferrule{\Gamma, x_1 : \iota_{i,1}^*, \ldots, x_{n_i} : \iota_{i,n_i}^*, t
x_{j_{i,1}}, \ldots, t x_{j_{i,k_i}} \ensuremath{\vdash} t (c_i^\iota x_1 \ldots
x_{n_i}) \\ \mathrm{for\ } i=1,\ldots,m
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x : \iota \,.\, t x
}
\]
where $x,x_1,\ldots,x_{n_i} \notin FV(\Gamma, t)$,
$c_1^\iota,\ldots,c_m^\iota \in \ensuremath{{\cal C}}$ are all constructors
associated with $\iota \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}_I$, and
$j_{i,1},\ldots,j_{i,k_i}$ is an increasing sequence of all
indices $1 \le j \le n_i$ such that $\iota_{i,j} = \star$
\smallskip
\[
{i_t^{\iota,k}:}\; \inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t_j : \iota_{k,j}^* \mathrm{\ for\ } j=1,\ldots,n_k
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} (c_k^\iota t_1 \ldots t_{n_k}) : \iota
}
\]
\end{itemize}
For an arbitrary set of terms~$\Gamma$, we write $\Gamma
\ensuremath{\vdash}_{\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s} \varphi$ if there exists a finite subset $\Gamma'
\subseteq \Gamma$ such that $\Gamma' \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi$ is derivable
in the system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$. We drop the subscript when irrelevant or
obvious from the context.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
If $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi$ then $\Gamma, \psi \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_I_s_subst}
If $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi$ then $\Gamma[x/t] \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi[x/t]$,
where $\Gamma[x/t] = \{ \psi[x/t] \;|\; \psi \in \Gamma \}$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Representing Logic}
The inference rules of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ may be intuitively justified by
appealing to an informal many-valued semantics. A term~$t$ may be
true, false, or something entirely different (``undefined'', a
program, a natural number, a type, \ldots). By way of an example, we
explain an informal meaning of some terms:
\begin{itemize}
\item $t : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$ is true iff $t$ is true or false,
\item $\alpha : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}$ is true iff $\alpha$ is a type,
\item $t : \alpha$ is true iff $t$ has type~$\alpha$,
assuming~$\alpha$ is a type,
\item $\forall x : \alpha . \varphi$ is true iff $\alpha$ is a type
and for all~$t$ of type~$\alpha$, $\varphi[x/t]$ is true,
\item $\forall x : \alpha . \varphi$ is false iff $\alpha$ is a type
and there exists~$t$ of type~$\alpha$ such that~$\varphi[x/t]$ is
false,
\item $t_1 \vee t_2$ is true iff $t_1$ is true or $t_2$ is true,
\item $t_1 \vee t_2$ is false iff $t_1$ is false and $t_2$ is false,
\item $t_1 \supset t_2$ is true iff $t_1$ is false or both~$t_1$
and~$t_2$ are true,
\item $t_1 \supset t_2$ is false iff $t_1$ is true and~$t_2$ is false,
\item $\neg t$ is true iff $t$ is false,
\item $\neg t$ is false iff $t$ is true.
\end{itemize}
Obviously, $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t$ is then (informally) interpreted as: for
all possible substitution instances~$\Gamma^*,t^*$ of~$\Gamma,t$,
\footnote{To be more precise, for every possible substitution of terms
for the free variables of~$\Gamma,t$ we perform this substitution
on~$\Gamma,t$, denoting the result by~$\Gamma^*,t^*$.} if all terms
in~$\Gamma^*$ are true, then the term~$t^*$ is also true.
Note that the logical connectives are ``lazy'', e.g. for $t_1 \vee
t_2$ to be true it suffices that~$t_1$ is true, but~$t_2$ need not
have a truth value at all -- it may be something else: a program, a
type, ``undefined'', etc. This laziness allows us to omit many
restrictions which would otherwise be needed in inference rules, and
would thus make the system less similar to ordinary logic.
The following rules may be derived in~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\(
\supset_i:\;
\inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \\ \Gamma, \varphi \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \supset \psi
}
\)\;\;
&
\;\;\(
\supset_e:\;
\inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \supset \psi \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi
}
\)
\\
& \\
\(
\supset_t:\;
\inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \\ \Gamma, \varphi \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} (\varphi \supset \psi) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}
}
\)
&
\(
{\wedge_{i}:}\;
\inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \wedge \psi
}
\)
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Note that in general the elimination rules for~$\wedge$ and the rules
for~$\exists$ cannot be derived from the rules for~$\vee$
and~$\forall$, because we would not be able to prove the premise
$\varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$ when trying to apply the rule~$\supset_i$. It is
instructive to try to derive these rules and see where the proof
breaks down.
In~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ the only non-standard restriction in the usual inference
rules for logical connectives is the additional premise $\Gamma
\ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$ in the rule~$\supset_i$. It is certainly
unavoidable, as otherwise Curry's paradox may be derived (see
e.g. \cite{illat01,Seldin2009}). However, we have standard classical
higher-order logic if we restrict to terms of type~$\ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$, in the
sense that the natural deduction rules then become identical to the
rules of ordinary logic. This is made more precise in
Sect.~\ref{sec_consistent} where a sound translation from a
traditional system of higher-order logic into~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ is described.
Note that we have the law of excluded middle only in the form $\forall
p : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \,.\, p \lor \neg p$. Adding $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \vee
\neg\varphi$ as an axiom for an arbitrary term~$\varphi$ gives an
inconsistent system.\footnote{By defining (see the next subsection)
$\varphi = \neg \varphi$ one could then easily derive~$\bot$ using
the rule~$\vee_e$ applied to~$\varphi \vee \neg\varphi$.}
It is well-known (see e.g. \cite[Chapter 11]{SorensenUrzyczyn2006})
that in higher-order logic all logical connectives may be defined
from~$\forall$ and~$\supset$ as follows.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bot &\equiv& \forall p : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \,.\, p \\
\neg \varphi &\equiv& \varphi \supset \bot \\
\varphi \wedge \psi &\equiv& \forall p : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \,.\, (\varphi \supset \psi \supset p) \supset p \\
\varphi \vee \psi &\equiv& \forall p : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \,.\, (\varphi \supset p) \supset (\psi \supset p) \supset p \\
\exists x : \alpha \,.\, \varphi &\equiv& \forall p : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \,.\, (\forall x : \alpha \,.\, \varphi \supset p) \supset p
\end{eqnarray*}
One may therefore wonder why we take~$\vee$ and~$\bot$ as
primitive. The answer is that if we defined the connectives by the
above equations, then the inference rules that could be derived for
them would need to contain additional restrictions. For instance, we
would be able to derive only the following variants of
$\vee$-introduction.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lr}
\(
{\vee_{i1}':}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \\ \Gamma
\ensuremath{\vdash} \psi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}}
{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \vee \psi}
\)\;\;
&
\;\;\(
{\vee_{i2}':}\; \inferrule{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash}
\varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}}
{\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \vee \psi}
\)
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\subsection{Equality, Recursive Definitions and Extensionality}
It is well-known (see e.g. \cite[Chapters 2, 6]{Barendregt1984}) that
since untyped $\lambda$-terms are available together with the
axiom~$\beta$ and usual rules for equality, any set of equations of
the following form has a solution for $z_1,\ldots,z_n$, where the
expressions~$\Phi_i(z_1, \ldots, z_n, x_1, \ldots, x_m)$ are arbitrary
terms with the free variables listed.
\begin{eqnarray*}
z_1 x_1 \ldots x_m &=& \Phi_1(z_1, \ldots, z_n, x_1, \ldots, x_m) \\
&\vdots& \\
z_n x_1 \ldots x_m &=& \Phi_n(z_1, \ldots, z_n, x_1, \ldots, x_m)
\end{eqnarray*}
In other words, for any such set of equations, there exist terms $t_1,
\ldots, t_n$ such that for any terms $s_1, \ldots, s_m$ we have
$\ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{\left(t_i s_1 \ldots s_m\right)}{\left(\Phi_i(t_1,
\ldots, t_n, s_1, \ldots, s_m)\right)}$ for each $i=1,\ldots,n$.
We will often define terms by such equations. In what follows we
freely use the notation $t_1 = t_2$ for $\ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{t_1}{t_2}$, or
for $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eq{t_1}{t_2}$ when it is clear which
context~$\Gamma$ is meant. We use $t_1 = t_2 = \ldots = t_n$ to
indicate that $\Eq{t_i}{t_{i+1}}$ may be derived for
$i=1,\ldots,n-1$. We also sometimes write a term of the form
$\Eq{t_1}{t_2}$ as $t_1 = t_2$.
It is worth stressing once again that there is no a priori syntactic
distinction between terms, formulas, types, type assertions,
etc. Formally, there are only terms, but some terms are intuitively
interpreted as formulas, types, etc. In particular, the aforementioned
method of defining terms by arbitrary recursive equations may be
applied to define terms which could be intuitively considered to be
formulas, e.g. we may define a term~$\varphi$ such that $\varphi =
\neg \varphi$. Inconsistency is avoided, because it will not be
actually possible to prove $\ensuremath{\vdash}_{\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s} \varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$,
hence~$\varphi$ will not really be a formula. In~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ the inference
rules serve the purpose of classifying terms into different
categories. This classification is not enforced a priori, but instead
it is a part of derivations in the logic.
In~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ there is no rule for typing the equality~$\mathrm{Eq}$. One
consequence is that $\ensuremath{\vdash} \neg(\Eq{t_1}{t_2})$ cannot be derived
for any terms $t_1,t_2$.\footnote{We mean this in a precise
sense. This follows from our model construction.} For this
reason~$\mathrm{Eq}$ is more like a meta-level notion of equality.
\begin{definition} \rm
Leibniz equality $\mathrm{Eql}$ is defined as:
\[
\mathrm{Eql} \equiv \lambda \alpha \lambda x \lambda y . \forall p :
\alpha \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \,.\, p x \supset p y
\]
\end{definition}
As with~$=$, we will often write $t_1 =_\alpha t_2$ to denote $\ensuremath{\vdash}
\Eql{\alpha}{t_1}{t_2}$ or $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \Eql{\alpha}{t_1}{t_2}$, or
write $t_1 =_\alpha t_2$ instead of $\Eql{\alpha}{t_1}{t_2}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_leibniz}
If $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \alpha : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}$ then
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x, y : \alpha \,.\, (x =_\alpha y) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$,
\item $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x : \alpha \,.\, (x =_\alpha x)$,
\item $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x, y : \alpha \,.\, (x =_\alpha y) \supset
(y =_\alpha x)$,
\item $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x, y, z : \alpha \,.\, (x =_\alpha y)
\wedge (y =_\alpha z) \supset (x =_\alpha z)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
The system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$, as it is stated, is intensional with respect to
Leibniz equality. We could add the rules
\[
e_f:\;
\inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \alpha : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}} \\ \Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \beta : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}
}{
\forall f_1, f_2 : \alpha \to \beta \,.\, (\forall x
: \alpha \,.\, f_1 x =_\beta f_2 x) \supset (f_1 =_{\alpha\to\beta} f_2)
}
\]
\[
e_b:\;
\inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi_1 \supset \varphi_2 \\
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi_2 \supset \varphi_1
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi_1 = \varphi_2
}
\]
to obtain an extensional variant~$e\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$. The system~$e\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$
is still consistent -- the model we construct for~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ validates the
above rules.
\begin{lemma}
$\ensuremath{\vdash}_{e\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s} \forall x, y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \,.\, (x =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} y) \supset (x
= y)$
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Induction and Natural Numbers}\label{sec_induction}
The system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ incorporates basic inductive types. In accordance
with the terminology from~\cite{BlanquiJounnaudOkada2002}, an
inductive type is basic if its constructors have no functional
arguments. This class of inductive types includes most simple commonly
used inductive types, e.g. natural numbers, lists, finite trees.
In our approach the types of constructors are encoded in the syntactic
form of the inductive type. For instance, if $\iota_0, \iota_1 \in
\ensuremath{{\cal T}}_I$, then $\iota = \mu(\langle \rangle, \langle \iota_0, \iota_1,
\star, \star \rangle)$ is an inductive type with constructors:
$c_1^\iota : \iota$ and $c_2^\iota : \iota_0 \to \iota_1 \to \iota \to
\iota \to \iota$.
\begin{lemma}
If $c_i^\iota \in \ensuremath{{\cal C}}$ of arity~$n_i$ has signature $\langle
\iota_1,\ldots,\iota_{n_i} \rangle$ then $\ensuremath{\vdash}_{\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s} c_i^\iota :
\iota_1^* \to \ldots \to \iota_{n_i}^* \to \iota$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
$\ensuremath{\vdash}_{\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s} o_i^\iota : \iota \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$ and $\ensuremath{\vdash}_{\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s}
\forall x : \iota \,.\, o_i^\iota x \supset (d_{i,j}^\iota x :
\iota_{i,j}^*)$
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_ind_leibniz_implies_eq}
If $\iota \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}_I$ then $\ensuremath{\vdash}_{\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s} \forall x, y : \iota \,.\,
x =_\iota y \supset x = y$.
\end{lemma}
We may define the type of natural numbers by $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \equiv \mu(\langle
\rangle, \langle \star \rangle)$. We use the abbreviations: $0 \equiv
c_1^\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$ (zero), $\ensuremath{\mathfrak{0}} \equiv o_1^\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$ (test for zero), $\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}}
\equiv c_2^\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$ (successor) and $\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}} \equiv \lambda x \,.\,
\Cond{(\ensuremath{\mathfrak{0}} x)}{0}{(d_{2,1}^\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} x)}$ (predecessor). The
rules~$i_i^\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$ and~$i_t^{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}},k}$ become:
\begin{longtable}{lr}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{n_i:}\; \inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t 0 \\ \Gamma, x : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}, t x
\ensuremath{\vdash} t (\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} x) \\ x \notin FV(\Gamma, t)
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, t x
}
\)
}
\\
\(
{n_t^1:}\; \inferrule{
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} 0 : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}
}
\)
&
\(
{n_t^2:}\; \inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} (\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} t) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}
}
\)
\end{longtable}
To simplify the exposition, we discuss some properties of our
formulation of inductive types using the example of natural
numbers. Much of what we say applies to other basic inductive types,
with appropriate modifications.
The rule~$n_i$ is an induction principle for natural numbers. An
important property of this induction principle is that it places no
restrictions on~$t$. This allows us to prove by induction on natural
numbers properties of terms about which nothing is known
beforehand. In particular, we do not need to know whether~$t$ has a
$\beta$-normal form in order to apply the rule~$n_i$ to it. In
contrast, an induction principle of the form e.g.
\[
n_i':\;\; \forall f : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \,.\, \left(\left(f 0 \wedge (\forall
x : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, f x \supset f (\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} x))\right) \supset \forall x : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, f
x\right)
\]
would be much less useful, because to apply it to a term~$t$ we would
have to prove $t : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$ \emph{beforehand}. Examples of the
use of the rule~$n_i$ for reasoning about possibly nonterminating
general recursive programs are given in Sect.~\ref{sec_partiality}.
We may define a recursor~$R$ for natural numbers in the following
way:
\begin{eqnarray*}
R &=& \lambda g h x y \,.\, \Cond{(\ensuremath{\mathfrak{0}} y)}{(g x)}{(h\, x\, (\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}} y)\,
(R\, g\, h\, x\, (\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}} y)))}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that we need the predecessor as a primitive, because otherwise a
recursor would not be definable.
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\cdot}}{\ensuremath{\cdot}}
Now $+$, $-$, $\ensuremath{\cdot}$, $<$ and $\le$, usually used in infix notation,
are defined as follows.
\begin{eqnarray*}
x + y &=& R (\lambda x \,.\, x) (\lambda x y z \,.\, \ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} z) x y \\
x - y &=& R (\lambda x \,.\, x) (\lambda x y z \,.\, \ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}} z) x y \\
x \ensuremath{\cdot} y &=& R (\lambda x \,.\, 0) (\lambda x y z \,.\, x + z) x y \\
x \le y &=& \ensuremath{\mathfrak{0}} (x - y) \\
x < y &=& (\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} x) \le y
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_nat_op_well_defined}
The following terms are derivable in the system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\forall x, y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, (x + y) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$, $\forall x, y :
\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, (x - y) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$, $\forall x, y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, (x \ensuremath{\cdot} y)
: \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$,
\item $\forall x, y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, (x \le y) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$, $\forall x, y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, (x < y) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem_le_eq}
$\ensuremath{\vdash}_{\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s} \forall x, y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, (x \ge y) \wedge (x \le y)
\supset (x =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} y)$.
\end{lemma}
It is possible to derive Peano axioms for~$+$ and $\ensuremath{\cdot}$ defined as
above.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_peano}
The following terms are derivable in the system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\forall x, y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, \left(\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} x =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} y\right)
\supset \left(x =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} y\right)$,
\item $\forall x : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, \neg (\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} x =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} 0)$,
\item $\forall x : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, (x + 0 =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} x)$,
\item $\forall x, y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, (x + \ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} y =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} (x + y))$,
\item $\forall x : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, (x \ensuremath{\cdot} 0 =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} 0)$,
\item $\forall x, y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, (x \ensuremath{\cdot} (\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} y) =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} (x \ensuremath{\cdot} y)
+ x)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
The following theorem shows that any function for which there exists a
measure on its arguments, which may be shown to decrease with every
recursive call in each of a finite number of exhaustive cases, is
typable in our system.
\begin{theorem}
Suppose $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x_1 : \alpha_1 \ldots \forall x_n :
\alpha_n \,.\, \varphi_1 \lor \ldots \lor \varphi_m$, $\Gamma
\ensuremath{\vdash} \alpha_j : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}$ for $j = 1,\ldots,n$, and for
$i=1,\ldots,m$: $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x_1 : \alpha_1 \ldots
\forall x_n : \alpha_n \,.\, t_i : \beta \to \ldots \to \beta$
where~$\beta$ occurs~$k_i + 1$ times, $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x_1 :
\alpha_1 \ldots \forall x_n : \alpha_n \,.\, t_{i,j,k} : \alpha_k$
for $j=1,\ldots,k_i$, $k=1,\ldots,n$, $x_1,\ldots,x_n \notin
FV(f,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n,\beta)$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x_1 : \alpha_1 \ldots \forall x_n :
\alpha_n \,.\, \varphi_i &\supset& (f x_1 \ldots x_n = \\ && \;t_i (f t_{i,1,1}
\ldots t_{i,1,n}) \ldots (f t_{i,k_i,1} \ldots t_{i,k_i,n})).
\end{eqnarray*}
If there is a term~$g$ such that $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} g : \alpha_1 \to
\ldots \to \alpha_n \to \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$ and for $i=1,\ldots,m$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x_1 : \alpha_1 \ldots \forall x_n : \alpha_n
\,.\, \varphi_i &\supset& (\left((f x_1 \ldots x_n) :
\beta\right) \lor \\ && \;((g t_{i,1,1} \ldots t_{i,1,n}) < (g x_1 \ldots
x_n) \land \ldots \land \\ && \;\;(g t_{i,k_i,1} \ldots t_{i,k_i,n}) < (g x_1
\ldots x_n)))
\end{eqnarray*}
where $x_1,\ldots,x_n \notin FV(g)$, then
\[
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} f : \alpha_1 \to \ldots \to \alpha_n \to \beta.
\]
\end{theorem}
\section{Conservativity and Consistency}\label{sec_consistent}
In this section we show a sound embedding of ordinary classical
higher-order logic into~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$, which we also conjecture to be
complete. We have a completeness proof only for a restriction of this
embedding to first-order logic. We also give a brief overview of the
model construction used to establish consistency of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$.
First, let us define the system~CPRED$\omega$ of classical
higher-order logic.
\begin{itemize}
\item The \emph{types} of CPRED$\omega$ are given by
\[
\ensuremath{{\cal T}} \;\; ::= \;\; o \;|\; \ensuremath{{\cal B}} \;|\; \ensuremath{{\cal T}} \rightarrow \ensuremath{{\cal T}}
\]
where~$\ensuremath{{\cal B}}$ is a specific finite set of base types. The type~$o$ is
the type of propositions.
\item The set of terms of CPRED$\omega$ of type $\tau$, denoted
$T_\tau$, is defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $V_\tau, \Sigma_\tau \subseteq T_\tau$,
\item if $t_1 \in T_{\sigma\to\tau}$ and $t_2 \in T_\sigma$ then
$t_1 t_2 \in T_\tau$,
\item if $x \in V_{\tau_1}$ and $t \in T_{\tau_2}$ then $\lambda x :
\tau_1 \,.\, t \in T_{\tau_1\to\tau_2}$,
\item if $\varphi, \psi \in T_o$ then $\varphi \supset \psi \in
T_o$,
\item if $x \in V_{\tau}$ and $\varphi \in T_o$ then $\forall x :
\tau \,.\, \varphi \in T_o$,
\end{itemize}
where for each type $\tau$ the set $V_\tau$ is a countable set of
variables and $\Sigma_\tau$ is a countable set of constants. We
assume that the sets $V_\tau$ and $\Sigma_\sigma$ are all pairwise
disjoint. Terms of type $o$ are \emph{formulas}. As usual, we omit
spurious brackets and assume that application associates to the
left. We identify $\alpha$-equivalent terms, i.e. terms differing
only in the names of bound variables are considered identical.
\item The system CPRED$\omega$ is given by the following rules and
axioms, where $\Delta$ is a finite set of formulas, $\varphi, \psi$
are formulas. The notation $\Delta, \varphi$ is a shorthand for
$\Delta \cup \{\varphi\}$.
\smallskip
{\bf Axioms}
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Delta, \varphi \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi$
\item $\Delta \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall p : o \,.\, ((p \supset \bot) \supset
\bot) \supset p$ where $\bot \equiv \forall p : o \,.\, p$
\end{itemize}
{\bf Rules}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lr}
\(
{\supset_i^P:}\; \inferrule{\Delta, \varphi \ensuremath{\vdash}
\psi}{\Delta \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \supset \psi}
\)
&
\(
{\supset_e^P:}\; \inferrule{\Delta \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \supset
\psi \;\;\; \Delta \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi}{\Delta \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi}
\)
\\
& \\
\(
{\forall_i^P:}\; \inferrule{\Delta \ensuremath{\vdash}
\varphi}{\Delta \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x : \tau \,.\, \varphi} \; x
\notin FV(\Delta), x \in V_\tau
\)\;\;\;
&
\;\;\;\(
{\forall_e^P:}\; \inferrule{\Delta \ensuremath{\vdash} \forall x : \tau \,.\, \varphi}{\Delta
\ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi[x/t]}\; t \in T_\tau
\)
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
{\mathrm{conv}^P:}\; \inferrule{\Delta \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \\
\varphi =_\beta \psi}{\Delta \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi}
\)
}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{itemize}
In CPRED$\omega$, we define Leibniz equality in type~$\tau \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$ by
\[
t_1 =_\tau t_2 \equiv \forall p : \tau \to o \,.\, p t_1 \supset p t_2
\]
The system~CPRED$\omega$ is intensional. An extensional
variant~E-CPRED$\omega$ may be obtained by adding the following axioms
for all $\tau, \sigma \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$:
\[
e_f^P: \forall f_1, f_2 : \tau \to \sigma \,.\, \left(\forall x : \tau
\,.\, f_1 x =_\sigma f_2 x \right) \supset (f_1 =_{\tau\to\sigma} f_2)
\]
\[
e_b^P: \forall \varphi_1, \varphi_2 : o \,.\, \left((\varphi_1 \supset
\varphi_2) \wedge (\varphi_2 \supset \varphi_1)\right) \supset
(\varphi_1 =_{o} \varphi_2)
\]
For an arbitrary set of formulas~$\Delta$ we write $\Delta \ensuremath{\vdash}_S
\varphi$ if~$\varphi$ is derivable from a subset of~$\Delta$ in
system~$S$.
We now define a mapping~$\transl{-}$ from types and terms
of~CPRED$\omega$ to terms of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$, and a mapping~$\Gamma(-)$ from
sets of terms of~CPRED$\omega$ to sets of terms of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ providing
necessary context. We assume that $\ensuremath{{\cal B}} \subseteq \Sigma_s$ and
$\Sigma_\tau \subseteq \Sigma_s$ for $\tau \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$, i.e. that all
base types and all constants of~CPRED$\omega$ occur as constants
in~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$, and also $V_\tau \subseteq V_s$ for $\tau \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$. The
definition of~$\transl{-}$ is inductive:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\transl{\tau} = \tau$ for $\tau \in \ensuremath{{\cal B}}$,
\item $\transl{o} = \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$,
\item $\transl{\tau_1\to\tau_2} = \transl{\tau_1} \to \transl{\tau_2}$
for $\tau_1,\tau_2 \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$,
\item $\transl{c} = c$ if $c \in \Sigma_\tau$ for some $\tau \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$,
\item $\transl{x} = x$ if $x \in V_\tau$ for some $\tau \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$,
\item $\transl{t_1 t_2} = \transl{t_1} \transl{t_2}$,
\item $\transl{\lambda x : \tau \,.\, t} = \lambda x \,.\,
\transl{t}$,
\item $\transl{\varphi \supset \psi} = \transl{\varphi} \supset
\transl{\psi}$,
\item $\transl{\forall x : \tau \,.\, \varphi} = \forall x :
\transl{\tau} \,.\, \transl{\varphi}$.
\end{itemize}
If $\Delta$ is a set of formulas, then~$\transl{\Delta}$ denotes the
image of~$\transl{-}$ on~$\Delta$. The set~$\Gamma(\Delta)$ is defined
to contain the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item $x : \transl{\tau}$ for all $\tau \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$ and all $x \in
FV(\Delta)$ such that $x \in V_\tau$,
\item $c : \transl{\tau}$ for all $\tau \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$ and all $c \in
\Sigma_\tau$,
\item $\tau : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}$ for all $\tau \in \ensuremath{{\cal B}}$,
\item $y : \tau$ for all $\tau \in \ensuremath{{\cal B}}$ and some $y \in V_\tau$ such
that $y \notin FV(\Delta)$.
\end{itemize}
The last point is needed because in ordinary logic one always assumes
that the domains are non-empty.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_sound_hol}
If $\Delta \ensuremath{\vdash}_{\mathrm{CPRED}\omega} \varphi$ then
$\Gamma(\Delta, \varphi), \transl{\Delta} \ensuremath{\vdash}_{\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s}
\transl{\varphi}$. The same holds if we change~CPRED$\omega$ to
\mbox{E-CPRED$\omega$} and~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ to~$e\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$.
\end{theorem}
The above theorem shows that~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ may be considered an extension of
ordinary higher-order logic. This extension is essentially obtained by
relaxing typing requirements on allowable
$\lambda$-terms. Type-checking is obviously undecidable in~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$, but
the purpose of types in illative systems is not to have a decidable
method for syntactic correctness checks, but to provide general means
for classifying terms into various categories. In practice, one might
still want to have a decidable (and necessarily incomplete) method for
checking correctness of some designated type assertions. Such a method
may be obtained by employing any type-checking algorithm sound
w.r.t.~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$.\footnote{By soundness we mean that if the algorithm
declares $t : \alpha$ correct (in a context~$\Gamma$), then $\Gamma
\ensuremath{\vdash}_{\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s} t : \alpha$. Completeness is the implication in the
other direction. The point is that one would want some standard
type-checking algorithms to be modified to work on terms of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$,
by declaring incorrect all type assertions not conforming to the
syntax of (a straightforward translation of) the assertions handled
by the algorithm.} However, the difference would be that a priori
type-checks would not be enforced in every situation. Occasionally,
with some more complex recursive functions, it might be convenient to
forgo these checks and reason about the types of such functions
explicitly, using the rules of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$.
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj_conservative_hol}
If $\Gamma(\Delta, \varphi), \transl{\Delta} \ensuremath{\vdash}_{\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s}
\transl{\varphi}$ then $\Delta \ensuremath{\vdash}_{\mathrm{CPRED}\omega}
\varphi$. The same holds if we change~CPRED$\omega$ to
\mbox{E-CPRED$\omega$} and~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ to~$e\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$.
\end{conjecture}
We were able to prove this conjecture only for first-order logic. The
system of classical first-order logic (FOL) is obtained by
restricting~CPRED$\omega$ in obvious ways (leaving only one base
type~$\iota$, disallowing $\lambda$-abstraction, allowing
quantification only over~$\iota$, and constants only of types $\iota$,
$\iota \to \ldots \to \iota \to \iota$ or $\iota \to \ldots \to \iota
\to o$).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_embedding_01}
If $\ensuremath{{\cal I}} = \ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ or $\ensuremath{{\cal I}} = e\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ then
\[
\Delta \ensuremath{\vdash}_{\mathrm{FOL}} \varphi \mathrm{\ \ \ iff\ \ \ }
\Gamma(\Delta, \varphi), \transl{\Delta} \ensuremath{\vdash}_{\ensuremath{{\cal I}}}
\transl{\varphi}
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_consistent_01}
The systems~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ and~$e\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ are consistent,
i.e. $\not\ensuremath{\vdash}_{\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s} \bot$ and $\not\ensuremath{\vdash}_{e\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s} \bot$.
\end{theorem}
This follows from Theorem~\ref{thm_embedding_01}, but we actually
prove Theorem~\ref{thm_consistent_01} first by constructing a model,
and then use this construction to show Theorem~\ref{thm_embedding_01}.
We now give an informal overview of the model construction. To
simplify the exposition we pretend~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ allows only function
types. Inductive types and subtypes add some technicalities, but the
general idea of the construction remains the same. This overview is
necessarily very brief. An interested reader is advised to consult a
technical appendix for more details.
An $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$-model is defined essentially as a $\lambda$-model (see
e.g. \cite[Chapter 5]{Barendregt1984}) with designated elements
interpreting the constants of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$, satisfying certain
requirements. By~$\valuation{t}{}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}}$ we denote the interpretation
of the $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$-term~$t$ in a model~$\ensuremath{{\cal M}}$. The conditions imposed on an
$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$-model express the meaning of each rule of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ according to
the intuitive semantics. For instance, we have the conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[($\forall_\top$)] for $a \in \ensuremath{{\cal M}}$, if
$\valuation{\mathrm{Is}}{}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}} \cdot a \cdot
\valuation{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}}{}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}} = \valuation{\top}{}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}}$ and for all $c
\in \ensuremath{{\cal M}}$ such that $\valuation{\mathrm{Is}}{}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}} \cdot c \cdot a =
\valuation{\top}{}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}}$ we have $b \cdot c =
\valuation{\top}{}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}}$ then $\valuation{\forall}{}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}} \cdot a
\cdot b = \valuation{\top}{}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}}$,
\item[($\forall_e$)] for $a,b \in \ensuremath{{\cal M}}$, if $\valuation{\forall}{}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}}
\cdot a \cdot b = \valuation{\top}{}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}}$ then for all $c \in A$
such that $\valuation{\mathrm{Is}}{}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}} \cdot c \cdot a =
\valuation{\top}{}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}}$ we have $b \cdot c =
\valuation{\top}{}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}}$.
\end{itemize}
Here $\cdot$ is the application operation in the model.
We show that the semantics based on $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$-models is sound
for~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$. Then it suffices to construct a non-trivial (i.e. such
that $\valuation{\top}{}{} \ne \valuation{\bot}{}{}$) $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$-model to
establish consistency of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$. The model will in fact satisfy
additional conditions corresponding to the rules~$e_f$ and~$e_b$, so
we obtain consistency of~$e\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ as well.
The model is constructed as the set of equivalence classes of a
certain relation~$\ensuremath{\stackrel{*}{\Leftrightarrow}}$ on the set of so called semantic terms. A
semantic term is a well-founded tree whose leaves are labelled with
variables or constants, and whose internal nodes are labelled with
$\cdot$, $\lambda x$ or $\ensuremath{\mathrm{A}}\tau$. The intuitive interpretation of
nodes labelled with~$\cdot$ or $\lambda x$ is obvious. For semantic
terms with the roots labelled with~$\cdot$ and~$\lambda x$ we use the
abbreviations~$t_1 t_2$ and~$\lambda x . t$, respectively. A node
labelled with~$\ensuremath{\mathrm{A}}\tau$ represents universal quantification over a
set of constants~$\tau$, i.e. it ``represents'' the statement: for all
$c \in \tau$, $t c$ is true. Such a node has one child for each $c \in
\tau$. The relation~$\ensuremath{\stackrel{*}{\Leftrightarrow}}$ will be defined as the equivalence
relation generated by a certain reduction relation~$\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}$ on
semantic terms. The relation~$\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}$ will
satisfy\footnote{Substitution is defined for semantic terms in an
obvious way, avoiding variable capture.}: $(\lambda x . t_1) t_2
\ensuremath{\Rightarrow} t_1[x/t_2]$, $\lor \top t \ensuremath{\Rightarrow} \top$, $\lor \bot \bot
\ensuremath{\Rightarrow} \bot$, etc. The question is how to define~$\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}$
for~$\forall t_1 t_2$ so that the resulting structure
satisfies~($\forall_\top$). One could try closing~$\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}$ under the
rule:
\begin{itemize}
\item if $\mathrm{Is}\, t_1\, \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}} \ensuremath{\stackrel{*}{\Rightarrow}} \top$ and for all
semantic terms~$t$ such that $\mathrm{Is}\, t\, t_1 \ensuremath{\stackrel{*}{\Rightarrow}} \top$
we have $t_2 t \ensuremath{\stackrel{*}{\Rightarrow}} \top$, then $\forall t_1 t_2 \ensuremath{\Rightarrow}
\top$.
\end{itemize}
However, there is a negative reference to~$\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}$ here, so the
definition would not be monotone, and we would not necessarily reach a
fixpoint. This is a major problem. We somehow need to know the range
of all quantifiers beforehand. However, the range (i.e. the set of all
semantic terms~$t$ such that $t_1 t \ensuremath{\stackrel{*}{\Rightarrow}} \top$) depends on the
definition of~$\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}$, so it is not at all clear how to achieve
this.
Fortunately, it is not so difficult to analyze a priori the form of
types of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$. Informally, if $t : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}$ is true, then $t$
corresponds to a set in~$\ensuremath{{\cal T}}$, where~$\ensuremath{{\cal T}}$ is defined as follows,
ignoring subtypes and inductive types, but instead introducing a base
type~$\delta$ of individuals.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\delta, \ensuremath{\mathrm{Bool}} \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$ where $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Bool}} = \{\top,\bot\}$
and~$\delta$ is an arbitrary set of fresh constants.
\item If $\tau_1,\tau_2 \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$ then $\tau_2^{\tau_1} \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$, where
$\tau_2^{\tau_1}$ is the set of all set-theoretic functions
from~$\tau_1$ to~$\tau_2$.
\end{itemize}
We take the elements of~$\ensuremath{{\cal T}}$ and~$\bigcup \ensuremath{{\cal T}} \setminus \ensuremath{\mathrm{Bool}}$ as
fresh constants, i.e. they may occur as constants in semantic
terms. The elements of~$\bigcup \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$ are \emph{canonical
constants}. If $c \in \tau_2^{\tau_1}$ and $c_1 \in \tau_1$ then we
write $\ensuremath{{\cal F}}(c)(c_1)$ instead of $c(c_1)$ to avoid confusion with the
semantic term $c c_1$. We then define a relation~$\succ$ satisfying:
\begin{itemize}
\item $c \succ c$ for a canonical constant~$c$,
\item if $c \in \tau_2^{\tau_1}$ and for all $c_1 \in \tau_1$ there
exists a semantic term~$t'$ such that $t c_1 \ensuremath{\stackrel{*}{\Rightarrow}} t' \succ
\ensuremath{{\cal F}}(c)(c_1)$, then $t \succ c$.
\end{itemize}
Intuitively, $t \succ c \in \tau$ holds if~$c$ ``simulates''~$t$ in
type~$\tau$, i.e. $t$ behaves exactly like~$c$ in every context where
a term of type~$\tau$ is ``expected''.
The relation~$\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}$ is then defined by transfinite induction in a
monotone way. It will satisfy e.g.:
\begin{itemize}
\item if $t \succ c \in \tau \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$ then $\mathrm{Is}\,t\,\tau
\ensuremath{\Rightarrow} \top$,
\item if $t \succ c_1 \in \tau_1$ and $c \in \tau_2^{\tau_1}$ then $c
t \ensuremath{\Rightarrow} \ensuremath{{\cal F}}(c)(c_1)$,
\item $\mathrm{Fun}\,\tau_1\,\tau_2 \ensuremath{\Rightarrow} \tau_2^{\tau_1}$,
\item $\forall \tau t \ensuremath{\Rightarrow} t'$ where the label at the root of~$t'$
is~$\ensuremath{\mathrm{A}}\tau$, and for each $c \in \tau$, $t'$ has a child~$t c$,
\item $t \ensuremath{\Rightarrow} \top$ if the label of the root of~$t$ is~$\ensuremath{\mathrm{A}}\tau$,
and all children of~$t$ are labelled with~$\top$,
\item if $t_c \ensuremath{\stackrel{*}{\Rightarrow}} t_c'$ for all $c \in \tau \in \ensuremath{{\cal T}}$, the label
of the root of~$t$ is~$\ensuremath{\mathrm{A}}\tau$, and $\{ t_c \;|\; c \in \tau \}$
is the set of children of~$t$, then $t \ensuremath{\Rightarrow} t'$, where the label
of the root of~$t'$ is~$\ensuremath{\mathrm{A}}\tau$ and $\{t_c' \;|\; c \in \tau\}$ is
the set of children of~$t'$.
\end{itemize}
We removed negative references to~$\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}$, but it is not easy to
show that the resulting model will satisfy the required
conditions. Two key properties established in the correctness proof
are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}$ has the Church-Rosser property,
\item if $t_2 \succ c$ and $t_1 c \ensuremath{\stackrel{*}{\Rightarrow}} d \in \{\top,\bot\}$ then
$t_1 t_2 \ensuremath{\stackrel{*}{\Rightarrow}} d$.
\end{enumerate}
The second property shows that quantifying over only canonical
constants of type~$\tau$ is in a sense equivalent to quantifying over
all terms of type~$\tau$. This is essential for establishing e.g. the
condition~($\forall_\top$).
Both of these properties have rather intricate proofs. Essentially,
the proofs show certain commutation and postponement properties
for~$\ensuremath{\Rightarrow}$, $\succ$ and other auxiliary relations. The proofs
proceed by induction on lexicographic products of various ordinals and
other parameters associated with the relations and terms involved.
\section{Partiality and General Recursion}\label{sec_partiality}
In this section we give some examples of proofs in~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ of
properties of functions defined by recursion. For lack of space, we
give only informal indications of how formal proofs may be obtained,
assuming certain basic properties of operations on natural
numbers. The transformation of the given informal arguments into
formal proofs in~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ is not difficult. Mostly complete formal
proofs may be found in a technical appendix.
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}}
\begin{example}
Consider a term $\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}$ satisfying the following recursive equation:
\[
\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}} = \lambda i j \,.\, \Cond{(i =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} j)}{0}{\left(\left(\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}
\, i \, \left(j + 1\right)\right) + 1\right)}.
\]
If $i \ge j$ then $\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,i\,j = i - j$. If $i < j$ then
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,i\,j$ does not terminate. An appropriate specification for
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}$ is $\forall i, j : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, (i \ge j) \supset (\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\, i\,
j = i - j)$.
Let $\varphi(y) = \forall i : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, \forall j : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\,
\left(i \ge j \supset y =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} i - j \supset
\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,i\,j\,=\,i-j\right)$. We show by induction on~$y$ that
$\forall y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, \varphi(y)$.
First note that under the assumptions $y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$, $i : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$, $j :
\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$ it follows from Lemma~\ref{lem_nat_op_well_defined} that $(i
\ge j) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$ and $(y =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} i - j) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$. Hence, whenever $y :
\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$, to show $i \ge j \supset y =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} i - j \supset
\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,i\,j\,=\,i-j$ it suffices to derive $\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,i\,j\,=\,i-j$
under the assumptions $i \ge j$ and $y =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} i - j$. By
Lemma~\ref{lem_ind_leibniz_implies_eq} the assumption~$y =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} i -
j$ may be weakened to~$y = i - j$.
In the base step it thus suffices to show $\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,i\,j\,=\,i-j$
under the assumptions $i : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$, $j : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$, $i \ge j$, $i - j =
0$. From $i - j = 0$ we obtain $\ensuremath{\mathfrak{0}}(i - j)$, so $j \ge i$. From
$i \ge j$ and $i \le j$ we derive $i =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} j$ by
Lemma~\ref{lem_le_eq}. Then $\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,i\,j\,=\,i-j$ follows by simple
computation (i.e. by applying rules for~\mbox{Eq} and appropriate
rules for the conditional).
In the inductive step we have $\varphi(y)$ for $y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$ and we
need to obtain $\varphi(\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} y)$. It suffices to show $\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,i\,j = i
- j$ under the assumptions~$i : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$, $j : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$ and~$\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} y = i -
j$. Because $\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} y \ne_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} 0$ we have $i \ne_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} j$, hence
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,i\,j = \ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,i\,(\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} j))$ follows by computation. Using
the inductive hypothesis we now conclude $\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,i\,(\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} j) = i - (\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}}
j)$, and thus $\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,i\,(\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} j) =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} i - (\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} j)$ by reflexivity
of~$=_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$ on natural numbers. Then it follows by properties of
operations on natural numbers that~$\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}}(\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,i\,(\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} j)) =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} i -
j$. By Lemma~\ref{lem_ind_leibniz_implies_eq} we obtain the thesis.
We have thus completed an inductive proof of~$\forall y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\,
\varphi(y)$. Now we use this formula to derive $\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,i\,j\,=\,i-j$
under the assumptions $i : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$, $j : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$, $i \ge j$. Then it
remains to apply implication introduction and $\forall$-introduction
twice.
In the logic of PVS~\cite{RushbyOwreShankar1998} one may
define~$\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}$ by specifying its domain precisely using predicate
subtypes and dependent types, somewhat similarly to what is done
here. However, an important distinction is that we do not require a
domain specification to be a part of the definition. In an
interactive theorem prover based on our formalism no proof
obligations would need to be generated to establish termination
of~$\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}$ on its domain.
Note that because domain specification is not part of the definition
of~$\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}$, we may easily derive $\varphi \equiv \forall i, j : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}
\,.\, \left(\left(\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\, i\, j = i - j\right) \vee
\,\left(\ensuremath{\mathrm{subp}}\,j\, i = j - i\right)\right)$. This is not possible in
PVS because the formula~$\varphi$ translated to PVS generates false
proof obligations~\cite{RushbyOwreShankar1998}.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
The next example is a well-known ``challenge'' posed by McCarthy:
\[
f(n) = \Cond{(n > 100)}{(n - 10)}{(f(f(n + 11)))}
\]
For $n \le 101$ we have $f(n) = 91$, which fact may be proven by
induction on $101 - n$. This function is interesting because of its
use of nested recursion. Termination behavior of a nested recursive
function may depend on its functional behavior, which makes
reasoning about termination and function value interdependent. This
creates problems for systems with definitional restrictions of
possible forms of recursion. Below we give an indication of how a
formal proof of~$\forall n : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, n \le 101 \supset f(n) = 91$
may be derived in~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$. Lemma~\ref{lem_nat_op_well_defined} is
used implicitly with implication introduction.
Let $\varphi(y) \equiv \forall n : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, n \le 101 \supset 101 - n
\le y \supset f(n) = 91$. We prove $\forall y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, \varphi(y)$
by induction on~$y$.
In the base step we need to prove~$f(n) = 91$ under the
assumptions~$n : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$, $n \le 101$ and~$101 - n \le y = 0$. We
have~$n =_\ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} 101$, hence $n = 101$, and the thesis follows by
simple computation.
In the inductive step we distinguish three cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $n + 11 > 101$ and $n < 101$,
\item $n + 11 > 101$ and $n \ge 101$,
\item $n + 11 \le 101$.
\end{enumerate}
We need to prove~$f(n) = 91$ under the assumptions of the inductive
hypothesis~$y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}, \forall m : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, m \le 101 \supset 101 -
m \le y \supset f(m) = 91$, and of $n : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}}$, $n \le 101$ and~$101
- n \le (\ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} y)$.
In the first case we have $f(n + 11) = n + 1$ and $n + 1 \le
101$. Hence by the inductive hypothesis we conclude~$100 - n \le y
\supset f(n + 1) = 91$. From~$101 - n \le \ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} y$ we infer~$100 - n
\le y$, and hence~$f(n + 1) = 91$. Since~$n \le 100$ it follows by
computation that~$f(n) = f(f(n + 11)) = f(n + 1) = 91$.
In the second case~$n = 101$ and the thesis follows by simple
computation.
In the third case, from~$101 - n \le \ensuremath{\mathfrak{s}} y$ we infer~$101 - (n + 11)
\le y$. Since $n + 11 \le 101$ we conclude by the inductive
hypothesis that~$f(n + 11) = 91$. Because~$n + 11 \le 101$, so~$n
\le 100$, and by definition we infer~$f(n) = f(f(n + 11)) =
f(91)$. Now we simply compute~$f(91) = f(f(102)) = f(92) = f(f(103))
= \ldots = f(100) = f(f(111)) = f(101) = 91$ (i.e. we apply rules
for~$\mbox{Eq}$ and rules for the conditional an appropriate number
of times).
This concludes the inductive proof of~$\forall y : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, \forall n
: \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, n \le 101 \supset 101 - n \le y \supset f(n) = 91$. Having
this it is not difficult to show~$\forall n : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Nat}} \,.\, n \le 101
\supset f(n) = 91$.
Note that the computation of~$f(91)$ in the inductive step relies on
the fact that in our logic values of functions may always be
computed for specific arguments, regardless of what we know about
the function, regardless of whether it terminates in general.
\end{example}
\section{Related Work}\label{sec_related}
In this section we discuss the relationship between~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ and the
traditional illative system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_\omega$. We also briefly survey some
approaches to dealing with partiality and general recursion in proof
assistants. A general overview of the literature relevant to this
problem may be found in~\cite{BoveKraussSozeau2012}.
\subsection{Relationship with Systems of Illative Combinatory Logic}
In terms of the features provided, the system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ may be considered
an extension of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_\omega$ from~\cite{Czajka2013Accepted}. However,
there are some technical differences between~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ and traditional
systems of illative combinatory logic. For one thing, traditional
systems strive to use as few constants and rules as possible. For
instance, $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_\omega$ has only two primitive constants, disregarding
constants representing base types. Because of this in~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_\omega$
e.g. $\Is = \lambda xy \,.\, y x$ and $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} = \lambda x \,.\, \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}
(\lambda y . x)$, using the notation of the present paper. Moreover,
the names of the primitive constants and the notations employed when
discussing traditional illative systems are not in common use
today. We will not explain these technicalities in any more
detail. The reader may
consult~\cite{Seldin2009,illat01,Czajka2013Accepted} for more
information on illative combinatory logic.
The system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_\omega$ from~\cite{Czajka2013Accepted} is a direct
extension of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}\Xi$ from~\cite{illat01} to higher-order logic. The
ideas behind~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_\omega$ date back to~\cite{Bunder1983}, or even
earlier as far as the general form of restrictions in inference rules
is concerned.
Below we briefly describe a system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_\omega'$ which is a variant
of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_\omega$ adapted to our notation. It differs somewhat
from~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_\omega$, mostly by taking more constants as primitive, and
thus having more rules and axioms. However, we believe that despite
these differences it is reasonably close to~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_\omega$ and shares its
essential properties.
The terms of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_\omega'$ are those of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$, except that we do not
allow subtypes, inductive types, Eq, Cond, $\vee$, $\bot$ and
$\epsilon$. There are also additional primitive constants: $\omega$
(the type of all terms), $\varepsilon$ (the empty type)
and~$\supset$. The axioms are: $\Gamma, \varphi \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi$,
$\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}$, $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varepsilon : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}$,
$\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \omega : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}}$, $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t : \omega$. The
rules are: $\forall_i$, $\forall_e$, $\forall_t$, $\supset_i$,
$\supset_e$, $\supset_t$, $\to_i$, $\to_e$, $\to_t$, $p_i$, and the
rules:
\begin{longtable}{lr}
\(
\mathrm{conv}: \inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi \\ \varphi =_\beta \psi
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \psi
}
\)
&
\(
\varepsilon_\bot: \inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} t : \varepsilon
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \bot
}
\)
\\
& \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\(
\to_p: \inferrule{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \alpha : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Type}} \\ \Gamma, x : \alpha \ensuremath{\vdash} ((t x) :
\beta) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}} \\ x \notin FV(\Gamma, t)
}{
\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} (t : \alpha \to \beta) : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}
}
\)
}
\end{longtable}
Here $\varphi =_\beta \psi$ is a meta-level side-condition expressing
$\beta$-equivalence of the terms~$\varphi$ and~$\psi$.
\subsection{Partiality and Recursion in Proof Assistants}
Perhaps the most common way of dealing with recursion in interactive
theorem provers is to impose certain syntactic restrictions on the
form of recursive definitions so as to guarantee well-foundedness. For
instance, the {\bf fix} construct in Coq allows for structurally
recursive definitions whose well-foundedness must be checked by a
built-in automatic syntactic termination checker. Some systems,
e.g. ACL2 or PVS, pass the task of proving termination to the
user. Such systems require that a well-founded relation or a measure
be given with each recursive function definition. Then the system
generates so called proof obligations, or termination conditions,
which state that the recursive calls are made on smaller
arguments. The user must solve, i.e. prove, these obligations.
The method of restricting possible forms of recursive definitions
obviously works only for total functions. If a function does not in
fact terminate on some elements of its specified domain, then it
cannot be introduced by a well-founded definition. One solution is to
use a rich type system, e.g. dependent types combined with predicate
subtyping, to precisely specify function domains so as to rule out the
arguments on which the function does not terminate. This approach is
adopted by PVS~\cite{RushbyOwreShankar1998}. A related method of
introducing general recursive functions in constructive type theory is
to first define a special inductive accessibility predicate which
precisely characterises the domain~\cite{BoveCapretta2005}. The
function is then defined by structural recursion on the proof that the
argument satisfies the accessibility predicate.
A different approach to dealing with partiality and general recursion
is to use a special logic which allows partial functions
directly. Systems adopting this approach are often based on variants
of the logic of partial terms of Beeson \cite{Feferman1995},
\cite{Beeson1986b}. For instance, the IMPS interactive theorem
prover~\cite{FarmerGuttmanThayer1993} uses Farmer's logic PF of
partial functions~\cite{Farmer1990}, which is essentially a variant of
the logic of partial terms adapted to higher-order logic. In these
logics there is an additional definedness predicate which enables
direct reasoning about definedness of terms.
The above gives only a very brief overview. There are many approaches
to the problem of partiality and general recursion in interactive
theorem provers, most of which we didn't mention. We do not attempt
here to provide a detailed comparison with a multitude of existing
approaches or give in-depth arguments in favor of our system. For such
arguments to be entirely convincing, they would need to be backed up
by extensive experimentation in proving properties of sizable programs
using a proof assistant based on our logic. No such proof assistants
yet exist and no such experimentation has been undertaken. In
contrast, our interest is theoretical.
\section{Conclusion}
We have presented a system~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ of classical higher-order illative
$\lambda$-calculus with subtyping and basic inductive types. A
distinguishing characteristic of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ is that it is based on the
untyped $\lambda$-calculus. Therefore, it allows recursive definitions
of potentially non-terminating functions directly. The inference rules
of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ are formulated in a way that makes it possible to apply them
even when some of the terms used in the premises have not been proven
to belong to any type. Additionally, our system may be considered an
extension of ordinary higher-order logic, obtained by relaxing the
typing restrictions on allowable $\lambda$-terms. We believe these
facts alone make it relevant to the problem of partiality and
recursion in proof assistants, and the system at least deserves some
attention.
Some open problems related to~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ are as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ conservative over higher-order logic
(Conjecture~\ref{conj_conservative_hol})?
\item How to best incorporate a broader class of inductive types than
just basic inductive types, e.g. all strictly positive inductive
types?
\item How far is it possible to broaden the class of allowed types and
still have a consistency proof in ZFC? For instance, in our model
construction we could try naively interpreting dependent types by
set-theoretic cartesian products when constructing the set~$\ensuremath{{\cal T}}$
(see the overview of the consistency proof in
Sect.~\ref{sec_consistent}), but we would run out of sets. We
conjecture that our construction may be modified to incorporate
dependent types in the way indicated if we work in ZFC with one
strongly inaccessible cardinal. This modification should not pose
any fundamental difficulties. Is it possible prove consistency
of~$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_s$ with dependent types in plain ZFC?
\item Can the premises $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$ in the
rules~$c_3$ and~$c_4$ be removed?
\item Can the premise $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$ in the
rule~$c_5$ be removed?
\end{enumerate}
Note that the premises $\Gamma \ensuremath{\vdash} \varphi : \ensuremath{\mathrm{Prop}}$ cannot be
removed in~$c_3$, $c_4$ and~$c_5$ simultaneously. Let~$\varphi$ be
such that $\varphi = \neg \varphi$. Since $\varphi \ensuremath{\vdash} \bot$ and
$\neg\varphi \ensuremath{\vdash} \bot$, it is easy to see that we would have both
$\ensuremath{\vdash} \Cond{\varphi}{\top}{\bot} = \top$ and $\ensuremath{\vdash}
\Cond{\varphi}{\top}{\bot} = \bot$.
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}
|
\section{Background on the Carlitz module}
\noindent Let $\mathbb F_q$ be a finite field having $q$ elements, $q\geq 3,$ and let $p$ be the characteristic of $\mathbb F_q.$ Let $T$ be an indeterminate over $\mathbb F_q,$ and set : $ k:= \mathbb F_q(T),$ $A:= \mathbb F_q[T],$ $A_{+}:=\{ a\in A, \, a \, {\rm monic}\, \}.$ A prime in $A$ will be a monic irreducible polynomial in $A.$ Let $\infty$ be the unique place of $k$ which is a pole of $T,$ and set : $k_{\infty }:= \mathbb F_q((\frac{1}{T})).$ Let $\mathbb C_{\infty}$ be a completion of an algebraic closure of $k_{\infty},$ then $\mathbb C_{\infty}$ is algebraically closed and complete and we denote by $v_{\infty}$ the valuation on $\mathbb C_{\infty}$ normalized such that $v_{\infty} (T)=-1.$ We fix an embedding of an algebraic closure of $k$ in $\mathbb C_{\infty},$ and thus all the finite extensions of $k$ considered in this note will be contained in $\mathbb C_{\infty}.$ \par
\noindent Let $L/k$ be a finite extension, we denote by :\par
\noindent - $S_{\infty}(L):$ the set of places of $L$ above $\infty ,$ if $w\in S_{\infty}(L)$ we denote the completion of $L$ at $w$ by $L_w$ and we view $L_w$ as a subfield of $\mathbb C_{\infty},$\par
\noindent - $O_L:$ the integral closure of $A$ in $L,$\par
\noindent - $\Pic (O_L):$ the ideal class group of $L,$\par
\noindent - $L_{\infty}:$ the $k_{\infty}$-algebra $L\otimes_kk_{\infty},$ recall that we have a natural isomorphism of $k_{\infty}$-algebras : $L_{\infty}\simeq \prod_{w\in S_{\infty}(L)} L_w.$\par
\subsection{The Carlitz exponential} ${}$\par
\noindent Set $D_0=1$ and for $i\geq 1, \, D_i=(T^{q^i}-T)D_{i-1}^q.$ The Carlitz exponential is defined by :
$$e_C(X)=\sum_{i\geq 0}\frac{X^{q^i}}{D_i}\, \in k[[X]].$$
Since $\forall i\geq 0,$ $v_{\infty}(D_i) =-iq^i,$ we deduce that $e_C$ defines an entire function on $\mathbb C_{\infty}$ and that $e_C(\mathbb C_{\infty})=\mathbb C_{\infty}.$ Observe that :
$$e_C(TX) = Te_C(X)+ e_C(X)^q.$$
Thus, $\forall a\in A,$ there exists a $\mathbb F_q$-linear polynomial $\phi_a(X)\in A[X]$ such that $e_C(aX)=\phi_a(e_C(X)).$ The map $\phi : A\rightarrow End_{\mathbb F_q}(A),$ $a\mapsto \phi_a,$ is an injective morphism of $\mathbb F_q$-algebras called the Carlitz module.\par
\noindent Let $\varepsilon _C ={}^{q-1}\sqrt{T-T^q}\prod_{j\geq 1}(1-\frac{T^{q^j }-T}{T^{q^{j+1}}-T})\, \in \mathbb C_{\infty}.$ Then by \cite{GOS} Theorem 3.2.8, we have the following equality in $\mathbb C_{\infty}[[X]]:$
$$e_C(X)=X\prod_{\alpha \in \varepsilon_CA\setminus \{0\}}(1-\frac{X}{\alpha}).$$
Note that $v_{\infty}(\varepsilon_C)=-\frac{q}{q-1}.$
Let $log_C(X)\in k[[X]]$ be the formal inverse of $e_C(X),$ i.e. $e_C(log_C(X))=log_C(e_C(X))=X.$ Then by \cite{GOS} page 57, we have :
$$log_C(X)=\sum_{i\geq 0}\frac{X^{q^i}}{L_i},$$
where $L_0=1,$ and for $i\geq 1, $ $L_i =(T-T^{q^i}) L_{i-1}.$ Observe that $\forall i\geq 0, \, v_{\infty}(L_i)= -\frac{q^{i+1}-q}{q-1}.$ Therefore $log_C$ converges on $\{ \alpha \in \mathbb C_{\infty}, \, v_{\infty}(\alpha )> -\frac{q}{q-1}\}.$ Furthermore, for $\alpha$ in $\mathbb C_{\infty }$ such that $v_{\infty }(\alpha)> -\frac{q}{q-1},$ we have :\par
\noindent - $v_{\infty} (e_C(\alpha))=v_{\infty}(log_C(\alpha))=v_{\infty}(\alpha ),$\par
\noindent - $e_C(log_C(\alpha))=log_C(e_C(\alpha))=\alpha.$\par
\subsection{Torsion points}${}$\par
\noindent We recall some basic properties of cyclotomic function fields. For a nice introduction to the arithmetic properties of such fields, we refer the reader to \cite{ROS} chapter 12. Let $P$ be a prime of $A$ of degree $d.$ Set $\Lambda_P:=\{ \alpha\in \mathbb C_{\infty}, \, \phi_P(\alpha)=0\}.$ Note that the elements of $\Lambda_P$ are integral over $A,$ and that $\Lambda_P$ is a $A$-module via $\phi$ which is isomorphic to $\frac{A}{PA}.$ Set $\lambda_P=e_C(\frac{\varepsilon_C}{P}),$ then $\lambda_P$ is a generator of the $A$-module $\Lambda_P.$ Let $K_P=k(\Lambda_P)=k(\lambda_P).$ We have the following properties :\par
\noindent - $K_P/k$ is an abelian extension of degree $q^d-1,$\par
\noindent - $K_P/k$ is unramified outside $P, \infty,$\par
\noindent - let $R_P=O_{K_P},$ then $R_P=A[\lambda_P],$\par
\noindent - if $w\in S_{\infty}(K_P),$ the completion of $K_P$ at $w$ is equal to $k_{\infty}(\varepsilon _C),$ in particular the decomposition group at $w$ is equal to the inertia group at $w$ and is isomorphic to $\mathbb F_q^*,$ furthermore $\mid S_{\infty}(K_P)\mid =\frac{q^d-1}{q-1},$\par
\noindent - $K_P/k$ is totally ramified at $P$ and the unique prime ideal of $R_P$ above $P$ is equal to $\lambda_PR_P,$\par
\noindent Let $\Delta={\rm Gal}(K_P/k).$ For $a\in A\setminus PA,$ we denote by $\sigma _a$ the element in $\Delta$ such that $\sigma _a(\lambda_P)=\phi_a(\lambda_P).$ The map : $A\setminus PA \rightarrow \Delta, $ $a\mapsto \sigma_a$ induces an isomorphism of groups :
$$(\frac{A}{PA})^*\simeq \Delta.$$
\subsection{The unit module and the class module}${}$\par
\noindent Let $R$ be an $A$-algebra, we denote by $C(R)$ the $\mathbb F_q$-algebra $R$ equipped with the $A$-module structure induced by $\phi,$ i.e. : $\forall r\in C(R),$ $T.r= \phi_T(r)= Tr+r^q.$ For example, the Carlitz exponential induces the following exact sequence of $A$-modules :
$$0\rightarrow \varepsilon_CA\rightarrow \mathbb C_{\infty}\rightarrow C(\mathbb C_{\infty})\rightarrow 0.$$
Let $L/K$ be a finite extension, then B. Poonen has proved in \cite{POO} that $C(O_L)$ is not a finitely generated $A$-module. Recently, L. Taelman has introduced in \cite{TAE1} a natural sub-$A$-module of $C(O_L)$ which is finitely generated and called the unit module associated to $L$ and $\phi.$ Fisrt note that the Carlitz exponential induces a morphism of $A$-modules : $L_{\infty} \rightarrow C(L_{\infty}),$ and the kernel of this map is a free $A$-module of rank $\mid\{ w\in S_{\infty}(L),\, \varepsilon_C \in L_w\} \mid.$ Now, let's consider the natural map of $A$-modules induced by the inclusion $C(O_L)\subset C(L_{\infty}):$
$$\alpha_L :\, C(O_L) \rightarrow \frac{C(L_{\infty})}{e_C(L_{\infty})}.$$
L. Taelman has proved the following remarkable results (\cite{TAE1}, Theorem 1, Corollary 1):\par
\noindent - $U(O_L):= {\rm Ker}\alpha_L$ is a finitely generated $A$-module of rank $[L:k]-\mid\{ w\in S_{\infty}(L),\, \varepsilon_C \in L_w\} \mid,$ the $A$-module (via $\phi$) $U(O_L)$ is called the unit module attached to $L$ and $\phi,$\par
\noindent - $H(O_L):= {\rm Coker} \alpha_L$ is a finite $A$-module called the class module associated to $L$ and $\phi .$\par
\noindent Set:
$$\zeta_{O_L}(1):= \sum_{I\not = (0)}\frac{1}{[\frac{O_L}{I}]_A}\, \in k_{\infty},$$
where the sum is taken over the non-zero ideals of $O_L,$ and where for any finite $A$-module $M,$ $[M]_A$ denotes the monic generator of the Fitting ideal of the finite $A$-module $M.$ Then, we have the following class number formula (\cite{TAE2}, Theorem 1) :
$$\zeta_{O_L}(1) =[H(O_L)]_A\, [O_L:e_C^{-1}(O_L)]\,,$$
where $[O_L:e_C^{-1}(O_L)]\in k_{\infty}^*$ is a kind of regulator (see \cite{TAE2} for more details).\par
\section {The unit module for $\mathbb F_q[T]$}
\subsection{Sums of polynomials}${}$\par
\noindent In this paragraph, we recall some computations made by G. Anderson and D. Thakur (\cite{AND&THA} pages 183,184).\par
\noindent Let $X,Y$ be two indeterminates over $k.$ We define the polynomial $\Psi_k(X)\in A[X]$ by the following identity :
$$e_C(Xlog_C(Y))=\sum_{k\geq 0}\Psi_k(X)Y^{q^k}.$$
We have that $\Psi_0(X)=X$ and for $k\geq 1:$
$$\Psi_k(X)=\sum_{i=0}^{k}\frac{1}{D_i(L_{k-i})^{q^i}}X^{q^i}.$$
For $a=a_0+a_1 T+\cdots +a_nT^n , $ $a_0,\cdots a_n \in \mathbb F_q,$ we have :
$$\phi_a(X)=\sum_{i=0}^n [^{a}_i] X^{q^i},$$
where $[^{a}_i] \in A$ for $i=0,\cdots ,n,$ $[^{a}_0]=a$ and $[^{a}_n]=a_n.$ But since $e_C(aX)=\phi_a(e_C(X)),$ we deduce that for $k\geq 1$ :
$$\Psi_k (X) =\frac{1}{D_k} \prod_{a\in A(d)}(X-a),$$
where $A(d)$ is the set of elements in $A$ of degree strictly less than $k.$ In particular :
$$\Psi_k(X+T^k) =\Psi_k(X)+1 =\frac{1}{D_k}\prod_{a\in A_{+,k}}(X+a),$$
where $A_{+,k}$ is the set of monic elements in $A$ of degree $k.$ Now for $j\in \mathbb N$ and for $i \in \mathbb Z,$ set :
$$S_j(i) =\sum_{a\in A_{+,j}}a^i \, \in k.$$
Note that the derivative of $\Psi_k(X)$ is equal to $\frac{1}{L_k}.$ Therefore we get :
$$\frac{1}{L_k} \frac{1}{\Psi_k(X)+1}=\sum_{a\in A_{+,k}}\frac{1}{X+a}.$$
Thus:
$$\frac{1}{L_k} \frac{1}{\Psi_k(X)+1}=\sum_{n\geq 0} (-1)^n S_k(-n-1) X^{n}.$$
But :
$$\Psi_k(X) \equiv \frac{1}{L_k} X \mod{X^q}.$$
Therefore :
$$\forall k\geq 0, \, {\rm for}\, c\in \{ 1, \cdots , q-1\},\, S_k(-c) =\frac{1}{L_k^c} .$$
But observe that we also have :
$$\frac{1}{L_k} \frac{1}{\Psi_k(X)+1}=\sum_{n\geq 0} (-1)^n S_k(n) X^{-n-1}.$$
But :
$$\frac{1}{\Psi_k(X)+1}\equiv 0\pmod{X^{-q^k}}.$$
Therefore :
$$\forall k\geq 0, \, {\rm for}\, i\in \{0,\cdots , q^k -2\}, \, S_k(i)=0.$$
The Bernoulli-Goss numbers, $B(i)$ for $i\in \mathbb N,$ are elements of $A$ defined as follows :\par
\noindent - $B(0)=1,$\par
\noindent - if $i\geq 1$ and $i\not \equiv 0\pmod{q-1},$ $B(i) =\sum_{j\geq 0}S_j(i)$ which is a finite sum by our previous discussion,\par
\noindent - if $i\geq 1,$ $i\equiv 0\pmod{q-1},$ $B(i) =\sum_{j\geq 0} jS_j(i) \in A.$\par
\noindent We have :
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma1}
Let $P$ be a prime of $A$ of degree $d$ and let $c\in \{2, \cdots , q-1\}.$ Then :
$$B(q^d-c)\equiv \sum_{k=0}^{d-1} \frac{1}{L_k^{c-1}}\pmod{P}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Note that $q^d-c$ is not divisible by $q-1$ and that $1\leq q^d-c< q^d-1.$ Thus :
$$B(q^d-c)=\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} S_k(q^d-c).$$
Now, for $k\in \{0,\cdots , d-1\},$ we have :
$$S_k(q^d-c)\equiv S_k(1-c)\pmod {P}.$$
The lemma follows by our previous computations.
\end{proof}
\noindent We will also nee some properties of the polynomial $\Psi_k :$
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma2}
${}$\par
\noindent 1) Let $X,Y$ be two indeterminates over $k.$ We have :
$$\forall k\geq 0,\, \Psi_k(XY)=\sum_{i=0}^{k}\Psi_i(X)\Psi_{k-i}(Y)^{q^i}.$$
2) For $k \geq 0,$ we have :
$$\psi_{k+1}(X)=\frac{\Psi_k(X)^q-\Psi_k(X)}{T^{q^{k+1}}-T}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} ${}$\par
\noindent 1) Recall that we have seen that :
$$\forall a\in A,\, \phi_a(X)=\sum_{k\geq 0} \Psi_k(a) X^{q^k}.$$
Furthermore, for $a\in A :$
$$e_C(aXlog_C(Y))=\phi_a(e_C(Xlog_C(Y))).$$
Thus, for all $a\in A:$
$$\forall k\geq 0,\, \Psi_k(aX)=\sum_{i=0}^{k}\Psi_i(a)\Psi_{k-i}(X)^{q^i}.$$
The first assertion of the lemma follows.\par
\noindent 2) For all $a\in A,$ we have :
$$\phi_a(TX+X^q)=T\phi_a(X)+\phi_a(X)^q.$$
Thus, for all $a\in A :$
$$\forall k\geq 0, \, \psi_{k+1}(a)=\frac{\Psi_k(a)^q-\Psi_k(a)}{T^{q^{k+1}}-T}.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma3}
\noindent Let $P$ be a prime of $A$ of degree $d.$ We have :
$$\phi_P(X)=\sum_{k=0}^d [^{P}_k]X^{q^k},$$
where $[^{P}_0]=P$ and $[^{P}_d]=1.$ Then, for $k=0, \cdots , d-1,$ $P$ divides $[^{P}_k]$ and :
$$\frac{[^{P}_k]}{P}\equiv \frac{1}{L_k}\pmod{P}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Since $[^{P}_k]=\Psi_k(P),$ the lemma follows from the second assertion of lemma \ref{lemma2}.
\end{proof}
\noindent If we combine lemma \ref{lemma1} and lemma \ref{lemma3}, we get :
\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary1}
${}$\par
\noindent Let $P$ be a prime of $A$ of degree $d.$ Then :
$$\phi_{P-1}(1)\equiv PB(q^d-2)\pmod{P^2}.$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark} D. Thakur has informed the authors that the congruence in corollary \ref{corollary1} was already observed by him in \cite{THA}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The unit module for $\mathbb F_{q^n }[T]$}${}$\par
\noindent Set $k_n=\mathbb F_{q^n}(T)$ and $A_n=\mathbb F_{q^n}[T].$ In this paragraph we will determine $U(A_n)$ and $H(A_n).$ We have :
$$k_{n,\infty}=k_n\otimes _k k_{\infty}=\mathbb F_{q^n }((\frac{1}{T})).$$
Let $\varphi$ be the Frobenius of $\mathbb F_{q^n}/\mathbb F_q,$ recall that $k_n/k$ is a cyclic extension of degree $n$ and its Galois group is generated by $\varphi.$ Set $G={\rm Gal}(k_n/k)$ and let $\alpha \in \mathbb F_{q^n}$ which generates a normal basis of $\mathbb F_{q^n}/\mathbb F_q.$ Then $A_n$ is a free $A[G]$-module of rank one generated by $\alpha .$ Note that :
$$k_{n,\infty} =A_n\oplus \frac{1}{T} \mathbb F_{q^n}[[\frac{1}{T}]].$$
By the results of paragraph 1.1 :
$$log_C(\alpha) \in \mathbb F_{q^n}[[\frac{1}{T}]]^*,$$
and :
$$e_C(\frac{1}{T} \mathbb F_{q^n}[[\frac{1}{T}]]) = \frac{1}{T} \mathbb F_{q^n}[[\frac{1}{T}]].$$
Now :
$$k_{n,\infty}=\oplus_{i=0}^{n-1}k_{\infty}log_C(\alpha^{q^i}).$$
Thus :
$$k_{n,\infty}= \frac{1}{T} \mathbb F_{q^n}[[\frac{1}{T}]]\oplus (\oplus_{i=0}^{n-1} A\, log_C(\alpha^{q^i})).$$
Let $\mathfrak S_n(A)$ be the sub-$A$-module of $C(A_n)$ generated by $\mathbb F_{q^n},$ then $\mathfrak S_n(A)$ is a free $A$-module of rank $n$ generated by $\{ \alpha, \alpha ^q,\cdots , \alpha^{q^{n-1}} \}.$ We have :
$$e_C(k_{n,\infty})= \mathfrak S_n(A)\oplus \frac{1}{T} \mathbb F_{q^n}[[\frac{1}{T}]].$$
Thus :
$$U(A_n)=A_n\cap e_C(k_{n,\infty})= \mathfrak S_n (A),$$
and :
$$H(A_n)=\frac {C(k_{n,\infty})}{ C(A_n)+e_C(k_{n,\infty})}=\{ 0\}.$$
In particular, for $n=1,$ we get $U(A)=\mathfrak S_1(A)=$ the free $A$-module of rank one generated (via $\phi$) by $1$ and $H(A)=\{ 0\}.$\par
\noindent Let $F\in k_{\infty}[G]$ be defined by :
$$F=\sum_{i= 0}^{n-1} (\sum_{j\equiv i\pmod{n}}\frac{1}{L_j} )\varphi ^i.$$
Then :
$$e_C^{-1} (A_n) =\oplus_{i=0}^{n-1} A\, log_C(\alpha ^{q ^i}) =F A_n.$$
Write $n=mp^{\ell},$ where $\ell \geq 0$ and $m\not \equiv 0\pmod{p}.$ Let $\mu_{m}=\{ x\in \mathbb C_{\infty} ,\, x^m=1\}$ which is a cyclic group of order $m.$ Then we can compute Taelman's regulator (just calculate the "determinant" of $F$) :
$$[A_n:e_C^{-1} (A_n)]= ((-1)^{m-1}\prod_{\zeta\in \mu_m} (\sum_{i= 0}^{n-1} (\sum_{j\equiv i\pmod{n}}\frac{1}{L_j} )\zeta^i))^{p^{\ell}}.$$
Thus, Taelman's class number formula becomes in this case :
$$\zeta_{A_n}(1)=((-1)^{m-1}\prod_{\zeta\in \mu_m} (\sum_{i= 0}^{n-1} (\sum_{j\equiv i\pmod{n}}\frac{1}{L_j} )\zeta^i))^{p^{\ell}}.$$
In particular, we get the following formula already known by Carlitz :
$$\zeta_A(1)=log_C(1).$$
\subsection {The $P$-adic behavior of "$1$"}${}$\par
\noindent Let $P$ be a prime of $A$ of degree $d.$ Let $\mathbb C_P$ be a completion of an algebraic closure of the $P$-adic completion of $k.$ Let $v_P$ be the valuation on $\mathbb C_P$ such that $v_P(P)=1.$ For $x\in \mathbb R,$ we denote the integer part of $x$ by $[x].$ Let $i\in \mathbb N\setminus \{0\}$ and observe that $v_P(T^{q^i}-T)= 1$ if $d$ divides $i$ and $v_P(T^{q^i}-T)= 0$ otherwise. Therefore :\par
\noindent - for $i\geq 0,$ $v_P(L_i)=[i/d],$\par
\noindent - for $i\geq 0,$ $v_P(D_i) = \frac{q^i - q^{i-[i/d]d}}{q^d-1}.$\par
\noindent This implies that $log_C(\alpha)$ converges for $\alpha \in \mathbb C_P$ such that $v_P(\alpha )>0,$ and that $e_C(\alpha )$ converges for $\alpha \in \mathbb C_P$ such that $v_P(\alpha )> \frac{1}{q^d-1}.$ Furthermore, for $\alpha \in \mathbb C_P$ such that $v_P(\alpha)>\frac{1}{q^d-1},$ we have :\par
\noindent - $v_P(e_C(\alpha ))=v_P(log_C(\alpha ))=v_P(\alpha),$\par
\noindent - $e_C(log_C(\alpha ))=log_C(e_C (\alpha ))=\alpha .$\par
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma4}
Let $A_P$ be the $P$-adic completion of $A.$ There exists $x\in A_P$ such that $\phi_P(x)=\phi_{P-1}(1)$ if and only if $\phi_{P-1}(1) \equiv 0\pmod{P^2}.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}${}$\par
\noindent First assume that $\phi_{P-1}(1)\not \equiv 0\pmod{P^2}.$ By lemma \ref{lemma3}, we have that $v_P(\phi_{P-1}(1))=1,$ and therefore $\phi_P(X)-\phi_{P-1}(1) \in A_P[X]$ is an Eisenstein polynomial. In particular there $\phi_{P-1}(1) \not \in \phi_P(A_P).$\par
\noindent Now, let's assume that $\phi_{P-1}(1)\equiv 0\pmod{P^2}.$ Then $v_P(log_C (\phi_{P-1}(1)))=v_P(\phi_{P-1}(1)).$ Therefore, there exists $y\in P A_P$ such that :
$$log_C (\phi_{P-1}(1))=Py.$$
Set $x=e_C(y) \in PA_P.$ We have :
$$\phi_P(x) = e_C(Py)=e_C(log_C (\phi_{P-1}(1)))= \phi_{P-1}(1).$$
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} Since $1$ is an Anderson's special point for the Carlitz module, the above lemma can also be deduced by corollary \ref{corollary1} and the work of G. Anderson in \cite{AND}. \end{remark}
\section{Hilbert class fields and the unit module for $\mathbb F_q[T]$}
${}$\par
\noindent Let $P$ be a prime of $A$ of degree $d.$ Recall that $K_P$ is the $P$th-cyclotomic function field, i.e. the finite extension of $k$ obtained by adjoining to $k$ the $P$th-torsion points of the Carlitz module. Let $R_P$ be the integral closure of $A$ in $K_P$ and let $\Delta$ be the Galois group of $K_P/k.$ Recall that $\Delta$ is a cyclic group of order $q^d-1$ (see paragraph 1.2). Recall that the unit module $U(A)$ is the free $A$-module (via $\phi$) generated by $1$ (see paragraph 2.2).\par
\subsection{Kummer theory}${}$\par
\noindent
We will need the following lemma:\par
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma5}
The natural morphism of $A$-modules :$\frac{U(A)}{P.U(A)}\rightarrow \frac{C(K_P)}{P.C(K_P)}$ induced by the inclusion $U(A)\subset C(K_P),$ is an injective map.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Recall that $K_{P,\infty}=K_P\otimes_kk_{\infty}.$ Let $Tr: K_{P,\infty}\rightarrow k_{\infty}$ be the trace map. Now let $x\in U(A) \cap P.C(K_P).$
Then there exits $z\in K_P$ such that $\phi_P(z)=x.$ Since $e_C(K_{P,\infty})$ is $A$-divisible, we get that $z\in U(R_P).$ Thus $Tr(z) \in U(A).$ But :
$$-x=\phi_P(Tr(z)).$$
Therefore $x\in P.U(A).$
\end{proof}
\noindent Let $\mathfrak U=\{ z\in \mathbb C_{\infty},\, \phi_P(z)\in U(A)\}.$ Then $\mathfrak U$ is an $A$-module (via $\phi $) and $P.\mathfrak U =U(A).$ Therefore the multiplication by $P$ gives rise to the following exact sequence of $A$-module:
$$0\rightarrow \Lambda_P\oplus U(A) \rightarrow \mathfrak U \rightarrow \frac{U(A)}{P.U(A)}\rightarrow 0.$$
Set $\gamma =e_C(\frac{P-1}{P} log_C(1)).$ Then $\gamma \in \mathfrak U.$ Set $L=K_P(\mathfrak U).$ By the above exact sequence, we observe that :
$$L= K_P(\gamma ).$$
Furthermore $L/k$ is a Galois extension and we set : $G={\rm Gal}(L/K_P)$ and $\mathfrak G ={\rm Gal}(L/k).$
Let $\delta \in \Delta$ and select $\widetilde {\delta} \in \mathfrak G$ such that the restriction of $\widetilde {\delta}$ to $K_P$ is equal to $\delta.$ Let $g\in G, $ then $\widetilde {\delta} g\widetilde {\delta}^{-1} \in G$ does not depend on the choice of $\widetilde {\delta}.$ Therefore $G$ is a $\mathbb F_p[\Delta]$ -module.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma6} We have a natural isomorphism of $\mathbb F_p[\Delta]$-modules :
$$G\simeq {\rm Hom}_A(\frac{U(A)}{P.U(A)}, \Lambda_P).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} ${}$\par
\noindent Recall that the multiplication by $P$ induces an $A$-isomorphism :
$$\frac{\mathfrak U}{\Lambda_P\oplus U(A)}\simeq \frac{U(A)}{P.U(A)}.$$
For $z\in \mathfrak U$ and $g\in G,$ set :
$$<z,g> = z-g(z) \in \Lambda_P.$$
One can verify that :\par
\noindent - $ \forall z_1,z_2\in \mathfrak U, $ $\forall g\in G,$ $<z_1+z_2, g>= <z_1, g>+<z_2, g>,$\par
\noindent - $\forall z\in \mathfrak U,$ $ \forall g_1,g_2 \in G,$ $ <z, g_1g_2>= <z,g_1>+<z,g_2>,$\par
\noindent - $ \forall z\in \mathfrak U, \forall a \in A, \forall g\in G,$ $<\phi_a(z),g>=\phi_a(<z,g>),$\par
\noindent - $\forall z\in \mathfrak U,\forall g\in G, \forall \delta \in \Delta,$ $<\widetilde \delta (z), \delta.g>= \delta(<z,g>),$ where $\widetilde \delta \in \mathfrak G$ is such that its restriction to $K_P$ is equal to $\delta,$\par
\noindent - let $g\in G$ then : $<z,g>=0$ $\forall z\in \mathfrak U$ if and only if $g=1.$\par
\noindent Let $z\in \mathfrak U$ be such that $<z,g>=0$ $\forall g\in G.$ Then $z\in \mathfrak U^G.$ Thus $z\in K_P$ and $\phi_P(z)\in U(A).$ Thus, by lemma \ref{lemma5}, we get $\phi_P(z)\in P.U(A),$ and therefore $z\in \Lambda_P\oplus U(A).$ \par
\noindent We deduce from above that $<.,.>$ induces a non-degenerated and $\Delta$-equivariant bilinear map :
$$\frac {U(A)}{P.U(A)}\times G \rightarrow \Lambda_P.$$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Class groups}${}$\par
\noindent We will need the following result wich is implicit in \cite{TAE3} :
\begin{proposition}
\label{proposition1}
Let $Cl^0(K_P)$ be the group of classes of divisors of degree zero of $K_P.$ Then there exists an $\frac{A}{PA}[\Delta]$-morphism :
$${\rm Hom}_A(H(R_P), \Lambda_P)\rightarrow Cl^0(K_P)\otimes_{\mathbb Z} \frac{A}{PA},$$
such that its kernel and cokernel are cyclic $\frac{A}{PA}[\Delta]$-modules.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} This is a consequence of the following results in \cite{TAE3} : exact sequence (2), Theorem 2 and Theorem 6.
\end{proof}
\noindent Let $\omega _P : \Delta \simeq (A/PA)^*$ be the cyclotomic character, i.e. $\forall a\in A\setminus PA,$ $\omega _P(\sigma_a)\equiv a \pmod{P}.$ Let $W=\mathbb Z_p[\mu_{q^d-1}],$ and fix $\rho : A/PA \rightarrow W/pW$ a $\mathbb F_p$-isomorphism. We still denote by $\omega_P$ the morphism of groups $\Delta \simeq \mu_{q^d-1}$ wich sends $\sigma_a $ to the unique root of unity congruent to $\rho (\omega_P(a))$ modulo $pW.$ Observe that $\widehat \Delta : = {\rm Hom} (\Delta, W^*)$ is a cyclic group of order $q^d-1$ generated by $\omega_P.$ For $\chi \in \widehat \Delta ,$ we set :\par
\noindent - $e_{\chi} =\frac{1}{q^d-1} \sum_{\delta \in \Delta} \chi (\delta) \delta^{-1} \in W[\Delta],$\par
\noindent - $ [\chi] =\{ \chi ^{p^j}, \, j\geq 0\} \subset \widehat \Delta,$\par
\noindent - $e_{[\chi]}=\sum_{\psi \in [\chi ]} e_{\psi } \in \mathbb Z_p[\Delta].$\par
\noindent Let ${\rm Pic}(R_P)$ be the ideal class group of the Dedekind domain $R_P.$
\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary2}
The $\mathbb Z_p[\Delta]$-module : $e_{[\omega_P]}({\rm Pic}(R_P)\otimes _\mathbb Z \mathbb Z_p)$ is a cyclic module. Furthermore, it is non trivial if and only if $B(q^d-2)\equiv 0\pmod{P}.$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}${}$\par
\noindent Recall that $H(A)=\{ 0\}.$ Note that the trace map induces a surjective morphism of $A$-modules $H(R_P)\rightarrow H(A).$ Therefore :
$$H(R_P)^{\Delta}=\{0\}.$$
Now, note that, $\forall \chi \in \widehat \Delta ,$ we have an isomorphism of $W$-modules :
$$e_{\chi } (Cl^0(K_P)\otimes_{\mathbb Z}W)\simeq e_{\chi^p } (Cl^0(K_P)\otimes_{\mathbb Z}W).$$
Thus, by proposition \ref{proposition1}, we get that $e_{[\omega_P]}(Cl^0(K_P)\otimes _\mathbb Z \mathbb Z_p)$ is a cyclic $\mathbb Z_p[\Delta]$-module. Furthermore, by \cite{GOS&SIN}, this latter module is non-trivial if and only if $B(q^d-2)\equiv 0\pmod{P}.$ We conclude the proof by noting that :
$$e_{[\omega_P]}(Cl^0(K_P)\otimes _\mathbb Z \mathbb Z_p)\simeq e_{[\omega_P]}({\rm Pic}(R_P)\otimes _\mathbb Z \mathbb Z_p).$$
\end{proof}
\noindent Recall that $L=K_P(\gamma)$ where $\gamma =e_C(\frac{P-1}{P}log_C(1)).$ Since $\gamma \in O_L,$ the derivative of $\phi_P(X)-\phi_{P-1} (1)$ is equal to $P,$ and $e_C(K_{P,\infty})$ is $A$-divisible, we conclude that $L/K_P$ is unramified outside $P$ and every place of $K_P$ above $\infty$ is totally split in $L/K_P.$ Furthermore, by lemma \ref{lemma4} :\par
\noindent - if $\phi_{P-1}(1)\equiv 0\pmod{P^2},$ $L/K_P$ is unramified,\par
\noindent - if $\phi_{P-1}(1)\not \equiv 0\pmod{P^2},$ $L/K_P$ is totally ramified at the unique prime of $R_P$ above $P$ (see the proof of lemma \ref{lemma4}).\par
\noindent Let $H/K_P$ be the Hilbert class field of $R_P,$ i.e. $H/K_P$ is the maximal unramified abelian extension of $K_P$ such that every place in $S_{\infty} (K_P)$ is totally split in $H/K_P.$ Then the Artin symbol induces a $\Delta$-equivariant isomorphism :
$${\rm Pic}(R_P)\simeq {\rm Gal}(H/K_P).$$
Note that $e_{[\omega_P]}G=G,$ where $G={\rm Gal}(L/K_P).$ Thus the Artin symbol induces a $\mathbb F_p[\Delta]$-morphism :
$$\psi :e_{[\omega_P]}(\frac{{\rm Pic}(R_P)}{p{\rm Pic}(R_P)} )\rightarrow {\rm Gal}(L\cap H/K_P).$$
Therefore, by corollary \ref{corollary2} and lemma \ref{lemma6}, we get the following result which explains the congruence of corollary \ref{corollary1}:\par
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem1}
The morphism of $\mathbb F_p[\Delta]$-modules induced by the Artin map :
$$\psi :e_{[\omega_P]}(\frac{{\rm Pic}(R_P)}{p{\rm Pic}(R_P)} )\rightarrow {\rm Gal}(L\cap H/K_P),$$
is an isomorphism, where $L=K_P(e_C(\frac{P-1}{P}log_C(1)))$ and $H$ is the Hilbert class field of $R_P.$
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Prime decomposition of units}${}$\par
\noindent A natural question arise : are there infinitely many primes $P$ such that $\phi_{P-1} (1) \equiv 0\pmod{P^2}\,?$ We end this note by some remarks centered around this question.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma7}
Let $N(d)$ be the number of primes $P$ of degree $d$ such that $\phi_{P-1}(1) \not \equiv 0\pmod{P^2}.$ Then :
$$N(d) > \frac{1}{d} (q-1) q^{d-1} - \frac{q}{d(q-1)} q^{d/2}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $N_q(d)$ be the number of primes of degree $d.$ Then :
$$N_q(d) >\frac{1}{d}q^d - \frac{q}{d(q-1)} q^{d/2}.$$
Let $M(d)$ be the number of primes $P$ of degree $d$ such that $\phi_{P-1}(1)\equiv 0\pmod{P^2}.$
Set :
$$V(d)=\sum_{i=0}^{d-1} \frac{L_{d-1}}{L_i}\in A.$$
Then ${\rm deg}_T V(d)= q^{d-1},$ and if $P$ is a prime of degree $d,$ we have by lemma \ref{lemma3} : $\phi_{P-1}(1)\equiv 0\pmod{P^2}$ if and only if $V(d)\equiv 0\pmod{P}.$
Therefore :
$$M(d)\leq \frac{1}{d}q^{d-1}.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}${}$\par
\noindent We have :
$$V(2)= 1+T-T^q.$$ Thus $V(2)$ is (up to sign) the product of $q/p$ primes of degree $p.$ Therefore there exist primes $P$ of degree $2$ such that $\phi_{P-1}(1)\equiv 0\pmod{P^2}$ if and only if $p=2,$ and in this case there are exactly $q/2$ such primes.\par${}$\par
\noindent Set $H(X)=\sum_{i=0}^{p-1} \frac{1}{i!} X^i \in \mathbb F_p[X].$ Let $S$ be the set of roots of $H(X)$ in $\mathbb C_{\infty}.$ Note that $\mid S\mid =p-1.$ Let's suppose that $S\subset \mathbb F_q.$ Let $P$ be a prime of $A$ such that $P$ divides $T^q-T -\alpha $ for some $\alpha \in \mathbb F_q^*.$ Observe that such a prime is of degree $p.$ Now, for $k=0,\cdots , p-1,$ we have :
$$L_k\equiv \frac{1}{k!} (-\alpha) ^k\pmod{P}.$$
Therefore :
$$V(p)=\sum_{i=0}^{p-1} \frac{L_{p-1}}{L_i}\equiv -\alpha^{p-1} H(\frac{-1}{\alpha})\pmod{P}.$$
Thus there exist at least $(p-1)\frac{q}{p}$ primes $P$ in $A$ of degree $p$ such that $\phi_{P-1}(1)\equiv 0\pmod{P^2}.$
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma8}
Let $P$ be a prime of degree $A$ and let $n\geq 1.$ We have an isomorphism of $A$-modules :
$$C(\frac{A}{P^nA})\simeq \frac{A}{P^{n-1}(P-1)A}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We first treat the case $n=1.$ By lemma \ref{lemma3}, we have : $\phi_P(X) \equiv X^{q^d} \pmod{P}.$ Therefore $(P-1) C(A/PA)=\{0\}.$ Now let $Q\in A$ such that $Q.C(A/PA)=\{0\}.$ Then the polynomial $\phi_Q(X) \pmod{P}\, \in (A/PA)[X]$ has $q^d$ roots in $A/PA.$ Thus ${\rm deg}_TQ\geq d.$This implies that $C(A/PA)$ is a cyclic $A$-module isomorphic to $A/(P-1)A.$\par
\noindent Now let's assume that $n\geq 2.$ By lemma \ref{lemma3}, we have:
$$\forall a\in PA,\, v_P(\phi_P(a))=1+v_P(a).$$
This implies that $C(PA/P^nA)$ is a cyclic $A$-module isomorphic to $A/P^{n-1}A$ and $P$ is a generator of this module. The lemma follows from the fact that we have an exact sequence of $A$-modules :
$$0\rightarrow C(\frac{PA}{P^nA})\rightarrow C(\frac{A}{P^nA})\rightarrow C(\frac{A}{PA})\rightarrow 0.$$
\end{proof}
\noindent We deduce from the above lemma :
\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary3}
Let $P$ be a prime of $A.$ Then $\phi_{P-1}(1)\equiv 0\pmod{P^2}$ if and only if there exists $a\in A\setminus PA$ such that $\phi_a(1) \equiv 0\pmod{P^2}.$
\end{corollary}
\noindent This latter corollary leads us to the following problem:\par
\begin{question} Let $b\in A_+.$ Is it true that there exists a prime $Q$ of $A,$ $Q\equiv 1\pmod{b},$ such that $\phi_Q(1)$ is not squarefree ?
\end{question}
\noindent A positive answer to that question has the following consequence :\par
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma9} Assume that for every $b\in A_+,$ we have a positive answer to question $1.$ Then, there exist infinitely many primes $P$ such that $\phi_{P-1} \equiv 0\pmod{P^2}.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $S$ be the set of primes $P$ such that $\phi_{P-1}(1) \equiv 0\pmod{P^2}.$ Let's assume that $S$ is finite. Write $S=\{ P_1, \cdots , P_s\}.$ Set $b=1+\prod_{i=1} ^s (P_i-1)$ (if $S=\emptyset,$ $b=1$). Let $Q$ be a prime of $A$ such that $\phi_Q(1)$ is not squarefree and $Q\equiv 1\pmod{b}.$ Then there exists a prime $P$ of $A$ such that :
$$\phi_Q(1) \equiv 0\pmod{P^2}.$$
Since $\phi_P(1)\equiv 1\pmod{P},$ we have $P\not = Q$ and therefore $Q\in A\setminus PA.$ Furthermore, for $i=1,\cdots ,s,$ $Q$ is prime to $P_i-1.$ Therefore, by lemma \ref{lemma8}, $\phi_Q(1)\not \equiv 0\pmod {P_i^2}.$ Thus $P\not \in S$ which is a contradiction by corollary \ref{corollary3}.
\end{proof}
|
\chapter*{Introduction}
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\numberline{}Introduction}
The main aim of Approximation Theory is to reconstruct a given function defined on a set $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ from
some values sampled on a finite set $X\subset\Omega$.
\\This process is required to be convergent and stable, namely to be such that under suitable conditions the approximant
is able to reproduce the original function with respect to a given norm.
\\\\In this setting, the so-called \textit{Kernel methods} are of growing importance. Altough they are built to
be well-posed for every data distribution, it is also well-known that in many cases they suffers from serious instability
if no attention is paid to some aspects of their use.
\\Several approaches have been studied to assure a fast convergence together with a stable computation. They are based
on different aspects of the approximation process, from the optimization of certain parameters and the research of convenient
data sets, to the numerical stabilization of the underlying linear system.
\\Recently the two papers \cite{MuSch,SchPa} introduced a new tool, that is a general way to produce a stable basis for the
functional space ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ where the approximation takes place, based only on a particular factorization of the collocation
matrix associated to the kernel. In the original works this process was used to create a \textit{Newton basis}, which is in
particular stable, complete, orthonormal and recursively computable.
\\\\We use these results to build a different kind of stable basis that shares some useful properties with the one proposed
by the authors. Moreover, our basis provides a connection with a ``natural'' basis for the functional space ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $, which
arises from an eigendecomposition of a compact integral operator associated with the kernel, and which brings intrinsic
information about the kernel itself and about the set $\Omega$.
\\On the numerical side, the structure of the basis allows to further stabilize the approximation by moving from an exact
data interpolation to an approximation in the least-squares sense, with a process that exactly
corresponds to a low-rank approximation of the kernel matrix.
\\\\The work is structured as follows: Chapter \ref{ch:general} gives a short introduction to the theory of
Radial Basis Function; Chapter \ref{ch:change} describes the particular procedure introduced in the papers
\cite{MuSch,SchPa} that will be the starting point for the development of our basis, which is constructed and analyzed in Chapter
\ref{ch:wsvd}; Chapter \ref{ch:numerics} presents some numerical examples which test our method from different
point of view. The last Chapter discusses potential work that could be done to improve and better understand our results.
\chapter{Radial Basis Functions}\label{ch:general}
In this chapter we will give a brief introduction to the general theory of Radial Basis Functions (RBF).
\\We will start from some remarks on multivariate approximation that motivates the introduction of this kind of
technique, then we will recall the basic theoretical results that arises in this context, focusing mainly on the tools that
will be used in the following chapters.
\\The last section summarizes the main convergence and stability estimates, with particular focus on possible weakness of
RBF approximation.
\\\\Each result presented here is taken from the book \cite{Bible}, that contains a complete coverage
of the theory of RBF as well as a much more general treatment of the Scattered Data Approximation.
\section{Motivation}
The goal is to reconstruct a function $f\in\mathcal{C}(\Omega)$ defined on a set $\Omega\in\mathbb{R}^n$ from its samples at a
fixed, discrete data-sites set $X\subset\Omega$, of cardinality $|X|=N\in\mathbb{N}$.
\\The idea is to fix a finite dimensional subset $V\subseteq\mathcal{C}(\Omega)$ that allows a sufficiently good approximation
of the full space and to use the data-values $f_{|_{X}}$ to represent the function in this subspace.
\\To put this in practice, if V is spanned by a basis $\{v_1,\dots,v_N\}$, one wants to find an interpolant $P[f]\in V$ such that
\begin{equation*}
P[f](x)=\sum_{j=1}^N c_j v_j(x)\quad \forall x\in\Omega,\quad P[f]_{|_{X}}=f_{|_{X}}
\end{equation*}
where the coefficient vector $[c_1,\dots,c_N]^T$ is clearly the solution of the linear system
\begin{equation*}
\left( v_j(x_i) \right)_{i,j} \cdot c_j = f(x_i) \quad i,j=1,\dots,N
\end{equation*}
The matter is now to choose a good subset $V$, i.e. a subset for which the problem is well-posed. These space are the so-called
\textit{Haar spaces}:
\begin{defin}[Haar space]
Suppose that $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ contains at least N points. Let $V\subseteq \mathcal{C}(\Omega)$ be an $N$-dimensional linear space
of functions, and let $\{v_1,\dots,v_N\}$ be a basis for $V$. Then $V$ is called a Haar space of dimension $N$ on $\Omega$ if
\begin{equation*}
\det(v_j(x_i))\neq0
\end{equation*}
for any distinct points $x_1,\dots,x_N \in\Omega$.
\end{defin}
\noindent This is, for example, the case of the space $\Pi_d$ of the univariate polynomial of degree at most $d$,
that is indeed widely used and studied in approximation theory.
\\Unfortunately if the dimension $n$ of the underlying real space is bigger than 1, there is no hope to find an Haar
space:
\begin{theorem}[Haar - Mairhuber - Curtis]
Suppose that $\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$, $n\geqslant2$, contains an interior point. Then there exists no Haar spaces on $\Omega$ of
dimension $N\geqslant2$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent The last Theorem forces to use, in the multivariate setting, spaces and bases that depend on the choosen points.
\\\\In this context takes place the RBF approximation. Indeed, given a kernel
$$\Phi:\Omega\times\Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$$
we build a data-sites dependent basis
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{T}_X = \{\Phi(\cdot,x_1),\dots,\Phi(\cdot,x_N) \}
\end{equation}
that can be used to approximate a function $f$ as described.
\\In particular we will solve the linear system
\begin{equation*}
\left( \Phi_j(x_i,x_j) \right)_{i,j} \cdot c_j = f(x_i).
\end{equation*}
The problem is well-posed if the so-called kernel matrix $A:=\left( \Phi_j(x_i,x_j) \right)_{i,j}$ is invertible for
every possible choice of the data-sites $X$.
\\The way to ensure this is to require that the kernel $\Phi$ is strictly positive definite: as shown by the following
definition, a positive definite kernel leads to a positive definite and hence invertible kernel matrix:
\begin{defin}
A continuous function $\Phi:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is called positive definite if, for all $N\in\mathbb{N}$, for all sets of pairwise
distinct centers $X=\{x_1,\dots,x_N\}\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and for all $\alpha\in R^N\setminus\{0\}$, the quadratic form
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=1}^N\sum_{i=1}^N\alpha_j\alpha_i\Phi(x_j,x_i)
\end{equation*}
is positive.
\end{defin}
\noindent Even though this hypotesis on $\Phi$ suffices to have an unique solution for the approximation problem, a further requirement
gives some advantages: it's common to assume that $\Phi$ is radial, in the sense specified by the next definition.
\begin{defin}
A function $\Phi:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is said to be radial if there exist a function $\phi: [0,\infty)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
such that $\Phi(x,y)=\phi(\|x-y\|_2)$.
\end{defin}
\noindent This property allows to use the same structure for every dimension $n\in\mathbb{N}$ (dimension-blindness), and moreover
assures that the kernel is symmetric, together with the kernel matrix $A$. Nevertheless, there are some kernels that are
positive definite only for some dimension $n$ of the space.
\\\\In \cite[Ch.6]{Bible} is also possible to find a complete characterization of this kind of functions, based
on generalized Fourier transforms.
\\Some relevant examples of radial and positive definite kernel functions that will be used in this work are listed in the table
\eqref{tb:kernels}. It's common to use a radially scaled version
\begin{equation*}
\Phi(x,y)=\phi(\varepsilon\|x-y\|_2)
\end{equation*}
of the kernel, in order to have more control on the behaviour of the approximant. The parameter $\varepsilon\in\mathbb{R}$ is referred
as \emph{shape parameter}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{||l|c|c||}
\hline
&$\phi(r)$&dim\\
\hline
Gaussian&$e^{-(\varepsilon r)^2}$&$n$\\
&&\\
\hline
Inverse Multiquadric (IMQ)&$1/\sqrt{1+(\varepsilon r)^2} $&$n$\\
&&\\
\hline
Generalized IMQ&$1/(1+(\varepsilon r)^2)^2 $&$n$\\
&&\\
\hline
Inverse quadratic (IQ)&$1/(1+\varepsilon r) $&$n$\\
&&\\
\hline
Linear Mat\'ern (1MAT)&$e^{-\varepsilon r}(1+\varepsilon r)$&$n$\\
&&\\
\hline
Quadratic Mat\'ern (2MAT)&$e^{-\varepsilon r}(3+3 \varepsilon r + (\varepsilon r)^2)$&$n$\\
&&\\
\hline
Cubic Mat\'ern (3MAT)&$e^{-\varepsilon r}(15+15 \varepsilon r + 6 (\varepsilon r)^2+(\varepsilon r)^3))$&$n$\\
&&\\
\hline
Linear Laguerre-Gaussian&$e^{-(\varepsilon r)^2}(2-(\varepsilon r)^2))$&$2$\\
&&\\
\hline
Quadratic Laguerre-Gaussian&$e^{-(\varepsilon r)^2}(3-3(\varepsilon r)^2)+\frac{1}{2}(\varepsilon r)^4)$&$2$\\
&&\\
\hline
Linear generalized IMQ&$(2-(\varepsilon r)^2)/(1+(\varepsilon r)^2))^4$&$2$\\
&&\\
\hline
Wendland $2,0$ (W20)&$(1-\varepsilon r)_+^2 $&$2$\\
&&\\
\hline
Wendland $2,1$ (W21)&$(1-\varepsilon r)_+^4 (3 \varepsilon r + 1 )/20$&$2$\\
&&\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tb:kernels}
\caption{Examples of radial positive definite kernels. The table shows the functions $\phi:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that
$\Phi(\cdot,\cdot):= \phi(\|\cdot-\cdot\|_2)$ is positive definite in $\mathbb{R}^n$, where $n$ is as in the third column.}
\end{table}
\section{Native Space}\label{NativeSpace}
There is a natural space in which consider the RBF approximation. In fact, for each positive definite and symmetric kernel $\Phi$
and for each region $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ it is possible to define an associated real Hilbert space, the so-called
\emph{Native Space} ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $. In this space $\Phi$ is a reproducing kernel, in the sense of the following definition:
\begin{defin}[RK]
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a real Hilbert space of functions $f: \Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$. A function $\Phi: \Omega\times\Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
is called a reproducing kernel for $\mathcal{H}$ if
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Phi(\cdot,y)\in \mathcal{H}\quad \forall y\in\Omega$
\item $f(y) = (f,\Phi(\cdot,y))_{\mathcal{H}}\quad \forall f\in\mathcal{H},\ \forall x\in\Omega$ (reproducing property)
\end{enumerate}
\end{defin}
\noindent It's well known that the existence of a positive definite reproducing kernel for an Hilbert space $H$ is equivalent
to the continuity and the linear independence of the point evaluation functionals $\delta_x \in H^{*}$.
\\\\The construction of such a space works as follows. Define the linear space
\begin{equation}\label{hs}
N_{\Phi}(\Omega) := \text{span}\{\Phi(\cdot,y):y\in\Omega\}
\end{equation}
and equip it with the bilinear form
\begin{equation*}
\left(\sum_{j=1}^N \alpha_j \Phi(\cdot,x_j),\sum_{i=1}^M \beta_i \Phi(\cdot,x_i)\right)_{\Phi}:=\sum_{j=1}^N\sum_{i=1}^M \alpha_j \beta_i \Phi(x_j,x_i) .
\end{equation*}
Then the space $\left(N_{\Phi}(\Omega), (\cdot,\cdot)_{\Phi} \right)$ is almost what we want:
\begin{theorem}
Under the above assumptions on the kernel, $(\cdot,\cdot)_{\Phi}$ defines an inner product on
$N_{\Phi}(\Omega)$, which is a pre-Hilbert space with reproducing kernel $\Phi$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent The completion of $ N_{\Phi}(\Omega)$ with respect to the $\|\cdot\|_{\Phi}$-norm is the Native Space ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $, which
is an Hilbert space with $\Phi$ as reproducing kernel.
\\This space clearly contains elements $f$ not in $N_{\Phi}(\Omega)$, that can
be understood as functions of the form
\begin{equation*}
f(x) = (f,\Phi(\cdot,x))_{\Phi} \quad\forall x\in\Omega
\end{equation*}
since the continuity of $\delta_x$ is preserved in the completion.
\\\\This space is unique in the sense that if $\mathcal{G}$ is a real Hilbert space of functions $f:\Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
with reproducing kernel $\Phi$, then $\mathcal{G}={\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ and the inner products are the same.
\\Moreover it can be shown that if an Hilbert space $\mathcal{G}$ has a reproducing kernel, it's necessarily positive
definite and symmetric, and then there is a full equivalence between Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces and Native Spaces for
positive definite and symmetric kernels.
\subsection{Embeddings}
For their use in approximation, it is useful to know what kind of functions belongs to the Native Space and how the smoothness
of the kernel is inherited:
\begin{theorem}[$\mathcal{C}^k(\Omega)$]\label{embed1}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be an open set and let $\Phi\in\mathcal{C}^{2k}(\Omega\times\Omega)$ be a symmetric, positive
definite and radial kernel on $\Omega$. Then ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} \subset \mathcal{C}^{k}(\Omega)$ and $\forall \alpha\in\mathbb{N}^n$,
$|\alpha|\leqslant k$, $\forall f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ and $\forall x\in\Omega$
\begin{equation*}
D^{\alpha}f(x) = (f,D_2^{\alpha}\Phi(\cdot,x))_{\Phi}
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\noindent The case k=0 in particular ensures that the $\|\cdot\|_{\Phi}$-convergence implies the pointwise convergence
(it's also a direct consequence of the reproducng kernel property).
\begin{theorem}[$L_2(\Omega)$]\label{th:embed2}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a compact set and let $\Phi$ be a symmetric, positive definite and radial kernel on $\Omega$. Then
the Native Space ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ has a continuous linear embedding into $L_2(\Omega)$, and in particular
\begin{equation*}
\|f\|_{L_2(\Omega)}\leqslant \sqrt{|\Omega|\ \phi(0) }\ \|f\|_{\Phi}\quad \forall f \in {\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)}
\end{equation*}
where $|\Omega|:=\text{meas}(\Omega)$
\end{theorem}
\subsection{An integral operator and a ``natural'' basis}
It is possible to define an integral operator $T_{\Phi}$ associated to the kernel and defined on the Native Space.
\\Construction and properties of such operator are discussed in detail in the paragraph 10.4 of the book \cite{Bible}, where it is the base
for a further characterization of ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $. Here we are interested mainly in a particular basis that arises from an
eigendecomposition of it, which would be the key tool for the subsequent discussion.
\\Consider the operator $T_{\Phi} : L_2(\Omega) \rightarrow L_2(\Omega)$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{theOperator}
T_{\Phi}[f] (x) := \int_{\Omega} \Phi(x,y) f(y) dy\quad \forall f\in L_2(\Omega),\ \forall x\in\Omega
\end{equation}
that maps $L_2(\Omega)$ continuously into ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $. It is the adjoint of the embedding operator of
${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ into $L_2(\Omega)$, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{L2N}
(f,v)_{L_2(\Omega)} = (f,T_{\Phi}[v])_{\Phi} \quad \forall f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} ,\ \forall v\in L_2(\Omega).
\end{equation}
A particular and in some sense ``natural`` basis for ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ comes from the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}[Mercer]\label{th:mercer}
Every continuous positive definite kernel $\Phi$ on a bounded domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ defines an operator
\begin{equation*}
{T_{\Phi}}: {\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} \rightarrow {\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} , \quad {T_{\Phi}}[f] = \int_{\Omega} \Phi(x,y) f(y) dy
\end{equation*}
which is bounded, compact and self-adjoint. It has an enumerable set of eigenvalues and eigenvectors
$\{\varphi_j\}_{j>0}$,
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_j \varphi_j(x) = \int_{\Omega} \Phi(x,y) \varphi_j(y) dy\quad \forall x\in\Omega\label{def:operator}\\
\end{equation*}
which forms an orthonormal basis for ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $, and in particular
\begin{eqnarray*}
\{\varphi_j\}_{j>0} &&is\ orthonormal\ in\ {\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} \\
\{\varphi_j\}_{j>0} &&is\ orthogonal\ in\ L_2(\Omega),\ \|\varphi_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}^2= \lambda_j\\
\lambda_j\rightarrow0 &&as\ j\rightarrow\infty
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover the kernel has an eigenfunctions expansion
\begin{equation*}
\Phi(x,y)=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\lambda_j\ \varphi_j(x) \varphi_j(y)\quad \forall x,y \in \Omega
\end{equation*}
which is absolutely and uniformly convergent.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:trace}
The operator $T_{\Phi}$ is a trace-class operator, and in particular
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j>0} \lambda_j = \int_{\Omega} \Phi(x,x)\ dx = \phi(0)\ |\Omega|
\end{equation*}
This property, together with the fact that the eigenvalues accumulates in $0$, will be useful to estimate
the convergence of the truncated series to the full one.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{L2Nphi}
A consequence of the property \eqref{L2N}, which we point out for later use, is that $\forall j>0$
\begin{equation*}
(f,\varphi_j)_{L_2(\Omega)} = (f,T_{\Phi}[\varphi_j])_{\Phi} = \lambda_j\ (f,\varphi_j)_{\Phi} =
(\varphi_j,\varphi_j)_{L_2(\Omega)}\ (f,\varphi_j)_{\Phi} \quad \forall f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)}
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}
\subsection{Other inner products}
For later use we introduce also the following discrete scalar products, which will be of key importance in the following
chapters.
\begin{defin}[$\ell_2(X)$]\label{l2prod}
Let $f$, $g$ be functions in ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ and $X=\{x_1,\dots,x_N\}\subset\Omega$ a discrete set. The $\ell_2(X)$-scalar product is defined as
\begin{equation*}
(f,g)_{\ell_2(X)} = \sum_{i=1}^N f(x_i) g(x_i)
\end{equation*}
\end{defin}
\begin{defin}[$\ell_2^w(X)$]\label{l2wprod}
Let $f$, $g$ be functions in ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $, $X=\{x_1,\dots,x_N\}\subset\Omega$ a discrete set and $\mathcal{W}=\{w_1,\dots,w_N\}\subset\mathbb{R}$
a set of positive weights. The $\ell_2^w(X)$-scalar product is defined as
\begin{equation*}
(f,g)_{\ell_2^w(X)} = \sum_{i=1}^N w_i\ f(x_i) g(x_i)
\end{equation*}
\end{defin}
\noindent It is clear from the definitions that both the products are not positive definite, since for each $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ that
vanishes on $X$, $(f,f)_{\ell_2(X)}=(f,f)_{\ell_2^w(X)}=0$. Anyway they are positive definite when restricted to ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$.
\section{Error bounds and stability estimates}\label{sec:stdconvstab}
We recall that, for a subset $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, a discrete data-sites set $X\subset\Omega$ and a radial, positive
definite kernel $\Phi\in\mathcal{C}(\Omega\times\Omega)$ the RBF interpolant ${P_X[f]}$ to a function $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ is computed as
\begin{equation}\label{interpolant0}
{P_X[f](x)}=\sum_{j=1}^N c_j\ \Phi(x,x_j),\quad {P_X[f]}(x_i)=f(x_i)\quad \forall x\in\Omega, x_i\in X
\end{equation}
The question is how well ${P_X[f]}$ can approximate the sampled function $f$, i.e. if ${P_X[f]}$ converges to $f$ in some
given norm when the data-sites $X$ becomes dense in $\Omega$. To be more precise, one wants to know
if ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$ saturates ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ for a good choice of $X\subset\Omega$, and if the process can be accomplished in a stable way.
\\\\There are two quantities used to relate the set $X$ to these requirements: the \textit{fill distance}
\begin{equation}
h_{X,\Omega} = \max_{x\in\Omega} \min_{x_i\in X} \|x-x_i\|_2
\end{equation}
and the \textit{separation distance}
\begin{equation}
q_{X} = \frac{1}{2}\min_{x_i,x_j\in X} \|x_j-x_i\|_2
\end{equation}
Clearly the shape parameter $\varepsilon$ have also an important role, since it determines the radial amplitude
of the kernel.
\\\\The first estimate comes directly from the definition of the pointwise-error functional. Let $\mathcal{E}_x$
be defined $\forall x\in\Omega$ as
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}_x: {\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} \rightarrow \mathbb{R},\quad \mathcal{E}_x[f] = f(x)-{P_X[f](x)}
\end{equation*}
and let $\mathcal{P}_{\Phi,X}$ denote its norm, the so-called \textit{Power Function}.
\\Then the basic estimate for the convergence is the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{th:bound1}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, let $\Phi\in\mathcal{C}(\Omega\times\Omega)$ be a symmetric positive definite kernel, let $X\subset\Omega$
be a discrete set of data sites and let $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $. Then
\begin{equation}
|f(x)-{P_X[f](x)}| \leqslant {\mathcal{P}_{\Phi,X}(x)} \|f\|_{\Phi}\quad \forall x\in\Omega
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\noindent It can be refined observing that the interpolation operator is a projection with respect to the
$\Phi$-inner product (and then the interpolant is also the best approximation in ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$ of $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $). The estimate
then becomes
\begin{equation}
|f(x)-{P_X[f](x)}| \leqslant {\mathcal{P}_{\Phi,X}(x)} \|f-{P_X[f]}\|_{\Phi}\quad \forall x\in\Omega
\end{equation}
Moreover, the Power Function can be exactly computed introducing a Lagrange basis for ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$:
\begin{prop}\label{def:Lb}
For any pairwise distinct data-sites set $X\in\Omega$ there exist a Lagrange basis ${\mathcal{L}}=\{\ell_1,\dots,\ell_N\}$ for ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$.
This basis is such that $\ell_j(x_i)=\delta_{ij}\ \forall i,j=1,\dots,N $ and then the interpolant can be written in
cardinal form as
\begin{equation*}
{P_X[f](x)}=\sum_{j=1}^N f(x_j) \ell_j(x)\quad\forall x\in\Omega
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\noindent The expression for the interpolant gives
\begin{equation}\label{def:Pf}
{\mathcal{P}_{\Phi,X}(x)}^2=\Phi(x,x)-\sum_{j=1}^N \Phi(x,x_j) \ell_i(x)
\end{equation}
Using this explicit representation it is possible to bound the Power Function on domains that satisfies an interior cone
condition, using a multivariate Taylor expansion. This final estimate relates the set $X$ to the interpolation error:
\begin{theorem}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded set that satisfies an interior cone condition and let
$\Phi\in\mathcal{C}^{2k}(\Omega\times\Omega)$ be a symmetric positive definite kernel. Then there exist
positive constants $h_0$ and $C$ independent of $x$, $f$ and $\Phi$, such that $\forall X\subset\Omega$,
$h_{X,\Omega}\leqslant h_0$, $\forall f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ and $\forall x \in \Omega$
\begin{equation*}
|f(x)-{P_X[f](x)}| \leqslant C\cdot h_{X,\Omega}^k\cdot C_{\Phi} \|f-{P_X[f]}\|_{\Phi}
\end{equation*}
where $C_{\Phi}$ is a constant that depends on the derivatives of $\Phi$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent From the previous estimate we can expect that the approximation error goes to zero as $h_{X,\Omega}\rightarrow 0$. This
is not completely true, since when the data-sites set $X$ becomes too big the interpolation can be instable.
\\In fact, it is possible to prove that the condition number of the kernel matrix $A$ grows if the separation distance
$q_{X}$ decreases, and this, together with a bad choice of the shape parameter $\varepsilon$, can produce very instable
approximants.
\\Various approaches are used to avoid this situation. A lot of efforts are made on the study of
well-distributed data-sites set, for examples sets $X$ such that the \textit{uniformity}
\begin{equation*}
\rho_{X,\Omega} = \frac{q_{X}}{h_{X,\Omega}}
\end{equation*}
is maximized.
\\Another common way to try to avoid instability, and more related on the liner algebra part of the method, is to choose
a shape parameter $\varepsilon$ such that the kernel matrix is not ill-conditioned.
\\Recently another method to ensure convergence and stability was presented, and it is described in the next chapter.
\chapter{General bases}\label{ch:change}
As shown in the previous chapter, the use of the standard basis of translates leads to ill-conditioned kernel matrices, and,
moreover, it gives poor information about the selection of a ``good'' centers set $X\subset\Omega$.
\\Hence it makes sense to consider different bases of ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ in order to obtain better results in term of stability and
convergence, and such that it will be possible to describe in an useful way the data dependence of the subspace ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$.
\newline In the present chapter we will describe this kind of change of basis, focusing mainly on $\Phi$-orthonormal basis.
\\\\This approach was introduced in the papers \cite{MuSch, SchPa}, where it is the starting point to produce a
\textit{Newton basis}.
\section{Definition and characterization}
Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$, $X = \{x_1, \dots, x_N \}\subset\Omega$, and let $\mathcal{T}_X=\{\Phi(\cdot,x_i),x_i\in X\}$ be the standard basis of translates.
\\Consider another basis {$\U = \{u_i \in\ \ns,\ i = 1, \dots, N \} $} such that
\begin{equation}\label{basis}
\mathrm{span}({\mathcal{U}})= \mathrm{span}(\mathcal{T}_X ) = {\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}
\end{equation}
The following Theorem gives a characterization of such bases, where $\mathcal{T}_X$ and ${\mathcal{U}}$ are expressed as row vectors:
\begin{eqnarray*}
T(x) &=& [\Phi(x,x_1), \dots, \Phi(x,x_N) ] \in \mathbb{R}^N \\
U(x) &=& [u_1(x), \dots, u_N(x) ] \in \mathbb{R}^N
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{theorem}[Characterization]\label{th:char}
Any basis ${\mathcal{U}}$ arises from a factorization of the kernel matrix
\begin{equation}\label{A}
A={V_{\U}}\cdot {{C_{\U}}}^{-1}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{Vu}
{V_{\U}} = (u_j(x_i))_{1\leqslant i,j\leqslant N}
\end{equation}
and the coefficient matrix ${C_{\U}}$ is such that
\begin{equation}\label{Cu}
U(x) = T(x)\cdot {C_{\U}}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
Let ${\mathcal{U}}$ be a basis as defined in (\ref{basis}).
Since $u_i \in\ {\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}\ \forall\ u_i \in {\mathcal{U}}$, there exist real coefficients $(c_{j i})_{1\leqslant i,j\leqslant N} $
such that $\forall x \in \Omega$
\begin{equation}\label{ui}
u_i(x) = \sum_{j=1}^N \Phi(x,x_j)\ c_{j i}\ , \: 1\leqslant i \leqslant N
\end{equation}
and it suffices to set ${C_{\U}} = (c_{j i})_{1\leqslant i,j\leqslant N} $ to obtain (\ref{Cu}).
\\Now consider the evaluation operator $E_X: {\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^N$,
\begin{equation*}
E_X(f) = [f(x_1), \dots, f(x_N) ]
\end{equation*}
that maps functions into column vectors and rows of functions into matrices. By definition
\begin{eqnarray*}
E( T(x)) &=& (\Phi(x_i,x_j))_{1\leqslant i,j \leqslant N} = A\\
E(U(x)) &=& (u_j(x_i))_{1\leqslant i,j \leqslant N}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Setting ${V_{\U}} := E(U(x))$ as in (\ref{Vu}), by (\ref{Cu}) we have
\begin{equation*}
{V_{\U}} = E(U(x)) = E(T(x) \cdot {C_{\U}})= A\cdot {C_{\U}}
\end{equation*}
and hence $A={V_{\U}}\cdot {{C_{\U}}}^{-1}$.
\end{pf}
\noindent Using this characterization is simple to describe useful properties of the basis ${\mathcal{U}}$. In particular we will be
interested in bases that are orthogonal or even orthonormal with respect to the inner products defined in section
\eqref{NativeSpace}. The gramians can be computed as follows:
\begin{prop}[gramians]\label{th:gram}
Given a basis ${\mathcal{U}}$ as in (\ref{basis}), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
G_{{\mathcal{U}}} &:=& ((u_i,u_j)_{\Phi})_{1 \leqslant i,j \leqslant N} = {C_{\U}}^T\cdot A\cdot{C_{\U}} \\
\Gamma_{{\mathcal{U}}} &:=& ((u_i,u_j)_{\ell_2(X)})_{1 \leqslant i,j \leqslant N} = {C_{\U}}^T\cdot A^2 \cdot{C_{\U}}\\
\Gamma_{{\mathcal{U}}}^w &:=& ((u_i,u_j)_{\ell_2^w(X)})_{1 \leqslant i,j \leqslant N} = {V_{\U}}^T\cdot W\cdot {V_{\U}}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
The formula for the $\Phi$-gramian $G_{{\mathcal{U}}}$ comes from \eqref{ui}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
G_{{\mathcal{U}}} &=& ((u_i,u_j)_{\Phi})_{1 \leqslant i,j \leqslant N}
= \left( \sum_{h,k=1}^N c_{ki} c_{hj} \Phi(x_h,x_k)\right)_{1 \leqslant i,j \leqslant N} \\
&=& {C_{\U}}^T\cdot A\cdot{C_{\U}}
\end{eqnarray*}
The $\ell_2(X)$ and $\ell_2^w(X)$-gramians $\Gamma_{{\mathcal{U}}}$ and $\Gamma^w_{{\mathcal{U}}}$ can be directly computed using \eqref{A} and \eqref{Vu}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma_{{\mathcal{U}}} &:=& \left((u_i,u_j)_{\ell_2(X)}\right)_{1 \leqslant i,j \leqslant N}
= \left( \sum_{h=1}^N u_i(x_h) u_j(x_h)\right)_{1 \leqslant i,j \leqslant N} \\
& =& {V_{\U}}^T\cdot {V_{\U}} = {C_{\U}}^T\cdot A^2 \cdot{C_{\U}}\\
\Gamma^w_{{\mathcal{U}}} &:=& \left((u_i,u_j)_{\ell_2^w(X)}\right)_{1 \leqslant i,j \leqslant N}
= \left( \sum_{h=1}^N w_h u_i(x_h) u_j(x_h)\right)_{1 \leqslant i,j \leqslant N} \\
& =& {V_{\U}}^T\cdot W \cdot {V_{\U}}
\end{eqnarray*}
This concludes the proof.
\end{pf}
\noindent For later use it is convenient to rewrite also the Lagrange basis (\ref{def:Lb}) and the Power Function (\ref{def:Pf}) using
the same notation:
\begin{prop}[Lagrange basis]
The Lagrange basis ${\mathcal{L}}$ for ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$ is described by the matrices
\begin{equation*}
{V_{\L}} = I,\;{C_{\L}}=A^{-1},\;G_{{\mathcal{L}}}=A^{-1},\;\Gamma_{{\mathcal{L}}}=I
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
The statement is a direct consequence of Theorem \eqref{th:char} and Proposition \eqref{th:gram} applied to the definition \eqref{def:Lb} of ${\mathcal{L}}$.
\end{pf}
\begin{prop}[Power function]\label{char:pf}
The Power Function can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{th:power}
{\mathcal{P}_{\Phi,X}(x)} &=& \Phi(x,x) - U(x)\cdot {G_{{\mathcal{U}}}}^{-1}\cdot U^T(x)\\
&=& \phi(0) - U(x)\cdot {G_{{\mathcal{U}}}}^{-1}\cdot U^T(x) \quad \forall x \in \Omega
\end{eqnarray}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
The last Proposition gives
\begin{equation*}
L(x) := [\ell_1(x),\dots,\ell_N(x)] = T(x)\cdot {C_{\L}} = T(x) \cdot A^{-1}
\end{equation*}
Now starting from the definition (\ref{def:Pf}) we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathcal{P}_{\Phi,X}(x)} &=& \Phi(x,x) -\sum_{i=1}^N \Phi(x,x_i) \ell_i(x) \\
&=& \Phi(x,x) - T(x)\cdot L^T(x)\\
&=& \Phi(x,x) - T(x)\cdot A^{-1} \cdot T^T(x) \\
&=& \Phi(x,x) - U(x)\cdot {C_{\U}}^{-1}\cdot A^{-1}\cdot ({C_{\U}}^{-1})^T \cdot U^T(x) \\
&=& \Phi(x,x) - U(x)\cdot {G_{{\mathcal{U}}}}^{-1}\cdot U^T(x)\\
&=& \phi(0) - U(x)\cdot {G_{{\mathcal{U}}}}^{-1}\cdot U^T(x)
\end{eqnarray*}
where we used the definitions of $U(x)$ and $G_{{\mathcal{U}}}$.
\end{pf}
\section{Interpolation and stability}
Now it is possible to express the interpolant to a given function $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ using this notation.
\begin{prop}[Interpolation] \label{prop:int}
The interpolant ${P_X[f]}$ to a function $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ on $X\subset\Omega$ can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{th:int}
{P_X[f](x)} = \sum_{j=1}^N \Lambda_j(f)\ u_j(x)= U(x) \cdot \Lambda_{{\mathcal{U}}}(f) \quad \forall x \in \Omega
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda_{{\mathcal{U}}}(f) = [\Lambda_1(f), \dots, \Lambda_N(f)]^T\in\mathbb{R}^N$ is a column vector of values of linear functionals defined by
\begin{equation}
\Lambda_{{\mathcal{U}}}(f) = {C_{\U}}^{-1}\cdot A^{-1}\cdot E_X(f)={V_{\U}}^{-1} E_X(f)
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}\
The interpolant \eqref{interpolant0} is espressed by
\begin{equation}
{P_X[f](x)} = \sum_{j=1}^N\ \alpha_j \Phi(x,x_j) = T(x) \cdot \alpha
\end{equation}
where $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}^N,\; A\alpha=E_X(f)$. Thus, according to \eqref{th:char},
\begin{eqnarray}
{P_X[f](x)} &=& T(x) \cdot \alpha = U(x)\cdot{C_{\U}}^{-1}\cdot A^{-1}\cdot E_X(f) \\
&=& U(x)\cdot {V_{\U}}^{-1} E_X(f)
\end{eqnarray}
This proves the statement.
\end{pf}
\begin{prop}[Stability]
Let $\rho(\cdot)$ be the spectral radius and let $\kappa_2(\cdot)$ be the condition number with respect to the
euclidean norm ${\|\cdot\|}_2$ on $\mathbb{R}^N$. Then the stability of the evaluation of ${P_X[f]}$ can be bounded
$\forall x\in \Omega$ as
\begin{equation}
|{P_X[f](x)}|^2\leqslant {\|U(x)\|}_2^2\ {\|\Lambda_{{\mathcal{U}}}(f)\|}_2^2\leqslant\kappa_2(G_{{\mathcal{U}}})\ \phi(0)\ {\|f\|}_{\Phi}^2
\end{equation}
and in particular the following bounds hold:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\|U(x)\|}_2^2&\leqslant&\rho(G_{{\mathcal{U}}})\ \phi(0)\quad \forall x\in\Omega\\
{\|\Lambda_{{\mathcal{U}}}(f)\|}_2^2 &\leqslant& \rho(G_{{\mathcal{U}}}^{-1})\ {\|f\|}_{\Phi}^2\quad \forall f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
By the previous Proposition and the H\"older inequality we get the bound
\begin{equation}
|{P_X[f](x)}|\leqslant {\|U(x)\|}_2\ {\|\Lambda_{{\mathcal{U}}}(f)\|}_2\quad\forall x\in \Omega
\end{equation}
The term ${\|U(x)\|}_2$ can be bounded using \eqref{th:power}: the Power Function is non negative and hence
$U(x)\cdot {G_{{\mathcal{U}}}}^{-1}\cdot U^T(x) \leqslant \Phi(x,x)= \phi(0)$. Now, using the properties of the Rayleigh quotient
for the symmetric matrix $G_{{\mathcal{U}}}^{-1}$, we get the desired bound.
\\Now consider the term ${\|\Lambda_{{\mathcal{U}}}(f)\|}_2$: from \eqref{th:int} it follows that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{lambda}
{\|{P_X[f]}\|}_{\Phi} &=& \sum_{i,j=1}^N \Lambda_j(f)\ \Lambda_i(f)\ (u_j(x),u_i(x))_{\Phi}\\
&=& \Lambda_{{\mathcal{U}}}^T\cdot G_{{\mathcal{U}}}\cdot\Lambda_{{\mathcal{U}}}
\end{eqnarray}
and then the bound holds thanks to ${\|{P_X[f]}\|}_{\Phi}\leqslant{\|f\|}_{\Phi}$, and applying the same eigenvalue
manipulation as above.
\end{pf}
\begin{cor}[$\Phi$-orthonormal bases]
If ${\mathcal{U}}$ is a $\Phi$-orthonormal basis, the stability estimate becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\left| {P_X[f](x)} \right| \leqslant \sqrt{\phi(0)}\ \|f\|_{\Phi} \quad \forall x\in \Omega
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, the value of $\|U(x)\|_2$ for fixed $x\in\Omega$ and the value of $\|\Lambda(f)\|_2$ for fixed $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $
are the same for all $\Phi$-orthonormal basis, and the following bounds, that are not dependent on $X\subset\Omega$,
hold $\forall x \in \Omega$
\begin{equation}
\|U(x)\|_2 \leqslant\sqrt{\phi(0)},\quad \|\Lambda(f)\|_2\leqslant \|f\|_{\Phi}
\end{equation}
\end{cor}
\begin{pf}
The bounds follow immediately from the previous Proposition in the case $G_{{\mathcal{U}}}=I$.
\\The equality $G_{{\mathcal{U}}}=I$ and the Power Function equation \eqref{def:Pf} gives also, $\forall x\in\Omega$,
\begin{equation}
\|U(x)\|_2 = U(x)\cdot U(x)^T = \Phi(x,x) - {\mathcal{P}_{\Phi,X}(x)}\leqslant \Phi(x,x)
\end{equation}
and since ${\mathcal{P}_{\Phi,X}(x)}$ is independent of the particular basis chosen, so is the value ${\|U(x)\|}_2$.
\\Finally \eqref{lambda} proves that $\|\Lambda(f)\|_2$ is independent on ${\mathcal{U}}$ if it is $\Phi$-orthonormal.
\end{pf}
\section{Orthonormal bases}
The previous Corollary suggests the opportunity of using orthonormal bases.
The following Theorems give a complete characterization of bases ${\mathcal{U}}$ as defined in \eqref{basis} that are orthonormal with
respect to the considered inner products.
\begin{theorem}[$\Phi$-orthonormal bases]
Each $\Phi$-orthonormal basis ${\mathcal{U}}$ arises from a decomposition
\begin{equation}
A=B^T\cdot B,
\end{equation}
with ${V_{\U}}=B^T$ and ${C_{\U}}=B^{-1}$
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
Since $G_{{\mathcal{U}}} = {C_{\U}}^T\cdot A\cdot{C_{\U}} $ by Theorem \eqref{th:gram}, the condition $G_{{\mathcal{U}}}=I$ is equivalent to
$A=({C_{\U}}^T)^{-1} \cdot {C_{\U}}^{-1}$, and the statement holds according to th.\eqref{th:char}.
\end{pf}
\\It is also useful for the next chapter to characterize bases that are orthonormal with respect to the discrete scalar product
introduced in chapter \ref{ch:general}:
\begin{theorem}[$\ell_2(X)$-orthonormal bases]
Each $\ell_2(X)$-orthonormal basis ${\mathcal{U}}$ arises from a decomposition
\begin{equation}
A=Q\cdot B,\; Q^T\cdot Q= I
\end{equation}
with ${V_{\U}}=Q$ and ${C_{\U}}=B$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
Since $\Gamma_{{\mathcal{U}}} = {C_{\U}}^T\cdot A^2\cdot{C_{\U}} $ by Theorem \eqref{th:gram}, the condition $\Gamma_{{\mathcal{U}}}=I$ implies that
$A\cdot{C_{\U}}={V_{\U}}$ is orthogonal.
\end{pf}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:intorth}
If the basis ${\mathcal{U}}$ is $\Phi$-orthonormal, the functionals $\Lambda_j$ in \eqref{prop:int} are obviously $\Phi$-scalar
products, and so the interpolant takes the form
\begin{equation}
{P_X[f]}(x) = \sum_{j=1}^N (f,u_j)_{\Phi} u_j(x)
\end{equation}
indeed
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Lambda_j(f) &=& ({V_{\U}}^{-1}\cdot E_X(f))_j = ({C_{\U}}^T\cdot E_X(f))_j = \sum_{i=1}^N c_{ij} f(x_i) \\
&=&\left(\sum_{i=1}^N c_{ij} \Phi(x_i,\cdot) ,f\right)_{\Phi} = (u_j,f)_{\Phi}
\end{eqnarray*}
The above fact is clear since the interpolation operator is a projection operator on ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$ with respect to
$(\cdot,\cdot)_{\Phi}$, and ${\mathcal{U}}$ is a $\Phi$-orthonormal basis for ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$.
\end{remark}
\chapter{Weighted SVD bases}\label{ch:wsvd}
This chapter deals with the main issue of the present work.
\\We will introduce a particular basis for the native space ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $, and we will present the reason to threat it.
In particular the discussion points out the stability and convergence rate of the interpolant and the
weighted least-squares approximant based on it.
\\\\The main idea is to discretize the ``natural'' bases described in Theorem \ref{th:mercer}.
\\The numerical approximation of
such basis gives a point-dependent, discrete basis which can be described using the notations introduced in the previous
chapter.
\\The interest on this basis is that it preserves the properties of the continuous basis in a discrete setting, and
in particual is a complete, $\Phi$-orthonormal and $\ell_2^w(X)$-orthogonal basis for ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $.
\\\\The idea for using this approach comes again from the paper \cite{SchPa}, where it is suggested as a possible way to
create a connection between the continuous basis and the discrete one.
\section{Definition and basic properties}
Consider a cubature rule $ (X,\ \mathcal{W})_N $, $N\in\mathbb{N}$, on $\Omega$, i.e. a set of points $X=\{x_j\}_{j=1}^N \subset \Omega$ and a set of positive
weights $\mathcal{W}=\{w_j\}_{j=1}^N$ such that
\begin{equation}
\int_{\Omega} f(y) dy \approx \sum_{j=1}^N f(x_j) w_j\quad \forall f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)}
\end{equation}
We can approximate the operator \eqref{def:operator} for each eigenvalue $\lambda_j$ using the Nystr\"om method based on
the above cubature rule. A complete description of the method is present in \cite{Atk}.
\\The operator can be evaluated on $X$,
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_j \varphi_j(x_i) = \int_{\Omega} \Phi(x_i,y) \varphi_j(y) dy\quad\forall i=1,\dots,N,\ \forall j>0
\end{equation*}
and then discretized using the cubature rule as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nystrom}
\lambda_j \varphi_j(x_i) = \sum_{h=1}^N \Phi(x_i,x_h) \varphi_j(x_h) w_h\quad\forall i,j=1,\dots,N
\end{equation}
Now, setting $W=diag(w_j)$, it suffices to solve the following discrete eigenvalue problem in order to find the desired
approximation of the operator's eigenvalues and eigenfunctions (evaluated on $X$):
\begin{equation*}
\lambda v = (A \cdot W) v.
\end{equation*}
However this approach does not lead directly to a connection between the discretized version of the basis of Theorem
\ref{th:mercer} and a basis of the subspace ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$ as defined in equation \eqref{hs}, since it involves a scaled version $A\cdot W$
of the kernel matrix which is no more symmetric and that cannot be described as a factorization of $A$, as required by the construction made in the
previous chapter.
\\\\A solution is to rewrite \eqref{eq:nystrom} using the positivity of the weights as
\begin{equation}
\lambda_j (\sqrt{w_i} \varphi_j(x_i)) = \sum_{h=1}^N (\sqrt{w_i} \Phi(x_i,x_h) \sqrt{w_h}) (\sqrt{w_h} \varphi_j(x_h))
\quad \forall i,j=1,\dots,N
\end{equation}
and then to consider the corresponding eigenvalue problem
\begin{equation*}
\lambda \left(\sqrt{W}\cdot v\right) = \left(\sqrt{W}\cdot A \cdot \sqrt{W}\right) \left(\sqrt{W}\cdot v\right)
\end{equation*}
which is equivalent to the previous one, now involving the symmetric and positive definite matrix
$A_W:=\sqrt{W}\cdot A \cdot \sqrt{W}$.
\\In particular this matrix is normal, and then a singular value decomposition of it
is also an unitary diagonalization.
\\\\Motivated by this approach we can introduce a new basis for ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$, described in terms of the notation given in
Theorem \ref{th:char}:
\begin{defin}[Weighted Svd basis]
A weighted svd basis ${\mathcal{U}}$ is a basis for ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$ characterized by the following matrices:
\begin{equation*}
{V_{\U}} = \sqrt{W^{-1}}\cdot Q \cdot \Sigma ,\;{C_{\U}}=\sqrt{W}\cdot Q \cdot \Sigma^{-1}
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{W}\cdot A \cdot \sqrt{W} = Q \cdot \Sigma^2 \cdot Q^T
\end{equation*}
is a singular value decomposition (and an unitary diagonalization) of the scaled kernel matrix $A_W$, $W=diag(w_j)$, where
$\{w_j\}_{j=1}^N$ are the weigths of a cubature rule $(X,\ \mathcal{W})_N$.
\end{defin}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:weights}
For what follows it is important to require that $\sum_{j=1}^N w_j = |\Omega|$, which is equivalent to ask that
the cubature rule $(X,\ \mathcal{W})_N$ is exact at least for the constant functions, $\forall N\in\mathbb{N}$. In the next this
property will be assumed to hold.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Preservation of the properties of the continuous basis}
As expected, this basis preserves, in a discretized sense, some interesting properties of the ``natural'' one:
\begin{prop}\label{pr:prop}
Each weighted svd basis ${\mathcal{U}}$ has the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\ u_j(x) = \frac{1}{\sigma_j^2} \sum_{i=1}^N w_i u_j(x_i) \Phi(x,x_i) \approx \frac{1}{\sigma_j^2} {T_{\Phi}}[u_j](x)$, $\forall\ 1\leqslant j \leqslant N, \ \forall x\in\Omega$
\item ${\mathcal{U}}$ is $\Phi$-orthonormal
\item ${\mathcal{U}}$ is $\ell_2^w(X)$-orthogonal
\item $\|u_j \|_{\ell_2^w(X)}^2 = \sigma^2_j \quad \forall u_j\in{\mathcal{U}}$
\item $\sum_{j=1}^N \sigma_j^2 = \phi(0)\ |\Omega|$
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
Properties 2 - 3 - 4 can be proved using the gramians as in Prop. \ref{th:gram}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
G_{{\mathcal{U}}}&=&{C_{\U}}^T\cdot A\cdot{C_{\U}} = {C_{\U}}^T\cdot{V_{\U}} = \Sigma^{-1} \cdot Q^T \cdot \sqrt{W} \cdot \sqrt{W^{-1}}\cdot Q \cdot \Sigma=I\\
\Gamma_{{\mathcal{U}}}&=& {V_{\U}}^T\cdot W \cdot{V_{\U}} = \Sigma \cdot Q^T\cdot \sqrt{W^{-1}} \cdot W\cdot \sqrt{W^{-1}}\cdot Q \cdot \Sigma = \Sigma^2
\end{eqnarray*}
To prove the first one it suffices to use the definition of ${C_{\U}}$ and ${V_{\U}}$: indeed from the definition of ${V_{\U}}$,
if we denote the $j$-th column of ${V_{\U}}$ as ${{V_{\U}}}_j$, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
{V_{\U}} &=& \sqrt{W}^{-1} Q \Sigma = \sqrt{W}^{-1} [q_1 \sigma_1,...,q_N\sigma_N ]\\
\Rightarrow&& E_X(u_j) = {{V_{\U}}}_j = \sqrt{W}^{-1} q_j \sigma_j\\
\Rightarrow&& q_j / \sigma_j = 1 / \sigma_j^2 \sqrt{W} E_X(u_j)
\end{eqnarray*}
and the last equality allows to compute each component of ${C_{\U}}$ as
\begin{equation*}
({C_{\U}})_{i,j}=(\sqrt{W}\cdot Q \cdot \Sigma^{-1})_{i,j} = \sqrt{w_i}\ {\frac{q_j(i)}{\sigma_j}} = {\frac{w_i}{\sigma_j^2}}\ u_j(x_i)
\end{equation*}
and then the Definition of ${\mathcal{U}}$ gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
u_j(x) &=& \sum_{i=1}^N \Phi(x,x_i)\ ({C_{\U}})_{i,j} = \sum_{i=1}^N \Phi(x,x_i)\ {\frac{w_i}{\sigma_j^2}}\ u_j(x_i) =\\
&=& {\frac{1}{\sigma_j^2}} \sum_{i=1}^N w_i\ \Phi(x,x_i)\ u_j(x_i)
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last term is cleary the approximation of ${T_{\Phi}}[u_j]$ given by the rule $(X,\ \mathcal{W})_N$, divided by the corresponding
discrete eigenvalue $\sigma_j^2$.
\\Property 5 is due to a linear-algebra relation: we recall that
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{W}\cdot A\cdot \sqrt{W} = Q\cdot \Sigma^2 \cdot Q^T
\end{equation*}
and since the trace of a square matrix is equal to the sum of its eigenvalues, we get
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=1}^N \sigma_j^2 = \sum_{j=1}^N w_j\ \Phi(x_j,x_j) = \phi(0)\ \sum_{j=1}^N w_j = \phi(0)\ |\Omega|.
\end{equation*}
This concludes the proof.
\end{pf}
\begin{remark}
In this context, where $\{w_j\}_{j=1}^N$ are cubature weights, the $\ell_2^w(X)$-scalar product is a discretization af the
$L_2(\Omega)$-scalar product. Indeed
\begin{equation}
(f,g)_{L_2(\Omega)}^2 = \int_{\Omega} f(x) g(x) dx \approx \sum_{j=1}^N w_j f(x_j) g(x_j) = (f,g)_{\ell_2^w(X)}^2
\end{equation}
and in this sense the property 3 is a discretized version of the corresponding property of the continuous basis.
\\In the same way, property 5 states that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=1}^N \sigma_j^2 = \sum_{j=1}^N w_j\ \Phi(x_j,x_j) = \int_{\Omega} \Phi(x,x)\ dx
\end{equation*}
and exactly the same relation holds for the continuos eigenvalues if $N\rightarrow\infty$, as pointed out in Remark
\eqref{rem:trace}.
In this case the integral is exactly approximated by the cubature rule since it is supposed to be exact at least
for constant functions.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Completeness}
The basis enjoys another important property: if the data set $X$ if sufficiently big, the basis is complete in the
native space. Although at the moment it is quite useless in a practical sense, it will be a key property when combined with
the stability considerations which follows.
\begin{remark}
A function $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ belongs to ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}^{\bot}$ if and only if it vanishes on the discrete set $X\subset\Omega$, i.e.
$${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}^{\bot} = \{ f \in {\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} : f(x_i) = 0 \ \forall x_i\in X \}$$
Indeed if $f \in {\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}^{\bot}$, i.e. $(f,u_j)_{\Phi}=0\ \forall u_j\in{\mathcal{U}}$, then using Remark \eqref{rem:intorth}
$${P_X[f]}(x) = \sum_{j=1}^N (f,u_j)_{\Phi}\ u_j(x) \equiv 0$$
and $f = {P_X[f]} = 0$ on $X$.
\\On the other hand, if $f=0$ on $X$, then ${P_X[f]} = 0$ on $X$, and since ${\mathcal{U}}$ is a $\Phi$-orthonormal and hence linearly independent set,
we have $(f,u_j)_{\Phi}=0\ \forall u_j\in{\mathcal{U}}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{prop}[Completeness]
If the data set $X$ is dense in $\Omega$, the basis ${\mathcal{U}}$ is a complete basis for ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $.
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
To prove the completeness it suffices to show that if a function $f\in {\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ is orthogonal to each basis element $u_j\in{\mathcal{U}}$,
it is
the null function. This fact follows immediatly from the previous Proposition, the denseness of $X$ in $\Omega$ and
the embedding ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} \hookrightarrow {\mathcal{C}}(\Omega)$.
\end{pf}
\section{Interpolation and approximation}
In this section we will describe the interpolation and approximation process based on the weighted svd basis.
This allows to get error bounds and stability estimates that explains the use of such basis.
\subsection{Interpolation}
We recall some basic facts about the interpolation process by kernels. Most of all are the same for each $\Phi$-orthonormal basis,
as shown in the previous chapter.
\begin{prop}[Interpolant]\label{pr:interpolant}
Let $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ and $X\subset\Omega$, $X=\{x_j\}_{j=1}^N$. Then the interpolant ${P_X[f]}$ of $f$ on $X$ based on the basis ${\mathcal{U}}$
can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
{P_X[f]}(x) = \sum_{j=1}^N (f,u_j)_{\Phi} u_j(x)\quad \forall x\in \Omega
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}[Power function]\label{prop:power}
The Power Function ${\mathcal{P}_{\Phi,X}(x)}$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{P}_{\Phi,X}(x)}^2= \phi(0) - \sum_{j=1}^N u_j(x)^2
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
The result can be proved using the matrix form of the Power Function given in \eqref{char:pf} for the special case $G_{{\mathcal{U}}}=I$,
i.e. for an orthonormal basis, but it is more clear to give a direct proof.
\\By definition, the Power Function is the norm of the error functional
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}_x:{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}
\end{equation*}
that maps every function $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ to the interpolation error at a given point $x\in\Omega$, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}_x[f](x) =f(x)-{P_X[f]}(x) .
\end{equation*}
Using the reproducing property of the kernel and the Proposition \eqref{pr:interpolant}, we can rewrite $\mathcal{E}_x$ as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{E}_x[f](x) &=& (f,\Phi(\cdot,x))_{\Phi} - (f, \sum_{j=1}^N u_j(\cdot) u_j(x))_{\Phi} \\
&=&(f,\Phi(\cdot,x) - \sum_{j=1}^N u_j(\cdot) u_j(x))_{\Phi}
\end{eqnarray*}
and since the norm of $\mathcal{E}_x$ equals the norm of its Riesz representer, we can conclude that
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathcal{P}_{\Phi,X}(x)}^2 &=& \| \Phi(\cdot,x) - \sum_{j=1}^N u_j(\cdot) u_j(x)\|^2_{\Phi} \\
&=& \|\Phi(\cdot,x)\|^2_{\Phi} + \sum_{i,j=1}^N u_i(x)u_j(x)( u_i,u_j)_{\Phi} -2 \sum_{j=1}^N u_j(x)( \Phi(\cdot,x),u_j)_{\Phi}\\
&=& \phi(0) - \sum_{j=1}^N u_j(x)^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
This concludes the proof.
\end{pf}
\begin{remark}
The proof gives also an expansion of the kernel when restricted to act on functions in ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$,
\begin{equation*}
\Phi(x,y)=\sum_{j=1}^N u_j(x) u_j(y) .
\end{equation*}
Indeed $\forall f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$ we have $f=\sum_{j=1}^N (f,u_j)_{\Phi} u_j(x)$, hence $\forall x\in \Omega$
\begin{equation*}
(f,\Phi(x,\cdot))_{\Phi} = f(x) = \sum_{j=1}^N u_j(x) (f, u_j(\cdot) )_{\Phi} = (f,\sum_{j=1}^N u_j(x) u_j(\cdot) )_{\Phi}
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}
\subsection{Weighted least-squares approximation}
Another common approach to reconstruct a function from its value at a discrete set $X\subset\Omega$ is to approximate it
in the least-squares sense.
\\The idea is to use the same sampled data used for the interpolation process, but to relax the interpolation condition
and then to project the function into a subspace of ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$, rather than into the full subspace.
\\In this way it is possible to reduce the computational cost of the process, since a smaller basis ${\mathcal{U}}'\varsubsetneq{\mathcal{U}}$ is
involved, and to obtain better results in terms of stability. The hope is to gain these benefits without a serious loss
of convergence speed.
\\This kind of approximation is also meaningful when the data values are supposed to be affected by noise,
and then an exact recostruction of them makes no sense.
\\In this setting, moreover, the properties of the weighted svd basis provides an additional reason to consider this kind
of approximation: since the eigenvalues of the operator $T_{\Phi}$ decays very rapidly to zero, and the discrete one
which approximates them are the discrete norms of the basis involved, it is reasonable to consider only the most significant
of them.
\\\\In fact, we are interested in a weighted least-squares approximation defined as follows:
\begin{defin}\label{def:approx}
Given a function $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $, a discrete subset $X\subset\Omega$, a set of cubature weights $\mathcal{W}$ associated with $X$,
a weighted svd basis ${\mathcal{U}}$ for ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$ and a natural number $M\leqslant N = |X|$, the weighted least-squares approximation of order $M$
of $f$ is the function ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$ that satisfies the codition
\begin{equation*}
{\Lambda_{M}[f]} = \argmin_{g\in span\{u_1,\dots,u_M\}} \|f - g\|_{\ell_2^w(X)}
\end{equation*}
\end{defin}
\noindent The reason to use the first basis element is the fact that they are associated to the bigger singular values of the
scaled kernel matrix $A_W$, and then they allows a more stable and accurate reconstruction of $f$. This relation will be
stated exactly later when dealing with error bounds.
\\\\In order to compute the approximant, we start to point out a relation between the $\Phi$- and the $\ell_2^w(X)$- scalar product,
that is again a discretized version of a property of the continuous base $\{\varphi_j\}_{j>0}$, stated in Remark
\eqref{L2Nphi}:
\begin{prop}
For all $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ and for each $u_j \in {\mathcal{U}}$, the following relation between the $\Phi$- and the $\ell_2^w(X)$-scalar products holds:
\begin{equation*}
\left(f,u_j\right)_{\Phi} =\frac{1}{\sigma_j^2}\left(f,u_j\right)_{\ell_2^w(X)}=\frac{\left(f,u_j\right)_{\ell_2^w(X)}}{\left(u_j,u_j\right)_{\ell_2^w(X)} }
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
Using property 1 of Proposition \eqref{pr:prop}, by direct calculations we get the statement:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left(f,u_j\right)_{\Phi} &=& \left(f, \frac{1}{\sigma_j^2} \sum_{i=1}^N w_i u_j(x_i) \Phi(\cdot,x_i)\right)_{\Phi} =
\frac{1}{\sigma_j^2} \sum_{i=1}^N w_i u_j(x_i) \left( f,\Phi(\cdot,x_i)\right)_{\Phi}\\
&&=\frac{1}{\sigma_j^2} \sum_{i=1}^N w_i u_j(x_i) f(x_i) = \frac{1}{\sigma_j^2\ }\left(f,u_j\right)_{\ell_2^w(X)}
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\sigma_j^2 = \left(u_j,u_j\right)_{\ell_2^w(X)}$ as shown in the same Proposition.
\end{pf}
\\Now it is possible to express the approximation as a function in ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$:
\begin{prop}[Weighted least-squares approximant]
In the notation of Definition \eqref{def:approx}, the approximant is given by
\begin{equation}
{\Lambda_{M}[f](x)} = \sum_{j=1}^M \frac{(f,u_j)_{\ell_2^w(X)}}{\sigma_j^2} u_j(x) = \sum_{j=1}^M (f,u_j)_{\Phi} u_j(x) \quad \forall x\in \Omega
\end{equation}
and then ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$ is nothing else but a truncation of ${P_X[f]}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
The second term is simply the orthogonal projection of $f$ into the space generated by $\{u_1,\dots,u_M\}$, since the base
is orthogonal with respect to $(\cdot,\cdot)_{\ell_2^w(X)}$ and $\|u_j\|_{\ell_2^w(X)}^2=\sigma_j^2$, and it is obviously the element of
$span\{u_1,\dots,u_M\}$ that minimizes the $\ell_2^w(X)$-distance from $f$.
\\The third term is derived as a direct implication of the previous Proposition.
\end{pf}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:trunc}
We point out that the previous proposition proves that the weighted least-squares approximant ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$ can be obtained
from the interpolant ${P_X[f]}$ simply truncating the last $N-M$ coefficients and basis, the ones corresponding to the
smallest singular values $\sigma_j^2$. This is in opposition to the case of the standard basis of translates, in which
choosing the bases to neglect corresponds to the choice of a restricted subset $Y\subset X$ where to center the kernel,
and in general this is a more difficult task.
\\Moreover, motivated from the results in the following sections, this procedure can be automated when dealing with a
situation in which very small singular values are expected. In this setting one can leave out the bases which
correspond to singular values less than a fixed tolerance in order to avoid numerical instability, and then skipping
automatically from interpolation to least-squares approximation. From a linear algebra point of view, this corresponds
to solve the weighted linear system associated to the interpolation problem using a \textit{total least-squares} method.
\end{remark}
\noindent Using this direct expression for the approximant, it is easy to compute the equivalent of the Power Function for ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$:
\begin{prop}\label{th:lspf}
The norm of the error functional $\mathcal{E}_x^M $ for ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$ takes the form
\begin{equation*}
\left\|\mathcal{E}_x^M\right\|_{{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} ^*}^2 = \phi(0) - \sum_{j=1}^M u_j(x)^2
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
The proof is the same of the one for the Power Function, where the interpolant is truncated after $M$ terms.
\end{pf}
\subsection{Stability}
In the case of the interpolant, we recall the result of the previous chapter, that holds for each $\Phi$-orthonormal
basis:
\begin{prop}
Since ${\mathcal{U}}$ is a $\Phi$-orthonormal basis, it is possible to bound the absolute value of the interpolant as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left| {P_X[f](x)} \right| \leqslant \sqrt{\phi(0)}\ \|f\|_{\Phi} \quad \forall x\in \Omega
\end{eqnarray}
\end{prop}
\noindent The result can be refined for the particular case of an svd-basis:
\begin{prop}\label{pr:stab}
For an svd bases ${\mathcal{U}}$, the following stability estimates holds:
\begin{equation}
\left| {P_X[f](x)} \right| \leqslant \sqrt{\phi(0)}\ \|f\|_{\Phi}, \quad
\left| {\Lambda_{M}[f](x)} \right| \leqslant \sqrt{\phi(0)}\ \|f\|_{\Phi} \quad \forall x\in \Omega
\end{equation}
where in particular
\begin{equation}
\left| {P_X[f](x)} \right| \leqslant \sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^N u_j(x)^2}\ \|f\|_{\Phi}, \quad
\left| {\Lambda_{M}[f](x)} \right| \leqslant \sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^M u_j(x)^2}\ \|f\|_{\Phi} \quad \forall x\in \Omega
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
It suffices to use the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for $(\cdot,\cdot)_{\Phi}$ and the $\Phi$-orthonarmality of ${\mathcal{U}}$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| {P_X[f](x)} \right| &=& \left|\sum_{j=1}^N (f,u_j)_{\Phi} u_j(x)\right| = \left|(f,\sum_{j=1}^N u_j(\cdot)\ u_j(x))_{\Phi}\right|\\
&\leqslant& \left\|\sum_{j=1}^N u_j(\cdot)\ u_j(x)\right\|_{\Phi}\ \| f\|_{\Phi}= \sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^N u_j(x)^2}\ \| f\|_{\Phi}
\end{eqnarray*}
The same for ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$, where the sum stops at $M$.
\\Now the equality \eqref{prop:power},
\begin{equation*}
{\mathcal{P}_{\Phi,X}(x)}^2=\phi(0) - \sum_{j=1}^N u_j(x)^2
\end{equation*}
gives exactly the general estimate, since obviously the square of the Power Function is non negative.
\end{pf}
\subsection{Error bounds}
Now we can prove some convergence estimates on the described approximants.
\\It is important to remark that, in the case of the interpolant, there are no difference in the use of a particular
basis, since the spanned subspace ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$ in which we project a function $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ clearly does not depend on the
choosen basis.
\\On the other hand, the fact that we are using this kind of basis allows us to relate the bounds to the continuous
eigenvalues and to their eigenfunctions $\{\varphi_j\}_{j>0}$, which forms a complete basis for ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ and which are related in
a close way to the used kernel $\Phi$. This justifies the choice of sampling the function $f$ on a data set $X$
that forms together with a set of weights $\mathcal{W}$ a good cubature rule.
\\Moreover, this remark remains valid in the case of the weighted least-squares approximant, where in addition
the connection between the discrete and the continuos eigenvaues motivates the use of a reduced subspace of ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$.
\\\\The first error bound is a simple adaptation of the estimate \eqref{th:bound1} for the case of a
$\Phi$-orthonormal basis, and then in particular for a weighted svd basis:
\begin{prop}\label{th:bound2}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, let $\Phi\in\mathcal{C}(\Omega\times\Omega)$ be a radial positive definite kernel, and $X\subset\Omega$.
Then for each $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $ and for all $x\in\Omega$,
\begin{equation}\label{est1}
|f(x) - {P_X[f]}(x)|^2 \leqslant \left(\phi(0) - \sum_{j=1}^N u_j(x)^2\right)\ \|f\|_{\Phi}^2
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{remark}
As shown in Chapter \eqref{ch:general}, in the above estimate the norm of $f$ can be replaced with the norm
of $f-{P_X[f]}$. In this case, since the basis is $\Phi$-orthonormal, the following equalities holds:
\begin{equation}
\|f -{P_X[f]}\|_{\Phi}^2 = \|f\|_{\Phi}^2 -\|{P_X[f]}\|_{\Phi}^2= \|f\|_{\Phi}^2 - \sum_{j=1}^N (f,u_j)_{\Phi}^2
\end{equation}
The same remains valid also in the next estimates which are derived from this one.
\end{remark}
\noindent\\Using this estimate we can compute a bound on the interpolation and approximation error using the $L_2(\Omega)$-
norm. It is of interest to estimate the reconstruction precision in such norm because it gives not only a punctual, ``worst-case'' bound on the
error, but also a global one.
\begin{prop}\label{pr:conv1}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be compact, let $\Phi\in\mathcal{C}(\Omega\times\Omega)$ be a radial positive definite kernel
and $X\subset\Omega$. Then for each $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $
\begin{equation*}
\|f - {P_X[f]}\|_{L_2(\Omega)}^2 \leqslant \left(\left|\Omega\right|\cdot \phi(0)-\sum_{j=1}^N \lambda_j +C_{\Phi,\Omega,X,\mathcal{W}}\cdot\sum_{j=1}^N \|u_j-\varphi_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}\right) \|f\|_{\Phi}^2
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
From the embedding Theorem \eqref{th:embed2} we know that ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} \hookrightarrow L_2(\Omega)$, hence both sides of \eqref{est1}
have finite $L_2(\Omega)$-norm. Thus we can integrate over $\Omega$ the first bound and get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|f - {P_X[f]}\|_{L_2(\Omega)}^2 &\leqslant&\mathop{\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\int}}}_{\Omega}\left(\phi(0) - \sum_{j=1}^N u_j(x)^2\right)\ \|f\|_{\Phi}^2 dx\\
&=& \left(|\Omega|\cdot\phi(0)-\sum_{j=1}^N\int_{\Omega}u_j(x)^2 dx\right) \|f\|_{\Phi}^2\\
&=& \left(|\Omega|\cdot\phi(0)-\sum_{j=1}^N\|u_j(x)\|_{L_2(\Omega1)}^2 \right) \|f\|_{\Phi}^2
\end{eqnarray*}
Now we can estimate the $L_2(\Omega)$-norms as follows: using the simple relations
\begin{equation*}
\|\varphi_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}^2 = \|u_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}^2 + \|\varphi_j-u_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}^2 + 2\ (\varphi_j-u_j,u_j)_{L_2(\Omega)}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\|u_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)} \leqslant \|\varphi_j-u_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}+ \|\varphi_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}
\end{equation*}
we get $\forall j=1,\dots,N$
\begin{eqnarray*}
-\|u_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}^2&=&-\|\varphi_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}^2+\|\varphi_j-u_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}^2 +2\ (\varphi_j-u_j,u_j)_{L_2(\Omega)}\\
&\leqslant&-\|\varphi_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}^2+\|\varphi_j-u_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}^2 +2\ \|\varphi_j-u_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}\ \|u_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}\\
&\leqslant&-\|\varphi_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}^2+\|\varphi_j-u_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}\left(3\ \|\varphi_j-u_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}+\|\varphi_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
and from \eqref{theOperator} we know that $\|\varphi\|_{L_2(\Omega)}^2=\lambda_j$. To conclude it suffices to bound in an obvious way the right-hand
side term as
\begin{equation*}
3\ \|\varphi_j-u_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}+\|\varphi_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}\leqslant 3\left(\max_{j=1,\dots,N} \|\varphi_j-u_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}\right) + \sqrt{\lambda_1}=:C_{\Phi,\Omega,X,\mathcal{W}}
\end{equation*}
since the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_j\}_{j>0}$ are non increasing.
\end{pf}
\newline\noindent The same estimate remains valid for the approximant ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$ if $N$ is replaced by $M$, as a consequence of the
Proposition \eqref{th:lspf}:
\begin{prop}\label{pr:errorls}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be compact, let $\Phi\in\mathcal{C}(\Omega\times\Omega)$ be a radial positive definite kernel,
$X\subset\Omega$, $|X|=N\in\mathbb{N}$ and $M\leqslant N$. Then for each $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $
\begin{equation*}
\|f - {\Lambda_{M}[f]}\|_{L_2(\Omega)}^2 \leqslant \left(\left|\Omega\right|\cdot \phi(0)-\sum_{j=1}^M \lambda_j +C_{\Phi,\Omega,X,\mathcal{W}}\cdot\sum_{j=1}^M \|u_j-\varphi_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}\right) \|f\|_{\Phi}^2
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\noindent We point out that these estimates involve two terms: the first one is
\begin{equation*}
|\Omega|\cdot \phi(0)-\sum_{j=1}^N \lambda_j
\end{equation*}
and it is related only on the kernel, the domain and the dimension $N\in\mathbb{N}$ of the approximation subspace ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(X)}$.
From the Remark \eqref{rem:trace} on the Theorem \eqref{th:mercer} we know that for $N\rightarrow\infty$ the above term
vanishes, and moreover the eigenvalues are positive and orderer in a decreasing way. Hence this term measures how the
truncated series approximates the full one, or in other words how the degenerate kernel
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=1}^N \lambda_j \varphi_j(x) \varphi_j(y) ,\ x,y\in\Omega
\end{equation*}
approximates the original kernel $\Phi(x,y)$.
\\The second term is
\begin{equation*}
C_{\Phi,\Omega,X,\mathcal{W}}\cdot\sum_{j=1}^N \|u_j-\varphi_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)}
\end{equation*}
and it depends also on the cubature rule $(X,\ \mathcal{W})_N$. It measures the convergence rate of the Nyst\"om method based on the
rule, and gives informations on how well the discrete basis ${\mathcal{U}}$ approximates the continuous one.
\begin{remark}
It can be useful to refer to the cubature error in terms of the $\|\cdot\|_{\infty}$-norm. It can be done in an obvious way
since $\Omega$ is compact and then
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=1}^N \|u_j-\varphi_j\|_{L_2(\Omega)} \leqslant \sqrt{|\Omega|}\ \sum_{j=1}^N \|u_j-\varphi_j \|_{\infty}
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}
\noindent For the weighted least-squares approximant, it make sense to consider also another type of error measurement. Indeed in this
case the data-sites set $X\subset\Omega$ is not used to interpolate the function $f$, but works as a sample set, so the
pointwise distance between $f$ and ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$ on $X$ is not zero. We can bound this quantity as shown in the next Proposition:
\begin{prop}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, let $\Phi\in\mathcal{C}(\Omega\times\Omega)$ be a radial positive definite kernel,
$X\subset\Omega$, $|X|=N$, and $M<N$. Then for each $f\in{\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $
\begin{equation}
\|f - {\Lambda_{M}[f]}\|_{\ell_2^w(X)} \leqslant \left(\sum_{j=M+1}^N \sigma_j^2 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \|f \|_{\Phi}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{pf}
We start again from the bound in Proposition \eqref{th:bound2}: in this case the finiteness of the $\ell_2^w(X)$-norm of both sides is obvious,
since every function involved in the estimate is continuous on $\Omega$.
Acting as in the previous Theorem we can evaluate both sides in $X$ and sum the obtained values, weighted with the
weights $\mathcal{W}$.
We get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|f - {\Lambda_{M}[f]}\|_{\ell_2^w(X)}^2 &\leqslant& \ \|f\|_{\Phi}^2 \sum_{i=1}^N w_i\ \left(\phi(0) - \sum_{j=1}^M u_j(x_i)^2\right)\\
&=& \|f\|_{\Phi}^2 \left( \phi(0) \sum_{i=1}^N w_i - \sum_{j=1}^M \sum_{i=1}^Nw_i\ u_j(x_i)^2\right)\\
&=& \|f\|_{\Phi}^2 \left( \phi(0) \sum_{i=1}^N w_i - \sum_{j=1}^M \| u_j\|_{\ell_2^w(X)}^2\right)\\
&=& \|f\|_{\Phi}^2 \left( \phi(0) |\Omega| - \sum_{j=1}^M \sigma_j^2\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
Where we used property 4 of Proposition \eqref{pr:prop} to compute the $\ell_2^w(X)$-norm of the basis functions and Remark
\eqref{rem:weights} to compute the sum of the weights.
To get the desired bound we recall that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=1}^N \sigma_j^2 = \phi(0)\ |\Omega|
\end{equation*}
again as stated in Proposition \eqref{pr:prop}.
\end{pf}
\begin{remark}
The last result can be interpreted also in another way. In fact, it gives a bound on how the weighted least-squares approximant and
the interpolant differs on the data-sites set $X$. Indeed, since $f(x_i) = {P_X[f]}(x_i)$ $\forall x_i\in X$, we get
$\forall f \in {\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $
\begin{equation}
\|{P_X[f]} - {\Lambda_{M}[f]}\|_{\ell_2^w(X)} \leqslant \left(\sum_{j=M+1}^N \sigma_j^2 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \|f \|_{\Phi}
\end{equation}
Clearly this estimate doesn't give informations on the distance between the two approximants on the set
$\Omega\setminus X$. However this quantity can be computed as in the above estimates:
\begin{eqnarray*}
|{P_X[f](x)}-{\Lambda_{M}[f](x)}|&=&\left|\sum_{j=1}^N (f,u_j)_{\Phi} u_j(x)- \sum_{j=1}^M (f,u_j)_{\Phi} u_j(x)\right|\\
&=& \left|\sum_{j=M+1}^N (f,u_j)_{\Phi} u_j(x)\right|\\
&\leqslant& \|f\|_{\Phi}\left( \sum_{j=M+1}^N u_j(x)^2\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
and the partial sum can be bounded as in the previous Theorems.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The trade-off principle between stability and convergence explained in Chapter \eqref{ch:general} can be viewed in this context
as follows: we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|{P_X[f](x)}|^2&\leqslant&\left(\sum_{j=1}^N u_j(x)^2\right)\ \|f\|_{\phi}^2\\
|{P_X[f](x)}-f(x)|^2&\leqslant&\left(\phi(0)-\sum_{j=1}^N u_j(x)^2\right)\ \|f\|_{\phi}^2
\end{eqnarray*}
and the same for ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$ if $N$ is replaced by $M<N$.
\\Hence for convergent approximant, namely for approximant for which the power function converges to zero, we have necessarily
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=1}^N u_j(x)^2 \rightarrow \phi(0)
\end{equation*}
that is, the constants in the stability bounds in Proposition \eqref{pr:stab} are maximized.
\end{remark}
\chapter{Numerical experiments}\label{ch:numerics}
In this chapter we will present some numerical experiments which show the actual behaviour of our basis.
\\We will point out different features that can be relevant in the choice of a method,
and in particular the ones concerning stability and convergence speed.
\\The following tests take place in the setting described in Section \eqref{num:general}.
\\\\The code is mainly written in \textsl{Matlab}, using in some parts the software present in the book \cite{Fass}. The most
performance-critical parts are written in \textsl{C$++$}, using the \textsl{Matlab} \textit{MEX} interface \cite{Mex} and the
linear-algebra library \textit{Eigen} \cite{Eigen}.
\section{General setting}\label{num:general}
The approximant strictly depends on the set $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, on the kernel
$\Phi\in\mathcal{C}(\Omega\times\Omega)$, on the data-sites set $X\subset\Omega$ and on the function $f:\Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
that we try to reconstruct. In this section we describe the general choices made on this elements for our experiments.
\subsection{Approximation domain}\label{sect:domains}
The sets $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ used are the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item The square $\Omega_1=[0,1]\times[0,1]$
\item The disk $\Omega_2$ with center $C=\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ and radius $R=\frac{1}{2}$
\item The \textit{cutted disk} $\Omega_3$, i.e. the unit disk centered in zero with the third quadrant cutted away.
It is the domain depicted on the left in Figure \ref{fig:cuttedandlens}.
\item The \textit{lens} $\Omega_4$ defined as the intersection of two disk with centers $C=\left(-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2},0\right)$ and
$c=\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2},0\right)$ and radii $R=r=1$. It is the domain depicted on the right in Figure \ref{fig:cuttedandlens}.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{cutted.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{lens.eps}
\caption{The cutted disk and the lens as defined in the Section \eqref{sect:domains}, with an example of trigonometric gaussian
points, as defined in Section \eqref{sect:dataS}}
\label{fig:cuttedandlens}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Data sites}\label{sect:dataS}
For the standard basis of translates we use two distributions of points: equally spaced points and Halton points. The
Halton points are used since they are well distributed without being equally spaced.
\\For our basis we need a data-sites set $X\subset\Omega$ such that $(X,\ \mathcal{W})_N$ is a cubature rule. We use product Gauss-Legendre
points for the square $\Omega_1$, and \textit{trigonometric gaussian} points on the other sets in $\mathbb{R}^2$.
\\The latter set of cubature points was recently presented in the papers \cite{ViDF,ViBo}, and can be obtained for a wide
class of domains, much more general than the one used here. We use them because they provide a high-accuracy cubature
rule while being sufficiently uniform in $\Omega$. {\textsl{Matlab}} functions to compute this points can be found in the site
\cite{Vianello}.
\subsection{Test functions}
The functions we try to reconstruct are typical test functions in the context of approximation theory:
\begin{itemize}
\item the bivariate Franke function $f_F$
\item an oscillatory function $f_o(x,y)=\cos(20 (x+ y))$
\item a function with a derivative discontinuity at $x=y$, $f_s(x,y) = e^{\|x-y\|_2}-1 $
\item a function $f_{\mathcal{N}}$ belonging to the native space of the gaussian kernel, obtained as a linear combination of the kernel
centered on some points in $\Omega$, for a fixed shape parameter. We use them to test the behaviour of the
approximant for functions in the native space.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Kernels}
We use three different kernels among the ones described in Table \eqref{tb:kernels}.
\\The choice is motivated from the different behaviour of the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_j\}_{j>0}$ of the integral operator $T_{\Phi}$ associated with these basis functions. Indeed,
altough we know from Theorem \eqref{th:mercer} that the continuous eigenvalues accumulate to zero, the speed in which they
decay is clearly not the same for different kernels.
\\The basis functions are the gaussian (fast decay to zero), the IMQ (slower decay) and the 3MAT (slow decay). Nevertheless,
we point out that also the choice of the shape parameter $\varepsilon$ strongly influences this speed.
\\We can expect that this difference reflects on the approximation and on its stability.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{estimatedEig.disk.gauss.1.4.9}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{estimatedEig.disk.imq.1.4.9}\\
\center
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{estimatedEig.disk.mat3.1.4.9}
\caption{Eigenvalues for the gaussian (top left), the IMQ (top right) and the 3MAT (bottom) kernels for shape parameter $\varepsilon = 1, 4, 9$,
computed on the disk $\Omega_2$ using the Nystr\"om method based on $50^2$ trigonometric Gauss-Legendre cubature points
and weights. }
\label{fig:eigen}
\end{figure}
\section{Comparison between the interpolant and the weighted least-squares approximant}
As pointed out in the Remark \eqref{rem:trunc}, we know that we can compute the weighted least-squares approximant as a
truncation of the interpolant.
\\This reduction increases the error residual as shown in Proposition \eqref{pr:errorls}, but in the cases in which the
smaller eigenvalues are under a certain tolerance, we can expect that a truncation does not affect too much the
approximation capability. Furthermore, altough Proposition \eqref{pr:stab} proves the stability of our basis, in some
limit situations we can expect that the influence of the smallest eigenvalues produces numerical instability that cannot
be completely controlled.
\\In the next example we compare the approximation error produced using the full interpolant and some reduced weighted least-squares
approximant. We reconstruct the oscillatory function $f_o$ on the disk $\Omega_2$ using the three kernels with
$\varepsilon=1, 4, 9$, starting from $600$ trigonometric gaussian centers, and then truncating the basis for $M \in \{0,20,\dots,600\}$.
\\To measure the accuracy of the reproduction obtained with this process, we compute the root-mean-square errors (RMSE)
on a uniform grid. Figure \eqref{fig:IntVsAppr} shows the results obtained.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{IntVsApp.disk.gauss.1.4.9..nerr}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{IntVsApp.disk.imq.1.4.9..nerr}\\
\center
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{IntVsApp.disk.mat3.1.4.9..nerr}
\caption{RMS error for the reconstruction of $f_o$ on $\Omega_2$ using ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$ for different Ms and different shape parameters, using
the gaussian kernel (top left), the IMQ (top right) and the 3MAT kernel (bottom).}
\label{fig:IntVsAppr}
\end{figure}
\\\\The results reflect the consideration on the eigenvalues made in the last section. Indeed, we can see that for the
3MAT kernel the interpolant remains stable for each $\varepsilon$, the last iterations for $\varepsilon = 1$ apart,
the IMQ becomes instable for $\varepsilon = 1$, while the gaussian presents some instability also for $\varepsilon = 4$.
In the instable cases, there is a clear gain using a truncated version of the interpolant, that is a least-squares approximant ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$ for some $M$. Table
\eqref{tb:M} shows the index $M$ such that ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$ provides the best approximation of $f_o$.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{||l|c|c|c||}
\hline
&$\varepsilon=1$&$\varepsilon=4$&$\varepsilon=9$\\
\hline
Gaussian&100&340&500\\
IMQ&180&580&580\\
3MAT&460&560&580\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tb:M}
\caption{Optimal $Ms$ for different kernels and shape parameter, i.e. indexes such that the weighted least-squares
approximant ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$ provides the best approximation of the test function $f_o$ on $\Omega_2$.}
\end{table}
\\\\A special situation occurs for the gaussian with $\varepsilon = 1$, where the reducing process does not suffices
to avoid instability, as expected from the distribution of the eigenvalues shown in top-left Figure \eqref{fig:eigen}:
for this parameter the eigenvalues are almost all under the machine precision. Moreover, for $\varepsilon=1$ the gaussian
becomes too flat, and then there is no hope to reconstruct an oscillatory function.
\section{Comparison with the standard basis}
In the following tests we compare the approximations obtained from the standard basis of translates and from our basis.
\\Since acoording to the Section \eqref{sec:stdconvstab} we know that the stability of the standard basis is strictly related to the shape
parameter $\varepsilon$, at first we compare the two methods for different fixed values of $\varepsilon$ and different
kernels, considering situations in which the standard interpolant becomes seriously instable as well as more stable
cases. Then we repeat the same tests for an optimized shape parameter $\varepsilon^*$.
\subsection{Fixed shape parameter}
In this example we try to reconstruct the Franke function $f_F$ on the lens $\Omega_4$ using the IMQ kernel.
\\The test compares the results obtained from the interpolant based on the standard basis centered on an uniform grid and
the one based on our basis, centered on a trigonometric gauss set. The reconstruction is repeated for $\varepsilon=1, 4, 9$
and for data sites sets $X_N\subset \Omega_4$, with $N=|X_N|<1000$.
\\The RMS errors are reported in Figure \eqref{fig:wSvdVsStd}.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{WSvdVsStd.lens.u.imq.1.0.franke.2.30.nerr}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{WSvdVsStd.lens.u.imq.4.0.franke.2.30.nerr}\\
\center
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{WSvdVsStd.lens.u.imq.9.0.franke.2.30.nerr}
\caption{RMS error for the reconstruction of $f_F$ on the lens $\Omega_4$ using the IMQ kernel with the standard basis and our basis.
Test for different shape parameter: $\varepsilon=1$ (top left), $\varepsilon=4$ (top right) and $\varepsilon=9$ (bottom).}
\label{fig:wSvdVsStd}
\end{figure}
\\We can see that in the stable case, namely for $\varepsilon=9$, there is only a small difference between the two basis,
altough for $N>500$ the standard interpolant does not gain accuracy.
\\For $\varepsilon = 1, 4$, altough for small data sets $X_N$ the two basis does not behave much different,
when $N$ becomes too big the standard basis becomes instable and a growing of the data-sites set does not lead
to a more accurate reconstruction. On the other hand, the interpolant based on our basis presents a convergent behaviour
for each shape parameter, even if it is also clearly influenced in the rate of convergence.
\\This feature can be useful since, at least in the considered cases, there is no need to choose a particular
$\varepsilon$ to guarantee convergence, even if slow.
\\\\Furthermore, when a small shape parameter influences too much the stability of the interpolant, we can use the reduced
weighted last-squares approximant ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$, as discussed in the previous section. The approximation process for
$\varepsilon=1$ is repeated using ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$ instead of ${P_X[f]}$, with $M$ such that $\sigma_M<10^{-17}$. The result is shown
in Figure \eqref{fig:wSvdVsStdtrunc}. The aproximant is clearly more stable, while the convergence rate is not reduced.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{WSvdVsStd.lens.u.imq.1.1e-17.franke.2.30.nerr}
\caption{RMS errors for the reconstruction of $f_F$ on the lens $\Omega_4$ using the IMQ kernel and $\varepsilon=1$, using
the interpolant based on the standard basis and the weighted least-squares approximant ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$ with $M$ such that
$\sigma_M<10^{-17}$}
\label{fig:wSvdVsStdtrunc}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Optimized shape parameter}\label{sec:optim}
A possible solution for the instability of the standar basis is to optimize the shape parameter. In practice, for
a fixed point distribution, a fixed kernel and a fixed test function, one tries to find the parameter that minimizes the residual error.
\\In the following examples we realize this optimization using the so-called \textit{leave one out} method. The idea
is to compute the interpolant ${P_X[f]}$ on the full set $X\subset\Omega$ and the $N$ interpolants $P[f]_i$ on the reduced sets
$X_i=X\setminus\{x_i\}\ \forall\ i\in\{1,\dots,N\}$, for different shape parameter $\varepsilon\in E$, $E\subset\mathbb{R}$, and then to choose the
optimal $\varepsilon^*$ defined as
\begin{equation*}
\varepsilon^*=\argmin_{\varepsilon\in E} \max_{i=1,\dots,N} \left|{P_X[f]}(x_i)-P[f]_i(x_i)\right|
\end{equation*}
\\We remark that this optimization is quite expensive in terms of computational time, and cannot be
performed once for all, but has to be repeated if the data-sites set increases. Moreover, there are cases in which a
particular choice of $\varepsilon$ is motivated by theoretical reason.
\\To examine this situation, we use as a test function an element of the native space of the gaussian
$\Phi_4 (x,y) := \exp(-4^2 \|x-y\|_2^2) $ on the square $\Omega_1$, i.e. the function
\begin{equation*}
f_{\mathcal{N}}(x) = -2 \Phi_4(x,(0.5,0.5))+\Phi_4(x,(0,0))+3 \Phi_4(x,(0.7,0.7))\ \forall x\in[0,1]^2
\end{equation*}
The RMS errors are plotted in Figure \eqref{fig:wSvdVsStdnative}, using uniform points (on the left) and Halton points
(on the right) as centers of the standard basis. It is clear that a good choice of the shape parameter reduces
the instability of the standard interpolant, altough it does not suffices to avoid it completely. On the other hand,
the stability of our basis, together with the truncation at $M$ such that $\sigma_M<10^{-17}$, allows to use the ``right'' shape parameter for each number of centers, and this leads to an
approximant that converges to the sampled function with a tolerance near to the machine precision.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{WSvdVsStdOpt.square.u.gauss.4.1e-17.exp3.2.30.u.nerr}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{WSvdVsStdOpt.square.u.gauss.4.1e-17.exp3.2.30.h.nerr}\\
\caption{RMS error for the reconstruction of $f_{\mathcal{N}}$ on the square $\Omega_1$ using the gaussian kernel with the
standard basis and an optimized shape parameter $\varepsilon*$ and our basis with $\varepsilon=4$. The standard interpolant
is computed using equally spaced points (on the left) and Halton's points (on the right). Our basis is truncated at $M$ such
that $\sigma_M<10^{-17}$}
\label{fig:wSvdVsStdnative}
\end{figure}
Table \eqref{tb:wSvdVsStdnative} shows the RMS errors for different numbers of data sites, together with the optimal
parameter $\varepsilon^*$ selected by the leave-one-out optimization.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c|c|c||}
\hline
N&196&324&529&729&900\\
\hline
Std - e&$1.05\cdot 10^{-7}$&$5.23\cdot10^{-10}$&$3.17\cdot10^{-12}$&$7.15\cdot10^{-12}$&$1.30\cdot10^{-12}$\\
$\varepsilon^*$&$3.75$&$3.81$&$3.84$&$3.87$&$3.98$\\
\hline
Std - H&$3.30\cdot10^{-7}$&$9.31\cdot10^{-9}$&$7.12\cdot10^{-11}$&$1.56\cdot10^{-11}$&$1.59\cdot10^{-12}$\\
$\varepsilon^*$&$3.75$&$3.84$&$3.89$&$3.92$&$3.95$\\
\hline
W-Svd&$7.37\cdot10^{-8}$&$2.23\cdot10^{-11}$&$3.48\cdot10^{-15}$&$6.08\cdot10^{-15}$&$6.37\cdot10^{-15}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tb:wSvdVsStdnative}
\caption{RMS errors for the approximation described in Section \eqref{sec:optim} obtained using our basis (W-Svd),
the standard basis centered on equally spaced points (Std - e) and on the Halton points (Std - H), together with
the optimal shape parameter used for the standard basis. Values for $N=|X|$ as in the first row.}
\end{table}
\section{Comparison with the Newton basis}\label{sec:newton}
In the paper \cite{SchPa} the general change of basis described in the Chapter \eqref{ch:change} was the starting point
to create a \textit{Newton basis} for the native space ${\mathcal{N}_{\Phi}(\Omega)} $. Among other properties partially enjoied also by our
basis, the Newton basis can be computed recursively, i.e. if we add to $X$ a further sample point $x_{N+1}\notin X$ it suffices
to compute the basis element corresponding to the new point. Moreover, an adaptive point-selection algorithm is provided
to choose the point to add using also the information given by the sampled values of the test function.
\\{\textsl{Matlab}} programs for the adaptive calculation of the interpolant based on this basis can be found in \cite{SchSite}.
\\\\To compare the two bases we try to reconstruct the function $f_s$ on the cutted disk $\Omega_3$ using the gaussian kernel
and a Wendland kernel W21. We choose to use the latter since it is already present in the mentioned {\textsl{Matlab}} functions and
because it provides interesting results which are explained in the next.
\\In both cases the adaptive algorithm is able to detect the derivative discontinuity at $x=y$, and to concentrate the data sites near this area.
\\\\The test for the first kernel with $\varepsilon = 4$ shows a much better behaviour of the Newton basis. Indeed, a small
number of points suffices to introduce high instability in our basis. This can be a consequence of the distribution of
the data-sites depicted in Figure \eqref{fig:cuttedandlens}, which are too concentrated in zero to produce a well-conditioned kernel matrix.
To avoid this, we repeat the experiment using a weighted least-squares approximant ${\Lambda_{M}[f]}$ with the $M$ that provides the
best approximation, namely $M$ such that $\sigma_M<10^{-10}$, and in this case the residual decreases as $N$ grows. The
maximal absolute erros for $N\leqslant 625$ are depicted in the bottom of Figure \eqref{fig:New}.
\\\\The second kernel is used with $\varepsilon = 2$, and in this case our basis and the Newton basis provides an almost
equivalent decrease of the maximal absolute error in the range under consideration, as reported in the top left of
Figure \eqref{fig:New}.
\\Here the Newton basis behaves in a quite unexpected way, since if the uniform grid from which the data-sites are selected by the algorithm is reduced, namely
if the one dimensional grid size changes from $\Delta_x=0.01$ to $\Delta_x=0.05$, the accuracy of the interpolant becomes
strictly better, as depicted in the top right part of Figure \eqref{fig:New}.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{WSvdVsNewton.shab.u.wen21.0.5.0.shab.3.25.h.0.01.merr}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{WSvdVsNewton.shab.u.wen21.0.5.0.shab.3.25.h.0.05.merr}\\
\center
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{WSvdVsNewton.shab.gauss.9.1e-10.shab.3.25.merr}
\caption{Absolute error for the reconstruction of $f_{s}$ on the domain $\Omega_3$ using the Newton basis and our basis
(dotted lines).
The kernel used are the Wendland's W21 with $\varepsilon = 2$ (first row), using different starting grid for the Newton
basis, and the gaussian with $\varepsilon = 4$ in the second row (the error for the full interpolant is cutted from the
plot after it becomes bigger than $10^2$).}
\label{fig:New}
\end{figure}
\chapter{Conclusions and further work}
This thesis presents a way to construct a new kind of stable basis for the RBF approximation.
\\The basis is derived from the procedure described in Chapter \eqref{ch:change},
and is build to have useful properties related to its $\Phi$-orthonormality.
\\Furthermore, the particular approach used here connects this discrete basis with the ``natural'' one described in
the Theorem \eqref{th:mercer}, and this allows to relate some functional property of the kernel to the approximant itself.
\\\\In this setting, a more deep study could lead to a stronger use of the information provided by the kernel and the domain.
In particular the convergence estimate of Proposition \eqref{pr:conv1} can be refined considering the rate of convergence
to zero of the eigenvalues of the operator $T_{\Phi}$ and the property and the convergence rate of the Nystr\"om method
based on the setting of the problem, namely the choosen cubature rule, the kernel $\Phi$, the shape parameter $\varepsilon$
and the set $\Omega$.
\\\\As regards stability, the experiments presented in Chapter \eqref{ch:numerics} confirms the good behaviour expected from
Proposition \eqref{pr:stab}. In particular our basis allows to treat approximants based on a relatively big number of
points also for not optimized shape parameters and on quite general sets. This feature can be enforced thanks to the
possibility to compute a weighted least-squares approximant simply truncating the interpolant. From a numerical
point of view this procedure can be accomplished without thinning the data-sites set $X\subset\Omega$, but simply checking
if the singular values decay under a certain tolerance. This corresponds to solve the linear sistem related to the kernel
matrix with a (weighted) total least-squares algorithm.
\\\\The dependence of the basis on a singular value decomposition does not allow to produce an adaptive
algorithm, but forces to compute a full factorization of the matrix for each fixed points distribution. In this sense,
it would be interesting to adapt our method to work for approximation based on compactly
supported kernels. Indeed, altough it is possible to use them as any other kernel as done in Section \eqref{sec:newton}, a
more specific implementation could benefit from the compact support and hence produce sparse kernel matrices. In this
setting there are eigenvalue algorithms optimized for finding only a small subset of the full spectrum of a matrix, and then
it would be possible to compute an approximant based only on eigenvalues upon a certain tolerance.
|
\section{Introduction}
In the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology model, dark matter contributes 24\% of total energy of the universe. Dark matter is regarded as the majority of matter in the universe, and it has significance effect on large-scale structure formation and evolution. Astrophysical observations provided indirect means to probe dark matter and study its effects.
Dark matter may also have effects on individual stellar objects. Steigman et al. \cite{st78} put forward the idea that capture of WIMP particle would affect the stellar structure and evolution. Spergel and Press \cite{sp85} and Faulkner and Gilliland \cite{fg85} employed the idea for an explanation of the solar neutrino problem. Recently, there are growing interests in this field. Self-annihilating dark matter provide extra energy for stellar objects, which have been extensively studied by \cite{bf08}, \cite{k08}, \cite{gn89}, \cite{gd90}. In particular its impact on first-generation stars is studied by \cite{sp09}, \cite{spap09}, \cite{rip10}. The impact on the evolution path of main sequence star is studied by \cite{cl09}, \cite{cl11}. For non self-annihilating dark matter, its impact is studied by \cite{fs10}, \cite{cg10}, \cite{ti10} for main sequence stars and for neutron stars by \cite{cs11}, \cite{sc09}, \cite{lcl11} \cite{bh07} for different dark matter models.
In this paper, we study the gravitational effect of non-self-annihilating condensate dark matter on stellar objects. The Bose-Einstein condensation may come from the bosonic features of dark matter models, e.g. axions, Nambu-Goldston bosons or supersymmetric partner of fermions suggested by \cite{sin1994},\cite{overduin2004},\cite{hu2000}. Some previous studies of boson star structure and dynamics can be found in \cite{ss96}, \cite{bs98}, \cite{bc98},\cite{ch2012}. Condensate dark matter has an equation of state $P_{\chi}=\frac{2\pi \hbar^{2}l_{a}}{m_{\chi}^{3}}\rho_{\chi}^{2}$, where $l_{a}$ is the scattering length and $m_{\chi}$ is the dark matter particle mass. Condensate dark matter is able to form gravitationally bound objects after the condensation takes place. The properties, structure and stability of such objects is studied by \cite{li12}. Phase transition to condensation can occur under either one of the following two conditions: when the temperature cools below critical value or when the density exceeds the critical value \cite{li12}. In this paper we consider the following picture: the deep gravitational well of a star accretes dark matter, when phase transition takes place, dark matter forms a compact degenerate dark matter core inside the star and may causee the star to collapse to compact object, i.e. white dwarf, neutron star or black hole. We examine conditions of the existence of such degenerate core can make the white dwarf or neutron star stable. If no stable neutron star is possible, the star will eventually collapse to a black hole. The accretion rate and criteria for phase transition are presented in this paper. Following that, analytical and numerical study for the structure and stability of various stellar objects with condensate dark matter component are presented. The parameters for condensate dark matter are $l_{a}=1\rm fm$, $m_{\chi}=1\rm GeV$ as fiducial values.
\section{Accretion of Dark Matter onto Stars}\label{accr}
The self-interaction of condensate dark matter enables the dark matter particles to transfer energy to each other. Through interacting and losing energy to dark matter particles already inside the star, incoming dark matter particles will be captured by the star and stay inside it. The calculation of accretion rate of dark matter particle follows from Gould \cite{gou87}, while self-interaction is considered the interaction between dark matter and baryons is ignored. The self-interaction cross section of dark matter is determined by
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\chi\chi}=4\pi l_{a}^{2}.
\end{equation}
Assuming spherically symmetric gravitational field for stars, the escaping velocity is $v$. Dark matter has velocity distribution $f(u)\mathrm{d} u$. $\Omega_{v}^{-}(w)$ is defined as the rate per unit time that a dark matter particle with velocity $w$ will be scattered to a velocity less than $v$ when collided with materials. The flux of dark matter particles that goes inward is
\begin{equation}\label{3.1}
\frac{1}{4}f(u)u\mathrm{d} u\mathrm{d} \cos^{2}\theta,
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the angle relative to the radial direction, $0\leq\theta\leq\frac{\pi}{2}$. The probability for a dark matter particle to be scattered to velocity less than $v$ is
\begin{equation}\label{3.5}
\Omega_{v}^{-}(w)\frac{\mathrm{d} l}{w},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{3.6}
\frac{\mathrm{d} l}{w}=\frac{2}{w}\Big[1-\Big(\frac{J}{rw}\Big)^{2}\Big]^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{d} r \Theta(rw-J).
\end{equation}
$J$ is the angular momentum of an incoming dark matter particle. $\Theta(rw-J)$ is the step function. After integration over whole angular momentum space, the total capture rate per unit shell volume is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d} C}{\mathrm{d} V}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\mathrm{d} u\frac{f(u)}{u}w\Omega_{v}^{-}(w).
\end{equation}
Let the dark matter particles with mass $m_{\chi}$ and number density $n^{\rm in}$ in the star. From kinematics, the energy loss in a collision, $\frac{\Delta E}{E}$ lies in the interval
\begin{equation}
0\leq\frac{\Delta E}{E}\leq1,
\end{equation}
The net capture of a dark matter particle requires
\begin{equation}
\frac{w^{2}-v^{2}}{w^{2}}=\frac{u^{2}}{w^{2}}\leq\frac{\Delta E}{E}\leq\frac{v^{2}}{w^{2}}.
\end{equation}
The total probability of capturing a dark matter particle is
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{v}^{-}(w)=\sigma_{\chi\chi} n^{\rm in}w\frac{v^{2}-u^{2}}{w^{2}}\Theta\left(v^{2}-u^{2}\right).
\end{equation}
Taking the incoming dark matter particle follow the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution with number density $n^{\rm out}$,
\begin{equation}
f(u)\mathrm{d} u=n^{\rm out}\frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi}}x^{2}\exp(-x^{2})\mathrm{d} x,
\end{equation}
where $x$ is the dimensionless velocity defined by
\begin{equation}
x^2=\frac{m_{\chi}u^{2}}{2k_{B}T_{\chi}}\equiv\frac{3u^{2}}{2\overline{v}^{2}}
\end{equation}
with $\overline{v}$ being the average velocity of dark matter particles in galaxies.
The capture rate per unit shell volume is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d} C}{\mathrm{d} V}(r)=\left(\frac{6}{\pi}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\sigma_{\chi\chi} n^{\rm in} n^{\rm out}\frac{v^{2}}{\overline{v}}\left[1-A^{-1}(1-\exp(-A))\right],
\end{equation}
where $A=\frac{3}{2}\frac{v^{2}}{\overline{v}^{2}}$. Generally $A\gg1$, the mass accretion rate is given by
\begin{equation}
\dot{M_{\chi}}=\int m_{\chi}\mathrm{d} C=\sqrt{\frac{6}{\pi}}M_{\chi}(t)\sigma_{\chi\chi}n^{\rm out}\frac{v^{2}}{\overline{v}}.
\end{equation}
So the total mass accreted at time $t$ is
\begin{equation}
M_{\chi}(t)=M_{0}\exp(\sqrt{\frac{6}{\pi}}\sigma_{\chi\chi}n^{\rm out}\frac{v^{2}}{\overline{v}}).
\end{equation}
The accreted dark matter mass grows exponentially. However, it is only valid when the probability term (\ref{3.5}) is smaller than 1 and shall never exceeds 1. For a star with radius $R_{*}$, an estimation of when the probability reaches 1 can be given by
\begin{equation}
n^{\rm in}\sigma_{\chi\chi}R_{*}=1.
\end{equation}
When the probability term (\ref{3.5}) equals 1, all incoming dark matter is accreted onto the star. So the capture rate is simply integration of (\ref{3.1}) over the star surface.
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{M_{\chi}}&=&\pi R_{*}^{2}\int_{0}^{\infty}m_{\chi}f(u)u\mathrm{d} u=2\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{3}}\mathit{R_{*}^{2}}n^{\rm out}\overline{v}m_{\chi}\nonumber\\
&=&2\times10^{-10}M_{\odot}/\rm yr\left(\frac{\mathit{R_{*}}}{10^{11}\rm cm}\right)^{2}\left(\frac{\mathit{\overline{v}}}{250\rm km/s}\right)\left(\frac{\rho^{\rm out}}{10^{10}\rm GeV/cm^{3}}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, the total accretion rate is given by
\begin{displaymath}
\dot{M_{\chi}}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\sqrt{\frac{6}{\pi}}M_{\chi}\sigma_{\chi\chi}n^{\rm out}\frac{v^{2}}{\overline{v}}\; &n^{\rm in}\sigma_{\chi\chi}R_{*}<1,\\
2\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{3}}R_{*}^{2}n^{\rm out}\overline{v}m_{\chi}\; & n^{\rm in}\sigma_{\chi\chi}R_{*}\geq1.
\end{array}\right.
\end{displaymath}
In our calculation, dark matter mass will first grow exponentially. After reaching a certain mass, the accretion rate becomes constant.
The total dark matter mass accreted is given by
\begin{displaymath}
M_{\chi}(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
M_{\chi0}\exp\left[5.83\left(\frac{l_{a}}{1\rm fm}\right)^{2}\left(\frac{n^{\rm out}}{10^{10}}\right)\left(\frac{v}{516\rm km/s}\right)^{2}\left(\frac{\overline{v}}{250\rm km/s}\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{t}{1\rm yr}\right)\right]\; &n^{\rm in}\sigma_{\chi\chi}R_{*}<1,\\
M_{\chi1}+2\times10^{-10}M_{\odot}\left(\frac{\mathit{R_{*}}}{10^{11}\rm cm}\right)^{2}\left(\frac{\mathit{\overline{v}}}{250\rm km/s}\right)\left(\frac{n^{\rm out}}{10^{10}}\right)\left(\frac{t}{1\rm yr}\right)\; & n^{\rm in}\sigma_{\chi\chi}R_{*}\geq1.
\end{array}\right.
\end{displaymath}
$M_{\chi0}$ is the initial mass of dark matter inside the star before accretion and $M_{\chi1}$ is the mass of dark matter inside the star when the probability term (\ref{3.5}) reaches 1. With typical values of parameters of condensate dark matter, the constant accretion rate is reached very quickly. For a star with solar mass and radius $10^{11}\rm cm$, let $n^{\rm out}=10^{10}$, $\frac{3M_{\chi0}}{4\pi R^{3}}=m_{\chi}n^{\rm out}$, the probability takes place when $n^{\rm in}\approx10^{14}$. So the exponential accretion lasts for $\frac{\log 10^{4}}{5.83}\approx1.5\rm yr$. The lasting time of exponential accretion is inverse proportional to the logarithm of initial mass, which will be very small compared to the stellar lifetime. Therefore the constant accretion stage actually determines that the amount of dark matter can be accreted within the stellar lifetime. The total dark matter accreted within the stellar life is proportional to the ambient dark matter density, if the intrinsic properties of dark matter are fixed.
The density of incoming dark matter particles near the star constrains the accretion rate. In the early universe the ambient dark matter density is much higher than today. When the early stars are formed, the creation of deep gravitational well in the dark matter halo makes it to further contract and increase the density of dark matter near stars to be even higher.
The increase of dark matter density in star formation can be calculated by using the adiabatic approximation. The adiabatic invariant is $rM(r)$ where $M(r)$ denotes the total mass enclosed within radius $r$. This leads to the adiabatic equation given by Blumenthal et al. \cite{blu86}
\begin{equation}\label{ac}
M(r_{i})r_{i}=\frac{M_{\chi}(r_{i})}{1-f_{b}}=(M_{\chi}(r_{i})+M_{b}(r_{f}))r_{f}.
\end{equation}
$M(r)$, $M_{\chi}(r)$ and $M_{b}(r)$ are respectively the total mass, dark matter mass and baryon mass inside radius $r$. $r_{i},r_{f}$ denote the radius before and after the contraction inside which dark matter of total mass $M_{\chi}(r_{i})$ is enclosed, $f_{b}=0.15$ is the mass fraction of baryon in the initial dark matter halo.
Fig.\ref{fig1} illustrates the contracted dark matter profile for different initial profiles: NFW profile \cite{nfw96}, isothermal sphere \cite{bt94} and Burkert profile \cite{bkt}. Dots are from the simulation results by Abel et al. \cite{abel02} The parameters of each initial profile are tuned to fit the simulation results. The best fit line is from the NFW profile. The parameter for the dark matter halo is chosen to have total mass $7\times10^{5}M_{\odot}$ and the concentration parameter as in \cite{nfw96} $c=2$. This result agrees with the calculation done by Freese et al. \cite{fr09}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{fig1.eps}
\caption{Comparison Between Adiabatic Contracted Density Profile of Different Initial Dark Matter Distribution and Simulation Result by Abel et al.\cite{abel02}: Dots are simulation results.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
The adiabatic contracted dark matter density profile fits the simulation result quite well from 0.01pc outward, but how close to the core this profile is still valid is unclear, as near the core the strong diffusive process in star formation may break the adiabatic condition of dark matter.
\section{Phase transition of dark matter inside the star}
Condensate dark matter particles will undergo Bose-Einstein condensation inside the star when its density is above the critical one. The critical density for this kind of phase transition is given by \cite{li12}
\begin{equation}
\rho _{\chi,\rm cr}=\frac{\sigma_{v} ^2m_{\chi }^3}{2\pi \hbar ^2 l_a}=7.327\times 10^{9}\left(\frac{\sigma_{v} ^2}{9\times10^{14}\rm cm^{2}/s^{2}}\right)
\left(\frac{m_{\chi }}{1\;{\rm GeV}}\right)^3\left(\frac{l_a}{1\;{\rm fm}}\right)^{-1}\;{\rm g/cm^3},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{v}^{2}$ is the velocity dispersion of normal dark matter.
The distribution of dark matter particle inside the star is beyond current knowledge, while it might be possible to extrapolate some from the distribution without the gravitational potential. Simulations and self-similar solutions give that dark matter density of dark matter profile will follow the power-law distribution $\rho\propto r^{-\alpha}$ (cf \cite{nfw96}, \cite{fm97}, \cite{ber85}, \cite{wan00}). The exact value of $\alpha$ is still unclear, but most studies show the value lies in the range $1\leq\alpha\leq3$. With the existence of extra gravitational well due to the baryonic star, the dark matter profile will have a steeper profile, for more dark matter will be dragged into the core by the extra gravity.
In a very small central region that dark matter density may exceed the critical density, the dark matter within this region will become condensate but they can only form some microscopic droplets before they reach the minimum mass of the gravitationally bounded object (cf \cite{li12}), whose exact size depends on the detail of the exact interaction of dark matter and their surface energy. When dark matter continue to accrete into the core of the star, the number of microscopic droplets increase. When the total mass of these droplets is sufficiently large, they become the gravitationally-bound object. The minimal mass of stable condensate dark matter object is obtained from \cite{li12} by setting the central density to be the lowest one which is the critical density of phase transition. With our selection of dark matter parameters, the minimal mass is $M_{\chi, \rm min}=2.296\times10^{-5}M_{\odot}$.
Taking the total dark matter mass inside the star to be $M_{\chi}(t)=\int \dot{M_\chi}\mathrm{d}t$, $R_{*}$ to be the stellar mass, and the dark matter density profile to follow
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\chi}=\rho_{\chi,0}\left(\frac{r}{R_{*}}\right)^{-\alpha},
\end{equation}
the dark matter mass in the region where density is above critical value is given by
\begin{equation}
M_{\chi, \rm cen}=M_{\chi}\left(\frac{\rho_{\chi,0}}{\rho_{\chi,\rm cr}}\right)^{\frac{3-\alpha}{\alpha}}.
\end{equation}
The criteria for the condensate dark matter core to form is
\begin{equation}
M_{\chi, \rm cen}>M_{\chi, \rm min}.
\end{equation}
\section{formulation for stars with dark matter components}\label{ana}
We assume that dark matter only interact with baryons through gravity and study the static structure of such stars with dark matter components. We adopt the two-fluid formulation by \cite{cs11}, which is first introduced by \cite{sc09}. This formulation is a separation of TOV equation motivated by the similarity of structure equations between the relativistic and Newtonian ones. There are two equations for the balance between gravity and pressure for baryons and dark matter separately.
\begin{eqnarray}
r^{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}P_{\rm B}(r)}{\mathrm{d}r}&=&-G M(r)\left[1+\frac{4\pi r^{3}P(r)}{M(r)c^{2}}\right]\left[1-\frac{2GM(r)}{c^{2}r}\right]^{-1}\left(\rho_{\rm B}(r)+\frac{P_{\rm B}(r)}{ c^{2}}\right),\nonumber\\
r^{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}P_{\rm DM}(r)}{\mathrm{d}r}&=&-G M(r)\left[1+\frac{4\pi r^{3}P(r)}{M(r)c^{2}}\right]\left[1-\frac{2GM(r)}{c^{2}r}\right]^{-1}\left(\rho_{\rm DM}(r)+\frac{P_{\rm DM}(r)}{ c^{2}}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $P(r)=P_{\rm B}(r)+P_{\rm DM}(r)$ and $M(r)=M_{\rm B}(r)+M_{\rm DM}(r)$.
With two more equations of mass continuity of baryon and dark matter separately,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mathrm{d}M_{\rm B}(r)}{\mathrm{d}r}&=&4\pi r^{2}\rho_{\rm B}(r),\nonumber\\
\frac{\mathrm{d}M_{\rm DM}(r)}{\mathrm{d}r}&=&4\pi r^{2}\rho_{\rm DM}(r),
\end{eqnarray}
the four equations give a complete set of equations for the structure of stars with dark matter component.
Even though there are two-fluid formulation available from first principle calculation \cite{carter}, they give identical numerical results for static stellar cases\cite{chu}. Therefore, we take this simple approach to study the static stellar structure with dark matter component.
Once dark matter condensation takes place, the gravitationally bound object formed has density at least $7.327\times10^{9}\rm g/cm^{3}$ \cite{li12}, much greater than the onset of electron degeneracy ($10^{4}-10^{5}\rm g/cm^{3}$) \cite{bwn} and central density for most white dwarfs ($10^{4}\rm g/cm^{3}-10^{10} \rm g/cm^{3}$) \cite{ta}. For normal stars or white dwarfs, the baryonic component inside the dark matter core is negligible. The normal dark matter interacting with the condensate core will also rest to the ground state, become condensate and accrete onto the core. Therefore, we assume that all dark matter inside the star are concentrated in the degenerate core. Under this approximation, the star has a pure dark matter core and outside the core is pure baryonic matter. We treat the pure dark matter core as initial conditions for the normal TOV equations and integrate the equations for baryonic matter from the surface of the dark matter core.
The normal TOV equations for stars is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mathrm{d}M}{\mathrm{d}r}&=&4\pi r^{2}\rho(r),\nonumber\\
\frac{\mathrm{d}P}{\mathrm{d}r}&=&-\frac{G}{r^{2}} \left[M(r)+\frac{4\pi r^{3}P}{c^{2}}\right]\left[1-\frac{2GM(r)}{c^{2}r}\right]^{-1}\left(\rho+\frac{P}{ c^{2}}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
The dark matter core has radius $r_{c}$ and mass $M_{c}$ which can be determined from \cite{li12} and the density of normal baryonic matter at the surface of the core is $\rho_{0}$. The initial conditions for the TOV equations for the star with dark matter core are when $r=r_{c}$, $M=M_{c},\; \rho=\rho_{0}$. Using the parametrization below
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\theta=\frac{\rho}{\rho_{0}c^{2}}, \; \sigma=\frac{P}{\rho_{0}c^{2}},\nonumber\\
&&m=M\frac{c^{3}}{G}\sqrt{4\pi G\rho_{0}}, \; \xi=\frac{r}{c}\sqrt{4\pi G\rho_{0}},\nonumber\\
&&m_{c}=M_{c}\frac{c^{3}}{G}\sqrt{4\pi G\rho_{0}}, \; \xi_{c}=\frac{r_{c}}{c}\sqrt{4\pi G\rho_{0}},
\end{eqnarray}
the TOV equations reduce to the following form\cite{fang}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{str}
\frac{\mathrm{d}m}{\mathrm{d}\xi}&=&\xi^{2}\theta^{n},\nonumber\\
\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\xi}&=&-\frac{(\theta+\sigma)(\sigma\xi^{3}+m)}{\xi^{2}(1-\frac{2m}{\xi})},\nonumber\\
\theta(\xi_{c})&=&1,\;m(\xi_{c})=m_{c}.
\end{eqnarray}
When $\xi\rightarrow\xi_{c}$, the equation leads to
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\xi}\rightarrow-\frac{(1+\sigma)(m_{c}+\sigma\xi_{c}^{3})}{\xi_{c}^{2}(1-\frac{2m_{c}}{\xi_{c}})}.
\end{equation}
In order to have physical solution, $\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\xi}<0$ must be satisfied. This constraint leads to
\begin{equation}\label{bh}
2\frac{m_{c}}{\xi_{c}}<1,
\end{equation}
equivalently
\begin{equation}
\frac{2GM_{\rm c}}{c^{2}r_{\rm c}}<1.
\end{equation}
This constraint means that the core cannot directly collapse to a black hole.
Another constraint comes from the non-relativistic limit of Eq.(\ref{str}) in the region where the gravity of dark matter core dominates. So the mass and self-gravitation of normal baryonic matter are neglected, $m\approx m_{c}$. In the non-relativistic limit, $\sigma\ll1$, the TOV equations become
\begin{equation}
-\frac{1}{\theta}\mathrm{d}\sigma=\frac{ m_{c}}{\xi^{2}(1-\frac{2m_{c}}{\xi})}\mathrm{d}\xi.
\end{equation}
Integrating both sides, since $\theta\leq1$ the left hand side gives
\begin{equation}\label{lhs}
\int_{\xi_{c}}^{\xi}-\frac{1}{\theta}\mathrm{d}\sigma>\sigma(\xi_{c})-\sigma(\xi).
\end{equation}
The right hand side can be integrated analytically,
\begin{equation}
\int_{\xi_{c}}^{\xi}\frac{ m_{c}}{\xi'^{2}(1-\frac{2m_{c}}{\xi'})}\mathrm{d}\xi'=\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{1-\frac{2m_{c}}{\xi}}{1-\frac{2m_{c}}{\xi_{c}}}.
\end{equation}
Since the dark matter core is much smaller than the star, in regions $\xi\gg\xi_{c}$, stable solution requires the pressure to be always positive
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\xi_{c})>-\frac{1}{2}\log\left(1-\frac{2 m_{c}}{\xi_{c}}\right).
\end{equation}
Since in Eq.(\ref{lhs}) the integration takes $\theta=1$, this analysis gives sufficient condition of $\rho_{0}$ to have stable solutions.
In case that baryonic matter has a polytropic equation of state $P=K\rho^{1+1/n}$, Eq.(\ref{lhs}) can be integrated analytically. In addition, if the core potential is non-relativistic $\frac{2GM_{\rm c}}{c^{2}r_{\rm c}}\ll1$, the constraint reduces to the form given by\cite{fang}
\begin{equation}
\frac{K\rho_{0}^{1/n}}{c^{2}}>\frac{GM_{\rm c}}{(1+n)c^{2}r_{\rm c}}.
\end{equation}
This constraint gives the minimum value of $\rho_{0}$ to have stable solutions.
\begin{equation}
\rho_{0,\rm min}=\left[\frac{GM_{\rm c}}{(1+n)Kr_{\rm c}}\right]^{n}.
\end{equation}
\section{Applications}
Since normal stars have very low density, applying the analysis in Section \ref{ana} to them gives that, once the condensate dark matter core is formed, the star is unstable except for extremely light dark matter core. The core of the star is expected to collapse to form compact objects, i.e. white dwarfs or neutron stars. Instead of considering the actually collpase processes we only focus to study the stability of the static structure of white dwarfs and neutron stars with dark matter component.
\subsection{White Dwarfs}
As stated in Section \ref{ana}, the central density of most white dwarfs is much smaller than condensate dark matter and baryon component is negligible inside the dark matter core. We take the condensate dark matter core as initial conditions for the TOV equation and integrate the equation from the core surface. The equation of state (EOS) for baryonic component is taken to be the ideal fermi gas. This EOS is only valid below Neutron drip ($\sim 4\times10^{11}\rm g/cm^{3}$\cite{bwn}) and neutronisation threshold ($\sim1.22\times10^{7}\rm g/cm^{3}$ for inverse beta decay \cite{bwn}). For high central density white dwarfs ($>10^{7}\rm g/cm^{3}$), its equation of state has been calculated by \cite{bbps}. When the central density becomes comparable to that of condensate dark matter, we need to solve the two-fluid equation. The integration of two-fluid equation is incorporated in the next section of neutron star where we use the BBPS EOS for low density region. In this section the upper limit of central density $\rho_{0}$ is set to be $10^{10}\rm g/cm^{3}$ as fiducial value.
Fig.\ref{fig2} illustrates the comparison of the relation between total mass (baryon mass plus dark matter mass) and central density for white dwarf with a core of $0.01M_{\odot}$ and that without a core. The existence of the core contributes extra gravity that causes the white dwarf to contract, resulting to a increase of central density and decrease of maximum mass.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Relation Between Baryon Mass and $\rho_{0}$ for White Dwarf with and without a Dark Matte Core of $0.01M_{\odot}$}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ref{fig3} compares the relation between total mass and radius for white dwarfs with various dark matter core mass. The increase of dark matter mass results in both smaller radius and smaller mass. For dark mass smaller than $0.04M_{\odot}$, there is an instability of white dwarf when $\frac{\mathrm{d}M}{\mathrm{d}\rho_{0}}<0$. This criteria gives unstable fundamental mode of radial oscillation \cite{bwn}. However, this elementary stability analysis shall be taken with care, since $\frac{\mathrm{d}M}{\mathrm{d}\rho_{0}}>0$ is not sufficient to conclude the white dwarf is stable. A proper stability analysis shall include all radial eigenmodes which is beyond the scope of this paper. But any white dwarf with higher mass will be definitely unstable. We determine maximum mass by this instability. When the core mass keeps growing, there is no instability of fundamental radial mode, the maximum mass is determined when the central density of white dwarf reaches maximum $10^{10}\rm g/cm^{3}$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{fig3.eps}
\caption{Relation Between Total Mass and Radius for White Dwarf with Various Dark Matter Core Mass}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ref{fig4} shows the relation between maximum baryon mass and core mass. The increase of core mass reduces maximum baryon mass. There is a sharp decrease when the core mass exceeds $0.04M_{\odot}$. In this case the maximum baryon mass is not determined by stability consideration any more but the constraint on central density. When the core mass is even higher, over $0.06M_{\odot}$, there is no stable solution for white dwarfs. In this case the white dwarf most
likely collapses to neutron stars. We want to remark that although in our calculation we assume Fermi gas EOS for the entire white dwarf, realistically the surface boundary of a white dwarf is defined when the density go to zero. Obviously when density is sufficiently low the mass is no longer degenerate therefore the Fermi gas assumption is not valid. However the mass in the region where the Fermi gas approximation breaks down is very small therefore it does not affect our analysis.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{fig4.eps}
\caption{Relation Between Maximum Baryon Mass of White Dwarf and Dark Matter Core Mass}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Neutron Stars}
In case of neutron stars, the mass of baryonic component inside the dark matter core is not negligible any more. We have to solve the two-fluid equations.
it should be noticed that in some cases, degenerate dark matter radius can be larger than the baryonic mass radius. We will illustrate this case in Fig. 6.
We consider several popular types of EOS for the baryonic component, including UVU \cite{uvu}, APR \cite{apr}, SLy \cite{dh01}, FPS \cite{pr89}, RMF-soft and RMF-stiff \cite{kk97}, Bombaci1 and Bombaci2 \cite{bb97}. For the low density part of EOS, we adopt the BBPS \cite{bbps}. Fig. \ref{fig5} shows the Mass-Radius relation for these EOS's together with pure dark matter.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{fig5.eps}
\caption{Mass-Radius Relation for Different EOS and Condensate Dark Matter}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
The radius of such stellar object is determined when density becomes zero. The solution of two-fluid equations of generally gives different radius for baryonic and dark matter components. Fig.\ref{fig6}
gives two examples of stellar structure for baryonic and dark matter components using UVU EOS. We can see that dark matter radius can be
much larger than that of baryonic matter.
As we assume dark matter does not interact with normal matter except through gravity,
we take the radius when the baryonic density becomes zero as the radius for the two-fluid neutron star from the observational consideration,
while the observable mass is the total mass. This is very important.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{fig6.eps}
\caption{Examples of Structure for Two-fluid Neutron Stars}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ref{fig7} illustrates the relation between total mass and baryonic mass radius with the dark matter mass fixed. When the dark matter mass is small, the increase of dark matter mass deforms the original mass-radius relation, reducing the mass, radius and maximum mass. When dark matter mass becomes dominant, the maximum total mass increases again. For some EOS (RMF-soft and Bombaci1), the maximum mass can be higher than that of pure baryonic neutron star. The extreme case of a dark matter rich two-fluid star is that it becomes pure condensate dark matter. Condensate dark matter star has a maximum mass $\sim1.8M_{\odot}$, so the maximum mass will finally reach this value. For dark matter rich two-fluid stars, the maximum total mass increases with dark matter mass and in some cases exceeds the maximum mass of pure baryonic neutron star.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6in]{fig7.eps}
\caption{Mass-radius Relation for Different EOS With Various Dark Matter Masses}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ref{fig8} shows the relation between total mass and radius with dark matter energy ratio $\epsilon$ fixed. The energy ratio $\epsilon$ is defined by $\epsilon=\frac{M_{\rm DM}}{M_{\rm B}+M_{\rm DM}}$. The increase of $\epsilon$ reduces the mass and radius while generally keeping the shape. When dark matter dominates, the shape transforms that of pure dark matter, but the radius is smaller.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6in]{fig8.eps}
\caption{Mass-radius Relation for Different EOS With Various Fixed $\epsilon=\frac{M_{\rm DM}}{M_{\rm B}+M_{\rm DM}}$}
\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ref{fig9} shows the relation between maximum mass of baryonic component and maximum total mass with the dark matter mass. The increase of dark matter mass always reduces the maximum baryonic mass, but the maximum total mass increases after dark matter becomes dominant.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{fig9.eps}
\caption{Relation Between Maximum Mass of the Star and Dark Matter Mass. The upper panel is the maximum baryon mass vs dark matter and the lower panel is total mass (Baryon mass plus dark matter) vs dark matter.}
\label{fig9}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
The dark matter density outside the star is a key factor for accretion. After recombination, the dark matter density evolves proportional to $(1+z)^3$. In the early university the ambient density of dark matter is much higher and they can form high-density dark matter halos. Simulations reveal "cuspy" density profile of dark matter halos \cite{nfw96}. The density increases exponentially towards the halo center. Even though strong density cusps are not observationally favorable (cf. \cite{Kravtsov98}), the existence of deep gravitational well (massive stars or black holes) will pull the dark matter and increase the density around them. We have calculated the increase of density using Blumenthal's method \cite{blu86} assuming only circular motion of dark matter particles. Freese et al. \cite{fr09} have calculated the change of density using a general treatment of adiabatic compression by Young \cite{Young80} considering the noncircular motion. The difference between the two methods are within a factor of 2 \cite{fr09}. Though adiabatic contraction formally requires the particles' orbital time to be shorter than the collapse time, in practice the method works well beyond this limit \cite{st78}. The contracted dark matter density can be $\sim 10^{10}\rm GeV/cm^3$ at $10^{-4}$pc from the gravitational center \cite{fr09}. We hope that more knowledge shall be obtained by future simulations and observations of small scale structures. Furthermore although the average dark matter density in solar system is very low, it is possible that much higher density dark matter may exist near the galactic center, e.g. \cite{abdo10a, abdo10b}, so stars in this region may accrete enough dark matter.
By assuming the dark matter density is sufficiently high around the stars,e.g. in the dark matter halos of the early universe or at the center of the galaxies, we study the gravitational effect of condensate dark matter on various stellar objects. The deep gravitational well created by the stars pulls dark matter onto it. The self-interaction of dark matter particles enables them to lose energy and rest inside the star. When the dark matter density exceeds the critical value, the phase transition to condensation state takes place. Condensate dark matter develops a compact core and alter the structure and stability of the stellar objects. Normal stars will become unstable except for extremely light dark matter core. For white dwarf, the maximum dark matter core is about $0.06M_{\odot}$. Condensate dark matter admixed neutron stars is studied through the two-fluid TOV equation. The existence of condensate dark matter has significant impact on the mass-radius relation and lower the maximum mass compared to neutron stars. Condensate dark matter admixed neutron star can result in compact objects with very small coordinate radius of visible object, which is determined by the baryonic matter.
The existence of degenerate dark matter will also lower the mass threshold for stars to
collapse to a black hole. This may lead to more GRBs caused by
stellar collapse. Recent studies show that the rate of GRBs
does not strictly follow the star formation history but may be actually
enhanced by some other mechanisms at high-redshift \cite{Kistler09,Wang09, Cheng10}.
The standard collapsar model indicates that stars with mass larger than
$30M_{\odot}$ can produce GRBs \cite{Woosley93}. The existence of
degenerate dark matter core can reduce the mass threshold of stars that can produce
GRBs. If $30M_{\odot}$ is the threshold for forming GRBs from stars,
the threshold may be down to $20M_{\odot}$ after including
gravitational effect of condensate dark matter effect. For a
Salpeter initial mass function of stars with lower and upper mass
cutoffs $m_{\rm l}=0.1M_\odot$ and $m_{\rm
u}=100M_\odot$\cite{Salpeter55}, the percentage of stars that can
die as black holes increases by 90\%. So the star mass threshold of
GRBs formation decreased due to dark matter effect could be an
alternative solution to the excess of the high-redshift GRB rate.
Leung, Chu and Lin \cite{lcl11} also studied the property of dark matter admixed neutron stars. We differ from them in several key respects. First, they assume dark matter as ideal Fermi gas but we study the Bose-Einstein condensate dark matter, which have very different EOSs. Second, Leung et al. \cite{lcl11} did not consider how dark matter gets into the star, what are the key factors to determine the mass of dark matter inside the star and how dark matter is possible to rest inside the neutron star. We consider the accretion process through dark matter self-interaction from the surrounding halo. Finally, Leung et al. \cite{lcl11} studied the two-fluid model from first principle calculation. Though the numerical results from their formulations and ours formulations given by \cite{sc09} and \cite{cs11} are identical \cite{chu}, their approach can be used to study the time-dependent properties, like stellar oscillations \cite{lcl12}.
We thank Dr. T. C. Harko and Prof. M.C. Chu for useful discussion and suggestions and the anonymous referee for his very helpful suggestions and comments.
|
\section{Introduction}
Electron spins trapped in quantum dots (QDs) are promising candidates for implementing a
scalable quantum computer~\cite{loss1998, hanson2007}. Most of the DiVincenzo criteria,
which state physical requirements a system must fulfill to achieve quantum computing,
have been achieved with spin qubits, including initialization~\cite{ono2002},
readout~\cite{elzerman2004}, and coherent
control~\cite{petta2005,koppens2006,nowack2007}. While experimental progress has been
impressive, many of these methods are not yet accurate enough to allow large scale
quantum computing with single spins. A key challenge can be appreciated by considering
the relevant timescales associated with the spin dynamics. In GaAs quantum dot devices,
it is well known that the hyperfine interaction leads to a randomly fluctuating nuclear
field, $B_{\rm n}$ $\sim 2$ mT, which results in a $10$--$20$ ns inhomogeneous spin dephasing
time~\cite{petta2005,coish2005,taylor2007}. For comparison, the Rabi period obtained in a
GaAs double quantum dot (DQD) using conventional electron spin resonance (ESR) is on the
order of $110$ ns~\cite{koppens2006}. The use of spin-orbit driven electric dipole spin
resonance (EDSR) in GaAs leads to even slower Rabi periods of roughly $210$
ns~\cite{nowack2007}. Therefore, in the case of single spin rotations, gate operation
times are nearly an order of magnitude slower than the inhomogeneous spin dephasing time.
This issue is not specific to GaAs based nanostructures. In InAs nanowires, where the
spin-orbit interaction is larger than in GaAs, a Rabi period of $\sim
17\,\mm{ns}$~\cite{nadjperge2010} was
reported. However, it still is twice as long as the spin dephasing time of $\sim
8\,\mm{ns}$.
Viewed from a different perspective, the maximum ac field generated in DQD ESR
experiments is on the order of $2$ mT, which is the same magnitude as the fluctuating
nuclear field~\cite{koppens2006}. As a result, single spin rotations in GaAs qubits
follow imperfect trajectories on the Bloch sphere, resulting in a reduced oscillation
visibility and gate errors~\cite{koppens2006}. Single spin selectivity imposes an
additional challenge upon the development of a spin-based quantum processor. Magnetic
fields generated in ESR are difficult to localize on the nanometer scale. Without
g-factor control, or local magnetic field gradients, the spins located in a quantum
register would rotate at the same rate in the presence of a global ESR field. The long
term goal is to be able to drive selective single spin rotations, without affecting
neighboring spins that are on average only $20$--$50$ nm away.
Instead of using the spin-up and spin-down states of a single electron, the qubit basis
states can be represented by two (out of four) two-electron spin states confined in a
DQD~\cite{levy2002}. For a qubit whose basis states are encoded in the singlet $\mm{S}$
and triplet $\mm{T}_0$ spin states of a DQD, the two-electron exchange interaction allows
for fast single-qubit gates (hundreds of picoseconds)~\cite{petta2005}. Recent
experiments~\cite{weperen2011,shulman2012} have also demonstrated the possibility of
realizing a conditional two-qubit gate. Within this two-spin version of a qubit, the
two-qubit gate realized in Ref.~\onlinecite{petta2005} can be interpreted as a single
qubit operation. However the exchange interaction only allows for rotations about a
single axis, whereas to generate arbitrary rotations one needs two perpendicular rotation
axes. The generation of a nuclear magnetic field gradient~\cite{foletti2009} provides
rotations about a second, non-collinear axis. While remarkable, this method also presents
some difficulties when it has to be extended to a large number of qubits. It requires
that the nuclear polarization is controlled in each DQD to create the desired gradient
field. An advantage of this method is that the generation of the nuclear field gradient
reduces nuclear spin fluctuations, resulting in an increase in the spin dephasing
time~\cite{khaetskii2002}.
Recently, it has been proposed to use a two-spin basis consisting of the singlet $\mm{S}$
and triplet $\mm{T}_+$ spin states~\cite{petta2010,ribeiro2010,ribeiro2012}. Quantum
control of the $\mm{S}$-$\mm{T}_+$ qubit relies on
Landau-Zener-Stückelberg-Majorana~\cite{landau1932,zener1932,stuckelberg1932,majorana1932}
(LZSM) physics, which occurs in the system when the $\mm{S}$-$\mm{T}_+$ qubit is
repeatedly swept through the hyperfine mediated $\mm{S}$-$\mm{T}_+$ anti-crossing. This
all-electrical method also has the advantage of addressing individually each quantum dot.
LZSM physics describing the passage of a two-level quantum system through an
anti-crossing can be applied to different fields of physics and
chemistry~\cite{shevchenko2010}. In quantum information science, LZSM theory describes
accurately the observed interference fringes (Stückelberg oscillations) of a
superconducting qubit driven back and forth through its anti-crossing~\cite{oliver2005}.
The LZSM description also accurately describes the coherent manipulation of a two-spin
qubit encoded in the $\mm{S}$ and triplet $\mm{T}_+$ spin states, with dynamics driven by
repeated passages through a hyperfine-mediated
anti-crossing~\cite{petta2010,ribeiro2010}. In self-assembled quantum dots, LZSM theory
has been used to design high-fidelity all-optical control of spin-based
qubits~\cite{calarco2003,gauger2008,cole2008}.
In this article we develop a quantum master equation to describe partial adiabatic
passages between the spin singlet $\mm{S}$ and triplet $\mm{T}_+$ states in the presence
of both the fluctuating Overhauser field and the fluctuating charge environment. With our
theory, we show charge dynamics can significantly hinder LZSM interferometry of spin
states. While most of the interesting spin dynamics happens in the $(1,1)$ charge
configuration, with one electron per dot, initialization and measurements are done deep
in the $(2,0)$ charge configuration, where both electrons are in the left dot. Here
$(l,r)$ denotes the number of electrons in the left and right dot. Crossing the $(1,1)$
$\leftrightarrow$ $(2,0)$ interdot charge transition necessarily involves charge
dynamics. Since superpositions of charge states dephase on shorter time scales than
superpositions of spin states, it is essential to consider this fast effective
decoherence mechanism when spin and charge degrees of freedom become correlated during
spin qubit evolution~\cite{hayashi2003,petta2004}. In particular, we use our formalism to
analyze spin-charge dynamics associated with detuning pulses that have a tunable level
velocity, with a high level velocity away from the anti-crossing and a slow level
velocity in the vicinity of the anti-crossing~\cite{ribeiro2012}.
The paper is organized as follows. We start by reviewing standard Landau-Zener
theory, which is valid for an infinitely long ramp through an anti-crossing with a
constant level velocity. In Sec.~\ref{sec:adiabatic} we review the solution of the
finite-time LZSM model, which can be used to model realistic experiments, and we
demonstrate within the scope of this theory how fine tuning of the level velocity can be
used to increase the visibility of the quantum oscillations. Section~\ref{sec:st+}
focuses on the physical implementation of LZSM physics in a two-electron spin qubit. We
derive an effective Hamiltonian describing the dynamics of the states in the vicinity of
the $\mm{S}$-$\mm{T}_+$ anti-crossing. Compared to previously derived effective
Hamiltonians~\cite{ribeiro2010}, we include the effects of charge superposition states in the
spin-dependent anti-crossing. The last part of the section is devoted to the derivation
of a master equation that describes the evolution of the density matrix. In
Sec.~\ref{sec:results}, we first compare solutions of the master equation obtained with
exprimental pulse profiles and measurements performed on a GaAs double quantum dot. We
then show theory results for the singlet return probability for which we explore the
effects of charge induced decoherence.
\section{Adiabatic control of a quantum two-level system}
\label{sec:adiabatic}
There are numerous problems in physics that deal with the physics of two-level systems.
The most common example is Rabi's formula~\cite{rabi1937} which describes the occupation
of a two-level system that is driven by a coherent field. In quantum information science,
Rabi oscillations are widely used, e.g., to manipulate an electron spin confined in a
QD~\cite{hanson2008}. Another widely studied problem involving only two quantum levels is
adiabatic passage, which is commonly employed in nuclear magnetic
resonance~\cite{abragam1983}. The physics of adiabatic passage can be found in a variety
of systems, and several theoretical models have been developed to describe different
kinds of adiabatic
processes~\cite{rosen1932,allen1987,hioe1984,bambini1981,demkov1969,hioe1985,zakrzewski1985,demkov1964,nikitin1962,carroll1986}.
There is, however, a particular description that has proven to be applicable in many
distinct fields of physics: the Landau-Zener~\cite{landau1932,zener1932} model. We refer
to it in this article as the LZSM model, since it was independently studied by
Stückelberg~\cite{stuckelberg1932} and Majorana~\cite{majorana1932}.
The Hamiltonian studied in the LZSM model describes a system with two energy levels [see
Fig.~\ref{fig:simplelzsm}(a)] that are coupled by an off-diagonal matrix element
$\lambda$, $H(t)$ = $-(\alpha t/2) \sigma_z$ + $\lambda \sigma_x$, where $\sigma_z$ and
$\sigma_x$ are Pauli matrices, and
$\alpha$ = $\mathrm{d}(E_2 (t) - E_1 (t)/\mathrm{d} t$.
The main result of the theory is the asymptotic expression for the non-adiabatic
transition probability when the propagation lasts from $t_{\mm{i}} = -\infty$ to
$t_{\mm{f}} = \infty$,
\begin{equation}
P_{\mm{LZSM}} = \mathrm{e}^{\frac{- 2 \pi \lambda^2}{\alpha \hbar}}.
\label{eq:simpleLZSM}
\end{equation}
Here we use a generalization of the LZSM model, known as the finite-time LZSM
model~\cite{vitanov1996}. It resolves the problem of the energy divergence when
$t_{\mm{f,i}} = \pm \infty$, and in contrast to the simple case it yields the relative
phase between the states, which is crucial for predicting the coherent time evolution of any
quantum system. Particularly, knowledge of the relative phase is essential in LZSM
interferometry~\cite{stuckelberg1932,shevchenko2010} in which the system is driven back
and forth across an anti-crossing. The driving generates quantum interference between
states, which is directly observable in the non-adiabatic (or adiabatic) transition
probability.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig1}
\caption{(color online) (a) The Landau-Zener-Stückelberg-Majorana (LZSM) problem. The
LZSM model addresses the problem of a two-level system that is swept through an
anti-crossing. It assumes an infinitely long ramp (i.e. propagation from $t_{\mm{i}} \to
-\infty$ to $t_{\mm{f}} \to \infty$), a constant coupling constant $\lambda$ leading to a
splitting $ 2\abs{\lambda}$ at $t=0$, and an energy difference between the
levels that varies linearly with time, $\Delta E(t) = \alpha t$. Its main result gives the
non-adiabatic transition probability, $P_{\mm{LZSM}}$. An extension of the model to
finite-times resolves the problem of infinite energies and undefined phases. (b) Singlet
and triplet $\mm{T}_+$ energies in a DQD as a function of detuning $\varepsilon$, where
$\varepsilon_{\rm i}=\varepsilon(t_{\rm i})$ and $\varepsilon_{\rm s}=\varepsilon(t_{\rm
f})$. The two-electron DQD is a physical realization of the LZSM model. Here, the
hyperfine coupling of the two spin states leads to a splitting $\Delta_{\rm HF}$. (c) The
LZSM model assumes a constant level velocity $\alpha$. In order to increase adiabaticity
one can lower $\alpha$, but in order to keep short pulses it is preferable to use multi
rise-time pulses. (d) Comparison of possible pulses that can be used to manipulate
the $\mm{S}$-$\mm{T}_+$ qubit. In terms of total propagation time, ``double hat''
pulses are a good compromise between conventional trapezoid and convolved pulses.}
\label{fig:simplelzsm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Finite-time Landau-Zener-Stückelberg-Majorana propagator}
The unitary evolution operator defined by the LZSM
Hamiltonian~\cite{landau1932,zener1932,stuckelberg1932,majorana1932},
\begin{equation}
H (t)=
\begin{pmatrix}
-\frac{\alpha}{2} t && \lambda \\[6pt]
\lambda && \frac{\alpha}{2} t
\end{pmatrix},
\label{eq:hlzs}
\end{equation}
is given by~\cite{vitanov1996}
\begin{equation}
U (t_{\mm{f}},\,t_{\mm{i}}) =
\begin{pmatrix}
u_{11} (t_{\mm{f}},\,t_{\mm{i}}) & u_{12}(t_{\mm{f}},\,t_{\mm{i}})\\
u_{21}(t_{\mm{f}},\,t_{\mm{i}}) & u_{22}(t_{\mm{f}},\,t_{\mm{i}})
\end{pmatrix},
\label{eq:lzsm_matrix}
\end{equation}
where $1 (2)$ refers to the states $\ket{0}$ ($\ket{1}$) with
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&u_{11} (t_{\mm{f}},\,t_{\mm{i}}) = u_{22}^{\ast}(t_{\mm{f}},\,t_{\mm{i}})=\\
& \frac{\Gamma\left(1 - \mathrm{i}\eta^2\right)}{\sqrt{2\pi}}
\left[D_{\mathrm{i} \eta^2}\left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{-\mathrm{i}\pi}{4}}\tau_{\mm{f}}\right)
D_{\mathrm{i}\eta^2-1}\left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{3\mathrm{i}\pi}{4}}\tau_{\mm{i}}\right)
\right.\\
&+ \left. D_{\mathrm{i} \eta^2}\left(
\mathrm{e}^{\frac{3\mathrm{i}\pi}{4}}\tau_{\mm{f}}\right)
D_{\mathrm{i}\eta^2-1}\left(\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\mathrm{i}\pi}{4}}\tau_{\mm{i}}\right)
\right],
\end{split}
\label{eq:u11}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&u_{12} (t_{\mm{f}},\,t_{\mm{i}}) = -u_{21}^{\ast}(t_{\mm{f}},\,t_{\mm{i}})=\\
& \frac{\Gamma\left(1 - \mathrm{i}\eta^2\right)}{\sqrt{2 \pi}\eta}
\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}\pi}{4}}
\left[-D_{\mathrm{i} \eta^2}\left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{-\mathrm{i}\pi}{4}}\tau_{\mm{f}}\right)
D_{\mathrm{i}\eta^2}\left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{3\mathrm{i}\pi}{4}}\tau_{\mm{i}}\right)
\right.\\
&+ \left. D_{\mathrm{i} \eta^2}\left(
\mathrm{e}^{\frac{3\mathrm{i}\pi}{4}}\tau_{\mm{f}}\right)
D_{\mathrm{i}\eta^2}\left(\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\mathrm{i}\pi}{4}}\tau_{\mm{i}}\right)
\right].
\end{split}
\label{eq:u12}
\end{equation}
Here $\tau = \sqrt{\alpha/\hbar}t$ is a dimensionless time, $\eta = \lambda/\sqrt{\alpha
\hbar}$ is a dimensionless coupling, $\Gamma (z)$ is the gamma
function~\cite{abramowitz_gamma}, and $D_{\nu} (z)$ is the parabolic cylinder
function~\cite{erdelyi_parabolic}. By definition, $t=0$ is set at the anti-crossing. The
usual LZSM formula eq.~\eqref{eq:simpleLZSM} is retrieved from the modulus square of
Eq.~\eqref{eq:u11} when taking the limit $t_{\mm{i}} \to -\infty$ and $t_{\mm{f}} \to
\infty$.
The LZSM propagator fully determines the partial adiabatic dynamics of a quantum
two-level system. In the case where the two-level system encodes a qubit,
Eq.~\eqref{eq:lzsm_matrix} allows the design of single qubit operations. This method has
been used to control superconducting qubits~\cite{oliver2005,shevchenko2010}, and more
recently to implement a qubit encoded in the spin of a two-electron
state~\cite{petta2010,ribeiro2010}. However, since the spin states are weakly coupled,
$\eta < 1$, it is hard to achieve an equally weighted coherent superposition of spin
states and fully explore the entire qubit state space. In order to achieve full control
over the spin qubit, it would be necessary to perform slower sweeps, i.e., to increase
$\eta$ by making $\alpha$ smaller. However, the LZSM equation requires an exponential
increase in the propagation time in order to achieve a fully adiabatic transition. In a
real physical system, this method is unpractical because the pulse duration needs to
remain shorter than the coherence time of the two-level system.
\subsection{Observing finite-time effects}
As demonstrated in Ref.~\onlinecite{ribeiro2012}, it is possible to use more complex
pulses to increase the balance of the populations while keeping the manipulation time
below the decoherence times. The key idea relies on an observation based on the
finite-time LZSM model. For a slow-level velocity $\alpha$, which favors adiabatic
passage, most of the population change occurs in the vicinity of the anti-crossing. It is
therefore possible to use detuning pulses that have a time-dependent level velocity. Let
us consider two types of pulses, as illustrated in Figs.~\ref{fig:simplelzsm}(c) and (d).
The first is a conventional linear pulse, which is standard in LZSM theory. The second
pulse profile consists of linear detuning ramps in a fast-slow-fast rise-time sequence,
which we refer to as ``double hat'' pulse. The unitary evolution of such a general
sequence can be written using Eq.~\eqref{eq:lzsm_matrix} as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
U(t_{\mm{f}}, t_{\mm{i}}) &= U_{\mm{fast2}}(t_{\mm{f}},\, t_2)
U_{\mm{slow}}(t_2,\, t_1)
U_{\mm{fast1}}(t_1,\, t_{\mm{i}})\\
&=
\begin{pmatrix}
\tilde{u}_{11} (t_{\mm{f}},\,t_{\mm{i}}) & \tilde{u}_{12}(t_{\mm{f}},\,t_{\mm{i}})\\
\tilde{u}_{21}(t_{\mm{f}},\,t_{\mm{i}}) & \tilde{u}_{22}(t_{\mm{f}},\,t_{\mm{i}})
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:doublehatprop}
\end{equation}
Here $t_1 = t_{\mm{i}} + t_{\mm{fr1}}$, $t_2 = t_{\mm{i}} + t_{\mm{fr1}} + t_{\mm{sr}}$,
and $t_{\mm{f}} = t_{\mm{i}} + t_{\mm{fr1}} + t_{\mm{sr}} + t_{\mm{fr2}}$, where
$t_{\mm{fr}j}$ is the propagation time associated to the $j$th fast sequence, and
$t_{\mm{sr}}$ corresponds to the slow sequence. We use this notation to refer to the
corresponding level velocities $\alpha_j$, dimensionless times $\tau_j$, and
dimensionless couplings $\eta_j$.
In addition to the already mentioned and studied advantages ``double hat'' pulses offer,
they also provide sensitive means to explore finite-time effects. These are in general
neglected when describing experiments because the more convenient LZSM scattering
approach~\cite{shevchenko2010} has been sufficient to reproduce experimental
results~\cite{oliver2005,petta2010}. However, to implement high-fidelity quantum gates
it will be necessary to accurately describe the dynamics of the qubit and thus take into
account finite-time propagation.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:dhlzsm} we compare adiabatic transition probabilities obtained with
``double hat'' pulses and conventional trapezoid pulses [c.f. inset of
Fig.~\ref{fig:dhlzsm}]. Here, an adiabatic transition refers to a transition where the
system remains in an instantaneous energy eigenstate. The details of the leading
edge (the trailing edge is identical but reversed) of the ``double hat'' pulse are $t_{\mm{fr1}} =
t_{\mm{fr2}} = 0.1\,\mm{ns}$, the starting position of the slow-level velocity ramp is defined
by the condition $\Delta E_{\mm{i}} - \Delta E_{\mm{i,sr}} = -2\,\mm{\mu eV}$, where
$\Delta E_{\mm{i}}$ is the initial energy difference between the uncoupled eigenstates
and $\Delta E_{\mm{i,sr}}$ the energy difference at the beginning of the slow part of the
pulse. We choose $\alpha_{\mm{sr}} = 500\,\mm{eVs^{-1}}$ and $\lambda = 70\,\mm{neV}$. We
impose the same total propagation time on the linear pulse as for the ``double hat'',
from which we obtain the level velocity $\alpha_{\mm{si}}$ for the linear pulse,
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\mm{si}} = \frac{\Delta E_{\mm{f}} - \Delta
E_{\mm{i}}}{t_{\mm{fr1}} + t_{\mm{fr2}} + t_{\mm{sr}}}.
\label{eq:alphasimple}
\end{equation}
The adiabatic transition probability, $P_{\mm{a}}$, is plotted as a function of
$\Delta E_{\mm{f}}$. Here, $\Delta E_{\mm{f}}$ indicates the energy difference between
the states when the pulse has reached its maximal amplitude. Different values of $\Delta
E_{\mm{f}}$ are obtained by adding an offset to $\Delta E_{\mm{i}}$, while keeping the
length of pulse (thus $\alpha_{\mm{si}}$ and the different $\alpha_j$ of the ``double
hat'') constant. Since we are interested in finite-time effects, we impose $\Delta
E_{\mm{f}} < 0$ for trapezoid pulses, which reflects that the system is not detuned
through the anti-crossing. This condition is relaxed for ``double hat'' pulses, for which
we impose $\Delta E_{\mm{f}} < 0.5\,\mm{\mu eV}$. This is equivalent, with our choice of
parameters, to letting the system be driven up to the anti-crossing with the slow
component of the ``double hat''. This condition can be written as $\Delta
E_{\mm{sr}}^{\mm{dh}} < 0$, i.e. the energy difference at the end of the slow rise-time
component is smaller than $0$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig2}
\caption{(color online) Comparison of the adiabatic transition probability, $P_{\mm{a}}$,
for a ``double hat'' (orange) and a linear pulse (red) with $t_{\mm{w}}=0$ as a function
of $\Delta E_{\mm{f}}$. (Inset) Pulse profiles used to obtain $P_{\mm{a}}$. The maximal
offset for the single rise-time pulse is chosen such that the system is never driven
through the anti-crossing ($\Delta E_{\mm{f}}^{\mm{single}} <0$).
The maximal offset for ``double hat'' pulses is determined by the condition that the
system cannot be driven with the slow component of the pulse through the anti-crossing
($\Delta E_{\mm{sr}}^{\mm{dh}} <0$). For ``double hat'' pulses, the values of
$P_{\mm{a}}$ between $0 < \Delta E_{\mm{f}} < 0.5\,\mm{\mu eV}$ originate from the slow
portion of the pulse, which brings the system close to the anti-crossing. In this range,
the magnitude of $P_{\mm{a}}$ is not due to the second fast rise-time portion of the
pulse, which drives the system through the anti-crossing.}
\label{fig:dhlzsm}
\end{figure}
Our results show for the trapezoid pulse what is expected from a finite-time LZSM
theory~\cite{vitanov1996}. There is a small probability for an adiabatic transition if
the system is detuned to close proximity of the anti-crossing. If one compares this
result with values of $P_{\mm{a}}$ obtained with the ``double hat'', it seems that there
is no enhancement. Moreover, one would have a tendency to associate values of
$P_{\mm{a}}$ between $0 < \Delta E_{\mm{f}} < 0.5\,\mm{\mu eV}$ as originating from the
second fast-rise portion of the pulse, which drives the system through the anti-crossing.
However, for the particular ``double hat'' we are considering here, we have
$U_{\mm{fast2}} \approx \mathbbm{1}$. This means that the values of $P_{\mm{a}}$ in the
range $0 < \Delta E_{\mm{f}} < 0.5\,\mm{\mu eV}$ are due to the system being brought
close to the anti-crossing with the slow portion of the pulse, for which $\eta \gtrsim
1$. This is in contrast with trapezoid pulses, or any single rise-time pulse, for which
$\Delta E_{\mm{f}}>0$ implies that most of the magnitude of $P_{\mm{a}}$ comes from the
system being driven through the anti-crossing.
To illustrate our last statement, in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp_finite-time} we present a
comparison between $P_{\mm{a}}$ obtained with a ``double hat'' pulse as described
previously and a ``truncated double hat'', which is missing the second fast detuning
ramp [c.f. inset Fig.~\ref{fig:comp_finite-time}]. To compare $P_{\mm{a}}$ between the two
pulses, we choose the $x$-axis to describe $\Delta E_{\mm{f}}$ at the end of the slow
detuning pulse. We shift the values obtained with a ``double hat'' along the $x$-axis by
an amount $\Delta E_{\mm{fast}2} = 0.5\,\mm{\mu eV}$ to compare between the two different
pulses. We clearly see that for both cases $P_{\mm{a}}$ is nearly identical.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig3}
\caption{(color online) Comparison of the adiabatic transition probability,
$P_{\mm{a}}$, for a ``double hat'' (orange) and a ``truncated double hat''
(green), which is missing the second fast rise-time component, as a function of
$\Delta E_{\mm{f}}$ at the end of the slow detuning pulse. (Inset) Pulse profiles
used to obtain $P_{\mm{a}}$. The results obtained with a ``double hat'' are
shifted by an amount $\Delta E_{\mm{fast}2}$ on the $x$-axis to allow for
comparison. We conclude from these results that the state of the system is hardly
changed during the second fast detuning pulse.}
\label{fig:comp_finite-time}
\end{figure}
\section{Adiabatic Control of a $\mm{S}-\mm{T}_+$ qubit}
\label{sec:st+}
In the following, we apply the previously developed ideas to a physical implementation of
a LZSM driven qubit. We focus on the two-spin $\mm{S}-\mm{T}_+$ implementation in a GaAs
DQD~\cite{petta2010,ribeiro2010}, see Fig.~\ref{fig:simplelzsm}(b). Although the
dynamics of the system under ``double hat'' pulses has already been studied
experimentally~\cite{ribeiro2012}, there is still a need to gain a better understanding
of the charge-noise-induced spin dephasing. We will show, among other things, that the
measurement of finite-time LZSM oscillations can provide a tool to qualitatively access
the strength of charge noise.
\subsection{Double Quantum Dot Spin States}
The spin preserving part of the Hamiltonian describing the confinement of electrons in a
DQD in the presence of an external magnetic field can be written using a simple two-site
hopping model,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
H_0 &= \sum_{\substack{{i=1,2}\\{\sigma=\uparrow,\,\downarrow}}}\left(\varepsilon_i +
\frac{1}{2} g^* \mu_{\mm{B}}B \sigma\right)c_{i \sigma}^{\dag} c_{i \sigma} + u \sum_i c_{i \uparrow}^{\dag}
c_{i \uparrow} c_{i \downarrow}^{\dag} c_{i \downarrow}\\
&\phantom{=} + \tau \sum_{\sigma} \left(c_{1 \sigma}^{\dag} c_{2 \sigma} + \mm{h. c.}\right).
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:DQD_H0}
\end{equation}
The index $i=1,\,2$ labels the dot number and $\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow=\pm 1$ the spin
of the electron. We denote the energy of a single confined electron by $\varepsilon_i$
and the Zeeman energy associated with its spin is given by $g^* \mu_{\mm{B}}B \sigma/2$,
where $g^{*}$ denotes the effective Landé g-factor, $\mu_{\mm{B}}$ the Bohr magneton, $B$
the strength of the external magnetic field. The operators $c_{i \sigma}$ and $c_{i
\sigma}^{\dag}$ describe respectively the annihilation and creation of an electron in dot
$i$ with spin $\sigma$. Two electrons occupying the same QD give rise to an intra-dot
Coulomb energy $u$. The last term of Eq.~\eqref{eq:DQD_H0} accounts for electron
tunneling between the dots with strength $\tau$. We neglect the inter-dot Coulomb
interaction because it only produces a constant shift of the energy levels.
Since most recent experiments on a DQD system are operated in a regime with at most two
electrons, we can project Eq.~\eqref{eq:DQD_H0} into the subspace spanned by the charge
configurations $(0,2)$, $(2,0)$, and
$(1,1)$~\cite{petta2005,foletti2009,petta2010,bluhm2011,studenikin2012}. The diagonalization of the
resulting Hamiltonian leads to six low-energy states which are superpositions of the
singlets $\mm{S}(0,2)$, $\mm{S}(2,0)$, and $\mm{S}(1,1)$ as well as the triplets
$\mm{T}_0 (1,1)$, $\mm{T}_+ (1,1)$, and $\mm{T}_- (1,1)$. The triplet states with two
particles in the same dot must have electrons occupying higher-energy orbitals due
to the Pauli principle. This results in a relatively high separation in energy ($\sim
400\,\mu\mm{eV}$) from a singlet with both electrons occupying the same
dot~\cite{hanson2004}. Consequently the triplets states with two electrons in the same
dot can be safely neglected for the purpose of the current study.
An energy level diagram is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:energy_diagram}, where we plot the
energies of the relevant two-electron spin states as a function of detuning $\varepsilon
= \varepsilon_1 - \varepsilon_2$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig4}
\caption{(color online) Energy diagram for the relevant states in the DQD as a
function of $\varepsilon$. The spin states for the implementation of the qubit are the
hybridized singlet $\mm{S}$ and the triplet $\mm{T}_+$.}
\label{fig:energy_diagram}
\end{figure}
The degeneracy of the singlets $\mm{S}(1,1)$ and $\mm{S}(2,0)$ at $\varepsilon =u$, as
well as between $\mm{S}(1,1)$ and $\mm{S}(0,2)$ at $\varepsilon=-u$, is lifted due to
tunneling, which results in a splitting of the levels by $2 \sqrt{2} \tau$. The
degeneracy between the spin singlet $\mm{S}$ and spin triplet $\mm{T}_0$ is lifted due to
the exchange interaction~\cite{burkard1999}. This property has allowed the encoding of a
spin qubit in these two spin states and its manipulation via the exchange
interaction~\cite{petta2005}.
Here we concentrate on a particular value of detuning that we have denoted by
$\varepsilon_{\mm{c}}$ in the energy level diagram. This point corresponds to the
crossing of the singlet state with the triplet $\mm{T}_+$ state and is special because
there is an anticrossing due to the hyperfine interaction between the electron spins and
nuclear spins of the host material. It has been demonstrated
experimentally~\cite{petta2010} and theoretically~\cite{ribeiro2010} that coherent
control of the $\mm{S}$-$\mm{T}_+$ qubit can be achieved by detuning the system from an
initially prepared $\mm{S} (2,0)$ through the hyperfine mediated anti-crossing.
The hyperfine interaction is described by the effective Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H_{\mm{HF}} = \mbox{\boldmath$S$}_1 \cdot \mbox{\boldmath$h$}_1 + \mbox{\boldmath$S$}_2 \cdot \mbox{\boldmath$h$}_2
\label{eq:hfgen}
\end{equation}
between the electron spin $\mbox{\boldmath$S$}_i$ and the effective magnetic fields $\mbox{\boldmath$h$}_i$ that are
generated by the nuclear spins $\mbox{\boldmath$I$}_i$ in dot $i$. The Overhauser field operators $\mbox{\boldmath$h$}_i
= \sum_{k=1}^{n_i} A_i^k \mbox{\boldmath$I$}_i^k$ describe the nuclear spin bath. Here $n_i$ is the number of
nuclei in dot $i$ and $A_i^k = v_{i k} \nu_0 \left|\psi_i (\mbox{\boldmath$r$}_k)\right|^2$ is the
hyperfine coupling constant with the $k$-th nucleus in dot $i$, with $\psi_i (\mbox{\boldmath$r$}_k)$ the
electron wave function, $\nu_0$ the volume of the unit cell and $v_{ik}$ the hyperfine
coupling strength. A more convenient form of the hyperfine interaction is obtained by
introducing the spin ladder operators $S_i^\pm=S_i^x\pm \mm{i} S_i^y$ and $h_i^{\pm} =
h_i^x \pm \mathrm{i} h_i^y$, which yields
\begin{equation}
H_{\mm{HF}} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_i \left(2 S_i^z
h_i^z + S_i^+ h_i^- + S_i^- h_i^+\right).
\label{eq:hfladder}
\end{equation}
The longitudinal part of $H_{\mm{HF}}$ is diagonal and its contribution will add to the
energy of the triplet state. The transverse part
\begin{equation}
H_{\mm{HF}}^{\perp} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_i (S_i^+ h_i^- + S_i^- h_i^+),
\label{eq:hftrans}
\end{equation}
generates the so-called flip-flop process that result in an energy gap at
$\varepsilon_{\mm{c}}$ and allows for mixing of the $\mm{S}$ and $\mm{T}_+$ spin
states~\cite{khaetskii2002,coish2005,taylor2007}.
\subsection{$\mm{S}-\mm{T}_+$ Effective Hamiltonian}
\label{sec:chargespin}
In this section, we derive an effective $2\times2$ Hamiltonian that describes the
dynamics of the $\mm{S}-\mm{T}_+$ spin states near the hyperfine induced anti-crossing.
Before doing so, we start by making a few considerations based on LZSM theory to
determine which states play a negligible role in the dynamics. Since Eq.~\eqref{eq:DQD_H0} describes a series of
anti-crossings, it is possible to use the results of Refs.~\onlinecite{kayanuma1985,usuki1997} where a
formula for the non-adiabatic transition probability of a multiple crossings LZSM model has
been derived. It was shown that for well separated anti-crossings~\cite{usuki1997}, we
have
$P_k = \prod_{j=1}^k \exp(- 2 \pi \lambda_j^2 / \hbar \alpha_j)$,
where $P_k$ is the non-adiabatic transition probability after the $k$-th anti-crossing. This
formula is a product of $k$ LZSM probabilities, which reflects the independence between
the set of anti-crossings.
This model can directly be applied to the DQD system for magnetic fields on the order of
a few hundreds of mT, where the charge anti-crossing and both of the hyperfine induced
anti-crossings ($\mm{T}_+$ and $\mm{T}_-$) are well separated. Here, we demonstrate that
if the system is initialized in the singlet $\mm{S}(2,0)$, then the detuning pulses
allowing for mixing of the lowest energy hybridized singlet state and triplet $\mm{T}_+$
cannot populate the higher energy hybridized singlet state and consequently the triplet
$\mm{T}_-$. Let us consider that the hyperfine coupling strength is on the order of a
hundred nano-electron volts, $\lambda_{\mm{HF}} = 100\,\mm{neV}$. This value is
consistent with experimental findings. In Ref.~\onlinecite{petta2010}, a strength of
$60\,\mm{neV}$ has been reported. For our choice of $\lambda_{\mm{HF}}$, we find
$P_{\mm{LZSM}} = 0.5$ for $\alpha \simeq 138\,\mm{eVs^{-1}}$. This would correspond to an
equally weighted superposition of the qubit states. However, this is only true if there
is no population transfer to the higher hybridized singlet level as predicted by
the equation for $P_k$. By evaluating the population transfer between $\mm{S}(2,0)$ and
$\mm{S}(1,1)$ with the LZSM formula for $\alpha = 138\,\mm{eVs^{-1}}$ and
$\lambda_{\mm{charge}} = \sqrt{2} \tau \simeq 7.1\,\mm{\mu eV}$, we find $P_{\mm{LZSM}}
\simeq 0$, within the numerical precision of our calculation, which indicates that there
is no population transfer.
From the previous considerations, we have shown that it is safe to neglect the higher
energy hybridized singlet state as well as the triplet $\mm{T}_-$, but the importance of
$\mm{T}_0$ remains to be determined. Here, we rely on recent experimental
results~\cite{studenikin2012} which demonstrate that only a certain type of detuning
pulses lead to mixing between $\mm{T}_+$, $\mm{T}_0$, and the ground-state
singlet. Moreover, as the results of Ref.~\onlinecite{studenikin2012} indicate, it is
possible to identify in interference patterns the presence of $\mm{T}_0$ in the
dynamics~\cite{sarkka2011}.
Finally, we conclude that it is possible to restrict the Hilbert space
to two states, $\mm{T}_+ (1,1)$ and the lowest energy hybridized
singlet S.
In order to derive
an analytical expression for the latter, we start by considering the projection of
Eq.~\eqref{eq:DQD_H0} onto the states $\mm{T}_+ (1,1)$, $\mm{S}(1,1)$, and $\mm{S}(2,0)$.
We find
\begin{equation}
H_0 (\varepsilon) =
\begin{pmatrix}
g^* \mu_{\mm{B}} B & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & \sqrt{2} \tau\\
0 & \sqrt{2} \tau & u - \varepsilon \\
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:3x3ham}
\end{equation}
The diagonalization of Eq.~\eqref{eq:3x3ham} yields two hybridized singlets and the
triplet state $\mm{T}_+$
\begin{empheq}{align}
&\ket{\mm{S}} = c(\varepsilon) \ket{\mm{S}(1,1)} + \sqrt{1-c(\varepsilon)^2}\ket{\mm{S}(2,0)},
\label{eq:gsinglet}\\
&\ket{\mm{S'}} = c'(\varepsilon) \ket{\mm{S}(1,1)} +
\sqrt{1- c'(\varepsilon)^2}\ket{\mm{S}(2,0)},
\label{eq:esinglet}\\
&\ket{\mm{T}} = \ket{\mm{T}_+ (1,1)},
\label{eq:triplet}
\end{empheq}
with respective energies
\begin{empheq}{align}
&E_{\mm{S}} (\varepsilon) = \frac{1}{2}(u -
\varepsilon - \sqrt{8 \tau^2 + (u - \varepsilon)^2}),
\label{eq:energ_gsinglet}\\
&E_{\mm{S'}} (\varepsilon) = \frac{1}{2}(u - \varepsilon + \sqrt{8 \tau^2 + (u -
\varepsilon)^2}),
\label{eq:energ_esinglet}\\
&E_{\mm{T}} = g^* \mu_{\mm{B}} B.
\end{empheq}
The charge admixture coefficients $c(\varepsilon)$ and
$c'(\varepsilon)$ are
\begin{empheq}{align}
c(\varepsilon) &= \frac{\varepsilon - u -
\sqrt{8 \tau^2 + (u - \varepsilon)^2}}{\sqrt{8 \tau^2 + (-\varepsilon + u + \sqrt{8
\tau^2 + (\varepsilon -u)^2})^2}},
\label{eq:cepsilon}\\
c'(\varepsilon) &= \frac{\varepsilon - u + \sqrt{8
\tau^2 + (u - \varepsilon)^2}}{\sqrt{8 \tau^2 + (\varepsilon - u + \sqrt{8 \tau^2 +
(\varepsilon -u)^2})^2}}.
\label{eq:cepsilonprime}
\end{empheq}
We can now make the following basis change
\begin{equation}
T(\varepsilon) =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & c(\varepsilon) & c'(\varepsilon)\\
0 & \sqrt{1 - c^2(\varepsilon)}& \sqrt{1 - c'^2(\varepsilon)} \\
\end{pmatrix},
\label{eq:matchangbasis}
\end{equation}
such that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
H_0^{\mm{diag}} (\varepsilon) &=
T(\varepsilon)^{\dag} H_0 (\varepsilon) T(\varepsilon)\\
&=
\begin{pmatrix}
g^* \mu_{\mm{B}} B & 0 & 0\\
0 & E_{\mm{S}} & 0\\
0 & 0 & E_{\mm{S'}}\\
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:diag3x3ham}
\end{equation}
We add now to the Hamiltonian defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:3x3ham} the hyperfine interaction
defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:hfgen}. Since we are not interested in describing the nuclear
spins dynamics, but its effect on the two-spin states $\mm{S}$ and $\mm{T}_+$, we can
model the action of the Overhauser field operators by introducing a classical stochastic
variable which accounts for fluctuations in the nuclear
spin ensemble~\cite{khaetskii2002,coish2005,taylor2007}. By setting
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\boldmath$h$}_i = g^* \mu_{\mm{B}} \mathbf{B}_{\mm{n},i},
\label{eq:semiclOver}
\end{equation}
we can interpret $\mathbf{B}_{\mm{n},i}$ as the effective random magnetic field
acting on $\mbox{\boldmath$S$}_i$. Under normal experimental conditions we have $k_{\mm{B}} T \gg
g_{\mm{n}} \mu_{\mm{n}} B$, where $g_{\mm{n}}$ and $\mu_{\mm{n}}$ are the nuclear
$g$-factor and magneton. The nuclear spins can, in this limit, be assumed to be completely
unpolarized, resulting in a Gaussian distribution of nuclear
fields~\cite{khaetskii2002,coish2005,taylor2007}
\begin{equation}
p(B_{\mm{n},\,i}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}
\sigma}\mm{e}^{-\frac{B_{\mm{n},\,i}^2}{ 2\delta^2}},
\label{eq:nuclfielddist}
\end{equation}
with $\delta = A / g^* \mu_{\mm{B}} \sqrt{n}$, the hyperfine coupling constant $A
\approx 90\,\mm{\mu eV}$, and the approximate number of nuclei overlapping with the
electronic wave function $n \approx 10^5 - 10^6$. By defining $B_{\mm{n},\,i}^{\pm} =
B_{\mm{n},\,i}^x \pm \mm{i} B_{\mm{n},\,i}^y$, the hyperfine Hamiltonian can be written
by analogy with Eq.~\eqref{eq:hfladder} as
\begin{equation}
H_{\mm{HF}} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_i \left(2 S_i^z
B_{\mm{n},i}^z + S_i^+ B_{\mm{n},i}^- + S_i^- B_{\mm{n},i}^+\right),
\label{eq:hfladdersc}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig5}
\caption{(color online) The effective hyperfine mediated coupling between $\ket{\mm{S}}$
and $\ket{\mm{T}}$ is a function of detuning. This is a consequence of
the state $\ket{\mm{S}}$ being a superposition of different charge states.}
\label{fig:coupling}
\end{figure}
The longitudinal part of $H_{\mm{HF}}$ can be included in the energy of the triplet state
$g^* \mu_{\mm{B}} B \to g^* \mu_{\mm{B}} (B + B_{\mm{n},1}^z + B_{\mm{n},2}^z)$, while the
transverse part
\begin{equation}
H_{\mm{HF}}^{\perp} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_i (S_i^+ B_{\mm{n},i}^- + S_i^-
B_{\mm{n},i}^+).
\label{eq:hftranscl}
\end{equation}
mixes the spin states $\ket{\mm{S}}$ and $\ket{\mm{T}}$.
We therefore find that the full Hamiltonian, in the $\{\mm{T}_+ (1,1), \mm{S}(1,1),
\mm{S}(2,0)\}$ basis, describing the dynamics of the singlet $\mm{S}$
and triplet $\mm{T}_+$ near the hyperfine anti-crossing is given by
\begin{equation}
H_{\mm{S}-\mm{T}_+} (\varepsilon) =
\begin{pmatrix}
g^* \mu_{\mm{B}} \tilde{B} & \lambda & 0 \\
\lambda & 0 & \sqrt{2}\tau \\
0 & \sqrt{2} \tau & (u-\varepsilon) \\
\end{pmatrix},
\label{eq:fullH}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{B} = B + B_{\mm{n},1}^z + B_{\mm{n},2}^z$ and
\begin{equation}
\lambda = \bra{\mm{S}(1,1)} H_{\mm{HF}}^{\perp} \ket{\mm{T}_+ (1,1)} = g^* \mu_{\mm{B}} (B_{\mm{n},2}^- -
B_{\mm{n},1}^-)/2 \sqrt{2}.
\label{eq:effective_hf_coupling}
\end{equation}
In the basis that diagonalizes Eq.~\eqref{eq:3x3ham}, the Hamiltonian defined in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:fullH} reads
\begin{equation}
\tilde{H}_{\mm{S}-\mm{T}_+} (\varepsilon) =
\begin{pmatrix}
g^* \mu_{\mm{B}} \tilde{B} & c(\varepsilon) \lambda & c'(\varepsilon) \lambda\\
c(\varepsilon) \lambda & E_{\mm{S}} (\varepsilon) & 0\\
c'(\varepsilon) \lambda & 0 & E_{\mm{S'}} (\varepsilon)\\
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:fullHnew}
\end{equation}
The projection of Eq.~\eqref{eq:fullHnew} onto the Hilbert space spanned by
$\{\ket{\mm{S}},\ket{\mm{T}}\}$ leads to the effective $2 \times 2$ Hamiltonian
describing the dynamics at the singlet-triplet $\mm{T}_+$ anti-crossing.
Taking into account that the detuning is time-dependent, $\varepsilon = \varepsilon (t)$,
we finally obtain
\begin{equation}
H (t)=E_{\mm{S}}(\varepsilon(t))\ket{\mm{S}}\bra{\mm{S}} +
\tilde{E}_{\mm{T}}\ket{\mm{T}}\bra{\mm{T}} +
f(\varepsilon(t))\left(\ket{\mm{S}}\bra{\mm{T}} +
\mm{h. c.}\right),
\label{eq:eff_ham}
\end{equation}
where $E_{\mm{S}}$ is defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:energ_gsinglet}) and
$\tilde{E}_{\mm{T}} = g^* \mu_{\mm{B}} \tilde{B} $.
This effective Hamiltonian differs from previous
derivations~\cite{ribeiro2009,ribeiro2010} in the coupling $f(t) =
c(\varepsilon(t))\lambda$, which is time-dependent. Here, $c(\varepsilon(t))$ and
$\lambda$ are given in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:cepsilon}) and (\ref{eq:effective_hf_coupling}). As
it can be seen from the functional form of $f(t)$, the effective coupling strength
between the spin states depends on the charge state (Fig.~\ref{fig:coupling}). This
result is rather natural since the matrix element between $\mm{S}$ and $\mm{T}_+$ goes to
zero when the detuning is such that $\mm{S}=\mm{S}(2,0)$ and $\mm{T}_+ = \mm{T}_+(1,1)$,
i.e., $\bra{\mm{S}}H_{\mm{HF}}^{\perp}\ket{\mm{T}_+} \to 0$ for $\varepsilon \gg u$. It
also implies that the physics described by Eq.~\eqref{eq:eff_ham} goes beyond standard
LZSM theory with a constant coupling.
However, since both Hamiltonians describe adiabatic passage through an anti-crossing, we
can assume that the dynamics are qualitatively similar. We can therefore expect that our
previous discussion about enhancement of adiabaticity based on LZSM physics remains
valid. Furthermore, due to the peculiar form of $f(t)$ (c.f. Fig.~\ref{fig:coupling}), we
can assume that it is possible to observe finite-time interferometry phenomena in close
vicinity of the anti-crossing.
\subsection{Master Equation}
In order to compare our theory with experimental measurements, it is not sufficient to
solve the Hamiltonian dynamics provided by Eq.~\eqref{eq:eff_ham}, because some important
phenomena that can influence the outcome of the experiment are not taken into account.
Among these are spin relaxation due to phonon-assisted hyperfine
interaction~\cite{abalmassov2004} and charge fluctuations that lead to dephasing of the
qubit states~\cite{hu2006}. These phenomena can be taken into account in a quantum master
equation formalism for the density matrix. In the Lindblad
formalism~\cite{lindblad1976,breuer}, the time evolution
can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\dot{\rho} = -\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}\left[H,\rho\right] +
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{N^2 -1} \left(\left[L_j \rho,
L_j^{\dag}\right] + \left[L_j, \rho
L_j^{\dag}\right]\right).
\label{eq:mastereqL}
\end{equation}
The operators $L_j$ are called Lindblad operators~\cite{lindblad1976,breuer} and they
describe the dissipative effect of the environment on the system in the Born-Markov
approximation, which consists of two assumptions that lead to Eq.~\eqref{eq:mastereqL}.
The Born approximation supposes a weak coupling between the system and the bath, while
the Markov approximation consists in neglecting any type of memory effects of the bath
during the system evolution. To fully describe the effect of the environment, one needs
$N^2 -1$ operators where $N$ is the dimension of the system's Hilbert
space~\cite{lindblad1976,breuer}. For the case of a two-level system, the Lindblad
operators are $L_1 = \sqrt{\Gamma_-} \sigma_-$, $L_2 = \sqrt{\Gamma_+} \sigma_+$, and
$L_3 = \sqrt{\Gamma_{\varphi}} \sigma_z$, where $\sigma_-$ and $\sigma_+$ are spin ladder
operators and $\sigma_z$ is the $z$ Pauli matrix. They respectively describe relaxation
from the excited state to the ground state with rate $\Gamma_-$, relaxation from the
ground state to the excited state with rate $\Gamma_+$, and pure dephasing with rate
$\Gamma_{\varphi}$.
By substituting Eq.~\eqref{eq:eff_ham} into Eq.~\eqref{eq:mastereqL} and using the
expression of the Lindblad operators, the first order differential equation for the
$\mm{S}$-$\mm{T}_+$ density matrix can be written as
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}
\dot{\rho}_{11}\\
\dot{\rho}_{12}\\
\dot{\rho}_{21}\\
\dot{\rho}_{22}
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
-\Gamma_+ & \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} f(t) & -\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} f(t) & \Gamma_- \\
\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} f(t) & -\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}
(E_{\mm{S}}(t)-\tilde{E}_{\mm{T}}) - \frac{1}{2}\left(\Gamma_+ + \Gamma_- +
4\Gamma_{\varphi}\right) & 0 & -\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} f(t) \\
-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} f(t) & 0 & \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} (E_{\mm{S}}(t) -\tilde{E}_{\mm{T}}) - \frac{1}{2}\left(\Gamma_+ + \Gamma_- +
4\Gamma_{\varphi}\right) & \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} f(t)\\
\Gamma_+ & -\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} f(t) & \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar} f(t) & -\Gamma_-
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\rho_{11}\\
\rho_{12}\\
\rho_{21}\\
\rho_{22}
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:mast}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
This system of four coupled ordinary differential complex equations can be reduced to a system of
three coupled ordinary differential equations (Bloch equations) by introducing new real
variables defined by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
x &= \rho_{12} + \rho_{21},\\
y &= \mathrm{i}\left(\rho_{12} - \rho_{21}\right),\\
z &= \rho_{11} - \rho_{22}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:changetobloch}
\end{equation}
This set of variables is completed by the conservation of probability condition,
\begin{equation}
\rho_{11} + \rho_{22} = 1.
\label{eq:consprob}
\end{equation}
Substituting Eqs.~\eqref{eq:changetobloch}~and~\eqref{eq:consprob} into
Eq.~\eqref{eq:mast}, one finds the system of ordinary differential equations for the new
variables,
\begin{empheq}{align}
\dot{x} &= - \frac{E_{\mm{S}} - \tilde{E}_{\mm{T}}}{\hbar} y -
\frac{1}{2}\left(\Gamma_+ + \Gamma_-\right) x - 2 \Gamma_{\varphi} x,\\
\dot{y} &= \frac{E_{\mm{S}} - \tilde{E}_{\mm{T}}}{\hbar} x - 2 \frac{f}{\hbar} z -
\frac{1}{2}\left(\Gamma_+ + \Gamma_- \right) y - 2 \Gamma_{\varphi} y,\\
\dot{z} &= 2\frac{f}{\hbar} y - \left(\Gamma_+ + \Gamma_- \right) z +
\Gamma_- - \Gamma_+.
\label{eq:blocheq1}
\end{empheq}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig6}
\caption{(color online) (a) Relaxation rate $\Gamma_1 (\varepsilon)$ obtained for
$B=100\,\mm{mT}$. Here, we consider hyperfine mediated flip-flops of the electron
spin accompanied by emission or absorption of phonons. The relaxation rate is
maximal for $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{\mm{c}}$ where $\abs{E^d_{\mm{S}}
(\varepsilon) - E^d_{\mm{T}}} \ll k_{\mm{B}} T$. This results in a strong mixing
of the spin states due to thermal fluctuations. (b) Charge noise induced
dephasing rate $\Gamma_2(\varepsilon)$. The dephasing rate is assumed to have a
functional dependence proportional to $1 - c(\varepsilon)^{2}$ to ensure that
dephasing related to charge noise is weaker when the system is in a $(1,1)$ charge
configuration.}
\label{fig:rates}
\end{figure}
Here, we assume that relaxation occurs through phonon-assisted hyperfine interaction.
Since we are dealing with small energy transfers, we consider only piezo
phonons~\cite{khaetskii2001}. The Hamiltonian describing the coupling between the
logical qubit states (i.e. the instantaneous energy eigenstates of
Eq.~\eqref{eq:eff_ham}) and the phonons is given by $H_{\mm{qp}} = \sigma_z \otimes
U_{\mm{ph}}$, with
\begin{equation}
U_{\mm{ph}} (\mbox{\boldmath$r$}, t) = \sum_{\nu,\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle{q}$}} \sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2
\rho \omega_{\nu,\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle{q}$}}}} A_{\nu,\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle{q}$}}\left[ \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle{q}$}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle{r}$}
- \omega_{\nu,\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptscriptstyle{q}$}}t)} b_{\nu,\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle{q}$}}^{\dagger} + h.c. \right],
\label{eq:phononH}
\end{equation}
and $\sigma_z$ is the pseudospin $z$-Pauli matrix for $\ket{\mm{S}}$ and $\ket{\mm{T}}$.
Here, $b_{\nu,\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle{q}$}}^{\dagger}$ ($b_{\nu,\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle{q}$}}$) creates (annihilates) a phonon with
polarization $\nu$ and wave vector $\mbox{\boldmath$q$}$. $A_{\nu,\mbox{\boldmath$\scriptstyle{q}$}}$ is the effective piezoelectric
modulus, which depends only on the direction of $\mbox{\boldmath$q$}$.
The rates $\Gamma_{\mm{+}}$ and $\Gamma_{\mm{-}}$ can be derived using Redfield
theory~\cite{redfield1957,chirolli2008}. We have
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\pm} = 4 \abs{\bra{0}\sigma_z\ket{1}}^2 J_{\pm}(\omega),
\label{eq:ratesredf}
\end{equation}
where $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$ are the qubit states (i.e. in our case the eigenstates of
Eq.~\eqref{eq:eff_ham}), $\omega$ the angular frequency defined by the difference in
energy of the qubit states, and the spectral densities $J_{\pm} (\omega)$ are defined by
\begin{equation}
J_{\pm} (\omega) = \int_{0}^{\infty}\id{t} \mathrm{e}^{\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\mp}$} \mathrm{i} \omega t}\left\langle U_{\mm{ph}} (\mbox{\boldmath$r$}, 0)
U_{\mm{ph}} (\mbox{\boldmath$r$}, t) \right\rangle.
\label{eq:spectral_density}
\end{equation}
Here, $\langle \dots \rangle = \mm{Tr}\left[\dots \rho_{\mm{ph}}\right]$ with
$\rho_{\mm{ph}}$ the density matrix of the phonon bath at thermal equilibrium.
The evaluation of Eq.~\eqref{eq:spectral_density} leads to
\begin{equation}
J_+ (\omega) =
\sum_{\nu} \frac{3 \langle A^2 \rangle}{4 \pi^2 \rho c^3_{\nu}
\hbar} \omega n(\omega),
\label{eq:j+}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
J_- (\omega) =
\sum_{\nu} \frac{3 \langle A^2 \rangle}{4 \pi^2 \rho c^3_{\nu} \hbar}
\omega (1+n(\omega)),
\label{eq:j-}
\end{equation}
with $c_{\nu}$ the sound velocity and $n(\omega)$ the Bose-Einstein occupation
number, $n(\omega)= (\exp(\beta \hbar \omega)-1)^{-1}$, where $\beta = 1/k_{\mm{B}} T$.
$k_{\mm{B}}$ is the Boltzman's constant and $T$ is the phonon bath temperature, and
$\langle A^2 \rangle$ denotes an average piezoelectric modulus. In the
following, we denote the result of the sum over $\nu$ by $\gamma_0$.
Since $\Gamma_{\mm{+}}$ and $\Gamma_{\mm{-}}$ can be related to each other by
considering the limiting case of thermal equilibrium, Eqs.~\eqref{eq:blocheq1} can be
simplified to include only two independent rates. If the system reaches thermal
equilibrium then the detailed balance equation $\rho_{11}^{\mm{th}}\Gamma_{\mm{+}} =
\rho_{22}^{\mm{th}}\Gamma_{\mm{-}}$ holds. Moreover, the populations are given by the
canonical ensemble, $\rho_{ii}^{\mm{th}} = \exp(-\beta E_i)/Z$, with $Z$
the partition function. This yields
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Gamma_{\mm{+}}}{\Gamma_{\mm{-}}} =
\frac{\rho_{22}^{\mm{th}}}{\rho_{11}^{\mm{th}}} =
\mathrm{e}^{-\beta \hbar \omega},
\label{eq:rateth}
\end{equation}
where we used $\hbar \omega = \sqrt{(E_{\mm{S}}(\varepsilon)-\tilde{E}_{\mm{T}})^2 + 4
f^2(\varepsilon)}$, which is the energy difference between the eigenstates of
Eq.~\eqref{eq:eff_ham}.
Combining the results of Eqs.~\eqref{eq:ratesredf},~\eqref{eq:j+},~\eqref{eq:j-},
and~\eqref{eq:rateth}, we find that
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_1 (\varepsilon) = \Gamma_{\mm{+}} + \Gamma_{\mm{-}} = \gamma_0
\frac{f^2(\varepsilon)}{\hbar^2 \omega} \coth\left( \frac{
\hbar \omega}{2 k_{\mm{B}} T}\right).
\label{eq:relaxationrate}
\end{equation}
This function is plotted against $\varepsilon$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:rates}(a), and has a peak
at $\varepsilon = \varepsilon_{\mm{c}}$ where $\hbar \omega \ll k_{\mm{B}} T$ resulting
in a strong mixing of the states due to thermal fluctuations.
Pure dephasing can originate from orbital effects. In our current description of the
problem, we have neglected that the wave functions of the singlet $\ket{\mm{S}(2,0)}$ and
triplet $\ket{\mm{T}_+ (1,1)}$ couple differently to the background charge environment
due to their different charge configurations. Thus, a superposition state of the form
$\ket{\psi} = \alpha \ket{\mm{S}(2,0)} + \beta \ket{\mm{T}_+ (1,1)}$ is sensitive to
background charge fluctuations (charge noise), which leads to dephasing of the state
$\ket{\psi}$~\cite{coish2005,hu2006}. If the qubit is in a superposition with same charge
state, $\ket{\varphi} = \alpha \ket{\mm{S}(1,1)} + \beta\ket{\mm{T}_+ (1,1)}$, then
the effects of charge noise are assumed to become weaker. Therefore, we choose to write
the charge induced dephasing as
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\varphi} (\varepsilon) = \gamma_2 (1 - \abs{c(\varepsilon)}^2),
\label{eq:puredephasing}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_2$ is the charge noise rate. In Fig.~\ref{fig:rates}, we plot the rates
$\Gamma_1 (\varepsilon)$ and $\Gamma_{\varphi} (\varepsilon)$.
Finally, the Bloch equations, written in a matrix form, and describing the dynamics
around the $\mm{S}$-$\mm{T}_+$ anti-crossing are
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\hbar
\begin{pmatrix}
\dot{x}\\
\dot{y}\\
\dot{z}
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
-\frac{1}{2}\hbar(\Gamma_1 (\varepsilon (t)) + 4 \Gamma_{\varphi} (\varepsilon (t))) & -
E_{\mm{S}} (\varepsilon (t)) + \tilde{E}_{\mm{T}} & 0 \\
E_{\mm{S}} (\varepsilon (t)) - \tilde{E}_{\mm{T}} & -\frac{1}{2}\hbar(\Gamma_1
(\varepsilon (t)) + 2 \Gamma_{\varphi} (\varepsilon (t))) & -2 \lambda
c(\varepsilon(t))\\
0 & 2 \lambda c(\varepsilon(t)) & -\hbar\Gamma_1 (\varepsilon (t))
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
x\\
y\\
z
\end{pmatrix}
\pm \hbar
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0\\
\gamma_1
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:blocheqmatrix}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
The different signs in front of the inhomogeneous term come from the fact that the
states $\ket{\mm{S}}$ and $\ket{\mm{T}}$ exchange their roles as ground and excited
state of the system at $\varepsilon = \varepsilon_{\mm{c}}$. The spontaneous relaxation
rate $\gamma_1$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\gamma_1 = \gamma_0 \frac{f^2(\varepsilon)}{\hbar^2 \omega}.
\label{eq:spontaneous_rate}
\end{equation}
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
In the following we first present a comparison between experimental and theory results
obtained with experimental pulse profiles, which were measured at the output port of the
waveform generator, and experimentally determined $E_{\mm{S}} (\varepsilon)$ and
$c(\varepsilon)$. We then show further theory results for which we study the effect of
charge dynamics and phonon-mediated hyperfine relaxation. For this purpose, we have
solved Eq.~\eqref{eq:blocheqmatrix} for different $\gamma_0$'s and $\gamma_2$'s.
The singlet return probability is obtained by solving Eq.~\eqref{eq:blocheqmatrix} for
different realizations of $\lambda$. The average value of $P_{\mm{S}}$ is then calculated
according to
\begin{equation}
P_{\mm{S}} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{1}{2}\left(1 + z^{(i)}\right),
\label{eq:rsingletbloch}
\end{equation}
where $z^{(i)}$ is the $i$th solution of $z(t)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:blocheqmatrix}).
\subsection{Experimental observation of finite-time effects}
We consider a ``double hat'' detuning pulse whose profile is shown in the inset of
Fig.~\ref{fig:dhpulse1}(a). The leading edge has a rise-time of $0.1\,\mm{ns}$ and an
amplitude $A_{1\mm{f}}$, which is followed by a slow ramp with rise-time $t_{\mm{slow}}$
and amplitude $A_{\mm{s}}=-0.065\,\mm{meV}$. A $0.1\,\mm{ns}$ rise-time pulse shifts the
detuning to its maximal value of $-0.39\,\mm{meV}$, where the detuning is held constant
for a time interval $t_{\mm{w}}$. The trailing edge of the pulse is simply the reverse of
the leading edge. The conversion between gate voltage and energy is performed using the
measured lever-arm $\sim 0.13\,\mm{meV}/\mm{mV}$~\cite{dicarlo2004,petta2004}. In
Fig.~\ref{fig:dhpulse1}, we compare experiment and theory for $t_{\mm{slow}} =
4\,\mm{ns}$, $A_{1\mm{f}} = -0.26\,\mm{meV}$.
$P_{\mm{S}}$ is plotted as a function of $t_{\mm{w}}$ and $\varepsilon_{\mm{s}}$ for
$B=55\,\mm{mT}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:dhpulse1}(a) and (b). A ``spin-funnel'' that is obtained
using the spectroscopy method developed in Ref.~\onlinecite{petta2005} with a waiting
time $t_{\mm{w}}=20\,\mm{ns}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dhpulse1}(c) along with the
corresponding theory plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:dhpulse1}(d). Since the experimental cycles
have a short period of $5\,\mm{\mu s}$, there is a build up of nuclear polarization that
generates a gradient field~\cite{foletti2009}. To take this into account in our model, we
add a mean to the nuclear field distributions Eq.~\eqref{eq:nuclfielddist} . It is
sufficient to consider only a mean $\xi_1^x$ for $B_{\mm{n},1}^x$ because only the
magnitude of the gradient field plays a role in the dynamics. This can be easily
understood by considering a rotation about the $z$-axis of the coordinate system that
brings the $x$-axis to coincide with the direction of $\mbox{\boldmath$B$}_{\mm{n},2}^{\perp} -
\mbox{\boldmath$B$}_{\mm{n},1}^{\perp}$. Parameters used in the theory panels are $\delta = 1\,\mm{mT}$,
$\xi_1^x = 10\,\mm{mT}$, $\gamma_0 = 10^{-2}$ and $\gamma_2 = 10^8\,\mm{s}^{-1}$.
Both the experimental results and numerical simulations show enhanced interference
visibility within the region between $\varepsilon_{\mm{s}}$ $\sim -0.19\,\mm{meV}$ and
$\sim -0.29\,\mm{meV}$. This region should correspond to values of $P_{\mm{S}}$ determined
by the slow rise-time component of the pulse, as demonstrated in
Ref.~\onlinecite{ribeiro2012}. The position of the anti-crossing is located at $\sim
-0.14\,\mm{meV}$ from the data shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dhpulse1}(a) and (c). Moreover, since
$A_{1\mm{f}} = -0.26\,\mm{meV}$, $A_{\mm{s}}=-0.065\,\mm{meV}$, and the maximal pulse amplitude
is $-0.39\,\mm{meV}$, the high contrast region should be located between $-0.21\,\mm{meV}$ and
$-0.27\,\mm{meV}$, in good agreement with our results.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig7}
\caption{(color online) (a) Measurements of $P_{\mm{S}}$ as a function of $t_{\mm{w}}$
and $\varepsilon_{\mm{s}}$ for $A_{1\mm{f}} = -0.26 \mm{meV}$, $t_{\mm{slow}} = 4\,\mm{ns}$,
and $B=55\,\mm{mT}$. ``Double hat'' pulses allow the observation of non-adiabatic
transitions when the system is driven slowly to close proximity of the anti-crossing. (b)
Theoretical predictions obtained using a pulse profile obtained at the output of the
waveform generator and parameters from (a). (c) $P_{\mm{S}}$ plotted as a function of $B$
and $\varepsilon_{\mm{s}}$ for $t_{\rm w} = 20\,\mm{ns}$ reveals the spin-funnel.
Parameters are $A_{1\mm{f}} = -0.26\,\mm{meV}$ and $t_{\mm{slow}} = 4\,\mm{ns}$. (d)
Theoretical calculations for the same parameters as in (c).}
\label{fig:dhpulse1}
\end{figure}
As discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:adiabatic}B, the visibility of the oscillation pattern
contained between $\varepsilon_{\mm{s}}$ $\sim -0.14\,\mm{meV}$ and $\sim -0.21\,\mm{meV}$
cannot result from the second fast rise-time portion of the pulse. Although it drives
the system through the anti-crossing, the level velocity is too high to allow for
large magnitude non-adiabatic transition probabilities. Thus, as we showed in
Figs.~\ref{fig:dhlzsm} and \ref{fig:comp_finite-time} by considering a finite-time LZSM
model, we are able to observe a non-adiabatic transition event due to a slow level
velocity pulse that brings the system to close vicinity of the anti-crossing, but without
driving it through.
To ensure that we are observing finite-time effects, we consider a second ``double hat''
pulse that has a different $A_{1\mm{f}}$, which changes the relative starting and
stopping position of the slow rise-time component of the pulse. As a consequence the
relative propagation times $t_{\mm{i}}$ and $t_{\mm{f}}$, which are defined by setting
$t=0$ at the anti-crossing, are also modified.
We consider a second pulse with $A_{1\mm{f}}=-0.29\,\mm{meV}$, for which the results are
presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:dhpulse2}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig8}
\caption{(color online) Experimentally, (a) and (c), and theoretically, (b) and (d),
obtained LZSM interference patterns and spin-funnels. Here $A_{1\mm{f}} =
-0.29\,\mm{meV}$, $t_{\mm{slow}} = 4\,\mm{ns}$, and $B=55\,\mm{mT}$. The waiting
time for the spin-funnel is $t_{\rm w}$ = $20\,\mm{ns}$. The interference
patterns differ from results presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:dhpulse1}, indicating
that the evolution of the system is not only sensitive to the level velocity, but also
the time at which the change in level velocity happens.}
\label{fig:dhpulse2}
\end{figure}
First, we observe that the high-contrast region is shifted towards more positive
detunings, as expected. Second, we notice the overall difference between the
interference pattern in Figs.~\ref{fig:dhpulse1} and~\ref{fig:dhpulse2}, panels (a) and
(b). This dissimilarity can only be explained by different phase accumulation due to
distinct $t_{\mm{i}}$ and $t_{\mm{f}}$. In the usual scattering description of LZSM
interferometry, the transition probability only depends on the level velocity at the
anti-crossing and on the coupling strength. But here, these two quantities have remained
unchanged. These results show the importance of using finite-time models to describe
adiabatic passage experiments.
We also anticipate, for LZSM driven qubits, the possibility to manipulate the states by
keeping a constant driving and instead change the relative starting and stopping position
of the detuning pulse.
\subsection{Effects of Phonon-Mediated Hyperfine Relaxation and Charge Induced Dephasing}
In this section, we consider a detuning pulse $\varepsilon (t)$ with an amplitude of
$\varepsilon_{\mm{s}}
- \varepsilon_{\mm{i}} = 0.2\,\mm{meV}$. The pulse reaches an amplitude of
$0.12\,\mm{meV}$ in $0.1\,\mm{ns}$, it is then slowed down until it reaches an amplitude
of $0.1325\,\mm{meV}$, and finally it is brought to its maximal amplitude in
$0.1\,\mm{ns}$. The rise time $t_{\mm{slow}}$ of the slow part of the pulse can be tuned
freely. Here we compute $P_{\mm{S}}$ for $t_{\mm{slow}} = 8\,\mm{ns}$. In
Fig.~\ref{fig:resdh}(a)-(d), we present the singlet return probability as a function of
$\varepsilon_{\mm{s}}$ and waiting time $t_{\mm{w}}$ for $B=100\,\mm{mT}$,
$u=4\,\mm{meV}$, $\tau = 5\,\mm{\mu eV}$, and different values of $\gamma_0$ and
$\gamma_2$.
The interference fringes are characterized, for $\varepsilon_{\mm{s}} < \varepsilon_{\mm{c}}$, by
three distinct regions showing an alternate oscillation amplitude for $P_{\mm{S}}$. The
darker regions coincide with detunings for which the passage through the anti-crossing
happened during one of the fast rise-times of $\varepsilon (t)$. Similarly, the bright
region between $\varepsilon_{\mm{s}}\simeq ~3.900-3.915\,\mm{meV}$ coincides with a passage
through the anti-crossing with the slow rise-time portion of the detuning pulse.
Experimentally measured interference patterns exhibit identical behavior.
Our results also clearly show coherent evolution of the qubit for $\varepsilon_{\mm{s}} >
\varepsilon_{\mm{c}}$, Fig.~\ref{fig:resdh}(e) [blue and purple trace, $\gamma_2 =
10^8\,\mm{s^{-1}}$]. This corresponds to the case where the system is not detuned
through the anti-crossing. It indicates that it is possible to design complex pulses that
can directly influence the competition between LZSM physics and charge noise. However,
this is conditional on the dephasing time scale associated with charge noise. We notice
that if $\gamma_2 = 10^9\,\mm{s^{-1}}$, then it is impossible to identify any coherent
behavior [green and red traces Fig. 7(e)].
Our results indicate that charge noise strongly affects the dynamics while spin
relaxation only has a moderate effect. Although this behavior can be identified when
comparing Fig.~\ref{fig:resdh}(a) with Fig.~\ref{fig:resdh}(b) and
Fig.~\ref{fig:resdh}(c), it is best seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:resdh}(f) when comparing
traces. An increase in the noise rate $\gamma_2$ leads to a substantial decrease of the
oscillation visibility (blue and green traces). On the other hand, the visibility is
only slightly diminished when relaxation is enhanced (blue and purple traces).
Here, charge noise has a drastic effect on spin dynamics. Since it leads to strong
dephasing of the logical qubit states when spin and charge degrees of freedom are
correlated, it results in a competition mechanism against LZSM
interferometry~\cite{ao1989,gefen1991,wubs2006,saito2007,nalbach2009,lehur2010}. Since
the hyperfine mediated anti-crossing is close to the charge anti-crossing for reasonable
values of $B$, charge noise also affects the dynamics during the passage through the
anti-crossing. As a result, the efficiency of the LZSM mechanism to create a coherent
superposition or to produce coherent interferences is hindered, and thus the optimal
state populations are not reached. This behavior can be identified in
Fig.~\ref{fig:resdh}(f) when comparing traces obtained with the same relaxation rate, but
different charge noise rates (i.e. blue with green trace and purple with red trace). We
clearly identify that the oscillations visibility is smaller for larger values of
$\gamma_2$.
Energy relaxation processes have a weaker influence on spin dynamics than dephasing due
to their dependence on the energy difference between the eigenstates of the system. These
become important only when the system is held in close vicinity of the anti-crossing,
where relaxation is maximum [c.f. Fig.~\ref{fig:rates}(a)].
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig9}
\caption{(color online) Singlet return probability $P_{\mm{S}}$ as a function of the
waiting time $t_{\mm{w}}$ and final position $\varepsilon_{\mm{s}}$ obtained for a
``double hat'' detuning pulse. Pulse details are given in the text. Here, we
have set $B=100\,\mm{mT}$, $u=4\,\mm{meV}$, and $\tau=5\,\mm{\mu eV}$ for all plots. The
parameters $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_2$ are (a) $\gamma_0 = 10^{-2}$, $\gamma_2 =
10^8\,\mm{s^{-1}}$, (b) $\gamma_0 = 10^{-2}$, $\gamma_2 = 10^9\,\mm{s^{-1}}$,
(c) $\gamma_0 = 10^{-1}$, $\gamma_2 = 10^8\,\mm{s^{-1}}$, and (d) $\gamma_0 =
10^{-1}\,\mm{s^{-1}}$, $\gamma_2 = 10^9\,\mm{s^{-1}}$. Figures (e) and (f) show cuts for
case (a) in blue, (b) in dark green, (c) in purple, and (d) in dark red. The cuts are
respectively taken before the anti-crossing at $\varepsilon_{\mm{s}} =
3.987\,\mm{meV}$ and after at $\varepsilon_{\mm{s}} = 3.908\,\mm{meV}$.}
\label{fig:resdh}
\end{figure}
These results suggest that inhomogeneous dephasing due to nuclear spin fluctuations is
not the only physical process that limits the coherence of a two-spin based qubit, but
also that charge noise plays a major role. This is an important result for future devices made
out of Si/SiGe which are reaching a maturity level comparable to
GaAs~\cite{maune2012,savage2012,wang2013}. Silicon based devices are very interesting candidates
for spin based quantum computing because the only stable isotope ($^{29}$Si) possessing a
nuclear spin ($I = 1/2$) has relatively low abundance, $\approx 5\%$. Thus, hyperfine
induced decoherence is weaker than in GaAs based nanostructures~\cite{maune2012}.
Consequently, we distinguish three time scales that govern the physics of partial spin
adiabatic passage in DQDs. There is the rise-time of the detuning pulse, the decoherence
time $T_2^*$, and $T_{\varphi}$ associated with charge noise induced dephasing. Ideally,
we would like to have rise-times shorter than $T_{\varphi}$ to preserve any spin
superposition state. But this would render adiabatic transitions unlikely and therefore
seriously hinder manipulation of the qubit. ``Double hat'' pulses partially solve the
problem, but for an even better result, it would be necessary to increase the coupling
between the qubit states. In GaAs double quantum dots, it is possible to prepare a
nuclear gradient field to enhance the hyperfine coupling~\cite{foletti2009}, with the
advantage of extending $T_2^*$.
In almost nuclear spin free systems (Si or C based DQDs), it is possible to use
micro-magnets to artificially induce a coupling between the $\mm{S}$-$\mm{T}_+$ qubit
states~\cite{pioroladriere2008}.
\section{Conclusions}
We have developed a master equation formalism to study the dynamics of a
$\mm{S}$-$\mm{T}_+$ qubit in the vicinity of the hyperfine mediated anti-crossing. In
comparison with previous theories that only included decoherence due to the hyperfine
interaction with nuclear spins, we also include phonon-mediated hyperfine spin relaxation
and spin dephasing due to charge noise. We have also derived a new effective two-level
spin-charge Hamiltonian. In addition to previous theories, we take into account the
charge degree of freedom. This property originates from the lowest energy singlet state
$\ket{\mm{S}}$ being a superposition of different charge configurations. Although the
effective coupling between the $\mm{S}$-$\mm{T}_+$ qubit states is time-dependent, its
form still allows to approximately reason in terms of LZSM physics.
With our formalism, we have compared results for different values of $\gamma_0$ and
$\gamma_2$. Our findings suggest that LZSM spin interferometry is largely inhibited by
charge dynamics, and thus charge coherence has to be treated on equal footing with spin
coherence. We have indeed demonstrated that the visibility of the coherent oscillations
of a spin qubit is sensitive to the time scale associated with charge induced spin
dephasing. We have also shown that this interplay between charge and spin can prevent the
observation of finite-time oscillations. Interestingly, this could lead to the
development of an experimental protocol to measure the time scale associated with charge
decoherence.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors are grateful to H. Lu and A. C. Gossard for assistance with device
fabrication. H. R. and G. B. acknowledge funding from the DFG
within SPP 1285 and SFB 767. Research at Princeton was supported by the Sloan and Packard
Foundations and the National Science Foundation through the Princeton Center for Complex
Materials, DMR-0819860 and CAREER award, DMR-0846341.
|
\section{Introduction}
The acceleration of the expansion of the Universe is, within the homogeneous and isotropic paradigm of cosmology, a
well-accepted and observationally well-supported reality. The simplest possible framework explaining this acceleration
is provided by the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model \citep{Komatsu:2010fb}, where a cosmological constant $\Lambda$ in
Einstein equations sources the acceleration, while Cold Dark Matter (CDM) is the main component for structure formation.
Alternatives to $\Lambda$ are various forms of Dark Energy (DE) \citep{DEbook} or a modified gravity theory
\citep{Nojiri:2010wj,Tsujikawa:2010zza, Clifton:2011jh}. A different approach is to consider models of Unified Dark Matter (UDM) where a single matter
component is supposed to source the acceleration and structure formation at the same time (see e.g. \cite{Kamenshchik:2001cp,Bilic:2001cg,Bento:2002ps,Carturan:2002si,Sandvik:2002jz,Scherrer:2004au,Giannakis:2005kr,Bertacca:2007ux,
Bertacca:2007cv,Bertacca:2007fc,Balbi:2007mz,Quercellini:2007ht,Pietrobon:2008js,Bertacca:2008uf,Bilic:2008yr,Camera:2009uz,Li:2009mf,
Piattella:2009kt,Gao:2009me,Camera:2010wm,Lim:2010yk}).
In a previous paper \citep{Piattella:2009kt} the concept of UDM models with fast transition was introduced (see
\cite{Bassett:2002qu} for DE models with a sharp transition in their equation of state). In essence, these models are
based on the idea that the Universe may have undergone a transition between a standard matter-like era, well described
by an Einstein-de~Sitter (EdS) model, and a $\Lambda$CDM-like epoch. If the transition is slow the differences with
$\Lambda$CDM are negligible while if the transition is fast, these models show interesting features\footnote{In a
$\Lambda$CDM model of course there is an early matter era when $\Lambda$ is negligible, with a smooth slow transition to
the epoch when $\Lambda$ plays a role. We are instead interested in models where there is a longer matter era that
almost suddenly ends into a $\Lambda$CDM-like late behaviour; in other words, models where the UDM component evolves
for long time in a CDM-like fashion, and suddenly a $\Lambda$-like term is switched on in the dynamics.}
\citep{Piattella:2009kt,Bertacca:2010mt}. The transition can be quantified as fast by looking both at parameters that
govern the evolution of the background as well as at quantities that dictate the dynamics of perturbations. This
analysis has been carried out in \cite{Piattella:2009kt} for a specific barotropic model and will be generalised in this
paper to a new class of models, but in essence the transition needs to be fast because: {\it a)} we are especially
interested in background models that, at least in principle, can be clearly distinguished from a standard $\Lambda$CDM;
{\it b)} as shown in \cite{Piattella:2009kt}, otherwise the evolution of perturbations is such that observational
constraints are violated, in particular causing a strong deviation from the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect
occurring in $\Lambda$CDM models.
The UDM models with fast-transitions may be an interesting alternative to other explanations of the observed
acceleration of the Universe, providing a good fit to standard observables such as the CMB and the matter distribution
\citep{Piattella:2009kt} that require consideration of the perturbations, while at the same time showing interesting
new features, leading to measurable predictions. So at least in principle, UDM models with a fast transition are able to avoid the fate of some UDM models such as the generalised Chaplygin gas, which need to become indistinguishable from $\Lambda$CDM in order to survive observational tests, which spells their end \citep{Sandvik:2002jz}, cf.\
\citep{Gorini:2007ta,Piattella:2009da}. On the other hand, UDM models based on scalar fields, such as the one introduced in \cite{Bertacca:2008uf}, can be compatible with observations. See also \cite{Bertacca:2010ct} for a recent review on UDM models.
In contrast with more standard CDM+DE models, where the CDM component is perturbed and leads to structure formation
while the DE component takes care of the acceleration of the background, with small or negligible effects on
perturbations, the single UDM component must accelerate the Universe and provide acceptable perturbations. In
particular, while CDM density perturbations evolve in a scale-independent fashion, this is not the case for UDM. In
view of testing models against observations, e.g.\ with Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods and likelihood analysis, these
differences may become computationally expensive. In particular, modifying CAMB \citep{Lewis:1999bs} to treat fast
transition UDM models implies to switch off CDM while introducing a rapidly varying single inhomogeneous component with
scale dependent evolution. It is then a non trivial task to obtain a working code that it is efficient enough for likelihood analysis \citep{Piattella:2009kt}, given that the running time of a code like CAMB \citep{Lewis:1999bs}, when dealing with a non-standard model like a fast transition UDM, increases enormously when the accuracy is increased in order to retain convergence of the results.
In view of this, and lacking a fundamental model, it is therefore essential to consider simple phenomenological models
of the fast-transition paradigm for which as much theoretical progress as possible can
be made from analytical calculations. This then can be used to increase the efficiency of numerical codes such as CAMB
\citep{Lewis:1999bs} and CLASS \citep{Lesgourgues:2011re} in dealing with these models.
Our first goal here is therefore to look at simple phenomenological recipes,
such that the most important variables required for the numerical problem can be expressed analytically. It then
turns out that, unlike the fast transition UDM model introduced in \cite{Piattella:2009kt}, where the prescription for
the fast transition is introduced in the equation of state, the best recipe to proceed analytically is to prescribe
the evolution of the energy density of UDM. We then introduce a specific simple new model based on this recipe and analyse its properties in some detail, establishing what its range of validity should be if compared if observations. We find similar results to those
in \cite{Piattella:2009kt} but, given the very different starting points, this is in itself a non trivial outcome.
The rest of the paper can be outlined as follows. In section \ref{sec:udmmodels} we introduce the basic equations
describing the background and the perturbative evolution for a general UDM model. In section \ref{sec:3p} we explore
three possible prescriptions for the dynamics of the UDM component. In section \ref{sec:tghmodel} we introduce a new
UDM model with fast transition and study its background evolution, comparing it to a $\Lambda$CDM. In section
\ref{sec:perts} we analyse the properties of perturbations in this model, focusing on the evolution of the effective
speed of sound and that of the Jeans length during the transition. The conclusions are drawn in section
\ref{sec:concl}.
\section{Generalities of UDM models}\label{sec:udmmodels}
\subsection{The background}
We assume a spatially flat Friedmann-Lema\^{\i}tre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) cosmology, although many of the
considerations in the following sections would apply in a more general context. The metric then is $ds^2 = -dt^2
+a^2(t)\delta_{ij}dx^{i}dx^{j}$, where $t$ is the cosmic time, $a(t)$ is the scale factor and $\delta_{ij}$
is the Kronecker
delta. The total stress-energy tensor is that of a perfect fluid with energy density $\rho$
and pressure $p$, with $u^{\mu}$ its four-velocity: $T_{\mu\nu} = \left(\rho + p\right)u_{\mu}u_{\nu} + pg_{\mu\nu}$.
Starting from these assumptions, and choosing units such that $8\pi G = c = 1$ and signature $\{-,+,+,+\}$, Einstein
equations imply the Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Fried}
H^2 & =& \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 = \frac{\rho}{3}\;,\\
\label{Raycha}
\frac{\ddot{a}}{a} &=& -\frac{1}{6}\left(\rho + 3p\right)\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $H=\dot{a}/a$ is the Hubble expansion scalar and the dot denotes derivative with respect to the cosmic time.
Assuming that the energy density of the radiation is negligible at the times of interest, and disregarding also the
small baryonic component, $\rho$ and $p$ represent the energy density and the pressure of the UDM component.
Independently from Einstein equations, projecting the conservation equations $T^{\mu\nu}{}_{;\nu}=0$ along $u^{\mu}$
one obtains the energy conservation equation
\begin{equation}\label{enconseq}
\dot{\rho} = -3H\left(\rho + p\right) = -3H\rho\left(1 + w\right)\;,
\end{equation}
where $w = p/\rho$ represents the equation of state (hereafter
EoS) that is needed to close the system and is the quantity that
characterises the background of our UDM model.
When needed, we shall introduce different components, each with energy density $\rho_{i}$. From this, we can define the
dimensionless function
\begin{equation}\label{omegas}
\Omega_{\rm i}(a)=\frac{\rho_{\rm i}(a)}{\rho_{\rm cr}(a)}\;,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{\rm cr}=3H^{2}$ is the critical density; values today will be denoted by the parameter $\Omega_{\rm
i,\rm 0}$.
\subsection{Perturbations}
Assuming a perfect fluid, perturbations of the FLRW metric in the longitudinal gauge read
\begin{equation}
\label{pertmetric}
ds^2 = -a^2(\eta)\left[\left(1 + 2\Phi\right)d\eta^2 - \left(1 - 2\Phi\right)\delta_{ij}dx^idx^j\right]\;,
\end{equation}
where $\Phi$ represents the analogous of the Newtonian gravitational potential and we now are using conformal time
$\eta$.
Defining
\begin{equation}
u = \frac{2\Phi}{\sqrt{\rho + p}}\;
\end{equation}
and linearising the 0-0 and 0-i components of Einstein equations, one obtains the following second order differential
equation for the Fourier component of $u$ \citep{Mukhanov:1990me,Giannakis:2005kr,Bertacca:2007cv,Piattella:2009kt}:
\begin{equation}\label{equ}
\frac{d^{2}u}{d\ \eta^{2}} + k^{2}c_{\rm s}^{2}u - \frac{1}{\theta} \frac{d^{2}\theta}{d\ \theta^{2}} u = 0\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{theta}
\theta = \sqrt{\frac{\rho}{3(\rho + p)}}(1 + z)\;,
\end{equation}
with $z$ the redshift, $1 + z = a^{-1}$.
The quantity
$c_{\rm s}^2$ in (\ref{equ}) is the effective speed of sound and characterises the perturbative dynamics of our UDM
model, being also crucially involved in the growth of the overdensities $\delta\rho$. Assuming adiabatic perturbations
this is the same as the adiabatic speed of sound:
\begin{equation}
\label{c1} c_{\rm s}^{2}=c_{\rm ad}^2=\frac{dp}{d\rho}=\frac{ \frac{dp}{d \eta} }{\frac{d\rho}{d\eta}}\;.
\end{equation}
Starting from Eq. (\ref{equ}), let us define the squared Jeans wave number:
\begin{equation}
k^{2}_{\rm J} = \left|\frac{1}{c_{\rm s}^{2}\theta} \frac{d^{2}\theta}{d\theta^{2}\,} \right|\;;
\end{equation}
its reciprocal defines the squared Jeans length: $\lambda^2_{\rm J} = a^{2}/k^2_{\rm J}$.
An important aspect of UDM models is the possible manifestation of
an effective sound speed significantly different from zero at late
times: this generally corresponds to the appearance of a Jeans
length (or sound horizon) below which the dark fluid does not
cluster (e.g. see
\cite{Hu:1998kj,Pietrobon:2008js,Piattella:2009kt}). This causes a
strong evolution in time of the gravitational potential, which at small scales
starts to oscillate and decay, with effects on structure formation. In general, UDM models may also exhibit a strong
ISW effect \citep{Bertacca:2007cv}.
Thus, the squared Jeans wave number plays a crucial role in determining the viability of a UDM model, because of its
effect on perturbations, which is then revealed in observables such as the CMB and matter power spectrum
\citep{Pietrobon:2008js,Piattella:2009kt}. As discussed in \cite{Piattella:2009kt} there are two different regimes of
evolution, respectively for scales much smaller and much larger than the Jeans length. In practice, any viable UDM
model should satisfy the condition $k_{\rm J}^2 \gg k^2$ for all the scales of cosmological interest, in turn giving
an evolution for the gravitational potential $\Phi$ in Fourier's space of the following type (we are dealing with the
gravitational potential after recombination so there is no more speed of sound due to radiation):
\begin{equation}\label{kjggksol}
\Phi(\eta,k) \simeq A_{\rm k}\left[1 - \frac{H(\eta)}{a(\eta)}\int a(\hat{\eta})^2 d\hat{\eta}\right]\;.
\end{equation}
The integration constant $A_{\rm k} = \Phi\left(0,k\right)T_{\rm m}\left(k\right)$ is fixed during inflation by the
primordial potential $\Phi\left(0,k\right)$ at large scales; $T_{\rm m}\left(k\right)$ is the matter transfer
function, describing the evolution of perturbations through the epochs of horizon crossing and radiation-matter
transition, see e.g.\ \cite{Dodelson:2003ft}.
The explicit form of the Jeans wave number is
\begin{multline}\label{kJ2analytic}
k_{\rm J}^{2} = \frac{3}{2}\rho a^{2} \frac{(1 + w)}{c_{\rm s}^2}\left|\frac{1}{2}(c_{\rm s}^2 - w) -
\rho\frac{dc_{\rm s}^2}{d\rho} + \right.\\
\left.\frac{3(c_{\rm s}^2 - w)^2 - 2(c_{\rm s}^2 - w)}{6(1 + w)} + \frac{1}{3}\right|\;.
\end{multline}
It is therefore clear from this expression that, if we want an
analytic expression for $k_{\rm J}^{2}$ in order to obtain some
insight on the behaviour of perturbations in a given UDM model, we
need to be able to obtain analytic expressions for $\rho$, $p$,
$w$ and $c_{\rm s}^{2}$. Unfortunately, it is not possible to find
such expressions as functions of $\eta$ (or $t$), simply because
this requires the knowledge of an analytic expression for the
scale factor as function of time, i.e.\ to solve the Friedmann
equation (\ref{Fried}), which in general is only possible for very
special cases, as is well known.
\section{Three possible prescriptions}\label{sec:3p}
A way out of this problem is to disentangle the evolution of the quantities of interest ($\rho$, $p$, $w$ and
$c_{\rm s}^{2}$) from Einstein equations, noticing that we can obtain these quantities as functions of the scale factor
$a$
if we use only the conservation equation (\ref{enconseq}). This has also the advantage that the expressions so obtained
will be the same in any theory of gravity that satisfies the conservation equations. Eq.\ (\ref{enconseq}) becomes,
using $a$ as time variable:
\begin{equation}
\label{encon1}
\rho' =-\frac{3}{a}(\rho +p)\;,
\end{equation}
where a prime indicates derivative with respect to $a$.
We now briefly look at three different possible ways to prescribe the dynamics of the UDM component and to derive
analytic expressions for the needed variables.
\subsection{Starting from $w(a)$}
Suppose that $p/\rho=w$ is pre-assigned as a function of the scale factor: $w=w(a)$. For instance, $w(a)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$
is a typical phenomenological assumption well-motivated when setting observational constraints on dark energy models
\citep{Chevallier:2000qy,Linder:2002et}. In principle this is a convenient practical prescription to model UDM, because
we have a good idea about what type of $w(a)$ we should have. Then the adiabatic speed of sound
\begin{equation}
\label{c2}
c_{\rm s}^{2}=\frac{dp}{d\rho}=\frac{\frac{dp}{da}}{\frac{d\rho}{da}}=\frac{p'}{\rho'}
\end{equation}
can be computed from the conservation equation (\ref{encon1}).
Indeed, from $p=w\rho$ we can compute $p'$, then substituting the latter and $\rho'$ from (\ref{encon1}) to obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{c3}
c_{\rm s}^{2}=w -\frac{aw'}{3(1+w)}\;.
\end{equation}
This prescription however doesn't lead to analytic expressions for $\rho(a)$ and $p(a)$ in general, unless
$\int\frac{1+w(a)}{a}da$ is integrable.
\subsection{Starting from $p(a)$}
Prescribing the pressure as a function of the scale factor, $p=p(a)$, can be useful, e.g.\ if one is dealing with a
scalar field, in which case this is equivalent to prescribing a Lagrangian, see e.g.\
\cite{Bertacca:2007ux,Quercellini:2007ht,Bertacca:2010ct} and Refs.\ therein. Again, we have a good idea about the
functional form that $p(a)$ should
have, so that this also seems a good starting point. Let's rewrite the energy conservation (\ref{encon1}) as
\begin{equation}
\label{encon2}
\rho' +\frac{3}{a}\rho =-\frac{3}{a}p(a)\;.
\end{equation}
The homogeneous solution is $\rho_{m}\propto a^{-3}$, i.e.\ standard matter (dust), and for a given $p(a)$ an analytic
expression for $\rho(a)$ can be found if $ E= 3 \int a^{2} p(a) da=\int p dV$ is integrable, giving\footnote{The
expansion is adiabatic, and $\rho_{m}\propto V^{-1}$, thus we can interpret $E$ as the energy of the system in the
volume $V$.} $\rho=E/V$. With this prescription $c_{\rm s}^{2}$ is immediately found, given $p(a)$ and (\ref{encon2}),
but
an analytic expression for $w(a)$ can only be found if that for $\rho(a)$ is found.
\subsection{Starting from $\rho(a)$}
It is perhaps less obvious what the functional form for $\rho(a)$ should be, but some guess can be made in view of
constructing UDM models with fast transition. In this case we want to recover a CDM-like behaviour, i.e.\ an EdS model,
at early times (before the transition), i.e.\ $\rho\simeq \rho_{\rm m}=\rho_{\rm M,\rm 0}a^{-3}$, and a CDM+DE behaviour
after the
transition. If we want to recover the simplest case of a $\Lambda$CDM at late times, we would have $\rho\simeq
\rho_{\Lambda}+\rho_{\rm M,\rm 0}a^{-3}$.
Assuming that $\rho(a)$ is given, we can compute $\rho^{\prime}(a)$ and then use (\ref{encon2}) to obtain $p(a)$ and
then $p'(a)$. In this case therefore {\it any} choice of $\rho(a)$ guaranties analytic expressions for the EoS $w(a)$
and the adiabatic speed of sound $c_{\rm s}^{2}(a)$.
To summarise, given a function (at least of class $C^{3}$) $\rho=\rho(a)$ for the energy density, we have the
following expressions for the quantities that enter into the Jeans wave number (\ref{kJ2analytic}):
\begin{eqnarray}\label{varie1}
w & = & - \frac{a}{3}\, \frac{\rho'}{\rho}-1\;, \\
c_{\rm s}^{2} & = & - \frac{a}{3}\,\frac{\rho''}{\rho'} -\frac{4}{3}\;,
\label{varie2} \\
\frac{dc_{\rm s}^{2}}{d\rho} & = & - \frac{1}{3\rho'^2}\, \left[
a \rho'''+\rho''-a \frac{\rho''^2}{\rho'}\right]\;. \label{varie3}
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting in Eq.\ (\ref{kJ2analytic}) from (\ref{varie1})-(\ref{varie3}) we can obtain an analytic expression for
the function $ k_{\rm J}^{2}(a)$. Armed with this, we can obtain some insight about the behaviour of adiabatic
perturbations in a model with a specified energy density $\rho=\rho(a)$.
\section{Phenomenological UDM models with fast transition}\label{sec:tghmodel}
\subsection{An overidealised model}
Before looking at a possible model for a UDM with fast transition, we now introduce an overidealised model, using a
Heaviside function to describe an instantaneous transition. This model can't serve our purposes, because it is clear
from the expressions above that we need the function $\rho(a)$ to be at least of class $C^{3}$,
but it is useful to get an idea of what we want to obtain. We assume that the Universe is well described by an EdS
model before the transition, while for generality we describe the post-transition era with an ``affine" model
\citep{Ananda:2005xp,Ananda:2006gf,Balbi:2007mz,Quercellini:2007ht,Pietrobon:2008js}:
\begin{equation}
\label{affine}
\rho=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\rho_{\rm t}\left(\frac{a_{\rm t}}{a}\right)^{3} & a<a_{\rm t} \\
\rho_{\Lambda} + ( \rho_{\rm t} - \rho_{\Lambda} ) \left(\frac{a_{\rm t}}{a}\right)^{3(1+\alpha)} & a>a_{\rm t}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Of course, any other post-transition model could be chosen.
Here $\rho_{\rm t}$ is the energy scale at the transition and
$\rho_{\Lambda}$ is the effective cosmological constant: $1+\alpha>0$ and the energy density at late times tends to
$\rho_\Lambda$, so that the late time evolution in these models is {\it a-la} de~Sitter, even if there is no
cosmological
constant in the Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations, see
\cite{Ananda:2005xp,Ananda:2006gf,Balbi:2007mz,Pietrobon:2008js}. On the other hand, $a_{\rm t}$ is not an independent
parameter: using the Friedmann equation (\ref{Fried}) and the
second of Eq.\ (\ref{affine}), and neglecting radiation, we get
\begin{equation}\label{at}
a_{\rm t}=\left[\frac{1-\Omega_{\Lambda,0}}{\Omega_{\Lambda,0}\left(\frac{\Omega_{\rm
t,0}}{\Omega_{\Lambda,0}}-1\right)} \right]
^{\frac{1}{3(1+\alpha)}}
\end{equation} where $\Omega_{\rm t,\rm 0}/\Omega_{\Lambda,0}=\rho_{\rm t}/\rho_{\Lambda}$; this gives a redshift for
the
transition $z_{\rm t}=a_{\rm t}^{-1}-1$.
We can then interpret our UDM model after the transition as made up of the
effective cosmological constant $\rho_{\Lambda}$ and an evolving
part, with energy density at the transition $\rho_{\rm m}\equiv\rho_{t} -
\rho_{\Lambda}$,\footnote{In this two component interpretation the two energy densities
satisfy their own conservation equations and therefore there is no
coupling between them.} that decreases after the transition.
In the affine model the energy density of UDM is given by the second of Eq.\ (\ref{affine}). If one assumes this model
all the way deep into the radiation era, the evolving part must have
$w_{\rm m}\rightarrow0$ and $c_{\rm s}^{2}\rightarrow0$ in the past in
order to recover standard matter domination at early times, thus the evolving part can be interpreted as the "dark
matter" component today. Indeed, the value of the parameter $\alpha$ is
extremely constrained if one assumes an affine model with
adiabatic perturbations all the way back to recombination and
beyond, $\alpha\approx 10^{-7}$ \citep{Pietrobon:2008js} (cf.\ also
\cite{Muller:2004yb}), making this model indistinguishable from
$\Lambda$CDM.\footnote{The $\Lambda$CDM can be obtained as a
sub-case of the UDM affine model for $\alpha=0$ \citep{Ananda:2005xp,Ananda:2006gf,Balbi:2007mz}; the constraint is
weaker if the perturbations are not adiabatic, see
\cite{Pietrobon:2008js}.} However,
such a strong bound mainly comes from the matter power spectrum at
small scales, $k\gtrsim k_{\rm J}$, where the growth of
perturbations is affected by a non-vanishing $k_{\rm J}$. Since
this is an integrated effect, it is reasonable to expect that, if
the affine-like evolution only starts below a transition red-shift $z_{\rm t}$, the
bound will be much weaker.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\hsize]{pvsrho2.eps}
\caption{Illustrative parametric plot of $p/\rho_\Lambda$ as a function of $\rho/\rho_\Lambda$ with
$\rho_{\rm t}/\rho_\Lambda = 100$ ($z_{\rm t}\thicksim5.34$) for the model specified by Eq.~(\ref{Hc}). The $\Lambda$CDM
model is represented
here by the solid horizontal line $p/\rho_\Lambda=-1$, while the line $p=0$ represents an EdS model, i.e. pure CDM. All
models asymptotically evolve towards the effective cosmological constant $\rho_\Lambda$.}
\label{pvsrhoFig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It is useful to explicitly incorporate a Heaviside function $H(a-a_{\rm t})$ in Eq.~(\ref{affine}), so that:
\begin{equation}
\label{step}
\rho= \rho_{\rm t}\left(\frac{a_{\rm t}}{a}\right)^{3} +\left[ \rho_{\Lambda} +(\rho_{\rm t}-\rho_{\Lambda})
\left(\frac{a_{\rm t}}{a}\right)^{3(1+\alpha)} -\rho_{\rm t}\left(\frac{a_{\rm t}}{a}\right)^{3} \right]
H(a-a_{\rm t})\;.
\end{equation}
For $\alpha=0$ this reduces to
\begin{equation}
\label{step1}
\rho= \rho_{\rm t}\left(\frac{a_{\rm t}}{a}\right)^{3} + \rho_{\Lambda} \left[ 1- \left(\frac{a_{\rm t}}{a}\right)^{3}
\right]
H(a-a_{\rm t})\;,
\end{equation}
representing a sudden transition to $\Lambda$CDM. In the following, we shall restrict our attention to this sub-class
of models.
It is now clear that, simply replacing $H(a-a_{\rm t})$ with a smoother transition function $H_{\rm t}(a-a_{\rm t})$,
we can
obtain simple UDM models with a fast transition.
\subsection{A simple model for the background}
In this paper, among the many known continuous approximations to the Heaviside function \citep{Bracewell}, we shall
consider the only one that we found compatible with having $c_{\rm s}^{2}>0$:
\begin{equation}
\label{Hc}
H_{\rm t}(a-a_{\rm t})=\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{\pi}\arctan(\beta(a-a_{\rm t})),
\end{equation} where the parameter $\beta$ represents the rapidity of the transition. In addition to $a_{\rm t}$ and
$\beta$,
there is a third parameter in the model, which is $\rho_{\Lambda}$, or, equivalently, the corresponding density
parameter $\Omega_{\Lambda,0}$. From inserting Eq.~(\ref{Hc}) in Eq.~(\ref{step1}) we see that asymptotically in time,
in the limit $a\rightarrow\infty$, $\rho\rightarrow\rho_{\Lambda}$, which implies $p\rightarrow-\rho_{\Lambda}$. As
already mentioned above, $\rho_{\Lambda}$ plays the role of an effective cosmological constant, i.e. it is an attractor
for Eq.~(\ref{encon1}). The Universe necessarily evolves toward an asymptotic de~Sitter phase, i.e. a sort of cosmic
no-hair theorem holds (see \cite{Bruni:2001pc,Bruni:1994cv} and refs.\ therein and
\cite{Ananda:2005xp,Ananda:2006gf,Balbi:2007mz}).
In Fig.\ \ref{pvsrhoFig1} we show a parametric plot of $p$ vs $\rho$, normalised to $\rho_{\Lambda}$, where we have
assumed, as an example, that the transition takes place at $z_{\rm t}=5.34$, for a representative choice of values of
$\beta$. It can be seen that all models gradually approach the effective cosmological constant $\rho_\Lambda$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.13\columnwidth]{wvslna1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=1.13\columnwidth]{wvslna2.eps}
\caption{Evolution of the UDM parameter $w = p/\rho$ as a function of the scale factor $a$ for $\rho_{\rm
t}/\rho_\Lambda = 10$ ($a_{\rm t}\thicksim0.35$, $z_{\rm t}\thicksim1.85$) (top panel) and $\rho_{\rm t}/\rho_\Lambda =
20$
($a_{\rm t}\thicksim0.27$, $z_{\rm t}\thicksim2.65$) (bottom panel). For reference we also plot: the $w = 0$ line
representing a
flat
pure CDM model (an EdS universe); the $w=-1/3$ line representing the boundary between the decelerated and the
accelerated phases and the thin black curved line representing the evolution of the total $w$ for the $\Lambda$CDM
model with $\Omega_{\Lambda,0} = 0.72$. The higher $\rho_{\rm t}/\rho_\Lambda $, the earlier the UDM $w$ transits to
that of a $\Lambda$CDM. In the future, for $a>1$, all models evolve to a de~Sitter phase with $w=-1$.}
\label{wvszFig2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In order to make our UDM model close to $\Lambda$CDM at late times, the transition must occur at relatively high
redshifts, such that $\rho_{\rm t}$ is quite larger than $\rho_\Lambda$, which corresponds to a minimum value of the
redshift $z_{\rm t}$. Otherwise, it could be difficult to have a good fit of supernovae and ISW effect data
\citep{Piattella:2009kt}. For instance, we need $z_{\rm t} \gtrsim 2.65$ if we want to have $\rho_{\rm t} \gtrsim
20\rho_\Lambda$.
In Fig.\ \ref{wvszFig2} the evolution of the EoS $w$ is depicted as a function of the scale factor for different values
of $\rho_{\rm t}/\rho_\Lambda$ and $\beta$.
As shown, models with a smaller rapidity $\beta$ have a background evolution more similar to that of the $\Lambda$CDM
model at all times.
On the other hand, a larger $\beta$ implies a sharper transition between the CDM-like phase and the $\Lambda$CDM phase.
Likewise, it clearly illustrates that the transition has to take place far enough in the past, i.e. $\rho_{\rm t}$ is
larger than $\rho_\Lambda$, in order for the late time evolution of $w$ to be close to that of the $\Lambda$CDM model.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.24\columnwidth]{omegaz0k500.eps}
\includegraphics[width=1.24\columnwidth]{omegaz1k500.eps}
\includegraphics[width=1.24\columnwidth]{omegaz2k500.eps}
\caption{Density dependence of the various components for UDM models with a fast transition ($\beta=500$) occurring at
different times, contrasted with the pure CDM (EdS) and $\Lambda$CDM models, assuming $\Omega_{\Lambda,0}=0.72$ today.
Top panel: $z_{\rm t}=0$; medium panel: $z_{\rm t}=1$; bottom panel: $z_{\rm t}=2$.}
\label{omegadensity}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Finally, let us consider the evolution of the three components $\rho_{\rm r}$ (radiation) $\rho_{\rm m}$ and
$\rho_\Lambda$,
represented by the dimensionless functions $\Omega_{\rm i}(a)$, Eq.\ (\ref{omegas}). The evolution of these functions
is
shown in Fig.\ \ref{omegadensity} for UDM models with fast transition ($\beta=500$) occurring at different times,
contrasted with pure the CDM (EdS) and $\Lambda$CDM models. For UDM and $\Lambda$CDM, it is assumed that today
$\Omega_{\Lambda,0}=0.72$. In a flat Universe, $\Sigma_{\rm i}~\Omega_{\rm i}=1$, and when a component $j$ dominates
$\Omega_{\rm j}\approx 1$, with the other $\Omega_{\rm i}\approx 0$. It can be seen from these figures that if the
transition is too late (today
in the extreme case $z_{\rm t}=0$) then the matter-radiation equality of the UDM model is basically the same as in a
pure CDM
model, i.e.\ much earlier than in $\Lambda$CDM. In addition, the effective cosmological constant of the UDM becomes
dominant at a later time than in $\Lambda$CDM. Since the matter-transition equality dictates when matter perturbations
inside the horizon start to grow, while the late dominance of the cosmological constant slows down this growth, the
matter power spectrum in fast transition UDM models with too late a transition will be at odds with the observed one,
with too much power on small scales.
Conversely, we see from Fig.\ \ref{omegadensity} that if the transition is at $z_{\rm t}\sim 1$ the matter-radiation
equality
is closer to that of $\Lambda$CDM, and it essentially coincides with the latter for an even earlier transition,
$z_{\rm t}\sim 2$. Basically, as long as the transition is at a redshift $z_t$ higher than the one at which
$\Omega_\Lambda=\Omega_{\rm m}$ in $\Lambda$CDM, the late time evolution of $\Omega_\Lambda$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}$ in
the UDM
models is the same as in $\Lambda$CDM.
\subsection{Angular diameter distance}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.1\columnwidth]{dabetafixed.eps}
\caption{The dimensionless angular diameter distance $d_{\rm A}/d_{\rm H}$ for the $\Lambda$CDM and the UDM model with a
fast
transition at $\beta=500$ for different transition redshifts.}
\label{dazvar}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The angular diameter distance is an important quantity that comes into play in current observations of weak lensing,
Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) and galaxy clustering and will become even more important for comparing models against the new data that will
become available from surveys such as Dark Energy Survey (DES), Planck and Euclid. It is also relevant to measurements of CMB anisotropies.
In view of this, we now briefly comment on the deviation of the angular diameter distance in our UDM model from that of
$\Lambda$CDM.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{da-1.eps}
\caption{Difference between $d_{\rm A}/d_{\rm H}$ for the $\Lambda$CDM and for the UDM model with a fast transition at
$\beta=500$.}
\label{da-1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The angular diameter distance, $d_{\rm A}$, is defined as the ratio of the actual size $\triangle x$ of an object and
the
angle $\triangle\theta$ this object subtends orthogonal to the line of sight and can also be expressed as:
\begin{equation}\label{dA}
d_{\rm A}=\frac{1}{1+z}\int^{z}_{0}\frac{dz'}{H(z')}\;,
\end{equation}
where $H(z)$ is the Hubble function. In Fig.\ \ref{dazvar}, we have show the angular diameter distance normalised with
the Hubble distance, $d_{\rm H}\equiv H^{-1}_{0}$, for the $\Lambda$CDM model and our UDM model with a fast transition
with
$\beta=500$. As it can be seen, the larger the transition redshift, the smaller the departure of $d_{\rm A}$ for the
UDM
with respect to the $\Lambda$CDM is. Notice that $d_{\rm A}$ does not increase indefinitely as $z\rightarrow\infty$; it
turns over at $z\sim 1.5$ and thereafter more distant objects actually appear larger in angular size.
\section{The Jeans scale and the gravitational potential}\label{sec:perts}
\subsection{The Jeans wave number}
We now focus on the Jeans wave number for our UDM model and investigate its behaviour as a function of the speed of
sound, in particular around $\rho=\rho_{\rm t}$, which corresponds to the middle of the transition where the speed of
sound
is at its peak.
By inspection of Eq.~(\ref{kJ2analytic}) we see that a large $k_{\rm J}^{2}$ can be obtained not only when $c_{\rm s}^2
\to
0$, but when $c_{\rm s}^2$ changes rapidly as well. In other words, when Eq.~(\ref{kJ2analytic}) is dominated by the
$\rho\; dc_{\rm s}^2/d\rho$
term we may say that the EoS is characterised by a fast transition. These two quantities, $c_{\rm s}^2$ and $\rho\;
dc_{\rm s}^2/d\rho$, are depicted in Fig. \ref{FigSoS} as functions of $\rho/\rho_\Lambda$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{cs2vsrho.eps}\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{rhodcs2drhovsrho.eps}
\caption{Illustrative parametric plots of the speed of sound and $\rho\; dc_{\rm s}^2/d\rho$ as functions of $\rho/\rho_
\Lambda$ with $\rho_{\rm t}/\rho_\Lambda = 50$ ($z_{\rm t}\thicksim4$) and $\beta=500$. The speed of sound reaches its
maximum value at $\rho=\rho_{\rm t}$.}
\label{FigSoS}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Thus, viable adiabatic UDM models can be constructed which do not require $c_{\rm s}^2 \ll 1$ at all times if the
speed of sound goes through a rapid change, a fast transition period during which $k_{\rm J}^{2}$ can remain large, in
the sense that $k^{2} \ll k_{\rm J}^{2}$ for all scales of cosmological interest to which the linear perturbation
theory of Eq.~(\ref{equ}) applies.
When we consider a fast transition, it is interesting to compare the term $\rho\,{d}c_{\rm s}^2/{d}\rho$ with the
remaining ones contained in the squared brackets of Eq.~(\ref{kJ2analytic}) for the Jeans wave number, that is:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{B}= \frac{1}{2}(c_{\rm s}^2 - w) + \frac{3(c_{\rm s}^2 - w)^2 - 2(c_{\rm s}^2 - w)}{6(1 + w)} + \frac{1}{3}\;.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\columnwidth]{rhodcs2drhoBvsrho.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.497\columnwidth]{rhodcs2drhoBvsrholog.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{kjvsrho.eps}
\caption{Left-top panel: evolution of $\rho\; dc_{\rm s}^2/d\rho$ (solid line) and $\mathcal{B}$ (dashed line) as
functions of $\rho/\rho_\Lambda$. Right-top panel: evolution of $\rho\; dc_{\rm s}^2/d\rho$ (solid line) and $\mathcal{
B}$ (dashed line) as functions of $\rho/\rho_\Lambda$ in a logarithmic scale. Bottom panel: evolution of the Jeans wave
number $k_{\rm J}$ as a function of $\rho/\rho_\Lambda$ where $k_{\rm J}$ is in $h$ Mpc$^{-1}$ units. The choice of
parameters
is $\rho_{\rm t}/\rho_\Lambda = 100$ ($z_{\rm t}\thicksim5.34$) and $\beta=500$.}
\label{FigSoS2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig.\ \ref{FigSoS2} we plot $\rho\,{d} c_{\rm s}^2/{ d}\rho$, $\mathcal{B}$ and the Jeans wave number $k_{\rm J}$ as
functions of $\rho/\rho_\Lambda$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\columnwidth]{kjvsz1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\columnwidth]{kjvsz2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\columnwidth]{kjvsz3.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\columnwidth]{kjvsz4.eps}
\caption{The Jeans wave number $k_{\rm J}$ (in $h$ Mpc$^{-1}$ units) for $\beta=10$ (left-top panel), $\beta = 50$
(right-
top panel), $\beta = 100$ (left-bottom panel) and $\beta = 500$ (right-bottom panel). In each panel, the three dotted,
dash-dotted and dashed lines correspond to $\rho_{\rm t}/\rho_\Lambda = 10, 20, 50$, respectively; the black solid line
corresponds to $\rho_{\rm t}/\rho_\Lambda = 100$.}
\label{Figkjvsz}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
From Fig.\ \ref{FigSoS2} we learn that $\rho\, {d} c_{\rm s}^2/{d}\rho$ is negative for $\rho > \rho_{\rm t}$, then for
$\rho\approx \rho_{\rm t}$ it increases becoming positive and intersecting the $\mathcal{B}$ curve a first time for
$\rho < \rho_{\rm t}$. For smaller values of the energy density, $\rho\, {d} c_{\rm s}^2/{d}\rho$ decreases again to
zero, again intersecting the $\mathcal{B}$ curve. Since the difference
between the two curves is very large, we have depicted them in the
right top panel of Fig.\ \ref{FigSoS2} choosing a logarithmic
scale. For this reason, the negative part of $\rho\, { d} c_{\rm s}^2/{ d}\rho$ has been omitted. It can be also seen
that the relative maximum of the Jeans wave number between the two zeros of the curve approximately corresponds to the
point where ${d}c_{\rm s}^2/{d}\rho$ reaches its maximum value.
The place where the curves $\rho\, { d} c_{\rm s}^2/{d}\rho$ and
$\mathcal{B}$ intersect correspond to the vanishing points of the
Jeans wave number $k_{\rm J}$, as it can be seen in the bottom
panel of Fig.\ \ref{FigSoS2}. In general, around these points the
corresponding Jeans length becomes very large, possibly causing
all sort of problems to perturbations, with effects on structure
formation in the UDM model.
Defining $c_{\rm s}^2$ as in Eq.~(\ref{varie2}), in
Fig.\ \ref{Figkjvsz} we plot the Jeans wave number as a function of
the redshift for various values of $\beta$ and
$\rho_{\rm t}/\rho_{\Lambda}$. In this figure, for sufficiently high
$\beta$ we note that {\it i)} in general the Jeans wave number
becomes larger, with a vanishingly small Jeans length before and after the transition, and {\it ii)} it becomes
vanishingly small for
extremely short times, so that the effects caused by its vanishing
are sufficiently negligible, as we are going to show in the next
subsection when we analyse the gravitational potential $\Phi$.
To conclude, we shall make some comments on building phenomenological UDM (or DE) fluid models intended to represent
the homogeneous FLRW background and its linear perturbations. A fast transition in a fluid model could be characterised
by a value of $c_{\rm s}^{2}>1$ during the transition. Notice that it is standard to refer to the parameter $c_{s}^{2}$ as the speed of sound because this is what it would be if Eq.\ (7) was a simple wave equation. In reality, $c_{s}^{2}$ is not the speed of signal propagation because in Eq.\ (7) we also have a potential term $\theta''/\theta$ and, if there is any signal propagation, this would only happen on scales smaller than the Jeans length, and with a speed given by the group velocity \citep{Brillouin}. Therefore, having $c_{s}^{2}>1$ does not raise \emph{per se} any issue with respect to causality, see \cite{Brillouin, Babichev:2007dw}. More specifically on our model, Eq.~(\ref{equ}) is the Fourier component of a wave equation with potential
${\theta^{\prime\prime}}/{\theta}$, and the latter does not allow propagation for $k \ll k_{\rm J}$. Therefore, we note in addition that we can always
build our fluid model in such a way that all scales smaller than the Jeans length $\lambda \ll \lambda_{\rm J}$
correspond to those in the non-linear regime, for which this model may not apply. In order to study the behaviour of
the perturbations of a UDM model at these scales, we would have to go beyond the perturbative regime investigated here.
That would possibly imply to build a more refined fluid model that could maintain causality and at the same time be
able to deal with the increased complexity of small scale non-linear physics.
\subsection{The gravitational potential}
The differential equation that governs the behaviour of the gravitational potential $\Phi$ in our model in terms of the
scale factor $a$ is obtained from Eq.~(\ref{equ}):
\begin{multline}\label{diff-eq_Phi}
\frac{d^2 \Phi(\textbf{k},a)}{d a^2}+\left(\frac{1}{\mathcal{H}} \frac{d \mathcal{H}}{d a} + \frac{4}{a}+ 3
\frac{c_{\rm s}^2}
{a}\right)\frac{d \Phi(\textbf{k},a)}{d a}+\\
\left[ \frac{2}{a \mathcal{H}}\frac{d \mathcal{H}}{d a} + \frac{1}{a^2}(1+3 c_{\rm s}^2)+\frac{c_{\rm s}^2 k^2}{a^2
\mathcal{H}^2}
\right] \Phi (\textbf{k},a) =0\;,
\end{multline}
where $\mathcal{H}= \frac{da}{d\eta}/a$ is the conformal time Hubble function. Also, $\mathcal{H}=aH$, $c_{\rm s}^2$ is
given in Eq.~(\ref{varie2}) and we have assumed plane-wave perturbations
$\Phi({\bf x},a) \propto \Phi(\textbf{k},a) \exp\left(i{\bf k} \cdot {\bf x}\right)$ of comoving wave-number
$k\equiv |\bf{k}|$.
On the other hand, the $\Lambda$CDM gravitational potential, $\Phi_{\Lambda}$, solves Eq.~(\ref{diff-eq_Phi}) for
$c_{\rm s}=0$:
\begin{equation}\label{PhiLa}
\frac{d^2 \Phi_{\Lambda}}{d a^2}+\left(\frac{1}{\mathcal{H}} \frac{d \mathcal{H}}{d a} + \frac{4}{a}\right)
\frac{d\Phi_{\Lambda}}{d a}+\left[ \frac{2}{a \mathcal{H}}\frac{d \mathcal{H}}{d a} + \frac{1}{a^2}\right]
\Phi_{\Lambda} =0\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{HLCDM}
\mathcal{H}^2 = H_0^2\left(\Omega_{\Lambda,0}a^2 + \Omega_{m,0}a^{-1}\right)\;,
\end{equation}
if we assume that the energy density of radiation is negligible and ignore the contribution of the baryon matter.
Comparing Eqs.~(\ref{diff-eq_Phi}) and (\ref{PhiLa}) we see that the gravitational potential in our UDM model has the
same evolution as in a $\Lambda$CDM universe in the limit when $c_{\rm s} \to 0$. In particular, both models behave as
an EdS model at early times, so that for UDM $c_{\rm s} \to 0$ and in both models $\mathcal{H}^2\sim a^{-1}$, and $\Phi$
is constant in this regime, as in an EdS universe, as is well known.
The normalised initial conditions are
$\Phi_{\Lambda}(\textbf{k};a_{\rm rec}) = 1$ and $\left.
d\Phi_\Lambda/da\right|_{a_{\rm rec}} = 0$, where $a_{\rm rec}$
stands for the scale factor at recombination time. Since the class
of UDM models we consider here is constructed to behave as the
$\Lambda$CDM model in the early Universe, we thus set the same
initial conditions for both the UDM and the $\Lambda$CDM
gravitational potentials.
In $\Lambda$CDM, the background evolution causes a gradual time evolution of the gravitational
potential when the cosmological constant starts to dominate \citep{Hu:1995em}; this causes an ISW effect. On the other
hand, in our UDM model the evolution of the gravitational potential is determined by the background and the perturbative
evolution of the single dark fluid and, crucially, by the adiabatic speed of sound $c_{\rm s}^{2}$. The gravitational
potential stays constant before the transition, during which a sudden rapid evolution of $\Phi$ is induced. The
subsequent evolution is in general scale dependent: for scales $k>k_{\rm J}$, $\Phi$ oscillates and decays; for larger
scales, $k<k_{\rm J}$, the evolution of $\Phi$ becomes scale independent and is governed by the evolution of the
background,
mainly by $H$ and to a small extent by $c_{\rm s}^{2}$, and $\Phi$ approaches its $\Lambda$CDM behaviour in a way that
depends mainly on the rapidity $\beta$ and from the epoch of the transition, $z_{\rm t}$. In general, we expect an ISW
effect
starting from the transition which can be very different from the $\Lambda$CDM one, cf.\ \cite{Piattella:2009kt}. We show
the behaviour of $\Phi$ in Fig.\ \ref{gpvsz}, where we explore its dependence on the background parameters $\beta$
and $z_{\rm t}$ (or, equivalently, $a_{\rm t}$).
We already know from the evolution of $w$ in Fig.\ \ref{wvszFig2} that for $\beta < 200$ the transition is not that
fast. This is also apparent in Fig.\ \ref{gpvsz}, where we have plotted the
normalised gravitational potential
$\Phi_{\rm k}(z)=\Phi(\textbf{k};z)/\Phi(\textbf{0};10^{3})$ as a
function of the redshift $z$ for $k=0.2$ $h$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and
different values of $\beta$ and $z_{\rm t}$. For wavenumbers
$k>k_{\rm nl}\simeq0.2$ $h$ Mpc$^{-1}$, we expect non-linear matter
over-densities contributions to
the evolution of the gravitational potential to become important.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4948\columnwidth]{gpztvar1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.4948\columnwidth]{gpztvar2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.4948\columnwidth]{gpztvar3.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.4948\columnwidth]{gpztvar4.eps}
\caption{Illustrative plots of the gravitational potential $\Phi(\textbf{k};z)$ as a function of the redshift $z$ for
$\Lambda$CDM and for our UDM model for $k=0.2$ $h$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and different values of $\beta$ and $z_{\rm t}$. The
black solid line corresponds to the gravitational potential in the $\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_{\Lambda,0} = 0.72$.}
\label{gpvsz}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As expected, for large enough values of $\beta$ the gravitational potential is practically constant in time,
corresponding to a pure matter (EdS) background evolution, until $z\sim z_{\rm t}$. From $z < z_{\rm t}$ onwards, its
value decreases very fast until it finally approaches the gravitational potential of the $\Lambda$CDM model. The
expected strong ISW effect caused by this behaviour would be mostly due to the particular expansion history and can be
very different from the $\Lambda$CDM one. As a matter of fact, these differences are smaller for $z_{\rm t} > 2$ and
become smaller and smaller at higher transition redshifts, until for $z_{\rm t} \sim 100$ and larger the fast
transition UDM models practically become indistinguishable from $\Lambda$CDM cf.\ \cite{Piattella:2009kt}.
As we have already pointed out, our UDM model allows the value
$w=-1$ for $a\rightarrow\infty$, i.e, it admits an effective
cosmological constant energy density $\rho_{\Lambda}$ at late
times. Hence, if we wanted to compare the predictions of our UDM model
with observational data, we would follow the prescription given in
\citep{Piattella:2009kt}, where the density contrast is $\delta\equiv \delta\rho/\rho_{\rm A}$ and
$\rho_{\rm A}=\rho-\rho_{\Lambda}$ is the clustering "aether" part of the
UDM component \citep{Ananda:2005xp,Linder:2008ya}. In UDM models gravity is described by General Relativity, but to
link the density contrast with the gravitational potential at scales much smaller than the cosmological horizon we only
need the Newtonian Poisson equation. For $z < z_{\rm rec}$, where
$z_{\rm rec}$ is the recombination redshift ($z_{\rm rec} \approx 10^{3}$) we then have:
\begin{equation}\label{delta}
\delta\left(\textbf{k};z\right) = -\frac{2 k^{2}\Phi(\textbf{k};z)\left(1 + z\right)^2}{\rho_{\rm A}}\;.
\end{equation}
To conclude, we have argued that for an early enough fast transition with $\beta>500$ and $z_{\rm t} > 2$ our UDM model
should be compatible with observations. On the other hand, a study of the matter and CMB power spectra is needed to
study the viability of models with $10 \lesssim \beta<500$, and those with $\beta>500$ and $z_{\rm t} < 2$. We shall
undertake this work in the future.
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:concl}
UDM models, when compared with the standard DM + DE scenario, specifically $\Lambda$CDM, are in principle interesting
because the dynamics of the Universe can be described with a single component in the matter sector which triggers the
accelerated expansion at late times and is also able to cluster and produce a satisfactory structure formation. The
challenge for UDM models is however to satisfy observational constraints while maintaining features that can make then
distinguishable from $\Lambda$CDM, otherwise they lose interest \citep{Sandvik:2002jz}. In this paper we have
introduced and examined a new class of UDM models with a fast transition between an early matter era and a late
$\Lambda$CDM-like phase, building on previous work \citep{Piattella:2009kt,Bertacca:2010mt}.
First, in Sec.~\ref{sec:udmmodels}, we have introduced some generalities of UDM models. In Sec.~\ref{sec:3p} we have
considered
three possible
prescriptions for building phenomenological UDM models, with the aim of obtaining models in which all the variables of
interest can be expressed analytically, so that in principle they could be implemented into numerical codes such as
CAMB \citep{Lewis:1999bs} and CLASS \citep{Lesgourgues:2011re} while maintaining the code efficiency. Indeed, in
comparing models with observational data this is of crucial importance in view of likelihood analysis, and a major
motivation for the UDM model presented here: modifying these numerical codes to deal with fast transition UDM models
while maintaining their efficiency is in general a non trivial task \citep{Piattella:2009kt}, thus having as many
variables as possible expressed analytically simplifies the task considerably.
While in \cite{Piattella:2009kt} the fast transition was introduced in the equation of state, we have shown in
Sec.~\ref{sec:3p}
that the best prescription to proceed as much as possible analytically is to assume a specific evolution of the energy
density of UDM.
A general feature of UDM models is in the possible difference of the expansion history with that of $\Lambda$CDM,
causing, among other features, a strong ISW effect incompatible with observations.
In addition, in UDM models
the effective speed of sound may become significantly different from zero. This corresponds, in general, to the
appearance of a Jeans length (or sound horizon) below which the dark fluid cannot cluster and which, if large enough,
can cause a strong evolution in time of the gravitational potential, preventing structure formation at small scales.
In building satisfactory UDM parametric models it is therefore crucial to find the region in parameter space where the
Jeans length remains small enough, well beyond the linear regime that we explore here.
UDM models with a fast transition, first introduced in \cite{Piattella:2009kt,Bertacca:2010mt} are a viable and
interesting alternative to $\Lambda$CDM because they seem to survive observational tests while maintaining interesting
features.
The new general phenomenological UDM models we have introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:tghmodel} (following the prescription
obtained in
Sec.~\ref{sec:3p}) are characterised by a fast transition between a standard matter era and a post-transition
epoch
described by an ``affine model" \citep{Ananda:2005xp,Ananda:2006gf,Balbi:2007mz,Quercellini:2007ht,Pietrobon:2008js}
with affine parameter $\alpha$. We have then focused on the $\alpha=0$ case, which represents a sudden transition to a
$\Lambda$CDM-like late evolution. In constructing these models in practice, we have to choose a step-like function
representing the fast transition. In doing this, for physical reasons we want to maintain the condition
$c_{\rm s}^{2}>0$
at all times: after carrying out an extensive study over many possibilities \citep{Bracewell} we have chosen the
function in Eq.\ (\ref{Hc}) as the only one we found
that complied with this condition. In Sec.\ 4 we have also compared the angular diameter distance between $\Lambda$CDM
and our UDM with fast transition, finding small differences of the order of percent when the transition is
fast enough.
Finally, in Sect.~\ref{sec:perts}, in order to study the viability of our UDM model, we have carried out a study of
the functional
form of the Jeans scale in adiabatic UDM perturbations. In doing so, we have found analytical expressions for the
quantities involved in the Jeans wave number and have shown that our model presents a small Jeans length even when a
non-negligible sound speed is present. Subsequently, we have analysed the properties of perturbations in our model,
focusing on the evolution of the effective speed of sound, the Jeans scale and the gravitational potential. In general,
in building a phenomenological model, we have chosen its parameter values in order to always satisfy the condition
$k \ll k_{\rm J}$ for all $k$ of cosmological interests to which linear theory applies. In this way, we have been able
to set theoretical constraints on the parameters of the model, predicting sufficient conditions for the model to be
viable.
We have argued that for large enough values of the rapidity $\beta$ of the transition and $z_{\rm t}$ our model should
be
compatible with observations. Overall, we have found results for our new UDM model similar to those in
\cite{Piattella:2009kt} but, given that we have started by prescribing a specific energy density evolution for the UDM
component rather than from a fast transition in the equation of state, this is a non trivial outcome.
Computing the CMB and the matter power spectra for our model, for a wide range of parameters values, as well as a full
likelihood analysis for this model and its parameters, including $\alpha\neq0$, will be the subject of a forthcoming
work. Other possible extensions of the work presented here could aim at including isocurvature (entropy) perturbations, following the prescription of \cite{Pietrobon:2008js} for the ``affine model", an ``affine" post-transition era (a possibility that we have considered in Sec.\ 4.1), as well as formulating our model in terms of a non-standard scalar field, along the lines of \cite{Bertacca:2010mt}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors thank Robert Crittenden, Marc Manera and Francesco Pace for useful discussions. MB is
supported by the STFC (grant no. ST/H002774/1), RL by the
Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness
through research projects FIS2010-15492 and Consolider
EPI CSD2010-00064, the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU under
program UFI 11/55 and also by the ETORKOSMO special research action. ARF is supported by the `Fundaci\'on Ram\'on
Areces'.
|
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\author[Yen CC et.~al.]{C.C. Yen\affil{1,2}\comma\corrauth,
R.E. Taam\affil{2,5}, Ken H.C. Yeh\affil{2,4}, and K.C. Jea\affil{1,3}}
\address{\affilnum{1}\ Department of Mathematics, Fu Jen Catholic University,
New Taipei City, Taiwan. \\
\affilnum{2}\ Institute of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, Academia Sinica,
Taipei, Taiwan.\\
\affilnum{3}\ Graduate Institute of Applied Science and Engineering, Fu Jen Catholic University,
New Taipei City, Taiwan.\\
\affilnum{4}\
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.\\
\affilnum{5}\
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University,
2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208}
\emails{{\tt <EMAIL>} (C.C. Yen)}
\begin{abstract}
A thin gaseous disk has often been investigated in the context of various phenomena
in galaxies, which point to the existence of starburst rings and dense circumnuclear
molecular disks. The effect of self-gravity of the gas in the $2D$ disk can be important in
confronting observations and numerical simulations in detail.
For use in such applications, a new method for the calculation of the gravitational
force of a $2D$ disk is presented. Instead of solving the complete potential
function problem, we calculate the force in infinite planes in Cartesian and polar
coordinates by a reproducing kernel method.
Under the limitation of a $2D$ disk,
we specifically represent the force as a double summation
of a convolution of the surface density
and a fundamental kernel and employ a fast Fourier transform technique.
In this method, the entire computational complexity can be reduced from $O(N^2\times N^2)$
to $O(N^2(\log_2 N)^2)$, where $N$ is the number of zones in one dimension.
This approach does not require softening. The proposed method is similar to
a spectral method, but without the necessity of imposing
a periodic boundary condition. We further show this approach is of near second
order accuracy for a smooth surface density in a Cartesian coordinate system.
\end{abstract}
\ams{52B10, 65D18, 68U05, 68U07}
\keywords{Self-gravitating force, infinitesimally thin disk,
fast Fourier transform, Poisson equation, reproducing kernel}
\maketitle
\section{Introduction}
The potential $\Phi$ of a given distribution of density $\rho$ in $\reals^3$ satisfies the Poisson equation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{DPG}
\Delta \Phi(\vec{x}) = 4\pi G \rho(\vec{x})=f(\vec{x}),\quad \vec{x}\in \reals^3,
\end{eqnarray}
where $G$ is the gravitational constant
and $\vec{x}=(x,y,z)$ is the position.
Without loss of generality, we may assume that the gravitational constant $G=1$.
Provided that the density profile has a continuous second derivative
with respect to the spatial coordinates, the potential is smooth.
In this situation, the numerical approach for
solving the potential via (\ref{DPG})
by the finite difference method is adopted.
Artificial boundary conditions are imposed in the numerical approach for solving
(\ref{DPG}) because the boundary condition is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{DPGBC}
\lim_{|\vec{x}|\to \infty}\Phi(\vec{x})=0.
\end{eqnarray}
The Poisson equation is intrinsically 3-dimensional, and the calculation of the
potential can be computationally prohibitive.
A possible solution to reduce the computation time is to apply
the multigrid method~\cite{JZhang,AJRoberts01},
but the computational complexity is $O(N^3)$,
where $N$ is the number of zones in one dimension.
The solution of (\ref{DPG}) can be represented in terms of the fundamental solution,
$\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi}{\cal K}(\vec{x})$, where
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal K}(\vec{x})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}},
\end{eqnarray*}
as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{IPG}
\Phi(x,y,z)=-\int\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\int
{\cal K}(\bar x-x,\bar y - y, \bar z-z)f(\bar x,\bar y,\bar z)d\bar x d\bar y d\bar z.
\end{eqnarray}
The above formula is preferable to (\ref{DPG}) when the density is not smooth.
The potential can be solved via the integral equation in ~(\ref{IPG}).
Spectral methods are a common method of choice and a review article has recently been
written by Shen and Wang \cite{JieShen09},
describing work on the analysis and application of these methods in unbounded domains.
The difficulties encountered in the numerical approach for solving (\ref{DPG}) or
(\ref{IPG}) are related to the extent of the domain $\reals^3$ and the density
which can be singular.
In this paper, we consider the density represented by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{SigmaDef}
\rho(\vec{x})=\sigma(x,y)\delta(z),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma(x,y)$ is so-called surface density equal to
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{SigmaInt}
\sigma(x,y)=\int \rho(\vec{x})dz.
\end{eqnarray}
We restrict our attention to calculating the forces directly
for the surface density of compact supports.
For an infinitesimally thin gaseous disk, the multigrid method, which is
intrinsically suited for 3D problems, cannot be reduced for the two dimensional problem
we consider in this paper.
The spectral method using Fourier basis functions
on a two dimensional space artificially imposes
the assumption of periodic boundary conditions.
This is not realistic for the long range gravitational force calculations.
A direct method without the periodic assumption requires
a softening parameter technqiue, but the accuracy is reduced simultaneously.
A method is proposed which is of linear complexity, without artificial boundary conditions,
and near second order accuracy.
This paper is organized as follows.
The framework and assumption are presented in Section \ref{secFramework}.
Sections \ref{secCartesian} and \ref{secPolar} describe the numerical methods for Cartesian and polar coordinates,
respectively. Section \ref{secAccurcy} demonstrates the order of accuracy of the proposed methods
as verified by a family of finite disks (e.g., $D_2$ disk; \cite{ESchulz}) and a disk of a pair of spirals.
A comparison with several existing methods is also presented in that section.
Finally, the discussion and conclusion are given in section \ref{secConlusion}.
\section{Framework and assumption}
\label{secFramework}
The evolution of a thin disk is of fundamental interest in astrophysics and the effect of the
self-gravity of gas therein may be important in modeling observed phenomena in detail.
This paper presents a numerical method for
solving the self-gravitating forces in Cartesian and polar coordinates, which can be
used in modeling infinitesimally thin disks in galaxies and protostellar systems
\cite{HuiZhang08}.
The self-gravitating force can be determined
by taking derivatives of the potential function which satisfies the Poisson equation in (\ref{DPG}).
However, the calculation of the potential (\ref{DPG}) is on an unbounded domain and
the solution in a finite region requires the imposition of artificial boundary conditions.
The solution of Poisson's equation with variable coefficients and
Dirichlet boundary conditions on a two dimensional irregular domain is one of second
order\cite{HansJohansen98}.
Let us confine our attention to the density in an infinitesimally thin disk as
defined in (\ref{SigmaDef}) and (\ref{SigmaInt}).
Here, we focus on the self-gravitating force computation.
The approach presented in this paper is to directly calculate the self-gravitating force
by expressing the potential function as a type of a convolution of the surface density
and the fundamental kernel and taking the derivative of the potential function.
This approach is similar to the spectral method, but less restrictive.
Trigonometric bases functions and the artificial periodic boundary conditions
are used for the spectral method, but are not required in the proposed approach here.
A uniform grid discretization in Cartesian coordinates
and a linear approximation of the surface density on each cell are used
to reduce the computational time and increase the accuracy of
the numerical solution, respectively.
Similarly, for polar coordinates, a logarithmic grid discretization
is used instead of a uniform grid discretization.
Based on the discretization and approximation,
the self-gravitating force is written as a convolution form of double summations.
It is known that the calculation of convolution form can be accelerated
by the use of a fast Fourier transform (FFT), see Appendix B.
Employing the FFT, the computational complexity is reduced from $O(N^4)$
to $O((N\log_2 N)^2)$,
where $N$ is the number of zones in one direction.
The linear approximation also leads to
an order of convergence that is near second order $O(h^2)$,
where the size of a zone $h = O(1/N)$.
\section{Self-gravitating force calculation in Cartesian coordinates}
\label{secCartesian}
In this section, we describe the method in detail.
The potential function $\Phi$ of (\ref{DPG}) can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Phi(x,y,z)=-\int\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\int
{\cal K}(\bar x-x,\bar y - y, \bar z-z)\rho(\bar x,\bar y,\bar z)d\bar x d\bar y d\bar z,
\end{eqnarray*}
where
$\displaystyle {\cal K}(x,y,z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}}.$
By (\ref{SigmaDef}),
the forces on the disk in the $x$-direction and the $y$-direction become
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{xforce}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \Phi(x,y,0)
=\int\!\!\!\int \frac{\partial}{\partial x}{\cal K}(\bar x-x,\bar y-y,0)\sigma(\bar x,\bar y)
d\bar x d\bar y
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{yforce}
\frac{\partial}{\partial y} \Phi(x,y,0)
=\int\!\!\!\int \frac{\partial}{\partial y}{\cal K}(\bar x-x,\bar y-y,0)
\sigma(\bar x,\bar y) d\bar x d\bar y.
\end{eqnarray}
We calculate (\ref{xforce}) and (\ref{yforce}) by a numerical approach.
Here, we focus on the derivation of the force calculation in the $x$-direction.
The force in the $y$-direction is obtained in a similar manner (see Appendix A).
Since the support of the surface density is compact,
contained in a domain $D=[-M,M]\times [-M,M]$ for some number $M>0$,
we discretize the region uniformly as follows.
Given a positive integer $N$, we define
$\Delta x=2M/N$, $\Delta y =\Delta x$,
$x_{i+1/2} = -M+i\Delta x$, $y_{j+1/2} = -M + j \Delta y$,
where $i,j=0,\ldots,N$. We further define the center of the cell $D_{ij}=[x_{i-1/2},x_{i+1/2}]
\times [y_{j-1/2},y_{j+1/2}]$ as
$x_i= (x_{i-1/2}+x_{i+1/2})/2$ and
$y_j= (y_{j-1/2}+y_{j+1/2})/2$,
where $i,j=1,\ldots,N$.
Hence, the domain $D$ is discretized into the $N^2$ cells.
The forces in the $x$-direction and the $y$-direction at the center of cells are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqnFxFy}
F^x_{i,j}=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\Phi(x_i,y_j,0),\mbox{\quad and \quad}
F^y_{i,j}=\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\Phi(x_i,y_j,0).
\end{eqnarray}
The surface density
$\sigma$ on $D_{i,j}$ in (\ref{xforce}) is linearly approximated by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{sigmaapro}
\sigma(\bar x,\bar y)\approx \sigma_{i,j}
+\delta^x_{i,j}(\bar x-x_i) + \delta^y_{i,j}(\bar y-y_j),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma_{i,j}=\sigma(x_i,y_j)$ and
$\delta^x_{i,j}=\sigma_x(x_i,y_j)$ and $\delta^y_{i,j}=\sigma_y(x_i,y_j)$
are constant in the cell $D_{i,j}$.
The error of the discretization is $O((\bar x-x_i)^2+(\bar y-y_j)^2)$.
Equation (\ref{sigmaapro}) is the Taylor expansion in two dimensions.
If a higher order accuracy is required,
additional terms in the Taylor expansion can be considered.
Let
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:K0}
{\cal K}^{x,0}_{i-i',j-j'}
= \int\!\!\!\int_{D_{i',j'}}
\frac{(\bar x-x_i)}{\left((\bar x-x_i)^2+(\bar y-y_j)^2\right)^{3/2}}d\bar xd\bar y,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:Kx}
{\cal K}^{x,x}_{i-i',j-j'}
= \int\!\!\!\int_{D_{i',j'}}
\frac{(\bar x-x_i)(\bar x - x_{i'})}{\left((\bar x-x_i)^2+(\bar y-y_j)^2\right)^{3/2}}
d\bar xd\bar y,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:Ky}
{\cal K}^{x,y}_{i-i',j-j'}
= \int\!\!\!\int_{D_{i',j'}}
\frac{(\bar x-x_i)(\bar y - y_{j'})}{\left((\bar x-x_i)^2+(\bar y-y_j)^2\right)^{3/2}}
d\bar xd\bar y.
\end{eqnarray}
If the surface density is approximated by (\ref{sigmaapro})
then the force in the $x$-direction defined by (\ref{eqnFxFy}) and (\ref{xforce})
can also be approximated by
\begin{eqnarray*}
F^x_{i,j} &\approx &\sum^N_{i'=1}\sum^N_{j'=1}
\int\!\!\!\int_{D_{i',j'}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x}{\cal K}(\bar x-x_i,\bar y-y_j,0)
\left(
\sigma_{i',j'}
+\delta^x_{i',j'}(\bar x-x_{i'})
+\delta^y_{i',j'}(\bar y-y_{j'})
\right)d\bar x d\bar y\\
&:=& F^{x,0}_{i,j} + F^{x,x}_{i,j} + F^{x,y}_{i,j},
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Fx0ji}
F^{x,0}_{i,j} & = & \sum^N_{i'=1}\sum^N_{j'=1}\sigma_{i',j'}
\int\!\!\!\int_{D_{i',j'}}
\frac{(\bar x-x_i)}{\left((\bar x-x_i)^2+(\bar y-y_j)^2\right)^{3/2}}d\bar xd\bar y
=\sum^N_{i'=1}\sum^N_{j'=1}\sigma_{i',j'} {\cal K}^{x,0}_{i-i',j-j'},\\
\label{Fxx0ji}
F^{x,x}_{i,j} & = & \sum^N_{i'=1}\sum^N_{j'=1}\delta^x_{i',j'}
\int\!\!\!\int_{D_{i',j'}}
\frac{(\bar x-x_i)(\bar x - x_{i'})}{\left((\bar x-x_i)^2+(\bar y-y_j)^2\right)^{3/2}}d\bar xd\bar y
=\sum^N_{i'=1}\sum^N_{j'=1}\delta^x_{i',j'} {\cal K}^{x,x}_{i-i',j-j'},\\
\label{Fxy0ji}
F^{x,y}_{i,j} & = & \sum^N_{i'=1}\sum^N_{j'=1}\delta^y_{i',j'}
\int\!\!\!\int_{D_{i',j'}}
\frac{(\bar x-x_i)(\bar y - y_{j'})}{\left((\bar x-x_i)^2+(\bar y-y_j)^2\right)^{3/2}}d\bar xd\bar y
=\sum^N_{i'=1}\sum^N_{j'=1}\delta^y_{i',j'} {\cal K}^{x,y}_{i-i',j-j'}.
\end{eqnarray}
The evaluation of (\ref{eqn:K0}), (\ref{eqn:Kx}) and (\ref{eqn:Ky})
can be obtained with the help of the following simple integrals,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int\!\!\!\int \frac{x}{(x^2+y^2)^{3/2}}dxdy = -\ln (y+\sqrt{x^2+y^2})+C,\quad\quad\>
\int\!\!\!\int \frac{xy}{(x^2+y^2)^{3/2}}dxdy = -\sqrt{x^2+y^2}+C,
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int\!\!\!\int \frac{x^2}{(x^2+y^2)^{3/2}}dxdy
= y\ln (x+\sqrt{x^2+y^2})+C, \quad
\int\!\!\!\int \frac{1}{(x^2+y^2)^{3/2}}dxdy
= -\frac{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}{xy}+C.
\end{eqnarray*}
The value ${\cal K}^{x,0}_{i-i',j-j'}$ is equal to
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{K0iijj}
{\cal K}^{x,0}_{i-i',j-j'}=
-\ln
\left(
(\bar y - y_j) +\sqrt{(\bar x-x_i)^2 + (\bar y -y_j)^2}
\right)
\left|^{x_{i'+\frac{1}{2}}}_{x_{i'-\frac{1}{2}}}
\left|^{y_{j'+\frac{1}{2}}}_{y_{j'-\frac{1}{2}}}
\right.\right.,
\end{eqnarray}
where the notation $\displaystyle g(x)\left|^b_a\right.=g(b)-g(a)$.
The calculation of ${\cal K}^{x,x}_{i-i',j-j'}$ and ${\cal K}^{x,y}_{i-i',j-j'}$
are split into two parts
by the identity $(\bar x-x_i)(\bar x-x_{i'}) = (\bar x-x_i)^2 + (\bar x - x_i)(x_i - x_{i'})$,
and $(\bar x-x_i)(\bar y-y_{j'}) = (\bar x-x_i)(\bar y-y_j)
+ (\bar x - x_i)(y_j - y_{j'})$, respectively.
It follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal K}^{x,x}_{i-i',j-j'}
& = &(x_i-x_{i'}) {\cal K}^{x,0}_{i-i',j-j'}+ \left(
(\bar y-y_j)\ln (\bar x-x_i+\sqrt{(\bar x-x_i)^2 +(\bar y-y_j)^2)}
\right)
\left|^{x_{i'+\frac{1}{2}}}_{x_{i'-\frac{1}{2}}}
\left|^{y_{j'+\frac{1}{2}}}_{y_{j'-\frac{1}{2}}}
\right.\right.,\\
{\cal K}^{x,y}_{i-i',j-j'}
& = & (y_j-y_{j'}) {\cal K}^{x,0}_{i-i',j-j'}+\left(
-\sqrt{(\bar x-x_i)^2 + (\bar y-y_j)^2} \right)
\left|^{x_{i'+\frac{1}{2}}}_{x_{i'-\frac{1}{2}}}
\left|^{y_{j'+\frac{1}{2}}}_{y_{j'-\frac{1}{2}}}
\right.\right..
\end{eqnarray*}
It is worth noting that the form of
$F^{x,0}_{i,j}$, $F^{x,x}_{i,j}$, and $F^{x,y}_{i,j}$
in (\ref{Fx0ji})-(\ref{Fxy0ji}) are a type of convolution.
It is known that the computational
complexity of a convolution of two vectors can be reduced to $O(N\log_2 N)$
with the help of FFT (see Appendix B).
It implies that the complexity of this method is $O(N^2 (\log_2 N)^2)$.
\section{Self-gravitating force calculation in polar coordinates}
\label{secPolar}
A similar approach is used to develop the method for polar coordinates in this section.
The singular integral disappears, but the high order of accuracy is not attained
because there is no explicit form for the integral of an elliptic function.
The method in polar coordinates is described in detail below.
The potential function $\Phi$ of (\ref{DPG}) under the assumption $G=1$
in cylindrical coordinate can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Phi(r,\theta,z)=-\int\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\int
{\cal K}(\bar r,r,\bar \theta,\theta, \bar z-z)\rho(\bar r,\bar \theta,\bar z)\bar rd\bar r d\bar \theta d\bar z,
\end{eqnarray*}
where
$\displaystyle {\cal K}(\bar r,r,\bar \theta,\theta,z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\bar r}^2-2\bar r r\cos(\bar\theta-\theta)+r^2+z^2}}.$
By (\ref{SigmaDef}),
the forces on the disk in $r$-direction and $\theta$-direction become
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{rforce}
\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \Phi(r,\theta,0)
=\int\!\!\!\int \frac{\partial}{\partial r}{\cal K}(\bar r,r,\bar \theta,\theta,0)\sigma(\bar r,\bar \theta)
\bar rd\bar r d\bar \theta
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{thetaforce}
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \Phi(r,\theta,0)
=\frac{1}{r}
\int\!\!\!\int \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}{\cal K}(\bar r, r,\bar \theta, \theta,0)
\sigma(\bar r,\bar \theta) \bar rd\bar r d\bar \theta.
\end{eqnarray}
We calculate (\ref{rforce}) and (\ref{thetaforce}) by a numerical approach.
Since the support of the surface density is compact,
contained in a region ${\cal R}=[0,M]\times [0,2\pi]$ for some number $M>0$,
we discretize the radial region in logarithmic form and the azimuthal region uniformly as follows.
Given a positive integer $N$, we define
$\Delta \theta=2\pi/N$, $0<\beta_0<1$, $\beta=\beta_0(1-\Delta \theta)$,
$r_{i+1/2} =\beta^{N-i}M$, $\theta_{j+1/2}=j\Delta\theta$,
$i,j=0,\ldots,N$,
$r_i= \frac{1}{2}(r_{i-1/2}+r_{i+1/2})$ and
$\theta_j= \frac{1}{2}(\theta_{j-1/2}+\theta_{j+1/2})$
where $i,j=1,\ldots,N$.
It is worth noting that the point $r_i$ should be the center of the cell
to guarantee the discretization of the surface density is to second order
and the effect of $\beta_0$ is to refine the mesh.
Here, the proposed method for polar coordinates is of first order because
a singular integration occurs (see below).
Furthermore, the region ${\cal R}$ is discretized into the $N^2$ cells,
${\cal R}_{ij}=[r_{i-1/2},r_{i+1/2}]\times [\theta_{j-1/2},\theta_{j+1/2}]$ for $i,j=1,\ldots,N$.
For $j=1,\ldots,N$, the cells ${\cal R}_{1,j}$ do not cover the origin and
extra cells $\hat {\cal R}_j =[0,r_{1/2}]\times[\theta_{j-1/2},\theta_{j+1/2}]$
should be included. For simplification of notation,
we denote ${\cal R}_{0,j}=\hat{\cal R}_j$, $j=1,\ldots,N$.
The forces in the $r$-direction and the $\theta$-direction at the point $(r_i,\theta_j)$
of the cell ${\cal R}_{ij}$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
F^r_{i,j}=\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\Phi(r_i,\theta_j,0),\mbox{\quad and \quad}
F^\theta_{i,j}=\frac{1}{r_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\Phi(r_i,\theta_j,0).
\end{eqnarray}
The surface density
$\sigma$ on $R_{i,j}$ in (\ref{rforce}) is linearly approximated by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{sigmaapro2}
\sigma(\bar r,\bar \theta)\approx \sigma_{i,j}
+\delta^r_{i,j}(\bar r-r_i) + \delta^\theta_{i,j}(\bar \theta-\theta_j),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma_{i,j}=\sigma(r_i,\theta_j)$ and
$\delta^r_{i,j}=\sigma_r(r_i,\theta_j)$
and $\delta^\theta_{i,j}=\sigma_\theta(r_i,\theta_j)$ are constant in the cell $R_{i,j}$.
The error of the discretization is $O((\bar r-r_i)^2+(\bar \theta-\theta_j)^2)$.
Equation (\ref{sigmaapro2}) is the Taylor expansion in two dimensions.
\subsection{The calculation of radial forces}
Let
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:Kr0}
{\cal K}^{r,0}_{i-i',j-j'}
= \int\!\!\!\int_{R_{i',j'}}
\frac{\bar r(r_i-\bar r\cos({\bar \theta-\theta_j}))}{\left({\bar r}^2+r^2_i - 2\bar r r_i \cos (\bar \theta-\theta_j)\right)^{3/2}}
d\bar rd\bar \theta,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:Krr}
r_i{\cal K}^{r,r}_{i-i',j-j'}
= \int\!\!\!\int_{R_{i',j'}}
\frac{\bar r(r_i-\bar r\cos(\bar\theta-\theta_j))(\bar r - r_{i'})}{\left({\bar r}^2+r^2_i - 2\bar r r_i \cos (\bar \theta-\theta_j)\right)^{3/2}}
d\bar rd\bar \theta,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:Krt}
{\cal K}^{r,\theta}_{i-i',j-j'}
= \int\!\!\!\int_{R_{i',j'}}
\frac{\bar r(r_i-\bar r\cos(\bar\theta-\theta_j))(\bar \theta - \theta_{j'})}
{\left({\bar r}^2+r^2_i - 2\bar r r_i \cos (\bar \theta-\theta_j)\right)^{3/2}}
d\bar rd\bar \theta.
\end{eqnarray}
The term $r_{i}$ in (\ref{eqn:Krr}) is for the formulation of
a convolution type.
By (\ref{rforce}) and (\ref{sigmaapro2}), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
F^r_{i,j} &\approx &\sum^N_{i'=0}\sum^N_{j'=1}
\int\!\!\!\int_{R_{i',j'}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}{\cal K}(\bar r,r_i,\bar \theta,\theta_j,0)
\left(
\sigma_{i',j'}
+\delta^r_{i',j'}(\bar r-r_{i'})
+\delta^\theta_{i',j'}(\bar \theta-\theta_{j'})
\right)\bar rd\bar r d\bar \theta\\
&:=& F^{r,0}_{i,j} + F^{r,r}_{i,j} + F^{r,\theta}_{i,j},
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Fr0ji}
F^{r,0}_{i,j} & = & \sum^N_{i'=0}\sum^N_{j'=1}\sigma_{i',j'}
\int\!\!\!\int_{R_{i',j'}}
\frac{\bar r(r_i-\bar r\cos(\bar\theta-\theta_j))}
{\left({\bar r}^2+r^2_i - 2\bar r r_i \cos (\bar \theta-\theta_j)\right)^{3/2}}
d\bar rd\bar \theta\\
\label{Frr0ji}
F^{r,r}_{i,j} & = & \sum^N_{i'=0}\sum^N_{j'=1}\delta^r_{i',j'}
\int\!\!\!\int_{R_{i',j'}}
\frac{\bar r(r_i-\bar r\cos(\bar\theta-\theta_j)(\bar r-r_{i'})}
{\left({\bar r}^2+r^2_i - 2\bar r r_i \cos (\bar \theta-\theta_j)\right)^{3/2}}
d\bar rd\bar \theta \\
\label{Frt0ji}
F^{r,\theta}_{i,j} & = & \sum^N_{i'=0}\sum^N_{j'=1}\delta^\theta_{i',j'}
\int\!\!\!\int_{R_{i',j'}}
\frac{\bar r(r_i-\bar r\cos(\bar\theta-\theta_j))(\bar \theta - \theta_{j'})}
{\left({\bar r}^2+r^2_i - 2\bar r r_i \cos (\bar \theta-\theta_j)\right)^{3/2}}
d\bar rd\bar \theta
\end{eqnarray}
Equations (\ref{Fr0ji}), (\ref{Frr0ji}), and (\ref{Frt0ji}) can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Fr0ji2}
F^{r,0}_{i,j} &= &\sum^N_{i'=1}\sum^N_{j'=1}\sigma_{i',j'} {\cal K}^{r,0}_{i-i',j-j'}
+\sum^N_{j'=1}\sigma_{0,j'}{\bar{\cal K}}^{r,0}_{i,j-j'},\\
\label{Frr0ji2}
F^{r,r}_{i,j}&=&r_i\sum^N_{i'=1}\sum^N_{j'=1}\delta^r_{i',j'} {\cal K}^{r,r}_{i-i,j-j'}
+r_i\sum^N_{j'=1}\delta^r_{0,j'}{\bar {\cal K}}^{r,r}_{i,j-j'},\\
\label{Frt0ji2}
F^{r,\theta}_{i,j} &=&\sum^N_{i'=1}\sum^N_{j'=1}\delta^\theta_{i',j'} {\cal K}^{r,\theta}_{i-i',j-j'}
+\sum^N_{j'=1}\delta^\theta_{0,j'}\bar{\cal K}^{r,\theta}_{i,j-j'}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let us define $F(\tilde r,\theta)=\sqrt{1+{\tilde r}^2-2{\tilde r}\cos(\theta)}$,
where $\tilde r$ is a dimensionless radius.
The evaluation of (\ref{eqn:Kr0}), (\ref{eqn:Krr}) and (\ref{eqn:Krt})
can be obtained with the help of the following simple integrals,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int \frac{\bar r(r-\bar r\cos(\theta))}{\left({\bar r}^2+r^2-2 r\bar r\cos(\theta)\right)^{3/2}}d\bar r
&=&
-\cos(\theta)\ln (-\cos(\theta)+\frac{\bar r}{r}+F(\frac{\bar r}{r},\theta))
+\frac{2\cos(\theta)\frac{\bar r}{r}-1}{F(\frac{\bar r}{r},\theta)}+C\\
&:=& H_1(\frac{\bar r}{r},\theta)+C
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int \frac{{\bar r}^2(r-\bar r\cos(\theta))}{\left({\bar r}^2+r^2-2 r\bar r\cos(\theta)\right)^{3/2}}d\bar r
& = &
-r\left(
(3\cos^2(\theta)-1)
\ln (-\cos(\theta)+\frac{\bar r}{r}+F(\frac{\bar r}{r},\theta))\right. \\
&+&\left.\frac{1}{F(\frac{\bar r}{r},\theta)}
(-6\frac{\bar r}{r}\cos^2(\theta)+3\cos(\theta)+\frac{{\bar r}^2}{r^2}\cos(\theta)
+\frac{\bar r}{r})\right)+C\\
&:=&r H_2(\frac{\bar r}{r},\theta)+C.
\end{eqnarray*}
Following the definition of $r_{i'+1/2}$ and $r_i$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{r_{i'+1/2}}{r_i}=\frac{2\beta^{i-i'}}{1+\beta},\mbox{ and }
\frac{r_{i'}}{r_i} = \beta^{i-i'}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We calculate the value of the integral
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal K}^{r,0}_{i-i',j-j'}
&=&
\int^{\theta_{j'+1/2}}_{\theta_{j'-1/2}}
\!\!\!
\int^{r_{i'+1/2}}_{r_{i'-1/2}}
\frac{\bar r(r_i-\bar r\cos(\bar\theta-\theta_j))}{\left({\bar r}^2+r^2_i - 2\bar r r_i \cos (\bar \theta-\theta_j)\right)^{3/2}}
d\bar rd\bar \theta\\
&=&\int^{\theta_{j'+1/2}}_{\theta_{j'-1/2}}
-\cos(\bar\theta-\theta_j)\ln (-\cos(\bar\theta-\theta_j)+\bar r/r_i+F(\bar r/r_i,\bar\theta-\theta_j))\\
&+&\frac{2\cos(\bar\theta-\theta_j)\bar r/r_i-1}{F(\bar r/r_i,\bar\theta-\theta_j)}
\left|^{r_{i'+1/2}}_{r_{i'-1/2}}\right.
d\bar\theta
\end{eqnarray*}
The last integral in the above equation is an elliptic integral and a
trapzoidal rule has been applied for its evaluation.
It is of second order accuracy for the integration of a smooth function.
Unfortunately, the presence of a singular function in terms of $\ln(1-\cos(\theta))$
reduces the accuracy of the proposed method for polar coordinate to first order.
Finally, the value ${\cal K}^{r,0}_{i-i',j-j'}$ is approximated as follows and is used in the numerical
calculation,
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal K}^{r,0}_{i-i',j-j'}
&\approx&
\frac{1}{2}\left( H_1(r_{i'+1/2}/r_i,\theta_{j'+1/2}-\theta_j)
\quad -H_1(r_{i'-1/2}/r_i,\theta_{j'+1/2}-\theta_j)\right.\\
&+&H_1(r_{i'+1/2}/r_i,\theta_{j'-1/2}-\theta_j)
-H_1(r_{i'-1/2}/r_i,\theta_{j'-1/2}-\theta_j)\left.\right)(\theta_{j'+1/2}-\theta_{j'-1/2})\\
&:=&H_1(\frac{\bar r}{r_i},{\bar\theta-\theta_j})
\left|^{r_{i'+1/2}}_{r_{i'-1/2}}\right.
\left]^{\theta_{j'+1/2}}_{\theta_{j'-1/2}}\right.,
\end{eqnarray*}
where the notation $f(\cdot)]^b_a = \frac{1}{2}(f(b)+f(a))(b-a)$.
Similarly,
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal K}^{r,r}_{i-i',j-j'}
&\approx &
H_2(\frac{\bar r}{r_i},{\bar \theta-\theta_j})
\left|^{r_{i'+1/2}}_{r_{i'-1/2}}\right.
\left]^{\theta_{j'+1/2}}_{\theta_{j'-1/2}}\right.-\frac{r_{i'}}{r_i}{\cal K}^{r,0}_{i-i',j-j'},\\
{\cal K}^{r,\theta}_{i-i',j-j'}
&\approx&
(\bar\theta-\theta_j) H_1(\frac{\bar r}{r_i},\bar\theta-\theta_j)
\left|^{r_{i'+1/2}}_{r_{i'-1/2}}\right.
\left]^{\theta_{j'+1/2}}_{\theta_{j'-1/2}}\right..\\
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsection{The calculation of azimuthal forces}
Next, we introduce the calculation for ${\cal K}^{\theta,0}_{i-i',j-j'}$,
${\cal K}^{\theta,r}_{i-i',j-j'}$, and
${\cal K}^{\theta,\theta}_{i-i',j-j'}$.
\noindent
In particular, we calculate the value of the integral
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal K}^{\theta,0}_{i-i',j-j'}
&=&r_i
\int^{\theta_{j'+1/2}}_{\theta_{j'-1/2}}
\!\!\!
\int^{r_{i'+1/2}}_{r_{i'-1/2}}
\frac{{\bar r}^2 \sin({\bar \theta-\theta_j})}{\left({\bar r}^2+r^2_i - 2\bar r r_i \cos (\bar \theta-\theta_j)\right)^{3/2}}
d\bar rd\bar \theta\\
&=& - r_i \left(
F(\frac{\bar r}{r_i},{\bar \theta-\theta_j})+\frac{\bar r}{r_i}\ln(-\cos(\bar \theta-\theta_j)+\frac{\bar r}{r_i}
+F(\frac{\bar r}{r_i},{\bar \theta-\theta_j}))
\right)\left|^{r_{i'+1/2}}_{r_{i'-1/2}}\!\left|^{\theta_{j'+1/2}}_{\theta_{j'-1/2}}\right.\right..
\end{eqnarray*}
Similarly,
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal K}^{\theta,r}_{i-i',j-j'}
&=&
- r_i
(-1+\frac{\bar r}{2r_i}+\frac{3}{2}\cos(\bar\theta-\theta_j))
F(\frac{\bar r}{r_i},{\bar \theta-\theta_j}) \\
&-& r^2_i
(\frac{3}{2}\cos^2({\bar \theta-\theta_j})
-\frac{1}{2}-\cos({\bar \theta-\theta_j}) )
\ln(-\cos(\bar \theta-\theta_j)+\frac{\bar r}{r_i}
+F(\frac{\bar r}{r_i},{\bar \theta-\theta_j}))
\left|^{r_{i'+1/2}}_{r_{i'-1/2}}\!\left|^{\theta_{j'+1/2}}_{\theta_{j'-1/2}}\right.\right..
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal K}^{\theta,\theta}_{i-i',j-j'}
\approx
r_i\frac{{\bar \theta}-\theta_j}{-1+\cos^2({\bar\theta-\theta_j})}
\left(
\sin({\bar \theta}-\theta_j)
(\frac{\bar r}{r_i}-2\cos^2({\bar \theta}-\theta_j)\frac{\bar r}{r_i}
+\cos({\bar \theta}-\theta_j))\right.\\
\left.
+(\cos^2({\bar \theta}-\theta_j)-\sin({\bar \theta}-\theta_j))
\ln(-\cos({\bar \theta}-\theta_j)+\frac{\bar r}{r_i}+F(\frac{\bar r}{r_i},{\bar\theta-\theta_j})
\right)\left|^{r_{i'+1/2}}_{r_{i'-1/2}}\right.\left]^{\theta_{j'+1/2}}_{\theta_{j'-1/2}}\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
\section{Order of accuracy and a comparison study}
\label{secAccurcy}
\subsection{Order of accuracy}
We investigate the numerical errors induced by the truncation introduced in
(\ref{sigmaapro}), which is
\begin{eqnarray*}
O\left(((\Delta x)^2+(\Delta y)^2)
\int\!\!\!\int_{D_{i',j'}}
\frac{|\bar x-x_i|}{\left((\bar x-x_i)^2+(\bar y-y_j)^2\right)^{3/2}}d\bar x d\bar y
\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
The last integral in the above estimation is $O(|\ln \Delta x|)$
which gives the numerical error of order $O((\Delta x)^2 |\ln \Delta x|)=O((\Delta x)^{2-})$
with $\Delta x=\Delta y$.
Three types of norm are used to measure the errors between the numerical
and analytic solutions. The
$L^1$, $L^2$, and $L^\infty$ norms of a function $f$ on a domain $\Omega$ are defined as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|f\|_p=\left(\int_\Omega |f(\vec{x})|^p d\vec{x}\right)^{1/p},\mbox{ for } p= 1,2,
\mbox{ and }
\|f\|_\infty=\mbox{ess sup}_{\Omega}|f(\vec{x})|.
\end{eqnarray*}
The errors between the analytic and numerical solutions for
various resolutions using different norms $L^1$, $L^2$,
and $L^\infty$ demonstrate the convergence in
total variation, energy, and pointwise senses, respectively.
We verify that the proposed method is of second order accuracy
by demonstrating the following examples,
a $D_2$ disk~\cite{ESchulz}, a non-axisymmetric disk consisting of two superposed $D_2$ disks
and a non-axisymmetric disk describing a pair of spirals.
\vskip 0.5cm
\noindent{\it Example 1}.
The $D_2$ disk has the surface density
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma_{D_2}(R;\alpha)
=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\sigma_0 (1-R/\alpha^2)^{3/2} & \mbox{ for } R<\alpha,\\
0 & \mbox{ for } R>\alpha,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
where $R=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ and $\alpha$ is a given constant.
The corresponding potential on the $z=0$ plane is
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Phi_{D_2}(R,0;\alpha)
=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\frac{3\pi^2\sigma_0 R G}{64\alpha^3}(8\alpha^4-8\alpha^2R^2+3R^4) & \mbox{ for } R\le \alpha\\
-\frac{3\pi\sigma_0 G}{32\alpha}
\left[(8\alpha^4-8\alpha^2R^2+3R^4)\sin^{-1}(\frac{\alpha}{R})
+3\alpha(2\alpha^2-R^2)\sqrt{R^2-\alpha^2}\right] & \mbox{ for } R\ge \alpha,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
and the radial force is found as
\begin{eqnarray*}
F_{R,D_2}(R,0;\alpha)
=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\frac{3\pi^2\sigma_0 R G}{16\alpha^3}(4\alpha^2-3R^2) & \mbox{ for } R\le \alpha\\
-\frac{3\pi\sigma_0 G}{8\alpha^3}\left[R(4\alpha^2-3R^2)\sin^{-1}(\frac{\alpha}{R})
-\alpha(2\alpha^2-3R^2)\sqrt{1-\alpha^2/R^2}\right] & \mbox{ for } R\ge \alpha.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
Without loss of generality for studying the order of accuracy,
let us set the computational domain $\Omega=[-1,1]\times [-1,1]$,
$\sigma_0=G=1$ and $\alpha=0.25$.
We illustrate the contour plots
of the surface density, $x$-directional force, $y$-directional force,
radial force, residuals between analytic and numerical solutions
for $x$ , and radial directions for $N=1024$ in Fig.~\ref{D2N1024}.
The residuals show that the largest errors occur in regions
surrounding the edge of the disk where the second derivative
of the surface density with respect to radius
is infinite.
In Table~\ref{tblD2},
the column $E^p_x$ and $E^p_R$ is the error of
the $x$ directional force and $R$ radial direction by $p$-norm, $p=1,2$,
and $\infty$, between the analytic and numerical solutions.
The column $O^p_x$ in Table~\ref{tblD2} is the order of accuracy as measured
by $\log_2(E^p_x(2^{k-1})/E^p_x(2^k))$ for $k=6$ to $10$ and similarly for $O^p_R$.
These errors show that this method is nearly of second order accuracy.
More precisely, we obtain the order of convergence to be about $1.8$ or $1.9$
as measured by the $L^1$ and $L^2$ norms for the simulation of a $D_2$ disk.
The $L^\infty$ norm only demonstrates the convergence,
since the second derivatives of the surface density of the $D_2$ disk are not bounded.
\vskip 0.5cm
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|} \hline
$N$ & $E^1_x$ & $E^2_x$ & $E^\infty_x$ & $E^1_R$ & $E^2_R$ & $L^\infty_R$ \\ \hline
32 &1.156E-2 &1.134E-2 &2.231E-2 &1.788E-2 &1.589E-2 &2.315E-2 \\ \hline
64 &3.039E-3 &3.176E-3 &7.525E-3 &4.742E-3 &4.460E-3 &8.535E-3 \\ \hline
128 &8.476E-4 &9.312E-4 &5.264E-3 &1.319E-3 &1.309E-3 &5.906E-3 \\ \hline
256 &2.161E-4 &2.444E-4 &1.932E-3 &3.379E-4 &3.439E-4 &1.994E-3 \\ \hline
512 &5.620E-5 &6.884E-5 &9.478E-4 &8.795E-5 &9.695E-5 &9.842E-4 \\ \hline
1024&1.427E-5 &1.824E-5 &3.281E-4 &2.236E-5 &2.570E-5 &3.470E-4 \\ \hline \hline
$N_{k-1}/N_k$ & $O^1_x$ & $O^2_x$ & $O^\infty_x$ & $O^1_R$ & $O^2_R$ & $O^\infty_R$ \\ \hline
32/64 &1.927 &1.836 &1.567 &1.914 &1.833 &1.439 \\ \hline
64/128 &1.842 &1.770 &0.515 &1.846 &1.768 &0.531 \\ \hline
128/256 &1.971 &1.929 &1.446 &1.964 &1.928 &1.566 \\ \hline
256/512 &1.943 &1.827 &1.027 &1.941 &1.826 &1.018 \\ \hline
512/1024&1.977 &1.916 &1.530 &1.975 &1.915 &1.504 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{This table demonstrates
the errors and order accuracy of the proposed method
for the $D_2$ disk for various number of zones $N=2^k$ from
$k=5$ to $10$.
It shows that the order for the $D_2$ disk is about $1.8$ or
$1.9$ order in $L^1$ and $L^2$ norm.
}
\label{tblD2}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.43\textwidth]{D2N1024SDC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.43\textwidth]{D2N1024YFC.eps}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.43\textwidth]{D2N1024XFC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.43\textwidth]{D2N1024RFC.eps}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.43\textwidth]{D2N1024DXFC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.43\textwidth]{D2N1024DRFC.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The numerical solutions of a $D_2$ disk for $N=1024$,
the contour plots are surface density (upper left),
the $y$-directional force (upper right),
the $x$-directional force (middle left),
the radial force (middle right),
the difference between analytic and numerical solutions
in $x$ direction (lower left),
and the difference in radial direction (lower right).
The values in the lower contour plots are
the absolute difference in the common logarithmic scale.
}
\label{D2N1024}
\end{figure}
We continue to use the $D_2$ disk as an example
and a unit disk $D(0,1)=\Omega=[0,1]\times [0,2\pi]$
as the computational domain to investigate the self-gravitational force in
polar coordinates. The value $\beta_0=0.99$ is set. We show the contour plots
of the surface density, radial force, and the difference between
analytic and numerical solutions for $N=512$ in Fig.~\ref{D2N512P}
and the order of accuracy is only about 1 as given in Table~\ref{tblPD2}.
The largest errors occur in regions not only surrounding the edge of the disk,
but also close to the origin. Although the surface density
at the origin is smooth, the singular elliptic integral introduces significant error there.
Hereafter, we concentrate on the self-gravitational forces in Cartesian coordinates.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|} \hline
$N$ & $E^1_R$ & $E^2_R$ & $L^\infty_R$ & $N_{k-1}/N_k$ & $O^1_R$ & $O^2_R$ & $O^\infty_R$ \\ \hline
32 &1.603E-1 &1.725E-1 &2.725E-1 & & & & \\ \hline
64 &7.618E-2 &8.289E-2 &1.361E-1 & 32/64 & 1.073 & 1.057 & 1.002 \\ \hline
128 &3.646E-2 &4.045E-2 &6.806E-2 & 64/128 & 1.063 & 1.035 & 1.000 \\ \hline
256 &1.754E-2 &2.098E-2 &3.403E-2 & 128/256 & 1.056 & 0.947 & 1.000 \\ \hline
512 &8.762E-3 &1.049E-2 &1.701E-2 & 256/512 & 1.001 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{This table demonstrates
the errors and order accuracy of the proposed method
for the $D_2$ disk for various number of zones $N=2^k$ from
$k=5$ to $10$ on polar coordinates.
It shows that the order for the $D_2$ disk is about 1 in each norm.
}
\label{tblPD2}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.31\textwidth]{D2N512PSDC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.31\textwidth]{D2N512PRFC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.31\textwidth]{D2N512PDRFC.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The numerical solutions of a $D_2$ disk for $N=512$
to investigate the self-gravitational force calculation in polar coordinate.
From left to right,
the contour plots are surface density,
the radial directional force,
the difference between analytic and numerical solutions, respectively.
The values in the right contour plot are
the absolute difference in the common logarithmic scale.
}
\label{D2N512P}
\end{figure}
\vskip 0.5cm
\noindent{\it Example 2}.
The disk $D_{2,2}$ of two superposed $D_2$ has the surface density
$\Sigma_{D_{2,2}}= \Sigma_{D_2}(R_1;\alpha)+\Sigma_{D_2}(R_2;\alpha)$, where
$R_1=\sqrt{(x-1/4)^2+y^2}$ and $R_2=\sqrt{(x+1/4)^2+y^2}$.
This example represents a non-symmetric distribution of the surface density of a disk.
The results are shown in Table \ref{tblD2D2} and Figure \ref{DDN1024}.
This result is similarly to Example 1.
The factors $O^\infty_x$ of errors in Table \ref{tblD2D2}
are non-monotonic as the numerical resolution, $N_k$, increases.
This may be due to the distribution of the surface density on grid cells,
the centers of which can shift with varying numerical resolution.
However, the total variation and energy shows the convergence and
the order of accuracy is about 1.8 and 1.9 respectively.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c||c|c|c||c|c|c|} \hline
$N$ & $E^1_x$ & $E^2_x$ & $E^\infty_x$ & $E^1_y$ & $E^2_y$ & $E^\infty_y$ & $E^1_R$ & $E^2_R$ & $L^\infty_R$ \\ \hline
32 &1.56E-2 &1.29E-2 &2.19E-2 & 2.09E-2 & 1.71E-2 & 3.57E-2 &2.56E-2 &1.95E-2 &3.55E-2 \\ \hline
64 &4.29E-3 &3.83E-3 &7.75E-3 & 5.38E-3 & 4.57E-3 & 1.07E-2 &6.89E-3 &5.53E-3 &1.16E-2 \\ \hline
128 &1.23E-3 &1.18E-3 &5.41E-3 & 1.50E-3 & 1.35E-3 & 5.72E-3 &1.96E-3 &1.64E-3 &5.81E-3 \\ \hline
256 &3.17E-4 &3.12E-4 &1.94E-3 & 3.83E-4 & 3.54E-4 & 1.96E-3 &5.06E-4 &4.34E-4 &2.01E-3 \\ \hline
512 &8.32E-5 &9.00E-5 &9.49E-4 & 9.99E-5 & 9.89E-5 & 9.53E-4 &1.33E-4 &1.23E-4 &9.64E-4 \\ \hline
1024&2.12E-5 &2.41E-5 &3.28E-4 & 2.54E-5 & 2.62E-5 & 3.29E-4 &3.39E-5 &3.29E-5 &3.38E-4 \\ \hline \hline
$N$ & $O^1_x$ & $O^2_x$ & $O^\infty_x$ & $O^1_y$& $O^2_y$& $O^\infty_y$& $O^1_R$ & $O^2_R$ & $O^\infty_R$ \\ \hline
32/64 &1.86 &1.75 &1.50 & 1.96 & 1.87 & 1.74 &1.89 &1.82 &1.62 \\ \hline
64/128 &1.80 &1.71 &0.52 & 1.85 & 1.79 & 0.90 &1.81 &1.75 &1.00 \\ \hline
128/256 &1.96 &1.91 &1.48 & 1.97 & 1.93 & 1.55 &1.95 &1.92 &1.53 \\ \hline
256/512 &1.93 &1.79 &1.03 & 1.94 & 1.84 & 1.04 &1.93 &1.81 &1.06 \\ \hline
512/1024&1.97 &1.90 &1.53 & 1.98 & 1.91 & 1.53 &1.97 &1.90 &1.51 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{This table demonstrates
the errors and order of accuracy of the proposed method
for the $D_{2,2}$ disk for various number of zones $N=2^k$ from
$k=5$ to $10$.
It shows that the order for the $D_{2,2}$ disk is about $1.8$ or
$1.9$ order in $L^1$ and $L^2$ norm.
}
\label{tblD2D2}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{DDN1024SDC.eps}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{DDN1024XFC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{DDN1024YFC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{DDN1024RFC.eps}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{DDN1024DXFC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{DDN1024DYFC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{DDN1024DRFC.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The numerical solutions of a $D_{2,2}$ disk for $N=1024$,
The top contour plot is the surface density.
The contour plots in the second row are the $x$-directional,
$y$-directional, and radial forces, respectively.
The corresponding errors between the numerical and analytic solutions in the third row.
The values in the contour plots in the third row are
the absolute errors in the common logarithmic scale.
}
\label{DDN1024}
\end{figure}
\vskip 0.5cm
\noindent{\it Example 3}. As another example of a non-axisymmetric potential, we consider a logarithmic
spiral disk. Since an analytic pair for the surface density and potential are not known, we assume a surface
density profile of the form
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Sigma_{LS}(r,\theta)=e^{-2r^2}(2+\cos(2\theta+16 r)).
\end{eqnarray*}
To investigate the order of accuracy, the solution at the finest mesh size is regarded as
the true solution.
For various coarser resolutions, the values at some specific position
are taken to be the average of the four closest to the position.
The results are shown for the method based on Cartesian coordinates in
Table \ref{tblCS3} and Figure \ref{EX3CPSD}.
It can be seen that the order of accuracy is about $1.5$ for the $L^1$ norm
and about $1$ for the $L^2$ norm. The $L^\infty$ norm is only convergent.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c||c|c|c||c|c|c|} \hline
$N$ & $E^1_x$ & $E^2_x$ & $E^\infty_x$ & $E^1_y$ & $E^2_y$ & $E^\infty_y$ & $E^1_R$ & $E^2_R$ & $L^\infty_R$ \\ \hline
32 &3.40E-1 &2.97E-1 &1.40E-0 & 3.38E-1 & 2.98E-1 & 1.39E-0 &4.64E-1 &3.03E-1 &4.27E-1\\ \hline
64 &1.21E-1 &1.70E-1 &1.83E-0 & 1.23E-1 & 1.72E-1 & 1.83E-0 &1.36E-1 &9.29E-2 &2.07E-1\\ \hline
128 &4.71E-2 &9.28E-2 &1.92E-0 & 4.83E-2 & 9.51E-2 & 1.92E-0 &3.97E-2 &3.93E-2 &2.02E-1\\ \hline
256 &1.87E-2 &4.50E-2 &1.71E-0 & 1.93E-2 & 4.68E-2 & 1.71E-0 &1.17E-2 &2.11E-2 &1.75E-1\\ \hline
512 &6.05E-3 &1.67E-2 &1.16E-0 & 6.30E-3 & 1.78E-2 & 1.16E-0 &1.00E-3 &9.53E-3 &1.54E-1 \\ \hline \hline
$N$ & $O^1_x$ & $O^2_x$ & $O^\infty_x$ & $O^1_y$& $O^2_y$& $O^\infty_y$& $O^1_R$ & $O^2_R$ & $O^\infty_R$ \\ \hline
32/64 &1.49 &0.81 &-0.39 & 1.46 & 0.79 & -0.40 &1.77 &1.70 &1.05 \\ \hline
64/128 &1.36 &0.87 &-0.07 & 1.34 & 0.85 & -0.07 &1.77 &1.24 &0.03 \\ \hline
128/256 &1.34 &1.05 &0.17 & 1.32 & 1.02 & 0.17 &1.76 &0.90 &0.21 \\ \hline
256/512 &1.63 &1.43 &0.56 & 1.62 & 1.62 & 0.56 &1.96 &1.14 &0.18 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{This table demonstrates
the errors and order of accuracy of the proposed method
for the spiral disk for various number of zones $N=2^k$ from
$k=5$ to $9$.
It shows that the order for the spiral disk is about 1.5 or 1.0 in the $L^1$ and $L^2$ norms, respectively.
}
\label{tblCS3}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.42\textwidth]{e20120519CSDC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.42\textwidth]{e20120519CFXC.eps}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.42\textwidth]{e20120519CFYC.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.42\textwidth]{e20120519CFRC.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The numerical solutions of a logarithmic spiral disk for $N=512$
to investigate the self-gravitational force calculation.
The contour plots illustrate the surface density (upper left),
$x$-force (upper right), $y$-force (low left), and radial force (lower right).}
\label{EX3CPSD}
\end{figure}
\subsection{A comparison study}
The goal of this paper is to calculate the self-gravitational forces with as few restrictions
as possible. The most straight forward approach is to solve for the potential via (\ref{DPG}) and
obtain the self-gravitational forces by taking its derivatives.
If one uses the finite difference or finite element method on (\ref{DPG}), the discretization is
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{-\Phi_{i+1,j ,k }+2\Phi_{i,j,k}-\Phi_{i-1,j ,k }}{(\Delta x)^2}+
\frac{-\Phi_{i ,j+1,k }+2\Phi_{i,j,k}-\Phi_{i ,j-1,k }}{(\Delta y)^2}+
\frac{-\Phi_{i ,j ,k+1}+2\Phi_{i,j,k}-\Phi_{i ,j ,k-1}}{(\Delta z)^2}
=-f_{i,j,k}
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\Phi_{i,j,k}=\Phi(x_i,y_j,z_k)$ and $f_{i,j,k}=f(x_i,y_j,z_k)$
based on the uniform mesh grids $(x_i,y_j,z_k)$. Here,
$f_{i,j,k}=0$ for $k\not=0$.
For such an approach, artificial boundary conditions should be imposed and a fully 3-dimensional
calculation must be undertaken. We point out that the (\ref{DPG}) can not be reduced to the two
dimensional numerical partial differential problem, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{-\Phi_{i+1,j, 0}+2\Phi_{i,j,0}-\Phi_{i-1,j ,0}}{(\Delta x)^2}+
\frac{-\Phi_{i ,j+1,0}+2\Phi_{i,j,0}-\Phi_{i ,j-1,0}}{(\Delta y)^2}
=-f_{i,j,0}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Any numerical solution of the partial differential problem will involve $O(N^3)$ unknowns.
It follows that the linear complexity of such an approach, viz. multigrid method, is at least
$O(N^3)$. For an infinitesimally thin gaseous disk problem,
this approach does not appear to be suitable.
Alternatively, one can solve the reduced equation given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Phi(x,y,0)=-G\int\!\!\!\int
\frac{\sigma(\bar x,\bar y)}{\sqrt{(\bar x-x)^2+(\bar y-y)^2}}
d\bar x d\bar y
\end{eqnarray*}
or
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Phi(r,\theta,0)=-G\int\!\!\!\int
\frac{\sigma(\bar r,\bar \theta)}{\sqrt{{\bar r}^2+r^2-2\bar r r \cos(\bar\theta-\theta)}}
\bar r d\bar r d\bar \theta.
\end{eqnarray*}
In this case, one can consider using bases functions on a two dimensional space as in a
spectral method. Unfortunately, this approach requires a treatment for the boundary conditions.
A possible way to deal with this issue is to impose periodic boundary conditions.
However, it is not realistic for a gravitational force calculation because gravity is a long range
force and not periodic.
As an alternative, a method without the periodic assumption has been proposed for
polar coordinates~\cite{Kalnajs1971}. The approach in \cite{Kalnajs1971}
transforms the polar coordinate $(r,\theta)$ into the coordinate $(u,\theta)$
by setting $r=e^u$ or $u=\ln(r)$. The potential-density pair
in term of the reduced surface density and reduced potential is given in \cite{Kalnajs1971},
and it is
\begin{eqnarray*}
e^{3u/2}\sigma(e^u,\theta)=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\sum_m \int^\infty_{-\infty}A_m(\alpha)e^{i(m\theta+\alpha u)}d\alpha
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{uPotentials}
e^{u/2}\Phi(e^u,\theta) = -\frac{1}{2\pi}G\sum_m \int^\infty_{-\infty}K(\alpha,m)A_m(\alpha)
\exp[i(m\theta+\alpha u)]d\alpha,
\end{eqnarray}
where $K$ is real and positive and is defined as
\begin{eqnarray*}
K(\alpha,m)\equiv \frac{1}{2}
\frac{\Gamma[(m+1/2+i\alpha)/2]\Gamma[(m+1/2-i\alpha)/2]}{\Gamma[(m+3/2+i\alpha)/2]\Gamma[(m+3/2-i\alpha)/2]}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We regard this method as one of the spectral methods because Fourier series $e^{-im\theta}$
and Fourier integral $e^{-i\alpha u}$ are used.
To apply this method to the $D_2$ disk using the polar coordinates, we transform the
bounded unit disk $D(0,1)=[0,1]\times [0,2\pi]$ to
the unbounded domain $U=(-\infty,0]\times [0,2\pi]$.
In this special case, we only need to compute $m=0$ and truncate
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Amalpha}
A_0(\alpha)=\int^0_{-\infty} e^{3u/2}\sigma(e^u)e^{-i\alpha u}du
\approx \int^0_{u_{\min}} e^{3u/2}\sigma(e^u)e^{-i\alpha u}du,
\end{eqnarray}
where the value $u_{\min}$ is to approximate $-\infty$.
The truncation produces a hole in the unit disk and can introduce significant errors at the origin.
Given a positive integer $N$ and
base on the discretization for the radial region in the previous subsection,
to calculate (\ref{Amalpha}) and (\ref{uPotentials}) by the trapzoidal rule.
The variation of the potential with respect to radius is illustrated in
Figure~\ref{Kalnajs1D}. The profile on the left panel shows that the numerical
and analytic solutions for the Kalnajs' method agree well except close to the origin
for $N=1024$. The small window embedded within the panel zooms in on the residuals
between numerical and analytic solution on the interval $[0,0.3]$. It is seen that the
truncated portion contributes to significant errors near the origin. In contrast, the
application of our proposed method to the calculation of potentials leads to the results
shown in the right panel of Figure~\ref{Kalnajs1D}. Although the singular integration
still remains due to the unbounded domain, our proposed method on either Cartesian and
polar coordinates is preferable since a hole near the origin is not introduced.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.42\textwidth]{Kalnajs1DV3N1024.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.42\textwidth]{CCY1DN1024.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The variation of the potential with respect to radius using Kalnajs' method (left) and
the proposed method (right). The residuals are shown in the small window in each panel and
show that the Kalnajs' method have significant errors near the origin, which are eliminated in
the proposed method. }
\label{Kalnajs1D}
\end{figure}
Finally, a third approach is to directly calculate the integrals and obtain the potential.
For any given mesh grid, the total amount of complexity is $O(N^4)$ based on the number
$O(N^2)$ of mesh zones. If we restrict ourselves to a uniform grid and use the FFT technique,
the complexity can be reduced from $O(N^4)$ to $O(N^2)$.
In other words, a fast algorithm of linear complexity is obtained.
It is common to start with
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Phi(x,y,0)
&=&-G\int\!\!\!\int
{\cal K}(\bar x-x, \bar y-y,0)\sigma(\bar x,\bar y) d\bar x d\bar y\\
&=&-G\sum^N_{i=1}\sum^N_{j=1}
\int\!\!\!\int_{D_{i,j}}
{\cal K}(\bar x-x, \bar y-y,0)\sigma(\bar x,\bar y) d\bar x d\bar y.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
and to introduce a softening parameter $\epsilon$ to approximate
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int\!\!\!\int_{D_{i,j}}{\cal K}(\bar x-x,\bar y-y)\sigma(\bar x,\bar y)
\approx -\frac{G}{\sqrt{\epsilon^2+(x_{i'}-x_i)^2+(y_{j'}-y_j)^2}}
\int\!\!\!\int_{D_{i,j}}\sigma(\bar x,\bar y)d\bar x d\bar y.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since the goal is to calculate the forces,
the order of accuracy is reduced when taking
the numerical differentiation on the numerical solution of potentials.
For polar coordinates~\cite{Binney}, the value of ${\cal K}$ is approximated by
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal K}_{i'-i,j'-j}
:= -\frac{G}{\sqrt{2(\cosh(u_{i'}-u_i)-\cos(\theta_{j'}-\theta_j))}},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $u_{i'}=\ln(x_{i'})$ and $u_i=\ln(x_i)$.
Note that when $(i',j')=(i,j)$, ${\cal K}$ is undefined.
An approach to avoid the singularity
problem can be found in~\cite{Binney}.
On the other hand, the proposed method avoids the
singularity problem by directly evaluating the forces, hence, raising the order of accuracy.
For Cartesian coordinates, we choose the softening parameters as
the mesh size $\epsilon=\Delta x$. The errors for the disks $D_2$
and $D_{2,2}$ are shown in Table~\ref{tblSPCD2}
and Table~\ref{tblSPCD2D2}, respectively.
It reveals that the accuracy when using
the softening parameter approach for the $D_2$ and $D_{2,2}$ disks
is of first order in the $L^1$ and $L^2$ norms.
For the $L^\infty$ norm, the order of accuracy for the $D_2$ disk
is about $1$. For the $D_{2,2}$ disk, this method loses accuracy.
In comparison with our proposed method for Example 1 and Example 2,
our methods are more accurate and the order of accuracy is verified.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|} \hline
$N$ & $E^1_x$ & $E^2_x$ & $L^\infty_x$ & $N_{k-1}/N_k$ & $O^1_x$ & $O^2_x$ & $O^\infty_x$ \\ \hline
32 &4.283E-1 &5.116E-1 &9.981E-1 & & & & \\ \hline
64 &2.223E-1 &2.768E-1 &5.415E-1 & 32/64 & 0.9461 & 0.8862 & 0.9377 \\ \hline
128 &1.133E-1 &1.442E-1 &2.827E-1 & 64/128 & 0.9724 & 0.9408 & 0.9377 \\ \hline
256 &5.721E-2 &7.364E-2 &1.440E-1 & 128/256 & 0.9858 & 0.9695 & 0.9732 \\ \hline
512 &2.874E-2 &3.722E-2 &7.282E-2 & 256/512 & 0.9932 & 0.9844 & 0.9837 \\ \hline
1024&1.440E-2 &1.871E-2 &3.659E-2 & 512/1024 & 0.9970 & 0.9923 & 0.9929 \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{This table demonstrates
the errors and order accuracy of the softening parameter method
for the $D_2$ disk for various number of zones $N=2^k$ from
$k=5$ to $10$ in Cartesian coordinates.
It shows that the accuracy for the $D_2$ disk is about first order.}
\label{tblSPCD2}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c||c|c|c||c|c|c|} \hline
$N$ & $E^1_x$ & $E^2_x$ & $E^\infty_x$ & $E^1_y$ & $E^2_y$ & $E^\infty_y$ & $E^1_R$ & $E^2_R$ & $L^\infty_R$ \\ \hline
32 &5.95E-1 &5.61E-1 &1.00E-0 & 9.13E-1 & 8.31E-2 & 1.46E-0 &1.16E-0 &9.32E-1 &1.45E-0 \\ \hline
64 &3.10E-1 &3.10E-1 &5.42E-1 & 4.73E-1 & 4.49E-3 & 8.04E-1 &5.97E-1 &5.06E-1 &8.04E-1 \\ \hline
128 &1.59E-1 &1.69E-1 &4.17E-1 & 2.41E-1 & 2.36E-3 & 4.22E-1 &3.03E-1 &2.69E-1 &4.21E-1 \\ \hline
256 &8.04E-2 &9.29E-2 &4.17E-1 & 1.22E-1 & 1.24E-4 & 3.02E-1 &1.53E-1 &1.44E-1 &4.17E-1 \\ \hline
512 &4.05E-2 &5.31E-2 &4.17E-1 & 6.10E-2 & 6.57E-5 & 3.03E-1 &7.68E-2 &7.85E-2 &4.17E-1 \\ \hline
1024&2.03E-2 &3.19E-2 &4.17E-1 & 3.06E-2 & 3.61E-5 & 3.03E-1 &3.85E-2 &4.49E-2 &4.17E-1 \\ \hline \hline
$N$ & $O^1_x$ & $O^2_x$ & $O^\infty_x$ & $O^1_y$& $O^2_y$& $O^\infty_y$& $O^1_R$ & $O^2_R$ & $O^\infty_R$ \\ \hline
32/64 &0.94 &0.86 &0.88 & 0.95 & 0.89 & 0.86 &0.95 &0.88 &0.85 \\ \hline
64/128 &0.97 &0.88 &0.38 & 0.97 & 0.93 & 0.93 &0.98 &0.91 &0.93 \\ \hline
128/256 &0.98 &0.86 &0.00 & 0.99 & 0.93 & 0.47 &0.99 &0.90 &0.02 \\ \hline
256/512 &0.99 &0.80 &0.00 & 0.99 & 0.91 & 0.00 &0.99 &0.87 &0.00 \\ \hline
512/1024&0.99 &0.73 &0.00 & 1.00 & 0.86 & 0.00 &0.99 &0.80 &0.00 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{This table demonstrates
the errors and order accuracy of the softening parameter approach
for the $D_{2,2}$ disk for various number of zones $N=2^k$ from
$k=5$ to $10$.
It shows that the order for the $D_{2,2}$ disk is about first order in $L^1$ and $L^2$ norm.
For measurement of $L^\infty$ norm, this method may fail in convergence under the pointwise sense.
}
\label{tblSPCD2D2}
\end{table}
We implement the proposed method using MATLAB 7 software
under the computer system, Intel Core 2 Duo CPU 1.8GHz with 2 GB RAM.
The CPU time measurement information of the proposed method
is compared with the direct method in Table~\ref{tblCPUtime}.
We list the CPU times in evaluating the kernels ${\cal K}^{\cdot,\cdot}$,
the force calculations of convolutions, and the whole process.
The measurement is evaluated by the mean of 40 simulations. It shows that the CPU times
of both of the proposed method (P.M.) and the direct method (D.M.) are comparable.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c||c|c|} \hline
& \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{Kernel ${\cal K}$}
& \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{Force}
& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{The whole process}\\ \hline
$N$ &P.M. & D.M. & P.M. & D.M. & P.M. & D.M. \\ \hline
32 & 9.73E-3 & 7.43E-3 & 6.10E-3 & 3.43E-3 & 1.60E-2 & 2.31E-2 \\ \hline
64 & 3.80E-2 & 2.39E-2 & 2.08E-2 & 1.26E-2 & 5.87E-2 & 3.74E-2 \\ \hline
128 & 1.27E-1 & 9.67E-2 & 1.06E-1 & 6.43E-2 & 2.43E-1 & 1.60E-1 \\ \hline
256 & 5.11E-1 & 3.84E-1 & 6.48E-1 & 3.96E-2 & 1.18E+0 & 7.84E-1 \\ \hline
512 & 2.18E+0 & 1.57E+0 & 2.75E+0 & 1.61E+0 & 4.83E+0 & 3.29E+0 \\ \hline
1024 & 8.59E+0 & 6.29E+0 & 1.13E+1 & 6.49E+0 & 2.01E+1 & 1.43E+1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{This table demonstrates the CPU time measurement of
the proposed method (P.M.) and direct method (D.M.) with softening parameters.
The whole process consists of the generation of kernels
and the forces of calculations.
It shows that the CPU times of both of P.M. and D.M. are comparable.}
\label{tblCPUtime}
\end{table}
\section{Discussion and conclusion}
\label{secConlusion}
We have presented a near second order method for calculating the self-gravitating force
of an infinitesimally thin disk for Cartesian coordinates.
For polar coordinates, we find that the method is near first order, $\sim 0.89$, only.
To quantify the accuracy, we define
\begin{eqnarray*}
E_k =
\left|
\int^{\theta_k}_{-\theta_k}\ln (1-\cos(\theta))d\theta-\frac{1}{2}(\ln(1-\cos(\theta_k))+\ln(1-\cos(-\theta_k))2(\theta_k),
\right|
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\theta_k=1/2^k$.
Table~\ref{tblSingular} reveals that the accuracy of the trapzoidal rule
for the integration of the function $\ln (1-\cos(\theta))$ is nearly of first order.
With an improvement of the singular integration of
$\ln(1-\cos(\theta))$, the accuracy can be increased for the proposed method in polar coordinates.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c||c|c|c||c|c|c|} \hline
(Term, $k$ ) & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 \\ \hline
$E_k$ & 2.86 & 1.73 & 1.07 & 0.55 & 0.34 & 0.20 & 0.11 & 0.06 & 0.03 \\ \hline
$\log_2(E_{k-1}/E_k)$ & & 0.75 & 0.79 & 0.82 & 0.84 & 0.85 & 0.87 & 0.88 & 0.89 \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{This table demonstrates the accuracy of the trapzoidal rule for
the integration of the function $\ln(1-cos(\theta))$ is
near of first order $\sim 0.89$.
}
\label{tblSingular}
\end{table}
We note that the fast Fourier transform is only used to reduce the computational time.
For the practical computation, one can extend the range of the summation in (\ref{Fx0ji}). By setting
$\sigma_{i',j'}=0$ whenever either $i'$ or $j'$ is in the range $-N+1$ to $0$, the value of any of
the $F^{x,0}_{i,j}$ is unaffected. Furthermore, we can take $\sigma_{i',j'}$ to be
periodic since the sum (\ref{Fx0ji}) does not involve any values of $i'$ and $j'$
outside the first period. We are also free to take ${\cal K}^{x,0}_{i-i',j-j'}$ periodic
by defining it to be the periodic function that agrees with
(\ref{K0iijj}) for $i-i'$ and $j-j'$ in the range $[-N+1,N]$
of the Green function.
An important feature of our approach is that the boundary is not assumed to be periodic.
Our approach is limited to the Cartesian and polar coordinates with uniform
and logarithmic grid discretization, respectively, {which allows for rapid computation.}
That is, the restriction of a convolution of two vectors provides the rapid computation, but it is
restricted to a grid discretization that is either uniform or logarithmic. If the discretization is
arbitrary, then the FFT is not suitable.
We point out that our method may be useful for gravity computations on a nested grid consisting of
uniform grids having different grid spacing designed to resolve a central region with a finer grid.
Such an approach would be complementary to the fast algorithm for solving the Poisson equation on
a nested grid presented by Matsumoto and Hanawa \cite{Matsumoto03}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This paper is dedicated to the memory of Professor C. Yuan,
who initiated the project on the development of the Antares codes.
We thank the two anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions which significantly
improved the presentation of our method in this paper.
The author C. C. Yen thanks the Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics,
Academia Sinica, Taiwan for their constant support.
|
\section*{ 1.\ Introduction}
In the present paper, we consider the large time behavior of the
Cauchy problem for a model system of radiating gas, taking the form
of
$$
\left\{\begin{array}{l} u_{t}+\sum\limits_{j=1}^nf_j(u)_{x_j}+{\rm div}q=0,\ \ \ \ x\in \mathbb{R}^n,\ t>0,\\[3mm]
-\nabla{\rm div}q+q+\nabla u=0,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ x\in
\mathbb{R}^n,\ t>0,
\end{array}
\right.
\eqno(1.1)
$$
with initial data
$$
u(x,0)=u_0(x),\ \ \ \ x\in \mathbb{R}^n. \eqno(1.2)
$$
Here unknown functions
$u=u(x,t):\mathbb{R}^n\times[0,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and
$q=q(x,t):\mathbb{R}^n\times[0,\infty)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$
represent the velocity and radiating heat flux of the gas,
respectively. The notations $\nabla$ and ${\rm div}$ are the
$n$-dimensional gradient and divergence.
$f(u)=(f_1(u),\cdots,f_n(u))\in \mathbb{R}^n$ is a given smooth
function of $u$ satisfying $f_j(u)=O(|u|^2)\ (j=1,\cdots,n)$ for
$u\rightarrow0$.
System (1.1) simplifies the model for the motion of radiating gas in
several space variables. Indeed, in a certain physical situation,
(1.1) is well approximated to the fundamental system describing the
motion of radiating gas:
$$
\left\{\begin{array}{l} \rho_{t}+{\rm div}(\rho u)=0,\\[3mm]
(\rho u)_t+{\rm div}(\rho u\otimes u+pI)=0\\[3mm]
[\rho(e+\frac{|u|^2}{2})]_t+{\rm div}[\rho
u(e+\frac{|u|^2}{2})+pu+q]=0\\[3mm]
-\nabla{\rm div}q+a_1q+a_2\nabla\theta^4=0,
\end{array}
\right.
\eqno(1.3)
$$
where $\rho,u,p,e,\theta$ are respectively the mass density,
velocity, pressure, internal energy and absolute temperature of the
gas, while $q$ is the radiative heat flux. $a_1$ and $a_2$ are given
positive constants depending on the gas itself. The simplified model
(1.1) was first investigated by Hamer \cite{Hamer}, and the
reduction of the full system (1.3) to (1.1) was given in \cite{Gao2,
Hamer, Kawashima7}.
A lot of important works have been done on system (1.1). For
one-dimensional case, we refer to \cite{Francesco2,Serre1,Serre2}
for $L^1$ stability results, \cite{Kawashima6,Lattanzio1,Laurenot1}
for a singular limit and relaxation limit,
\cite{Kawashima3,Kawashima4,Kawashima5,Lattanzio2,
Lattanzio3,Lin1,Lin2,LiuH,Nishibata,Nguyen} for shock waves,
\cite{Iguchi,Kawashima1,Kawashima2} for diffusion waves and
\cite{Kawashima7} for rarefaction waves.
However, there are fewer studies for system (1.1) in the case of
multi-dimensional space. Recently, Francesco in \cite{Francesco1}
obtained the global existence of weak entropy solutions of system
(1.1) and the relaxation limits. Later, Wang and Wang in \cite{Wang}
investigated pointwise estimates of solutions to (1.1)-(1.2) by
means of a detailed analysis for Green's function. More recently,
the asymptotic decay rates toward the planar rarefaction waves based
on the $L^2$-energy method are obtained in \cite{Gao1} for
2-dimensions and in \cite{Gao2} for $n$-dimensions ($n=3,4,5)$,
respectively. The asymptotic behavior of solutions to the diffusion
waves was studied in \cite{Liu1,Ruan}. For the related study of
decay rates to the problem (1.1)-(1.2), we mention \cite{Liu1} and
\cite{Duan1} only. \cite{Liu1} studied large time behavior of
solutions to the problem (1.1)-(1.2) with small initial data in
$L^1$-norm perturbation by using a time-weighted energy method. In
\cite{Duan1}, under the assumption that $\|u_0\|_{L^1}$ is bounded,
Duan $et\ al.$ showed that the optimal $L^2$-norm time-decay rate of
solutions is $(1+t)^{-\frac{n}{4}}$, whereas time-decay estimates of
the derivatives of the solutions have not been considered.
The purpose of this paper is to establish the optimal time decay
rates of the solutions and the derivatives of the solutions to the
Cauchy problem (1.1)-(1.2) without smallness assumptions on the
initial data in $L^1$-norm. It seems that the usual energy method
basing on the linearization analysis doesn't work. By the way, our
first decay result is inspired from Schonbek
\cite{Schonbek2,Schonbek3}, where the well-known Fourier splitting
method is established to get optimal decay rate of solutions for the
incompressible Navier-Stokes
equations in $L^2$-norm or $H^s$-norm. In the present paper,
we generalize the Fourier splitting method with a slight
modification to deal with the problem (1.1)-(1.2) for $\mathbb{R}^n$
with $1\leq n\leq 4$. Our second decay result is illuminated by a
recent work of Guo and Wang \cite{Guo}, where they developed a new
method to establish optimal time decay rates of solutions to the
Cauchy problem for the compressible Navier-Stokes equations and the
Boltzmann equation. The main idea was to combine scaled energy
estimates with an interpolation between negative and positive
Sobolev norms to get the time decay rate for dissipative equations.
By employing this new method, we obtain the optimal
$L^p$-$L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ decay estimates of solutions to the
problem (1.1)-(1.2).
\bigbreak
First, we cite a temporal global existence result established in
\cite{Liu1,Wang}.
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent\textbf{Proposition 1.1.}(\cite{Liu1}, Theorem 2.1;
\cite{Wang}, Theorem 1.1) Assume that $u_0(x)\in H^N(\mathbb{R}^n)\
(n\geq1)$ for an integer $N\geq[\frac{n}{2}]+2$. There exists a
small positive constant $\delta_0$ such that if
$E_0=\|u_0\|_{H^N(\mathbb{R}^n)}\leq\delta_0$, then the problem
(1.1)-(1.2) has a unique global solution $(u,q)(x,t)$ satisfying
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}[b]{rl}
&\D u\in C([0,\infty);H^N(\mathbb{R}^n)),\ \nabla u\in
L^2([0,\infty),H^{N-1}(\mathbb{R}^n)),\\[2mm]
&\D q\in C([0,\infty);H^N(\mathbb{R}^n))\cap
L^2([0,\infty),H^{N+1}(\mathbb{R}^n)).
\end{array}
$$
Moreover, the solution verifies the following uniform energy
estimate
$$
\|u(t)\|_{H^N(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2+\|q(t)\|_{H^{N+1}(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2+\int_0^t(\|\nabla
u(\tau)\|_{H^{N-1}(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2
+\|q(\tau)\|_{H^{N+1}(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2){\rm d}\tau\leq
CE_0^2.\eqno(1.4)
$$
\bigbreak
Our main results in this paper can be stated as follows:
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent\textbf{Theorem 1.1.} Let $1\leq n\leq4$. Suppose
$\|u_0\|_{H^N(\mathbb{R}^n)}\leq\delta_0\ll1$. If further, $u_0\in
L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)$ (which need not be small), we have
$$
\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}\leq
C(1+t)^{-\frac{n}{4}-\frac{l}{2}},\ \ \ \ l=0,1,\cdots,N;
\eqno(1.5)
$$
$$
\|D^lq(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}\leq
C(1+t)^{-\frac{n}{4}-\frac{l+1}{2}},\ \ \ \
l=1,2,\cdots,N-1.\eqno(1.6)
$$
\bigbreak \noindent\textbf{Remark 1.1.} One can rewrite the system
(1.1) as a decouple system of $(u,q)(x,t)$:
$$
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\D u_t+\sum_{j=1}^nf_j(u)_{x_j}=-u+(I-\Delta)^{-1}u, \\[3mm]
q=-(I-\Delta)^{-1}\nabla u.
\end{array}
\right.
\eqno(1.7)
$$
To obtain the time-decay rates of $q(x,t)$, from $(1.7)_2$, it
suffices to prove the estimates on $u(x,t)$, i.e. (1.5). When $l=0$,
(1.5) can be obtained directly by using the usual Fourier splitting
method. In addition, for any integer $n\geq 1$, (1.5) also holds
true, see Proposition 3.1 in Section 3. This is consistent with the
result in \cite{Duan1}. When $l\geq1$, to prove (1.5), the estimates
in the Proposition 1.1 and the smallness of $E_0$ should be
employed, see details in the proof of Proposition 3.2.
\bigbreak \noindent\textbf{Theorem 1.2.} Suppose
$\|u_0\|_{H^N(\mathbb{R}^3)}\leq\delta_0\ll1$. If further, $u_0\in
\dot{H}^{-s}(\mathbb{R}^3)$ (which need not be small), for some
$s\in[0,\frac{3}{2})$, there exists a positive constant $C_0$ such
that
$$
\|u(t)\|_{\dot{H}^{-s}(\mathbb{R}^3)}^2\leq C_0,\ \ \ \ \|q(t)\|_{\dot{H}^{-s}(\mathbb{R}^3)}^2\leq C_0, \eqno(1.8)
$$
and the following decay estimates hold:
$$
\|D^lu(t)\|_{H^{N-l}(\mathbb{R}^3)}\leq C_0(1+t)^{-\frac{l+s}{2}}, \
l=0,\cdots,N, \eqno(1.9)
$$
$$
\|D^lq(t)\|_{H^{N-1-l}(\mathbb{R}^3)}\leq
C_0(1+t)^{-\frac{l+s+1}{2}},\ l=0,\cdots,N-1. \eqno(1.10)
$$
By employing the Hardy-littlewood-Sobolev theorem, for $p\in(1,2]$,
we have $L^p\in\dot{H}^{-s}(\mathbb{R}^3)$ with
$s=3(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{2})\in[0,\frac{3}{2})$. Then, from Theorem
1.2, the following optimal $L^p$-$L^2$ type decay results are
obtained.
\bigbreak \noindent\textbf{Corollary 1.1.($L^p$-$L^2$ time-decay
estimates)} Assume that
$\|u_0\|_{H^N(\mathbb{R}^3)}\leq\delta_0\ll1$. If further,
$u_0(x)\in L^p(\mathbb{R}^3)$ with some $p\in(1,2]$, then the
following decay results hold for any integer $l$ with $0\leq l\leq
N$:
$$
\|D^lu(t)\|_{H^{N-l}(\mathbb{R}^3)}\leq
C_0(1+t)^{-\frac{3}{2}(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{2})-\frac{l}{2}}.\eqno(1.11)
$$
$$
\|D^lq(t)\|_{H^{N+1-l}(\mathbb{R}^3)}\leq
C_0(1+t)^{-\frac{3}{2}(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{2})-\frac{l+1}{2}}.\eqno(1.12)
$$
\bigbreak \noindent\textbf{Remark 1.2.} All the decay results above
are obtained without the smallness of the initial perturbation in
$L^p(\mathbb{R}^3), p\in(1,2]$ or $\dot{H}^{-s}(\mathbb{R}^3)$. The
results generalize those in \cite{Liu1,Wang} for the case of
three-dimensional space. The similar problem in $\mathbb{R}^n$ with
$n=1,2$ will be investigated in future.
\bigbreak \noindent\textbf{Notations.} In this paper, $D^l$ with an
integer $l\geq 0$ stands for the usual any spatial derivatives of
order $l$. For $1\leq p\leq \infty$ and an integer $m\geq 0$, we use
$L^p$ and $W^{m,p}$ denote the usual Lebesgue space
$L^p(\mathbb{R}^n)$ and Sobolev spaces $W^{m,p}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ with
norms $\|\cdot\|_{L^p}$ and $\|\cdot\|_{W^{m,p}}$, respectively, and
set $H^m=W^{m,2}$ with norm $\|\cdot\|_{H^m}$ when $p=2$. In
addition, for $s\in\mathbb{R}$, we define a pseudo-differential
operator $\Lambda^s$ by
$$
\Lambda^sg(x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\xi|^s\hat{g}(\xi){\rm
e}^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}x\cdot\xi} {\rm d}\xi,
$$
where $\hat{g}$ denotes the Fourier transform of $g$. We define the
homogeneous Sobolev space $\dot{H}^s$ of all $g$ for which
$\|g\|_{\dot{H}^s}$ is finite, where
$$
\|g\|_{\dot{H}^s}:=\|\Lambda^sg\|_{L^2}=\||\xi|^s\hat{g}\|_{L^2}.
$$
Throughout this paper, we will use a non-positive index $s$. For
convenience, we will change the index to be ``$-s$'' with $s\geq0$.
$C$ denotes a positive generic (generally large) constant that may
vary at different places. The integration domain $\mathbb{R}^3$ will
be always omitted without any ambiguity.
The rest of this paper is arranged as follows. In the next section,
some Sobolev type inequalities and some preliminaries are given for
later use. Section 3 shows the proof of Theorem 1.1 by using Fourier
splitting method. In the last section, we obtain the time-decay
estimates stated in Theorem 1.2.
\section*{ 2.\ Preliminaries}
Firstly, we give some Sobolev inequalities which will be used in the
next two sections.
\bigbreak \noindent\textbf{Lemma 2.1.} (Gagliardo-Nirenberg's
inequality). Let $0\leq m,k\leq l$, then we have
$$
\|D^k g\|_{L^p}\leq C \|D^m
g\|_{L^q}^{1-\theta}\|D^lg\|_{L^r}^\theta
$$
where $k$ satisfies
$$
\frac{1}{p}-\frac{k}{n}=(1-\theta)\left(\frac{1}{q}-\frac{m}{n}\right)+\theta\left(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{l}{n}\right).
$$
\bigbreak \noindent\textbf{Lemma 2.2.} (\cite{Guo}, Lemma A.5) Let
$s\geq0$ and $l\geq0$, then we have
$$
\|D^lg\|_{L^2}\leq
C\|D^{l+1}g\|_{L^2}^{1-\theta}\|g\|_{\dot{H}^{-s}}^\theta,\ {\rm
where}\ \theta=\frac{1}{l+s+1}.
$$
\bigbreak \noindent\textbf{Lemma 2.3.} (\cite{Stein}, Chapter V,
Theorem 1) Let $0<s<n, 1<p<q<\infty,
\frac{1}{q}+\frac{s}{n}=\frac{1}{p}$, then
$$
\|\Lambda^{-s}g\|_{L^q}\leq C\|g\|_{L^p}.
$$
\bigbreak
Now, when $n=3$, we derive an estimate of Lyapunov-type which plays
an important role in closing the energy estimates at each $l$-th
level in Section 4.
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent\textbf{Proposition 2.1.}
Let $(u,q)(x,t)$ be a solution to the Cauchy problem (1.1)-(1.2) in
$\mathbb{R}^3$. If the assumptions in Proposition 1.1 hold, we have
$$
\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\|D^lu(t)\|_{H^1}^2+\|D^{l+1}
u(t)\|_{L^2}^2\leq 0,\ \ \ \ 0\leq l\leq N-1.\eqno(2.1)
$$
\noindent\textbf{Proof.} First, we transform system (1.1) into the
following equivalent decoupled system
$$
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\D u_t-\Delta u_t-\Delta u=-(1-\Delta)\sum_{j=1}^nf_j(u)_{x_j}, \ \ \ \ x\in\mathbb{R}^n,\ t>0,\\
q=-(1-\Delta)^{-1}u, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \qquad\qquad x\in\mathbb{R}^n,\ t>0.
\end{array}\right.\eqno(2.2)
$$
Multiplying $(2.2)_1$ by $u$, then a direct calculation gives
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}[b]{rl}
&\D(u^2+|\nabla u|^2)_t+2|\nabla u|^2-2{\rm
div}\left[u\nabla(u_t+u+\sum_{j=1}^3f_j(u)_{x_j})\right]
+\sum_{j=1}^3\left[2\int_0^uf_j'(\eta)\eta d\eta\right]_{x_j}\\[3mm]
=&\D-\sum_{j=1}^3f_j''(u)u_{x_j}|\nabla u|^2.
\end{array}
$$
Integrating the above equality with respect to $x$ on $\mathbb{R}^3$
and using Lemma 2.1, we get
$$
\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\|u(t)\|_{H^1}^2+\|D u(t)\|_{L^2}^2\leq
C\|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^\infty}\|D u(t)\|_{L^2}^2.
$$
As a result, we find
$$
\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\|u(t)\|_{H^1}^2+\|D u(t)\|_{L^2}^2\leq
0.\eqno(2.3)
$$
Since $f_{j}(u)=O(u^2)$ when $u\rightarrow0$, without loss of
generality, let $f_{j}(u)=u^2$. In terms of estimates for the
derivatives of the solution $u$, one can apply $D^l$ on $(2.2)_1$,
and multiply the resulting equality by $D^lu$, then integrating it
with respect to $x$ over $\mathbb{R}^3$, obtaining
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}[b]{rl}
&\D\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}(\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla
D^lu(t)\|_{L^2}^2)+2\|\nabla
D^lu(t)\|_{L^2}^2\\[3mm]
=&\D-\sum_{j=1}^3\int D^l(uu_{x_j})D^lu{\rm d}x-\sum_{j=1}^3\int
D^l\nabla(uu_{x_j})D^l\nabla u{\rm d}x =:I_1+I_2.
\end{array}\eqno(2.4)
$$
For $I_1$, by using H\"{o}lder's inequality and Lemma 2.1, we have
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
I_1=&\D-\sum_{j=1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}D^l(uu_{x_j})D^lu{\rm
d}x=-\sum_{j=1}^3\sum_{0\leq k\leq
l}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(D^kuD^{l-k}u_{x_j})D^lu{\rm d}x\\[3mm]
\leq &\D C \sum_{0\leq k\leq
l}\|(D^kuD^{l-k+1}u)(t)\|_{L^{\frac{6}{5}}}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^6}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D C \sum_{0\leq k\leq
l}\|(D^kuD^{l-k+1}u)(t)\|_{L^{\frac{6}{5}}}\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2}.
\end{array}
\eqno(2.5)
$$
When $k\leq[\frac{l}{2}]$, by using H\"{o}lder's inequality and
Lemma 2.1, we get
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
\|(D^kuD^{l-k+1}u)(t)\|_{L^{\frac{6}{5}}}\leq
&\D C\|D^ku(t)\|_{L^3}\|D^{l-k+1}u(t)\|_{L^2}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D
C\|D^mu(t)\|_{L^2}^{1-\frac{k}{l+1}}\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2}^{\frac{k}{l+1}}\|u(t)\|_{L^2}^{\frac{k}{l+1}}\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2}^{1-\frac{k}{l+1}}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D
C(\|D^mu(t)\|_{L^2}+\|u(t)\|_{L^2})\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2}\leq
\frac{1}{12}\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2},\end{array} \eqno(2.6)
$$
where we have used the fact $\|u(t)\|_{H^N}\leq CE_0^2\ll1$ in
Proposition 1.1, and $m$ satisfies
$$
\frac{k}{3}-\frac{1}{3}=(\frac{m}{3}-\frac{1}{2})\times(1-\frac{k}{l+1})+(\frac{l+1}{3}-\frac{1}{2})\times\frac{k}{l+1}.\eqno(2.7)
$$
As a result, since $k\leq[\frac{l}{2}]$, we have
$$
m=\frac{l+1}{2(l+1-k)}\in[\frac{1}{2},1).
$$
When $k\geq[\frac{l}{2}]+1$, from H\"{o}lder's inequality and Lemma
2.1 again, we find
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
\|(D^kuD^{l+1-k}u)(t)\|_{L^{\frac{6}{5}}}\leq
&\D C\|D^ku(t)\|_{L^2}\|D^{l+1-k}u(t)\|_{L^3}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D
C\|u(t)\|_{L^2}^{1-\frac{k}{l+1}}\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2}^{\frac{k}{l+1}}\|D^mu(t)\|_{L^2}^{\frac{k}{l+1}}\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2}^{1-\frac{k}{l+1}}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D
C(\|D^mu(t)\|_{L^2}+\|u(t)\|_{L^2})\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2}\leq
\frac{1}{4}\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2},
\end{array}
\eqno(2.8)
$$
where $m$ is defined by
$$
\frac{l+1-k}{3}-\frac{1}{3}=(\frac{m}{3}-\frac{1}{2})\times\frac{k}{l+1}+(\frac{l+1}{3}-\frac{1}{2})\times(1-\frac{k}{l+1}),
$$
that is, $m=\frac{l+1}{2k}\in(\frac{1}{2},1]$ since
$k\geq\frac{l+1}{2}$. \\
From (2.5), (2.6) and (2.8), we have
$$
I_1=-\sum_{j=1}^3\int D^l(uu_{x_j})D^lu{\rm d}x\leq
\frac{1}{4}\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2}.\eqno(2.9)
$$
The estimate of $I_2$ is absolutely the same to (3.10)-(3.12) except
that we replace $l$ by $l+1$. In fact, we have
$$
I_2=-\sum_{j=1}^3\int D^l\nabla(uu_{x_j})D^l\nabla u{\rm d}x\leq
\frac{1}{4}\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2}.\eqno(2.10)
$$
Thus, from (2.4), (2.9) and (2.10), we get the estimate of
Lyaponov-type (2.1). Then, we complete the proof of Proposition 2.1.
\qed
\section*{ 3.\ Decay results with initial perturbation in $L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)$}
In this section, we will give optimal decay results by Fourier
splitting method introduced in \cite{Schonbek1,Schonbek2} together
with energy estimates. Theorem 1.1 will be proved by the following
lemmas. First, a straightforward application of Fourier splitting
method yields an optimal $L^2$-norm time-decay rates of solutions as
follows.
\bigbreak \noindent\textbf{Proposition 3.1.} If the initial data
$u_0(x)\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)\cap L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$ with $n\geq1$,
one has
$$
\|u(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2\leq C
(\|u_0\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}+\|u_0\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)})(1+t)^{-\frac{n}{2}}.
$$
\noindent\textbf{Proof.} First, multiplying $(1.7)_1$ by $u$ and
summing up them and then integrating over $\mathbb{R}^n$, we obtain
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
\D\frac{1}{2}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} u^2{\rm d}x
=&\D\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\sum_{j=1}^nf_j(u)\partial_{x_j}u{\rm
d}x-\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}
u^2{\rm d}x+\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} u(1-\Delta)^{-1}u{\rm d}x\\[3mm]
=&\D-\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} u^2{\rm d}x+\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}
u(1-\Delta)^{-1}u{\rm d}x.
\end{array}
\eqno(3.1)
$$
By Plancherel theorem, we get
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
&\D\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm
d}\xi=-\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm d}\xi
+\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\frac{1}{1+|\xi|^2}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm d}\xi\\[3mm]
= &\D-\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm
d}\xi+\int_{|\xi|\leq\sqrt{\frac{n}{t}}}\frac{1}{1+|\xi|^2}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm
d}\xi
+\int_{|\xi|>\sqrt{\frac{n}{t}}}\frac{1}{1+|\xi|^2}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm d}\xi\\[3mm]
\leq &\D-\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm
d}\xi+\int_{|\xi|>\sqrt{\frac{n}{t}}}\frac{t}{n+t}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm
d}\xi +\int_{|\xi|
\leq\sqrt{\frac{n}{t}}}\frac{1}{1+|\xi|^2}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm d}\xi\\[3mm]
= &\D-\frac{n}{n+t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm
d}\xi+\int_{|\xi|\leq\sqrt{\frac{n}{t}}}\frac{1}{1+|\xi|^2}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm
d}\xi
-\frac{t}{n+t}\int_{|\xi|\leq\sqrt{\frac{n}{t}}}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm
d}\xi.
\end{array}
\eqno(3.2)
$$
We rewrite (3.2) as follows.
$$
\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm
d}\xi+\frac{n}{n+t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm
d}\xi\leq\int_{|\xi|\leq\sqrt{\frac{n}{t}}}\left(\frac{1}{1+|\xi|^2}
-\frac{t}{n+t}\right)|\hat{u}|^2{\rm d}\xi,
$$
which is multiplied by $(n+t)^n$ yields
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
\dis \frac{\rm d}{{\rm
d}t}\left[(n+t)^n\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\hat{u}|^2{\rm d}\xi\right]
\leq &\D
(n+t)^n\int_{|\xi|\leq\sqrt{\frac{n}{t}}}\left(\frac{1}{1+|\xi|^2}-\frac{t}{n+t}\right)|\hat{u}|^2{\rm d}\xi\\[3mm]
\leq
&\D(n+t)^n\|\hat{u}(t)\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}_\xi^n)}^2\int_{|\xi|\leq\sqrt{\frac{n}{t}}}\left(1-\frac{t}{n+t}\right){\rm d}\xi\\[3mm]
\leq &\D C\|u(t)\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2(n+t)^{n-1}(n+t)^{-\frac{n}{2}}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D C\|u_0\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2(n+t)^{\frac{n}{2}-1},
\end{array}
\eqno(3.3)
$$
where we have used
$\|\hat{u}(t)\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}_\xi^n)}\leq\|u(t)\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}$
and the fact $\|u(t)\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}\leq
\|u_0\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}$ in
\cite{Francesco1,Gao1,Gao2}.\\
Integrating (3.3) with respect to $t$, we have
$$
\|u(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2\leq
C(\|u_0\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}+\|u_0\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)})(n+t)^{-\frac{n}{2}}.\eqno(3.4)
$$
This proves Proposition 3.1. \qed
\bigbreak
In the proof of Lemma 2.1, we used the essential fact that $\D
\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\sum_{j=1}^nf_j(u)u_{x_j}{\rm d}x$ in (3.1) is
equal to 0. However, for the derivatives of $u$, the Fourier
splitting method above can not be used directly. The following is
the main reason. Similar to prove (3.1), we have
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
\D \frac{1}{2}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}
\!|D^lu|^2{\rm d}x\!
=\!&\D\!\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\!\sum_{j\!=\!1}^nD^lf_j(u)_{x_j}D^lu{\rm
d}x\!-\!\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} |D^lu|^2{\rm d}x\!+\!\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}
\!D^lu(1\!-\!\Delta)^{\!-\!1}D^lu{\rm d}x.
\end{array}
\eqno(3.5)
$$
But, the term
$\D\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\sum_{j=1}^nD^lf_j(u)_{x_j}D^lu{\rm d}x$ in
the RHS of (3.5) is not equal to 0. How to control this term? Here
we use the existence results and the smallness of solutions in $H^N$
space stated in Proposition 1.1.
\bigbreak \noindent\textbf{Proposition 3.2.} Let $1\leq n\leq 4$.
Suppose $\|u_0\|_{H^N(\mathbb{R}^n)}\ll1$. If $u_0(x)\in
L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)$ and $D^lu_0(x)\in L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$, one has
$$
\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2\leq C
(\|u_0\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}+\|D^lu_0\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)})(1+t)^{-\frac{n}{2}-l},
\ l=1,2,\cdots,N. \eqno(3.6)
$$
\noindent\textbf{Proof.} Applying $D^l\ (1\leq l\leq N)$ on
$(1.7)_1$, and multiplying the resulting equality by $D^lu$, then
integrating it with respect to $x$ over $\mathbb{R}^n$, one has
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
\D\frac{1}{2}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} |D^lu|^2{\rm
d}x
\!=\!-\!\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\sum_{j\!=\!1}^nD^lf_j(u)_{x_j}D^lu{\rm
d}x\!-\!\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|D^lu|^2{\rm d}x\!+\!\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}
D^lu(1\!-\!\Delta)^{-\!1}D^lu{\rm d}x.
\end{array}
\eqno(3.7)
$$
As mentioned above, to use the Fourier splitting method as
Proposition 3.1, we have to get
$$
\left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\sum_{j=1}^nD^lf_j(u)_{x_j}D^lu{\rm
d}x\right|\leq \delta_0\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} |D^lu|^2{\rm
d}x,\eqno(3.8)
$$
where $0\leq\delta_0\ll1$. In the following, we only prove (3.8) for
$3\leq l\leq N$. For $l=1,2$, the proof of (3.8) is similar. We omit
it here. Without loss of generality, let $f_j(u)=u^2$, one has
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
&\D\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} D^lf_j(u)_{x_j}D^lu{\rm d}x\\[3mm]
=&\D\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} uD^lu_{x_j}D^lu{\rm d}x +\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}
DuD^{l-1}u_{x_j}D^lu{\rm d}x
+\sum_{2\leq k\leq(l-1)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} C_k^lD^k uD^{l+1-k}uD^lu{\rm d}x\\[3mm]
\leq &\D
2\|Du(t)\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2
+C\sum_{2\leq
k\leq(l-1)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}
D^k uD^{l+1-k}uD^lu{\rm d}x\\[3mm]
\leq
&\D2\|Du(t)\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2
+C\|D^k
u(t)\|_{L^4(\mathbb{R}^n)}\|D^{l-k}u_{x_j}(t)\|_{L^4(\mathbb{R}^n)}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D
2\|Du(t)\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2\\[3mm]
& \D
+C\|u(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^{1-\theta_1}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^{\theta_1}\|u(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^{1-\theta_2}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^{\theta_2}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D
2\|Du(t)\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2+C\|u(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^{2-(\theta_1+\theta_2)}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^{\theta_1+\theta_2+1}\\[3mm]
=&\D
2\|Du(t)\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2+C\|u(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^{2-(\theta_1+\theta_2)}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^{\theta_1+\theta_2-1}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2,
\end{array}
\eqno(3.9)
$$
where $C_k^l=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
l \\
k \\
\end{array}
\right)$ and
$$
\theta_1=\frac{k+\frac{n}{4}}{l}\ {\rm and}\
\theta_2=\frac{l-k+\frac{n}{4}+1}{l}.\eqno(3.10)
$$
By noticing $1\leq n\leq 4$ and $2\leq k\leq l-1$, from (3.10), we
know $0<\theta_1\leq1$ and $0<\theta_2\leq1$. Then, it follows from
(3.9) and the fact $\|u(t)\|_{H^N}\ll1$ that
$$
\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} D^lf_j(u)_{x_j}D^lu{\rm d}x\leq
\frac{1}{2}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2.\eqno(3.11)
$$
Combining (3.11) and (3.7), we have
$$
\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} (D^lu)^2{\rm d}x \leq
-\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} (D^lu)^2{\rm d}x+\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}
D^lu(1-\Delta)^{-1}D^lu{\rm d}x. \eqno(3.12)
$$
From Plancherel theorem, one has
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
&\D\frac{\rm d}{{\rm
d}t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left||\xi|^{2l}\hat{u}\right|^2{\rm d}\xi
\leq-\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left||\xi|^{2l}\hat{u}\right|^2{\rm d}\xi
+\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\frac{1}{1+|\xi|^2}\left||\xi|^{2l}\hat{u}\right|^2{\rm d}\xi\\[3mm]
\leq &\D\!-\!\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left||\xi|^{2l}\hat{u}\right|^2{\rm
d}\xi+\int_{|\xi|>\sqrt{\frac{n+2l}{t}}}\frac{t}{n+2l+t}\left||\xi|^{2l}\hat{u}\right|^2{\rm
d}\xi
+\int_{|\xi|\leq\sqrt{\frac{n+2l}{t}}}\frac{1}{1+|\xi|^2}\left||\xi|^{2l}\hat{u}\right|^2{\rm d}\xi\\[3mm]
\leq
&\D\!-\frac{n\!+\!2l}{n\!+\!2l\!+\!t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left||\xi|^{2l}\hat{u}\right|^2\!{\rm
d}\xi\!+\!\int_{|\xi|\!\leq\!\sqrt{\frac{n\!+\!2l}{t}}}\frac{1}{1\!+\!|\xi|^2}\left||\xi|^{2l}\hat{u}\right|^2\!{\rm
d}\xi
\!-\frac{t}{n\!+\!2l\!+\!t}\int_{|\xi|\!\leq\!\sqrt{\frac{n\!+\!2l}{t}}}\!\left||\xi|^{2l}\hat{u}\right|^2\!{\rm
d}\xi.
\end{array}
\eqno(3.13)
$$
We rewrite (3.13) as
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
&\D\frac{\rm d}{{\rm
d}t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left||\xi|^{2l}\hat{u}\right|^2{\rm
d}\xi+\frac{n+2l}{n+2l+t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left||\xi|^{2l}\hat{u}\right|^2{\rm
d}\xi\\[3mm]
\leq &\D\int_{|\xi|
\leq\sqrt{\frac{n+2l}{t}}}\left(\frac{1}{1+|\xi|^2}
-\frac{t}{n+2l+t}\right)\left||\xi|^{2l}\hat{u}\right|^2{\rm d}\xi.
\end{array}
\eqno(3.14)
$$
Consequently, multiplying (3.14) by $(n+2l+t)^{n+2l}$, one has
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
&\D\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\left[(n+2l+t)^{n+2l}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left||\xi|^{2l}\hat{u}\right|^2{\rm d}\xi\right]\\[3mm]
\leq
&\D(n+2l+t)^{n+2l}\int_{|\xi|\leq\sqrt{\frac{n+2l}{t}}}\left(\frac{1}{1+|\xi|^2}-\frac{t}{n+2l+t}\right)\left||\xi|^{2l}\hat{u}\right|^2{\rm d}\xi\\[3mm]
\leq
&\D(n+2l+t)^{n+2l}\|\hat{u}(t)\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}_\xi^n)}^2\int_{|\xi|\leq\sqrt{\frac{n+2l}{t}}}\left(1-\frac{t}{n+2l+t}\right)|\xi|^{2l}{\rm d}\xi\\[3mm]
\leq &\D C\|u(t)\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2(n+2l+t)^{n+2l-1}(n+2l+t)^{-\frac{n+2l}{2}}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D C\|u_0\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2(n+2l+t)^{\frac{n+2l}{2}-1}.
\end{array}
\eqno(3.15)
$$
Integrating (3.15) with respect to $t$ over $(0,t)$, we find
$$
\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}^2=\||\xi|^l\hat{u}(t)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}_\xi^n)}^2\leq
C(\|u_0\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)}+\|D^lu_0\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)})(n+2l+t)^{-\frac{n+2l}{2}}.\eqno(3.16)
$$
Then, we get (3.6). \qed
\section*{ 4.\ Decay results with initial perturbation in $\dot{H}^{-s}(\mathbb{R}^3)$}
This section devotes to the optimal $L^p$-$L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ decay
rates of solutions to (1.1)-(1.2) when the initial data is in the
negative Sobolev space $\dot{H}^{-s}(\mathbb{R}^3)$ with
$s\in[0,\frac{3}{2})$.
The following lemma plays a key role in the proof of Theorem 1.2. It
shows an energy estimate of the solutions in the negative Sobolev
space $\dot{H}^{-s}(\mathbb{R}^3)$. Namely, we have
\noindent\textbf{Lemma 4.1.} If
$\mathcal{E}_0:=\|u_0\|_{H^N}\ll1$, for $s\in(0,\frac{1}{2}]$, we
have
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
&\D \frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\int\left(|\Lambda^{-s}u|^2+|\Lambda^{-s}\nabla
u|^2\right){\rm d}x+\int|\nabla\Lambda^{-s}u|^2{\rm d}x\\[3mm]
\leq &\D C(\|Du(t)\|_{H^1}^2+\|D^2u(t)\|_{H^1}^2)(\|\Lambda^{-s}u(t)\|_{L^2}+\|\Lambda^{-s}\nabla
u(t)\|_{L^2});
\end{array}
\eqno(4.1)
$$
and for $s\in(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2})$, we have
$$
\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl} &\D \frac{\rm d}{{\rm
d}t}\int\left(|\Lambda^{-s}u|^2+|\Lambda^{-s}\nabla
u|^2\right){\rm d}x+\int|\nabla\Lambda^{-s}u|^2{\rm d}x\\[3mm]
\leq &\D
C(\|u(t)\|_{L^2}^{s-\frac{1}{2}}\|Du(t)\|_{L^2}^{\frac{5}{2}-s}+\|Du(t)\|_{L^2}^{s-\frac{1}{2}}\|D^2u(t)\|_{L^2}^{\frac{5}{2}-s})
(\|\Lambda^{-s}u(t)\|_{L^2}+\|\Lambda^{-s}\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}).
\end{array}
\eqno(4.2)
$$
\noindent\textbf{Proof.} Applying $\Lambda^{-s}$ to $(2.2)_1$ and
multiplying the resulting identity by $\Lambda^{-s}u$, and
integrating over $\mathbb{R}^3$ by parts, we get
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
&\D\frac{1}{2}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm
d}t}\int\left(|\Lambda^{-s}u|^2+|\Lambda^{-s}\nabla
u|^2\right){\rm d}x+\int|\nabla\Lambda^{-s}u|^2{\rm d}x\\[3mm]
=&\D-\sum_{j=1}^3\left\{\int\Lambda^{-s}u\Lambda^{-s}f_j(u)_{x_j}{\rm d}x-\int\Lambda^{-s}u\Delta\Lambda^{-s}f_j(u)_{x_j}{\rm d}x\right\}\\[3mm]
:=&\D J_1+J_2.
\end{array}
\eqno(4.3)
$$
For $J_1$, using H\"{o}lder inequality, Lemma 2.1, Lemma 2.3 and
Young's inequality, we have
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl}
J_1\leq &\D C\|\Lambda^{-s}u(t)\|_{L^2}\sum_{j=1}^3\|\Lambda^{-s}f_j(u)_{x_j}(t)\|_{L^2}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D
C\|\Lambda^{-s}u(t)\|_{L^2}\sum_{j=1}^3\|f_j(u)_{x_j}(t)\|_{L^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{s}{3}}}}
\leq C\|\Lambda^{-s}u(t)\|_{L^2}\|\nabla
u(t)\|_{L^2}\|u(t)\|_{L^{\frac{3}{s}}}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D C\|\Lambda^{-s}u(t)\|_{L^2}\|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}\|\nabla
u(t)\|_{L^2}^{\frac{1}{2}+s}\|D^2u(t)\|_{L^2}^{\frac{1}{2}-s}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D C(\|Du(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|D^2u(t)\|_{L^2}^2)\|\Lambda^{-s}
u(t)\|_{L^2}.
\end{array}
\eqno(4.4)
$$
Here we have used the facts $\frac{1}{2}+\frac{s}{3}<1$ and
$\frac{3}{s}\geq6$. \\
Similarly, it holds that
$$
J_2\leq
C(\|D^2u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|D^3u(t)\|_{L^2}^2)\|\Lambda^{-s}\nabla
u(t)\|_{L^2}.\eqno(4.5)
$$
Combining (4.4) and (4.5), we get (4.1).\\
Next, we want to prove (4.2). A direct calculation as (4.4) gives
$$
\arraycolsep=1.5pt \begin{array}[b]{rl} J_1
\leq &\D C\|\Lambda^{-s}u(t)\|_{L^2}\sum_{j=1}^3\|\Lambda^{-s}f_j(u)_{x_j}(t)\|_{L^2}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D C\|\Lambda^{-s}u(t)\|_{L^2}\sum_{j=1}^3\|f_j(u)_{x_j}(t)\|_{L^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{s}{3}}}}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D C\|\Lambda^{-s}u(t)\|_{L^2}\|D
u(t)\|_{L^2}\|u(t)\|_{L^{\frac{3}{s}}} \leq
C\|\Lambda^{-s}u(t)\|_{L^2}\|Du(t)\|_{L^2}
\|u(t)\|_{L^2}^{s-\frac{1}{2}}\|Du(t)\|_{L^2}^{\frac{3}{2}-s}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D
C\|u(t)\|_{L^2}^{s-\frac{1}{2}}\|Du(t)\|_{L^2}^{\frac{5}{2}-s}\|\Lambda^{-s}
u(t)\|_{L^2}.
\end{array}
\eqno(4.6)
$$
In the same way, one has
$$
I_2\leq
C\|Du(t)\|_{L^2}^{s-\frac{1}{2}}\|D^2u(t)\|_{L^2}^{\frac{5}{2}-s}\|\Lambda^{-s}
u(t)\|_{L^2}.
$$
Thus we complete the proof of Lemma 4.1. \qed
With Proposition 1.1, Proposition 2.1 and Lemma 4.1 in hand, we are
now ready to prove Theorem 1.2.
\noindent\emph{Proof of Theorem 1.2 for the case of
$s\in(0,\frac{1}{2}]$}. Define
$\mathcal{E}_{-s}(t)=\|\Lambda^{-s}u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda^{-s}\nabla
u(t)\|_{L^2}^2$. Integrating (4.1) with respect to $t$, we find for
$s\in(0,\frac{1}{2}]$,
$$
\mathcal{E}_{-s}(t)\leq
\mathcal{E}_{-s}(0)+C\int_0^t\|Du(\tau)\|_{H^2}^2\sqrt{\mathcal{E}_{-s}(\tau)}{\rm
d}\tau.\eqno(4.7)
$$
From (2.1), we have the estimates of integrability of
$\|Du\|_{H^1}^2$ with respect to $t$. As a result, we have
$$
\mathcal{E}_{-s}(t)\leq
\mathcal{E}_{-s}(0)+C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq
t}\sqrt{\mathcal{E}_{-s}(\tau)}\leq C(1+\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq
t}\sqrt{\mathcal{E}_{-s}(\tau)}).
$$
This yields $\mathcal{E}_{-s}(t)\leq C_1$ with a positive constant
$C_1$, that is
$$
\|\Lambda^{-s}u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda^{-s}q(t)\|_{L^2}^2\leq\|\Lambda^{-s}u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda^{-s}\nabla
u(t)\|_{L^2}^2\leq C_1.\eqno(4.8)
$$
This proves (1.8) for $s\in(0,\frac{1}{2}]$. \\
Next, we recall the estimate of Lyaponov-type (2.1) as
$$
\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\|D^lu(t)\|_{H^1}^2+\|D^{l+1}
u(t)\|_{L^2}^2\leq 0,\ \ \ \ 0\leq l\leq N-1.
$$
We may use Lemma 2.2 to have
$$
\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2}\geq
C\|\Lambda^{-s}u(t)\|_{L^2}^{-\frac{1}{l+s}}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2}^{1+\frac{1}{l+s}}.
$$
From the above inequality and (4.8) we get for each $l$ with $0\leq
l\leq N-1$,
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}[b]{rl}
\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2}^2\geq &\D\frac{1}{2}\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\frac{1}{2}CC_1^{-\frac{1}{l+s}}\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2}^{2(1+\frac{1}{l+s})}\\[3mm]
\geq &\D
C_2(\|D^{l+1}u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|D^lu(t)\|_{L^2}^2)^{1+\frac{1}{l+s}},
\end{array}
\eqno(4.9)
$$
where $C_2>0$ is a constant. Thus we deduce the following time
differential inequality
$$
\frac{\rm d}{{\rm
d}t}\|D^lu(t)\|_{H^{N-l}}^2+C_2(\|D^lu(t)\|_{H^{N-l}}^2)^{1+\frac{1}{l+s}}\leq0,\
{\rm for}\ l=0,1,\cdots,N.
$$
Integrating this inequality, one gets for some constant $C_3>0$
$$
\|D^lu(t)\|_{H^{N-l}}^2\leq C_3(1+t)^{-(l+s)},\ {\rm for}\
l=0,1,\cdots,N.\eqno(4.10)
$$
$(2.2)_2$ and (4.10) yield
$$
\|D^lq(t)\|_{H^{N-1-l}}\leq C_4(1+t)^{-\frac{l+s+1}{2}},\ {\rm for}\
l=0,\cdots,N-1. \eqno(4.11)
$$
\noindent\emph{Proof of Theorem 1.2 for the case of
$s\in(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2})$}. First we can give from what we
have proved for (1.8)-(1.9) with $s=\frac{1}{2}$ above that the
following decay results holds:
$$
\|D^lu(t)\|_{H^{N-l}}^2\leq C_3(1+t)^{-l-\frac{1}{2}},\ {\rm for}\
l=0,1,\cdots,N.\eqno(4.12)
$$
As a result, and using (4.2) that for
$s\in(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2})$,
$$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}[b]{rl}
\mathcal{E}_{-s}(t)\leq
&\D\mathcal{E}_{-s}(0)+C\int_0^t\|u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^{s-\frac{1}{2}}\|Du(\tau)\|_{L^2}^{\frac{5}{2}-s}\sqrt{\mathcal{E}_{-s}(\tau)}{\rm d}\tau\\[3mm]
\leq &\D C_1+CC_3\int_0^t(1+\tau)^{-\frac{7}{4}-\frac{s}{2}}{\rm
d}\tau\cdot\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq
t}\sqrt{\mathcal{E}_{-s}(\tau)}\\[3mm]
\leq &\D C_5(1+\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq
t}\sqrt{\mathcal{E}_{-s}(\tau)}),
\end{array}
\eqno(4.13)
$$
which yields (1.8) with $s\in(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2})$. At last,
the proof of (1.9) with $s\in(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2})$ can be
treated as the case of $s\in(0,\frac{1}{2}]$ above.
Thus, by
taking $C_0=\max\limits_{1\leq i\leq 5}\{C_i\}$, we complete the
proof of Theorem 1.2.
\\
\\
{\bf Acknowledgement:} \ \ The research of Zhigang Wu was supported
by NSFC (No. 11101112) and in part by NSFC (No. 11071162). The
research of Wenjun Wang was supported by the Tian Yuan Fund of
Mathematics in China (No.11126096), NSFC (No. 11201300), Shanghai
university young teacher training program (No. slg11032) and in part
by NSFC (No.11171220, No.11171212).
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Data from the ATLAS and CMS collaborations~\cite{atlashiggs,cmshiggs}
provide an essentially $5\sigma$ signal for a Higgs-like resonance, $h$, with mass of order $125~{\rm GeV}$.
Meanwhile, the CDF and D0 experiments have announced new results \cite{newtevatron}, based mainly on $Vh$ associated production with $h\rightarrow b\overline b$, that support the $\sim 125~{\rm GeV}$ Higgs-like signal.
While it is certainly possible that the observed signals in the various production/decay channels will converge towards their respective Standard Model (SM) values, the current central values for the signal strengths in individual channels deviate by about 1--2$\,\sigma$ from predictions for the $h_{\rm SM}$.
One of the most significant deviations in the current data is the enhancement in the $\gamma\gam$ final state for both gluon fusion ($gg$) and vector boson fusion (VBF) production. Such a result is not atypical of models with multiple Higgs bosons in which the $b\overline b$ partial width of the observed $h$ is reduced through mixing with a second (not yet observed at the LHC) Higgs boson, $h'$, thereby enhancing the $\gamma\gam$ branching ratio of the $h$~\cite{Carena:2002qg,Ellwanger:2011aa,Cao:2012fz,Ellwanger:2012ke,Gunion:2012gc,Cao:2012yn}.
In such models, a particularly interesting question is whether one could simultaneously explain the LHC signal and the small ($\sim 2\sigma$) LEP excess in $e^+e^-\rightarrow Zb\overline b$ in the vicinity of $M_{b\overline b}\sim 98~{\rm GeV}$ \cite{Schael:2006cr,Barate:2003sz} using the $h'$ with $m_{h'}\sim 98~{\rm GeV}$. We recall that the LEP excess is clearly inconsistent with a SM-like Higgs boson at this mass, being only about $10-20\%$ of the rate predicted for the $h_{\rm SM}$. Consistency with such a result for the $h'$ is natural if the $h'$ couples at a reduced level to $ZZ$, which, in turn, is automatic if the $h$ has substantial $ZZ$ coupling, as required by the observed LHC signals.
In this paper we demonstrate that the two lightest CP-even Higgs bosons~\footnote{We assume absence of CP-violating phases in the Higgs sector.}, $h_1$ and $h_2$, of the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Model (NMSSM) could have properties such that the $h_1$ fits the LEP excess at $\sim 98~{\rm GeV}$ while the $h_2$ is reasonably consistent with the Higgs-like LHC signals at $\sim 125~{\rm GeV}$, including in particular the larger-than-SM signal in the $\gamma\gam$ channel.
The NMSSM~\cite{Ellwanger:2009dp} is very attractive since it solves the $\mu$ problem of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM (MSSM): the ad hoc parameter $\mu$ appearing in the MSSM superpotential term $\mu \hat H_u \hat H_d$ is generated in the NMSSM from the $\lambda \hat S \hat H_u \hat H_d$ superpotential term when the scalar component $S$ of $\hat S$ develops a VEV $\vev{S}=s$: $\mu_{\text{eff}}=\lambda s$. The three CP-even Higgs fields, contained in $H_u$, $H_d$ and $S$, mix and yield the mass eigenstates $h_1$, $h_2$ and $h_3$.
A $125~{\rm GeV}$ Higgs state with enhanced $\gamma\gam$ signal rate is easily obtained for large $\lambda$ and small $\tan\beta$~\cite{Ellwanger:2011aa} (see also \cite{Ellwanger:2012ke,Gunion:2012gc}).
To describe the LEP and LHC data the $h_1$ and $h_2$ must have $m_{\hi}\sim 98~{\rm GeV}$ and $m_{\hii}\sim 125~{\rm GeV}$, respectively, with the $h_1$ being largely singlet and the $h_2$ being primarily doublet (mainly $H_u$ for the scenarios we consider). In addition to the CP-even states, there are also two CP-odd states, $a_1$ and $a_2$, and a charged Higgs boson, $H^\pm$. Verification of the presence of the three CP-even Higgs bosons and/or two CP-odd Higgs bosons would establish a Higgs field structure that goes beyond the two-doublet structure of the MSSM.
\section{Higgs Boson Production and Decay}
The main production/decay channels relevant for current LHC data are gluon fusion ($gg$) and vector boson fusion (VBF)
with Higgs decay to $\gamma\gam$ or $ZZ^*\rightarrow 4\ell$. The LHC also probes $W,Z+$Higgs with Higgs decay to $b\overline b$, a channel for which Tevatron data is relevant, and $WW\rightarrow$Higgs with Higgs$\rightarrow\tau^+\tau^-$.
We compute the ratio of the
$gg$ or VBF induced Higgs cross section times the Higgs branching ratio to a given final state $X$, relative to the corresponding value for the SM Higgs boson, as
\begin{equation}
R^{h_i}_{gg}(X)\equiv {\Gamma( h_i\rightarrow gg) \ {\rm BR}(h_i\rightarrow X)\over \Gamma(h_{\rm SM}\rightarrow gg)\ {\rm BR}(h_{\rm SM}\rightarrow X)}, \quad
R^{h_i}_{\rm VBF}(X)\equiv {\Gamma(h_i\rightarrow WW) \ {\rm BR}(h_i\rightarrow X)\over \Gamma(h_{\rm SM}\rightarrow WW)\ {\rm BR}(h_{\rm SM}\rightarrow X)},
\end{equation}
where $h_i$ is the $i^{th}$ NMSSM scalar Higgs, and $h_{\rm SM}$ is the SM Higgs boson, taking $m_{\hsm}=m_{h_i}$.
In the context of any two-Higgs-doublet plus singlets model, not all the $R^{h_i}$ are independent. For example,
$R^{h_i}_{VH}(X)=R^{h_i}_{VBF}(X)$, $R^{h_i}_{Y}(\tau\tau)=R^{h_i}_{Y}(bb)$~\footnote{This equality is altered by radiative corrections at large $\tan\beta$; however, these are small in our scenarios all of which have small to moderate $\tan\beta$ values.} and $R^{h_i}_{Y}(ZZ)=R^{h_i}_{Y}(WW)$. A complete independent set of $R^{h_i}$'s can be taken to be (with $h=h_1$ or $h=h_2$)
\begin{equation}
R^h_{gg}(WW),\quad R^h_{gg}(bb),\quadR^h_{gg}(\gam\gam),\quad R^h_{VBF}(WW),\quad R^h_{VBF}(bb),\quad R^h_{VBF}(\gam\gam)\,.
\end{equation}
In order to display the ability of the NMSSM to simultaneously explain the LEP and LHC Higgs-like signals, we turn to NMSSM scenarios with semi-unified GUT scale soft-SUSY-breaking. By ``semi-unified'' we mean universal gaugino mass parameter $m_{1/2}$, scalar (sfermion) mass parameter $m_0$, and trilinear coupling $A_0\equiv A_t=A_b=A_\tau$ at the GUT scale, but $m_{H_u}^2$, $m_{H_d}^2$ and $m_{S}^2$ as well as $A_\lam$ and $A_\kap$ are taken as non-universal at $M_{\rm GUT}$. Specifically, we use points from scans performed using NMSSMTools\,3.2.0~\cite{Ellwanger:2004xm,Ellwanger:2005dv,nmweb}, which includes the scans of~\cite{Gunion:2012gc} supplemented by additional runs following the same procedure as well as specialized MCMC chain runs designed to focus on parameter regions of particular interest.
All the accepted points correspond to scenarios that obey all experimental constraints (mass limits and flavor constraints as implemented in NMSSMTools,
$\Omega h^2<0.136$ and 2011 XENON100 constraints on the spin-independent scattering cross section)
except that the SUSY contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon,
$\delta \amu$, is too small to explain the discrepancy between the observed value of $a_\mu$~\cite{Gray:2010fp}
and that predicted by the SM. For a full discussion of the kind of NMSSM model employed see~\cite{Gunion:2012gc,Ellwanger:2012ke,Gunion:2012zd}.
We first display in Fig.~\ref{plot0} the crucial plot that shows $R^{\hi}_{VBF}(bb)$ versus $R^{\hii}_{gg}(\gam\gam)$ when $m_{\hi}\in[96,100]~{\rm GeV}$ and $ m_{\hii}\in[123,128]~{\rm GeV}$ are imposed in addition to the above mentioned experimental constraints.\footnote{Here the Higgs mass windows are designed to allow for theoretical errors in the computation of the
Higgs masses.}
(In this and all subsequent plots, points with $\Omega h^2<0.094$ are represented by blue circles and points with $\Omega h^2\in[0.094,0.136]$ (the ``WMAP window") are represented by red and orange diamonds.
These two colors are associated with different LSP masses as will be discussed below.)
Note that $R^{\hi}_{VBF}(bb)$ values are required to be smaller than $0.3$ by virtue of the fact that the LEP constraint on the $e^+e^-\rightarrow Z b\overline b$ channel with $M_{b\overline b}\sim 98~{\rm GeV}$ is included in the NMSSMTools program. Those points with $R^{\hi}_{VBF}(bb)$ between about $0.1$ and $0.25$ would provide the best fit to the LEP excess. (We note again that $R^{\hi}_{VBF}(bb)$ is equivalent to $R^{h_1}_{Vh_1}(b b)$ as relevant for LEP.) A large portion of such points have $R^{\hii}_{gg}(\gam\gam)>1$ as preferred by LHC data. In all the remaining plots we will impose the additional requirements: $R^{\hii}_{gg}(\gam\gam)>1$ and $0.1\leqR^{\hi}_{VBF}(bb)\leq 0.25$. In the following, we will refer to these NMSSM scenarios as the ``$98+125~{\rm GeV}$ Higgs scenarios".
To repeat, the $R^{\hii}_{gg}(\gam\gam)>1$ requirement is such as to focus on points that could be consistent (within errors) with the enhanced $\gamma\gam$ Higgs signal at the LHC of order 1.5 times the SM. The $0.1\leq R^{\hi}_{VBF}(bb)\leq 0.25$ window is designed to reproduce the small excess seen in LEP data at $M_{b\overline b}\sim 98~{\rm GeV}$ in the $Z b\overline b$ final state.
\begin{figure}[t]\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_R1VBFbbvsR2ggAA_h100125}
\vspace*{-4mm}
\caption{Signal strengths (relative to SM) $R^{\hi}_{VBF}(bb)$ versus $R^{\hii}_{gg}(\gam\gam)$ for $m_{\hi}\in[96,100]~{\rm GeV}$ and $ m_{\hii}\in[123,128]~{\rm GeV}$. In this and all subsequent plots, points with $\Omega h^2<0.094$ are represented by blue circles and points with $\Omega h^2\in[0.094,0.136]$ (the ``WMAP window") are represented by red/orange diamonds.
\label{plot0}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_R1ggAAvsR2ggAA_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_R1VBFAAvsR2VBFAA_h100125}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_R1ggbbvsR2ggbb_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_R1VBFbbvsR2VBFbb_h100125}
\vspace*{-4mm}
\caption{For the $h_1$ and $h_2$, we plot (top) $R^h_{gg}(\gam\gam)$ and $R^h_{VBF}(\gam\gam)$ and (bottom) $R^h_{gg}(bb)$ and $R^h_{VBF}(bb)$ for NMSSM scenarios consistent with the LEP and LHC Higgs excesses. More specifically, in this and all subsequent plots we only show points that satisfy all the basic constraints specified in the text and that also satisfy $m_{\hi}\in[96,100]~{\rm GeV}$, $m_{\hii}\in[123,128]~{\rm GeV}$, $R^{\hii}_{gg}(\gam\gam)>1$ and $R^{\hi}_{VBF}(bb)\in[0.1,0.25]$. These we have termed the ``$98+125~{\rm GeV}$ Higgs scenarios".
Regarding the WMAP-window points, we refer to the red diamonds as ``region A'' and to the orange ones as ``region B''.
\label{plots1}}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{plots1}, we plot (upper row) $R^{\hi}_{gg}(\gam\gam)$ vs.\ $R^{\hii}_{gg}(\gam\gam)$ and $R^{\hi}_{VBF}(\gam\gam)$ vs.\ $R^{\hii}_{VBF}(\gam\gam)$ and (lower row) $R^{\hi}_{gg}(bb)$ vs.\ $R^{\hii}_{gg}(bb)$ and $R^{\hi}_{VBF}(bb)$ vs.\ $R^{\hii}_{VBF}(bb)$. In these and all subsequent plots, we only show points that satisfy all the basic constraints specified earlier and that also satisfy $m_{\hi}\in[96,100]~{\rm GeV}$, $m_{\hii}\in[123,128]~{\rm GeV}$, $R^{\hii}_{gg}(\gam\gam)>1$ and $R^{\hi}_{VBF}(bb)\in[0.1,0.25]$. The upper plots show that the $h_2$ can easily have an enhanced $\gamma\gam$ signal for both $gg$ and VBF production whereas the $\gamma\gam$ signal arising from the $h_1$ for both production mechanisms is quite small and unlikely to be observable.
Note the two different $R^{\hii}_{gg}(\gam\gam)$ regions for which $\Omega h^2$ lies in the WMAP window, one
with $R^{\hii}_{gg}(\gam\gam)\sim 1.6$ (region A, red diamonds)
and the other with $R^{\hii}_{gg}(\gam\gam)\sim 1.1$ (region B, orange diamonds). As we will show later, region A
corresponds to $m_{\cnone}\sim 77~{\rm GeV}$ and $m_{\stopi}$ between $197~{\rm GeV}$ and $1~{\rm TeV}$,
while the region B corresponds to $m_{\cnone}>93~{\rm GeV}$ and $m_{\stopi}>1.8~{\rm TeV}$.
These same two regions will emerge in many subsequent figures. If $R^{\hii}_{gg}(\gam\gam)$ ends up converging to a large value, then masses for all strongly interacting SUSY particles would be close to current limits if the present $98+125~{\rm GeV}$ LEP-LHC Higgs scenario applies.
The bottom row of the figure focuses on the $b\overline b$ final state. We observe the reduced $R^{\hii}_{gg}(bb)$ and $R^{\hii}_{VBF}(bb)$ values that are associated with reduced $b\overline b$ width (relative to the SM) needed to have enhanced $R^{\hii}_{gg}(\gam\gam)$ and $R^{\hii}_{VBF}(\gam\gam)$. Meanwhile, the $R^{\hi}_{gg}(bb)$ and $R^{\hi}_{VBF}(bb)$ values are such that the $h_1$ could not yet have been seen at the Tevatron or LHC. Sensitivity to $R^{\hi}_{gg}(bb)$ ($R^{\hi}_{VBF}(bb)$) values from 0.05 to 0.2 (0.1 to 0.25) will be needed at the LHC. This compares to expected sensitivities after the $\sqrt s=8~{\rm TeV}$ run in these channels to $R$ values of at best $0.8$.\footnote{Here, we have used Fig.~12 of~\cite{cmshiggs} extrapolated to a Higgs mass near $98~{\rm GeV}$ and assumed $L=20~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ each for ATLAS and CMS.} Statistically, a factor of 4 to 10 improvement requires integrated luminosity of order 16 to 100 times the current $L=10~{\rm fb}^{-1}$. Such large $L$ values will only be achieved after the LHC is upgraded to $14~{\rm TeV}$, although we should note that the luminosity required to probe this signal at 14 TeV could
be lower than indicated by this simple estimate as the sensitivity to
the Higgs signal improves at higher energies. Finally, the reader should note that for WMAP-window points the largest $R^{\hi}_{VBF}(bb)$ values occur for region A described above for which supersymmetric particle masses are as small as possible.
\section{Other NMSSM particles and parameters}
\begin{figure}[b]\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_ma2-ma1_h100125}
\vspace*{-4mm}
\caption{Scatter plot of $m_{\aii}$ versus $m_{\ai}$ for the 98+125 GeV scenario; note that $m_{\aii}\simeqm_{\hiii}\simeqm_{\hpm}$. Note that in this figure there is a dense region, located at $(m_{\ai},m_{\aii})\sim (130,330)~{\rm GeV}$, of strongly overlapping red diamond points. These are the points associated with the low-$m_{\cnone}$ WMAP-window region of parameter space. Corresponding dense regions appear in Figs. \ref{plots3} -- \ref{plots4} and \ref{cdeffvsm}. \label{plots2}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_mcha1+-mLSP_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_mstop2-mstop1_h100125}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_msquark-mgluino_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_RXtMs-mstop1_h100125}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_msLepR-msnuL_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_mstau1-msnutau_h100125}
\caption{Plots showing $m_{\cnone}$, $m_{\cpmone}$, $m_{\stopi}$, $m_{\stopii}$, $m_{\tilde q}$, $m_{\tilde g}$, and the mixing parameter
$(A_t-\mu\cot\beta)/\sqrt{\mstopim_{\stopii}}$. Also shown are $m_{\widetilde \ell_R}$, $m_{\widetilde \nu_{\ell}}$, $m_{\staui}$ and $m_{\widetilde \nu_\tau}$, where $\ell=e,\mu$. \label{plots3}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_mhalf-m0_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_m0-A0_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_mhalf-A0_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_Akap-Alam_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_kappa-lam_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_mueff-tb_h100125}
\vspace*{-4mm}
\caption{GUT scale and SUSY scale parameters leading to the $98+125~{\rm GeV}$ LEP-LHC Higgs scenarios. \label{plots5}}
\end{figure}
It is also very interesting to consider expectations for the other NMSSM particles in these scenarios. For this purpose, we present a series of plots. Figure~\ref{plots2} displays the pseudoscalar masses in the $m_{\ai}$--$m_{\aii}$ plane. We do not plot $m_{\hiii}$ nor $m_{\hpm}$ since their masses are such that $m_{\hiii}\simeq m_{\hpm}\simeq m_{\aii}$ for the scenarios considered. We note that small $m_{\ai}$ is typical of the WMAP-window points. We discuss discovery prospects for the $a_1$ later in the paper.
The masses of some crucial SUSY particles are displayed in Fig.~\ref{plots3}. We observe the typically low values of $m_{\cnone}$ and $m_{\cpmone}$, the possibility of $m_{\stopi}$ as small as $197~{\rm GeV}$, the mostly modest values of the mixing parameter $(A_t-\mu\cot\beta)/\sqrt{\mstopim_{\stopii}}$, and the fact that the predicted $m_{\tilde q}$ and $m_{\tilde g}$ are beyond current experimental limits, although the lowest values (as found in particular in region A) may soon be probed. Note that $m_{\tilde g}$ can be below $m_{\widetilde \ell_R}$ (as common in constrained models when $m_0$ is large) for some points, including the points in region A. Low values of $m_{\cnone}$ are typical for the scan points, but more particular to this model are the rather low values of $m_{\cpmone}$.
ATLAS and CMS are currently performing analyses that could in principle be sensitive to the $m_{\cpmone}$ values predicted in this model. For some points, $m_{\cpmone}-m_{\cnone}$ can be rather small, implying some difficulty in isolating the leptons or jets associated with $\widetilde \chi_1^\pm\rightarrow \widetilde \chi_1^0+X$ decays. However, it should be noted that for the WMAP-window points $m_{\cpmone}-m_{\cnone}$ is typically quite substantial, at least $35~{\rm GeV}$ for the low-$m_{\cnone}$ points, so that for these points the above difficulty would not arise. Of particular interest is the very large range of $m_{\stopi}$ that arises in the $98+125~{\rm GeV}$ LEP-LHC Higgs scenarios.
For lighter values of $m_{\stopi}$, as typical of the WMAP-window points in region A, the $\tilde t_1$ always decays via $\tilde t_1\rightarrow \widetilde \chi_1^+ b$ or $\tilde t_1\rightarrow \widetilde \chi_1^0 t$, the latter being absent when $m_{\stopi}<m_{\cnone}+m_t$.
At high $m_{\stopi}$, these same channels are present but also $\tilde t_1\rightarrow \widetilde \chi^0_{2,3,4,5} t$ can be important, which channels being present depending upon whether $m_{\stopi}-m_{\chi^0_{2,3,4,5}}-m_t>0$ or not.
It is interesting to survey the GUT scale parameters that lead to the scenarios of interest. Relevant plots are shown in Fig.~\ref{plots5}. No particular regions of these parameters appear to be singled out aside from some preference for negative values of $A_0$.
These plots show clearly that scenarios A and B correspond to distinct regions in the parameter space. Note however that the density of red points in these plots is purely due to our scan procedures which have some focus on region A.
\section{Dark matter, including LSP and light chargino compositions}\label{sect:DM}
\begin{figure}[b]\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_LSPhiggsino-mLSP_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_U12vsmcha1p_h100125}
\caption{Neutralino and chargino compositions for the $98+125~{\rm GeV}$ LEP-LHC Higgs scenarios. \label{plots5.5}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b]\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_Omega-mLSP_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_csPsi-mLSP_h100125}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_Omega-LSPhiggsino_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_Omega-tb_h100125}
\caption{Dark matter properties for the $98+125~{\rm GeV}$ LEP-LHC Higgs scenarios. \label{plots4}}
\end{figure}
The composition of the $\widetilde \chi_1^0$ and the $\widetilde \chi_1^\pm$ are crucial when it comes to the relic density of the $\widetilde \chi_1^0$.
For those points in the WMAP window in region A (red diamonds), the $\widetilde \chi_1^0$ can have a large Higgsino fraction since the $\widetilde \chi_1^0\cnone\rightarrow W^+W^-$ annihilation mode (mainly via $t$-channel exchange of the light Higgsino-like --- see second plot of Fig.~\ref{plots5.5} --- chargino) is below threshold; the group of points with $m_{\cnone}>93~{\rm GeV}$ (region B, orange diamonds) can lie in the WMAP window only if the $\widetilde \chi_1^0$ does not have a large Higgsino fraction.
This division is clearly seen in Fig.~\ref{plots5.5}. We note that to a reasonable approximation the singlino fraction of the $\widetilde \chi_1^0$ is given by 1 minus the Higgsino fraction plotted in the left-hand window of the figure.
Dark matter (DM) properties for the surviving NMSSM parameter points are summarized in Fig.~\ref{plots4}.
Referring to the figure, we see a mixture of blue circle points (those with $\Omega h^2<0.094$) and red/orange diamond points (those with $0.094\leq \Omega h^2 \leq 0.136$, {\it i.e.}\ in the WMAP window). The main mechanism at work to make $\Omega h^2$ too small for many points is rapid $\widetilde \chi_1^0\cnone$ annihilation to $W^+W^-$ due to a substantial Higgsino component of the $\widetilde \chi_1^0$ (see third plot of Fig.~\ref{plots4}). Indeed, the relic density of a Higgsino LSP is typically of order $\Omega h^2\approx 10^{-3}-10^{-2}$.
As the Higgsino component declines $\Omega h^2$ increases
and (except for the strongly overlapping points with $m_{\cnone}<m_W$, for which $\widetilde \chi_1^0\cnone\toW^+W^-$ is below threshold) it is the points for which the LSP is dominantly singlino that have large enough $\Omega h^2$ to fall in the WMAP window.
Also plotted in Fig.~\ref{plots4} is the spin-independent direct detection cross section, $\sigma_{\rm SI}$, as a function of $m_{\cnone}$. First of all, we note that the 2012 XENON100 limits on $\sigma_{\rm SI}$ are obeyed by all the points that have $\Omega h^2$ in the WMAP window, even though our scans only implemented the 2011 XENON100 limits --- indeed only a modest number of the $\Omega h^2<0.094$ points are inconsistent with the 2012 limits. The $\sigma_{\rm SI}$ plot also shows that experiments probing the spin-independent cross section will reach sensitivities that will probe some of the $\sigma_{\rm SI}$ values that survive the 2012 XENON100 limits relatively soon, especially the $m_{\cnone}>93~{\rm GeV}$ points that are in the WMAP window (region B). However, it is also noteworthy that the $m_{\cnone}\sim 75~{\rm GeV}$ points in region A can have very small $\sigma_{\rm SI}$.
The fourth plot of Fig.~\ref{plots4} and fifth plot of Fig.~\ref{plots5} illustrate clearly the two categories of WMAP-window points. The first category (A) of points is that for which the $\widetilde \chi_1^0$ has low mass and large Higgsino component with $\tan\beta\in [2,2.6]$ and $\lambda\in[0.53, 0.6]$; ; the second category (B) is that for which
$m_{\cnone}>93~{\rm GeV}$, $\tan\beta\in[5,7]$ and $\lambda\in[0.37,0.48]$ .
It is interesting to discuss whether or not any of the $98+125~{\rm GeV}$ Higgs scenario points are such as to describe the monochromatic signal at $130~{\rm GeV}$ observed in the Fermi-LAT data~\cite{Weniger:2012tx}. We recall that the observation requires $\langle \sigma v\rangle (\widetilde \chi_1^0\cnone\rightarrow \gamma\gam)\sim 10^{-27} {\rm cm}^3/{\rm sec}$ (this quoted value assumes standard dark matter density, $\rho\sim 0.3$).\footnote{Here, and below, $v$ is the very small velocity typical of dark matter in the current epoch, $v\sim 10^{-3} c$, as relevant for indirect detection of the $\widetilde \chi_1^0$ through $\widetilde \chi_1^0\cnone$ annihilations. This, of course, differs from the velocity at the time of freeze out, which is substantially higher.}
The situation is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{plots4b} where we plot $\langle \sigma v\rangle (\widetilde \chi_1^0\cnone\rightarrow a_1\rightarrow \gamma\gam)$ vs. $\Omega h^2$ for just those points with $m_{\cnone}\in [125,135]~{\rm GeV}$. (It is the $s$-channel $a_1$ diagram that can give a large $\vev{\sigma v}$.) We observe that points with $\Omega h^2$ in the WMAP window have values of $\vev {\sigma v}$ four orders of magnitude below that required to explain the excess. Those points with the largest $\vev{\sigma v}$ always have quite small $\Omega h^2$ and hence $\rho_{DM}$.
Incidentally, we have checked that all the points in our plots are fully consistent with the current bounds from the continuum $\gamma$ spectrum as measured by Fermi-LAT ~\cite{Atwood:2009ez,Bringmann:2012vr}.
\begin{figure}[h]\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_Wenigerlog-Omega_h100125}
\caption{We plot $\langle \sigma v\rangle (\widetilde \chi_1^0\cnone\rightarrow a_1\rightarrow \gamma\gam)$ vs. $\Omega h^2$ for just those points with $m_{\cnone}\in [125,135]~{\rm GeV}$. \label{plots4b}}
\end{figure}
If the $130~{\rm GeV}$ gamma ray line is confirmed, then the above questions will need to be explored more carefully. That a fully general NMSSM model (no GUT scale unifications) can be consistent simultaneously with the WMAP window, $\langle \sigma v \rangle (\widetilde \chi_1^0\cnone\rightarrowa_1 \rightarrow \gamma\gam)\sim 10^{-27}{\rm cm}^3/{\rm sec}$, a Higgs mass close to $125~{\rm GeV}$ and 2011 XENON100 constraints was demonstrated in~\cite{Das:2012ys}. However, the value of $m_{\ai}$ has to be carefully tuned and the $125~{\rm GeV}$ Higgs couplings to all particles (including photons) must be within 5\% of those for a SM Higgs boson of this mass, implying difficulty in describing the enhanced $\gamma\gam$ LHC rates in this channel. Some general (non-NMSSM) theoretical discussions of the $130~{\rm GeV}$ line in the context of DM appear in \cite{Bai:2012qy,Bringmann:2012ez}.
\section{\boldmath Future tests of the $98+125~{\rm GeV}$ Higgs Scenario}
A critical issue is what other observations
would either confirm or rule out the $98+125~{\rm GeV}$ LEP-LHC Higgs scenarios. We first discuss possibilities at the LHC and then turn to future colliders, including a future $e^+e^-$ collider, a possible $\gamma\gam$ collider and a future $\mu^+\mu^-$ collider.
\vspace*{-.2in}
\subsection{Direct Higgs production and decay at the LHC}
\vspace*{-.1in}
We have already noted in the discussion of Fig.~\ref{plots1} that $gg$ and VBF production of the $h_1$ with $h_1\rightarrow b\overline b$ provide event rates that might eventually be observable at the LHC once much higher integrated luminosity is attained. Other possibilities include production and decay of the $a_1$, $a_2$, and $h_3$. Decay branching ratios and LHC cross sections in the $gg$ fusion mode for $a_1$, $a_2$ and $h_3$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{otherhiggs}. Since the $a_1$ is dominantly singlet in nature, its production rates at the LHC are rather small. The largest $\sigma{\rm BR}(X)$ values are in the $X=b\overline b$ final state, but this final state will have huge backgrounds. When allowed, $\sigma{\rm BR}(X)$ for $X=\widetilde \chi_1^0\cnone$ can be significant, but observation of this invisible final state would require a jet or photon tag that would further decrease the cross section. The $a_2$ is dominantly doublet and provides better discovery prospects. If $m_{\aii}>2m_t$, the $t\overline t$ final state has $\sigma(gg\rightarrowa_2){\rm BR}(a_2\rightarrow t \overline t)> 0.01~{\rm pb}$ for $m_{\aii}<550~{\rm GeV}$, implying $>200$ events for $L=20~{\rm fb}^{-1}$. A study is needed to determine if this would be observable in the presence of the $t\overline t$ continuum background. No doubt, efficient $b$ tagging and reconstruction of the $t\overline t$ invariant mass in, say, the single lepton final state would be needed. For $m_{\aii}<2m_t$, the $X=\aih_2$ final state with both $a_1$ and $h_2$ decaying to $b\overline b$ might be visible above backgrounds. However, a dedicated study of this particular decay
mode is still lacking. Similar remarks apply in the case of the $h_3$ where the possibly visible final states are $t\overline t$ for $m_{\hiii}>2m_t$ and $h_1h_2$ for $m_{\hiii}<2m_t$. For both the $a_2$ and $h_3$, $\sigma{\rm BR}(X)$ is substantial for $X=\widetilde \chi_1^0\cnone$, but to isolate this invisible final state would require an additional photon or jet tag which would reduce the cross section from the level shown.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\vspace*{-.5in}
\hspace*{-7mm}
\includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_BRa1rev2log-ma1_h100125}
\vskip -.25 in
\hspace*{-7mm}
\includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_BRa2rev2log-ma2_h100125}
\vskip -.25in
\hspace*{-7mm}
\includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_BRh3rev2log-mh3_h100125}
\vspace*{-.5in}
\caption{Branching ratios and LHC cross sections in the $gg$ fusion mode (at $\sqrt s=8~{\rm TeV}$) for $a_1$, $a_2$ and $h_3$\label{otherhiggs}}
\end{figure}
A final possible detection mode is $gg\rightarrowa_2,h_3\rightarrow\tau^+\tau^-$. For this case we plot in Fig.~\ref{cdeffvsm} the effective down-quark coupling, $C_d^{a_2,h_3}(\rm eff)$ vs. $m_{\aii}$ and $m_{\hiii}$, where we define
\begin{equation}
C_d^{a_2,h_3}({\rm eff})=|C_d^{a_2,h_3}|\left[ {{\rm BR} (a_2,h_3\rightarrow\tau^+\tau^-)\over 0.1 }\right ] ^{1/2}
\label{cdeffdef}
\end{equation}
and where $0.1$ is a reference value of ${\rm BR}(H,A\rightarrow\tau^+\tau^-)$ implicit in the MSSM limit plots discussed below.
Noting that $m_{\aii}\simeq m_{\hiii}$ and the fact that the two plots are nearly identical shows that we may sum the $a_2$ and $h_3$ signals together in the same manner as the $H$ and $A$ signals are summed together in the case of the analogous plot of $\tan\beta$ vs. $m_A\simeq m_H$ in the case of the MSSM.
Limits from CMS $4.6~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ data \cite{Chatrchyan:2012vp} are of order $C_d^{a_2,h_3}({\rm eff})\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} 7-8$ for $m_{\aii}\simeqm_{\hiii}\in[150,220]~{\rm GeV}$ rising rapidly to reach $\sim 50$ at degenerate mass of order $500~{\rm GeV}$. A dedicated study is needed to determine the precise luminosity for which LHC detection or meaningful limits will become possible for $C_d^{a_2,h_3}({\rm eff})\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} 1$ (as relevant for $m_{\aii},m_{\hiii}<550~{\rm GeV}$). Even though Higgs cross sections from $gg$ fusion increase, relative to $\sqrt s=8~{\rm TeV}$, for $\sqrt s=14~{\rm TeV}$ quite high luminosity will be needed. Currently, for example, the CMS limit from $10~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ of data at $m_{\aii}\simeq m_{\hiii}\sim 300~{\rm GeV}$ is of order 18, and this amplitude level limit will only improve statistically by $1/L^{1/4}$. Even accounting for the $\sqrt s=14~{\rm TeV}$ cross section increase, very significant improvements in the sensitivity of this analysis will be needed.
\begin{figure}[t]
\hspace*{-4mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_CdBRtautau-ma2_h100125}
\hspace*{-6mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_CdBRtautau-mh3_h100125}
\caption{$C_d^{a_2,h_3}({\rm eff})$, see Eq.~(\ref{cdeffdef}), vs. $m_{\aii}$ and $m_{\hiii}$ for $gg\rightarrow a_2,h_3\rightarrow\tau^+\tau^-$.}
\label{cdeffvsm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_BRH+rev2log-mH+_h100125}
\caption{Decay branching ratios of the charged Higgs bosons.
\label{chargedhiggs}}
\end{figure}
The branching ratios for the $H^\pm$ are plotted in Fig.~\ref{chargedhiggs}, Prospects for its discovery at masses for which $H^+H^-$ production has substantial cross section appear to be promising in the $bt$ final state provided reconstruction of the $bt$ mass is possible with good efficiency and one or more $b$ tags are sufficient to reject SM background. Also very interesting would be detection of $H^\pm\rightarrow \hiW^\pm$ in the $h_1\rightarrow b\overline b$ final state using mass reconstruction for the $b\overline b$ and a leptonic trigger from the $W^\pm$ to reject backgrounds. This channel could prove especially essential in order to detect the $m_{\hi}\sim 98~{\rm GeV}$ Higgs at the LHC and verify the $98+125~{\rm GeV}$ Higgs scenario.
\vspace*{-.2in}
\subsection{\boldmath Higgses from neutralino decays}
\vspace*{-.1in}
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace*{-7mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.535\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_BRchi3-mchi3rev_h100125}
\hspace{-8mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.535\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_BRchi4-mchi4rev_h100125}
\hspace*{-7mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.535\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_BRchi5-mchi5rev_h100125}
\hspace{-8mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.535\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_BRcha2-mcha2rev_h100125}
\vspace*{-4mm}
\caption{Branching ratios for neutralino and chargino decays into final states containing a Higgs boson for the $98+125~{\rm GeV}$ LEP-LHC Higgs scenarios.
\label{plots10}}
\end{figure}
Given that cascades from gluinos/squarks will have low event rate as a result of the large $m_{\tilde g}$ and $m_{\tilde q}$ masses predicted and the rather low $\widetilde \chi_1^\pm$ and $\widetilde \chi_1^0$ masses typical of the NMSSM scenarios we discuss, prospects for detecting chargino pair production and neutralino+chargino production would appear to be better, although one is faced with cross sections that are electroweak in size. Of particular interest is whether some of the Higgs bosons can be detected via ino-pair production. To assess the possibilities, we present in Fig.~\ref{plots10} the branching ratios for the decay of the neutralinos and charginos to lighter inos plus a Higgs boson. A brief summary of the results shown is in order. First, decays to the $a_1$ are not shown since they have very low branching ratios due to the singlet nature of the $a_1$. The only decay with branching ratio to the $a_2$ above 0.1 is $\widetilde \chi_2^\pm\rightarrow\widetilde \chi_1^\pm a_2$ with $m_{\cpmtwo}\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} 1.4~{\rm TeV}$ (beyond LHC reach via electroweak production).
In contrast, prospects for the all important $h_1$ are quite good, with ${\rm BR}(\widetilde \chi_3^0,\widetilde \chi_4^0\rightarrow\cnoneh_1)$ and ${\rm BR}(\widetilde \chi_2^\pm\rightarrow \cpmoneh_1)$ being quite substantial ({\it i.e.}\ $>0.1$) at lower values of $m_{\cnthree},m_{\cnfour}$ and $m_{\cpmtwo}$, respectively. Decays of $\widetilde \chi_3^0,\widetilde \chi_4^0,\widetilde \chi_5^0$ to $\cnoneh_2$ all have ${\rm BR}>0.1$ once $m_{\cnthree},m_{\cnfour},m_{\cnfive}$ are $\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} 250,400,500~{\rm GeV}$, respectively. Similarly, ${\rm BR}(\widetilde \chi_2^\pm\rightarrow \cpmoneh_2)>0.1$ for $m_{\cpmtwo}\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} 500~{\rm GeV}$. Since the charged Higgs has $m_{\hpm}>300~{\rm GeV}$, decays to it, although present for the $\widetilde \chi_4^0$, $\widetilde \chi_5^0$ and $\widetilde \chi_2^\pm$, do not have ${\rm BR}>0.1$ until $m_{\cnfour},m_{\cnfive},m_{\cpmtwo}\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} 1.1,1.3,1.3 ~{\rm TeV}$, respectively.
\vspace*{-.2in}
\subsection{Linear Collider and Photon Collider Tests}
\vspace*{-.1in}
\begin{table}[b]
\caption{Higgs masses and LSP mass in GeV for the three scenarios for which we plot $e^+e^-$ cross sections in Fig.~\ref{LC}. Also given are $\Omega h^2$, the singlino and Higgsino percentages and $R_{gg}^{h_2}(\gamma\gam)$. Scenarios I) and III) have $\Omega h^2$ in the WMAP window, with I) being typical of the low-$m_{\cnone}$ scenarios and III) being that with smallest $m_{\hiii}$ in the large-$m_{\cnone}$ group of points in the WMAP window. Scenario II) is chosen to have $m_{\aii}$ and $m_{\hiii}$ intermediate between those for scenario I) and III), a region for which $\Omega h^2$ is substantially below $0.1$.\label{LCtab}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Scenario & $m_{\hi}$ & $m_{\hii}$ & $m_{\hiii}$ & $m_{\ai}$ & $m_{\aii}$ & $m_{\hpm}$ & $m_{\cnone}$ & $\Omega h^2$ & LSP singlino & LSP Higgsino & $R_{gg}^{h_2}(\gamma\gam)$
\\
\hline
I & 99 & 124 & 311 & 140 & 302 & 295 & 76 & 0.099 & 18\% & 75\% & 1.62\\
II & 97 & 124 & 481 & 217 & 473 & 466 & 92 & 0.026 & 20\% & 74 \% & 1.53\\
III & 99 & 126 & 993 & 147 & 991 & 989 & 115 & 0.099 & 75\% & 25\% & 1.14 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
An $e^+e^-$ collider would be the ideal machine to produce the additional Higgs states and resolve the scenario. Production cross sections for the various Higgs final states are shown in Fig.~\ref{LC} for the three illustrative scenarios specified in Table~\ref{LCtab} taken from our NMSSM scans. The first plot is for a WMAP-window scenario with $m_{\cnone}\sim 76~{\rm GeV} $ and light Higgs bosons. The third plot is for the point in region B with smallest $m_{\hiii}$, for which $m_{\aii},m_{\hiii},m_{\hpm}$ are all around $1~{\rm TeV}$. The second plot is for a sample scenario with Higgs masses that are intermediate, as only possible if $\Omega h^2$ lies below the WMAP window. With an integrated luminosity of $1000~{\rm fb}^{-1}$, substantial event rates for many $Z$+Higgs and Higgs pair final states are predicted. Of course, $Zh_1$ and $Zh_2$ production have the largest cross sections and lowest thresholds. The next lowest thresholds are for $\aih_1$ production, but the cross sections are quite small, $<0.1,0.01,0.001~{\rm fb}$, respectively. The $\aih_2$ cross sections are even smaller. Next in line are $\aih_3$, $\aiih_1$ and $\aiih_2$, with $\aiih_1$ having thresholds $>400,600,1190~{\rm GeV}$ for scenarios I), II) and III), respectively, as well as having the largest cross section, peaking at $\sigma>0.7,0.2,0.007~{\rm fb}$ for the three respective scenarios. Production of $\aiih_3$ and $H^+H^-$ have thresholds $>620,950,2000~{\rm GeV}$, respectively, but have much larger cross sections, that for $H^+H^-$ being $>16.6,6.3,1.4~{\rm fb}$ at the peak, for the three respective scenarios.
\begin{figure}[t]\begin{center}
\hspace*{8mm} scenario I\hspace{63mm} scenario II\\
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{h77-cut.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{h2302-cut.pdf}
\hspace*{10mm} scenario III\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{hwmap2-cut.pdf}\hspace*{-.13in}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-4mm}
\caption{Cross sections for Higgs production at an $e^+e^-$ collider, as functions of the center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}$, for three illustrative mass spectra as tabulated in Table~\ref{LCtab}.
\label{LC}}
\end{figure}
In the $e^+e^-$ collider case, it would be easy to isolate signals in many final states. For example, in the case of Higgs pairs, final states such as $(t\overline t)(t\overline t)$, $(\widetilde \chi_1^0\cnone)(t\overline t)$ and so forth could be readily identified above background. Observation of the $(\widetilde \chi_1^0\cnone)(\widetilde \chi_1^0\cnone)$ final states would require a photon tag and would thus suffer from a reduced cross section. Associated $Z$+Higgs, with Higgs decaying to $t\overline t$ or $\widetilde \chi_1^0\cnone$ would be even more readily observed.
Another future collider that would become possible if an $e^+e^-$ (or $e^-e^-$) collider is built is a $\gamma\gam$ collider where the $\gamma$'s are obtained by backscattering of laser photons off the energetic $e$'s. For a recent summary see~\cite{Gronberg:2012yj} and references therein. A huge range of energies is possible for such a $\gamma\gam$ collider, ranging from low to high center of mass energies depending upon the center of mass energy of the underlying electron collider. A $\gamma\gam$ collider based on $e^-e^-$ collisions can even be considered as a stand-alone machine that could be built before an $e^+e^-$ collider, especially if high $\sqrt s_{\gamma\gam}$ is not needed. Typically, the largest $\sqrt s_{\gamma\gam}$ that is possible with large instantaneous $\gamma\gam$ luminosity is of order $0.8 \sqrt s_{e^+e^-}$. That $\gamma\gam\rightarrow$Higgs is an effective way to study a SM Higgs boson has been well established~\cite{Asner:2001ia,Velasco:2002vg,Asner:2003hz}. For low Higgs masses, the required electron collider could have energy of order $m_{\rm Higgs}/0.8$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_Cgamgam2-mh1_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_Cgamgam2-ma1_h100125}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_Cgamgam2-mh2_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_Cgamgam2-ma2_h100125}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_Cgamgam2-mh3_h100125}
\caption{$(C^{h}_{\gamma\gam})^2$ as a function of $m_h$ for $h=h_1,h_2,h_3,a_1,a_2$.}
\label{gamgamcoups}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the present context, it is of interest to assess the extent to which a $\gamma\gam$ collider would be able to study the neutral NMSSM Higgs bosons. This is determined by the ratio of the $\gamma\gam$ coupling squared of the given Higgs boson to that of the SM Higgs. In Fig.~\ref{gamgamcoups} we present plots of $(C^{h}_{\gamma\gam})^2$ as a function of $m_h$ for $h=h_1,h_2,h_3,a_1,a_2$ for masses below $1~{\rm TeV}$. The fairly SM-like $h_2$ at $\sim 125~{\rm GeV}$ can be studied easily at such a collider since its $\gamma\gam$ coupling is close to SM strength.
For example, at an $e^-e^-$ collider with the optimal $E_{ee}=206~{\rm GeV}$, a $125~{\rm GeV}$ SM Higgs has a cross section of $200~{\rm fb}$. After two years of operation, equivalent to $L=500~{\rm fb}^{-1}$, one can measure the $b\overline b,W^+W^-,\gamma\gam$ partial widths with accuracies of $\Delta\Gamma(b\overline b,W^+W^-,\gamma\gam)/\Gamma(b\overline b,W^+W^-,\gamma\gam)\sim 0.015,0.04,0.06$, respectively~\cite{Velasco:2002vg} (see also~\cite{Asner:2001ia,Asner:2003hz}).
Even though the $h_1$ and $a_1$ are largely singlet, both have $\gamma\gam$ couplings-squared that are often of order $0.1\times $SM and above (at the same mass). In part, this is because even singlets couple to $\gamma\gam$ through a Higgsino-like chargino loop using the singlet-Higgsino-Higgsino coupling that arises from the $\lambda \widehat S \widehat H_u \widehat H_d$ term in the superpotential. Indeed, this coupling becomes stronger as $\lambda$ is increased. Of course, it is important to note that the modest values of $\mu_{\text{eff}}$ (see Fig.~\ref{plots5}) that characterize many of our scenarios imply that the lightest chargino is largely Higgsino-like and has low mass (see Fig.~\ref{plots5.5}), for which the Higgsino-chargino loop is less suppressed. Even for $\gamma\gam$ coupling-squared of order $0.1\times$SM, with sufficient integrated luminosity observation of the $h_1$ and $a_1$ would be possible. For example, for suitably chosen $E_{ee}$, the above SM Higgs rates multiplied by $0.1$ would roughly apply for $m_{\hi}\sim 98~{\rm GeV}$ or $m_{\ai} < 300~{\rm GeV}$, from which it is clear that the $b\overline b$ final state would be easily observable with $L=500~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ and one could measure the partial width with an accuracy of order $5\%$. Even the $h_3$ and $a_2$ would be observable for $m_{\aii}< 500~{\rm GeV}$, again assuming appropriately optimal $E_{ee}$ for the given $m_{\hiii}$ or $m_{\aii}$ and $L=500~{\rm fb}^{-1}$.
This raises the question of whether or not a $\gamma\gam$ collider with adjustable (as is straightforward) $\sqrt s_{\gamma\gam}$ in the $98~{\rm GeV}$ range would be a good next step for high energy physics. It would have the advantage of allowing important detailed studies of the $h_2$ (or any SM-like Higgs boson with mass of $125~{\rm GeV}$) while testing for the presence of the $h_1$. With adjustable $\sqrt s_{\gamma\gam}$ and $L \geq 500~{\rm fb}^{-1}$, the $h_3,a_1,a_2$, or any other light Higgs boson with significant (even if somewhat suppressed) $\gamma\gam$ coupling, would be observable as well.
\vspace*{-.2in}
\subsection{\boldmath A $\mu^+\mu^-$ Collider}
\vspace*{-.1in}
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_Cbb2-mh1_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_Cbb2-ma1_h100125}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_Cbb2-mh2_h100125}
\hspace{-5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig_NUHM-genAlk_Cbb2-mh3_h100125}
\end{center}
\caption{Reduced $\mu^+\mu^-$ couplings squared for $h_1,h_2,h_3,a_1$.\protect \label{mucoup}}
\end{figure}
A muon-collider with $\sqrt s$ close to the Higgs mass in question would be a particularly ideal machine to study any Higgs boson with $\mu^+\mu^-$ coupling that is not too different from that of a SM Higgs boson of similar mass. Thus, in Fig.~\ref{mucoup} we present plots of $(C_{\mu^+\mu^-}^h)^2$ as a function of $m_h$ for $h=h_1,h_2,h_3,a_1$, that for the $a_2$ being essentially identical to the $h=h_3$ case. We see that prospects are really quite good for the $h_1$ as well as the $h_2$. In addition, the WMAP-window $a_1$ points, all of which lie at relatively low mass, can be probed as well. As for the $h_3$ (and the $a_2$), the low-$m_{\cnone}$ region points with low $m_{\hiii}$ ($\simeq m_{\aii}$) have nicely enhanced $(C^{h_3}_{\mu^+\mu^-})^2$ ( $\simeq (C^{a_2}_{\mu^+\mu^-})^2$). A muon collider would be ideal for probing such scenarios. Additional experimental evidence for this $98+125~{\rm GeV}$ Higgs scenario from other machines would provide strong motivation for the muon collider.
\section{Conclusions}
To summarize, we have emphasized the possibility that both the LEP excess in the $b\overline b$ final state at $M_{b\overline b}\sim 98~{\rm GeV}$ and the LHC Higgs-like signal at $\sim 125~{\rm GeV}$ with an enhanced rate in the two-photon final state can be explained in the context of the NMSSM.
The NMSSM scenarios of this type have many attractive features. We have particularly emphasized the fact that the $h_1$ could eventually be observed at the LHC in $gg,{\rm VBF} \rightarrow h_1\rightarrow b\overline b$. We urge the ATLAS and CMS collaborations to give attention to this possibility.
The $98+125~{\rm GeV}$ Higgs scenarios have important implications for the other Higgs bosons and for supersymmetric particles.
If we focus only on the subset of these scenarios that have relic density in the WMAP window, then there are two separate regions of NMSSM parameter space that emerge. One region (A) is characterized by small $m_{\cnone}\sim 75~{\rm GeV}$ and low masses for many of the Higgs bosons and superpartners, including $m_{\stopi}$ as low as $197~{\rm GeV}$. The second region (B) is characterized by larger $m_{\cnone}\in [93,150]~{\rm GeV}$ and much larger mass scales for the heavier Higgs bosons and supersymmetric particles. For this latter region, one finds $m_{\ai}\in[100,200]~{\rm GeV}$, $m_{\cpmone}\in[170,230]~{\rm GeV}$, $m_{\aii}\simeqm_{\hiii}\simeq m_{\hpm}\in[1,1.4]~{\rm TeV}$, $m_{\stopi}\in[1.9,2.8]~{\rm TeV}$, $m_{\tilde q},m_{\tilde g}\in[3,5]~{\rm TeV}$ and $\tan\beta\in[5,7]$.
Clearly this latter region leaves little hope for LHC detection of the colored particles and experimental probes would need to focus on the gauginos and lighter Higgs bosons. It is further associated with rather modest values for the enhancement of the $125~{\rm GeV}$ Higgs signal in the $\gamma\gam$ channel.
Information related to the prospects for Higgs and superparticle detection for the two regions (A) and (B) at an $e^+e^-$, $\gamma\gam$ or $\mu^+\mu^-$ collider are summarized.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The work of JFG and YJ was supported by US DOE grant DE-FG03-91ER40674, that of JHS the U.S. DOE grant No. DE-FG03-92-ER40701, and that of SK and GB by
IN2P3 under contract PICS FR--USA No.~5872. UE acknowledges partial support from the French ANR~LFV-CPV-LHC, ANR~STR-COSMO and the European Union FP7 ITN INVISIBLES (Marie Curie
Actions,~PITN-GA-2011-289442).
GB, UE, JFG, SK, and JHS acknowledge the hospitality and the inspiring working atmosphere
of the Aspen Center for Physics which is supported by the National Science Foundation Grant No.\ PHY-1066293.
|
\section{Introduction}
Quantum zero-point fluctuations manifest themselves in a variety of macroscopic effects. A prominent example is Casimir's demonstration that these fluctuations lead to attraction of two perfectly conducting parallel plates \cite{Casimir48-2}. Experimental advances in precision measurements of the Casimir force \cite{Lamoreaux97, Mohideen98} have revived interest in finding frameworks where one can compute these forces both numerically \cite{Reid09,Rodriguez10} and analytically. A particularly successful approach in applications to different geometries and material properties is based on scattering methods and techniques \cite{Emig07,Kenneth08,Maia_Neto08,Emig08-1,Rahi09, Canaguier-Durand10, Maghrebi10}. In this approach, the quantum-field-theoretic problem is reduced to that of finding the {\it classical} scattering matrix of each object.
Another manifestation of fluctuations appears in the so-called dynamical Casimir effect: when objects are set in motion, they interact with the fluctuations of the background vacuum in a time-dependent fashion which excites photons and emits radiation. In fact, accelerating boundaries radiate energy and thus experience friction. An early example of this phenomenon was discussed by Moore for a one dimensional cavity \cite{Moore70}. A relativistic analysis of an accelerating mirror in 1+1 dimension in Ref.~\cite{Fulling76} employs techniques from conformal field theory. A perturbative study of the latter confirmed and generalized its results to higher dimensions \cite{Ford82}. Among other methods, the fluctuation-dissipation theorem has been used to compute the frictional force on a moving sphere in free space \cite{MaiaNeto93}, a Hamiltonian formalism has been applied to the problem of photon production in cavities \cite{Law94,Dodonov95}, and a (Euclidean) path-integral formulation is introduced to study the ``vacuum'' friction for a rough plate moving laterally \cite{Golestanian97}. We specially note that an input-output formalism relating the incoming and outgoing operators is used to compute, among other things, the frequency and angular spectrum of radiated photons \cite{Neto96}. While a substantial literature is devoted to objects with perfect boundary conditions, dielectric and dispersive materials have also been studied in some cases \cite{Barton93}. In fact, dispersive objects exhibit similar effects even when they move at a constant velocity. For example, two parallel plates moving laterally with respect to each other experience a (non-contact) frictional force \cite{Pendry97,Volokitin99}. Even a single object experiences friction if put in constant rotation \cite{Manjavacas10, Maghrebi12}, a phenomenon most intimately related to \emph{superradiance }first discovered by Zel'dovich \cite{Zel'dovich71}. (Translational motion of a single object is trivial due to the Lorentz symmetry.) The latter examples, consisting of dispersive objects moving at a constant rate, are usually treated within the framework of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem or the closely related Rytov formalism \cite{Rytov89}.
Inspection of the literature on the dynamical Casimir effect leads to the following observations: There are a plethora of interesting---sometimes counter-intuitive--- phenomena emerging from the motion of a body in an ambient quantum field \cite{Dodonov10,Dalvit11}. These phenomena span a number of subfields in physics, and have been treated by a variety of different formalisms. Even the simplest examples appear to require rather complex computations. Only recently experimental realizations---using a SQUID to mimic the moving boundary of a cavity (transmission line) \cite{Nori11,Nori12}---have made precise measurements possible, raising the hope for an explosion of activity similar to the post-precision experiment era of static Casimir forces. This motivates reexamination of theoretical literature on the subject, aiming for a simple and unifying framework for analysis.
In this work, we follow two goals. First, inspired by the success of the scattering-theory methods in (static) Casimir forces, we attempt at extending these techniques to dynamical Casimir problems. We find that the \emph{classical} scattering matrix is naturally incorporated into the formalism. However, dynamical configurations provide new channels where the incoming frequency jumps to different values, hence the scattering matrix should be defined accordingly.
Second, we aim for a universal framework which brings the diverse set of problems in dynamical Casimir under the same rubric. Most notably, we treat accelerating boundaries, modulated optical setups and moving dispersive objects---usually tackled with different techniques, as explained above---on the same footing.
In this paper, computations are performed for a scalar field theory. The generalization to electromagnetism is straightforward in principle, while practical computations are more complicated in the latter. We find scalar field theory convenient to set the framework for more realistic applications.
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \ref{Sec: Formalism}, starting from a second-quantized formalism, we derive general formulas for the energy radiation due to the dynamical Casimir effect. In Sec. \ref{Sec: Lossless accelerating objects}, we consider lossless objects undergoing non-uniform motion or optical modulation, and provide a variety of examples to showcase the power of the scattering approach. Specifically, we find that an (asymmetrical) spinning object slows down, and further contrast linear and angular motion. In Sec. \ref{Sec. Lossy objects: stationary motion}, we consider dispersive objects moving at a constant rate. We also generalize to the case of multiple objects in relative motion where we study, among other things, an ``atom'' moving parallel to a dispersive surface.
\section{Formalism}\label{Sec: Formalism}
We start with input-output relations as described in Ref.~\cite{Beenakker98}. The underlying formalism has been developed to quantize the electromagnetic field in a lossy or amplifying medium \cite{Matloob95,Gruner96, Loudon97}. (A similar method is also used to study the dynamical Casimir effect; see, for example, Refs.~\cite{Lambrecht96, Neto96}. However the more general formalism in Ref.~\cite{Beenakker98} allows further extensions specially to dispersive objects.) Within this formalism the operators $\hat a^{\inn}$ and $\hat a^{\out}$ represent annihilation operators of the incoming or outgoing waves, respectively, in the vacuum (outside the object). These operators are then related by \cite{Beenakker98}
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: 1}
\hat a^{\out}_\beta= \sum_\alpha \bS_{\beta\alpha}\, \hat a_\alpha^{\inn} +\sum_\alpha\bU_{\beta\alpha} \, \hat b_{\alpha}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\hat b$ is the operator corresponding to the absorption within the object, and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are quantum numbers. In this equation, $\bS$ is the object's scattering matrix while $\bU$ describes its lossy character---the latter is related to the scattering matrix as shown later. This method treats field theory in the second quantized picture where quantum (annihilation or creation) operators are introduced. Equation (\ref{Eq: 1}) then relates quantum operators via the \emph{classical }scattering matrix. This proves to be useful in applications to the dynamical Casimir effect.
Equation (\ref{Eq: 1}) has its roots in the classical wave equation. To see this, we first define ``in'' and ``out'' wave functions. The incoming wave can be expanded as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: incoming wave}
\Phi^{\inn}(\bx)=\sum_\alpha c^{\inn}_\alpha \Phi^{\inn}_\alpha(\bx),
\end{equation}
where $c^{\inn}_\alpha$ is the amplitude of the corresponding wave function $\Phi^{\inn}_\alpha$. The latter function should be normalized so that the number of incoming quanta per unit time is (negative) unity,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: normalization1}
\frac{1}{2i} \oint \dS \cdot \left[{\Phi^{\inn*}_{\alpha}} \, \nabla {\Phi^{\inn}_{\beta}}-\nabla {\Phi^{\inn*}_{\alpha}} \, {\Phi^{\inn}_{\beta}}\right]=-\delta_{\alpha \beta},
\end{equation}
with the integral defined over a closed surface enclosing the object.
The reason for this choice is that we shall associate the wave function with a quantum operator which satisfies the canonical commutation relations, and the normalization should be defined consistently. Similarly the outgoing wave functions are normalized as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: normalization2}
\frac{1}{2i} \oint \dS \cdot \left[{\Phi^{\out*}_{\alpha}} \, \nabla {\Phi^{\out}_{\beta}}-\nabla {\Phi^{\out*}_{\alpha}} \, {\Phi^{\out}_{\beta}}\right]=\delta_{\alpha \beta}.
\end{equation}
We also designate the solutions to the wave equation inside the object as $\Phi^{\rm obj}$. Now suppose that there are sources in two regions in space: at infinity where they generate the incoming wave, $\Phi^{\inn}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: incoming wave}); and within the object where they induce a field $\Phi^{\rm obj}=\sum_\alpha d_\alpha \Phi_\alpha^{\rm obj}$---the normalization of these functions does not affect the scattering matrix and thus is not discussed here. The incoming wave is scattered by the object while the object itself radiates due to the induced field. The resulting outgoing wave, $\Phi^{\out}=\sum_\alpha c_\alpha^{\out} \Phi_\alpha^{\out}$, is determined by
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: classical amplitude}
c^{\out}_\beta=\sum_\alpha S_{\beta \alpha} c^{\inn}_\alpha + \sum_\alpha U_{\beta \alpha} d_\alpha,
\end{equation}
where the first term is merely the scattering of the incoming waves, and the second term captures the radiation of the object itself. The above analysis is based on a classical wave equation. Equation (\ref{Eq: 1}) extends the last equation to a relation between quantum operators, i.e. the complex-valued coefficients in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: classical amplitude}) become quantum operators in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: 1}) through $c^{\inn/\out} \to \hat a^{\inn/\out}$ and $d \to \hat b$ (see also the discussion in Ref.~\cite{Scully1997} on the relation between wave mechanics and the classical limit). From this point on, we shall drop the hat symbol from quantum operators.
For objects in motion, scattering can also change the frequency of the incoming wave. We make the dependence on frequency explicit while reserving $\alpha$ for other quantum numbers; the sum in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: 1}) is replaced by
\begin{equation}
\sum_\alpha\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\dd\omega}{2\pi}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Most importantly, the scattering matrix may mix positive and negative frequencies, in which case an outgoing operator of positive frequency is related to an incoming operator of negative frequency via Eq.~(\ref{Eq: 1}). Note that an operator $a_{\omega \alpha}$ with negative $\omega$ should be interpreted as a creation operator; more precisely, $a_{\omega \alpha}=a^\dagger_{-\omega \,\bar \alpha}$ where $\bar \alpha$ is related to $\alpha$ by time reversal.
We assume that the environment is at a temperature $T_{\rm env}$ while the object is at a (possibly different) temperature $T$. The distribution of the incoming modes (before scattering) is solely characterized by $T_{\rm env}$,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: Occ Number}
\langle {a^{\inn \dagger}_{\omega'\beta}} a^{\inn}_{\omega\alpha}\rangle= \sgn(\omega) n(\omega,T_{\rm env})\, \delta (\omega-\omega')\,\delta_{\alpha\beta}\,,
\end{equation}
where $n(\omega,T)=\frac{1}{\exp({\hbar \omega}/{k T})-1}$ is the Bose-Einstein factor. Note that this equation holds for both positive and negative values of frequency; an operator $a_{\omega \alpha}$ ($a^\dagger_{\omega \alpha}$) defined at a negative frequency, $\omega$, is interpreted as a creation (annihilation) operator of a positive-frequency mode.
On the other hand, the occupation number for the operators $b$, localized on the object, is determined by $T$, the object's temperature. But we should keep in mind that the object could be moving, so the frequency defined from the point of view of a reference system (co)moving with the object is different from that of an observer in the vacuum, or the \emph{lab}, frame. For a partial wave $(\omega, \alpha)$ in the lab frame, we define $\tilde \omega_\alpha$ as the frequency according to the comoving reference frame. The occupation number is then\footnote{The change of basis from the frequency in the moving frame to that of the lab frame gives rise to the Jacobian. The partial derivative is positive on physical grounds.}
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: Occ Number b}
\langle {b}^\dagger_{\omega'\beta} b_{\omega\alpha}\rangle= \sgn(\tilde \omega_\alpha) n(\tilde \omega_\alpha,T)\, \frac{\partial \tilde\omega_\alpha}{\partial \omega}\, \delta(\omega-\omega')\,\delta_{\alpha\beta}\,.
\end{equation}
From the distribution of the incoming and localized operators, Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: Occ Number}) and (\ref{Eq: Occ Number b}), we can evaluate the distribution for an outgoing mode $(\omega', \beta)$,
\begin{align}\label{Eq: Occ num out}
\langle a^{\out \dagger}_{\omega'\beta} &a^{\out}_{\omega'\beta}\rangle= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\!\!\frac{\dd\omega}{2\pi} \, \sgn(\omega) n(\omega,T_{\rm env}) \sum_{\alpha}\left|\bS_{\omega'\beta,\omega\alpha}\right|^2 \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{\alpha} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\!\!\frac{\dd\tilde \omega_\alpha}{2\pi} \,\sgn(\tilde \omega_\alpha) n(\tilde \omega_\alpha,T) \left|\bU_{\omega'\beta,\omega\alpha}\right|^2 .
\end{align}
To find the flux of field quanta to the environment, one should compute the difference of outgoing and incoming flux.
To study Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Occ num out}) in some detail, we consider two different situations. \\
{\bf Accelerating objects---}First we assume that the object is non-lossy so that the second term on the RHS of Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: 1}) and (\ref{Eq: Occ num out}) is absent. For the sake of simplicity, we choose to work at zero temperature\footnote{In the absence of loss, the object's temperature does not play a role.}, i.e. $T_{\rm env}=0$; the generalization to finite temperatures is straightforward. From Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Occ num out}), we find
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: flux rate lossless}
\langle a^{\out \dagger}_{\omega'\beta} a^{\out}_{\omega'\beta}\rangle= \int_{-\infty}^{0}\frac{\dd\omega}{2\pi} \sum_{\alpha}\left|\bS_{\omega'\beta,\omega\alpha}\right|^2.
\end{equation}
We have used the fact that the Bose-Einstein distribution at $T=0$ is different from zero only for negative frequencies. Loosely speaking, this means that, in the vacuum state, all single-particle states with negative energy are occupied while those of positive energy are empty.
The rate of energy radiation is obtained as an integral over the outgoing flux in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: flux rate lossless}) multiplied by the quanta energy
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: Enrgy Rad}
P=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\dd\omega'}{2\pi} \, \hbar \omega' \int_{-\infty}^{0}\frac{\dd\omega}{2\pi} \sum_{\alpha,\beta}\left|\bS_{\omega'\beta,\omega\alpha}\right|^2.
\end{equation}
The choice of basis $\alpha$ is a matter of convenience, as in a basis-independent notation Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Enrgy Rad}) is cast as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: Enrgy Rad Trace}
P=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\dd\omega'}{2\pi} \, \hbar \omega' \int_{-\infty}^{0}\frac{\dd\omega}{2\pi} \tr \left(\bbS_{\omega',\omega}\bbS^\dagger_{\omega',\omega}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\bbS$ is the basis-free scattering matrix. A similar expression is derived in Ref.~\cite{Lambrecht96} for the radiation from a vibrating cavity. These equations provide a simple and compact formulation which serve as the starting point for studying accelerating boundaries and modulated optical devices in Sec. \ref{Sec: Lossless accelerating objects}.\\
{\bf Stationary motion---}Next we consider objects in stationary, linear or rotational, motion. Although the objects are moving, the boundaries do not change their shape or orientation. One such example is two infinite plates moving parallel to their surface. Despite the motion, the relative configuration of the two plates does not change in time.
This type of dynamical problem is not explicitly time dependent, nevertheless the relative motion leads to dissipative effects. In other words, such systems respect time translation but break time-reversal symmetry, and thus allow for dissipation. Because of the stationary character of the setup, however, the scattering matrix $\bbS$ as well as the matrix $\bbU$ are diagonal in frequency, and we indicate this by a single frequency dependence as $\bS_{\beta\alpha}(\omega)$ and $\bU_{\beta\alpha}(\omega)$.
For a lossy object, the scattering matrix cannot be unitary as part of the incoming wave is lost inside the object. Interestingly, unitarity alone, sufficiently constrains the matrix $\bbU$ for our purposes \cite{Beenakker98}.
There is a large body of literature on quantization in an absorbing (or amplifying) medium, covering a variety of approaches. The method of input-output relations \cite{Matloob95,Gruner96,Beenakker98} starts by formulating canonical commutation relations for the incoming and outgoing operators,
\begin{align}
&[a^{\out/ \inn}_{\omega\alpha}, {a^{\out/ \inn \dagger}_{\omega'\beta}}]=\sgn(\omega) \delta(\omega-\omega') \, \delta_{\alpha \beta}.
\end{align}
We extend this method to moving systems by demanding that the operators $b$ (localized on the object) satisfy the commutation relations in the rest frame of the object,
\begin{align}
&[b_{\omega\alpha},{b^\dagger_{\omega'\beta}}]=\sgn(\tilde \omega_\alpha)\frac{\partial \tilde \omega_\alpha}{\partial \omega }\delta(\omega -\omega')\, \delta_{\alpha\beta},
\end{align}
with $\tilde \omega_\alpha$ defined above. This set of relations along with Eq.~(\ref{Eq: 1}) lead to
\begin{equation} \label{Eq: Unitarity moving}
\sgn(\omega)\, (1-\sum_\alpha |\bS_{\beta \alpha}(\omega)|^2) =\sum_\alpha {\sgn(\tilde\omega_\alpha) }{\frac{\partial \tilde\omega_\alpha}{\partial \omega} }\, |\bU_{\beta\alpha}(\omega)|^2 \,.
\end{equation}
In the comoving frame, the object is momentarily at rest, and thus the frequency according to this frame does not change, i.e. $\tilde \omega_\alpha=\tilde \omega_\beta$ if $U_{\beta \alpha}\ne 0$. Therefore, Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Unitarity moving}) can be recast as
\begin{equation} \label{Eq: Unitarity moving1}
\sgn(\omega)\, (1-\sum_\alpha |\bS_{\beta \alpha}(\omega)|^2) ={\sgn(\tilde\omega_\beta) }{\frac{\partial \tilde\omega_\beta}{\partial \omega} }\sum_\alpha |\bU_{\beta\alpha}(\omega)|^2 \,,
\end{equation}
or in a matrix notation,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: Unitarity moving2}
\sgn(\omega)\, (\bI-\bbS\bbS^\dagger)_{\beta\beta} = {\sgn(\tilde\omega_\beta)}{\frac{\partial \tilde\omega_\beta}{\partial \omega} }(\bbU \bbU^\dagger)_{\beta \beta} \,,
\end{equation}
which constrains the matrix $\bbU$ in terms of the scattering matrix, $\bbS$. In
the limit of static objects, one recovers the (basis-free) relation \cite{Beenakker98}
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: Unitarity}
\bI-\bbS \bbS^\dagger=\bbU \bbU^\dagger.
\end{equation}
This equation is interpreted by Beenakker as a ``fluctuation-dissipation'' relation with the LHS giving the dissipation due to the classical scattering from a lossy material, and the RHS accounting for field fluctuations due to spontaneous absorption or emission (in an amplifying medium) of field quanta.
Equation (\ref{Eq: Unitarity moving1}) for a moving object can be inserted in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Occ num out}) to obtain the flux due to the outgoing quanta. We are interested in the total flux,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\cal N}{\dd\omega}= \sum_{\beta} \, \langle a^{\out \dagger}_{\omega\beta} a^{\out}_{\omega\beta}\rangle-\langle a^{\inn \dagger}_{\omega\beta} a^{\inn}_{\omega\beta}\rangle.
\end{equation}
The total radiation is obtained as the latter quantity multiplied by $\hbar \omega$ integrated over frequency. Using Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: Occ num out}) and (\ref{Eq: Unitarity moving1}), one obtains the radiated energy per unit time as
\begin{align}
\!\!\! {\cal P}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!\frac{\dd\omega}{2\pi}\, \hbar \omega\!\sum_{\alpha,\beta} (n(\tilde\omega_\alpha,T) -n(\omega,T_{\rm env}) ) \left(\delta_{\beta\alpha }-\left|\bS_{\beta\alpha}(\omega)\right|^2\right).
\end{align}
In the absence of motion ($\tilde \omega_\alpha=\omega$), this equation correctly reproduces the thermal radiation from an object out of equilibrium from the environment \cite{Beenakker98,Kruger11}. Interestingly, the moving object radiates energy even when the temperature is zero both in the object and the environment. In this limit, the energy radiation takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: Energy Rad lossy T=0}
{\cal P}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\dd\omega}{2\pi}\, \hbar \omega\sum_{\alpha,\beta} \Theta(-\tilde\omega_\alpha)\, \left(\left|\bS_{\beta\alpha}(\omega)\right|^2-\delta_{\beta\alpha}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\Theta$ is the Heaviside step function. Therefore, spontaneous emission takes place for a process whose frequency $\omega$ is positive in the lab frame while, from the point of view of the moving observer, the corresponding frequency $\tilde\omega_\alpha$ is negative. This mixing between negative and positive frequencies is at the heart of the dynamical Casimir effect \cite{Dalvit11}.
In Sec. \ref{Sec. Lossy objects: stationary motion}, we employ Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Energy Rad lossy T=0}) to find the spontaneous emission due to a rotating object. Furthermore, we study the configuration of multiple objects in relative motion where we generalize the results presented in this section. In the process, we find that Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: Unitarity moving2}) and (\ref{Eq: Unitarity}) need to be modified for evanescent waves.
In summary, Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: Enrgy Rad}) and (\ref{Eq: Energy Rad lossy T=0}) express the energy radiation for an accelerating lossless body and a lossy moving object, respectively. In both cases, the radiated energy density is related to the off-diagonal part of the scattering matrix in $|S|^2$. Hence, they have a characteristic ``Fermi-Golden-Rule'' structure. In fact, to the lowest order, one can think of the off-diagonal $S$-matrix as a \emph{potential} due to the boundary condition or the object's material, akin to the Fermi Golden Rule.
In the following sections, we provide a variety of examples where we discuss applications of the general formulas presented above.
\section{Lossless accelerating objects}\label{Sec: Lossless accelerating objects}
In this section, we consider lossless objects with different shapes in various dimensions undergoing rotational or translational motion or oscillation. In the process, we reproduce some existing results in the literature, and also present many novel applications. Equation (\ref{Eq: Enrgy Rad}) is the central formula according to which we compute and discuss these results.
\subsection{A Dirichlet point in 1+1d } \label{Sec: point in 1+1}
The prototype of dynamical Casimir phenomena is the motion of a point-like \emph{mirror} in one dimension \cite{Fulling76,Ford82}. For simplicity, we assume that the ambient vacuum consists of a scalar field, $\Phi$, subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions on the mirror
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: bc condition 1+1}
\Phi(t,q(t))=0,
\end{equation}
where $q(t)$ is the trajectory of the mirror in time. We use a perturbative scheme \cite{Ford82} where we expand Eq.~(\ref{Eq: bc condition 1+1}) for small $q(t)$ to obtain
\begin{equation}
\Phi(t,0)+q(t)\partial_z\Phi(t,0)+\cdots=0\,.
\end{equation}
The scattering solution can be formally expanded in powers of $q$,
\begin{equation}
\Phi=\Phi_0+\Phi_1+\cdots\,.
\end{equation}
The boundary condition, to the first order, takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: phi 1}
\Phi_1(t,0)=-q(t)\partial_z\Phi_0(t,0).
\end{equation}
The incoming and outgoing modes are defined as
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{\inn/\out}_{\omega}=\sqrt{\frac{c}{{|\omega|}}}\exp[-i \omega (t\pm z/c)].
\end{equation}
Note that the normalization is chosen in accordance with Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: normalization1}) and (\ref{Eq: normalization2}). In the zeroth order, i.e. for a static mirror, we have
\begin{equation}
\Phi_0=\Phi^{\inn}_{\omega}-\Phi^{\out}_{\omega}\,.
\end{equation}
We can compute $\Phi_1$ by solving the free field equation ($\Box \, \Phi=0$) in the vacuum subject to its time-dependent value at the origin ($z=0$) as given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq: phi 1}). We leave the details to Appendix \ref{App: Plate}; the scattering matrix (from either side of the point) is obtained as
\begin{equation}
S_{\omega+\Omega, \omega}=- \frac{ 2i \,\tilde q(\Omega)}{c} \sqrt{{|(\omega+\Omega)}\,{\omega|}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde q(\Omega)$ is the Fourier transform of $q(t)$. (Note that, here and in the following, we only write the off-diagonal correction to the scattering matrix.) One can then compute the radiation according to Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Enrgy Rad}). For a Fourier mode $\Omega$, the integral in the latter equation contributes in the window of $0<-\omega<\Omega$.
Putting all the pieces together, and multiplying by a factor of two accounting for the scattering from both sides, we find
\begin{align}\label{Eq: E rad in 1+1}
P&=\frac{8\hbar}{c^2} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{\dd \Omega}{2\pi}|\tilde q(\Omega)|^2
\int_{-\Omega}^{0}\frac{\dd \omega}{2\pi} \, ({\omega+\Omega})^2 \, |\omega| \nonumber\\
&=\frac{\hbar}{3\pi c^2} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{\dd \Omega}{2\pi}|\tilde q(\Omega)|^2
\Omega^4\nonumber\\
&=\frac{\hbar}{6\pi c^2} \int \dd t \, \ddot{q}^2.
\end{align}
In the last line, the radiation is expressed as an integral over time.
From Eq.~(\ref{Eq: E rad in 1+1}), one can infer the dissipative component of the force
\begin{equation}
f(t)= \frac{\hbar}{6\pi c^2} \dddot q,
\end{equation}
in complete agreement with Ref.~\cite{Ford82}.
{
\subsection{Modulated reflectivity in 1+1d}
For moving bodies, the dynamical Casimir radiation is difficult to detect experimentally since it requires the objects to move at very high frequencies. An alternative approach is suggested by modulating optical properties of a resonant cavity \cite{Braggio05, Agnesi11, Paraoanu11}. In fact, any \emph{linear} time-dependent process can lead to similar dynamical Casimir effects. Modulated reflectivity, for example, generates photons and gives rise to radiation \cite{Dodonov05,Dodonov10}. The latter can be studied within the same framework that we developed for non-lossy objects\footnote{
In treating the dynamical Casimir effect in the absence of loss,
we did not assume that the objects are actually moving.}. In this section, we consider a point particle in one spatial dimension, but, unlike the model in the previous (sub)section, a linear coupling of (time-dependent) strength $\epsilon$ is introduced at the position of the particle. The field equation then reads
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{1}{c^2}\partial_t ^2-\partial_z^2\right)\Phi(t,z)+\epsilon(t) \delta(z) \Phi(t,0)=0.
\end{equation}
We recover a perfectly reflecting object for $\epsilon \to \infty$. An imperfect mirror undergoing arbitrary motion is studied in Ref.~\cite{Fosco07}. Note that in our model the particle is at rest at the origin while the coupling is modulated. The $S$-matrix can be computed by techniques similar to quantum mechanical scattering in a one-dimensional delta potential. For simplicity, we take $\epsilon(t)=\epsilon_0+\epsilon_\Omega \cos(\Omega t)$ with $\epsilon_0\gg\epsilon_\Omega$. We note that there are new scattering channels with incoming waves from one side transmitted to the other side of the object. A scattering ansatz with incoming waves from the RHS is given by
\begin{align}
\Phi\approx\begin{cases}
\Phi_\omega^{R\,\inn}+ r \Phi_\omega^{R\, \out}+ r_{\pm} \Phi^{R\, \out}_{\omega\pm\Omega}, & z>0, \\
t \Phi_\omega^{L\,\out}+ t_{\pm} \Phi^{L\,\out}_{\omega\pm\Omega}, & z<0,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where summation is made over both signs, and the wavefunctions denoted by $R(L)$ are defined on the right (left) side. Obviously, the two sets of definitions are related by reversing the sign of the coordinate $z$. In the above ansatz, we have exploited the smallness of the oscillatory part of $\epsilon$ by truncating the sum at the lowest harmonics. One can obtain the scattering amplitudes by matching the functions on the two sides of the mirror while setting the difference in their first derivative to $\epsilon \Phi(t,0)$. We find
\begin{align}
r_{\pm}=t_{\pm}=\frac{ i \epsilon_\Omega \sqrt{|\omega (\omega\pm\Omega)|}/c }{(\epsilon_0-2i\omega/c)(\epsilon_0-2i (\omega\pm\Omega)/c)}\,.
\end{align}
This equation can be further simplified by assuming $\epsilon_0 \gg \Omega/c$. In this limit, the energy radiation (per unit time) is, according to Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Enrgy Rad}),
\begin{align}
{\cal P}= \frac{\hbar \Omega^4\epsilon_\Omega^2}{6\pi c^2\epsilon_0^4}.
\end{align}
For a general $\epsilon(t)$ slowly varying around a mean value of $\epsilon_0$, the total energy radiation is given by
\begin{equation}
P=\frac{\hbar }{3\pi c^2\epsilon_0^4}\int \dd t \, {\ddot \epsilon(t)}^2.
\end{equation}
}
\subsection{A Dirichlet line in 2+1d}
Now consider a line extended along the $x$ axis in two spatial dimensions. In this geometry, the incoming and outgoing waves are described by
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{\inn/\out}_{\omega \,k_x}=\frac{1}{{\sqrt{k_\perp}}}\exp(-i \omega t+i k_x x\mp i k_\perp z)\,,
\end{equation}
where $k_x$ is the wavevector along the line, and $k_\perp$ is the perpendicular component, $k_\perp(\omega, k_x)=\sqrt{\omega^2/c^2-k_x^2}$. We assume that the line undergoes a rigid but time-dependent motion, $q(t)$, normal to the $x$ axis. One then finds
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: S matrix 2+1 line}
S_{\omega+\Omega k_x, \, \omega k_x}=-2i \, {\tilde q(\Omega)} \sqrt{k_\perp(\omega, k_x) \, k_\perp(\omega+\Omega, k_x)}\,;
\end{equation}
see Appendix \ref{App: Plate}. The scattering matrix is diagonal in $k_x$ due to translational symmetry along the $x$-axis. Note that Eq.~(\ref{Eq: S matrix 2+1 line}) is computed only for propagating modes--- evanescent waves fall off rapidly with the distance from the surface and do not contribute to radiation at infinity. The sum over all partial waves in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Enrgy Rad}) becomes $\int\frac{L {\scriptsize\dd} k_x}{2\pi}$ with $L$ being the extent of the line; the integration is over propagating waves only, i.e. $c|k_x|<|\omega|$ and $c|k_x|< \omega+\Omega$. Finally, an integration over the frequency, $\omega$, gives
\begin{align} \label{Eq: E rad 2+1 line}
P &=\frac{\hbar L}{128 c^3} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{\dd \Omega}{2\pi} \, |\tilde q(\Omega)|^2 \Omega^5.
\end{align}
In order to write this equation in the time domain, we extend the integral to $(-\infty, \infty )$ and recast the integrand as $\Omega \, |\tilde q(\Omega)|^2 \im\chi(\Omega)$.
The function $\chi$ is the (normalized) response function whose imaginary part is proportional to the energy dissipation to the environment, $
\im\chi(\Omega)=\frac{1}{2} \Omega^4 \sgn(\Omega)$.
Because of causality, the full response function can be obtained via Kramers-Kronig relations. In the time domain, we find this function as
\begin{align}
\chi(t)= \frac{24}{\pi}\Theta(t)\pr \frac{1}{t^5}\,,
\end{align}
with $\pr$ being the principal part. In this context, the response function relates the force to the object's displacement. So the force acting on the object at time $t$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: force 2+1 line}
f(t)=\frac{3\hbar L}{16\pi c^3} \int_{-\infty}^{t} \dd t' \pr \frac{1}{(t-t')^5} \, q(t')\,.
\end{equation}
The force is manifestly causal, i.e. it depends on $q$ at earlier times. However, Eq.~(\ref{Eq: force 2+1 line}) is possibly divergent near the upper bound of the integral unless a short-time cutoff is introduced to replace this bound by $t-\tau$. This does not affect the dissipative component of the force but regularizes the inertial force which sensitively depends on the large-frequency physics. In fact, in deriving Eq.~(\ref{Eq: force 2+1 line}), we have used the small-frequency behavior of the response function, so this equation should be valid only for large times. Interestingly, the force does not vanish even when the object no longer moves. We find that the force, long after the object comes to a full stop, falls as
\begin{equation}
f(t)= \frac{3\hbar L}{16 c^3 t^5} \int \dd t' \,q(t')=\frac{3\hbar L}{16 c^3 t^5 } \,\tilde q(0)\,,
\end{equation}
where the integral is over the displacement of the object for the duration of the motion (which is assumed to be much smaller than $t$), and $\tilde q(0)$ is the integrated displacement.
\subsection{A Dirichlet segment in a waveguide in 2+1d}
Next we consider a finite segment of size $L$ along the $x$-axis confined between two infinite Dirichlet lines (a \emph{waveguide}) in two spatial dimensions; see Fig.~\ref{Fig: Waveguide}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{FigWaveguideE}
\caption{A segment in a waveguide. The arrows indicate the direction along which the segment oscillates. Below a certain frequency, $\omega_{\rm min}=2\omega_0$, the motion is frictionless.}
\label{Fig: Waveguide}
\end{figure}
Dirichlet boundary conditions are assumed on all surfaces. The segment undergoes a rigid motion $q(t)$ parallel to the infinite lines. The only difference compared to the previous (sub)section is that the modes along the $x$-axis are quantized. Therefore the integral over $k_x$ is replaced by a sum over $n$ where $k_n=\frac{n\pi}{L}$. The radiation takes the form (cf. Eq.~(\ref{Eq: E rad 2+1 line}))
\begin{align}
P &=\frac{ \hbar }{128c^2} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{\dd \Omega}{2\pi}|\tilde q(\Omega)|^2 \Omega^4 \, g\left({\Omega L}/{c}\right),
\end{align}
where the function $g$ is defined as
\begin{align}
&g(\nu)= \frac{512}{\pi} \sum_{n=1}^{\lfloor \nu/2\pi\rfloor} \nonumber \\ &\int_{\frac{\pi n}{\nu}}^{1-\frac{\pi n}{\nu}} \!\!\!\!\!\! \dd z \, (1-z) \sqrt{(z^2- \frac{\pi^2 n^2}{\nu^2})((1-z)^2- \frac{\pi^2 n^2}{\nu^2})}\,.
\end{align}
For large $L$, $g(\nu) \to \nu$, and we recover the results of the previous (sub)section. However, this function vanishes below $\nu=2\pi$; a low-frequency motion does not dissipate energy since propagating waves inside a waveguide have no support in the range $(-\omega_0,\omega_0)$ with $\omega_0$ being the lowest eigenmode of the waveguide, hence $\omega_{\rm min}=2\omega_0= 2\pi c/L$. Close to this frequency, the function $g$ vanishes quadratically,
\begin{align}\label{Eq: g near 2pi}
g(\nu)\sim \frac{8}{\pi^2} \, (\nu-2\pi)^2, \qquad \nu \gtrsim 2\pi .
\end{align}
Similar to the previous (sub)section, one can use Kramers-Kronig relations to obtain the response function. Specifically, we are interested in the long-time limit after the object comes to a full stop. The dependence on large $t$ can be inferred from the short-frequency response (Eq.~(\ref{Eq: g near 2pi})) as
\begin{equation}
f(t)= -\frac{\hbar }{2\pi c L \,t^3} \re (e^{-i 2 \omega_0 t } \, \tilde q(2\omega_0)),
\end{equation}
with $\omega_0=\pi c/L$ as defined before. Note that the force now falls as $1/t^3$ while its amplitude undergoes periodic oscillations at frequency $2\omega_0$, twice the lowest natural frequency of the waveguide.
\subsection{A Dirichlet plate in 3+1d}
In this section, we consider a (two-dimensional) plate in three dimensions subject to the same (Dirichlet) boundary conditions.
Again we assume that the plate undergoes a rigid motion $q(t)$ normal to its surface, and find the scattering matrix as
\begin{equation} \label{Eq: S-Mat Plate}
S_{\omega+\Omega \bk_\|, \, \omega \bk_\|}=-2i \, {\tilde q(\Omega)} \sqrt{k_\perp(\omega, \bk_\|) \, k_\perp(\omega+\Omega, \bk_\|)}\,;
\end{equation}
see Appendix \ref{App: Plate}.
In order to compute the radiation, one should integrate over propagating modes only (both for incoming and outgoing waves), i.e. $c|\bk_\||<|\omega|$ and $c|\bk_\||< \omega+\Omega$. Equation~(\ref{Eq: Enrgy Rad}) then gives
\begin{align}\label{Eq: E rad 3+1}
P&=\frac{\hbar L^2}{180\pi^2 c^4} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{\dd \Omega}{2\pi}|\tilde q(\Omega)|^2
\Omega^6\nonumber\\
&=\frac{\hbar L^2}{360\pi^2 c^4} \int \dd t \dddot{q}^2,
\end{align}
where $L^2$ is the area of the plate.
The resulting (dissipative component of the) force is then
\begin{equation}
f(t)=-\frac{\hbar L^2}{360\pi^2 c^4} \, q^{(5)},
\end{equation}
again in agreement with Ref.~\cite{Ford82}.
We also note the difference between odd and even dimensions. In 2 dimensions, the force displays long-time tails, while in 1 and 3 dimensions it is an (almost) instantaneous function of the displacement.
\subsection{A Dirichlet corrugated plate in 3+1d}
We can generalize the results in the previous (sub)section by considering a corrugated plate. For corrugations of wavevector $\bq$, the scattering matrix is given by (cf. Eq.~(\ref{Eq: S-Mat Plate}))
\begin{align} \label{Eq: S-Mat corrugated Plate}
S_{\omega+\Omega \bk_\|+\bq, \, \omega \bk_\|}&= \nonumber \\
-2i \, {\tilde q(\Omega,\bq)} &\sqrt{k_\perp(\omega, \bk_\|) \, k_\perp(\omega+\Omega, \bk_\|+\bq)}\,.
\end{align}
where $q$, the displacement from the $x-y$ plane, is a function of both $\omega$ and $\bq$; see Appendix \ref{App: Plate}.
The condition for propagating waves is modified as $c|\bk_\||<|\omega|$ and $c|\bk_\|+\bq|<\omega+\Omega$.
The radiation formula should be modified accordingly to ensure that only the propagating modes are integrated.
While this integral can be computed explicitly, we use a trick as follows: For $\Omega> c|\bq|$, we Lorentz-transform to a frame in which the scattering matrix is diagonal in the wavevector $\bk_\|$; the velocity of this frame is $\bv =\frac{c^2\bq}{\Omega}$. The scattering matrix, the integral measure, as well as the condition for propagating waves are invariant under such a transformation. But the frequency ($\hbar \omega'$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Enrgy Rad})) picks up a factor of $\gamma(\bv)=1/\sqrt{1-\bv^2/c^2}$, while the lower bound of the integral over $\omega$ changes from $-\Omega$ to $-\gamma(\bv)(\Omega-\bv\cdot\bq)=-\Omega/\gamma(\bv)$ which, through comparison with the first line of Eq.~(\ref{Eq: E rad 3+1}), contributes a factor of $1/\gamma^6$. Hence, the radiated energy density in $\Omega$ and $\bq$ becomes
\begin{equation}
P(\Omega,\bq)= \frac{\hbar}{360\pi^2 c^4} |\tilde q(\Omega, \bq)|^2\Omega (\Omega^2-c^2\bq^2)^{5/2},
\end{equation}
consistent with Ref.~\cite{Golestanian97}. Note that the difference of a factor of two in comparison with Eq.~(\ref{Eq: E rad 3+1}) is in harmony with the setup in Ref.~\cite{Golestanian97} where the plate occupies a half-space. Similar results can be obtained for Neumann boundary conditions \cite{Sarabadani06}.
\subsection{A Dirichlet sphere in 3+1d}
In this section, we consider a sphere subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions linearly oscillating in three dimensions. The oscillation amplitude, $q(t)$, is small compared to the radius of the sphere, $R$. We choose the $z$ axis parallel to the motion and passing through the center of the sphere. The incoming and outgoing waves for a spherical geometry are defined as
\begin{align}\label{Eq: spherical fns}
&\Phi^{\inn/\out}_{\omega lm}=\sqrt{\frac{|\omega|}{c}} e^{-i\omega t}\, h_l^{(1,2)}\left(\frac{\omega r}{c}\right)Y_{lm}(\theta, \phi),
\end{align}
where $h^{(1,2)}_l$ are spherical Hankel functions, and $Y_{l m}$ is the usual spherical harmonic function.
Due to azimuthal symmetry, the scattering matrix is diagonal in the index $m$ but possibly mixes different $l$s. The scattering from an oscillating sphere can be computed by using Green's theorem; see Appendix \ref{App: Sphere} for more details. We find the (off-diagonal) scattering matrix as
\begin{align}
&S_{\omega+\Omega l'm, \, \omega l m}= \frac{2 i \tilde q(\Omega)}{c} \, d_{ l l'm}\nonumber \\
&\times \sqrt{|(\omega+\Omega)\,\omega|} \, F_l\left(\frac{\omega R}{c}\right) F_{l'}\left(\frac{(\omega+\Omega ) R}{c}\right),
\end{align}
where $d_{ll'm}$ as defined in Appendix \ref{App: Sphere} is nonzero only for $l'=l\pm1$, and the function $F$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
F_l(x)=\frac{1}{x h_l^{(1)}(x)}\,.
\end{equation}
Using Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Enrgy Rad}), the radiated energy density is given by
\begin{align}\label{Eq: E rad sphere sum}
P(&\Omega)=\frac{8\hbar |\tilde q(\Omega)|^2}{3c^2}\int_{-\Omega}^{0} \frac{\dd \omega}{2\pi} (\omega+\Omega)^2 \omega \nonumber \\
&\times \sum_{l=0}^{\infty} (l+1)\left|F_l\left(\frac{\omega R}{c}\right)F_{l+1}\left(\frac{(\omega+\Omega ) R}{c}\right)\right|^2.
\end{align}
We consider two different limits:
a) $\Omega R/c \ll 1$. For a slowly oscillating object, we need only consider the lowest partial wave, i.e. the $l=0$ term in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: E rad sphere sum}). One then finds the radiated energy density in frequency as
\begin{align}
P(\Omega) = \frac{\hbar \,\Omega^6 R^2}{30\pi c^4} |\tilde q(\Omega)|^2.
\end{align}
b) $\Omega R/c \gg 1$. In this case, one should include all partial waves up to $l_{\rm max}\approx \Omega R/c\gg1$. Below we closely follow the line of argument in Ref.~\cite{MaiaNeto93}. For large $l$, we have
\begin{equation}
|F_l(x)|\approx(1-l^2 /x^2)^{1/4}, \qquad 1\ll l < x.
\end{equation}
The sum over all partial waves can then be recast as an integral over $l$ yielding (through the change of variables $\sigma=l/(\Omega R/c)$ and $x=|\omega|/\Omega$)
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
P(\Omega)&=\frac{4 \hbar R^2 \Omega^6 |\tilde q(\Omega)|^2 }{3\pi c^4 } \int_{0}^{1/2} \!\!\!\!\dd\sigma \sigma \int_{\sigma}^{1-\sigma}\!\!\!\!\dd x \,(1-x)x^2 \left[1-\frac{\sigma^2}{x^2}\right]^{1/2}\left[1-\frac{\sigma^2}{(1-x)^2}\right]^{1/2} =\,\,\,\frac{\hbar \Omega^6 R^2}{270 \pi c^4} \, |\tilde q(\Omega)|^2\,.
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
This equation reproduces the contribution of the TE modes to the electromagnetic version of a perfectly reflecting sphere; see Eq.~(4.20) in Ref.~\cite{MaiaNeto93}.\footnote{There are however mixed terms between the two polarizations which vanish in this limit, see Ref.~\cite{MaiaNeto93}.} Indeed one finds a similar correspondence for a perfectly reflecting plate, that is the radiation due to the TE modes is equal to that of the Dirichlet plate \cite{Neto96}.
Finally we note that the radiation due to the oscillatory motion can be computed for a variety of other geometries such as cylinders, ellipsoids, etc.
\subsection{A spinning object in 2+1d}\label{Sec: A spinning object in 2+1d}
Heretofore, we studied examples where the object is accelerated by an external force. In this section, we consider an object rotating at a constant angular velocity $\Omega$. We further assume that the object is not rotationally symmetric, as illustrated in Fig. \ref{Fig: spinning}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=30mm]{FigSpinningE}
\caption{An (asymmetrical) spinning object. The object slows down as it emits ``photons''.} \label{Fig: spinning}
\end{figure}
As usual, we assume a scalar field subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions on the object's surface, and limit ourselves to 2+1 dimensions.
Since the orientation changes with time, waves impinging on the object are partially scattered at a shifted frequency determined by $\Omega$. The scattering matrix is more conveniently computed by going to the object's reference frame.
We start with the field equations in the laboratory (static) frame. The wave equation, $\Box\Phi=0$, in polar coordinates is
\begin{equation}
\left[\frac{1}{c^2}\partial_t ^2 -\frac{1}{r}\partial_r r\partial_r -\frac{1}{r^2}\partial_\phi^2\right]\Phi(t,r, \phi)=0.
\end{equation}
The incoming and outgoing waves are defined as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: wavefunction 2+1}
\Phi^{\inn/\out}_{\omega m}(t,r, \phi)= e^{-i \omega t} e^{i m \phi} H_m^{(1,2)}\left(\frac{\omega r}{c}\right)\,,
\end{equation}
where $H$ is the Hankel function. (We have dropped an irrelevant constant in the definition of the these functions.)
The rotating frame is described by
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: Coordinate transf}
t'=t, \quad r'=r, \quad \phi'=\phi-\Omega t.
\end{equation}
The field equation in the latter frame takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: e.o.m. rotating frame}
\left[\frac{1}{c^2}(\partial_t -\Omega \partial_{\phi'})^2 -\frac{1}{r}\partial_r r\partial_r -\frac{1}{r^2}\partial_{\phi'}^2\right]\Phi'(t,r,\phi')=0.
\end{equation}
Note that $\Phi'(t,r,\phi')=\Phi(t,r, \phi)$. Specifically, in the new coordinate system, the functions $\Phi_{\omega m}$ as defined in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: wavefunction 2+1}) become
\begin{equation}
\Phi'_{\omega-\Omega m \, m}(t,r, \phi')= e^{-i(\omega-\Omega m)t} e^{i m \phi'} H_m^{(1,2)}\left(\frac{\omega r}{c}\right).
\end{equation}
The rotating frame is more convenient to write the scattering ansatz as the object does not move in this frame, and thus the time dependence drops out as a phase factor. In the latter frame, the boundary conditions take the form
\begin{align}
&\Big[e^{im \phi'} H_m^{(2)}\left(\frac{\omega r}{c}\right)\nonumber \\ \!\!\!\!\!+\sum_{m'} & S_{m',m}e^{i m'\phi'}H^{(1)}_{m'}\left(\frac{(\omega-\Omega(m-m'))r}{c}\right)\Big]_{\Sigma}=0,
\end{align}
where $\Sigma$ denotes the boundary. One can see that this equation indeed satisfies Eq.~(\ref{Eq: e.o.m. rotating frame}) once the time dependence, $e^{-i(\omega-\Omega m)t}$, is restored.
The scattering matrix sends the frequency $\omega$ to $\omega-\Omega(m-m')$ from the point of view of an observer in the lab frame.
To obtain an analytical expression for the scattering matrix, we consider the non-relativistic limit where the object's (linear) velocity is small compared to $c$. It then suffices to compute the scattering matrix for the lowest partial waves. As a specific example we consider an ellipse close to a circle of radius $R$ with $\delta$ being the difference of the two semiaxes, i.e., in polar coordinates, defined as $r(\phi)=R+\cos(2\phi)\delta/2$. The scattering matrix to the lowest order in $\delta$ is then obtained as
\begin{align}\label{Eq: S mat revolving ellipse}
S_{ \omega+2\Omega\, 2 , \, \omega\,0}&=\frac{i\pi (\omega+2\Omega)^2 R \delta}{8c^2\log(|\omega| R/c)}\,\,, \nonumber \\
\quad S_{ \omega+2\Omega \, 0,\, \omega \, -2}&=\frac{i\pi\omega^2 R \delta}{8c^2\log((\omega+2 \Omega )R/c)}\,\,.
\end{align}
The energy radiation per unit time, according to Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Enrgy Rad}), is
\begin{align}\label{Eq: En Rad spinning ellipse}
{\cal P} &\approx\frac{\pi\hbar R^2\delta^2\Omega^6 }{10 c^4\log(\Omega R/c)^2}\,.
\end{align}
Therefore, an (asymmetrical) object which is spinning, even at a constant rate, slows down due to quantum dissipation. Note that the torque (due to the back-reaction) is simply the radiation rate divided by the frequency $\Omega$.
\subsection{A Dirichlet disk in 2+1 dimensions: linear vs angular motion}
Now consider a circular disk of radius $R$ subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions in two spatial dimensions. Below we contrast two different types of motion, see Fig.~\ref{Fig: 2D}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=45mm]{Fig2DE}
\caption{Linear {\it vs} angular motion; the radiated energy is comparable in the two cases.} \label{Fig: 2D}
\end{figure}
First we consider a linear oscillation, $q(t)=\delta \cos\Omega t$ (with $\delta$ being the amplitude of the oscillation) along the $x$-axis.
The scattering from an oscillating disk can be obtained by using Green's theorem; see Appendix \ref{App: Disk} for more details. We obtain the scattering matrix as
\begin{equation}
S_{\omega+\Omega \, m\pm 1, \omega \, m}=\frac{2 i \, \delta }{\pi R} \, M_{m}\left(\frac{\omega R}{c}\right) M_{m\pm1}\left(\frac{(\omega+\Omega) R}{c}\right)\!,
\end{equation}
where the function $M$ is
\begin{equation}
M_m(x)=\frac{1}{H_m^{(1)}(x)}\,.
\end{equation}
At low frequency, $\Omega R/c \ll 1$, the scattering matrix for the lowest partial waves is obtained as
\begin{align}\label{Eq: S mat oscillating disk}
S_{ \omega+\Omega\, \pm 1, \omega\, 0}&=\mp \frac{i\pi (\omega+\Omega)\delta}{4 c\log(\omega R/c)}\,.
\end{align}
The energy radiation (per unit time) can be computed from Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Enrgy Rad}); for a linearly oscillating disk, we find
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: P-lin}
{\cal P}_{\updownarrow}= \frac{\pi \hbar \,\delta^2 \Omega^4 }{64c^2 \log(\Omega R/c)^2}\,.
\end{equation}
Next we consider the same disk undergoing orbital motion. The latter can be thought as a rotation around a point off the center of the disk. Specifically, we assume that the disk's center undergoes a trajectory $(r, \phi)=(\delta, \Omega t)$ in polar coordinates, i.e. the center is at a fixed radius $\delta$ while orbiting around the origin at frequency $\Omega$. The scattering process can be examined by techniques similar to the previous (sub)section where we considered a spinning object. We must assume $\Omega R/c\ll 1$ as well as $\delta\ll R$---similar to the linear motion. The latter allows us to compute the scattering matrix only for the lowest partial waves, as
\begin{align}\label{Eq: S mat revolving disk}
S_{ \omega+\Omega\, 1, \omega \, 0}&=-\frac{i\pi (\omega+\Omega)\delta}{2 c\log(|\omega| R/c)}\,, \nonumber \\
S_{ \omega+\Omega \, 0, \omega\, -1}&=\frac{i\pi\omega\delta}{2c\log((\omega+\Omega )R/c)}\,.
\end{align}
Note the similarity between Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: S mat oscillating disk}) and (\ref{Eq: S mat revolving disk}).
The radiated energy by a revolving disk can then be computed according to Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Enrgy Rad}), as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: P-ang}
{\cal P}_{\circ}=\frac{\pi\hbar \delta^2 \Omega^4}{24 c^2\log(\Omega R/c)^2}\,.
\end{equation}
It is interesting to compare Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: P-lin}) and (\ref{Eq: P-ang}) where linear and angular motion have been considered, respectively. We notice that, apart form a proportionality constant, the analytical form of the dissipated energy is identical in the two cases.
The above results can be compared with the previous (sub)section. In the former case, the setup is symmetric under inversion with respect to the origin while the latter is not. Thus, in the lowest order, scattering of waves changes the angular momentum by two units for a spinning ellipse and by one unit for a disk in (linear or circular) motion; cf. Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: S mat revolving ellipse}), (\ref{Eq: S mat oscillating disk}) and (\ref{Eq: S mat revolving disk}). Consequently, the energy radiation in the former case, Eq.~(\ref{Eq: En Rad spinning ellipse}), is suppressed by two orders of magnitude in comparison with Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: P-lin}) and (\ref{Eq: P-ang}) for a disk.
\section{Stationary motion of lossy objects} \label{Sec. Lossy objects: stationary motion}
In this section, we consider lossy objects but limit ourselves to constant (linear or angular) speed. Among other results, we reproduce existing formulas in the literature with significantly less labor. Our starting point is Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Energy Rad lossy T=0}) in application to rotating objects. We then generalize to the case of multiple objects in relative motion.
\subsection{Rotating object}
Let us consider a solid of revolution spinning around its axis of symmetry at frequency $\Omega$. We choose polar coordinates $(r, \phi,z)$ where the $z$ direction is along the axis of symmetry. The latter coordinates describe the lab frame in which the object is rotating. The rotating (or comoving) frame is defined by the coordinate transformation
\begin{equation}
t'=t, \quad r'=r, \quad \phi'=\phi-\Omega t, \quad z'=z.
\end{equation}
A partial wave defined by frequency $\omega$ and azimuthal index $m$ in the lab frame is characterized by the frequency
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: omega co-moving}
\tilde \omega_m=\omega-\Omega m
\end{equation}
from the perspective of the rotating frame; see Ref.~\cite{Maghrebi12} for a detailed discussion. In harmony with the discussion in Sec. \ref{Sec: Formalism}, the object spontaneously emits energy when $\omega>0$ and $\tilde \omega_m<0$, i.e. in the frequency window
\begin{equation}
0<\omega<\Omega m,
\end{equation}
or the so-called superradiating regime first introduced by Zel'dovich \cite{Zel'dovich71}.
Therefore, the energy radiation per unit time from a rotating object to the environment at zero temperature is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: lossy Rotating}
{\cal P}=\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{\dd\omega }{2\pi}\, \hbar \omega \, \tr\left[\,\Theta(\Omega \, \hat l_z-\omega)\left(\bbS(\omega)\,\bbS(\omega)^\dagger-\bI\right)\right],
\end{equation}
where $\hat l_z$ is the $z$-component of the angular momentum operator in units of $\hbar$. Note that the scattering matrix is diagonal in frequency, $\omega$, since the object is undergoing a stationary motion with its shape and orientation fixed in time.
Equation (\ref{Eq: lossy Rotating}) indeed gives the spontaneous emission by a rotating object consistent with Ref. \cite{Maghrebi12} where the Rytov formalism is used through an involved analysis. For a small object, only the lowest partial waves contribute to the radiation, and we recover the results of Ref.~\cite{Manjavacas10}. Note that in deriving Eq.~(\ref{Eq: lossy Rotating}) we did not use any approximations regarding the velocity of the rotating object.
For the sake of generalization to multiple objects, we point out that Eq.~(\ref{Eq: 1}) can be interpreted in a simple way to arrive at the same results. According to this equation, the probability amplitude for spontaneous emission is given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}_m(\omega)= U_m(\omega),
\end{equation}
where we have suppressed all quantum numbers other than $\omega$ and $m$, and used the fact that the amplitude is diagonal in $m$ due to the rotational symmetry of the object. The rate of this process is
\begin{equation}
{\cal N}_m(\omega)=|U_m(\omega)|^2=|S_m(\omega)|^2-1,
\end{equation}
where, in the last equality, we have used Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Unitarity moving1}) in the superradiating regime, i.e. for $0<\omega<\Omega m$. Note that, in this regime, $|S_m(\omega)|>1$, hence superradiance. The integral of $\cal N$ multiplied by $\hbar \omega$ (over superradiating frequencies) reproduces the energy radiation as given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq: lossy Rotating}).
\subsection{Moving plates}
A system comprising two lossy parallel plates undergoing relative lateral motion is the canonical example of non-contact friction. In the following, we sketch a simple derivation of this friction based on Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: 1}) and (\ref{Eq: Unitarity}).\footnote{For a uniform translational motion, one can Lorentz-transform Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Unitarity}) to the moving frame.} We first note that Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Unitarity}) can be interpreted via a classical argument. One can denote the RHS of this equation as the rate of ``photon'' absorption in a dispersive medium. Current conservation implies that the latter should be equal to the influx of the field quanta outside the body. Let us consider a classical wave scattered from the object as
\begin{equation}
\Phi=\Phi^{\inn}_\alpha+\sum_\beta S_{\beta\alpha}\Phi^{\out}_\beta,
\end{equation}
where we have suppressed the frequency, $\omega$.
The current density going into the body is given by
$ \frac{-1}{2i}\left[{\Phi^{*}} \, \nabla {\Phi}-\nabla {\Phi^*} \, {\Phi}\right]$.
Since $\Phi_\alpha$ and $\Phi_\beta$ are properly normalized (see Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: normalization1}) and (\ref{Eq: normalization2}) and the explanation thereafter), the total influx of field quanta is
\begin{equation}
\frac{i}{2}\oint \dS \cdot \left[{\Phi^{*}} \, \nabla {\Phi}-\nabla {\Phi^*} \, {\Phi}\right]=1- \sum_{\beta}|S_{\beta\alpha}|^2.
\end{equation}
But this is exactly the LHS of Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Unitarity}).
To study moving plates we need to extend Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Unitarity}) to evanescent waves which arise in non-compact geometries (plates, cylinders, etc.), but are absent for a compact geometry. Since such waves are not propagating, ``incoming'' and ``outgoing'' wave functions lose their straightforward interpretation. In other words, they do not carry currents
\begin{align}\label{Eq: evanescent wave normalization 1}
\oint \dS \cdot \left[{\Phi^{\out/\inn*}_{\alpha}} \, \nabla {\Phi^{\out/\inn}_{\beta}}-\nabla {\Phi^{\out/\inn*}_{\alpha}} \, {\Phi^{\out/\inn}_{\beta}}\right] =0,
\end{align}
but satisfy a different relation (after proper normalization)
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: evanescent wave normalization 2}
\frac{1}{2}\oint \dS \cdot \left[{\Phi^{\inn*}_{\alpha}} \, \nabla {\Phi^{\out}_{\beta}}-\nabla {\Phi^{\inn*}_{\alpha}} \, {\Phi^{\out}_{\beta}}\right] =\delta_{\alpha \beta}.
\end{equation}
Therefore an incoming wave scattered from the object, $\Phi=\Phi^{\inn}_\alpha+\sum_\beta S_{\beta\alpha}\Phi^{\out}_\beta$, carries an influx of ``photons'' given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{i}{2}\oint \dS \cdot \left[{\Phi^{*}} \, \nabla {\Phi}-\nabla {\Phi^*} \, {\Phi}\right]= 2 \im S_{\alpha\alpha},
\end{equation}
where Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: evanescent wave normalization 1}) and (\ref{Eq: evanescent wave normalization 2}) are used.
Then the conservation of current dictates
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: Unitarity evanescent}
(\bbU \bbU^\dagger )_{\alpha\alpha}=2 \im \left( \bbS\right)_{\alpha\alpha}.
\end{equation}
Equations (\ref{Eq: Unitarity}) and (\ref{Eq: Unitarity evanescent}) define the matrix $\bbU$ in terms of the scattering (or reflection) matrix for propagating and evanescent waves, respectively.
We can now compute the friction between two ``dielectric'' plates moving in parallel. We assume that the first plate is at rest while the other plate, separated from the first by a distance $d$, moves at a constant velocity $v$ along the $x$ axis. Because of translational symmetry, all matrices are diagonal in the frequency $\omega$ and the wavevector $\bk_\|$ parallel to the surface.
Here, Eq.~(\ref{Eq: 1}) finds a two-fold application. On one hand, it allows for spontaneous emission from an object, while on the other hand, it describes the reflection and absorption of waves by a second object.
1) Spontaneous emission: the source fluctuations in the first plate give rise to outgoing wave fluctuations. The amplitude of the spontaneous emission is given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}_1=U_1,
\end{equation}
where the dependence of the matrix $\bU$ on $\omega$ and $\bk_\|$ is implicit.
Note that incoming waves do not contribute to spontaneous emission.
2) Reflection: These outgoing waves propagate to the second plate and get a factor of $e^{i k_\perp d}$ with $k_\perp=\sqrt{\omega^2/c^2-\bk_\|^2}$; a phase factor for propagating waves while exponentially decaying for evanescent waves. There they are partly reflected and partly absorbed by the second plate.
The amplitude for ``photons'' spontaneously emitted by the first plate and then absorbed by the second one is
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}_{2 \leftarrow 1}=e^{i k_\perp d}U_2U_1.
\end{equation}
Equivalently, the rate of the latter process is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: 2 <-- 1}
\mathcal N^{1^{\scriptsize\rm st}}_{2 \leftarrow 1}=|{\cal A}_{2 \leftarrow 1}|^2 \, n_1= \left|e^{i k_\perp d}\right|^2 |\bU_{2}|^2 |\bU_{1}|^2 \, n_1,
\end{equation}
where $n_1=n(\omega, T_1)$ is the Bose-Einstein occupation number defined at temperature $T_1$. The superscript $1^{\scriptsize\rm st}$ indicates that Eq.~(\ref{Eq: 2 <-- 1}) is computed within the first reflection. One can similarly compute $\mathcal N_{1 \leftarrow 2}$, the current from the second to the first plate. But in the latter case, $n_2(\omega,\bk_\|)$ is centered at $\omega-v k_x$, i.e. $n_2=n(\omega-v k_x,T_2)$, because the thermal fluctuations are defined with respect to the comoving frame.\footnote{For relativistic velocities, one should also include the Lorentz factor $\gamma(v)=1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$.}
The total flux from the first to the second plate, within the first reflection, is then
\begin{equation}
\mathcal N^{1^{\scriptsize\rm st}}_{2 \leftarrow 1}-\mathcal N^{1^{\scriptsize\rm st}}_{1 \leftarrow 2}= \left|e^{i k_\perp d}\right|^2 |\bU_{2}|^2 |\bU_{1}|^2 \, (n_1-n_2).
\end{equation}
One can easily sum the contributions from multiple reflections,
\begin{align}
{\cal A}_{2 \leftarrow 1}^{\rm tot}
&=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} e^{i k_\perp d}U_2 \, \left( e^{2 i k_\perp d} R_1 R_2 \right)^n \,U_1\nonumber \\
&=\frac{e^{i k_\perp d}U_2U_1}{1-e^{2 i k_\perp d} R_1 R_2 }\,,
\end{align}
where $R_1$ and $R_2$ are the reflection matrices. Note that the $n$-th term in the last equation is the amplitude for a ``photon'' spontaneously emitted by the first plate ($U_1$), reflected $n$ times from the two plates ($( e^{2 i k_\perp d} R_1 R_2)^n$) before finally getting absorbed by the second plate ($U_2$). The amplitude $ {\cal A}_{1 \leftarrow 2}^{\rm tot}$ is obtained similarly.
The total rate then becomes
\begin{equation}
\mathcal N_{2 \leftarrow 1}-\mathcal N_{1 \leftarrow 2}= \frac{\left|e^{i k_\perp d}\right|^2 |\bU_{2}|^2 |\bU_{1}|^2}{|1-e^{2ik_\perp d} R_1 R_2|^2} \, (n_1-n_2).
\end{equation}
Also note that, from Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: Unitarity}) and (\ref{Eq: Unitarity evanescent}), we have
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: U vs S}
|\bU_i|^2=\begin{cases}
1- |R_i|^2, & {\mbox{for propagating waves}},\\
2 \im R_i\,, & {\mbox{for evanescent waves}}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Finally friction is the rate of (lateral-)momentum transfer integrated over all partial waves,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: friction}
f=\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{\dd\omega}{2\pi}\int \frac{L^2\dd\bk_\|}{(2\pi)^2} \,\,\hbar k_x \,\frac{\left|e^{i k_\perp d}\right|^2 |\bU_{2}|^2 |\bU_{1}|^2}{|1-e^{2ik_\perp d} R_1 R_2|^2} \, (n_1-n_2).
\end{equation}
We should emphasize that the reflection matrix for the second plate should be computed in its rest-frame, and then transformed to the lab frame according to Lorentz transformations.
The last equation is the analog of the results in Refs.~\cite{Pendry97,Volokitin99} for the scalar field.
To be more concrete, we consider a scalar model that is
described by a free field equation in empty space while inside the object a ``dielectric'' (or, a response) function $\epsilon$ is assumed which characterizes the object's dispersive properties. The field equation for this model reads
\begin{equation}\label{static Lagrangian}
\left(\epsilon(\omega,\bx) \omega^2 +\nabla^2 \right)\Phi(\omega,\bx)=0,
\end{equation}
with $\epsilon$ being 1 in the vacuum, and a frequency-dependent constant inside the object.
For a semi-infinite plate, the reflection matrix $R$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Eq: reflection matrix}
R_{\omega \bk_\|}=-\frac{\sqrt{\epsilon \, \omega^2/c^2-\bk_\|^2}-\sqrt{\omega^2/c^2-\bk_\|^2}}{\sqrt{\epsilon \, \omega^2/c^2-\bk_\|^2}+\sqrt{\omega^2/c^2-\bk_\|^2}}.
\end{eqnarray}
This is easily obtained by solving the field equations inside and outside the plate and demanding the continuity of the field and its first derivative along the boundary. In a moving frame, the frequency and the wavevector should be properly Lorentz-transformed.
These reflection matrices can then be inserted in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: friction}) to compute the frictional force.
\subsection{An \emph{atom }moving parallel to a plate}
In this section, we consider a small spherical object, an \emph{atom}, moving parallel to a plate. In the non-retarded limit, an electrostatic computation is done in Ref.~\cite{Barton10} for a similar setup. For our purposes, it is more convenient to consider the rest frame of the ``atom'' in which the plate moves laterally. This is another example of stationary motion where the geometrical configuration does not change even though the objects are undergoing relative motion. We assume a small spherical object of radius $a$ (much smaller than the separation distance $d$), such that the first-reflection approximation suffices. Similar to the previous (sub)section, we first consider spontaneous emission by each object. The plate (denoted by sub-index 2) emits ``photons'' of frequency $\omega$ and wavevector $\bk_\|$ with a probability amplitude
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}_2(\omega,\bk_\|)=U_2(\omega,\bk_\|).
\end{equation}
Then, these waves propagate to and reflect from the ``atom.'' Planar waves pick up a factor $e^{i k_\perp d}$ upon traveling a distance $d$. To find the scattering off of the spherical object, we must change to a basis of spherical waves. A planar wave can be expressed as a superposition of spherical waves as
\begin{equation}
e^{i \bk\cdot \bx}=4\pi\sum_{lm} i^l j_l ({\omega r}/{c}) Y_{lm}(\hat \bx)\, Y_{lm}^*(\hat \bk),
\end{equation}
where $\hat \bx$ and $\hat\bk$ are the unit vectors parallel to the vectors $\bx$ and $\bk$, respectively. A planar wave, $\Phi_{\omega \bk_\|}$, defined with respect to a reference point on the plate's surface below the sphere's center is related to spherical waves, $\Phi_{\omega l m}$, centered around the ``atom'' as
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\omega \bk_\|}^{\out}=\sum_{lm}\frac{2 \pi i^l e^{ik_\perp d} Y_{lm}^*(\hat \bk)}{\sqrt{k_\perp \omega/c}} \left(\Phi_{\omega l m}^{\inn}+\Phi^{\out}_{\omega l m}\right);
\end{equation}
see Appendix \ref{App: 1} for the definition of planar and spherical waves. Then the amplitude for ``photons'' spontaneously emitted by the plate and then absorbed by the sphere is
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}_{1 \leftarrow 2}=\frac{2 \pi i^l e^{ik_\perp d} Y^*_{lm }(\hat \bk)}{\sqrt{k_\perp \omega/c}} \, U_{1\, lm}(\omega) U_2(\omega,\bk_\|),
\end{equation}
where $U_1$ characterizes the loss due to the ``atom.'' Similarly, we can compute the amplitude ${\cal A}_{2 \leftarrow 1}$ for the inverse process where the spontaneous emission due to the ``atom'' is absorbed by the plate. One can then obtain the rate of energy or momentum transfer between the objects. An analysis similar to the previous (sub)section gives the force within the first reflection,
\begin{align}
&f=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\dd\omega}{2\pi}\int\frac{\dd\bk_\|}{(2\pi)^2} \hbar k_x \, (n_1-n_2)\nonumber \\
& \times \sum_{l,m} \frac{\left|e^{i k_\perp d}\right|^2 |Y_{lm}(\hat \bk)|^2 |U_{1\, lm}(\omega)|^2 |U_2(\omega,\bk_\|)|^2 }{|k_\perp| \omega/4\pi^2 c} \, ,
\end{align}
where $n_1(\omega)=n(\omega,T_1)$ and $n_2(\omega,\bk)=n(\omega-v k_x,T_2)$ are the Bose-Einstein factors for the ``atom'' at temperature $T_1$ and the plate at temperature $T_2$, respectively. Note that we have only considered the first reflection as the ``atom'' is small compared to the separation distance.
The matrix $U_2$ is given as in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: U vs S}) while, for the spherical object, there is no evanescent wave and thus the matrix $U_1$ is constrained by
\begin{equation}
|U_{1\, lm}(\omega)|^2=1-|S_{lm}(\omega)|^2,
\end{equation}
with $S_{ lm}(\omega)$ being the scattering matrix of the ``atom.'' This equation indicates that a frictional force (or energy transfer) arises only if the ``atom'' is lossy, i.e. $|S_{lm}(\omega)|<1$.
For the scalar model introduced in the previous (sub)section, the sphere's scattering matrix is
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: scattering matrix sphere}
S_{l m}(\omega)=-\frac{h_l^{(2)}(\omega a/c) \partial_a {j_l}(n\omega a/c)-\partial_a{h_l^{(2)}}(\omega a/c) \, {j_l}(n\omega a/c) }{ h_l^{(1)}(\omega a/c)\partial_a{j_l}(n\omega a/c)-\partial_a{h_l^{(1)}}(\omega a/c)\, {j_l}(n\omega a/c) },
\end{equation}
where $a$ is the sphere's radius, and $n(\omega)=\sqrt{\epsilon_S(\omega)}$ with $\epsilon_S$ being the ``dielectric'' function of the spherical object. To the lowest order in $a/d$, we shall limit ourselves to the low-frequency scattering of the partial wave $l=m=0$.\footnote{One should note that in the case of electrodynamics there are no monopole fluctuations and thus the leading contribution to the friction comes from $l=1$ \cite{Barton10}.} Within this approximation, the friction at zero temperature takes the form
\begin{equation}
f\approx \frac{4\hbar a^3}{3\pi^2c^2}\int_{k_x>0} \!\!\dd \bk_\| \int_{0}^{v k_x} \!\! \dd \omega \frac{e^{-2|\bk_\||d} k_x \omega^2 \im \epsilon_S(\omega) \im R_{\omega' \bk'_\|}}{|\bk_\||}\,.
\end{equation}
The reflection matrix $R$ can be obtained from Eq.~(\ref{Eq: reflection matrix}) via Lorentz transformation.
Similarly, one can consider the frictional force between a rotating sphere and a stationary plate \cite{zhao12}. With our scalar model, the scattering matrix for a rotating sphere is obtained from Eq.~(\ref{Eq: scattering matrix sphere}) by changing the argument of the Bessel functions to $n(\tilde \omega_m) \tilde \omega_m a/c$ where $\tilde \omega_m=\omega-\Omega m$. Having the scattering matrices of a moving plate and a rotating sphere, one can compute the friction when both objects are set in motion.
\section{Summary and outlook}
In this work, we have developed a unified scattering approach to the dynamical Casimir effect. We have obtained general formulas for the radiation from moving objects for accelerating boundaries and modulated optical devices without loss, as well as lossy bodies in uniform motion. We provided and studied numerous examples, many of which are novel, to better illustrate the technical power and conceptual elegance of the scattering approach.
Extensions to more realistic boundary conditions and field theories should be of both theoretical and practical interest. A superfluid liquid, for example, presents a natural framework to study the effects of motion in a quantum vacuum. Indeed, similar effects such as radiation and spontaneous emission have been discussed for a superfluid \cite{Volovik99}.
Quantum electrodynamics requires a further treatment due to its vector nature. An obvious complication arises since electromagnetic waves are polarized, enlarging the scattering matrix, and complicating practical computations.
Realistic materials also include loss. In Sec.~\ref{Sec: Lossless accelerating objects}, we considered accelerating objects with perfect boundary conditions. Extensions to lossy objects require a generalization of the formalism presented in Sec.~\ref{Sec: Formalism}. An expression solely in terms of the scattering matrix is desired in the latter case when object's acceleration and dispersive properties interplay in a rather complex fashion. One can anticipate that the computation of the scattering matrix will be more complicated in this case. It is also worthwhile to consider configurations of multiple objects in arbitrary motion. We have partially tackled this problem in the context of stationary motion in Sec.~\ref{Sec. Lossy objects: stationary motion}, while extensions to accelerating objects will present new challenges and provide further insights. Specifically, one can ask how the (inertial as well as dissipative) forces between two objects change as the result of their motion or acceleration.
The formulation of the dynamical Casimir effect in terms of the scattering matrix should also provide an efficient prescription for numerical computations. The scattering matrix is purely a classical quantity, and presumably can be numerically computed with high precision. This is particularly important if the motion cannot be treated perturbatively---when the speed, the amplitude of oscillations, or the corrugations of boundaries are not small. Even in these cases, the scattering formalism is applicable, and numerical methods should prove useful.
In the light of recent experiments on dynamical Casimir effect, precise computations of the effect of geometry and motion are needed. We believe that our formalism provides an efficient analytical, and possibly even numerical, computational tool.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We have benefitted from discussions with R. L.~Jaffe, G.~Bimonte, T.~Emig, V.~Golyk, N.~Graham, M.~Kr{\"{u}}ger, and H.~Reid.
This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under cooperative research agreement Contract Number DE-FG02-05ER41360 (MFM) and the National Science Foundation under Grants No. DMR12-06323 (MK) and NSF PHY11-25915 (RG and MK).
|
\section{}
In this appendix, we state and prove the correctness of functions
$entry$ (i.e., the correctness of our notion of extended SLD
resolution) and $prop$, as defined in the body of the paper.
First, we recall the definition of function $entry$:
\begin{definition}[entry procedure] \label{entrydef} Let $H \leftarrow
B_1,\ldots,B_n$ be a clause and $(A,\pi,\mu)$ an extended atom such
that $A$ and $H$ unify. We denote with $entry$ a function that
propagates $\pi$ and $\mu$ to $B_1,\ldots,B_n$. Formally,
$entry(\pi,\mu,(H\leftarrow B_1,\ldots,B_n)) =
((B_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(B_n,\pi_n,\mu_n))$ if, for all
$B_i=p_i(t_{i1},\ldots,t_{im_i})$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, the following
conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item $j \in \pi_i$ iff ${\cV}ar(t_{ij})\subseteq{\cV}ar(\pi(H))$ (i.e.,
all variables in $t_{ij}$ are ground in $H$ according to $\pi$).
\item $\{1,\ldots,m_i\}\supseteq\{j_1,\ldots,j_k\}\in\mu_i$ iff
there are (non necessarily different) variables
$(x_{j_1},\ldots,x_{j_k}) \in
({\cV}ar(t_{ij_1}),\ldots,{\cV}ar(t_{ij_k}))$ such that for every pair
of different variables $x_{j_r},x_{j_s}$, we have
$(x_{j_r},x_{j_s})\in\mu(H)$ (i.e., either the terms share some
variable or have different variables that are shared in $H$
according to $\mu$).
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Now, let us introduce the following notion of \emph{safeness} that
will become useful to prove the correctness results.
\begin{definition}[safeness]
Let $p(t_1,\ldots,t_n)$ be a \emph{run-time} call. We say that a
groundness \emph{call} pattern $\pi$ is safe for $p(t_1,\ldots,t_n)$
if $i\in\pi$ implies that ${\cV}ar(t_i)=\emptyset$. Also, a sharing
\emph{call} pattern $\mu$ is safe for $p(t_1,\ldots,t_n)$ if
${\cV}ar(t_i)\cap{\cV}ar(t_j)\neq\emptyset$ for some
$i,j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, $i\neq j$, implies that $i,j\in s_i$ and
$i,j\in s_j$, where $\mu = \tuple{s_1,\ldots,s_n}$. This notion is
extended to queries in the natural way.
Analogously, let $p(t_1,\ldots,t_n)$ be a run-time call with
\emph{computed answer substitution} $\theta$. We say that a
groundness \emph{success} pattern $\pi'$ is safe for
$p(t_1,\ldots,t_n)\theta$ if $i\in\pi'$ implies that
${\cV}ar(t_i\theta)=\emptyset$. Also, a sharing \emph{success} pattern
$\mu'$ is safe for $p(t_1,\ldots,t_n)\theta$ if
${\cV}ar(t_i\theta)\cap{\cV}ar(t_j\theta)\neq\emptyset$ for some
$i,j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, $i\neq j$, implies that $i,j\in s_i$ and
$i,j\in s_j$, where $\mu' = \tuple{s_1,\ldots,s_n}$. This notion is
also extended to queries in the natural way.
Given an extended atom $(A,\pi,\mu)$ (typically with a \emph{partial
evaluation} call $A$), we say that it is safe if, for all run-time
call $A\theta$, both $\pi$ and $\mu$ are safe for $A\theta$.
Given a partial evaluation call $A$ with call and success groundness
(resp.\ sharing) pattern $pred(A): \pi \stackrel{gr}{\mapsto} \pi'$ (resp.\
$pred(A):\mu\stackrel{sh}{\mapsto}\mu'$), we say that this call and success pattern
is safe for $A$ if for all run-time call $A\sigma$ and computed
answer substitution $\theta$, the fact that $\pi$ (resp.\ $\mu$) is
safe for $A\sigma$ implies that $\pi'$ (resp.\ $\mu'$) is safe for
$A\sigma\theta$.
\end{definition}
Now, we recall the notion of extended SLD resolution:
\begin{definition}[extended SLD resolution]
Extended SLD resolution, denoted by $\leadsto$, is a natural
extension of SLD resolution over extended queries. Formally, given
a program $P$, an extended query $\cQ=
(A_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(A_n,\pi_n,\mu_n)$, and a computation rule
$\cR$, we say that $\leftarrow \cQ \leadsto_{P,\cR,\sigma}\:
\leftarrow \cQ'$ is an \emph{extended SLD resolution step} for $\cQ$
with $P$ and $\cR$ if the following conditions hold:\footnote{We
often omit $P$, $\cR$ and/or $\sigma$ in the notation of an
extended SLD resolution step when they are clear from the
context.}
\begin{itemize}
\item $\cR(\cQ) = (A_i,\pi_i,\mu_i)$, $1\leq i\leq n$, is the selected
extended atom,
\item $H \leftarrow B_1,\ldots,B_m$ is a renamed apart clause of
$P$,
\item $A_i$ and $H$ unify with $\sigma = mgu(A_i,H)$, and
\item $\cQ' = entry
\pi_i,\mu_i,(H \leftarrow
B_1,\ldots,B_m))\sigma$.\footnote{We let
$((B_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(B_n,\pi_n,\mu_n))\sigma =
(B_1\sigma,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(B_n\sigma,\pi_n,\mu_n)$.}
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
The next lemma states the correctness of the extended SLD
resolution. We only consider \emph{atomic} extended queries, which is
enough for our purposes. Moreover, information is not propagated
between query atoms; this will be the purpose of function $prop$
below.
\begin{lemma} \label{entrylemma} Let $P$ be a program and let
$\leftarrow (A,\pi,\mu) \leadsto_{\sigma}\: \leftarrow
(B_1\sigma,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(B_n\sigma,\pi_n,\mu_n)$ be an
extended resolution step with clause $H\leftarrow
B_1,\ldots,B_n$. If $(A,\pi,\mu)$ is safe, then
$(B_i\sigma,\pi_i,\mu_i)$ is safe too, where
$\cR((B_1\sigma,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(B_n\sigma,\pi_n,\mu_n)) =
(B_i\sigma,\pi_i,\mu_i)$ for some selection strategy $\cR$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider that $entry(\pi,\mu,(H\leftarrow B_1,\ldots,B_n)) =
(B_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(B_n,\pi_n,\mu_n)$.
We prove that $(B_i\sigma,\pi_i,\mu_i)$ with $B_i =
p_i(t_1,\ldots,t_m)$ is safe by contradiction.
%
For this purpose, we consider a run-time call $A\theta$ such that
$A\theta \hookrightarrow_\delta B_1\delta,\ldots,B_n\delta$, where
$\delta=mgu(A\theta,H)$ (so $B_i\delta$ is an instance of
$B_i\sigma$).
Assume that there exists some $j\in\pi_i$ such that
${\cV}ar(t_{j}\delta)\neq\emptyset$. Therefore, there exists some
variable $x\in{\cV}ar(t_{j})$ such that $x\delta$ is not ground. By
Definition~\ref{entrydef}, we have that $x\in{\cV}ar(\pi(H))$. However,
since $(A,\pi,\mu)$ is safe, $\pi(A\theta)$ must be ground, and
therefore $x\delta$ must be ground after unifying $A\theta$ with $H$
using $\delta=mgu(A\theta,H)$, so that we get a contradiction.
Assume now that $\mu_i = \tuple{s_1,\ldots,s_m}$ and we have
$j,k\not\in s_j$, $j,k\not\in s_k$ but
${\cV}ar(t_{j}\delta)\cap{\cV}ar(t_{k}\delta)\neq\emptyset$. Therefore,
either a) there exists some variable
$x\in{\cV}ar(t_{j})\cap{\cV}ar(t_{k})$ such that $x\delta$ is not ground
or b) there are different variables
$(x,y)\in({\cV}ar(t_{j}),{\cV}ar(t_{k}))$ such that
${\cV}ar(x\delta)\cap{\cV}ar(y\delta)\neq\emptyset$.
Consider the first case a). Here, we get immediately a contradiction
since $j,k$ must belong to sets $s_j$ and $s_k$ by
Definition~\ref{entrydef}. Consider now case b). Since $(A,\pi,\mu)$
is safe and $x,y$ are bound to a term sharing variables in run-time
call $A\theta$, we have $(x,y)\in\mu(H)$. Therefore, by
Definition~\ref{entrydef}, $j,k$ must belong to both sets $s_j$ and
$s_k$, and we get a contradiction too.
\end{proof}
Let us now recall the definition of function $prop$:
\begin{definition}[pattern propagation]
Let $\cQ_1,\cQ_2$ be extended queries, with $\cQ_1 =
(A_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(A_n,\pi_n,\mu_n)$ and $\cQ_2 =
(A_{n+1},\pi_{n+1},\mu_{n+1}),\ldots,(A_m,\pi_m,\mu_m)$. We define
the function $\mathit{prop}$ to propagate success patterns to the
right as follows:\footnote{Note the non-standard use of function
$entry$ to propagate success patterns to the right, despite the
fact that $A_1\leftarrow A_2,\ldots,A_m$ is not really a program
clause.}
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathit{prop}(\cQ_1,\cQ_2) = \cQ_2$ if $n= 0$ (i.e.,
$\cQ_1$ is an empty query);
\item $\mathit{prop}(\cQ_1,\cQ_2) =
((A_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\mathit{prop}(\cQ'_1,\cQ'_2))$ if $n>0$,\\
%
$\mathit{pred}(A_1):\pi_1\stackrel{gr}{\mapsto}\pi'_1$, $\mathit{pred}(A_1):\mu_1\stackrel{sh}{\mapsto}\mu'_1$,\\
%
$\mathit{entry}(\pi'_1,\mu'_1,(A_1 \leftarrow A_2,\ldots,A_m)) =
(A_2,\pi'_2,\mu'_2),\ldots,(A_m,\pi'_m,\mu'_m)$, \\
%
$\cQ'_1 = (A_2,\pi_2\sqcap\pi'_2,\mu_2\sqcup\mu'_2),\ldots,
(A_n,\pi_n\sqcap\pi'_n,\mu_n\sqcup\mu'_n)$, and \\
%
$\cQ'_2 =
(A_{n+1},\pi_{n+1}\sqcap\pi'_{n+1},\mu_{n+1}\sqcup\mu'_{n+1}),\ldots,
(A_m,\pi_m\sqcap\pi'_m,\mu_m\sqcup\mu'_m)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Finally, we prove the correctness of this function:
\begin{lemma} \label{proplemma}
Let $(A,\pi,\mu)$ be a safe extended atomic query such that
$\leftarrow (A,\pi,\mu) \leadsto_\sigma \leftarrow \cQ$. Then
$prop(\cQ,true)$ is a safe extended query if the considered call and
success patterns are safe.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We consider that $\cQ$ has two extended atoms to simplify the proof
(the extension to arbitrary atoms can be easily done by induction on
the number of atoms). Let $H\leftarrow B_1,B_2$ with
$entry(\pi,\mu,(H\leftarrow B_1,B_2)) =
(B_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),(B_2,\pi_2,\mu_2)$ and $\sigma=mgu(A,H)$, so that
$\cQ = (B_1\sigma,\pi_1,\mu_1),(B_2\sigma,\pi_2,\mu_2)$. By
Lemma~\ref{entrylemma}, we know that both $(B_1\sigma,\pi_1,\mu_1)$
and $(B_2\sigma,\pi_2,\mu_2)$ are safe at clause entry (i.e., if
selected first). Since we consider a left-to-right selection rule,
only $(B_1\sigma,\pi_1,\mu_1)$ is safe in principle.
Now consider the computation of
$prop(((B_1\sigma,\pi_1,\mu_1),(B_2\sigma,\pi_2,\mu_2)),true)$. For
this purpose, we consider the following safe call and success
groundness and sharing patterns: $pred(B_1):\pi_1\stackrel{gr}{\mapsto}\pi'_1$ and
$pred(B_1): \mu_1\stackrel{sh}{\mapsto}\mu'_1$. Let
$entry(\pi'_1,\mu'_1,(B_1\sigma\leftarrow B_2\sigma)) =
(B_2\sigma,\pi'_2,\mu'_2)$. Now, we want to prove that
\[
prop(((B_1\sigma,\pi_1,\mu_1),(B_2\sigma,\pi_2,\mu_2)),true) =
(B_1\sigma,\pi_1,\mu_1),(B_2\sigma,\pi_2\sqcap\pi'_2,\mu_2\sqcup\mu'_2)
\]
is a safe query. For this purpose, we only have to prove that
$(B_2\sigma,\pi_2\sqcap\pi'_2,\mu_2\sqcup\mu'_2)$ is safe since
$(B_1\sigma,\pi_1,\mu_1)$ is already proved safe under a
left-to-right selection strategy, as mentioned above. Let us
consider a run-time call $B_1\sigma\theta$, together with an
arbitrary computed answer substitution $\delta$ for
$B_1\sigma\theta$, so that $B_2\sigma\theta\delta$ is a run-time
call too. We prove the claim by contradiction.
Assume that $B_2\sigma = p(t_1,\ldots,t_n)$ and that there is some
$i\in\pi_2\sqcap\pi'_2$ such that
${\cV}ar(t_i\theta\delta)\neq\emptyset$. By definition, $i\in\pi_2$ or
$i\in\pi'_2$. By Lemma~\ref{entrylemma}, we have that $\pi_2$ is
safe at clause entry, so $i\not\in\pi_2$ since
${\cV}ar(t_i\theta)\neq\emptyset$. By a similar argument to that of
Lemma~\ref{entrylemma} (it again requires an application of function
$entry$), we have that $\pi'_2$ is safe when $B_1\sigma\theta$
succeeds, so $i\not\in\pi'_2$ too since
${\cV}ar(t_i\theta\delta)\neq\emptyset$, and we get a contradiction.
Consider now that
${\cV}ar(t_j\theta\delta)\cap{\cV}ar(t_k\theta\delta)\neq\emptyset$ but
$(j,k)\not\in s_j$ and $j,k\not\in s_k$, where $\mu_2\sqcup\mu'_2 =
\tuple{s_1,\ldots,s_n}$. Since $(B_2\sigma,\pi_2,\mu_2)$ is safe at
clause entry, then
${\cV}ar(t_j\theta)\cap{\cV}ar(t_k\theta)=\emptyset$. Therefore, it must
be $\delta$ that introduces some additional sharing. However, by
applying a similar argument as that of Lemma~\ref{entrylemma}, we
have that $\mu'_2$ is safe too when $B_2\sigma\theta$ succeeds, so
$(j,k)\in s'_j$ and $(j,k)\in s'_k$ with $\mu'_2 =
\tuple{s'_1,\ldots,s'_n}$ and, thus, $(j,k)\in s_j$ and $(j,k)\in
s_k$, which gives a contradiction to our previous assumption.
\end{proof}
Finally, the correctness of function $partition$ is an easy
consequence of Lemma~\ref{proplemma}. Of course, correctness is only
ensured when $\cQ'_2$ and $\cQ'_3$ only contain user defined
predicates or ``safe'' built-ins (i.e., built-ins without side
effects, which do not depend on or may change the order of evaluation,
etc).
\end{appendix}
\end{document}
\section{Introduction} \label{intro}
With the widespread adoption of multi-core processors, the generation
of automatic parallelizing compilers becomes an urgent need. On the
other hand, there exist a number of program optimization techniques
(like partial evaluation \cite{JGS93}) that have not considered the
introduction of parallelism so far, thus limiting its potential for
improving program performance.
In this work, we tackle the definition of a parallelizing
\emph{partial evaluator} which is able to automatically generate
annotations for independent AND-parallelism from logic programs. In
contrast to traditional approaches to automatic AND-parallelization of
logic programs (which rely on some static analyses to identify
independent goals that can be safely and efficiently run in parallel
in any possible execution), our approach combines both run-time
analyses and the dynamic information gathered during partial
evaluation. Furthermore, it allows us to transform the source program
in order to expose more opportunities for parallelism (e.g., we can
have different specializations of a given clause so that some of them
are parallelized and some are not, without adding run-time
conditions).
\paragraph{Partial evaluation.} \label{pe-sec}
Partial evaluation \cite{JGS93} is a well-known technique for program
specialization.
From a broader perspective, some partial evaluators are also able to
optimize programs further by, e.g., shortening computations, removing
unnecessary data structures and composing several procedures or
functions into a comprehensive definition. Within this broader
approach, given a program and a \emph{partial} (incomplete) call, the
essential components of partial evaluation are: the construction of a
\emph{finite} representation|generally a graph|of the possible
executions of (any instance of) the partial call, followed by the
systematic extraction of a \emph{residual} program (i.e., the
partially evaluated program) from this graph. Intuitively,
optimization can be achieved by compressing paths in the graph, by
deleting unfeasible paths, and by renaming expressions while removing
unnecessary function symbols.
In this paper, we propose a novel source of optimization based on
transforming some sequential constructions of residual programs into
parallel ones.
The theoretical foundations of partial evaluation for (normal) logic
programs was first put on a solid basis by Lloyd and Shepherdson
\citeyear{LS91}. When \emph{pure} logic programs are considered, the
term \emph{partial deduction} is often used. Roughly speaking, in
order to compute the partial deduction of a logic program $P$ w.r.t.\
a set of atoms $\cA = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$, one should construct
finite|possibly incomplete|SLD trees for the atomic goals $\leftarrow
A_1$, \ldots, $\leftarrow A_n$, such that every leaf is either
successful, a failure, or only contains atoms that are
\emph{instances} of $\{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$; this is the so-called
\emph{closedness} condition \cite{LS91}. The residual program then
includes a \emph{resultant} of the form $A_i\sigma \leftarrow Q$ for
every non-failing root-to-leaf derivation $\leftarrow A_i
\hookrightarrow^\ast_\sigma\; \leftarrow Q$ in the SLD trees. Similarly,
we say that a residual program $P'$ is \emph{closed} when every atom
in the body of the clauses of $P'$ is an instance of a partially
evaluated atom (i.e., an appropriate specialized definition exists).
From an algorithmic perspective, in order to partially evaluate a
program $P$ w.r.t.\ an atom $A$, one starts with the initial set
$\cA_1 = \{A\}$ and builds a \emph{finite} (possibly incomplete) SLD
tree for $\leftarrow A$. Then, all atoms in the leaves of this SLD
tree which are not instances of $A$ are added to the set, thus
obtaining $\cA_2$, and so forth. In order to keep the sequence
$\cA_1,\cA_2,\ldots$ finite, some \emph{generalization} is often
required, e.g., by replacing some predicate arguments with fresh
variables. Some variant of the \emph{homeomorphic embedding} ordering
\cite{Leu02} is often used to detect potential sources of
non-termination.
A sketch of this algorithm is shown in Figure~\ref{pdalg}, where the
unfolding rule $\mathit{unf}(\cA_i)$ builds finite SLD trees for the
atoms in $\cA_i$ and returns the associated resultants, function
$\mathit{atoms}$ returns the atoms in the bodies of these resultants,
and the abstraction operator $\mathit{abs}(\cA_i,\cA')$ returns an
approximation of $\cA_i\cup\cA'$ so that the sequence
$\cA_1,\cA_2,\ldots$ is kept finite.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\rule{\linewidth}{1pt}\\[1ex]
\begin{minipage}{0.45\linewidth}
\begin{description}
\item[Initialization:] $i := 1$;~ $\cA_i := \{ A \};$
\item[Repeat]
\item[] \hspace{5ex}$\cA_{i+1} :=
\mathit{abs}(\cA_i,\mathit{atoms}(\mathit{unf}(\cA_i)))$;
\item[] \hspace{5ex}$i := i+1$
\item[Until] $\cA_i \approx \cA_{i-1}$ (variants)
\item[Return] $\mathit{unf}(\cA_i)$
\end{description}
\end{minipage}
\\[1ex]
\rule{\linewidth}{1pt}
\end{center}
\caption{Partial evaluation procedure} \label{pdalg}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Motivation.}
Depending on \emph{when} control issues|like deciding which atoms
should or should not be unfolded|are addressed, two main approaches
to partial evaluation can be distinguished. In \emph{offline}
approaches to partial evaluation, these decisions are taken beforehand
by means of a so called \emph{binding-time} analysis (where we know
which parameters are known but not their values). In contrast,
\emph{online} partial evaluators take decisions on the fly (so that
actual values of static data are available).
While offline partial evaluators are usually faster, online ones
produce more accurate results. Partial evaluators for logic programs
have mostly followed the online approach (e.g., SAGE \cite{Gur94},
Mixtus \cite{Sah90}, SP \cite{Gal91}, ECCE \cite{LEVCF06}), though
some offline partial evaluators have been also developed (e.g., LOGEN
\cite{LEVCF06}).
Recently, we have proposed in \cite{Vid10} a hybrid approach to
partial evaluation that does not fit well in neither the offline nor
the online style of partial evaluation. Basically, we follow a typical
online partial evaluation scheme, but augment it with run-time
information gathered from a pre-processing static analysis. There are
some previous approaches that combine the online and offline styles of
partial evaluation. However, the novelty is that \cite{Vid10}
considers collecting \emph{run-time} information rather than
\emph{partial evaluation} time information in a pre-processing stage
(as \emph{binding-time} analyses do).
In this paper, we want to push this approach forward by defining a
parallelizing partial evaluator that generates annotations for
independent AND-parallelism.
As it is well known, two goals $(G_1,G_2)\theta$ are \emph{strictly
independent} if, for every pair of variables $(x,y) \in
({\cV}ar(G_1),{\cV}ar(G_2))$, either (i) they are equal, $x=y$, and
$x\theta$ is ground (i.e., ${\cV}ar(x\theta)=\emptyset$) or (ii) they are
different, $x\neq y$, and their values, $x\theta$ and $y\theta$, do
not share a common variable (i.e.,
${\cV}ar(x\theta)\cap{\cV}ar(y\theta)=\emptyset$).
In order to have this information available at partial evaluation
time, we need some \emph{run-time} information that is not usually
present in partial evaluation schemes. For this purpose, we introduce
a hybrid partial evaluation scheme with the following features:
\begin{itemize}
\item First, a pre-processing stage performs both a groundness and
sharing analysis, so that we get call and success patterns for each
predicate.
\item Then, we apply a rather simple partial evaluation stage that
only performs one-step unfolding. This is very limited in general
and propagates almost no information. However, in our context, we do
not aim at aggressively propagating static data but only groundness
and sharing information. In this way, the potential for generating
annotations for the implicit independent AND-parallelism can be
better evaluated.
\item Finally, a post-processing stage extracts residual rules from
the partial evaluation computations and, in some cases, replaces
sequential conjunctions by parallel ones, thus boosting the
performance of the residual program.
\end{itemize}
A proof-of-concept implementation of the parallelizing partial
evaluator is available at
\verb$http://kaz.dsic.upv.es/litep.html$. Despite its simplicity (a
thousand lines of Prolog code), the results for definite logic
programs (including some built-in's) are very encouraging.
The paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{ppeval} presents the
different stages of our parallelizing partial evaluation scheme. Then,
Section~\ref{experiments} summarizes our findings from an experimental
evaluation of the new technique and, finally, Sect.~\ref{future}
concludes and discusses some possibilities for future work.
Correctness results can be found in the online appendix.
\section{Parallelizing Partial Evaluation} \label{ppeval}
In this section, we present our partial evaluation scheme in a
stepwise manner. We do so for clarity of presentation but these stages
can be interleaved (and actually they are in our implementation).
\subsection{Pre-Processing Stage} \label{pre-section}
Our pre-processing stage consists of two different analyses. The first
one is a simple call and success pattern analysis that resembles a
mode analysis. The formal definition of the analysis can be found
elsewhere (e.g., in \cite{LV08}).
We consider \emph{groundness} call and success patterns $\pi$ denoted
by a list of natural numbers which represent the (definitively) ground
arguments of a predicate. The underlying abstract domain is thus very
simple: $\{$\textsf{definitively ground},~\textsf{possibly
non-ground}$\}$. As mentioned in \cite{LV08}, the analysis could be
made more precise by considering a richer abstract domain (including
elements like \textsf{list}, \textsf{nonvar}, etc). This is
orthogonal to the topics of this paper and thus we keep the two
element domain for simplicity.
The greatest lower bound operator $\sqcap$ on patterns is defined in
the natural way by the set union, i.e., given two patterns
$\pi_1,\pi_2$ for predicate $p/n$, we let $\pi_1\sqcap\pi_2 = \pi_1
\cup \pi_2$.
Basically, given an initial query and the groundness call patterns for
the atoms in this query, the analysis infers for every predicate $p/n$
a number of call and success patterns of the form $p/n: \pi_{in}
\stackrel{gr}{\mapsto} \pi_{out}$ such that $\pi_{in}$ and $\pi_{out}$ are subsets of
$\{1,\ldots,n\}$ denoting the arguments $\pi_{out}$ of $p/n$ which are
definitely ground after a successful derivation, assuming that it is
called with ground arguments $\pi_{in}$.
The analysis is started with a number of
\emph{entry points} to the program, together with their initial
groundness call patterns.
\begin{example} \label{app1}
Consider the well known definition of $append/3$:
\[
\begin{array}{lll}
append([\:],Y,Y).\\
append([H|T],Y,[H|TY]) & \leftarrow & append(T,Y,TY).
\end{array}
\]
Given the initial groundness call patterns $\pi_1 = \{1\}$ and
$\pi_2 = \{1,2\}$ for $append/3$, the call and success pattern
analysis would return the following mappings:
\[
\begin{array}{lllllllll}
append/3: & \{1\} & \stackrel{gr}{\mapsto} & \{1\} & &
append/3: & \{1,2\} & \stackrel{gr}{\mapsto} & \{1,2,3\} \\
\end{array}
\]
Their meaning should be clear: if $append(t_1,t_2,t_3)$ is called
with $t_1$ ground, we can only ensure that $t_1$ will be ground
after a successful derivation. In contrast, if it is called with
both $t_1$ and $t_2$ ground, then $t_3$ will be also ground after a
successful derivation.
\end{example}
For guaranteeing the independence of goals, we also consider the
information gathered by a dependency analysis like that of
\cite{Deb89}.
Basically, for a given predicate $p/3$, the analysis computes mappings
with \emph{sharing} call and success patterns $\mu$ like, e.g.,
$\tuple{\{1,2\},\{1,2,3\},\{2,3\}}$, which indicates that the first
argument may share variables with the second argument, the second
argument may share variables with the first and third arguments, and
the third argument may share variables with the second
argument. Again, the analysis infers for every predicate $p/n$ a
number of call and success patterns of the form $p/n: \mu_{in} \stackrel{sh}{\mapsto}
\mu_{out}$ such that $\mu_{in}$ and $\mu_{out}$ belong to the domain
$2^{\{1,\ldots,n\}}\times\ldots\times2^{\{1,\ldots,n\}}$ (a tuple of
$n$ sets) and $\mu_{out}$ denotes the dependencies of $p/n$ which hold
after a successful derivation, assuming that it is called with the
dependencies denoted by $\mu_{in}$.\footnote{We note that a sharing
pattern like $\tuple{\{1\},\{2\},\{3\}}$ assumes that all three
argument are independent and, moreover, that no variable sharing can
be introduced through a single argument; i.e., we assume that
predicate arguments are always linear. We keep this restriction for
simplicity but could easily be overcome.
}
In this case, the least upper bound operator $\sqcup$ on sharing
patterns is defined as follows: given patterns $\mu =
\tuple{\vartheta_1,\ldots,\vartheta_n}$ and
$\mu'=\tuple{\vartheta'_1,\ldots,\vartheta'_n}$ for some predicate
$p/n$, we have $\mu\sqcup\mu'=\tuple{\vartheta_1 \cup \vartheta'_1,
\ldots, \vartheta_n \cup \vartheta'_n}$.
Note that, in contrast to the greatest lower bound on groundness
patterns that may increase the number of ground variables (and thus
the accuracy of the result), the least upper bound on sharing
patterns may lose accuracy since more dependencies can be obtained.
\begin{example} \label{app2} Consider again $append/3$. Given the
sharing call patterns $\mu_1=\tuple{\{1\},\{2\},\{3\}}$ and
$\mu_2=\tuple{\{1,2\},\{1,2\},\{3\}}$, the dependency analysis would
return the following:
\[
\begin{array}{llll}
append/3: & \tuple{\{1\},\{2\},\{3\}} & \stackrel{sh}{\mapsto} & \tuple{\{1,3\},\{2,3\},\{1,2,3\}} \\
append/3: & \tuple{\{1,2\},\{1,2\},\{3\}} & \stackrel{sh}{\mapsto} & \tuple{\{1,2,3\},\{1,2,3\},\{1,2,3\}} \\
\end{array}
\]
Here, we consider two possibilities: first, if $append$ is called
with three independent arguments then, after a successful
derivation, the third argument may be bound to a value that shares
variables with either the first and the second arguments; on the
other hand, if $append$ is called with the two first arguments bound
to terms containing shared variables, then all three arguments may
depend on each other after a successful derivation.
\end{example}
\subsection{Partial Evaluation Stage} \label{pe-section}
Now, we present the proper partial evaluation stage of the
parallelizing partial evaluator.
In principle, one could consider checking independence of goals using
the information available solely at partial evaluation time. This
approach, however, would be generally incorrect for a number of
reasons. First, the notion of \emph{closedness} (see
Sect.~\ref{pe-sec}) allows run-time atoms to be covered by instances
of partial evaluation atoms. Therefore, $q(X,X)$ is closed w.r.t.\
$q(X,Y)$. This means that goals can be independent at partial
evaluation time but need not be independent at run-time. Moreover,
whenever we split a goal of an incomplete computation into atomic
subgoals, we are also loosing some \emph{context} information that
might be essential for checking independence, as the following example
illustrates:
\begin{example}
Consider the following program
\[
\begin{array}{l}
p(X,Y) ~ \leftarrow ~ q(X),r(Y).\\
eq(X,X). \\
\ldots \\
\end{array}
\]
Given the goal $eq(A,B),p(A,B)$, if we split it into its atomic
subgoals $eq(A,B)$ and $p(A,B)$, and partially evaluate them
independently, we could derive the goal $q(A),r(B)$ and
\emph{incorrectly} assume that $q(A)$ and $r(B)$ are independent.
\end{example}
Furthermore, the use of an abstraction operator might also involve the
loss of some dependencies (e.g., generalizing $p(X,Y,f(Y))$ to
$p(X,Y,Z)$ with $Z$ a fresh variable).
In summary, the information available at partial evaluation time is
not enough to determine the run-time independence of a
goal.\footnote{Of course, we could avoid splitting goals, do not use
an abstraction operator and only allow variants to be closed, but
then the termination of partial evaluation could not be ensured.}
Therefore, as mentioned before, in this paper we consider that the
partial evaluator includes a pre-processing stage where
\emph{run-time} groundness and sharing information is gathered.
In particular, we design a rather simple partial evaluator with the
following distinguishing features:
\begin{itemize}
\item only one-step unfolding of atomic goals is performed;
\item no static data are provided (i.e., the initial goal has
different variables as arguments);
\item every atomic goal is enriched with groundness and sharing call
patterns that are propagated through partial evaluation.
\end{itemize}
The fact that we do not consider partially instantiated initial goals,
together with the fact that only one-step unfolding is performed,
allows us to better identify the potential for generating annotations
for independent AND-parallelism. Moreover, it makes the online partial
evaluator scale up better to medium and large applications.
Our partial evaluator deals with sets of \emph{extended} atoms
(instead of sets of atoms, as in the algorithm of Figure~\ref{pdalg}).
\begin{definition}[extended atom]
We consider extended atoms of the form $(A,\pi,\mu)$ where $A$ is an
atom, $\pi$ is a groundness call pattern for $A$, and $\mu$ is a
sharing call pattern for $A$. This notion is extended in the natural
way to queries and goals. We denote the empty extended query by
$true$.
Given an extended query $\cQ$, we introduce the following auxiliary
function:\linebreak $\mathit{query}(\cQ) = A_1,\ldots,A_n$, if $\cQ =
(A_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(A_n,\pi_n,\mu_n)$.
\end{definition}
The number of different specialized versions of an atom will be
determined, not only by its shape (as it is usually the case), but
also by the different combinations of groundness and sharing call
patterns. For instance, $(p(X,Y),\{1,2\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})$ and
$(p(X,Y),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})$ would give rise to different
specialized versions.
Another distinguishing feature of our scheme is that, in contrast to
previous approaches, we do not explicitly distinguish between the
so-called \emph{local} and \emph{global} levels (as in
\cite{Gal93}). Rather, we construct a single partial evaluation tree
that comprises both levels. Moreover, our partial evaluation process
performs just one pass since residual rules can be produced
immediately after every unfolding step (rather than in a post-process,
as it is often done since the unfolding tree can be modified during
the partial evaluation process).
In the following, we denote by $\pi(A)$ the (definite) \emph{ground}
arguments of $A$ according to $\pi$, i.e., $\pi(p(s_1,\ldots,s_k)) =
\{ s_j \mid j\in\pi\}$. Also, we denote by $\mu(A)$ the set of
(possibly) shared variables in $A$ according to $\mu$, i.e.,
$\mu(p(s_1,\ldots,s_k)) = \{ (x,y) \in ({\cV}ar(s_i),{\cV}ar(s_j)) \mid
i,j\in\{1,\ldots,k\}, i\neq j, \{i,j\}\subseteq s \in \mu\}$.
Before introducing the notion of SLD resolution over extended queries,
we need the following preparatory definition, which is used to
propagate groundness and sharing call patterns to the atoms in the
body of a clause.
\begin{definition}[entry procedure] \label{entrydef} Let $H \leftarrow
B_1,\ldots,B_n$ be a clause and $(A,\pi,\mu)$ an extended atom such
that $A$ and $H$ unify. We denote with $entry$ a function that
propagates $\pi$ and $\mu$ to $B_1,\ldots,B_n$. Formally,
$entry(\pi,\mu,(H\leftarrow B_1,\ldots,B_n)) =
((B_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(B_n,\pi_n,\mu_n))$ if, for all
$B_i=p_i(t_{i1},\ldots,t_{im_i})$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, the following
conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item $j \in \pi_i$ iff ${\cV}ar(t_{ij})\subseteq{\cV}ar(\pi(H))$ (i.e.,
all variables in $t_{ij}$ are ground in $H$ according to $\pi$).
\item $\{1,\ldots,m_i\}\supseteq\{j_1,\ldots,j_k\}\in\mu_i$ iff
there are (non necessarily different) variables
$(x_{j_1},\ldots,x_{j_k}) \in
({\cV}ar(t_{ij_1}),\ldots,{\cV}ar(t_{ij_k}))$ such that for every pair
of different variables $x_{j_r},x_{j_s}$, we have
$(x_{j_r},x_{j_s})\in\mu(H)$ (i.e., either the terms share some
variable or have different variables that are shared in $H$
according to $\mu$).
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Note that the entry procedure is independent of $A$ (only its
associated groundness and sharing call patterns matter), since we want
the results for a partial evaluation time atom $A$ be valid for every
run-time atom $A\theta$.
\pagebreak
\begin{example} \label{fib}
Let us consider the following program for computing Fibonacci
numbers:
\[
\begin{array}{llll@{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~}l}
(C_1) & fibonacci(0,1). &&
(C_2) ~~ fibonacci(1,1). \\
(C_3) & fibonacci(M,N) & \leftarrow &
M > 1,~M1 ~is~ M-1,~fibonacci(M1,N1), \\
&&& M2 ~is~ M-2,~fibonacci(M2,N2),~N ~is~ N1 + N2. \\
\end{array}
\]
Here, $entry
\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}},C_3)$ returns
the following extended query:
\[
\begin{array}{r@{~}c@{~}l}
(M > 1, & \{1,2\}, & \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), \\
(M1 ~is~ M-1, & \{2\}, & \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), \\
(fibonacci(M1,N1), & \{\},& \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), \\
(M2 ~is~ M-2, & \{2\}, & \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), \\
(fibonacci(M2,N2), & \{\},& \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), \\
(N ~is~ N1+N2, & \{\}, & \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}) \\
\end{array}
\]
\end{example}
We are now ready to introduce the notion of extended SLD resolution:
\begin{definition}[extended SLD resolution]
Extended SLD resolution, denoted by $\leadsto$, is a natural
extension of SLD resolution over extended queries. Formally, given
a program $P$, an extended query $\cQ=
(A_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(A_n,\pi_n,\mu_n)$, and a computation rule
$\cR$, we say that $\leftarrow \cQ \leadsto_{P,\cR,\sigma}\:
\leftarrow \cQ'$ is an \emph{extended SLD resolution step} for $\cQ$
with $P$ and $\cR$ if the following conditions hold:\footnote{We
often omit $P$, $\cR$ and/or $\sigma$ in the notation of an
extended SLD resolution step when they are clear from the
context.}
\begin{itemize}
\item $\cR(\cQ) = (A_i,\pi_i,\mu_i)$, $1\leq i\leq n$, is the selected
extended atom,
\item $H \leftarrow B_1,\ldots,B_m$ is a renamed apart clause of
$P$,
\item $A_i$ and $H$ unify with $\sigma = mgu(A_i,H)$, and
\item $\cQ' = entry
\pi_i,\mu_i,(H \leftarrow
B_1,\ldots,B_m))\sigma$.\footnote{We let
$((B_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(B_n,\pi_n,\mu_n))\sigma =
(B_1\sigma,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(B_n\sigma,\pi_n,\mu_n)$.}
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Trivially, extended SLD resolution is a conservative extension of SLD
resolution: given extended queries $\cQ,\cQ'$, we have that $\leftarrow \cQ
\leadsto_\sigma\:\leftarrow \cQ'$ implies $\leftarrow \mathit{query}(\cQ)
\hookrightarrow_\sigma\: \leftarrow \mathit{query}(\cQ')$.
In the following, we use $\mathit{pred}(A)$ to denote the predicate symbol of
atom $A$.
As it is common practice, we avoid infinite unfolding by means of a
well-known strategy based on the use of the \emph{homeomorphic
embedding} ordering.
Intuitively, we say that atom $A_i$ \emph{embeds} atom $A_j$, denoted
by $A_i \unrhd A_j$, when $A_j$ can be obtained from $A_i$ by deleting
symbols (see \cite{Leu02} for a precise definition).
\begin{definition}[variant, embedding]
We say that two (extended) atoms $(A,\pi,\mu)$ and $(A',\pi',\mu')$
are \emph{variants}, denoted by $(A,\pi,\mu) \approx (A',\pi',\mu')$
if there is a renaming substitution $\rho$ such that $A\rho= A'$,
$\pi = \pi'$ and $\mu=\mu'$.
We say that $(A,\pi,\mu)$ \emph{embeds} $(A',\pi',\mu')$, denoted by
$(A,\pi,\mu) \trianglerighteq (A',\pi',\mu')$, if $A\trianglerighteq
A'$, $\pi = \pi'$ and $\mu=\mu'$.
\end{definition}
Our partial evaluation semantics is formalized by means of the
(labelled) state transition system shown in Figure~\ref{ecpd}. The
partial evaluator deals with \emph{states}, defined as follows:
\begin{figure}[t]
\rule{\linewidth}{1pt}
\[
\begin{array}{r@{~~~~~}c}
\mathsf{(variant)} & {\displaystyle
\frac{\exists (A',\pi',\mu')\in memo.~ (A,\pi,\mu)\approx (A',\pi',\mu')}
{\tuple{(A,\pi,\mu),\cQ;memo} \stackrel{\textit{v}}{\longrightarrow} \tuple{\cQ;memo}}}
\\[4ex]
\mathsf{(failure)} & {\displaystyle
\frac{\not\exists \cQ'.~ \leftarrow (A,\pi,\mu) \leadsto_\sigma \: \leftarrow \cQ'}
{\tuple{(A,\pi,\mu),\cQ;memo} \stackrel{\textit{f}}{\longrightarrow} \tuple{\cQ;memo}}}
\\[4ex]
\mathsf{(embedding)} & {\displaystyle
\frac{\exists (A',\pi',\mu')\in memo.~ (A,\pi,\mu)\trianglerighteq (A',\pi',\mu') }
{\tuple{(A,\pi,\mu),\cQ;memo} \stackrel{\textit{e}}{\longrightarrow} \tuple{\cQ;memo}}}
\\[4ex]
\mathsf{(nonuser)} & {\displaystyle
\frac{ \mbox{$\mathit{pred}(A)$ is not defined in the user's program clauses}}
{\tuple{(A,\pi,\mu),\cQ;memo} \stackrel{\textit{n}}{\longrightarrow} \tuple{\cQ;memo}}}
\\[4ex]
\mathsf{(parallel)} & {\displaystyle
\frac{ \leftarrow (A,\pi,\mu) \leadsto_\sigma \leftarrow \cQ' ~\wedge~
\exists (\cQ_1,\cQ_2,\cQ_3,\cQ_4)\in\textit{partition}_\mu(\cQ')}
{\tuple{(A,\pi,\mu),\cQ;memo} \stackrel{\textit{p}}{\longrightarrow}_\sigma
\tuple{\cQ_1,\cQ_2,\cQ_3,\cQ_4,\cQ;memo\cup\{(A,\pi,\mu)\}}}}
\\[4ex]
\mathsf{(unfolding)} & {\displaystyle
\frac{ \leftarrow (A,\pi,\mu) \leadsto_\sigma \leftarrow \cQ' ~\wedge~
\not\exists (\cQ_1,\cQ_2,\cQ_3,\cQ_4)\in\textit{partition}_\mu(\cQ')}
{\tuple{(A,\pi,\mu),\cQ;memo} \stackrel{\textit{u}}{\longrightarrow}_\sigma
\tuple{\textit{prop}(\cQ',true),\cQ;memo\cup\{(A,\pi,\mu)\}}}}
\\
\end{array}
\]
\rule{\linewidth}{1pt}
\caption{Partial evaluation semantics} \label{ecpd}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}[state]
A \emph{state} is a pair of the form $\tuple{\cQ;memo}$ where $\cQ$
is a sequence of extended atoms\footnote{Note that this sequence is
not an extended query. Rather, this is the queue of (extended)
atomic goals to be partially evaluated.} and $memo$ is a set of
extended atoms (the atoms already partially evaluated, which are
recorded to guarantee termination).
An \emph{initial state} has the form $\tuple{(A,\pi,\mu);\{\}}$. A
\emph{final state} has the form $\tuple{\epsilon;memo}$, where
$\epsilon$ denotes an empty sequence.
\end{definition}
A \emph{successful} partial evaluation starts with an initial state
and (non-deterministically, because of the \textsf{unfolding} rule)
constructs a number of derivations of the form
$\tuple{(A,\pi,\mu);\{\}} \longrightarrow^\ast \tuple{\epsilon;\_}$, where
$\longrightarrow^\ast$ denotes the reflexive and transitive closure of
$\longrightarrow$. The process does not return anything but the trace
itself, that will be used for producing residual rules (see the next
section).
Let us now explain the rules of the partial evaluation semantics.
Rule (\textsf{variant}) discards an extended atom if it is a variant
of an already partially evaluated extended atom. Rule
(\textsf{failure}) also discards an extended atom when it cannot be
unfolded (e.g., when $A$ does not unify with the head of any clause).
The next rule, (\textsf{embedding}), discards an extended atom when it
embeds a previously partially evaluated extended atom. This rule is
necessary in order to ensure that partial evaluation always
terminates. Rule (\textsf{nonuser}) allows us to deal with built-in's
and other extra-logical features of Prolog by leaving calls to the
original predicates, as we will see in the next section.
The interesting rules are (\textsf{parallel}) and (\textsf{unfolding}).
In the following, we assume a fixed left-to-right selection rule as in
Prolog. Therefore, we use a function $\mathit{prop}$ to propagate
groundness and sharing success patterns to the atoms to the right of a
given atom before splitting an extended query. This is necessary
because only the partial evaluation of atomic goals is allowed and,
thus, this information should be propagated before the query is split
into its constituents in order to avoid a serious loss of accuracy.
\begin{definition}[pattern propagation]
Let $\cQ_1,\cQ_2$ be extended queries, with $\cQ_1 =
(A_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(A_n,\pi_n,\mu_n)$ and $\cQ_2 =
(A_{n+1},\pi_{n+1},\mu_{n+1}),\ldots,(A_m,\pi_m,\mu_m)$. We define
the function $\mathit{prop}$ to propagate success patterns to the
right as follows:\footnote{Note the non-standard use of function
$entry$ to propagate success patterns to the right, despite the
fact that $A_1\leftarrow A_2,\ldots,A_m$ is not really a program
clause.}
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathit{prop}(\cQ_1,\cQ_2) = \cQ_2$ if $n= 0$ (i.e.,
$\cQ_1$ is an empty query);
\item $\mathit{prop}(\cQ_1,\cQ_2) =
((A_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\mathit{prop}(\cQ'_1,\cQ'_2))$ if $n>0$,\\
%
$\mathit{pred}(A_1):\pi_1\stackrel{gr}{\mapsto}\pi'_1$, $\mathit{pred}(A_1):\mu_1\stackrel{sh}{\mapsto}\mu'_1$,\\
%
$\mathit{entry}(\pi'_1,\mu'_1,(A_1 \leftarrow A_2,\ldots,A_m)) =
(A_2,\pi'_2,\mu'_2),\ldots,(A_m,\pi'_m,\mu'_m)$, \\
%
$\cQ'_1 = (A_2,\pi_2\sqcap\pi'_2,\mu_2\sqcup\mu'_2),\ldots,
(A_n,\pi_n\sqcap\pi'_n,\mu_n\sqcup\mu'_n)$, and \\
%
$\cQ'_2 =
(A_{n+1},\pi_{n+1}\sqcap\pi'_{n+1},\mu_{n+1}\sqcup\mu'_{n+1}),\ldots,
(A_m,\pi_m\sqcap\pi'_m,\mu_m\sqcup\mu'_m)$.
\end{itemize}
Observe that the two arguments of function $prop$ are not needed for
unfolding a goal. However, this formulation will become useful later
when also using $\mathit{prop}$ to partition a goal.
\end{definition}
\begin{example} \label{exsld}
Consider again the Fibonacci program of Example~\ref{fib} and the
result of the $entry$ procedure. Thus we have $fibonacci(A,B)
\leadsto_{\{A\mapsto M,B\mapsto N\}} (M > 1, \{1,2\},
\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})$, $(M1 ~is~ M-1, \{2\}, \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}),
(fibonacci(M1,N1), \{\}, \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), (M2 ~is~ M-2, \{2\},
\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), (fibonacci(M2,N2), \{\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}),
(N ~is~ N1+N2, \{\}, \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})$.
%
We assume the following call and success patterns:
\[
\begin{array}{rllrll}
is/2: & \{2\} \stackrel{gr}{\mapsto} \{1,2\} &&
is/2: & \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}} \stackrel{sh}{\mapsto} \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}} \\
fibonacci/2: & \{1\} \stackrel{gr}{\mapsto} \{1,2\} &&
fibonacci/2: & \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}} \stackrel{sh}{\mapsto} \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}} \\
\end{array}
\]
Then, for instance, we have
\[
\begin{array}{r@{}l@{}ll}
\mathit{prop}( & ( & (M>1,\{1,2\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), ~
M1 ~is~ M-1,\{2\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), \\
&& (fibonacci(M1,N1),\{\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), ~
(M2 ~is~ M-2,\{2\}, \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}),\\
&& (fibonacci(M2,N2), \{\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}),
(N ~is~ N1+N2, \{\}, \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})), ~true) \\
= & ( & (M>1,\{1,2\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}),~
(M1 ~is~ M-1,\{2\},\tuple{\{1\},\{1\}}), \\
&& (fibonacci(M1,N1),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}),~
(M2 ~is~ M-2,\{2\}, \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), \\
&& (fibonacci(M2,N2), \{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), ~
(N ~is~ N1+N2, \{2\}, \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})) \\
\end{array}
\]
so we know that, when the last call $N ~is~ N1+N2$ is performed,
$N1+N2$ is ground.
\end{example}
Before explaining the rules (\textsf{parallel}) and
(\textsf{unfolding}), we still need one more auxiliary function,
\textit{partition}, which is used to check if a query contains some
subgoals that can be executed in parallel (i.e., if they are
strictly independent at run-time):
\begin{definition}[partition]
Let $(A,\pi,\mu)$ be an extended atom such that
$(A,\pi,\mu)\leadsto_\sigma \cQ$. We introduce the function
$\mathsf{partition}_\mu$ as follows:\footnote{In order not to
encumber the notation, we assume that $\cQ'_i$ refers to the same
extended query $\cQ_i$ after some processing.}
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathit{partition}_\mu(\cQ) =
(\cQ'_1,\cQ''_2,\cQ''_3,\cQ''''_4)$
if $\cQ$ contains at least two extended atoms,\\
$\cQ = \cQ_1,\cQ_2,\cQ_3,\cQ_4$, with $\cQ_2$ and $\cQ_3$ non-empty queries,\\
$(\cQ'_1,(\cQ'_2,\cQ'_3,\cQ'_4)) = \mathit{prop}(\cQ_1,(\cQ_2,\cQ_3,\cQ_4))$,\\
$\cQ'_2$ and $\cQ'_3$ are independent,
\\
$(\cQ''_2,\cQ''_4) = \mathit{prop}(\cQ'_2,\cQ'_4)$,
$(\cQ''_3,\cQ'''_4) = \mathit{prop}(\cQ'_3,\cQ''_4)$, and
$\cQ''''_4 = \mathit{prop}(\cQ'''_4,true).$
\end{itemize}
Here, strict independence of $\cQ'_2$ and $\cQ'_3$ is checked using
the standard notion (see Section~\ref{intro}) and taking into
account the groundness call patterns available from the extended
atoms and the sharing call pattern for the head of the clause, i.e., the
variables in ${\cV}ar(\cQ'_2)\cap{\cV}ar(\cQ'_3)$ must be ground according
to the groundness call patterns in $\cQ'_2,\cQ'_3$ and each pair of
different variables $(x,y)\in({\cV}ar(\cQ'_2),{\cV}ar(\cQ'_3))$ should not
be shared in the head of the clause according to $\mu$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example} \label{ex2} Consider again the Fibonacci program of
Example~\ref{fib} and the extended SLD resolution step of
Example~\ref{exsld}. By applying function \textit{partition} to the
derived extended query, we get
\[
\begin{array}{l@{}lll}
\cQ_1 = & (M>1,\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), \\
\cQ_2 = & (M1 ~is~ M-1,\{2\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}),
(fibonacci(M1,N1),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), \\
\cQ_3 = & (M2 ~is~ M-2,\{2\}, \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}),
(fibonacci(M2,N2), \{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}), \\
\cQ_4 = & (N ~is~ N1+N2, \{2\}, \tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})\\
\end{array}
\]
which means that the queries $(M1 ~is~ M-1,fibonacci(M1,N1))$ and $(M2
~is~ M-2,fibonacci(M2,N2))$ can be safely run in parallel at run-time.
\end{example}
Now, rules (\textsf{parallel}) and (\textsf{unfolding}) should be
clear. When an atom is unfolded and the body of the selected clause
can be run in parallel (which is determined by function
\textit{partition}), rule (\textsf{parallel}) applies. Note that we
consider a simple algorithm where the atoms of a query cannot be
reordered (i.e., we respect Prolog's computation rule). Of course,
more elaborated strategies exist (see, e.g., \cite{MBBH99,GH09}), but
we consider them out of the scope of this paper.
When the body of the clause cannot be partitioned so that some
subgoals are run in parallel, rule (\textsf{unfolding}) applies (which
will give rise to a sequential clause, as we will see later). Here, we
apply function $\mathit{prop}$ in order to propagate groundness and
sharing information to the extended atoms before they are split in the
next step (since only the unfolding of atomic goals is considered).
In both rules, we add the selected extended atom to the set of already
partially evaluated extended atoms.
All transition rules are labelled with a letter that identifies the
rule applied. This will become useful to generate residual rules (see
the next section).
\begin{example} \label{ex3} Consider again the Fibonacci program of
Example~\ref{fib}. Given the initial state
\[
\cS_0 = \tuple{(fibonacci(A,B),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}),\{\}}
\]
we have three partial evaluation derivations starting from
$\cS_0$:
\[
\begin{array}{l@{~}l}
\cS_0 & \stackrel{u}{\longrightarrow}_{\{A\mapsto 0,B\mapsto 1\}}
\tuple{\epsilon,\{(fibonacci(A,B),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})\}} \\
\cS_0 & \stackrel{u}{\longrightarrow}_{\{A\mapsto 1,B\mapsto 1\}}
\tuple{\epsilon,\{(fibonacci(A,B),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})\}} \\
\cS_0 & \stackrel{p}{\longrightarrow}_{\{A\mapsto M,B\mapsto N\}}
\tuple{(\cQ_1,\cQ_2,\cQ_3,\cQ_4),\{(fibonacci(A,B),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})\}} \\
& \stackrel{n}{\longrightarrow}
\tuple{(\cQ_2,\cQ_3,\cQ_4),\{(fibonacci(A,B),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})\}} \\
& \stackrel{n}{\longrightarrow}
\tuple{((fibonacci(M1,N1),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}),\cQ_3,\cQ_4),\\
& ~~~~~~ \{(fibonacci(A,B),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})\}} \\
& \stackrel{v}{\longrightarrow}
\tuple{(\cQ_3,\cQ_4),
\{(fibonacci(A,B),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})\}} \\
& \stackrel{n}{\longrightarrow}
\tuple{((fibonacci(M2,N2),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}),\cQ_4),\\
& ~~~~~~ \{(fibonacci(A,B),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})\}} \\
& \stackrel{v}{\longrightarrow}
\tuple{(\cQ_4),
\{(fibonacci(A,B),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})\}} \\
& \stackrel{n}{\longrightarrow}
\tuple{\epsilon,
\{(fibonacci(A,B),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}})\}} \\
\end{array}
\]
Note that predicates not defined in the user's program (like $>$ or
$is$) are not unfoldable and that $\cQ_1,\cQ_2,\cQ_3,\cQ_4$ are the
extended queries of Example~\ref{ex2}.
\end{example}
\subsection{Post-Processing Stage} \label{post-section}
Once the partial evaluation stage terminates, we produce renamed,
residual rules associated to the transitions of the partial evaluation
semantics.
In the following, we assume that there is a function $Ren$ that takes
an extended atom and returns a renamed atom whose predicate name is
fresh and depends on the patterns of the extended atom. We do not
present the details of this renaming function here since it is a
standard renaming as introduced in, e.g., \cite{BL89,dSGJLMS99}. For
instance,
\[
Ren(\mathit{fibonacci}(X,Y),\{1\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}) =
\mathit{fibonacci}\_1\_1\_2(X,Y)
\]
Note, however, that non-user predicates are not renamed, e.g.,
\[
Ren(M1 ~is~ M-1,\{2\},\tuple{\{1\},\{2\}}) =
M1 ~is~ M-1
\]
The generation of residual rules proceeds as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We do not generate residual clauses associated to the
application of rules (\textsf{variant}) nor (\textsf{failure}).
\item For \textsf{embedding} steps of the form
$\tuple{(A,\pi,\mu),\cQ;memo} \stackrel{\textit{e}}{\longrightarrow}
\tuple{\cQ;memo}$ we produce a residual rule of the form
$Ren(A,\pi,\mu) \leftarrow A$. This means that some atoms will not
be closed but defined in terms of calls to the original predicates
(and, thus, the clauses of the original program should be added to
the residual program).
\item For \textsf{nonuser} steps $\tuple{(A,\pi,\mu),\cQ;memo}
\stackrel{\textit{n}}{\longrightarrow} \tuple{\cQ;memo}$, we do not
generate residual rules since non-user calls are not renamed.
\item For an \textsf{unfolding} step $\tuple{(A,\pi,\mu),\cQ;memo}
\stackrel{\textit{u}}{\longrightarrow}_\sigma
\tuple{\textit{prop}(\cQ',true),\cQ;memo\cup$
$\{(A,\pi,\mu)\}}$, we produce a residual rule of the form
\[
Ren(A,\pi,\mu) \leftarrow
Ren(B_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,Ren(B_n,\pi_n,\mu_n).
\]
where $\textit{prop}(\cQ') =
((B_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(B_n,\pi_n,\mu_n))$.
\item Finally, for a \textsf{parallel} step
$\tuple{(A,\pi,\mu),\cQ;memo}
\stackrel{\textit{p}}{\longrightarrow}_\sigma
\tuple{\cQ_1,\cQ_2,\cQ_3,\cQ_4,\cQ;memo$ $\cup\{(A,\pi,\mu)\}}$, we produce
a residual rule of the form
\[
\begin{array}{llll}
Ren(A,\pi,\mu) & \leftarrow &
Ren(B_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,Ren(B_n,\pi_n,\mu_n), \\
&& (Ren(B_{n+1},\pi_{n+1},\mu_{n+1}),\ldots,Ren(B_m,\pi_m,\mu_m) \\
&& \& ~Ren(B_{m+1},\pi_{m+1},\mu_{m+1}),\ldots,Ren(B_k,\pi_k,\mu_k)),\\
&& Ren(B_{k+1},\pi_{k+1},\mu_{k+1}),\ldots,Ren(B_l,\pi_l,\mu_l).
\end{array}
\]
where \\
$
\begin{array}{lll}
\cQ_1 = ((B_1,\pi_1,\mu_1),\ldots,(B_n,\pi_n,\mu_n)),~\\
\cQ_2 = ((B_{n+1},\pi_{n+1},\mu_{n+1}),\ldots,(B_m,\pi_m,\mu_m)),\\
\cQ_3 = ((B_{m+1},\pi_{m+1},\mu_{m+1}),\ldots,(B_k,\pi_k,\mu_k)),~\\
\cQ_4 = ((B_{k+1},\pi_{k+1},\mu_{k+1}),\ldots,(B_l,\pi_l,\mu_l)).
\end{array}
$
\end{itemize}
\begin{example} \label{exlast}
For instance, for the derivations of Example~\ref{ex3}, we produce
the following residual program:
\[
\begin{array}{l@{~}l@{~}ll@{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~}l}
fibonacci\_{1}\_{1\_2}(0,1). \\
fibonacci\_{1}\_{1\_2}(1,1). \\
fibonacci\_{1}\_{1\_2}(M,N) & \leftarrow &
M>1,~ (M1 ~is~ M-1, fibonacci\_{1}\_{1\_2}(M1,N1) \\
&& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~\& ~M2 ~is~ M-2, fibonacci\_{1}\_{1\_2}(M2,N2)), \\
&& N ~is~ N1+N2. \\
\end{array}
\]
\end{example}
\subsection{Correctness and Termination Issues}
The core of our new proposal mainly involves new control strategies,
but the main procedure is still an instance of the standard partial
evaluation framework, so its correctness should not be an issue. In
particular, our partial evaluation scheme can be seen as an instance
of the procedure of Benkerimi and Lloyd \citeyear{BL89}, though in our
case an atom is closed only if it is a variant (rather than an
instance) of an already partially evaluated atom. Our approach is
correct though since we add calls to the predicates of the original
program for non-closed atoms (and the residual program includes a copy
of the original program clauses).
Regarding the termination of partial evaluation, this is a well
studied area and the approach that we consider based on the
homeomorphic embedding ordering is quite standard \cite{Leu02}.
Regarding the introduction of parallel conjunctions, in this paper we
assume the correctness of the underlying groundness and dependency
analyses. Moreover, we prove in the online appendix the correctness of
the few functions introduced to propagate groundness and sharing
patterns at partial evaluation time, $entry$ and $prop$. Of course,
the correctness of function $partition$ can only be ensured when
$\cQ'_2$ and $\cQ'_3$ only contain user defined predicates or ``safe''
built-ins (i.e., built-ins without side effects, which do not depend
on or may change the order of evaluation, etc).
To summarize, this paper is not concerned with the development of new
theoretical developments regarding partial evaluation or program
parallelization, but with the design of new control strategies that
could allow us to improve existing partial evaluation techniques and
use them to extract some implicit independent AND-parallelism of logic
programs. Moreover, the proof-of-concept implementation of a
parallelizing partial evaluator (that we discuss in the next section)
shows that our approach is indeed viable in practice.
\section{Experimental Evaluation} \label{experiments}
A prototype implementation of the parallelizing partial evaluator
described so far has been developed. It consists of approx.\ 1000
lines of SWI Prolog code (including the groundness call and success
pattern analysis, comments, etc). The only missing component is the
sharing analysis, which currently should be provided by the user. In
general, built-in's and extra-logical features are not unfolded,
though our tool includes information regarding the propagation of
groundness and sharing information for them.
A web interface to our tool is available at
\verb$http://kaz.dsic.upv.es/litep.html$.
We have tested it by running some typical benchmarks from the
literature on automatic independent AND-parallelization of logic
programs (see, e.g., \cite{MBBH99,GH09}):
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{amatrix} implements the addition of two matrices
(a matrix is a list of lists);
\item \textbf{fib} computes the well-known Fibonacci function;
\item \textbf{flatten} is used to flatten a list of lists of
any nesting depth into a flat list;
\item \textbf{hanoi} solves the Towers of Hanoi problem;
\item \textbf{msort} implements the mergesort algorithm on lists;
\item \textbf{mmatrix} implements the multiplication of two matrices;
\item \textbf{palin} recognizes (list) palindromes;
\item \textbf{qsort} implements the quicksort algorithm on lists;
\item \textbf{tak} computes the Takeuchi function.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, in order to test the scalability of the tool, we have also
applied our parallelizing partial evaluation tool to itself
(\textbf{ppeval}). The code of the examples can be found in the tool's
webpage.
We use SWI Prolog's \textsf{concurrent/3} to run goals in
parallel. Parallel processes in SWI Prolog, however, are not
lightweight. As mentioned in \cite{SWI}, \textit{if the goals are CPU
intensive and normally all succeeding, typically the number of CPUs
is the optimal number of threads. Less does not use all CPUs, more
wastes time in context switches and also uses more memory.} For
instance, the unbound number of threads that would be created with the
program of Example~\ref{exlast} would perform very badly for even
small input values. In order to solve this problem, we replace calls
to \textsf{concurrent/3} by a special version as follows:
\begin{verbatim}
concurrent_k(A,B,C) :-
current_threads(N), max_threads(K),!,
(N < K -> M is N+1,
retractall(current_threads(_)),assert(current_threads(M)),
concurrent(2,[B,C],[]),
current_threads(T), S is T-1,
retractall(current_threads(_)),assert(current_threads(S)),
; call(A) ).
\end{verbatim}
Basically, given queries $\cQ_1$ and $\cQ_2$,
$concurrent\_k((\cQ_1,\cQ_2),\cQ'_1,\cQ'_2)$ determines, depending on
the current and maximum number of threads, if a sequential goal
$(\cQ_1,\cQ_2)$ or a parallel goal $\cQ'_1\& \cQ'_2$ should be run
(where $\cQ'_i$ is the parallel version of $\cQ_i$).
Table~\ref{times} summarizes our experimental results for the selected
benchmarks. We executed SWI-Prolog (Multi-threaded, 64 bits, Version 6.0.2)
on a 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (with 8GB 1066 MHz DDR3 RAM)
running Mac OS X v10.7.3. Therefore, one can expect the best results
for a maximum of 4 threads.
Run times have been obtained using SWI Prolog's \textsf{get\_time/1},
which is similar to SICStus \textsf{walltime} and includes CPU time,
garbage collection, etc. Rather than timings, we show the relative
speedup (i.e., run time of the original program/run time of the
residual program; values $>1$ are then actual speedups) for each
original program (column \textbf{Seq}), and its partially evaluated
version using 1/2/4/6/8 cores (columns
\textbf{Par1}/\textbf{Par2}/\textbf{Par4}/\textbf{Par6}/\textbf{Par8}).
Here, \textsf{SO} indicates a \textit{stack overflow}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Experimental evaluation of the parallelizing partial evaluator}\label{times}
\centering
$
\begin{array}{rrrrrrrrrr|}
\hline\hline
\mbox{\bf benchmark} & \mathbf{Seq} & \mathbf{Par1} & \mathbf{Par2}
& \mathbf{Par4} & \mathbf{Par6} & \mathbf{Par8} \\\hline
\mathbf{fib} & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.83 & 2.88 & 3.82 & 3.70 \\
\mathbf{hanoi} & 1.00 & 1.27 & 1.54 & 2.29 & 2.05 & 1.97 \\
\mathbf{mmatrix} & 1.00 & 1.05 & 1.07 & 1.09 & 1.08 & 1.07 \\
\mathbf{palin} & 1.00 & 1.07 & 1.79 & 2.52 & 2.30 & 2.41 \\
\mathbf{tak} & 1.00 & 0.98 & 1.31 & 1.31 & 1.30 & 1.31 \\
\noalign{\vspace{2ex}}
\mathbf{amatrix} & 1.00 & 1.02 & 0.59 & 0.30 & 0.20 & 0.16 \\
\mathbf{flatten} & 1.00 & 1.23 & 0.72 & 0.63 & 0.61 & 0.81 \\
\mathbf{msort} & 1.00 & 1.59 & 0.86 & 1.23 & 1.22 & 1.26 \\
\mathbf{qsort} & 1.00 & 1.73 & 0.48 & 0.71 & 0.72 & 0.60 \\
\noalign{\vspace{2ex}}
\mathbf{ppeval} & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.15 & \mathsf{SO} & \mathsf{SO} & \mathsf{SO} \\
\hline\hline
\end{array}
$\\[-3ex]
\end{table}
First, we observe that the values of column \textbf{Par1} are not
always 1.00. This is due to the effects of the partial evaluation. We
tried to minimize it, but it seems that for some examples it still
has a significant effect. The first group of benchmarks (\textbf{fib},
\textbf{hanoi}, \textbf{mmatrix}, \textbf{palin} and \textbf{tak})
show the expected results: \textbf{Par1} is generally close to 1 and
the introduction of parallel threads produces noticeable speedups. For the
second group of benchmarks (\textbf{amatrix}, \textbf{flatten},
\textbf{msort} and \textbf{qsort}), we get a slowdown in almost all
cases but in \textbf{msort} (and, even in this case, the sequential
partial evaluation is faster). Let us take a look at the results. For
instance, for \textbf{amatrix}, we transform:
\begin{verbatim}
amatrix([L1|O1],[L2|O2],[L3|O3]) :- am1(L1,L2,L3), amatrix(O1,O2,O3).
\end{verbatim}
into
\begin{verbatim}
amatrix_par([A|B],[C|D],[E|F]) :-
concurrent_k((am1(A,C,E),amatrix(B,D,F)),
am1(A,C,E), amatrix_par(B,D,F)).
\end{verbatim}
and leave the rest of the program untouched. For \textbf{quicksort},
we get
\begin{verbatim}
quicksort_par([A|B],C) :- partition(B,A,D,E),
concurrent_k((quicksort(D,F),quicksort(E,G)),
quicksort_par(D,F),
quicksort_par(E,G)),
append(F,A,G,C).
\end{verbatim}
and the rest of the program is not modified. Similar results are
obtained for \textbf{flatten} and \textbf{msort}. Note that the output
of our tool is perfectly reasonable (i.e., it coincides with a typical
parallelization by hand). So what explains the slowdowns produced?
Besides the particularities of these benchmarks, it might be caused by
the implemented model of parallel threads in SWI Prolog (which copies
ground arguments instead of sharing them). Further investigating this
point is a subject of ongoing research; e.g., we plan to test the
benchmarks using a different Prolog environment supporting
source-level primitives for AND-parallelism.
As for the third group, \textbf{ppeval}, we do not get a significant
speedup but it allows us to check that the approach is viable in
practice and scales up well to medium programs (the stack overflow
corresponds to running the specialized partial evaluator to partially
evaluate itself on 4 or more threads, and seems to be related to the
limited size of threads' stacks|i.e., it is not a fault of
\textbf{ppeval}).
In summary, the experimental evaluation is still preliminary, but it
clearly shows that there is a good potential for improving program
performance by using a parallelizing partial evaluator. Indeed, one
can easily judge by visual inspection of the annotated programs (check
the results in \verb$http://kaz.dsic.upv.es/litep.html$) that our
parallelizing partial evaluator uncovers as much parallelism
opportunities as it is possible.
We have not compared our tool with any existing parallelizing compiler
for logic programs yet. On the one hand, because our tool is not yet
mature enough to deal with realistic Prolog applications. On the other
hand, because we could not find a publicly available working system
for source-level program parallelization.
\section{Concluding Remarks and Future Work} \label{future}
In this work, we have presented a novel approach to parallelizing
partial evaluation. Analogously to standard approaches to automatic
independent AND-parallelization of logic programs, our partial
evaluator uses run-time groundness and dependency
information. However, in contrast to these approaches, we can
transform the source program in order to expose more opportunities for
parallelization. We are not aware of any previous proposal along the
same lines. \cite{CD92,STK97} considers performing \emph{partial
evaluation} in parallel, which is quite a different goal as
ours. The closer approach we are aware of is that of \cite{SB94},
where a standard partial evaluator is used to expose some low level
operations of a program so that a parallelization algorithm can be
more successfully applied. They consider, however, two independent
actions: standard partial evaluation and program parallelization, in
contrast to ours. Nevertheless, the idea of combining partial
evaluation and static analysis is not new \cite{Jones97}. Also, the
use of partial evaluation to compile an instrumented interpreter can
be used to enrich source programs with some additional information
that can be useful for debugging or optimizing execution (see, e.g.,
\cite{Debois04,Jones04}). Although we are not aware of using it for
generating annotations for parallelism so far, partially evaluating an
interpreter instrumented with groundness and sharing information (so
that conjunctions are executed in parallel when safe) could get
similar results as our approach.
Being a novel approach, we consider that there is plenty of room for
further improvements. Firstly, one can consider the use of more
accurate groundness and sharing analysis. Secondly, our partition
procedure to extract two independent subgoals that can be run in
parallel is rather simple. We plan to extend it to allow an arbitrary
number of parallel subgoals, and also to allow the reordering of some
subgoals. We would also like to explore other notions of
AND-parallelism like non-strict independent AND-parallelism or, even,
dependent AND-parallelism. Finally, the combination of our approach
with a more aggressive partial evaluation scheme is also an interesting
avenue for future work.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
The author wants to thank the members of the SWI Prolog mailing list
for being so helpful and responsive. We also gratefully acknowledge
the anonymous referees for many useful comments and suggestions.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is widely believed that as the temperature and/or density
increase, strongly interacting matter undergoes some kind of
transition from a hadronic phase, in which chiral symmetry is
broken and quarks are confined, to a partonic phase in which
chiral symmetry is restored and/or quarks are deconfined. The
detailed understanding of this phenomenon is relevant not only in
particle physics but also e.g.\ in the the study of the early
universe, the interior of neutron stars, etc., therefore it has
become an issue of great interest in recent years, both
theoretically and experimentally~\cite{Rischke:2003mt}. From the
theoretical point of view, one way to address this problem is
through lattice QCD calculations~\cite{All03,Fod04,Kar03}.
However, even if significant improvements have been done in this
field in the last years, this ab initio approach is not yet able
to provide a full understanding of the QCD phase diagram. One
serious difficulty in this sense is given by the so-called sign
problem, which prevents straightforward simulations at finite
baryon density. In this situation it is worth to develop
alternative approaches, such as the study of effective models that
show consistency with lattice QCD results and can be extrapolated
into regions not accessible by lattice techniques. Here we will
concentrate on one particular class of effective theories, namely
the so-called nonlocal Polyakov$-$Nambu$-$Jona-Lasinio (nlPNJL)
models~\cite{Blaschke:2007np,Contrera:2007wu,Hell:2008cc,Contrera:2012wj}, in
which quarks move in a background color field and interact through
covariant nonlocal chirally symmetric four point couplings.
Related Polyakov-Dyson-Schwinger equation models have also been
recently analyzed~\cite{Horvatic:2010md}. These approaches, which
can be considered as an improvement over the (local) PNJL
model~\cite{Meisinger:1995ih,Fukushima:2003fw,Megias:2004hj,Ratti:2005jh,
Roessner:2006,Mukherjee:2006hq,Sasaki:2006ww}, offer a common
framework to study both the chiral restoration and deconfinement
transitions. In fact, the nonlocal character of the interactions
arises naturally in the context of several successful approaches
to low-energy quark dynamics~\cite{Schafer:1996wv,RW94}, and leads
to a momentum dependence in the quark propagator that can be made
consistent~\cite{Noguera:2008} with lattice
results~\cite{Parappilly:2005ei,Furui:2006ks}. Moreover, it has
been found that, under certain conditions, it is possible to
derive the main features of nlPNJL models starting directly from
QCD~\cite{Kondo:2010ts}. From the phenomenological side, it has
been shown~\cite{BB95,BGR02,Scarpettini:2003fj,GomezDumm:2006vz}
that nonlocal models provide a satisfactory description of hadron
properties at zero temperature and density.
As mentioned above, it is important to consider situations in which the
results obtained within effective models can be compared with available
lattice QCD calculations. For example, it is clear that vacuum properties
such as the pion mass and decay constant, as well as other features related
to the chiral/deconfinement transitions (like e.g.\ the nature of the
transitions, or the critical temperatures) will depend on basic parameters
of QCD, such as the number of quark flavors and the values of current quark
masses $m_q$. In particular, for the simplified case of two degenerate
flavors with $m_{u}=m_{d}=m$, the dependence of several relevant quantities
on $m$ has been studied with some detail in lattice QCD. Thus, the
corresponding analysis within nlPNJL models can provide an interesting test
of the reliability of this effective approach. Actually, it has already been
shown that several chiral effective
models~\cite{Berges:1997eu,Dumitru:2003cf,Braun:2005fj} are not able to
reproduce the behavior of the critical temperatures observed in lattice QCD
when one varies the parameters that explicitly break chiral symmetry (i.e.\
the current quark masses, or the pion mass in the case of meson models) at
vanishing chemical potential. This fact has been taken as an indication that
the transition may be not just dominated by pure chiral
dynamics~\cite{Fraga:2008be}. It is worth to notice that in the framework of
the standard (local) NJL model the enhancement of the critical temperature
with $m$ is too strong in comparison with lattice QCD estimates. Although
the inclusion of confinement effects through the coupling to the Polyakov
loop weakens this enhancement, one finds a too large splitting between the
chiral restoration and deconfinement transition
temperatures~\cite{Kahara:2009sq}. The presence of confinement effects
together with a strong entanglement between the chiral restoration and
deconfinement transitions is indeed one of the features of nlPNJL
models~\cite{Pagura:2011rt}.
In view of the above mentioned points, the aim of the present work is to
study the effect of explicit chiral symmetry breaking on the deconfinement
and chiral restoration critical temperatures within nlPNJL models. This
article is organized as follows. In Sec.\ II we provide a description of the
model, proposing two alternative parameterizations. In Sec.\ III we analyze
the $m$-dependence of some pion properties and compare the results with
existing lattice calculations. In Sec.\ IV we analyze the current quark mass
dependence of the critical temperatures at vanishing chemical potential,
comparing our results with those obtained in alternative models and lattice
QCD. Finally in Sec.\ V we summarize our main results and conclusions.
\section{Formalism}
We consider a nonlocal SU(2) chiral quark model that includes quark
couplings to the color gauge fields. The corresponding Euclidean effective
action is given by~\cite{Contrera:2010kz}
\begin{equation}
S_{E}= \int d^{4}x\ \left\{
\bar{\psi}(x)\left( -i\gamma_{\mu}D_{\mu}
+\hat{m}\right) \psi(x) -\frac{G_{S}}{2} \Big[ j_{a}(x)j_{a}(x)- j_{P
(x)j_{P}(x)\Big]+ \ {\cal U}\,(\Phi[A(x)])\right\} \ , \label{action
\end{equation}
where $\psi$ is the $N_{f}=2$ fermion doublet $\psi\equiv(u,d)^T$, and
$\hat{m}={\rm diag}(m_{u},m_{d})$ is the current quark mass matrix. In
what follows we consider isospin symmetry, $m_{u}=m_{d}=m$. The fermion
kinetic term in Eq.~(\ref{action}) includes a covariant derivative
$D_\mu\equiv\partial_\mu - iA_\mu$, where $A_\mu$ are color gauge fields,
and the operator $\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu$ in Euclidean space is defined as
$\vec \gamma \cdot \vec \nabla + \gamma_4\partial/\partial \tau$,
with $\gamma_4=i\gamma_0$. The nonlocal currents $j_{a}(x),j_{P}(x)$ are
given by
\begin{align}
j_{a}(x) & =\int d^{4}z\ {\cal G}(z)\ \bar{\psi}\left( x+\frac{z}{2}\right)
\ \Gamma_{a}\ \psi\left( x-\frac{z}{2}\right) \ ,\nonumber\\
j_{P}(x) & =\int d^{4}z\ {\cal F}(z)\ \bar{\psi}\left( x+\frac{z}{2}\right)
\ \frac{i {\overleftrightarrow{\rlap/\partial}}}{2\ \kappa_{p}}
\ \psi\left( x-\frac{z}{2}\right)\ ,
\label{currents
\end{align}
where,
$\Gamma_{a}=(\leavevmode\hbox{\small1\kern-3.8pt\normalsize1},i\gamma
_{5}\vec{\tau})$ and $u(x^{\prime}){\overleftrightarrow{\partial
}v(x)=u(x^{\prime})\partial_{x}v(x)-\partial_{x^{\prime}}u(x^{\prime})v(x)$.
The functions ${\cal G}(z)$ and ${\cal F}(z)$ in Eq.~(\ref{currents}) are
nonlocal covariant form factors characterizing the corresponding
interactions. Notice that the four currents $j_a(x)$ require a common form
factor ${\cal G}(z)$ in order to guarantee chiral invariance, while the
coupling $j_{P}(x)j_{P}(x)$ is self-invariant under chiral transformations.
The scalar-isoscalar component of the $j_{a}(x)$ current will generate a
momentum dependent quark mass in the quark propagator, while the
``momentum'' current $j_{P}(x)$ will be responsible for a momentum dependent
quark wave function renormalization. Now we perform a bosonization of the
theory, introducing bosonic fields $\sigma_{1,2}(x)$ and $\pi_a(x)$, and
integrating out the quark fields. Details of this procedure as well as of
the determination of vacuum and meson properties at vanishing temperature in
this framework can be found e.g.\ in Ref.~\cite{Noguera:2008}.
Since we are interested in the deconfinement and chiral restoration critical
temperatures, we extend the bosonized effective action to finite temperature
$T$. This can be done by using the standard Matsubara formalism. Concerning
the gauge fields $A_\mu$, we assume that quarks move on a constant
background field $\phi = A_4 = i A_0 = i g\,\delta_{\mu 0}\, G^\mu_a
\lambda^a/2$, where $G^\mu_a$ are SU(3) color gauge fields. Then the traced
Polyakov loop, which in the infinite quark mass limit can be taken as an
order parameter of confinement, is given by $\Phi=\frac{1}{3} {\rm Tr}\,
\exp( i \phi/T)$. We work in the so-called Polyakov gauge, in which the
matrix $\phi$ is given a diagonal representation $\phi = \phi_3 \lambda_3 +
\phi_8 \lambda_8$. This leaves only two independent variables, $\phi_3$ and
$\phi_8$. In the case of vanishing chemical potential, owing to the charge
conjugation properties of the QCD lagrangian, the mean field traced Polyakov
loop is expected to be a real quantity. Since $\phi_3$ and $\phi_8$ have to
be real valued, this condition implies $\phi_8=0$. The mean field traced
Polyakov loop reads then $ \Phi = \Phi^* = \left[ 1 + 2 \,\cos
\left(\phi_3/T\right)\right]/3$. Thus in the mean field approximation, which
will be used throughout this work, the thermodynamical potential
$\Omega^{\rm MFA}$ at finite temperature and zero chemical potential is
given by
\begin{align}
\Omega^{\rm MFA} = \,- \,4 T \sum_{c=r,g,b} \ \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}
\int \frac{d^3\vec p}{(2\pi)^3} \ \log \left[ \frac{ (\rho_{n,
\vec{p}}^c)^2 + M^2(\rho_{n,\vec{p}}^c)}{Z^2(\rho_{n, \vec{p}}^c)}\right]+
\frac{\bar\sigma_1^2 + \kappa_p^2\; \bar\sigma_2^2}{2\,G_S} +
{\cal{U}}(\Phi ,\Phi^*,T) \ , \label{granp}
\end{align}
where $M(p)$ and $Z(p)$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
M(p) = Z(p) \left[m_q + \bar\sigma_1 \ g(p) \right] \ , \qquad
Z(p) = \left[ 1 - \bar\sigma_2 \ f(p) \right]^{-1}\ .
\label{mz}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\bar\sigma_{1,2}$ are the mean field values of the scalar fields (note
that $\bar \pi_a = 0$), while and $f(p)$, $g(p)$ are Fourier transforms of
${\cal F}(z)$ and ${\cal G}(z)$, respectively. We have also defined
\begin{equation}
\Big({\rho_{n,\vec{p}}^c} \Big)^2 =
\Big[ (2 n +1 )\pi T + \phi_c \Big]^2 + {\vec{p}}\ \! ^2 \ ,
\end{equation}
where the quantities $\phi_c$ are given by the relation $\phi = {\rm
diag}(\phi_r,\phi_g,\phi_b) = {\rm diag}(\phi_3,-\phi_3,0)$.
To proceed we need to specify the explicit form of the Polyakov loop
effective potential ${\cal{U}}(\Phi ,\Phi^*,T)$. We consider two
alternative functional forms commonly used in the literature. The first
one, based on a Ginzburg-Landau ansatz, reads~\cite{Ratti:2005jh}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal{U}}_{\rm poly}(\Phi ,\Phi^*,T) =
T^4
\left[
-\,\frac{b_2(T)}{4}\,
\left( |\Phi|^2 + |\Phi^*|^2 \right)
-\,\frac{b_3}{6}\,
\left( \Phi^3 + (\Phi^*)^3 \right)
+\,\frac{b_4}{16}\,
\left( |\Phi|^2 + |\Phi^*|^2 \right)^2
\right]\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
b_2(T) = a_0 +a_1 \left(\dfrac{T_0}{T}\right) + a_2\left(\dfrac{T_0}{T}\right)^2
+ a_3\left(\dfrac{T_0}{T}\right)^3\ .
\label{pol}
\end{eqnarray}
The potential parameters can be fitted to pure gauge lattice QCD data so as
to properly reproduce the corresponding equation of state and Polyakov loop
behavior. This yields~\cite{Ratti:2005jh}
\begin{eqnarray}
& & a_0 = 6.75\ ,\qquad a_1 = -1.95\ ,\qquad a_2 = 2.625\ , \nonumber \\
& & a_3 = -7.44 \ ,\qquad b_3 = 0.75 \ ,\qquad b_4 = 7.5 \ .
\end{eqnarray}
A second usual form is based on the logarithmic expression of the Haar
measure associated with the SU(3) color group integration. The potential
reads in this case~\cite{Roessner:2006}
\begin{equation}
{\cal{U}}_{\rm log}(\Phi ,\Phi^*,T) =
\left\{-\,\frac{1}{2}\, a(T)\,\Phi \Phi^* \;+
\;b(T)\, \log\left[1 - 6\, \Phi \Phi^* + 4\, \Phi^3 + 4\, (\Phi^*)^3
- 3\, (\Phi \Phi^*)^2\right]\right\}\; T^4 \ ,
\end{equation}
where the coefficients are parameterized as
\begin{equation}
a(T) = a_0 +a_1 \left(\dfrac{T_0}{T}\right) + a_2\left(\dfrac{T_0}{T}\right)^2
\ ,
\qquad
b(T) = b_3\left(\dfrac{T_0}{T}\right)^3 \ .
\label{log}
\end{equation}
Once again the values of the constants can be fitted to pure gauge lattice
QCD results. This leads to~\cite{Roessner:2006}
\begin{equation}
a_0 = 3.51\ ,\qquad a_1 = -2.47\ ,\qquad a_2 = 15.2\ ,\qquad b_3 = -1.75\ .
\end{equation}
The dimensionful parameter $T_0$ in Eqs.~(\ref{pol}) and (\ref{log})
corresponds in principle to the deconfinement transition temperature in
the pure Yang-Mills theory, $T_0 = 270$~MeV. However, it has been argued
that in the presence of light dynamical quarks this temperature scale
should be adequately reduced~\cite{Schaefer:2007pw}.
Finally, one has to take into account that $\Omega^{\rm MFA}$ turns out to
be divergent, thus it has to be regularized. Here we use the prescription
described e.g.\ in Ref.~\cite{GomezDumm:2004sr}, namely
\begin{equation}
\Omega^{\rm MFA}_{\rm reg} = \Omega^{\rm MFA} - \Omega^{\rm free} + \Omega^{\rm
free}_{\rm reg} + \Omega_0 \ , \label{omegareg}
\end{equation}
where $\Omega^{\rm free}$ is obtained from Eq.~(\ref{granp}) by setting
$\bar\sigma_1 = \bar\sigma_2=0$, and $\Omega^{\rm free}_{\rm reg}$ is the
regularized expression for the quark thermodynamical potential in the
absence of the four point fermion interaction,
\begin{equation}
\Omega^{\rm free}_{\rm reg} \ = \ -4 T \int \frac{d^3 \vec{p}}{(2\pi)^3}\;
\sum_{c=r,g,b} \ \sum_{s=\pm 1}\mbox{Re}\;
\ln\left[ 1 + \exp\left(-\;\frac{\epsilon_p + i s \phi_c}{T}
\right)\right]
\ ,
\label{freeomegareg}
\end{equation}
with $\epsilon_p = \sqrt{\vec{p}^{\;2}+m^2}\;$. The last term in
Eq.~(\ref{omegareg}) is just a constant fixed by the condition that
$\Omega^{\rm MFA}_{\rm reg}$ vanishes at $T=0$.
Given the full form of the thermodynamical potential, the mean field
values $\bar\sigma_{1,2}$ and $\phi_{3}$ can be obtained as solutions of
the coupled set of ``gap equations''
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \Omega^{\rm MFA}_{\rm reg}}
{\left(\partial\sigma_{1},\partial\sigma_{2}, \partial\phi_3\right)}\ = \ 0 \ .
\label{fullgeq}
\end{equation}
Once these mean field values are obtained, the behavior of other relevant
quantities as functions of the temperature and chemical potential can be
determined. We concentrate in particular in the chiral quark condensate
$\langle\bar{q}q\rangle = \partial\Omega^{\rm MFA}_{\rm reg}/\partial m$ and
the traced Polyakov loop $\Phi$, which will be taken as order parameters of
the chiral restoration and deconfinement transitions, respectively. The
associated susceptibilities will be defined as $\chi_{\rm ch} =
\partial\,\langle\bar qq\rangle/\partial m$ and $\chi_{\rm PL} = d \Phi / d
T$.
In order to fully specify the model under consideration we proceed to fix
the model parameters as well as the nonlocal form factors $g(q)$ and $f(q)$
at the physical point $m_\pi = m_\pi^{\rm phys} = 139$~MeV. We consider two
different functional dependences for the form factors. The first one
corresponds to the often used exponential functions
\begin{equation}
g(q)= \mbox{exp}\left(-q^{2}/\Lambda_{0}^{2}\right) \ ,
\qquad f(q)= \mbox{exp}\left(-q^{2}/\Lambda_{1}^{2}\right)\ ,
\label{regulators}
\end{equation}
which guarantee a fast ultraviolet convergence of the loop integrals. Note
that the range (in momentum space) of the nonlocality in each channel is
determined by the parameters $\Lambda_0$ and $\Lambda_1$, respectively.
Fixing the current quark mass and chiral quark condensate at $T=\mu=0$ to
the phenomenologically adequate values $m = 5.7$ MeV and
$\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{1/3} = 240$ MeV, the rest of the parameters can
be determined so as to reproduce the physical values of $f_\pi$ and
$m_\pi$, and by requiring $Z(0) = 0.7$, which is within the range of
values suggested by recent lattice
calculations~\cite{Parappilly:2005ei,Furui:2006ks}. In what follows this
choice of model parameters and form factors will be referred to as S1. The
second type of form factor functional forms considered here is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
g(q) = \frac{1+\alpha_z}{1+\alpha_z\ f_z(q)} \frac{\alpha_m \ f_m (q) -m\
\alpha_z f_z(q)} {\alpha_m - m \ \alpha_z } \ , \qquad f(q) = \frac{ 1+
\alpha_z}{1+\alpha_z \ f_z(q)} f_z(q)\ ,
\label{regulators_set2}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
f_{m}(q) = \left[ 1+ \left( q^{2}/\Lambda_{0}^{2}\right)^{3/2} \right]^{-1}
\qquad , \qquad
f_{z}(q) = \left[ 1+ \left( q^{2}/\Lambda_{1}^{2}\right) \right]^{-5/2}.
\label{parametrization_set2}
\end{equation}
As shown in Ref.~\cite{Noguera:2008}, taking $m = 2.37$ MeV, $\alpha_m =
309$ MeV, $\alpha_{z}=-0.3$, $\Lambda_0 = 850$ MeV and $\Lambda_1 = 1400$
MeV one can very well reproduce the momentum dependence of mass and wave
function renormalization obtained in lattice calculations, as well as the
physical values of $m_\pi$ and $f_\pi$. In what follows this choice of
model parameters and form factors will be referred to as S2. Details on
the model parameters and the predictions for several meson properties in
vacuum can be found in Ref.~\cite{Noguera:2008}.
\section{Zero temperature pseudoscalar mass and decay constant away from the physical point}
As stated, we want to study the dependence of nlPNJL model
predictions on the amount of explicit chiral symmetry breaking.
This can be addressed by varying the current quark mass $m$, while
keeping the rest of the model parameters fixed at their values at
the physical point. As a first step we analyze in this section the
corresponding behavior of the pion mass and decay constant at
vanishing temperature, in comparison with that obtained in the
(local) NJL model and in lattice QCD. Our results are shown in
Fig.~1. As it is usual in lattice QCD literature, we choose to
take $m_\pi$ instead of $m$ as the independent variable in the
plots. The main reason for this is that $m_\pi$ is an observable,
i.e.\ a scale independent quantity, whereas $m$ is scale
dependent, hence its value is subject to possible ambiguities
related to the choice of the renormalization point. Dashed and
solid lines correspond to parameter sets S1 and S2, respectively,
while dotted lines correspond to the curves obtained within the
NJL model. Fat dots stand for lattice QCD results from
Ref.~\cite{Noaki:2008iy}. The upper panel shows the behavior of
the ratio $m_\pi^2/m$ as a function of $m_\pi$. In order to
account for the above mentioned renormalization point ambiguities,
the corresponding quark masses have been normalized so as to yield
the lattice value $m_{u,d}^{\rm \overline{MS}}\simeq 4.452$~MeV at
the physical point~\cite{Noaki:2008iy}. From the figure one
observes that both NJL and nlPNJL models reproduce qualitatively
the results from lattice QCD, showing a particularly good
agreement in the case of the nlPNJL model for parameter set S2.
However, the situation is different in the case of $f_\pi$ (lower
panel in Fig.~1): while the predictions from nonlocal models
follow a steady increase with $m_\pi$, in agreement with lattice
results, the local NJL model badly fails to reproduce this
behavior. Moreover, it can be seen that the discrepancy cannot be
cured even if one allows the coupling $G_S$ to depend on the
current quark mass (we have taken $G_S$ as a constant in nlPNJL
models)~\cite{Kahara:2009sq}. Thus, these results can be
considered as a further indication in favor of the inclusion of
nonlocal interactions as a step towards a more realistic
description of low momenta QCD dynamics.
\section{Dependence of critical temperatures on explicit chiral
symmetry breaking}
In this section we analyze within our nonlocal models the mass
dependence of the critical temperatures for the deconfinement and
chiral restoration transitions at vanishing chemical potential. We
start by considering the temperature dependence of the chiral and
deconfinement order parameters, as well as the corresponding
susceptibilities, for some representative values of the pion mass.
The corresponding results for the lattice motivated
parameterization S2 are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, including both
the case of the polynomic (left panels) and logarithmic (right
panels) Polyakov potentials. Qualitatively similar results are
found for the exponential parameterization S1. Let us first
discuss the results for the polynomic potential. From the figure
it is seen that both transitions proceed as smooth crossovers, as
expected from lattice QCD results. Moreover, we observe that as
$m_\pi$ increases, the position of the peaks of the
susceptibilities $\chi_{\rm ch}$ and $\chi_{\rm PL}$ (left lower
panel) move simultaneously towards higher values of $T$, the
difference between the corresponding critical temperatures being
in all cases at the level of a few MeV. It is also seen that as
$m_\pi$ increases the chiral restoration transition tends to be
less pronounced, while the confinement one becomes steeper. In the
case of the logarithmic potential, we also observe that the
transition temperatures increase with $m_\pi$, as expected.
However, for a given value of $m_\pi$ both the chiral restoration
and deconfinement transitions are steeper than in the case of the
polynomic potential, and the correlation between them is stronger
(e.g.\ the difference between the transition temperatures for
$m_\pi = m_\pi^{\rm phys}$ is now about 0.02~MeV). In fact, it
turns out that already for $m_\pi=500$~MeV one finds a first order
phase transition. From lattice QCD results the onset of a first
order phase transition is indeed expected above a certain critical
amount of explicit symmetry breaking~\cite{Laermann:2003cv}.
However, present
estimations~\cite{Alexandrou:1998wv,Saito:2011fs,Fromm:2011qi}
indicate that the corresponding critical pseudoscalar mass should
be much larger than the physical pion mass; therefore, the early
change in the character of the transition appears as an
unrealistic feature of the logarithmic Polyakov potential. In the
case of the polynomic potential the onset of this first order
phase transition occurs for a pion mass larger than 700 MeV,
i.e.~in an energy region where the applicability of the effective
quark models is limited. This situation is qualitatively similar
to that observed in the local PNJL model.
In Fig.~\ref{fig3} we show the results for the mass dependence of the
critical transition temperatures within our nonlocal models. For comparison
we also quote typical curves obtained in the framework of the local PNJL
model (here we have considered the parameterization in
Ref.~\cite{Roessner:2006}). Upper and lower panels correspond to polynomic
and logarithmic Polyakov potentials, respectively, with $T_0=270$~MeV.
Before discussing in detail the results obtained for the nlPNJL models, let
us comment those corresponding to the PNJL model: from Fig.~\ref{fig3} we
observe that already at the physical value $m_\pi = m_\pi^{\rm phys}$ the
model predicts a noticeable splitting between the chiral restoration
temperature $T_{\rm ch}$ (dashed line) and the deconfinement temperature
$T_{\rm PL}$ (dotted line). In addition, it is seen that the growth of
$T_{\rm ch}$ with $m_\pi$ is stronger than that of $T_{\rm PL}$, which
implies that the splitting between both critical temperatures becomes larger
if $m_\pi$ is increased. This is not supported by existing lattice
results~\cite{Karsch:2000kv,Bornyakov:2009qh}, which indicate that both
transitions take place at approximately the same temperature, up to values
of $m_\pi$ even larger than those considered here. Comparing both panels it
is seen that the splitting is more pronounced for the PNJL model that
includes a logarithmic Polyakov potential.
We turn now to the curves obtained within nonlocal models. First of all,
from the figure it is seen that both parameterizations S1 and S2 lead to
qualitatively similar results. Contrary to the situation in the PNJL model,
in nlPNJL models both the chiral restoration and deconfinement transitions
occur at basically the same temperature for all considered values of
$m_\pi$. Moreover, comparing the results for the two alternative Polyakov
loop potentials we see that the main qualitative difference between them is
the already mentioned fact that in the case of the logarithmic potential
there is a critical pion mass of about 400 MeV where the character of the
transition changes from crossover to first order (dashed-dotted and solid
lines in the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig3}, respectively). By analyzing in
more detail the pion mass dependence of the critical temperatures, it is
seen that for $m_\pi$ above the physical mass the nlPNJL model results can
be accurately adjusted through a linear function
\begin{equation}
T_c (m_\pi) = A \ m_\pi + B \ .
\end{equation}
This is in agreement with the findings of the lattice calculations of
Refs.~\cite{Karsch:2000kv,Bornyakov:2009qh}. Our results for the slope
parameter $A$ for both parameterizations and Polyakov loop potentials are in
the range of $0.06-0.07$. For comparison, most lattice calculations find $A
\lesssim
0.05$~\cite{Karsch:2007dt,Karsch:2000kv,Bornyakov:2005dt,Cheng:2006qk},
while according to some recent analyses~\cite{Ejiri:2009ac,Bornyakov:2009qh}
the value could be somewhat above this bound. Thus the slope parameter
predicted by the nonlocal PNJL models appears to be compatible with lattice
estimates. This can be contrasted with the results obtained within pure
chiral models, where one finds a strong increase of the chiral restoration
temperature with $m_\pi$~\cite{Berges:1997eu,Dumitru:2003cf,Braun:2005fj}.
For example, within the chiral quark model of Ref.~\cite{Braun:2005fj} one
gets a value $A=0.243$.
It is also worth to discuss the effect of considering a value of $T_0$ that
depends on the current quark masses, as suggested in
Ref.~\cite{Schaefer:2007pw}. The change in $T_0$ leads to an overall
decrease of the transition temperatures, which keep the rising linear
dependence on $m_\pi$ but with a slope parameter that gets reduced by about
$15-20$\%. The main noticeable difference is that in all cases the
transition becomes steeper, which leads to an earlier onset of the first
order transition. For example, for the parameter set S2 we find that the
transition becomes of first order already at $m_\pi \simeq 500$ MeV in the
case of the polynomic Polyakov potential, and about one half of this value
for the logarithmic one. These critical masses appear to be too small in
comparison with present lattice QCD estimations. However, in this respect it
is important to recall the importance of considering corrections that go
beyond the mean field approximation used here. In fact, although the role of
these corrections is expected to be less important as the quark mass
increases~\cite{Blaschke:2007np}, in the range of masses considered here
they can be significant enough to soften the transitions and lower the
critical temperatures~\cite{Horvatic:2010md}. In this sense, although a
fully nonperturbative scheme to account for meson fluctuations in nonlocal
models is still lacking, some important steps have been
taken~\cite{Blaschke:2007np,Hell:2008cc,Radzhabov:2010dd}. As it is pointed
out in Ref.~\cite{Benic:2012ec}, these fluctuations could also help to avoid
thermodynamical instabilities that could arise in nonlocal models.
\section{Summary and conclusions}
In this work we have analyzed the dependence of the deconfinement
and chiral restoration critical temperatures on the explicit
chiral symmetry breaking driven by the current quark mass. We work
in the framework of SU(2) nonlocal chiral quark models with
Polyakov loop (nlPNJL models), considering two different
functional forms of the Polyakov loop effective potential commonly
used in the literature, namely a polynomic function and a
logarithmic function. As a first step we have considered the mass
dependence of the pion mass and decay constant at vanishing
temperature, in comparison with that obtained in the local NJL
model and in lattice QCD. We have found that, while lattice
results for the ratio $m_\pi^2/m$ are in agreement with both local
and nonlocal models, those for $f_\pi$ show a significant increase
with $m_\pi$ that can be reproduced only by the predictions of
nonlocal models. Concerning the deconfinement and chiral
restoration critical temperatures, we have found that, contrary to
the case of the local PNJL model, in nlPNJL models both critical
temperatures turn out to be strongly entangled for the considered
range of pion masses. In addition, it is seen that the growth of
critical temperatures with the pion mass above the physical point
is basically linear, with a slope parameter which is close to
existing lattice QCD estimates. On the other hand, particularly in
the case of the logarithmic Polyakov loop potential,
the present mean field calculation leads to a too early onset of
the first order transition known to exist in the large quark mass limit.
We expect that the development of a fully
nonperturbative scheme to account for meson fluctuations
in nonlocal models might help to provide a solution to this
problem.
|
\section{Introduction}
The recent financial crisis has emphasized the relevance of jumps for
understanding the various forms of risk inherent in asset returns and their
implications for asset allocation and diversification. Most portfolios, from
those of individual investors to those of more sophisticated institutional
investors including University endowments, suffered badly during the latest
crisis episode, with many commonly employed asset allocation strategies
resulting in large losses in 2008-09. Reasonably diversified portfolios can
survive a single isolated negative jump in asset returns. However, jumps that
tend to affect most or all asset classes together are difficult to hedge by
diversification alone. Moreover, additional jumps of this nature seemed to
happen in close succession, as if the very occurrence of a jump substantially
increased the likelihood of future jumps.
Motivated by these events, we consider in this paper the issue of optimal
portfolio construction when assets are subject to jumps that share the
qualitative features experienced most vividly during the recent financial
crisis. These salient features include the fact that multiple jumps were
observed, at a rate that was markedly higher than the long term unconditional
arrival rate; these jumps affected multiple asset classes and markets; and
they affected them not necessarily at the same time, but typically in close
succession over days or weeks.
To capture these key elements, we consider a model for asset returns where a
jump in one asset class or region raises the probability of future jumps in
both the same asset class or region, and the other classes or regions. Jump
processes of this type were first introduced by \cite{hawkes71a} with further
developments due to \cite{HawkesOakes74} and \cite{Oakes75}. Models of this
type have been used in epidemiology, neurophysiology and seismology (see,
e.g., \cite{brillinger88} and \cite{OgataAkaike82}), genome analysis (see
\cite{reynaudbouretschbath10}), credit derivatives
(\cite{erraisgieseckegoldberg10}), to model transaction times and price
changes at high frequency (\cite{bowsher07}), trading activity at different
maturities of the yield curve (\cite{salmontham}) and propagation phenomena in
social interactions (\cite{cranesornette08}.)
We extend the pure jump Hawkes model employed in the above applications, in
order to better represent financial asset returns. We add a drift to capture
the assets' expected returns and a standard, Brownian-driven, volatility
component to capture their day-to-day normal variations. We call this model a
\textquotedblleft Hawkes jump-diffusion\textquotedblright\ by analogy with the
Poisson jump-diffusion of \cite{merton76}. Unlike models typically employed in
finance, the jump part of this model is no longer a L\'{e}vy process since
excitation introduces a departure from independence of the increments of the jumps.
In the model, jump intensities are stochastic and react to recent jumps: a
jump increases the rate of incidence (or intensity) of future jumps; running
counter to this is mean reversion, which pulls the jump intensities back down
in the absence of further excitation. In the univariate case, only
\textquotedblleft self excitation\textquotedblright\ can take place, whereas
in the multivariate case \textquotedblleft mutual excitation\textquotedblrigh
\ consisting of both self- and cross-excitation (from one asset to
another)\ can take place. We now illustrate the presence of the mutual
excitation phenomenon by filtering jump intensities for jumps in the US
financial sector stock index during the recent crisis. Figure
\ref{fig:ach_datafigure} plots the estimated intensity of US\ jumps over time,
filtered from the observed returns on indices of financial stocks in the US,
UK, Eurozone and Asia. The excitation mechanism is apparent in the Fall of
2008, when jump intensities increase rapidly in response to each jump, most of
them originating in the US, and to a lesser extent in the Winter of 2009,
which looks more like a slow train wreck.
The bottom panel of the plot shows that the filtered intensities contain
information that is different from other measures of market stress, VIX and
the CDS rate on financial stocks. In particular, VIX\ is a measure of total
quadratic variation and as a result captures the total risk of the assets
instead of just their jump risk. So the same jumps which cause the jump
intensity to increase in the middle panel also cause VIX\ to increase in the
bottom panel, but VIX includes Brownian volatility, making it\ a much noisier
measure of jump risk
\begin{figure}
[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[
height=5.0963in,
width=7.0543in
{ACH_datafigure_3panel.eps
\caption{Time-varying Jump Intensities During the Financial Crisis. \ \ \ The
top panel shows time series of stock indices for the financial sector in the
four regions, 2007-2009. The middle panel shows the intensity of US\ jumps
filtered from the model, based on each 3$\sigma$ and above event identified as
a jump. Each jump leads to an increase in the jump intensity, followed by mean
reversion until the next jump. The bottom panel shows the time series of two
alternative measures of financial distress, the VIX\ index and Markit's
CDS\ index for the banking sector in the US.
\label{fig:ach_datafigure
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The purpose of the paper is to solve for the optimal portfolio of an investor
who faces this type of risk in his/her investment opportunity set. By
considering a more realistic model for jumps, incorporating mutual excitation,
we are able to study the optimal portfolio of an investor in a realistic
setting where a jump that occurs somewhere will increase the probability of
further jumps in other asset classes or markets. The model generates jumps
that will tend to be clustered (as a result of the time series
self-excitation), systematic (as a result of the cross-sectional
excitation),\ but neither exactly simultaneous nor certain, since the
excitation phenomenon merely raises the probability of future jump occurrence.
By analogy with epidemics, the probability of getting infected increases in a
pandemy but does not typically reach one, and there is an incubation period
which can range in the case of financial markets from hours to days, depending
upon subsequent news arrival, and once established the pandemy does not go
away immediately. Furthermore, the model is multivariate and the contagion can
be asymmetric, with jumps occurring in one asset class or market having a
greater excitation potential for the other sectors or regions than jumps that
originate elsewhere: for instance, most financial crises that originate in or
transit through the US tend to have greater ramifications in the rest of the
world than crises that originate outside the US. Poisson jumps, whose
intensities are constant, are not able to reproduce these empirical features,
and this motivates our inclusion of the more general class of Hawkes jumps in
the model.
This paper is part of a literature that has investigated the properties of
optimal portfolios when asset returns can jump (see, e.g., \cite{aase84},
\cite{jeanblancpontier90}, \cite{shirakawa90}, \cite{hanrachev00},
\cite{ortobellihuberrachevschwartz03}, \cite{kallsen00}, \cite{CarrJinMadan01
, \cite{liulongstaffpan03}, \cite{dasuppal04}, \cite{emmerkluppelberg04},
\cite{madan04}, \cite{CvitanicPolimenisZapatero08}, \cite{delongkluppelberg08}
and \cite{ach09}). The novel aspect in the present paper is the inclusion of
Hawkes jumps in asset returns: such jumps share the dual characteristics of
being systematic, meaning that they affect multiple assets or asset classes at
the same time, and mutually exciting, meaning that they affect the rate at
which future jumps occur in each asset class. By contrast, in the earlier
model of \cite{ach09}, assets were subject to random jumps which could affect
one or more asset or asset classes, but when they occurred, they were
simultaneous and every asset in that sector or region would jump. Such jumps
were also \textquotedblleft Poissonian\textquotedblright, in the sense that
the arrival of jumps today did not influence the future arrival of jumps.
We show that the optimal portfolio solution in the model can be obtained in
full closed-form in the log utility case, and in quasi-closed-form in other
cases. Importantly, we show that the optimal solution becomes time-varying,
with the investor reacting to changes in the intensity of the jumps. For a
log-utility investor, the solution remains myopic, as in the classical
\cite{merton71} problem with log-utility, in the sense that the investor does
not need to take into account the full dynamics of the state variables. The
log investor in our model holds at each point in time the same portfolio as a
log investor who believes that jump intensities are constant, but his/her
optimal portfolio weight is now constantly changing to reflect the
time-variation in jump intensities. One consequence of this result is that
each time a market shock occurs, the investor perceives an increase in jump
intensities, and sells some amount of \textit{each} risky asset, and invests
the proceeds in the riskless asset, a behavior we interpret as a
\textquotedblleft flight to quality.\textquotedblright
Formal computations also work for both power and exponential utility
investors, although we have not proved the appropriate verification theorem
for these utilities. Nevertheless, the resultant investment strategy under
contagion can be interpreted in terms of the equivalent strategy under the
\textquotedblleft non-contagion\textquotedblright\ assumption that jump
intensities are constant. We find that under the contagion conditions of the
model, the investor will choose a portfolio that is optimal for a
non-contagion investor who has a specific distorted value of the intensities,
which we characterize. This distortion of intensities has the effect of
magnifying the investment in the risky assets: the contagion investor will go
\textquotedblleft longer\textquotedblright\ when the non-contagion investor is
long in the risky asset, and will go \textquotedblleft
shorter\textquotedblright\ when the non-contagion investor is short in the
risky asset.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:model} presents the model
for asset returns. Section \ref{sec:choice} introduces the optimal portfolio
problem when jumps are mutually exciting in the general case. Section
\ref{sec:logU} specializes the solution to the case of an investor with
log-utility and derives the optimal portfolio and consumption policy in
closed-form, including a complete verification theorem that supports this
policy. Section \ref{sec:sector} develops some interesting market
specifications which exhibit an explicit closed-form log-optimal policy.
Section \ref{sec:conseq} explores some of the properties of such explicit
asset allocation policies. The exponential and power utility investment
problems are outlined in Section \ref{sec:powerandexp}. In these problems, the
solutions can be characterized as distorted versions of the non-contagion
solutions. Section \ref{sec:conclusions} concludes.
\section{Mutually Exciting Jumps\label{sec:model}}
In this paper, jumps in one asset class not only increase the probability of
future jumps in that asset class (self excitation)\ but also in other asset
classes (cross excitation). In a mutually exciting model, the intensity of a
jump counting process $N$ ramps up in response to past jumps. A mutually
exciting process is a special case of path-dependent point process, whose
intensity depends on the path of the underlying process. Mutually exciting
counting processes, $N_{l,t}$ ($l=1,...,m$), form an $m$-vector
$\boldsymbol{N}_{t}=\left[ N_{1,t},...,N_{m,t}\right] ^{\prime}$ such
that\footnote{In this paper, we work in a filtered probability space
$(\Omega,\mathcal{F},(\mathcal{F}_{t})_{t\geq0},\mathbb{P})$ that satisfies
\textquotedblleft the usual conditions.\textquotedblright
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}\left[ N_{l,t+\Delta t}-N_{l,t}=1|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right] &
=\lambda_{l,t}\Delta t+o\left( \Delta t\right) ,\label{eq:Hawkes_pr}\\
\mathbb{P}\left[ N_{l,t+\Delta t}-N_{l,t}>0|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right] &
=o\left( \Delta t\right) \nonumber
\end{align}
independently for each $l$. In the standard model specification we adopt in
this paper, the Hawkes intensity processes $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t}=\left[
\lambda_{1,t},...,\lambda_{m,t}\right] ^{\prime}$ have the integrated for
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{l,t}=e^{-\alpha_{l}t}\lambda_{l,0}+(1-e^{-\alpha_{l}t})\lambda
_{l,\infty}+\sum\nolimits_{j=1}^{m}\int_{0}^{t}d_{lj}e^{-\alpha_{l
(t-s)}dN_{j,s},\text{ }l=1,...,m \label{eq:Hawkes_intensity
\end{equation}
For all $l,j=1,\ldots,m$ the parameters $\lambda_{l,\infty},d_{lj}\geq0$ and
$\lambda_{l,0},\alpha_{l}>0$ are constants. These parameter restrictions
ensure the positivity of the intensity processes with probability one.
Differentiation of equation (\ref{eq:Hawkes_intensity}) shows that the
intensity in asset class $l$ has dynamics given b
\begin{equation}
d\lambda_{l,t}=\alpha_{l}\left( \lambda_{l,\infty}-\lambda_{l,t}\right)
dt+\sum\nolimits_{j=1}^{m}d_{lj}dN_{j,t}. \label{lambdadynamics
\end{equation}
In other words, a jump $dN_{j,s},$ occurring at time $s\in\lbrack0,t)$ in
asset class $j=1,\ldots,m,$ raises each of the jump intensities $\lambda
_{l,t}$, $l=1,\ldots,m,$ by a constant amount $d_{lj}$. The $l$th jump
intensity then mean-reverts to level $\lambda_{l,\infty}$ at speed $\alpha
_{l}$ until the next jump occurs. Equation \ref{lambdadynamics} also reveals
that $(\boldsymbol{N},\boldsymbol{\lambda})$ is a $2m$-dimensional Markov
process, while $(\boldsymbol{\lambda})$ alone is an $m$-dimensional Markov process.
As a result, our model generates clusters of jumps over time, and jumps can
propagate at different speed and with different intensities in the different
asset classes depending on where they originate and which path they take to
reach a given asset class or market. Free parameters in the model control the
extent to which the two forms of excitation take place, the relative strength
of the contagion phenomenon in different directions and the speed with which
the excitation takes place and then relaxes.
The model produces both cross-asset class and time series excitation. In the
univariate self-exciting case, a typical sample path of one component of
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:curveint}. Each jump
increases the jump intensity, followed by mean-reversion
\begin{figure}
[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[
height=3.0237in,
width=5.6015in
{ACH_figcurveint.eps
\caption{Sample path of a Hawkes intensity, $\lambda_{l,t}.$
\label{fig:curveint
\end{center}
\end{figure}
This model also produces cross-asset, or mutual, excitation. Jumps in asset
class $l$ that occurred $u$ units of time into the past raise the intensity of
jumps in asset class $j$ by $d_{jl}e^{-\alpha_{j}u},$ while conversely jumps
in asset class $j$ raise the intensity of jumps in asset class $l$ by
$d_{lj}e^{-\alpha_{l}u}.$ Jumps in a given asset class $i$ also raise the
intensity of future jumps in the same asset class. Figure
\ref{fig:2assetNSlambda} illustrates this with two assets. At time $T_{1}$
there is a jump in the first asset class value, $S_{1}$. This jump
self-excites the jump intensity $\lambda_{1}$. This increase in $\lambda_{1}$
raises the probability of observing another jump in $S_{1}$ at the future time
$T_{2}$. These jumps have a contagious effect on $S_{2}$ since a jump in
$S_{1}$ cross-excites the jump intensity of $S_{2}$. This, in turn, raises the
probability of seeing a jump in $S_{2}$ at time $T_{3}$. Latter on, at time
$T_{4}$, the jump in $S_{2}$ raises the probability of seeing a jump in
$S_{1}$ at some future time $T_{5}$. The degree to which self- and
cross-excitation matter in the model, and their relative strengths, is
controlled by the parameters in \textbf{$d$} and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}.
\begin{figure}
[pth]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[
height=5.3366in,
width=5.1224in
{picturecontagion.eps
\caption{Cross- and self-excitation in a two asset-class world:\ Sample paths
of the jumps, asset prices and jump intensities.
\label{fig:2assetNSlambda
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We note that each compensated process $N_{l,t}-\int_{0}^{t}\lambda_{l,s}ds$ is
a local martingale. A number of important additional properties hold for this model:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Markov Generator:\ } The Markov generator of this process acting
on differentiable functions $g:(\mathbb{Z}_{+})^{m}\times(\mathbb{R}_{+
)^{m}\to\mathbb{R}$ is given by
\[
[{\mathcal{A}} g](\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{\lambda})=\sum_{l=1}^{m} \left[
\alpha_{l}\left( \lambda_{l,\infty}-\lambda_{l}\right) \frac{\partial
g}{\partial\lambda_{l}} +\lambda_{l}\left( g(\boldsymbol{n}+\boldsymbol{e
_{l},\boldsymbol{\lambda}+\boldsymbol{d_{l}})-g(\boldsymbol{n},
\boldsymbol{\lambda})\right) \right]
\]
where $\boldsymbol{e}_{l}=[\delta_{1l}, \dots, \delta_{ml}]^{\prime}$ and
$\boldsymbol{d}_{l}=[d_{1l}, \dots, d_{ml}]^{\prime}$. If
\[
\mathbb{E}\left[ \int^{t}_{0} \Bigl |\ [{\mathcal{A}}g](\boldsymbol{N
_{s},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s})-\sum_{\ell=1}^{m} \bigl[\alpha_{\ell}\left(
\lambda_{\ell,\infty}-\lambda_{\ell,s}\right) \frac{\partial g(\boldsymbol{N
_{s},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s})}{\partial\lambda_{l}}\bigr]\ \Bigr| ds\right]
<\infty
\]
for all $t$ and $g$ is differentiable in $\lambda$, the Dynkin formula says
that for each $t\le T$ :
\begin{equation}
\label{Dynkin}\mathbb{E}[g(\boldsymbol{N}_{T},\boldsymbol{\lambda
_{T})|{\mathcal{F}}_{t}]=g(\boldsymbol{N}_{t},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t}) +
\mathbb{E}\left[ \int^{T}_{t} [{\mathcal{A}}g](\boldsymbol{N}_{s
,\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s})\ ds|{\mathcal{F}}_{t}\right] \ .
\end{equation}
\item \textbf{Stationarity Assumption:\ } Let the process $\boldsymbol{\lambda
}_{t}$ satisfy (\ref{lambdadynamics}) with $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0
\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{m}$; $\alpha_{i}>0$; $d_{lj}\geq0$ and with
$\boldsymbol{\Gamma}=(\Gamma_{lj})_{l,j=1,\dots,m},$ where $\Gamma_{lj
=\alpha_{j}\delta_{lj}-d_{lj},$ a positive (hence invertible) matrix where
$\delta_{lj}$ is the Kronecker symbol. Then the intensities
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ are stationary processes with bounded moments. Using
the Dynkin formula, one can show that under this assumption the first moments
$f_{l}(t)=\mathbb{E}\left[ \lambda_{l}(t)\right] $ converge as
$t\rightarrow\infty$ to the non-negative values $f_{l}(\infty)=\sum_{j=1
^{m}(\delta_{lj}-\alpha_{l}^{-1}d_{lj})\lambda_{j,\infty}$. Similar formulas
can be derived for the large time limits of the higher moment functions. Using
these bounds, the ergodic theorem for semimartingales (see e.g.
\cite{khasminskii60}) then implies that for any measurable function
$K(\lambda)$ that satisfies a bound $|K(\lambda)|\leq M(1+\Vert\lambda
\Vert^{2})$
\begin{equation}
\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}K(\lambda_{t})dt=\lim
_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}[K(\lambda_{t})]=\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n
}K(\lambda)\mu(d\lambda) \label{ergodic
\end{equation}
a.s. where $\mu(d\lambda)$ is the invariant (infinite time) measure of
$\lambda_{t}$.
\item \textbf{Affine Structure:\ } The joint characteristic function has the
affine form
\[
\mathbb{E}_{0,\lambda_{0}}[e^{i\boldsymbol{uN_{T}}+i\boldsymbol{v\lambda_{T}
}]=\exp\left[ iA(T;\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{v})+i\sum\nolimits_{l=1
^{m}B_{l}(T;\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{v})\lambda_{l,0}\right]
\]
where the deterministic functions $A,B_{l}$ satisfy the Riccati equations
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial A}{\partial T} & =\sum\nolimits_{l=1}^{m}\alpha_{l
\lambda_{l,\infty}B_{\ell};\quad A(0)=0;\\
\frac{\partial B_{l}}{\partial T} & =-\alpha_{l}B_{l}-i\left(
e^{iu_{l}+i\sum_{j=1}^{m}d_{jl}B_{j}}-1\right) ;\quad B_{l}(0)=v_{l};\quad
l=1,\dots,m\text{ }.
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\section{Optimal Portfolio Selection When Jumps Are Mutually
Exciting\label{sec:choice}}
We now solve Merton's problem:\ the investor maximizes the expected utility of
consumption by investing in a set of $n$ risky assets and a riskless asset
over the infinite time horizon $t\in\lbrack0,\infty)$. The innovation is that
the risky assets are now subject to shocks generated by an $m$-dimensional
Hawkes jump-diffusion process.
\subsection{Asset Return Dynamics}
The riskless asset with price $S_{0,t}$ is assumed to earn a constant rate of
interest $r\geq0$. The $n$ risky assets with prices $\boldsymbol{S
_{t}=\left[ S_{1,t},\ldots,S_{n,t}\right] ^{\prime}$ follow a semimartingale
dynamics with asset shocks generated by an $m$-dimensional Hawkes process.
Specifically, we assume
\begin{align}
\frac{dS_{0,t}}{S_{0,t}} & =rdt,\label{eq:S0}\\
\frac{dS_{i,t}}{S_{i,t-}} & =\left( r+R_{i}\right) dt+\sum_{j=1}^{n
\sigma_{i,j}dW_{j,t}+\sum_{l=1}^{m}J_{i,l}Z_{l,t}dN_{l,t},\text{ }i=1,...,n
\label{eq:dSi
\end{align}
Here $\boldsymbol{N}_{t}=$ $\left[ N_{1,t},\ldots,N_{m,t}\right] ^{\prime}$
is an $m-$dimensional, $m\leq n,$ vector of mutually exciting Hawkes processes
with intensities $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t}=\left[ \lambda_{1,t},\dots
,\lambda_{m,t}\right] ^{\prime}$ that follow the Markovian dynamic
\begin{equation}
d\lambda_{l,t}=\alpha_{l}\left( \lambda_{l,\infty}-\lambda_{l,t}\right)
dt+\sum\nolimits_{j=1}^{m}d_{lj}dN_{j,t},\quad l=1,\dots,m, \label{lambdaDE
\end{equation}
with constant parameters $\alpha_{l}>0,$ $\lambda_{l,\infty}\geq0,$ and
$d_{lj}\geq0$. Under the condition that $\boldsymbol{\Gamma}$ is a positive
matrix, the $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ process is stationary.
The vector $\boldsymbol{W}_{t}=\left[ W_{1,t},\ldots,W_{n,t}\right]
^{\prime}$ is an $n-$dimensional standard Brownian motion. $J_{i,l}Z_{l,t}$ is
the response of asset $i$ to the $l$th shock where $Z_{l,t}$, a scalar random
variable with probability measure $\nu_{l}(dz)$ on $[0,1]$, is scaled on an
asset-by-asset basis by the deterministic scaling factor $J_{i,l}\in
\lbrack-1,0].$ For clarity, we chose to include only negative asset jumps in
the asset price dynamics, since those are the more relevant ones from both a
portfolio risk management perspective and their contribution to mutual excitation.
We assume that the individual Brownian motions, the Hawkes process and the
random variables $Z_{l}$ are mutually independent. The quantities $R_{i},$
$\sigma_{ij}$ and jump scaling factors $J_{i,l}$ are constant parameters. We
write $\boldsymbol{R}$ $\boldsymbol{=}$ $\left[ R_{1},\ldots,R_{n}\right]
^{\prime}$, $\boldsymbol{J}=(J_{i,l})_{i=1,...,n;l=1,\dots,m}$, and
$\boldsymbol{\sigma}=(\sigma_{i,j})_{i,j=1,\dots,n}$ and we assume that the
matrix $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}=\boldsymbol{\sigma\sigma}^{\prime}$ is nonsingular.
In Section \ref{sec:sector}, we will make further assumptions on the structure
of the matrix $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}$ to facilitate the derivation of an
explicit solution, assuming in particular that it possesses a factor
structure. But the existence and structure of the optimal portfolio solution
can be determined without further specialization, and we now turn to this problem.
\subsection{Wealth Dynamics and Expected Utility}
Let $\omega_{0,t}$ denote the percentage of wealth (or portfolio
weight)\ invested at time $t$ in the riskless asset and $\boldsymbol{\omega
}_{t}=\left[ \omega_{1,t},\ldots,\omega_{n,t}\right] ^{\prime}$ denote the
vector of portfolio weights in each of the $n$ risky assets, assumed to be
adapted c\'{a}gl\'{a}d processes since the portfolio weights cannot anticipate
the jumps. The portfolio weights satisfy
\begin{equation}
\omega_{0,t}
{\displaystyle\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}}
\omega_{i,t}=1\boldsymbol{.} \label{eq:omega
\end{equation}
The investor consumes $C_{t}$ at time $t$. In the absence of any income
derived outside his investments in these assets, the investor's wealth,
starting with the initial endowment $X_{0},$ follows the dynamics
\begin{align}
dX_{t} & =-C_{t}dt+\omega_{0,t}X_{t}\frac{dS_{0,t}}{S_{0,t-}}
{\displaystyle\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}}
\omega_{i,t}X_{t}\frac{dS_{i,t}}{S_{i,t-}}\nonumber\\
& =\left( rX_{t}+\boldsymbol{\omega}_{t}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{R}X_{t
-C_{t}\right) dt\text{ }\boldsymbol{+}\text{ }X_{t}\boldsymbol{\omega
_{t}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{\sigma}d\boldsymbol{W}_{t}+X_{t}\sum\nolimits_{l=1
^{m}\left( \boldsymbol{\omega}_{t}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{J}\right) _{l
Z_{l,t}dN_{l,t}. \label{eq:dX
\end{align}
We consider an investor with time-separable utility of consumption $U(\cdot)$
and subjective discount rate or \textquotedblleft impatience\textquotedblrigh
\ parameter $\beta>0$. The investor's problem at any time $t\geq0$ is then to
pick the consumption and portfolio weight processes $\{C_{s
,\boldsymbol{\omega}_{s}\}_{t\leq s\leq\infty}$ which maximize the
infinite--horizon discounted expected utility of consumption. The optimal
policies $\{C_{s},\boldsymbol{\omega}_{s}\}_{t\leq s\leq\infty}$ are subject
to the \textit{admissibility condition} that the discounted wealth process
remains positive almost surely.
Stochastic dynamic programming (see, e.g., \cite{flemingsoner}) leads at time
$t$ to the discounted expected utility of consumption in the form
$V(X_{t},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t},t)$ where the value function is defined b
\begin{equation}
V\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},t\right) =\max_{\left\{ C_{s
,\boldsymbol{\omega}_{s};\text{ }t\leq s\leq\infty\right\} }\mathbb{E
_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},t}\left[ \int_{t}^{\infty}e^{-\beta s
U(C_{s})ds\right] \label{eq:V
\end{equation}
Here, the discounted wealth and intensities satisfy (\ref{eq:dX}) and
(\ref{lambdaDE}) over $[t,\infty)$ with initial conditions $X_{t}=x,$
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t}=\boldsymbol{\lambda}$. Under the assumption that $V$
is sufficiently differentiable, the appropriate form of It\^{o}'s lemma (see,
e.g., \cite{protter2004}) for semi-martingale processes leads to the
Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation that characterizes the optimal solution to
the investor's problem
\begin{align}
0 & =\max_{\{C,\boldsymbol{\omega}\}}\left\{ \frac{\partial V\left(
x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},t\right) }{\partial t}+\sum_{l=1}^{m}\alpha_{l}\left(
\lambda_{l,\infty}-\lambda_{l}\right) \frac{\partial V\left(
x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},t\right) }{\partial\lambda_{i}}+e^{-\beta
t}U(C)\right. \nonumber\\
& +\frac{\partial V\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},t\right) }{\partial
x}\left( rx+\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{R}x-C\right) +\frac
{1}{2}\frac{\partial^{2}V\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},t\right) }{\partial
x^{2}}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{\Sigma\omega}x^{2
+\label{eq:HJBforV}\\
& \left. \sum_{l=1}^{m}\lambda_{l}\int\left[ V\left( x+\left(
\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{J}\right) _{l}zx,\boldsymbol{\lambda
}+\boldsymbol{d}_{l},t\right) -V\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},t\right)
\right] \nu_{l}\left( dz\right) \right\} \nonumber
\end{align}
with the transversality condition $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}\left[
V\left( X_{t},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t},t\right) \right] =0.$
Using the standard time-homogeneity argument for infinite horizon problems, we
have that
\begin{align*}
e^{\beta t}V\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},t\right) & =\max_{\left\{
C_{s},\boldsymbol{\omega}_{s};\text{ }t\leq s\leq\infty\right\}
\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},t}\left[ \int_{t}^{\infty}e^{-\beta
(s-t)}U(C_{s})ds\right] \\
& =\max_{\left\{ C_{s},\boldsymbol{\omega}_{s};\text{ }t\leq s\leq
\infty\right\} }\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},t}\left[ \int_{0
^{\infty}e^{-\beta u}U(C_{t+u})du\right] \\
& =\max_{\left\{ C_{s},\boldsymbol{\omega}_{s};\text{ }0\leq s\leq
\infty\right\} }\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},0}\left[ \int_{0
^{\infty}e^{-\beta u}U(C_{u})du\right] \\
& =V(x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},0)\equiv L(x,\boldsymbol{\lambda})
\end{align*}
is independent of time. Thus $V\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},t\right)
=e^{-\beta t}L(x,\boldsymbol{\lambda})$ and (\ref{eq:HJBforV}) reduces to the
following time-independent equation for the value function $L:
\begin{align}
0=\max_{\left\{ C,\boldsymbol{\omega}\right\} } & \left\{ U(C)-\beta
L(x,\boldsymbol{\lambda})+\sum_{l=1}^{m}\alpha_{l}\left( \lambda_{l,\infty
}-\lambda_{l}\right) \frac{\partial L\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}\right)
}{\partial\lambda_{l}}\right. \nonumber\\
& +\frac{\partial L\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) }{\partial
x}\left( rx+\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{R}x-C\right) +\frac
{1}{2}\frac{\partial^{2}L\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) }{\partial
x^{2}}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{\Sigma\omega}x^{2
\label{eq:HJBgeneral}\\
& \left. +\sum_{l=1}^{m}\lambda_{l}\int\left[ L\left( x+\left(
\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{J}\right) _{l}zx,\boldsymbol{\lambda
}+\boldsymbol{d}_{l}\right) -L\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) \right]
\nu_{l}\left( dz\right) \right\} \nonumber
\end{align}
with the transversality condition
\begin{equation}
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}\left[ e^{-\beta t}L\left( X_{t
,\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t}\right) \right] =0. \label{eq:Transversality
\end{equation}
The maximization problem in (\ref{eq:HJBgeneral}) separates into one for $C$,
with first order condition
\[
U^{\prime}\left( C\right) =\frac{\partial L\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda
}\right) }{\partial x
\]
and one for $\boldsymbol{\omega}:
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\ast}=\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\ast}(x,\boldsymbol{\lambda
}):=\operatorname{argmax}_{\left\{ \boldsymbol{\omega}\right\} } &
\left\{ \frac{\partial L\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) }{\partial
x}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{R}x+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial
^{2}L\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) }{\partial x^{2}
\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{\Sigma\omega}x^{2}\right. \nonumber\\
& \left. +\sum_{l=1}^{m}\lambda_{l}\int\left[ L\left( x+\left(
\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{J}\right) _{l}zx,\boldsymbol{\lambda
}+\boldsymbol{d}_{l}\right) -L\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) \right]
\nu_{l}\left( dz\right) \right\} \label{eq:HJM_omegapart
\end{align}
At time $t\geq0$, given wealth $X_{t}$ and intensity vector
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t}$, the optimal consumption choice is therefore
$C_{t}^{\ast}=C^{\ast}(X_{t},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t})$ where
\begin{equation}
C^{\ast}(x,\boldsymbol{\lambda})\equiv\left[ U^{\prime}\right] ^{-1}\left(
\partial L\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) /{\partial x}\right) .
\label{eq:CstarGeneral
\end{equation}
In order to determine the optimal portfolio weights, wealth and value
function, we need to be more specific about the utility function $U.$
\section{Log-Utility Investors\label{sec:logU}}
There are three classic utility functions for which one may hope to make
further analytical progress, namely the log investor whose utility of
consumption is the logarithm function, the power investor and the exponential
investor. Collectively, these examples are known as HARA utilities. The
optimal investment problem for various simpler types of market dynamics with
these utilities lead to separable forms for the value functions. As we shall
now show in this and Section \ref{sec:powerandexp}, this separation property
extends to the Hawkes-diffusion model, albeit with some extra twists. In this
section, we concentrate on the log-investor, for whom we are able to prove
strong results on the existence and uniqueness of the optimal strategy.
\subsection{Optimal Investment with Log-Utility\label{ssec:log}}
We now specialize the problem to that faced by an investor with logarithmic
utility, $U\left( x\right) =\log\left( x\right) $. To start, we look for a
candidate solution to (\ref{eq:HJBgeneral}) in the form
\begin{equation}
L(x,\boldsymbol{\lambda})=f\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) +M^{-1
\log\left( x\right) \label{eq:Vform_log
\end{equation}
for some positive function $f$ and constant $M$. The
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial L\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) }{\partial\lambda_{l}}
& =f_{\lambda_{l}}\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) ,\text{
\frac{\partial L\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) }{\partial x
=M^{-1}x^{-1},\nonumber\\
\frac{\partial^{2}L\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) }{\partial x^{2}}
& =-M^{-1}x^{-2}. \label{eq:deriveV_log
\end{align}
and the optimal policy for the portfolio weights at time $t\geq0$ is
$\boldsymbol{\omega}_{t}^{\ast}=\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\ast}\left(
\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t}\right) $ where
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\ast}\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) &
=\operatorname{argmin}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}K_{l}(\boldsymbol{\omega
},\boldsymbol{\lambda})\nonumber\\
K_{l}(\boldsymbol{\omega},\boldsymbol{\lambda}) & \equiv\left\{
-\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{R}+\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\omega
}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{\Sigma\omega}-\sum_{l=1}^{m}\lambda_{l}\int\log\left(
1+\left( \boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{J}\right) _{l}z\right)
\nu_{l}\left( dz\right) \right\} . \label{eq:omegastar
\end{align}
We note that the convexity of $K_{l}$ implies this minimization has a unique
solution $\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\ast}\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t}\right) $
for any $\boldsymbol{\lambda}\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}$. As for the optimal
consumption policy, from equation (\ref{eq:CstarGeneral}), and the facts that
$[U^{\prime}]^{-1}(y)=y^{-1}$ and $\partial L\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda
}\right) /\partial x=M^{-1}x^{-1},$ we obtain $M=\beta$ and
\begin{equation}
C_{t}^{\ast}=\beta X_{t} \label{eq:Cstar_withK
\end{equation}
Next, we substitute the optimal $\left( C^{\ast},\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\ast
}\right) $ into (\ref{eq:HJBgeneral}) and determine that the function $f$
must solve
\begin{equation}
\lbrack\mathcal{A}f](\boldsymbol{\lambda})-\beta f\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda
}\right) =F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}),\quad\boldsymbol{\lambda}\in\mathbb{R
_{+}^{n} \label{HJBf
\end{equation}
where the Markov generator $\mathcal{A}$ for the process $\boldsymbol{\lambda
}_{t}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\lbrack\mathcal{A}f](\boldsymbol{\lambda})=\sum_{l=1}^{m}\left( \alpha
_{l}\left( \lambda_{l,\infty}-\lambda_{l}\right) f_{\lambda_{l}}\left(
\boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) +\lambda_{l}\left[ f\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda
}+\boldsymbol{d}_{l}\right) -f\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) \right]
\right) \label{Generator
\end{equation}
and the nonhomogeneous term is
\[
F(\boldsymbol{\lambda})=1-\frac{r}{\beta}-\log\beta+\beta^{-1}K_{l
(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\ast}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}),\boldsymbol{\lambda}).
\]
The following lemma gives a computable formula for the smooth solution of
(\ref{HJBf}).
\begin{lemma}
\label{FKlemma} The function $f:\mathbb{R}_{+}^{m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$
defined by (\ref{HJBf}) is differentiable and given by the absolutely
convergent integral
\begin{equation}
\label{tildeV}f(\boldsymbol{\lambda})=\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\beta s
\mathbb{E}_{0,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[ F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s})\right]
ds\ .
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the ergodic property, we know both that $\mathbb{E}_{0,\boldsymbol{\lambda
}}\left[ F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s})\right] \rightarrow\mathbb{E
_{0,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[ F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\infty})\right] $
and \newline$\frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda_{\ell}}\mathbb{E
_{0,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[ F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s})\right]
\rightarrow0$ as $s\to\infty$. One can also verify directly that there is a
constant $\tilde{M}>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
|F(\lambda)|\leq\tilde{M}(1+\Vert\lambda\Vert^{2})\ . \label{Fbound
\end{equation}
From these facts follows the absolute convergence both of the integral in
(\ref{tildeV}) and the integral
\[
\frac{\partial f}{\partial\lambda_{\ell}}=\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\beta s
\frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda_{\ell}}\mathbb{E}_{0,\boldsymbol{\lambda
}\left[ F(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s})\right] ds\ .
\]
Since the right hand side of (\ref{tildeV}) is differentiable, the Feynman-Kac
formula implies it satisfies (\ref{HJBf}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{A Verification Result for the Log Investor\label{ssec:logverif}}
The following verification theorem follows the logic outlined in Section III.9
of \cite{flemingsoner} and ensures that the above argument correctly
characterizes both the optimal strategy and the associated value function. A
more general verification result for log investors can be found in
\cite{GollKallsen00}.
\begin{theorem}
Consider the optimal problem (\ref{eq:V}) for the log investor with impatience
parameter $\beta>0$, investing in the asset price model defined by
(\ref{eq:S0}), (\ref{eq:dSi}), (\ref{lambdaDE}) and satisfying the
Stationarity Assumption that the matrix $\Gamma=(\alpha_{j}\delta_{ij
-d_{ij})$ is positive.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The candidate solution $\tilde{V}(x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},t)=e^{-\beta
t}\left[ f(\boldsymbol{\lambda})+\beta^{-1}\log(x)\right] $ is a classical
(i.e. differentiable) solution of the HJB equation (\ref{eq:HJBforV}).
\item For all initial conditions $x>0,\boldsymbol{\ \lambda}\in\mathbb{R
_{+}^{n}$, the pair of processes $(\boldsymbol{\omega}_{t}^{\ast},C_{t}^{\ast
}),t\geq0$ defined by (\ref{eq:omegastar}) and (\ref{eq:Cstar_withK}) is an
\textit{admissible policy}, in the sense that they are progressively
measurable and the process $X_{t}^{\ast}$ remains finite and positive
$(t,\omega)$ almost surely and solves the appropriate SDE.
\item Let $\mathcal{C}$ denote the class of admissible policies
$(\boldsymbol{\omega}_{t},C_{t}),t\geq0$ that satisfy
\begin{equation}
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[ \tilde
{V}\left( X_{t},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t},t\right) \right] \geq0 \label{TC+
\end{equation}
For any $(\boldsymbol{\omega},C)\in\mathcal{C}$,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[ \int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\beta
s}U(C_{s})ds\right] \leq\tilde{V}(x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},0).
\end{equation}
\item Let $V_{AS}$ denote the value function
\begin{equation}
V_{AS}\left( x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) =\max_{(C,\boldsymbol{\omega
)\in\mathcal{C}}\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[ \int_{0}^{\infty
}e^{-\beta s}U(C_{s})ds\right] \ . \label{eq:VAS
\end{equation}
The optimal policy $(\boldsymbol{\omega}_{t}^{\ast},C_{t}^{\ast}),t\geq0$
satisfies
\begin{equation}
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[ \tilde
{V}\left( X_{t}^{\ast},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t},t\right) \right] =0
\label{TC
\end{equation}
and the equality
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[ \int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\beta
s}U(C_{s}^{\ast})ds\right] =\tilde{V}(x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},0).
\end{equation}
Hence $\tilde{V}(x,\boldsymbol{\lambda},0)=V_{AS}(x,\boldsymbol{\lambda})$ and
$(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\ast},C^{\ast})$ is the optimal portfolio policy in the
class $\mathcal{C}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
That $\tilde V$ is a classical solution of (\ref{eq:HJBforV}) follows from
Lemma \ref{FKlemma} which shows that $f(\lambda)$ is a differentiable solution
of (\ref{HJBf}). That $(\boldsymbol{\omega}_{t}^{\ast},C_{t}^{\ast}),t\geq0$
is admissible follows by general considerations.
Suppose $(\boldsymbol{\omega},C)\in\mathcal{C}$ and consider the process
$\xi_{s}=\tilde{V}(X_{s},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s},s)$. For any $t>0$, the
Dynkin formula implies that
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[ \xi_{t}\right] & =\xi_{0
+\int_{0}^{t}\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\Biggl[-\beta\tilde{V
(X_{s},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s},s)+\sum_{l=1}^{m}\alpha_{l}\left(
\lambda_{l,\infty}-\lambda_{l,s}\right) \frac{\partial\tilde{V}\left(
X_{s},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s},s\right) }{\partial\lambda_{l}}\nonumber\\
& +\frac{\partial\tilde{V}\left( X_{s},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s},s\right)
}{\partial x}\left( rX_{s}+\boldsymbol{\omega}_{s}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{R
X_{s}-C_{s}\right) +\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^{2}\tilde{V}\left(
X_{s},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s},s\right) }{\partial x^{2}}\boldsymbol{\omega
}_{s}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{\Sigma\omega}_{s}X_{s}^{2}\\
& +\sum_{l=1}^{m}\lambda_{l,s-}\int\left[ \tilde{V}\left( X_{s}+\left(
\boldsymbol{\omega}_{s}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{J}\right) _{l}zX_{s
,\boldsymbol{\lambda_{s-}}+\boldsymbol{d}_{l},s\right) -\tilde{V}\left(
X_{s},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s-},s\right) \right] \nu_{l}\left( dz\right)
\Biggr]ds\nonumber
\end{align}
Using the fact that $\tilde{V}$ solves the HJB equation (\ref{eq:HJBforV})
leads in the usual way to the inequalit
\begin{equation}
\label{verificationInt}\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[ \xi
_{t}\right] \leq\xi_{0}-\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[ \int
_{0}^{t}e^{-\beta s}U(C_{s})ds\right]
\end{equation}
Finally, one can use the transversality condition (\ref{TC+}) to take the
limit $t\rightarrow\infty$ and obtain the desired result
\[
\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[ \int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\beta
s}U(C_{s})ds\right] \leq\xi_{0}=\tilde{V}(x,\lambda,0).
\]
The strategy $(\boldsymbol{\omega}_{t}^{\ast},C_{t}^{\ast}),t\geq0$ maximizes
(\ref{eq:HJBforV}) for almost every $(t,\omega)$, which means
(\ref{verificationInt}) holds as an equality for every $t>0$. Finally, one
needs to verify (\ref{TC}) in order to conclude that $\xi_{0}=\tilde{V
_{0}=V_{AS}$. First, by the ergodic property (\ref{ergodic}) one has
\[
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[ e^{-\beta
t}|f(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t})|\right] =0
\]
Next, by plugging in the optimal consumption $C^{\ast}=\beta X^{\ast}$ one
then finds one can solve the problem of optimizing the expected utility of
terminal wealth over the interval $[0,t]$ with the adjusted interest rate
$\hat{r}=r-\beta$ to show that
\[
\mathbb{E}_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[ e^{-\beta t}\log(X_{t}^{\ast
})\right] =[te^{-\beta t}]\cdot\frac{1}{t}\int_{0}^{t}\mathbb{E
_{x,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}[\hat{r}+K_{l}(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\ast
}(\boldsymbol{\lambda_{s}}),\boldsymbol{\lambda_{s}})]ds
\]
From the bounds (\ref{Fbound}) on the functions $F,K$ this can be seen to
converge to $0$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$, again by the ergodic property
(\ref{ergodic}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Properties of the Solution}
The log investor is often described as \textquotedblleft
myopic\textquotedblright\ because she acts at each moment in time as if the
dynamical variables are in fact static parameters. Thus we should not be
surprised that the optimal consumption and portfolio weights at any time given
by (\ref{eq:Cstar_withK}) and (\ref{eq:omegastar}) are independent of the
coefficients of the SDEs driving the asset returns. In particular, at any time
$t$, the policy $(\boldsymbol{\omega}_{t}^{\ast},C_{t}^{\ast
,\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t})$ is precisely the same as the policy when the jump
frequency is treated as a constant $\lambda=\lambda_{t}$, although that
\textquotedblleft constant\textquotedblright\ is changed at each instant.
A second observation is that the policy $(\boldsymbol{\omega}_{t}^{\ast
,C_{t}^{\ast},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t}),t\geq0$ does not require knowledge of
the function $f(\lambda)$. However, determining the function $f$ requires
solving the non-homogeneous equation (\ref{HJBf}), or equivalently evaluating
the integral in (\ref{tildeV}). For this, we need some further structure on
the problem, which we now add in order to derive the complete form of the solution.
\section{Additional Structure on the Diffusive and Jump
Risks\label{sec:sector}}
To find interesting examples of closed form optimal portfolio solutions, it is
convenient to model the variance-covariance matrix $\Sigma$ of the diffusive
part of asset returns in such a way that its inverse is explicit. For this
purpose, we adopt a modelling approach that is common in asset pricing, namely
to assume a factor structure. That is, we specify a block-structure for
$\Sigma$ consisting of $k$ blocks of dimension $m,$ with $n=mk$:
\begin{equation}
\underset{n\times n}{\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}=\boldsymbol{\sigma\sigma}^{\prime
}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc
\Sigma_{1,1} & \Sigma_{1,2} & \cdots\\
\Sigma_{2,1} & \ddots & \Sigma_{2,m}\\
\cdots & \Sigma_{m,m-1} & \Sigma_{m,m
\end{array}
\right) \label{eq:Sigma_msector
\end{equation}
with diagonal (or within-asset class) block
\begin{equation}
\underset{k\times k}{\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{l,l}}=\upsilon_{l}^{2}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc
1 & \rho_{l,l} & \cdots\\
\rho_{l,l} & \ddots & \rho_{l,l}\\
\cdots & \rho_{l,l} & 1
\end{array}
\right) \label{eq:Sigmawithin
\end{equation}
and off-diagonal (or across-asset class) block
\begin{equation}
\underset{k\times k}{\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{l,s}}=0 \label{eq:Sigmaacross
\end{equation}
where $1>\rho_{l,l}>-1/(k-1).$
The spectral decomposition of the $\Sigma$ matrix is
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Sigma}\text{ \ }=\underset{=\text{ \ }\bar{\Sigma}}{\text{
\ }\underbrace{\sum\nolimits_{l=1}^{m}\kappa_{1l}\frac{1}{k}\boldsymbol{1
_{l}\boldsymbol{1}_{l}^{\prime}}}\text{ \ }+\text{ \ }\underset{=\text{
\ }\Sigma^{\perp}}{\underbrace{\sum\nolimits_{l=1}^{m}\kappa_{2l}\left(
\boldsymbol{M}_{l}\boldsymbol{-}\frac{1}{k}\boldsymbol{1}_{l}\boldsymbol{1
_{l}^{\prime}\right) }} \label{eq:Sigma_msector_spectral
\end{equation}
wher
\begin{align}
\kappa_{1l} & =v_{l}^{2}\left( 1+\left( k-1\right) \rho_{l,l}\right)
\label{eq:kappa1l_msector}\\
\kappa_{2l} & =v_{l}^{2}\left( 1-\rho_{l,l}\right)
\label{eq:kappa2l_msector
\end{align}
are the $2m$ distinct eigenvalues of $\Sigma$. The multiplicity of each
$\kappa_{1l}$ is $1$, and the multiplicity of each $\kappa_{2l}$ is $k-1$. The
eigenvector for $\kappa_{1l}$ is $\boldsymbol{1}_{l}$, the $n-$vector with
ones placed in the $k$ rows corresponding to the $l-$block and zeros
everywhere else, that i
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{1}_{l}=[0,\ldots,0,\underset{\text{asset class }l}{\underbrace
{1,\ldots,1}},0,\ldots,0]^{\prime}, \label{eq:1l
\end{equation}
where the first $1$ is located in the $k\left( l-1\right) +1$ coordinate.
$\boldsymbol{M}_{l}$ is an $n\times n$ block diagonal matrix with a $k\times
k$ identity matrix $\boldsymbol{I}_{k}$ placed in the $l-$block and zeros
everywhere else
\begin{equation}
\underset{n\times n}{\boldsymbol{M}_{l}}\text{ \ }=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc
0 & \cdots & 0\\
\vdots & \boldsymbol{I}_{k} & \vdots\\
0 & \cdots & 0
\end{array}
\right) , \label{eq:Fl
\end{equation}
Corresponding to the above spectral structure, we have the orthogonal
decomposition $\mathbb{R}^{n}=\bar{V}\oplus V^{\perp}$ where $\bar{V}$ is the
span of $\{\boldsymbol{1}_{l}\}_{l=1,..,m}$ and $V^{\perp}$ is the orthogonal space.
As for the vector $\boldsymbol{J}$ of jump amplification coefficients, we
assume that
\begin{equation}
\underset{n\times m}{\boldsymbol{J}}\ \boldsymbol{=}\ [\boldsymbol{J
_{1},...,\boldsymbol{J}_{m}]=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc
J_{1,1} & \cdots & J_{1,m}\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
J_{n,1} & \cdots & J_{n,m
\end{array}
\right) \label{eq:Jmat
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{J}_{l}\text{ \ }=\text{ }j_{l}\boldsymbol{1}_{l}\text{ \ }=\text{
\ }[\underset{\text{asset class }1}{\underbrace{0,\ldots,0}},\ldots
,\underset{\text{asset class }l}{\underbrace{j_{l},\ldots,j_{l}}
,\ldots\underset{\text{asset class }m}{\underbrace{,0,\ldots,0}}]^{\prime}
\label{eq:J_msector
\end{equation}
for $l=1,...,m.$ This structure means that assets within a given class $l$
have the same response to the arrival of a jump, i.e., to a change in
$\boldsymbol{N}_{t}$. But the proportional response $j_{l}$ of assets of
different classes to the arrival of a jump can be different ($j_{l}\neq j_{h}$
for $l\neq h$).
Finally, we assume that the vector of expected excess returns has the form
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{R}\text{ \ }\boldsymbol{=}\text{ \ }\sum\nolimits_{l=1}^{m}\bar
{R}_{l}\boldsymbol{1}_{l}\text{ }\boldsymbol{+}\text{ }\boldsymbol{{R}^{\perp
}}\text{ \ }\boldsymbol{=\ \bar{R}+{R}^{\perp}.} \label{eq:R_msector
\end{equation}
Here, we allow the expected excess returns to differ both within and across
asset classes, by allowing $\boldsymbol{{R}^{\perp}\neq0}$ . The components of
$\boldsymbol{R}$ play the role of the assets' alphas. The general
$\boldsymbol{{R}^{\perp}}$ is orthogonal to each $\boldsymbol{1}_{l}$ and has
the form
\[
\boldsymbol{{R}^{\perp}=[R}_{1}^{\perp\prime},...,\boldsymbol{R}_{m
^{\perp\prime}]^{\prime
\]
where each of the $k$-vectors $\boldsymbol{R}_{l}^{\perp}$ is orthogonal to
the $k$-vector $\boldsymbol{1}$.
\subsection{Closed-Form Optimal Portfolio Solution}
We now look for a vector of optimal portfolio weights $\boldsymbol{\omega,}$
and it is convenient to look for it in the form of its decomposition using the
same basis as above,
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\omega}\text{ \ }\boldsymbol{=}\text{ \ }\sum\nolimits_{l=1
^{m}\bar{\omega}_{l}\boldsymbol{1}_{l}\text{ }\boldsymbol{+}\text{
}\boldsymbol{{\omega}^{\perp}=\bar{\omega}+{\omega}^{\perp}}
\label{eq:Omega_msector
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp}=\boldsymbol{[\omega}_{1}^{\perp\prime
},...,\boldsymbol{\omega}_{l}^{\perp\prime}]^{\prime}.$ The objective function
$K_{2}(\boldsymbol{\omega})$ in (\ref{eq:omegastar}) to be minimized reduces
to
\begin{align*}
K_{2}(\boldsymbol{\omega}) & =\left\{ -\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime
}\boldsymbol{R}+\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{\Sigma
\omega}-\sum_{l=1}^{n}\lambda_{l}\int\log\left( 1+\left( \boldsymbol{\omega
}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{J}\right) _{l}z\right) \nu_{l}\left( dz\right)
\right\} \\
& =-\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp\prime}\boldsymbol{R}^{\perp}-\sum
\nolimits_{l=1}^{m}\bar{\omega}_{l}\bar{R}_{l}\boldsymbol{1}_{l}^{\prime
}\boldsymbol{1}_{l}\\
& +\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp\prime}\Sigma^{\perp
\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp}+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{l=1}^{m}\bar{\omega
_{l}^{2}\kappa_{1l}\frac{1}{k}\boldsymbol{1}_{l}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{1
_{l}\boldsymbol{1}_{l}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{1}_{l}\\
& -\sum_{l=1}^{n}\lambda_{l}\int\log\left( 1+k\bar{\omega}_{l}j_{l}z\right)
\nu_{l}\left( dz\right) .
\end{align*}
The minimization problem then separates a
\begin{equation}
\left( \boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp\ast},\boldsymbol{\bar{\omega}}^{\ast
}\right) =\operatorname{argmin}_{\left\{ \boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp
},\boldsymbol{\bar{\omega}}\right\} }\left\{ g^{\perp}(\boldsymbol{\omega
}^{\perp})+\bar{g}(\bar{\omega})\right\} \label{eq:omegaseparate_msector
\end{equation}
wher
\begin{align}
g^{\perp}(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp}) & =-\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp\prime
}\boldsymbol{R}^{\perp}+\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp\prime
\Sigma^{\perp}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp}\label{eq:gperp_msector}\\
\bar{g}(\boldsymbol{\bar{\omega}}) & =-k\sum\limits_{l=1}^{m}\bar{\omega
}_{l}\bar{R}_{l}+\frac{1}{2}k\sum\limits_{l=1}^{m}\bar{\omega}_{l}^{2
\kappa_{1l}-\sum_{l=1}^{m}\lambda_{l,t}\int\log\left( 1+k\bar{\omega
_{l}j_{l}z\right) \nu_{l}\left( dz\right) . \label{eq:gbar_msector
\end{align}
For the first part, minimizing $g^{\perp}(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp}),$ the
structure of $\Sigma^{\perp}$ implies that
\begin{align*}
g^{\perp}(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp}) & =-\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp\prime
}\boldsymbol{R}^{\perp}+\frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{l=1}^{m}\kappa
_{2l}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp\prime}\left( \boldsymbol{M}_{l
\boldsymbol{-}\frac{1}{k}\boldsymbol{1}_{l}\boldsymbol{1}_{l}^{\prime}\right)
\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp}\\
& =-\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp\prime}\boldsymbol{R}^{\perp}+\frac{1}{2
\sum\nolimits_{l=1}^{m}\kappa_{2l}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp\prime
}\boldsymbol{M}_{l}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp}\\
& =-\sum\nolimits_{l=1}^{m}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{l}^{\perp\prime
}\boldsymbol{R}_{l}^{\perp}+\frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{l=1}^{m}\kappa
_{2l}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{l}^{\perp\prime}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{l}^{\perp
\end{align*}
and therefore the optimal solution $\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\perp\ast}$ has
blocks
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\omega}_{l}^{\perp\ast}=\frac{1}{\kappa_{2l}}\boldsymbol{R
_{l}^{\perp} \label{eq:omega_perp_star
\end{equation}
for $l=1,\ldots,m.$ This part of the solution depends only on the diffusive
characteristics (expected returns and variance-covariance)\ of the asset returns.
The problem of minimizing $\bar{g}(\boldsymbol{\bar{\omega}})$ separates
itself into $m$ separate minimization problems. With the change of variable
\begin{equation}
\varpi_{ln}=k\bar{\omega}_{l} \label{eq:changeofvar
\end{equation}
we see tha
\begin{equation}
\varpi_{ln}^{\ast}=\operatorname{argmin}_{\left\{ \varpi_{ln}\right\}
}\left\{ -\varpi_{ln}R_{l}+\frac{1}{2}\varpi_{ln}^{2}\kappa_{1l
/k-\lambda_{l,t}\int\log\left( 1+\varpi_{ln}j_{l}z\right) \nu_{l}\left(
dz\right) \right\} \label{eq:ystarn_msector
\end{equation}
The convexity of the objective function implies the existence of the
minimizer. We can then determine $\varpi_{ln}^{\ast}$ in closed form.
Two cases are explicitly solvable. We first consider the case where the jump
size is deterministic. In this situation, $\nu_{l}(dz)=\delta\left( z=\bar
{z}_{l}\right) $ and the objective functions become
\begin{align}
f_{n}\left( \varpi\right) & =-\sum\nolimits_{l=1}^{m}\varpi_{ln}\bar
{R}_{l}+\frac{1}{2}\sum\nolimits_{l=1}^{m}\varpi_{ln}^{2}\kappa_{1l
/k\nonumber\\
& -\sum_{l=1}^{m}\lambda_{l,t}\log\left( 1+\varpi_{ln}j_{l}\bar{z
_{l}\right) . \label{eq:objmsector_example
\end{align}
The first order conditions for the asset allocation parameters $\varpi_{ln}$
are given b
\begin{equation}
-\bar{R}_{l}+\varpi_{ln}\kappa_{1l}/k-\lambda_{l,t}j_{l}\bar{z}_{l}\left(
1+\varpi_{ln}j_{l}\bar{z}_{l}\right) ^{-1}=0\text{ for }l=1,\ldots,m.
\label{eq:FOC_Log_msector
\end{equation}
These first order conditions form a system of $m$ independent quadratic
equations. Each separate equation (\ref{eq:FOC_Log_msector}) admit a unique
solution $\varpi_{ln}$ satisfying the solvency constraint $\varpi_{ln
j_{l}\bar{z}_{l}>-1$. These are solvable in closed form
\begin{equation}
\bar{\omega}_{l}^{\ast}=\frac{\varpi_{ln}^{\ast}}{k}=\frac{-\kappa
_{1l}/k+j_{l}\bar{z}_{l}\bar{R}_{l}+\sqrt{\left( j_{l}\bar{z}_{l}\bar{R
_{l}+\kappa_{1l}/k\right) ^{2}+4\lambda_{l,t}j_{l}^{2}\bar{z}_{l}^{2
\kappa_{1l}/k}}{2j_{l}\bar{z}_{l}\kappa_{1l}/k^{2}}.
\label{eq:closed_form_omega_msector
\end{equation}
A second case that is solvable in closed form is one where each jump term
$Z_{l,t}$ has a binomial distribution ($u_{l}$ with probability $p_{l}$ or
$d_{l}$ with probability $1-p_{l}$), since the corresponding first-order
conditions are cubic. The first order conditions are obtained by
differentiation with respect to $\varpi_{ln}$ of the objective function stated
in (\ref{eq:ystarn_msector}), namely
\begin{equation}
-\bar{R}_{l}+\varpi_{ln}\kappa_{1l}/k-\lambda_{l,t}j_{l}\int\left(
1+\varpi_{ln}j_{l}z\right) ^{-1}z\nu_{l}\left( dz\right) =0\text{ for
}l=1,\ldots,m. \label{eq:generaljump_FOC
\end{equation}
For binomially-distributed jumps, the conditions reduce t
\begin{equation}
-R_{l}+\varpi_{ln}\kappa_{1l}/k-\lambda_{l,t}j_{l}\left( p_{l}u_{l}\left(
1+\varpi_{ln}j_{l}u_{l}\right) ^{-1}+\left( 1-p_{l}\right) d_{l}\left(
1+\varpi_{ln}j_{l}d_{l}\right) ^{-1}\right) =0
\label{eq:FOC_Log_msector_binomial
\end{equation}
which produce a cubic polynomial equation in $\varpi_{ln},$ again explicitly
solvable, separately for each for $l=1,\ldots,m$.
\section{Consequences for the Optimal Portfolio Allocation\label{sec:conseq}}
We now investigate in more detail the consequences of the explicit portfolio
weight formulae for an optimal asset allocation. The first element we note
from (\ref{eq:closed_form_omega_msector}) is the fact that the optimal
portfolio is time-varying, since its composition changes with the jump
intensities $\lambda_{lt}.$
In the case of purely diffusive risk, the optimal portfolio weights reduce to
the classical Merton formula
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\ast}=\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{-1}\boldsymbol{R
\end{equation}
or, replacing $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{-1}$ by its explicit expression
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l
\boldsymbol{\omega}_{l}^{\perp\ast}=\frac{1}{\kappa_{2l}}\boldsymbol{R
_{l}^{\perp}\\
\bar{\omega}_{l}^{\ast}=\frac{1}{\kappa_{1l}}\bar{R}_{l
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
for $l=1,..,m.$ As is well known, the solution in this case is constant.
In the case where Poissonian jumps are added to the model, the solution
specializes to (\ref{eq:closed_form_omega_msector}) but with $\lambda_{l,t}$
replaced by the constant Poissonian jump intensity. As in the purely-diffusive
case, the solution becomes constant. A solution with similar qualitative
features would be obtained in the mutually exciting case if one replaced each
stochastic jump intensity by its unconditional expected value, although given
that the portfolio weights are nonlinear functions of $\lambda_{l,t}$ these
would not be the unconditional expected values of the portfolio weights.
Let us now return to the full solution in the mutually exciting case. A
univariate model captures only part of the mutual excitation phenomenon: with
a single asset, only time series self-excitation can take place. In order to
investigate the full potential impact of mutual excitation on optimal
portfolio holdings, we now specialize the results above to a two-asset model
where both time series and cross-sectional excitation can arise. Assets $1$
and $2$ can excite each other, not necessarily in a symmetric fashion,
depending on the $2\times2$ matrix of mutually exciting intensities with
coefficients $d_{ij},$ $i,j=1,2$. The formulae above specialize with $n=2,$
$k=1$ and $m=2,$ in which case $\kappa_{1l}=v_{l}^{2}$ for $l=1,2$ and hence
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l
\boldsymbol{\omega}_{l}^{\perp\ast}=\frac{1}{\kappa_{2l}}\boldsymbol{R
_{l}^{\perp}\\
\bar{\omega}_{l}^{\ast}=\frac{-v_{l}^{2}+j_{l}\bar{z}_{l}R_{l}+\sqrt{\left(
j_{l}\bar{z}_{l}R_{l}+v_{l}^{2}\right) ^{2}+4\lambda_{l,t}j_{l}^{2}\bar
{z}_{l}^{2}v_{l}^{2}}}{2j_{l}\bar{z}_{l}v_{l}^{2}
\end{array}
\right. \label{eq:closedform2assets
\end{equation}
Consider the change in the optimal portfolio allocation of an investor who
observes a first shock, say to asset $1.$ For concreteness, let us return to
the two-asset class scenario illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:2assetNSlambda}.
In a Poissonian jump model, observing the first shock at time $T_{1}$ does not
change the investor's optimal portfolio: since jumps' future arrivals are
independent of past jumps, there is nothing to do going forward other than to
absorb the losses from the first jump. In the mutually exciting model,
however, the occurrence of the first jump at time $T_{1}$ self-excites the
jump intensity $\lambda_{1,t}$ for $t>T_{1}$. This increase in $\lambda_{1,t}$
translates, if $\bar{z}_{1}<0,$ into a reduced asset allocation to asset $1.$
Moreover, these jumps have a contagious effect on $S_{2}$ since a jump in
asset $1$ cross-excites the jump intensity $\lambda_{2,t}$ of asset $2$. If
$\bar{z}_{2}<0,$ then the optimal policy is to reduce the asset allocation to
asset $2.$ Note that the reduction to the position in both risky assets occurs
immediately after $T_{1},$ without waiting for future jumps
\begin{figure}
[pth]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[
height=5.3366in,
width=5.1224in
{ACH_fig2assetlambdaomega.eps
\caption{Mutual excitation in a two asset-class world:\ Jump intensities (top
panel) and optimal portfolio weights (bottom panel).
\label{fig:2assetlambdaomega
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For the same sample paths as in Figure \ref{fig:2assetNSlambda}, Figure
\ref{fig:2assetlambdaomega} shows the optimal portfolio weights. This is a
flight to quality, in the sense that the occurrence of a single jump in asset
$1$ causes the investor to flee both risky assets (or all of them in the
general $n$ case) for the safety of the riskless asset. This phenomenon is
well documented as an empirical reality in practical situations; we believe
that this is the first portfolio choice model to actually capture it in a
theoretical setting.
Increases in the jump intensities raise the probability of observing another
jump in $S_{1}$ at the future time $T_{2}$. This, in turn, raises the
probability of seeing a jump in $S_{2}$ at time $T_{3}$. Later on, at time
$T_{4}$, the jump in $S_{2}$ raises the probability of seeing a jump in
$S_{1}$ at some future time $T_{5}$, and so on. Mean reversion in the jump
intensities at respective rates $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ counteracts
these successive increases, keeping the intensities non-explosive (stationary,
in fact). The optimal portfolio policy reacts to each change in jump intensity
accordingly: increases lead to reduced asset allocation, decreases to
increased asset allocation. Inevitably, this analysis is conducted in a
partial equilibrium framework: it assumes among other things that expected
returns do not change as jump intensities change, or at least not sufficiently
to reverse the result.
Another interesting empirical phenomenon that can be revisited in light of
these optimal portfolio policies is home bias. Home bias refers to the
observed tendency of most investors' portfolios to be insufficiently
diversified internationally. In the model, the benefits from diversification
are much less valuable than in the standard diffusive model since
international assets do not protect as much against jumps in domestic assets
in the presence of cross-sectional mutual excitation.
Finally, one phenomenon that is often documented in financial crises is the
large increase in correlations between asset classes, with all of them
increasing towards $1.$ In the context of the model, empirical correlations
measured over a period where mutual excitation occurs will indeed be close to
$1$ as long as the jumps that result from mutual excitation are of the same
sign (say both $\bar{z}_{1}<0$ and $\bar{z}_{2}<0$), at least on average. In
such periods, the jumps' contribution to the observed correlation trumps the
continuous contribution.
\section{Other HARA Investors\label{sec:powerandexp}}
The cases of power and exponential utility also lead to candidate value
functions and optimal portfolios in separable form. Due to the complexity of
the underlying HJB conditions, the relevant verification result requires a
lengthy, and perhaps uninformative, analysis that we have not yet completed.
Nonetheless, as we now show, the candidate solutions can be characterized in
terms of a fixed point problem that in principle can be solved numerically.
\subsection{Power Utility}
In this section, we consider the power investor with $U(c)=c^{\gamma}/\gamma$,
$\gamma\in(-\infty,0)\cup(0,1)$. The analysis now consists in verifying the
consistency of the following form for the solution to (\ref{eq:HJBgeneral}) in
the form
\[
L(x,\boldsymbol{\lambda})=x^{\gamma}g(\boldsymbol{\lambda})/\gamma
\]
for some positive function $g$. Substitution into (\ref{eq:HJBgeneral}) leads
to
\begin{align}
0=\max_{\left\{ C,\boldsymbol{\omega}\right\} } & \left\{ U(C)-\beta
L\right. \\
& +\frac{L}{g}\sum_{l=1}^{m}\left[ \alpha_{l}\left( \lambda_{l,\infty
}-\lambda_{l}\right) \frac{\partial g\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda}\right)
}{\partial\lambda_{l}}+\lambda_{l}\left( g(\boldsymbol{\lambda
+\boldsymbol{d}_{l})-g(\boldsymbol{\lambda})\right) \right] \nonumber\\
& +\gamma L\left( r+\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{R}-C/x\right)
+\frac{\gamma(\gamma-1)L}{2}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{\Sigma
\omega}\label{eq:HJBpower}\\
& \left. +L\sum_{l=1}^{m}\lambda_{l}g(\boldsymbol{\lambda}+\boldsymbol{d
_{l})/g(\boldsymbol{\lambda})\int\left[ \left( 1+\boldsymbol{\omega
^{\prime}\boldsymbol{J}z\right) ^{\gamma}-1\right] \nu_{l}\left( dz\right)
\right\} \nonumber
\end{align}
The optimal policy for the portfolio weight at time $t\geq0$ is
$\boldsymbol{\omega}_{t}^{\ast}=\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\ast}(\boldsymbol{h
(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{t}))$ where
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\ast}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) & =\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll
\arg\min_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}K^{\gamma}(\boldsymbol{\omega
,\boldsymbol{\lambda}) & \gamma>0\\
\arg\max_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}K^{\gamma}(\boldsymbol{\omega
,\boldsymbol{\lambda}) & \gamma<0
\end{array}
\right. \\
{h_{l}}(\boldsymbol{{\lambda}}) & ={\lambda_{l}}g(\boldsymbol{{\lambda
}+{\boldsymbol{{d}}_{l}})/g(\boldsymbol{{\lambda}})\\
{K^{\gamma}}(\boldsymbol{{\omega}},\boldsymbol{{\lambda}}) & \equiv
-\gamma\boldsymbol{{\omega^{\prime}}}R-\frac{{\gamma(\gamma-1)}
{2}\boldsymbol{{\omega^{\prime}}}\Sigma\boldsymbol{{\omega}}-\sum_{l=1
^{m}\lambda_{l,t}{\int_{(0,1]}}\left[ {{{\left( {1+\boldsymbol{{\omega
^{\prime}J}}z}\right) }^{\gamma}}-1}\right] \nu_{l}\left( {dz}\right) .
\end{align}
Solving the first order condition for $C$ leads to the optimal consumption
$C^{\ast}=x\left( \gamma g(\boldsymbol{\lambda})\right) ^{1/(\gamma-1)}$.
Finally, $g$ is characterized by the implicit equation
\begin{align}
\lbrack\mathcal{A}g](\boldsymbol{{\lambda}})-(\beta-r\gamma)g\left(
\boldsymbol{{\lambda}}\right) & =G(\boldsymbol{{\lambda}};g)\label{HJBg}\\
G({\boldsymbol{\lambda}};g) & =g\left( {\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\right)
{K^{\gamma}}\left( \boldsymbol{\omega}^{\ast}(\boldsymbol{h
(\boldsymbol{\lambda})),{\boldsymbol{h}}({\boldsymbol{\lambda}})\right)
+(1-\gamma){\left( {\gamma g({\boldsymbol{\lambda}})}\right) ^{\gamma
/(\gamma-1)}},\ \boldsymbol{{\lambda}}\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}. \label{Gdef
\end{align}
The Markov generator $\mathcal{A}$ is again given by (\ref{Generator}). We use
the Feynman-Kac formula to write the solution $g$ as a fixed point of an
infinite dimensional nonlinear mapping:
\begin{align}
g & =\mathcal{G}(g)\label{fixedpoint}\\
(\mathcal{G}(g))\left( \boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) := & \int_{0}^{\infty
}e^{-(\beta-r\gamma)s}\mathbb{E}_{0,\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\left[
G(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{s};g)\right] ds.
\end{align}
\begin{remark}
Note that the power case differs from the log case in two distinct ways. The
first term on the right side of (\ref{Gdef}) is a distorted version of the
right side of (\ref{HJBf}), where the $\lambda$ dependence in the function $K$
is distorted in a $g$ dependent fashion through the mapping $\boldsymbol{h}$.
The second term does not arise in the log case, and introduces complications;
a similar situation occurs and is dealt with in a different model, see
\cite{delongkluppelberg08}. Following \cite{delongkluppelberg08}, one can
attempt to verify that (\ref{fixedpoint}) is a contraction mapping, and that
consequently the sequence of iterates $\{g^{(i)},i=0,1,\dots\}$ with
$g^{(0)}=1$ and $g^{(i+1)}=\mathcal{G}(g^{(i)})$ converges to $g$. We do not
attempt this here.
In examples for which the functions $K$ and $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{t}^{\ast
}(\boldsymbol{\lambda})$ are explicitly solvable, the iteration scheme can
apparently be efficiently implemented numerically.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Exponential Utility}
An investor with the exponential utility $U(x)=-e^{-\gamma x}/\gamma$ with
risk aversion parameter $\gamma>0$, unlike the log investor, can in principle
consume at a negative rate, perhaps even reaching negative wealth, and thus in
this setting the question of defining admissible strategies is more involved.
We can however, search for candidate optimal strategies that solve the reduced
HJB equation (\ref{eq:HJBgeneral}) in the form $L(x,\mathbb{\lambda
)=-\exp[-\kappa x]g(\mathbb{\lambda})$ for some positive function $g$, and
then attempt to interpret the result. The HJB equation turns into
\begin{align}
0 & =\max_{\left\{ C,\boldsymbol{\omega}\right\} }\left\{ U(C)-\beta
L+\frac{L}{g(\boldsymbol{\lambda})}[\mathcal{A}g](\boldsymbol{{\lambda
})\right. \nonumber\\
& -\kappa L\left( rx+\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{R}x-C\right)
+\frac{\kappa^{2}L}{2}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{\Sigma\omega
}x^{2}\label{expHJB}\\
& +\left. L\sum_{l=1}^{m}\lambda_{l,t}\frac{g(\boldsymbol{\lambda
}+\boldsymbol{d}_{l})}{g(\boldsymbol{\lambda})}\int\left( \exp\left[
-\kappa(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{J}_{l}zx\right] -1\right)
\nu_{l}(dz)\right\} \ ,\nonumber
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{A}g$ is given as before by (\ref{Generator}). The first order
conditions for $C^{\ast}$ imply that $\gamma U(C^{\ast})=\kappa L$ and hence
\[
C^{\ast}=\frac{1}{\gamma}\left( \kappa x-\log g-\log\kappa\right) .
\]
The candidate optimal portfolio weights are best expressed in terms of dollar
amounts $\pi_{i,t}=\omega_{i,t}X_{t}$ invested. We find $\boldsymbol{\pi
_{t}^{\ast}=\boldsymbol{\pi}^{\ast}(\boldsymbol{h}(\boldsymbol{\lambda
})),\boldsymbol{h}=(h_{1},\dots,h_{m})$ where
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\pi}^{\ast}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) & =\operatorname{argmin
_{\boldsymbol{\pi}}K(\boldsymbol{\pi},\boldsymbol{\lambda}))\\
{h_{l}}(\boldsymbol{{\lambda}}) & ={\lambda_{l}}g(\boldsymbol{{\lambda
}+{\boldsymbol{{d}}_{l}})/g(\boldsymbol{{\lambda}})\\
K(\boldsymbol{\pi},\boldsymbol{\lambda}) & =\kappa\boldsymbol{\pi}^{\prime
}\boldsymbol{R}-\frac{\kappa^{2}}{2}\boldsymbol{\pi}^{\prime
\boldsymbol{\Sigma\pi}-\sum_{l=1}^{m}\lambda_{l}\int\left( \exp
[-\kappa\left( \boldsymbol{\pi}^{\prime}\boldsymbol{J}\right) _{l
z]-1\right) \nu_{l}\left( dz\right) \nonumber
\end{align}
Substitution of $C^{\ast},\boldsymbol{\pi}^{\ast}$ back into (\ref{expHJB})
leads to
\[
0=(r-\beta) g+\lbrack\mathcal{A}g](\boldsymbol{{\lambda}}) -\kappa\left(
rx-C^{\ast}\right) -g(\boldsymbol{{\lambda}})K(\boldsymbol{\pi}^{\ast
}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}),\boldsymbol{h(\lambda}))
\]
which in turn implies that $\kappa=r\gamma$. The condition on $g$ is now
implicit:
\begin{align}
\lbrack\mathcal{A}g](\boldsymbol{{\lambda}}) -(\beta-r\gamma+r\log(r\gamma))
g(\boldsymbol{{\lambda}}) & =\tilde G(\boldsymbol{{\lambda}};g)\\
\tilde G(\lambda;g) & = g(\boldsymbol{{\lambda}})\left[ r\log g+
K(\boldsymbol{\pi}^{\ast}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}),\boldsymbol{h(\lambda
}))\right]
\end{align}
This is very similar to the characterization of $g$ for the power utility
case. In examples where $K$ and $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{\ast}$ are explicitly
known, one can attempt to solve numerically for $g$ by iteration.
\section{Conclusions\label{sec:conclusions}}
This paper extends the range of models for which solutions to the optimal
dynamic portfolio-consumption problem are available, to one which includes
mutually exciting jumps. We analyze features of the optimal solution and show
that it differs from the usual case in important ways. In particular, it
introduces an explicit time-variation in the optimal portfolio weights in
response to changes in the jump intensity, providing a rare example of an
explicit time-varying optimal portfolio solution. Moreover, power and
exponential investors both adopt more aggressive strategies, characterized by
a distortion function $\boldsymbol{h}$, than the corresponding investor who
does not fully recognize the mutual excitation effect.\pagebreak
\bibliographystyle{elsevier}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
In Artificial Intelligence, probabilistic graphical models are becoming an increasingly powerful tool.
Amongst these, hidden Markov models (HMMs) are definitely amongst the simplest, and perhaps also amongst the more popular ones.
An important application for HMMs involves finding the \emph{sequence} of (hidden) states with the highest posterior probability after observing a sequence of outputs \cite{rabiner1989}.
For HMMs with precise local transition and emission probabilities, there is a quite efficient dynamic programming algorithm, due to Viterbi \cite{rabiner1989,viterbi1967}, for performing this task.
For imprecise-probabilistic local models, such as coherent lower previsions, we know of no algorithm in the literature for which the computational complexity comes even close to that of Viterbi's.
In this paper, we take the first steps towards remedying this situation.
We describe imprecise hidden Markov models as special cases of credal trees (a special case of credal networks) under epistemic irrelevance in Section~\ref{sec:basics}.
We show in particular how we can use the ideas underlying the MePiCTIr\footnote{MePiCTIr: \underline{Me}ssage \underline{P}assing \underline{i}n \underline{C}redal \underline{T}rees under \underline{Ir}relevance.} algorithm \cite{cooman2009}, involving independent natural extension and marginal extension, to construct a most conservative joint model from imprecise local transition and emission models.
We also derive a number of interesting and useful formulas from that construction.
The results in Section~\ref{sec:basics} assume basic knowledge of the theory of coherent lower previsions, a generalisation of classical probability that allows for incomplete specification of probabilities.
We include a short introduction to this theory in Section~\ref{sec:lpr}.
In Section~\ref{sec:optimal-sequences} we explain how a sequence of observations leads to (a collection of) so-called maximal state sequences.
Finding all of them seems a daunting task at first: it has a search space that grows exponentially in the length of the Markov chain.
However, in Section~\ref{sec:principle-of-optimality} we use the basic formulas found in Section~\ref{sec:basics} to derive an appropriate version of Bellman's \cite{bellman1957} Principle of Optimality, which allows for an exponential reduction of the search space.
By using a number of additional tricks, we are able in Section~\ref{sec:algorithm} to devise the EstiHMM\footnote{\underline{Est}imation in \underline{i}mprecise \underline{H}idden \underline{M}arkov \underline{M}odels} algorithm, which efficiently constructs all maximal state sequences.
We prove in Section~\ref{sec:complexity} that this algorithm is essentially linear in the number of maximal sequences, quadratic in the length of the chain, and cubic in the number of states.
We perceive this complexity to be comparable to that of the Viterbi algorithm, especially after realising that the latter makes the simplifying step of resolving ties more or less arbitrarily in order to produce only a single optimal state sequence.
This is something we will not allow our algorithm to do, for reasons that should become clear further on.
In Section~\ref{sec:experiments}, we consider the special case of binary iHMMs, and investigate experimentally how the number of maximal state sequences depends on the model parameters.
We comment on the very interesting structures that emerge, and give them an heuristic explanation.
We show off the algorithm's efficiency in Section~\ref{sec:example} by calculating the maximal sequences for a specific iHMM of length $100$.
We conclude in Section~\ref{sec:app} with a simple toy application in optical character recognition.
It demonstrates the advantages of our algorithm and gives a clear indication that the EstiHMM algorithm is able to robustify the existing Viterbi algorithm in an intelligent manner.
In order to make our main argumentation as readable as possible, we have relegated all technical proofs to an appendix.
\section{Freshening up on coherent lower previsions}\label{sec:lpr}
We begin with some basic theory of coherent lower previsions. See Ref.~\cite{walley1991} for an in-depth study, and Ref.~\cite{miranda2008a} for a recent survey.
Coherent lower previsions are a special type of imprecise probability model.
Roughly speaking, whereas classical probability theory assumes that a subject's uncertainty can be represented by a single probability mass function, the theory of imprecise probabilities effectively works with sets of possible probability mass functions, and thereby allows for imprecision as well as indecision to be modelled and represented.
For people who are unfamiliar with the theory, looking at it as a way of robustifying the classical theory is perhaps the easiest way to understand and interpret it, and we will use this approach here.
Consider a set ${\mathcal{M}}$ of probability mass functions, defined on a discrete set $\states{}$ of possible states.
With each mass function $p\in{\mathcal{M}}$, we can associate a \emph{linear prevision} (or expectation operator) $\jointpr{p}$, defined on the set $\stategambles{}$ of all real-valued maps on $\states{}$.
Any $f\in\stategambles{}$ is also called a \emph{gamble} on $\states{}$, and $\jointpr{p}(f)\coloneqq\sum_{\xstate{}\in\states{}}p(\xstate{})f(\xstate{})$ is the expected value of $f$, associated with the probability mass function $p$.
We can now define the \emph{lower prevision} $\jointlpr{{\mathcal{M}}}$ that corresponds with the set ${\mathcal{M}}$ as the following \emph{lower envelope} of linear previsions:
\begin{equation}\label{def:onderprevisie}
\jointlpr{{\mathcal{M}}}(f)\coloneqq\inf\set{\jointpr{p}(f)}{p\in{\mathcal{M}}}
\text{ for all gambles $f$ in $\states{}$}.
\end{equation}
Similarly, we define the \emph{upper prevision} $\jointupr{{\mathcal{M}}}$ as
\begin{align}
\jointupr{{\mathcal{M}}}(f)
&\coloneqq\sup\set{\jointpr{p}(f)}{p\in{\mathcal{M}}}\notag\\
&=-\inf\set{-\jointpr{p}(f)}{p\in{\mathcal{M}}}
=-\inf\set{\jointpr{p}(-f)}{p\in{\mathcal{M}}}
=-\jointlpr{{\mathcal{M}}}(-f)
\label{eq:toegevoegdheid}
\end{align}
for all gambles $f$ on $\states{}$.
We will mostly talk about lower previsions, since it follows from the \emph{conjugacy relation}~\eqref{eq:toegevoegdheid} that the two models are mathematically equivalent.
An \emph{event} $A$ is a subset of the set of possible values $\states{}$: $A\subseteq\states{}$.
With such an event, we can associate an \emph{indicator} $\ind{A}$, which is the gamble on $\states{}$ that assumes the value $1$ on $A$, and $0$ outside $A$.
We call
\begin{equation*}
\jointlpr{{\mathcal{M}}}(A)\coloneqq\jointlpr{{\mathcal{M}}}(\ind{A})
=\inf\biggset{\sum_{\xstate{}\in A}p(x)}{p\in{\mathcal{M}}}
\end{equation*}
the \emph{lower probability} of the event $A$, and similarly $\jointupr{{\mathcal{M}}}(A)\coloneqq\jointupr{{\mathcal{M}}}(\ind{A})$ its \emph{upper probability}.
It can be shown \cite{walley1991} that the functional $\jointlpr{{\mathcal{M}}}$ satisfies the following set of interesting mathematical properties, which define a \emph{coherent lower prevision}:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\upshape C\arabic*.,ref=\upshape C\arabic*,leftmargin=*]
\item\label{C1} $\jointlpr{{\mathcal{M}}}(f)\geq\min{f}$ for all $f\in\stategambles{}$,
\item\label{C2} $\jointlpr{{\mathcal{M}}}(\lambda{f})=\lambda\jointlpr{{\mathcal{M}}}(f)$ for all $f\in\stategambles{}$ and all real $\lambda\geq0$,\hfill[non-negative homogeneity]
\item\label{C3} $\jointlpr{{\mathcal{M}}}(f+g)\geq\jointlpr{{\mathcal{M}}}(f)+\jointlpr{{\mathcal{M}}}(g)$ for all $f,g\in\stategambles{}$.\hfill[superadditivity]
\end{enumerate}
Every set of mass functions ${\mathcal{M}}$ uniquely defines a coherent lower prevision $\jointlpr{{\mathcal{M}}}$, but in general the converse does not hold.
However, if we limit ourselves to sets of mass functions ${\mathcal{M}}$ that are closed and convex---which makes them \emph{credal sets}---they are in a one-to-one correspondence with coherent lower previsions \cite{walley1991}.
This implies that we can use the theory of coherent lower previsions as a tool for reasoning with closed convex sets of probability mass functions.
From now on, we will no longer explicitly refer to credal sets ${\mathcal{M}}$, but we will simply talk about coherent lower previsions $\jointlpr{}$.
It is useful to keep in mind that there always is a unique credal set that corresponds with such a coherent lower prevision: $\jointlpr{}=\jointlpr{{\mathcal{M}}}$ for some unique credal set ${\mathcal{M}}$, given by ${\mathcal{M}}=\set{p}{(\forall f\in\stategambles{})\jointpr{p}(f)\geq\jointlpr{}(f)}$.
A special kind of imprecise model on $\states{}$ is the \emph{vacuous} lower prevision.
It is a model that represents complete ignorance and therefore has the set of all possible mass functions on $\states{}$ as its credal set ${\mathcal{M}}$.
It can be shown easily that for every $f\in\stategambles{}$, the corresponding lower prevision is given by $\jointlpr{}(f)=\min f$.
Conditional lower and upper previsions, which are extensions of the classical conditional expectation functionals, can be defined in a similar, intuitively obvious way as lower envelopes associated with sets of conditional mass functions.
Consider a variable $\statevar{}$ in $\states{}$ and a variable $Y$ in $\mathcal{Y}$.
A \emph{conditional lower prevision} $\jointlpr{}(\cdot\vert Y)$ on the set $\stategambles{}$ of all gambles on $\states{}$ is a two-place real-valued function.
For any gamble $f$ on $\states{}$, $\jointlpr{}(f\vert Y)$ is a gamble on $\mathcal{Y}$, whose value $\jointlpr{}(g\vert y)$ in $y\in\mathcal{Y}$ is the lower prevision of $g$, \emph{conditional on the event $Y=y$}.
If for any $y\in\mathcal{Y}$, the lower prevision $\jointlpr{}(\cdot\vert y)$ is coherent---satisfies conditions~\ref{C1}--\ref{C3}---then we call the conditional lower prevision $\jointlpr{}(\cdot\vert Y)$ \emph{separately coherent}.
It will sometimes be useful to extend the domain of the conditional lower prevision $\jointlpr{}(\cdot\vert y)$ from $\stategambles{}$ to $\mathcal{G}(\states{}\times\mathcal{Y})$ by letting $\jointlpr{}(f\vert y)\coloneqq\jointlpr{}(f(\cdot,y)\vert y)$ for all gambles $f$ on $\states{}\times\mathcal{Y}$.
If we have a number of conditional lower previsions involving a number of variables, then each of them must be separately coherent, but we also have to make sure that they satisfy a more stringent \emph{joint coherence} requirement.
Explaining this in detail would take us too far, but we refer to Ref.~\cite{walley1991} for a detailed discussion, with motivation.
For our present purposes, it suffices to say that joint coherence is very closely related to making sure that these conditional lower previsions are lower envelopes associated with conditional mass functions that satisfy Bayes's Rule.
For a given lower prevision $\jointlpr{}$ on $\mathcal{G}(\states{}\times\mathcal{Y})$, a corresponding conditional lower prevision $\jointlpr{}(\cdot\vert Y)$ that is jointly coherent with $\jointlpr{}$ is not uniquely defined.
It is however shown in Ref.~\cite{miranda2009a} that it always lies between the so-called natural and regular extensions.
Using \emph{natural extension}, the conditional coherent lower prevision $\jointlpr{}(\cdot\vert Y)$ is defined by $\jointlpr{}(f\vert y)\coloneqq\max\set{\mu\in\mathbb{R}}{\jointlpr{}(\indsing{y}[f-\mu])\geq0}$ if $\jointlpr{}(\{y\})>0$, and it is vacuous and thus given by $\jointlpr{}(f\vert y)\coloneqq\min f$ if $\jointlpr{}(\{y\})=0$.
This is the smallest (most conservative) way of conditioning a lower prevision.
If $\jointlpr{}(\{y\})>0$, it corresponds to conditioning every probability mass function in the credal set of $\jointlpr{}$ on the observation that $Y = y$ and taking the lower envelope of all these conditioned mass functions.
Using \emph{regular extension}, the conditional coherent lower prevision $\jointlpr{}(\cdot\vert Y)$ is defined by $\jointlpr{}(f\vert y)\coloneqq\max\set{\mu\in\mathbb{R}}{\jointlpr{}(\ind{y}[f-\mu])\geq0}$ if $\jointupr{}(\{y\})>0$, and it is vacuous if $\jointupr{}(\{y\})=0$.
This gives us the greatest (most informative) conditional lower prevision that is jointly coherent with the original unconditional lower prevision.
It corresponds to taking all mass functions $p$ in the credal set of $\jointlpr{}$ for which $p(y)\neq0$, conditioning them on the observation that $Y=y$ and taking their lower envelope.
Natural and regular extension coincide if $\jointlpr{}(\{y\})>0$ or $\jointupr{}(\{y\})=0$ but are different if $\jointupr{}(\{y\})>\jointlpr{}(\{y\})=0$.
In the latter case, natural extension is vacuous, but regular extension usually remains more informative.
In this introduction, coherent lower previsions were interpreted as an alternative representation for closed and convex sets of probability mass functions.
This approach is often adopted by sensitivity analysts and is rather intuitive for people who are used to working in classical probability theory.
For the sake of completeness, we mention here that coherent lower previsions can also be given a behavioural interpretation, without using the notion of a probability mass function.
The lower prevision $\jointlpr{}(f)$ of a gamble $f\in\stategambles{}$ can be interpreted as the supremum acceptable buying price that a subject is willing to pay in order to gain the (possibly negative) reward $f(x)$ after the outcome $x\in\states{}$ of the experiment has been determined.
See Ref.~\cite{walley1991} for more information regarding this interpretation.
\section{Basic notions}
\label{sec:basics}
An imprecise hidden Markov model can be depicted using the following probabilistic graphical model:
\par
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzset{node distance=1.9 cm, auto}
\node[knoopstate] (1) at (-1,1) {$\statevar{1}$};
\node[knoopstate] (2) [right of = 1] {$\statevar{2}$};
\node[knoopstate] (3) at ($(2)+(1.5*1.9 cm , 0)$) {$\statevar{k}$};
\node[knoopstate] (4) at ($(3)+(1.5*1.9 cm, 0)$) {$\statevar{n}$};
\node[knoopobservatie] (5) [below of = 1] {$\outvar{1}$};
\node[knoopobservatie] (6) [below of = 2] {$\outvar{2}$};
\node[knoopobservatie] (7) [below of = 3] {$\outvar{k}$};
\node[knoopobservatie] (8) [below of = 4] {$\outvar{n}$};
\draw[pijl1] (1) -- (2) ;
\draw[pijl4] (2) to node[] {} ($(2)+(1 cm, 0)$);
\draw[pijl1] ($(3)+(-1 cm,0)$) to node[] {} (3);
\draw[pijl3] ($(2)+(1 cm, 0)$) to node[] {} ($(3)+(-1 cm,0)$) ;
\draw[pijl4] (3) to node[] {} ($(3)+(1 cm, 0)$);
\draw[pijl1] ($(4)+(-1 cm,0)$) to node[] {} (4);
\draw[pijl3] ($(3)+(1 cm, 0)$) to node[] {} ($(4)+(-1 cm,0)$) ;
\draw[pijl1] (1) -- (5) ;
\draw[pijl1] (2) -- (6) ;
\draw[pijl1] (3) -- (7) ;
\draw[pijl1] (4) -- (8) ;
\draw (1) node [above=15pt]{$\statelprone{}$};
\draw (2) node [above=15pt]{$\stateclpr{2}{1}$};
\draw (3) node [above=15pt]{$\stateclpr{k}{k-1}$};
\draw (4) node [above=15pt]{$\stateclpr{n}{n-1}$};
\draw (5) node [below=17pt]{$\outclpr{1}$};
\draw (6) node [below=17pt]{$\outclpr{2}$};
\draw (7) node [below=17pt]{$\outclpr{k}$};
\draw (8) node [below=17pt]{$\outclpr{n}$};
\draw (1) node [left=20pt]{State sequence:};
\draw (5) node [left=20pt]{Output sequence:};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Tree representation of a hidden Markov model}
\label{fig:hmmtree}
\end{figure}
\noindent
Here $n$ is some natural number.
The \emph{state variables} $\statevar{1}$, \dots, $\statevar{n}$ assume values in the respective finite sets $\states{1}$, \dots, $\states{n}$, and the \emph{output variables} $\outvar{1}$, \dots, $\outvar{n}$ assume values in the respective finite sets $\outs{1}$, \dots, $\outs{n}$.
We denote generic values of $\statevar{k}$ by $\xstate{k}$, $\xhatstate{k}$ or $\zstate{k}$, and generic values of $\outvar{k}$ by $\out{k}$.
\subsection{Local uncertainty models}\label{sec:local}
We assume that we have the following local uncertainty models for these variables.
For $\statevar{1}$, we have a \emph{marginal} lower prevision $\statelpr{1}$, defined on the set $\stategambles{1}$ of all real-valued maps (or \emph{gambles}) on $\states{1}$.
For the subsequent states $\statevar{k}$, with $k\in\{2,\dots,n\}$, we have a conditional lower prevision $\stateclpr{k}{k-1}$ defined on $\stategambles{k}$, called a \emph{transition model}.
In order to maintain uniformity of notation, we will also denote the marginal lower prevision $\statelpr{1}$ as a conditional lower prevision $\stateclpr{1}{0}$, where $\statevar{0}$ denotes a variable that may only assume a single value, and whose value is therefore certain.
For any gamble $f_k$ in $\stategambles{k}$, $\stateclpr[f_k]{k}{k-1}$ is interpreted as a gamble on $\states{k-1}$, whose value $\zinstateclpr[f_k]{k}{k-1}$ in any $\zstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$ is the lower prevision of the gamble $f_k(\statevar{k})$, conditional on $\statevar{k-1}=\zstate{k-1}$.
\par
In addition, for each output $\outvar{k}$, with $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, we have a conditional lower prevision $\outclpr{k}$ defined on $\outgambles{k}$, called an \emph{emission model}.
For any gamble $g_k$ in $\outgambles{k}$, $\outclpr[g_k]{k}$ is interpreted as a gamble on $\states{k}$, whose value $\zinoutclpr[g_k]{k}$ in any $\zstate{k}\in\states{k}$ is the lower prevision of the gamble $g_k(\outvar{k})$, conditional on $\statevar{k}=\zstate{k}$.
\par
We take all these local (marginal, transition and emission) uncertainty models to be \emph{separately coherent}.
Recall that this simply means that for any $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, the lower prevision $\zinstateclpr{k}{k-1}$ should be coherent (as an unconditional lower prevision) for every $\zstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$ and $\zinoutclpr{k}$ should be coherent for every $\zstate{k}\in\states{k}$.
\subsection{Interpretation of the graphical structure}\label{sec:interpretation}
We will assume that the graphical representation in Figure~\ref{fig:hmmtree} represents the following irrelevance assessments: \emph{conditional on its mother variable, the non-parent non-descendants of any variable in the tree are epistemically irrelevant to this variable and its descendants.}
We say that a variable $\statevar{}$ is \emph{epistemically irrelevant} to a variable $Y$ if observing $\statevar{}$ does not affect our beliefs about $Y$.
Mathematically stated in terms of lower previsions: $\jointlpr{}(f(Y))=\xinjointclpr[f(Y)]{}{}$ for all $f\in\mathcal{G}(\others)$ and all $x\in\states{}$.
Before we go on, it will be useful to introduce some mathematical short-hand notation for describing joint variables in the tree of Figure~\ref{fig:hmmtree}.
For any $1\leq k\leq\ell\leq n$, we denote the tuple $(\statevar{k},\statevar{k+1},\dots,\statevar{\ell})$ by $\fromtostatevar{k}{\ell}$, and
the tuple $(\outvar{k},\outvar{k+1},\dots,\outvar{\ell})$ by $\fromtooutvar{k}{\ell}$.
$\fromtostatevar{k}{\ell}$ is a (joint) variable that can assume all values in the set $\fromtostates{k}{\ell}\coloneqq\times_{r=k}^\ell\states{r}$, and $\fromtooutvar{k}{\ell}$ is a (joint) variable that can assume all values in the set $\fromtoouts{k}{\ell}\coloneqq\times_{r=k}^\ell\outs{r}$.
Generic values of $\fromtostatevar{k}{\ell}$ are denoted by $\fromtoxstate{k}{\ell}$ or $\fromtozstate{k}{\ell}$, and generic values of $\fromtooutvar{k}{\ell}$ by $\fromtoout{k}{\ell}$.
\begin{example}
Consider the variable $\statevar{k}$ with mother variable $\statevar{k-1}$ in Figure~\ref{fig:hmmtree}.
The variables $\fromtostatevar{1}{k-2}$ and $\fromtooutvar{1}{k-1}$ are its non-parent non-descendants, and the variables $\fromtostatevar{k+1}{n}$ and $\fromtooutvar{k}{n}$ its descendants.
Our interpretation of the graphical structure of Figure~\ref{fig:hmmtree} implies that once we know (conditional on) the value $\xstate{k_1}$ of $\statevar{k-1}$, additionally learning the values of any of the variables $\statevar{1}$, \dots, $\statevar{k-2}$ and $\outvar{1}$, \dots, $\outvar{k-1}$ will not change our beliefs about $\fromtostatevar{k}{n}$ and $\fromtooutvar{k}{n}$.
\hfill $\blacklozenge$
\end{example}
Epistemic irrelevance is weaker than the so-called \emph{strong independence} condition that is usually associated with \emph{credal networks} \cite{cozman2000}, which is the name usually given to probabilistic graphical models with coherent lower previsions as local uncertainty models.
Recent work \cite{cooman2009} has shown that using this weaker condition guarantees that an efficient algorithm exists for updating beliefs about a single target node of a credal \emph{tree}, that is essentially linear in the number of nodes in the tree.
\subsection{A joint uncertainty model}\label{sec:jointmodel}
Using the local uncertainty models, we now want to construct a global model: a joint lower prevision $\jointlpr{}$ on $\fromstateoutgambles{1}$ for all the variables $(\fromtostatevar{1}{n},\fromtooutvar{1}{n})$ in the tree.
This joint lower prevision should (i) be jointly coherent with all the local models; (ii) encode all epistemic irrelevance assessments encoded in the tree; and (iii) be as small, or conservative,\footnote{Recall that point-wise smaller lower previsions correspond to larger credal sets.} as possible.
This is a special case of a more general problem for credal trees, discussed and solved in great detail in Ref.~\cite{cooman2009}.
In this section, we summarise the solution for iHMMs and give an heuristic justification for it, but we refer to Ref.~\cite{cooman2009} for a proof that the joint model we present below is indeed the most conservative lower prevision that is coherent with all the local models and captures all epistemic irrelevance assessments encoded in the tree.
We proceed in a recursive manner, and consider any $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$.
For any $\xstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$, we consider the smallest coherent joint lower prevision $\xinjointclpr{k}{k-1}$ on $\fromstateoutgambles{k}$ for the variables $(\fromstatevar{k},\fromoutvar{k})$ on the iHMM depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:hmmsubtree}, representing a subtree of the tree represented in Figure~\ref{fig:hmmtree}, with the lower prevision $\xinstateclpr{k}{k-1}$ acting as the marginal model for the `first' state variable $\statevar{k}$.
Note that the global model $\jointlpr{}$ we are looking for can be identified with the conditional lower prevision $\jointclpr{1}{0}$, for the reasons given in Section~\ref{sec:local}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9]
\tikzset{node distance=3 cm, auto}
\node[knoop1,minimum size=1cm] (1) at (-1,1) {$\statevar{k}$};
\node[knoop1,minimum size=1cm] (2) at ($(1)+(1.5*3 cm,0)$) {$\statevar{k+1}$};
\node[knoop2,minimum size=1cm] (3) [below of = 1] {$\outvar{k}$};
\node[knoop2,minimum size=1cm] (4) [below of = 2] {$\outvar{k+1}$};
\draw[pijl1] (1) -- (2) ;
\draw[pijl1] (1) -- (3) ;
\draw[pijl1] (2) -- (4) ;
\draw[pijl1] ($(1)+(-0.5*3 cm,0)$) to node[] {} (1) ;
\draw[pijl3] ($(1)+(-3 cm,0)$) to node[] {} ($(1)+(-0.5*3 cm, 0)$);
\draw[pijl4] (2) to node[] {} ($(2)+(0.5*3 cm,0)$) ;
\draw[pijl3] ($(2)+(0.5*3 cm,0)$) to node[] {} ($(2)+(3 cm,0)$);
\draw (1) node [above=18pt]{$\xinstateclpr{k}{k-1}$};
\draw (2) node [above=18pt]{$\stateclpr{k+1}{k}$};
\draw (3) node [below=18pt]{$\outclpr{k}$};
\draw (4) node [below=18pt]{$\outclpr{k+1}$};
\draw[black,rounded corners=.8cm,loosely dashed, line width=2pt] ($(2)+(3 cm,0.6*3 cm)$) -- ($(2)+(-0.6*3 cm,0.6*3 cm)$) -- ($(4)+(-0.6*3 cm,-0.6*3 cm)$) -- ($(4)+(3 cm,-0.6*3 cm)$) ;
\draw[black,rounded corners=.8cm, loosely dotted, line width=1.5pt]
($(2)+(3 cm,0.7*3 cm)$) --
($(2)+(-0.7*3 cm,0.7*3 cm)$) --
($(4)+(-0.7*3 cm,0.5*3 cm)$) --
($(3)+(-0.6*3 cm,0.5*3 cm)$) --
($(3)+(-0.6*3 cm,-0.7*3 cm)$) --
($(4)+(3 cm,-0.7*3 cm)$) ;
\draw[black,rounded corners=.8cm, dotted, line width=.6pt]
($(2)+(3 cm,0.8*3 cm)$) --
($(1)+(-0.7*3 cm,0.8*3 cm)$) --
($(3)+(-0.7*3 cm,-0.8*3 cm)$) --
($(4)+(3 cm,-0.8*3 cm)$) ;
\node[draw=black,loosely dashed, line width=2pt, minimum width=2.57cm,minimum height=1.2cm,
rounded corners=.5cm] (5) at (8.5,-2) {$\jointclpr{k+1}{k}$};
\node[draw=black,loosely dotted, line width=1.5pt, minimum width=2.57cm,minimum height=1.2cm,
rounded corners=.5cm] (6) at ($(5)+(0,1.5cm)$) {$\indclpr{k}$};
\node[draw=black,dotted, line width=.6pt, minimum width=2.57cm,minimum height=1.2cm,
rounded corners=.5cm] (7) at ($(6)+(0,1.5cm)$) {$\jointclpr{k}{k-1}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Subtree of the iHMM involving the variables $(\fromstatevar{k},\fromoutvar{k})$}
\label{fig:hmmsubtree}
\end{figure}
Our aim is to develop recursive expressions that enable us to construct $\jointclpr{k}{k-1}$ out of $\jointclpr{k+1}{k}$.
Using these expressions over and over again will eventually yield the global model $\jointlpr{}=\jointclpr{1}{0}$.
In a first step, we combine the joint model $\jointclpr{k+1}{k}$ for the variables $(\fromstatevar{k+1},\fromoutvar{k+1})$, defined on $\fromtostateoutgambles{k+1}{k+1}{n}$---see the thick dotted lines in Figure~\ref{fig:hmmsubtree}---,with the local model $\outclpr{k}$ for the variable $\outvar{k}$, defined on $\outgambles{k}$.
This will lead to a joint model $\indclpr{k}$ for the variables $(\fromstatevar{k+1},\fromoutvar{k})$, defined on $\fromtostateoutgambles{k+1}{k}{n}$---see the semi-thick dotted lines in Figure~\ref{fig:hmmsubtree}.
This is trivial for $k=n$, since we must have that $\indclpr{n}=\outclpr{n}$.
For $k\neq n$, the solution is less obvious.
A joint model can be constructed in many different ways, so we will have to impose some conditions.
A first condition is that $\indclpr{k}$ should be a separately coherent conditional lower prevision that is jointly coherent with the `marginal' models $\jointclpr{k+1}{k}$ and $\outclpr{k}$.
A second, rather obvious, condition is that $\indclpr{k}$ should coincide with $\jointclpr{k+1}{k}$ and $\outclpr{k}$ on their respective domains.
A third condition is that the model should capture the epistemic irrelevance assessments encoded in the tree.
In particular these state that, conditional on $\statevar{k}$, the two variables $(\fromstatevar{k+1},\fromoutvar{k+1})$ and $\outvar{k}$ should be \emph{epistemically independent}, or in other words, epistemically irrelevant to one another.
Any model that meets all these conditions is called a (conditionally) \emph{independent product} \cite{cooman2011a} of $\jointclpr{k+1}{k}$ and $\outclpr{k}$.
Generally speaking, such a (conditionally) independent product is not unique.
We call the point-wise smallest, most conservative, of all possible (conditionally) independent products, which always exists, the (conditionally) \emph{independent natural extension} \cite{walley1991,cooman2011a} of $\jointclpr{k+1}{k}$ and $\outclpr{k}$, and we denote it as $\jointclpr{k+1}{k}\otimes\outclpr{k}$.
Summarising, $\indclpr{k}$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:indrecurse}
\indclpr{k}
\coloneqq
\begin{cases}
\outclpr{n}
&k=n\\
\outclpr{k}\otimes\jointclpr{k+1}{k}
&k=n-1,\dots,1
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The (conditionally) independent natural extension and its properties were studied in great detail in Ref.~\cite{cooman2011a}.
For the purposes of this paper, it will suffice to recall from that study that---very much like independent products of precise probability models---such independent natural extensions are \emph{factorising}, which implies in particular that
\begin{align}
\zinindclpr[fg]{k}
&=\zinindclpr[g\zinindclpr[f]{k}]{k}
\notag\\
&=\zinoutclpr[g{\zinjointclpr[f]{k+1}{k}}]{k}
\notag\\
&=
\begin{cases}
\zinoutclpr[g]{k}\zinjointclpr[f]{k+1}{k}
&\text{ if $\zinjointclpr[f]{k+1}{k}\geq0$}\\
\zinoutcupr[g]{k}\zinjointclpr[f]{k+1}{k}
&\text{ if $\zinjointclpr[f]{k+1}{k}\leq0$}
\end{cases}
\notag\\
&=\zinoutclupr[g]{k}\odot\zinjointclpr[f]{k+1}{k},
\label{eq:factorisation}
\end{align}
for all $\zstate{k}\in\states{k}$, all $f\in\fromstateoutgambles{k+1}$ and all \emph{non-negative} $g\in\outgambles{k}$---we call a gamble non-negative if all its values are.
In this expression, the first equality is the actual factorisation property.
The second equality holds because $\indclpr{k}$ coincides with $\jointclpr{k+1}{k}$ and $\outclpr{k}$ on their respective domains.
The third equality follows from the conjugacy relation~\eqref{eq:toegevoegdheid} and coherence condition \ref{C2}, and for the fourth we have used the shorthand notation $\signedprod{m}{x}\coloneqq\underline{m}\max\{0,x\}+\overline{m}\min\{0,x\}$.
Further on, we will also use the analogous notation $\overline{\underline{m}}\,\signedprod{n}{x}\coloneqq\underline{m}\,\underline{n}\max\{0,x\}+\overline{m}\,\overline{n}\min\{0,x\}$.
In a second and final step, we combine the joint model $\indclpr{k}$ for the variables $(\fromstatevar{k+1},\fromoutvar{k})$, defined on $\fromtostateoutgambles{k+1}{k}{n}$, with the local model $\xinstateclpr{k}{k-1}$ for the variable $\statevar{k}$, defined on $\stategambles{k}$, into the joint model $\jointclpr{k}{k-1}$ for the variables $(\fromstatevar{k},\fromoutvar{k})$, defined on $\fromtostateoutgambles{k}{k}{n}$.
It has been shown elsewhere \cite{walley1991,miranda2006b} that the most conservative coherent way of doing this, is by means of \emph{marginal extension}, also known as the law ot iterated (lower) expectations.
This leads to $\xinjointclpr{k}{k-1}\coloneqq\xinstateclpr[\indclpr{k}]{k}{k-1}$, or, if we now allow $\xstate{k-1}$ to range over $\states{k-1}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:jointrecurse}
\jointclpr{k}{k-1}\coloneqq\stateclpr[\indclpr{k}]{k}{k-1}.
\end{equation}
For practical purposes, it is useful to see that this is equivalent with
\begin{equation*}
\jointclpr[f]{k}{k-1}
=\statelpr{k}\bigg(
\sum_{\zstate{k}\in\states{k}}\indsing{\zstate{k}}\zinindclpr[{f(\zstate{k},\fromstatevar{k+1},\outvar{k:n})}]{k}
\Big\vert\statevar{k-1}
\bigg)
\end{equation*}
for all $f\in\fromstateoutgambles{k}$.
Recall that in this expression, the \emph{indicator} $\indsing{\zstate{k}}$ is a gamble on $\states{k}$ that assumes the value $1$ if $\statevar{k}=\zstate{k}$ and $0$ if $\statevar{k}\neq\zstate{k}$.
\subsection{Interesting lower and upper probabilities}\label{sec:assumption}
Without too much trouble,\footnote{As an example, we derive Equations~\eqref{eq:lower:state:out:mass} and~\eqref{eq:upper:state:out:mass} in Appendix~\ref{appendix}.}, we can use Equations~\eqref{eq:indrecurse}--\eqref{eq:jointrecurse} to derive the following expressions for a number of interesting lower and upper probabilities:
\begin{align}
\zinjointclpr[{\singfromout{k}\times\singfromzstate{k}}]{k}{k-1}
&=\prod_{i=k}^n\zinoutclpr[\singout{i}]{i}\zinstateclpr[\singzstate{i}]{i}{i-1}
\label{eq:lower:state:out:mass}\\
\zinjointcupr[{\singfromout{k}\times\singfromzstate{k}}]{k}{k-1}
&=\prod_{i=k}^n\zinoutcupr[\singout{i}]{i}\zinstatecupr[\singzstate{i}]{i}{i-1}
\label{eq:upper:state:out:mass}
\end{align}
for all $\zstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$, $\fromzstate{k}\in\fromstates{k}$, $\fromout{k}\in\fromouts{k}$ and $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, and
\begin{align}
\zinindclpr[{\singfromout{k}\times\singfromzstate{k+1}}]{k}
&=\zinoutclpr[\singout{k}]{k}\prod_{i=k+1}^n\zinoutclpr[\singout{i}]{i}\zinstateclpr[\singzstate{i}]{i}{i-1}
\label{eq:Eonder}\\
\zinindcupr[{\singfromout{k}\times\singfromzstate{k+1}}]{k}
&=\zinoutcupr[\singout{k}]{k}\prod_{i=k+1}^n\zinoutcupr[\singout{i}]{i}\zinstatecupr[\singzstate{i}]{i}{i-1}.
\label{eq:Eboven}
\end{align}
for all $\zstate{k}\in\states{k}$, $\fromzstate{k+1}\in\fromstates{k+1}$, $\fromout{k}\in\fromouts{k}$ and $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$.
We will assume throughout that
\begin{equation*}
\jointupr{}(\singfromzstate{1}\times\singfromout{1})>0
\text{ for all $\fromzstate{1}\in\fromstates{1}$ and $\fromout{1}\in\fromouts{1}$}
\end{equation*}
or equivalently, that all \emph{local upper previsions are positive}, in the sense that \cite{cooman2009}:
\begin{multline}\label{eq:assumption}
\zinstatecupr[\singzstate{k}]{k}{k-1}>0
\text{ and }
\zinoutcupr[\singout{k}]{k}>0\\
\text{ for all $\zstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$, $\zstate{k}\in\states{k}$, $\out{k}\in\outs{k}$ and $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$.}
\end{multline}
This assumption is very weak and not at all restrictive for practical purposes.
The imprecise-probabilistic local models are usually constructed by adding some margin of error around a precise model, thereby making all upper transition probabilities positive by construction.
We will however allow lower transition probabilities to be zero, which is something that does happen often in practical problems.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:PenEpos}
The assumption~\eqref{eq:assumption} that all local upper previsions are positive implies that $\zinjointcupr[\singfromout{k}]{k}{k-1}>0$ and $\zinindcupr[\singfromout{k}]{k}>0$ for all $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, $\zstate{k}\in\states{k}$, $\zstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$ and $\fromout{k}\in\fromouts{k}$.
\end{proposition}
\section{Estimating states from outputs}
\label{sec:optimal-sequences}
In a hidden Markov model, the states are not directly observable, but the outputs are, and the general aim is to use the outputs to estimate the states.
We concentrate on the following problem: \emph{Suppose we have observed the output sequence~$\fromout{1}$, estimate the state sequence~$\fromxstate{1}$.}
We will use an essentially Bayesian approach to do so, but need to allow for the fact that we are working with imprecise rather than precise probability models.
\subsection{Updating the iHMM}\label{sec:updatingtheihmm}
The first step in our approach consists in updating (or conditioning) the joint model $\jointlpr{}\coloneqq\jointclpr{1}{0}$ on the observed outputs $\outvar{1:n}=\fromout{1}$.
As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:lpr}, there is no unique coherent way to perform this updating.
However, for the particular problem we are solving in this paper, it so happens that it makes no difference which updating method is used, as long as it is coherent.
For the time being, we choose to use the least conservative\footnote{The most conservative coherent way yields a vacuous model.} (most informative) coherent updating method, which is \emph{regular extension}.
Later on in Section~\ref{sec:maximalstatesequences}, we will show that any other coherent updating method yields the same results.
Since it follows from the positivity assumption~\eqref{eq:assumption} and Proposition~\ref{prop:PenEpos} that $\jointupr{}(\singfromout{1})>0$,
regular extension leads us to consider the updated lower prevision $\jointlpr{}(\cdot\vert\fromout{1})$ on $\fromstategambles{1}$, given by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GBR}
\jointlpr{}(f\vert\fromout{1})
\coloneqq\max\set{\mu\in\mathbb{R}}{\jointlpr{}(\indfromout{1}[f-\mu])\geq0}
\text{ for all gambles $f$ on $\fromstates{1}$.}
\end{equation}
Using the coherence of the joint lower prevision $\jointlpr{}$, it is not hard to prove that when $\jointlpr{}(\singfromout{1})>0$, $\jointlpr{}(\indfromout{1}[f-\mu])$ is a strictly decreasing and continuous function of $\mu$, which therefore has a unique zero (see Lemma~\ref{lemma:rho}\ref{eig:nscc}\&\ref{eig:dalend} in Appendix~\ref{appendix}).
As a consequence, we have for any $f\in\fromstategambles{1}$ that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:crucial}
\jointlpr{}(f\vert\fromout{1})\leq0
\Leftrightarrow
(\forall\mu>0) \jointlpr{}(\indfromout{1}[f-\mu])<0
\Leftrightarrow
\jointlpr{}(\indfromout{1}f)\leq0.
\end{equation}
In fact, it is not hard to infer from the strictly decreasing and continuous character of $\jointlpr{}(\indfromout{1}[f-\mu])$ that $\jointlpr{}(f\vert\fromout{1})$ and $\jointlpr{}(\indfromout{1}f)$ have the same sign.
They are either both negative, both positive or both equal to zero;
see also the illustration below.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[domain=-1:1.5]
\coordinate (a) at (1,0);
\coordinate (b) at (0,1);
\draw[->] (-2,0) -- (4,0) node[below right] {$\mu$};
\draw[->] (0,-1) -- (0,2);
\draw[semithick] plot (\x,{(9-(\x+2)^2)/5}) node[right] {$\jointlpr{}(\indfromout{1}[f-\mu])$};
\node[below of=a,node distance=40] (c) {$\jointlpr{}(f\vert\fromout{1})$};
\path[commentlink] (a) -- (c);
\node[circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill=gray] at (a) {};
\node[left of=b,node distance=50] (d) {$\jointlpr{}(\indfromout{1}f)$};
\path[commentlink] (b) -- (d);
\node[circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill=gray] at (b) {};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
Equation~\eqref{eq:crucial} will be of crucial importance further on.
However, in general, we want to allow $\jointlpr{}(\singfromout{1})$ to be zero (because this may happen if you allow lower transition
probabilities to be zero), while requiring that $\jointupr{}(\singfromout{1})>0$ (because this follows from the positivity assumption~\eqref{eq:assumption} and Proposition~\ref{prop:PenEpos}).
This will, generally speaking, invalidate the second equivalence in Equation~\eqref{eq:crucial}: it turns into an implication only.
But, if we limit ourselves to the specific type of gambles on $\fromstates{1}$ of the form $f=\indfromxhatstate{1}-\indfromxstate{1}$, we can still prove the following important theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:crucial}
If all local upper previsions are positive, then $\jointlpr{}(\indfromout{1}[\indfromxstate{1}-\indfromxhatstate{1}])$ and $\jointlpr{}(\indfromxstate{1}-\indfromxhatstate{1}\vert\fromout{1})$ have the same sign for all fixed values of $\fromxstate{1},\fromxhatstate{1}\in\fromstates{1}$ and $\fromout{1}\in\fromouts{1}$.
They are both positive, both negative or both zero.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Maximal state sequences}\label{sec:maximalstatesequences}
The next step now consists in using the posterior model $\jointlpr{}(\cdot\vert\fromout{1})$ to find best estimates for the state sequence $\fromxstate{1}$.
On the Bayesian approach, this is usually done by solving a decision-making, or optimisation problem: we associate a gain function $\indfromxstate{1}$ with every candidate state sequence $\fromxstate{1}$, and select as best estimates those state sequences $\fromxhatstate{1}$ that maximise the posterior expected gain, resulting in state sequences with maximal posterior probability.
\par
Here we generalise this decision-making approach towards working with imprecise probability models.
The criterion we use to decide which estimates are optimal for the given gain functions is that of (Walley--Sen) \emph{maximality} \cite{troffaes2007,walley1991}.
Maximality has a number of very desirable properties that make sure it works well in optimisation contexts \cite{cooman2005a,huntley2011}, and it is well-justified from a behavioural point of view, as well as in a robustness approach, as we shall see presently.
\par
We can express a strict preference $\succ$ between two state sequence estimates $\fromxhatstate{1}$ and $\fromxstate{1}$ as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\fromxhatstate{1}\succ\fromxstate{1}
\Leftrightarrow\jointlpr{}(\indfromxhatstate{1}-\indfromxstate{1}\vert\fromout{1})>0.
\end{equation*}
On a behavioural interpretation, this expresses that a subject with lower prevision $\jointlpr{}(\cdot\vert\fromout{1})$ is disposed to pay some strictly positive amount of utility to replace the (gain associated with the) estimate $\fromxstate{1}$ with the (gain associated with the) estimate $\fromxhatstate{1}$; see Ref.~\cite[Section~3.9]{walley1991} for more details.
Alternatively, from a robustness point of view, this expresses that for each conditional mass function $p(\cdot\vert\fromout{1})$ in the credal set associated with the updated lower prevision $\jointlpr{}(\cdot\vert\fromout{1})$, the state sequence $\fromxhatstate{1}$ has a posterior probability $p(\fromxhatstate{1}\vert\fromout{1})$ that is \emph{strictly higher} than the posterior probability $p(\fromxstate{1}\vert\fromout{1})$ of the state sequence $\fromxstate{1}$.
The binary relation $\succ$ thus defined is a strict partial order [an irreflexive and transitive binary relation] on the set of state sequences $\fromstates{1}$, and we consider an estimate $\fromxhatstate{1}$ to be \emph{optimal} when it is \emph{undominated}, or \emph{maximal}, in this strict partial order:
\begin{align}\label{eq:globoptimals}
\fromxhatstate{1}\in\globfromopt
&\Leftrightarrow(\forall\fromxstate{1}\in\fromstates{1})
\fromxstate{1}\not\succ\fromxhatstate{1}\notag\\
&\Leftrightarrow(\forall\fromxstate{1}\in\fromstates{1})
\jointlpr{}(\indfromxstate{1}-\indfromxhatstate{1}\vert\fromout{1})\leq0\notag\\
&\Leftrightarrow(\forall\fromxstate{1}\in\fromstates{1})
\jointlpr{}(\indfromout{1}[\indfromxstate{1}-\indfromxhatstate{1}])\leq0,
\end{align}
where the very useful last equivalence follows from Theorem~\ref{theorem:crucial}.
\emph{In summary then, the aim of this paper is to develop an efficient algorithm for finding the set of maximal estimates $\globfromopt$}.
Our statement in Section~\ref{sec:updatingtheihmm}, that any coherent updating method would yield the same results as regular extension, can now be justified.
Since coherent updating is unique if $\jointlpr{}(\singfromout{1})>0$, we only need to motivate our statement in the special case that $\jointlpr{}(\singfromout{1})=0$ and $\jointupr{}(\singfromout{1})>0$.
If we use regular extension to update our model, the optimal estimates are given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:globoptimals}.
For the special case $\jointlpr{}(\singfromout{1})=0$ however, we find for all $\fromxstate{1}\in\fromstates{1}$ and $\fromxhatstate{1}\in\fromstates{1}$ that
\begin{equation*}
\jointlpr{}(\indfromout{1}[\indfromxstate{1}-\indfromxhatstate{1}])\leq\jointlpr{}(\indfromout{1})=\jointlpr{}(\singfromout{1})=0,
\end{equation*}
where the first inequality follows from the monotonicity of coherent lower previsions (as a consequence of \ref{C1} and \ref{C2}).
Therefore, we find that if $\jointlpr{}(\singfromout{1})=0$, all sequences are optimal, resulting in $\globfromopt=\fromstates{1}$.
If we use natural extension to update our joint model, the optimal state sequences are still given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:globoptimals}, but the final equivalence would no longer hold because it uses Theorem~\ref{theorem:crucial}, which assumes the use of regular extension to perform updating of the joint model.
However, for the special case of $\jointlpr{}(\singfromout{1})=0$, natural extension by definition leads to the updated model being equal to the vacuous one.
Therefore, we find for all $\fromxstate{1}\in\fromstates{1}$ and $\fromxhatstate{1}\in\fromstates{1}$ that
\begin{equation*}
\jointlpr{}(\indfromxstate{1}-\indfromxhatstate{1}\vert\fromout{1})
=\min(\indfromxstate{1}-\indfromxhatstate{1})
\leq0.
\end{equation*}
This implies that for the special case of $\jointlpr{}(\singfromout{1})=0$ and $\jointupr{}(\singfromout{1})>0$---identical to what we found for regular extension---natural extension also results in all sequences being optimal, meaning that $\globfromopt=\fromstates{1}$.
We have thus shown that, in the special case when $\jointlpr{}(\singfromout{1})=0$ and $\jointupr{}(\singfromout{1})>0$, the set of optimal sequences is the same, regardless of whether we use natural or regular extension to update our joint model.
Since every other coherent updating method lies in between those two methods, $\globfromopt$ does not depend on the updating method, as long as it is coherent.
If $\jointlpr{}(\singfromout{1})>0$, coherent updating is unique and thus equal to regular extension, thereby making this result trivial in that case.
We can therefore conclude that the results in this paper do not depend on the particular updating method that is chosen, as long as it is coherent.
Instead of looking for the maximal state sequences, one could also use other decision criteria.
A first approach that we will not consider here, could consist in trying to find the so-called $\Gamma$-\emph{maximin} state sequences $\fromxbarstate{1}$, which maximise the posterior lower probability:
\begin{equation*}
\fromxbarstate{1}
\in\argmax_{\fromxstate{1}\in\fromstates{1}}\jointlpr{}(\singfromxstate{1}\vert\fromout{1})
\end{equation*}
While it is well known that any such $\Gamma$-maximin sequence is in particular guaranteed to also be a maximal sequence, finding such $\Gamma$-maximin sequences seems to be a much more complicated affair.\footnote{Private communication from Cassio de Campos.}
Of course, once we know all maximal solutions, we could determine which of them are the $\Gamma$-maximin solutions by comparing their posterior lower probabilities.
As far as we can see, however, calculating these seems no trivial task from a computational point of view.
We expect similar computational difficulties with yet another approach, also not considered here, which consists in finding the so-called \emph{E-admissable} sequences.
They are those sequences that maximise the expected gain for at least one conditional mass function $p(\cdot\vert\fromout{1})$ in the credal set associated with the updated lower prevision $\jointlpr{}(\cdot\vert\fromout{1})$.
Similarly to the $\Gamma$-maximin solutions, the E-admissable ones are also known to be contained within the set of maximal ones that we will be constructing.
The main reason why our approach is so efficient compared to the other ones, is that we do not have to explicitly calculate the value of lower previsions, but only need to know their sign, thereby allowing us to work directly with the joint model, instead of the updated model.
\subsection{Maximal subsequences}
We shall see below that in order to find the set of maximal estimates, it is useful to consider more general sets of so-called maximal subsequences: for any $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ and $\zstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$, we define $\fromopt[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:optimals}
\fromxhatstate{k}\in\fromopt[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}
\Leftrightarrow(\forall\fromxstate{k}\in \fromstates{k})~
\zinjointclpr[{\indfromout{k}[\indfromxstate{k}-\indfromxhatstate{k}]}]{k}{k-1}\leq0.
\end{equation}
The interpretation of these sets is immediate: consider the following part of the original iHMM, where we take $\zinstateclpr{k}{k-1}$ as the marginal model for the first state $\statevar{k}$:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzset{node distance=1.9 cm, auto}
\node[knoopstate] (1) at (-1,1) {$\statevar{k}$};
\node[knoopstate] (3) at ($(1)+(1.5*1.9 cm , 0)$) {$\statevar{r}$};
\node[knoopstate] (4) at ($(3)+(1.5*1.9 cm, 0)$) {$\statevar{n}$};
\node[knoopobservatie] (5) [below of = 1] {$\outvar{k}$};
\node[knoopobservatie] (7) [below of = 3] {$\outvar{r}$};
\node[knoopobservatie] (8) [below of = 4] {$\outvar{n}$};
\draw[pijl4] (1) to node[] {} ($(1)+(1 cm, 0)$);
\draw[pijl1] ($(3)+(-1 cm,0)$) to node[] {} (3);
\draw[pijl3] ($(1)+(1 cm, 0)$) to node[] {} ($(3)+(-1 cm,0)$) ;
\draw[pijl4] (3) to node[] {} ($(3)+(1 cm, 0)$);
\draw[pijl1] ($(4)+(-1 cm,0)$) to node[] {} (4);
\draw[pijl3] ($(3)+(1 cm, 0)$) to node[] {} ($(4)+(-1 cm,0)$) ;
\draw[pijl1] (1) -- (5) ;
\draw[pijl1] (3) -- (7) ;
\draw[pijl1] (4) -- (8) ;
\draw (1) node [above=15pt]{$\zinstateclpr{k}{k-1}$};
\draw (3) node [above=15pt]{$\stateclpr{r}{r-1}$};
\draw (4) node [above=15pt]{$\stateclpr{n}{n-1}$};
\draw (5) node [below=17pt]{$\outclpr{k}$};
\draw (7) node [below=17pt]{$\outclpr{r}$};
\draw (8) node [below=17pt]{$\outclpr{n}$};
\draw (1) node [left=20pt]{State subsequence:};
\draw (5) node [left=20pt]{Output subsequence:};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
Then, as we have argued in Section~\ref{sec:jointmodel}, the corresponding joint lower prevision on $\fromstateoutgambles{k}$ is precisely $\zinjointclpr{k}{k-1}$, and if we have a sequence of outputs $\fromout{k}$, then $\fromopt[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$ is the set of state sequence estimates that are undominated by any other estimate in $\fromstates{k}$.
It should be clear that the set $\globfromopt$ we are eventually looking for, can also be written as $\optim\left(\fromstates{1}\vert\zstate{0},\fromout{1}\right)$.
\subsection{Useful recursion equations}
Fix any $k$ in $\{1,\dots,n\}$. If we look at Equation~\eqref{eq:optimals}, we see that it will be useful to derive a manageable expression for the lower prevision $\zinjointclpr[{\indfromout{k}[\indfromxstate{k}-\indfromxhatstate{k}]}]{k}{k-1}$.
This can be easily done (see Appendix~\ref{appendix}) using Equations~\eqref{eq:indrecurse}--\eqref{eq:upper:state:out:mass} together with a few algebraic manipulations. We consider three different cases.
If $\xhatstate{k}=\xstate{k}$ and $k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}$ then, using the notation introduced in Section~\ref{sec:jointmodel}:
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:target:equal}
\zinjointclpr[\indfromout{k}[\indfromxstate{k}-\indfromxhatstate{k}]{k}{k-1}\\=
\zinstateclupr[\singxhatstate{k}]{k}{k-1}\xhatinoutclupr[\singout{k}]{k}
\odot\xhatinjointclpr[\indfromout{k+1}[\indfromxstate{k+1}-\indfromxhatstate{k+1}]{k+1}{k}.
\end{multline}
If $\xhatstate{n}=\xstate{n}$ then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:target:equal:final}
\zinjointclpr[\indout{n}[\indxstate{n}-\indxhatstate{n}]{n}{n-1}=0.
\end{equation}
If $\xhatstate{k}\neq\xstate{k}$ and $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:target:different}
\zinjointclpr[\indfromout{k}[\indfromxstate{k}-\indfromxhatstate{k}]{k}{k-1}
=\zinstateclpr[{\indxstate{k}\fromxlmem{k}-\indxhatstate{k}\fromxhatumem{k}}]{k}{k-1},
\end{equation}
where we define, for any $\fromzstate{k}\in\fromstates{k}$:
\begin{align}
\fromzlmem{k}
&\coloneqq\zinindclpr[{\indfromout{k}\indfromzstate{k+1}}]{k}=\zinoutclpr[\singout{k}]{k}
\prod_{i=k+1}^n\zinoutclpr[\singout{i}]{i}\zinstateclpr[\singzstate{i}]{i}{i-1}\label{eq:beta}\\
\fromzumem{k}
&\coloneqq\zinindcupr[{\indfromout{k}\indfromzstate{k+1}}]{k}=\zinoutcupr[\singout{k}]{k}
\prod_{i=k+1}^n\zinoutcupr[\singout{i}]{i}\zinstatecupr[\singzstate{i}]{i}{i-1}.\label{eq:alpha}
\end{align}
For any given sequence of states $\fromzstate{k}\in\fromstates{k}$, the $\fromzumem{k}$ and $\fromzlmem{k}$ can be found by simple backward recursion:
\begin{align}
\fromzumem{k}
&\coloneqq\fromzumem{k+1}\zinoutcupr[\singout{k}]{k}\zinstatecupr[\singzstate{k+1}]{k+1}{k}
\label{eq:alpharecurs}\\
\fromzlmem{k}
&\coloneqq\fromzlmem{k+1}\zinoutclpr[\singout{k}]{k}\zinstateclpr[\singzstate{k+1}]{k+1}{k},
\label{eq:betarecurs}
\end{align}
for $k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}$, and starting from:
\begin{equation*}
\fromzumem{n}=\zumem{n}\coloneqq\zinoutcupr[\singout{n}]{n}
\text{ and }
\fromzlmem{n}=\zlmem{n}\coloneqq\zinoutclpr[\singout{n}]{n}.
\end{equation*}
\section{The Principle of Optimality}
\label{sec:principle-of-optimality}
Determining the state sequences in $\globfromopt$ directly using Equation~\eqref{eq:globoptimals} clearly has exponential complexity (in the length of the chain).
We are now going to take a dynamic programming approach
\cite{bellman1957} to reducing this complexity by deriving a recursion
equation for the sets of optimal (sub)sequences $\fromopt[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$.
\begin{theorem}[Principle of Optimality]\label{theorem:optimality}
For $k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}$, all $\zstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$ and all $\fromxhatstate{k}\in\fromstates{k}$: if $\zinstateclpr[\singxhatstate{k}]{k}{k-1}>0$ and $\xhatinoutclpr[\singout{k}]{k}>0$, then
\begin{equation*}
\fromxhatstate{k}\in\fromopt[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}
\Rightarrow\fromxhatstate{k+1}\in\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{\hat{x}}{k}{k+1}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
As an immediate consequence, we find that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pop1imprecies}
\fromopt[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}
\subseteq\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k},
\end{equation}
with $\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$ being the set of sequences in $\fromstates{k}$ that can still be an element of $\fromopt[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$ according the the theorem above:
\begin{multline}\label{eq:pop2imprecies}
\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}\\
\coloneqq
\bigg(
\bigcup_{\zstate{k}\in \pos_k(\zstate{k-1})}\zstate{k}\oplus\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{z}{k}{k+1}
\bigg)
\cup
\bigg(
\bigcup_{\zstate{k}\notin \pos_k(\zstate{k-1})}\zstate{k}\oplus\states{k+1:n}
\bigg).
\end{multline}
Here $\oplus$ denotes concatenation of state sequences and the set of states $\pos_k(\zstate{k-1})\subseteq\states{k}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pop3imprecies}
\zstate{k}\in \pos_k(\zstate{k-1})
\Leftrightarrow
\zinstateclpr[\singzstate{k}]{k}{k-1}>0\text{ en }\zinoutclpr[\singout{k}]{k}>0.
\end{equation}
Equation~\eqref{eq:pop2imprecies} simplifies to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pop4imprecies}
\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}
=\bigcup_{\zstate{k}\in\states{k}}\zstate{k}\oplus\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{z}{k}{k+1}
\end{equation}
if all local lower previsions are positive, but this is not generally true in the more general case we are considering here, where only the upper previsions are required to be positive.
We also introduce the following notation:
\begin{equation}\label{def:doorsnede}
\frommogDoor[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}{\xstate{k:s}}
\coloneqq\set{\fromzstate{k}\in\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}}{\zstate{k:s}=\xstate{k:s}}
\end{equation}
for all $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, $s\in\{k,\dots,n\}$, $\zstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$, $\xstate{k:s}\in\states{k:s}$ and $\fromout{k}\in\fromouts{k}$.
\section{An algorithm for finding maximal state sequences}
\label{sec:algorithm}
We now use Equation~\eqref{eq:pop1imprecies} to devise an algorithm for constructing the set $\globfromopt$ of maximal state sequences in a recursive manner.
\subsection{Initial set-up using backward recursion}
We begin by defining a few auxiliary notions.
First of all, we consider the thresholds:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:threshold}
\zinthreshold{k}
\coloneqq\min\set{a\geq 0}{\zinstateclpr[\indxstate{k}-a\indxhatstate{k}]{k}{k-1}\leq0}
\end{equation}
for all $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, $\zstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$ and $\xstate{k},\xhatstate{k}\in\states{k}$.
\par
Next, we define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:alphabetamax}
\xumemmax{k}
\coloneqq\max_{\substack{\fromzstate{k}\in\fromstates{k}\\\zstate{k}=\xstate{k}}}\fromzumem{k}
\text{ and }
\xlmemmax{k}
\coloneqq\max_{\substack{\fromzstate{k}\in\fromstates{k}\\\zstate{k}=\xstate{k}}}\fromzlmem{k}
\end{equation}
for all $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ and $\xstate{k}\in\states{k}$.
Using Equations~\eqref{eq:alpharecurs}--\eqref{eq:betarecurs}, these can be calculated efficiently using the following backward recursive (dynamic programming) procedure:
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{align}\label{eq:alphamaxrecurs}
\xumemmax{k}
&=\max_{\zstate{k+1}\in\states{k+1}}\zumemmax{k+1}
\xinoutcupr[\singout{k}]{k}\xinstatecupr[\singzstate{k+1}]{k+1}{k}\notag\\
&=\xinoutcupr[\singout{k}]{k}
\max_{\zstate{k+1}\in\states{k+1}}\zumemmax{k+1}\xinstatecupr[\singzstate{k+1}]{k+1}{k},
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{eq:betamaxrecurs}
\xlmemmax{k}
&=\max_{\zstate{k+1}\in\states{k+1}}\zlmemmax{k+1}
\xinoutclpr[\singout{k}]{k}\xinstateclpr[\singzstate{k+1}]{k+1}{k}\notag\\
&=\xinoutclpr[\singout{k}]{k}
\max_{\zstate{k+1}\in\states{k+1}}\zlmemmax{k+1}\xinstateclpr[\singzstate{k+1}]{k+1}{k},
\end{align}
for $k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}$, starting from
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:alphabetamaxn}
\xumemmax{n}=\xumem{n}=\xinoutcupr[\singout{n}]{n}
\text{ and }
\xlmemmax{n}=\xlmem{n}=\xinoutclpr[\singout{n}]{n}.
\end{equation}
Finally, we let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:alphaopt}
\umemopt{k}
\coloneqq\max_{\substack{\xstate{k}\in\states{k}\\\xstate{k}\neq\xhatstate{k}}}\xlmemmax{k}\zinthreshold{k},
\end{equation}
for all $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, $\zstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$ and $\xhatstate{k}\in\states{k}$.
\subsection{Reformulation of the optimality condition}
It turns out that the $\umemopt{k}$, calculated by Equation~\eqref{eq:alphaopt}, are extremely useful.
As proved in Appendix~\ref{appendix}, they allow us to significantly simplify Equation~\eqref{eq:optimals} as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:criterion-at-k}
\fromopt[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}
=\set{\fromxhatstate{k}\in\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}}{\fromxhatumem{k}\geq\umemopt{k}},
\end{equation}
which, for $k=n$, reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:criterion-at-n}
\opt[\states{n}]{z}{n}
=\set{\xhatstate{n}\in\states{n}}{\xhatumem{n}\geq\umemopt{n}}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{A recursive solution method}
The aim of the algorithm is to determine the set $\globfromopt$ efficiently.
We will do so recursively.
For $k=n$, $\opt[\states{n}]{z}{n}$ can be determined in a straightforward manner for every $\zstate{n-1}\in\states{n-1}$ using Criterion~\eqref{eq:criterion-at-n}.
\begin{example}\label{exam:running}
We consider a simple binary HMM with $\states{}=\{0,1\}$.
For $k=n$, the maximal elements are simply states, which are trivially represented.
We could for example find that $\explopt[\states{n}]{0}{n}=\{0,1\}$ for $\zstate{n-1}=0$, and $\explopt[\states{n}]{1}{n}=\{0\}$ for $\zstate{n-1}=1$.
\hfill $\blacklozenge$
\end{example}
Next, we let $k$ run \emph{backward} from $n-1$ to $1$.
For each $k<n$ and all $\zstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$, we first build up the set $\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$, using its definition in Equation~\eqref{eq:pop2imprecies} and the results of the previous recursion step.
This set is then used to determine $\fromopt[\states{k}]{z}{k}$ with Criterion~\eqref{eq:criterion-at-k}.
\begin{example}
We continue the discussion of Example~\ref{exam:running}.
For $k=n-1$ and $\zstate{n-2}=0$, the set $\explfrommog[\fromstates{n-1}]{0}{}{n-1}$ is constructed using Equation~\eqref{eq:pop2imprecies}.
If, for instance $\pos_{n-1}(0)=\{0,1\}$, this reduces to Equation~\eqref{eq:pop4imprecies} and we find that
\begin{align*}
\explfrommog[\fromstates{n-1}]{0}{}{n-1}
&=\bigcup_{\zstate{n-1}\in\{0,1\}}\zstate{n-1}\oplus\opt[\states{n}]{z}{n}\\
&=0\oplus \{0,1\} \cup 1\oplus \{0\}
=\{00,01\}\cup\{10\}
=\{00,01,10\}.
\end{align*}
Applying Criterion~\eqref{eq:criterion-at-k} to every element of this set, we find the set $\explfromopt[\fromstates{n-1}]{0}{}{n-1}$, which for instance could be equal to $\{00,10\}$.
For $\zstate{n-2}=0$, an analoguous method can be used.
\hfill
$\blacklozenge$
\end{example}
Continuing in this way, we eventually reach $k=1$, which yields the desired set of maximal sequences $\globfromopt=\optim\left(\fromstates{1}\vert\zstate{0},\fromout{1}\right)$.
The possible bottleneck in this solution lies in the use of Criterion~\eqref{eq:criterion-at-k}.
While this criterion is already much more efficient than the original
one, it can still lead to an exponential complexity if the set
$\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$ has a number of elements that is
exponential in the length of the considered sequences. We therefore present a method that avoids checking the inequality in Criterion~\eqref{eq:criterion-at-k} for all elements of $\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$.
The first trick consists in using an efficient data structure to store the sets of optimal sequences.
For $k=n$, this is simply a list of the elements.
For $k<n$, we could also just list the optimal sequences, but this would imply storing the same information multiple times, since parts of those sequences will be the same.
We therefore choose to represent this list of optimal sequences as a collection of tree structures.
The way these trees are constructed should be obvious from the following example.
\begin{example}\label{exam:structuur}
Consider the following set of sequences:
\begin{equation*}
\{00001000, 00001010, 00001110, 00011110, 10001010, 10001110\}
\end{equation*}
By representing this set in this way, useful information gets lost and memory space is waisted.
For example, some of these sequences all start out the same way.
It would be much more efficient to store such common subsequences only once.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.9]
\def\boomhor{12mm};
\def\boomver{9mm};
\def\boomverhoofd{60mm};
\node (nul) at (10.6cm,0) {};
\node (b0) at (0,0) {};
\node[niets] (b00) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,0.5*\boomver)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b000) at ($(b00)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b0000) at ($(b000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b00001) at ($(b0000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b000011) at ($(b00001)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b0000111) at ($(b000011)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b00001111) at ($(b0000111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b000011110) at ($(b00001111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00) -- (b000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000) -- (b0000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000) -- (b00001);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00001) -- (b000011);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000011) -- (b0000111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000111) -- (b00001111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00001111) -- (b000011110);
\node[niets] (b00000) at ($(b00001)+(0,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b000001) at ($(b00000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b0000011) at ($(b000001)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b00000111) at ($(b0000011)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b000001110) at ($(b00000111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000) -- (b00000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000) -- (b000001);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000001) -- (b0000011);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000011) -- (b00000111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000111) -- (b000001110);
\node[niets] (b0000010) at ($(b0000011)+(0,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b00000101) at ($(b0000010)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b000001010) at ($(b00000101)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000001) -- (b0000010);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000010) -- (b00000101);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000101) -- (b000001010);
\node[niets] (b00000100) at ($(b00000101)+(0,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b000001000) at ($(b00000100)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000010) -- (b00000100);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000100) -- (b000001000);
\node[niets] (b01) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,-0.5*\boomver)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b010) at ($(b01)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b0100) at ($(b010)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b01000) at ($(b0100)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b010001) at ($(b01000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b0100010) at ($(b010001)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b01000101) at ($(b0100010)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b010001010) at ($(b01000101)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b01) -- (b010);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b010) -- (b0100);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0100) -- (b01000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b01000) -- (b010001);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b010001) -- (b0100010);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0100010) -- (b01000101);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b01000101) -- (b010001010);
\node[niets] (b0100011) at ($(b0100010)+(0,-\boomver)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b01000111) at ($(b0100011)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b010001110) at ($(b01000111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijn] (b010001) -- (b0100011);
\draw[boomlijn] (b0100011) -- (b01000111);
\draw[boomlijn] (b01000111) -- (b010001110);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
We therefore prefer to represent the above set as the collection of trees depicted above.
\hfill
$\blacklozenge$
\end{example}
The next step is now to exploit this data structure in order to apply Criterion~\eqref{eq:criterion-at-k} efficiently.
We start by constructing the set $\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$ and representing it in the same type of data structure.
\begin{example} \label{exam:running2}
We consider the set of sequences in Example~\ref{exam:structuur} to be $\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{\hspace{1mm}0}{}{k+1}$, where $k=n-8$, since the length of the sequences is $8$.
Suppose we have already constructed this set in the previous recursion step.
Furthermore, for the sake of this example, lets assume that $0\in\pos_{k-1}(0)$ and $1\notin\pos_{k-1}(0)$.
We will now use Equation~\eqref{eq:pop2imprecies} to construct the set $\explfrommog[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$:
\begin{equation*}
\explfrommog[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}
=0\oplus\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{0}{}{k+1}
\cup1\oplus\states{k+1:n}.
\end{equation*}
The set $\explfrommog[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$ consist of two subsets, which we will construct separately.
The subset $0\oplus\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{0}{}{k+1}$ would normally take quite some effort to compose, since we have to concatenate $0$ with each individual element of $\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{0}{}{k+1}$.
However, using our representation, this comes down to adding one node and two links to the already existing data structure for $\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{0}{}{k+1}$:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.9]
\def\boomhor{12mm};
\def\boomver{9mm};
\def\boomverhoofd{20mm};
\def\eenbegin{12mm};
\def\eeneind{41mm};
\def\eenrand{6mm};
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,11mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)$)
rectangle ($(\eeneind,0) +(4mm,-5mm)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)$);
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,11mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)+(-50mm,4mm)$) rectangle ($(\eeneind,0) +(0,-5mm)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)+(8mm,-4mm)$);
\node[niets] (b0) at (0,0) {0};
\node[niets] (b00) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,0.5*\boomver)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b000) at ($(b00)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node (b000-) at ($(b000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0) -- (b00);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00) -- (b000);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b000) -- (b000-);
\node[niets] (b01) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,-0.5*\boomver)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b010) at ($(b01)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node (b010-) at ($(b010)+(\boomhor,0)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0) -- (b01);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b01) -- (b010);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b010) -- (b010-);
\node (kplusnul) at ($(b0)+(\eenbegin+15mm,12mm)$) {$\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{\hspace{1mm}0}{}{k+1}$};
\node (mog) at ($(b0)+(\eenbegin-30mm,12mm)$) {$0\oplus\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{0}{}{k+1}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
Conceptually, we want to represent the set $1\oplus\states{k+1:n}$ as a tree, which would look like the figure below on the left.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.9]
\def\boomhor{12mm};
\def\boomver{9mm};
\def\boomverhoofd{20mm};
\def\eenbegin{12mm};
\def\eeneind{33mm};
\def\eenrand{6mm};
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,11mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)$)
rectangle ($(\eeneind,0) +(0,-23mm)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)$);
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,11mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)+(-25mm,4mm)$) rectangle ($(\eeneind,0) +(0,-23mm)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)+(4mm,-4mm)$);
\node[niets] (b1) at (0,-9mm) {1};
\node[niets] (b10) at ($(b1)+(\boomhor,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b100) at ($(b10)+(\boomhor,0.5*\boomver)$) {0};
\node (b1000) at ($(b100)+(\boomhor,0.25*\boomver)$) {};
\node (b1001) at ($(b100)+(\boomhor,-0.25*\boomver)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1) -- (b10);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b10) -- (b100);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b100) -- (b1000);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b100) -- (b1001);
\node[niets] (b101) at ($(b10)+(\boomhor,-0.5*\boomver)$) {1};
\node (b1010) at ($(b101)+(\boomhor,0.25*\boomver)$) {};
\node (b1011) at ($(b101)+(\boomhor,-0.25*\boomver)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b10) -- (b101);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b101) -- (b1010);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b101) -- (b1011);
\node[niets] (b11) at ($(b1)+(\boomhor,-\boomver)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b110) at ($(b11)+(\boomhor,0.5*\boomver)$) {0};
\node (b1100) at ($(b110)+(\boomhor,0.25*\boomver)$) {};
\node (b1101) at ($(b110)+(\boomhor,-0.25*\boomver)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1) -- (b11);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11) -- (b110);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b110) -- (b1100);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b110) -- (b1101);
\node[niets] (b111) at ($(b11)+(\boomhor,-0.5*\boomver)$) {1};
\node (b1110) at ($(b111)+(\boomhor,0.25*\boomver)$) {};
\node (b1111) at ($(b111)+(\boomhor,-0.25*\boomver)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11) -- (b111);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b111) -- (b1110);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b111) -- (b1111);
\node (kplusnul) at ($(b0)+(\eenbegin+3mm,12mm)$) {$\states{k+1:n}$};
\node (mog) at ($(b0)+(\eenbegin-18mm,12mm)$) {$1\oplus\states{k+1:n}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\quad
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.9]
\def\boomhor{12mm};
\def\boomver{9mm};
\def\boomverhoofd{23mm};
\def\eenbegin{12mm};
\def\eeneind{20mm};
\def\eenrand{6mm};
\path[kplus] ($((\eenbegin,0)+(0,1mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)$) rectangle
($(0,-1mm)+(\eeneind,0)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)$);
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,1mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)+(-40mm,4mm)$) rectangle ($(0,-1mm)+(\eeneind,0) +(\eenrand,-\eenrand)+(4mm,-4mm)$);
\node[niets] (b1) at ($(b0)+(0,0)$) {1};
\node (b1-) at ($(b1)+(7.1mm,0)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1) -- (b1-);
\node (kpluseen) at ($(b1)+(\eenbegin+3mm,0)$) {$\fromstates{k+1}$};
\node (mog) at ($(b1)+(\eenbegin-29mm,0)$) {$1\oplus\states{k+1:n}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
However, storing it this way in a computer is a bad idea, as this would mean constructing a complete binary tree, which is exponential in the depth of this tree.
We therefore remember that the set of sequences can be represented as a tree, without actually constructing it, as is depicted above on the right.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.9]
\def\boomhor{12mm};
\def\boomver{9mm};
\def\boomverhoofd{23mm};
\def\eenbegin{12mm};
\def\eeneind{41mm};
\def\eenrand{6mm};
\path[kplus] ($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(\eenbegin,0)+(0,1mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)$) rectangle
($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(2mm,-1mm)+(\eeneind,0)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)$);
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,11mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)$)
rectangle ($(\eeneind,0) +(2mm,-5mm)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)$);
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,11mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)+(-40mm,4mm)$) rectangle ($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(2mm,-1mm)+(\eeneind,0) +(\eenrand,-\eenrand)+(4mm,-4mm)$);
\node (nul) at (5cm,1cm) {};
\node[niets] (b0) at (0,0) {0};
\node[niets] (b00) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,0.5*\boomver)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b000) at ($(b00)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node (b000-) at ($(b000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0) -- (b00);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00) -- (b000);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b000) -- (b000-);
\node[niets] (b01) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,-0.5*\boomver)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b010) at ($(b01)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node (b010-) at ($(b010)+(\boomhor,0)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0) -- (b01);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b01) -- (b010);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b010) -- (b010-);
\node[niets] (b1) at ($(b0)+(0,-\boomverhoofd)$) {1};
\node (b1-) at ($(b1)+(7.1mm,0)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1) -- (b1-);
\node (kpluseen) at ($(b1)+(\eenbegin+3mm,0)$) {$\fromstates{k+1}$};
\node (kplusnul) at ($(b0)+(\eenbegin+15mm,12mm)$) {$\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{\hspace{1mm}0}{}{k+1}$};
\node (mog) at ($(b0)+(\eenbegin-25mm,12mm)$) {$\explfrommog[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
The set $\explfrommog[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$ we are looking for is then trivially constructed by joining the two subsets $0\oplus\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{0}{}{k+1}$ and $1\oplus\states{k+1:n}$, as depicted above.
\hfill
$\blacklozenge$
\end{example}
It follows from Equation~\eqref{eq:criterion-at-k} that the data structure representing $\fromopt[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$ is contained in the data structure representing $\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$.
All that is now left to do is find this subset in an efficient manner.
We present a method that constructs a subset of $\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$, and will prove that this subset is indeed $\fromopt[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$.
We first define $\zumemoptfromto{k}{s}$ for every $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, $s\in\{k,\dots,n\}$, $\zstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$ and $\zstate{k:s}\in\states{k:s}$.
If $s=k$, we let $\zumemoptfromto{k}{k}\coloneqq\zumemopt{k}$, defined by Equation~\eqref{eq:alphaopt}.
$\zumemoptfromto{k}{s}$ is then recursively defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:optalgemeen}
\zumemoptfromto{k}{s}
=\frac{\zumemoptfromto{k}{s-1}}
{\zinoutcupr[\singout{s-1}]{s-1}\zinstatecupr[\singzstate{s}]{s}{s-1}}
\text{ for every $s\in\{k+1,\dots,n\}$.}
\end{equation}
\subsection*{Optimal tree construction}
The following method will select a subset out of a given set $\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$ constructed using Equation~\eqref{eq:pop2imprecies}.
First, for every $\xstate{k}\in\states{k}$, check whether
\begin{equation}\label{eq:immediatecondition}
\xumemmax{k}\geq\xumemopt{k}.
\end{equation}
From now on, we will use the generic notation $\xhatstate{k}$ for those $\xstate{k}\in\states{k}$ for which this condition is satisfied.
Next, choose an arbitrary $\xhatstate{k}$ and check, for every $\xstate{k+1}\in\states{k+1}$ that has a non-empty set $\frommogDoor[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}{\xhatstate{k}\oplus\xstate{k+1}}$, if the following condition is satisfied:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nextimmediatecondition}
\xumemmax{k+1}\geq\specialumemopt{k}{\xhatstate{k}\oplus\xstate{k+1}}.
\end{equation}
Notice that $\specialumemopt{k}{\xhatstate{k}\oplus\xstate{k+1}}$ can be easily calculated using Equation~\eqref{eq:optalgemeen}, because $\xhatumemopt{k}$ is already known from the previous recursion step.
Denote those $\xstate{k+1}\in\states{k+1}$ for which the inequality \eqref{eq:nextimmediatecondition} is true generically by $\xhatstate{k+1}$ and concatenate them with the state $\xhatstate{k}$, creating a set of state sequences $\xhatstate{k:k+1}$.
Do this for every $\xhatstate{k}$ of the previous step and bundle the sets, obtaining a larger set of state sequences $\xhatstate{k:k+1}$.
In a next step, consider an arbitrary $\xhatstate{k:k+1}$ and check, for every $\xstate{k+2}\in\states{k+2}$ that has a non-empty set $\frommogDoor[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}{\xhatstate{k:k+1}\oplus\xstate{k+2}}$, if the following condition is satisfied:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nextnextimmediatecondition}
\xumemmax{k+2}\geq\specialumemopt{k}{\xhatstate{k:k+1}\oplus\xstate{k+2}}.
\end{equation}
As before, $\specialumemopt{k}{\xhatstate{k:k+1}\oplus\xstate{k+2}}$ can be calculated easily using Equation~\eqref{eq:optalgemeen}, since $\specialumemopt{k}{\xhatstate{k+1}}$ has already been calculated in the previous step.
Denote those $\xstate{k+2}\in\states{k+2}$ for which the inequality~\eqref{eq:nextnextimmediatecondition} holds generically by $\xhatstate{k+2}$ and concatenate them with $\xhatstate{k:k+1}$, creating a set of state sequences~$\xhatstate{k:k+2}$.
Do this for every $\xhatstate{k:k+1}$ from the previous step and bundle the sets to obtain a larger set of state sequences $\xhatstate{k:k+2}$.
It should be clear that we can go on this way, to eventually end up with a set of sequences $\xhatstate{k:n-1}$.
Now consider an arbitrary $\xhatstate{k:n-1}$ and check, for every $\xstate{n}\in\states{n}$ that has a non-empty set $\frommogDoor[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}{\xhatstate{k:n-1}\oplus\xstate{n}}$, if the following condition holds:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lastimmediatecondition}
\xumemmax{n}\geq\specialumemopt{k}{\xhatstate{k:n-1}\oplus\xstate{n}}.
\end{equation}
Denote those $\xstate{n}\in\states{n}$ for which this is the case as $\xhatstate{n}$, and concatenate them with $\xhatstate{k:n-1}$, creating a set of state sequences $\xhatstate{k:n}$.
Do this for every $\xhatstate{k:n-1}$ from the previous step and bundle the sets to finally obtain a set of state sequences $\xhatstate{k:n}$, which is a subset of the set $\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$ we started out from.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:construction}
The subset of $\frommog[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$ that is obtained by
using the optimal tree construction is equal to $\fromopt[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}
We continue with Example~\ref{exam:running2}.
Following the optimal tree construction, we start by checking for every $\xstate{k}\in\{0,1\}$ whether $\xumemmax{k}\geq\explxumemopt{k}{0}$.
Suppose this is the case.
We will symbolise this by giving the corresponding nodes in our representation a green colour, as in the leftmost part of the figure below.
It then follows by Theorem~\ref{theorem:construction} that every sequence in $\explfromopt[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$ will either start with $0$ or $1$, since the set of $\xhatstate{k}$ is $\{0,1\}$.
In this example, this is of course trivial, but if the set of $\xhatstate{k}$ would have been $\{0\}$, we would have obtained the non-trivial result that every sequence in $\explfromopt[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$ starts with $0$.
We can represent this partial information about the set $\explfromopt[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$ in a trivial way, as in the rightmost part of the figure below.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.9]
\def\boomhor{12mm};
\def\boomver{9mm};
\def\boomverhoofd{23mm};
\def\eenbegin{12mm};
\def\eeneind{41mm};
\def\eenrand{6mm};
\path[kplus] ($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(\eenbegin,0)+(0,1mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)$) rectangle
($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(2mm,-1mm)+(\eeneind,0)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)$);
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,11mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)$)
rectangle ($(\eeneind,0) +(2mm,-5mm)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)$);
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,11mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)+(-40mm,4mm)$) rectangle ($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(2mm,-1mm)+(\eeneind,0) +(\eenrand,-\eenrand)+(4mm,-4mm)$);
\node (nul) at (5cm,1cm) {};
\node[ja] (b0) at (0,0) {0};
\node[niets] (b00) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,0.5*\boomver)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b000) at ($(b00)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node (b000-) at ($(b000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0) -- (b00);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00) -- (b000);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b000) -- (b000-);
\node[niets] (b01) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,-0.5*\boomver)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b010) at ($(b01)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node (b010-) at ($(b010)+(\boomhor,0)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0) -- (b01);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b01) -- (b010);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b010) -- (b010-);
\node[ja] (b1) at ($(b0)+(0,-\boomverhoofd)$) {1};
\node (b1-) at ($(b1)+(7.1mm,0)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1) -- (b1-);
\node (kpluseen) at ($(b1)+(\eenbegin+3mm,0)$) {$\fromstates{k+1}$};
\node (kplusnul) at ($(b0)+(\eenbegin+15mm,12mm)$) {$\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{\hspace{1mm}0}{}{k+1}$};
\node (mog) at ($(b0)+(\eenbegin-25mm,12mm)$) {$\explfrommog[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\quad
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.9]
\def\boomverhoofd{10mm};
\def\eenbegin{12mm};
\def\eeneind{0mm};
\def\eenrand{6mm};
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,0mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)+(-13mm,1mm)$) rectangle ($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(0,-0mm)+(\eeneind,0) +(\eenrand,-\eenrand)+(1mm,-1mm)$);
\node[ja] (b0) at (0,0) {0};
\node[ja] (b1) at ($(b0)+(0,-\boomverhoofd)$) {1};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
In the next step, we need to check some criteria for every $\xhatstate{k}$ we have found in the previous step.
We begin with $\xhatstate{k}=0$ and start by looking at $\xstate{k+1}=0$.
The set $\explfrommogDoor[\fromstates{k}]{0}{k}{\xhatstate{k}\oplus\xstate{k+1}}$ is then $\explfrommogDoor[\fromstates{k}]{0}{k}{00}$, which is simply the subset of sequences in $\explfrommog[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$ that start with $00$. In our tree representation of $\explfrommog[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$, checking whether this set is non-empty comes down to checking if the node $\xhatstate{k}=0$ has a daughter with value $0$. Since this is indeed the case, we need to check whether $\explumemmax{k+1}{0}\geq\explspecialumemopt{k}{\xhatstate{k}\oplus\xstate{k+1}}{0}=\explspecialumemopt{k}{00}{0}$.
Suppose this criterion is met, then we have found our first subsequence $\fromtoxhatstate{k}{k+1}$, namely $00$.
We symbolise this in the figure below by giving the child $\xstate{k+1}=0$ of the node $\xhatstate{k}=0$ a green colour.
The node $\xhatstate{k}=0$ also has a daughter $\xstate{k+1}=1$.
If $\explumemmax{k+1}{1}<\explspecialumemopt{k}{01}{0}$, this daughter gets coloured red and $01$ is not part of the set of sequences $\fromtoxhatstate{k}{k+1}$ we are constructing in this step.
By Theorem~\ref{theorem:construction}, this also means that none of the elements of $\explfromopt[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$ will start with the subsequence $01$.
For $\xhatstate{k}=1$, we know that the tree representing the sequences in $\explfrommog[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$ that start with $1$ is a complete tree, which we have not explicitly constructed.
This does not create a problem, since we only need that tree to check whether $\frommogDoor[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}{1\oplus\xstate{k+1}}$ is a non-empty set, which is a condition that is trivially met for all $\xstate{k+1}\in\states{k+1}$ because of the completeness of the set $\frommogDoor[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}{1}$.
We are therefore left to check Criterion~\eqref{eq:nextimmediatecondition} for $\xhatstate{k}=1$ and every $\xstate{k+1}\in\{0,1\}$.
For $\xstate{k+1}=0$, we might for instance find that $\explumemmax{k+1}{0}<\explspecialumemopt{k}{10}{0}$ and for $\xstate{k+1}=1$ we might find that $\explumemmax{k+1}{1}\geq\explspecialumemopt{k}{11}{0}$.
The results of these checks are summarised in the leftmost part of the figure below.
The corresponding sequences $\fromtoxhatstate{k}{k+1}$, which by Theorem~\ref{theorem:construction} are the possible starting sequences for the elements of $\explfromopt[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$, can be easily stored and depicted in our tree representation; see the rightmost part of the following figure.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.9]
\def\boomhor{12mm};
\def\boomver{9mm};
\def\boomverhoofd{32mm};
\def\eenbegin{12mm};
\def\eeneind{41mm};
\def\eenrand{6mm};
\path[kplus] ($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(\eenbegin,0)+(0,11mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)$) rectangle
($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(2mm,-5mm)+(\eeneind,0)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)$);
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,11mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)$)
rectangle ($(\eeneind,0) +(2mm,-5mm)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)$);
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,11mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)+(-40mm,4mm)$) rectangle ($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(2mm,-5mm)+(\eeneind,0) +(\eenrand,-\eenrand)+(4mm,-4mm)$);
\node (nul) at (5cm,1cm) {};
\node[ja] (b0) at (0,0) {0};
\node[ja] (b00) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,0.5*\boomver)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b000) at ($(b00)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node (b000-) at ($(b000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0) -- (b00);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00) -- (b000);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b000) -- (b000-);
\node[nee] (b01) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,-0.5*\boomver)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b010) at ($(b01)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node (b010-) at ($(b010)+(\boomhor,0)$) {};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0) -- (b01);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b01) -- (b010);
\draw[boomstippellijn] (b010) -- (b010-);
\node[ja] (b1) at ($(b0)+(0,-\boomverhoofd)$) {1};
\node[nee] (b10) at ($(b1)+(\boomhor,0.5*\boomver)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b11) at ($(b1)+(\boomhor,-0.5*\boomver)$) {1};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1) -- (b10);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1) -- (b11);
\node (kpluseen) at ($(b1)+(\eenbegin+3mm,12mm)$) {$\fromstates{k+1}$};
\node (kplusnul) at ($(b0)+(\eenbegin+15mm,12mm)$) {$\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{0}{}{k+1}$};
\node (mog) at ($(b0)+(\eenbegin-25mm,12mm)$) {$\explfrommog[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\quad
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.9]
\def\boomverhoofd{10mm};
\def\boomhor{12mm};
\def\boomver{9mm};
\def\eenbegin{12mm};
\def\eeneind{12mm};
\def\eenrand{6mm};
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,0mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)+(-13mm,1mm)$) rectangle ($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(0,-0mm)+(\eeneind,0) +(\eenrand,-\eenrand)+(1mm,-1mm)$);
\node[ja] (b0) at (0,0) {0};
\node[ja] (b00) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0) -- (b00);
\node[ja] (b1) at ($(b0)+(0,-\boomverhoofd)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b11) at ($(b1)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1) -- (b11);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
If we keep performing the steps of optimal tree construction in this way, Theorem~\ref{theorem:construction} states that the data structure that is built up while checking all these criteria represents the set $\explfromopt[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$.
This set might look like this:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.9]
\def\boomverhoofd{9mm};
\def\boomhor{12mm};
\def\boomver{9mm};
\def\eenbegin{12mm};
\def\eeneind{96mm};
\def\eenrand{6mm};
\path[kplus]
($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,\boomver)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)+(-13mm,1mm)$) rectangle
($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(0,-2*\boomver)+(\eeneind,0)
+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)+(1mm,-1mm)$);
\node[ja] (b0) at (0,0) {0};
\node[ja] (b00) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b000) at ($(b00)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b0000) at ($(b000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0) -- (b00);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00) -- (b000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000) -- (b0000);
\node[ja] (b00000) at ($(b0000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b000001) at ($(b00000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b0000011) at ($(b000001)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b00000111) at ($(b0000011)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b000001110) at ($(b00000111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000) -- (b00000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000) -- (b000001);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000001) -- (b0000011);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000011) -- (b00000111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000111) -- (b000001110);
\node[ja] (b0000010) at ($(b0000011)+(0,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b00000101) at ($(b0000010)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b000001010) at ($(b00000101)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000001) -- (b0000010);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000010) -- (b00000101);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000101) -- (b000001010);
\node[ja] (b1) at ($(b0)+(0,-\boomverhoofd)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b11) at ($(b1)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1) -- (b11);
\node[ja] (b110) at ($(b11)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b1100) at ($(b110)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11) -- (b110);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b110) -- (b1100);
\node[ja] (b11001) at ($(b1100)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b110011) at ($(b11001)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b1100111) at ($(b110011)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b11001111) at ($(b1100111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b110011110) at ($(b11001111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1100) -- (b11001);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11001) -- (b110011);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b110011) -- (b1100111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1100111) -- (b11001111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11001111) -- (b110011110);
\node[ja] (b1101) at ($(b110)+(\boomhor,-\boomver)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b11011) at ($(b1101)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b110111) at ($(b11011)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b1101111) at ($(b110111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b11011111) at ($(b1101111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b110111110) at ($(b11011111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b110) -- (b1101);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1101) -- (b11011);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11011) -- (b110111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b110111) -- (b1101111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1101111) -- (b11011111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11011111) -- (b110111110);
\node[ja] (b110111111) at ($(b11011111)+(\boomhor,-\boomver)$) {1};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11011111) -- (b110111111);
\node (mog) at ($(b0)+(\eenbegin-0mm,9mm)$) {$\explfromopt[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
Figure~\ref{fig:constructionofopt} should clarify how this set was constructed.
Notice that we have indeed never explicitly constructed the set $\fromstates{k+1}$ in the tree representation, since every time we reached a red node, the descendants of this node were not constructed.
\hfill
$\blacklozenge$
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.9]
\def\boomhor{12mm};
\def\boomver{9mm};
\def\boomverhoofd{35mm};
\def\eenbegin{12mm};
\def\eeneind{96mm};
\def\eenrand{6mm};
\path[kplus] ($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(\eenbegin,0)+(0,5mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)$) rectangle
($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(0,-32mm)+(\eeneind,0)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)$);
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,32mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)$)
rectangle ($(\eeneind,0) +(0,-14mm)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)$);
\path[kplus] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,40mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)+(-13mm,4mm)$) rectangle ($(0,-\boomverhoofd)+(0,-32mm)+(\eeneind,0) +(\eenrand,-\eenrand)+(4mm,-4mm)$);
\node (nul) at (5cm,1cm) {};
\node[ja] (b0) at (0,0) {0};
\node[ja] (b00) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,0.5*\boomver)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b000) at ($(b00)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b0000) at ($(b000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[nee] (b00001) at ($(b0000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b000011) at ($(b00001)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b0000111) at ($(b000011)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b00001111) at ($(b0000111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b000011110) at ($(b00001111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0) -- (b00);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00) -- (b000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000) -- (b0000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000) -- (b00001);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00001) -- (b000011);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000011) -- (b0000111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000111) -- (b00001111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00001111) -- (b000011110);
\node[ja] (b00000) at ($(b00001)+(0,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b000001) at ($(b00000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b0000011) at ($(b000001)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b00000111) at ($(b0000011)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b000001110) at ($(b00000111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000) -- (b00000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000) -- (b000001);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000001) -- (b0000011);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000011) -- (b00000111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000111) -- (b000001110);
\node[ja] (b0000010) at ($(b0000011)+(0,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b00000101) at ($(b0000010)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b000001010) at ($(b00000101)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000001) -- (b0000010);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000010) -- (b00000101);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000101) -- (b000001010);
\node[nee] (b00000100) at ($(b00000101)+(0,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b000001000) at ($(b00000100)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000010) -- (b00000100);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000100) -- (b000001000);
\node[nee] (b01) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,-0.5*\boomver)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b010) at ($(b01)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b0100) at ($(b010)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b01000) at ($(b0100)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b010001) at ($(b01000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b0100010) at ($(b010001)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b01000101) at ($(b0100010)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b010001010) at ($(b01000101)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0) -- (b01);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b01) -- (b010);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b010) -- (b0100);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0100) -- (b01000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b01000) -- (b010001);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b010001) -- (b0100010);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0100010) -- (b01000101);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b01000101) -- (b010001010);
\node[niets] (b0100011) at ($(b0100010)+(0,-\boomver)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b01000111) at ($(b0100011)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b010001110) at ($(b01000111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijn] (b010001) -- (b0100011);
\draw[boomlijn] (b0100011) -- (b01000111);
\draw[boomlijn] (b01000111) -- (b010001110);
\node[ja] (b1) at ($(b0)+(0,-\boomverhoofd)$) {1};
\node[nee] (b10) at ($(b1)+(\boomhor,0.5*\boomver)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b11) at ($(b1)+(\boomhor,-0.5*\boomver)$) {1};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1) -- (b10);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1) -- (b11);
\node[ja] (b110) at ($(b11)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b1100) at ($(b110)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11) -- (b110);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b110) -- (b1100);
\node[nee] (b111) at ($(b11)+(\boomhor,-\boomver)$) {1};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11) -- (b111);
\node[ja] (b11001) at ($(b1100)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b110011) at ($(b11001)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b1100111) at ($(b110011)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b11001111) at ($(b1100111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b110011110) at ($(b11001111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1100) -- (b11001);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11001) -- (b110011);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b110011) -- (b1100111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1100111) -- (b11001111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11001111) -- (b110011110);
\node[nee] (b11000) at ($(b1100)+(\boomhor,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[nee] (b110010) at ($(b11001)+(\boomhor,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[nee] (b1100110) at ($(b110011)+(\boomhor,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[nee] (b11001110) at ($(b1100111)+(\boomhor,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[nee] (b110011111) at ($(b11001111)+(\boomhor,-\boomver)$) {1};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1100) -- (b11000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11001) -- (b110010);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b110011) -- (b1100110);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1100111) -- (b11001110);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11001111) -- (b110011111);
\node[ja] (b1101) at ($(b110)+(\boomhor,-\boomver)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b11011) at ($(b1101)+(\boomhor,-\boomver)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b110111) at ($(b11011)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b1101111) at ($(b110111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b11011111) at ($(b1101111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b110111110) at ($(b11011111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b110) -- (b1101);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1101) -- (b11011);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11011) -- (b110111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b110111) -- (b1101111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1101111) -- (b11011111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11011111) -- (b110111110);
\node[nee] (b11010) at ($(b1101)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[nee] (b110110) at ($(b11011)+(\boomhor,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[nee] (b1101110) at ($(b110111)+(\boomhor,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[nee] (b11011110) at ($(b1101111)+(\boomhor,\boomver)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1101) -- (b11010);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11011) -- (b110110);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b110111) -- (b1101110);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b1101111) -- (b11011110);
\node[ja] (b110111111) at ($(b11011111)+(\boomhor,-\boomver)$) {1};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b11011111) -- (b110111111);
\node (kpluseen) at ($(b1)+(\eenbegin+4mm,-32mm)$) {$\fromstates{k+1}$};
\node (kplusnul) at ($(b0)+(\eenbegin+16mm,32mm)$) {$\explfromopt[\fromstates{k+1}]{\hspace{1mm}0}{}{k+1}$};
\node (mog) at ($(b0)+(\eenbegin+1mm,44mm)$) {$\explfrommog[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Clarification of the construction of $\explfrommog[\fromstates{k}]{0}{}{k}$}
\label{fig:constructionofopt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Additional comments}\label{subsec:comments}
All that is needed in order to produce the $\alpha$- and $\beta$-functions are assessments for the lower and upper transition and emission probabilities:
\begin{center}
$\zinstateclpr[\singzstate{k}]{k}{k-1}$, $\zinstatecupr[\singzstate{k}]{k}{k-1}$, $\zinoutclpr[\singout{k}]{k}$ and $\zinoutcupr[\singout{k}]{k}$
\end{center}
for all $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, $\zstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$, $\zstate{k}\in\states{k}$ and $\out{k}\in\outs{k}$.
The most conservative coherent models $\stateclpr{k}{k-1}$ that correspond to such assessments are $2$-monotone \cite{campos1994,cooman2005e}.
Due to their comonotone additivity \cite{cooman2005e}, this implies that:
\begin{equation*}
\zinstateclpr[\indxstate{k}-a\indxhatstate{k}]{k}{k-1}
=\zinstateclpr[\singxstate{k}]{k}{k-1}-a\zinstatecupr[\singxhatstate{k}]{k}{k-1}
\end{equation*}
for all $a\geq0$, and therefore Equation~\eqref{eq:threshold} leads to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:minimal-threshold}
\zinthreshold{k}
=\frac{\zinstateclpr[\singxstate{k}]{k}{k-1}}{\zinstatecupr[\singxhatstate{k}]{k}{k-1}}.
\end{equation}
The right-hand side is the smallest possible value of the threshold
$\zinthreshold{k}$ corresponding to the assessments
$\zinstateclpr[\singxstate{k}]{k}{k-1}$ and
$\zinstatecupr[\singxhatstate{k}]{k}{k-1}$, leading to the most
conservative inferences, and therefore the largest possible sets of
maximal sequences, that correspond to these assessments.
\section{Discussion of the algorithm's complexity}\label{sec:complexity}
\subsection{Preparatory calculations}
We begin with the preparatory calculations of the quantities in Equations~\eqref{eq:threshold}--\eqref{eq:alphaopt}.
For the thresholds $\zinthreshold{k}$ in Equation~\eqref{eq:threshold}, the computational complexity is clearly cubic in the number of states, and linear in the number of nodes.
Calculating the $\xumemmax{k}$ and $\xlmemmax{k}$ in Equations~\eqref{eq:alphamaxrecurs} and~\eqref{eq:betamaxrecurs} is linear in the number of nodes, and quadratic in the number of states.
The complexity of finding the $\umemopt{k}$ in Equation~\eqref{eq:alphaopt}
is linear in the number of nodes, and cubic in the number of
states.
\subsection{Complexity of the optimal tree construction}
The computational complexity of the optimal tree construction is less trivial.
Let us start by noting that this construction essentially consists in repeating the same small step over and over again, namely adding a state $\xhatstate{s}$ to an already constructed $\xhatstate{k:s-1}$.\footnote{If $s=k$, we identify $\xhatstate{k:s-1}=\xhatstate{k:k-1}$ with a sequence of length zero.}
To perform such a step for a sequence $\xhatstate{k:s-1}$, we first have to check for all $\xstate{s}\in\states{s}$ whether $\frommogDoor[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}{\xhatstate{k:s-1}\oplus\xstate{s}}$ is non-empty.
This can be done in constant time, since our representation reduces this step to checking whether the node $\xstate{s}$ is a daughter of $\xhatstate{s-1}$ in the data structure of $\frommogDoor[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}{\xhatstate{k:s-1}}$.
Next, for those $\xstate{s}\in\states{s}$ for which this is indeed the case, we need to check if $\xumemmax{s}\geq\specialumemopt{k}{\xhatstate{k:s-1}\oplus\xstate{s}}$.
Checking those two criteria for every $\xstate{s}\in\states{s}$ will from now on be called \emph{performing a search step}, and its complexity is linear in the number of states.
Those $\xstate{s}\in\states{s}$ that meet both criteria will be noted as $\xhatstate{s}$ and concatenated with $\xhatstate{k:s-1}$.
We will now prove that performing such a search step will always yield at least one $\xhatstate{s}$ that can be concatenated with $\xhatstate{k:s-1}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:essentialstep}
Consider an arbitrary sequence $\xhatstate{k:s-1}$ that is created while performing the optimal tree construction, with $k\in\{1,...,n\}$ and $s\in\{k,...,n\}$.
Then there is always at least one $\xstate{s}\in\states{s}$ for which both $\frommogDoor[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}{\xhatstate{k:s-1}\oplus\xstate{s}}$ is non-empty and the inequality $\xumemmax{s}\geq\specialumemopt{k}{\xhatstate{k:s-1}\oplus\xstate{s}}$ holds.
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}
In our visual representations, this means that every green node will alway have at least one green child, which implies that all green sequences will have length $n-k+1$.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.9]
\def\boomhor{12mm};
\def\boomver{9mm};
\def\boomverhoofd{35mm};
\def\eenbegin{12mm};
\def\eeneind{96mm};
\def\eenrand{6mm};
\path[roodkader] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,32mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)+(5*\boomhor+1mm,-2*\boomver-2mm)$)
rectangle ($(\eeneind,0)
+(0,-14mm)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)+(-1mm,3*\boomver+2mm)$);
\path[roodkader] ($(\eenbegin,0)+(0,32mm)+(-\eenrand,\eenrand)+(1mm,-4*\boomver-2mm)$)
rectangle ($(\eeneind,0) +(0,-14mm)+(\eenrand,-\eenrand)+(-1mm,2mm)$);
\node (nul) at (5cm,1cm) {};
\node[ja] (b0) at (0,0) {0};
\node[ja] (b00) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,0.5*\boomver)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b000) at ($(b00)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b0000) at ($(b000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[nee] (b00001) at ($(b0000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b000011) at ($(b00001)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b0000111) at ($(b000011)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b00001111) at ($(b0000111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b000011110) at ($(b00001111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0) -- (b00);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00) -- (b000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000) -- (b0000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000) -- (b00001);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00001) -- (b000011);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000011) -- (b0000111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000111) -- (b00001111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00001111) -- (b000011110);
\node[ja] (b00000) at ($(b00001)+(0,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b000001) at ($(b00000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b0000011) at ($(b000001)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[nee] (b00000111) at ($(b0000011)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b000001110) at ($(b00000111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000) -- (b00000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000) -- (b000001);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000001) -- (b0000011);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000011) -- (b00000111);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000111) -- (b000001110);
\node[ja] (b0000010) at ($(b0000011)+(0,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b00000101) at ($(b0000010)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b000001010) at ($(b00000101)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b000001) -- (b0000010);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000010) -- (b00000101);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000101) -- (b000001010);
\node[nee] (b00000100) at ($(b00000101)+(0,\boomver)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b000001000) at ($(b00000100)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0000010) -- (b00000100);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b00000100) -- (b000001000);
\node[ja] (b01) at ($(b0)+(\boomhor,-0.5*\boomver)$) {1};
\node[ja] (b010) at ($(b01)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b0100) at ($(b010)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b01000) at ($(b0100)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[ja] (b010001) at ($(b01000)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[nee] (b0100010) at ($(b010001)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\node[niets] (b01000101) at ($(b0100010)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b010001010) at ($(b01000101)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0) -- (b01);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b01) -- (b010);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b010) -- (b0100);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0100) -- (b01000);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b01000) -- (b010001);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b010001) -- (b0100010);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b0100010) -- (b01000101);
\draw[boomlijngroen] (b01000101) -- (b010001010);
\node[nee] (b0100011) at ($(b0100010)+(0,-\boomver)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b01000111) at ($(b0100011)+(\boomhor,0)$) {1};
\node[niets] (b010001110) at ($(b01000111)+(\boomhor,0)$) {0};
\draw[boomlijn] (b010001) -- (b0100011);
\draw[boomlijn] (b0100011) -- (b01000111);
\draw[boomlijn] (b01000111) -- (b010001110);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
The situation depicted above is therefore impossible.
\hfill
$\blacklozenge$
\end{example}
Next, notice that every optimal sequence $\xhatstate{k:n}$ yielded by the optimal tree construction is built up by adding extra states $\xhatstate{s}$ to an already constructed sequence $\xhatstate{k:s-1}$, repeating this for $s$ going from $k$ to $n$.
Adding such a state means performing one search step, but Theorem~\ref{theorem:essentialstep} implies that performing a search step also means adding at least one state.
Therefore, constructing one maximal sequence $\xhatstate{k:n}$ will never take more search steps than the length of this sequence.
Since performing one search step is linear in the number of states, constructing one maximal sequence is linear in the length of the sequence and the number of states.
Determining the set $\fromopt[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$ of all maximal sequences will thus be linear in the number of sequences, in the length of the sequences and in the number of states.
\subsection{The recursive construction of the solutions}
To construct $\globfromopt$ recursively, we let $k$ run from $n$ to $1$.
For a fixed $k$, we construct the set $\fromopt[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$ for every $\zstate{k-1}\in\states{k-1}$, by means of the optimal tree construction.
We have already shown that constructing such a set is linear in the number of sequences, the length of the sequences and the number of states.
This means that performing this recursive construction is quadratic in the length of the sequences, quadratic in number of states and roughly speaking\footnote{For every $k$, constructing the set $\fromopt[\fromstates{k}]{z}{k}$ has linear complexity in the number of maximal elements at that stage.} linear in the number of maximal sequences.
\subsection{General complexity}
The complete algorithm consist of the preparatory calculations and the recursive construction of the solutions.
We conclude that it is quadratic in the number of nodes, cubic in the number of states, and roughly speaking linear in the number of maximal sequences.
\subsection{Comparison with Viterbi's algorithm}\label{sec:compare-viterbi}
For precise HMMs, the state sequence estimation problem can be solved very efficiently by the Viterbi algorithm \cite{rabiner1989,viterbi1967}, whose complexity is linear in the number of nodes, and quadratic in the number of states.
However, this algorithm only emits a single optimal (most probable) state sequence, even in cases where there are multiple (equally probable) optimal solutions: this of course simplifies the problem.
If we would content ourselves with giving only a single maximal solution, the ensuing version of our algorithm would have a complexity that is similar to Viterbi's.
So, to allow for a fair comparison between Viterbi's algorithm and ours, we would need to alter Viterbi's algorithm in such a way that it no longer resolves ties arbitrarily, and emits all (equally probable) optimal state sequences.
This new version will remain linear in the number of nodes, and quadratic in the number of states, but will also have added complexity.
This can easily be seen by noting that emitting the optimal sequences will be linear in the number of them and thus possibly exponential, if all possible solutions would for example be equally probable.
For the complexity for the most time-consuming part of our algorithm (the recursive construction of the solutions), the only difference is this: Viterbi's approach is linear and ours is quadratic in the number of nodes.
Where does this difference come from? In iHMMs we have mutually incomparable solutions, whereas in pHMMs the optimal solutions are indifferent, or equally probable.
This makes sure that the algorithm for pHMMs requires no forward loops, as is the case in the EstiHMM algorithm, when we perform the optimal tree construction.
We believe that this added complexity is a reasonable price to pay for the robustness that working with imprecise-probabilistic models offers.
\section{Some experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
While a linear complexity in the number of maximal sequences is probably the best we can hope for, we also see that we will only be able to find all maximal sequences efficiently provided their number is reasonably small.
Should it, say, tend to increase exponentially with the length of the chain, then no algorithm, however cleverly designed, could overcome this hurdle.
Because this number of maximal sequences is so important, we study its behaviour in more detail.
In order to do so, we take a closer look at how this number of maximal sequences depends on the transition probabilities of the model, and how it evolves when we let the imprecision of the local models grow.
We shall see that this number displays very interesting behaviour that can be explained, and even predicted to some extent.
To allow for easy visualisation, we limit this discussion to binary iHMMs, where both the state and output variables can assume only two possible values, say $0$ and $1$.
\subsection{Describing a binary stationary iHMM}
We first consider a binary stationary HMM.
The (precise) transition probabilities for going from one state to the next are completely determined by numbers in the unit interval: the probability $p$ to go from state $0$ to state $0$, and the probability $q$ to go from state $1$ to state $0$.
To further pin down the HMM we also need to specify the (marginal) probability $m$ for the first state to be $0$, and the two emission probabilities: the probability $r$ of emitting output $0$ from state $0$ and the probability $s$ of emitting output $0$ from state $1$.
\par
In this binary case, all coherent imprecise-probabilistic models can be found by contamination: taking convex mixtures of precise models, with mixture coefficient $1-\epsilon$, and the vacuous model, with mixture coefficient $\epsilon$, leading to a so-called linear-vacuous model \cite{walley1991}.
To simplify the analysis, we let the emission model remain precise, and use the same mixture coefficient $\epsilon$ for the marginal and the transition models.
As $\epsilon$ ranges from zero to one, we then evolve from a precise HMM towards an iHMM with vacuous marginal and transition models (and precise emission models).
\subsection{Explaining the basic ideas using a chain of length two}
We now examine the behaviour of an iHMM of length two, with the following (precise) probabilities fixed:\footnote{This choice is of course arbitrary. Different values would yield comparable results.}
\begin{equation*}
\text{$m=0.1$, $r=0.8$ and $s=0.3$}.
\end{equation*}
Fixing an output sequence and a value for $\epsilon$, we can use our algorithm to calculate the corresponding numbers of maximal state sequences as $p$ and $q$ range over the unit interval.
The results can be represented conveniently in the form of a heat plot.
The plots below correspond to the output sequence $\fromtoout{1}{2}=01$.
\par
\begin{wrapfigure}[20]{r}{0pt}
\begin{minipage}[r]{229pt}
\footnotesize
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west,inner sep=0] (plot) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=33mm]{01eps2.png}};
\begin{scope}[x={(plot.south east)},y={(plot.north west)}]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,1) ;
\node[below] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[below] at (1,0) {$1$};
\node[below=5pt] at (0.5,0) {$p$};
\node[left] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[left] at (0,1) {$1$};
\node[left=5pt] at (0,0.5) {$q$};
\node[comment] at (.75,.25) {$\epsilon=2\%$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west,inner sep=0] (plot) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=33mm]{01eps5.png}};
\begin{scope}[x={(plot.south east)},y={(plot.north west)}]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,1) ;
\node[below] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[below] at (1,0) {$1$};
\node[below=5pt] at (0.5,0) {$p$};
\node[left] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[left] at (0,1) {$1$};
\node[left=5pt] at (0,0.5) {$q$};
\node[comment] at (.75,.25) {$\epsilon=5\%$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}\\
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west,inner sep=0] (plot) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=33mm]{01eps10.png}};
\begin{scope}[x={(plot.south east)},y={(plot.north west)}]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,1) ;
\node[below] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[below] at (1,0) {$1$};
\node[below=5pt] at (0.5,0) {$p$};
\node[left] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[left] at (0,1) {$1$};
\node[left=5pt] at (0,0.5) {$q$};
\node[comment] at (.75,.25) {$\epsilon=10\%$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west,inner sep=0] (plot) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=33mm]{01eps15.png}};
\begin{scope}[x={(plot.south east)},y={(plot.north west)}]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,1) ;
\node[below] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[below] at (1,0) {$1$};
\node[below=5pt] at (0.5,0) {$p$};
\node[left] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[left] at (0,1) {$1$};
\node[left=5pt] at (0,0.5) {$q$};
\node[comment] at (.75,.25) {$\epsilon=15\%$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{minipage}
\end{wrapfigure}
The number of maximal state sequences clearly depends on the transition probabilities $p$ and $q$.
In the rather large parts of `probability space' that are coloured white, we get a single maximal sequence---as we would for HMMs---, but there are contiguous regions where we see a higher number appear.
In the present example (binary chain of length two), the highest possible number of maximal sequences is of course four.
In the dark grey area, there are three maximal sequences, and two in the light grey regions.
The plots show what happens when we let $\epsilon$ increase: the grey areas expand and the number of maximal sequences increases.
For $\epsilon=15\%$, we even find a small area (coloured black) where all four possible state sequences are maximal: locally, due to the relatively high imprecision of our local models, we cannot give any useful robust estimates of the state sequence producing the output sequence $\fromtoout{1}{2}=01$.
\par
For small $\epsilon$, the areas with more than one maximal state sequence are quite small and seem to resemble strips that narrow down to lines as $\epsilon$ tends to zero.
This suggests that we should be able to explain at least qualitatively where these areas come from by looking at compatible precise models: the regions where an iHMM produces different maximal (mutually incomparable) sequences, are widened versions of loci of indifference for precise HMMs.
\par
By a \emph{locus of indifference}, we mean the set of $(p,q)$ that correspond to two given state sequences $\fromtoxstate{1}{2}$ and $\fromtoxhatstate{1}{2}$ having equal posterior probability:
\begin{equation*}
p(\fromtoxstate{1}{2}\vert\fromtoout{1}{2})=p(\fromtoxhatstate{1}{2}\vert\fromtoout{1}{2}),
\end{equation*}
or, provided that $p(\fromtoout{1}{2})>0$,
\begin{equation*}
p(\fromtoxstate{1}{2},\fromtoout{1}{2})=p(\fromtoxhatstate{1}{2},\fromtoout{1}{2}).
\end{equation*}
In our example where $\fromtoout{1}{2}=01$, we find the following expressions for each of the four possible state sequences:
\begin{align*}
p(00,01)&=mr(1-r)p\\
p(01,01)&=mr(1-s)(1-p)\\
p(10,01)&=(1-m)s(1-r)q\\
p(11,01)&=(1-m)s(1-s)(1-q)
\end{align*}
By equating any two of these expressions, we express that the corresponding two state sequences have an equal posterior probability.
Since the resulting equations are a function of $p$ and $q$ only, each of these six possible combinations defines a locus of indifference.
All of them are depicted as lines in the following figure.
\begin{wrapfigure}[20]{r}{0pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=6.9]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,1);
\node (hulp) at (0,1.05) {};
\node[below] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[below] at (1,0) {$1$};
\node[below=10pt] at (0.5,0) {$p$};
\node[left] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[left] at (0,1) {$1$};
\node[left=10pt] at (0,0.5) {$q$};
\draw[thin] (7/9,0) -- (7/9,1) node[sloped,pos=.5,fill=white,rotate=180,scale=1.25] {\tiny$00-01$};
\draw[thin] (0,0) -- (1,8/27) node[sloped,pos=.5,fill=white,scale=1.25] {\tiny$00-10$};
\draw[thin] (0,1) -- (1,173/189) node[sloped,pos=.5,fill=white,scale=1.25] {\tiny$00-11$};
\draw[thin] (1,0) -- (1/28,1) node[sloped,pos=.5,fill=white,scale=1.25] {\tiny$01-10$};
\draw[thin] (1,1) -- (0,19/27) node[sloped,pos=.5,fill=white,scale=1.25] {\tiny$01-11$};
\draw[thin] (0,7/9) -- (1,7/9) node[sloped,pos=.1,fill=white,scale=1.25] {\tiny$10-11$};
\draw[blue,very thick] (1/4,7/9) -- (1,7/9);
\draw[blue,very thick] (1/4,7/9) -- (1/28,1);
\draw[blue,very thick] (1/4,7/9) -- (0,19/27);
\node[circle,fill=blue!20,inner sep=2.5pt] at (1/3,1/3) {$11$};
\node[circle,fill=blue!20,inner sep=2.5pt] at (1/3,8/9) {$10$};
\node[circle,fill=blue!20,inner sep=2.5pt] at (1/15,13/15) {$01$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{wrapfigure}
Parts of these loci, depicted in blue (darker and bolder in monochrome versions of this paper) demarcate the three regions where the state sequences $01$, $10$ and $11$ are optimal (have the highest posterior probability).
\par
What happens when the transition models become imprecise?
Roughly speaking, nearby values of the original $p$ and $q$ enter the picture, effectively turning the loci (lines) of indifference into bands of incomparability: the emergence of regions with two and more maximal sequences can be seen to originate from the loci of indifference; compare the figure for these loci with the heat plots given above.
\subsection{Extending the argument to a chain of length three}
For a chain of length three, we can determine the loci of indifference for precise models in a completely analogous manner.
If we use the same marginal model and emission model as in the previous example, the resulting lines of indifference for the output sequence $000$ look as follows.
\begin{minipage}[l]{230pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west,inner sep=0] (plot) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=70mm]{000allines.png}};
\begin{scope}[x={(plot.south east)},y={(plot.north west)}]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,1) ;
\node[below] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[below] at (1,0) {$1$};
\node[below=5pt] at (0.5,0) {$p$};
\node[left] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[left] at (0,1) {$1$};
\node[left=5pt] at (0,0.5) {$q$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[r]{180pt}
\footnotesize
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west,inner sep=0] (plot) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=33mm]{000eps2.png}};
\begin{scope}[x={(plot.south east)},y={(plot.north west)}]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,1) ;
\node[below] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[below] at (1,0) {$1$};
\node[below=5pt] at (0.5,0) {$p$};
\node[left] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[left] at (0,1) {$1$};
\node[left=5pt] at (0,0.5) {$q$};
\node[comment] at (.60,.85) {$\epsilon=2\%$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west,inner sep=0] (plot) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=33mm]{000eps5.png}};
\begin{scope}[x={(plot.south east)},y={(plot.north west)}]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,1) ;
\node[below] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[below] at (1,0) {$1$};
\node[below=5pt] at (0.5,0) {$p$};
\node[left] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[left] at (0,1) {$1$};
\node[left=5pt] at (0,0.5) {$q$};
\node[comment] at (.60,.85) {$\epsilon=5\%$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{minipage}
\begin{wrapfigure}[10]{r}{0pt}
\begin{minipage}[r]{243pt}
\footnotesize
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west,inner sep=0] (plot) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=33mm]{000eps10.png}};
\begin{scope}[x={(plot.south east)},y={(plot.north west)}]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,1) ;
\node[below] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[below] at (1,0) {$1$};
\node[below=5pt] at (0.5,0) {$p$};
\node[left] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[left] at (0,1) {$1$};
\node[left=5pt] at (0,0.5) {$q$};
\node[comment] at (.60,.85) {$\epsilon=10\%$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{3mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[anchor=south west,inner sep=0] (plot) at (0,0) {\includegraphics[width=33mm]{000eps15.png}};
\begin{scope}[x={(plot.south east)},y={(plot.north west)}]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,1) ;
\node[below] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[below] at (1,0) {$1$};
\node[below=5pt] at (0.5,0) {$p$};
\node[left] at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[left] at (0,1) {$1$};
\node[left=5pt] at (0,0.5) {$q$};
\node[comment] at (.60,.85) {$\epsilon=15\%$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{minipage}
\end{wrapfigure}
\mbox{}\\
If we compare this with the visualisation of the number of
maximal elements for the same sequence, the resemblance is again quite
striking. Not that in this example, the black areas correspond to a
number of maximal sequences that is at least four.
\section{Showing off the algorithm's power}
\label{sec:example}
In order to demonstrate that our algorithm is indeed quite efficient, we let it determine the maximal sequences for a random output sequence of length $100$.
\par
We consider the same binary stationary HMM as we presented above, but with the following precise marginal and emission probabilities:
\begin{equation*}
\text{$m=0.1$, $r=0.98$ and $s=0.01$}.
\end{equation*}
In practical applications, the probability for an output variable to have the same value as the corresponding hidden state variable is usually quite high, which explains why we have chosen $r$ and $s$ to be close to $1$ and to $0$, respectively.
In contrast with the previous experiments, we do not let the transition probabilities vary, but fix them to the following values:
\begin{equation*}
p=0.6
\text{ and }
q=0.5.
\end{equation*}
The iHMM we use to determine the maximal sequences is then generated by mixing these precise local models with a vacuous one, using the same mixture coefficient $\epsilon$ for the marginal, transition and emission models.
In Figure~\ref{fig:100}, we display the five maximal sequences corresponding to the highlighted output sequence, and $\epsilon=2\%$.
Since the emission probabilities were chosen to be quite accurate, it is no surprise that the output sequence itself is one of the maximal sequences.
In addition, we have indicated in bold face the state values that differ from the outputs in the output sequence.
We see that the model represents more indecision about the values of the state variables as we move further away from the end of the sequence.
This is a result of a phenomenon called \emph{dilation}, which---as has been
\begin{wrapfigure}[51]{R}{0pt}
\hspace{1mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=3]
\begin{scope}[node distance=10pt]
\node (k1) [rotate=-90,fill=blue!10] at (0,5)
{\textls
{1110000011010000100010000111111111101111010000101101101100001101001001100110101100011011000010111001}}
\node [rotate=-90,above of=k1,node distance=15pt] (k2)
{\textls
{1110000011010000100010000111111111101111010000101101101100001101001001100110101100011011000010111001}}
\node [rotate=-90,above of=k2] (k3)
{\textls
{11{\bf0}0000011010000100010000111111111101111010000101101101100001101001001100110101100011011000010111001}}
\node [rotate=-90,above of=k3] (k4)
{\textls
{11100000{\bf0}1010000100010000111111111101111010000101101101100001101001001100110101100011011000010111001}}
\node [rotate=-90,above of=k4] (k5)
{\textls
{11100000110{\bf0}0000100010000111111111101111010000101101101100001101001001100110101100011011000010111001}}
\node [rotate=-90,above of=k5] (k6)
{\textls
{1110000011010000{\bf0}00010000111111111101111010000101101101100001101001001100110101100011011000010111001}}
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{fig:100}
\end{wrapfigure}
\noindent
noted in another paper \cite{cooman2009}---tends to occur when inferences in a credal tree proceed from the leaves towards the root.
\par
As for the efficiency of our algorithm: it took about $0.2$ seconds to calculate these $5$ maximal sequences.\footnote{Running a Python programme on a 2012 MacBookPro.}
The reason why this could be done so fast is that the algorithm is linear in the number of solutions, which in this case is only $5$.
If we let $\epsilon$ grow to for example $5\%$, the number of maximal sequences for the same output sequence is $764$ and these can be determined in about $32$ seconds.
This demonstrates that the complexity is indeed linear in the number of solutions and that the algorithm can efficiently calculate the maximal sequences even for long output sequences.
\section{An application in optical character recognition}
\label{sec:app}
As a first and simple toy application, we use the EstiHMM algorithm to try and detect mistakes in words.
A written word is regarded as a hidden sequence $\fromxstate{1}$, generating an output sequence $\fromout{1}$ by artificially corrupting the word.
In this way, we simulate observation processes that are not perfectly reliable, such as the output of an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) device.
This leads to observed output sequences that may contain errors, which we will try and detect.
We compare our results with those of the Viterbi algorithm and show that our algorithm offers a more robust solution.
\subsection{Generating the HMM}
A local uncertainty model must be identified for each original and observed letter: a marginal model $\statelpr{1}$ for the first letter $\statevar{1}$ of the original word, a transition model $\stateclpr{k}{k-1}$ for the subsequent letters $\statevar{k}$, with $k\in\{2,\dots,n\}$, and an emission model $\outclpr{k}$ for the observed letters $\outvar{k}$, with $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$.
For the sake of simplicity, we assume stationarity, making the transition and emission models independent of~$k$.
For the identification of the local models of the iHMM, we use the imprecise Dirichlet model (IDM, \cite{walley1996b}).
For example, for the marginal model $\statelpr{1}$, applying the IDM leads to the following simple identification:
\begin{equation*}
\statelprone[\sing{x}]=\frac{n_x}{s+\sum_{z\in\states{}}n_z}
\text{ and }
\stateuprone[\sing{x}]=\frac{s+n_x}{s+\sum_{z\in\states{}}n_z},\qquad\qquad\qquad
\end{equation*}
where $n_z$ counts the words in the sample text for which the first letter $\statevar{1}=\zstate{}$ and $s$ is a (positive real) hyperparameter that expresses the degree of caution in the inferences.
In this example, we let $s=2$.
For the transition and emission models, we can proceed similarly, by counting the transitions of one character to another, respectively in the original word or during the observation process.
In this way we obtain lower and upper transition and emission probabilities for singletons, which, as pointed out in Section~\ref{subsec:comments}, suffice to run the algorithm.
Note that if $s$ were chosen to be zero, the local models would become precise and the EstiHMM algorithm would reduce to the Viterbi algorithm (or a version of it that does not resolve ties arbitrarily, see Section~\ref{sec:compare-viterbi}).
For the identification of the local models in the precise HMM, we use a similar but now precise Dirichlet model approach, with a Perks's prior that has the same prior strength $s=2$.
As an example, for the precise marginal model $\statepr{1}$, this leads to the following simple identification:
\begin{equation*}
\stateprone[\sing{x}]=\frac{\nicefrac{s}{\lvert\states{}\rvert}+n_x}{s+\sum_{z\in\states{}}n_z},
\end{equation*}
where $\lvert\states{}\rvert$ is the number of states.
\subsection{Results}
Let us first discuss a specific example of the difference between the actual results we obtained using the Viterbi and the EstiHMM algorithms, in order to illustrate an important advantage of the latter.
OCR software has mistakenly read the Italian word QUANTO as OUANTO.
Using a precise model, the Viterbi algorithm does not correct this mistake, as it suggests that the original correct word is DUANTO.
The EstiHMM algorithm on the other hand, using an imprecise model, returns CUANTO, DUANTO, FUANTO and QUANTO as maximal (undominated) solutions, including the correct one.
Of course we would still have to pick the correct solution out of this set of suggestions---for example by using a dictionary or a human opinion---, but by using the EstiHMM algorithm, we have managed to reduce the search space from all possible five letter words to the much smaller set of four words given above.
Notice that the solution of the Viterbi algorithm is included in the maximal solutions EstiHMM returns.
One can easily prove that this will always be the case.
To simulate an OCR device, we have artificially corrupted the first $200$ words of the first {\itshape canto} of Dante’s \emph{Divina Commedia}, resulting in $137$ correctly read words and $63$ words containing errors.
We try and correct these errors using both the EstiHMM and the Viterbi algorithm, and compare both approaches.
The results are summarised in the following table.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
& \textit{total number} & \textit{correct after OCR} & \textit{wrong after OCR}\\[.5ex]
\textit{total number} & $200$ ($100\%$) & $137$ ($68.5\%$) & $63$ ($31.5\%$)\\[.5ex]
\textbf{Viterbi} & & & \\
\textit{correct solution} & $157$ ($78.5\%$) & $132$ & $25$\\
\textit{wrong solution} & $43$ ($21.5\%$) & $5$ & $38$\\[.5ex]
\textbf{EstiHMM}& & & \\
\textit{correct solution included} & $172$ ($86\%$) & $137$ & $35$\\
\textit{correct solution not included} & $28$ ($14\%$) & $0$ & $28$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
For the Viterbi algorithm, the main conclusion is that applying it to the output of the OCR device results in a decreased number of incorrect words.
The number of correct words rises from $68.5\%$ to $78.5\%$.
However, the Viterbi algorithm also introduces new errors for $5$ correctly read words.
The EstiHMM algorithm manages to suggest the original correct word as one of her solutions in $86\%$ of the cases.
Assuming we are able to detect this correct word, the percentage of
correct words rises from $68.5\%$ to $86\%$ by applying the EstiHMM
algorithm, thereby outperforming the Viterbi algorithm by almost $10\%$.
Secondly, we also notice that the EstiHMM algorithm has never introduced new errors in words that were already correct.
Of course, since the EstiHMM algorithm allows for multiple solutions, instead of a single one, it is no surprise that we manage to increase the amount of times we suggest the correct solution.
This would happen even if we added random extra solutions to the solution of the Viterbi algorithm.
Giving extra solutions can only be seen as an improvement if this is done smartly.
To investigate this, we distinguish between the cases where the EstiHMM algorithm returns a single solution, and those where it returns multiple solutions; and look at how the Viterbi and EstiHMM algorithms compare in those two cases.
The EstiHMM algorithm returned a single solution for $155$ of the $200$ words.
As we have already mentioned above, this single solution will always coincide with the one given by the Viterbi algorithm.
The results for the EstiHMM (and Viterbi) algorithms are summarised in the following table.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\textbf{EstiHMM (single solutions)} & \textit{total number} & \textit{correct after OCR} & \textit{wrong after OCR}\\[.5ex]
\textit{total number} & $155$ ($100\%$) & $129$ ($83.2\%$) & $26$ ($16.8\%$)\\
\textit{single correct solution} & $134$ ($86.5\%$) & $129$ & $5$\\
\textit{single wrong solution} & $21$ ($13.5\%$) & $0$ & $21$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The percentage of words correctly read by the OCR software is now $83.2\%$ instead of the global $68.5\%$.
When the result of the EstiHMM algorithm is a single solution, this serves as an indication that the word we are trying to correct has a fairly high probability of already being correct.
We also see that the eventual percentage of correct words is $86.5\%$,
which is only a slight improvement over the $83.2\%$ that were already correct before applying the algorithms.
Next, we look at the remaining $45$ words, for which the EstiHMM algorithm returns more than one maximal element.
In this case, we do see a significant difference between the results of the Viterbi and the EstiHMM algorithm, since the Viterbi algorithm never returned more than one solution.\footnote{In theory, the Viterbi algorithm can return multiple indifferent solutions, but in practice it almost never does.}
The results for both algorithms are listed in the following table.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llll
& \textit{total number} & \textit{correct after OCR} &
\textit{wrong after OCR}\\[.5ex]
\textit{total number} & $45$ ($100\%$) & $8$ ($17.8\%$) & $37$ ($82.2\%$)\\[.5ex]
\textbf{EstiHMM (multiple solutions)}&&&\\
\textit{correct solution included} & $38$ ($84.4\%$) & $8$ & $30$\\
\textit{correct solution not included} & $7$ ($15.6\%$) & $0$ & $7$\\[.5ex]
\textbf{Viterbi}&&&\\
\textit{correct solution} & $23$ ($51.1\%$) & $3$ & $20$\\
\textit{wrong solution} & $22$ ($48.9\%$) & $5$ & $17$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
A first and very important conclusion to be drawn from this table, is that EstiHMM's being indecisive serves as a rather strong indication that the word we are applying the algorithm to does indeed contain errors: when the EstiHMM algorithm returns multiple solutions, the original word has been incorrectly read by the OCR software in $82.2\%$ of cases.
A second conclusion, related to the first, is that EstiHMM's being indecisive also serves as an indication that the result returned by the Viterbi algorithm is less reliable: the percentage of correct words after applying the Viterbi algorithm has dropped to $51.1\%$, in contrast with the global percentage of $78.5\%$.
The EstiHMM algorithm, however, still gives the correct word as one of
its solutions in $84.4\%$ of cases, which is almost as high as its
global percentage of $86\%$.
If the set given by the EstiHMM algorithm contains the correct solution, the Viterbi algorithm manages to
pick this correct solution out of the set in $60.5\%$ of cases.
We see that the EstiHMM algorithm seems to notice that we are dealing with more difficult words and therefore gives us multiple solutions, between which it cannot decide.
We conclude from this experiment that EstiHMM can be usefully applied to make the results of the Viterbi algorithm more robust, and to gain an appreciation of where it is likely to go wrong.
If the EstiHMM algorithm returns multiple solutions, this serves as an indication for robustness issues that would occur if we solved the same problem with the Viterbi algorithm.
In that case, EstiHMM returns multiple solutions, between which it cannot decide, whereas the Viterbi algorithm will pick one out of this set in a fairly arbitrary way---depending on the choice of the prior---, thereby increasing the amount of errors made.
The advantage of our method is that it detects such robustness issues, leaving us with the option of solving them in different ways.
A first method would be to pick the correct word out of the set of possible solutions in some non-arbitrary way.
For the current application this could be done using a dictionary or a human expert.
Another method for dealing with robustness issues would be to conclude that we need more data in order to build a better model, less sensitive to the choice of the prior.
After applying the EstiHMM algorithm again, using the new model, we could check whether the robustness issues have been satisfactorily dealt with.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Interpreting the graphical structure of an imprecise hidden Markov model as a credal network under epistemic irrelevance leads to an efficient algorithm for finding the maximal (undominated) state sequences for a given output sequence.
Preliminary simulations show that, even for transition models with non-negligible imprecision, the number of maximal elements seems to be reasonably low in fairly large regions of parameter space, with high numbers of maximal elements concentrated in fairly small regions.
It remains to be seen whether this observation can be corroborated by a deeper theoretical analysis.
A first and simple toy application clearly shows that the EstiHMM algorithm is able to robustify the results of the Viterbi algorithm.
Not only does it reduce the amount of wrong conclusions by giving extra possible solutions, but it does so in an intelligent manner.
It adds extra solutions in the specific cases where the Viterbi algorithm has robustness issues, thereby also serving as an indicator of the reliability of the result given by the Viterbi algorithm.
An interesting further avenue of research would be to compare the EstiHMM algorithm with other methods that also try to robustify the Viterbi algorithm.
Although most of these methods start from a precise model and introduce safety rather than imprecision by for example trying to find the $k$ most probable solutions, their practical applications are similar.
A comparison of their results with ours could therefore prove to be interesting.
We leave this as a topic of future research.
It is not clear to us, at this point, whether ideas similar to the ones we discussed above could be used to derive similarly efficient algorithms for imprecise hidden Markov models whose graphical structure is interpreted as a credal network under strong independence \cite{cozman2000}.
This could be interesting and relevant, as the more stringent independence condition leads to joint models that are less imprecise, and therefore produce fewer maximal state sequences (although they will be contained in our solutions).
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Jasper De Bock is a Ph.D.~Fellow of the Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO) at Ghent University, and has developed the algorithm described here in the
context of his Master's thesis, in close cooperation with Gert de Cooman, who acted as his thesis supervisor.
The present article describes the main results of this Master's thesis.
\par
Research by De Cooman has been supported by SBO project~060043 of the IWT-Vlaanderen.
This paper has benefitted from discussions with Marco Zaffalon, Alessandro Antonucci, Alessio Benavoli, Cassio de Campos, Erik Quaeghebeur and Filip Hermans.
We are grateful to Marco Zaffalon for providing travel funds allowing us to visit IDSIA and discuss practical applications.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
Subsets and Splits