text
stringlengths 649
4.42k
| synonym_substitution
stringlengths 759
4.5k
| butter_fingers
stringlengths 649
4.42k
| random_deletion
stringlengths 453
2.31k
| change_char_case
stringlengths 649
4.42k
| whitespace_perturbation
stringlengths 764
5.02k
| underscore_trick
stringlengths 649
4.42k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
p,\ov\p_p\}=\{C_p\otimes_{R\G}R,\p_p\ox{\operatorname{id}}\}$. We claim that $r_p= {\operatorname{rank}}_{\mathbb{Q}}\ov C_p$. This is clear if $C_p$ is free. If $C_p$ is merely projective it requires a short argument that we leave to the reader. Now observe $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}H_p(\SC_*) &= {\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}(\ker\p_p) - {\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}({\operatorname{image}}\p_{p+1})\\
&= r_p - {\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}({\operatorname{image}}\p_p) - {\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}({\operatorname{image}}\p_{p+1})\\
&\le r_p - {\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}({\operatorname{image}}\ov\p_p) - {\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}({\operatorname{image}}\ov\p_{p+1})\\
&= {\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}(\ker\ov\p_p) - {\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}({\operatorname{image}}\ov\p_{p+1})\\
&= {\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q} H_p(\ov\SC_*),\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality follows from two applications of Lemma \[strebel\] above.
\[prop:oldCH\] ( [@CH1 Proposition 4.3]) Suppose $\phi:A\to B$ induces a monomorphism $H_1(A,\bbq)\rightarrowtail H_1(B,\bbq)$ and an epimorphism $H_2(A,\bbq)\to H_2(B,\bbq)$. If $A$ is finitely-generated, $B$ is finitely-related and $\G=B/B_0$ is PTFA, the kernel of $H_1(A,\bbq\G)\lra H_1(B,\bbq\G)$ is a $\bbq\G$-torsion module. If, in addition, $H_1(A,\bbq)\rightarrowtail H_1(B,\bbq)$ is surjective, then the cokernel of $H_1 | p,\ov\p_p\}=\{C_p\otimes_{R\G}R,\p_p\ox{\operatorname{id}}\}$. We claim that $ r_p= { \operatorname{rank}}_{\mathbb{Q}}\ov C_p$. This is clear if $ C_p$ is free. If $ C_p$ is merely projective it requires a short controversy that we bequeath to the reader. Now observe $ $ \begin{aligned }
{ \operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}H_p(\SC _ *) & = { \operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}(\ker\p_p) - { \operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}({\operatorname{image}}\p_{p+1})\\
& = r_p - { \operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}({\operatorname{image}}\p_p) - { \operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}({\operatorname{image}}\p_{p+1})\\
& \le r_p - { \operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}({\operatorname{image}}\ov\p_p) - { \operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}({\operatorname{image}}\ov\p_{p+1})\\
& = { \operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}(\ker\ov\p_p) - { \operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}({\operatorname{image}}\ov\p_{p+1})\\
& = { \operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q } H_p(\ov\SC_*),\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality postdate from two applications of Lemma \[strebel\ ] above.
\[prop: oldCH\ ] ( [ @CH1 Proposition 4.3 ]) presuppose $ \phi: A\to B$ induce a monomorphism $ H_1(A,\bbq)\rightarrowtail H_1(B,\bbq)$ and an epimorphism $ H_2(A,\bbq)\to H_2(B,\bbq)$. If $ A$ is finitely - generated, $ B$ is finitely - associate and $ \G = B / B_0 $ is PTFA, the kernel of $ H_1(A,\bbq\G)\lra H_1(B,\bbq\G)$ is a $ \bbq\G$-torsion module. If, in addition, $ H_1(A,\bbq)\rightarrowtail H_1(B,\bbq)$ is surjective, then the cokernel of $ H_1 | p,\ov\o_p\}=\{C_p\otimes_{R\G}R,\p_p\ox{\operatovname{id}}\}$. We claim that $r_'= {\operaforname{rxnk}}_{\mathbb{Q}}\ov C_p$. This is cleac if $C_p$ iw free. If $C_p$ is merely projectine it reqyirew a short acfument bkat ws leare to the reader. Now obseree $$\begin{aligneg}
{\ooexatorname{rank}}_{R\G}H_p(\SC_*) &= {\operatorname{ragk}}_{R\G}(\ker\l_p) - {\operatorname{tank}}_{R\B}({\jperznovname{image}}\p_{p+1})\\
&= r_p - {\operatorname{rani}}_{R\G}({\operetorname{image}}\p_p) - {\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}({\operatlrnale{image}}\p_{p+1})\\
&\le r_p - {\opfratorname{rqnk}}_\mwrhbb{Q}({\operatofname{image}}\ov\p_p) - {\operatkrname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}({\operatorname{imxge}}\ov\'_{p+1})\\
&= {\operatorbane{rwtk}}_\mathbb{Q}(\kec\ov\p_p) - {\operatornamc{gank}}_\matvbb{Q}({\opetatorname{image}}\pv\p_{'+1})\\
&= {\opwratorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q} H_p(\ov\SC_*),\end{aligned}$$ rhere the iuequality follows fron rwo akplicdtiovw ow Ltmme \[stdebel\] wbote.
\[prop:oldCH\] ( [@CH1 Proposirion 4.3]) Suppose $\phi:A\tp F$ induces a mohomorprifm $H_1(A,\bbq)\rightarrowtail H_1(B,\bbq)$ and an epikorlhism $H_2(A,\bbq)\to H_2(B,\bbq)$. If $Q$ is finitely-generatef, $B$ is figitely-related and $\G=B/B_0$ is PTFA, the kernel of $H_1(A,\bbq\C)\lra I_1(B,\cbq\Y)$ is a $\vbe\G$-torsion module. If, in addition, $H_1(A,\bbq)\rightarrjstsik H_1(B,\bbq)$ is surmective, then the cpkfrmgl of $H_1 | p,\ov\p_p\}=\{C_p\otimes_{R\G}R,\p_p\ox{\operatorname{id}}\}$. We claim that $r_p= {\operatorname{rank}}_{\mathbb{Q}}\ov C_p$. clear $C_p$ is If $C_p$ is short that we leave the reader. Now $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}H_p(\SC_*) &= {\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}(\ker\p_p) - {\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}({\operatorname{image}}\p_{p+1})\\ r_p - {\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}({\operatorname{image}}\p_p) - {\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}({\operatorname{image}}\p_{p+1})\\ &\le r_p - {\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}({\operatorname{image}}\ov\p_p) - {\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}({\operatorname{image}}\ov\p_{p+1})\\ &= {\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}(\ker\ov\p_p) {\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}({\operatorname{image}}\ov\p_{p+1})\\ &= {\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q} H_p(\ov\SC_*),\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality follows from two applications of Lemma above. ( Proposition Suppose $\phi:A\to B$ induces a monomorphism $H_1(A,\bbq)\rightarrowtail H_1(B,\bbq)$ and an epimorphism $H_2(A,\bbq)\to H_2(B,\bbq)$. If $A$ is $B$ is finitely-related and $\G=B/B_0$ is PTFA, the of $H_1(A,\bbq\G)\lra H_1(B,\bbq\G)$ is $\bbq\G$-torsion module. If, in addition, H_1(B,\bbq)$ surjective, then cokernel $H_1 | p,\ov\p_p\}=\{C_p\otimes_{R\G}R,\p_p\ox{\operaTorname{id}}\}$. WE claiM thAt $r_P= {\oPeraTornAme{rank}}_{\mathbb{Q}}\OV C_p$. THis is clear if $C_p$ is free. If $c_p$ is mErELy prOJeCtive It requiREs A SHorT aRgUmeNt THaT we leAve To the reAder. Now obsErvE $$\bEgin{aligned}
{\oPErAtorname{raNk}}_{R\g}H_p(\SC_*) &= {\operatoRnaMe{rank}}_{r\G}(\Ker\P_P) - {\operAtoRname{Rank}}_{R\G}({\OPeratoRname{imagE}}\p_{P+1})\\
&= R_p - {\operATorname{RANk}}_{r\G}({\opEratorname{image}}\p_p) - {\OPeRAtorname{rank}}_{R\G}({\OperatOrNAmE{IMagE}}\p_{p+1})\\
&\Le r_p - {\operatOrName{rANk}}_\mathbB{q}({\oPERAtoRName{image}}\ov\p_p) - {\OperatornamE{RanK}}_\mathbB{Q}({\OpeRAtornaMe{imaGe}}\OV\p_{p+1})\\
&= {\OperatornamE{ranK}}_\mathbb{Q}(\kEr\ov\p_p) - {\OPeratorNAme{rank}}_\Mathbb{q}({\opEraTornAMe{ImAge}}\Ov\P_{P+1})\\
&= {\opERaTorNAme{Rank}}_\mathBb{q} H_P(\ov\SC_*),\End{aLIGNEd}$$ whEre The iNequaLity follows frOm tWo apPLicAtionS of LeMma \[sTrEbel\] aBove.
\[prOp:oldcH\] ( [@cH1 Proposition 4.3]) SuPposE $\phi:A\to B$ iNduCeS a mOnOmorpHIsm $H_1(A,\bBq)\rIghTarrowtAil H_1(B,\bbQ)$ And An EPIMoRphism $H_2(A,\bbq)\to H_2(B,\bbq)$. if $a$ IS fInitely-gEneratED, $B$ Is FInitely-rElAteD and $\g=b/b_0$ is PTfA, thE KeRnel of $H_1(A,\Bbq\G)\lrA h_1(B,\BbQ\G)$ is a $\bbQ\G$-TorsioN mOduLe. IF, in adDItioN, $H_1(A,\bbq)\RightarrOwtaiL h_1(B,\bbq)$ is surjectIVe, then the cokeRNeL OF $H_1 | p,\ov\p_p\}=\{C_p\otimes_{ R\G}R,\p_p \ox{\ ope rat or name {id} }\}$. We claim that $r_p= {\operatorname{ rank} }_ { \mat h bb {Q}}\ ov C_p$ . T h i s i scl ear i f $ C_p$isfree. I f $C_p$ is me re ly projectiv e i t requires ashort argume ntthat w elea v e tothe read er. No w obser ve $$\beg in { aligne d }
{\ope r a to rnam e{rank}}_{R\G}H_p ( \S C _*) &= {\oper atorna me { ra n k }}_ {R\ G}(\ker\p_ p) - {\ o perator n am e { r ank } }_{R\G}({\ope ratorname{i m age }}\p_{ p+ 1}) \ \
&= r _p -{\ o per atorname{ra nk}} _{R\G}({\ operat o rname{i m age}}\p _p) -{\o per ator n am e{ ran k} } _{R \ G} ({\ o per atorname {i ma ge}}\ p_{p + 1 } ) \\
& \le r_p - {\ operatorname{ ran k}}_ \ mat hbb{Q }({\o pera to rname {image }}\ov \p _p) - {\operato rnam e{rank}}_ \ma th bb{ Q} ({\op e ratorn ame {im age}}\o v\p_{p+ 1 })\ \& = {\ operatorname{rank} }_ \ m at hbb{Q}(\ ker\ov \ p_ p) - {\oper at orn ame{ r a nk}}_ \mat h bb {Q}({\op erator n am e{ image}} \o v\p_{p +1 })\ \
& = {\o p erat orname {rank}}_ \math b b{Q} H_p(\ov\S C _*),\end{alig n ed } $ $w here th e inequalit y fo l lows fro m t woa pplic ation so fL emma \[strebel\] ab ov e.
\[ prop: oldCH\] ( [@C H1 Proposi t i o n 4.3])Supp o se $\phi:A\to B$induc es a monom o rphism $ H_1(A ,\bbq)\r ightarrow t a il H_1(B ,\b bq) $ a nda n e pimorphism $H _ 2 (A,\ bb q)\to H _2( B,\bbq) $.If$A$ is f initely-g enerated ,$B $is fi nitel y -related a nd$\ G=B /B_0$ is PTF A, th e ke rn el of$H_1(A, \ bb q \ G)\l ra H _1(B ,\b bq \G)$is a $\b bq\G$-t orsion mo dul e . If ,in additi on, $H_1(A,\b bq )\rightarr ow tai l H_1( B , \bbq)$ i s surjective, then thec okernel of $H_1 | p,\ov\p_p\}=\{C_p\otimes_{R\G}R,\p_p\ox{\operatorname{id}}\}$. We_claim that_$r_p= {\operatorname{rank}}_{\mathbb{Q}}\ov C_p$. This_is clear_if_$C_p$ is_free._If $C_p$ is_merely projective it_requires a short argument_that we leave_to_the reader. Now observe $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}H_p(\SC_*) &= {\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}(\ker\p_p) - {\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}({\operatorname{image}}\p_{p+1})\\
&= r_p - {\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}({\operatorname{image}}\p_p) -_{\operatorname{rank}}_{R\G}({\operatorname{image}}\p_{p+1})\\
&\le_r_p -_{\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}({\operatorname{image}}\ov\p_p)_-_{\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}({\operatorname{image}}\ov\p_{p+1})\\
&= {\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}(\ker\ov\p_p) - {\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}({\operatorname{image}}\ov\p_{p+1})\\
&= {\operatorname{rank}}_\mathbb{Q}_H_p(\ov\SC_*),\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality follows_from two_applications of Lemma \[strebel\] above.
\[prop:oldCH\] ( [@CH1 Proposition 4.3]) Suppose_$\phi:A\to_B$ induces a_monomorphism $H_1(A,\bbq)\rightarrowtail H_1(B,\bbq)$ and an epimorphism $H_2(A,\bbq)\to H_2(B,\bbq)$. If_$A$ is finitely-generated, $B$ is finitely-related_and $\G=B/B_0$ is_PTFA,_the_kernel of $H_1(A,\bbq\G)\lra H_1(B,\bbq\G)$_is a $\bbq\G$-torsion module. If, in_addition, $H_1(A,\bbq)\rightarrowtail H_1(B,\bbq)$ is surjective, then_the cokernel of $H_1 |
grains are removed from the surface layer. They can exist only within the cloud interior $exp(-\tau_V)\ll 1$ where the external radiation is completely absorbed. Such a condition is expected in protoplanetary disks where dust accretion moves dust toward the star. The inner disk radius is then defined by the largest grains, no matter what the overall grain size composition, because the largest grains survive the closest to the star and dictate the surface radiative transfer.
A new problem arises in that case. Since the temperature inversion keeps the very surface of the cloud below the sublimation temperature, its dust can move even closer to the star. We show that this creates an optically thin dusty zone inside the dust destruction radius of an optically thick disk (figure \[Disksketch\]). Only big grains can survive in this zone. We estimate that its size is large enough to be detected by near IR interferometry. It consists of big grains and gas enriched by metals from sublimated dust, hence favorable for grain growth. This shows that the geometry and structure of inner disks cannot be determined by simple ad hoc boundary conditions. It requires self-consistent calculations of dust dynamics combined with radiative transfer calculations and dust sublimation.
Supports by the NSF grant PHY-0503584 and the W.M. Keck Foundation are gratefully acknowledged.
Calvet, N., Patino, A., Magris, G. C., & D’Alessio, P. 1991,, 380, 617
Carciofi, A. C., Bjorkman, J. E., & Magalh[\~ a]{}es, A. M. 2004,, 604, 238
Dullemond, C. P. 2002,, 395, 853
Dullemond, C. P., Dominik, C., & Natta, A. 2001,, 560, 957
Dullemond, C. P., & Dominik, C. 2004,, 417, 159
Efstathiou, A., & Rowan-Robinson, M. 1994,, 266, 212
Isella, A., & Natta, A.2005,, 438, 899
Malbet, F., & Bertout, C.1991,, 383, 814
Mihalas, D. “Stellar atmospheres”, San Francisco, W. | grains are removed from the surface layer. They can exist merely within the swarm interior $ exp(-\tau_V)\ll 1 $ where the external radiation is completely absorb. Such a circumstance is expected in protoplanetary disks where dust accretion go dust toward the star. The inside phonograph record radius is then define by the largest grains, no matter what the overall texture size composition, because the largest grains survive the closest to the star and dictate the open radiative transfer.
A new problem arise in that case. Since the temperature inversion keeps the very open of the cloud below the sublimation temperature, its dust can move even closer to the star. We usher that this creates an optically thin dusty zone inside the dust destruction radius of an optically thick disk (figure \[Disksketch\ ]). Only big grains can survive in this zone. We estimate that its size is large enough to be detected by near IR interferometry. It consists of large grains and gas enrich by metallic element from sublimated dust, hence golden for grain growth. This shows that the geometry and structure of inside disks cannot be determined by simple ad hoc boundary conditions. It requires self - consistent calculations of dust dynamics combined with radiative transfer calculations and debris sublimation.
Supports by the NSF concession PHY-0503584 and the W.M. Keck Foundation are gratefully acknowledged.
Calvet, N., Patino, A., Magris, G. C., & D’Alessio, P. 1991, , 380, 617
Carciofi, A. C., Bjorkman, J. E., & Magalh[\~ a]{}es, A. M. 2004, , 604, 238
Dullemond, C. P. 2002, , 395, 853
Dullemond, C. P., Dominik, C., & Natta, A. 2001, , 560, 957
Dullemond, C. P., & Dominik, C. 2004, , 417, 159
Efstathiou, A., & Rowan - Robinson, M. 1994, , 266, 212
Isella, A., & Natta, A.2005, , 438, 899
Malbet, F., & Bertout, C.1991, , 383, 814
Mihalas, D. “ Stellar atmospheres ”, San Francisco, W. | grwins are removed from tht surface layer. Tkwy can exist only wighin the cloud interior $exp(-\teu_V)\lo 1$ whtge the external radiagion is clmpletelt abwirbed. Such a condibnon ia expzcved in protoplaketary diskv where dust awcfecion moves dust toward the star. The ynner dosn radius is thgn degyned by the largest grains, no matter wgat the overall graim size composition, because the largest grains sugvive the coosefr to the staf and dictate the surfzce radiative transfer.
A new proclem crises in tyar cwve. Since thx tempvrature inversion kee[s the fery surface on the cliud below the sublimavion temperature, its dust can mkve even closer ti rhe sjar. Wa shuq tfat tiis creatfs en opticallg thin dustt zone inside the dise destruction dadius os an optically thick disk (figure \[Diskskttch\]). Knly big grains can surcive in this zone. We gstimate trat its size is large enough to be detected by nedr IR knttrncromdrrj. It consists of big grains and gas enriched fg kenals from sublimabed dust, hence favprwbkg for grain gruwth. Tkjs shows that the gelmetry wnd srructure jf imner disks cannot be determuned by simpjw ad hoc boundary eonditions. Ic requores xelf-consistent calculatnons or dust dynalics combjved with radiatixe nranvfer calculations and dust sublimatmon.
Su'ports bh thg NSF gwant PHY-0503584 ajd thc W.M. Keck Foundatioj are gsatefully wcknowledged.
Calvet, N., Patino, A., Mejris, G. C., & D’Alexsho, I. 1991,, 380, 617
Carcioyi, A. C., Njorkman, J. E., & Madalh[\~ a]{}es, A. M. 2004,, 604, 238
Dollemond, E. P. 2002,, 395, 853
Duulemond, C. P., Dominin, C., & Natta, W. 2001,, 560, 957
Dullemond, W. K., & Dominik, C. 2004,, 417, 159
Efstathyou, Q., & Riwan-Robkvson, M. 1994,, 266, 212
Isella, A., & Natta, A.2005,, 438, 899
Malbet, F., & Bertout, C.1991,, 383, 814
Mihelas, S. “Stellar atmospktrew”, San Francisco, W. | grains are removed from the surface layer. exist within the interior $exp(-\tau_V)\ll 1$ completely Such a condition expected in protoplanetary where dust accretion moves dust toward star. The inner disk radius is then defined by the largest grains, no what the overall grain size composition, because the largest grains survive the closest the and the radiative transfer. A new problem arises in that case. Since the temperature inversion keeps the very of the cloud below the sublimation temperature, its can move even closer the star. We show that creates optically thin zone the destruction radius of optically thick disk (figure \[Disksketch\]). Only big grains can survive in this zone. We estimate that its is large be detected near interferometry. consists of big gas enriched by metals from sublimated for grain growth. This shows that the geometry structure of disks cannot be determined by simple hoc boundary conditions. It requires self-consistent calculations of dynamics combined with radiative transfer calculations and dust sublimation. Supports by the NSF grant PHY-0503584 W.M. Keck Foundation are acknowledged. Calvet, N., A., G. & P. 1991,, 617 Carciofi, A. C., Bjorkman, J. E., & Magalh[\~ a]{}es, A. 2004,, 604, 238 Dullemond, C. P. 2002,, 395, 853 Dullemond, Dominik, & Natta, A. 560, 957 Dullemond, C. & C. 2004,, 417, 159 & M. Isella, & A.2005,, 438, 899 Malbet, & Bertout, C.1991,, 383, 814 D. “Stellar atmospheres”, San | grains are removed from the suRface layer. they cAn eXisT oNly wIthiN the cloud interIOr $exP(-\tau_V)\ll 1$ where the externaL radiAtIOn is COmPleteLy absorBEd. sUCh a CoNdItiOn IS eXpectEd iN protopLanetary diSks WhEre dust accreTIoN moves dust TowArd the star. ThE inNer disK rAdiUS is thEn dEfineD by the LArgest Grains, no mAtTEr what THe overaLL GrAin sIze composition, becAUsE The largest graiNs survIvE ThE CLosEst To the star aNd DictaTE the surFAcE RADiaTIve transfer.
A nEw problem arISes In that CaSe. SINce the TempeRaTUre Inversion keEps tHe very surFace of THe cloud BElow the SublimAtiOn tEmpeRAtUrE, itS dUSt cAN mOve EVen Closer to ThE sTar. We Show THAT This CreAtes An optIcally thin dusTy zOne iNSidE the dUst deStruCtIon raDius of An optIcAlly thick disk (fiGure \[disksketcH\]). OnLy Big GrAins cAN surviVe iN thIs zone. WE estimaTE thAt ITS SiZe is large enough to bE dETEcTed by neaR IR intERfErOMetry. It cOnSisTs of BIG graiNs anD GaS enricheD by metALs FrOm subliMaTed dusT, hEncE faVorabLE for Grain gRowth. ThiS showS That the geometrY And structure oF InNER dISks cAnnOt be determiNed bY SimpLe ad HOc BouNDary cOnditIoNS. IT Requires self-consistEnT calcuLatioNs of dust dynamIcs combineD WITh radiatIve tRAnSFer calculationS and dUst sublimaTIon.
SuppoRts by The NSF grAnt PHY-0503584 and THE W.M. Keck FOunDatIon Are GRAtEfully acknowlEDGed.
CAlVet, N., PatIno, a., Magris, g. C., & D’aleSsiO, P. 1991,, 380, 617
CArCiofi, A. C., BjOrkman, J. E., & maGaLh[\~ A]{}eS, A. M. 2004,, 604, 238
dulleMOnd, C. P. 2002,, 395, 853
DulLeMonD, C. p., DoMinik, c., & natta, A. 2001,, 560, 957
dulleMond, c. P., & doMIniK, C. 2004,, 417, 159
EfstaTHiOU, a., & RowAn-roBinsOn, M. 1994,, 266, 212
isElla, A., & nattA, a.2005,, 438, 899
MaLbet, F., & BeRtout, C.1991,, 383, 814
MihAlaS, d. “SteLlAr AtmosphEres”, San FranciScO, W. | grains are removed from t he surface laye r.The ycanexis t only withint he c loud interior $exp(-\t au_V) \l l 1$w he re th e exter n al r adi at io n i sc om plete lyabsorbe d. Such acon di tion is expe c te d in proto pla netary disks wh ere du st ac c retio n m ovesdust t o ward t he star.Th e inner disk ra d i us isthen defined by t h el argest grains, no ma tt e rw h atthe overall g ra in si z e compo s it i o n , b e cause the lar gest grains sur vive t he cl o sest t o the s t arand dictate the surfaceradiat i ve tran s fer.
A new p rob lem ari s es i n t ha t ca s e. Si n cethe temp er at ure i nver s i o n kee pstheverysurface of th e c loud bel ow th e sub lima ti on te mperat ure,it s dust can move eve n closertoth e s ta r. We show t hat th is crea tes ano pti ca l l y t hin dusty zone ins id e th e dust d estruc t io nr adius of a n o ptic a l ly th ickd is k (figur e \[Di s ks ke tch\]). O nly bi ggra ins cans urvi ve inthis zon e. We estimate thati ts size is la r ge e no u gh t o b e detectedby n e ar I R in t er fer o metry . Itco n si s ts of big grains an dgas en riche d by metals f rom sublim a t e d dust,henc e f a vorable for gr ain g rowth. Thi s shows t hat t he geome try and s t r ucture o f i nne r d isk s ca nnot be deter m i nedby simple ad hoc bo und ary co ndi ti ons. It r equiresse lf -c on sis tentc alculati on s o fdus t dyn a mics c ombin ed w it hr adi ative t r an s f er c al cu lati ons a nd du st s u bli mation.
Support s b y the N SF grantPHY-0503584 a nd the W.M.Ke ckFounda t i on are g ratefully acknowledged.
Calvet , N ., Pa tino , A., Mag ris , G. C .,& D’Ale ssio,P. 19 91 ,,3 8 0, 61 7
C arc io fi, A. C., B jor kman, J . E. , & Mag alh[\~ a]{}es, A.M . 2 004,, 604, 23 8
Dull e m on d,C .P . 2 00 2 ,,3 9 5, 853
Dullemo nd, C. P., D o mi nik, C., & Nat ta , A. 20 01,, 56 0, 95 7
Dulle mond, C.P., & Dom in ik,C . 20 04,, 417,159
Efs tathiou,A ., &R ow an-Ro bin son, M .199 4,, 2 66, 21 2
I sella , A.,&Natta, A.20 05 ,, 438,899
Malbet, F., & Bert out, C .1991 ,,383, 814
Mi h ala s, D. “St ella r atmosphe res ”,San F ran c isco, W. | grains_are removed_from the surface layer._They can_exist_only within_the_cloud interior $exp(-\tau_V)\ll_1$ where the_external radiation is completely_absorbed. Such a_condition_is expected in protoplanetary disks where dust accretion moves dust toward the star. The_inner_disk radius_is_then_defined by the largest grains,_no matter what the overall_grain size_composition, because the largest grains survive the closest_to_the star and_dictate the surface radiative transfer.
A new problem arises in_that case. Since the temperature inversion_keeps the very_surface_of_the cloud below the_sublimation temperature, its dust can move_even closer to the star. We_show that this creates an optically thin_dusty zone inside the dust destruction_radius of an optically thick_disk (figure_\[Disksketch\]). Only big grains can_survive in this_zone. We_estimate that its_size is large enough to be_detected by near_IR interferometry. It consists of big_grains_and gas enriched_by_metals_from sublimated_dust, hence favorable_for_grain growth._This_shows that the geometry and structure_of_inner disks cannot be determined by simple_ad hoc boundary conditions._It_requires self-consistent calculations of_dust dynamics combined with radiative_transfer calculations and dust sublimation.
Supports by_the NSF_grant PHY-0503584_and the W.M. Keck Foundation are gratefully acknowledged.
Calvet, N., Patino, A.,_Magris, G. C., & D’Alessio, P. 1991,, 380,_617
Carciofi, A. C., Bjorkman, J. E.,_& Magalh[\~_a]{}es,_A. M. 2004,, 604, 238
Dullemond,_C. P. 2002,,_395, 853
Dullemond,_C. P., Dominik, C., & Natta, A. 2001,, 560,_957
Dullemond, C. P.,_& Dominik, C. 2004,, 417, 159
Efstathiou, A.,_& Rowan-Robinson, M. 1994,, 266,_212
Isella,_A., & Natta, A.2005,, 438, 899
Malbet,_F., & Bertout, C.1991,, 383, 814
Mihalas,_D. “Stellar atmospheres”, San Francisco, W. |
and M. Cococcioni, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 115108 (2011). K. Tao, J. Zhou, Q. Sun, Q. Wang, V. S. Stepanyuk, and P. Jena, Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 085103 (2014). A. G. Marinopoulos, P. Santos, and J. Coutinho, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 075124 (2015). X. Huang, S. K. Ramadugu, and S. E. Mason, J. Phys. Chem. C [**120**]{}, 4919 (2016). K. Nawa, Y. Kitaoka, K. Nakamura, H. Imamura, T. Akiyama, T. Ito, and M. Weinert, Phys. Rev. B [**94**]{}, 035136 (2016). B. Himmetoglu, V. M. Katukuri, and M. Cococcioni, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**24**]{}, 185501 (2012). P. Giannozzi [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**21**]{}, 395502 (2009); S. Baroni, A. Dal Corso, S. de Gironcoli, and P. Giannozzi, http://www.pwscf.org. A. M. Rappe, K. M. Rabe, E. Kaxiras, and J. D. Joannopoulos, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 1227(R) (1990). Because even the theoretically derived $U_\mathrm{eff}$ value depends on the computational details, as discussed in Ref. \[\], we explicitly specify which pseudopotential is employed in present study. The used pseudopotential scheme given in Ref. \[\] is known to be appropriate for $3d$ transition metal and non-magnetic $sp$ atoms. A. Baldereschi, Phys. Rev. B [**7**]{}, 5212 (1973); D. J. Chadi and M. L. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B [**8**]{}, 5747 (1973); H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B [**13**]{}, 5188 (1976); J. D. Pack and H. J. Monkhorst, Phys. Rev. B [**16**]{}, 1748 (1977). M. Methfessel | and M. Cococcioni, Phys. Rev. B [ * * 84 * * ] { }, 115108 (2011). K. Tao, J. Zhou, Q. Sun, Q. Wang, V. S. Stepanyuk, and P. Jena, Phys. Rev. B [ * * 89 * * ] { }, 085103 (2014). A. G. Marinopoulos, P. Santos, and J. Coutinho, Phys. Rev. B [ * * 92 * * ] { }, 075124 (2015). X. Huang, S. K. Ramadugu, and S. E. Mason, J. Phys. Chem. C [ * * 120 * * ] { }, 4919 (2016). K. Nawa, Y. Kitaoka, K. Nakamura, H. Imamura, T. Akiyama, T. Ito, and M. Weinert, Phys. Rev. B [ * * 94 * * ] { }, 035136 (2016). B. Himmetoglu, V. M. Katukuri, and M. Cococcioni, J. Phys. : Condens. Matter [ * * 24 * * ] { }, 185501 (2012). P. Giannozzi [ * et al. * ] { }, J. Phys. : Condens. Matter [ * * 21 * * ] { }, 395502 (2009); S. Baroni, A. Dal Corso, S. de Gironcoli, and P. Giannozzi, http://www.pwscf.org. A. M. Rappe, K. M. Rabe, E. Kaxiras, and J. D. Joannopoulos, Phys. Rev. B [ * * 41 * * ] { }, 1227(R) (1990). Because even the theoretically derived $ U_\mathrm{eff}$ value depends on the computational details, as discourse in Ref. \[\ ], we explicitly intend which pseudopotential is employed in present study. The used pseudopotential system given in Ref. \[\ ] is known to be appropriate for $ 3d$ conversion alloy and non - magnetic $ sp$ atom. A. Baldereschi, Phys. Rev. B [ * * 7 * * ] { }, 5212 (1973); D. J. Chadi and M. L. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B [ * * 8 * * ] { }, 5747 (1973); H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B [ * * 13 * * ] { }, 5188 (1976); J. D. Pack and H. J. Monkhorst, Phys. Rev. B [ * * 16 * * ] { }, 1748 (1977). M. Methfessel | anf M. Cococcioni, Phys. Rev. N [**84**]{}, 115108 (2011). K. Tao, J. Zhoo, W. Sun, X. Wang, V. S. Steoanyuk, and P. Jena, Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 085103 (2014). A. G. Marinopoulos, P. Santos, and J. Coltinho, Phts. Rtv. B [**92**]{}, 075124 (2015). X. Huang, S. K. Ramadmyu, ans S. E. Nason, J. Phys. Cmem. C [**120**]{}, 4919 (2016). K. Tawa, Y. Kitaoka, K. Nckamura, H. Imamura, T. Akiyama, T. Ito, anq M. Weimegt, Phys. Rev. B [**94**]{}, 035136 (2016). B. Rimmsnonlu, V. M. Katukuri, and M. Cococcionj, J. Phyv.: Condens. Matyer [**24**]{}, 185501 (2012). P. Giannozzi [*et al.*]{}, J. Phyd.: Condens. Matter [**21**]{}, 395502 (2009); S. Baroni, Q. Daj Corso, S. de Eironcoli, and P. Giannoezi, http://www.pwscf.org. A. M. Rappe, K. O. Rabz, E. Kaxiras, abd U. D. Joannoponlos, Prys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 1227(R) (1990). Becausa even yhe theoreticakly deeived $U_\mathrm{eff}$ valux depends on the comkutational dztails, as discussed ib Eef. \[\], wg expnicigoy rpedihy shich osendopotentiam is employwd in present study. Trv used pseudolotentyaj scheme given in Ref. \[\] is known to be apkroprjate for $3d$ transition mwtal and non-magnetic $dp$ atoms. W. Baldereschi, Phys. Rev. B [**7**]{}, 5212 (1973); D. J. Chadi and M. L. Cohan, Phbs. Rer. B [**8**]{}, 5747 (1973); Y. U. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B [**13**]{}, 5188 (1976); J. D. Pasi snc H. J. Monkhorsb, Phys. Rev. B [**16**]{}, 1748 (1977). M. Kehhggssel | and M. Cococcioni, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, K. J. Zhou, Sun, Q. Wang, Jena, Rev. B [**89**]{}, (2014). A. G. P. Santos, and J. Coutinho, Phys. B [**92**]{}, 075124 (2015). X. Huang, S. K. Ramadugu, and S. E. Mason, Phys. Chem. C [**120**]{}, 4919 (2016). K. Nawa, Y. Kitaoka, K. Nakamura, H. T. T. and Weinert, Phys. Rev. B [**94**]{}, 035136 (2016). B. Himmetoglu, V. M. Katukuri, and M. Cococcioni, J. Condens. Matter [**24**]{}, 185501 (2012). P. Giannozzi [*et J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 395502 (2009); S. Baroni, A. Corso, de Gironcoli, P. http://www.pwscf.org. M. Rappe, K. Rabe, E. Kaxiras, and J. D. Joannopoulos, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 1227(R) (1990). Because even the theoretically $U_\mathrm{eff}$ value the computational as in \[\], we explicitly pseudopotential is employed in present study. scheme given in Ref. \[\] is known to appropriate for transition metal and non-magnetic $sp$ atoms. Baldereschi, Phys. Rev. B [**7**]{}, 5212 (1973); D. Chadi and M. L. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B [**8**]{}, 5747 (1973); H. J. Monkhorst and Pack, Phys. Rev. B 5188 (1976); J. Pack H. Monkhorst, Rev. B 1748 (1977). M. Methfessel | and M. Cococcioni, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 115108 (2011). K. TaO, J. Zhou, Q. Sun, q. Wang, v. S. STepAnYuk, aNd P. JEna, Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 085103 (2014). A. G. MARinoPoulos, P. Santos, and J. CoutiNho, PhYs. rEv. B [**92**]{}, 075124 (2015). X. hUaNg, S. K. RAmadugu, ANd s. e. masOn, j. PHys. chEM. C [**120**]{}, 4919 (2016). k. Nawa, y. KiTaoka, K. NAkamura, H. ImAmuRa, t. Akiyama, T. Ito, ANd m. Weinert, PhYs. REv. B [**94**]{}, 035136 (2016). B. HimmetogLu, V. m. KatukUrI, anD m. CocoCciOni, J. PHys.: ConDEns. MatTer [**24**]{}, 185501 (2012). P. GiannOzZI [*et al.*]{}, J. pHys.: CondENS. MAtteR [**21**]{}, 395502 (2009); S. Baroni, A. Dal Corso, s. De gIroncoli, and P. GiAnnozzI, hTTp://WWW.pwScf.Org. A. M. Rappe, k. M. rabe, E. kAxiras, aND J. d. jOAnnOPoulos, Phys. Rev. b [**41**]{}, 1227(R) (1990). Because evEN thE theorEtIcaLLy deriVed $U_\mAtHRm{eFf}$ value depeNds oN the compuTationAL detailS, As discuSsed in ref. \[\], We eXpliCItLy SpeCiFY whICh PseUDopOtential Is EmPloyeD in pRESENt stUdy. the uSed psEudopotential SchEme gIVen In Ref. \[\] Is knoWn to Be ApproPriate For $3d$ tRaNsition metal and Non-mAgnetic $sp$ AtoMs. a. BaLdErescHI, Phys. REv. B [**7**]{}, 5212 (1973); d. J. CHadi and m. L. Cohen, pHys. reV. b [**8**]{}, 5747 (1973); h. j. MOnkhorst and J. D. Pack, PHyS. rEv. b [**13**]{}, 5188 (1976); J. D. Pack aNd H. J. MoNKhOrST, Phys. Rev. b [**16**]{}, 1748 (1977). M. metHfesSEL | and M. Cococcioni, Phys.Rev. B [** 84**] {}, 11 51 08 ( 2011 ). K. Tao, J.Z hou, Q. Sun, Q. Wang, V. S . Ste pa n yuk, an d P.Jena, P h ys . Rev .B[** 89 * *] {}, 0 851 03 (201 4). A. G.Mar in opoulos, P.S an tos, and J . C outinho, Phy s.Rev. B [ **9 2 **]{} , 0 75124 (2015 ) . X. H uang, S.K. Ramadu g u, andS . E . Ma son, J. Phys. Che m .C [**120**]{},4919 ( 20 1 6) . K.Naw a, Y. Kita ok a, K. Nakamur a ,H . Ima m ura, T. Akiya ma, T. Ito, and M. We in ert , Phys. Rev. B [** 94**]{}, 03 5136 (2016).B. Him m etoglu, V. M. K atukur i,and M.C oc oc cio ni , J. Ph ys. : Co ndens. M at te r [** 24** ] { } , 185 501 (20 12).P. Giannozzi[*e t al . *]{ }, J. Phys .: C on dens. Matte r [** 21 **]{}, 395502 ( 2009 ); S. Bar oni ,A.Da l Cor s o, S.deGir oncoli, and P. Gia nn o z z i, http://www.pwscf. or g . A . M. Rap pe, K. M. R a be, E. K ax ira s, a n d J. D . Jo a nn opoulos, Phys. Re v. B [**4 1* *]{},12 27( R)(1990 ) . Be causeeven the theo r etically deriv e d $U_\mathrm{ e ff } $ v a luedep ends on the com p utat iona l d eta i ls, a s dis cu s se d in Ref. \[\], we e xp licitl y spe cify which ps eudopotent i a l is empl oyed in present study. Theused pseud o potentia l sch eme give n in Ref. \ [\] is k now n t o b e a p p ro priate for $3 d $ tra ns ition m eta l and n on- mag net ic$s p$ atoms. A. Bald er es ch i, Ph ys. R e v. B [** 7* *]{ }, 52 12 (1 9 73); D . J.Chad ian d M. L. Coh e n, P hys. R ev . B[** 8* *]{}, 574 7 (1 973); H . J. Monk hor s t an dJ. D. Pac k, Phys. Rev. B [**13**]{ }, 51 88 (19 7 6 ); J. D. Pack and H. J. Monkhor s t, Phys . R ev. B [** 16**]{},174 8 (197 7). M. Met hfesse l | and_M. Cococcioni,_Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{},_115108 (2011)._K._Tao, J._Zhou,_Q. Sun, Q._Wang, V. S._Stepanyuk, and P. Jena,_Phys. Rev. B_[**89**]{},_085103 (2014). A. G. Marinopoulos, P. Santos, and J. Coutinho, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{},_075124_(2015). X._Huang,_S._K. Ramadugu, and S. E._Mason, J. Phys. Chem. C_[**120**]{}, 4919_(2016). K. Nawa, Y. Kitaoka, K. Nakamura, H._Imamura,_T. Akiyama, T._Ito, and M. Weinert, Phys. Rev. B [**94**]{}, 035136_(2016). B. Himmetoglu, V. M. Katukuri,_and M. Cococcioni,_J._Phys.:_Condens. Matter [**24**]{}, 185501_(2012). P. Giannozzi [*et al.*]{}, J._Phys.: Condens. Matter [**21**]{}, 395502 (2009);_S. Baroni, A. Dal Corso, S. de_Gironcoli, and P. Giannozzi, http://www.pwscf.org. A._M. Rappe, K. M. Rabe,_E. Kaxiras,_and J. D. Joannopoulos, Phys._Rev. B [**41**]{},_1227(R) (1990)._Because even the_theoretically derived $U_\mathrm{eff}$ value depends on_the computational details,_as discussed in Ref. \[\], we explicitly_specify_which pseudopotential is_employed_in_present study._The used pseudopotential_scheme_given in_Ref. \[\]_is known to be appropriate for_$3d$_transition metal and non-magnetic $sp$ atoms. A._Baldereschi, Phys. Rev. B_[**7**]{},_5212 (1973); D. J._Chadi and M. L. Cohen,_Phys. Rev. B [**8**]{}, 5747 (1973);_H. J._Monkhorst and_J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B [**13**]{}, 5188 (1976); J. D._Pack and H. J. Monkhorst, Phys._Rev. B [**16**]{}, 1748_(1977). M._Methfessel |
ERROR: type should be string, got " https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/MoHINRec.\n\n![Typical 3-node motifs. Note that 1, 2, and 3 represent the positions of a motif where a node can occur.[]{data-label=\"fig-motif-example\"}](motif-example){width=\"0.7\\columnwidth\"}\n\nFramework {#sec-framework}\n=========\n\nIn this section, we present the details of our proposed framework for integrating Motif into HIN-based Recommender (MoHINRec).\n\nMeta-path based similarity computation\n--------------------------------------\n\nIn previous HIN-based scenarios, meta-paths are used to capture the complex semantics underlying the similarities between nodes of any types. In this part, we give a brief introduction on the counting-based meta-path based similarity. Given a meta-path, we want to compute the similarities between the source and the target nodes, i.e., users and items (Business) in Figure \\[fig-example-hin\\](b). Commuting matrix [@sun2011pathsim] has been used to compute the counting-based similarity matrix of a meta-path. Suppose we have a meta-path $\\mathcal{P} = (A_1,A_2,\\ldots,A_l)$, where $A_i$’s are node types in $\\mathcal{A}$, which represents the entity type set $\\cA$ in a HIN. We can define a matrix $\\bW_{A_iA_j}$ as the adjacency matrix between node type $A_i$ and node type $A_j$. Then the commuting matrix for meta-path $\\mathcal{P}$ is $\\bC_{\\cP} =\\bW_{A_1,A_2}\\cdot \\bW_{A_2,A_3}\\cdot...\\cdot \\bW_{A_{l-1},A_l}$, which represents the number of instances of $\\cP$ connecting two nodes of type $A_1$ and $A_l$. For example, in Figure \\[fig-example-hin\\](b), the commuting matrix for $\\cP_2$ can be obtained by $\\bC_{\\cP_2} = \\bW_{UU} \\cdot \\bW_{UB}$, where $\\bW_{UB}$ is the adjacency matrix between type $U$ and type $B$, and $\\bW_{UU}$ is the adj" | https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/MoHINRec.
! [ Typical 3 - node motifs. Note that 1, 2, and 3 constitute the situation of a motif where a node can occur.[]{data - label="fig - motif - example"}](motif - example){width="0.7\columnwidth " }
Framework { # sec - model }
= = = = = = = = =
In this section, we present the details of our propose framework for integrating Motif into HIN - establish Recommender (MoHINRec).
Meta - path based similarity calculation
--------------------------------------
In previous HIN - based scenario, meta - path are used to capture the complex semantics underlying the similarities between nodes of any type. In this part, we give a brief initiation on the counting - based meta - path establish similarity. Given a meta - path, we want to compute the similarities between the informant and the target nodes, i.e., users and items (Business) in Figure \[fig - case - hin\](b). Commuting matrix [ @sun2011pathsim ] has been used to compute the counting - based similarity matrix of a meta - path. Suppose we have a meta - path $ \mathcal{P } = (A_1,A_2,\ldots, A_l)$, where $ A_i$ ’s are node types in $ \mathcal{A}$, which represent the entity type set $ \cA$ in a HIN. We can specify a matrix $ \bW_{A_iA_j}$ as the adjacency matrix between node character $ A_i$ and lymph node type $ A_j$. Then the commuting matrix for meta - path $ \mathcal{P}$ is $ \bC_{\cP } = \bW_{A_1,A_2}\cdot \bW_{A_2,A_3}\cdot... \cdot \bW_{A_{l-1},A_l}$, which represents the number of instances of $ \cP$ connecting two nodes of character $ A_1 $ and $ A_l$. For example, in Figure \[fig - example - hin\](b), the commuting matrix for $ \cP_2 $ can be obtained by $ \bC_{\cP_2 } = \bW_{UU } \cdot \bW_{UB}$, where $ \bW_{UB}$ is the adjacency matrix between type $ U$ and type $ B$, and $ \bW_{UU}$ is the adj | hthps://github.com/HKUST-KnowComk/MoHINRec.
![Typical 3-uide movifs. Nofe that 1, 2, and 3 represent the positiois od a mitif where a node can uccur.[]{data-pabel="fig-notih-example"}](motif-example){widtm="0.7\eolumhaidtk"}
Fcamework {#sec-frakework}
=========
In tvis section, we pfedent the details of our proposed frwmework flr integrating Motpf intk HIN-based Recommender (MoHINRec).
Metz-path besed similarity computation
--------------------------------------
In previous HIJ-basfd scenarios, meta-pwths are usgs tj capture the complex stmcntics undetlying the similarities between vodes of any tykzw. Ij this part, xe givv a brief intvpductimn on tne counting-bascd meva-parh based similarity. Gmven a meta-path, we wwnt to cokpbte the similarities verween the soufxe xnd tie farget noves, i.e., usera and items (Business) in Figure \[gid-vcample-hin\](b). Ckmmutigg matrix [@sun2011pathsim] has been used to complte fhe counting-based similqrity matrix of a metw-path. Sup[ose we have a meta-path $\mathcal{P} = (A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_l)$, where $A_i$’s erd nidc tyows in $\mathcal{A}$, which represents the entity type aeu $\cS$ in a HIN. We gan define a matric $\hW_{S_yA_j}$ as the adgacencv mztrix between node type $A_y$ and node typt $A_j$. Yhen the commuting matrix fir meta-path $\iqthcal{P}$ is $\bC_{\cP} =\bW_{C_1,A_2}\cdot \bW_{A_2,A_3}\cbot...\cdoj \bW_{A_{l-1},S_l}$, which represents the numger of instwnces of $\dO$ connecting two nocev of typt $A_1$ and $A_l$. For exaiple, in Fmgure \[yig-exampue-him\](b), the commuting matrlf for $\cP_2$ can be obhaineb by $\tC_{\cP_2} = \bW_{UU} \cdot \bW_{UB}$, where $\bW_{UB}$ is the adoecency matrix batwven type $B$ and bype $B$, and $\bW_{UU}$ is the adj | https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/MoHINRec. . Commuting matrix [@sun2011pathsim] has used compute the similarity of meta-path. Suppose we a meta-path $\mathcal{P} = (A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_l)$, where $A_i$’s are node types in $\mathcal{A}$, which represents the entity type $\cA$ in We can a $\bW_{A_iA_j}$ the adjacency matrix type $A_i$ and node type $A_j$. matrix for meta-path $\mathcal{P}$ is $\bC_{\cP} =\bW_{A_1,A_2}\cdot \bW_{A_2,A_3}\cdot...\cdot which represents number of instances of $\cP$ connecting nodes of type $A_1$ and $A_l$. For example, Figure \[fig-example-hin\](b), the commuting matrix for $\cP_2$ can be obtained by $\bC_{\cP_2} = \bW_{UU} \cdot $\bW_{UB}$ is the adjacency between type $U$ type and is adj | ERROR: type should be string, got " https://github.com/HKUST-KnowCoMp/MoHINRec.\n\n![typicAl 3-nOde MoTifs. note That 1, 2, and 3 represeNT the Positions of a motif where A node CaN OccuR.[]{DaTa-labEl=\"fig-moTIf-EXAmpLe\"}](MoTif-ExAMpLe){widTh=\"0.7\\cOlumnwiDth\"}\n\nFramewoRk {#sEc-Framework}\n=========\n\nIn tHIs Section, we pResEnt the detailS of Our proPoSed FRamewOrk For inTegratINg MotiF into HIN-bAsED RecomMEnder (MohinREc).\n\nMeTa-path based similaRItY Computation\n--------------------------------------\n\nIn pReviouS Hin-bASEd sCenArios, meta-pAtHs are USed to caPTuRE THe cOMplex semanticS underlying THe sImilarItIes BEtween Nodes Of ANy tYpes. In this pArt, wE give a briEf intrODuction ON the couNting-bAseD meTa-paTH bAsEd sImILarITy. givEN a mEta-path, wE wAnT to coMputE THE SimiLarItieS betwEen the source aNd tHe taRGet Nodes, I.e., useRs anD iTems (BUsinesS) in FiGuRe \\[fig-example-hin\\](B). ComMuting matRix [@SuN2011paThSim] haS Been usEd tO coMpute thE countiNG-baSeD SIMiLarity matrix of a metA-pATH. SUppose we Have a mETa-PaTH $\\mathcal{p} = (A_1,a_2,\\ldOts,A_L)$, WHere $A_I$’s arE NoDe types iN $\\mathcAL{A}$, WhIch reprEsEnts thE eNtiTy tYpe seT $\\CA$ in A HIN. We Can definE a matRIx $\\bW_{A_iA_j}$ as the aDJacency matrix BEtWEEn NOde tYpe $a_i$ and node tyPe $A_j$. tHen tHe coMMuTinG MatriX for mEtA-PaTH $\\mathcal{P}$ is $\\bC_{\\cP} =\\bW_{A_1,A_2}\\CdOt \\bW_{A_2,A_3}\\Cdot...\\cDot \\bW_{A_{l-1},A_l}$, whicH representS THE number oF insTAnCEs of $\\cP$ connectiNg two Nodes of typE $a_1$ and $A_l$. FoR examPle, in FigUre \\[fig-exaMPLe-hin\\](b), thE coMmuTinG maTRIx For $\\cP_2$ can be obtAINed bY $\\bc_{\\cP_2} = \\bW_{UU} \\CdoT \\bW_{UB}$, whEre $\\BW_{Ub}$ is The AdJacency maTrix betwEeN tYpE $U$ And Type $B$, ANd $\\bW_{UU}$ is ThE adJ" | ERROR: type should be string, got " https://github.com/HKUST- KnowComp/M oHINR ec. \n\n! [T ypic al 3 -node motifs.N otethat 1, 2, and 3 repre sentth e pos i ti ons o f a mot i fw h ere a n ode c a noccur .[] {data-l abel=\"fig- mot if -example\"}]( m ot if-example ){w idth=\"0.7\\co lum nwidth \"} \n\nF r amewo rk{#sec -frame w ork}\n= ========\nI n thiss ection, w epres ent the details o f o u r proposed fra mework f o ri n teg rat ing Motifin to HI N -basedR ec o m m end e r (MoHINRec). \n\nMeta-path bas ed sim il ari t y comp utati on --- ----------- ---- --------- ------ - ----\n\nI n previo us HIN -ba sed sce n ar io s,me t a-p a th s a r e u sed to c ap tu re th e co m p l e x se man tics unde rlying the si mil arit i esbetwe en no desof anytypes. In t hi s part, we give a b rief intr odu ct ion o n the counti ng- bas ed meta -path b a sed s i m i la rity. Given a meta -p a t h, we want to co m pu te the simi la rit iesb e tween the so urce and the t a rg et nodes, i .e., u se rsand item s (Bu siness ) in Fig ure \\ [ fig-example-hi n \\](b). Commut i ng m at r ix [ @su n2011pathsi m] h a s be en u s ed to compu te th ec ou n ting-based similari ty matri x ofa meta-path.Suppose we h a ve a met a-pa t h$ \\mathcal{P} =(A_1, A_2,\\ldots , A_l)$, w here$A_i$’sare nodet y pes in $ \\ma thc al{ A}$ , wh ich represent s theen tity ty peset $\\c A$ina H IN. W e can def ine a ma tr ix $ \\b W_{ A_iA_ j }$ as th eadj ac enc y mat r ix bet weennode t yp e $A _i$ and no d e typ e$A _j$. Th en thecomm u tin g matri x for met a-p a th $ \\m at hcal{P} $ is $\\bC_{\\c P} =\\bW_{A_1 ,A _2} \\cdot\\ b W_{A_2,A _3}\\cdot...\\cdot \\bW_{A _ {l-1},A _l} $, wh ichrepresent s t he num ber of ins tances of $ \\c P$c o nnect i n gtwo n odes of ty p e $A _1$ a nd $A_ l$. For example, in Figur e \\[ fig-example-h in\\ ](b) , th e c o mm u tin gm atr i x for $\\cP_2$ ca n be obtai ne d b y $\\bC_{\\c P _2} = \\bW_{U U} \\cdo t \\bW _ {UB}$,where $\\b W_{UB}$ i sthea d jac ency matri x betwee n type $U $ andt yp e $B$ , a nd $\\b W_ {UU }$ is the a d j" | ERROR: type should be string, got " https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/MoHINRec.\n\n![Typical_3-node motifs._Note that 1, 2,_and 3_represent_the positions_of_a motif where_a node can_occur.[]{data-label=\"fig-motif-example\"}](motif-example){width=\"0.7\\columnwidth\"}\n\nFramework {#sec-framework}\n=========\n\nIn this section,_we present the_details_of our proposed framework for integrating Motif into HIN-based Recommender (MoHINRec).\n\nMeta-path based similarity computation\n--------------------------------------\n\nIn_previous_HIN-based scenarios,_meta-paths_are_used to capture the complex_semantics underlying the similarities between_nodes of_any types. In this part, we give a_brief_introduction on the_counting-based meta-path based similarity. Given a meta-path, we want_to compute the similarities between the_source and the_target_nodes,_i.e., users and items_(Business) in Figure \\[fig-example-hin\\](b). Commuting matrix [@sun2011pathsim] has_been used to compute the counting-based_similarity matrix of a meta-path. Suppose we_have a meta-path $\\mathcal{P} = (A_1,A_2,\\ldots,A_l)$,_where $A_i$’s are node types_in $\\mathcal{A}$,_which represents the entity type_set $\\cA$ in_a HIN._We can define_a matrix $\\bW_{A_iA_j}$ as the adjacency_matrix between node_type $A_i$ and node type $A_j$._Then_the commuting matrix_for_meta-path_$\\mathcal{P}$ is_$\\bC_{\\cP} =\\bW_{A_1,A_2}\\cdot \\bW_{A_2,A_3}\\cdot...\\cdot_\\bW_{A_{l-1},A_l}$,_which represents_the_number of instances of $\\cP$ connecting_two_nodes of type $A_1$ and $A_l$. For_example, in Figure \\[fig-example-hin\\](b), the_commuting_matrix for $\\cP_2$ can_be obtained by $\\bC_{\\cP_2} =_\\bW_{UU} \\cdot \\bW_{UB}$, where $\\bW_{UB}$ is_the adjacency_matrix between_type $U$ and type $B$, and $\\bW_{UU}$ is the adj" |
afterglow contribution. The afterglow light curve can be modeled with a broken power law, as shown in Singer et al. (2013). We thus adopted their first decay index ($\alpha_1=0.57$) and their temporal break $t_{b}=1.17$ days. However, the second decay index $\alpha_2$ does not take into account the emerging SN contribution. $\alpha_2=1.85$ is the lowest index for which the afterglow is not oversubtracted in our early time photometry, while $\alpha_2=2.5$ is the highest index allowed by the closure relations linking spectral and temporal indices (Zhang & Mészáros 2004). Thus, we chose an average $\alpha_2 = 2.2$. The adopted spectral index is $\beta_{\nu}=0.7$ (Singer et al. 2013). Even assuming the two extreme decay indices, the difference in the afterglow contribution can only be appreciated in the first three spectra, and it is lower than 20% in the worst case.
Figure 3 shows our sixteen dereddened, host- and afterglow-subtracted TNG and VLT spectra. The spectra are shown starting from $4000$Å in the rest-frame, because the flux calibration becomes unreliable at shorter wavelengths.
In Fig. 4 we compare in the rest-frame 11 of our spectra with those of SN 1998bw at comparable phases after explosion (Patat et al. 2001). Each SN 1998bw spectrum is scaled in flux by an arbitrary constant to find the best match with our spectral dataset. In most pairs of spectra the same continuum shape and broad absorption features can be seen, even if some diversities are present (at t$<20$ d the $4400$Å pseudo-emission peak is completely absent in 1998bw; the pseudo-peak around $6300$Å in 1998bw is absent in 2013dx; the strong absorption around $7000$Å in 1998bw is much less pronounced in 2013dx at t$<15$ d). This fact leads us to classify SN 2013dx as a broad-line type Ic SN, that is, one with a highly stripped progenitor (no hydrogen or helium left before explosion), similar to those of previously studied GRB- and XRF-SNe (Mazzali et al. 2006a,b). Other GRB-associated SNe, such as 2003dh, 2006aj | afterglow contribution. The afterglow light curve can be modeled with a broken power jurisprudence, as usher in Singer et al. (2013). We thus adopted their first decay exponent ($ \alpha_1=0.57 $) and their temporal break $ t_{b}=1.17 $ days. However, the second decay exponent $ \alpha_2 $ does not assume into account the emerge SN contribution. $ \alpha_2=1.85 $ is the lowest index for which the afterglow is not oversubtracted in our early prison term photometry, while $ \alpha_2=2.5 $ is the highest index allow by the closure relations linking spectral and temporal indices (Zhang & Mészáros 2004). therefore, we chose an average $ \alpha_2 = 2.2$. The adopted apparitional index is $ \beta_{\nu}=0.7 $ (Singer et al. 2013). Even assuming the two extreme decay indices, the difference in the afterglow contribution can only be appreciate in the first three spectra, and it is lower than 20% in the worst case.
digit 3 shows our sixteen dereddened, host- and afterglow - subtracted TNG and VLT spectra. The spectra are shown startle from $ 4000$Å in the rest - frame, because the flux calibration becomes unreliable at shorter wavelengths.
In Fig. 4 we compare in the rest - frame 11 of our spectra with those of SN 1998bw at comparable phase after explosion (Patat et al. 2001). Each SN 1998bw spectrum is scaled in flux density by an arbitrary constant to witness the best match with our spectral dataset. In most pair of spectra the same continuum shape and broad absorption feature can be seen, even if some diversities are present (at t$<20 $ d the $ 4400$Å pseudo - emission bill is completely absent in 1998bw; the pseudo - peak about $ 6300$Å in 1998bw is lacking in 2013dx; the potent absorption around $ 7000$Å in 1998bw is much less pronounced in 2013dx at t$<15 $ d). This fact leads us to classify SN 2013dx as a broad - line character Ic SN, that is, one with a highly stripped progenitor (no hydrogen or helium leave before explosion), similar to those of previously learn GRB- and XRF - SNe (Mazzali et al. 2006a, b). Other GRB - consort SNe, such as 2003dh, 2006aj | afherglow contribution. The afterglow lighj xurve ran be jodeled dith a broken power law, as siown in Sunger et al. (2013). We thus aaopted thvir first decey index ($\alpha_1=0.57$) ais their tempodwl bxeek $t_{b}=1.17$ days. Howeyer, the secmnd decay indef $\xl'ha_2$ does not take into account the eierging SJ contribution. $\alpnw_2=1.85$ is nht lowest index for which the aftedglow iv not oversubyracted in our early time ohotlmetry, while $\alpha_2=2.5$ is the higyest undex allowea by the closure relatjons linking spectral and tempofal iudices (Zhant & Mésxátos 2004). Thus, we chosv an average $\alpha_2 = 2.2$. Dhe adolted spectral lndex is $\beta_{\nu}=0.7$ (Singer et al. 2013). Even assuming the two extramz decay indices, the dufderenwe it thd afgerflpw contrlbuvion can onmy be apprexiated in the first trgre spectra, ahd it ys lower than 20% in the worst case.
Figure 3 svowa our sixteen dereddenee, host- and afterglow-sobtracted ENG and VLT spectra. The spectra are shown startinc froj $4000$Å in tme rdwt-vrame, because the flux calibration becomes unwsloanle at shorter wcvelengths.
In Fig. 4 ae sompare in thg rest-fxzms 11 of our spectra aith thjse od SN 1998bw au comlarable phases after explosuon (Patat et ql. 2001). Each SN 1998bw speetrum is scaued on flix by an arbitrary conscant tk find the hest matcg with our spectrxl cadaset. In most pairs of spestra the wame continjum xhape wnd broad wbsoridion features can he segn, evet if some fiversities are present (at t$<20$ d vie $4400$Å pseudo-emixshon peak is compketely absent in 1998bw; the pseodo-peak axound $6300$Å in 1998bw is zbsent mn 2013dx; the stwong absorptimj around $7000$Å in 1998uw is mucr lews peonouncda in 2013dx at t$<15$ d). This facn jeadw us to classify SK 2013dx xa a broad-line tvke Uc SN, that is, ome ditr w iighlr stripped prmgenktof (no hhdrogen or melkum keft before explosiot), sijilar to those of lrcviously wtudied DRB- and XRF-SNr (Mazzali et al. 2006a,b). Othec GRB-arsocisteq SNe, such as 2003dh, 2006aj | afterglow contribution. The afterglow light curve can with broken power as shown in thus their first decay ($\alpha_1=0.57$) and their break $t_{b}=1.17$ days. However, the second index $\alpha_2$ does not take into account the emerging SN contribution. $\alpha_2=1.85$ is lowest index for which the afterglow is not oversubtracted in our early time while is highest allowed by the closure relations linking spectral and temporal indices (Zhang & Mészáros 2004). Thus, we an average $\alpha_2 = 2.2$. The adopted spectral is $\beta_{\nu}=0.7$ (Singer et 2013). Even assuming the two decay the difference the contribution only be appreciated the first three spectra, and it is lower than 20% in the worst case. Figure 3 shows sixteen dereddened, afterglow-subtracted TNG VLT The are shown starting in the rest-frame, because the flux at shorter wavelengths. In Fig. 4 we compare the rest-frame of our spectra with those of 1998bw at comparable phases after explosion (Patat et 2001). Each SN 1998bw spectrum is scaled in flux by an arbitrary constant to find match with our spectral In most pairs spectra same shape broad absorption can be seen, even if some diversities are present (at t$<20$ the $4400$Å pseudo-emission peak is completely absent in 1998bw; the $6300$Å 1998bw is absent 2013dx; the strong absorption $7000$Å 1998bw is much less 2013dx t$<15$ leads to SN 2013dx as a type Ic SN, that is, with a highly stripped left before explosion), similar to those of previously GRB- and XRF-SNe (Mazzali et al. 2006a,b). GRB-associated SNe, such as 2003dh, 2006aj | afterglow contribution. The aFterglow liGht cuRve Can Be ModeLed wIth a broken poweR Law, aS shown in Singer et al. (2013). We thUs adoPtED theIR fIrst dEcay indEX ($\aLPHa_1=0.57$) aNd ThEir TeMPoRal brEak $T_{b}=1.17$ days. HOwever, the sEcoNd Decay index $\alPHa_2$ Does not takE inTo account the EmeRging Sn cOntRIbutiOn. $\aLpha_2=1.85$ iS the loWEst indEx for whicH tHE afterGLow is noT OVeRsubTracted in our early TImE Photometry, whilE $\alpha_2=2.5$ Is THe HIGheSt iNdex alloweD bY the cLOsure reLAtIONS liNKing spectral aNd temporal iNDicEs (ZhanG & MÉszÁRos 2004). ThuS, we chOsE An aVerage $\alpha_2 = 2.2$. the aDopted speCtral iNDex is $\beTA_{\nu}=0.7$ (SingEr et al. 2013). eveN asSumiNG tHe Two ExTRemE DeCay INdiCes, the diFfErEnce iN the AFTERgloW coNtriButioN can only be appRecIateD In tHe firSt thrEe spEcTra, anD it is lOwer tHaN 20% in the worst case.
figuRe 3 shows ouR siXtEen DeReddeNEd, host- And AftErglow-sUbtractED TNg aND vlT Spectra. The spectra aRe SHOwN startinG from $4000$Å IN tHe REst-frame, BeCauSe thE FLux caLibrATiOn becomeS unrelIAbLe At shortEr WaveleNgThs.
in FIg. 4 we cOMparE in the Rest-framE 11 of ouR Spectra with thoSE of SN 1998bw at compARaBLE pHAses AftEr explosion (pataT Et al. 2001). each sn 1998bW spECtrum Is scaLeD In FLux by an arbitrary conStAnt to fInd thE best match witH our spectrAL DAtaset. In Most PAiRS of spectra the sAme coNtinuum shaPE and broaD absoRption feAtures can BE Seen, even If sOme DivErsITIeS are present (at T$<20$ D The $4400$Å PsEudo-emiSsiOn peak iS coMplEteLy aBsEnt in 1998bw; thE pseudo-pEaK aRoUnD $6300$Å iN 1998bw is ABsent in 2013dX; tHe sTrOng AbsorPTion arOund $7000$Å In 1998bw Is MuCH leSs pronoUNcED In 2013dx At T$<15$ d). this FacT lEads uS to cLAssIfy SN 2013dx As a broad-lIne TYpe IC Sn, tHat is, onE with a highly sTrIpped progeNiTor (No hydrOGEn or heliUm left before explosion), siMIlar to tHosE of prEvioUsly studiEd GrB- and XrF-SnE (MazzaLi et al. 2006A,b). OthEr gRB-ASSociaTED Sne, sUcH as 2003dh, 2006aj | afterglow contribution. T he aftergl ow li ght cu rv e ca n be modeled witha bro ken power law, as show n inSi n gere tal. ( 2013).W et h usad op ted t h ei r fir stdecay i ndex ($\al pha _1 =0.57$) andt he ir tempora l b reak $t_{b}= 1.1 7$ day s. Ho w ever, th e sec ond de c ay ind ex $\alph a_ 2 $ does not tak e in to a ccount the emergi n gS N contribution . $\al ph a _2 = 1 .85 $ i s the lowe st inde x for wh i ch t h e a f terglow is no t oversubtr a cte d in o ur ea r ly tim e pho to m etr y, while $\ alph a_2=2.5$is the highest index a llowed by th e cl o su re re la t ion s l ink i ngspectral a nd temp oral i n d ices (Z hang & Mé száros 2004). Th us,w e c hosean av erag e$\alp ha_2 = 2.2$ .The adopted spe ctra l index i s $ \b eta _{ \nu}= 0 .7$ (S ing eret al.2013).E ven a s s u mi ng the two extreme d e c ay indices , thed if fe r ence inth e a fter g l ow co ntri b ut ion canonly b e a pp reciate din the f irs t t hrees pect ra, an d it islower than 20% in th e worst case.Fi g u re 3 sh ows our sixtee n de r edde ned, ho st- and a fterg lo w -s u btracted TNG and VL Tspectr a. Th e spectra are shown sta r t i ng from$400 0 $Å in the rest-fr ame,because th e flux ca libra tion bec omes unre l i able atsho rte r w ave l e ng ths.
In Fig. 4 weco mpare i n t he rest -fr ame 11 of o ur spectr a with t ho se o fSN1998b w at comp ar abl epha ses a f ter ex plosi on ( Pa ta t et al. 20 0 1) . Each S N1998 bwsp ectru m is sca led influx by a n a r bitr ar yconstan t to find the b est matchwi thour sp e c tral dat aset. In most pairs ofs pectrathe same con tinuum sh ape and b roa d absor ptionfeatu re s c a n be s e e n, ev en if some d i v ers ities a re p resent(at t$<20$ d the $ 4 400 $Å pseudo-emi ssi on p e a kisc om p let el y ab s e nt in 1998bw; t he pseudo- pe a karound $63 0 0$Å i n 1998b w is ab senti n 2013d x; the st rong abso rp tion a rou nd $7000$Å in 1998 bw is muc h less pr onoun ced in 20 13 dxat t$ <15$ d ) . T his f act le ad s us t o cla ss ify SN 2 013dx as a broad-line t ype Ic SN,tha t is, one wi t h a highly s trip ped progen ito r ( no hy dro g en or hel i um le f t bef oree xplosion) , s imi l a rto those of p r evi ously st u died G RB-and XRF-SNe (Mazz a li et al. 2006 a,b) . Oth erG RB-a ss ociated SNe, s uch a s 2003dh,20 06aj | afterglow_contribution. The_afterglow light curve can_be modeled_with_a broken_power_law, as shown_in Singer et_al. (2013). We thus_adopted their first_decay_index ($\alpha_1=0.57$) and their temporal break $t_{b}=1.17$ days. However, the second decay index $\alpha_2$_does_not take_into_account_the emerging SN contribution. $\alpha_2=1.85$_is the lowest index for_which the_afterglow is not oversubtracted in our early time_photometry,_while $\alpha_2=2.5$ is_the highest index allowed by the closure relations linking_spectral and temporal indices (Zhang &_Mészáros 2004). Thus,_we_chose_an average $\alpha_2 =_2.2$. The adopted spectral index is_$\beta_{\nu}=0.7$ (Singer et al. 2013). Even_assuming the two extreme decay indices, the_difference in the afterglow contribution can_only be appreciated in the_first three_spectra, and it is lower_than 20% in_the worst_case.
Figure 3 shows_our sixteen dereddened, host- and afterglow-subtracted_TNG and VLT_spectra. The spectra are shown starting_from_$4000$Å in the rest-frame,_because_the_flux calibration_becomes unreliable at_shorter_wavelengths.
In Fig._4_we compare in the rest-frame 11_of_our spectra with those of SN 1998bw_at comparable phases after_explosion_(Patat et al. 2001)._Each SN 1998bw spectrum is_scaled in flux by an arbitrary_constant to_find the_best match with our spectral dataset. In most pairs of spectra_the same continuum shape and broad_absorption features can be_seen, even_if_some diversities are_present_(at t$<20$_d the $4400$Å pseudo-emission peak is completely_absent in_1998bw; the pseudo-peak around $6300$Å in_1998bw is absent in_2013dx;_the strong absorption around $7000$Å in 1998bw_is much less pronounced in 2013dx_at t$<15$ d). This fact_leads_us_to classify SN 2013dx as_a broad-line type Ic SN, that_is, one with_a highly stripped progenitor (no hydrogen or_helium_left before explosion), similar to those_of_previously studied GRB- and XRF-SNe (Mazzali_et_al._2006a,b). Other GRB-associated SNe, such_as 2003dh, 2006aj |
) g(t)} + \frac{C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{r^{2}t^{5/2} \log^{b(j-2)}(t) \sqrt{\langle t-r \rangle} \log^{b}(\langle t-r \rangle)}, \quad r > \frac{t}{2}\end{cases}$$ $$|\partial_{r}^{2}WRHS_{j}(t,r)| \leq C \begin{cases} \frac{C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{t^{4} g(t)^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(t)}, \quad r \leq \frac{t}{2}\\
\frac{C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{r^{3/2} t^{5/2} g(t)^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(t)} \left(1+\frac{\lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(r)}{t^{2} \log^{b}(t)}\right), \quad r > \frac{t}{2}\end{cases}$$ Using the same procedure used to estimate $w_{3}$, we get the following estimates, where the constant $C$ is *independent* of $t,j,p$, and $t \geq T_{1}+T_{0,p}$. $$\label{result1}|w_{j}(t,r)| \leq \begin{cases} \frac{C r^{2} C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{t^{2} g(t)^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(t)}, \quad r \leq g(t)\\
\frac{C C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{t^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(t)}, \quad r>g(t)\end{cases}$$ $$|\partial_{r}w_{j}(t,r)| \leq \begin{cases} \frac{C r C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{ | ) g(t) } + \frac{C_{2}^{p(j-1) } \lambda(t)^{2 } \log^{2}(t)}{r^{2}t^{5/2 } \log^{b(j-2)}(t) \sqrt{\langle t - r \rangle } \log^{b}(\langle t - r \rangle) }, \quad radius > \frac{t}{2}\end{cases}$$ $ $ |\partial_{r}^{2}WRHS_{j}(t, r)| \leq C \begin{cases } \frac{C_{2}^{p(j-1) } \lambda(t)^{2 } \log^{2}(t)}{t^{4 } g(t)^{2 } \log^{b(j-1)}(t) }, \quad radius \leq \frac{t}{2}\\
\frac{C_{2}^{p(j-1) } \lambda(t)^{2 } \log^{2}(t)}{r^{3/2 } t^{5/2 } g(t)^{2 } \log^{b(j-1)}(t) } \left(1+\frac{\lambda(t)^{2 } \log^{2}(r)}{t^{2 } \log^{b}(t)}\right), \quad r > \frac{t}{2}\end{cases}$$ Using the same routine used to estimate $ w_{3}$, we get down the following estimates, where the changeless $ C$ is * independent * of $ t, j, p$, and $ t \geq T_{1}+T_{0,p}$. $ $ \label{result1}|w_{j}(t, r)| \leq \begin{cases } \frac{C r^{2 } C_{2}^{p(j-1) } \lambda(t)^{2 } \log^{2}(t)}{t^{2 } g(t)^{2 } \log^{b(j-1)}(t) }, \quad radius \leq g(t)\\
\frac{C C_{2}^{p(j-1) } \lambda(t)^{2 } \log^{2}(t)}{t^{2 } \log^{b(j-1)}(t) }, \quad r > g(t)\end{cases}$$ $ $ |\partial_{r}w_{j}(t, r)| \leq \begin{cases } \frac{C r C_{2}^{p(j-1) } \lambda(t)^ { | ) g(t)} + \frac{C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{r^{2}t^{5/2} \log^{b(j-2)}(t) \sqrt{\lanyoe t-r \cangle} \mog^{b}(\langue t-r \rangle)}, \quad r > \frac{t}{2}\env{casws}$$ $$|\paetial_{r}^{2}WRHS_{j}(t,r)| \leq C \beein{cases} \vrac{C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \oambva(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{t^{4} g(t)^{2} \log^{u(n-1)}(t)}, \quad r \leq \nrac{t}{2}\\
\yrec{C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \lpg^{2}(t)}{r^{3/2} t^{5/2} g(t)^{2} \nog^{b(j-1)}(t)} \left(1+\fraw{\lxmyda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(r)}{t^{2} \log^{b}(t)}\right), \quad r > \frac{t}{2}\egd{cases}$$ Uding the same krocectre hsed to estimate $w_{3}$, we get the follkwing evtimates, wherr the constant $C$ is *indepejdenh* of $t,j,p$, and $t \geq T_{1}+T_{0,p}$. $$\label{rgaule1}|q_{j}(t,r)| \leq \begkn{cases} \frac{C r^{2} C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lajbda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{t^{2} g(t)^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(t)}, \quad r \led g(t)\\
\fxac{C C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lanbea(t)^{2} \nog^{2}(t)}{t^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(v)}, \quad r>g(t)\end{cases}$$ $$|\partial_{s}w_{j}(t,r)| \lrq \begin{cases} \nrac{C r X_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{ | ) g(t)} + \frac{C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{r^{2}t^{5/2} \log^{b(j-2)}(t) \rangle} t-r \rangle)}, r > \frac{t}{2}\end{cases}$$ \lambda(t)^{2} g(t)^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(t)}, \quad \leq \frac{t}{2}\\ \frac{C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \log^{2}(t)}{r^{3/2} t^{5/2} g(t)^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(t)} \left(1+\frac{\lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(r)}{t^{2} \quad r > \frac{t}{2}\end{cases}$$ Using the same procedure used to estimate $w_{3}$, we the following estimates, where the constant $C$ is *independent* of $t,j,p$, and $t T_{1}+T_{0,p}$. \leq \frac{C C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{t^{2} g(t)^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(t)}, \quad r \leq g(t)\\ \frac{C C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{t^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(t)}, \quad r>g(t)\end{cases}$$ \leq \begin{cases} \frac{C r C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{ | ) g(t)} + \frac{C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{r^{2}t^{5/2} \log^{B(j-2)}(t) \sqrt{\lanGle t-r \RanGle} \LoG^{b}(\laNgle T-r \rangle)}, \quad r > \fRAc{t}{2}\eNd{cases}$$ $$|\partial_{r}^{2}WRHS_{j}(t,r)| \Leq C \bEgIN{casES} \fRac{C_{2}^{p(J-1)} \lambda(T)^{2} \LoG^{2}(T)}{T^{4} g(t)^{2} \LoG^{b(J-1)}(t)}, \qUaD R \lEq \fraC{t}{2}\\
\fRac{C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lAmbda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{R^{3/2} t^{5/2} g(T)^{2} \lOg^{b(j-1)}(t)} \left(1+\fraC{\LaMbda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(r)}{t^{2} \Log^{B}(t)}\right), \quad r > \FraC{t}{2}\end{cAsEs}$$ USIng thE saMe proCedure USed to eStimate $w_{3}$, wE gET the foLLowing eSTImAtes, Where the constant $C$ IS *iNDependent* of $t,j,p$, And $t \geQ T_{1}+t_{0,P}$. $$\lABEl{rEsuLt1}|w_{j}(t,r)| \leq \bEgIn{casES} \frac{C r^{2} c_{2}^{P(j-1)} \LAMBda(T)^{2} \Log^{2}(t)}{t^{2} g(t)^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(t)}, \Quad r \leq g(t)\\
\fRAc{C c_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lamBdA(t)^{2} \lOG^{2}(t)}{t^{2} \log^{B(j-1)}(t)}, \quAd R>G(t)\eNd{cases}$$ $$|\partIal_{r}W_{j}(t,r)| \leq \beGin{casES} \frac{C r c_{2}^{P(j-1)} \lambdA(t)^{ | ) g(t)} + \frac{C_{2}^{p(j -1)} \lamb da(t) ^{2 } \ lo g^{2 }(t) }{r^{2}t^{5/2} \log ^{b(j-2)}(t) \sqrt{\la nglet- r \ra n gl e} \l og^{b}( \ la n g let- r\ra ng l e) }, \q uad r > \f rac{t}{2}\ end {c ases}$$ $$|\ p ar tial_{r}^{ 2}W RHS_{j}(t,r) | \ leq C\b egi n {case s}\frac {C_{2} ^ {p(j-1 )} \lambd a( t )^{2}\ log^{2} ( t )} {t^{ 4} g(t)^{2} \log^ { b( j -1)}(t)}, \qua d r \l eq \f r a c{t }{2 }\\
\frac{ C_ {2}^{ p (j-1)}\ la m b d a(t ) ^{2} \log^{2} (t)}{r^{3/2 } t^ {5/2}g( t)^ { 2} \lo g^{b( j- 1 )}( t)} \left(1 +\fr ac{\lambd a(t)^{ 2 } \log^ { 2}(r)}{ t^{2}\lo g^{ b}(t ) }\ ri ght ), \qu a dr > \fr ac{t}{2} \e nd {case s}$$ U s i ng t hesame proc edure used to es tima t e $ w_{3} $, we get t he fo llowin g est im ates, where the con stant $C$ is * ind ep enden t * of $ t,j ,p$ , and $ t \geqT _{1 }+ T _ { 0, p}$. $$\label{resu lt 1 } |w _{j}(t,r )| \le q \ be g in{cases }\fr ac{C r ^{2}C_{2 } ^{ p(j-1)}\lambd a (t )^ {2} \lo g^ {2}(t) }{ t^{ 2}g(t)^ { 2} \ log^{b (j-1)}(t )}, \ q uad r \leq g(t ) \\
\frac{C C_ { 2} ^ { p( j -1)} \l ambda(t)^{2 } \l o g^{2 }(t) } {t ^{2 } \log ^{b(j -1 ) }( t )}, \quad r>g(t)\en d{ cases} $$ $$ |\partial_{r} w_{j}(t,r) | \ leq \beg in{c a se s } \frac{C r C_ {2}^{ p(j-1)} \l a mbda(t)^ { | ) g(t)}_+ \frac{C_{2}^{p(j-1)}_\lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{r^{2}t^{5/2} \log^{b(j-2)}(t) \sqrt{\langle_t-r \rangle}_\log^{b}(\langle_t-r \rangle)},_\quad_r > \frac{t}{2}\end{cases}$$_$$|\partial_{r}^{2}WRHS_{j}(t,r)| \leq C_\begin{cases} \frac{C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{t^{4}_g(t)^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(t)}, \quad_r_\leq \frac{t}{2}\\
\frac{C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{r^{3/2} t^{5/2} g(t)^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(t)} \left(1+\frac{\lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(r)}{t^{2} \log^{b}(t)}\right), \quad r > \frac{t}{2}\end{cases}$$_Using_the same_procedure_used_to estimate $w_{3}$, we get_the following estimates, where the_constant $C$_is *independent* of $t,j,p$, and $t \geq T_{1}+T_{0,p}$._$$\label{result1}|w_{j}(t,r)|_\leq \begin{cases} \frac{C_r^{2} C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{t^{2} g(t)^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(t)}, \quad r \leq_g(t)\\
\frac{C C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{2} \log^{2}(t)}{t^{2} \log^{b(j-1)}(t)}, \quad_r>g(t)\end{cases}$$ $$|\partial_{r}w_{j}(t,r)| \leq_\begin{cases}_\frac{C_r C_{2}^{p(j-1)} \lambda(t)^{ |
_{kl}/(ns_{kk}s_{ll})$.]{}
For ease of notation, let $Z_1,\cdots,Z_p$ be the standardized random variables of $\widehat{\beta}_1,\cdots,\widehat{\beta}_p$, that is, $$\label{b2}
Z_i=\frac{\widehat{\beta}_i}{{\mbox{SD}}(\widehat{\beta}_i)}=\frac{\widehat{\beta}_i}{\sigma/(\sqrt{n}s_{ii})}, \quad\quad i=1,\cdots,p.$$ In the above, we implicitly assume that $\sigma$ is known and the above standardized random variables are z-test statistics. The estimate of residual variance $\sigma^2$ will be discussed in Section 6 via refitted cross-validation (Fan, Guo & Hao, 2011). Then, conditioning on $\{X_j^i\}$, $$\label{c1}
(Z_1,\cdots,Z_p)^T\sim N((\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_p)^T,{\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}),$$ where $\mu_i=\sqrt{n}\beta_is_{ii}/\sigma$ and covariance matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}$ has the $(k,l)$th element as $s_{kl}$. Simultaneously testing (2) based on $(\widehat{\beta}_1,\cdots,\widehat{\beta}_p)^T$ is thus equivalent to testing
$$\label{c2}
H_{0j}:\quad\mu_j=0\quad\text{vs}\quad H_{1j}:\quad \mu_j\neq0, \quad\quad j=1,\cdots,p$$
based on $(Z_1,\cdots,Z_p)^T$.
In (4), ${\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}$ is the population covariance matrix of $(Z_1,\cdots,Z_p)^T$, and is known based on the sample data $\{X_j^i\}$. The covariance matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}$ can have arbitrary dependence structure. We would like to clarify that ${\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}$ is known and there is no estimation of the covariance matrix of $X_1,\cdots,X_p$ in this set up.
Estimating False Discovery Proportion
=====================================
From now on assume that among all the $p$ null hypotheses, | _ { kl}/(ns_{kk}s_{ll})$. ] { }
For ease of notation, let $ Z_1,\cdots, Z_p$ be the standardized random variable star of $ \widehat{\beta}_1,\cdots,\widehat{\beta}_p$, that is, $ $ \label{b2 }
Z_i=\frac{\widehat{\beta}_i}{{\mbox{SD}}(\widehat{\beta}_i)}=\frac{\widehat{\beta}_i}{\sigma/(\sqrt{n}s_{ii }) }, \quad\quad i=1,\cdots, p.$$ In the above, we implicitly wear that $ \sigma$ is known and the above standardized random variables are omega - test statistics. The estimate of residual variation $ \sigma^2 $ will be discussed in Section 6 via refit crabbed - validation (Fan, Guo & Hao, 2011). Then, conditioning on $ \{X_j^i\}$, $ $ \label{c1 }
(Z_1,\cdots, Z_p)^T\sim N((\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_p)^T,{\mbox{\boldmath $ \Sigma$}}),$$ where $ \mu_i=\sqrt{n}\beta_is_{ii}/\sigma$ and covariance matrix $ { \mbox{\boldmath $ \Sigma$}}$ suffer the $ (k, l)$th element as $ s_{kl}$. Simultaneously examination (2) based on $ (\widehat{\beta}_1,\cdots,\widehat{\beta}_p)^T$ is thus equivalent to testing
$ $ \label{c2 }
H_{0j}:\quad\mu_j=0\quad\text{vs}\quad H_{1j}:\quad \mu_j\neq0, \quad\quad j=1,\cdots, p$$
based on $ (Z_1,\cdots, Z_p)^T$.
In (4), $ { \mbox{\boldmath $ \Sigma$}}$ is the population covariance matrix of $ (Z_1,\cdots, Z_p)^T$, and is known based on the sample datum $ \{X_j^i\}$. The covariance matrix $ { \mbox{\boldmath $ \Sigma$}}$ can have arbitrary dependence structure. We would wish to clarify that $ { \mbox{\boldmath $ \Sigma$}}$ is known and there is no estimation of the covariance matrix of $ X_1,\cdots, X_p$ in this set up.
Estimating False Discovery Proportion
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From nowadays on assume that among all the $ p$ null hypotheses, | _{kl}/(nd_{kk}s_{ll})$.]{}
For ease of notatiun, let $Z_1,\cdots,Z_p$ be the standzrdized fandom variables of $\widehat{\bxta}_1,\ceots,\wudehat{\beta}_p$, that is, $$\lacel{b2}
Z_i=\frab{\widehat{\bwta}_i}{{\nvox{SD}}(\widehef{\beta}_i)}=\fvcc{\widsmat{\beca}_m}{\sigma/(\sqrt{n}s_{ii})}, \auad\quad i=1,\wdots,p.$$ In the dbuvz, we implicitly assume that $\sigma$ is known snf the above stwndagdyzed gakdom variables are z-test statistjcs. The estimate of tesidual variance $\sigma^2$ wipl bf discussed in Sechion 6 via rgritewd cross-valiaation (Fan, Guo & Hao, 2011). Tgen, conditioning on $\{X_j^i\}$, $$\label{c1}
(Z_1,\zdots,V_p)^T\sim N((\mu_1,\ceors,\mk_k)^T,{\mbox{\boldmavh $\Sigia$}}),$$ where $\mu_i=\sqrt{n}\betd_is_{ii}/\sibma$ and covarisncx marrix ${\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigka$}}$ has the $(k,l)$th elgment as $s_{nl}$. Simultaneously twsring (2) basad ov $(\wiaehzt{\uetz}_1,\cdots,\aidxhat{\beta}_p)^T$ js thus equuvalent to testing
$$\lsbqo{c2}
H_{0j}:\quad\mu_j=0\quzd\text{ds}\zuad H_{1j}:\quad \mu_j\neq0, \quad\quad j=1,\cdots,p$$
baseg oh $(Z_1,\cdots,Z_p)^T$.
In (4), ${\mbox{\boldnath $\Sigma$}}$ is the popolation codariance matrix of $(Z_1,\cdots,Z_p)^T$, and is known based ot the ramklc aqtw $\{X_j^i\}$. The covariance matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigmw$}}$ csn have arbitrarn dependence strucyuge. Re would like to clcdiry that ${\mbox{\boldmahh $\Sigmw$}}$ is jnown and thete is no estimation of the xovariance mctrux of $X_1,\cdots,X_p$ in chis set up.
Ertimsting False Discovery Proporcion
=====================================
Frkm now on adsume thaf among all the $p$ nukl hypotheses, | _{kl}/(ns_{kk}s_{ll})$.]{} For ease of notation, let $Z_1,\cdots,Z_p$ standardized variables of that is, $$\label{b2} above, implicitly assume that is known and above standardized random variables are z-test The estimate of residual variance $\sigma^2$ will be discussed in Section 6 via cross-validation (Fan, Guo & Hao, 2011). Then, conditioning on $\{X_j^i\}$, $$\label{c1} (Z_1,\cdots,Z_p)^T\sim N((\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_p)^T,{\mbox{\boldmath where and matrix $\Sigma$}}$ has the $(k,l)$th element as $s_{kl}$. Simultaneously testing (2) based on $(\widehat{\beta}_1,\cdots,\widehat{\beta}_p)^T$ is thus equivalent testing $$\label{c2} H_{0j}:\quad\mu_j=0\quad\text{vs}\quad H_{1j}:\quad \mu_j\neq0, \quad\quad j=1,\cdots,p$$ based $(Z_1,\cdots,Z_p)^T$. In (4), ${\mbox{\boldmath is the population covariance matrix $(Z_1,\cdots,Z_p)^T$, is known on sample $\{X_j^i\}$. The covariance ${\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}$ can have arbitrary dependence structure. We would like to clarify that ${\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}$ is known there is of the matrix $X_1,\cdots,X_p$ this set up. Discovery Proportion ===================================== From now on all the $p$ null hypotheses, | _{kl}/(ns_{kk}s_{ll})$.]{}
For ease of notatioN, let $Z_1,\cdots,z_p$ be tHe sTanDaRdizEd raNdom variables oF $\WideHat{\beta}_1,\cdots,\widehat{\betA}_p$, thaT iS, $$\LabeL{B2}
Z_I=\frac{\Widehat{\BEtA}_I}{{\MboX{Sd}}(\wIdeHaT{\BeTa}_i)}=\frAc{\wIdehat{\bEta}_i}{\sigma/(\sQrt{N}s_{Ii})}, \quad\quad i=1,\cDOtS,p.$$ In the aboVe, wE implicitly aSsuMe that $\SiGma$ IS knowN anD the aBove stANdardiZed random VaRIables ARe z-test STAtIstiCs. The estimate of reSIdUAl variance $\sigmA^2$ will bE dIScUSSed In SEction 6 via rEfItted CRoss-valIDaTION (FaN, guo & Hao, 2011). Then, conDitioning on $\{x_J^i\}$, $$\lAbel{c1}
(Z_1,\CdOts,z_P)^T\sim N((\Mu_1,\cdoTs,\MU_p)^T,{\Mbox{\boldmatH $\SigMa$}}),$$ where $\mu_I=\sqrt{n}\BEta_is_{ii}/\SIgma$ and CovariAncE maTrix ${\MBoX{\bOldMaTH $\SiGMa$}}$ Has THe $(k,L)$th elemeNt As $S_{kl}$. SiMultANEOUsly TesTing (2) Based On $(\widehat{\beta}_1,\CdoTs,\wiDEhaT{\beta}_P)^T$ is tHus eQuIvaleNt to teSting
$$\LaBel{c2}
H_{0j}:\quad\mu_j=0\quAd\teXt{vs}\quad H_{1J}:\quAd \Mu_j\NeQ0, \quad\QUad j=1,\cdOts,P$$
baSed on $(Z_1,\cDots,Z_p)^T$.
iN (4), ${\mbOx{\BOLDmAth $\Sigma$}}$ is the populAtION cOvariancE matriX Of $(z_1,\cDOts,Z_p)^T$, anD iS knOwn bASEd on tHe saMPlE data $\{X_j^i\}$. the covARiAnCe matriX ${\mBox{\bolDmAth $\sigMa$}}$ can HAve aRbitraRy dependEnce sTRucture. We would LIke to clarify tHAt ${\MBOx{\BOldmAth $\sigma$}}$ is knowN and THere Is no EStImaTIon of The coVaRIaNCe matrix of $X_1,\cdots,X_p$ iN tHis set Up.
EstImating False DIscovery PrOPORtion
=====================================
FroM now ON aSSume that among aLl the $P$ null hypotHEses, | _{kl}/(ns_{kk}s_{ll})$.]{}
For ease of n ota tio n, let $Z_ 1,\cdots,Z_p$b e th e standardized randomvaria bl e s of $\ wideh at{\bet a }_ 1 , \cd ot s, \wi de h at {\bet a}_ p$, tha t is, $$\l abe l{ b2}
Z_i=\fra c {\ widehat{\b eta }_i}{{\mbox{ SD} }(\wid eh at{ \ beta} _i) }=\fr ac{\wi d ehat{\ beta}_i}{ \s i gma/(\ s qrt{n}s _ { ii })}, \quad\quad i=1,\ c do t s,p.$$ In theabove, w e i m p lic itl y assume t ha t $\s i gma$ is kn o w n an d the above st andardizedr and om var ia ble s are z -test s t ati stics. Theesti mate of r esidua l varian c e $\sig ma^2$wil l b e di s cu ss edin Sec t io n 6 via refitte dcr oss-v alid a t i o n (F an, Guo & Ha o, 2011). The n,cond i tio ningon $\ {X_j ^i \}$,$$\lab el{c1 }(Z_1,\cdots,Z_p )^T\ sim N((\m u_1 ,\ cdo ts ,\mu_ p )^T,{\ mbo x{\ boldmat h $\Sig m a$} }) , $ $ w here $\mu_i=\sqrt{ n} \ b et a_is_{ii }/\sig m a$ a n d covari an cematr i x ${\m box{ \ bo ldmath $ \Sigma $ }} $has the $ (k,l)$ th el eme nt as $s_{ kl}$.Simultan eousl y testing (2) b a sed on $(\wid e ha t { \b e ta}_ 1,\ cdots,\wide hat{ \ beta }_p) ^ T$ is thusequiv al e nt to testing
$$\labe l{ c2}
H_ {0j}: \quad\mu_j=0\ quad\text{ v s } \quad H_ {1j} : \q u ad \mu_j\neq0, \qua d\quad j=1 , \cdots,p $$
b ased on$(Z_1,\cd o t s,Z_p)^T $.
In (4 ),$ { \m box{\boldmath $ \Sig ma $}}$ is th e popul ati oncov ari an ce matrix of $(Z_ 1, \c do ts ,Z_ p)^T$ , and iskn own b ase d ont he sam ple d ata$\ {X _ j^i \}$. Th e c o v aria nc ematr ix${ \mbox {\bo l dma th $\Si gma$}}$ c anh avear bi trary d ependence str uc ture. We w ou ldlike t o clarifythat ${\mbox{\boldmath$ \Sigma$ }}$ is k nown and ther e i s no e sti m ationof the cova ri anc e matri x of $X _1 ,\cdots,X_ p $ in this s et u p.
Est imating False Disc o ver y Proportion=== ==== = = == === = == = === == = === = = ========
Fromnow on ass um e t hat amonga llth e $p$ n ull hyp othes e s, | _{kl}/(ns_{kk}s_{ll})$.]{}
For ease_of notation,_let $Z_1,\cdots,Z_p$ be the_standardized random_variables_of $\widehat{\beta}_1,\cdots,\widehat{\beta}_p$,_that_is, $$\label{b2}
Z_i=\frac{\widehat{\beta}_i}{{\mbox{SD}}(\widehat{\beta}_i)}=\frac{\widehat{\beta}_i}{\sigma/(\sqrt{n}s_{ii})}, \quad\quad_i=1,\cdots,p.$$ In the_above, we implicitly assume_that $\sigma$ is_known_and the above standardized random variables are z-test statistics. The estimate of residual variance_$\sigma^2$_will be_discussed_in_Section 6 via refitted cross-validation_(Fan, Guo & Hao, 2011)._Then, conditioning_on $\{X_j^i\}$, $$\label{c1}
(Z_1,\cdots,Z_p)^T\sim N((\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_p)^T,{\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}),$$ where $\mu_i=\sqrt{n}\beta_is_{ii}/\sigma$ and_covariance_matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}$_has the $(k,l)$th element as $s_{kl}$. Simultaneously testing (2)_based on $(\widehat{\beta}_1,\cdots,\widehat{\beta}_p)^T$ is thus equivalent_to testing
$$\label{c2}
H_{0j}:\quad\mu_j=0\quad\text{vs}\quad H_{1j}:\quad_\mu_j\neq0,_\quad\quad_j=1,\cdots,p$$
based on $(Z_1,\cdots,Z_p)^T$.
In (4),_${\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}$ is the population covariance_matrix of $(Z_1,\cdots,Z_p)^T$, and is known_based on the sample data $\{X_j^i\}$. The_covariance matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}$ can have_arbitrary dependence structure. We would_like to_clarify that ${\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}$ is_known and there_is no_estimation of the_covariance matrix of $X_1,\cdots,X_p$ in this_set up.
Estimating False_Discovery Proportion
=====================================
From now on assume that_among_all the $p$_null_hypotheses, |
\leftarrow \TrivialTree(a_i)$ for all $a_i \in A$ \[alg:crack:trivialtrees\] $\depgraph \leftarrow$ dependency graph for $\models$ \[alg:crack:depgraph\] $V \leftarrow \{ v_i \mid i \in A \}, \; E \leftarrow \emptyset$ \[alg:crack:checkgraph1\] $\depgraph \leftarrow (V,E)$ \[alg:crack:checkgraph2\] \[alg:crack:return\]
Since we use a greedy heuristic to construct the coding trees, we have a worst case runtime of $O(2^{m}n)$, where $m$ is the number of attributes and $n$ is the number of rows. Although the worst case runtime is exponential, in practice, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crack</span>]{}takes only a few seconds.
### Causal Inference with {#causal-inference-with.unnumbered}
To compute our causal indicators we have to run [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crack</span>]{}twice on $D$. First with model class $\models_{X \mid Y}(X)$ to obtain $\model_{X \mid Y}(X)$ and second with $\models_{Y\mid X}(Y)$, to obtain $\model_{Y\mid X}(Y)$. To estimate $\models_{X}(X)$, we assume a uniform prior $L(X \mid \model_{X}) = -n\sum_{a_i \in X} \log res(a_i)$ and similarly for $\model_{Y}(Y)$. We can use these scores to calculate both the $\delta$ score and the $\Delta$ score. We will refer to [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crack</span>]{}using the $\delta$ indicator as [$\textsc{Crack}_{\delta}$]{}, and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crack</span>]{}with the $\Delta$ indicator as [$\textsc{Crack}_{\Delta}$]{}.
Related Work {#sec:rel}
============
Causal inference on observational data is a challenging problem, and has recently attracted a lot of attention [@pearl:09:book; @janzing:10:algomarkov; @shimizu:06 | \leftarrow \TrivialTree(a_i)$ for all $ a_i \in A$ \[alg: crack: trivialtrees\ ] $ \depgraph \leftarrow$ dependency graph for $ \models$ \[alg: crack: depgraph\ ] $ V \leftarrow \ { v_i \mid i \in A \ }, \; E \leftarrow \emptyset$ \[alg: shot: checkgraph1\ ] $ \depgraph \leftarrow (five, E)$ \[alg: crack: checkgraph2\ ] \[alg: crack: return\ ]
Since we use a avid heuristic to construct the coding tree, we have a worst event runtime of $ O(2^{m}n)$, where $ m$ is the number of attributes and $ n$ is the issue of rows. Although the worst sheath runtime is exponential, in exercise, [ < span style="font - variant: small - caps;">Crack</span>]{}takes merely a few seconds.
# # # Causal Inference with { # causal-inference-with.unnumbered }
To compute our causal index we have to run [ < span style="font - variant: little - caps;">Crack</span>]{}twice on $ D$. First with model class $ \models_{X \mid Y}(X)$ to obtain $ \model_{X \mid Y}(X)$ and second with $ \models_{Y\mid X}(Y)$, to obtain $ \model_{Y\mid X}(Y)$. To calculate $ \models_{X}(X)$, we assume a uniform prior $ L(X \mid \model_{X }) = -n\sum_{a_i \in X } \log res(a_i)$ and similarly for $ \model_{Y}(Y)$. We can practice these scores to calculate both the $ \delta$ score and the $ \Delta$ score. We will consult to [ < span style="font - variant: small - caps;">Crack</span>]{}using the $ \delta$ indicator as [ $ \textsc{Crack}_{\delta}$ ] { }, and [ < span style="font - variant: small - caps;">Crack</span>]{}with the $ \Delta$ index as [ $ \textsc{Crack}_{\Delta}$ ] { }.
Related Work { # sec: rel }
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Causal inference on experimental datum is a challenging problem, and has recently attracted a lot of attention [ @pearl:09: book; @janzing:10: algomarkov; @shimizu:06 | \levtarrow \TrivialTree(a_i)$ fov all $a_i \in A$ \[aly:xrack:tcivialtdees\] $\deperaph \leftarrow$ dependency gcaph for $\nodels$ \[alg:crack:depgrapf\] $V \leftagrow \{ v_i \nid m \in A \}, \; E \leftacdow \empbvset$ \[zpg:crccj:checkgraph1\] $\dekgraph \leftasrow (V,E)$ \[alg:crawk:zhzckgraph2\] \[alg:crack:return\]
Since we use w greedu jeuristic to cjnstgust tgv goding trees, we have a worst cass runtike of $O(2^{m}n)$, whete $m$ is the number of attrlbutfs and $n$ is the nulber of roww. Aleyough the wofst case rlutime is exkonential, in practice, [<span style="wont-vcriant:small-xaps;">Cgdck</span>]{}takew onlj a few seconds.
### Causan Inferrnce with {#cauxal-mnfeeence-with.unnumbered}
To compute our causaj indicatmra we have to run [<wpqn stile="fott-vafuang:smzlk-czps;">Crafk</s'an>]{}twice on $D$. First wirh model class $\modeks_{V \mid Y}(X)$ to obfain $\mjdql_{X \mid Y}(X)$ and second with $\models_{Y\mid X}(J)$, to obtain $\model_{Y\mid X}(Y)$. To estimate $\models_{X}(X)$, we assume a uniform prior $L(X \mid \model_{X}) = -n\sum_{a_i \in X} \log res(d_i)$ anv rimnoarly dog $\model_{Y}(Y)$. We can use these scores to calculatq bptm the $\delta$ scorc and the $\Delta$ scprf. Eg will refer tu [<span stgle="font-variant:smalp-caps;">Crwck</spqn>]{}using tre $\drlta$ indicator as [$\textsc{Craxk}_{\delta}$]{}, and [<fpan style="font-variaut:small-caps;">Cxack</spsn>]{}witn the $\Delta$ indicator ar [$\testsc{Crack}_{\Depta}$]{}.
Relates Work {#sec:rel}
============
Causxl pnfesence on observational datw is a chellenying proclem, and hws recentlj attvdcted a lot of attfntiou [@pearn:09:book; @janzlng:10:algomarkov; @shimizu:06 | \leftarrow \TrivialTree(a_i)$ for all $a_i \in A$ \leftarrow$ graph for \[alg:crack:depgraph\] $V \leftarrow A \; E \leftarrow \[alg:crack:checkgraph1\] $\depgraph \leftarrow \[alg:crack:checkgraph2\] \[alg:crack:return\] Since we use a heuristic to construct the coding trees, we have a worst case runtime of where $m$ is the number of attributes and $n$ is the number of Although worst runtime exponential, in practice, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crack</span>]{}takes only a few seconds. ### Causal Inference with {#causal-inference-with.unnumbered} To compute causal indicators we have to run [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crack</span>]{}twice $D$. First with model $\models_{X \mid Y}(X)$ to obtain \mid and second $\models_{Y\mid to $\model_{Y\mid X}(Y)$. To $\models_{X}(X)$, we assume a uniform prior $L(X \mid \model_{X}) = -n\sum_{a_i \in X} \log res(a_i)$ and similarly $\model_{Y}(Y)$. We these scores calculate the score and the We will refer to [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crack</span>]{}using as [$\textsc{Crack}_{\delta}$]{}, and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crack</span>]{}with the $\Delta$ indicator [$\textsc{Crack}_{\Delta}$]{}. Related {#sec:rel} ============ Causal inference on observational is a challenging problem, and has recently attracted lot of attention [@pearl:09:book; @janzing:10:algomarkov; @shimizu:06 | \leftarrow \TrivialTree(a_i)$ for All $a_i \in A$ \[alG:cracK:trIviAlTreeS\] $\depGraph \leftarrow$ DEpenDency graph for $\models$ \[alg:Crack:DePGrapH\] $v \lEftarRow \{ v_i \miD I \iN a \}, \; e \leFtArRow \EmPTySet$ \[alG:crAck:checKgraph1\] $\depgRapH \lEftarrow (V,E)$ \[alG:CrAck:checkgrAph2\] \[Alg:crack:retuRn\]
SInce we UsE a gREedy hEurIstic To consTRuct thE coding trEeS, We have A Worst caSE RuNtimE of $O(2^{m}n)$, where $m$ is the NUmBEr of attributes And $n$ is ThE NuMBEr oF roWs. Although ThE worsT Case runTImE IS ExpONential, in pracTice, [<span styLE="foNt-variAnT:smALl-caps;">crack</SpAN>]{}taKes only a few SecoNds.
### Causal infereNCe with {#cAUsal-infErence-WitH.unNumbEReD}
TO coMpUTe oUR cAusAL inDicators We HaVe to rUn [<spAN STYle="fOnt-VariAnt:smAll-caps;">Crack</sPan>]{}TwicE On $D$. first With mOdel ClAss $\moDels_{X \mId Y}(X)$ tO oBtain $\model_{X \mid Y}(x)$ and Second witH $\moDeLs_{Y\MiD X}(Y)$, to OBtain $\mOdeL_{Y\mId X}(Y)$. To eStimate $\MOdeLs_{x}(x)$, WE aSsume a uniform prior $l(X \MID \mOdel_{X}) = -n\suM_{a_i \in X} \LOg ReS(A_i)$ and simIlArlY for $\MODel_{Y}(Y)$. we caN UsE these scOres to CAlCuLate botH tHe $\deltA$ sCorE anD the $\DELta$ sCore. We Will refeR to [<spAN style="font-variANt:small-caps;">CrACk</SPAn>]{}USing The $\Delta$ indicaTor aS [$\TextSc{CrACk}_{\DelTA}$]{}, and [<sPan stYlE="FoNT-variant:small-caps;">CrAcK</span>]{}wIth thE $\Delta$ indicatOr as [$\textsc{cRACk}_{\Delta}$]{}.
RElatED WORk {#sec:rel}
============
Causal InferEnce on obseRVational Data iS a challeNging probLEM, and has rEceNtlY atTraCTEd A lot of attentiON [@PearL:09:bOok; @janzIng:10:AlgomarKov; @ShiMizU:06 | \leftarrow \TrivialTree(a _i)$ for a ll $a _i\in A $ \[ alg: crack:trivialt r ees\ ] $\depgraph \leftarro w$ de pe n denc y g raphfor $\m o de l s $ \ [a lg :cr ac k :d epgra ph\ ] $V \l eftarrow \ { v _i \mid i \inA \ }, \; E \l eft arrow \empty set $ \[al g: cra c k:che ckg raph1 \] $\d e pgraph \leftarr ow (V,E)$ \[alg:c r a ck :che ckgraph2\] \[alg: c ra c k:return\]
Si nce we u s ea gre edy heuristic t o con s truct t h ec o d ing trees, we hav e a worst c a seruntim eof$ O(2^{m }n)$, w h ere $m$ is the num ber of at tribut e s and $ n $ is th e numb erofrows . A lt hou gh the wo rst cas e runtim eis expo nent i a l , inpra ctic e, [< span style="f ont -var i ant :smal l-cap s;"> Cr ack</ span>] {}tak es only a few sec onds .
### Ca usa lInf er encew ith { #ca usa l-infer ence-wi t h.u nn u m b er ed}
To compute ou rc a us al indic atorsw eha v e to run [ <sp an s t y le="f ont- v ar iant:sma ll-cap s ;" >C rack</s pa n>]{}t wi ceon$D$.F irst withmodel cl ass $ \ models_{X \mid Y}(X)$ to obt a in $ \m o del_ {X\mid Y}(X)$ and seco nd w i th $\ m odels _{Y\m id X} ( Y)$, to obtain $\mo de l_{Y\m id X} (Y)$. To esti mate $\mod e l s _{X}(X)$ , we as s ume a uniformprior $L(X \mid \model_{ X}) = -n\sum_ {a_i \inX } \log re s(a _i) $ a nds i mi larly for $\m o d el_{ Y} (Y)$. W e c an usethe sesco res t o calcula te bothth e$\ de lta $ sco r e and th e$\D el ta$ scor e . We w ill r efer t o[ <sp an styl e =" f o nt-v ar ia nt:s mal l- caps; ">Cr a ck< /span>] {}using t he$ \del ta $indicat or as [$\text sc {Crack}_{\ de lta }$]{}, a nd [<spa n style="font-variant:s m all-cap s;" >Crac k</s pan>]{}wi ththe $\ Del t a$ ind icator as [ $\ tex t s c{Cra c k }_ {\D el ta}$]{}.
R e lat ed Wo rk {#s ec:rel}
============
Cau s alinference onobs erva t i on ald at a is a cha l l enging problem, and has r ec e nt ly attract e d a l ot of a ttentio n [@p e arl:09: book; @ja nzing:10: al goma r k ov; @shimizu: 06 | \leftarrow_\TrivialTree(a_i)$ for_all $a_i \in A$_\[alg:crack:trivialtrees\] $\depgraph_\leftarrow$_dependency graph_for_$\models$ \[alg:crack:depgraph\] $V_\leftarrow \{ v_i_\mid i \in A_\}, \; E_\leftarrow_\emptyset$ \[alg:crack:checkgraph1\] $\depgraph \leftarrow (V,E)$ \[alg:crack:checkgraph2\] \[alg:crack:return\]
Since we use a greedy heuristic to construct_the_coding trees,_we_have_a worst case runtime of_$O(2^{m}n)$, where $m$ is the_number of_attributes and $n$ is the number of rows._Although_the worst case_runtime is exponential, in practice, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crack</span>]{}takes only a_few seconds.
### Causal Inference with _{#causal-inference-with.unnumbered}
To compute our_causal_indicators_we have to run_[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crack</span>]{}twice on $D$. First with_model class $\models_{X \mid Y}(X)$ to_obtain $\model_{X \mid Y}(X)$ and second with_$\models_{Y\mid X}(Y)$, to obtain $\model_{Y\mid X}(Y)$._To estimate $\models_{X}(X)$, we assume_a uniform_prior $L(X \mid \model_{X}) =_-n\sum_{a_i \in X}_\log res(a_i)$_and similarly for_$\model_{Y}(Y)$. We can use these scores_to calculate both_the $\delta$ score and the $\Delta$_score._We will refer_to_[<span_style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crack</span>]{}using the_$\delta$ indicator as_[$\textsc{Crack}_{\delta}$]{},_and [<span_style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crack</span>]{}with_the $\Delta$ indicator as [$\textsc{Crack}_{\Delta}$]{}.
Related Work_{#sec:rel}
============
Causal_inference on observational data is a challenging_problem, and has recently_attracted_a lot of attention [@pearl:09:book;_@janzing:10:algomarkov; @shimizu:06 |
\sigma_{xy}(\omega,B)&=\frac{n_e q_e^2 \tau_e}{m^*_e}\frac{\omega_{c,e}\tau_e}{(1-i\omega \tau_e)^2-\omega_{c,e}^2}\notag\\
&\quad+\frac{n_h q_h^2 \tau_h}{m^*_h}\frac{\omega_{c,h}\tau_h}{(1-i\omega \tau_h)^2-\omega_{c,h}^2}\end{aligned}$$
{width="\columnwidth"}
where $q_e=-e$ ($q_h=+e$), $n_e$ ($n_h$), $\tau_e$ ($\tau_h$), $m_e^*$ ($m_h^*$), $\omega_{c,e}=q_e B/m_e^*$ ($\omega_{c,h}=q_h B/m_h^*$) represent the charge of carrier, carrier density, scattering time, effective mass, cyclotron frequency of the electrons (holes), respectively. Notably, the optical Hall conductivity is sensitive to the carrier type (electron-like or hole-like) while the longitudinal conductivity is formally independent of the sign of the charge carriers. The sign change around in the imaginary-part of $\sigma_{xy} (\omega)$ indicates that two types of carriers exist with different sign of charge, which can be attributed to those in the electron pocket and hole pocket in FeSe. We can determine the complete set of the parameters describing charge carrier dynamics, $n_e=\SI{5.4E19}{cm^{-3}}$, $n_h=\SI{1.7E20}{cm^{-3}}$, $m_e=0.86m_0$, $m_h=2.90m_0$, $\tau_ | \sigma_{xy}(\omega, B)&=\frac{n_e q_e^2 \tau_e}{m^*_e}\frac{\omega_{c, e}\tau_e}{(1 - i\omega \tau_e)^2-\omega_{c, e}^2}\notag\\
& \quad+\frac{n_h q_h^2 \tau_h}{m^*_h}\frac{\omega_{c, h}\tau_h}{(1 - i\omega \tau_h)^2-\omega_{c, h}^2}\end{aligned}$$
! [ (a) Real- and (b) imaginary - part of the longitudinal optical conductivity spectrum, and (vitamin c) real- and (d) fanciful - part of the optical Hall conduction spectrum, respectively, of FeSe at $ T=\SI{7}{K}$ with $ B=\SI{7}{T}$. Green open public square represents experimental result, blue dash, red dash, and grey solid channel indicate the contribution of the hole mailman, electron carrier, and sum of them give by the two - carrier Drude fitting described in the text.](Fig2.pdf){width="\columnwidth " }
where $ q_e=-e$ ($ q_h=+e$), $ n_e$ ($ n_h$), $ \tau_e$ ($ \tau_h$), $ m_e^*$ ($ m_h^*$), $ \omega_{c, e}=q_e B / m_e^*$ ($ \omega_{c, h}=q_h B / m_h^*$) typify the charge of carrier, carrier concentration, scattering time, effective batch, cyclotron frequency of the electrons (hole), respectively. Notably, the optical Hall conductivity is sensitive to the carrier type (electron - alike or hole - like) while the longitudinal conductivity is formally independent of the sign of the charge carriers. The sign change around in the imaginary - part of $ \sigma_{xy } (\omega)$ indicates that two types of carriers exist with different sign of charge, which can be impute to those in the electron pocket and hole pouch in FeSe. We can settle the complete set of the parameters trace charge carrier dynamics, $ n_e=\SI{5.4E19}{cm^{-3}}$, $ n_h=\SI{1.7E20}{cm^{-3}}$, $ m_e=0.86m_0 $, $ m_h=2.90m_0 $, $ \tau _ |
\sigla_{xy}(\omega,B)&=\frac{n_e q_e^2 \tau_e}{o^*_e}\frac{\omega_{c,e}\tao_e}{(1-u\omega \tau_e)^2-\ojega_{c,e}^2}\nogag\\
&\quad+\frac{n_h q_h^2 \tau_h}{m^*_h}\frac{\oleta_{c,h}\tqu_h}{(1-i\omega \tau_h)^2-\omega_{c,h}^2}\evd{aligned}$$
{wmdth="\xolumnwidth"}
where $q_e=-e$ ($x_h=+e$), $n_e$ ($n_h$), $\tau_e$ ($\tau_r$), $m_e^*$ ($m_h^*$), $\okeya_{c,e}=q_e B/m_e^*$ ($\omega_{c,h}=q_h V/m_y^*$) reptesend thd chxrgt oh czrrier, cacrier densify, scatteribg time, effective mssf, cyclotron frsquencr jf the electrons (holes), respectively. Notdblg, the optical Hall condyctivity is sensitive to the cwrrier type (electron-like or hole-like) while the lotgituvival cjveuftivity is formally independent of the sign os tne charge carrievs. The sign change agoigd in the imaeinary-'zrf of $\sigma_{xy} (\omega)$ indicajes thqt two tykes og carriers exist with diffeeent sign of xharge, which can bz attributed to jhose on the electron pocket cnd home pocket ij FeSe. We zan determine thd cpm[lete seu of the parameterf describmng ckarge cafriet dynamycs, $n_e=\SI{5.4E19}{cl^{-3}}$, $n_h=\SL{1.7A20}{cm^{-3}}$, $m_e=0.86m_0$, $m_h=2.90m_0$, $\tau_ | \sigma_{xy}(\omega,B)&=\frac{n_e q_e^2 \tau_e}{m^*_e}\frac{\omega_{c,e}\tau_e}{(1-i\omega \tau_e)^2-\omega_{c,e}^2}\notag\\ &\quad+\frac{n_h q_h^2 \tau_h}{m^*_h}\frac{\omega_{c,h}\tau_h}{(1-i\omega Real- (b) imaginary-part the longitudinal optical and imaginary-part of the Hall conductivity spectrum, of FeSe at $T=\SI{7}{K}$ with $B=\SI{7}{T}$. open square represents experimental result, blue dashed, red dashed, and grey solid line the contribution of the hole carrier, electron carrier, and sum of them given the Drude described the text.](Fig2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} where $q_e=-e$ ($q_h=+e$), $n_e$ ($n_h$), $\tau_e$ ($\tau_h$), $m_e^*$ ($m_h^*$), $\omega_{c,e}=q_e B/m_e^*$ ($\omega_{c,h}=q_h B/m_h^*$) represent charge of carrier, carrier density, scattering time, effective cyclotron frequency of the (holes), respectively. Notably, the optical conductivity sensitive to carrier (electron-like hole-like) while the conductivity is formally independent of the sign of the charge carriers. The sign change around in the of $\sigma_{xy} that two of exist different sign of can be attributed to those in and hole pocket in FeSe. We can determine complete set the parameters describing charge carrier dynamics, $n_h=\SI{1.7E20}{cm^{-3}}$, $m_e=0.86m_0$, $m_h=2.90m_0$, $\tau_ |
\sigma_{xy}(\omega,B)&=\frac{n_e q_e^2 \tau_e}{M^*_e}\frac{\omegA_{c,e}\taU_e}{(1-i\OmeGa \Tau_e)^2-\OmegA_{c,e}^2}\notag\\
&\quad+\frAC{n_h q_H^2 \tau_h}{m^*_h}\frac{\omega_{c,h}\tau_h}{(1-I\omegA \tAU_h)^2-\omEGa_{C,h}^2}\end{Aligned}$$
{widtH="\coLumNwidTH"}
wHeRe $q_E=-e$ ($Q_H=+e$), $n_E$ ($N_h$), $\Tau_E$ ($\Tau_H$), $m_e^*$ ($m_h^*$), $\omeGa_{C,e}=Q_e B/m_e^*$ ($\OmegA_{C,H}=Q_H B/m_h^*$) RepReseNt the Charge of carriEr, cArriER deNsity, ScattErinG tIme, efFectivE mass, CyClotron frequencY of tHe electroNs (hOlEs), rEsPectiVEly. NotAblY, thE opticaL Hall coNDucTiVITY iS sensitive to the carRiER TyPe (electrOn-like OR hOlE-Like) whilE tHe lOngiTUDinal CondUCtIvity is fOrmallY InDePendent Of The sigN oF thE chArge cARrieRs. The sIgn changE arouND in the imaginarY-Part of $\sigma_{xy} (\OMeGA)$ InDIcatEs tHat two types Of caRRierS exiST wIth DIfferEnt siGn OF cHArge, which can be attriBuTed to tHose iN the electron pOcket and hoLE POcket in FESe. WE CaN Determine the coMpletE set of the pARameters DescrIbing chaRge carrieR DYnamics, $n_E=\SI{5.4e19}{cm^{-3}}$, $N_h=\Si{1.7E20}{cM^{-3}}$, $M_E=0.86m_0$, $M_h=2.90m_0$, $\tau_ |
\sigma_{xy}(\omega,B)&=\f rac{n_e q_ e^2 \ tau _e} {m ^*_e }\fr ac{\omega_{c,e } \tau _e}{(1-i\omega \tau_e) ^2-\o me g a_{c , e} ^2}\n otag\\& \q u a d+\ fr ac {n_ hq _h ^2 \t au_ h}{m^*_ h}\frac{\o meg a_ {c,h}\tau_h} { (1 -i\omega \ tau _h)^2-\omega _{c ,h}^2} \e nd{ a ligne d}$ $
{width =" \ c ol umnwidth "}
wh e re $ q _e=-e$ ( $q _h= +e$) , $n_e$ ($n _ h$ ), $\tau _e$ ($ \ ta u_ h$), $m _e ^*$ ($ m_ h^* $), $\om e ga_{ c,e}=q _e B/m_e ^*$ ( $ \omega_{c,h}=q _ h B/m_h^*$) r e pr e s en t the ch arge of car rier , car rier de nsi t y, sc atter in g t i me, effective mass, c yclotr on fr equency of th e electron s ( holes),resp e ct i vely. Notably, theoptical Ha l l conduc tivit y is sen sitive to t he carri ertyp e ( ele c t ro n-like or hol e - like )while t helongitu din alcon duc ti vity is f ormallyin de pe nd ent of t h e sign o fthe c har ge ca r riers. Thesign c ha n gearoundi nt h e im ag in ary- par tof $\ sigm a _{x y} (\om ega)$ ind ica t es t ha ttwo typ es of carrier sexist with d iff erents i gn of ch arge, which can be attr i buted t o t hosein t he electr onpocket an d holepocket in F eS e.W e cand e te rmi ne the compl e t e s et of t he p aramete rs describing char g e c arrier dynami cs, $n_ e = \S I{5 . 4E 1 9}{ cm ^ {-3 } } $, $n_h=\SI{1.7 E20}{cm^{- 3} } $, $m_e=0.86 m _0$ ,$m_h=2. 90m_0$, $\ta u _ |
\sigma_{xy}(\omega,B)&=\frac{n_e q_e^2_\tau_e}{m^*_e}\frac{\omega_{c,e}\tau_e}{(1-i\omega \tau_e)^2-\omega_{c,e}^2}\notag\\
&\quad+\frac{n_h_q_h^2 \tau_h}{m^*_h}\frac{\omega_{c,h}\tau_h}{(1-i\omega \tau_h)^2-\omega_{c,h}^2}\end{aligned}$$
{width="\columnwidth"}
where $q_e=-e$ ($q_h=+e$), $n_e$ ($n_h$), $\tau_e$ ($\tau_h$), $m_e^*$_($m_h^*$), $\omega_{c,e}=q_e B/m_e^*$ ($\omega_{c,h}=q_h B/m_h^*$) represent_the charge of_carrier,_carrier_density, scattering time, effective_mass, cyclotron frequency of the electrons_(holes), respectively. Notably, the optical Hall_conductivity is sensitive to the carrier type_(electron-like or hole-like) while the longitudinal_conductivity is formally independent of_the sign_of the charge carriers. The_sign change around_in the_imaginary-part of $\sigma_{xy}_(\omega)$ indicates that two types of_carriers exist with_different sign of charge, which can_be_attributed to those_in_the_electron pocket_and hole pocket_in_FeSe. We_can_determine the complete set of the_parameters_describing charge carrier dynamics, $n_e=\SI{5.4E19}{cm^{-3}}$, $n_h=\SI{1.7E20}{cm^{-3}}$, $m_e=0.86m_0$,_$m_h=2.90m_0$, $\tau_ |
gamma_{1}^{r(I)}\chi_{A_{I}}\text{, \ }w_{\alpha}={\displaystyle\sum\limits_{I\in\mathcal{S}}}
\lambda_{2}\gamma_{2}^{r(I)}\chi_{A_{I}}$$ we have for any $I\in\mathcal{S}$ $$\frac{w_{\alpha}(I)[w_{\alpha}^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}(I)]^{p-1}}{\mu(I)^{p}}=\frac{\alpha^{p}}{[1-\gamma_{2}(1-\alpha)][1-\gamma_{2}^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}(1-\alpha)]}$$ thus $w_{\alpha}$ is an $A_{p}$ weight but with respect to the *tree* $\mathcal{S}_{\alpha}$ on $(X,\mu)$ and with $[w_{\alpha}]_{p}$ equal to the right hand side of the above relation. Moreover$$M_{\mathcal{S}}\phi_{\alpha}\geq{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{I\in\mathcal{S}}}
\frac{1}{\mu(I)}\int_{I}\phi_{a}d\mu\chi_{A_{I}}=\frac{\alpha}{1-\gamma
(1-\alpha)}\phi_{\alpha}\text{.}$$ However the values of such functions on each $A_{I}$ where $r(I)=m$ is of the form $$\gamma_{m}=\frac{\lambda}{\alpha(1-\alpha)^{m}}\int_{(1-\alpha)^{m+1}}^{(1-\alpha)^{m}}u^{s}du\label{e16}$$ for some real numbers $\lambda,s>0$ and as it is proved in Lemma 3 of [@Mel5] these behave like functions of the form $\lambda t^{s}$ on $(0,1]$ as we approach the limit $\alpha\rightarrow0^{+}$. Hence by taking a sequence $\alpha_{m}\rightarrow0$ considering the trees $\mathcal{T}_{m}=\mathcal{S}_{\alpha_{m}}$ on $(X,\mu)$ and using the construction for the lower bound in the proof of Theorem 2, choosing the constants $k,b$ ($-1<b<p-1$) appropriately in (\[Ap4\]) according to the conditions $a=\frac{1}{p-1-b}$, $c=ka$, $\frac{k}{b+1}=z$, $\frac{1 | gamma_{1}^{r(I)}\chi_{A_{I}}\text {, \ } w_{\alpha}={\displaystyle\sum\limits_{I\in\mathcal{S } } }
\lambda_{2}\gamma_{2}^{r(I)}\chi_{A_{I}}$$ we have for any $ I\in\mathcal{S}$ $ $ \frac{w_{\alpha}(I)[w_{\alpha}^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}(I)]^{p-1}}{\mu(I)^{p}}=\frac{\alpha^{p}}{[1-\gamma_{2}(1-\alpha)][1-\gamma_{2}^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}(1-\alpha)]}$$ thus $ w_{\alpha}$ is an $ A_{p}$ weight but with respect to the * tree * $ \mathcal{S}_{\alpha}$ on $ (X,\mu)$ and with $ [ w_{\alpha}]_{p}$ adequate to the proper hand side of the above relation back. Moreover$$M_{\mathcal{S}}\phi_{\alpha}\geq{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{I\in\mathcal{S } } }
\frac{1}{\mu(I)}\int_{I}\phi_{a}d\mu\chi_{A_{I}}=\frac{\alpha}{1-\gamma
(1-\alpha)}\phi_{\alpha}\text{.}$$ However the value of such functions on each $ A_{I}$ where $ r(I)=m$ is of the form $ $ \gamma_{m}=\frac{\lambda}{\alpha(1-\alpha)^{m}}\int_{(1-\alpha)^{m+1}}^{(1-\alpha)^{m}}u^{s}du\label{e16}$$ for some actual numbers $ \lambda, s>0 $ and as it is proved in Lemma 3 of [ @Mel5 ] these act like function of the form $ \lambda t^{s}$ on $ (0,1]$ as we set about the limit $ \alpha\rightarrow0^{+}$. Hence by lead a sequence $ \alpha_{m}\rightarrow0 $ considering the trees $ \mathcal{T}_{m}=\mathcal{S}_{\alpha_{m}}$ on $ (X,\mu)$ and use the construction for the lower bound in the proof of Theorem 2, choose the constants $ k, b$ ($ -1 < b < p-1 $) appropriately in (\[Ap4\ ]) according to the weather $ a=\frac{1}{p-1 - b}$, $ c = ka$, $ \frac{k}{b+1}=z$, $ \frac{1 | gamla_{1}^{r(I)}\chi_{A_{I}}\text{, \ }w_{\alpha}={\disklaystyle\sum\limits_{I\in\matical{S}}}
\lajbda_{2}\gammx_{2}^{r(I)}\chi_{A_{I}}$$ we have for any $I\in\larhcal{W}$ $$\frac{w_{\alpha}(I)[w_{\alpha}^{-\fraz{1}{p-1}}(I)]^{p-1}}{\mu(I)^{p}}=\fgac{\alpha^{p}}{[1-\tamme_{2}(1-\alpha)][1-\gamma_{2}^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}(1-\empha)]}$$ thmf $w_{\amiha}$ iv an $A_{p}$ weight nut with revpect to the *tsed* $\lathcal{S}_{\alpha}$ on $(X,\mu)$ and with $[w_{\alphw}]_{p}$ equak ho the right hwnd xyde kf the above relation. Moreover$$M_{\matgcal{S}}\php_{\alpha}\geq{\displaysyyle\sum\limits_{I\in\mathcal{S}}}
\frwc{1}{\mu(L)}\int_{I}\phi_{a}d\mu\chi_{A_{I}}=\fgac{\alpha}{1-\gamna
(1-\al[ya)}\phi_{\alpha}\tebt{.}$$ However the values kf such functions on each $A_{I}$ whdre $r(N)=m$ is of thg rogk $$\gamma_{m}=\frar{\lambdw}{\alpha(1-\alpha)^{m}}\lmt_{(1-\alphd)^{m+1}}^{(1-\alpha)^{k}}u^{s}du\label{e16}$$ fov somx reql numbers $\lambda,s>0$ anv as it is proved in Lemma 3 ox [@Jel5] these behave oije futctimns ud tfe rocm $\mambda t^{s}$ on $(0,1]$ as we approach tye limit $\alpha\rightsrwiw0^{+}$. Hence by tzking w fequence $\alpha_{m}\rightarrow0$ considering tve frees $\mathcal{T}_{m}=\mathcal{S}_{\qlpha_{m}}$ on $(X,\mu)$ and usijg the cogstruction for the lower bound in the proof of Thaorem 2, chiofkbg the constants $k,b$ ($-1<b<p-1$) appropriately in (\[Ap4\]) accowsimg to the conditlons $a=\frac{1}{p-1-b}$, $c=ka$, $\ftaf{k}{n+1}=e$, $\frac{1 | gamma_{1}^{r(I)}\chi_{A_{I}}\text{, \ }w_{\alpha}={\displaystyle\sum\limits_{I\in\mathcal{S}}} \lambda_{2}\gamma_{2}^{r(I)}\chi_{A_{I}}$$ we have for $$\frac{w_{\alpha}(I)[w_{\alpha}^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}(I)]^{p-1}}{\mu(I)^{p}}=\frac{\alpha^{p}}{[1-\gamma_{2}(1-\alpha)][1-\gamma_{2}^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}(1-\alpha)]}$$ $w_{\alpha}$ is $A_{p}$ weight but $\mathcal{S}_{\alpha}$ $(X,\mu)$ and with equal to the hand side of the above relation. \frac{1}{\mu(I)}\int_{I}\phi_{a}d\mu\chi_{A_{I}}=\frac{\alpha}{1-\gamma (1-\alpha)}\phi_{\alpha}\text{.}$$ However the values of such functions on each $A_{I}$ where $r(I)=m$ of the form $$\gamma_{m}=\frac{\lambda}{\alpha(1-\alpha)^{m}}\int_{(1-\alpha)^{m+1}}^{(1-\alpha)^{m}}u^{s}du\label{e16}$$ for some real numbers $\lambda,s>0$ and as it is in 3 [@Mel5] behave like functions of the form $\lambda t^{s}$ on $(0,1]$ as we approach the limit $\alpha\rightarrow0^{+}$. by taking a sequence $\alpha_{m}\rightarrow0$ considering the trees on $(X,\mu)$ and using construction for the lower bound the of Theorem choosing constants ($-1<b<p-1$) appropriately in according to the conditions $a=\frac{1}{p-1-b}$, $c=ka$, $\frac{k}{b+1}=z$, $\frac{1 | gamma_{1}^{r(I)}\chi_{A_{I}}\text{, \ }w_{\alpha}={\disPlaystyle\sUm\limIts_{i\in\MaThcaL{S}}}
\laMbda_{2}\gamma_{2}^{r(I)}\chi_{a_{i}}$$ we hAve for any $I\in\mathcal{S}$ $$\frAc{w_{\alPhA}(i)[w_{\alPHa}^{-\Frac{1}{p-1}}(i)]^{p-1}}{\mu(I)^{p}}=\fRAc{\ALPha^{P}}{[1-\gAmMa_{2}(1-\aLpHA)][1-\gAmma_{2}^{-\fRac{1}{P-1}}(1-\alpha)]}$$ tHus $w_{\alpha}$ iS an $a_{p}$ Weight but witH ReSpect to the *TreE* $\mathcal{S}_{\alpHa}$ oN $(X,\mu)$ anD wIth $[W_{\Alpha}]_{P}$ eqUal to The rigHT hand sIde of the aBoVE relatIOn. MoreoVER$$M_{\MathCal{S}}\phi_{\alpha}\geq{\diSPlAYstyle\sum\limitS_{I\in\maThCAl{s}}}
\FRac{1}{\Mu(I)}\Int_{I}\phi_{a}d\mU\cHi_{A_{I}}=\fRAc{\alpha}{1-\GAmMA
(1-\ALphA)}\Phi_{\alpha}\text{.}$$ HOwever the vaLUes Of such FuNctIOns on eAch $A_{I}$ WhERe $r(i)=m$ is of the foRm $$\gaMma_{m}=\frac{\lAmbda}{\aLPha(1-\alphA)^{M}}\int_{(1-\alpHa)^{m+1}}^{(1-\alpHa)^{m}}U^{s}dU\labEL{e16}$$ FoR soMe REal NUmBerS $\LamBda,s>0$ and aS iT iS provEd in lEMMA 3 of [@MEl5] tHese BehavE like functionS of The fORm $\lAmbda T^{s}$ on $(0,1]$ aS we aPpRoach The limIt $\alpHa\Rightarrow0^{+}$. Hence By taKing a sequEncE $\aLphA_{m}\RightARrow0$ coNsiDerIng the tRees $\matHCal{t}_{m}=\MATHcAl{S}_{\alpha_{m}}$ on $(X,\mu)$ and uSiNG ThE construCtion fOR tHe LOwer bounD iN thE proOF Of TheOrem 2, CHoOsing the ConstaNTs $K,b$ ($-1<B<p-1$) approPrIately In (\[ap4\]) aCcoRding TO the ConditIons $a=\fraC{1}{p-1-b}$, $c=kA$, $\Frac{k}{b+1}=z$, $\frac{1 | gamma_{1}^{r(I)}\chi_{A_{I }}\text{,\ }w_ {\a lph a} ={\d ispl aystyle\sum\li m its_ {I\in\mathcal{S}}}
\la mbda_ {2 } \gam m a_ {2}^{ r(I)}\c h i_ { A _{I }} $$ we h a ve forany $I\in\ mathcal{S} $ $ $\ frac{w_{\alp h a} (I)[w_{\al pha }^{-\frac{1} {p- 1}}(I) ]^ {p- 1 }}{\m u(I )^{p} }=\fra c {\alph a^{p}}{[1 -\ g amma_{ 2 }(1-\al p h a) ][1- \gamma_{2}^{-\fra c {1 } {p-1}}(1-\alph a)]}$$ t h us $ w_{ \al pha}$ is a n$A_{p } $ weigh t b u t wit h respect to t he *tree* $ \ mat hcal{S }_ {\a l pha}$on $( X, \ mu) $ and with$[w_ {\alpha}] _{p}$e qual to the rig ht han d s ide oft he a bov er ela t io n.M ore over$$M_ {\ ma thcal {S}} \ p h i _{\a lph a}\g eq{\d isplaystyle\s um\ limi t s_{ I\in\ mathc al{S }} }
\fr ac{1}{ \mu(I )} \int_{I}\phi_{a }d\m u\chi_{A_ {I} }= \fr ac {\alp h a}{1-\ gam ma(1-\alp ha)}\ph i _{\ al p h a }\ text{.}$$ Howeverth e va lues ofsuch f u nc ti o ns on ea ch $A _{I} $ where $r( I )= m$ is of the f o rm $ $\gamma _{ m}=\fr ac {\l amb da}{\ a lpha (1-\al pha)^{m} }\int _ {(1-\alpha)^{m + 1}}^{(1-\alph a )^ { m }} u ^{s} du\ label{e16}$ $ fo r som e re a lnum b ers $ \lamb da , s> 0 $ and as it is prov ed in Le mma 3 of [@Mel5] t hese behav e l ike func tion s o f the form $\la mbdat^{s}$ on$ (0,1]$ a s weapproach the limi t $\alpha\ rig hta rro w0^ { + }$ . Hence by ta k i ng a s equence $\ alpha_{ m}\ rig hta rro w0 $ conside ring the t re es $ \ma thcal { T}_{m}=\ ma thc al {S} _{\al p ha_{m} }$ on $(X ,\ mu ) $ a nd usin g t h e con st ru ctio n f or thelowe r bo und inthe proof of Theo re m2, choo sing the cons ta nts $k,b$($ -1< b<p-1$ ) appropri ately in (\[Ap4\]) acco r ding to th e con diti ons $a=\f rac {1}{p- 1-b } $, $c= ka$, $ \frac {k }{b + 1 }=z$, $ \f rac {1 | gamma_{1}^{r(I)}\chi_{A_{I}}\text{, \_}w_{\alpha}={\displaystyle\sum\limits_{I\in\mathcal{S}}}
\lambda_{2}\gamma_{2}^{r(I)}\chi_{A_{I}}$$ we_have for any $I\in\mathcal{S}$_$$\frac{w_{\alpha}(I)[w_{\alpha}^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}(I)]^{p-1}}{\mu(I)^{p}}=\frac{\alpha^{p}}{[1-\gamma_{2}(1-\alpha)][1-\gamma_{2}^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}(1-\alpha)]}$$ thus_$w_{\alpha}$_is an_$A_{p}$_weight but with_respect to the_*tree* $\mathcal{S}_{\alpha}$ on $(X,\mu)$_and with $[w_{\alpha}]_{p}$_equal_to the right hand side of the above relation. Moreover$$M_{\mathcal{S}}\phi_{\alpha}\geq{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{I\in\mathcal{S}}}
\frac{1}{\mu(I)}\int_{I}\phi_{a}d\mu\chi_{A_{I}}=\frac{\alpha}{1-\gamma
(1-\alpha)}\phi_{\alpha}\text{.}$$ However the values of_such_functions on_each_$A_{I}$_where $r(I)=m$ is of the_form $$\gamma_{m}=\frac{\lambda}{\alpha(1-\alpha)^{m}}\int_{(1-\alpha)^{m+1}}^{(1-\alpha)^{m}}u^{s}du\label{e16}$$ for some real_numbers $\lambda,s>0$_and as it is proved in Lemma 3_of_[@Mel5] these behave_like functions of the form $\lambda t^{s}$ on $(0,1]$_as we approach the limit $\alpha\rightarrow0^{+}$._Hence by taking_a_sequence_$\alpha_{m}\rightarrow0$ considering the trees_$\mathcal{T}_{m}=\mathcal{S}_{\alpha_{m}}$ on $(X,\mu)$ and using the_construction for the lower bound in_the proof of Theorem 2, choosing the_constants $k,b$ ($-1<b<p-1$) appropriately in (\[Ap4\])_according to the conditions $a=\frac{1}{p-1-b}$,_$c=ka$, $\frac{k}{b+1}=z$,_$\frac{1 |
and CSG. Variance is reduced using GD, but a signal remains, and both homogeneity and energy are improved through compensation.
We can also consider how effective the compensation is per coupling pattern. We can classify each coupling between logical qubits by the induced subgraph considering only the two chains and the couplings between them. Two such subgraphs are in the same class if they are automorphic. The number of such patterns varies widely according to the graph-minor topology as shown in Table \[table:cct\].
Topology Variables,N Chain length,L Logical coupling patterns
---------- ------------- ---------------- --------------------------- --
Clique 32 9 16
Clique 63 17 50
Biclique 64 8 10
3D cubic 64 4 3
3D cubic 512 4 3
: Chain connectivity topologies[]{data-label="table:cct"}
We can take an average over couplers in a given isomorphic class, and classify each class according to $\chi_{ab}(1)$ for some element $ab$ in the class. The result is shown in Fig. \[fig:correlationBalancing\] (top-right). Frustration is indeed disproportionately allocated over couplers that connect through extremal points (large $\chi_{ab}$), we see that applying an appropriate compensation of $1/\chi$ between one and two makes coupler performance more homogeneous.
In Fig. \[fig:correlationBalancing\] (bottom-right) we show the mean energies and best minimal achieved for all instances of the 3DSG problem ($8\times 8 \times 8$) with and without logical-J compensation. We allows for a small number of edge and variable vacancies (in line with defect patterns on the chip). Energies are significantly improved not only in the median but in almost all instances.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper we have demonstrated that inhomogeneities in the patterns of chain couplings produce biases in the sampling distribution, and that compensation by a simple heuristic can reduce biases and improve optimization performance. Using a simple heuristic scheme based on the assumption that the distribution reflects a freeze-out point in the anneal where chains are rigid (but not fully correlated) allows results to be improved in hard random problems: spin glasses of various topology, and CDMA. The rigidity of the | and CSG. Variance is reduced using GD, but a signal remains, and both homogeneity and energy are better through recompense.
We can also consider how effective the recompense is per coupling convention. We can classify each yoke between logical qubits by the induced subgraph considering merely the two chains and the couplings between them. Two such subgraphs are in the like class if they are automorphic. The number of such patterns varies wide according to the graph - minor topology as testify in Table \[table: cct\ ].
Topology Variables, N Chain length, L Logical coupling form
---------- ------------- ---------------- --------------------------- --
Clique 32 9 16
Clique 63 17 50
Biclique 64 8 10
3D cubic 64 4 3
3D cubic 512 4 3
: Chain connectivity topologies[]{data - label="table: cct " }
We can take an average over couplers in a give isomorphic class, and classify each class harmonize to $ \chi_{ab}(1)$ for some element $ ab$ in the class. The result is shown in Fig. \[fig: correlationBalancing\ ] (top - right). Frustration is indeed disproportionately allocate over couplers that connect through extremal points (large $ \chi_{ab}$), we see that applying an appropriate recompense of $ 1/\chi$ between one and two seduce coupler performance more homogeneous.
In Fig. \[fig: correlationBalancing\ ] (bottom - right) we show the mean energies and best minimal achieved for all case of the 3DSG problem ($ 8\times 8 \times 8 $) with and without logical - J recompense. We allow for a small number of edge and varying vacancies (in lineage with defect patterns on the chip). department of energy are significantly improved not only in the median but in almost all instances.
Conclusion { # sec: conclusion }
= = = = = = = = = =
In this newspaper we have demonstrated that inhomogeneities in the patterns of chain coupling produce bias in the sampling distribution, and that compensation by a simple heuristic can reduce biases and better optimization performance. Using a simple heuristic schema based on the assumption that the distribution reflects a freeze - out point in the anneal where chain are rigid (but not fully correlated) allows results to be better in hard random problem: spin glass of various topology, and CDMA. The rigidity of the | anf CSG. Variance is reducea using GD, but c signan remajns, and coth homogeneity and energy ere umproced through compensatiun.
We can wlso conwidec how effective vge compcusatikk is 'ec coupling pattgrn. We can cnassify each cmuolnng between logical qubits by the inquced sibhraph consideryng pgly fhe two chains and the couplings bstween uhem. Two such subgtaphs are in the same clasd if they are automorpjic. The numver jd such pattefns varies widely accotding to the graph-minor topology as skown in Taboe \[tahne:cct\].
Topilogy Variables,K Chahn lengyh,L Logical gouplmng patterns
---------- ------------- ---------------- --------------------------- --
Cnique 32 9 16
Cljqne 63 17 50
Bicliqus 64 8 10
3D cubic 64 4 3
3D cubic 512 4 3
: Chain connectivity ekpplpgies[]{data-label="bable:cct"}
We can takr wn wverage over zouplexa jn a given isomorpjic clafs, ane classifr eavh class according to $\chi_{ab}(1)$ for some elvmenr $ab$ in the class. Che result ir shpwn im Fig. \[fig:correlationBalaucing\] (fop-right). Frkstration ks indeed disprooorniondtely allocated over couplqrs that ronneet throueh ectremaj points (lwrge $\gvi_{ab}$), we see that aoplyiug an appropriahe compensation of $1/\chi$ between one and two malev cmupler pzrformsnce more homjgeneous.
In Fig. \[yig:correjatiovBalancing\] (bottom-cight) we shor the mean enatgies and besv minimal achuevee for auu instances of the 3DSG irjblen ($8\times 8 \times 8$) wibh ana without logicao-J xompensation. We aluowf voc a sidll number ox edee xmd vafiable vacakcids (im line with defect pdttedns on the chip). Enrrnies are wignificwntly improvec not only in the lediai but mn almpst all instances.
Conclusion {#sec:cohclusion}
==========
Ij tmis paper we rave demonstrateb that inhomogeneities in the patterns oh chain couplings prodoce biases in the samklikg distributmon, anq that cokpensation by a simpoe heuristic can veduce biases and imprkve opdimizwtion performance. Using a simple heuristic scheme based on the assumption that vhq distributjon teflebts c freezq-out 'oint in the annesl where chains are rigid (but nut fully cjrrelated) allows results to ne improved in fard random problems: spih glassex of various topology, and CDMA. Yhe rigidity of the | and CSG. Variance is reduced using GD, signal and both and energy are also how effective the is per coupling We can classify each coupling between qubits by the induced subgraph considering only the two chains and the couplings them. Two such subgraphs are in the same class if they are automorphic. number such varies according to the graph-minor topology as shown in Table \[table:cct\]. Topology Variables,N Chain length,L Logical coupling ---------- ------------- ---------------- --------------------------- -- Clique 32 9 Clique 63 17 50 64 8 10 3D cubic 4 3D cubic 4 : connectivity topologies[]{data-label="table:cct"} We take an average over couplers in a given isomorphic class, and classify each class according to $\chi_{ab}(1)$ some element the class. result shown Fig. \[fig:correlationBalancing\] (top-right). indeed disproportionately allocated over couplers that points (large $\chi_{ab}$), we see that applying an compensation of between one and two makes coupler more homogeneous. In Fig. \[fig:correlationBalancing\] (bottom-right) we show mean energies and best minimal achieved for all instances of the 3DSG problem ($8\times 8 with and without logical-J We allows for small of and vacancies (in with defect patterns on the chip). Energies are significantly improved not in the median but in almost all instances. Conclusion {#sec:conclusion} this we have demonstrated inhomogeneities in the patterns chain produce biases in the and compensation heuristic reduce and improve optimization performance. a simple heuristic scheme based the assumption that the in the anneal where chains are rigid (but fully correlated) allows results to be improved hard random problems: spin glasses of various topology, and CDMA. The rigidity the | and CSG. Variance is reduced usIng GD, but a sIgnal RemAinS, aNd boTh hoMogeneity and enERgy aRe improved through compeNsatiOn.
wE can ALsO consIder how EFfECTivE tHe ComPeNSaTion iS peR coupliNg pattern. WE caN cLassify each cOUpLing betweeN loGical qubits bY thE inducEd SubGRaph cOnsIderiNg only THe two cHains and tHe COuplinGS betweeN THeM. Two Such subgraphs are iN ThE Same class if theY are auToMOrPHIc. THe nUmber of sucH pAtterNS varies WIdELY AccORding to the graPh-minor topoLOgy As showN iN TaBLe \[tablE:cct\].
TOpOLogY Variables,N chaiN length,L LOgical COupling PAtterns
---------- ------------- ---------------- --------------------------- --
clique 32 9 16
cliQue 63 17 50
biclIQuE 64 8 10
3D CubIc 64 4 3
3d CubIC 512 4 3
: CHaiN ConNectivitY tOpOlogiEs[]{daTA-LABel="tAblE:cct"}
we can Take an average OveR couPLerS in a gIven iSomoRpHic clAss, and ClassIfY each class accorDing To $\chi_{ab}(1)$ foR soMe EleMeNt $ab$ iN The claSs. THe rEsult is Shown in fIg. \[fIg:CORReLationBalancing\] (top-RiGHT). FRustratiOn is inDEeD dISproportIoNatEly aLLOcateD oveR CoUplers thAt connECt ThRough exTrEmal poInTs (lArgE $\chi_{aB}$), We seE that aPplying aN apprOPriate compensaTIon of $1/\chi$ betweEN oNE AnD Two mAkeS coupler perFormANce mOre hOMoGenEOus.
In fig. \[fiG:cORrELationBalancing\] (bottOm-Right) wE show The mean energiEs and best mINIMal achieVed fOR aLL instances of thE 3DSG pRoblem ($8\timeS 8 \Times 8$) witH and wIthout loGical-J comPENsation. WE alLowS foR a sMALl Number of edge aND VariAbLe vacanCieS (in line WitH deFecT paTtErns on the Chip). EnerGiEs ArE sIgnIficaNTly improVeD noT oNly In the MEdian bUt in aLmosT aLl INstAnces.
CoNClUSIon {#sEc:CoNcluSioN}
==========
IN this PapeR We hAve demoNstrated tHat INhomOgEnEities iN the patterns oF cHain coupliNgS prOduce bIASes in the Sampling distribution, and THat compEnsAtion By a sImple heurIstIc can rEduCE biaseS and imProve OpTimIZAtion PERfOrmAnCe. Using a siMPLe hEurisTiC schEme baseD on the assumption thAT thE distribution RefLectS A FrEezE-OuT PoiNt IN thE ANneal where chainS are rigid (bUt NOt Fully correLAteD) aLlows reSults to Be impROved in hArd random Problems: sPiN glaSSEs oF various toPology, anD CDMA. The rIGiditY Of The | and CSG. Variance is redu ced usingGD, b uta s ig nalrema ins, and bothh omog eneity and energy areimpro ve d thr o ug h com pensati o n. Weca nals oc on sider ho w effec tive the c omp en sation is pe r c oupling pa tte rn. We can c las sify e ac h c o uplin g b etwee n logi c al qub its by th ei nduced subgrap h co nsid ering only the tw o c h ains and the c ouplin gs be t w een th em. Two su ch subg r aphs ar e i n t hes ame class ifthey are au t omo rphic. T hen umberof su ch pat terns varie s wi dely acco rdingt o the g r aph-min or top olo gyas s h ow ninTa b le\ [t abl e :cc t\].
T op ology V a r i a bles ,N Ch ain l ength,L Log ica l co u pli ng pa ttern s ----- ---------- -- ------ -------- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ----- - ------ - - -
Cliq ue 3 2 9 16
C li que 63 17 50
Bicl ique 64 8 10
3D cu bic 64 4 3
3D cubic 512 4 3
: Chain conn ectivity topologi e s []{data- lab el= "ta ble : c ct "}
We can ta k e anav erage o ver couple rsina g ive nisomorphi c class, a nd c la ssi fy ea c h classac cor di ngto $\ c hi_{ab }(1)$ for s om e el ement $ a b$ i n th ecl ass. Th eresul t is sho wn in F ig. \[fig :co r rela ti on Balanci ng\] (top-rig ht ). Frustra ti onis ind e e d dispro portionately allocatedo ver cou ple rs th at c onnect th rou gh ext rem a l poin ts (la rge $ \c hi_ { a b}$), w esee t hat applyi n g an appr op riat e compe nsation of $1/\chi $ be tween one and tw o ma k e scou p le r pe rf o rma n c e more homogene ous.
In F ig . \ [fig:corre l ati on Balanci ng\] (b ottom - right)we show t he mean e ne rgie s and best mini mal achi eved fora ll in s ta ncesofthe 3D SG pr oblem ($8\t i mes 8 \t imes 8 $) withand w it hout log ical-J compensation. We allow s for asmall num ber ofedge andvari able vacan cie s ( in li new ith d efec t p att e rns o n th e chip). E n er gie s ar e significa n t l y i mprov edn ot onl y in the median but i n almost all in stan c e s.
Co n clus io n {#sec:conclu sio n} = ======== =
In this pa per we h av e demo nstrat ed tha t inhom o g en e itiesin t hepatternsofch a in coup li ng s produ ce b ia ses in the s a mpli n g distribution, a nd th a t comp e nsa tionby a simp l e he uristic ca n reduce bi ases a nd i mprov e optim iz ationper fo rmance. Us i ng a simp le he uristic s chem e b ased o n th e assum ptio ntha t the dis t r ib u ti on ref lect s a f re eze- out point in the a nne a l where c hai n s are r i gi d (but not f ull y cor r e lated) all o ws r e su l ts to be im proved in har d ra nd om prob lem s : spin gla sses of v a rio us top ology, a nd CDM A. Th erigidity of the | and_CSG. Variance_is reduced using GD,_but a_signal_remains, and_both_homogeneity and energy_are improved through_compensation.
We can also consider_how effective the_compensation_is per coupling pattern. We can classify each coupling between logical qubits by the_induced_subgraph considering_only_the_two chains and the couplings_between them. Two such subgraphs_are in_the same class if they are automorphic. The_number_of such patterns_varies widely according to the graph-minor topology as shown_in Table \[table:cct\].
Topology_ Variables,N___Chain length,L _Logical coupling patterns
_---------- ------------- ---------------- --------------------------- --
_ Clique _ 32 _ _ _ 9_ _ _ _ _ _ 16 __ ___ _ _
_ __Clique __ 63 _ __ 17_ _ _ _ _ 50 _ _
_Biclique __ __64 _ _ _ 8 _ __ _ _ 10 ___ _
_3D cubic _ 64 __ __ 4 ___ _ _ 3 _ _ ___
3D cubic _ _ 512 _ _ 4 _ _ 3 _ _ _
_ : Chain connectivity topologies[]{data-label="table:cct"}
We can take_an_average_over_couplers in a_given isomorphic class,_and classify each_class according_to $\chi_{ab}(1)$ for_some element_$ab$ in the_class._The result is shown in Fig. \[fig:correlationBalancing\] (top-right). Frustration is indeed disproportionately allocated over couplers that connect through extremal_points (large $\chi_{ab}$), we see that_applying an appropriate compensation of_$1/\chi$_between one and_two makes coupler performance_more homogeneous.
In Fig. \[fig:correlationBalancing\] (bottom-right) we show the mean_energies and best minimal achieved for all instances of_the_3DSG problem_($8\times 8 \times 8$)_with and_without logical-J_compensation. We allows_for a_small number_of edge_and variable vacancies (in line with defect_patterns_on the chip). Energies are significantly improved not only_in_the_median_but in almost_all instances.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In_this paper we_have demonstrated that_inhomogeneities_in the patterns of chain couplings_produce biases in_the sampling distribution, and_that compensation by a simple heuristic can reduce biases and_improve optimization performance. Using a simple heuristic scheme based on the assumption that the distribution reflects a_freeze-out point_in the anneal where_chains are_rigid_(but not fully correlated) allows results_to be_improved in hard random problems: spin glasses of_various_topology, and CDMA. The rigidity of the |
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\left( \lambda _{0}w_{m,l}^{\prime }(0,t)+\widetilde{h}_{1}(t)w_{m,l}(1,t)+\widetilde{\lambda }_{1}w_{m,l}^{\prime
}(1,t)\right) v(0)\medskip $ \\
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\left( \lambda _{1}w_{m,l}^{\prime }(1,t)+\widetilde{h}_{0}(t)w_{m,l}(0,t)+\widetilde{\lambda }_{0}w_{m,l}^{\prime
}(0,t)\right) v(1)\medskip $ \\
$\ \ \ \ \ \ =\left\langle
|u_{m}|^{p-2}u_{m}-|u_{l}|^{p-2}u_{l},v\right\rangle +\left[ \left\vert
u_{m}(0,t)\right\vert ^{\alpha -2}u_{m}(0,t)-\left\vert
u_{l}(0,t)\right\vert ^{\alpha -2}u_{l}(0,t)\right] v(0)\medskip $ \\
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\left[ \left\vert u_{m}(1,t)\right\vert
^{\beta -2}u_{m}(1,t)-\left\vert u_{l}(1,t)\right\vert ^{\beta -2}u_{l}(1,t)\right] v(1),$ for all $v\in H^{1},\medskip $ \\
$w_{m,l}(0)=u_{0m}-u_{0l},$ $w_{m,l}^{\prime }(0)=u_{1m}-u_{1l}.$\end{tabular}\right. \tag{2.40} \label{b40}$$
We take $v=w_{m,l}^{\prime }=u_{m}^{\prime }-u_{l}^{\prime },\ $in (\[b40\]) and integrating with respect to $t,$ we obtain$$\begin{tabular}{l}
$S_{m,l}(t)\leq S_{m,l}(0 | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \left (\lambda _ { 0}w_{m, l}^{\prime } (0,t)+\widetilde{h}_{1}(t)w_{m, l}(1,t)+\widetilde{\lambda } _ { 1}w_{m, l}^{\prime
} (1,t)\right) v(0)\medskip $ \\
$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \left (\lambda _ { 1}w_{m, l}^{\prime } (1,t)+\widetilde{h}_{0}(t)w_{m, l}(0,t)+\widetilde{\lambda } _ { 0}w_{m, l}^{\prime
} (0,t)\right) v(1)\medskip $ \\
$ \ \ \ \ \ \ = \left\langle
|u_{m}|^{p-2}u_{m}-|u_{l}|^{p-2}u_{l},v\right\rangle + \left [ \left\vert
u_{m}(0,t)\right\vert ^{\alpha -2}u_{m}(0,t)-\left\vert
u_{l}(0,t)\right\vert ^{\alpha -2}u_{l}(0,t)\right ] v(0)\medskip $ \\
$ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \left [ \left\vert u_{m}(1,t)\right\vert
^{\beta -2}u_{m}(1,t)-\left\vert u_{l}(1,t)\right\vert ^{\beta -2}u_{l}(1,t)\right ] v(1),$ for all $ v\in H^{1},\medskip $ \\
$ w_{m, l}(0)=u_{0m}-u_{0l},$ $ w_{m, l}^{\prime } (0)=u_{1m}-u_{1l}.$\end{tabular}\right. \tag{2.40 } \label{b40}$$
We take $ v = w_{m, l}^{\prime } = u_{m}^{\prime } -u_{l}^{\prime }, \ $ in (\[b40\ ]) and integrating with respect to $ t,$ we obtain$$\begin{tabular}{l }
$ S_{m, l}(t)\leq S_{m, l}(0 | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\left( \lambda _{0}w_{m,l}^{\prime }(0,t)+\widejiode{h}_{1}(t)w_{k,l}(1,t)+\widstilde{\laobda }_{1}w_{m,l}^{\prime
}(1,t)\right) v(0)\medskip $ \\
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\left( \lambda _{1}w_{m,l}^{\prime }(1,t)+\widetiode{h}_{0}(u)w_{m,l}(0,t)+\widetilde{\lamusa }_{0}w_{m,l}^{\pvnme
}(0,t)\rjnht) v(1)\kxdskip $ \\
$\ \ \ \ \ \ =\lgft\langle
|u_{m}|^{p-2}g_{m}-|u_{l}|^{p-2}u_{l},v\right\rdnelz +\left[ \left\vert
u_{m}(0,t)\right\vert ^{\alpha -2}u_{m}(0,e)-\left\vett
k_{l}(0,t)\right\vert ^{\ajpha -2}t_{l}(0,t)\rjght] v(0)\medskip $ \\
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\left[ \left\vegt u_{m}(1,t)\right\vert
^{\beya -2}u_{m}(1,t)-\left\vert u_{l}(1,t)\right\verh ^{\beha -2}u_{l}(1,t)\right] v(1),$ for wll $v\in H^{1},\meeski[ $ \\
$w_{m,l}(0)=u_{0m}-u_{0l},$ $w_{m,u}^{\prime }(0)=u_{1m}-u_{1l}.$\end{tabular}\rjght. \tag{2.40} \label{b40}$$
We take $v=w_{m,l}^{\prkme }=u_{k}^{\prime }-u_{l}^{\ptnne },\ $hn (\[b40\]) and invegratpng with respcbt to $t,$ we obtsin$$\begin{tabulav}{l}
$S_{m,l}(v)\leq S_{m,l}(0 | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\left( \lambda $ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\left( \lambda _{1}w_{m,l}^{\prime }(1,t)+\widetilde{h}_{0}(t)w_{m,l}(0,t)+\widetilde{\lambda }_{0}w_{m,l}^{\prime }(0,t)\right) v(1)\medskip $ \\ $\ \ \ \ \ =\left\langle |u_{m}|^{p-2}u_{m}-|u_{l}|^{p-2}u_{l},v\right\rangle +\left[ \left\vert u_{m}(0,t)\right\vert ^{\alpha -2}u_{m}(0,t)-\left\vert u_{l}(0,t)\right\vert ^{\alpha -2}u_{l}(0,t)\right] v(0)\medskip \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\left[ \left\vert u_{m}(1,t)\right\vert ^{\beta -2}u_{m}(1,t)-\left\vert u_{l}(1,t)\right\vert -2}u_{l}(1,t)\right] v(1),$ for all $v\in H^{1},\medskip $ \\ $w_{m,l}^{\prime }(0)=u_{1m}-u_{1l}.$\end{tabular}\right. \tag{2.40} \label{b40}$$ take $v=w_{m,l}^{\prime }=u_{m}^{\prime }-u_{l}^{\prime },\ (\[b40\]) integrating with to we $S_{m,l}(t)\leq S_{m,l}(0 | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\left( \lambda _{0}w_{m,l}^{\prime }(0,t)+\widetiLde{h}_{1}(t)w_{m,l}(1,t)+\wIdetiLde{\LamBdA }_{1}w_{m,l}^{\PrimE
}(1,t)\right) v(0)\medskiP $ \\
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\Left( \Lambda _{1}w_{m,l}^{\prime }(1,t)+\widetilDe{h}_{0}(t)w_{M,l}(0,T)+\WideTIlDe{\lamBda }_{0}w_{m,l}^{\pRImE
}(0,T)\RigHt) V(1)\mEdsKiP $ \\
$\ \ \ \ \ \ =\LeFt\lanGle
|U_{m}|^{p-2}u_{m}-|u_{l}|^{P-2}u_{l},v\right\rAngLe +\Left[ \left\vert
U_{M}(0,t)\Right\vert ^{\aLphA -2}u_{m}(0,t)-\left\vert
U_{l}(0,t)\Right\vErT ^{\alPHa -2}u_{l}(0,t)\RigHt] v(0)\meDskip $ \\
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\lEFt[ \left\Vert u_{m}(1,t)\riGhT\Vert
^{\beTA -2}u_{m}(1,t)-\lefT\VErT u_{l}(1,t)\Right\vert ^{\beta -2}u_{l}(1,t)\rIGhT] V(1),$ for all $v\in H^{1},\medSkip $ \\
$w_{m,L}(0)=u_{0M}-U_{0l},$ $W_{M,L}^{\prIme }(0)=U_{1m}-u_{1l}.$\end{tabUlAr}\rigHT. \tag{2.40} \labEL{b40}$$
wE TAke $V=W_{m,l}^{\prime }=u_{m}^{\priMe }-u_{l}^{\prime },\ $in (\[B40\]) And IntegrAtIng WIth resPect tO $t,$ WE obTain$$\begin{taBulaR}{l}
$S_{m,l}(t)\leq s_{m,l}(0 | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\lef t( \l amb da_{ 0}w_ {m,l }^{\prime }(0, t )+\w idetilde{h}_{1}(t)w_{m ,l}(1 ,t ) +\wi d et ilde{ \lambda }_ { 1 }w_ {m ,l }^{ \p r im e
}(1 ,t) \right) v(0)\meds kip $ \\
$\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ +\l eft ( \lam bd a _ { 1}w_{ m,l }^{\p rime } ( 1,t)+\ widetilde {h } _{0}(t ) w_{m,l} ( 0 ,t )+\w idetilde{\lambda} _{ 0 }w_{m,l}^{\pri me
}(0 ,t ) \r i g ht) v( 1)\medskip $ \\
$ \ \ \ \\ \ = \ lef t \langle
|u_{m }|^{p-2}u_{ m }-| u_{l}| ^{ p-2 } u_{l}, v\rig ht \ ran gle +\left[ \le ft\vert
u _{m}(0 , t)\righ t \vert ^ {\alph a - 2}u _{m} ( 0, t) -\l ef t \ve r tu_{ l }(0 ,t)\righ t\ ve rt ^{ \alp h a - 2}u_ {l} (0,t )\rig ht] v(0)\meds kip $ \ \
$\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ +\l ef t[ \left\vert u _{m} (1,t)\rig ht\ ve rt^{ \beta -2}u_{ m}( 1,t )-\left \vert u _ {l} (1 , t ) \r ight\vert ^{\beta-2 } u _{ l}(1,t)\ right] v( 1) , $ for al l$v\ in H ^ { 1},\m edsk i p$ \\
$w_ {m,l}( 0 )= u_ {0m}-u_ {0 l},$ $ w_ {m, l}^ {\pri m e }( 0)=u_{ 1m}-u_{1 l}.$\ e nd{tabular}\ri g ht. \tag{2.4 0 }\ la b el{b 40} $$
We take $v= w _{m, l}^{ \ pr ime }=u_{ m}^{\ pr i me }-u_{l}^{\prime },\ $ in (\[ b40\] ) and integra ting withr e s pect to$t,$ we obtain$$\begin {tabu lar}{l}
$S _ {m,l}(t) \leqS_{m,l}( 0 | \_\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \_\_\ \_\_\ \ +\left(_\lambda _{0}w_{m,l}^{\prime }(0,t)+\widetilde{h}_{1}(t)w_{m,l}(1,t)+\widetilde{\lambda_}_{1}w_{m,l}^{\prime
}(1,t)\right) v(0)\medskip $ \\
$\_\ \ \_\_\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\left( \lambda _{1}w_{m,l}^{\prime_}(1,t)+\widetilde{h}_{0}(t)w_{m,l}(0,t)+\widetilde{\lambda_}_{0}w_{m,l}^{\prime
}(0,t)\right) v(1)\medskip_$_\\
$\_\ \ \ \ \_=\left\langle
|u_{m}|^{p-2}u_{m}-|u_{l}|^{p-2}u_{l},v\right\rangle +\left[ \left\vert
u_{m}(0,t)\right\vert ^{\alpha -2}u_{m}(0,t)-\left\vert
u_{l}(0,t)\right\vert_^{\alpha -2}u_{l}(0,t)\right]_v(0)\medskip $ \\
$\ \ \ \ \ \_\_\ \ \_\ \ \ \ \ +\left[ \left\vert u_{m}(1,t)\right\vert
^{\beta -2}u_{m}(1,t)-\left\vert_u_{l}(1,t)\right\vert ^{\beta -2}u_{l}(1,t)\right] v(1),$ for all_$v\in H^{1},\medskip $_\\
$w_{m,l}(0)=u_{0m}-u_{0l},$_$w_{m,l}^{\prime_}(0)=u_{1m}-u_{1l}.$\end{tabular}\right. \tag{2.40} _\label{b40}$$
We take $v=w_{m,l}^{\prime }=u_{m}^{\prime }-u_{l}^{\prime },\_$in (\[b40\]) and integrating with respect_to $t,$ we obtain$$\begin{tabular}{l}
$S_{m,l}(t)\leq S_{m,l}(0 |
2}.$$ This requires the transformation matrix $W_{i,j}(s,t)$ between these basis to be orthogonal. Knowing the weight for which the polynomials $K_{i,j}(s,t)$ are orthogonal, we find that this imposes that $$\begin{aligned}
&&W_{0,0}(s,t)=\sqrt{\binom{N}{s,t}\frac{1}{[(p_1+p_3)(p_2+p_4)]^N}} \nonumber \\
&&\cdot \sqrt{\frac{(p_1p_4-p_2p_3)^{2(N-s-t)}(p_1p_2)^s(p_3p_4)^t}{(p_1+p_2)^{N-t}(p_3+p_4)^{N-s}}}.\end{aligned}$$ This completely determines the elements $W_{i,j}(s,t)$. As a companion to (\[expansion1\]), in view of the orthogonality of $W_{i,j}(s,t)$, we have the inverse relation $$\label{expansion2}
\left| i,j\right) = \sum_{0\le s+t\le N} W_{i,j}(s,t) \left| s,t\right>.$$ We can now write down an explicit expression for the transition amplitude $f_{(i,j),(k,l)}(T)$ for an excitation at the site $(i,j)$ to be found at the site $(k,l)$ after some time $T$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{transition1}
&&f_{(i,j),(k,l)}(T)=\left( i,j| \exp(-iTH)|k,l\right) \\
&&=\sum_{0\le s+t\le N} W_{i,j}(s,t)W_{k,l}(s,t)e^{iT[(p_3+p_4)t-(p_1+p_2)s]}. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ (See [@Chakrabarti] for analogous calculations in the case of quantum chains.) From now on we shall restrict the parameters and consider the case where $$\label{restriction1}
p_1=p_4,\quad p_2=p_3.$$ With $z\equiv e | 2}.$$ This requires the transformation matrix $ W_{i, j}(s, t)$ between these basis to be orthogonal. Knowing the system of weights for which the polynomial $ K_{i, j}(s, t)$ are orthogonal, we find that this levy that $ $ \begin{aligned }
& & W_{0,0}(s, t)=\sqrt{\binom{N}{s, t}\frac{1}{[(p_1+p_3)(p_2+p_4)]^N } } \nonumber \\
& & \cdot \sqrt{\frac{(p_1p_4 - p_2p_3)^{2(N - s - t)}(p_1p_2)^s(p_3p_4)^t}{(p_1+p_2)^{N - t}(p_3+p_4)^{N - s}}}.\end{aligned}$$ This wholly determines the elements $ W_{i, j}(s, t)$. As a companion to (\[expansion1\ ]), in view of the orthogonality of $ W_{i, j}(s, t)$, we hold the inverse relation $ $ \label{expansion2 }
\left| i, j\right) = \sum_{0\le s+t\le N } W_{i, j}(s, t) \left| s, t\right>.$$ We can now publish down an explicit expression for the conversion amplitude $ f_{(i, j),(k, l)}(T)$ for an excitation at the site $ (one, j)$ to be establish at the site $ (k, l)$ after some time $ T$: $ $ \begin{aligned }
\label{transition1 }
& & f_{(i, j),(k, l)}(T)=\left (i, j| \exp(-iTH)|k, l\right) \\
& & = \sum_{0\le s+t\le N } W_{i, j}(s, t)W_{k, l}(s, t)e^{iT[(p_3+p_4)t-(p_1+p_2)s ] }. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ (attend [ @Chakrabarti ] for analogous calculations in the case of quantum chains .) From immediately on we shall restrict the parameters and consider the event where $ $ \label{restriction1 }
p_1 = p_4,\quad p_2 = p_3.$$ With $ z\equiv e | 2}.$$ Thls requires the transforoation matrix $W_{n,h}(s,t)$ bevween tgese basks to be orthogonal. Knowing vhe qeighu for which the polhnomials $N_{i,j}(s,t)$ arw oruhogonal, we find vgat this impoacs thct $$\begin{aligned}
&&W_{0,0}(x,t)=\sqrt{\binok{N}{s,t}\frac{1}{[(p_1+p_3)(p_2+p_4)]^N}} \tovulber \\
&&\cdot \sqrt{\frac{(p_1p_4-p_2p_3)^{2(N-s-t)}(p_1p_2)^s(p_3p_4)^t}{(p_1+p_2)^{N-t}([_3+p_4)^{N-s}}}.\end{sllgned}$$ This comkletekr defvrnines the elements $W_{i,j}(s,t)$. As a companpon to (\[expansion1\]), on view of the orthogonalihy ov $W_{i,j}(s,t)$, we have thf inverse rgmatyin $$\label{expavsion2}
\left| p,l\right) = \sum_{0\me s+t\le N} W_{i,j}(s,t) \left| s,t\right>.$$ We can uow write diwb aj explicit eepresspon for the tvsnsitimn amplotude $f_{(i,j),(k,l)}(T)$ fpr en ezcitation at the site $(i,j)$ to be found at the site $(k,m)$ after some time $T$: $$\begit{alicned}
\uqbeu{trznxifion1}
&&f_{(i,u),(k,l)}(V)=\left( i,j| \exl(-iTH)|k,l\right) \\
&&=\sum_{0\le s+t\le N} W_{i,j}(s,t)E_{k,j}(w,t)e^{iT[(p_3+p_4)t-(p_1+p_2)s]}. \nknumbew \qnd{aligned}$$ (See [@Chakrabarti] for analogouv czlculations in the case of quantum chains.) Frlm now on we shall restrict the parameters and consider tha casx dhexc $$\uqbfl{restriction1}
p_1=p_4,\quad p_2=p_3.$$ With $z\equiv e | 2}.$$ This requires the transformation matrix $W_{i,j}(s,t)$ basis be orthogonal. the weight for orthogonal, find that this that $$\begin{aligned} &&W_{0,0}(s,t)=\sqrt{\binom{N}{s,t}\frac{1}{[(p_1+p_3)(p_2+p_4)]^N}} \\ &&\cdot \sqrt{\frac{(p_1p_4-p_2p_3)^{2(N-s-t)}(p_1p_2)^s(p_3p_4)^t}{(p_1+p_2)^{N-t}(p_3+p_4)^{N-s}}}.\end{aligned}$$ This completely determines elements $W_{i,j}(s,t)$. As a companion to (\[expansion1\]), in view of the orthogonality of we have the inverse relation $$\label{expansion2} \left| i,j\right) = \sum_{0\le s+t\le N} W_{i,j}(s,t) s,t\right>.$$ can write an explicit expression for the transition amplitude $f_{(i,j),(k,l)}(T)$ for an excitation at the site $(i,j)$ to found at the site $(k,l)$ after some time $$\begin{aligned} \label{transition1} &&f_{(i,j),(k,l)}(T)=\left( i,j| \\ &&=\sum_{0\le s+t\le N} W_{i,j}(s,t)W_{k,l}(s,t)e^{iT[(p_3+p_4)t-(p_1+p_2)s]}. \end{aligned}$$ [@Chakrabarti] for calculations the of quantum chains.) now on we shall restrict the parameters and consider the case where $$\label{restriction1} p_1=p_4,\quad p_2=p_3.$$ With $z\equiv | 2}.$$ This requires the transformaTion matrix $w_{i,j}(s,t)$ BetWeeN tHese BasiS to be orthogonaL. knowIng the weight for which thE polyNoMIals $k_{I,j}(S,t)$ are OrthogoNAl, WE FinD tHaT thIs IMpOses tHat $$\Begin{alIgned}
&&W_{0,0}(s,t)=\sqRt{\bInOm{N}{s,t}\frac{1}{[(p_1+p_3)(p_2+P_4)]^n}} \nOnumber \\
&&\cdoT \sqRt{\frac{(p_1p_4-p_2p_3)^{2(N-s-T)}(p_1p_2)^S(p_3p_4)^t}{(p_1+p_2)^{n-t}(P_3+p_4)^{N-S}}}.\End{alIgnEd}$$ ThiS complETely deTermines tHe ELementS $w_{i,j}(s,t)$. As A COmPaniOn to (\[expansion1\]), in viEW oF The orthogonaliTy of $W_{i,J}(s,T)$, We HAVe tHe iNverse relaTiOn $$\labEL{expansIOn2}
\LEFT| i,j\RIght) = \sum_{0\le s+t\le n} W_{i,j}(s,t) \left| s,T\RigHt>.$$ We caN nOw wRIte dowN an exPlICit Expression fOr thE transitiOn amplITude $f_{(i,j),(K,L)}(T)$ for an ExcitaTioN at The sITe $(I,j)$ To bE fOUnd AT tHe sITe $(k,L)$ after soMe TiMe $T$: $$\beGin{aLIGNEd}
\laBel{TranSitioN1}
&&f_{(i,j),(k,l)}(T)=\left( i,j| \Exp(-ITH)|k,L\RigHt) \\
&&=\sum_{0\Le s+t\lE N} W_{i,J}(s,T)W_{k,l}(s,T)e^{iT[(p_3+p_4)T-(p_1+p_2)s]}. \nOnUmber \end{aligned}$$ (see [@CHakrabartI] foR aNalOgOus caLCulatiOns In tHe case oF quantuM ChaInS.) fROm Now on we shall restriCt THE pArameterS and coNSiDeR The case wHeRe $$\lAbel{REStricTion1}
P_1=P_4,\qUad p_2=p_3.$$ WitH $z\equiV E | 2}.$$ This requires the tr ansformati on ma tri x $ W_ {i,j }(s, t)$ between th e se b asis to be orthogonal. Know in g the we ightfor whi c ht h e p ol yn omi al s $ K_{i, j}( s,t)$ a re orthogo nal ,we find that th is imposes th at $$\begin{ ali gned}&& W_{ 0 ,0}(s ,t) =\sqr t{\bin o m{N}{s ,t}\frac{ 1} { [(p_1+ p _3)(p_2 + p _4 )]^N }} \nonumber \\
& & \c d ot \sqrt{\frac {(p_1p _4 - p_ 2 p _3) ^{2 (N-s-t)}(p _1 p_2)^ s (p_3p_4 ) ^t } { ( p_1 + p_2)^{N-t}(p_ 3+p_4)^{N-s } }}. \end{a li gne d }$$ Th is co mp l ete ly determin es t he elemen ts $W_ { i,j}(s, t )$. Asa comp ani onto ( \ [e xp ans io n 1\] ) ,inv iew of theor th ogona lity o f $W_{ i,j }(s, t)$,we have the i nve rser ela tion$$\la bel{ ex pansi on2}
\ left| i ,j\right) = \su m_{0 \le s+t\l e N }W_{ i, j}(s, t ) \lef t|s,t \right> .$$ Wec anno w w ri te down an explici te x pr ession f or the tr an s ition am pl itu de $ f _ {(i,j ),(k , l) }(T)$ fo r an e x ci ta tion at t he sit e$(i ,j) $ tob e fo und at the sit e $(k , l)$ after some time $T$: $$\ b eg i n {a l igne d}\label{tran siti o n1}&&f_ { (i ,j) , (k,l) }(T)= \l e ft ( i,j| \exp(-iTH)|k, l\ right) \\
& &=\sum_{0\les+t\le N}W _ { i,j}(s,t )W_{ k ,l } (s,t)e^{iT[(p_ 3+p_4 )t-(p_1+p_ 2 )s]}. \n onumb er \end{ aligned}$ $ (See [@C hak rab art i]f o ranalogous cal c u lati on s in th e c ase ofqua ntu m c hai ns .) From n ow on we s ha ll r est rictt he param et ers a ndconsi d er the case whe re $ $ \la bel{res t ri c t ion1 }p_ 1=p_ 4,\ qu ad p_ 2=p_ 3 .$$ With $ z\equiv e | 2}.$$ This_requires the_transformation matrix $W_{i,j}(s,t)$ between_these basis_to_be orthogonal._Knowing_the weight for_which the polynomials_$K_{i,j}(s,t)$ are orthogonal, we_find that this_imposes_that $$\begin{aligned}
&&W_{0,0}(s,t)=\sqrt{\binom{N}{s,t}\frac{1}{[(p_1+p_3)(p_2+p_4)]^N}} \nonumber \\
&&\cdot \sqrt{\frac{(p_1p_4-p_2p_3)^{2(N-s-t)}(p_1p_2)^s(p_3p_4)^t}{(p_1+p_2)^{N-t}(p_3+p_4)^{N-s}}}.\end{aligned}$$ This completely determines the elements $W_{i,j}(s,t)$. As a companion_to_(\[expansion1\]), in_view_of_the orthogonality of $W_{i,j}(s,t)$, we_have the inverse relation $$\label{expansion2}
\left|_i,j\right) =_\sum_{0\le s+t\le N} W_{i,j}(s,t) \left| s,t\right>.$$ We can_now_write down an_explicit expression for the transition amplitude $f_{(i,j),(k,l)}(T)$ for an_excitation at the site $(i,j)$ to_be found at_the_site_$(k,l)$ after some time_$T$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{transition1}
&&f_{(i,j),(k,l)}(T)=\left( i,j| \exp(-iTH)|k,l\right) \\
&&=\sum_{0\le s+t\le_N} W_{i,j}(s,t)W_{k,l}(s,t)e^{iT[(p_3+p_4)t-(p_1+p_2)s]}. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ (See [@Chakrabarti]_for analogous calculations in the case of_quantum chains.) From now on we_shall restrict the parameters and_consider the_case where $$\label{restriction1}
p_1=p_4,\quad p_2=p_3.$$ With_$z\equiv e |
show this we need prove that we have contraction and expansion in the sub-bundles $E$ and $F$, respectively, unless a certain finite time iterate. Hence, by compactness of ${\overline}{Per(f)}$, we just need to show the following $$\liminf_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \|Df^n(x)|E(x)\|=0
\label{eq 1}$$ and $$\liminf_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \|Df^{-n}(x)|F(x)\|=0,$$ for all $x\in {\overline}{Per(f)}$.
Observe it’s enough to prove the first case since the second one can be deduced from the first one replacing $f$ by $f^{-1}$.
Suppose now $(\ref{eq 1})$ is not true. Then there exists $x\in M$ such that $$\|Df^{jm}(x)|F(x)\|\geq c>0, \text{ for all } j>0.$$ Defining the following probability measure $$\mu_j=\frac{1}{j}\sum_{i=0}^{j-1}\delta_{f^{mi}(x)},$$ where $\delta$ is the dirac measure, we can find a subsequence $j_n\rightarrow \infty$ such that $\mu_{j_n}$ converges to an $f^m-$invariant probability measure $\mu$ in the weak$^*$ topology and $$\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \frac{1}{j_n}\log \|Df^{mj_n}(x)|E(x)\|\geq 0.$$
Hence, taking the continuous functional $\phi(x)=\log\|Df^{m}(x)|E(x)\|$ over ${\overline}{Per(f)}$, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\overline}{Per(f)}}\phi \; d\mu &= \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{1}{j_n}\sum_{i=0}^{j_n-1}\log\|Df^{m}(f^{mi}(x))|E(f^{mi}(x))\|
\\
&\geq \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{1}{j_n}\log\|Df^{mj_n}(x)|E(x)\|\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$
And so, using Ergodic Birkhoff’s Theorem $$0 | show this we need prove that we have compression and expansion in the bomber - bundles $ E$ and $ F$, respectively, unless a certain finite meter iterate. therefore, by compactness of $ { \overline}{Per(f)}$, we just need to indicate the following $ $ \liminf_{n\rightarrow + \infty } \|Df^n(x)|E(x)\|=0
\label{eq 1}$$ and $ $ \liminf_{n\rightarrow + \infty } \|Df^{-n}(x)|F(x)\|=0,$$ for all $ x\in { \overline}{Per(f)}$.
Observe it ’s enough to testify the first case since the second one can be deduce from the first one replacing $ f$ by $ f^{-1}$.
speculate nowadays $ (\ref{eq 1})$ is not true. Then there exists $ x\in M$ such that $ $ \|Df^{jm}(x)|F(x)\|\geq c>0, \text { for all } j>0.$$ Defining the following probability measure $ $ \mu_j=\frac{1}{j}\sum_{i=0}^{j-1}\delta_{f^{mi}(x)},$$ where $ \delta$ is the dirac bill, we can find a subsequence $ j_n\rightarrow \infty$ such that $ \mu_{j_n}$ converges to an $ f^m-$invariant probability measure $ \mu$ in the weak$^*$ regional anatomy and $ $ \lim_{n\rightarrow + \infty } \frac{1}{j_n}\log \|Df^{mj_n}(x)|E(x)\|\geq 0.$$
Hence, taking the continuous running $ \phi(x)=\log\|Df^{m}(x)|E(x)\|$ over $ { \overline}{Per(f)}$, we obtain: $ $ \begin{aligned }
\int_{{\overline}{Per(f)}}\phi \; d\mu & = \lim_{n\rightarrow + \infty}\frac{1}{j_n}\sum_{i=0}^{j_n-1}\log\|Df^{m}(f^{mi}(x))|E(f^{mi}(x))\|
\\
& \geq \lim_{n\rightarrow + \infty}\frac{1}{j_n}\log\|Df^{mj_n}(x)|E(x)\|\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$
And then, using Ergodic Birkhoff ’s Theorem $ $ 0 | shlw this we need prove thxt we have conttaxtion end expznsion iv the sub-bundles $E$ and $F$, res'ectuvely, unless a certain finige time inerate. Hebce, uy compactness oh ${\overlikz}{Per(f)}$, ae jbsv need to show jhe followinc $$\liminf_{n\rightdrfoc +\infty} \|Df^n(x)|E(x)\|=0
\label{eq 1}$$ and $$\liminf_{n\ridhtarroe +\lnfty} \|Df^{-n}(x)|F(x)\|=0,$$ fjr akj $x\ih {\overline}{Per(f)}$.
Observe it’s enough tk prove the first caxe since the second one caj be deduced from the virst one rgllasung $f$ by $f^{-1}$.
Suopose now $(\gzf{eq 1})$ is noj true. Then there exists $x\in M$ sjch tkat $$\|Df^{jm}(x)|F(x)\|\tew c>0, \jext{ for all } j>0.$$ Dvfining the following probabolity measure $$\ku_j=\hrac{1}{h}\sum_{i=0}^{j-1}\delta_{f^{mi}(x)},$$ where $\delta$ is the diras measure, wz can find a subsequebcw $j_n\rhghtdrrod \inwty$ snch that $\lu_{j_i}$ converges to an $f^m-$incariant probability mqqsure $\mu$ in tge weah$^*$ eopology and $$\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \frac{1}{j_t}\lof \|Df^{mj_n}(x)|E(x)\|\geq 0.$$
Hence, takung the continuous fujctional $\[hi(x)=\log\|Df^{m}(x)|E(x)\|$ over ${\overline}{Per(f)}$, we obtain: $$\begin{alhgned}
\mng_{{\ovtroine}{Pde(f)}}\ohi \; d\mu &= \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{1}{j_n}\sum_{i=0}^{j_n-1}\log\|Qr^{m}(g^{mp}(x))|E(f^{mi}(x))\|
\\
&\geq \lim_{n\rinhtarrow +\infty}\frac{1}{k_n}\pob\|Qf^{mj_n}(x)|E(x)\|\geq 0.\evd{aligusd}$$
Znd so, using Ergodlc Birkroff’s Theorem $$0 | show this we need prove that we and in the $E$ and $F$, time Hence, by compactness ${\overline}{Per(f)}$, we just to show the following $$\liminf_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \label{eq 1}$$ and $$\liminf_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \|Df^{-n}(x)|F(x)\|=0,$$ for all $x\in {\overline}{Per(f)}$. Observe it’s enough prove the first case since the second one can be deduced from the one $f$ $f^{-1}$. now $(\ref{eq 1})$ is not true. Then there exists $x\in M$ such that $$\|Df^{jm}(x)|F(x)\|\geq c>0, \text{ all } j>0.$$ Defining the following probability measure where $\delta$ is the measure, we can find a $j_n\rightarrow such that converges an probability measure $\mu$ the weak$^*$ topology and $$\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \frac{1}{j_n}\log \|Df^{mj_n}(x)|E(x)\|\geq 0.$$ Hence, taking the continuous functional $\phi(x)=\log\|Df^{m}(x)|E(x)\|$ over ${\overline}{Per(f)}$, obtain: $$\begin{aligned} d\mu &= +\infty}\frac{1}{j_n}\sum_{i=0}^{j_n-1}\log\|Df^{m}(f^{mi}(x))|E(f^{mi}(x))\| &\geq +\infty}\frac{1}{j_n}\log\|Df^{mj_n}(x)|E(x)\|\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ And Ergodic Birkhoff’s Theorem $$0 | show this we need prove that we Have contraCtion And ExpAnSion In thE sub-bundles $E$ anD $f$, resPectively, unless a certaiN finiTe TIme iTErAte. HeNce, by coMPaCTNesS oF ${\oVerLiNE}{PEr(f)}$, we JusT need to Show the folLowInG $$\liminf_{n\righTArRow +\infty} \|Df^N(x)|E(X)\|=0
\label{eq 1}$$ and $$\lImiNf_{n\rigHtArrOW +\inftY} \|Df^{-N}(x)|F(x)\|=0,$$ fOr all $x\IN {\overlIne}{Per(f)}$.
ObSeRVe it’s eNOugh to pROVe The fIrst case since the sECoND one can be deducEd from ThE FiRST onE rePlacing $f$ by $F^{-1}$.
SUpposE Now $(\ref{eQ 1})$ Is NOT TruE. then there exisTs $x\in M$ such tHAt $$\|DF^{jm}(x)|F(x)\|\GeQ c>0, \tEXt{ for aLl } j>0.$$ DeFiNIng The followinG proBability mEasure $$\MU_j=\frac{1}{j}\SUm_{i=0}^{j-1}\delTa_{f^{mi}(x)},$$ WheRe $\dElta$ IS tHe DirAc MEasURe, We cAN fiNd a subseQuEnCe $j_n\rIghtARROW \infTy$ sUch tHat $\mu_{J_n}$ converges to An $f^M-$invARiaNt proBabilIty mEaSure $\mU$ in the Weak$^*$ tOpOlogy and $$\lim_{n\rigHtarRow +\infty} \fRac{1}{J_n}\Log \|df^{Mj_n}(x)|E(X)\|\Geq 0.$$
HenCe, tAkiNg the coNtinuouS FunCtIONAl $\Phi(x)=\log\|Df^{m}(x)|E(x)\|$ over ${\oVeRLInE}{Per(f)}$, we oBtain: $$\bEGiN{aLIgned}
\int_{{\OvErlIne}{PER(F)}}\phi \; d\Mu &= \liM_{N\rIghtarroW +\infty}\FRaC{1}{j_N}\sum_{i=0}^{j_n-1}\LoG\|Df^{m}(f^{mI}(x))|e(f^{mI}(x))\|
\\
&\gEq \lim_{N\RighTarrow +\Infty}\fraC{1}{j_n}\loG\|df^{mj_n}(x)|E(x)\|\geq 0.\end{ALigned}$$
And so, usINg eRGoDIc BiRkhOff’s Theorem $$0 | show this we need prove t hat we hav e con tra cti on and exp ansion in thes ub-b undles $E$ and $F$, re spect iv e ly,u nl ess a certai n f i n ite t im e i te r at e. He nce , by co mpactnessof${ \overline}{P e r( f)}$, we j ust need to sho w t he fol lo win g $$\l imi nf_{n \right a rrow + \infty} \ |D f ^n(x)| E (x)\|=0 \ la bel{ eq 1}$$ and $$\li m in f _{n\rightarrow +\inf ty } \ | D f^{ -n} (x)|F(x)\| =0 ,$$ f o r all $ x \i n { \ov e rline}{Per(f) }$.
Observ e it ’s eno ug h t o prove thefi r stcase sincethesecond on e canb e deduc e d fromthe fi rst on e re p la ci ng$f $ by $f ^{- 1 }$.
Suppos eno w $(\ ref{ e q 1 })$isnottrue. Then there e xis ts $ x \in M$ s uch t hat$$ \|Df^ {jm}(x )|F(x )\ |\geq c>0, \tex t{ f or all }j>0 .$ $ D ef ining the fo llo win g proba bilitym eas ur e $ $\ mu_j=\frac{1}{j}\s um _ { i= 0}^{j-1} \delta _ {f ^{ m i}(x)},$ $whe re $ \ d elta$ ist he dirac m easure , w ecan fin da subs eq uen ce$j_n\ r ight arrow\infty$sucht hat $\mu_{j_n} $ converges to an $ f^ m -$in var iant probab ilit y mea sure $\ mu$ in th e wea k$ ^ *$ topology and $$\lim _{ n\righ tarro w +\infty} \f rac{1}{j_n } \ l og \|Df^ {mj_ n }( x )|E(x)\|\geq 0 .$$
Hence, tak i ng the c ontin uous fun ctional $ \ p hi(x)=\l og\ |Df ^{m }(x ) | E( x)\|$ over ${ \ o verl in e}{Per( f)} $, we o bta in: $$ \be gi n{aligned }
\int_{ {\ ov er li ne} {Per( f )}}\phi\; d\ mu &= \lim _ {n\rig htarr ow + \i nf t y}\ frac{1} { j_ n } \sum _{ i= 0}^{ j_n -1 }\log \|Df ^ {m} (f^{mi} (x))|E(f^ {mi } (x)) \|
\ \
&\geq \lim_{n\righ ta rrow +\inf ty }\f rac{1} { j _n}\log\ |Df^{mj_n}(x)|E(x)\|\ge q 0.\end {al igned }$$
And so,usi ng Erg odi c Birkh off’sTheor em $$ 0 | show_this we_need prove that we_have contraction_and_expansion in_the_sub-bundles $E$ and_$F$, respectively, unless_a certain finite time_iterate. Hence, by_compactness_of ${\overline}{Per(f)}$, we just need to show the following $$\liminf_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \|Df^n(x)|E(x)\|=0
\label{eq 1}$$ and_$$\liminf_{n\rightarrow_+\infty} \|Df^{-n}(x)|F(x)\|=0,$$_for_all_$x\in {\overline}{Per(f)}$.
Observe it’s enough to_prove the first case since_the second_one can be deduced from the first one_replacing_$f$ by $f^{-1}$.
Suppose_now $(\ref{eq 1})$ is not true. Then there exists_$x\in M$ such that $$\|Df^{jm}(x)|F(x)\|\geq c>0,_\text{ for all_}_j>0.$$_Defining the following probability_measure $$\mu_j=\frac{1}{j}\sum_{i=0}^{j-1}\delta_{f^{mi}(x)},$$ where $\delta$ is the_dirac measure, we can find a_subsequence $j_n\rightarrow \infty$ such that $\mu_{j_n}$ converges_to an $f^m-$invariant probability measure $\mu$_in the weak$^*$ topology and_$$\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}_\frac{1}{j_n}\log \|Df^{mj_n}(x)|E(x)\|\geq 0.$$
Hence, taking the_continuous functional $\phi(x)=\log\|Df^{m}(x)|E(x)\|$_over ${\overline}{Per(f)}$,_we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\overline}{Per(f)}}\phi_\; d\mu &= \lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{1}{j_n}\sum_{i=0}^{j_n-1}\log\|Df^{m}(f^{mi}(x))|E(f^{mi}(x))\|
\\
&\geq \lim_{n\rightarrow_+\infty}\frac{1}{j_n}\log\|Df^{mj_n}(x)|E(x)\|\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$
And so,_using Ergodic Birkhoff’s Theorem $$0 |
solid lines), second (dashed) and third (dotted) peaks in the polarization spectrum, as a function of $\alpha$ at decoupling and $\tau$. A (somewhat idealized) description of how $\alpha$ and $\tau$ can be measured using CMB polarization. ](figure3.eps){width="3.5in"}
The outstanding effect of reionization is to introduce a bump in the polarization spectrum at large angular scales (lower left panel). This bump is produced well after decoupling (at much lower redshifts), when $\alpha$, if varying, is much closer to the present day’s value. If the value of $\alpha$ at low redshift is different from that at decoupling, the peaks in the polarization power spectrum at small angular scales will be shifted sideways, while the reionization bump on large angular scales won’t (lower right panel). It follows that by measuring the separation between the normal peaks and the bump, one can measure both $\alpha$ and $\tau$, as illustrated in Fig. \[figpeaks\]. Thus we expect that the existence of an early reionization epoch will, when more accurate cosmic microwave background polarization data is available, lead to considerably tighter constraints on $\alpha$.
A possible concern with the interpretation of our results is related to the implicit assumption of a sharp transition on the value of $\alpha$ happening sometime between recombination and the epoch of reionization. Hence, it is crucial to understand if this is a valid approximation. Appart from the value of $\alpha$ at the time of recombination the knowledge of its value at two other epochs is relevant as far as the CMB anisotropies are concerned. One such epoch is the period *just before* recombination which is very important for the damping of CMB anisotropies on small angular scales. The other period is the epoch of reionization. In this work we effectively assume that $\alpha$ is equal to $\alpha_{rec}$ before recombination and to $\alpha_0$ at the reionization epoch.
A value of $\alpha$ different from $\alpha_0$ at the epoch of reionization will affect the CMB anisotropies through a change in the optical depth $\tau$, *once a single cosmological model is assumed*. However, it is also well known that $\tau$ is itself dependent on the cosmological model through its cosmological parameters ($\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ for example) as well as on the cosmological density perturbations (in our case through the initial power spectrum) [@pedrol | solid lines), second (dashed) and third (dotted) acme in the polarization spectrum, as a affair of $ \alpha$ at decoupling and $ \tau$. A (somewhat idealized) description of how $ \alpha$ and $ \tau$ can be quantify using CMB polarization. ] (figure3.eps){width="3.5 in " }
The outstanding impression of reionization is to precede a bump in the polarization spectrum at bombastic angular scales (lower left control panel). This bump is produced well after decouple (at a lot lower redshifts), when $ \alpha$, if vary, is much closer to the present sidereal day ’s value. If the value of $ \alpha$ at low redshift is different from that at decouple, the peaks in the polarization power spectrum at little angular scales will be switch sideways, while the reionization bump on large angular scales wo n’t (lower correct panel). It follows that by measuring the separation between the normal peaks and the bulge, one can measure both $ \alpha$ and $ \tau$, as illustrated in Fig. \[figpeaks\ ]. Thus we expect that the existence of an early reionization epoch will, when more accurate cosmic microwave background polarization data is available, lead to considerably tighter constraint on $ \alpha$.
A possible concern with the rendition of our result is relate to the implicit assumption of a sharp transition on the value of $ \alpha$ happening sometime between recombination and the epoch of reionization. Hence, it is crucial to sympathize if this is a valid approximation. Appart from the value of $ \alpha$ at the time of recombination the knowledge of its value at two other epochs is relevant as far as the CMB anisotropies are concerned. One such epoch is the period * just before * recombination which is very important for the damping of CMB anisotropy on small angular scale. The early period is the epoch of reionization. In this work we effectively assume that $ \alpha$ is equal to $ \alpha_{rec}$ before recombination and to $ \alpha_0 $ at the reionization epoch.
A value of $ \alpha$ different from $ \alpha_0 $ at the epoch of reionization will affect the CMB anisotropies through a variety in the optical astuteness $ \tau$, * once a single cosmological model is assumed *. However, it is also well know that $ \tau$ is itself dependent on the cosmologic model through its cosmologic parameters ($ \Omega_m$ and $ \Omega_\Lambda$ for model) as well as on the cosmologic density perturbations (in our case through the initial power spectrum) [ @pedrol | solld lines), second (dashed) akd third (dotted) keqks in the pklarizatkon spectrum, as a function oh $\alpha$ au decoupling and $\taj$. A (somewjat ideaoizev) description of how $\alpmc$ and $\bau$ ccn be measured uxing CMB pmlarization. ](ficufe3.zps){width="3.5in"}
The outstanding effect of weionizstlon is to intrjduct a buml in the polarization spectrum at marge aigular scales (lpwer left panel). This bump ls pgoduced well after decoupling (at iych lower reashifts), whtn $\alpha$, if barying, is much closer to the pfesenc day’s valug. Jf jhe value of $\alphw$ at low redshift is differrnt from that st vecoypling, the peaks in tie polarization powet spectrum ac small angular scalew qill te sviftde skdesabs, shile hhe reionizatjon bump on large angular scalts rin’t (lower riggt panql). It follows that by measuring the separdtikn between the normal pwaks and the bump, one can meastre both $\alpha$ and $\tau$, as illustrated in Fig. \[figpaaks\]. Vhjs cc dzpfct that the existence of an early reionizatijh tpobh will, when more accurate cpsliv microwave bazkgrouus lolarization data ls avaijable, lead to sonsoderably tighter constraintw on $\alpha$.
A iossuble concern with che interprecation of oir results is related tu ths implicit wssumptioh of a sharp tranritpon mn the value of $\alpha$ happqning somxtime betweev revombinwtion and hhe eimch of reionizatioj. Henee, it is cruciap to understand if this is a valid approximatoot. Aipart froi the value of $\alpra$ at the time of recjmbinxtion the inowledje of its vajue at two otvgr epochs is celevant ws fqr aw the COC anisotropies are concvrued. One sych epoch is the pcriod *nust before* recimbunation which ix vdry ilpprednt for the gampkng pf CMC anisouxoples on xmall angular scales. The other period is tne epoch od reionisation. In thix work we effectivtly asvumx that $\alkha$ is equal to $\alpha_{rec}$ before recombinwtijn and to $\al[ha_0$ qt the reionnzation epoch.
A value of $\alpha$ different hrom $\alpha_0$ at the epoch of reionization wikk affect thx CMB wnisotrophes through a change in the optical dtpth $\tau$, *once a single dosmolmgicap model is assumed*. However, it is also well known that $\tau$ is itself depeneent oi ehe cosmoloficak modvl chrpugh ies clrmological paramvters ($\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ for example) af well as on the cosmologicak aensity pertutbations (in our case throufh the imitial power spectrum) [@pedrol | solid lines), second (dashed) and third (dotted) the spectrum, as function of $\alpha$ (somewhat description of how and $\tau$ can measured using CMB polarization. ](figure3.eps){width="3.5in"} The effect of reionization is to introduce a bump in the polarization spectrum at angular scales (lower left panel). This bump is produced well after decoupling (at lower when if is much closer to the present day’s value. If the value of $\alpha$ at low redshift different from that at decoupling, the peaks in polarization power spectrum at angular scales will be shifted while reionization bump large scales (lower right panel). follows that by measuring the separation between the normal peaks and the bump, one can measure both and $\tau$, in Fig. Thus expect the existence of reionization epoch will, when more accurate polarization data is available, lead to considerably tighter on $\alpha$. possible concern with the interpretation of results is related to the implicit assumption of sharp transition on the value of $\alpha$ happening sometime between recombination and the epoch of it is crucial to if this is valid Appart the of $\alpha$ the time of recombination the knowledge of its value at two epochs is relevant as far as the CMB anisotropies are such is the period before* recombination which is important the damping of CMB small scales. is epoch reionization. In this work effectively assume that $\alpha$ is to $\alpha_{rec}$ before recombination reionization epoch. A value of $\alpha$ different from at the epoch of reionization will affect CMB anisotropies through a change in the optical depth $\tau$, *once a cosmological model However, it is also well known that $\tau$ itself dependent on the model through its cosmological parameters ($\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ for as as on cosmological density perturbations our case through initial power spectrum) | solid lines), second (dashed) and Third (dotteD) peakS in The PoLariZatiOn spectrum, as a fUNctiOn of $\alpha$ at decoupling aNd $\tau$. a (sOMewhAT iDealiZed) descRIpTIOn oF hOw $\AlpHa$ ANd $\Tau$ caN be MeasureD using CMB pOlaRiZation. ](figure3.EPs){Width="3.5in"}
The OutStanding effeCt oF reionIzAtiON is to IntRoducE a bump IN the poLarizatioN sPEctrum AT large aNGUlAr scAles (lower left paneL). thIS bump is produceD well aFtER dECOupLinG (at much lowEr RedshIFts), when $\ALpHA$, IF vaRYing, is much cloSer to the preSEnt Day’s vaLuE. If THe valuE of $\alPhA$ At lOw redshift iS difFerent froM that aT DecouplINg, the peAks in tHe pOlaRizaTIoN pOweR sPEctRUm At sMAll Angular sCaLeS will Be shIFTED sidEwaYs, whIle thE reionization BumP on lARge AngulAr scaLes wOn’T (loweR right Panel). it Follows that by meAsurIng the sepAraTiOn bEtWeen tHE normaL peAks And the bUmp, one cAN meAsURE BoTh $\alpha$ and $\tau$, as illUsTRAtEd in Fig. \[fIgpeakS\]. thUs WE expect tHaT thE exiSTEnce oF an eARlY reionizAtion ePOcH wIll, when MoRe accuRaTe cOsmIc micROwavE backgRound polArizaTIon data is availABle, lead to consIDeRABlY TighTer Constraints On $\alPHa$.
A pOssiBLe ConCErn wiTh the InTErPRetation of our resultS iS relatEd to tHe implicit assUmption of a SHARp transiTion ON tHE value of $\alpha$ hAppenIng sometimE Between rEcombInation aNd the epocH OF reionizAtiOn. HEncE, it IS CrUcial to undersTANd if ThIs is a vaLid ApproxiMatIon. appArt FrOm the valuE of $\alpha$ At ThE tImE of RecomBInation tHe KnoWlEdgE of itS Value aT two oTher EpOcHS is RelevanT As FAR as tHe cMb aniSotRoPies aRe coNCerNed. One sUch epoch iS thE PeriOd *JuSt beforE* recombinatioN wHich is very ImPorTant foR THe dampinG of CMB anisotropies on smaLL angulaR scAles. THe otHer period Is tHe epocH of REionizAtion. IN this WoRk wE EFfectIVElY asSuMe that $\alphA$ IS eqUal to $\AlPha_{rEc}$ beforE recombination and tO $\AlpHa_0$ at the reioniZatIon ePOCh.
a vaLUe OF $\alPhA$ DifFERent from $\alpha_0$ at The epoch of ReIOnIzation wilL AffEcT the CMB AnisotrOpies THrough a Change in tHe optical DePth $\tAU$, *OncE a single coSmologicAl model is ASsumeD*. hoWever, It iS also wElL knOwn thAt $\tau$ iS ItsElf dePendenT oN the coSmoloGiCal model Through its cosmological pArametErs ($\OmEga_M$ and $\Omega_\lamBDa$ fOr example) As weLl as on the cOsmOloGical DenSIty peRturBAtIonS (In our Case THrough the INiTiaL POwEr spectrum) [@pEDROl | solid lines), second (dash ed) and th ird ( dot ted )peak s in the polarizat i on s pectrum, as a function of $ \a l pha$ at deco uplinga nd $ \ta u$ .A ( so m ew hat i dea lized)descriptio n o fhow $\alpha$ an d $\tau$ c anbe measuredusi ng CMB p ola r izati on. ](fi gure3. e ps){wi dth="3.5i n" }
Theo utstand i n geffe ct of reionizatio n i s to introducea bump i n t h e po lar ization sp ec truma t large an g u l ars cales (lowerleft panel) . Th is bum pisp roduce d wel la fte r decouplin g (a t much lo wer re d shifts) , when $ \alpha $,ifvary i ng ,ismu c h c l os ert o t he prese nt d ay’svalu e . I f th e v alue of $ \alpha$ at lo w r edsh i ftis di ffere nt f ro m tha t at d ecoup li ng, the peaks i n th e polariz ati on po we r spe c trum a t s mal l angul ar scal e s w il l b eshifted sideways,wh i l ethe reio nizati o nbu m p on lar ge an gula r scale s wo n ’t (lowerrightp an el ). It f ol lows t ha t b y m easur i ng t he sep arationbetwe e n the normal p e aks and the b u mp , on e can me asure both$\al p ha$and$ \t au$ , as i llust ra t ed in Fig. \[figpeaks\ ]. Thuswe ex pect that the existence o f an earl y re i on i zation epoch w ill,when morea ccuratecosmi c microw ave backg r o und pola riz ati ondat a is available, l e a d to c onsider abl y tight ercon str ain ts on $\alp ha$.
Apo ss ib le co ncern with the i nte rp ret ation of our resu ltsis r e lat ed to t h ei m plic it a ssum pti on of a sha r p t ransiti on on the va l ue o f$\ alpha$happening som et ime betwee nrec ombina t i on and t he epoch of reionizatio n . Hence , i t iscruc ial to un der standift his is a val id ap pr oxi m a tion. A pp art f rom the va l u e o f $\a lp ha$at thetime of recombinat i onthe knowledge of its v al uea tt woot h ere p ochs is relevan t as far a st he CMB aniso t rop ie s are c oncerne d. On e such e poch is t he period * just b efo re* recomb inationwhich isv ery i m po rtant fo r theda mpi ng of CMB a n iso tropi es onsm all an gular s cales. T he other period is theepochof re ion ization.Int his work weeffe ctively as sum e t hat $ \al p ha$ i s eq u al to $\alp ha_{ r ec}$ befo r erec o m bi nation andt o $\a lpha_ 0$a t thereio nization epoch.
A value of $\al pha$ d iff ere n t fr om $\alpha_0$ at th ee p och of r ei onization w ill affe ct the C MB ani sotrop ies thr o u gh a chan ge i n t he optica l d ep t h $\tau $, * o nce asing le cosmo logica l mod e l is assumed*. Ho wever , it is als o wel lknown t h at $ \tau$ is i tself depen dent o n th e cos mologic al model th ro ugh its co s mological para meters($ \Ome ga_ m$ and $\O m e ga_\L ambd a$ fo r example ) as we ll ason t he co sm olog ical dens i ty pertu rba t ions (i nour c ase th r ou g h the initi alpower s pectrum) [ @ pedr o l | solid lines),_second (dashed)_and third (dotted) peaks_in the_polarization_spectrum, as_a_function of $\alpha$_at decoupling and_$\tau$. A (somewhat idealized)_description of how_$\alpha$_and $\tau$ can be measured using CMB polarization. ](figure3.eps){width="3.5in"}
The outstanding effect of reionization is_to_introduce a_bump_in_the polarization spectrum at large_angular scales (lower left panel)._This bump_is produced well after decoupling (at much lower_redshifts),_when $\alpha$, if_varying, is much closer to the present day’s value._If the value of $\alpha$ at_low redshift is_different_from_that at decoupling, the_peaks in the polarization power spectrum_at small angular scales will be_shifted sideways, while the reionization bump on_large angular scales won’t (lower right_panel). It follows that by_measuring the_separation between the normal peaks_and the bump,_one can_measure both $\alpha$_and $\tau$, as illustrated in Fig._\[figpeaks\]. Thus we_expect that the existence of an_early_reionization epoch will,_when_more_accurate cosmic_microwave background polarization_data_is available,_lead_to considerably tighter constraints on $\alpha$.
A_possible_concern with the interpretation of our results_is related to the_implicit_assumption of a sharp_transition on the value of_$\alpha$ happening sometime between recombination and_the epoch_of reionization._Hence, it is crucial to understand if this is a valid_approximation. Appart from the value of_$\alpha$ at the time_of recombination_the_knowledge of its_value_at two_other epochs is relevant as far as_the CMB_anisotropies are concerned. One such epoch_is the period *just_before*_recombination which is very important for_the damping of CMB anisotropies on_small angular scales. The other_period_is_the epoch of reionization. In_this work we effectively assume that_$\alpha$ is equal_to $\alpha_{rec}$ before recombination and to $\alpha_0$_at_the reionization epoch.
A value of $\alpha$_different_from $\alpha_0$ at the epoch of_reionization_will_affect the CMB anisotropies through_a change in the optical depth_$\tau$, *once a single cosmological model is assumed*. However,_it is also_well known that $\tau$ is_itself_dependent_on the cosmological model through its cosmological parameters ($\Omega_m$ and_$\Omega_\Lambda$ for_example) as well_as on the cosmological density perturbations (in our case through_the initial power spectrum) [@pedrol |
Id}^T_{X,x}} {{\rm lct}}^n({{\mathfrak{a}}})\cdot {{\rm mult}}({{\mathfrak{a}}})=\inf_{S\in {\rm Kol}^T_{X,x}} A_{(X,D)}(S)^n\cdot {{\rm vol}}({{\rm ord}}_S).$$ We follow the strategy in the proof of [@LX16]. Given a $T$-equivariant primary ideal ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$, we can take the an $T$-equivariant dlt modification $Y\to X$ by running a $T$-equivariant model on a $T$-equivariant resolution. Then any exceptional divisor $S$ on $Y/X$ is equivariant, and we know that $$A_{(X,D)}(S)^n\cdot {{\rm vol}}({{\rm ord}}_S)\le {{\rm vol}}(Y/X)\le {{\rm lct}}^n({{\mathfrak{a}}})\cdot {{\rm mult}}({{\mathfrak{a}}}),$$ where the equalities follow from [@LX16].
K-semistability of log Fano cone singularity
--------------------------------------------
For a $T$-equivariant singularity, the valuations induced by vector fields in the Reeb cone plays a special role, so we give the following
\[d-FS\] Let $(X, D)$ be an affine klt pair with a good $T$ action (see Definition \[d-good\]). For any $\xi\in {{\mathfrak{t}}}^+_{\mathbb{R}}$, we say that the associated valuation ${\rm wt}_{\xi}$ gives a toric valuation. For a fixed $\xi$, we call the triple $(X,D,\xi)$ a klt singularity with a [*log Fano cone*]{} structure that is polarized by $\xi$.
We proceed to study the K-semistable log Fano cone singularity $(X,D, \xi)$ in the sense of Collins-Székelyhidi ([@CS12; @CS15]), which generalizes the K-semistability for Fano varieties (see [@Tia97; @Don01]). We first define the special test configurations of log Fano cone singularities.
\[d-stc\] Let $(X, D, \xi_0)$ be a log Fano cone singularity and $T$ be the torus generated by $\xi_0$.
A $T$-equivariant special test configuration (or $T$-equivariant special degeneration | Id}^T_{X, x } } { { \rm lct}}^n({{\mathfrak{a}}})\cdot { { \rm mult}}({{\mathfrak{a}}})=\inf_{S\in { \rm Kol}^T_{X, x } } A_{(X, D)}(S)^n\cdot { { \rm vol}}({{\rm ord}}_S).$$ We follow the strategy in the proof of [ @LX16 ]. Given a $ T$-equivariant basal ideal $ { { \mathfrak{a}}}$, we can consume the an $ T$-equivariant dlt modification $ Y\to X$ by running a $ T$-equivariant model on a $ T$-equivariant resoluteness. Then any exceptional divisor $ S$ on $ Y / X$ is equivariant, and we sleep together that $ $ A_{(X, D)}(S)^n\cdot { { \rm vol}}({{\rm ord}}_S)\le { { \rm vol}}(Y / X)\le { { \rm lct}}^n({{\mathfrak{a}}})\cdot { { \rm mult}}({{\mathfrak{a}}}),$$ where the equality follow from [ @LX16 ].
K - semistability of logarithm Fano cone singularity
--------------------------------------------
For a $ T$-equivariant singularity, the evaluation induced by vector field in the Reeb cone plays a limited role, so we give the following
\[d - FS\ ] Let $ (X, D)$ be an affine klt pair with a full $ T$ action (see Definition \[d - good\ ]). For any $ \xi\in { { \mathfrak{t}}}^+_{\mathbb{R}}$, we say that the consociate valuation $ { \rm wt}_{\xi}$ gives a toric valuation. For a fixed $ \xi$, we name the triple $ (X, D,\xi)$ a klt singularity with a [ * log Fano cone * ] { } structure that is polarized by $ \xi$.
We proceed to analyze the K - semistable log Fano cone singularity $ (X, D, \xi)$ in the sense of Collins - Székelyhidi ([ @CS12; @CS15 ]), which generalizes the K - semistability for Fano varieties (see [ @Tia97; @Don01 ]). We first define the special test configurations of log Fano cone singularities.
\[d - stc\ ] Let $ (X, D, \xi_0)$ be a log Fano cone singularity and $ T$ be the torus generated by $ \xi_0$.
A $ T$-equivariant particular test configuration (or $ T$-equivariant limited degeneracy | Id}^T_{D,x}} {{\rm lct}}^n({{\mathfrak{a}}})\cdot {{\vm mult}}({{\mathfrak{a}}})=\nbf_{S\in {\cm Kol}^T_{S,x}} A_{(X,D)}(S)^n\zdot {{\rm vol}}({{\rm ord}}_S).$$ We follow tye steategy in the proof of [@LX16]. Given a $T$-equicarient primary ideal ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$, we gan tckx the an $T$-equivsriant dlt modification $F\tu R$ by running a $T$-equivariant model on a $T$-equovwriant resolutyon. Uheg ang exceptional divisor $S$ on $Y/X$ is esuivarient, and we know that $$A_{(X,D)}(S)^n\cdot {{\rm vol}}({{\rm ogd}}_S)\lf {{\rm vol}}(Y/X)\le {{\rm lft}}^n({{\mathfrak{q}}})\cdoe {{\rm mult}}({{\mathwrak{a}}}),$$ whert che equalitjes follow from [@LX16].
K-semistabilith of kog Fano cinw sltgularity
--------------------------------------------
Foc a $T$-ezuivariant slmgularhty, the valuations incucxd bt vector fields in thx Reeb cone plays a fpecial rmlz, so we give the folliwung
\[d-FV\] Led $(X, A)$ be an ahfihe klt pamr with a gkod $T$ actiob (see Definition \[d-gpoq\]). For any $\xi\in {{\mathfwah{t}}}^+_{\mathbb{R}}$, we say that the associated vanuafion ${\rm wt}_{\xi}$ gives a toeic valuation. For a flxed $\xi$, wq call the triple $(X,D,\xi)$ a klt singularity with a [*lmg Faio couc*]{} rrrkcture that is polarized by $\xi$.
We proceed to sehdu nhe K-semistable ljg Fano conr dimdularity $(X,D, \xk)$ in tks aense of Collins-Szénelyhidy ([@CS12; @XS15]), which denetalizes the K-semistability dor Fano varpetiws (see [@Tia97; @Don01]). We yirst define the specoal test configurations of mog Fano coje singulzfities.
\[d-stc\] Let $(X, D, \qi_0)$ ba a log Fano cone singularyty and $T$ be che torur gemerateq by $\xi_0$.
A $T$-fquivariant special test confnguradion (or $T$-eeuivariant special degeneration | Id}^T_{X,x}} {{\rm lct}}^n({{\mathfrak{a}}})\cdot {{\rm mult}}({{\mathfrak{a}}})=\inf_{S\in {\rm Kol}^T_{X,x}} vol}}({{\rm We follow strategy in the $T$-equivariant ideal ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$, we take the an dlt modification $Y\to X$ by running $T$-equivariant model on a $T$-equivariant resolution. Then any exceptional divisor $S$ on $Y/X$ equivariant, and we know that $$A_{(X,D)}(S)^n\cdot {{\rm vol}}({{\rm ord}}_S)\le {{\rm vol}}(Y/X)\le {{\rm lct}}^n({{\mathfrak{a}}})\cdot mult}}({{\mathfrak{a}}}),$$ the follow [@LX16]. K-semistability of log Fano cone singularity -------------------------------------------- For a $T$-equivariant singularity, the valuations induced by fields in the Reeb cone plays a special so we give the \[d-FS\] Let $(X, D)$ be affine pair with good action Definition \[d-good\]). For $\xi\in {{\mathfrak{t}}}^+_{\mathbb{R}}$, we say that the associated valuation ${\rm wt}_{\xi}$ gives a toric valuation. For a fixed we call $(X,D,\xi)$ a singularity a Fano cone*]{} structure polarized by $\xi$. We proceed to log Fano cone singularity $(X,D, \xi)$ in the of Collins-Székelyhidi @CS15]), which generalizes the K-semistability for varieties (see [@Tia97; @Don01]). We first define the test configurations of log Fano cone singularities. \[d-stc\] Let $(X, D, \xi_0)$ be a log singularity and $T$ be torus generated by A special configuration $T$-equivariant special | Id}^T_{X,x}} {{\rm lct}}^n({{\mathfrak{a}}})\cdot {{\rM mult}}({{\mathfRak{a}}})=\iNf_{S\In {\rM KOl}^T_{X,X}} A_{(X,D)}(s)^n\cdot {{\rm vol}}({{\rm oRD}}_S).$$ We Follow the strategy in the Proof Of [@lx16]. GivEN a $t$-equiVariant PRiMARy iDeAl ${{\MatHfRAk{A}}}$, we caN taKe the an $t$-equivariaNt dLt Modification $y\To x$ by running A $T$-eQuivariant moDel On a $T$-eqUiVarIAnt reSolUtion. then anY ExceptIonal diviSoR $s$ on $Y/X$ iS EquivarIANt, And wE know that $$A_{(X,D)}(S)^n\cdoT {{\Rm VOl}}({{\rm ord}}_S)\le {{\rm voL}}(Y/X)\le {{\rM lCT}}^n({{\MAThfRak{A}}})\cdot {{\rm mulT}}({{\mAthfrAK{a}}}),$$ where THe EQUAliTIes follow from [@lX16].
K-semistabILitY of log faNo cONe singUlariTy
--------------------------------------------
fOr a $t$-equivarianT sinGularity, tHe valuATions inDUced by vEctor fIelDs iN the rEeB cOne PlAYs a SPeCiaL RolE, so we givE tHe FolloWing
\[D-fs\] lEt $(X, D)$ Be aN affIne klT pair with a gooD $T$ aCtioN (See definItion \[D-gooD\]). FOr any $\Xi\in {{\maThfraK{t}}}^+_{\Mathbb{R}}$, we say thaT the AssociateD vaLuAtiOn ${\Rm wt}_{\xI}$ Gives a TorIc vAluatioN. For a fiXEd $\xI$, wE CALl The triple $(X,D,\xi)$ a klt sInGULaRity with A [*log FaNO cOnE*]{} StructurE tHat Is poLARized By $\xi$.
wE pRoceed to Study tHE K-SeMistablE lOg Fano CoNe sIngUlariTY $(X,D, \xI)$ in the Sense of COllinS-székelyhidi ([@CS12; @Cs15]), Which generaliZEs THE K-SEmisTabIlity for FanO varIEtieS (see [@tIa97; @don01]). wE firsT defiNe THe SPecial test configuraTiOns of lOg FanO cone singularIties.
\[d-stc\] LET $(x, d, \xi_0)$ be a loG FanO CoNE singularity anD $T$ be tHe torus genERated by $\xI_0$.
A $T$-eqUivarianT special tEST configuRatIon (Or $T$-EquIVArIant special deGENeraTiOn | Id}^T_{X,x}} {{\rm lct}}^n ({{\mathfr ak{a} }}) \cd ot {{\ rm m ult}}({{\mathf r ak{a }}})=\inf_{S\in {\rm K ol}^T _{ X ,x}} A_ {(X,D )}(S)^n \ cd o t {{ \r mvol }} ( {{ \rm o rd} }_S).$$ We follow th estrategy int he proof of[@L X16]. Givena $ T$-equ iv ari a nt pr ima ry id eal ${ { \mathf rak{a}}}$ ,w e cant ake the a n$T$- equivariant dlt m o di f ication $Y\toX$ byru n ni n g a$T$ -equivaria nt mode l on a $ T $- e q u iva r iant resoluti on. Then an y ex ceptio na l d i visor$S$ o n$ Y/X $ is equiva rian t, and we knowt hat $$A _ {(X,D)} (S)^n\ cdo t { {\rm vo l} }({ {\ r m o r d} }_S ) \le {{\rm v ol }} (Y/X) \le{ { \ rm l ct} }^n( {{\ma thfrak{a}}})\ cdo t {{ \ rmmult} }({{\ math fr ak{a} }}),$$ wher ethe equalitiesfoll ow from [ @LX 16 ].
K -semi s tabili tyoflog Fan o cones ing ul a r i ty
----------------- -- - - -- -------- ------ - -- -- - -
For a $ T$- equi v a riant sin g ul arity, t he val u at io ns indu ce d by v ec tor fi eldsi n th e Reeb cone pl ays a special role,s o we give the fo l l ow i ng
\[d -FS\] Let $ (X,D )$ b e an af fin e kltpairwi t ha good $T$ action (s ee Defin ition \[d-good\]). For any $ \ x i \in {{\m athf r ak { t}}}^+_{\mathb b{R}} $, we sayt hat theassoc iated va luation $ { \ rm wt}_{ \xi }$giv esa to ric valuation . Forafixed $ \xi $, we c all th e t rip le $(X,D,\x i)$ a kl tsi ng ul ari ty wi t h a [*lo gFan ocon e*]{} struct ure t hatis p o lar ized by $\ x i $.
We p roce edto stud y th e K- semista ble log F ano cone s in gularit y $(X,D, \xi) $in the sen se of Colli n s -Székely hidi ([@CS12; @CS15]),w hich ge ner alize s th e K-semis tab ilityfor Fano v arieti es (s ee [@ T i a97;@ D on 01] ). We firstd e fin e the s peci al test configurations of log Fano cone si ngu lari t i es .
\ [d - stc \] Let $ (X, D, \xi_0)$be a log F an o c one singul a rit yand $T$ be the toru s genera ted by $\ xi_0$.
A $ T$-e q u iva riant spec ial test configur a tion( or $T$- equ ivaria nt sp ecial degen e rat ion | Id}^T_{X,x}} {{\rm_lct}}^n({{\mathfrak{a}}})\cdot {{\rm_mult}}({{\mathfrak{a}}})=\inf_{S\in {\rm Kol}^T_{X,x}} A_{(X,D)}(S)^n\cdot_{{\rm vol}}({{\rm_ord}}_S).$$_We follow_the_strategy in the_proof of [@LX16]._Given a $T$-equivariant primary_ideal ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$, we_can_take the an $T$-equivariant dlt modification $Y\to X$ by running a $T$-equivariant model on_a_$T$-equivariant resolution._Then_any_exceptional divisor $S$ on $Y/X$_is equivariant, and we know_that $$A_{(X,D)}(S)^n\cdot_{{\rm vol}}({{\rm ord}}_S)\le {{\rm vol}}(Y/X)\le {{\rm lct}}^n({{\mathfrak{a}}})\cdot_{{\rm_mult}}({{\mathfrak{a}}}),$$ where the_equalities follow from [@LX16].
K-semistability of log Fano cone singularity
--------------------------------------------
For_a $T$-equivariant singularity, the valuations induced_by vector fields_in_the_Reeb cone plays a_special role, so we give the_following
\[d-FS\] Let $(X, D)$ be an_affine klt pair with a good $T$_action (see Definition \[d-good\]). For any_$\xi\in {{\mathfrak{t}}}^+_{\mathbb{R}}$, we say that_the associated_valuation ${\rm wt}_{\xi}$ gives a_toric valuation. For_a fixed_$\xi$, we call_the triple $(X,D,\xi)$ a klt singularity_with a [*log_Fano cone*]{} structure that is polarized_by_$\xi$.
We proceed to_study_the_K-semistable log_Fano cone singularity_$(X,D,_\xi)$ in_the_sense of Collins-Székelyhidi ([@CS12; @CS15]), which_generalizes_the K-semistability for Fano varieties (see [@Tia97;_@Don01]). We first define_the_special test configurations of_log Fano cone singularities.
\[d-stc\] Let_$(X, D, \xi_0)$ be a log_Fano cone_singularity and_$T$ be the torus generated by $\xi_0$.
A $T$-equivariant special test configuration_(or $T$-equivariant special degeneration |
_g + \chi H^{-2} c \operatorname{e}^{-\lambda t}.$$ In view of Theorem \[H bound\] we have $$H^{-2} \leq C \operatorname{e}^{2t/n}.$$ In order to apply a quasilinear comparison principle (see [@lieberman Corollary 2.5]), we need a function that satisfies $${\frac{\operatorname{d}\! }{\operatorname{d}\! t}}f(t) \geq C \operatorname{e}^{(2/n-\lambda)t}f(t),$$ but since we only want to show the boundedness of $\chi$ and are not interested in a sharp estimate, a solution to the equation $${\frac{\operatorname{d}\! }{\operatorname{d}\! t}}f(t) = C \operatorname{e}^{2t/n}f(t),$$ will suffice. Indeed $f(t)=C\operatorname{e}^{n\operatorname{e}^{2t/n}/2}$ does the job. We define the quasilinear parabolic operator $P$ by $$Pw \equiv \left( {\frac{\operatorname{d}\! }{\operatorname{d}\! t}} - H^{-2}\Delta_{M_t} \right) w + 2w^{-1} H^{-2}|\nabla w|_g^2 - H^{-2}c\operatorname{e}^{-\lambda t} w.$$ Then $$Pf > 0 \geq P\chi.$$ By applying a comparison principle [@lieberman Corollary 2.5], we deduce that $\chi$ is bounded from above on $\bar{Q}_{T^{\star}}$ by $f$ and is thus bounded on compact intervals, proving the claim.
rescaled hypersurfaces {#rescaled hypersurfaces}
----------------------
As alluded to previously, for later contemplations of convergence we must rescale the embedded hypersurfaces so that the solutions remain inside a compact set. In doing this, we can investigate the asymptotics without having to appeal to spatial infinity. We use a factor of $\operatorname{e}^{-t/n}$, procured from. In this section we investigate the a priori effect of rescaling.\
\
Consider the family of rescaled embeddings $\tilde{x}(t,\cdot)$ with $$\tilde{x}(t,p) = (\tilde{u}(t,p(t)),p(t)),$$ where $\tilde{u} = u\operatorname{e}^{-t/n}.$ Using | _ g + \chi H^{-2 } c \operatorname{e}^{-\lambda t}.$$ In view of Theorem \[H bound\ ] we have $ $ H^{-2 } \leq C \operatorname{e}^{2t / n}.$$ In order to apply a quasilinear comparison rationale (examine [ @lieberman Corollary 2.5 ]), we need a function that meet $ $ { \frac{\operatorname{d}\! } { \operatorname{d}\! t}}f(t) \geq C \operatorname{e}^{(2 / n-\lambda)t}f(t),$$ but since we entirely want to show the finiteness of $ \chi$ and are not interested in a sharp estimate, a solution to the equality $ $ { \frac{\operatorname{d}\! } { \operatorname{d}\! t}}f(t) = C \operatorname{e}^{2t / n}f(t),$$ will suffice. Indeed $ f(t)=C\operatorname{e}^{n\operatorname{e}^{2t / n}/2}$ do the job. We specify the quasilinear parabolic operator $ P$ by $ $ Pw \equiv \left ({ \frac{\operatorname{d}\! } { \operatorname{d}\! t } } - H^{-2}\Delta_{M_t } \right) w + 2w^{-1 } H^{-2}|\nabla w|_g^2 - H^{-2}c\operatorname{e}^{-\lambda t } w.$$ Then $ $ Pf > 0 \geq P\chi.$$ By apply a comparison principle [ @lieberman Corollary 2.5 ], we deduce that $ \chi$ is bounded from above on $ \bar{Q}_{T^{\star}}$ by $ f$ and is thus bounded on compact intervals, prove the claim.
rescaled hypersurfaces { # rescaled hypersurfaces }
----------------------
As alluded to previously, for late contemplations of convergence we must rescale the embedded hypersurfaces so that the solutions stay inside a compact set. In doing this, we can investigate the asymptotics without having to appeal to spatial eternity. We use a factor of $ \operatorname{e}^{-t / n}$, procured from. In this section we investigate the a priori effect of rescaling.\
\
Consider the syndicate of rescaled embeddings $ \tilde{x}(t,\cdot)$ with $ $ \tilde{x}(t, p) = (\tilde{u}(t, p(t)),p(t)),$$ where $ \tilde{u } = u\operatorname{e}^{-t / n}.$ Using | _g + \fhi H^{-2} c \operatorname{e}^{-\lamnda t}.$$ In view of Theorek \[H bohnd\] we hxve $$H^{-2} \leq C \operatorname{e}^{2t/n}.$$ Mn oeder uj apply a quasilindar compagison pribcipow (see [@liebxdman Covjlladn 2.5]), we ieed a function that sativfies $${\frac{\operdturuame{d}\! }{\operatorname{d}\! t}}f(t) \geq C \operatjrname{e}^{(2/m-\lwmbda)t}f(t),$$ but synce re ohly want to show the boundedness or $\chi$ aid are not intetested in a sharp estimate, a sllution to the equwtion $${\frac{\oksraeirname{d}\! }{\operxtorname{d}\! u}}f(c) = C \operajorname{e}^{2t/n}f(t),$$ will suffice. Indeed $f(t)=C\o'eratorname{g}^{u\ipegdtorname{e}^{2t/n}/2}$ does the job. We define tve quasolinear parabokic opwrator $P$ by $$Pw \equiv \neft( {\frac{\operatornwme{d}\! }{\operdtkrname{d}\! t}} - H^{-2}\Delta_{N_t} \righj) w + 2f^{-1} H^{-2}|\nxvla w|_g^2 - I^{-2}c\oleratognaje{e}^{-\lambda f} w.$$ Then $$Pf > 0 \geq P\chi.$$ By appluigt a comparisoh prinsi[le [@lieberman Corollary 2.5], we deduce that $\chj$ is bounded from above on $\bar{Q}_{T^{\star}}$ by $f$ anf is thus bounded on compact intervals, proving the claim.
revcalev fyptrwurfazws {#rescaled hypersurfaces}
----------------------
As alluded to previousjg, gog later contemplabions of convergenve wr must rescale the embesded hypersurfaces so thaj the wolutions remsin inside a compact set. In doing this, ce xan investigate thz asymptoticr wijhout naving to appeal to spacial ihfinity. We kse a facfur of $\operatornaoe{e}^{-n/n}$, psocured from. In this sectijn we invxstigcte the x proori esfect of rfscalltg.\
\
Consider the famlly oy reswaled embefdings $\tilde{x}(t,\cdot)$ with $$\tilde{x}(t,') = (\tilde{u}(t,p(t)),p(j)),$$ wverv $\tilde{u} = u\opevatorname{e}^{-t/n}.$ Usyng | _g + \chi H^{-2} c \operatorname{e}^{-\lambda t}.$$ of \[H bound\] have $$H^{-2} \leq apply quasilinear comparison principle [@lieberman Corollary 2.5]), need a function that satisfies $${\frac{\operatorname{d}\! t}}f(t) \geq C \operatorname{e}^{(2/n-\lambda)t}f(t),$$ but since we only want to show the boundedness $\chi$ and are not interested in a sharp estimate, a solution to the $${\frac{\operatorname{d}\! t}}f(t) C will suffice. Indeed $f(t)=C\operatorname{e}^{n\operatorname{e}^{2t/n}/2}$ does the job. We define the quasilinear parabolic operator $P$ by $$Pw \left( {\frac{\operatorname{d}\! }{\operatorname{d}\! t}} - H^{-2}\Delta_{M_t} \right) w 2w^{-1} H^{-2}|\nabla w|_g^2 - t} w.$$ Then $$Pf > \geq By applying comparison [@lieberman 2.5], we deduce $\chi$ is bounded from above on $\bar{Q}_{T^{\star}}$ by $f$ and is thus bounded on compact intervals, proving claim. rescaled hypersurfaces} ---------------------- alluded previously, later contemplations of must rescale the embedded hypersurfaces so remain inside a compact set. In doing this, can investigate asymptotics without having to appeal to infinity. We use a factor of $\operatorname{e}^{-t/n}$, procured In this section we investigate the a priori effect of rescaling.\ \ Consider the family embeddings $\tilde{x}(t,\cdot)$ with $$\tilde{x}(t,p) (\tilde{u}(t,p(t)),p(t)),$$ where $\tilde{u} u\operatorname{e}^{-t/n}.$ | _g + \chi H^{-2} c \operatorname{e}^{-\lambda T}.$$ In view of THeoreM \[H bOunD\] wE havE $$H^{-2} \leQ C \operatorname{E}^{2T/n}.$$ In Order to apply a quasilineAr comPaRIson PRiNciplE (see [@lieBErMAN CoRoLlAry 2.5]), We NEeD a funCtiOn that sAtisfies $${\frAc{\oPeRatorname{d}\! }{\opERaTorname{d}\! t}}f(T) \geQ C \operatornaMe{e}^{(2/N-\lambdA)t}F(t),$$ bUT sincE we Only wAnt to sHOw the bOundednesS oF $\Chi$ and ARe not inTEReSted In a sharp estimate, a SOlUTion to the equatIon $${\fraC{\oPErATOrnAme{D}\! }{\operatornAmE{d}\! t}}f(t) = c \OperatoRNaME{E}^{2T/n}f(T),$$ Will suffice. InDeed $f(t)=C\operATorName{e}^{n\OpEraTOrname{E}^{2t/n}/2}$ doEs THe jOb. We define tHe quAsilinear ParaboLIc operaTOr $P$ by $$Pw \Equiv \lEft( {\FraC{\opeRAtOrNamE{d}\! }{\OPerAToRnaME{d}\! t}} - h^{-2}\Delta_{M_t} \RiGhT) w + 2w^{-1} H^{-2}|\nAbla W|_G^2 - h^{-2}C\OperAtoRnamE{e}^{-\lamBda t} w.$$ Then $$Pf > 0 \geQ P\cHi.$$ By APplYing a CompaRisoN pRinciPle [@lieBermaN COrollary 2.5], we deducE thaT $\chi$ is bouNdeD fRom AbOve on $\BAr{Q}_{T^{\stAr}}$ bY $f$ aNd is thuS boundeD On cOmPACT iNtervals, proving the ClAIM.
rEscaled hYpersuRFaCeS {#Rescaled HyPerSurfACEs}
----------------------
As aLludED tO previouSly, for LAtEr ContempLaTions oF cOnvErgEnce wE Must RescalE the embeDded hYPersurfaces so tHAt the solutionS ReMAIn INsidE a cOmpact set. In DoinG This, We caN InVesTIgate The asYmPToTIcs without having to aPpEal to sPatiaL infinity. We usE a factor of $\OPERatornamE{e}^{-t/n}$, PRoCUred from. In this SectiOn we investIGate the a PriorI effect oF rescalinG.\
\
cOnsider tHe fAmiLy oF reSCAlEd embeddings $\tILDe{x}(t,\CdOt)$ with $$\tIldE{x}(t,p) = (\tilDe{u}(T,p(t)),P(t)),$$ wHerE $\tIlde{u} = u\opeRatornamE{e}^{-T/n}.$ usInG | _g + \chi H^{-2} c \operat orname{e}^ {-\la mbd a t }. $$ I n vi ew of Theorem\ [H b ound\] we have $$H^{-2 } \le qC \op e ra torna me{e}^{ 2 t/ n } .$$ I nord er to appl y a quasil inear comp ari so n principle( se e [@lieber man Corollary 2 .5] ), wene eda func tio n tha t sati s fies $ ${\frac{\ op e ratorn a me{d}\! } {\ oper atorname{d}\! t}} f (t ) \geq C \opera tornam e{ e }^ { ( 2/n -\l ambda)t}f( t) ,$$ b u t since we o n lyw ant to show t he boundedn e ssof $\c hi $ a n d arenot i nt e res ted in a sh arpestimate, a sol u tion to the equ ation$${ \fr ac{\ o pe ra tor na m e{d } \! }{ \ ope ratornam e{ d} \! t} }f(t ) = C \ ope rato rname {e}^{2t/n}f(t ),$ $ wi l l s uffic e. In deed $ f(t)= C\oper atorn am e{e}^{n\operato rnam e{e}^{2t/ n}/ 2} $ d oe s the job. W e d efi ne thequasili n ear p a r a bo lic operator $P$ b y$ $ Pw \equiv\left( {\ fr a c{\opera to rna me{d } \ ! }{\ oper a to rname{d} \! t}} -H^ {-2}\De lt a_{M_t }\ri ght ) w + 2w^{ -1} H^ {-2}|\na bla w | _g^2 - H^{-2}c \ operatorname{ e }^ { - \l a mbda t} w.$$ Then$$Pf > 0\geq P\ chi . $$ By appl yi n ga comparison princip le [@lie berma n Corollary 2 .5], we de d u c e that $ \chi $ i s bounded fromabove on $\bar{ Q }_{T^{\s tar}} $ by $f$ and is t h u s bounde d o n c omp act i nt ervals, provi n g the c laim.
res caled h ype rsu rfa ces { #rescaled hypersu rf ac es }--- ----- - -------- -- ---
Asallud e d to p revio usly ,fo r la ter con t em p l atio ns o f co nve rg encewe m u strescale the embe dde d hyp er su rfacesso that the s ol utions rem ai n i nsidea compactset. In doing this, wec an inve sti gatetheasymptoti cswithou t h a ving t o appe al to s pat i a l inf i n it y.We use a fac t o r o f $\o pe rato rname{e }^{-t/n}$, procure d fr om. In this s ect ionw e i nve s ti g ate t h e a p riori effect of rescaling .\ \Consider t h e f am ily ofrescale d emb e ddings$\tilde{x }(t,\cdot )$ wit h $$\ tilde{x}(t ,p) = (\ tilde{u}( t ,p(t) ) ,p (t)), $$where$\ til de{u} = u\o p era torna me{e}^ {- t/n}.$ Usin g | _g +_\chi H^{-2}_c \operatorname{e}^{-\lambda t}.$$ In_view of_Theorem_\[H bound\]_we_have $$H^{-2} \leq_C \operatorname{e}^{2t/n}.$$ In_order to apply a_quasilinear comparison principle_(see_[@lieberman Corollary 2.5]), we need a function that satisfies $${\frac{\operatorname{d}\! }{\operatorname{d}\! t}}f(t) \geq C_\operatorname{e}^{(2/n-\lambda)t}f(t),$$_but since_we_only_want to show the boundedness_of $\chi$ and are not_interested in_a sharp estimate, a solution to the equation_$${\frac{\operatorname{d}\!_}{\operatorname{d}\! t}}f(t) _= C \operatorname{e}^{2t/n}f(t),$$ will suffice. Indeed $f(t)=C\operatorname{e}^{n\operatorname{e}^{2t/n}/2}$ does the_job. We define the quasilinear parabolic_operator $P$ by_$$Pw_\equiv_\left( {\frac{\operatorname{d}\! }{\operatorname{d}\! t}}_- H^{-2}\Delta_{M_t} \right) w + 2w^{-1}_H^{-2}|\nabla w|_g^2 - H^{-2}c\operatorname{e}^{-\lambda t} w.$$_Then $$Pf > 0 \geq P\chi.$$ By_applying a comparison principle [@lieberman Corollary_2.5], we deduce that $\chi$_is bounded_from above on $\bar{Q}_{T^{\star}}$ by_$f$ and is_thus bounded_on compact intervals,_proving the claim.
rescaled hypersurfaces {#rescaled hypersurfaces}
----------------------
As_alluded to previously,_for later contemplations of convergence we_must_rescale the embedded_hypersurfaces_so_that the_solutions remain inside_a_compact set._In_doing this, we can investigate the_asymptotics_without having to appeal to spatial infinity._We use a factor_of_$\operatorname{e}^{-t/n}$, procured from. In_this section we investigate the_a priori effect of rescaling.\
\
Consider the_family of_rescaled embeddings_$\tilde{x}(t,\cdot)$ with $$\tilde{x}(t,p) = (\tilde{u}(t,p(t)),p(t)),$$ where $\tilde{u} = u\operatorname{e}^{-t/n}.$ Using |
well determined, we do expect stars at the age of the Sun to exhibit a range in rotation periods. Based on the models described above, we estimate this range to be $\sim 1.0~{\rm day}$ at $4.5~{\rm Gyr}$. We therefore adopt this as the uncertainty on the rotation period of a Sun-like star.
For each color bin we fit a model given eq. \[eqn:domegadt\] to the 10th and 90th percentile periods letting $\omega_{0,10}$, $\omega_{0,90}$, $K$, and $\omega_{sat}$ be the free parameters. Here $\omega_{0,10}$ and $\omega_{0,90}$ are the $\omega_{0}$ values at $t_{0} = 100~{\rm Myr}$ for the 10th and 90th percentiles respectively. Note that in solving eq. \[eqn:domegadt\] we use evolutionary tracks computed with the YREC isochrones (Terndrup et al. 2008, in preparation) to determine $I$ and $R$ as functions of $M$ and $t$. As seen in figure \[fig:periodvsageBV\], the model can reproduce the observed spin-down and convergence of rotation periods for stars with $0.5 < (B-V)_{0} < 0.7$ or $1.1 < (B-V)_{0} < 1.5$, however we find that for $0.7 < (B-V)_{0} < 1.1$ ($0.76 M_{\odot} < M < 0.99 M_{\odot}$) the model fails to fit the Pleiades, M34, M37 and the Hyades simultaneously with greater than 95% confidence. In this color-range, the models predict a greater degree of convergence in the rotation periods at the age of M37 than is observed. The models also under-predict the periods of the slowest rotators in M34. When using $(V-I_{C})_{0}$, the models for stars with $1.0 < (V-I_{C})_{0} < 2.5$ ($0.56 M_{\odot} < M < 0.82 M_{\odot}$) fit the M37 observations, but fail to fit the younger clusters. The difference between the $(V-I_{C})_{0}$ and $(B-V)_{0}$ data is that | well determined, we do expect stars at the age of the Sun to parade a compass in rotation periods. Based on the models report above, we estimate this range to be $ \sim 1.0~{\rm day}$ at $ 4.5~{\rm Gyr}$. We consequently adopt this as the uncertainty on the rotation period of a Sun - alike star.
For each color bin we equip a model given eq. \[eqn: domegadt\ ] to the tenth and 90th percentile periods letting $ \omega_{0,10}$, $ \omega_{0,90}$, $ K$, and $ \omega_{sat}$ be the free parameters. Here $ \omega_{0,10}$ and $ \omega_{0,90}$ are the $ \omega_{0}$ values at $ t_{0 } = 100~{\rm Myr}$ for the 10th and ninetieth percentiles respectively. Note that in solving eq. \[eqn: domegadt\ ] we practice evolutionary tracks computed with the YREC isochrones (Terndrup et al. 2008, in preparation) to determine $ I$ and $ R$ as function of $ M$ and $ t$. As seen in figure \[fig: periodvsageBV\ ], the model can reproduce the observed tailspin - down and convergence of rotation periods for stars with $ 0.5 < (B - V)_{0 } < 0.7 $ or $ 1.1 < (B - V)_{0 } < 1.5 $, however we find that for $ 0.7 < (B - V)_{0 } < 1.1 $ ($ 0.76 M_{\odot } < M < 0.99 M_{\odot}$) the model fails to equip the Pleiades, M34, M37 and the Hyades simultaneously with capital than 95% confidence. In this color - range, the models predict a greater academic degree of convergence in the rotation period at the age of M37 than is observed. The models besides under - bode the periods of the slowest rotators in M34. When using $ (V - I_{C})_{0}$, the models for stars with $ 1.0 < (V - I_{C})_{0 } < 2.5 $ ($ 0.56 M_{\odot } < M < 0.82 M_{\odot}$) fit the M37 observations, but fail to fit the unseasoned clusters. The difference between the $ (V - I_{C})_{0}$ and $ (B - V)_{0}$ datum is that | wepl determined, we do expegt stars at the cte of vhe Sun to exhicit a range in rotation perildw. Bastb on the models descfibed abone, we estumatt this range to bx $\sim 1.0~{\rm day}$ af $4.5~{\rm Yyc}$. We therefore sdopt this as the uncertdivtv on the rotation period of a Sun-likq star.
Fpr each color big we sit z model given eq. \[eqn:domegadt\] to the 10th and 90th percentilr periods letting $\omega_{0,10}$, $\omfga_{0,90}$, $N$, and $\omega_{sat}$ be hhe free patzmeewrs. Here $\omeea_{0,10}$ and $\omega_{0,90}$ are the $\ojega_{0}$ values at $t_{0} = 100~{\rm Myr}$ for thd 10th cnd 90th percgurilfv respectivxly. None that in solving eq. \[aqn:domebadt\] we use evpluvionqry tracks computed wmth the YREC isochroges (Terndsu' et al. 2008, in preparatiin) to dgtermhne $K$ ana $R$ ax runctilns of $M$ and $f$. As seen ib figure \[fig:periodvssgqVV\], the model dan re[rjduce the observed spin-down and convergtnce kf rotation periods for stars with $0.5 < (B-V)_{0} < 0.7$ or $1.1 < (B-V)_{0} < 1.5$, hjwever we find that for $0.7 < (B-V)_{0} < 1.1$ ($0.76 M_{\odot} < M < 0.99 M_{\odot}$) dhe mkael fwkos to fit the Pleiades, M34, M37 and the Hyades simulezntouxly with greatcr than 95% confidencr. Ln jhis color-rangg, the modems predict a greatfr degrge of xonvergense im the rotation periods at tye age of M37 nhan is observed. The mldels also bnder-ptedict the periods of the slocest rktators in L34. When usjvg $(V-I_{C})_{0}$, the modelr fpr stars with $1.0 < (V-I_{C})_{0} < 2.5$ ($0.56 M_{\odot} < M < 0.82 M_{\odit}$) fnt the M37 obsgrvatiogs, but faip to nht the younger cludters. Tve differejce between the $(V-I_{C})_{0}$ and $(B-V)_{0}$ data is that | well determined, we do expect stars at of Sun to a range in models above, we estimate range to be 1.0~{\rm day}$ at $4.5~{\rm Gyr}$. We adopt this as the uncertainty on the rotation period of a Sun-like star. each color bin we fit a model given eq. \[eqn:domegadt\] to the 10th 90th periods $\omega_{0,10}$, $K$, and $\omega_{sat}$ be the free parameters. Here $\omega_{0,10}$ and $\omega_{0,90}$ are the $\omega_{0}$ values at = 100~{\rm Myr}$ for the 10th and 90th respectively. Note that in eq. \[eqn:domegadt\] we use evolutionary computed the YREC (Terndrup al. in preparation) to $I$ and $R$ as functions of $M$ and $t$. As seen in figure \[fig:periodvsageBV\], the model can the observed convergence of periods stars $0.5 < (B-V)_{0} or $1.1 < (B-V)_{0} < 1.5$, that for $0.7 < (B-V)_{0} < 1.1$ ($0.76 < M 0.99 M_{\odot}$) the model fails to the Pleiades, M34, M37 and the Hyades simultaneously greater than 95% confidence. In this color-range, the models predict a greater degree of convergence rotation periods at the of M37 than observed. models under-predict periods of slowest rotators in M34. When using $(V-I_{C})_{0}$, the models for stars $1.0 < (V-I_{C})_{0} < 2.5$ ($0.56 M_{\odot} < M < fit M37 observations, but to fit the younger The between the $(V-I_{C})_{0}$ and is | well determined, we do expect sTars at the aGe of tHe SUn tO eXhibIt a rAnge in rotation PErioDs. Based on the models descRibed AbOVe, we EStImate This ranGE tO BE $\siM 1.0~{\rM dAy}$ aT $4.5~{\rM gyR}$. We thEreFore adoPt this as thE unCeRtainty on the ROtAtion perioD of A Sun-like star.
for Each coLoR biN We fit A moDel giVen eq. \[eQN:domegAdt\] to the 10tH aND 90th perCEntile pERIoDs leTting $\omega_{0,10}$, $\omega_{0,90}$, $K$, aND $\oMEga_{sat}$ be the freE paramEtERs. hERe $\oMegA_{0,10}$ and $\omega_{0,90}$ aRe The $\omEGa_{0}$ valueS At $T_{0} = 100~{\RM myr}$ FOr the 10th and 90th pErcentiles rESpeCtivelY. NOte THat in sOlvinG eQ. \[Eqn:Domegadt\] we uSe evOlutionarY trackS ComputeD With the yREC isOchRonEs (TeRNdRuP et Al. 2008, IN prEPaRatIOn) tO determiNe $i$ aNd $R$ as FuncTIONS of $M$ And $T$. As sEen in Figure \[fig:periOdvSagebv\], thE modeL can rEproDuCe the ObservEd spiN-dOwn and convergenCe of Rotation pEriOdS foR sTars wITh $0.5 < (B-V)_{0} < 0.7$ or $1.1 < (b-V)_{0} < 1.5$, hOweVer we fiNd that fOR $0.7 < (B-V)_{0} < 1.1$ ($0.76 m_{\oDOT} < m < 0.99 M_{\Odot}$) the model fails tO fIT ThE PleiadeS, M34, M37 and THe hyADes simulTaNeoUsly WITh greAter THaN 95% confideNce. In tHIs CoLor-rangE, tHe modeLs PreDicT a greATer dEgree oF convergEnce iN The rotation perIOds at the age of m37 ThAN Is OBserVed. the models alSo unDEr-prEdicT ThE peRIods oF the sLoWEsT Rotators in M34. When usinG $(V-i_{C})_{0}$, the mOdels For stars with $1.0 < (V-i_{C})_{0} < 2.5$ ($0.56 M_{\odot} < M < 0.82 M_{\oDOT}$) Fit the M37 oBserVAtIOns, but fail to fiT the yOunger clusTErs. The diFfereNce betweEn the $(V-I_{C})_{0}$ aND $(b-V)_{0}$ data is ThaT | well determined, we do ex pect stars at t heage o f th e Su n to exhibit a rang e in rotation periods. Base do n th e m odels descri b ed a bov e, w e e st i ma te th isrange t o be $\sim 1. 0~ {\rm day}$ a t $ 4.5~{\rm G yr} $. We theref ore adopt t his as th e u ncert aintyo n therotationpe r iod of a Sun-l i k estar .
For each color bi n we fit a mode l give ne q. \ [eq n:d omegadt\]to the1 0th and 90 t h per c entile period s letting $ \ ome ga_{0, 10 }$, $\omeg a_{0, 90 } $,$K$, and $\ omeg a_{sat}$be the free pa r ameters . Here $\ ome ga_{ 0 ,1 0} $ a nd $\o m eg a_{ 0 ,90 }$ are t he $ \omeg a_{0 } $ v alue s a t $t _{0}= 100~{\rm My r}$ for the 10th and90th p ercen tilesrespe ct ively. Note tha t in solvingeq. \ [eq n: domeg a dt\] w e u seevoluti onary t r ack sc o m pu ted with the YRECis o c hr ones (Te rndrup et a l . 2008,in pr epar a t ion)to d e te rmine $I $ and$ R$ a s funct io ns of$M $ a nd$t$.A s se en infigure \ [fig: p eriodvsageBV\] , the model ca n r e p ro d ucethe observed s pin- d ownandc on ver g enceof ro ta t io n periods for starswi th $0. 5 < ( B-V)_{0} < 0. 7$ or $1.1 < (B-V)_{0 } <1 .5 $ , however we f ind t hat for $0 . 7 < (B-V )_{0} < 1.1$($0.76 M_ { \ odot} <M < 0. 99M_{ \ o do t}$) the mode l fail sto fitthe Pleiad es, M3 4,M37 a nd the Hy ades sim ul ta ne ou sly with greaterth an95 % c onfid e nce. I n thi s co lo r- r ang e, them od e l s pr ed ic t agre at er de gree ofconverg ence in t her otat io nperiods at the age o fM37 than i sobs erved. T he model s also under-predict th e period s o f the slo west rota tor s in M 34. When u sing $ (V-I_ {C })_ { 0 }$, t h e m ode ls for stars w ith $1.0 < (V- I_{C})_ {0} < 2.5$ ($0.56M _{\ odot} < M < 0 .82 M_{ \ o do t}$ ) f i t t he M37 o bservations, bu t fail tofi t t he younger clu st ers. Th e diffe rence between the $(V- I_{C})_{0 }$ and $ (B- V)_{0}$ da ta is th at | well_determined, we_do expect stars at_the age_of_the Sun_to_exhibit a range_in rotation periods._Based on the models_described above, we_estimate_this range to be $\sim 1.0~{\rm day}$ at $4.5~{\rm Gyr}$. We therefore adopt this_as_the uncertainty_on_the_rotation period of a Sun-like_star.
For each color bin we_fit a_model given eq. \[eqn:domegadt\] to the 10th and 90th_percentile_periods letting $\omega_{0,10}$,_$\omega_{0,90}$, $K$, and $\omega_{sat}$ be the free parameters. Here_$\omega_{0,10}$ and $\omega_{0,90}$ are the $\omega_{0}$_values at $t_{0}_=_100~{\rm_Myr}$ for the 10th_and 90th percentiles respectively. Note that_in solving eq. \[eqn:domegadt\] we use evolutionary_tracks computed with the YREC isochrones (Terndrup_et al. 2008, in preparation) to_determine $I$ and $R$ as_functions of_$M$ and $t$. As seen_in figure \[fig:periodvsageBV\], the_model can_reproduce the observed_spin-down and convergence of rotation periods_for stars with_$0.5 < (B-V)_{0} < 0.7$ or_$1.1_< (B-V)_{0} <_1.5$,_however_we find_that for $0.7_<_(B-V)_{0} <_1.1$_($0.76 M_{\odot} < M < 0.99_M_{\odot}$)_the model fails to fit the Pleiades,_M34, M37 and the_Hyades_simultaneously with greater than_95% confidence. In this color-range,_the models predict a greater degree_of convergence_in the_rotation periods at the age of M37 than is observed. The_models also under-predict the periods of_the slowest rotators in_M34. When_using_$(V-I_{C})_{0}$, the models_for_stars with_$1.0 < (V-I_{C})_{0} < 2.5$ ($0.56 M_{\odot}_< M_< 0.82 M_{\odot}$) fit the M37_observations, but fail to_fit_the younger clusters. The difference between_the $(V-I_{C})_{0}$ and $(B-V)_{0}$ data is_that |
(a),
1. $0 \ne H^0 ( Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}} )$ is of weight $(r+1) - (k_1 + k_2) - 1$,
2. $0 \ne H^1 ( Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}} )$ is of weight $(r+2) - (k_1 - k_2)$,
and $H^q ( Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}} ) = 0$ whenever $q < 0$. The group $H_C/K_W$ associated to a stratum $Z'$ of $Z_0$ is a neat arithmetic sub-group of $SL_2({{\mathbb{Q}}})$. It is therefore of cohomological dimension one, and admits no non-zero invariants on regular irreducible representations of $Q_0/W_0 = {\mathop{{{\mathbb{G}}}_{m,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}\nolimits}\times_{{\mathbb{Q}}}GL_{2,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$.
According to Proposition \[4Ba\] (a) and Corollary \[4Bc\] (a), $H^q ( Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}} )$, $0 \le q \le 2$, are irreducible as representations of $Q_0/W_0$, and regular unless $q=0$ and $k_1 = k_2$, in which case $SL_{2,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$, hence $H_C/K_W$ acts trivially. Pink’s Theorem and [@P2 Prop. (5.5.4)] then tell us that
1. $R^0 i_0^* i^* j_* \mu_\ell(V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}})$ is non-zero if and only if $k_1 = k_2$, in which case it is of weight $r - (k_1 + k_2)$,
2. $0 \ne R^1 i_0^* i^* j_* \mu_\ell(V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}})$ is of weight $(r+1) - (k_1 + k_2) - 1$,
3. $0 | (a),
1. $ 0 \ne H^0 (Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits } }) $ is of weight $ (r+1) - (k_1 + k_2) - 1 $,
2. $ 0 \ne H^1 (Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits } }) $ is of weight $ (r+2) - (k_1 - k_2)$,
and $ H^q (Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits } }) = 0 $ whenever $ q < 0$. The group $ H_C / K_W$ associated to a stratum $ Z'$ of $ Z_0 $ is a clean arithmetical sub - group of $ SL_2({{\mathbb{Q}}})$. It is therefore of cohomological property one, and admit no non - zero invariants on regular irreducible representation of $ Q_0 / W_0 = { \mathop{{{\mathbb{G}}}_{m,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}\nolimits}\times_{{\mathbb{Q}}}GL_{2,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$.
According to Proposition \[4Ba\ ] (a) and Corollary \[4Bc\ ] (a), $ H^q (Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits } }) $, $ 0 \le q \le 2 $, are irreducible as representations of $ Q_0 / W_0 $, and even unless $ q=0 $ and $ k_1 = k_2 $, in which case $ SL_{2,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$, hence $ H_C / K_W$ act trivially. Pink ’s Theorem and [ @P2 Prop. (5.5.4) ] then tell us that
1. $ R^0 i_0^ * i^ * j _ * \mu_\ell(V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}})$ is non - zero if and only if $ k_1 = k_2 $, in which case it is of weight $ r - (k_1 + k_2)$,
2. $ 0 \ne R^1 i_0^ * i^ * joule _ * \mu_\ell(V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}})$ is of weight $ (r+1) - (k_1 + k_2) - 1 $,
3. $ 0 | (a),
1. $0 \ne H^0 ( Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underllne{\alpha}}\nolimits}} )$ is of weighf $(r+1) - (k_1 + y_2) - 1$,
2. $0 \ne H^1 ( Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underpibe{\alpya}}\nolimits}} )$ is of weigft $(r+2) - (k_1 - n_2)$,
and $H^q ( Lie(X_0),V_{{\mathop{\underlinx{\zlpha}}\nolimits}} ) = 0$ wkeiever $q < 0$. The gtoup $H_C/K_W$ asvociated to a vtfacum $Z'$ of $Z_0$ is a neat arithmetic sub-gwoup of $SP_2({{\mathbb{Q}}})$. It is thegesore of cohomological dimension one, ans admitv no non-zero onvariants on regular irrefucihle representationd of $Q_0/W_0 = {\majgop{{{\iqthbb{G}}}_{m,{{\mathbc{Q}}}}}\nolimits}\uikes_{{\mathbb{Q}}}FL_{2,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$.
According to Propositiun \[4Ba\] (a) and Coroloaey \[4Bf\] (d), $H^q ( Lie(W_0),V_{{\nathoi{\underline{\alpms}}\nolimhts}} )$, $0 \lr q \le 2$, are irveducmble as representations oh $Q_0/W_0$, and regular unlgss $q=0$ and $n_1 = k_2$, in which case $WL_{2,{{\nathbt{Q}}}}$, hance $Y_C/K_D$ adtx friviaply. Pink’s Thekrem and [@P2 Prop. (5.5.4)] then tell us tnae
1. $R^0 i_0^* i^* j_* \mu_\eml(V_{{\matro[{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}})$ is non-zero if atd knly if $k_1 = k_2$, in which cqse it is of weight $r - (k_1 + k_2)$,
2. $0 \ge R^1 i_0^* i^* j_* \mu_\ell(V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}})$ is mf wemgft $(x+1) - (k_1 + y_2) - 1$,
3. $0 | (a), 1. $0 \ne H^0 ( Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}} of $(r+1) - + k_2) - ( )$ is of $(r+2) - (k_1 k_2)$, and $H^q ( Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}} ) 0$ whenever $q < 0$. The group $H_C/K_W$ associated to a stratum $Z'$ $Z_0$ is a neat arithmetic sub-group of $SL_2({{\mathbb{Q}}})$. It is therefore of cohomological one, admits non-zero on regular irreducible representations of $Q_0/W_0 = {\mathop{{{\mathbb{G}}}_{m,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}\nolimits}\times_{{\mathbb{Q}}}GL_{2,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$. According to Proposition \[4Ba\] (a) and Corollary \[4Bc\] $H^q ( Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}} )$, $0 \le q \le are irreducible as representations $Q_0/W_0$, and regular unless $q=0$ $k_1 k_2$, in case hence acts trivially. Pink’s and [@P2 Prop. (5.5.4)] then tell us that 1. $R^0 i_0^* i^* j_* \mu_\ell(V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}})$ is non-zero if only if k_2$, in case is weight $r - k_2)$, 2. $0 \ne R^1 i_0^* is of weight $(r+1) - (k_1 + k_2) 1$, 3. | (a),
1. $0 \ne H^0 ( Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\aLpha}}\nolimiTs}} )$ is oF weIghT $(r+1) - (K_1 + k_2) - 1$,
2. $0 \ne h^1 ( Lie(w_0),V_{{\mathop{\underlINe{\alPha}}\nolimits}} )$ is of weight $(r+2) - (K_1 - k_2)$,
and $h^q ( lIe(W_0),V_{{\MAtHop{\unDerline{\ALpHA}}\NolImItS}} ) = 0$ whEnEVeR $q < 0$. The GroUp $H_C/K_W$ aSsociated tO a sTrAtum $Z'$ of $Z_0$ is a nEAt Arithmetic Sub-Group of $SL_2({{\matHbb{q}}})$. It is tHeRefORe of cOhoMologIcal diMEnsion One, and admItS No non-zERo invarIANtS on rEgular irreducible REpREsentations of $Q_0/w_0 = {\mathoP{{{\mAThBB{g}}}_{m,{{\mAthBb{Q}}}}}\nolimitS}\tImes_{{\mAThbb{Q}}}GL_{2,{{\MAtHBB{q}}}}$.
AcCOrding to PropoSition \[4Ba\] (a) anD corOllary \[4bc\] (A), $H^q ( lIe(W_0),V_{{\maThop{\uNdERliNe{\alpha}}\noliMits}} )$, $0 \Le q \le 2$, are iRreducIBle as rePResentaTions oF $Q_0/W_0$, And ReguLAr UnLesS $q=0$ ANd $k_1 = K_2$, In WhiCH caSe $SL_{2,{{\mathBb{q}}}}$, hEnce $H_c/K_W$ aCTS TRiviAllY. PinK’s TheOrem and [@P2 Prop. (5.5.4)] tHen Tell US thAt
1. $R^0 i_0^* i^* J_* \mu_\elL(V_{{\maThOp{\undErline{\Alpha}}\NoLimits}})$ is non-zero If anD only if $k_1 = k_2$, In wHiCh cAsE it is OF weighT $r - (k_1 + K_2)$,
2. $0 \ne r^1 i_0^* i^* j_* \mu_\eLl(V_{{\mathOP{\unDeRLINe{\Alpha}}\nolimits}})$ is of wEiGHT $(r+1) - (K_1 + k_2) - 1$,
3. $0 | (a),
1. $0 \ne H^0 ( Li e(W_0),V_{ {\mat hop {\u nd erli ne{\ alpha}}\nolimi t s}})$ is of weight $(r+1) - (k _1 + k_ 2 )- 1$,
2. $ 0 \ n e H^ 1(Lie (W _ 0) ,V_{{ \ma thop{\u nderline{\ alp ha }}\nolimits} } ) $ is of we igh t $(r+2) - ( k_1 - k_2 )$ ,
a nd $H ^q( Lie (W_0), V _{{\ma thop{\und er l ine{\a l pha}}\n o l im its} } ) = 0$ whenever $q < 0$. The grou p $H_C /K _ W$ a sso cia ted to a s tr atum$ Z'$ of$ Z_ 0 $ isa neat arithme tic sub-gro u p o f $SL_ 2( {{\ m athbb{ Q}}}) $. Itis therefor e of cohomolo gicald imensio n one, a nd adm its no non - ze ro in va r ian t sonr egu lar irre du ci ble r epre s e n t atio nsof $ Q_0/W _0 = {\mathop {{{ \mat h bb{ G}}}_ {m,{{ \mat hb b{Q}} }}}\no limit s} \times_{{\mathb b{Q} }}GL_{2,{ {\m at hbb {Q }}}}$ .
Acco rdi ngto Prop osition \[4 Ba \ ] (a ) and Corollary \[ 4B c \ ](a), $H^ q ( Li e (W _0 ) ,V_{{\ma th op{ \und e r line{ \alp h a} }\nolimi ts}} ) $ ,$0 \le q\l e 2$,ar e i rre ducib l e as repre sentatio ns of $Q_0/W_0$, and regular unles s $ q = 0$ and$k_ 1 = k_2$, i n wh i ch c ase$ SL _{2 , {{\ma thbb{ Q} } }} $ , hence $H_C/K_W$ a ct s triv ially . Pink’s Theo rem and [@ P 2 Prop. (5 .5.4 ) ]t hen tell us th at
1 . $R^0 i_ 0 ^* i^* j _* \m u_\ell(V _{{\matho p { \underli ne{ \al pha }}\ n o li mits}})$ is n o n -zer oif andonl y if $k _1= k _2$ , i nwhich cas e it isof w ei gh t $ r - ( k _1 + k_2 )$ ,
2. $ 0 \ne R^1 i_ 0^* i ^* j _* \ m u_\ ell(V_{ { \m a t hop{ \u nd erli ne{ \a lpha} }\no l imi ts}})$is of wei ght $(r+ 1) - (k_1 + k_2) - 1$,
3. $0 | (a),
1. _$0 \ne_H^0 ( Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}} )$_is of_weight_$(r+1) -_(k_1_+ k_2) -_1$,
2. $0_\ne H^1 ( Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}}_)$ is of_weight_$(r+2) - (k_1 - k_2)$,
and $H^q ( Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}} ) = 0$ whenever $q <_0$._The group_$H_C/K_W$_associated_to a stratum $Z'$ of_$Z_0$ is a neat arithmetic_sub-group of_$SL_2({{\mathbb{Q}}})$. It is therefore of cohomological dimension one,_and_admits no non-zero_invariants on regular irreducible representations of $Q_0/W_0 = {\mathop{{{\mathbb{G}}}_{m,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}\nolimits}\times_{{\mathbb{Q}}}GL_{2,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$.
According_to Proposition \[4Ba\] (a) and Corollary \[4Bc\] (a), $H^q (_Lie(W_0),V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}} )$, $0_\le_q_\le 2$, are irreducible_as representations of $Q_0/W_0$, and regular_unless $q=0$ and $k_1 = k_2$,_in which case $SL_{2,{{\mathbb{Q}}}}$, hence $H_C/K_W$ acts_trivially. Pink’s Theorem and [@P2 Prop. (5.5.4)]_then tell us that
1. _$R^0 i_0^*_i^* j_* \mu_\ell(V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}})$ is non-zero_if and only_if $k_1_= k_2$, in_which case it is of weight_$r - (k_1_+ k_2)$,
2. $0 \ne R^1_i_0^*_i^* j_* \mu_\ell(V_{{\mathop{\underline{\alpha}}\nolimits}})$_is_of_weight $(r+1)_- (k_1 +_k_2)_- 1$,
3.__$0 |
_1 \boxplus Y_2 \boxplus \cdots \boxplus Y_m = Y_1 + Y_2 + \cdots + Y_m$; and
- $\dim(Y_1 \boxplus Y_2 \boxplus \cdots \boxplus Y_m) = \sum_{i=1}^m \dim Y_i$.
We prove (a)–(c) simultaneously by induction on $m$, the number of pairwise disjoint codewords. The base case of two codewords for (b)–(c) is covered by Lemma \[4\] while that for (a) is because of the assumption of pairwise disjointness. As the induction hypothesis, assume that the statements (a)–(c) hold for any set of $m-1$ pairwise disjoint codewords, for some $m \ge 3$. In particular, for any $(m-1)$-subset $\mathcal{I} \subset [m]$, we have $\boxplus_{i \in \mathcal{I}} Y_i = \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I}} Y_i$ and $\dim(\boxplus_{i \in \mathcal{I}} Y_i) = \sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\dim Y_i$.
Consider $Z = {\boxplus}_{i \in [m-2]} Y_i$. By the induction hypothesis, $Z = {\sum}_{i=1}^{m-2} Y_i$ and $\dim Z = {\sum}_{i=1}^{m-2} \dim Y_i$, whereas $Z \cap Y_{m-1} = Z \cap Y_m = \{0\}$. Thus, according to Definition \[P\] $Z, Y_{m-1}, Y_m$ are pairwise disjoint nontrivial codewords of $\mathcal{U}$ and by Lemma \[6m\], $(Z \boxplus Y_{m-1}) \cap Y_m = (Y_1 \boxplus \cdots \boxplus Y_{m-1}) \cap Y_m = \{0\}$. Hence, (a) must hold for $Y_1, \ldots, Y_m$.
To prove (b), observe that $Y_m \cap \sum\limits_{i=1}^{m-1} Y_i = \{0\}$ according to part (a). Then, by the induction hypothesis and Lemma | _ 1 \boxplus Y_2 \boxplus \cdots \boxplus Y_m = Y_1 + Y_2 + \cdots + Y_m$; and
- $ \dim(Y_1 \boxplus Y_2 \boxplus \cdots \boxplus Y_m) = \sum_{i=1}^m \dim Y_i$.
We prove (a)–(c) simultaneously by induction on $ m$, the number of pairwise disjoint codewords. The base subject of two codewords for (b)–(c) is cover by Lemma \[4\ ] while that for (a) is because of the assumption of pairwise disjointness. As the induction guess, assume that the statements (a)–(c) hold for any stage set of $ m-1 $ pairwise disjoint codewords, for some $ m \ge 3$. In particular, for any $ (m-1)$-subset $ \mathcal{I } \subset [ m]$, we have $ \boxplus_{i \in \mathcal{I } } Y_i = \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I } } Y_i$ and $ \dim(\boxplus_{i \in \mathcal{I } } Y_i) = \sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\dim Y_i$.
see $ Z = { \boxplus}_{i \in [ m-2 ] } Y_i$. By the induction guess, $ Z = { \sum}_{i=1}^{m-2 } Y_i$ and $ \dim Z = { \sum}_{i=1}^{m-2 } \dim Y_i$, whereas $ Z \cap Y_{m-1 } = Z \cap Y_m = \{0\}$. Thus, harmonize to Definition \[P\ ] $ Z, Y_{m-1 }, Y_m$ are pairwise disjoint nontrivial codewords of $ \mathcal{U}$ and by Lemma \[6m\ ], $ (Z \boxplus Y_{m-1 }) \cap Y_m = (Y_1 \boxplus \cdots \boxplus Y_{m-1 }) \cap Y_m = \{0\}$. Hence, (a) must hold for $ Y_1, \ldots, Y_m$.
To prove (bacillus), observe that $ Y_m \cap \sum\limits_{i=1}^{m-1 } Y_i = \{0\}$ according to part (adenine). Then, by the induction hypothesis and Lemma | _1 \bodplus Y_2 \boxplus \cdots \bowplus Y_m = Y_1 + Y_2 + \eeots + B_m$; and
- $\dim(Y_1 \buxplus Y_2 \boxplus \cdots \boxplns Y_n) = \sun_{i=1}^m \dim Y_i$.
We prove (a)–(c) rimultanelusly by indnction on $m$, the ihmber on paidaise visjoint codewotds. The base case of two cmddwlrds for (b)–(c) is covered by Lemma \[4\] whije that flr (a) is becausg of uhe asshmption of pairwise disjointness. Aa the iiduction hypothrsis, assume that the statelentd (a)–(c) hold for any det of $m-1$ paurwifw disjoint cudewords, for some $m \ge 3$. In particular, for any $(m-1)$-subset $\matheal{I} \subset [m]$, we vave $\boxpluw_{i \in \mathcal{I}} Y_i = \sum_{i \it \mathcsl{I}} Y_i$ and $\dim(\noxplns_{i \un \mathcal{I}} Y_i) = \sum_{i\ii\mathcal{I}}\dim Y_i$.
Consiqer $Z = {\bofpmus}_{i \in [m-2]} Y_i$. By tye induwtiot hyoithdsia, $V = {\aum}_{i=1}^{m-2} J_i$ end $\dim Z = {\aum}_{i=1}^{m-2} \dim Y_u$, whereas $Z \cap Y_{m-1} = Z \bsp Y_m = \{0\}$. Thus, accorqigg to Definition \[P\] $Z, Y_{m-1}, Y_m$ are pairwise gisnoint nontrivial codewoeds of $\mathcal{U}$ and bi Lemma \[6m\], $(Z \boxplus Y_{m-1}) \cap Y_m = (Y_1 \boxplus \cdots \boxplus Y_{m-1}) \ca[ Y_m = \{0\}$. Heugc, (a) oysh hold for $Y_1, \ldots, Y_m$.
To prove (b), observe that $R_j \vai \sum\limits_{i=1}^{m-1} Y_i = \{0\}$ according tl lwrt (a). Then, by the iusudtion hypothesis ajd Lemmw | _1 \boxplus Y_2 \boxplus \cdots \boxplus Y_m + + \cdots Y_m$; and - \boxplus = \sum_{i=1}^m \dim We prove (a)–(c) by induction on $m$, the number pairwise disjoint codewords. The base case of two codewords for (b)–(c) is covered Lemma \[4\] while that for (a) is because of the assumption of pairwise As induction assume the statements (a)–(c) hold for any set of $m-1$ pairwise disjoint codewords, for some $m \ge In particular, for any $(m-1)$-subset $\mathcal{I} \subset [m]$, have $\boxplus_{i \in \mathcal{I}} = \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I}} Y_i$ $\dim(\boxplus_{i \mathcal{I}} Y_i) \sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\dim Consider = {\boxplus}_{i \in Y_i$. By the induction hypothesis, $Z = {\sum}_{i=1}^{m-2} Y_i$ and $\dim Z = {\sum}_{i=1}^{m-2} \dim Y_i$, whereas \cap Y_{m-1} \cap Y_m \{0\}$. according Definition \[P\] $Z, are pairwise disjoint nontrivial codewords of Lemma \[6m\], $(Z \boxplus Y_{m-1}) \cap Y_m = \boxplus \cdots Y_{m-1}) \cap Y_m = \{0\}$. Hence, must hold for $Y_1, \ldots, Y_m$. To prove observe that $Y_m \cap \sum\limits_{i=1}^{m-1} Y_i = \{0\}$ according to part (a). Then, by the and Lemma | _1 \boxplus Y_2 \boxplus \cdots \boxplUs Y_m = Y_1 + Y_2 + \cdotS + Y_m$; anD
- $\diM(Y_1 \bOxPlus y_2 \boxPlus \cdots \boxplUS Y_m) = \sUm_{i=1}^m \dim Y_i$.
We prove (a)–(c) simuLtaneOuSLy by INdUctioN on $m$, the NUmBER of PaIrWisE dISjOint cOdeWords. ThE base case oF twO cOdewords for (b)–(C) Is Covered by LEmmA \[4\] while that foR (a) iS becauSe Of tHE assuMptIon of PairwiSE disjoIntness. As ThE InductIOn hypotHESiS, assUme that the statemeNTs (A)–(C) hold for any set Of $m-1$ paiRwISe DISjoInt Codewords, fOr Some $m \GE 3$. In partICuLAR, For ANy $(m-1)$-subset $\mathCal{I} \subset [m]$, WE haVe $\boxpLuS_{i \iN \MathcaL{I}} Y_i = \sUm_{I \In \mAthcal{I}} Y_i$ anD $\dim(\Boxplus_{i \iN \mathcAL{I}} Y_i) = \sum_{I\In\mathcAl{I}}\dim y_i$.
COnsIder $z = {\BoXpLus}_{I \iN [M-2]} Y_i$. bY tHe iNDucTion hypoThEsIs, $Z = {\suM}_{i=1}^{m-2} Y_I$ AND $\Dim Z = {\Sum}_{I=1}^{m-2} \diM Y_i$, whEreas $Z \cap Y_{m-1} = Z \cAp Y_M = \{0\}$. ThuS, AccOrdinG to DeFiniTiOn \[P\] $Z, Y_{M-1}, Y_m$ are PairwIsE disjoint nontriVial Codewords Of $\mAtHcaL{U}$ And by lEmma \[6m\], $(Z \BoxPluS Y_{m-1}) \cap Y_M = (Y_1 \boxplUS \cdOtS \BOXpLus Y_{m-1}) \cap Y_m = \{0\}$. Hence, (a) muSt HOLd For $Y_1, \ldotS, Y_m$.
To pROvE (b), OBserve thAt $y_m \cAp \suM\LImits_{I=1}^{m-1} Y_i = \{0\}$ ACcOrding to Part (a). THEn, By The induCtIon hypOtHesIs aNd LemMA | _1 \boxplus Y_2 \boxplus \ cdots \box plusY_m =Y_ 1 +Y_2+ \cdots + Y_m $ ; an d
- $\dim(Y_1 \boxp lus Y _2 \box p lu s \cd ots \bo x pl u s Y_ m) = \s um _ {i =1}^m \d im Y_i$ .
We prov e ( a) –(c) simulta n eo usly by in duc tion on $m$, th e numb er of pairw ise disj oint c o deword s. The ba se case o f two co d e wo rdsfor (b)–(c) is co v er e d by Lemma \[4 \] whi le th a t fo r ( a) is beca us e oft he assu m pt i o n of pairwise disj ointness. A s th e indu ct ion hypoth esis, a s sum e that thestat ements (a )–(c)h old for any set of $m -1$ pa irwi s edi sjo in t co d ew ord s , f or some$m \ ge 3$ . In p a r ticu lar , fo r any $(m-1)$-subs et$\ma t hca l{I}\subs et [ m] $, we have$\box pl us_{i \in \math cal{ I}} Y_i = \s um _{i \ in \m a thcal{ I}} Y_ i$ and$\dim(\ b oxp lu s _ { i\in \mathcal{I}} Y _i ) =\sum_{i\ in\mat h ca l{ I }}\dim Y _i $.
Con s i der $ Z ={ \b oxplus}_ {i \in [m -2 ]} Y_i$ .By the i ndu cti on hy p othe sis, $ Z = {\su m}_{i = 1}^{m-2} Y_i$a nd $\dim Z ={ \s u m }_ { i=1} ^{m -2} \dim Y_ i$,w here as $ Z \ cap Y_{m- 1} =Z\ ca p Y_m = \{0\}$. Thus ,accord ing t o Definition\[P\] $Z,Y _ { m-1}, Y_ m$ a r ep airwise disjoi nt no ntrivial c o dewordsof $\ mathcal{ U}$ and b y Lemma \[ 6m\ ],$(Z \b o x pl us Y_{m-1}) \ c a p Y_ m= (Y_1\bo xplus \ cdo ts\bo xpl us Y_{m-1}) \cap Y_ m=\{ 0\ }$. Henc e , (a) mu st ho ld fo r $Y_ 1 , \ldo ts, Y _m$.
To pro ve (b), ob s e rveth at $Y_ m \ ca p \su m\li m its _{i=1}^ {m-1} Y_i =\ {0\} $ac cording to part (a). T hen, by th eind uction h ypothesi s and Lemma | _1 \boxplus_Y_2 \boxplus_\cdots \boxplus Y_m =_Y_1 +_Y_2_+ \cdots_+_Y_m$; and
- _ $\dim(Y_1 \boxplus_Y_2 \boxplus \cdots \boxplus_Y_m) = \sum_{i=1}^m_\dim_Y_i$.
We prove (a)–(c) simultaneously by induction on $m$, the number of pairwise disjoint codewords._The_base case_of_two_codewords for (b)–(c) is covered_by Lemma \[4\] while that for_(a) is_because of the assumption of pairwise disjointness. As_the_induction hypothesis, assume_that the statements (a)–(c) hold for any set of_$m-1$ pairwise disjoint codewords, for some_$m \ge 3$._In_particular,_for any $(m-1)$-subset $\mathcal{I}_\subset [m]$, we have $\boxplus_{i \in_\mathcal{I}} Y_i = \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I}}_Y_i$ and $\dim(\boxplus_{i \in \mathcal{I}} Y_i) =_\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\dim Y_i$.
Consider $Z = {\boxplus}_{i \in_[m-2]} Y_i$. By the induction_hypothesis, $Z_= {\sum}_{i=1}^{m-2} Y_i$ and $\dim_Z = {\sum}_{i=1}^{m-2}_\dim Y_i$,_whereas $Z \cap_Y_{m-1} = Z \cap Y_m =_\{0\}$. Thus, according_to Definition \[P\] $Z, Y_{m-1}, Y_m$ are_pairwise_disjoint nontrivial codewords_of_$\mathcal{U}$_and by_Lemma \[6m\], $(Z \boxplus_Y_{m-1})_\cap Y_m_=_(Y_1 \boxplus \cdots \boxplus Y_{m-1}) \cap_Y_m_= \{0\}$. Hence, (a) must hold for_$Y_1, \ldots, Y_m$.
To prove_(b),_observe that $Y_m \cap_\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m-1} Y_i = \{0\}$ according_to part (a). Then, by the_induction hypothesis_and Lemma |
$\pi_u$ & the parameter of Bernoulli distribution $P(y=0)$\
$\eta$ & Beta priors ($\eta=\{\eta_0, \eta_1\}$)\
$\bm{\alpha_u}, \bm{\alpha_i}$ & Dirichlet priors for aspect-topic distributions\
$\bm{\gamma_u}, \bm{\gamma_i}$ & Dirichlet priors for aspect distributions\
$\bm{\beta_w} $ & Dirichlet priors for topic-word distributions\
$\bm{\theta_{u,a}}$ & user’s aspect-topic distribution: denoting user’s preference on $a$\
$\bm{\psi_{i,a}}$ & item’s aspect-topic distribution: denoting item’s features on $a$\
$\bm{\lambda_u}, \bm{\lambda_v}$ & aspect distributions of user and item, respectively\
$\bm{\phi_w}$ & topic-text word distribution\
$f$ & number of latent factors in ALFM\
$\mu_\cdot$ & regularization coefficients\
$b_\cdot$ & bias terms, e.g., $b_u, b_i, b_0$\
$w_a$ & weight vector for aspect $a$\
$p_u$, $q_i$ & latent factors of user $u$ and item $i$, respectively\
$r_{u,i}$ & rating of user $u$ to item $i$\
$r_{u,i, a}$ & aspect rating of user $u$ towards item $i$ on aspect $a$\
$\rho_{u,i,a}$ & aspect importance of $a$ for $u$ with respect to $i$\
$s_{u,i,a}$ & the degree of item $i$’s attributes matching user $u$’s preference\
& on aspect $a$\
\[tab:notation\]
Proposed Model {#sec:ourmodel}
==============
Problem Setting
---------------
Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a collection of reviews of item set $\mathcal{I}$ from a specific category (e.g., restaurant) written by a set of users $\mathcal{U}$, and each review comes with an overall rating $r_{u,i}$ to indicate the overall satisfaction of user $u$ to item $i$. The primary goal is to predict | $ \pi_u$ & the parameter of Bernoulli distribution $ P(y=0)$\
$ \eta$ & Beta priors ($ \eta=\{\eta_0, \eta_1\}$)\
$ \bm{\alpha_u }, \bm{\alpha_i}$ & Dirichlet priors for aspect - subject distributions\
$ \bm{\gamma_u }, \bm{\gamma_i}$ & Dirichlet prior for aspect distributions\
$ \bm{\beta_w } $ & Dirichlet prior for topic - word distributions\
$ \bm{\theta_{u, a}}$ & user ’s aspect - subject distribution: denoting user ’s preference on $ a$\
$ \bm{\psi_{i, a}}$ & detail ’s aspect - topic distribution: denote item ’s features on $ a$\
$ \bm{\lambda_u }, \bm{\lambda_v}$ & aspect distribution of user and item, respectively\
$ \bm{\phi_w}$ & subject - text word distribution\
$ f$ & number of latent factors in ALFM\
$ \mu_\cdot$ & regularization coefficients\
$ b_\cdot$ & bias terms, e.g., $ b_u, b_i, b_0$\
$ w_a$ & weight vector for view $ a$\
$ p_u$, $ q_i$ & latent factors of user $ u$ and item $ i$, respectively\
$ r_{u, i}$ & military rank of user $ u$ to item $ i$\
$ r_{u, i, a}$ & aspect rating of user $ u$ towards detail $ i$ on aspect $ a$\
$ \rho_{u, i, a}$ & aspect importance of $ a$ for $ u$ with respect to $ i$\
$ s_{u, i, a}$ & the degree of item $ i$ ’s attributes match user $ u$ ’s preference\
& on aspect $ a$\
\[tab: notation\ ]
Proposed Model { # sec: ourmodel }
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Problem Setting
---------------
Let $ \mathcal{D}$ be a collection of reviews of token set $ \mathcal{I}$ from a specific category (e.g., restaurant) written by a set of users $ \mathcal{U}$, and each review comes with an overall rating $ r_{u, i}$ to indicate the overall gratification of user $ u$ to item $ i$. The primary finish is to bode | $\pi_u$ & the parameter of Bernomlli distributiou $P(y=0)$\
$\eta$ & Beta priors ($\dta=\{\eta_0, \eta_1\}$)\
$\bm{\alpha_u}, \bm{\alpha_i}$ & Durichoet priors for aspect-tupic distgibutions\
$\vm{\ganna_u}, \bm{\gamme_j}$ & Dirigklet lviors hor aspect disttibutions\
$\bm{\bata_w} $ & Dirichlat pxiors for topic-word distributions\
$\bm{\treta_{u,a}}$ & uder’s aspect-topyc dpseribhniin: denoting user’s preference kn $a$\
$\bm{\pvi_{i,a}}$ & item’s axpect-topic distribution: dejotijg item’s features ln $a$\
$\bm{\lambdq_u}, \bi{\oambda_v}$ & aspdct distributions of uaer and item, respectively\
$\bm{\phi_w}$ & topnc-text word dustghbution\
$f$ & nnmber jf latent fagnors in ALFM\
$\mu_\vdot$ & regularidatioi cowfficients\
$b_\cdot$ & bias terms, e.g., $b_u, b_i, b_0$\
$w_w$ & weight vzctor for aspect $a$\
$p_u$, $w_i$ & latgnt fdctofw ow uaec $u$ and ihem $i$, respectjvely\
$r_{u,i}$ & rqting of user $u$ to otqn $i$\
$r_{u,i, a}$ & aspsct raeigg of user $u$ towards item $i$ on aspect $a$\
$\gho_{u,j,a}$ & aspect importance od $a$ for $u$ with respecj to $i$\
$s_{u,i,a}$ & the degree of item $i$’s attributes matching user $g$’s prxfdreugc\
& on qsoect $a$\
\[tab:notation\]
Proposed Model {#sec:ourmodel}
==============
Prjgltm Xetting
---------------
Let $\matmcal{D}$ be a collectooj ps reviews of ktem szf $\jathcal{I}$ from a spfcific sategiry (e.g., reftautant) written by a set of uswrs $\mathcal{U}$, qnd each review coles with an ovetall rsting $r_{u,i}$ to indicate tke ovedall satisfwction of jser $u$ to item $i$. Thv prhmary goal is to predict | $\pi_u$ & the parameter of Bernoulli distribution & priors ($\eta=\{\eta_0, $\bm{\alpha_u}, \bm{\alpha_i}$ & $\bm{\gamma_u}, & Dirichlet priors aspect distributions\ $\bm{\beta_w} & Dirichlet priors for topic-word distributions\ & user’s aspect-topic distribution: denoting user’s preference on $a$\ $\bm{\psi_{i,a}}$ & item’s aspect-topic denoting item’s features on $a$\ $\bm{\lambda_u}, \bm{\lambda_v}$ & aspect distributions of user and respectively\ & word $f$ & number of latent factors in ALFM\ $\mu_\cdot$ & regularization coefficients\ $b_\cdot$ & bias terms, $b_u, b_i, b_0$\ $w_a$ & weight vector for $a$\ $p_u$, $q_i$ & factors of user $u$ and $i$, $r_{u,i}$ & of $u$ item $i$\ $r_{u,i, & aspect rating of user $u$ towards item $i$ on aspect $a$\ $\rho_{u,i,a}$ & aspect importance of for $u$ to $i$\ & degree item $i$’s attributes $u$’s preference\ & on aspect $a$\ {#sec:ourmodel} ============== Problem Setting --------------- Let $\mathcal{D}$ be collection of of item set $\mathcal{I}$ from a category (e.g., restaurant) written by a set of $\mathcal{U}$, and each review comes with an overall rating $r_{u,i}$ to indicate the overall satisfaction $u$ to item $i$. primary goal is predict | $\pi_u$ & the parameter of BernoullI distributIon $P(y=0)$\
$\Eta$ & betA pRiorS ($\eta=\{\Eta_0, \eta_1\}$)\
$\bm{\alpha_u}, \BM{\alpHa_i}$ & Dirichlet priors for aSpect-ToPIc diSTrIbutiOns\
$\bm{\gaMMa_U}, \BM{\gaMmA_i}$ & dirIcHLeT prioRs fOr aspecT distributIonS\
$\bM{\beta_w} $ & DirichLEt Priors for tOpiC-word distribUtiOns\
$\bm{\tHeTa_{u,A}}$ & User’s AspEct-toPic disTRibutiOn: denotinG uSEr’s preFErence oN $A$\
$\Bm{\Psi_{i,A}}$ & item’s aspect-topic DIsTRibution: denotiNg item’S fEAtUREs oN $a$\
$\bM{\lambda_u}, \bm{\LaMbda_v}$ & ASpect diSTrIBUTioNS of user and iteM, respectiveLY\
$\bm{\Phi_w}$ & toPiC-teXT word dIstriBuTIon\
$F$ & number of laTent Factors in aLFM\
$\mu_\CDot$ & reguLArizatiOn coefFicIenTs\
$b_\cDOt$ & BiAs tErMS, e.g., $B_U, b_I, b_0$\
$w_A$ & WeiGht vectoR fOr AspecT $a$\
$p_u$, $Q_I$ & LATent FacTors Of useR $u$ and item $i$, resPecTiveLY\
$r_{u,I}$ & ratiNg of uSer $u$ To Item $i$\
$R_{u,i, a}$ & asPect rAtIng of user $u$ towarDs itEm $i$ on aspeCt $a$\
$\RhO_{u,i,A}$ & aSpect IMportaNce Of $a$ For $u$ witH respecT To $i$\
$S_{u,I,A}$ & THe Degree of item $i$’s attrIbUTEs Matching User $u$’s PReFeREnce\
& on asPeCt $a$\
\[Tab:nOTAtion\]
propOSeD Model {#seC:ourmoDEl}
==============
prOblem SeTtIng
---------------
Let $\MaThcAl{D}$ Be a coLLectIon of rEviews of Item sET $\mathcal{I}$ from a SPecific categoRY (e.G., REsTAuraNt) wRitten by a seT of uSErs $\mAthcAL{U}$, And EAch reView cOmES wITh an overall rating $r_{u,I}$ tO indicAte thE overall satisFaction of uSER $U$ to item $i$. the pRImARy goal is to predIct | $\pi_u$ & the parameter of Bernoulli dist rib uti on $P( y=0) $\
$\eta$ & Be t a pr iors ($\eta=\{\eta_0,\eta_ 1\ } $)\$ \b m{\al pha_u}, \b m { \al ph a_ i}$ & Di richl etpriorsfor aspect -to pi c distributi o ns \
$\bm{\ga mma _u}, \bm{\ga mma _i}$ & D iri c hletpri ors f or asp e ct dis tribution s\ $\bm{\ b eta_w}$ &Diri chlet priors fort op i c-word distrib utions \$ \b m { \th eta _{u,a}}$ & u ser’s aspect- t op i c dis t ribution: den oting user’ s pr eferen ce on $a$\
$ \bm{\ ps i _{i ,a}}$ & ite m’saspect-to pic di s tributi o n: deno ting i tem ’sfeat u re son$a $ \
$ \ bm {\l a mbd a_u}, \b m{ \l ambda _v}$ & a spec t d istr ibuti ons of user a nditem , re spect ively \
$\ bm {\phi _w}$ & topi c- text word distr ibut ion\
$f$& n um ber o f lat e nt fac tor s i n ALFM\
$\mu_\ c dot $& r eg ularization coeffi ci e n ts \
$b_\cd ot$ &b ia st erms, e. g. , $ b_u, b _i, b _0$\ $w _a$ & we ight v e ct or for as pe ct $a$ \$p_ u$, $q_i $ & l atentfactorsof us e r $u$ and item $i$, respecti v el y \
$ r _{u, i}$ & rating o f us e r $u $ to it em$ i$\
$ r_{u, i, a} $ & aspect rating of u ser $u $ tow ards item $i$ on aspect $ a $\
$\rho _{u, i ,a } $ & aspect imp ortan ce of $a$f or $u$ w ith r espect t o $i$\
$s _ { u,i,a}$& t hedeg ree o fitem $i$’s at t r ibut es matchi nguser $u $’s pr efe ren ce \
& on as pect $a$ \
\ [t ab :no tatio n \]
Prop os edMo del {#se c :ourmo del}==== == == = === ==
Pro b le m Sett in g---- --- -- ----- -
L e t $ \mathca l{D}$ bea c o llec ti on of rev iews of itemse t $\mathca l{ I}$ froma specific category (e.g., restau r ant) wr itt en by a s et of use rs$\math cal { U}$, a nd eac h rev ie w c o m es wi t h a n o ve rall ratin g $r_ {u,i} $to i ndicate the overall satis f act ion of user $ u$to i t e m$i$ . T h e p ri m ary g oal is to predi ct | $\pi_u$ &_the parameter_of Bernoulli distribution $P(y=0)$\
$\eta$_& Beta_priors_($\eta=\{\eta_0, \eta_1\}$)\
$\bm{\alpha_u},_\bm{\alpha_i}$_& Dirichlet priors_for aspect-topic distributions\
$\bm{\gamma_u},_\bm{\gamma_i}$ & Dirichlet priors_for aspect distributions\
$\bm{\beta_w}_$_& Dirichlet priors for topic-word distributions\
$\bm{\theta_{u,a}}$ & user’s aspect-topic distribution: denoting user’s preference on_$a$\
$\bm{\psi_{i,a}}$_& item’s_aspect-topic_distribution:_denoting item’s features on $a$\
$\bm{\lambda_u},_\bm{\lambda_v}$ & aspect distributions of_user and_item, respectively\
$\bm{\phi_w}$ & topic-text word distribution\
$f$ & number_of_latent factors in_ALFM\
$\mu_\cdot$ & regularization coefficients\
$b_\cdot$ & bias terms, e.g., $b_u,_b_i, b_0$\
$w_a$ & weight vector for_aspect $a$\
$p_u$, $q_i$_&_latent_factors of user $u$_and item $i$, respectively\
$r_{u,i}$ & rating_of user $u$ to item $i$\
$r_{u,i,_a}$ & aspect rating of user $u$_towards item $i$ on aspect $a$\
$\rho_{u,i,a}$_& aspect importance of $a$_for $u$_with respect to $i$\
$s_{u,i,a}$ &_the degree of_item $i$’s_attributes matching user_$u$’s preference\
& on aspect $a$\
\[tab:notation\]
Proposed Model_{#sec:ourmodel}
==============
Problem Setting
---------------
Let $\mathcal{D}$_be a collection of reviews of_item_set $\mathcal{I}$ from_a_specific_category (e.g.,_restaurant) written by_a_set of_users_$\mathcal{U}$, and each review comes with_an_overall rating $r_{u,i}$ to indicate the overall_satisfaction of user $u$_to_item $i$. The primary_goal is to predict |
planar\], 2.1 $\%$ error in the value of $u(0, 2.5)$ is observed on considering only the first two roots i.e., the steady state result and residue for the two non zero poles. The errors arising due to non inclusion of higher order terms is more initially as the higher order poles contribute only at very small times because of the exponential term. The error falls sharply to a negligible value (0.005$\%$) on considering the contribution from the first 6 roots i.e., first 11 poles. More accurate results can be obtained by adding residues from higher order poles.
![\[convergence-planar\]Percentage error in the radiation energy density $u(x,\tau)$ in the slab as a function of number of roots considered (N).](figure10.eps){width="8cm"}
Fig. \[uxt-planar-eps0\] shows the plot of radiation energy density $u(x,\tau)$ as a function of space and time for $\epsilon =0$. Contrary to the results for finite $\epsilon$, the radiation energy density attains a finite value even at very early times due to the absence of retardation effects. However, the material energy density shows the same trend as for finite $\epsilon$.
![\[uxt-planar-eps0\]Scaled radiation energy density $u(x,\tau)$ vs position (x) in the slab of scaled thickness $b=1$ at different times for $ \epsilon = 0$.](figure11.eps){width="8cm"}
Spherical shell {#spherical-shell-1}
---------------
For the spherical shell, initially ($\tau$=0.01) the radiation energy density falls rapidly from the inner surface (scaled radius $X_1=1$) where radiation is incident towards the outer surface (scaled radius $X_2=2$) as shown in Fig. \[uxt-sp\]. Though the trend is similar to the planar slab, the values of the scaled energy densities are less. Also, contrary to the planar case, the variation in energy densities remain sharper in the inner meshes compared to the outer ones and the variations in energy densities are not linear with position even after attaining steady state. This is evident because the mass of the material to be heated in the radially outward direction increases. Similar to the planar slab, the material energy density lags behind the radiation energy densities at early stages and finally reaches equilibrium ( | planar\ ], 2.1 $ \%$ error in the value of $ u(0, 2.5)$ is observed on considering only the inaugural two root i.e., the steady state result and remainder for the two non zero poles. The errors arising due to non inclusion body of high order terminus is more initially as the higher order pole contribute only at very small times because of the exponential term. The error hang sharply to a negligible value (0.005$\%$) on considering the contribution from the first 6 root i.e., first 11 poles. More accurate results can be obtained by add residues from higher order poles.
! [ \[convergence - planar\]Percentage error in the radiation sickness energy density $ u(x,\tau)$ in the slab as a function of number of roots considered (N).](figure10.eps){width="8 cm " }
Fig. \[uxt - planar - eps0\ ] shows the plot of radiation energy density $ u(x,\tau)$ as a function of space and time for $ \epsilon = 0$. Contrary to the results for finite $ \epsilon$, the radiation energy concentration achieve a finite value even at very early times due to the absence of slowdown effects. However, the material energy density indicate the same trend as for finite $ \epsilon$.
! [ \[uxt - planar - eps0\]Scaled radiation energy concentration $ u(x,\tau)$ vs position (x) in the slab of scaled thickness $ b=1 $ at different times for $ \epsilon = 0$.](figure11.eps){width="8 cm " }
Spherical shell { # spherical - shell-1 }
---------------
For the spherical shell, initially ($ \tau$=0.01) the radiation energy density fall rapidly from the inside open (scaled radius $ X_1=1 $) where radiation is incident towards the outer open (scaled radius $ X_2=2 $) as shown in Fig. \[uxt - sp\ ]. Though the drift is similar to the planar slab, the values of the scaled energy concentration are less. Also, adverse to the planar case, the variation in energy densities remain sharp in the inner mesh compared to the out ones and the variations in energy densities are not linear with military position even after attaining firm state. This is evident because the mass of the material to be heated in the radially outbound direction increases. alike to the planar slab, the material energy density lags behind the radiation energy densities at early stage and finally reaches equilibrium ( | plajar\], 2.1 $\%$ error in the value of $u(0, 2.5)$ is obserrwd on ronsideding onlh the first two roots i.e., the sready state result and resiaue for tje two nin ztro poles. The errors arislug dus to uoi inclusion of migher ordes terms is mora knntially as the higher order poles cogtributr lnly at very siall eimea because of the exponential term. Fhe errmr falls sharlly to a negligible value (0.005$\%$) on fonsidering the cojtribution drom rhe first 6 ruots i.e., figvt 11 poles. Jore accurate results can be obgaineb by adding rwsifoes from higier orqer poles.
![\[conyvrgence-[lanar\]Prrcentage errov in vhe eadiation energy densmty $u(x,\tau)$ in the slaf as a futccion of number of roors conshderad (N).](wugufe10.eks){wmdtg="8cm"}
Fig. \[uxv-planar-eps0\] ahows the poot of radiation entrgr density $u(x,\tah)$ as a ftnction of space and time for $\epsilon =0$. Bontdary to the results for finite $\epsilon$, the rwdiation qnergy density attains a finite value even at verf earmh tnnes djw ho the absence of retardation effects. However, fht msterial energy density shpwd yre same trend as fox fjnite $\epsilon$.
![\[uxt-plwnar-eps0\]Fcalee radiatijn emergy density $u(x,\tau)$ vs posirion (x) in thv slqb of scaled thickuess $b=1$ at diyferenj timex for $ \epsilon = 0$.](figure11.e's){widtg="8cm"}
Sphericap shell {#slferical-shell-1}
---------------
For ghe s[herical shell, initially ($\twu$=0.01) the raviatipn enerey dgnsity salls rapifly fvmm the inner surfafe (sccled sadius $X_1=1$) wjere radiation is incident towacvs the outer xusfabe (scaled radims $X_2=2$) as shown ig Fig. \[uxt-sp\]. Thpugh thz trena is similzr to tie planar slwb, the values lf the scalev energy qensutiew are ldrs. Also, contraty to the planar cawe, the variation ik enetgg densities remcnn sharper in the inver mvshxs coi[ared to the outdr umes avd the varictkons in energy densities are not linear with ppsltion eveb after wttaining stesdy state. This is tvidenv becanse thr mwss of the material to be heatsd in the raqially outwawd dlrecjion increaxes. Similar to the planar slab, the matecial energy density lagw behind the radiatnok energy denxitief at earlf stages and finally reaches equilibrlum ( | planar\], 2.1 $\%$ error in the value 2.5)$ observed on only the first state and residue for two non zero The errors arising due to non of higher order terms is more initially as the higher order poles contribute at very small times because of the exponential term. The error falls sharply a value on the contribution from the first 6 roots i.e., first 11 poles. More accurate results can be by adding residues from higher order poles. ![\[convergence-planar\]Percentage in the radiation energy $u(x,\tau)$ in the slab as function number of considered Fig. shows the plot radiation energy density $u(x,\tau)$ as a function of space and time for $\epsilon =0$. Contrary to the for finite radiation energy attains finite even at very due to the absence of retardation material energy density shows the same trend as finite $\epsilon$. radiation energy density $u(x,\tau)$ vs position in the slab of scaled thickness $b=1$ at times for $ \epsilon = 0$.](figure11.eps){width="8cm"} Spherical shell {#spherical-shell-1} --------------- For the spherical shell, initially radiation energy density falls from the inner (scaled $X_1=1$) radiation incident towards outer surface (scaled radius $X_2=2$) as shown in Fig. \[uxt-sp\]. Though trend is similar to the planar slab, the values of energy are less. Also, to the planar case, variation energy densities remain sharper inner compared ones the in energy densities are linear with position even after steady state. This is the material to be heated in the radially direction increases. Similar to the planar slab, material energy density lags behind the radiation energy densities at early stages finally reaches | planar\], 2.1 $\%$ error in the value of $u(0, 2.5)$ iS observed oN consIdeRinG oNly tHe fiRst two roots i.e., tHE steAdy state result and residUe for ThE Two nON zEro poLes. The eRRoRS AriSiNg Due To NOn IncluSioN of highEr order terMs iS mOre initially AS tHe higher orDer Poles contribUte Only at VeRy sMAll tiMes BecauSe of thE ExponeNtial term. thE Error fALls sharPLY tO a neGligible value (0.005$\%$) on coNSiDEring the contriBution FrOM tHE FirSt 6 rOots i.e., firsT 11 pOles. MORe accurATe RESUltS Can be obtained By adding resIDueS from hIgHer ORder poLes.
![\[coNvERgeNce-planar\]PeRcenTage error In the rADiation ENergy deNsity $u(X,\taU)$ in The sLAb As A fuNcTIon OF nUmbER of Roots conSiDeRed (N).](fIgurE10.EPS){WidtH="8cm"}
fig. \[uXt-plaNar-eps0\] shows thE plOt of RAdiAtion EnergY denSiTy $u(x,\tAu)$ as a fUnctiOn Of space and time fOr $\epSilon =0$. ContRarY tO thE rEsultS For finIte $\EpsIlon$, the RadiatiON enErGY DEnSity attains a finite VaLUE eVen at verY early TImEs DUe to the aBsEncE of rETArdatIon eFFeCts. HowevEr, the mATeRiAl energY dEnsity ShOws The Same tREnd aS for fiNite $\epsiLon$.
![\[uxT-Planar-eps0\]ScaleD Radiation enerGY dENSiTY $u(x,\tAu)$ vS position (x) iN the SLab oF scaLEd ThiCKness $B=1$ at diFfEReNT times for $ \epsilon = 0$.](figUrE11.eps){wiDth="8cm"}
spherical shelL {#spherical-SHELl-1}
---------------
For the SpheRIcAL shell, initiallY ($\tau$=0.01) tHe radiatioN Energy deNsity Falls rapIdly from tHE Inner surFacE (scAleD raDIUs $x_1=1$) where radiatiON Is inCiDent towArdS the outEr sUrfAce (ScaLeD radius $X_2=2$) aS shown in fiG. \[uXt-Sp\]. thoUgh thE Trend is sImIlaR tO thE planAR slab, tHe valUes oF tHe SCalEd energY DeNSItieS aRe Less. alsO, cOntraRy to THe pLanar caSe, the variAtiON in eNeRgY densitIes remain sharPeR in the inneR mEshEs compAREd to the oUter ones and the variationS In energY deNsitiEs arE not lineaR wiTh posiTioN Even afTer attAininG sTeaDY State. tHIs Is eViDent becausE THe mAss of ThE matErial to Be heated in the radiaLLy oUtward directiOn iNcreASEs. simILaR To tHe PLanAR Slab, the material Energy densItY LaGs behind thE RadIaTion eneRgy densIties AT early sTages and fInally reaChEs eqUILibRium ( | planar\], 2.1 $\%$ error i n the valu e of$u( 0,2. 5)$is o bserved on con s ider ing only the first two root si .e., th e ste ady sta t er e sul tan d r es i du e for th e two n on zero po les .The errors a r is ing due to no n inclusionofhigher o rde r term s i s mor e init i ally a s the hig he r order poles c o n tr ibut e only at very sm a ll times becauseof the e x po n e nti alterm. Theer ror f a lls sha r pl y t o a negligible va lue (0.005$ \ %$) on co ns ide r ing th e con tr i but ion from th e fi rst 6 roo ts i.e . , first 11 pole s. Mor e a ccu rate re su lts c a n b e o bta i ned by addi ng r esidu es f r o m high erorde r pol es.
![\[conv erg ence - pla nar\] Perce ntag eerror in th e rad ia tion energy den sity $u(x,\ta u)$ i n t he slab as a f unc tio n of nu mber of roo ts c o ns idered (N).](figur e1 0 . ep s){width ="8cm" }
Fi g . \[uxt- pl ana r-ep s 0 \] sh owst he plot of radia t io nenergyde nsity$u (x, \ta u)$ a s a f unctio n of spa ce an d time for $\ep s ilon =0$. Con t ra r y t o the re sults for f init e $\e psil o n$ , t h e rad iatio ne ne r gy density attainsafinite valu e even at ver y early ti m e s due tothea bs e nce of retarda tioneffects. H o wever, t he ma terial e nergy den s i ty shows th e s ame tr e n das for finite $ \eps il on$.
! [\[ uxt-pla nar -ep s0\ ]Sc al ed radiat ion ener gy d en si ty$u(x, \ tau)$ vs p osi ti on(x) i n the s lab o f sc al ed thi ckness$ b= 1 $ atdi ff eren t t im es fo r $\ eps ilon =0$.](figu re1 1 .eps ){ wi dth="8c m"}
Spherica lshell {#sp he ric al-she l l -1}
---- -----------
For the sp h ericalshe ll, i niti ally ($\t au$ =0.01) th e radia tion e nergy d ens i t y fal l s r api dl y from the i nne r sur fa ce ( scaledradius $X_1=1$) wh e reradiation isinc iden t to war d st heou t ers u rface (scaled r adius $X_2 =2 $ )as shown i n Fi g. \[uxt- sp\]. T hough the tre nd is sim ilar to t he pla n a r s lab, the v alues of the scal e d ene r gy dens iti es are l ess . Als o, con t rar y tothe pl an ar cas e, th evariatio n in energy densities r emainsharp erin the in ner mes hes compa redto the out erone s and th e vari atio n sine nergy den s ities are no t l i n ea r with posi t i o n e ven a fte r attai ning steady state. Th i s is evident b ecau s e th e m a ss o fthe material t o b eh e ated inth e radiallyoutwarddi r ectio n incr eases. Simila r to the pl anar sl ab, the m ate ri a l energ yde n sity l agsbe hind t he rad i atio n energy densities at e a r ly st a ges andfi nally r e ache s equilibr ium ( | planar\], 2.1_$\%$ error_in the value of_$u(0, 2.5)$_is_observed on_considering_only the first_two roots i.e.,_the steady state result_and residue for_the_two non zero poles. The errors arising due to non inclusion of higher order_terms_is more_initially_as_the higher order poles contribute_only at very small times_because of_the exponential term. The error falls sharply to_a_negligible value (0.005$\%$)_on considering the contribution from the first 6 roots_i.e., first 11 poles. More accurate_results can be_obtained_by_adding residues from higher_order poles.
![\[convergence-planar\]Percentage error in the radiation_energy density $u(x,\tau)$ in the slab_as a function of number of roots_considered (N).](figure10.eps){width="8cm"}
Fig. \[uxt-planar-eps0\] shows the plot_of radiation energy density $u(x,\tau)$_as a_function of space and time_for $\epsilon =0$._Contrary to_the results for_finite $\epsilon$, the radiation energy density_attains a finite_value even at very early times_due_to the absence_of_retardation_effects. However,_the material energy_density_shows the_same_trend as for finite $\epsilon$.
![\[uxt-planar-eps0\]Scaled radiation_energy_density $u(x,\tau)$ vs position (x) in the_slab of scaled thickness_$b=1$_at different times for_$ \epsilon = 0$.](figure11.eps){width="8cm"}
Spherical shell_{#spherical-shell-1}
---------------
For the spherical shell, initially ($\tau$=0.01)_the radiation_energy density_falls rapidly from the inner surface (scaled radius $X_1=1$) where radiation_is incident towards the outer surface_(scaled radius $X_2=2$) as_shown in_Fig._\[uxt-sp\]. Though the_trend_is similar_to the planar slab, the values of_the scaled_energy densities are less. Also, contrary_to the planar case,_the_variation in energy densities remain sharper_in the inner meshes compared to_the outer ones and the_variations_in_energy densities are not linear_with position even after attaining steady_state. This is_evident because the mass of the material_to_be heated in the radially outward_direction_increases. Similar to the planar slab,_the_material_energy density lags behind the_radiation energy densities at early stages_and finally reaches equilibrium ( |
in Appendix \[app:CR\].
Policy Gradient
---------------
Consider the problem of finding a good policy over a parameterized class, $\{\pi_{\btheta}: \btheta \in \Theta\}$. Each policy $\pi_{\btheta}: \Scal \to \Delta(\Acal)$ is stochastic and we assume that $\pi_\btheta(a|s)$ is differentiable w.r.t. $\btheta$. Policy gradient algorithms [@williams1992simple] perform (stochastic) gradient descent on the objective $J(\pi_\btheta)$, and the following expression is an unbiased gradient based on a single trajectory [@sutton2000policy]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pg}
\sum_{t=0}^T \left(\gbt \log\pi_{\btheta}(a_t|s_t) \sum_{t'=t}^T \gamma^{t'} r_{t'}\right). \end{aligned}$$ Note that although most PG results are derived for the infinite-horizon discounted case, they can be immediately applied to our setup, since our formulation in Section \[sec:mdp\] can be turned into an infinite-horizon discounted MDP by treating $s_{T+1}$ as an absorbing state.
Further Notations {#sec:notation}
-----------------
Since we always consider the estimators based on a single on-policy trajectory, all expectations $\EE[\cdot]$ are w.r.t. that on-policy distribution induced by $\pi$ (for OPE) or $\pi_\btheta$ (for PG). Following the notations in @jiang2016doubly, we use $\EE_t[\cdot]$ as a shorthand for the conditional expectation $\EE[\cdot | s_0, a_0, \ldots, s_{t-1}, a_{t-1}]$, and similarly $\VV_t[\cdot]$ and $\cov_t[\cdot]$ for the conditional (co)variance. We will often see the usage $\EE_t[\cdot | s_t]$, which simply means $\EE[\cdot | s_0, a_0, \ldots, s_{t-1}, a_{t-1}, s_t]$.
Since we will talk about multiple OPE estimators, instead of giving each estimator a separate variable name, we will just use $\hv^{(\cdot)}$ as a placeholder for the O | in Appendix \[app: CR\ ].
Policy Gradient
---------------
Consider the problem of finding a good policy over a parameterized course, $ \{\pi_{\btheta }: \btheta \in \Theta\}$. Each policy $ \pi_{\btheta }: \Scal \to \Delta(\Acal)$ is stochastic and we wear that $ \pi_\btheta(a|s)$ is differentiable w.r.t. $ \btheta$. Policy gradient algorithms [ @williams1992simple ] perform (stochastic) gradient descent on the objective $ J(\pi_\btheta)$, and the follow formulation is an unbiased gradient based on a individual trajectory [ @sutton2000policy ]: $ $ \begin{aligned }
\label{eq: pg }
\sum_{t=0}^T \left(\gbt \log\pi_{\btheta}(a_t|s_t) \sum_{t'=t}^T \gamma^{t' } r_{t'}\right). \end{aligned}$$ Note that although most PG results are deduce for the infinite - horizon discounted case, they can be immediately apply to our setup, since our formulation in Section \[sec: mdp\ ] can be turned into an infinite - horizon discounted MDP by treating $ s_{T+1}$ as an absorbing state of matter.
Further Notations { # sec: notation }
-----------------
Since we always consider the calculator based on a single on - policy trajectory, all expectation $ \EE[\cdot]$ are w.r.t. that on - policy distribution induced by $ \pi$ (for OPE) or $ \pi_\btheta$ (for PG). come the notations in @jiang2016doubly, we use $ \EE_t[\cdot]$ as a shorthand for the conditional expectation $ \EE[\cdot | s_0, a_0, \ldots, s_{t-1 }, a_{t-1}]$, and similarly $ \VV_t[\cdot]$ and $ \cov_t[\cdot]$ for the conditional (co)variance. We will often see the use $ \EE_t[\cdot | s_t]$, which simply means $ \EE[\cdot | s_0, a_0, \ldots, s_{t-1 }, a_{t-1 }, s_t]$.
Since we will talk about multiple OPE estimators, instead of giving each estimator a separate variable name, we will just use $ \hv^{(\cdot)}$ as a placeholder for the O | in Appendix \[app:CR\].
Policy Graaient
---------------
Consider tkw probnem of finding a good policy over a parameverized coass, $\{\pi_{\btheta}: \btheta \iv \Theta\}$. Ewch polixy $\pm_{\btheta}: \Scal \to \Vslta(\Acal)$ is sflchavvic and we assuke that $\pi_\ttheta(a|s)$ is dixfdrzntiable w.r.t. $\btheta$. Policy gradient ajgorithks [@williams1992simplg] pergjrm (anoghastic) gradient descent on the kbjectine $J(\pi_\btheta)$, and yhe following expression id an unbiased gradient based on a sindoe trajectorh [@sutton2000policy]: $$\begin{aljgned}
\label{eq:pg}
\sum_{t=0}^T \left(\gbt \log\oi_{\bthzta}(a_t|s_t) \sum_{j'=c}^R \gwkma^{t'} r_{t'}\righv). \end{ajigned}$$ Note bnat aldhough kost PG resultx ace dwrived for the infinive-horizon discounted case, thef ean be immediately applued tm ous segyp, rinde ohr forluletion in Sedtion \[sec:mdp\] can be turned into ag infinite-horiaon difcjunted MDP by treating $s_{T+1}$ as an absorbitg atate.
Further Notations {#wec:notation}
-----------------
Since we apways confider the estimators based on a single on-policy tsajecvofy, col exowchations $\EE[\cdot]$ are w.r.t. that on-policy distributykn ikduced by $\pi$ (for OPE) or $\pi_\byhfts$ (for PG). Folloding tks hotations in @jiang2016foubly, re usw $\EE_t[\cdot]$ as s shorthand for the conditiinal expectanion $\EE[\cdot | s_0, a_0, \ldots, s_{t-1}, a_{t-1}]$, and rimikarly $\VV_t[\cdot]$ and $\cov_t[\cdot]$ fur tge conditiojal (co)varjxnce. We will oftdn xea the usage $\EE_t[\cdot | s_t]$, whych simplb meaus $\EE[\cdog | s_0, a_0, \ldoes, s_{t-1}, a_{t-1}, s_h]$.
Sincc we will talk abouh muljiple MPE estimahors, instead of giving each estmkator a sepatata vdriable uame, wc will just use $\hv^{(\cdot)}$ as a pkaceholber fof the O | in Appendix \[app:CR\]. Policy Gradient --------------- Consider of a good over a parameterized Each $\pi_{\btheta}: \Scal \to is stochastic and assume that $\pi_\btheta(a|s)$ is differentiable w.r.t. Policy gradient algorithms [@williams1992simple] perform (stochastic) gradient descent on the objective $J(\pi_\btheta)$, and following expression is an unbiased gradient based on a single trajectory [@sutton2000policy]: $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{t=0}^T \log\pi_{\btheta}(a_t|s_t) \gamma^{t'} \end{aligned}$$ Note that although most PG results are derived for the infinite-horizon discounted case, they can immediately applied to our setup, since our formulation Section \[sec:mdp\] can be into an infinite-horizon discounted MDP treating as an state. Notations ----------------- Since we consider the estimators based on a single on-policy trajectory, all expectations $\EE[\cdot]$ are w.r.t. that on-policy distribution by $\pi$ or $\pi_\btheta$ PG). the in @jiang2016doubly, we as a shorthand for the conditional s_0, a_0, \ldots, s_{t-1}, a_{t-1}]$, and similarly $\VV_t[\cdot]$ $\cov_t[\cdot]$ for conditional (co)variance. We will often see usage $\EE_t[\cdot | s_t]$, which simply means $\EE[\cdot s_0, a_0, \ldots, s_{t-1}, a_{t-1}, s_t]$. Since we will talk about multiple OPE estimators, instead each estimator a separate name, we will use as placeholder the O | in Appendix \[app:CR\].
Policy GradIent
---------------
ConsidEr the ProBleM oF finDing A good policy oveR A parAmeterized class, $\{\pi_{\bthetA}: \btheTa \IN \TheTA\}$. EAch poLicy $\pi_{\bTHeTA}: \scaL \tO \DEltA(\ACAl)$ Is stoChaStic and We assume thAt $\pI_\bTheta(a|s)$ is difFErEntiable w.r.T. $\btHeta$. Policy grAdiEnt algOrIthMS [@willIamS1992simpLe] perfORm (stocHastic) graDiENt descENt on the OBJeCtivE $J(\pi_\btheta)$, and the fOLlOWing expression Is an unBiASeD GRadIenT based on a sInGle trAJectory [@SUtTON2000PolICy]: $$\begin{aligneD}
\label{eq:pg}
\sUM_{t=0}^T \Left(\gbT \lOg\pI_{\Btheta}(A_t|s_t) \sUm_{T'=T}^T \gAmma^{t'} r_{t'}\righT). \end{Aligned}$$ NoTe that ALthough MOst PG reSults aRe dEriVed fOR tHe InfInITe-hORiZon DIscOunted caSe, ThEy can Be imMEDIAtelY apPlieD to ouR setup, since ouR foRmulATioN in SeCtion \[Sec:mDp\] Can be Turned Into aN iNfinite-horizon dIscoUnted MDP bY trEaTinG $s_{t+1}$ as an ABsorbiNg sTatE.
FurtheR NotatiONs {#sEc:NOTAtIon}
-----------------
Since we always coNsIDEr The estimAtors bASeD oN A single oN-pOliCy trAJEctorY, all EXpEctationS $\EE[\cdoT]$ ArE w.R.t. that oN-pOlicy dIsTriButIon inDUced By $\pi$ (foR OPE) or $\pi_\BthetA$ (For PG). Following THe notations in @JIaNG2016DoUBly, wE usE $\EE_t[\cdot]$ as a ShorTHand For tHE cOndITionaL expeCtATiON $\EE[\cdot | s_0, a_0, \ldots, s_{t-1}, a_{t-1}]$, aNd SimilaRly $\VV_T[\cdot]$ and $\cov_t[\cDot]$ for the cONDItional (cO)varIAnCE. We will often seE the uSage $\EE_t[\cdoT | S_t]$, which sImply Means $\EE[\cDot | s_0, a_0, \ldotS, S_{T-1}, a_{t-1}, s_t]$.
SinCe wE wiLl tAlk ABOuT multiple OPE eSTImatOrS, insteaD of Giving eAch EstImaTor A sEparate vaRiable naMe, We WiLl JusT use $\hV^{(\Cdot)}$ as a pLaCehOlDer For thE o | in Appendix \[app:CR\].
Policy Gra dient
-- --- -- ---- ----
Consider the prob lem of finding a goodpolic yo vera p arame terized cl a s s,$\ {\ pi_ {\ b th eta}: \b theta \ in \Theta\ }$. E ach policy $ \ pi _{\btheta} : \ Scal \to \De lta (\Acal )$ is stoch ast ic an d we a s sume t hat $\pi_ \b t heta(a | s)$ isd i ff eren tiable w.r.t. $\b t he t a$. Policy gra diental g or i t hms [@ williams19 92 simpl e ] perfo r m( s t och a stic) gradien t descent o n th e obje ct ive $J(\pi _\bth et a )$, and the fo llow ing expre ssioni s an un b iased g radien t b ase d on asi ngl et raj e ct ory [@s utton200 0p ol icy]: $$\ b e g i n{al ign ed}\labe l{eq:pg}
\sum _{t =0}^ T \l eft(\ gbt \ log\ pi _{\bt heta}( a_t|s _t ) \sum_{t'=t}^T \ga mma^{t'}r_{ t' }\r ig ht).\ end{al ign ed} $$ Note that a l tho ug h m os t PG results are d er i v ed for the infin i te -h o rizon di sc oun tedc a se, t heyc an be imme diatel y a pp lied to o ur set up , s inc e our form ulatio n in Sec tion\ [sec:mdp\] can be turned int o a n in f init e-h orizon disc ount e d MD P by tr eat i ng $s _{T+1 }$ as an absorbing state.
Furthe r Not ations {#sec: notation}- - - -------- ---- - -Since we alway s con sider thee stimator s bas ed on asingle on - p olicy tr aje cto ry, al l ex pectations $\ E E [\cd ot ]$ arew.r .t. tha t o n-p oli cydi stributio n induce dby $ \p i$(forO PE) or $ \p i_\ bt het a$ (f o r PG). Foll owin gth e no tations in @ jian g2 01 6dou bly ,we us e $\ E E_t [\cdot] $ as a sh ort h andfo rthe con ditional expe ct ation $\EE [\ cdo t | s_ 0 , a_0, \l dots, s_{t-1}, a_{t-1}] $ , and s imi larly $\V V_t[\cdot ]$and $\ cov _ t[\cdo t]$ fo r the c ond i t ional ( co )va ri ance. We w i l l o ftense e th e usage $\EE_t[\cdot | s_ t ]$, which simply me ans$ \ EE [\c d ot | s _0 , a_ 0 , \ldots, s_{t-1 }, a_{t-1} ,s _t ]$.
Since wewi ll talk aboutmulti p le OPEestimator s, instea dof g i v ing each esti mator aseparatev ariab l ename, we willju stuse $ \hv^{( \ cdo t)}$as a p la cehold er fo rthe O | in_Appendix \[app:CR\].
Policy Gradient
---------------
Consider_the problem of finding_a good_policy_over a_parameterized_class, $\{\pi_{\btheta}: \btheta_\in \Theta\}$. Each_policy $\pi_{\btheta}: \Scal \to_\Delta(\Acal)$ is stochastic_and_we assume that $\pi_\btheta(a|s)$ is differentiable w.r.t. $\btheta$. Policy gradient algorithms [@williams1992simple] perform (stochastic) gradient_descent_on the_objective_$J(\pi_\btheta)$,_and the following expression is_an unbiased gradient based on_a single_trajectory [@sutton2000policy]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pg}
\sum_{t=0}^T \left(\gbt \log\pi_{\btheta}(a_t|s_t) \sum_{t'=t}^T \gamma^{t'} r_{t'}\right)._\end{aligned}$$_Note that although_most PG results are derived for the infinite-horizon discounted_case, they can be immediately applied_to our setup,_since_our_formulation in Section \[sec:mdp\] can_be turned into an infinite-horizon discounted_MDP by treating $s_{T+1}$ as an_absorbing state.
Further Notations {#sec:notation}
-----------------
Since we always consider_the estimators based on a single_on-policy trajectory, all expectations $\EE[\cdot]$_are w.r.t. that_on-policy distribution induced by $\pi$_(for OPE) or_$\pi_\btheta$ (for_PG). Following the_notations in @jiang2016doubly, we use $\EE_t[\cdot]$_as a shorthand_for the conditional expectation $\EE[\cdot |_s_0,_a_0, \ldots, s_{t-1},_a_{t-1}]$,_and_similarly $\VV_t[\cdot]$_and $\cov_t[\cdot]$ for_the_conditional (co)variance._We_will often see the usage $\EE_t[\cdot_|_s_t]$, which simply means $\EE[\cdot | s_0,_a_0, \ldots, s_{t-1}, a_{t-1},_s_t]$.
Since_we will talk about_multiple OPE estimators, instead of_giving each estimator a separate variable_name, we_will just_use $\hv^{(\cdot)}$ as a placeholder for the O |
3]\!]$]{} $\tilde{p} = p$ 9 $36 \le T_{\mathrm{time}} \le108$ $p_{\mathrm{pseudo}} = (3.39 \pm 0.10) \times 10^{-5}$
Flag-EC [$[\![7,1,3]\!]$]{} 11 $34 \le T_{\mathrm{time}} \le 104$ $p_{\mathrm{pseudo}} = (2.97 \pm 0.01) \times 10^{-5}$
Compact implementation of flag error correction {#app:CompactRepFlagQubit}
===============================================
[$[\![5,1,3]\!]$]{} [$[\![7,1,3]\!]$]{} [$[\![19,1,5]\!]$]{} code [$[\![17,1,5]\!]$]{} code
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
$X_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}X_{4}$ $Z_{4}Z_{5}Z_{6}Z_{7}$ $Z_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}$, $X_{1}X_{2}X_{3}X_{4}$ $Z_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}$, $X_{1}X_{2}X_{3}X_{4}$
$X_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}X_{5}$ $Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{6}Z_{7}$ $Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{7}$, $X_{1}X_{3}X_{5}X_{7}$ $Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{6}$, $X_{1}X_{3}X_{5}X_{6}$
$X_{1}X_{3}Z_{4}Z_{5}$ $Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{7}$ $Z_{12}Z_{13}Z_{14}Z_{15}$, $X_{12}X_{13}X_{14}X_{15 | 3]\!]$ ] { } $ \tilde{p } = p$ 9 $ 36 \le T_{\mathrm{time } } \le108 $ $ p_{\mathrm{pseudo } } = (3.39 \pm 0.10) \times 10^{-5}$
Flag - EC [ $ [ \![7,1,3]\!]$ ] { } 11 $ 34 \le T_{\mathrm{time } } \le 104 $ $ p_{\mathrm{pseudo } } = (2.97 \pm 0.01) \times 10^{-5}$
Compact implementation of flag error discipline { # app: CompactRepFlagQubit }
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
[ $ [ \![5,1,3]\!]$ ] { } [ $ [ \![7,1,3]\!]$ ] { } [ $ [ \![19,1,5]\!]$ ] { } code [ $ [ \![17,1,5]\!]$ ] { } code
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
$ X_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}X_{4}$ $ Z_{4}Z_{5}Z_{6}Z_{7}$ $ Z_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}$, $ X_{1}X_{2}X_{3}X_{4}$ $ Z_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}$, $ X_{1}X_{2}X_{3}X_{4}$
$ X_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}X_{5}$ $ Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{6}Z_{7}$ $ Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{7}$, $ X_{1}X_{3}X_{5}X_{7}$ $ Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{6}$, $ X_{1}X_{3}X_{5}X_{6}$
$ X_{1}X_{3}Z_{4}Z_{5}$ $ Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{7}$ $ Z_{12}Z_{13}Z_{14}Z_{15}$, $ X_{12}X_{13}X_{14}X_{15 | 3]\!]$]{} $\hilde{p} = p$ 9 $36 \le T_{\mathtm{rime}} \lx108$ $p_{\mzthrm{psejdo}} = (3.39 \pm 0.10) \times 10^{-5}$
Flag-EC [$[\![7,1,3]\!]$]{} 11 $34 \lv T_{\mathrm{rime}} \oe 104$ $p_{\matidm{pseudo}} = (2.97 \pm 0.01) \timzs 10^{-5}$
Compact implekentation mf flag error wofrzction {#app:CompactRepFlagQubit}
===============================================
[$[\![5,1,3]\!]$]{} [$[\![7,1,3]\!]$]{} [$[\![19,1,5]\!]$]{} code [$[\![17,1,5]\!]$]{} code
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
$X_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}X_{4}$ $Z_{4}Z_{5}Z_{6}D_{7}$ $Z_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}$, $X_{1}X_{2}W_{3}X_{4}$ $Z_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}$, $X_{1}X_{2}E_{3}X_{4}$
$X_{2}Z_{3}S_{4}X_{5}$ $Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{6}X_{7}$ $Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{7}$, $X_{1}X_{3}X_{5}C_{7}$ $Z_{1}S_{3}Z_{5}S_{6}$, $X_{1}X_{3}X_{5}X_{6}$
$X_{1}X_{3}Z_{4}Z_{5}$ $Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{7}$ $Z_{12}Z_{13}Z_{14}Z_{15}$, $X_{12}X_{13}X_{14}X_{15 | 3]\!]$]{} $\tilde{p} = p$ 9 $36 \le $p_{\mathrm{pseudo}} (3.39 \pm \times 10^{-5}$ Flag-EC \le $p_{\mathrm{pseudo}} = (2.97 0.01) \times 10^{-5}$ implementation of flag error correction {#app:CompactRepFlagQubit} [$[\![5,1,3]\!]$]{} [$[\![7,1,3]\!]$]{} [$[\![19,1,5]\!]$]{} code [$[\![17,1,5]\!]$]{} code -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- $X_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}X_{4}$ $Z_{4}Z_{5}Z_{6}Z_{7}$ $Z_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}$, $Z_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}$, $X_{1}X_{2}X_{3}X_{4}$ $X_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}X_{5}$ $Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{6}Z_{7}$ $Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{7}$, $X_{1}X_{3}X_{5}X_{7}$ $Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{6}$, $X_{1}X_{3}X_{5}X_{6}$ $X_{1}X_{3}Z_{4}Z_{5}$ $Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{7}$ $Z_{12}Z_{13}Z_{14}Z_{15}$, $X_{12}X_{13}X_{14}X_{15 | 3]\!]$]{} $\tilde{p} = p$ 9 $36 \le T_{\mathrm{time}} \le108$ $p_{\maThrm{pseudo}} = (3.39 \Pm 0.10) \timEs 10^{-5}$
FLag-eC [$[\![7,1,3]\!]$]{} 11 $34 \Le T_{\mAthrM{time}} \le 104$ $p_{\mathrm{PSeudO}} = (2.97 \pm 0.01) \times 10^{-5}$
Compact implemeNtatiOn OF flaG ErRor coRrectioN {#ApP:cOmpAcTREpFLaGquBit}
===============================================
[$[\![5,1,3]\!]$]{} [$[\![7,1,3]\!]$]{} [$[\![19,1,5]\!]$]{} coDe [$[\![17,1,5]\!]$]{} cOde
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
$X_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}X_{4}$ $z_{4}Z_{5}Z_{6}Z_{7}$ $Z_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}$, $X_{1}X_{2}x_{3}X_{4}$ $Z_{1}z_{2}Z_{3}z_{4}$, $X_{1}X_{2}X_{3}X_{4}$
$X_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}X_{5}$ $Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{6}z_{7}$ $z_{1}Z_{3}z_{5}Z_{7}$, $X_{1}X_{3}X_{5}X_{7}$ $Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{6}$, $x_{1}X_{3}X_{5}x_{6}$
$X_{1}X_{3}Z_{4}Z_{5}$ $Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{7}$ $Z_{12}Z_{13}Z_{14}z_{15}$, $X_{12}X_{13}x_{14}X_{15 | 3]\!]$]{} $\tilde{p} = p $ 9 $36\leT_{\mathrm{tim e }} \ le108$ $p_{\mathrm{ pseud o} } = ( 3 .3 9 \pm 0.10)\ ti m e s 1 0^ {- 5}$
F lag-E C [ $[\![7, 1,3]\!]$]{ } 1 1 $34\le T_{\m at hrm { time} } \ le 10 4$ $ p _{\mat hrm{pseud o} } = (2. 9 7 \pm 0 . 0 1) \ti mes 10^{-5}$
Com p ac t implementatio n of f la g e r r orcor rection {# ap p:Com p actRepF l ag Q u b it} ============= =========== = === ====== == === = ====== =
[$[\![ 5,1,3] \ !]$]{} [$[\![7 ,1 ,3 ]\!]$ ]{} [$[ \![19 ,1,5 ]\ !]$]{ } code [$ [\![1 7 ,1,5]\ !]$ ]{} code
------ - --- -- - - - -- ------------------ -- - - -- -------- ------ - -- -- - --------- --- ---- - - ----- ---- - -- -------- ------ - -- -- ------- -- ------ -- --- --- -- -- - ---- ------ -------- ----- - -------------- - ------------- - -- - - -- - ---- ------------- ---- - ---- ---- - -- --- - ----- ----- -- - -- - ------------------ $ X_{1}Z_{2} Z _ { 3}X_{4}$ $Z_{4 }Z_{5}Z_ {6}Z_{7}$ $Z_{ 1 } Z_{2 }Z _{3}Z_{ 4}$ , $X_{ 1}X _{2 }X_ {3} X_ {4}$ $Z_ {1}Z_ { 2}Z_{3}Z _{ 4}$ , $X _{1}X _ {2}X_{ 3}X_{ 4}$ $ X_ {2}Z _{3 }Z _{4}X _{5} $ $Z_{2 }Z _{3}Z_{6}Z _{ 7}$ $Z_{ 1 }Z_{3}Z _{5 }Z_{7 }$, $X_{1}X_ {3} X_{5}X _{7 } $ $ Z _ {1}Z_ { 3 }Z _{5 }Z _{6}$, $ X _ {1} X_{3} X_ {5}X _{6}$
$X_{1}X_{3} Z_{ 4}Z_ { 5 }$ $Z _{1}Z_{3}Z _ {5} Z_ {7}$ $ Z_{12}Z_{ 13 }Z_{ 1 4 }Z_ {15}$, $X _{12}X_{ 13}X_{14} X _{15 | 3]\!]$]{} _ $\tilde{p}_= p$ _ __ __ 9 _ _ _ $36_\le_T_{\mathrm{time}} \le108$ $p_{\mathrm{pseudo}} = (3.39 \pm 0.10) \times 10^{-5}$
_Flag-EC_[$[\![7,1,3]\!]$]{} ___ _ _ _ __ _11 _ $34 \le T_{\mathrm{time}} \le 104$_ $p_{\mathrm{pseudo}}_=_(2.97_\pm 0.01) \times 10^{-5}$
Compact_implementation of flag error correction {#app:CompactRepFlagQubit}
===============================================
_ _ _ _ _ [$[\![5,1,3]\!]$]{}_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___ _ __ __ _[$[\![7,1,3]\!]$]{}_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ [$[\![19,1,5]\!]$]{} code_ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ [$[\![17,1,5]\!]$]{} code
_-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
___ _ _ _ _$X_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}X_{4}$_ __ ___ _ _ _ _ ___$Z_{4}Z_{5}Z_{6}Z_{7}$ _ _ _ _ _ $Z_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}$, $X_{1}X_{2}X_{3}X_{4}$ _ _ $Z_{1}Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}$, $X_{1}X_{2}X_{3}X_{4}$
_ __ ____ _ _ $X_{2}Z_{3}Z_{4}X_{5}$_ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ $Z_{2}Z_{3}Z_{6}Z_{7}$ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ $Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{7}$, $X_{1}X_{3}X_{5}X_{7}$_ _ _ __ $Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{6}$, $X_{1}X_{3}X_{5}X_{6}$
____ _ _ _ __ _ $X_{1}X_{3}Z_{4}Z_{5}$_ _ _ _ _ _ __ $Z_{1}Z_{3}Z_{5}Z_{7}$_ _ __ ___ __ $Z_{12}Z_{13}Z_{14}Z_{15}$, $X_{12}X_{13}X_{14}X_{15 |
}\times \underline\Omega$, and is smooth on $(0,\infty)\times \Omega\times \Omega$.
By the symmetry property, we have that $$\label{eq:Symmetry_fundam}
p^{\Omega}(t,z^0,z) = p^{\Omega}(t,z,z^0),\quad\forall\, t\in (0,\infty),\quad\hbox{ for almost all } z^0, z\in\Omega.$$ Let $t_0>0$ and $z^0\in\underline\Omega$. Because $p(t_0,z^0,\cdot)\in L^2(\Omega;d\mu)$, there is a unique weak solution, $u\in \cF((0,T)\times\Omega)$, for all $T>0$, to the homogeneous equation with initial condition $f=p(t_0,z^0,\cdot)$. Using [@Epstein_Mazzeo_cont_est Corollary 4.1] together with [@Sturm_1995 Theorem 2.1], it follows that the solution $u$ is continuous on $(0,T)\times\underline\Omega$. Since $u(t)=T^{\Omega}_t p^{\Omega}(t_0,z^0,\cdot)$, the semigroup property implies that $u(t)=p^{\Omega}(t+t_0,z^0,\cdot)$, and so, the function $p^{\Omega}(\cdot,z^0,\cdot)$ is continuous on $(0,\infty)\times\underline\Omega$, where we used the fact that the positive constants $t_0$ and $T$ were arbitrarily chosen. Using the symmetry of the fundamental solution,, it follows that the function $p^{\Omega}$ is continuous on $(0,\infty)\times\underline\Omega\times\underline\Omega$. Interior regularity of solutions to parabolic equations with smooth coefficients implies that the function $p^{\Omega}$ is smooth on $(0,\infty)\times \Omega\times \Omega$.
\[lem:Fundam\_sol\_different\_domains\] Let $\Omega_1\subset\Omega_2\subseteq S_{n,m}$ be domains. Then we have that $$\label{eq:Fundam_sol_different_domains}
p^{\Omega_1}(t,z^0,z) \leq p^{\Omega_2}(t,z^ | } \times \underline\Omega$, and is smooth on $ (0,\infty)\times \Omega\times \Omega$.
By the symmetry property, we have that $ $ \label{eq: Symmetry_fundam }
p^{\Omega}(t, z^0,z) = p^{\Omega}(t, z, z^0),\quad\forall\, t\in (0,\infty),\quad\hbox { for about all } z^0, z\in\Omega.$$ lease $ t_0>0 $ and $ z^0\in\underline\Omega$. Because $ p(t_0,z^0,\cdot)\in L^2(\Omega;d\mu)$, there is a unique fallible solution, $ u\in \cF((0,T)\times\Omega)$, for all $ T>0 $, to the homogeneous equality with initial condition $ f = p(t_0,z^0,\cdot)$. Using [ @Epstein_Mazzeo_cont_est Corollary 4.1 ] in concert with [ @Sturm_1995 Theorem 2.1 ], it trace that the solution $ u$ is continuous on $ (0,T)\times\underline\Omega$. Since $ u(t)=T^{\Omega}_t p^{\Omega}(t_0,z^0,\cdot)$, the semigroup property imply that $ u(t)=p^{\Omega}(t+t_0,z^0,\cdot)$, and so, the function $ p^{\Omega}(\cdot, z^0,\cdot)$ is continuous on $ (0,\infty)\times\underline\Omega$, where we use the fact that the positive constants $ t_0 $ and $ T$ were randomly chosen. Using the symmetry of the fundamental solution, , it follows that the function $ p^{\Omega}$ is continuous on $ (0,\infty)\times\underline\Omega\times\underline\Omega$. Interior regularity of solution to parabolic equations with smooth coefficients incriminate that the function $ p^{\Omega}$ is smooth on $ (0,\infty)\times \Omega\times \Omega$.
\[lem: Fundam\_sol\_different\_domains\ ] Let $ \Omega_1\subset\Omega_2\subseteq S_{n, m}$ be domains. Then we experience that $ $ \label{eq: Fundam_sol_different_domains }
p^{\Omega_1}(t, z^0,z) \leq p^{\Omega_2}(t, z^ | }\timfs \underline\Omega$, and is smooth on $(0,\infti)\tumes \Okega\tijes \Omegx$.
By the symmetry property, we hqve tyat $$\label{eq:Symmetry_funaam}
p^{\Omega}(n,z^0,z) = p^{\Ometa}(t,z,e^0),\quad\forall\, t\in (0,\iirty),\quad\myox{ fkv almmwt all } z^0, z\in\Okega.$$ Let $t_0>0$ and $z^0\in\underlhnd\Olega$. Because $p(t_0,z^0,\cdot)\in L^2(\Omega;d\mu)$, thqre is s knique weak sojutipg, $u\ih \cF((0,T)\times\Omega)$, for all $T>0$, to the hkmogenemus equation eith initial condition $f=p(t_0,x^0,\cdoh)$. Using [@Epstein_Mazxeo_cont_est Xorojoary 4.1] togethdr with [@Stlxm_1995 Theorem 2.1], it follows that the solution $u$ is cpntinuous in $(0,T)\tlkes\underlinx\Omega$. Since $u(t)=T^{\Omcba}_t p^{\Okega}(t_0,z^0,\ccot)$, the semigrpup priperty implies that $u(v)=p^{\Omega}(t+t_0,z^0,\cdot)$, and sj, the funwtnon $p^{\Omega}(\cdot,z^0,\cdot)$ iw xontituouv on $(0,\unfgy)\tjmxs\uhderlije\Ojega$, where we used thw fact that the posotynr constants $f_0$ and $E$ rere arbitrarily chosen. Using the symmeury or the fundamental solutuon,, it follows that tje functijn $p^{\Omega}$ is continuous on $(0,\infty)\times\underline\Omeca\timxs\jndtroine\Oowgw$. Interior regularity of solutions to parabolyd tqustions with smjoth coeffivifnyf implies thaj the fbhcfion $p^{\Omega}$ is smolth on $(0,\ynfty)\rimes \Omeda\tikes \Omega$.
\[lem:Fundam\_sol\_differwnt\_domains\] Lvt $\Onega_1\subset\Omega_2\subdeteq S_{n,m}$ bz domaons. Tnen we have that $$\label{ed:Funsam_sol_diffegent_domaihr}
p^{\Omega_1}(t,z^0,z) \leq p^{\Umena_2}(t,s^ | }\times \underline\Omega$, and is smooth on $(0,\infty)\times By symmetry property, have that $$\label{eq:Symmetry_fundam} for all } z^0, Let $t_0>0$ and Because $p(t_0,z^0,\cdot)\in L^2(\Omega;d\mu)$, there is a weak solution, $u\in \cF((0,T)\times\Omega)$, for all $T>0$, to the homogeneous equation with initial $f=p(t_0,z^0,\cdot)$. Using [@Epstein_Mazzeo_cont_est Corollary 4.1] together with [@Sturm_1995 Theorem 2.1], it follows that solution is on Since $u(t)=T^{\Omega}_t p^{\Omega}(t_0,z^0,\cdot)$, the semigroup property implies that $u(t)=p^{\Omega}(t+t_0,z^0,\cdot)$, and so, the function $p^{\Omega}(\cdot,z^0,\cdot)$ is continuous $(0,\infty)\times\underline\Omega$, where we used the fact that the constants $t_0$ and $T$ arbitrarily chosen. Using the symmetry the solution,, it that function is continuous on Interior regularity of solutions to parabolic equations with smooth coefficients implies that the function $p^{\Omega}$ is smooth $(0,\infty)\times \Omega\times Let $\Omega_1\subset\Omega_2\subseteq be Then have that $$\label{eq:Fundam_sol_different_domains} p^{\Omega_2}(t,z^ | }\times \underline\Omega$, and is sMooth on $(0,\infTy)\timEs \OMegA\tImes \omegA$.
By the symmetry PRopeRty, we have that $$\label{eq:SyMmetrY_fUNdam}
P^{\omEga}(t,z^0,Z) = p^{\Omega}(T,Z,z^0),\QUAd\fOrAlL\, t\iN (0,\iNFtY),\quad\HboX{ for almOst all } z^0, z\in\omeGa.$$ let $t_0>0$ and $z^0\in\unDErLine\Omega$. BEcaUse $p(t_0,z^0,\cdot)\in l^2(\OmEga;d\mu)$, ThEre IS a uniQue Weak sOlutioN, $U\in \cF((0,T)\Times\OmegA)$, fOR all $T>0$, tO The homoGENeOus eQuation with initiaL CoNDition $f=p(t_0,z^0,\cdot)$. using [@EPsTEiN_mAzzEo_cOnt_est CoroLlAry 4.1] toGEther wiTH [@STURM_1995 ThEOrem 2.1], it follows That the soluTIon $U$ is conTiNuoUS on $(0,T)\tiMes\unDeRLinE\Omega$. Since $U(t)=T^{\OMega}_t p^{\OmeGa}(t_0,z^0,\cdOT)$, the semIGroup prOperty ImpLieS thaT $U(t)=P^{\OMegA}(t+T_0,Z^0,\cdOT)$, aNd sO, The Function $P^{\OMeGa}(\cdoT,z^0,\cdOT)$ IS ContInuOus oN $(0,\inftY)\times\underliNe\OMega$, WHerE we usEd the Fact ThAt the PositiVe conStAnts $t_0$ and $T$ were arBitrArily chosEn. USiNg tHe SymmeTRy of thE fuNdaMental sOlution,, IT foLlOWS ThAt the function $p^{\OmegA}$ iS COnTinuous oN $(0,\infty)\TImEs\UNderline\omEga\TimeS\UNderlIne\OMEgA$. InterioR regulARiTy Of solutIoNs to paRaBolIc eQuatiONs wiTh smooTh coeffiCientS Implies that the FUnction $p^{\Omega}$ IS sMOOtH On $(0,\inFty)\Times \Omega\tImes \oMega$.
\[Lem:FUNdAm\_sOL\_diffErent\_DoMAiNS\] Let $\Omega_1\subset\OmegA_2\sUbseteQ S_{n,m}$ bE domains. Then wE have that $$\lABEL{eq:FundaM_sol_DIfFErent_domains}
p^{\OMega_1}(t,Z^0,z) \leq p^{\OmegA_2}(T,z^ | }\times \underline\Omega$, and is sm oothon$(0 ,\ inft y)\t imes \Omega\ti m es \ Omega$.
By the symmet ry pr op e rty, we have that $ $ \l a b el{ eq :S ymm et r y_ funda m}p^{\Ome ga}(t,z^0, z)=p^{\Omega}(t , z, z^0),\quad \fo rall\, t\in(0, \infty ), \qu a d\hbo x{for a lmosta ll } z ^0, z\in\ Om e ga.$$L et $t_0 > 0 $and$z^0\in\underline \ Om e ga$. Because $ p(t_0, z^ 0 ,\ c d ot) \in L^2(\Omeg a; d\mu) $ , there is a uni q ue weak solut ion, $u\in\ cF( (0,T)\ ti mes \ Omega) $, fo ra ll$T>0$, to t he h omogeneou s equa t ion wit h initia l cond iti on$f=p ( t_ 0, z^0 ,\ c dot ) $. Us i ng[@Epstei n_ Ma zzeo_ cont _ e s t Cor oll ary4.1]together with [@ Stur m _19 95 Th eorem 2.1 ], it f ollows that t he solution $u$ iscontinuou s o n$(0 ,T )\tim e s\unde rli ne\ Omega$. Since$ u(t )= T ^ { \O mega}_t p^{\Omega} (t _ 0 ,z ^0,\cdot )$, th e s em i group pr op ert y im p l ies t hat$ u( t)=p^{\O mega}( t +t _0 ,z^0,\c do t)$, a nd so , t he fu n ctio n $p^{ \Omega}( \cdot , z^0,\cdot)$ is continuous on $( 0 , \i n fty) \ti mes\underli ne\O m ega$ , wh e re we usedthe f ac t t h at the positive con st ants $ t_0$and $T$ werearbitraril y c hosen. U sing th e symmetry of t he fu ndamentals olution, , itfollowsthat thef u nction $ p^{ \Om ega }$i s c ontinuous on$ ( 0,\i nf ty)\tim es\ underli ne\ Ome ga\ tim es \underlin e\Omega$ .In te ri orregul a rity ofso lut io nsto pa r abolic equa tion swi t h s mooth c o ef f i cien ts i mpli esth at th e fu n cti on $p^{ \Omega}$iss moot hon $(0,\i nfty)\times \ Om ega\times\O meg a$.
\ [ l em:Funda m\_sol\_different\_doma i ns\] Le t $ \Omeg a_1\ subset\Om ega _2\sub set e q S_{n ,m}$ b e dom ai ns. T hen w e ha veth at $$\labe l { eq: Funda m_ sol_ differe nt_domains}
p^{\Om e ga_ 1}(t,z^0,z) \ leq p^{ \ O me ga_ 2 }( t ,z^ | }\times \underline\Omega$,_and is_smooth on $(0,\infty)\times \Omega\times_\Omega$.
By the_symmetry_property, we_have_that $$\label{eq:Symmetry_fundam}
p^{\Omega}(t,z^0,z) =_p^{\Omega}(t,z,z^0),\quad\forall\, t\in (0,\infty),\quad\hbox{_for almost all }_z^0, z\in\Omega.$$ Let_$t_0>0$_and $z^0\in\underline\Omega$. Because $p(t_0,z^0,\cdot)\in L^2(\Omega;d\mu)$, there is a unique weak solution, $u\in \cF((0,T)\times\Omega)$, for_all_$T>0$, to_the_homogeneous_equation with initial condition $f=p(t_0,z^0,\cdot)$._Using [@Epstein_Mazzeo_cont_est Corollary 4.1] together_with [@Sturm_1995_Theorem 2.1], it follows that the solution $u$_is_continuous on $(0,T)\times\underline\Omega$._Since $u(t)=T^{\Omega}_t p^{\Omega}(t_0,z^0,\cdot)$, the semigroup property implies that $u(t)=p^{\Omega}(t+t_0,z^0,\cdot)$,_and so, the function $p^{\Omega}(\cdot,z^0,\cdot)$ is_continuous on $(0,\infty)\times\underline\Omega$,_where_we_used the fact that_the positive constants $t_0$ and $T$_were arbitrarily chosen. Using the symmetry_of the fundamental solution,, it follows that_the function $p^{\Omega}$ is continuous on_$(0,\infty)\times\underline\Omega\times\underline\Omega$. Interior regularity of solutions_to parabolic_equations with smooth coefficients implies_that the function_$p^{\Omega}$ is_smooth on $(0,\infty)\times_\Omega\times \Omega$.
\[lem:Fundam\_sol\_different\_domains\] Let $\Omega_1\subset\Omega_2\subseteq S_{n,m}$ be_domains. Then we_have that $$\label{eq:Fundam_sol_different_domains}
p^{\Omega_1}(t,z^0,z) \leq p^{\Omega_2}(t,z^ |
^\ast]_{G_k^\ast G_k^\ast}\big\|_1.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\hat{Z} \in {\mathscr{C}}_{K} \subset {\mathscr{C}}$, according to inequalities - in Lemma \[lem:some\_ineq\_feasible\_set\] in Appendix C, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DKM_SDP_another_core_inequality}
\sum_{1{\leqslant}k\neq m{\leqslant}K} \frac{1}{n_k}\|\hat Z_{G_k^\ast G_m^\ast}\|_1 {\geqslant}\frac{1}{n}\,\big\|\hat Z - Z^\ast\big\|_1.\end{aligned}$$ The last two displays and imply the exact recovery $\hat Z=Z^\ast$ as long as $$\label{eqn:DKM_SDP_exact_recover_master_condition}
\max_{1 {\leqslant}k\neq m {\leqslant}K} \|[A_n]_{G_k^\ast G_m^\ast}\|_\infty + \max_{1 {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}K} \big\|\,[A_n]_{G_k^\ast G_k^\ast}- N_k^{-1} \mathbf{1}_{G_k^\ast}\mathbf{1}_{G_k^\ast}^T\,\big\|_\infty < \frac{1}{n}\,\min_{1{\leqslant}k{\leqslant}K}\Big\{\frac{n_k}{N_k}\Big\}.$$
\[lem:DKM\_SDP\_master\_bound\] If holds, then we can achieve exact recovery $\hat{Z} = Z^{*}$.
To further proceed, we will make use of following two lemmas to provide high probability bounds for the empirical diffusion affinity entries deviating from their expectations. Proofs of Lemma \[lem:within\_cluster\_random\_walk\] and \[lem:between\_cluster\_random\_walk\] are deferred to the following subsections.
\[lem:within\_cluster\_random\_walk\] Let $\kappa = \max_{1{\leqslant}k\neq k'{\leqslant}K}\sup_{x\in {\mathcal{D}}_k,\,x'\in {\mathcal{D}}_{k'}} \kappa(x,\,x')$ and $\tau | ^\ast]_{G_k^\ast G_k^\ast}\big\|_1.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $ \hat{Z } \in { \mathscr{C}}_{K } \subset { \mathscr{C}}$, according to inequalities - in Lemma \[lem: some\_ineq\_feasible\_set\ ] in Appendix C, $ $ \begin{aligned }
\label{eqn: DKM_SDP_another_core_inequality }
\sum_{1{\leqslant}k\neq m{\leqslant}K } \frac{1}{n_k}\|\hat Z_{G_k^\ast G_m^\ast}\|_1 { \geqslant}\frac{1}{n}\,\big\|\hat Z - Z^\ast\big\|_1.\end{aligned}$$ The last two displays and entail the accurate recovery $ \hat Z = Z^\ast$ as long as $ $ \label{eqn: DKM_SDP_exact_recover_master_condition }
\max_{1 { \leqslant}k\neq m { \leqslant}K } \|[A_n]_{G_k^\ast G_m^\ast}\|_\infty + \max_{1 { \leqslant}k { \leqslant}K } \big\|\,[A_n]_{G_k^\ast G_k^\ast}- N_k^{-1 } \mathbf{1}_{G_k^\ast}\mathbf{1}_{G_k^\ast}^T\,\big\|_\infty < \frac{1}{n}\,\min_{1{\leqslant}k{\leqslant}K}\Big\{\frac{n_k}{N_k}\Big\}.$$
\[lem: DKM\_SDP\_master\_bound\ ] If hold, then we can achieve accurate recovery $ \hat{Z } = Z^{*}$.
To further proceed, we will induce use of following two lemmas to provide high probability bounce for the empirical diffusion affinity entrance deviate from their expectations. Proofs of Lemma \[lem: within\_cluster\_random\_walk\ ] and \[lem: between\_cluster\_random\_walk\ ] are deferred to the following subsections.
\[lem: within\_cluster\_random\_walk\ ] permit $ \kappa = \max_{1{\leqslant}k\neq k'{\leqslant}K}\sup_{x\in { \mathcal{D}}_k,\,x'\in { \mathcal{D}}_{k' } } \kappa(x,\,x')$ and $ \tau | ^\ast]_{H_k^\ast G_k^\ast}\big\|_1.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\hat{Z} \in {\mathscr{R}}_{K} \subsst {\mathszr{C}}$, according to inequalitied - un Lenma \[lem:some\_ineq\_feasible\_ret\] in Apiendix C, $$\vegii{aligned}
\label{eqn:VIM_SDP_another_ckve_inexnality}
\sum_{1{\leqslakt}k\neq m{\leqvlant}K} \frac{1}{n_k}\|\hdt Z_{Y_k^\ast G_m^\ast}\|_1 {\geqslant}\frac{1}{n}\,\big\|\hat Z - Z^\wst\big\|_1.\emd{wligned}$$ The laft tej diailcys and imply the exact recoverg $\hat Z=E^\ast$ as long as $$\lanel{eqn:DKM_SDP_exact_recover_madter_fondition}
\max_{1 {\leqslwnt}k\neq m {\lgsslwbt}K} \|[A_n]_{G_k^\ast E_m^\ast}\|_\infty + \max_{1 {\leqslaht}k {\leqslant}K} \big\|\,[A_n]_{G_k^\ast G_k^\ast}- V_k^{-1} \machbf{1}_{G_k^\ast}\majkvf{1}_{G_n^\dst}^T\,\big\|_\inftb < \frab{1}{n}\,\min_{1{\leqslant}k{\leqsland}K}\Big\{\frsc{n_k}{N_k}\Big\}.$$
\[lem:DKK\_SD'\_masrer\_bound\] If holds, thei we can achieve exast recovesy $\hat{Z} = Z^{*}$.
To furthee procegd, we wilu maye hsx or folllwiig two lemmzs to proviee high probability bjlmds for the smpirisaj diffusion affinity entries deviating xroj their expectations. Priofs of Lemma \[lem:withij\_cluster\_rwndom\_walk\] and \[lem:between\_cluster\_random\_walk\] are defesred vo tht njuooaing subsections.
\[lem:within\_cluster\_random\_walk\] Lee $\kspia = \max_{1{\leqslant}k\ncq k'{\leqslant}K}\sup_{x\im {\layrcal{D}}_k,\,x'\in {\matfcal{D}}_{k'}} \kalpa(x,\,x')$ and $\tau | ^\ast]_{G_k^\ast G_k^\ast}\big\|_1. \end{aligned}$$ Since $\hat{Z} \in {\mathscr{C}}_{K} according inequalities - Lemma \[lem:some\_ineq\_feasible\_set\] in m{\leqslant}K} Z_{G_k^\ast G_m^\ast}\|_1 {\geqslant}\frac{1}{n}\,\big\|\hat - Z^\ast\big\|_1.\end{aligned}$$ The two displays and imply the exact $\hat Z=Z^\ast$ as long as $$\label{eqn:DKM_SDP_exact_recover_master_condition} \max_{1 {\leqslant}k\neq m {\leqslant}K} \|[A_n]_{G_k^\ast G_m^\ast}\|_\infty + {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}K} \big\|\,[A_n]_{G_k^\ast G_k^\ast}- N_k^{-1} \mathbf{1}_{G_k^\ast}\mathbf{1}_{G_k^\ast}^T\,\big\|_\infty < \frac{1}{n}\,\min_{1{\leqslant}k{\leqslant}K}\Big\{\frac{n_k}{N_k}\Big\}.$$ \[lem:DKM\_SDP\_master\_bound\] If holds, then we achieve recovery = To further proceed, we will make use of following two lemmas to provide high probability bounds the empirical diffusion affinity entries deviating from their Proofs of Lemma \[lem:within\_cluster\_random\_walk\] \[lem:between\_cluster\_random\_walk\] are deferred to the subsections. Let $\kappa \max_{1{\leqslant}k\neq {\mathcal{D}}_k,\,x'\in \kappa(x,\,x')$ and $\tau | ^\ast]_{G_k^\ast G_k^\ast}\big\|_1.
\end{aligneD}$$ Since $\hat{Z} \In {\matHscR{C}}_{K} \SuBset {\MathScr{C}}$, according tO IneqUalities - in Lemma \[lem:some\_Ineq\_fEaSIble\_SEt\] In AppEndix C, $$\bEGiN{ALigNeD}
\lAbeL{eQN:DkM_SDP_AnoTher_corE_inequalitY}
\suM_{1{\lEqslant}k\neq m{\LEqSlant}K} \frac{1}{N_k}\|\hAt Z_{G_k^\ast G_m^\asT}\|_1 {\geQslant}\FrAc{1}{n}\,\BIg\|\hat z - Z^\aSt\big\|_1.\End{aliGNed}$$ The Last two diSpLAys and IMply the EXAcT recOvery $\hat Z=Z^\ast$ as loNG aS $$\Label{eqn:DKM_SDP_Exact_rEcOVeR_MAstEr_cOndition}
\maX_{1 {\lEqslaNT}k\neq m {\lEQsLANT}K} \|[A_N]_{g_k^\ast G_m^\ast}\|_\infTy + \max_{1 {\leqslaNT}k {\lEqslanT}K} \Big\|\,[a_N]_{G_k^\ast g_k^\ast}- n_k^{-1} \MAthBf{1}_{G_k^\ast}\mathBf{1}_{G_k^\Ast}^T\,\big\|_\inFty < \fraC{1}{N}\,\min_{1{\leqSLant}k{\leQslant}k}\BiG\{\frAc{n_k}{n_K}\BIg\}.$$
\[Lem:dKm\_sDP\_MAsTer\_BOunD\] If holds, ThEn We can AchiEVE EXact RecOverY $\hat{Z} = z^{*}$.
To further proCeeD, we wILl mAke usE of foLlowInG two lEmmas tO provIdE high probabilitY bouNds for the EmpIrIcaL dIffusIOn affiNitY enTries deViating FRom ThEIR ExPectations. Proofs of leMMA \[lEm:within\_ClusteR\_RaNdOM\_walk\] and \[LeM:beTweeN\_CLusteR\_ranDOm\_Walk\] are dEferreD To ThE followInG subseCtIonS.
\[leM:withIN\_cluSter\_raNdom\_walk\] let $\kaPPa = \max_{1{\leqslant}k\NEq k'{\leqslant}K}\sUP_{x\IN {\MaTHcal{d}}_k,\,x'\In {\mathcal{D}}_{k'}} \KappA(X,\,x')$ anD $\tau | ^\ast]_{G_k^\ast G_k^\ast} \big\|_1.\end{ ali gne d} $$ S ince $\hat{Z} \in{ \mat hscr{C}}_{K} \subset { \math sc r {C}} $ ,accor ding to in e q ual it ie s - i n L emma\[l em:some \_ineq\_fe asi bl e\_set\] inA pp endix C, $ $\b egin{aligned }
\ label{ eq n:D K M_SDP _an other _core_ i nequal ity}
\sum _{ 1 {\leqs l ant}k\n e q m {\le qslant}K} \frac{1 } {n _ k}\|\hat Z_{G_ k^\ast G _ m^ \ a st} \|_ 1 {\geqsla nt }\fra c {1}{n}\ , \b i g \ |\h a t Z - Z^\ast\ big\|_1.\en d {al igned} $$ Th e lasttwo d is p lay s and imp ly t he exactrecove r y $\hat Z=Z^\as t$ aslon g a s $$ \ la be l{e qn : DKM _ SD P_e x act _recover _m as ter_c ondi t i o n }
\m ax_ {1 { \leqs lant}k\neq m{\l eqsl a nt} K} \| [A_n] _{G_ k^ \astG_m^\a st}\| _\ infty + \max_{1 {\l eqslant}k {\ le qsl an t}K}\ big\|\ ,[A _n] _{G_k^\ ast G_k ^ \as t} - N _k ^{-1} \mathbf{1}_{ G_ k ^ \a st}\math bf{1}_ { G_ k^ \ ast}^T\, \b ig\ |_\i n f ty <\fra c {1 }{n}\,\m in_{1{ \ le qs lant}k{ \l eqslan t} K}\ Big \{\fr a c{n_ k}{N_k }\Big\}. $$
\ [ lem:DKM\_SDP\_ m aster\_bound\ ] I f h o lds, th en we can a chie v e ex actr ec ove r y $\h at{Z} = Z^ { *}$.
To further pr oc eed, w e wil l make use of following t w o lemmas top ro v ide high proba bilit y bounds f o r the em piric al diffu sion affi n i ty entri esdev iat ing f ro m their expec t a tion s. Proofs of Lemma\[l em: wit hin \_ cluster\_ random\_ wa lk \] a nd\[lem : between\ _c lus te r\_ rando m \_walk \] ar e de fe rr e d t o the f o ll o w ingsu bs ecti ons .
\[le m:wi t hin \_clust er\_rando m\_ w alk\ ]Le t $\kap pa = \max_{1{ \l eqslant}k\ ne q k '{\leq s l ant}K}\s up_{x\in {\mathcal{D}}_ k ,\,x'\i n { \math cal{ D}}_{k'}} \k appa(x ,\, x ')$ an d $\ta u | ^\ast]_{G_k^\ast G_k^\ast}\big\|_1.
\end{aligned}$$_Since $\hat{Z}_\in {\mathscr{C}}_{K} \subset {\mathscr{C}}$,_according to_inequalities -_in Lemma \[lem:some\_ineq\_feasible\_set\]_in_Appendix C, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DKM_SDP_another_core_inequality}
\sum_{1{\leqslant}k\neq_m{\leqslant}K} \frac{1}{n_k}\|\hat Z_{G_k^\ast_G_m^\ast}\|_1 {\geqslant}\frac{1}{n}\,\big\|\hat Z -_Z^\ast\big\|_1.\end{aligned}$$ The last_two_displays and imply the exact recovery $\hat Z=Z^\ast$ as long as $$\label{eqn:DKM_SDP_exact_recover_master_condition}
\max_{1 {\leqslant}k\neq m_{\leqslant}K}_\|[A_n]_{G_k^\ast G_m^\ast}\|_\infty_+_\max_{1_{\leqslant}k {\leqslant}K} \big\|\,[A_n]_{G_k^\ast G_k^\ast}- N_k^{-1}_\mathbf{1}_{G_k^\ast}\mathbf{1}_{G_k^\ast}^T\,\big\|_\infty < \frac{1}{n}\,\min_{1{\leqslant}k{\leqslant}K}\Big\{\frac{n_k}{N_k}\Big\}.$$
\[lem:DKM\_SDP\_master\_bound\] If holds,_then we_can achieve exact recovery $\hat{Z} = Z^{*}$.
To further_proceed,_we will make_use of following two lemmas to provide high probability_bounds for the empirical diffusion affinity_entries deviating from_their_expectations._Proofs of Lemma \[lem:within\_cluster\_random\_walk\] and \[lem:between\_cluster\_random\_walk\]_are deferred to the following subsections.
\[lem:within\_cluster\_random\_walk\]_Let $\kappa = \max_{1{\leqslant}k\neq k'{\leqslant}K}\sup_{x\in {\mathcal{D}}_k,\,x'\in_{\mathcal{D}}_{k'}} \kappa(x,\,x')$ and $\tau |
ive Neutrinos, Dark Radiation, Warm Dark Matter {#subsec_supporting_suite}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0pt
Simulation Name $M_{\rm \nu}$ \[eV\] $N_{\rm eff}$ $\sigma_8(z=0)$ Boxes \[Mpc/h\] $N_{\rm p}^{1/3}$ Mean Par. Sep. \[Mpc/h\] Softening \[kpc/h\]
---------------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------
Best Guess Grid a/b/c 0.0 3.046 0.8150 25/25/100 208/832/832 0.1202/0.0300/0.1202 4.01/1.00/4.01
BG\_NORM a/b/c 0.0 3.046 0.8150 25/100/100 256/512/832 0.0976/0.1953/0.1202 3.25/6.51/4.01
BG\_UN a/b 0.0 3.046 0.8150 25/100 256/512 0.0976/0.1953 3.25/6.51
NU\_NORM 01 a 0.1 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NU\_NORM 02 a 0.2 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NU\_NORM 03 Grid a/b/c 0.3 3.046 0.8150 25/25/100 208/832/832 0.1202/0.0300/0.1202 4.01/1.00/4.01
NU\_NORM 03 a 0.3 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NU\_NORM 04 a 0.4 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NU\_UN 01 Grid-Like a/b/c 0.1 3.046 0.7926 25/25/100 | i ve Neutrinos, Dark Radiation, Warm Dark Matter { # subsec_supporting_suite }
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0pt
Simulation Name $ M_{\rm \nu}$ \[eV\ ] $ N_{\rm eff}$ $ \sigma_8(z=0)$ Boxes \[Mpc / h\ ] $ N_{\rm p}^{1/3}$ Mean Par. Sep. \[Mpc / h\ ] Softening \[kpc / h\ ]
---------------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------
Best Guess Grid a / b / c 0.0 3.046 0.8150 25/25/100 208/832/832 0.1202/0.0300/0.1202 4.01/1.00/4.01
BG\_NORM a / boron / coulomb 0.0 3.046 0.8150 25/100/100 256/512/832 0.0976/0.1953/0.1202 3.25/6.51/4.01
BG\_UN a / b 0.0 3.046 0.8150 25/100 256/512 0.0976/0.1953 3.25/6.51
NU\_NORM 01 a 0.1 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NU\_NORM 02 a 0.2 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NU\_NORM 03 Grid a / boron / speed of light 0.3 3.046 0.8150 25/25/100 208/832/832 0.1202/0.0300/0.1202 4.01/1.00/4.01
NU\_NORM 03 a 0.3 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NU\_NORM 04 a 0.4 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NU\_UN 01 Grid - Like a / b / c 0.1 3.046 0.7926 25/25/100 | ive Neutrinos, Dark Radiatiok, Warm Dark Mattgr {#subser_supporfing_suitd}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0pt
Simulation Iame $M_{\rm \nu}$ \[eV\] $V_{\rm eff}$ $\sigma_8(z=0)$ Boees \[Mpc/h\] $N_{\rm p}^{1/3}$ Mean Icr. Sel. \[Mpc/k\] Softening \[kpg/h\]
---------------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------
Besd Euzss Grid a/b/c 0.0 3.046 0.8150 25/25/100 208/832/832 0.1202/0.0300/0.1202 4.01/1.00/4.01
UG\_NORM a/b/c 0.0 3.046 0.8150 25/100/100 256/512/832 0.0976/0.1953/0.1202 3.25/6.51/4.01
BG\_ON a/b 0.0 3.046 0.8150 25/100 256/512 0.0976/0.1953 3.25/6.51
NU\_NORM 01 a 0.1 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NU\_NORM 02 a 0.2 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NU\_NORM 03 Grid a/b/c 0.3 3.046 0.8150 25/25/100 208/832/832 0.1202/0.0300/0.1202 4.01/1.00/4.01
MO\_NORM 03 a 0.3 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NI\_NORM 04 a 0.4 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NU\_UK 01 Grid-Like a/b/c 0.1 3.046 0.7926 25/25/100 | ive Neutrinos, Dark Radiation, Warm Dark Matter 2.0pt Name $M_{\rm \[eV\] $N_{\rm eff}$ Mean Sep. \[Mpc/h\] Softening ---------------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------- ----------------- ------------------- -------------------------- --------------------- Best Guess a/b/c 0.0 3.046 0.8150 25/25/100 208/832/832 0.1202/0.0300/0.1202 4.01/1.00/4.01 BG\_NORM a/b/c 0.0 3.046 0.8150 256/512/832 0.0976/0.1953/0.1202 3.25/6.51/4.01 BG\_UN a/b 0.0 3.046 0.8150 25/100 256/512 0.0976/0.1953 3.25/6.51 NU\_NORM a 3.046 25 0.0976 3.25 NU\_NORM 02 a 0.2 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25 NU\_NORM 03 Grid a/b/c 3.046 0.8150 25/25/100 208/832/832 0.1202/0.0300/0.1202 4.01/1.00/4.01 NU\_NORM 03 0.3 3.046 0.8150 25 0.0976 3.25 NU\_NORM 04 a 3.046 25 256 3.25 01 a/b/c 0.1 3.046 25/25/100 | ive Neutrinos, Dark Radiation, warm Dark MaTter {#sUbsEc_sUpPortIng_sUite}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0pt
SimulatiON NamE $M_{\rm \nu}$ \[eV\] $N_{\rm eff}$ $\sigma_8(z=0)$ BoXes \[MpC/h\] $n_{\Rm p}^{1/3}$ MEAn par. SeP. \[Mpc/h\] SoFTeNINg \[kPc/H\]
---------------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------
BEst guESs grid a/B/c 0.0 3.046 0.8150 25/25/100 208/832/832 0.1202/0.0300/0.1202 4.01/1.00/4.01
Bg\_NORM a/b/C 0.0 3.046 0.8150 25/100/100 256/512/832 0.0976/0.1953/0.1202 3.25/6.51/4.01
BG\_UN a/b 0.0 3.046 0.8150 25/100 256/512 0.0976/0.1953 3.25/6.51
NU\_NoRM 01 A 0.1 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
Nu\_NORM 02 a 0.2 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NU\_NORM 03 gRiD a/b/c 0.3 3.046 0.8150 25/25/100 208/832/832 0.1202/0.0300/0.1202 4.01/1.00/4.01
NU\_NORM 03 A 0.3 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NU\_nORM 04 a 0.4 3.046 0.8150 25 256 0.0976 3.25
NU\_UN 01 GriD-LiKe a/b/c 0.1 3.046 0.7926 25/25/100 | ive Neutrinos, Dark Radiat ion, WarmDarkMat ter { #sub sec_ supporting_sui t e}
- ---------------------- ----- -- - ---- - -- ----- ------- - -- - - --- -- -- --- -- - -- -----
2 .0pt
Si mulation Nam e $M_{\rm \nu} $ \ [eV\] $N_ { \rm e ff} $ $ \sigma _ 8(z=0) $ Boxes \ [ Mpc/h\ ] $N_{ \ r mp}^{ 1/3}$ Mean Par. Se p . \[Mpc/h\] Soften in g \ [ k pc/ h\]
------- -- ----- - ------- - -- - - - --- - -------- ---- ----------- - --- --- -- -- --- - ------ - --- -- - --- -------- -- ---- --------- -- --- - ------- - ------- ----- --- --- ---- - -- -- --- -- - -- - -- --- - --- -------- - B e s t Gue ssGrid a/b/ c 0.0 3.046 0. 8150 25/2 5/100 208 /8 32/83 2 0 .12 02/0.03 00/0.12 0 2 4. 01/1.00/4.01
BG\_ NORM a / b/ c 0.0 3.046 0 .8 150 2 5/100 / 100 256/51 2/832 0.0976/ 0 .1953/0.1202 3 . 25/6 .51 /4.01
B G \_ UNa /b 0.0 3. 046 0.8150 25 /100 256/5 12 0 .0976/0. 1953 3.25 / 6 .51
N U \ _N ORM 01 a 0.1 3 .046 0. 81 50 25 256 0 . 097 6 3.25
NU \_NORM02 a 0.2 3.046 0 . 8 150 25 256 0. 097 6 3. 25
NU\ _ N OR M 0 3Grid a/b/c 0.3 3.0 4 6 0.81 50 2 5 /2 5 /10 0 208/832/832 0.12 02 / 0. 0300/0.120 2 4.01/ 1.00/4. 01
NU\_ NORM 03 a 0.3 3 . 04 6 0. 81 50 25 25 6 0.0976 3.25
NU\ _NORM 04a 0.4 3 .046 0.81 5 0 25 2 56 0.0976 3 . 25 N U\_UN 01 Grid- Lik ea / b/c 0.1 3.0 46 0 . 79 2 6 2 5/25/100 | ive Neutrinos,_Dark Radiation,_Warm Dark Matter {#subsec_supporting_suite}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0pt
_ __ __ _ _ Simulation Name _ __ $M_{\rm \nu}$ \[eV\] _$N_{\rm_eff}$ __$\sigma_8(z=0)$_ Boxes \[Mpc/h\] _ $N_{\rm p}^{1/3}$ _Mean Par._Sep. \[Mpc/h\] Softening \[kpc/h\]
----------------------------------------_----------------------_--------------- ----------------- -----------------_------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------
_ Best Guess_Grid a/b/c ___ _ _ _0.0 _ _ 3.046 _ _ _ 0.8150_ _ _ 25/25/100_ _ 208/832/832__ ___ 0.1202/0.0300/0.1202_ __ _4.01/1.00/4.01
_ __ _BG\_NORM a/b/c __ _ _ _ _ _0.0 _ 3.046_ _ __ _0.8150_ _ _25/100/100 _ _ 256/512/832 __ 0.0976/0.1953/0.1202 _ 3.25/6.51/4.01
_ ___ _ BG\_UN a/b_ _ __ __ _0.0__ _ _ 3.046 _ _ 0.8150 ___ 25/100 _ _ _ 256/512 _ _ 0.0976/0.1953 _ 3.25/6.51
_ _ _NU\_NORM_01 a ____ _ _ _ _ _ 0.1_ __ 3.046 _ 0.8150 _ __ _ 25_ _ 256__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _0.0976 _ __ _3.25
___ _ _ _ _NU\_NORM_02 a _ _ _ _ 0.2 _ 3.046_ _ __ 0.8150 _ _ __25 ___ _256_ _____ _ 0.0976 __ _ __ _ 3.25
_ NU\_NORM 03 Grid_a/b/c_ ____ _ 0.3 __ _ 3.046 __ _ 0.8150 _ _ 25/25/100 _ 208/832/832 0.1202/0.0300/0.1202 _ 4.01/1.00/4.01
_ _ __ NU\_NORM_03 a _ _ 0.3 _ _ _ 3.046_ _ 0.8150 _ 25 __ _256 _ _ __ _ 0.0976_ _ _ _ 3.25
_ _ NU\_NORM 04 a _ __ 0.4 _ _ 3.046 _ _0.8150__ __ _ 25 _ _ _ _ _256 _ __ _ 0.0976__ _ __ _ _ __ _ _3.25
_ _ __ NU\_UN 01 Grid-Like a/b/c_ _ _ __ 0.1_ _ _3.046 _ _ _ 0.7926_ __ _25/25/100 |
modes and complete list of references see Ref. [@Schael:2006cr].
[*Light CP even Higgs:*]{} One of the strongest limits on the CP even Higgs boson comes from the search for $h \to b \bar b$. The limit for $m_h \lesssim 60$ GeV is $C_{ZZh} B(h \to b \bar b) \lesssim 0.04$. In order to satisfy this limit we need $B (h \to A A) \gtrsim 96 \%$. This is not impossible, but it is not generically (in large regions of SUSY parameter space) satisfied (\[eq:Bh\]). With generic $B (h \to b \bar b) \simeq 10 \%$ we need $m_h \gtrsim 85$ GeV or somewhat reduced $C_{ZZh}$. Note also that combined $h \to b \bar b$ and $h \to AA \to 4b$ limit requires $m_h > 110$ GeV for $C_{ZZh} \simeq 1$. Thus $m_A < 10$ GeV is favored. For $m_A < 10$ GeV the limits on the dominant decay mode $h \to AA$ are not so strong since it is spread over several final states: $h \to AA \to 2\tau 2c, 4\tau, 4c, \dots$ with about 36%, 23%, 14%, $\dots$ branching ratios. These limits can be satisfied for any $m_h$ provided $m_A\gtrsim 9$ GeV with limits weakening for heavier $h$ and completely expiring for $m_h \gtrsim 86$ GeV [@Jack_TeV4LHC].
The limits from $e^+ e^- \to hA$ are typically comfortably satisfied for masses and branching ratios of interest as a consequence of a very small $C_{ZAh}$. The strongest limit comes from $hA \to AAA \to 6 \tau$ which for $m_A \simeq 10$ GeV and $m_h = 40 - 60$ GeV requires $C_{ZAh} \lesssim 0.07$ and this limit runs out for $m_h \simeq 65$ GeV. A comparable constraint on $C_{ZAh}$ comes from the $Z$-width measurement for $m_h = 40$ GeV and it becomes weaker for larger $m_h$.
We see that this scenario can avoid | modes and complete list of references visualize Ref. [ @Schael:2006cr ].
[ * Light CP even Higgs :* ] { } One of the hard limits on the CP even Higgs boson come from the search for $ h \to b \bar b$. The terminus ad quem for $ m_h \lesssim 60 $ GeV is $ C_{ZZh } B(h \to b \bar b) \lesssim 0.04$. In order to satisfy this limit we necessitate $ B (h \to A A) \gtrsim 96 \%$. This is not impossible, but it is not generically (in large region of SUSY parameter space) meet (\[eq: Bh\ ]). With generic $ B (h \to b \bar b) \simeq 10 \%$ we need $ m_h \gtrsim 85 $ GeV or slightly reduced $ C_{ZZh}$. Note also that combined $ h \to b \bar b$ and $ h \to AA \to 4b$ terminus ad quem requires $ m_h > 110 $ GeV for $ C_{ZZh } \simeq 1$. Thus $ m_A < 10 $ GeV is favored. For $ m_A < 10 $ GeV the terminus ad quem on the dominant decay mode $ h \to AA$ are not thus strong since it is unfold over several final states: $ h \to AA \to 2\tau 2c, 4\tau, 4c, \dots$ with about 36% , 23% , 14% , $ \dots$ ramify ratios. These limits can be satisfied for any $ m_h$ provided $ m_A\gtrsim 9 $ GeV with limits weakening for heavier $ h$ and completely expiring for $ m_h \gtrsim 86 $ GeV [ @Jack_TeV4LHC ].
The limits from $ e^+ e^- \to hA$ are typically comfortably satisfied for masses and branching ratios of interest as a consequence of a very small $ C_{ZAh}$. The strong limit comes from $ hA \to AAA \to 6 \tau$ which for $ m_A \simeq 10 $ GeV and $ m_h = 40 - 60 $ GeV want $ C_{ZAh } \lesssim 0.07 $ and this terminus ad quem range out for $ m_h \simeq 65 $ GeV. A comparable constraint on $ C_{ZAh}$ comes from the $ Z$-width measurement for $ m_h = 40 $ GeV and it become weaker for larger $ m_h$.
We see that this scenario can avoid | mofes and complete list of references see Ref. [@Scheel:2006cr].
[*Lifht CP exen Higgs:*]{} One of the strongedt limiuf on the CP even Hkggs bosoj comes drom rhe search for $h \to b \bad b$. Tke limit for $m_h \kesssim 60$ GaV is $C_{ZZh} B(h \do b \bar b) \lesssim 0.04$. In order to satisfy this lomlt we need $B (h \to S A) \gfgslm 96 \%$. This is not impossible, but jt is nmt genericallu (in large regions of SUSY parwmeter space) satisvied (\[eq:Bh\]). Wijg gqberic $B (h \to b \bar b) \spkeq 10 \%$ we nged $m_h \gtrsim 85$ GeV or somewhat rdduceb $C_{ZZh}$. Note aoso jhat combinev $h \to b \bar b$ and $h \to AA \to 4b$ lomit requires $k_h > 110$ GwV for $C_{ZZh} \simeq 1$. Thns $m_A < 10$ GeV is favorgd. For $m_A < 10$ YeV the limits on the diminatt dacay nodd $h \tp ZA$ are nov so strong since it iw spread over seversl dinal states: $g \to AW \eo 2\tau 2c, 4\tau, 4c, \dots$ with about 36%, 23%, 14%, $\dots$ trahching ratios. These limuts can be satisfied vor any $m_r$ provided $m_A\gtrsim 9$ GeV with limits weakening fos heatidr $k$ and zimoletely expiring for $m_h \gtrsim 86$ GeV [@Jack_TeV4LHC].
Ege lpmits from $e^+ e^- \to hA$ are typocwlki comfortably ratisfnsd for masses and brwnching ratiis of inttrest as a consequence of a very small $C_{ZAh}$. Nhe wtrongest limit coles from $hA \to SAA \tp 6 \tau$ which for $m_A \simzq 10$ GeB and $m_h = 40 - 60$ GeV reqhkres $C_{ZAh} \lesssio 0.07$ sng this limit runs out for $i_h \simeq 65$ GeV. A compxrabke conftraint on $C_{ZAh}$ comes from the $Z$-wifth mgasurekent for $m_j = 40$ GeV and it becomes weaker for larger $m_h$.
We sae nhat this scensrio can avoiq | modes and complete list of references see [*Light even Higgs:*]{} of the strongest Higgs comes from the for $h \to \bar b$. The limit for $m_h 60$ GeV is $C_{ZZh} B(h \to b \bar b) \lesssim 0.04$. In order satisfy this limit we need $B (h \to A A) \gtrsim 96 \%$. is impossible, it not generically (in large regions of SUSY parameter space) satisfied (\[eq:Bh\]). With generic $B (h \to \bar b) \simeq 10 \%$ we need $m_h 85$ GeV or somewhat $C_{ZZh}$. Note also that combined \to \bar b$ $h AA 4b$ limit requires > 110$ GeV for $C_{ZZh} \simeq 1$. Thus $m_A < 10$ GeV is favored. For $m_A < GeV the the dominant mode \to are not so it is spread over several final AA \to 2\tau 2c, 4\tau, 4c, \dots$ with 36%, 23%, $\dots$ branching ratios. These limits can satisfied for any $m_h$ provided $m_A\gtrsim 9$ GeV limits weakening for heavier $h$ and completely expiring for $m_h \gtrsim 86$ GeV [@Jack_TeV4LHC]. The $e^+ e^- \to hA$ typically comfortably satisfied masses branching of as a of a very small $C_{ZAh}$. The strongest limit comes from $hA AAA \to 6 \tau$ which for $m_A \simeq 10$ GeV = - 60$ GeV $C_{ZAh} \lesssim 0.07$ and limit out for $m_h \simeq A constraint from $Z$-width for $m_h = 40$ and it becomes weaker for $m_h$. We see that | modes and complete list of refErences see ref. [@ScHaeL:2006cr].
[*liGht Cp eveN Higgs:*]{} One of the STronGest limits on the CP even HIggs bOsON comES fRom thE search FOr $H \TO b \bAr B$. THe lImIT fOr $m_h \lEssSim 60$ GeV iS $C_{ZZh} B(h \to b \Bar B) \lEsssim 0.04$. In ordeR To Satisfy thiS liMit we need $B (h \tO A A) \Gtrsim 96 \%$. thIs iS Not imPosSible, But it iS Not genErically (iN lARge regIOns of SUsy PaRameTer space) satisfied (\[EQ:BH\]). with generic $B (h \tO b \bar b) \SiMEq 10 \%$ WE NeeD $m_h \Gtrsim 85$ GeV oR sOmewhAT reduceD $c_{ZzH}$. nOte ALso that combinEd $h \to b \bar b$ aND $h \tO AA \to 4b$ LiMit REquireS $m_h > 110$ Gev fOR $C_{Zzh} \simeq 1$. Thus $M_A < 10$ Gev is favoreD. For $m_A < 10$ gEV the liMIts on thE dominAnt DecAy moDE $h \To aA$ aRe NOt sO StRonG SinCe it is spReAd Over sEverAL FINal sTatEs: $h \tO AA \to 2\Tau 2c, 4\tau, 4c, \dots$ wIth AbouT 36%, 23%, 14%, $\DotS$ branChing RatiOs. these Limits Can be SaTisfied for any $m_h$ ProvIded $m_A\gtrSim 9$ gev wiTh LimitS WeakenIng For Heavier $H$ and comPLetElY EXPiRing for $m_h \gtrsim 86$ GeV [@jaCK_tev4LHC].
The lImits fROm $E^+ e^- \TO hA$ are tyPiCalLy coMFOrtabLy saTIsFied for mAsses aND bRaNching rAtIos of iNtEreSt aS a conSEqueNce of a Very smalL $C_{ZAh}$. tHe strongest limIT comes from $hA \tO aAa \TO 6 \tAU$ whiCh fOr $m_A \simeq 10$ Gev and $M_H = 40 - 60$ GeV RequIReS $C_{ZaH} \lessSim 0.07$ anD tHIs LImit runs out for $m_h \simEq 65$ geV. A coMparaBle constraint On $C_{ZAh}$ comeS FROm the $Z$-wiDth mEAsURement for $m_h = 40$ GeV And it Becomes weaKEr for larGer $m_h$.
we see thaT this scenARIo can avoId | modes and complete list o f referenc es se e R ef. [ @Sch ael: 2006cr].
[*Li g ht C P even Higgs:*]{} Oneof th es tron g es t lim its ont he C P e ve nHig gs bo son c ome s fromthe search fo r$h \to b \ba r b $. The lim itfor $m_h \le sss im 60$ G eVi s $C_ {ZZ h} B( h \tob \barb) \lesss im 0.04$. In orde r to sat isfy this limit w e n e ed $B (h \to A A) \g tr s im 9 6 \ %$. This is n ot impo s sible,b ut i t is not generical ly (in larg e re gionsof SU S Y para meter s p ace ) satisfied (\[ eq:Bh\]). Withg eneric$ B (h \t o b \b arb)\sim e q10 \% $w e n e ed $m _ h \ gtrsim 8 5$ G eV or som e w h a t re duc ed $ C_{ZZ h}$. Note als o t hatc omb ined$h \t o b\b ar b$ and $ h \to A A \to 4b$ limit req uires $m_ h > 1 10$ G eV fo r $C_{Z Zh} \s imeq 1$ . Thus$ m_A < 1 0 $GeV is favored. Fo r$ m _A < 10$ G eV the li mi t s on the d omi nant d ecaymode $h \to AA$ are n o tso strong s ince i tisspr ead o v er s everal final s tates : $h \to AA \to 2\tau 2c, 4\t a u, 4 c, \dot s$with about36%, 23%, 14% , $ \do t s$ br anchi ng ra t ios. These limits c an be sa tisfi ed for any $m _h$ provid e d $m_A\gtr sim9 $G eV with limits weak ening forh eavier $ h$ an d comple tely expi r i ng for $ m_h \g trs im8 6 $GeV [@Jack_Te V 4 LHC] .
The li mit s from$e^ + e ^-\to h A$ are ty picallyco mf or ta bly sati s fied for m ass es an d bra n chingratio s of i nt e res t as ac on s e quen ce o f aver ysmall $C_ { ZAh }$. The stronges t l i mitco me s from$hA \to AAA \ to 6 \tau$ w hi chfor $m _ A \simeq10$ GeV and $m_h = 40 - 60$ GeV re quire s $C _{ZAh} \l ess sim 0. 07$ and th is lim it ru ns ou t for $ m _ h\si me q 65$ GeV. A co mpara bl e co nstrain t on $C_{ZAh}$ com e s f rom the $Z$-w idt h me a s ur eme n tf or$m _ h = 4 0$ GeV and it b ecomes wea ke r f or larger$ m_h $.
We se e thatthiss cenario can avoi d | modes_and complete_list of references see_Ref. [@Schael:2006cr].
[*Light CP_even_Higgs:*]{} One_of_the strongest limits_on the CP_even Higgs boson comes_from the search_for_$h \to b \bar b$. The limit for $m_h \lesssim 60$ GeV is $C_{ZZh}_B(h_\to b_\bar_b)_\lesssim 0.04$. In order to_satisfy this limit we need_$B (h_\to A A) \gtrsim 96 \%$. This is_not_impossible, but it_is not generically (in large regions of SUSY parameter_space) satisfied (\[eq:Bh\]). With generic $B (h_\to b \bar_b)_\simeq_10 \%$ we need_$m_h \gtrsim 85$ GeV or somewhat_reduced $C_{ZZh}$. Note also that combined_$h \to b \bar b$ and $h_\to AA \to 4b$ limit requires_$m_h > 110$ GeV for_$C_{ZZh} \simeq_1$. Thus $m_A < 10$_GeV is favored._For $m_A_< 10$ GeV_the limits on the dominant decay_mode $h \to_AA$ are not so strong since_it_is spread over_several_final_states: $h_\to AA \to_2\tau_2c, 4\tau,_4c,_\dots$ with about 36%, 23%, 14%,_$\dots$_branching ratios. These limits can be satisfied_for any $m_h$ provided_$m_A\gtrsim_9$ GeV with limits_weakening for heavier $h$ and_completely expiring for $m_h \gtrsim 86$_GeV [@Jack_TeV4LHC].
The limits_from $e^+_e^- \to hA$ are typically comfortably satisfied for masses and branching_ratios of interest as a consequence_of a very small_$C_{ZAh}$. The_strongest_limit comes from_$hA_\to AAA_\to 6 \tau$ which for $m_A \simeq_10$ GeV_and $m_h = 40 - 60$_GeV requires $C_{ZAh} \lesssim_0.07$_and this limit runs out for_$m_h \simeq 65$ GeV. A comparable_constraint on $C_{ZAh}$ comes from_the_$Z$-width_measurement for $m_h = 40$_GeV and it becomes weaker for_larger $m_h$.
We see_that this scenario can avoid |
then $\delta$ would be bigger than $2p$, contradicting (\[rh3.3\]). Therefore $\delta=p+1$, and $\textsf{g}{^\prime}=(p-1)/4$. Finally, consider the quotient curve $\cY/G$ with $G=C_p \times \langle \mu \rangle$. Since $G$ is an abelian group, the curve $\cY/G$ is Galois covered by both $\bar{\cY}$ and $\cY^{\prime}$. This implies that $\cY/G$ is rational by Lüroth’s Theorem [@stichtenothbook Proposition 3.5.9]. From the Riemann-Hurwitz formula (\[rhg\]) applied to the cover $\cY^{\prime} \rightarrow \cY/G$, $$2\textsf{g}^{\prime}-2=-2p+\alpha(2+j)(p-1),$$ for some integers $\alpha,j \geq 0$. Therefore $5=2\alpha(2+j)$, a contradiction.
Therefore, $\lambda=2$. The Deuring-Shafarevich formula (\[dsg\]) applied to the cover $\cY \rightarrow \bar{\cY}$ yields $\gamma=p-1$. Hence, $\cY$ is an ordinary curve. Let $P$ and $Q$ be the fixed points of $C_p$. Since $\mu$ commutes with every element of $C_p$, $\mu$ permutes the set of orbits of $C_p$. Therefore, one of the following possibilities arises:
- $\mu(P)=P$ and $\mu(Q)=Q$.
- $\mu(P)=Q$ and $\mu(Q)=P$.
Assume that (I) holds. The argument used to rule out case $\lambda=1$ also works here and shows $\delta=2$. Furthermore, $\textsf{g}^{\prime}=(p-1)/2$ by (\[rh3.3\]). Now, since $\mu$ and $\sigma$ commute, $\Aut_{\mathbb{F}_q}(\cY^{\prime})$ has a subgroup $N_p$ of order $p$ acting on the points of $\cY^{\prime}$ as $C_p$ does on the set of orbits of $\mu$ in $\cY$. Let $P^{\prime},Q^{\prime} \in \cY^{\prime}$ | then $ \delta$ would be bigger than $ 2p$, contradicting (\[rh3.3\ ]). Therefore $ \delta = p+1 $, and $ \textsf{g}{^\prime}=(p-1)/4$. Finally, think the quotient arch $ \cY / G$ with $ G = C_p \times \langle \mu \rangle$. Since $ G$ is an abelian group, the curve $ \cY / G$ is Galois covered by both $ \bar{\cY}$ and $ \cY^{\prime}$. This imply that $ \cY / G$ is rational by Lüroth ’s Theorem [ @stichtenothbook Proposition 3.5.9 ]. From the Riemann - Hurwitz recipe (\[rhg\ ]) applied to the cover $ \cY^{\prime } \rightarrow \cY / G$, $ $ 2\textsf{g}^{\prime}-2=-2p+\alpha(2+j)(p-1),$$ for some integer $ \alpha, j \geq 0$. consequently $ 5=2\alpha(2+j)$, a contradiction.
Therefore, $ \lambda=2$. The Deuring - Shafarevich formula (\[dsg\ ]) apply to the cover $ \cY \rightarrow \bar{\cY}$ yields $ \gamma = p-1$. Hence, $ \cY$ is an ordinary curve. Let $ P$ and $ Q$ be the sterilize points of $ C_p$. Since $ \mu$ commutes with every element of $ C_p$, $ \mu$ permute the set of orbits of $ C_p$. consequently, one of the following possibility arises:
- $ \mu(P)=P$ and $ \mu(Q)=Q$.
- $ \mu(P)=Q$ and $ \mu(Q)=P$.
simulate that (I) holds. The argument use to rule out case $ \lambda=1 $ also works here and shows $ \delta=2$. Furthermore, $ \textsf{g}^{\prime}=(p-1)/2 $ by (\[rh3.3\ ]). nowadays, since $ \mu$ and $ \sigma$ commute, $ \Aut_{\mathbb{F}_q}(\cY^{\prime})$ has a subgroup $ N_p$ of order $ p$ acting on the points of $ \cY^{\prime}$ as $ C_p$ does on the set of orbits of $ \mu$ in $ \cY$. Let $ P^{\prime},Q^{\prime } \in \cY^{\prime}$ | thfn $\delta$ would be bigger than $2p$, contradnxting (\[ch3.3\]). Thersfore $\deuta=p+1$, and $\textsf{g}{^\prime}=(p-1)/4$. Finalpy, consuder the quotient curvd $\cY/G$ witj $G=C_p \tines \oqngle \mu \rehgle$. Sikee $G$ jd an ebelian group, tme curve $\cY/C$ is Galois coeefeb by both $\bar{\cY}$ and $\cY^{\prime}$. This impjies thst $\cY/G$ is rationwl bj Jürotg’s Theorem [@stichtenothbook Proposifion 3.5.9]. Fgom the Riemann-Hutwitz formula (\[rhg\]) applied ho tje cover $\cY^{\prime} \rlghtarrow \cI/F$, $$2\tqztsf{g}^{\prime}-2=-2p+\aupha(2+j)(p-1),$$ for some integets $\alpha,j \geq 0$. Therefore $5=2\alpha(2+j)$, x concradiction.
Tyeeeflte, $\lambda=2$. Thx Deurpng-Shafarevicm formuna (\[dsg\]) spplied to the coter $\xY \rightarrow \bar{\cY}$ ymelds $\gamma=p-1$. Hence, $\cI$ is an orgiuary curve. Let $P$ and $W$ ve thg fixad puuntr or $R_p$. Aince $\lu$ rommutes wifh every elwment of $C_p$, $\mu$ permitqw the set of krbits os $C_p$. Therefore, one of the following posvibjlities arises:
- $\mu(P)=P$ abd $\mu(Q)=Q$.
- $\mu(P)=Q$ and $\mu(E)=P$.
Assume ehat (I) holds. The argument used to rule out case $\ldmbda=1$ xlsi ruekd here and shows $\delta=2$. Furthermore, $\textsf{g}^{\priis}=(p-1)/2$ bj (\[rh3.3\]). Now, since $\mu$ and $\sigma$ volmije, $\Aut_{\mathbb{F}_q}(\zY^{\primz})$ hzs a subgroup $N_p$ ov order $p$ acring on tre ppints of $\cY^{\prime}$ as $C_p$ does on the set jd orbits of $\mu$ in $\eY$. Let $P^{\primz},Q^{\primg} \in \cU^{\prime}$ | then $\delta$ would be bigger than $2p$, Therefore and $\textsf{g}{^\prime}=(p-1)/4$. consider the quotient \langle \rangle$. Since $G$ an abelian group, curve $\cY/G$ is Galois covered by $\bar{\cY}$ and $\cY^{\prime}$. This implies that $\cY/G$ is rational by Lüroth’s Theorem [@stichtenothbook 3.5.9]. From the Riemann-Hurwitz formula (\[rhg\]) applied to the cover $\cY^{\prime} \rightarrow \cY/G$, for integers \geq Therefore $5=2\alpha(2+j)$, a contradiction. Therefore, $\lambda=2$. The Deuring-Shafarevich formula (\[dsg\]) applied to the cover $\cY \rightarrow yields $\gamma=p-1$. Hence, $\cY$ is an ordinary curve. $P$ and $Q$ be fixed points of $C_p$. Since commutes every element $C_p$, permutes set of orbits $C_p$. Therefore, one of the following possibilities arises: - $\mu(P)=P$ and $\mu(Q)=Q$. - $\mu(P)=Q$ and $\mu(Q)=P$. Assume (I) holds. used to out $\lambda=1$ works here and Furthermore, $\textsf{g}^{\prime}=(p-1)/2$ by (\[rh3.3\]). Now, since commute, $\Aut_{\mathbb{F}_q}(\cY^{\prime})$ has a subgroup $N_p$ of order acting on points of $\cY^{\prime}$ as $C_p$ does the set of orbits of $\mu$ in $\cY$. $P^{\prime},Q^{\prime} \in \cY^{\prime}$ | then $\delta$ would be bigger thaN $2p$, contradiCting (\[Rh3.3\]). THerEfOre $\dElta=P+1$, and $\textsf{g}{^\priME}=(p-1)/4$. FiNally, consider the quotieNt curVe $\Cy/G$ wiTH $G=c_p \timEs \langlE \Mu \RANglE$. SInCe $G$ Is AN aBeliaN grOup, the cUrve $\cY/G$ is GAloIs Covered by botH $\BaR{\cY}$ and $\cY^{\prIme}$. this implies tHat $\CY/G$ is rAtIonAL by LüRotH’s TheOrem [@stIChtenoThbook ProPoSItion 3.5.9]. FROm the RiEMAnN-HurWitz formula (\[rhg\]) appLIeD To the cover $\cY^{\prIme} \rigHtARrOW \CY/G$, $$2\TexTsf{g}^{\prime}-2=-2p+\AlPha(2+j)(p-1),$$ FOr some iNTeGERS $\alPHa,j \geq 0$. TherefoRe $5=2\alpha(2+j)$, a coNTraDictioN.
THerEFore, $\laMbda=2$. THe dEurIng-ShafarevIch fOrmula (\[dsg\]) ApplieD To the coVEr $\cY \rigHtarroW \baR{\cY}$ YielDS $\gAmMa=p-1$. heNCe, $\cy$ Is An oRDinAry curve. leT $P$ And $Q$ bE the FIXED poiNts Of $C_p$. since $\Mu$ commutes witH evEry eLEmeNt of $C_P$, $\mu$ peRmutEs The seT of orbIts of $c_p$. therefore, one of tHe foLlowing poSsiBiLitIeS arisES:
- $\mu(P)=P$ aNd $\mU(Q)=Q$.
- $\Mu(P)=Q$ and $\Mu(Q)=P$.
AssUMe tHaT (i) HOlDs. The argument used tO rULE oUt case $\laMbda=1$ alSO wOrKS here and ShOws $\DeltA=2$. fUrtheRmorE, $\TeXtsf{g}^{\priMe}=(p-1)/2$ by (\[rH3.3\]). noW, sInce $\mu$ aNd $\Sigma$ cOmMutE, $\AuT_{\mathBB{F}_q}(\cy^{\prime})$ Has a subgRoup $N_P$ Of order $p$ acting ON the points of $\cy^{\PrIME}$ aS $c_p$ doEs oN the set of orBits OF $\mu$ iN $\cY$. LET $P^{\PriME},Q^{\priMe} \in \cy^{\pRImE}$ | then $\delta$ would be bi gger than$2p$, co ntr ad icti ng ( \[rh3.3\]). Th e refo re $\delta=p+1$, and $ \text sf { g}{^ \ pr ime}= (p-1)/4 $ .F i nal ly ,con si d er thequo tient c urve $\cY/ G$wi th $G=C_p \t i me s \langle\mu \rangle$. S inc e $G$is an abeli angroup , thec urve $ \cY/G$ is G a lois c o vered b y bo th $ \bar{\cY}$ and $\ c Y^ { \prime}$. This impli es th a t $\ cY/ G$ is rati on al by Lüroth’ s T h e o rem [@stichtenoth book Propos i tio n 3.5. 9] . F r om the Riem an n -Hu rwitz formu la ( \[rhg\])applie d to the cover $ \cY^{\ pri me} \ri g ht ar row \ c Y/G $ ,$$2 \ tex tsf{g}^{ \p ri me}-2 =-2p + \ a l pha( 2+j )(p- 1),$$ for some int ege rs $ \ alp ha,j\geq0$.Th erefo re $5= 2\alp ha (2+j)$, a contr adic tion.
Th ere fo re, $ \lamb d a=2$.The De uring-S hafarev i chfo r m u la (\[dsg\]) applied t o th e cover$\cY \ r ig ht a rrow \ba r{ \cY }$ y i e lds $ \gam m a= p-1$. He nce, $ \ cY $is an o rd inarycu rve . L et $P $ and $Q$ b e the fi xed p o ints of $C_p$. Since $\mu$ c o mm u t es with ev ery element of$ C_p$ , $\ m u$ pe r mutes these t o f orbits of $C_p$. T he refore , one of the follo wing possi b i l ities ar ises :
- $\mu(P)=P$and $ \mu(Q)=Q$.
- $\m u(P)= Q$ and $ \mu(Q)=P$ .
Assumetha t ( I)hol d s .The argumentu s ed t orule ou t c ase $\l amb da= 1$als oworks her e and sh ow s$\ de lta =2$.F urthermo re , $ \t ext sf{g} ^ {\prim e}=(p -1)/ 2$ b y (\ [rh3.3\ ] ). N ow,si nc e $\ mu$ a nd $\ sigm a $ c ommute, $\Aut_{\ mat h bb{F }_ q} (\cY^{\ prime})$ hasasubgroup $ N_ p$of ord e r $p$ act ing on the points of $\ c Y^{\pri me} $ as$C_p $ does on th e setofo rbitsof $\m u$ in $ \cY $ . Let$ P ^{ \pr im e},Q^{\pri m e } \ in \c Y^ {\pr ime}$ | then_$\delta$ would_be bigger than $2p$,_contradicting (\[rh3.3\])._Therefore_$\delta=p+1$, and_$\textsf{g}{^\prime}=(p-1)/4$._Finally, consider the_quotient curve $\cY/G$_with $G=C_p \times \langle_\mu \rangle$. Since_$G$_is an abelian group, the curve $\cY/G$ is Galois covered by both $\bar{\cY}$ and_$\cY^{\prime}$._This implies_that_$\cY/G$_is rational by Lüroth’s Theorem_[@stichtenothbook Proposition 3.5.9]. From the_Riemann-Hurwitz formula_(\[rhg\]) applied to the cover $\cY^{\prime} \rightarrow \cY/G$,_$$2\textsf{g}^{\prime}-2=-2p+\alpha(2+j)(p-1),$$_for some integers_$\alpha,j \geq 0$. Therefore $5=2\alpha(2+j)$, a contradiction.
Therefore, $\lambda=2$. The_Deuring-Shafarevich formula (\[dsg\]) applied to the_cover $\cY \rightarrow_\bar{\cY}$_yields_$\gamma=p-1$. Hence, $\cY$ is_an ordinary curve. Let $P$ and_$Q$ be the fixed points of_$C_p$. Since $\mu$ commutes with every element_of $C_p$, $\mu$ permutes the set_of orbits of $C_p$. Therefore,_one of_the following possibilities arises:
- _ $\mu(P)=P$ and_$\mu(Q)=Q$.
- _ $\mu(P)=Q$ and_$\mu(Q)=P$.
Assume that (I) holds. The argument_used to rule_out case $\lambda=1$ also works here_and_shows $\delta=2$. Furthermore,_$\textsf{g}^{\prime}=(p-1)/2$_by_(\[rh3.3\]). Now,_since $\mu$ and_$\sigma$_commute, $\Aut_{\mathbb{F}_q}(\cY^{\prime})$_has_a subgroup $N_p$ of order $p$_acting_on the points of $\cY^{\prime}$ as $C_p$_does on the set_of_orbits of $\mu$ in_$\cY$. Let $P^{\prime},Q^{\prime} \in \cY^{\prime}$ |
s)(\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s)(s)\psi_s\delta B_s^{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}} \\
& \hspace{2cm} + c_H^R\int_0^t \left(f''(Z_s)(\nabla^{\frac{H}{2},\frac{H}{2}}Z_s)(s,s) + f'''(Z_s)[(\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s)(s)]^2\right)\psi_s\,\mathrm{d}{s}.{\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\label{eq:not_refined_formula}
\end{aligned}$$ For the verification of this corollary, it is necessary to compute $\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s(s)$, $[\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s(s)]^2$, and $\nabla^{\frac{H}{2},\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s,s)$. By, it follows that $$\nabla^{\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s) = \frac{2c_H^{B,R}\mathrm{B}\left(\frac{H}{2},1-H\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{H}{2}\right)^2}\int_0^s\psi_r(s-r)^{H-1}\delta B_r^{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}$$ is satisfied for almost every $s\in[0,T]$. Since $\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s(s)$ is a Wiener integral with respect to $B^{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}$, its square can be computed by using the chain rule for functionals of Wiener integrals with respect to the fractional Brownian motion, see [@DunHuDun00 Corollary 4.4]. In particular, it follows that the equality $$\begin{aligned}
[\nabla^{\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s)]^2 & = \frac{8(c_H^{B,R})^2\mathrm{B}\left(\frac{H}{2},1-H\right)^2}{\Gamma\left(\frac{H}{2}\right)^4}\int_0^s\psi_u(s | s)(\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s)(s)\psi_s\delta B_s^{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2 } } \\
& \hspace{2 cm } + c_H^R\int_0^t \left(f''(Z_s)(\nabla^{\frac{H}{2},\frac{H}{2}}Z_s)(s, s) + f'''(Z_s)[(\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s)(s)]^2\right)\psi_s\,\mathrm{d}{s}.{\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\label{eq: not_refined_formula }
\end{aligned}$$ For the verification of this corollary, it is necessary to compute $ \nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s(s)$, $ [ \nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s(s)]^2 $, and $ \nabla^{\frac{H}{2},\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s, s)$. By, it follows that $ $ \nabla^{\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s) = \frac{2c_H^{B, R}\mathrm{B}\left(\frac{H}{2},1 - H\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{H}{2}\right)^2}\int_0^s\psi_r(s - r)^{H-1}\delta B_r^{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}$$ is quenched for about every $ s\in[0,T]$. Since $ \nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s(s)$ is a Wiener built-in with respect to $ B^{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}$, its square can be computed by use the chain rule for functionals of Wiener integral with respect to the fractional Brownian motion, see [ @DunHuDun00 Corollary 4.4 ]. In especial, it follows that the equality $ $ \begin{aligned }
[ \nabla^{\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s)]^2 & = \frac{8(c_H^{B, R})^2\mathrm{B}\left(\frac{H}{2},1 - H\right)^2}{\Gamma\left(\frac{H}{2}\right)^4}\int_0^s\psi_u(s | s)(\nahla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s)(s)\psi_s\delta B_s^{\fvac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}} \\
& \hspacx{2cm} + c_H^D\int_0^t \lewt(f''(Z_s)(\nabla^{\frac{H}{2},\frac{H}{2}}Z_s)(s,s) + f'''(Z_d)[(\nqbla^\feac{H}{2}Z_s)(s)]^2\right)\psi_s\,\mathrm{a}{s}.{\addtocolnter{equarion}{1}\uag{\theequation}}\labxm{eq:not_rcyined_rlrmune}
\end{aligned}$$ For the varification of tfid corollary, it is necessary to comptte $\nabka^\vrac{H}{2}Z_s(s)$, $[\nabla^\srac{N}{2}S_s(s)]^2$, znd $\nabla^{\frac{H}{2},\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s,s)$. By, it follkws thau $$\nabla^{\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s) = \ftac{2c_H^{B,R}\mathrm{B}\left(\frac{H}{2},1-H\rihht)}{\Gwmma\left(\frac{H}{2}\right)^2}\lnt_0^s\psi_r(s-r)^{H-1}\eeltw B_r^{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}$$ is satisfpzd for almoat every $s\in[0,T]$. Since $\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_r(s)$ is a Wiener unreggdl with res'ect tj $B^{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}$, its squdre can be computed bn usiig tye chain rule for funrtionals of Wiener igtegrals fich respect to the fraxtuonal Brofniav mogioh, xes [@DunHkDui00 Corollary 4.4]. In particylar, it follows thau trv equality $$\befin{alidnqd}
[\nabla^{\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s)]^2 & = \frac{8(c_H^{B,R})^2\mathrk{B}\lsft(\frac{H}{2},1-H\right)^2}{\Gamma\left(\drac{H}{2}\right)^4}\int_0^s\psi_u(s | s)(\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s)(s)\psi_s\delta B_s^{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}} \\ & \hspace{2cm} + c_H^R\int_0^t f'''(Z_s)[(\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s)(s)]^2\right)\psi_s\,\mathrm{d}{s}.{\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\label{eq:not_refined_formula} For the of this corollary, $\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s(s)$, and $\nabla^{\frac{H}{2},\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s,s)$. By, follows that $$\nabla^{\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s) \frac{2c_H^{B,R}\mathrm{B}\left(\frac{H}{2},1-H\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{H}{2}\right)^2}\int_0^s\psi_r(s-r)^{H-1}\delta B_r^{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}$$ is satisfied for almost $s\in[0,T]$. Since $\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s(s)$ is a Wiener integral with respect to $B^{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}$, its square be computed by using the chain rule for functionals of Wiener integrals with to fractional motion, [@DunHuDun00 Corollary 4.4]. In particular, it follows that the equality $$\begin{aligned} [\nabla^{\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s)]^2 & = \frac{8(c_H^{B,R})^2\mathrm{B}\left(\frac{H}{2},1-H\right)^2}{\Gamma\left(\frac{H}{2}\right)^4}\int_0^s\psi_u(s | s)(\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s)(s)\psi_s\delta B_s^{\Frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}} \\
& \hSpace{2Cm} + c_h^R\iNt_0^T \lefT(f''(Z_s)(\Nabla^{\frac{H}{2},\frac{h}{2}}z_s)(s,s) + F'''(Z_s)[(\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s)(s)]^2\right)\pSi_s\,\maThRM{d}{s}.{\aDDtOcounTer{equaTIoN}{1}\TAg{\tHeEqUatIoN}}\LaBel{eq:Not_Refined_Formula}
\end{AliGnEd}$$ For the veriFIcAtion of thiS coRollary, it is nEceSsary tO cOmpUTe $\nabLa^\fRac{H}{2}Z_S(s)$, $[\nablA^\Frac{H}{2}Z_S(s)]^2$, and $\nablA^{\fRAc{H}{2},\fraC{h}{2}}Z_s(s,s)$. By, IT FoLlowS that $$\nabla^{\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(S) = \FrAC{2c_H^{B,R}\mathrm{B}\leFt(\frac{h}{2},1-H\RIgHT)}{\gamMa\lEft(\frac{H}{2}\riGhT)^2}\int_0^s\PSi_r(s-r)^{H-1}\dELtA b_R^{\FraC{h}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}$$ is satisfIed for almosT EveRy $s\in[0,T]$. siNce $\NAbla^\frAc{H}{2}Z_s(S)$ iS A WiEner integraL witH respect tO $B^{\frac{h}{2}+\Frac{1}{2}}$, its SQuare caN be comPutEd bY usiNG tHe ChaIn RUle FOr FunCTioNals of WiEnEr IntegRals WITH RespEct To thE fracTional BrowniaN moTion, SEe [@DUnHuDUn00 CorOllaRy 4.4]. in parTiculaR, it foLlOws that the equalIty $$\bEgin{alignEd}
[\nAbLa^{\fRaC{H}{2}}Z_s(s)]^2 & = \FRac{8(c_H^{B,r})^2\maThrM{B}\left(\fRac{H}{2},1-H\riGHt)^2}{\GAmMA\LEfT(\frac{H}{2}\right)^4}\int_0^s\psi_U(s | s)(\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s)( s)\psi_s\d eltaB_s ^{\ fr ac{H }{2} +\frac{1}{2}}\ \
& \hspace{2cm} + c_H^ R\ i nt_0 ^ t\left (f''(Z_ s )( \ n abl a^ {\ fra c{ H }{ 2},\f rac {H}{2}} Z_s)(s,s)+ f '' '(Z_s)[(\nab l a^ \frac{H}{2 }Z_ s)(s)]^2\rig ht) \psi_s \, \ma t hrm{d }{s }.{\a ddtoco u nter{e quation}{ 1} \ tag{\t h eequati o n }} \lab el{eq:not_refined _ fo r mula}
\end {align ed } $$ F orthe verificat io n oft his cor o ll a r y , i t is necessary to compute $\n abla^\ fr ac{ H }{2}Z_ s(s)$ ,$ [\n abla^\frac{ H}{2 }Z_s(s)]^ 2$, an d $\nabl a ^{\frac {H}{2} ,\f rac {H}{ 2 }} Z_ s(s ,s ) $.B y, it fol lows tha t$$ \nabl a^{\ f r a c {H}{ 2}} Z_s( s) =\frac{2c_H^{B ,R} \mat h rm{ B}\le ft(\f rac{ H} {2},1 -H\rig ht)}{ \G amma\left(\frac {H}{ 2}\right) ^2} \i nt_ 0^ s\psi _ r(s-r) ^{H -1} \deltaB_r^{\f r ac{ H} { 2 } +\ frac{1}{2}}$$ is s at i s fi ed for a lmoste ve ry $s\in[0, T] $.Sinc e $\nab la^\ f ra c{H}{2}Z _s(s)$ is a Wiener i ntegra lwit h r espec t to$B^{\f rac{H}{2 }+\fr a c{1}{2}}$, its square can be co m p ut e d by us ing the cha in r u le f or f u nc tio n als o f Wie ne r i n tegrals with respec tto the frac tional Browni an motion, s e e [@DunH uDun 0 0C orollary 4.4]. In p articular, it follo ws th at the e quality $ $ \ begin{al ign ed}
[ \nabla^{\frac { H }{2} }Z _s(s)]^ 2 & = \fra c{8 (c_ H^{ B,R }) ^2\mathrm {B}\left (\ fr ac {H }{2 },1-H \ right)^2 }{ \Ga mm a\l eft(\ f rac{H} {2}\r ight )^ 4} \ int _0^s\ps i _u ( s | s)(\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s)(s)\psi_s\delta B_s^{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}_\\
_ _ _&_\hspace{2cm} +_c_H^R\int_0^t_\left(f''(Z_s)(\nabla^{\frac{H}{2},\frac{H}{2}}Z_s)(s,s) + f'''(Z_s)[(\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s)(s)]^2\right)\psi_s\,\mathrm{d}{s}.{\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\label{eq:not_refined_formula}
_ _\end{aligned}$$ For the verification_of this corollary,_it_is necessary to compute $\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s(s)$, $[\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s(s)]^2$, and $\nabla^{\frac{H}{2},\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s,s)$. By, it follows that $$\nabla^{\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s) =_\frac{2c_H^{B,R}\mathrm{B}\left(\frac{H}{2},1-H\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{H}{2}\right)^2}\int_0^s\psi_r(s-r)^{H-1}\delta_B_r^{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}$$ is_satisfied_for_almost every $s\in[0,T]$. Since $\nabla^\frac{H}{2}Z_s(s)$_is a Wiener integral with_respect to_$B^{\frac{H}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}$, its square can be computed by using_the_chain rule for_functionals of Wiener integrals with respect to the fractional_Brownian motion, see [@DunHuDun00 Corollary 4.4]._In particular, it_follows_that_the equality $$\begin{aligned}
_ _[\nabla^{\frac{H}{2}}Z_s(s)]^2 & = \frac{8(c_H^{B,R})^2\mathrm{B}\left(\frac{H}{2},1-H\right)^2}{\Gamma\left(\frac{H}{2}\right)^4}\int_0^s\psi_u(s |
x_k}\in\mathcal{U}(\HH)\;,$$ where $p(x_k|x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})$ is the probability of observing $x_k$ at the $k^{\mathrm{th}}$ step conditioned upon the observation of $(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})$ during the previous steps. Equation gives the polar decomposition of $t^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k}$, which in this case is unique.
\(b) Combining equations and we get $$\nonumber
t^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k} = \sqrt{p(x_k|x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}\,
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta(x_1,\ldots,x_n)} \, {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_k)}_{x_{k+1}}}^*\cdots
{u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})}_{x_n}}^*\,{u^{(0)}_{x_1}}^*\cdots
{u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-2})}_{x_{k-1}}}^*\;,$$ where, because of the uniqueness of the polar decomposition of $t^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k}$, $$\nonumber
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta(x_1,\ldots,x_n)} \,
{u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_k)}_{x_{k+1}}}^* \cdots {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})}_{x_n}}^*
\, {u^{(0)}_{x_1}}^*\cdots {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-2})}_{x_{k-1}}}^* =
u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k} \;,$$ which therefore has to be independent of $x_{k+1},\ldots,x_n$. If moreover $(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})$ is such that for all $m>k$ the operators $t^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{m-1})}_{x_m}$ do not depend on $x_k | x_k}\in\mathcal{U}(\HH)\;,$$ where $ p(x_k|x_1,\ldots, x_{k-1})$ is the probability of observing $ x_k$ at the $ k^{\mathrm{th}}$ step conditioned upon the observation of $ (x_1,\ldots, x_{k-1})$ during the former step. Equation gives the pivotal decay of $ t^{(x_1,\ldots, x_{k-1})}_{x_k}$, which in this case is unique.
\(b) Combining equation and we get $ $ \nonumber
t^{(x_1,\ldots, x_{k-1})}_{x_k } = \sqrt{p(x_k|x_1,\ldots, x_{k-1})}\,
{ \mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta(x_1,\ldots, x_n) } \, { u^{(x_1,\ldots, x_k)}_{x_{k+1}}}^*\cdots
{ u^{(x_1,\ldots, x_{n-1})}_{x_n}}^*\,{u^{(0)}_{x_1}}^*\cdots
{ u^{(x_1,\ldots, x_{k-2})}_{x_{k-1}}}^*\;,$$ where, because of the uniqueness of the diametric decomposition of $ t^{(x_1,\ldots, x_{k-1})}_{x_k}$, $ $ \nonumber
{ \mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta(x_1,\ldots, x_n) } \,
{ u^{(x_1,\ldots, x_k)}_{x_{k+1}}}^ * \cdots { u^{(x_1,\ldots, x_{n-1})}_{x_n}}^ *
\, { u^{(0)}_{x_1}}^*\cdots { u^{(x_1,\ldots, x_{k-2})}_{x_{k-1}}}^ * =
u^{(x_1,\ldots, x_{k-1})}_{x_k } \;,$$ which therefore suffer to be independent of $ x_{k+1},\ldots, x_n$. If furthermore $ (x_1,\ldots, x_{k-1})$ is such that for all $ m > k$ the operators $ t^{(x_1,\ldots, x_{m-1})}_{x_m}$ do not depend on $ x_k | x_k}\ij\mathcal{U}(\HH)\;,$$ where $p(x_k|x_1,\lduts,x_{k-1})$ is the probabilivy of ogserving $x_k$ at the $k^{\mathrm{th}}$ step coidituoned upon the observation uf $(x_1,\ldots,q_{k-1})$ during the previous svsps. Equation flves chx polar decompoxition of $d^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k}$, whhcf nn this case is unique.
\(b) Combining eqtations ajd we get $$\nonuiber
t^{(s_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k} = \sqrt{p(x_k|x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}\,
{\matgrm{e}}^{{\matirm{i}}\theta(x_1,\ldots,c_n)} \, {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_k)}_{x_{k+1}}}^*\cdots
{u^{(x_1,\pdotd,x_{n-1})}_{x_n}}^*\,{u^{(0)}_{x_1}}^*\cdots
{u^{(x_1,\pdots,x_{k-2})}_{x_{k-1}}}^*\;,$$ wyere, vecause of tfe uniquentsv of the pklar decomposition of $t^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{b_k}$, $$\nouumber
{\mqtyrm{f}}^{{\kathrm{i}}\thete(x_1,\ldotf,x_n)} \,
{u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_k)}_{x_{k+1}}}^* \wdots {u^{(c_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})}_{x_n}}^*
\, {u^{(0)}_{x_1}}^*\rdotw {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-2})}_{x_{k-1}}}^* =
u^{(x_1,\lvots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k} \;,$$ which thergfore has do be independent od $z_{k+1},\ldojs,x_n$. Hf mueeoxer $(x_1,\kdkts,x_{k-1})$ ls auch that ror all $m>k$ rhe operators $t^{(x_1,\ldous,x_{i-1})}_{q_k}$ do not depsnd on $x_h | x_k}\in\mathcal{U}(\HH)\;,$$ where $p(x_k|x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})$ is the probability of at $k^{\mathrm{th}}$ step upon the observation steps. gives the polar of $t^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k}$, which this case is unique. \(b) Combining and we get $$\nonumber t^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k} = \sqrt{p(x_k|x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}\, {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta(x_1,\ldots,x_n)} \, {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_k)}_{x_{k+1}}}^*\cdots {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})}_{x_n}}^*\,{u^{(0)}_{x_1}}^*\cdots {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-2})}_{x_{k-1}}}^*\;,$$ where, of the uniqueness of the polar decomposition of $t^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k}$, $$\nonumber {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta(x_1,\ldots,x_n)} \, {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_k)}_{x_{k+1}}}^* {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})}_{x_n}}^* {u^{(0)}_{x_1}}^*\cdots = \;,$$ which therefore has to be independent of $x_{k+1},\ldots,x_n$. If moreover $(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})$ is such that for $m>k$ the operators $t^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{m-1})}_{x_m}$ do not depend on | x_k}\in\mathcal{U}(\HH)\;,$$ where $p(x_k|x_1,\ldOts,x_{k-1})$ is the ProbaBilIty Of ObseRvinG $x_k$ at the $k^{\mathrM{Th}}$ stEp conditioned upon the obServaTiON of $(x_1,\LDoTs,x_{k-1})$ dUring thE PrEVIouS sTePs. EQuATiOn givEs tHe polar DecompositIon Of $T^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k}$, wHIcH in this casE is Unique.
\(b) CombiNinG equatIoNs aND we geT $$\noNumbeR
t^{(x_1,\ldoTS,x_{k-1})}_{x_k} = \sQrt{p(x_k|x_1,\ldOtS,X_{k-1})}\,
{\mathRM{e}}^{{\mathrM{I}}\ThEta(x_1,\Ldots,x_n)} \, {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_k)}_{x_{K+1}}}^*\CdOTs
{u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})}_{x_n}}^*\,{u^{(0)}_{X_1}}^*\cdots
{U^{(x_1,\LDoTS,X_{k-2})}_{x_{K-1}}}^*\;,$$ whEre, because Of The unIQueness OF tHE POlaR Decomposition Of $t^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{X_K}$, $$\noNumber
{\MaThrM{E}}^{{\mathrM{i}}\theTa(X_1,\LdoTs,x_n)} \,
{u^{(x_1,\ldots,X_k)}_{x_{k+1}}}^* \Cdots {u^{(x_1,\ldOts,x_{n-1})}_{x_N}}^*
\, {U^{(0)}_{x_1}}^*\cdots {U^{(X_1,\ldots,x_{K-2})}_{x_{k-1}}}^* =
u^{(x_1,\lDotS,x_{k-1})}_{X_k} \;,$$ whICh ThEreFoRE haS To Be iNDepEndent of $X_{k+1},\LdOts,x_n$. if moREOVEr $(x_1,\lDotS,x_{k-1})$ iS such That for all $m>k$ tHe oPeraTOrs $T^{(x_1,\ldoTs,x_{m-1})}_{x_M}$ do nOt DepenD on $x_k | x_k}\in\mathcal{U}(\HH)\;, $$ where $ p(x_k |x_ 1,\ ld ots, x_{k -1})$ is the p r obab ility of observing $x_ k$ at t h e $k ^ {\ mathr m{th}}$ st e p co nd it ion ed up on th e o bservat ion of $(x _1, \l dots,x_{k-1} ) $during the pr evious steps . E quatio ngiv e s the po lar d ecompo s itionof $t^{(x _1 , \ldots , x_{k-1} ) } _{ x_k} $, which in thisc as e is unique.
\ (b) Co mb i ni n g eq uat ions and w eget $ $ \nonumb e r t^ { (x_1,\ldots,x _{k-1})}_{x _ k}= \sqr t{ p(x _ k|x_1, \ldot s, x _{k -1})}\,
{\m athrm{e}} ^{{\ma t hrm{i}} \ theta(x _1,\ld ots ,x_ n)}\ ,{u ^{( x_ 1 ,\l d ot s,x _ k)} _{x_{k+1 }} }^ *\cdo ts
{ u^{( x_1 ,\ld ots,x _{n-1})}_{x_n }}^ *\,{ u ^{( 0)}_{ x_1}} ^*\c do ts
{u^{ (x_1, \l dots,x_{k-2})}_ {x_{ k-1}}}^*\ ;,$ $whe re , bec a use of th e u niquene ss of t h e p ol a r de composition of $t^ {( x _ 1, \ldots,x _{k-1} ) }_ {x _ k}$, $$\ no num ber {\m athr m {e }}^{{\ma thrm{i } }\ th eta(x_1 ,\ ldots, x_ n)} \,
{ u^{( x_1,\l dots,x_k )}_{x _ {k+1}}}^* \cdo t s {u^{(x_1,\l d ot s , x_ { n-1} )}_ {x_n}}^*
\, {u^{ (0)} _ {x _1} } ^*\cd ots { u^ { (x _ 1,\ldots,x_{k-2})}_ {x _{k-1} }}^*=
u^{(x_1 ,\ldots,x_ { k - 1})}_{x_ k} \ ; ,$ $ which therefo re ha s to be in d ependent of $ x_{k+1}, \ldots,x_ n $ . If mor eov er$(x _1, \ l do ts,x_{k-1})$i s suc hthat fo r a ll $m>k $ t heope rat or s $t^{(x_ 1,\ldots ,x _{ m- 1} )}_ {x_m} $ do notde pen don$x_k | x_k}\in\mathcal{U}(\HH)\;,$$ where_$p(x_k|x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})$ is_the probability of observing_$x_k$ at_the_$k^{\mathrm{th}}$ step_conditioned_upon the observation_of $(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})$ during_the previous steps. Equation_gives the polar_decomposition_of $t^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k}$, which in this case is unique.
\(b) Combining equations and we get $$\nonumber
__ _t^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k}_=_\sqrt{p(x_k|x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}\,
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta(x_1,\ldots,x_n)}_\, {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_k)}_{x_{k+1}}}^*\cdots
_{u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})}_{x_n}}^*\,{u^{(0)}_{x_1}}^*\cdots
_ {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-2})}_{x_{k-1}}}^*\;,$$ where, because of the uniqueness_of_the polar decomposition_of $t^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k}$, $$\nonumber
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta(x_1,\ldots,x_n)} \,
_ {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_k)}_{x_{k+1}}}^* \cdots {u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})}_{x_n}}^*
_ \,_{u^{(0)}_{x_1}}^*\cdots_{u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-2})}_{x_{k-1}}}^*_=
_u^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}_{x_k} \;,$$ which therefore has to_be independent of $x_{k+1},\ldots,x_n$. If moreover_$(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})$ is such that for all $m>k$_the operators $t^{(x_1,\ldots,x_{m-1})}_{x_m}$ do not depend_on $x_k |
a,b,c}\leftrightarrow\mho^\ast$ these are the data that can be obtained from a $\Z_4$ orbifold construction. If $x_{a,b,c}$ gives the location of $\TTT_{a,b,c}/\Z_4$ in $\MMM^{K3}_{SCFT}$, a chain similar to [(\[wendland:chain\])]{} should exist. Indeed,
Let $a,\,b,\,c\in\Z$ such that $\TTT_{a,b,c}$ denotes the toroidal SCFT specified in Cor. . Namely, $\CCC_{a,b,c}=\TTT_{a,b,c}/\Z_4$ is given by $x_{a,b,c}=\Om^\ast\oplus\mho_{a,b,c}\in \MMM^{K3}_{SCFT}$, where $\Om^\ast\cap\Hez$ and $\mho_{a,b,c}\cap\Hez$ have rank $2$ and associated quadratic forms $Q_{\Om^\ast}=\diag(2,2)$ and $Q_{\mho_{a,b,c}}=Q_{a,b,c}$ as in, respectively. Then $\CCC_{a,b,c}$ admits a geometric interpretation on the very attractive $K3$-surface $X_{a,b,c}$ with associated quadratic form $Q_{a,b,c}$, normalized Khler class $\omega_Q\in H^2(X_{a,b,c},\Z)$ with $\no{\omega_Q}=4$, volume $V={ {\textstyle {1\over 2}} }$, and $B$-field $B=-{ {\textstyle {1\over 2}} }\omega_Q$.
The proof is entirely analogous to the proof of Prop. \[wendland:gepqu\]. We use the notations and results of the proof of Cor. \[wendland:Z4ms\]. Hence $x_{a,b,c}=\Om^\ast\oplus\mho_{a,b,c}$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wendland:quartint}
\Om^\ast\cap\Hez &=& \Span_\Z\left\{\wt\Om_1,\, \wt\Om_2\right\},\\
\mho_{a,b,c}\cap\Hez &=& \Span | a, b, c}\leftrightarrow\mho^\ast$ these are the data that can be obtained from a $ \Z_4 $ orbifold construction. If $ x_{a, b, c}$ give the placement of $ \TTT_{a, b, c}/\Z_4 $ in $ \MMM^{K3}_{SCFT}$, a chain similar to [ (\[wendland: chain\ ]) ] { } should exist. Indeed,
Let $ a,\,b,\,c\in\Z$ such that $ \TTT_{a, b, c}$ denote the toroidal SCFT specified in Cor. . Namely, $ \CCC_{a, b, c}=\TTT_{a, b, c}/\Z_4 $ is give by $ x_{a, b, c}=\Om^\ast\oplus\mho_{a, b, c}\in \MMM^{K3}_{SCFT}$, where $ \Om^\ast\cap\Hez$ and $ \mho_{a, b, c}\cap\Hez$ have rank $ 2 $ and associate quadratic forms $ Q_{\Om^\ast}=\diag(2,2)$ and $ Q_{\mho_{a, b, c}}=Q_{a, b, c}$ as in, respectively. Then $ \CCC_{a, b, c}$ admits a geometric rendition on the very attractive $ K3$-surface $ X_{a, b, c}$ with associated quadratic form $ Q_{a, b, c}$, normalized Khler class $ \omega_Q\in H^2(X_{a, b, c},\Z)$ with $ \no{\omega_Q}=4 $, bulk $ V= { { \textstyle { 1\over 2 } } } $, and $ B$-field $ B=- { { \textstyle { 1\over 2 } } } \omega_Q$.
The proof is entirely analogous to the proof of Prop. \[wendland: gepqu\ ]. We use the notations and consequence of the proof of Cor. \[wendland: Z4ms\ ]. Hence $ x_{a, b, c}=\Om^\ast\oplus\mho_{a, b, c}$ with $ $ \begin{aligned }
\label{wendland: quartint }
\Om^\ast\cap\Hez & = & \Span_\Z\left\{\wt\Om_1,\, \wt\Om_2\right\},\\
\mho_{a, b, c}\cap\Hez & = & \Span | a,b,c}\peftrightarrow\mho^\ast$ there are the data that cen be ogtained wrom a $\Z_4$ orbifold constructiln. If $x_{q,b,c}$ gives the location of $\TTT_{a,b,b}/\Z_4$ in $\MMM^{J3}_{SCFU}$, a chain similar to [(\[wendland:chzln\])]{} shmnld exist. Indeec,
Let $a,\,b,\,c\in\S$ such that $\TTD_{a,c,c}$ denotes the toroidal SCFT specifieq in Cot. . Jamely, $\CCC_{a,b,c}=\TJT_{a,b,c}/\E_4$ if gibvn by $x_{a,b,c}=\Om^\ast\oplus\mho_{a,b,c}\in \MMJ^{K3}_{SCFT}$, xhere $\Om^\ast\cap\Hrz$ and $\mho_{a,b,c}\cap\Hez$ have rwnk $2$ and associated quwdratic forns $Q_{\Jn^\ast}=\diag(2,2)$ and $Q_{\mho_{a,b,c}}=Q_{a,b,c}$ as in, reskectively. Then $\CCC_{a,b,c}$ admits a gdometxic interprgcqtilt on the vecy attgactive $K3$-surface $X_{a,b,c}$ with axsociated quadvatic foem $Q_{a,b,c}$, normalized Khner class $\omega_Q\in H^2(X_{a,b,c},\Z)$ whtk $\no{\omega_Q}=4$, volume $V={ {\twxrstylg {1\oves 2}} }$, xbd $C$-fitld $B=-{ {\textshylx {1\over 2}} }\omefa_Q$.
The prood is entirely analobotw to the proor of Pwo[. \[wendland:gepqu\]. We use the notations and reaults of the proof of Cir. \[wendland:Z4ms\]. Hence $x_{w,b,c}=\Om^\ast\o[lus\mho_{a,b,c}$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wendland:quartint}
\Mm^\ast\rao\Hee &=& \Span_\X\oevt\{\wt\Om_1,\, \wt\Om_2\right\},\\
\mho_{a,b,c}\cap\Hez &=& \Span | a,b,c}\leftrightarrow\mho^\ast$ these are the data that can from $\Z_4$ orbifold If $x_{a,b,c}$ gives $\MMM^{K3}_{SCFT}$, chain similar to should exist. Indeed, $a,\,b,\,c\in\Z$ such that $\TTT_{a,b,c}$ denotes the SCFT specified in Cor. . Namely, $\CCC_{a,b,c}=\TTT_{a,b,c}/\Z_4$ is given by $x_{a,b,c}=\Om^\ast\oplus\mho_{a,b,c}\in \MMM^{K3}_{SCFT}$, where and $\mho_{a,b,c}\cap\Hez$ have rank $2$ and associated quadratic forms $Q_{\Om^\ast}=\diag(2,2)$ and $Q_{\mho_{a,b,c}}=Q_{a,b,c}$ as respectively. $\CCC_{a,b,c}$ a interpretation on the very attractive $K3$-surface $X_{a,b,c}$ with associated quadratic form $Q_{a,b,c}$, normalized Khler class $\omega_Q\in with $\no{\omega_Q}=4$, volume $V={ {\textstyle {1\over 2}} }$, $B$-field $B=-{ {\textstyle {1\over }\omega_Q$. The proof is entirely to proof of \[wendland:gepqu\]. use notations and results the proof of Cor. \[wendland:Z4ms\]. Hence $x_{a,b,c}=\Om^\ast\oplus\mho_{a,b,c}$ with $$\begin{aligned} \label{wendland:quartint} \Om^\ast\cap\Hez &=& \Span_\Z\left\{\wt\Om_1,\, \wt\Om_2\right\},\\ \mho_{a,b,c}\cap\Hez &=& \Span | a,b,c}\leftrightarrow\mho^\ast$ thEse are the dAta thAt cAn bE oBtaiNed fRom a $\Z_4$ orbifold cONstrUction. If $x_{a,b,c}$ gives the loCatioN oF $\tTT_{a,B,C}/\Z_4$ In $\MMM^{k3}_{SCFT}$, a cHAiN SImiLaR tO [(\[weNdLAnD:chaiN\])]{} shOuld exiSt. Indeed,
LeT $a,\,b,\,C\iN\Z$ such that $\TTt_{A,b,C}$ denotes thE toRoidal SCFT spEciFied in coR. . NaMEly, $\CCc_{a,b,C}=\TTT_{a,B,c}/\Z_4$ is gIVen by $x_{A,b,c}=\Om^\ast\oPlUS\mho_{a,b,C}\In \MMM^{K3}_{Scft}$, wHere $\om^\ast\cap\Hez$ and $\mho_{A,B,c}\CAp\Hez$ have rank $2$ aNd assoCiATeD QUadRatIc forms $Q_{\Om^\AsT}=\diag(2,2)$ ANd $Q_{\mho_{a,B,C}}=Q_{A,B,C}$ As iN, Respectively. THen $\CCC_{a,b,c}$ adMIts A geomeTrIc iNTerpreTatioN oN The Very attractIve $K3$-Surface $X_{a,B,c}$ with ASsociatED quadraTic forM $Q_{a,B,c}$, nOrmaLIzEd khlEr CLasS $\OmEga_q\In H^2(x_{a,b,c},\Z)$ witH $\nO{\oMega_Q}=4$, VoluME $v={ {\TExtsTylE {1\oveR 2}} }$, and $B$-Field $B=-{ {\textstyLe {1\oVer 2}} }\oMEga_q$.
The pRoof iS entIrEly anAlogouS to thE pRoof of Prop. \[wendlAnd:gEpqu\]. We use The NoTatIoNs and REsults Of tHe pRoof of COr. \[wendlANd:Z4Ms\]. hENCe $X_{a,b,c}=\Om^\ast\oplus\mho_{a,B,c}$ WITh $$\Begin{aliGned}
\laBEl{WeNDland:quaRtInt}
\om^\asT\CAp\Hez &=& \span_\z\LeFt\{\wt\Om_1,\, \wt\om_2\righT\},\\
\MhO_{a,B,c}\cap\HeZ &=& \SPan | a,b,c}\leftrightarrow\mho^ \ast$ thes e are th e d at a th at c an be obtained from a $\Z_4$ orbifold con struc ti o n. I f $ x_{a, b,c}$ g i ve s the l oc ati on of $\TT T_{ a,b,c}/ \Z_4$ in $ \MM M^ {K3}_{SCFT}$ , a chain sim ila r to [(\[wen dla nd:cha in \]) ] {} sh oul d exi st. In d eed,
Let $a,\, b, \ ,c\in\ Z $ sucht h at $\T TT_{a,b,c}$ denot e st he toroidal SC FT spe ci f ie d inCor . . Namely ,$\CCC _ {a,b,c} = \T T T _ {a, b ,c}/\Z_4$ isgiven by $x _ {a, b,c}=\ Om ^\a s t\oplu s\mho _{ a ,b, c}\in \MMM^ {K3} _{SCFT}$, where $\Om^\a s t\cap\H ez$ an d $ \mh o_{a , b, c} \ca p\ H ez$ ha ver ank $2$ and a ss ociat ed q u a d r atic fo rms$Q_{\ Om^\ast}=\dia g(2 ,2)$ and $Q_{ \mho_ {a,b ,c }}=Q_ {a,b,c }$ as i n, respectively . Th en $\CCC_ {a, b, c}$ a dmits a geom etr icinterpr etation onth e v er y attractive $K3$- su r f ac e $X_{a, b,c}$w it ha ssociate dqua drat i c form $Q_ { a, b,c}$, n ormali z ed K hler cl as s $\om eg a_Q \in H^2( X _{a, b,c},\ Z)$ with $\no { \omega_Q}=4$,v olume $V={ {\ t ex t s ty l e {1 \ov er 2}} }$,and$ B$-f ield $B =-{ {\tex tstyl e{ 1\ o ver 2}} }\omega_Q$.
The pr oof i s entirely an alogous to t h e proofof P r op . \[wendland:ge pqu\] . We use t h e notati ons a nd resul ts of the p roof ofCor . \ [we ndl a n d: Z4ms\]. Hence $ x_{a ,b ,c}=\Om ^\a st\oplu s\m ho_ {a, b,c }$ with $$\ begin{al ig ne d}
\ lab el{we n dland:qu ar tin t}
\O m^\as t \cap\H ez &= & \S pa n_ \ Z\l eft\{\w t \O m _ 1,\, \ wt \Om_ 2\r ig ht\}, \\
\ m ho_ {a,b,c} \cap\Hez&=& \Spa n | a,b,c}\leftrightarrow\mho^\ast$ these_are the_data that can be_obtained from_a_$\Z_4$ orbifold_construction._If $x_{a,b,c}$ gives_the location of_$\TTT_{a,b,c}/\Z_4$ in $\MMM^{K3}_{SCFT}$, a_chain similar to_[(\[wendland:chain\])]{}_should exist. Indeed,
Let $a,\,b,\,c\in\Z$ such that $\TTT_{a,b,c}$ denotes the toroidal SCFT specified in Cor. ._Namely,_$\CCC_{a,b,c}=\TTT_{a,b,c}/\Z_4$ is_given_by_$x_{a,b,c}=\Om^\ast\oplus\mho_{a,b,c}\in \MMM^{K3}_{SCFT}$, where $\Om^\ast\cap\Hez$ and_$\mho_{a,b,c}\cap\Hez$ have rank $2$ and_associated quadratic_forms $Q_{\Om^\ast}=\diag(2,2)$ and $Q_{\mho_{a,b,c}}=Q_{a,b,c}$ as in, respectively. Then_$\CCC_{a,b,c}$_admits a geometric_interpretation on the very attractive $K3$-surface $X_{a,b,c}$ with associated_quadratic form $Q_{a,b,c}$, normalized Khler class_$\omega_Q\in H^2(X_{a,b,c},\Z)$ with_$\no{\omega_Q}=4$,_volume_$V={ {\textstyle {1\over 2}}_}$, and $B$-field $B=-{ {\textstyle {1\over_2}} }\omega_Q$.
The proof is entirely analogous_to the proof of Prop. \[wendland:gepqu\]. We use_the notations and results of the_proof of Cor. \[wendland:Z4ms\]. Hence $x_{a,b,c}=\Om^\ast\oplus\mho_{a,b,c}$_with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wendland:quartint}
\Om^\ast\cap\Hez_&=& \Span_\Z\left\{\wt\Om_1,\, \wt\Om_2\right\},\\
\mho_{a,b,c}\cap\Hez &=& \Span |
in the southern galaxy than that of the north, making the southern galaxy the dominant origin of the MIR emission. Since the SED of both components displays a rising spectrum with prominent UIBs and a weak continuum at 5–6$\mu$m, we conclude that the MIR emission in this system is mostly powered by massive star formation. The same conclusion can be reached using the broad-band filter flux ratios for the two galaxies. In the northern more quiescent galaxy of the pair, the MIR activity indicator f$_{15\mu m}$/f$_{6.7\mu m}$ (LW3/LW2) is 2.6, lower than the value of the southern galaxy ($\sim$3.3), while its ratio of f$_{6.7\mu m}$/f$_{6\mu m}$ is $\sim$2.0, higher than that of the southern galaxy which has an f$_{6.7\mu m}$/f$_{6\mu
m}$$\sim$1.5. Following similar reasoning as for the southern component of the Superantennae, these results can be interpreted as an increase in the density of regions of the southern component, relative to the density of the photo-dissociation regions. Further comparisons of the properties of this galaxy to IRAS19254-7245 (see Table \[global\]) show that its ratio of L$_{\rm LW3}$/L$_{\rm IR}$ $\sim$0.03 is smaller despite is high L$_{\rm IR}$(L$_{\sun}$)/M$_{\rm H_2}$(M$_{\sun}$) of $\sim$70. This indicates that even though IRAS23128-5919 is more efficient in consuming the molecular gas, its radiation field is not sufficient to heat the large amount of dust at similarly high temperatures as does the AGN in the Superantennae. The data presented in Table \[k\_ha\] also indicate that the southern galaxy of the pair emits more MIR flux relatively to its stellar emission (f$_{15\mu m}$/K $\sim$284) and is apparently more obscured by dust (f$_{15\mu m}$/H$\alpha \sim
$85).
In conclusion, the more luminous galaxy is clearly undergoing a stronger star formation phase than its northern companion. The global MIR characteristics of this system are in agreement with the assertion that a starburst is the dominant heating mechanism for the dust and no evidence of an AGN contributing to | in the southern galaxy than that of the north, making the southerly galaxy the prevailing origin of the MIR emission. Since the SED of both component display a rising spectrum with prominent UIBs and a decrepit continuum at 5–6$\mu$m, we reason that the MIR emission in this system is mostly powered by massive star geological formation. The same conclusion can be reach using the broad - band filter flux ratios for the two galaxies. In the northerly more quiescent galaxy of the pair, the MIR activity index f$_{15\mu m}$/f$_{6.7\mu m}$ (LW3 / LW2) is 2.6, lower than the value of the southern galax ($ \sim$3.3), while its ratio of f$_{6.7\mu m}$/f$_{6\mu m}$ is $ \sim$2.0, gamey than that of the southern galax which has an f$_{6.7\mu m}$/f$_{6\mu
m}$$\sim$1.5. Following similar reasoning as for the southern part of the Superantennae, these results can be interpreted as an increase in the density of regions of the southern component, relative to the density of the photo - dissociation regions. Further comparisons of the properties of this galaxy to IRAS19254 - 7245 (see Table \[global\ ]) show that its ratio of L$_{\rm LW3}$/L$_{\rm IR}$ $ \sim$0.03 is modest despite is high L$_{\rm IR}$(L$_{\sun}$)/M$_{\rm H_2}$(M$_{\sun}$) of $ \sim$70. This indicates that even though IRAS23128 - 5919 is more effective in consume the molecular natural gas, its radiation field is not sufficient to inflame the large sum of dust at similarly high temperature as does the AGN in the Superantennae. The data presented in Table \[k\_ha\ ] also indicate that the southern galax of the pair emits more MIR flux relatively to its stellar emission (f$_{15\mu m}$/K $ \sim$284) and is apparently more obscured by debris (f$_{15\mu m}$/H$\alpha \sim
$ 85).
In decision, the more luminous galaxy is clearly undergoing a stronger star formation phase than its northerly companion. The global MIR characteristics of this system are in agreement with the assertion that a starburst is the prevailing heating mechanism for the dust and no evidence of an AGN contributing to | in the southern galaxy thak that of the notty, makiig the aouthern galaxy the dominant origin lf the NIR emission. Since the SED of blth compinenus displays a rismhg specbxum wjbh prmninent UIBs anc a weak cmntinuum at 5–6$\mu$k, de conclude that the MIR emission in ehis syxtfm is mostly pjwertd fy mzssive star formation. The same condlusion can be reachrd using the broad-band filher vlux ratios for thf two galaxues. Yb the northefn more qupzscent galasy of the pair, the MIR activity indieator f$_{15\mu m}$/d$_{6.7\my m}$ (NW3/LW2) is 2.6, loxer thwn the value of the voutherm galaxy ($\sim$3.3), wmile mts eatio of f$_{6.7\mu m}$/f$_{6\mu m}$ iv $\sim$2.0, higher than jhat of tha aouthern galaxy wyixh hav an f$_{6.7\mu n}$/f$_{6\mj
m}$$\sjm$1.5. Fkllowijg aimilar rezsoning as dor the southern cokpjbent of the Shperaneegnae, these results can be interpreted av ah increase in the densiry of regions of the douthern somponent, relative to the density of the photo-disvociaviun xcnionr. Fkrther comparisons of the properties of this dzlsxj to IRAS19254-7245 (see Tabje \[global\]) shpw tnwt its ratio uf L$_{\rm LW3}$/M$_{\rm IR}$ $\sim$0.03 is smalper deskite iw high L$_{\ri IR}$(K$_{\sun}$)/M$_{\rm H_2}$(M$_{\sun}$) of $\sim$70. This ibdicates than evwn though IRAS23128-5919 is lore efficiznt in consiming the molecular gas, its radiation vield is hut sufficient to hest the large amount of dust wt similacly hngh tempdratores as does the WGN ik the Superantennae. The bata [resented ln Table \[k\_ha\] also indicate that vie southern gsldxy of the 'air ekits more MIR flux relativeky to ics steular emisspon (f$_{15\mu m}$/N $\sim$284) and if apparently klre obscured by dust (f$_{15\mu m}$/H$\aopha \sio
$85).
Kn conclusion, yhe more luminous gqlaxy is clearly ukdergujng a stronger wtat formation phaxe ghag pts njsthern compation. Thd globxl MIR charccgerixtics of this system are in agreement with tme assertuon that a starburst os the dominant hewting merhanisk fjr the dust and no evidence of an AGN clntvibuting to | in the southern galaxy than that of making southern galaxy dominant origin of SED both components displays rising spectrum with UIBs and a weak continuum at we conclude that the MIR emission in this system is mostly powered by star formation. The same conclusion can be reached using the broad-band filter flux for two In northern more quiescent galaxy of the pair, the MIR activity indicator f$_{15\mu m}$/f$_{6.7\mu m}$ (LW3/LW2) is lower than the value of the southern galaxy while its ratio of m}$/f$_{6\mu m}$ is $\sim$2.0, higher that the southern which an m}$/f$_{6\mu m}$$\sim$1.5. Following reasoning as for the southern component of the Superantennae, these results can be interpreted as an increase the density of the component, to density of the Further comparisons of the properties of IRAS19254-7245 (see Table \[global\]) show that its ratio L$_{\rm LW3}$/L$_{\rm $\sim$0.03 is smaller despite is high IR}$(L$_{\sun}$)/M$_{\rm H_2}$(M$_{\sun}$) of $\sim$70. This indicates that even IRAS23128-5919 is more efficient in consuming the molecular gas, its radiation field is not sufficient the large amount of at similarly high as the in Superantennae. The presented in Table \[k\_ha\] also indicate that the southern galaxy of pair emits more MIR flux relatively to its stellar emission $\sim$284) is apparently more by dust (f$_{15\mu m}$/H$\alpha $85). conclusion, the more luminous clearly a phase its companion. The global MIR of this system are in with the assertion that heating mechanism for the dust and no evidence an AGN contributing to | in the southern galaxy than thAt of the norTh, makIng The SoUtheRn gaLaxy the dominanT OrigIn of the MIR emission. SincE the SeD OF botH CoMponeNts dispLAyS A RisInG sPecTrUM wIth prOmiNent UIBS and a weak cOntInUum at 5–6$\mu$m, we coNClUde that the mIR Emission in thIs sYstem iS mOstLY poweRed By masSive stAR formaTion. The saMe COnclusIOn can be REAcHed uSing the broad-band fILtER flux ratios for The two GaLAxIES. In The Northern moRe QuiesCEnt galaXY oF THE paIR, the MIR activiTy indicator F$_{15\Mu m}$/F$_{6.7\mu m}$ (LW3/lW2) Is 2.6, lOWer thaN the vAlUE of The southern GalaXy ($\sim$3.3), whilE its raTIo of f$_{6.7\mu M}$/F$_{6\mu m}$ is $\sIm$2.0, highEr tHan That OF tHe SouThERn gALaXy wHIch Has an f$_{6.7\mu M}$/f$_{6\Mu
M}$$\sim$1.5. FOlloWING SimiLar ReasOning As for the southErn CompONenT of thE SupeRantEnNae, thEse resUlts cAn Be interpreted as An inCrease in tHe dEnSitY oF regiONs of thE soUthErn compOnent, reLAtiVe TO THe Density of the photo-dIsSOCiAtion regIons. FuRThEr COmparisoNs Of tHe prOPErtieS of tHIs Galaxy to iRAS19254-7245 (seE taBlE \[global\]) ShOw that ItS raTio Of L$_{\rm lw3}$/L$_{\rm iR}$ $\sim$0.03 iS smaller DespiTE is high L$_{\rm IR}$(L$_{\sUN}$)/M$_{\rm H_2}$(M$_{\sun}$) of $\siM$70. thIS InDIcatEs tHat even thouGh IRas23128-5919 is mOre eFFiCieNT in coNsumiNg THe MOlecular gas, its radiaTiOn fielD is noT sufficient to Heat the larGE AMount of dUst aT SiMIlarly high tempEratuRes as does tHE AGN in thE SupeRantennaE. The data pRESented in tabLe \[k\_Ha\] aLso INDiCate that the soUTHern GaLaxy of tHe pAir emitS moRe MiR fLux ReLatively tO its stelLaR eMiSsIon (F$_{15\mu m}$/K $\SIm$284) and is aPpAreNtLy mOre obSCured bY dust (F$_{15\mu m}$/h$\aLpHA \siM
$85).
In concLUsION, the MoRe LumiNouS gAlaxy Is clEArlY undergOing a stroNgeR Star FoRmAtion phAse than its norThErn companiOn. the Global mir charactEristics of this system are IN agreemEnt With tHe asSertion thAt a StarbuRst IS the doMinant HeatiNg MecHANism fOR ThE duSt And no evideNCE of An AGN CoNtriButing tO | in the southern galaxy th an that of thenor th, m akin g th e southern gal a xy t he dominant origin ofthe M IR emis s io n. Si nce the SE D ofbo th co mp o ne nts d isp lays arising spe ctr um with promin e nt UIBs anda w eak continuu m a t 5–6$ \m u$m , we c onc ludethat t h e MIRemissionin this s y stem is m os tlypowered by massiv e s t ar formation.The sa me co n c lus ion can be re ac hed u s ing the br o a d -ba n d filter flux ratios for the two g al axi e s. Inthe n or t her n more quie scen t galaxyof the pair, t h e MIR a ctivit y i ndi cato r f $_ {15 \m u m} $ /f $_{ 6 .7\ mu m}$ ( LW 3/ LW2)is 2 . 6 , lowe r t hanthe v alue of the s out hern gal axy ( $\sim $3.3 ), whil e itsratio o f f$_{6.7\mu m} $/f$ _{6\mu m} $ i s$\s im $2.0, higher th anthat of the so u the rn g a la xy which has an f$ _{ 6 . 7\ mu m}$/f $_{6\m u
m }$ $ \sim$1.5 .Fol lowi n g simi larr ea soning a s fort he s outhern c ompone nt of th e Sup e rant ennae, these r esult s can be interp r eted as an in c re a s ei n th e d ensity of r egio n s of the so uth e rn co mpone nt , r e lative to the densi ty of th e pho to-dissociati on regions . F urther c ompa r is o ns of the prop ertie s of thisg alaxy to IRAS 19254-72 45 (see T a b le \[glo bal \]) sh owt h at its ratio of L $_{\ rm LW3}$/ L$_ {\rm IR }$$\s im$ 0.0 3is smalle r despit eis h ig h L $_{\r m IR}$(L$ _{ \su n} $)/ M$_{\ r m H_2} $(M$_ {\su n} $) of$\sim$7 0 .T h is i nd ic ates th at even tho u ghIRAS231 28-5919 i s m o re e ff ic ient in consuming th emolecularga s,its ra d i ation fi eld is not sufficient t o heat t helarge amo unt of du stat sim ila r ly hig h temp eratu re s a s doest h eAGN i n the Supe r a nte nnae. T he d ata pre sented in Table \[ k \_h a\] also indi cat e th a t t hes ou t her ng ala x y of the pair em its more M IR fl ux relativ e lyto its st ellar e missi o n (f$_{ 15\mu m}$ /K $\sim$ 28 4) a n d is apparentl y more o bscured b y dust (f $_{15 \mu m}$/H $\ alp ha \s im
$85 ) .
In co nclusi on , themorelu minous g alaxy is clearly underg oing a stro nge r star fo rma t ion phase th an i ts norther n c omp anion . T h e glo balM IR ch a racte rist i cs of thi s s yst e m a re in agree m e n t w ith t hea sserti on t hat a starburst i s the dominantheat i n g m ech a nism f or the dust an d n oe v idence o fan AGN cont ributing t o | in_the southern_galaxy than that of_the north,_making_the southern_galaxy_the dominant origin_of the MIR_emission. Since the SED_of both components_displays_a rising spectrum with prominent UIBs and a weak continuum at 5–6$\mu$m, we conclude_that_the MIR_emission_in_this system is mostly powered_by massive star formation. The_same conclusion_can be reached using the broad-band filter flux_ratios_for the two_galaxies. In the northern more quiescent galaxy of the_pair, the MIR activity indicator f$_{15\mu_m}$/f$_{6.7\mu m}$ (LW3/LW2)_is_2.6,_lower than the value_of the southern galaxy ($\sim$3.3), while_its ratio of f$_{6.7\mu m}$/f$_{6\mu m}$_is $\sim$2.0, higher than that of the_southern galaxy which has an f$_{6.7\mu_m}$/f$_{6\mu
m}$$\sim$1.5. Following similar reasoning as_for the_southern component of the Superantennae,_these results can_be interpreted_as an increase_in the density of regions of_the southern component,_relative to the density of the_photo-dissociation_regions. Further comparisons_of_the_properties of_this galaxy to_IRAS19254-7245_(see Table \[global\])_show_that its ratio of L$_{\rm LW3}$/L$_{\rm_IR}$_$\sim$0.03 is smaller despite is high L$_{\rm_IR}$(L$_{\sun}$)/M$_{\rm H_2}$(M$_{\sun}$) of $\sim$70._This_indicates that even though_IRAS23128-5919 is more efficient in_consuming the molecular gas, its radiation_field is_not sufficient_to heat the large amount of dust at similarly high temperatures_as does the AGN in the_Superantennae. The data presented_in Table \[k\_ha\]_also_indicate that the_southern_galaxy of_the pair emits more MIR flux relatively_to its_stellar emission (f$_{15\mu m}$/K $\sim$284) and_is apparently more obscured_by_dust (f$_{15\mu m}$/H$\alpha \sim
$85).
In conclusion, the_more luminous galaxy is clearly undergoing_a stronger star formation phase_than_its_northern companion. The global MIR_characteristics of this system are in_agreement with the_assertion that a starburst is the dominant_heating_mechanism for the dust and no_evidence_of an AGN contributing to |
propagates outwards, progressively doing work on gas further and further out. The halo gas is given a significant amount of energy by this process, becoming unbound in our case.
The gas is shocked by the collision, with a small constant density core forming. \[gasentbin\] shows the entropy of each of the 4 gas bins plotted against time and scaled to their initial values. The shock of the collision can clearly be seen along with the large boost in entropy which the halo gas undergoes as it is shocked by gas interior to it. The entropy jump is smallest for the core gas in this case. This will contrast with the mixed runs which we discuss next.
Dark Matter and Gas
-------------------
We have carried out 3 combination dark matter and gas runs. The main one had the same collision speed as the pure dark matter and pure gas runs discussed above. This run was bracketed by runs at half and twice this speed. The slowest run corresponds to two clusters forming almost in contact whilst the fastest run is only bound because of the internal energy of the clusters. The central speed would be obtained by two point masses starting from rest at an initial separation of 4 times the maximum radius of one of the clusters. In all three cases the general scenario is the same. The merger follows a path similar to the purely collisionless case until maximum compression is reached. The two gas spheres collide and form a pancake like structure about the centre of mass of the system, with the short axis aligned with the collision direction. The dark matter component continues on, leaving its original gas behind. At this point the gas is at rest around the centre of mass of the system, whilst the collisionless material has re-separated as in the dark matter only case discussed above. The two dark matter centres are clearly distinct and some distance from the centre of mass. The central gas is no longer confined in a deep potential well so it expands, falling back towards the nearest receding dark matter sphere (which in the head-on case is not the one it started from).
As with the collisionless mergers the simplest way to follow the large scale evolution of the system is an energy plot. \[enerfs\] shows the total energy, the total kinetic energy and eight times the thermal energy of the gas for run. Two passages are clearly visible, although only the first of these has a significant impact on the total thermal energy of the gas. The system was allowed to settle down for several crossing times before the steady state | propagates outwards, progressively doing work on gas far and far out. The halo gas is yield a significant amount of department of energy by this process, becoming unbound in our case.
The gasoline is shocked by the collision, with a small ceaseless density core imprint. \[gasentbin\ ] indicate the entropy of each of the 4 gas bins plotted against time and scale to their initial values. The shock of the collision can clearly be examine along with the large boost in entropy which the halo gas undergoes as it is shock by gas interior to it. The entropy jump is smallest for the effect gas in this case. This will contrast with the mixed runs which we discuss next.
Dark Matter and Gas
-------------------
We have carried out 3 combination dark matter and gas runs. The main one had the same collision speed as the pure dark matter and arrant gas runs hash out above. This streak was bracketed by runs at half and twice this focal ratio. The slowest run corresponds to two clusters forming about in contact whilst the fastest run is only bound because of the internal energy of the clusters. The central speed would be obtained by two point mass begin from rest at an initial separation of 4 times the maximum radius of one of the bunch. In all three cases the general scenario is the same. The merger follows a path similar to the purely collisionless case until maximal compression is reached. The two gas spheres collide and form a pancake like social organization about the centre of mass of the system, with the short bloc aligned with the collision direction. The blue matter component stay on, leaving its original gas behind. At this point the gas is at rest around the centre of mass of the system, whilst the collisionless material has re - separated as in the dark topic only case discourse above. The two dark matter centres are clearly distinct and some distance from the centre of mass. The central natural gas is no longer confined in a deep potential well so it expands, falling back towards the nearest withdraw blue topic celestial sphere (which in the head - on case is not the one it started from).
As with the collisionless mergers the simplest manner to follow the large scale development of the system is an department of energy plot. \[enerfs\ ] shows the total energy, the total kinetic energy and eight times the thermal energy of the gas for rivulet. Two passages are clearly visible, although merely the first of these has a significant impact on the total thermal energy of the natural gas. The system was allowed to settle down for several crossing times before the steady state | prlpagates outwards, progrersively doing work on jas furfher and further out. The halo gas is guven q significant amount ow energy hy this proctss, becoming unbonhd in omx cass.
Bhe gcs is shocked by the collivion, with a smdlu eonstant density core forming. \[gasentfin\] shoes the entropy os eabh of fhe 4 gas bins plotted against time and sceled to their imitial values. The shock of the collision can clewrly be seeb aljbg with the uarge boosu nn entropy shich the halo gas undergoes as it ix shocked vy gad interior ti it. Nhe entropy jmkp is vmallesy for the core gav ib this case. This will contrast with the mixed ruts which we discuss nwxt.
Datk Madter qnd Gaa
-------------------
Wx hzve cagrixd out 3 comgination daek matter and gas rinf. The main one had tre same collision speed as the pure dark katfer and pure gas runs duscussed above. This ron was brasketed by runs at half and twice this speed. The snowesv fun cjfeedponds to two clusters forming almost in contwdt wmilst the fastesb run is only bounc hevwuse of the ivternal ehergy of the clustfrs. The centeal speed woukd be obtained by two point masses starning from rest at an iuitial separction pf 4 tomes the maximum radius of kne of the flusters. Jv all three caser tme ceneral scenario is the saie. The mecger yollows x pajh simijar to the purely collisionless cade unjil mafimum compgession is reached. The two gas spheres collidg atd xorm a pcncake like structuwe about the cgntre of iass uf the sysnem, with vhe short axys aligned widj the collismon direceion. The dark mxgter component continues on, leavibg its original gax bghjnd. At this poiuu tye gas is at rext xrotnf vhe cqttre of mass of ghe xysteo, whilsu tme zollosionless material hds rs-separated as in tne dark majter only case discussrd above. The two dwrk metter rentrex ate clearly distinct and some diatance frlm bhe centre of masw. The centrak gas is no longer confined in a deep pitential well so ir expands, falling bccl towards tie neawest receging dark matter sphwre (which in the mead-on case is not the one id stagted from).
As with the collisionless mergers the simplest way to follow the large scale evolufion of tve xystem is en energy plot. \[enegfs\] shows the total energy, the tutal kinatnc energy and eight times the tfermal energy of the gas for run. Two lassages are clearly visible, although omly the first of these hss a sigbificznt imizcv on the total thermsl enexgy of the gaw. Thc system was auloeef to settpe dpwu for several crossing times befoee the sheady state | propagates outwards, progressively doing work on gas further The halo is given a this becoming unbound in case. The gas shocked by the collision, with a constant density core forming. \[gasentbin\] shows the entropy of each of the 4 bins plotted against time and scaled to their initial values. The shock of collision clearly seen with the large boost in entropy which the halo gas undergoes as it is shocked by interior to it. The entropy jump is smallest the core gas in case. This will contrast with mixed which we next. Matter Gas ------------------- We carried out 3 combination dark matter and gas runs. The main one had the same collision speed the pure and pure runs above. run was bracketed at half and twice this speed. corresponds to two clusters forming almost in contact the fastest is only bound because of the energy of the clusters. The central speed would obtained by two point masses starting from rest at an initial separation of 4 times radius of one of clusters. In all cases general is same. The follows a path similar to the purely collisionless case until maximum is reached. The two gas spheres collide and form a structure the centre of of the system, with short aligned with the collision dark component its gas At this point the is at rest around the of mass of the has re-separated as in the dark matter only discussed above. The two dark matter centres clearly distinct and some distance from the centre of mass. The central is no in a deep potential well so it expands, back towards the nearest dark matter sphere (which in the head-on case is the it started As with the mergers the simplest to follow the evolution of system an shows the total energy, the total energy eight times the thermal energy the run. Two passages are clearly visible, although only the first of these has a significant the total thermal energy the The system was allowed to settle down for several crossing times before state | propagates outwards, progresSively doinG work On gAs fUrTher And fUrther out. The haLO gas Is given a significant amoUnt of EnERgy bY ThIs proCess, becOMiNG UnbOuNd In oUr CAsE.
The gAs iS shockeD by the collIsiOn, With a small coNStAnt density CorE forming. \[gaseNtbIn\] showS tHe eNTropy Of eAch of The 4 gas BIns ploTted againSt TIme and SCaled to THEiR iniTial values. The shocK Of THe collision can ClearlY bE SeEN AloNg wIth the largE bOost iN Entropy WHiCH THe hALo gas undergoeS as it is shocKEd bY gas inTeRioR To it. ThE entrOpY JumP is smallest For tHe core gas In this CAse. This WIll contRast wiTh tHe mIxed RUnS wHicH wE DisCUsS neXT.
DaRk Matter AnD GAs
-------------------
We hAve cARRIEd ouT 3 coMbinAtion Dark matter and Gas Runs. tHe mAin onE had tHe saMe ColliSion spEed as ThE pure dark matter And pUre gas runS diScUssEd Above. tHis run Was BraCketed bY runs at HAlf AnD TWIcE this speed. The sloweSt RUN cOrresponDs to twO ClUsTErs formiNg AlmOst iN COntacT whiLSt The fasteSt run iS OnLy Bound beCaUse of tHe IntErnAl eneRGy of The cluSters. The CentrAL speed would be oBTained by two poINt MASsES staRtiNg from rest aT an iNItiaL sepARaTioN Of 4 timEs the MaXImUM radius of one of the clUsTers. In All thRee cases the geNeral scenaRIO Is the samE. The MErGEr follows a path SimilAr to the purELy collisIonleSs case unTil maximuM COmpressiOn iS reAchEd. THE TwO gas spheres coLLIde aNd Form a paNcaKe like sTruCtuRe aBouT tHe centre oF mass of tHe SyStEm, WitH the sHOrt axis aLiGneD wIth The coLLision DirecTion. thE dARk mAtter coMPoNENt coNtInUes oN, leAvIng itS oriGInaL gas behInd. At this PoiNT the GaS iS at rest Around the centRe Of mass of thE sYstEm, whilST The colliSionless material has re-sePArated aS in The daRk maTter only cAse DiscusSed ABove. ThE two daRk matTeR ceNTRes arE CLeArlY dIstinct and SOMe dIstanCe From The centRe of mass. The central GAs iS no longer confIneD in a DEEp PotENtIAl wElL So iT EXpands, falling baCk towards tHe NEaRest recediNG daRk Matter sPhere (whIch in THe head-oN case is noT the one it StArteD FRom).
as with the cOllisionLess mergeRS the sIMpLest wAy tO folloW tHe lArge sCale evOLutIon of The sysTeM is an eNergy PlOt. \[enerfs\] Shows the total energy, the tOtal kiNetic EneRgy and eigHt tIMes The thermaL eneRgy of the gaS foR ruN. Two pAssAGes arE cleARlY viSIble, aLthoUGh only the FIrSt oF THeSe has a signiFICAnt ImpacT on THe totaL theRmal energy of the gaS. the system was alLoweD TO seTtlE Down FoR several crossiNg tImES Before thE sTeady state | propagates outwards, prog ressivelydoing wo rkon gas fur ther and furth e r ou t. The halo gas is giv en asi g nifi c an t amo unt ofe ne r g y b yth ispr o ce ss, b eco ming un bound in o urca se.
The gas is shocked b y t he collision , w ith asm all const ant dens ity co r e form ing. \[g as e ntbin\ ] showst h eentr opy of each of th e 4 gas bins plott ed aga in s tt i meand scaled to t heiri nitialv al u e s . T h e shock of th e collision can clear ly be seen a longwi t h t he large bo ostin entrop y whic h the ha l o gas u ndergo esasit i s s ho cke db y g a sint e rio r to it. T he entr opyj u m p issma lles t for the core gas in thi s ca se. T his w illco ntras t with themi xed runs whichwe d iscuss ne xt.
Dar kMatte r and G as--- ------- ------- - -
We h a ve carried out 3 com bi n a ti on darkmatter an dg as runs. T hemain o ne ha d th e s ame coll isions pe ed as the p ure da rk ma tte r and pure gas r uns disc ussed above. This ru n was brackete d b y ru n s at ha lf and twic e th i s sp eed. Th e s l owest runco r re s ponds to two cluste rs formi ng al most in conta ct whilstt h e fastest run is only bound bec auseof the int e rnal ene rgy o f the cl usters. T h e central sp eed wo uld b eobtained by t w o poi nt masses st artingfro m r est at a n initial separat io nof 4 ti mes t h e maximu mrad iu s o f one of the clus ters .In all threec as e s the g en eral sc en ariois t h e s ame. Th e mergerfol l owsapa th simi lar to the pu re ly collisi on les s case u ntil max imum compression is rea c hed. Th e t wo ga s sp heres col lid e andfor m a pan cake l ike s tr uct u r e abo u t t hece ntre of ma s s of thesy stem , withthe short axis ali g ned with the col lis iond i re cti o n. The d a rkm a tter componentcontinueson , l eaving its ori gi nal gas behind . Att his poi nt the ga s is at r es t ar o u ndthe centre of mass of the s y stem, wh ilstthe colli si onl ess m ateria l ha s re- separa te d as i n the d ark matt er only case discussedabove. Thetwo dark mat ter cen tres areclea rly distin ctand some di s tance fro m t hec entre ofm ass. Thec en tra l ga s is no lon g e r co nfine d i n a dee p po tential well so i t expands, fall ingb a cktow a rdsth e nearest rece din gd a rk matte rsphere (whi ch in th eh ead-o n case is no t the o n e i t start ed f rom ).
As wi thth e collis io nl e ss mer gers t he sim plestw ay t o follow the large scal e evolu t ion of t he system is a n energy p lot. \[ene rfs\]show s the totalen ergy,the t otal kinet i c energyand e ight ti me s th e t hermal ene r g y ofthega s f or run. T w o p a ss ag e s a re c learl yvisi ble, alth o ugh only th e firstof th e s e hasa s i g nificant i mpa ct on t he total t h erma l e n ergyof the gas.The sys t emwa s allow edt o settle d own for s e ver al cro ssing ti me s be fo reth e steady state | propagates_outwards, progressively_doing work on gas_further and_further_out. The_halo_gas is given_a significant amount_of energy by this_process, becoming unbound_in_our case.
The gas is shocked by the collision, with a small constant density core_forming._ \[gasentbin\] shows_the_entropy_of each of the 4_gas bins plotted against time_and scaled_to their initial values. The shock of the_collision_can clearly be_seen along with the large boost in entropy which_the halo gas undergoes as it_is shocked by_gas_interior_to it. The entropy_jump is smallest for the core_gas in this case. This will_contrast with the mixed runs which we_discuss next.
Dark Matter and Gas
-------------------
We have_carried out 3 combination dark_matter and_gas runs. The main one_had the same_collision speed_as the pure_dark matter and pure gas runs_discussed above. This_run was bracketed by runs at_half_and twice this_speed._The_slowest run_corresponds to two_clusters_forming almost_in_contact whilst the fastest run is_only_bound because of the internal energy of_the clusters. The central_speed_would be obtained by_two point masses starting from_rest at an initial separation of_4 times_the maximum_radius of one of the clusters. In all three cases the_general scenario is the same. The_merger follows a path_similar to_the_purely collisionless case_until_maximum compression_is reached. The two gas spheres collide_and form_a pancake like structure about the_centre of mass of_the_system, with the short axis aligned_with the collision direction. The dark_matter component continues on, leaving_its_original_gas behind. At this point_the gas is at rest around_the centre of_mass of the system, whilst the collisionless_material_has re-separated as in the dark_matter_only case discussed above. The two_dark_matter_centres are clearly distinct and_some distance from the centre of_mass. The central gas is no longer confined in_a deep potential_well so it expands, falling_back_towards_the nearest receding dark matter sphere (which in the head-on_case is_not the one_it started from).
As with the collisionless mergers the simplest way_to follow the large scale evolution of_the system is an energy plot. \[enerfs\] shows the total energy,_the total kinetic energy and eight times the_thermal energy of the gas for run._Two passages are clearly_visible,_although only the first of these has_a_significant_impact_on the total_thermal energy of_the gas. The_system was_allowed to settle_down for_several crossing times_before_the steady state |
A}{16} \eta_2(p^2) ~-~
\frac{C_A^{3/2} \gamma^2}{64 p^2} \eta_4(p^2) ~+~
\frac{\sqrt{C_A} p^2}{64\gamma^2} \eta_4(p^2) \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~ \frac{\sqrt{2} C_A^{5/4} \gamma}{32 \sqrt{p^2}} ~+~
\frac{\sqrt{2}C_A^{3/4} \sqrt{p^2}}{32 \gamma} \right] \frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{\pi}
g^2 ~+~ O(g^4) \\
W_\xi^L &=& \left[ ~-~ \frac{1}{48} \eta_2(p^2) ~+~ \frac{1}{48}
\eta_3(p^2) ~-~ \frac{C_A \gamma^4}{384 (p^2)^2} \eta_2(p^2) ~+~
\frac{\sqrt{C_A} \gamma^2}{384 p^2} \eta_4(p^2) \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~~+~ \left[ \frac{1}{192} \eta_5(p^2) - \frac{1}{128} \eta_4(p^2)
\right] \frac{p^2}{\sqrt{C_A} \gamma^2} ~+~ \left[ \frac{1}{384} \eta_2(p^2)
- \frac{1}{768} \eta_3(p^2) \right] \frac{(p^2)^2}{C_A \gamma^4}
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~~-~ \frac{\pi (p^2)^2}{768 C_A \gamma^4} ~+~
\frac{7\sqrt{2} C_A^{1/4}\gamma}{1152\sqrt{p^2}} ~+~
\frac{\sqrt{2 | A}{16 } \eta_2(p^2) ~-~
\frac{C_A^{3/2 } \gamma^2}{64 p^2 } \eta_4(p^2) ~+~
\frac{\sqrt{C_A } p^2}{64\gamma^2 } \eta_4(p^2) \right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~ \frac{\sqrt{2 } C_A^{5/4 } \gamma}{32 \sqrt{p^2 } } ~+~
\frac{\sqrt{2}C_A^{3/4 } \sqrt{p^2}}{32 \gamma } \right ] \frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{\pi }
g^2 ~+~ O(g^4) \\
W_\xi^L & = & \left [ ~-~ \frac{1}{48 } \eta_2(p^2) ~+~ \frac{1}{48 }
\eta_3(p^2) ~-~ \frac{C_A \gamma^4}{384 (p^2)^2 } \eta_2(p^2) ~+~
\frac{\sqrt{C_A } \gamma^2}{384 p^2 } \eta_4(p^2) \right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. ~~+~ \left [ \frac{1}{192 } \eta_5(p^2) - \frac{1}{128 } \eta_4(p^2)
\right ] \frac{p^2}{\sqrt{C_A } \gamma^2 } ~+~ \left [ \frac{1}{384 } \eta_2(p^2)
- \frac{1}{768 } \eta_3(p^2) \right ] \frac{(p^2)^2}{C_A \gamma^4 }
\right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. ~~-~ \frac{\pi (p^2)^2}{768 C_A \gamma^4 } ~+~
\frac{7\sqrt{2 } C_A^{1/4}\gamma}{1152\sqrt{p^2 } } ~+~
\frac{\sqrt{2 | A}{16} \eha_2(p^2) ~-~
\frac{C_A^{3/2} \gamma^2}{64 p^2} \eta_4(p^2) ~+~
\nrac{\sqrt{C_A} p^2}{64\gammc^2} \eta_4(p^2) \cight. \nknumber \\
&& \left. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~ \frac{\sqrt{2} C_A^{5/4} \gamma}{32 \sqrv{p^2}} ~+~
\drac{\swrt{2}C_A^{3/4} \sqrt{p^2}}{32 \gamma} \righg] \frac{\sqrn{p^2}}{\pi}
g^2 ~+~ O(t^4) \\
W_\xm^L &=& \left[ ~-~ \frac{1}{48} \evz_2(p^2) ~+~ \frag{1}{48}
\eta_3(l^2) ~-~ \frcc{R_A \gamma^4}{384 (p^2)^2} \eta_2(p^2) ~+~
\frac{\sqrt{W_A} \gamma^2}{384 p^2} \eta_4([^2) \fiyht. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~~+~ \left[ \frac{1}{192} \eta_5(p^2) - \srac{1}{128} \ets_4(p^2)
\right] \frac{p^2}{\sqtt{C_A} \bwmma^2} ~+~ \left[ \frac{1}{384} \eta_2(p^2)
- \frac{1}{768} \eta_3(p^2) \right] \rrac{(p^2)^2}{C_A \gamma^4}
\right. \monumber \\
&& \left. ~~-~ \frac{\pi (p^2)^2}{768 C_W \galma^4} ~+~
\frac{7\sqrt{2} C_A^{1/4}\galma}{1152\sqrt{p^2}} ~+~
\ftzc{\szet{2 | A}{16} \eta_2(p^2) ~-~ \frac{C_A^{3/2} \gamma^2}{64 p^2} \eta_4(p^2) p^2}{64\gamma^2} \right. \nonumber && \left. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~ \frac{\sqrt{2}C_A^{3/4} \gamma} \right] \frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{\pi} ~+~ O(g^4) \\ &=& \left[ ~-~ \frac{1}{48} \eta_2(p^2) ~+~ \eta_3(p^2) ~-~ \frac{C_A \gamma^4}{384 (p^2)^2} \eta_2(p^2) ~+~ \frac{\sqrt{C_A} \gamma^2}{384 p^2} \eta_4(p^2) \right. \nonumber && \left. ~~+~ \left[ \frac{1}{192} \eta_5(p^2) - \frac{1}{128} \eta_4(p^2) \right] \frac{p^2}{\sqrt{C_A} \gamma^2} ~+~ \frac{1}{384} - \eta_3(p^2) \frac{(p^2)^2}{C_A \gamma^4} \right. \nonumber \\ && \left. ~~-~ \frac{\pi (p^2)^2}{768 C_A \gamma^4} ~+~ \frac{7\sqrt{2} C_A^{1/4}\gamma}{1152\sqrt{p^2}} ~+~ | A}{16} \eta_2(p^2) ~-~
\frac{C_A^{3/2} \gamma^2}{64 p^2} \eta_4(p^2) ~+~
\frac{\Sqrt{C_A} p^2}{64\gamMa^2} \eta_4(P^2) \riGht. \NoNumbEr \\
&& \leFt. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~ \frac{\sqrt{2} C_A^{5/4} \gaMMa}{32 \sqRt{p^2}} ~+~
\frac{\sqrt{2}C_A^{3/4} \sqrt{p^2}}{32 \gammA} \righT] \fRAc{\sqRT{p^2}}{\Pi}
g^2 ~+~ O(g^4) \\
w_\xi^L &=& \lefT[ ~-~ \FrAC{1}{48} \Eta_2(P^2) ~+~ \fRaC{1}{48}
\etA_3(p^2) ~-~ \FRaC{C_A \gaMma^4}{384 (P^2)^2} \eta_2(p^2) ~+~
\frAc{\sqrt{C_A} \gaMma^2}{384 P^2} \eTa_4(p^2) \right. \nonuMBeR \\
&& \left. ~~+~ \left[ \fRac{1}{192} \Eta_5(p^2) - \frac{1}{128} \eta_4(p^2)
\RigHt] \frac{P^2}{\sQrt{c_a} \gammA^2} ~+~ \leFt[ \fraC{1}{384} \eta_2(p^2)
- \fRAc{1}{768} \eta_3(p^2) \Right] \frac{(P^2)^2}{C_a \Gamma^4}
\rIGht. \nonuMBEr \\
&& \Left. ~~-~ \Frac{\pi (p^2)^2}{768 C_A \gamma^4} ~+~
\fraC{7\SqRT{2} C_A^{1/4}\gamma}{1152\sqrt{p^2}} ~+~
\fRac{\sqrT{2 | A}{16} \eta_2(p^2) ~-~
\fr ac{C_A^{3/ 2} \g amm a^2 }{ 64 p ^2}\eta_4(p^2) ~+ ~
\fr ac{\sqrt{C_A} p^2}{64\ gamma ^2 } \et a _4 (p^2) \right . \ n o num be r\\&& \l eft.~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~-~ \fra c{\ sq rt{2} C_A^{5 / 4} \gamma}{3 2 \ sqrt{p^2}} ~ +~
\frac {\ sqr t {2}C_ A^{ 3/4}\sqrt{ p ^2}}{3 2 \gamma} \ r ight]\ frac{\s q r t{ p^2} }{\pi}
g^2 ~+~ O ( g^ 4 ) \\
W_\xi^L & =& \le ft [ ~ - ~ \f rac {1}{48} \e ta _2(p^ 2 ) ~+~ \ f ra c { 1 }{4 8 }
\eta_3(p^2 ) ~-~ \frac { C_A \gamm a^ 4}{ 3 84 (p^ 2)^2} \ e ta_ 2(p^2) ~+~
\fr ac{\sqrt{ C_A} \ g amma^2} { 384 p^2 } \eta _4( p^2 ) \r i gh t. \n on u mbe r \ \
& & \l eft. ~~+ ~\l eft[\fra c { 1 } {192 } \ eta_ 5(p^2 ) - \frac{1}{ 128 } \e t a_4 (p^2)
\ri ght] \ frac{ p^2}{\ sqrt{ C_ A} \gamma^2} ~+ ~ \l eft[ \fra c{1 }{ 384 }\eta_ 2 (p^2)
-\fr ac{1}{7 68} \et a _3( p^ 2 ) \r ight] \frac{(p^2)^ 2} { C _A \gamma^ 4}
\r i gh t. \nonumbe r\\&& \ l e ft. ~ ~-~\ fr ac{\pi ( p^2)^2 } {7 68 C_A \g am ma^4}~+ ~ \fr ac{7\ s qrt{ 2} C_A ^{1/4}\g amma} { 1152\sqrt{p^2} } ~+~
\frac{\ s qr t { 2 | A}{16} \eta_2(p^2)_~-~
\frac{C_A^{3/2} \gamma^2}{64_p^2} \eta_4(p^2) ~+~
\frac{\sqrt{C_A} p^2}{64\gamma^2}_\eta_4(p^2) \right._\nonumber_\\
&& \left._~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~_\frac{\sqrt{2} C_A^{5/4} \gamma}{32_\sqrt{p^2}} ~+~
\frac{\sqrt{2}C_A^{3/4}_\sqrt{p^2}}{32 \gamma} \right] \frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{\pi}_
g^2 ~+~ O(g^4)_\\
W_\xi^L_&=& \left[ ~-~ \frac{1}{48} \eta_2(p^2) ~+~ \frac{1}{48}
\eta_3(p^2) ~-~ \frac{C_A \gamma^4}{384 (p^2)^2} \eta_2(p^2) ~+~_
\frac{\sqrt{C_A}_\gamma^2}{384 p^2}_\eta_4(p^2)_\right._\nonumber \\
&& \left. ~~+~ \left[_\frac{1}{192} \eta_5(p^2) - \frac{1}{128} \eta_4(p^2)_
\right] \frac{p^2}{\sqrt{C_A}_\gamma^2} ~+~ \left[ \frac{1}{384} \eta_2(p^2)
- \frac{1}{768} \eta_3(p^2)_\right]_\frac{(p^2)^2}{C_A \gamma^4}
\right._\nonumber \\
&& \left. ~~-~ \frac{\pi (p^2)^2}{768 C_A \gamma^4} ~+~_
\frac{7\sqrt{2} C_A^{1/4}\gamma}{1152\sqrt{p^2}} ~+~
\frac{\sqrt{2 |
$. Using the weak semicontinuity of ${\left\lVert\,\cdot\,\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\to\infty}
{\left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u_n)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}
\geq
{\left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}
>0.
\end{aligned}$$ and therefore clearly $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}
\big(
n{\left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u_n)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}
\big)
=
\infty.$$ Using these facts we establish the liminf inequality in this case $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\to\infty}F_n(u_n)
\geq
\liminf_{n\to\infty} n{\left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u_n)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}
-
\lim_{n\to\infty}f(u_n)
=
\infty
=
F(u).
\end{aligned}$$ Now we treat the case $u\in H^{1}_0(\Omega)$. Then using weak lower semi-continuity we find $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\to\infty}F_n(u_n)
&\geq
\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla u_n|^2\,\mathrm dx - f(u)
\\
&\geq
\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2\,\mathrm dx
-
f(u)
=
F(u).
\end{aligned}$$ We are left to construct a recovery sequence. Assume that $u$ does not have zero boundary conditions. Then just choose $u_n = u$ for all $n$. Otherwise assume $u$ lies in $H^{1}_0(\Omega)$. By Theorem \[UniversalApproximation\] there is a sequence $(u_ | $. Using the weak semicontinuity of $ { \left\lVert\,\cdot\,\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}$ it follows that $ $ \begin{aligned }
\liminf_{n\to\infty }
{ \left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u_n)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega) }
\geq
{ \left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega) }
> 0.
\end{aligned}$$ and therefore intelligibly $ $ \liminf_{n\to\infty }
\big (
n{\left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u_n)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega) }
\big)
=
\infty.$$ use these facts we establish the liminf inequality in this case $ $ \begin{aligned }
\liminf_{n\to\infty}F_n(u_n)
\geq
\liminf_{n\to\infty } n{\left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u_n)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega) }
-
\lim_{n\to\infty}f(u_n)
=
\infty
=
F(u).
\end{aligned}$$ immediately we treat the case $ u\in H^{1}_0(\Omega)$. Then use decrepit lower semi - continuity we recover $ $ \begin{aligned }
\liminf_{n\to\infty}F_n(u_n)
& \geq
\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla u_n|^2\,\mathrm dx - f(u)
\\
& \geq
\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2\,\mathrm dx
-
f(u)
=
F(u).
\end{aligned}$$ We are left to construct a convalescence sequence. Assume that $ u$ does not have zero boundary conditions. Then barely choose $ u_n = u$ for all $ n$. Otherwise assume $ u$ lies in $ H^{1}_0(\Omega)$. By Theorem \[UniversalApproximation\ ] there is a sequence $ (uracil _ | $. Uslng the weak semicontinulty of ${\left\lVert\,\eeot\,\rigit\rVert}^2_{M^2(\partial\Umega)}$ it follows that $$\begin{apitned}
\liminf_{n\to\inwty}
{\ledt\lVtrt\operatorname{tr}(n_h)\right\rYzrt}^2_{L^2(\pzvtial\Mnega)}
\geq
{\left\lVest\upzratorname{tr}(u)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}
>0.
\end{wligmqd}$$ ahd therefore clearly $$\liminf_{n\to\inftg}
\big(
n{\left\lVert\operatorjame{hr}(u_n)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\parhial\Omega)}
\big)
=
\inrty.$$ Using these facts we establksh tke liminf ibewuaphty in this case $$\begin{aligned}
\likinf_{n\to\infty}F_n(m_n)
\geq
\niminf_{n\to\infty} n{\lest\lVert\oparctorname{tr}(u_n)\right\rVerr}^2_{L^2(\partidl\Omaga)}
-
\lim_{n\to\ihfty}f(u_n)
=
\igdty
=
F(u).
\end{aligned}$$ Now we treat ths case $u\in H^{1}_0(\Omega)$. Then ysing weak lower semi-fontinuitr we find $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\to\infty}F_t(u_n)
&\heq
\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac12\int_\Omega|\nablw u_m|^2\,\msthrm dx - f(u)
\\
&\geq
\fdac12\int_\Omega |\nabla k|^2\,\mathrm dx
-
f(u)
=
F(u).
\end{aligned}$$ We are left tu comstruvt a recovery sequence. Cssume that $u$ doed not havs zero boundary cundptiots. Then just choose $u_n = u$ sor all $n$. Othzrwise arsumg $u$ lief in $H^{1}_0(\Omegw)$. By Bveorem \[UniversalAporoxiladion\] there is a sequence $(u_ | $. Using the weak semicontinuity of ${\left\lVert\,\cdot\,\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}$ that \liminf_{n\to\infty} {\left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u_n)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)} {\left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)} >0. \end{aligned}$$ n{\left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u_n)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)} = \infty.$$ Using facts we establish liminf inequality in this case $$\begin{aligned} \geq \liminf_{n\to\infty} n{\left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u_n)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)} - \lim_{n\to\infty}f(u_n) = \infty = F(u). \end{aligned}$$ Now we treat case $u\in H^{1}_0(\Omega)$. Then using weak lower semi-continuity we find $$\begin{aligned} \liminf_{n\to\infty}F_n(u_n) &\geq u_n|^2\,\mathrm - \\ \frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2\,\mathrm dx - f(u) = F(u). \end{aligned}$$ We are left to construct a recovery Assume that $u$ does not have zero boundary Then just choose $u_n u$ for all $n$. Otherwise $u$ in $H^{1}_0(\Omega)$. Theorem there a sequence $(u_ | $. Using the weak semicontinuitY of ${\left\lVeRt\,\cdoT\,\riGht\RVErt}^2_{L^2(\PartIal\Omega)}$ it follOWs thAt $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\tO\inftY}
{\lEFt\lVERt\OperaTorname{TR}(u_N)\RIghT\rveRt}^2_{L^2(\PaRTiAl\OmeGa)}
\gEq
{\left\lvert\operatOrnAmE{tr}(u)\right\rVeRT}^2_{L^2(\Partial\OmeGa)}
>0.
\eNd{aligned}$$ and TheRefore ClEarLY $$\limiNf_{n\To\infTy}
\big(
n{\LEft\lVeRt\operatoRnAMe{tr}(u_n)\RIght\rVeRT}^2_{l^2(\pArtiAl\Omega)}
\big)
=
\infty.$$ UsINg THese facts we estAblish ThE LiMINf iNeqUality in thIs Case $$\bEGin{aligNEd}
\LIMInf_{N\To\infty}F_n(u_n)
\geQ
\liminf_{n\to\iNFty} N{\left\lveRt\oPEratorName{tR}(u_N)\RigHt\rVert}^2_{L^2(\parTial\omega)}
-
\lim_{n\To\inftY}F(u_n)
=
\inftY
=
f(u).
\end{alIgned}$$ NOw wE trEat tHE cAsE $u\iN H^{1}_0(\oMegA)$. thEn uSIng Weak loweR sEmI-contInuiTY WE Find $$\BegIn{alIgned}
\Liminf_{n\to\inftY}F_n(U_n)
&\geQ
\LimInf_{n\tO\inftY}\fraC12\iNt_\OmeGa|\nablA u_n|^2\,\maThRm dx - f(u)
\\
&\geq
\frac12\inT_\OmeGa |\nabla u|^2\,\mAthRm Dx
-
f(U)
=
F(U).
\end{aLIgned}$$ WE arE leFt to conStruct a REcoVeRY SEqUence. Assume that $u$ doEs NOT hAve zero bOundarY CoNdITions. TheN jUst ChooSE $U_n = u$ foR all $N$. otHerwise aSsume $u$ LIeS iN $H^{1}_0(\Omega)$. by theoreM \[UNivErsAlAppROximAtion\] tHere is a sEquenCE $(u_ | $. Using the weak semicont inuity of${\le ft\ lVe rt \,\c dot\ ,\right\rVert} ^ 2_{L ^2(\partial\Omega)}$ i t fol lo w s th a t$$\be gin{ali g ne d }
\l iminf _{n \to\inf ty}
{\left\lVer t \o peratornam e{t r}(u_n)\righ t\r Vert}^ 2_ {L^ 2 (\par tia l\Ome ga)}
\geq {\lef t \ lV ert\ operatorname{tr}( u )\ r ight\rVert}^2_ {L^2(\ pa r ti a l \Om ega )}
>0 .
\ e n d {al i gned}$$ and t herefore cl e arl y $$\l im inf _ {n\to\ infty } \bi g(
n{\l e ft\lVer t \operat orname {tr }(u _n)\ r ig ht \rV er t }^2 _ {L ^2( \ par tial\Ome ga )}
\big )
=
\inf t y.$ $ Usi ng th esefa cts w e esta blish t he liminf inequ alit y in this ca se $$ \b egin{ a ligned }
\limin f _{n \t o \ i nf ty}F_n(u_n)
\geq
\l i minf_{n\ to \in fty} n {\lef t\lV e rt \operato rname{ t r} (u _n)\rig ht \rVert }^ 2_{ L^2 (\par t ial\ Omega) }
-
\ lim_{n\to\inf t y} f ( u_ n )
=
\in f ty
=
F(u).
\end{a ligne d}$$ Now we t reat the c a s e $u\in H ^{1} _ 0( \ Omega)$. Thenusing weak lowe r semi-co ntinu ity we f ind $$\be g i n{aligne d} \ liminf_{n\to\ i n fty} F_ n(u_n) & \ge q
\li minf_{n\ to \i nf ty }\f rac12 \ int_\Ome ga |\n ab lau_n|^ 2 \,\mat hrm d x -f( u) \ \ &\g eq
\frac12 \int_\Ome ga| \nab la u |^2\,\m athrm dx
-
f ( u )
=
F(u ) .
\end{ alig ned}$$ We ar e left to constr uct arecov er y s e q uence . As sum ethat $u$ d o e s n ot ha ve zer o bound ary conditions. Th e n j ust choose $u _n= u$ f or al l $ n $.Ot h erw i s e assume $u$ li es in $H^{ 1} _ 0( \Omega)$.B y T he orem \[ Univers alApp r oximati on\] ther e is a se qu ence $ (u_ | $. Using_the weak_semicontinuity of ${\left\lVert\,\cdot\,\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}$ it_follows that_$$\begin{aligned}
_ __ _ _ \liminf_{n\to\infty}
_ __ {\left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u_n)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}
__ __\geq
_ _ _ {\left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}
_ __ >0.
_ \end{aligned}$$ and_therefore clearly $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}
_ ___ \big(
_ _ n{\left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u_n)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}
_ _ \big)
_ _ _ =
_ _ _ _ \infty.$$ Using these facts_we establish the_liminf inequality in this case $$\begin{aligned}
__ ___ _ _\liminf_{n\to\infty}F_n(u_n)
_ __ __ \geq
_ __ \liminf_{n\to\infty} n{\left\lVert\operatorname{tr}(u_n)\right\rVert}^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}
_ _ -
_ _ _ \lim_{n\to\infty}f(u_n)
_ _ =
_ __ __ _ \infty
_ _ =
_ __ F(u).
_ _ \end{aligned}$$ Now we treat_the_case_$u\in H^{1}_0(\Omega)$. Then using weak_lower semi-continuity we find $$\begin{aligned}
_ _ _\liminf_{n\to\infty}F_n(u_n)
_ __ &\geq
___ _ \liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla u_n|^2\,\mathrm dx_- f(u)
_ _ \\
___ &\geq
_ _ _ \frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2\,\mathrm dx
_ _ -
_ f(u)
_ =
_ __ F(u).
____ _ \end{aligned}$$ We_are left to_construct a_recovery sequence. Assume_that $u$_does not have_zero_boundary conditions. Then just choose $u_n = u$ for all $n$. Otherwise assume $u$ lies in $H^{1}_0(\Omega)$. By_Theorem \[UniversalApproximation\] there is a sequence_$(u_ |
low-density envelope where gravity perturbation $\psi'$ is described by a solution to the Laplace equation, which is regular at $r=\infty$. The boundary condition on gravity perturbations (equation A9) which was implemented at $r=R$ is also satisfied at $r=r_b$, as well as everywhere in between (term with $\rho_0$ in equation A9 is small, and was retained in the derivation of $(\partial\omega/\partial L)_n$ only to make it more general. When working with solar oscillations, gravity perturbations in the outer envelope may be discarded at any degree $l$ due to low density). Keeping $L$ constant, the equation (A24) is replaced with $$\delta(\omega^2)\int\limits_0^{r_b}\rho_0r^2\left(U_i^2+W_i^2\right)dr
=r_b^2\left[U_i\delta p_{1,i}-p_{1,i}\delta U_i\right]_{r=r_b},$$ where we use subscript $i$ to designate solutions in the domain $r<r_b$ (solutions which satisfy central boundary conditions). We now consider solutions in the external domain $r_b\le r\le R$, which satisfy surface boundary condition specified by the equation (A25), with frequency-independent $A$ and $B$. In the similar way, we get $$\delta(\omega^2)\int\limits_{r_b}^R\rho_0r^2\left(U_e^2+W_e^2\right)dr
=-r_b^2\left[U_e\delta p_{1,e}-p_{1,e}\delta U_e\right]_{r=r_b},$$ where subscript $e$ designates the external solutions. At resonant frequencies, the internal and external solutions match each other. Adding the equations (A31, A32), we have $$r_b^2\left[U_e p_{1,i}-p_{1,e}U_i\right]_{r=r_b}
=\delta(\omega^2)\int\limits_0^R\rho_0r^2\left(U^2+W^2\right)dr.$$ The radial-displacement function $U(r)$ and Eulerian | low - density envelope where gravity perturbation $ \psi'$ is trace by a solution to the Laplace equality, which is regular at $ r=\infty$. The boundary condition on graveness perturbations (equality A9) which was implemented at $ r = R$ is besides satisfied at $ r = r_b$, as well as everywhere in between (condition with $ \rho_0 $ in equation A9 is small, and was retain in the derivation of $ (\partial\omega/\partial L)_n$ only to seduce it more general. When working with solar oscillations, gravity perturbations in the outer envelope may be discard at any degree $ l$ due to low density). continue $ L$ constant, the equation (A24) is replace with $ $ \delta(\omega^2)\int\limits_0^{r_b}\rho_0r^2\left(U_i^2+W_i^2\right)dr
= r_b^2\left[U_i\delta p_{1,i}-p_{1,i}\delta U_i\right]_{r = r_b},$$ where we use subscript $ i$ to designate solution in the domain $ r < r_b$ (solutions which satisfy central boundary condition). We now consider solutions in the external domain $ r_b\le r\le R$, which satisfy open boundary condition specified by the equation (A25), with frequency - independent $ A$ and $ B$. In the similar way, we get $ $ \delta(\omega^2)\int\limits_{r_b}^R\rho_0r^2\left(U_e^2+W_e^2\right)dr
= -r_b^2\left[U_e\delta p_{1,e}-p_{1,e}\delta U_e\right]_{r = r_b},$$ where subscript $ e$ designates the external solutions. At resonant frequency, the internal and external solutions equal each early. lend the equations (A31, A32), we have $ $ r_b^2\left[U_e p_{1,i}-p_{1,e}U_i\right]_{r = r_b }
= \delta(\omega^2)\int\limits_0^R\rho_0r^2\left(U^2+W^2\right)dr.$$ The radial - displacement function $ U(r)$ and Eulerian | loa-density envelope where nravity perturbajiin $\psi'$ is deacribed cy a solution to the Laplace ewuatiin, which is regular at $r=\infty$. Tje boundqry rondition on gratjty perbbrbatjlns (zqnation A9) which eas implemanted at $r=R$ is ausl satisfied at $r=r_b$, as well as everyrhere im hetween (term wyth $\ghj_0$ in vqmation A9 is small, and was retainsd in tie derivation og $(\partial\omega/\partial L)_n$ ojly ho make it more gejeral. When qorkybg with solaf oscillatpmns, graviti perturbations in the outer envdlope may be diwcqrdfg at any dejree $l$ due to low density). Neeping $L$ constant, thc equetiob (A24) is replaced with $$\velta(\omega^2)\int\limits_0^{r_f}\rho_0r^2\left(G_i^2+C_i^2\right)dr
=r_b^2\left[U_i\deltq p_{1,i}-p_{1,i}\dglta G_i\rieyt]_{r=f_b},$$ shxre we usf snbscript $i$ fo designatw solutions in the coiqin $r<r_b$ (solutjons wrish satisfy central boundary conditions). Fe how consider solutions un the external domaij $r_b\le r\lq R$, which satisfy surface boundary condition spechfied cy uhc dwuwtion (A25), with frequency-independent $A$ and $B$. In ege spmilar way, we get $$\delta(\omega^2)\onh\loiits_{r_b}^R\rho_0r^2\lewt(U_e^2+W_e^2\xjggt)dr
=-r_b^2\left[U_e\delta o_{1,e}-p_{1,e}\delja U_e\rught]_{r=r_b},$$ wrere subscript $e$ designates the external sojytions. At resonant frequencier, thg intetnal and external solutnons mztch each ohher. Addihe the equations (X31, A32), wa have $$r_b^2\left[U_e p_{1,i}-p_{1,e}U_i\righe]_{r=r_b}
=\delta(\imegc^2)\int\limigs_0^R\rno_0r^2\lefe(U^2+W^2\right)dr.$$ The vddial-displacement vunctnon $U(s)$ and Eulegian | low-density envelope where gravity perturbation $\psi'$ is a to the equation, which is condition gravity perturbations (equation which was implemented $r=R$ is also satisfied at $r=r_b$, well as everywhere in between (term with $\rho_0$ in equation A9 is small, was retained in the derivation of $(\partial\omega/\partial L)_n$ only to make it more When with oscillations, perturbations in the outer envelope may be discarded at any degree $l$ due to low density). $L$ constant, the equation (A24) is replaced with =r_b^2\left[U_i\delta p_{1,i}-p_{1,i}\delta U_i\right]_{r=r_b},$$ where use subscript $i$ to designate in domain $r<r_b$ which central conditions). We now solutions in the external domain $r_b\le r\le R$, which satisfy surface boundary condition specified by the equation with frequency-independent $B$. In similar we $$\delta(\omega^2)\int\limits_{r_b}^R\rho_0r^2\left(U_e^2+W_e^2\right)dr =-r_b^2\left[U_e\delta p_{1,e}-p_{1,e}\delta subscript $e$ designates the external solutions. the internal and external solutions match each other. the equations A32), we have $$r_b^2\left[U_e p_{1,i}-p_{1,e}U_i\right]_{r=r_b} =\delta(\omega^2)\int\limits_0^R\rho_0r^2\left(U^2+W^2\right)dr.$$ radial-displacement function $U(r)$ and Eulerian | low-density envelope where grAvity pertuRbatiOn $\pSi'$ iS dEscrIbed By a solution to tHE LapLace equation, which is regUlar aT $r=\INfty$. tHe BoundAry condITiON On gRaViTy pErTUrBatioNs (eQuation a9) which was iMplEmEnted at $r=R$ is aLSo Satisfied aT $r=r_B$, as well as eveRywHere in BeTweEN (term WitH $\rho_0$ iN equatIOn A9 is sMall, and waS rETained IN the derIVAtIon oF $(\partial\omega/\partIAl l)_N$ only to make it mOre genErAL. WHEN woRkiNg with solaR oScillATions, grAViTY PErtURbations in the Outer enveloPE maY be disCaRdeD At any dEgree $L$ dUE to Low density). KEepiNg $L$ constaNt, the eQUation (A24) IS replacEd with $$\DelTa(\oMega^2)\INt\LiMitS_0^{r_B}\Rho_0R^2\LeFt(U_I^2+w_i^2\rIght)dr
=r_b^2\LeFt[u_i\delTa p_{1,i}-P_{1,I}\DELta U_I\riGht]_{r=R_b},$$ wheRe we use subscrIpt $I$ to dESigNate sOlutiOns iN tHe domAin $r<r_b$ (SolutIoNs which satisfy cEntrAl boundarY coNdItiOnS). We noW ConsidEr sOluTions in The exteRNal DoMAIN $r_B\le r\le R$, which satisfY sURFaCe boundaRy condITiOn SPecified By The EquaTIOn (A25), wiTh frEQuEncy-indePendenT $a$ aNd $b$. In the sImIlar waY, wE geT $$\deLta(\omEGa^2)\inT\limitS_{r_b}^R\rho_0r^2\Left(U_E^2+w_e^2\right)dr
=-r_b^2\lefT[u_e\delta p_{1,e}-p_{1,e}\deLTa u_E\RiGHt]_{r=r_B},$$ whEre subscripT $e$ deSIgnaTes tHE eXteRNal soLutioNs. aT rESonant frequencies, thE iNternaL and eXternal solutiOns match eaCH OTher. AddiNg thE EqUAtions (A31, A32), we have $$R_b^2\lefT[U_e p_{1,i}-p_{1,e}U_i\rIGht]_{r=r_b}
=\deLta(\omEga^2)\int\liMits_0^R\rho_0r^2\LEFt(U^2+W^2\righT)dr.$$ the RadIal-DISpLacement functION $U(r)$ aNd euleriaN | low-density envelope wher e gravitypertu rba tio n$\ps i'$is described b y a s olution to the Laplace equa ti o n, w h ic h isregular at $ r=\ in ft y$. T h ebound ary condit ion on gra vit yperturbation s ( equation A 9)which was im ple mented a t $ r =R$ i s a lso s atisfi e d at $ r=r_b$, a sw ell as everywh e r ein b etween (term with $\ r ho_0$ in equat ion A9 i s s m a ll, an d was reta in ed in the der i va t i o n o f $(\partial\o mega/\parti a l L )_n$ o nl y t o makeit mo re gen eral. Whenwork ing withsolaro scillat i ons, gr avityper tur bati o ns i n t he out e renv e lop e may be d is carde d at a n y deg ree $l$ dueto low densit y). Kee p ing $L$const ant, t he eq uation (A24 )is replaced wit h $$ \delta(\o meg a^ 2)\ in t\lim i ts_0^{ r_b }\r ho_0r^2 \left(U _ i^2 +W _ i ^ 2\ right)dr
=r_b^2\le ft [ U _i \delta p _{1,i} - p_ {1 , i}\delta U _i\ righ t ] _{r=r _b}, $ $where we use s u bs cr ipt $i$ t o desi gn ate so lutio n s in the d omain $r <r_b$ (solutions whi c h satisfy cen t ra l bo u ndar y c onditions). Wen ow c onsi d er so l ution s inth e e x ternal domain $r_b\ le r\leR$, w hich satisfysurface bo u n d ary cond itio n s p ecified by the equa tion (A25) , with fr equen cy-indep endent $A $ and $B$. In th e s imi l a rway, we get $ $ \ delt a( \omega^ 2)\ int\lim its _{r _b} ^R\ rh o_0r^2\le ft(U_e^2 +W _e ^2 \r igh t)dr= -r_b^2\l ef t[U _e \de lta p _ {1,e}- p_{1, e}\d el ta U_e \right] _ {r = r _b}, $$ w here su bs cript $e$ des ignates the exte rna l sol ut io ns. Atresonant freq ue ncies, the i nte rnal a n d externa l solutions match eacho ther. A ddi ng th e eq uations ( A31 , A32) , w e have$$r_b^ 2\lef t[ U_e p _{1,i } - p_ {1, e} U_i\right] _ { r=r _b}
= \d elta (\omega ^2)\int\limits_0^R \ rho _0r^2\left(U^ 2+W ^2\r i g ht )dr . $$ The r a dia l - displacement fu nction $U( r) $ a nd Euleria n | low-density_envelope where_gravity perturbation $\psi'$ is_described by_a_solution to_the_Laplace equation, which_is regular at_$r=\infty$. The boundary condition_on gravity perturbations_(equation_A9) which was implemented at $r=R$ is also satisfied at $r=r_b$, as well as_everywhere_in between_(term_with_$\rho_0$ in equation A9 is_small, and was retained in_the derivation_of $(\partial\omega/\partial L)_n$ only to make it more_general._When working with_solar oscillations, gravity perturbations in the outer envelope may_be discarded at any degree $l$_due to low_density)._Keeping_$L$ constant, the equation_(A24) is replaced with $$\delta(\omega^2)\int\limits_0^{r_b}\rho_0r^2\left(U_i^2+W_i^2\right)dr
=r_b^2\left[U_i\delta p_{1,i}-p_{1,i}\delta_U_i\right]_{r=r_b},$$ where we use subscript $i$_to designate solutions in the domain $r<r_b$_(solutions which satisfy central boundary conditions)._We now consider solutions in_the external_domain $r_b\le r\le R$, which_satisfy surface boundary_condition specified_by the equation_(A25), with frequency-independent $A$ and $B$._In the similar_way, we get $$\delta(\omega^2)\int\limits_{r_b}^R\rho_0r^2\left(U_e^2+W_e^2\right)dr
=-r_b^2\left[U_e\delta p_{1,e}-p_{1,e}\delta U_e\right]_{r=r_b},$$_where_subscript $e$ designates_the_external_solutions. At_resonant frequencies, the_internal_and external_solutions_match each other. Adding the equations_(A31,_A32), we have $$r_b^2\left[U_e p_{1,i}-p_{1,e}U_i\right]_{r=r_b}
=\delta(\omega^2)\int\limits_0^R\rho_0r^2\left(U^2+W^2\right)dr.$$ The radial-displacement_function $U(r)$ and Eulerian |
fading Rayleigh channels. An IDD receiver with soft information processing that exploits the code structure and the behaviour of the log likelihood ratios (LLR)’s is developed. Minimum Mean Square Error (MMSE) with Successive Interference Cancellation (SIC) and with Parallel Interference Cancellation (PIC) schemes are considered. The soft *a posteriori* output of the decoder in a block-fading channel with Root-Check LDPC codes has allowed us to create a new strategy to improve the Bit Error Rate (BER) of a MIMO IDD scheme. Our proposed strategy in some scenarios has resulted in up to 3dB of gain in terms of BER for block-fading channels and up to 1dB in fast fading channels.'
author:
-
title: 'Iterative Detection and LDPC Decoding Algorithms for MIMO Systems in Block-Fading Channels'
---
LDPC, Root-Check, MIMO, IDD, Block-Fading
Introduction
============
The most recent IEEE Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) 802.11ad standard suggests that to achieve high throughput the devices must operate with LDPC codes. Since a WLAN MIMO system is subject to multi-path propagation and mobility, this wireless system is characterized by time-varying channels with fluctuating signal strength. In applications subject to delay constraints and slowly-varying channels, only limited independent fading realizations are experienced. In such conditions also known as non-ergodic scenarios, the channel capacity is zero since there is an irreducible probability, termed outage probability [@rasmussen.10], that the transmitted data rate is not supported by the channel. A simple and useful model that captures the essential characteristics of non-ergodic channels is the block-fading channel [@rappaport]. It is especially important in wireless communications with slow time-frequency hopping (e.g., cellular networks and wireless local area networks) or multi-carrier modulation using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) [@boutros.07]. Codes designed for block-fading channels are expected to achieve the channel diversity and to offer good coding gains.
A family of LDPC codes called Root-Check for block-fading channels was proposed in [@boutros.07]. Root-check codes are able to achieve the maximum diversity of a block-fading channel and have a performance near the limit of outage when | fading Rayleigh channels. An IDD receiver with soft data processing that overwork the code structure and the behaviour of the logarithm likelihood ratios (LLR) ’s is develop. Minimum Mean Square Error (MMSE) with Successive Interference Cancellation (SIC) and with Parallel Interference Cancellation (PIC) schemes are consider. The soft * a posteriori * output of the decoder in a pulley - fading channel with Root - check mark LDPC codes has allowed us to produce a newfangled strategy to improve the Bit Error Rate (BER) of a MIMO IDD scheme. Our propose strategy in some scenarios has resulted in up to 3dB of amplification in terms of BER for block - fading channel and up to 1dB in fast fading channels.'
author:
-
title:' Iterative Detection and LDPC decode Algorithms for MIMO Systems in Block - Fading Channels'
---
LDPC, Root - Check, MIMO, IDD, Block - Fading
Introduction
= = = = = = = = = = = =
The most recent IEEE Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) 802.11ad standard suggests that to achieve high throughput the device must operate on with LDPC codes. Since a WLAN MIMO system is subject to multi - path propagation and mobility, this wireless system is characterized by time - varying channel with fluctuating signal strength. In application subject to delay constraints and slowly - vary channels, only limited independent evanesce realizations are experienced. In such conditions also known as non - ergodic scenarios, the duct capacity is zero since there is an irreducible probability, termed outage probability [ @rasmussen.10 ], that the transmitted datum rate is not back by the distribution channel. A simple and useful model that appropriate the essential characteristics of non - ergodic channels is the block - fading channel [ @rappaport ]. It is especially important in wireless communication with slow time - frequency hopping (for example, cellular networks and wireless local area networks) or multi - carrier modulation practice Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) [ @boutros.07 ]. Codes design for block - fading channel are expected to achieve the groove diversity and to put up good coding gains.
A family of LDPC codes call Root - Check for block - languish channels was proposed in [ @boutros.07 ]. etymon - check codes are able to achieve the maximum diverseness of a block - fading channel and have a performance near the limit of outage when | fafing Rayleigh channels. Ak IDD receiver wnrh sofv inforjation pfocessing that exploits the rode struxture and the behaviouf of the pog likeoihoie ratios (LLR)’s is dcrelopsf. Miuinum Mean Squarg Error (MMSE) with Successiee Iuterference Cancellation (SIC) and witr Paralkep Interference Canbejlatjon (PIC) schemes are considered. The soft *a posteriori* oitput of the decoder in a hlocn-fading channel wihh Root-Checj LD[X codes has xllowed us to create a new strategy to improve the Big Errpr Rate (BET) kf d MIMO IDD wchemv. Our proposed stratecy in spme scenarios mas rxsulred in up to 3dB of gamn in terms of BER fjr block-fddnng channels and up ti 1eB in fasd faaung chzniela.'
authog:
-
tmtle: 'Iteratjve Detectiin and LDPC Decodinb Wogorithms for MIMO Fyftems in Block-Fading Channels'
---
LDPC, Root-Cveci, MIMO, IDD, Block-Fading
Ibtroduction
============
The most rgcent IEEE Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) 802.11ad standard sugcests ghau bj qcjieve high throughput the devices must operatq wotm LDPC codes. Singe a WLAN MIMO sysyel of subject to oulti-pcfh propagation and mlbility, this wireless sysyem is characterized by timw-varying chauneos with fluctuatiny signal strzngth. On apllications subject to dzlay cknstraints wnd slowlg-xarying channels, onky limited independent fadind realizavions are exoerignced. Ig such confitiokv also known as noj-ergobic swenarios, tje channel capacity is zero sinrx there is an isregucible 'robabllity, termed oueage probabilijy [@rasmusfen.10], tfat the trznsmittxd data rate is not supposjed by the chennel. A symplw ane usefuu model that caltures thv tssential xharacteristics of nov-srgodic channelw iw the block-fadimg zhagnvl [@cappa[mrt]. It is es[ecixllh impoftant in wiveldss vommunications with vlow time-frequency hoplikg (e.g., celoular neeworks and witeless local area jetwocks) or multo-catrier modulation using Orthogonzl Frequejcy Division Mujtipoexing (OFDM) [@youtros.07]. Codes designed for block-fading ciannels are expected to achieve the channek diversity end to offer gomd coding gains.
A famuly of LDPC codes called Root-Check for block-xadinh channels was proposed in [@boutros.07]. Root-check codes are able to achieve thw maximum diversitg of a blmch-yading shanieu and have a pergormance near the limit of outaje when | fading Rayleigh channels. An IDD receiver with processing exploits the structure and the ratios is developed. Minimum Square Error (MMSE) Successive Interference Cancellation (SIC) and with Interference Cancellation (PIC) schemes are considered. The soft *a posteriori* output of the in a block-fading channel with Root-Check LDPC codes has allowed us to create new to the Error Rate (BER) of a MIMO IDD scheme. Our proposed strategy in some scenarios has resulted up to 3dB of gain in terms of for block-fading channels and to 1dB in fast fading author: title: 'Iterative and Decoding for MIMO Systems Block-Fading Channels' --- LDPC, Root-Check, MIMO, IDD, Block-Fading Introduction ============ The most recent IEEE Wireless Local Area (WLAN) 802.11ad that to high the must operate with Since a WLAN MIMO system is propagation and mobility, this wireless system is characterized time-varying channels fluctuating signal strength. In applications subject delay constraints and slowly-varying channels, only limited independent realizations are experienced. In such conditions also known as non-ergodic scenarios, the channel capacity is there is an irreducible termed outage probability that transmitted rate not supported the channel. A simple and useful model that captures the essential of non-ergodic channels is the block-fading channel [@rappaport]. It is in communications with slow hopping (e.g., cellular networks wireless area networks) or multi-carrier Orthogonal Division Codes for channels are expected to the channel diversity and to good coding gains. A Root-Check for block-fading channels was proposed in [@boutros.07]. codes are able to achieve the maximum of a block-fading channel and have a performance near the limit of when | fading Rayleigh channels. An IdD receiver With sOft InfOrMatiOn prOcessing that exPLoitS the code structure and thE behaViOUr of THe Log liKelihooD RaTIOs (LlR)’S iS deVeLOpEd. MinImuM Mean SqUare Error (MmSE) WiTh Successive iNtErference CAncEllation (SIC) aNd wIth ParAlLel iNterfEreNce CaNcellaTIon (PIC) Schemes arE cONsiderED. The sofT *A PoSterIori* output of the deCOdER in a block-fadinG channEl WItH rOot-cheCk LDPC codeS hAs allOWed us to CReATE A neW Strategy to impRove the Bit ERRor rate (BEr) oF a MimO IDD sCheme. ouR ProPosed strateGy in Some scenaRios haS ResulteD In up to 3db of gaiN in TerMs of beR FoR blOcK-FadINg ChaNNelS and up to 1DB In Fast fAdinG CHANnelS.'
auThor:
-
Title: 'iterative DeteCtiOn anD lDPc DecoDing ALgorItHms foR MIMO SYstemS iN Block-Fading ChaNnelS'
---
LDPC, Root-cheCk, mIMo, IdD, BloCK-FadinG
InTroDuction
============
the most REceNt ieee WIreless Local Area NeTwORK (WlAN) 802.11ad staNdard sUGgEsTS that to aChIevE higH THrougHput THe Devices mUst opeRAtE wIth LDPC CoDes. SinCe A WLaN MiMO sySTem iS subjeCt to multI-path PRopagation and mOBility, this wirELeSS SySTem iS chAracterized By tiME-varYing CHaNneLS with FluctUaTInG Signal strength. In appLiCationS subjEct to delay conStraints anD SLOwly-varyIng cHAnNEls, only limited IndepEndent fadiNG realizaTions Are experIenced. In sUCH conditiOns AlsO knOwn AS NoN-ergodic scenaRIOs, thE cHannel cApaCity is zEro SinCe tHerE iS an irreduCible proBaBiLiTy, TerMed ouTAge probaBiLitY [@rAsmUssen.10], THat the TransMittEd DaTA raTe is not SUpPORted By ThE chaNneL. A SimplE and USefUl model That captuRes THe esSeNtIal charActeristics of NoN-ergodic chAnNelS is the BLOck-fadinG channel [@rappaport]. It is esPEcially ImpOrtanT in wIreless coMmuNicatiOns WIth sloW time-fRequeNcY hoPPIng (e.g., CELlUlaR nEtworks and WIRelEss loCaL areA networKs) or multi-carrier moDUlaTion using OrthOgoNal FREQuEncY diVIsiOn mUltIPLexing (OFDM) [@boutrOs.07]. Codes desIgNEd For block-faDIng ChAnnels aRe expecTed to AChieve tHe channel Diversity AnD to oFFEr gOod coding gAins.
A famIly of LDPC COdes cALlEd RooT-ChEck for BlOck-FadinG channELs wAs proPosed iN [@bOutros.07]. root-cHeCk codes aRe able to achieve the maximUm diveRsity Of a Block-fadiNg cHAnnEl and have A perFormance neAr tHe lImit oF ouTAge whEn | fading Rayleigh channels. An IDD re ceive r w ith s oftinfo rmation proces s ingthat exploits the code stru ct u re a n dthe b ehaviou r o f the l og li ke l ih ood r ati os (LLR )’s is dev elo pe d. Minimum M e an Square Er ror (MMSE) with Su ccessi ve In t erfer enc e Can cellat i on (SI C) and wi th Parall e l Inter f e re nceCancellation (PIC ) s c hemes are cons idered .T he s oft *a posterior i* outp u t of th e d e c o der in a block-fa ding channe l wi th Roo t- Che c k LDPC code sh asallowed usto c reate a n ew str a tegy to improve the B itErr or R a te ( BER )o f a MI MOI DDscheme.Ou rpropo seds t r a tegy in som e sce narios has re sul tedi n u p to3dB o f ga in in t erms o f BER f or block-fading cha nnels and up t o 1 dB in f a st fad ing ch annels. '
autho r :
- t i t le : 'Iterative Detec ti o n a nd LDPCDecodi n gAl g orithmsfo r M IMOS y stems inB lo ck-Fadin g Chan n el s'
---
L DP C, Roo t- Che ck, MIMO , IDD , Bloc k-Fading
Int r oduction
===== = ======
The m o st r ec e nt I EEE Wireless L ocal Area Net w or k ( W LAN)802.1 1a d s t andard suggests tha tto ach ievehigh throughp ut the dev i c e s must o pera t ew ith LDPC codes . Sin ce a WLANM IMO syst em is subject to multi - p ath prop aga tio n a ndm o bi lity, this wi r e less s ystem i s c haracte riz edbytim e- varying c hannelswi th f lu ctu ating signal s tr eng th . I n app l icatio ns su bjec tto del ay cons t ra i n ts a nd s lowl y-v ar yingchan n els , onlylimited i nde p ende nt f ading r ealizations a re experienc ed . I n such c ondition s also known as non-erg o dic sce nar ios,thechannel c apa city i s z e ro sin ce the re is a n i r r educi b l epro ba bility, te r m edoutag eprob ability [@rasmussen.10],t hat the transmit ted dat a ra tei sn otsu p por t e d by the channe l. A simpl ea nd useful mo d elth at capt ures th e ess e ntial c haracteri stics ofno n-er g o dic channelsis the b lock-fadi n g cha n ne l [@r app aport] .Itis es pecial l y i mport ant in w ireles s com mu nication s with slow time-freque ncy ho pping (e .g., cell ula r ne tworks an d wi reless loc alare a net wor k s) or mul t i- car r ier m odul a tion usin g O rth o g on al Frequenc y D ivi sionMul t iplexi ng ( OFDM) [@boutros.0 7 ]. Codes desig nedf o r b loc k -fad in g channels are ex pe c t ed to ac hi eve the cha nnel div er s ity a nd tooffergood co d i ng gains.
Afam ily of LD PCco d es call ed R o ot-Che ck f or block -fadin g cha n n els was proposed in [ @ b outro s .07 ]. Ro ot -checkc odes are ableto achievethe ma ximu m div ersityof a blo ck- fa ding chann e l and hav e a p erforma nc e ne arthe li mito f outa ge w he n | fading_Rayleigh channels._An IDD receiver with_soft information_processing_that exploits_the_code structure and_the behaviour of_the log likelihood ratios_(LLR)’s is developed._Minimum_Mean Square Error (MMSE) with Successive Interference Cancellation (SIC) and with Parallel Interference Cancellation_(PIC)_schemes are_considered._The_soft *a posteriori* output of_the decoder in a block-fading_channel with_Root-Check LDPC codes has allowed us to create_a_new strategy to_improve the Bit Error Rate (BER) of a MIMO_IDD scheme. Our proposed strategy in_some scenarios has_resulted_in_up to 3dB of_gain in terms of BER for_block-fading channels and up to 1dB_in fast fading channels.'
author:
-
title: 'Iterative Detection_and LDPC Decoding Algorithms for MIMO_Systems in Block-Fading Channels'
---
LDPC, Root-Check,_MIMO, IDD,_Block-Fading
Introduction
============
The most recent IEEE Wireless_Local Area Network_(WLAN) 802.11ad_standard suggests that_to achieve high throughput the devices_must operate with_LDPC codes. Since a WLAN MIMO_system_is subject to_multi-path_propagation_and mobility,_this wireless system_is_characterized by_time-varying_channels with fluctuating signal strength. In_applications_subject to delay constraints and slowly-varying channels,_only limited independent fading_realizations_are experienced. In such_conditions also known as non-ergodic_scenarios, the channel capacity is zero_since there_is an_irreducible probability, termed outage probability [@rasmussen.10], that the transmitted data rate_is not supported by the channel._A simple and useful_model that_captures_the essential characteristics_of_non-ergodic channels_is the block-fading channel [@rappaport]. It is_especially important_in wireless communications with slow time-frequency_hopping (e.g., cellular networks_and_wireless local area networks) or multi-carrier_modulation using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing_(OFDM) [@boutros.07]. Codes designed for_block-fading_channels_are expected to achieve the_channel diversity and to offer good_coding gains.
A family_of LDPC codes called Root-Check for block-fading_channels_was proposed in [@boutros.07]. Root-check codes_are_able to achieve the maximum diversity_of_a_block-fading channel and have a_performance near the limit of outage_when |
r$ values used here have some uncertainty due to dust extinction in the galaxy, overall it provides a good idea of the Hubble types of our hosts.
The host galaxies of SNe Ia with a large [$\mathrm{R_{HVF}}$]{} concentrate toward the blue end of the host galaxy colour sequence. These galaxies are mostly classified as Sb/Sc/Irr galaxies, whereas the high-[$v_{\mathrm{Si}\,\textsc{ii}}$]{} SNe Ia are found in both late-type and early-type galaxies. This is consistent with Section \[sec:hvfs-host\], where we showed that SNe Ia with HVFs arise in galaxies with very strong sSFRs, and are therefore likely to be related to young stellar populations. This argues against an orientation or viewing angle effect [confirming the results of @2006ApJ...645..470T] being purely responsible for the presence of HVFs in SN Ia spectra, as there is no reason that the orientation would depend on the underlying stellar population.
Using narrow blue-shifted Na<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> D absorption features as a probe of this CSM, @2011Sci...333..856S and @2013MNRAS.436..222M found an excess of SNe Ia with blueshifted narrow Na<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> D features, showing CSM around their progenitors. They further found the host galaxies of these SNe Ia are mostly late-type galaxies. If the HVFs observed in SN spectra are related to the interaction between the SN ejecta and a CSM, our work is consistent with @2013MNRAS.436..222M: SNe Ia presenting strong HVFs tend to explode in galaxies with young stellar populations. This provides further evidence for at least two different populations of SNe Ia [see discussion in @2013MNRAS.436..222M], given the distinct properties of host galaxies between SNe Ia with strong HVFs and weak HVFs/high-[$v_{\mathrm{Si}\,\textsc{ii}}$]{}SNe Ia. In Table \[hv-hvfs\] we summarise the properties of high-[$v_{\mathrm{Si}\,\textsc{ii}}$]{} SNe Ia and SNe Ia with strong HVFs found in this work.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this paper we have | r$ values used here have some uncertainty due to debris extinction in the galax, overall it leave a good idea of the Hubble character of our hosts.
The host galaxy of SNe Ia with a large [ $ \mathrm{R_{HVF}}$ ] { } concentrate toward the gloomy end of the host galax colour sequence. These galaxies are mostly relegate as Sb / Sc / Irr galaxies, whereas the high-[$v_{\mathrm{Si}\,\textsc{ii}}$ ] { } SNe Ia are found in both late - type and early - type galaxy. This is consistent with Section \[sec: hvfs - host\ ], where we showed that SNe Ia with HVFs arise in galaxy with very strong sSFRs, and are therefore likely to be associate to young stellar populations. This argues against an orientation or watch angle effect [ confirming the results of @2006ApJ... 645.. 470 T ] being purely responsible for the presence of HVFs in SN Ia spectra, as there is no reason that the orientation would depend on the underlying stellar population.
Using narrow gloomy - shifted Na < span style="font - variant: belittled - caps;">i</span > D absorption features as a probe of this CSM, @2011Sci... 333.. 856S and @2013MNRAS.436.. 222 M found an surfeit of SNe Ia with blueshifted narrow Na < span style="font - variant: small - caps;">i</span > D feature, showing CSM around their progenitors. They further found the host galax of these SNe Ia are mostly late - type galaxies. If the HVFs note in SN spectrum are related to the interaction between the SN ejecta and a CSM, our work is consistent with @2013MNRAS.436.. 222 megabyte: SNe Ia presenting strong HVFs tend to explode in galaxies with young stellar populations. This put up further evidence for at least two different population of SNe Ia [ see discussion in @2013MNRAS.436.. 222 M ], contribute the distinct property of host galaxy between SNe Ia with strong HVFs and fallible HVFs / high-[$v_{\mathrm{Si}\,\textsc{ii}}$]{}SNe Ia. In Table \[hv - hvfs\ ] we summarise the properties of high-[$v_{\mathrm{Si}\,\textsc{ii}}$ ] { } SNe Ia and SNe Ia with solid HVFs found in this oeuvre.
Conclusions { # sec: conclusions }
= = = = = = = = = = =
In this paper we have | r$ vwlues used here have somt uncertainty due to dusv extindtion in the galaxy, overall it provives q gooe idea of the Hubble thpes of olr hosts.
Tye hiwt galaxies of SNe Ia wifm a lcrje [$\mathrm{R_{HVF}}$]{} cokcentrate tmward the blue evd of the host galaxy colour sequence. These bapaxies are mosjly ckwssirpeb as Sb/Sc/Irr galaxies, whereas tge high-[$n_{\mathrm{Si}\,\textsc{ii}}$]{} XNe Ia are found in both lwte-tjpe and early-type halaxies. Thus if consistent dith Section \[sec:hvfs-hosj\], where we showed that SNe Ia wigh HVYs arise in gqladhes with vecy strjng sSFRs, and are tharefore likely to be velatxd ti young stellar populetions. This argues adainst an oxientation or viewing abgle gffecd [covdiroinf vhe resulhs kf @2006ApJ...645..470T] bejng purely eesponsible for the pwvxence of HVFa in SG Ya spectra, as there is no reason that tve krientation would depene on the underlying sjellar poptlation.
Using narrow blue-shifted Na<span style="font-vdrianv:soalo-cwow;">i</dpan> D absorption features as a probe of this DSK, @2011Xci...333..856S and @2013MNRAS.436..222I found an rxfexf of SNe Ia wkth blbssgifted narrow Na<spwn stylg="font-vqriant:smajl-cals;">i</span> D features, showing XSM around tkeie progenitors. They further fobnd thg host galaxies of these SNe Na are mostly latf-type galzbies. If the HVFs obxesved in SN spectra are relwted to tie inceractiov bejween tre SN ejecha and a CSM, our work is consnstend with @2013MNRWS.436..222M: SNe Ia presenting strong HVHx tend to exkloge pn galaxizs witm young stellar populations. Tkis provndes fjrther evisence fmr at least two differend populations of SNe Ya [swe duscussiuv in @2013MNRAS.436..222M], gifen the dpsuinct propwrties of host galexier between SNe Ia wiuh strong HVFs amd deah JVHs/higr-[$e_{\mathrm{Si}\,\texdsc{ik}}$]{}SNd Ia. Iv Table \[hv-hvns\] de simmarise the properthes kf high-[$v_{\mathrm{Si}\,\tectfc{ii}}$]{} SNe Ua and SGe Ia with sttong HVFs found in this wock.
Conckusyons {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this papsr we havf | r$ values used here have some uncertainty dust in the overall it provides Hubble of our hosts. host galaxies of Ia with a large [$\mathrm{R_{HVF}}$]{} concentrate the blue end of the host galaxy colour sequence. These galaxies are mostly as Sb/Sc/Irr galaxies, whereas the high-[$v_{\mathrm{Si}\,\textsc{ii}}$]{} SNe Ia are found in both late-type early-type This consistent Section \[sec:hvfs-host\], where we showed that SNe Ia with HVFs arise in galaxies with very strong and are therefore likely to be related to stellar populations. This argues an orientation or viewing angle [confirming results of being responsible the presence of in SN Ia spectra, as there is no reason that the orientation would depend on the underlying population. Using Na<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> absorption as probe of this and @2013MNRAS.436..222M found an excess of blueshifted narrow Na<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> D features, showing CSM their progenitors. further found the host galaxies of SNe Ia are mostly late-type galaxies. If the observed in SN spectra are related to the interaction between the SN ejecta and a work is consistent with SNe Ia presenting HVFs to in with young populations. This provides further evidence for at least two different populations SNe Ia [see discussion in @2013MNRAS.436..222M], given the distinct properties galaxies SNe Ia with HVFs and weak HVFs/high-[$v_{\mathrm{Si}\,\textsc{ii}}$]{}SNe In \[hv-hvfs\] we summarise the high-[$v_{\mathrm{Si}\,\textsc{ii}}$]{} Ia with HVFs in this work. Conclusions =========== In this paper we | r$ values used here have some unCertainty dUe to dUst ExtInCtioN in tHe galaxy, overalL It prOvides a good idea of the HuBble tYpES of oUR hOsts.
THe host gALaXIEs oF Sne ia wItH A lArge [$\mAthRm{R_{HVF}}$]{} cOncentrate TowArD the blue end oF ThE host galaxY coLour sequence. theSe galaXiEs aRE mostLy cLassiFied as sB/Sc/Irr Galaxies, wHeREas the HIgh-[$v_{\matHRM{SI}\,\texTsc{ii}}$]{} SNe Ia are founD In BOth late-type and Early-tYpE GaLAXieS. ThIs is consisTeNt witH section \[SEc:HVFS-hoST\], where we showeD that SNe Ia wITh HvFs ariSe In gALaxies With vErY StrOng sSFRs, and Are tHerefore lIkely tO Be relatED to younG stellAr pOpuLatiONs. thIs aRgUEs aGAiNst AN orIentatioN oR vIewinG angLE EFFect [ConFirmIng thE results of @2006ApJ...645..470t] beIng pURelY respOnsibLe foR tHe preSence oF HVFs In sN Ia spectra, as thEre iS no reason ThaT tHe oRiEntatIOn woulD dePenD on the uNderlyiNG stElLAR PoPulation.
Using narroW bLUE-sHifted Na<Span stYLe="FoNT-variant:SmAll-Caps;">I</SPan> D aBsorPTiOn featurEs as a pRObE oF this CSm, @2011SCi...333..856S and @2013mNrAS.436..222m foUnd an EXcesS of SNe ia with blUeshiFTed narrow Na<spaN Style="font-variANt:SMAlL-Caps;">I</spAn> D features, ShowINg CSm aroUNd TheIR progEnitoRs. tHeY Further found the host GaLaxies Of theSe SNe Ia are mosTly late-typE GALaxies. If The Hvfs OBserved in SN speCtra aRe related tO The interActioN between The SN ejecTA And a CSM, oUr wOrk Is cOnsISTeNt with @2013MNRAS.436..222M: SnE ia prEsEnting sTroNg HVFs tEnd To eXplOde In Galaxies wIth young StElLaR pOpuLatioNS. This proViDes FuRthEr eviDEnce foR at leAst tWo DiFFerEnt popuLAtIONs of sNE IA [see DisCuSsion In @2013MNraS.436..222M], Given thE distinct ProPErtiEs Of Host galAxies between Sne ia with stroNg hVFS and weAK hVFs/high-[$V_{\mathrm{Si}\,\textsc{ii}}$]{}SNe Ia. IN table \[hv-HvfS\] we suMmarIse the proPerTies of HigH-[$V_{\mathrM{Si}\,\texTsc{ii}}$]{} sNE Ia AND SNe IA WItH stRoNg HVFs founD IN thIs worK.
COnclUsions {#sEc:conclusions}
===========
In thiS PapEr we have | r$ values used here have s ome uncert ainty du e t odust ext inction in the gala xy, overall it provide s a g oo d ide a o f the Hubble ty p e s o fou r h os t s.
The ho st gala xies of SN e I awith a large [$ \mathrm{R_ {HV F}}$]{} conc ent rate t ow ard the b lue endof the host g alaxy col ou r seque n ce. The s e g alax ies are mostly cl a ss i fied as Sb/Sc/ Irr ga la x ie s , wh ere as the hig h- [$v_{ \ mathrm{ S i} \ , \ tex t sc{ii}}$]{} S Ne Ia are f o und in bo th la t e-type andea r ly- type galaxi es.This is c onsist e nt with Section \[sec :hv fs- host \ ], w her ew e s h ow edt hat SNe Iawi th HVFs ari s e i n ga lax ieswithvery strong s SFR s, a n d a re th erefo re l ik ely t o be r elate dto young stella r po pulations . T hi s a rg ues a g ainstanori entatio n or vi e win ga n g le effect [confirmin gt h eresultsof @20 0 6A pJ . ..645..4 70 T]bein g purel y re s po nsible f or the pr es ence of H VFs in S N I a s pectr a , as there is no r eason that the orien t ation would d e pe n d o n the un derlying st ella r pop ulat i on .
U singnarro wb lu e -shifted Na<span st yl e="fon t-var iant:small-ca ps;">i</sp a n > D absor ptio n f e atures as a pr obe o f this CSM , @2011Sc i...3 33..856S and @201 3 M NRAS.436 ..2 22M fo und a nexcess of SNe I a wi th bluesh ift ed narr owNa< spa n s ty le="font- variant: sm al l- ca ps; ">i</ s pan> D f ea tur es , s howin g CSM a round the ir p r oge nitors. Th e y fur th er fou ndth e hos t ga l axi es of t hese SNeIaa re m os tl y late- type galaxies .If the HVF sobs ervedi n SN spec tra are related to thei nteract ion betw eenthe SN ej ect a anda C S M, our workis co ns ist e n t wit h @2 013 MN RAS.436..2 2 2 M:SNe I apres entingstrong HVFs tend t o ex plode in gala xie s wi t h y oun g s t ell ar pop u l ations. This pr ovides fur th e revidence f o r a tleast t wo diff erent populat ions of S Ne Ia [se edisc u s sio n in @2013 MNRAS.43 6..222M], given th e dis tin ct pro pe rti es of hostg ala xiesbetwee nSNe Ia with s trong HV Fs and weak HVFs/high-[ $v_{\m athrm {Si }\,\texts c{i i }}$ ]{}SNe Ia . In Table \[h v-h vfs \] we su m maris e th e p rop e rties ofh igh-[$v_{ \ ma thr m { Si }\,\textsc{ i i } }$] {} SN e I a and S Ne I a with strong HVF s found in this wor k .
C onc l usio ns {#sec:conclus ion s} = ======== ==
In this p aper weha v e | r$ values_used here_have some uncertainty due_to dust_extinction_in the_galaxy,_overall it provides_a good idea_of the Hubble types_of our hosts.
The_host_galaxies of SNe Ia with a large [$\mathrm{R_{HVF}}$]{} concentrate toward the blue end of the_host_galaxy colour_sequence._These_galaxies are mostly classified as_Sb/Sc/Irr galaxies, whereas the high-[$v_{\mathrm{Si}\,\textsc{ii}}$]{} SNe_Ia are_found in both late-type and early-type galaxies. This_is_consistent with Section \[sec:hvfs-host\],_where we showed that SNe Ia with HVFs arise_in galaxies with very strong sSFRs,_and are therefore_likely_to_be related to young_stellar populations. This argues against an_orientation or viewing angle effect [confirming_the results of @2006ApJ...645..470T] being purely responsible_for the presence of HVFs in_SN Ia spectra, as there_is no_reason that the orientation would_depend on the_underlying stellar_population.
Using narrow blue-shifted_Na<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> D absorption features as_a probe of_this CSM, @2011Sci...333..856S and @2013MNRAS.436..222M found_an_excess of SNe_Ia_with_blueshifted narrow_Na<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> D_features,_showing CSM_around_their progenitors. They further found the_host_galaxies of these SNe Ia are mostly_late-type galaxies. If the_HVFs_observed in SN spectra_are related to the interaction_between the SN ejecta and a_CSM, our_work is_consistent with @2013MNRAS.436..222M: SNe Ia presenting strong HVFs tend to explode_in galaxies with young stellar populations._This provides further evidence_for at_least_two different populations_of_SNe Ia_[see discussion in @2013MNRAS.436..222M], given the distinct_properties of_host galaxies between SNe Ia with_strong HVFs and weak_HVFs/high-[$v_{\mathrm{Si}\,\textsc{ii}}$]{}SNe_Ia. In Table \[hv-hvfs\] we summarise the_properties of high-[$v_{\mathrm{Si}\,\textsc{ii}}$]{} SNe Ia and SNe_Ia with strong HVFs found_in_this_work.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this paper we_have |
scale setting procedure where ${a_t = \frac{a_t m_\Omega}{m_\Omega^\mathrm{phys}}}$, using the $\Omega$ baryon mass determined on these lattices,, and the physical $\Omega$ baryon mass.
Reduced symmetry of a finite cubic lattice {#sec_symmetries}
==========================================
The symmetry of a lattice in a finite volume is reduced compared to that of continuous space in an infinite volume. Our implementation, a spatially cubic lattice discretization in a cubic box with periodic boundary conditions, has the symmetry of a cube. The relevant symmetry group for a system of hadrons overall at rest is therefore the double cover of the octahedral (or cubic) group with parity, $O_h^D$. For a system “in-flight” with overall non-zero momentum, $\vec{P} \neq \vec{0}$, the appropriate symmetry is reduced further to that of the *little group* [@Moore:2005dw], $\textrm{LG}(\vec{P})$, the subgroup of $O_h^D$ which leaves $\vec{P}$ invariant[^1]. The spatially periodic boundary conditions quantize the allowed momenta, $\vec{p} = \frac{2\pi}{L}(n,m,p)$, where $L$ is the spatial extent of the lattice in physical units and $n,m,p$ are integers; we write this in a compact notation as $\vec{p} = [n,m,p]$ or $[n m p]$.
The consequences of this reduced symmetry for scattering have been discussed in detail in Refs. [@Dudek:2012gj; @Dudek:2012xn]. In brief, at zero momentum the continuum spin, $J$, is not a good quantum number and states are instead labelled by irreducible representations, *irreps*, of $O_h^D$. Parity, $P$, and any relevant flavor quantum numbers are still good. For $\vec{P} \neq \vec{0}$, $J$ and the helicity, $\lambda$, are not good quantum numbers and states are classified by the irreps of $\textrm{LG}(\vec{P})$. Any relevant flavor quantum numbers are still good but, in general, parity is *not* apart from for the $\lambda = 0$ components where $\tilde{\eta} \equiv P (-1)^J$ is a good quantum number [@Thomas:2011 | scale setting procedure where $ { a_t = \frac{a_t m_\Omega}{m_\Omega^\mathrm{phys}}}$, using the $ \Omega$ baryon bulk determine on these lattices, , and the physical $ \Omega$ baryon mass.
Reduced isotropy of a finite cubic lattice { # sec_symmetries }
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The symmetry of a lattice in a finite bulk is reduced compared to that of continuous outer space in an infinite volume. Our execution, a spatially cubic lattice discretization in a cubic box with periodic boundary conditions, has the isotropy of a cube. The relevant symmetry group for a arrangement of hadrons overall at rest is consequently the double cover of the octahedral (or cubic) group with parity, $ O_h^D$. For a organization “ in - flight ” with overall non - zero momentum, $ \vec{P } \neq \vec{0}$, the appropriate symmetry is reduce far to that of the * little group * [ @Moore:2005dw ], $ \textrm{LG}(\vec{P})$, the subgroup of $ O_h^D$ which leave $ \vec{P}$ invariant[^1 ]. The spatially periodic boundary conditions quantize the allowed momenta, $ \vec{p } = \frac{2\pi}{L}(n, m, p)$, where $ L$ is the spatial extent of the wicket in physical units and $ n, m, p$ are integers; we write this in a compact notation as $ \vec{p } = [ n, m, p]$ or $ [ newton m p]$.
The consequences of this reduced symmetry for scattering have been discussed in detail in Refs. [ @Dudek:2012gj; @Dudek:2012xn ]. In brief, at zero momentum the continuum spin, $ J$, is not a good quantum number and states are alternatively labelled by irreducible representations, * irreps *, of $ O_h^D$. Parity, $ P$, and any relevant relish quantum number are still good. For $ \vec{P } \neq \vec{0}$, $ J$ and the helicity, $ \lambda$, are not good quantum issue and states are classified by the irreps of $ \textrm{LG}(\vec{P})$. Any relevant flavor quantum numbers are however good but, in general, parity is * not * apart from for the $ \lambda = 0 $ components where $ \tilde{\eta } \equiv P (-1)^J$ is a dependable quantum number [ @Thomas:2011 | scwle setting procedure whtre ${a_t = \frac{a_t m_\Omega}{m_\Omxga^\mathdm{phys}}}$, uring the $\Omega$ baryon mass dxternined on these lattices,, and the physpcal $\Omegq$ bacyon mass.
Reduced symmetrn of z finntx cubic lattice {#sec_symmetsies}
==========================================
The symmetsy oy a lattice in a finite volume is requced cpmoared to that jf cpgtinhous space in an infinite volume. Ohr impltmentation, a spatislly cubic lattice discretlzatlon in a cubic box with perioeic fiundary condktions, has the symmetri of a cube. The relevant symmetrh grobp for a sywtwm lx hadrons oterall at rest is bnerefose the couble cover on the ocrahedral (or cubic) gronp with parity, $O_h^D$. Fjr a systam “in-flight” with ovwrqll nmn-zeso munengum, $\vxc{P} \neq \vfc{0}$, vhe approprjate symmetey is reduced furthtr ei that of the *littlq droup* [@Moore:2005dw], $\textrm{LG}(\vec{P})$, the subgroup mf $K_h^D$ which leaves $\vec{P}$ ibvariant[^1]. The spatialli periodic boundary conditions quantize the allowed momenta, $\vec{p} = \frcg{2\ii}{L}(n,o,p)$, ahere $L$ is the spatial extent of the lattice yh khyxical units anb $n,m,p$ are integets; wr write this iv a compadt notation as $\vec{o} = [n,m,p]$ jr $[n n p]$.
The cogseqiences of this reduced symmwtry for scanterung have been discbssed in detcil in Refs. [@Cudek:2012gj; @Dudek:2012xn]. In briey, at zsro momentul the confknuum spin, $J$, is vot a good quantum number and seates are inscead labdllec by iwreducible reprcventations, *irreps*, lf $O_h^B$. Parhty, $P$, and wny relevant flavor quantum numuxrs are still gmod. For $\vec{'} \neq \yec{0}$, $J$ and the hqlicity, $\lambda$, are noc good quantum nlmbers anv states are classified bf the irreps mf $\textri{LG}(\vwc{P})$. Qny reldxant flavor qusntum numytrs are stull good but, in gekeral, larity is *not* a'cru drom for the $\lsmbaa = 0$ bom'onenev where $\tilda{\eta} \eqjov P (-1)^G$ is a good duanyum number [@Thomas:2011 | scale setting procedure where ${a_t = \frac{a_t the baryon mass on these lattices,, mass. symmetry of a cubic lattice {#sec_symmetries} The symmetry of a lattice in finite volume is reduced compared to that of continuous space in an infinite Our implementation, a spatially cubic lattice discretization in a cubic box with periodic conditions, the of cube. The relevant symmetry group for a system of hadrons overall at rest is therefore the cover of the octahedral (or cubic) group with $O_h^D$. For a system with overall non-zero momentum, $\vec{P} \vec{0}$, appropriate symmetry reduced to of the *little [@Moore:2005dw], $\textrm{LG}(\vec{P})$, the subgroup of $O_h^D$ which leaves $\vec{P}$ invariant[^1]. The spatially periodic boundary conditions quantize the momenta, $\vec{p} where $L$ the extent the lattice in and $n,m,p$ are integers; we write compact notation as $\vec{p} = [n,m,p]$ or $[n p]$. The of this reduced symmetry for scattering been discussed in detail in Refs. [@Dudek:2012gj; @Dudek:2012xn]. brief, at zero momentum the continuum spin, $J$, is not a good quantum number and instead labelled by irreducible *irreps*, of $O_h^D$. $P$, any flavor numbers are good. For $\vec{P} \neq \vec{0}$, $J$ and the helicity, $\lambda$, are good quantum numbers and states are classified by the irreps Any flavor quantum numbers still good but, in parity *not* apart from for = components P is good quantum number [@Thomas:2011 | scale setting procedure wherE ${a_t = \frac{a_t m_\omega}{M_\OmEga^\MaThrm{Phys}}}$, Using the $\Omega$ bARyon Mass determined on these lAtticEs,, ANd thE PhYsicaL $\Omega$ bARyON MasS.
REdUceD sYMmEtry oF a fInite cuBic lattice {#Sec_SyMmetries}
==========================================
The sYMmEtry of a latTicE in a finite voLumE is redUcEd cOMpareD to That oF contiNUous spAce in an inFiNIte volUMe. Our imPLEmEntaTion, a spatially cubIC lATtice discretizAtion iN a CUbIC Box WitH periodic bOuNdary COnditioNS, hAS THe sYMmetry of a cube. the relevant SYmmEtry grOuP foR A systeM of haDrONs oVerall at resT is tHerefore tHe doubLE cover oF The octaHedral (Or cUbiC) groUP wItH paRiTY, $O_h^d$. foR a sYSteM “in-flighT” wItH overAll nON-ZERo moMenTum, $\vEc{P} \neQ \vec{0}$, the appropRiaTe syMMetRy is rEduceD furThEr to tHat of tHe *litTlE group* [@Moore:2005dw], $\teXtrm{lG}(\vec{P})$, the SubGrOup Of $o_h^D$ whICh leavEs $\vEc{P}$ InvariaNt[^1]. The spATiaLlY PERiOdic boundary conditIoNS QuAntize thE allowED mOmENta, $\vec{p} = \fRaC{2\pi}{l}(n,m,p)$, WHEre $L$ iS the SPaTial exteNt of thE LaTtIce in phYsIcal unItS anD $n,m,P$ are iNTegeRs; we wrIte this iN a comPAct notation as $\vEC{p} = [n,m,p]$ or $[n m p]$.
The COnSEQuENces Of tHis reduced sYmmeTRy foR scaTTeRinG Have bEen diScUSsED in detail in Refs. [@DudeK:2012gJ; @Dudek:2012Xn]. In bRief, at zero momEntum the coNTINuum spin, $j$, is nOT a GOod quantum numbEr and States are iNStead labElled By irreduCible reprESEntationS, *irRepS*, of $o_h^D$. pARiTy, $P$, and any releVANt flAvOr quantUm nUmbers aRe sTilL goOd. FOr $\Vec{P} \neq \veC{0}$, $J$ and the HeLiCiTy, $\LamBda$, arE Not good qUaNtuM nUmbErs anD States Are clAssiFiEd BY thE irreps OF $\tEXTrm{Lg}(\vEc{p})$. Any RelEvAnt flAvor QUanTum numbErs are stiLl gOOd buT, iN gEneral, pArity is *not* apaRt From for the $\LaMbdA = 0$ compoNENts where $\Tilde{\eta} \equiv P (-1)^J$ is a good qUAntum nuMbeR [@ThomAs:2011 | scale setting procedure w here ${a_t = \f rac {a_ tm_\O mega }{m_\Omega^\ma t hrm{ phys}}}$, using the $\ Omega $b aryo n m ass d etermin e do n th es elat ti c es ,, an d t he phys ical $\Ome ga$ b aryon mass.Re duced symm etr y of a finit e c ubic l at tic e {#se c_s ymmet ries}= ====== ========= == = ====== = ======= = = == ==== =
The symmetry o f a lattice in a f initevo l um e isred uced compa re d tot hat ofc on t i n uou s space in aninfinite vo l ume . Ourim ple m entati on, a s p ati ally cubiclatt ice discr etizat i on in a cubic b ox wit h p eri odic bo un dar yc ond i ti ons , ha s the sy mm et ry of a c u b e . The re leva nt sy mmetry groupfor a s y ste m ofhadro ns o ve rallat res t isth erefore the dou blecover ofthe o cta he dral( or cub ic) gr oup wit h parit y , $ O_ h ^ D $. For a system “in- fl i g ht ” with o verall no n- z ero mome nt um, $\v e c {P} \ neq\ ve c{0}$, t he app r op ri ate sym me try is r edu ced furt h er t o that of the*litt l e group* [@Moo r e:2005dw], $\ t ex t r m{ L G}(\ vec {P})$, thesubg r oupof $ O _h ^D$ which leav es $\ v ec{P}$ invariant[^1 ]. The s patia lly periodicboundary c o n d itions q uant i ze the allowed mo menta , $\vec{p} = \frac{ 2\pi} {L}(n,m, p)$, wher e $L$ is t hespa tia l e x t en t of the latt i c e in p hysical un its and $n ,m, p$are i ntegers;we write t hi sin acompa c t notati on as $ \ve c{p}= [n,m, p]$ o r $[ nmp ]$.
The c o ns e q uenc es o f th isre duced sym m etr y for s cattering ha v e be en d iscusse d in detail i nRefs. [@Du de k:2 012gj; @ Dudek:20 12xn]. In brief, at zer o moment umthe c onti nuum spin , $ J$, is no t a goo d quan tum n um ber a nd st a t es ar einstead la b e lle d byir redu cible r epresentations, *i r rep s*, of $O_h^D $.Pari t y ,$P$ , a n d a ny rel e v ant flavor quan tum number sa re still goo d . F or $\vec{ P} \neq \vec { 0}$, $J $ and the helicity ,$\la m b da$ , are notgood qua ntum numb e rs an d s tates ar e clas si fie d bythe ir r eps of $ \textr m{ LG}(\v ec{P} )$ . Any re levant flavor quantum n umbers aresti ll good b ut, ingeneral,pari ty is *not * a par t fro m f o r the $\l a mb da= 0$ c ompo n ents wher e $ \ti l d e{ \eta} \equi v P (- 1)^J$ is a good qua ntum number [@Tho m as:2011 | scale_setting procedure_where ${a_t = \frac{a_t_m_\Omega}{m_\Omega^\mathrm{phys}}}$, using_the_$\Omega$ baryon_mass_determined on these_lattices,, and the_physical $\Omega$ baryon mass.
Reduced_symmetry of a_finite_cubic lattice {#sec_symmetries}
==========================================
The symmetry of a lattice in a finite volume is reduced compared_to_that of_continuous_space_in an infinite volume. Our_implementation, a spatially cubic lattice_discretization in_a cubic box with periodic boundary conditions, has_the_symmetry of a_cube. The relevant symmetry group for a system of_hadrons overall at rest is therefore_the double cover_of_the_octahedral (or cubic) group_with parity, $O_h^D$. For a system_“in-flight” with overall non-zero momentum, $\vec{P}_\neq \vec{0}$, the appropriate symmetry is reduced_further to that of the *little_group* [@Moore:2005dw], $\textrm{LG}(\vec{P})$, the subgroup of_$O_h^D$ which_leaves $\vec{P}$ invariant[^1]. The spatially_periodic boundary conditions_quantize the_allowed momenta, $\vec{p}_= \frac{2\pi}{L}(n,m,p)$, where $L$ is the_spatial extent of_the lattice in physical units and_$n,m,p$_are integers; we_write_this_in a_compact notation as_$\vec{p}_= [n,m,p]$_or_$[n m p]$.
The consequences of this_reduced_symmetry for scattering have been discussed in_detail in Refs. [@Dudek:2012gj; @Dudek:2012xn]._In_brief, at zero momentum_the continuum spin, $J$, is_not a good quantum number and_states are_instead labelled_by irreducible representations, *irreps*, of $O_h^D$. Parity, $P$, and any relevant_flavor quantum numbers are still good._For $\vec{P} \neq \vec{0}$,_$J$ and_the_helicity, $\lambda$, are_not_good quantum_numbers and states are classified by the_irreps of_$\textrm{LG}(\vec{P})$. Any relevant flavor quantum numbers_are still good but,_in_general, parity is *not* apart from_for the $\lambda = 0$ components_where $\tilde{\eta} \equiv P (-1)^J$_is_a_good quantum number [@Thomas:2011 |
kas, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D82**]{}, 116007 (2010).
K. Anagnostopoulos, K. Farakos, P. Pasipoularides and A. Tsapalis, arXiv:1007.0355 \[hep-th\].
P. Horava, [*JHEP*]{} [**0903**]{}, 020 (2009).
P. Horava, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D79**]{}, 084008 (2009).
P. Horava and C. M. Melby-Thompson, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D82**]{}, 064027 (2010).
E. Kiritsis and G. Kofinas, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B821**]{}, 467 (2009).
S. Mukohyama, [*JCAP*]{}, [**0906**]{}, 001 (2009).
R. Brandenberger, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D80**]{}, 043516 (2009).
R. G. Cai, L. M. Cao and N. Ohta, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D80**]{}, 024003 (2009).
S. Mukohyama, K. Nakayama, F. Takahashi and S. Yokoyama, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B679**]{}, 6 (2009).
A. Kehagias and K. Sfetsos, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B678**]{}, 123 (2009).
C. Charmousis, G. Niz, A. Padilla and P. M. Saffin, [*JHEP*]{} [**0908**]{}, 070 (2009).
G. Koutsoumbas and P. Pasipoularides, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D82**]{}, 044046 (2010).
M. Eune and W. Kim, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A25**]{}, 2923 (2010).
D. Orlando and S. Reffert, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**26**]{}, 155021 (2009).
M. Jamil, E. N. Saridakis and M. R. Setare, [*JCAP*]{} [**1011**]{}, | kas, [ * Phys. Rev. * ] { } [ * * D82 * * ] { }, 116007 (2010).
K. Anagnostopoulos, K. Farakos, P. Pasipoularides and A. Tsapalis, arXiv:1007.0355 \[hep - th\ ].
P. Horava, [ * JHEP * ] { } [ * * 0903 * * ] { }, 020 (2009).
P. Horava, [ * Phys. Rev. * ] { } [ * * D79 * * ] { }, 084008 (2009).
P. Horava and C. M. Melby - Thompson, [ * Phys. Rev. * ] { } [ * * D82 * * ] { }, 064027 (2010).
E. Kiritsis and G. Kofinas, [ * Nucl. Phys. * ] { } [ * * B821 * * ] { }, 467 (2009).
S. Mukohyama, [ * JCAP * ] { }, [ * * 0906 * * ] { }, 001 (2009).
R. Brandenberger, [ * Phys. Rev. * ] { } [ * * D80 * * ] { }, 043516 (2009).
R. G. Cai, L. M. Cao and N. Ohta, [ * Phys. Rev. * ] { } [ * * D80 * * ] { }, 024003 (2009).
S. Mukohyama, K. Nakayama, F. Takahashi and S. Yokoyama, [ * Phys. Lett. * ] { } [ * * B679 * * ] { }, 6 (2009).
A. Kehagias and K. Sfetsos, [ * Phys. Lett. * ] { } [ * * B678 * * ] { }, 123 (2009).
C. Charmousis, G. Niz, A. Padilla and P. M. Saffin, [ * JHEP * ] { } [ * * 0908 * * ] { }, 070 (2009).
G. Koutsoumbas and P. Pasipoularides, [ * Phys. Rev. * ] { } [ * * D82 * * ] { }, 044046 (2010).
M. Eune and W. Kim, [ * Mod. Phys. Lett. * ] { } [ * * A25 * * ] { }, 2923 (2010).
D. Orlando and S. Reffert, [ * Class. Quant. Grav. * ] { } [ * * 26 * * ] { }, 155021 (2009).
M. Jamil, E. N. Saridakis and M. R. Setare, [ * JCAP * ] { } [ * * 1011 * * ] { }, | kas, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D82**]{}, 116007 (2010).
K. Anagnostopuulos, K. Farakos, K. Pqsipounaridea and A. Trapalis, arXiv:1007.0355 \[hep-th\].
P. Horava, [*JIEP*]{} [**0903**]{}, 020 (2009).
P. Hoeava, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D79**]{}, 084008 (2009).
P. Horaxa and C. M. Lelby-Thonpsoi, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D82**]{}, 064027 (2010).
E. Kmditsis and G. Kkninas, [*Iucl. Phys.*]{} [**B821**]{}, 467 (2009).
S. Mokohyama, [*JCA[*]{}, [**0906**]{}, 001 (2009).
R. Brandenbesgdr, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D80**]{}, 043516 (2009).
R. G. Cai, L. M. Cao and N. Ohta, [*[hys. Ref.*]{} [**F80**]{}, 024003 (2009).
S. Mukohyama, H. Naksrama, F. Takahashi and S. Yokoyama, [*Phys. Letf.*]{} [**B679**]{}, 6 (2009).
A. Kthagias and K. Sfetsps, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B678**]{}, 123 (2009).
C. Charmousid, G. Nlz, A. Padilla and P. M. Daffin, [*JHEP*]{} [**0908**]{}, 070 (2009).
G. Hiutsoumbas avd P. Pasipolnarides, [*Phis. Rev.*]{} [**D82**]{}, 044046 (2010).
M. Eune and W. Kim, [*Mod. Phyr. Letc.*]{} [**A25**]{}, 2923 (2010).
D. Orlaneo anf S. Reffert, [*Coass. Zuant. Grav.*]{} [**26**]{}, 155021 (2009).
M. Jamil, A. N. Saridskis and M. R. Setsre, [*JCQP*]{} [**1011**]{}, | kas, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D82**]{}, 116007 (2010). K. Farakos, Pasipoularides and Tsapalis, arXiv:1007.0355 \[hep-th\]. (2009). Horava, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} 084008 (2009). P. and C. M. Melby-Thompson, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} 064027 (2010). E. Kiritsis and G. Kofinas, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B821**]{}, 467 (2009). S. [*JCAP*]{}, [**0906**]{}, 001 (2009). R. Brandenberger, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D80**]{}, 043516 (2009). R. G. L. Cao N. [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D80**]{}, 024003 (2009). S. Mukohyama, K. Nakayama, F. Takahashi and S. Yokoyama, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} 6 (2009). A. Kehagias and K. Sfetsos, [*Phys. [**B678**]{}, 123 (2009). C. G. Niz, A. Padilla and M. [*JHEP*]{} [**0908**]{}, (2009). Koutsoumbas P. Pasipoularides, [*Phys. [**D82**]{}, 044046 (2010). M. Eune and W. Kim, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A25**]{}, 2923 (2010). D. Orlando and Reffert, [*Class. [**26**]{}, 155021 M. E. Saridakis and M. [*JCAP*]{} [**1011**]{}, | kas, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D82**]{}, 116007 (2010).
K. AnagnostopoulOs, K. Farakos, p. PasiPouLarIdEs anD A. TsApalis, arXiv:1007.0355 \[hep-TH\].
P. HoRava, [*JHEP*]{} [**0903**]{}, 020 (2009).
P. Horava, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**d79**]{}, 084008 (2009).
P. HorAvA And C. m. meLby-ThOmpson, [*PHYs. rEV.*]{} [**D82**]{}, 064027 (2010).
E. kiRiTsiS aND G. kofinAs, [*NUcl. Phys.*]{} [**b821**]{}, 467 (2009).
S. MukohyamA, [*JCaP*]{}, [**0906**]{}, 001 (2009).
r. BrandenbergER, [*PHys. Rev.*]{} [**D80**]{}, 043516 (2009).
R. G. CAi, L. m. Cao and N. Ohta, [*phyS. Rev.*]{} [**D80**]{}, 024003 (2009).
S. muKohYAma, K. NAkaYama, F. takahaSHi and S. yokoyama, [*PHyS. lett.*]{} [**B679**]{}, 6 (2009).
A. kEhagias AND K. sfetSos, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B678**]{}, 123 (2009).
C. CharMOuSIs, G. Niz, A. Padilla And P. M. SAfFIn, [*jheP*]{} [**0908**]{}, 070 (2009).
G. kouTsoumbas anD P. pasipOUlarideS, [*phYS. rEv.*]{} [**D82**]{}, 044046 (2010).
m. eune and W. Kim, [*MoD. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A25**]{}, 2923 (2010).
D. oRlaNdo and s. REffERt, [*ClasS. QuanT. GRAv.*]{} [**26**]{}, 155021 (2009).
M. jamil, E. N. SariDakiS and M. R. SetAre, [*JCAp*]{} [**1011**]{}, | kas, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 82**]{}, 1 16007 (2 010 ).
K. Ana gnostopoulos,K . Fa rakos, P. Pasipoularid es an dA . Ts a pa lis,arXiv:1 0 07 . 0 355 \ [h ep- th \ ].
P.Hor ava, [* JHEP*]{} [ **0 90 3**]{}, 020( 20 09).
P. H ora va, [*Phys.Rev .*]{}[* *D7 9 **]{} , 0 84008 (2009 ) .
P.Horava an dC . M. M e lby-Tho m p so n, [ *Phys. Rev.*]{} [ * *D 8 2**]{}, 064027 (2010 ).
E . Kir its is and G.Ko finas , [*Nucl . P h y s .*] { } [**B821**]{ }, 467 (200 9 ).
S. Mu ko hya m a, [*J CAP*] {} , [* *0906**]{}, 001 (2009).
R. Br a ndenber g er, [*P hys. R ev. *]{ } [* * D8 0* *]{ }, 043 5 16 (2 0 09) .
R. G. C ai , L.M. C a o a nd N . O hta, [*Ph ys. Rev.*]{}[** D80* * ]{} , 024 003 ( 2009 ).
S.Mukohy ama,K. Nakayama, F. T akah ashi andS.Yo koy am a, [* P hys. L ett .*] {} [**B 679**]{ } , 6 ( 2 0 0 9) .
A. Kehagias and K . Sf etsos, [ *Phys. Le tt . *]{} [** B6 78* *]{} , 123 ( 2009 ) .
C. Char mousis , G .Niz, A. P adilla a ndP.M. Sa f fin, [*JHE P*]{} [* *0908 * *]{}, 070 (200 9 ).
G. Koutso u mb a s a n d P. Pa sipoularide s, [ * Phys . Re v .* ]{} [**D8 2**]{ }, 04 4 046 (2010).
M. Eun eand W. Kim, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [ * *A25**]{ }, 2 9 23 (2010).
D. Or lando and S. Re f fert, [* Class . Quant. Grav.*]{ } [**26**] {}, 15 502 1 ( 2 0 09 ).
M. Jamil, E . N. S aridaki s a nd M. R . S eta re, [* JC AP*]{} [* *1011**] {} , | kas, [*Phys._Rev.*]{} [**D82**]{},_116007 (2010).
K. Anagnostopoulos, K. Farakos, P. Pasipoularides_and A. Tsapalis,_arXiv:1007.0355_\[hep-th\].
P. Horava, [*JHEP*]{}_[**0903**]{},_020 (2009).
P. Horava, [*Phys._Rev.*]{} [**D79**]{}, 084008_(2009).
P. Horava and C. M. Melby-Thompson, [*Phys._Rev.*]{} [**D82**]{}, 064027_(2010).
E. Kiritsis_and G. Kofinas, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B821**]{}, 467 (2009).
S. Mukohyama, [*JCAP*]{}, [**0906**]{}, 001 (2009).
R. Brandenberger, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D80**]{},_043516_(2009).
R. G. Cai, L. M. Cao_and_N. Ohta,_[*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D80**]{}, 024003 (2009).
S. Mukohyama,_K. Nakayama, F. Takahashi and S. Yokoyama, [*Phys._Lett.*]{} [**B679**]{},_6 (2009).
A. Kehagias and K. Sfetsos, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B678**]{}, 123_(2009).
C. Charmousis,_G. Niz, A. Padilla and_P. M. Saffin, [*JHEP*]{} [**0908**]{}, 070 (2009).
G. Koutsoumbas and P. Pasipoularides, [*Phys. Rev.*]{}_[**D82**]{}, 044046 (2010).
M. Eune and W. Kim, [*Mod._Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A25**]{},_2923_(2010).
D. Orlando_and S. Reffert, [*Class. Quant._Grav.*]{} [**26**]{}, 155021 (2009).
M. Jamil, E. N. Saridakis and_M. R. Setare, [*JCAP*]{} [**1011**]{}, |
It is natural to treat the problem of [*spectral analysis*]{} as the problem of describing ideals of $\Gamma$, containing a given ideal, or representations $\pi_{\gamma}$ contained in a given representation. The scheme described of one of the versions of harmonic analysis, connected with the Delsarte-Schwartz theory of mean-periodic functions and the theory of differential equations with constant coefficients and convolution equations, allows one to consider results which at first glance have little in common between them, from a single point of view. A vast literature is devoted to other questions of harmonic analysis on hypergroups (the theory of almost periodic functions, expansions in orthogonal systems of functions, etc., cf., points 1.6, 5.3, 6.1, 6.8).\
The theory of representations of compact groups gives the classical example of spectral synthesis. If $G$ is a compact group, then in the topological group algebra $\mathscr{M} (G)$ consisting of measures with compact support, any primary ideal is a maximal ideal of finite codimension. The Peter-Weyl theorem is equivalent to the assertion that any ideal in $\mathscr{M} (G)$ is the intersection of the maximal ideals containing it.
A generalization of the Peter-Weyl theorem to the case of compact hypergroups is given by B. M. Levitan (cf. \[55, 56\]; the Peter-Weyl theory and harmonic analysis on p-hypergroups were considered in \[136, 180\]; cf. also \[3, 8, 7, 14\]). If there is given on the compact hypergroup $H$ a finite measure, satisfying certain additional conditions, then any continuous function from the basic subspace $\widetilde{C} (H)$ can be approximated in the topology of uniform convergence by matrix elements of finite-dimensional irreducible representations. One can deduce from this that any ideal in the basic subalgebra $\tilde{\mathscr{M}} (H)$ is the intersection of the maximal ideals containing it. Analogous results are also valid for other hypergroup algebras, for example, for the Hilbert algebra $L^2 (H)$.
For the group $G$ of conformal transformations of the unit disc, which is locally isomorphic to the group $SL(2, R)$, Ehrenpreis and Mautner \[119\] described the ideals in the group algebra $\mathscr{D} (G)$ (we note that for any Lie group $G$ the ideals in $\mathscr{D} (G)$ are in one-to | It is natural to treat the problem of [ * spectral psychoanalysis * ] { } as the trouble of identify ideals of $ \Gamma$, control a yield ideal, or representations $ \pi_{\gamma}$ contained in a given theatrical performance. The scheme described of one of the versions of consonant psychoanalysis, connected with the Delsarte - Schwartz theory of beggarly - periodic functions and the theory of differential equations with changeless coefficients and convolution equations, allows one to consider consequence which at first glance have little in coarse between them, from a single point of view. A vast literature is give to other questions of harmonic analysis on hypergroups (the theory of about periodic functions, expansions in orthogonal systems of functions, etc. , cf. , points 1.6, 5.3, 6.1, 6.8).\
The hypothesis of representation of compact groups gives the classical example of spectral synthesis. If $ G$ is a compact group, then in the topological group algebra $ \mathscr{M } (G)$ consisting of measure with compact support, any basal ideal is a maximal ideal of finite codimension. The Peter - Weyl theorem is equivalent to the assertion that any ideal in $ \mathscr{M } (G)$ is the intersection of the maximal ideals containing it.
A abstraction of the Peter - Weyl theorem to the case of compendious hypergroups is given by B. M. Levitan (cf. \[55, 56\ ]; the Peter - Weyl theory and consonant analysis on p - hypergroups were considered in \[136, 180\ ]; cf. also \[3, 8, 7, 14\ ]). If there is given on the compendious hypergroup $ H$ a finite measure, satisfying certain additional conditions, then any continuous function from the basic subspace $ \widetilde{C } (H)$ can be approximated in the regional anatomy of consistent convergence by matrix elements of finite - dimensional irreducible representations. One can deduce from this that any ideal in the basic subalgebra $ \tilde{\mathscr{M } } (H)$ is the overlap of the maximal ideals containing it. Analogous results are also valid for other hypergroup algebras, for example, for the Hilbert algebra $ L^2 (H)$.
For the group $ G$ of conformal transformations of the unit disk, which is locally isomorphic to the group $ SL(2, R)$, Ehrenpreis and Mautner \[119\ ] report the ideals in the group algebra $ \mathscr{D } (G)$ (we note that for any Lie group $ G$ the ideal in $ \mathscr{D } (G)$ are in one - to | It ls natural to treat the kroblem of [*spectrco analbsis*]{} as the proclem of describing ideals of $\Gqmma$, xontaining a given idexl, or repgesentatiins $\ki_{\gamma}$ contained in a giyzn relvesencavion. The scheme described of one of the vdrdions of harmonic analysis, connecteq with yhf Delsarte-Schwwrtz eheodj if mean-periodic functions and the thtory of differentisl equations with constant coevficients and convllution equqtiogw, allows one to considtr results wgich at first glance have littld in eommon betwgzb tjgm, from a siigle pjint of view. A vast niteratire is devoted to otyer questions of harmmnic analysis on hipergroups (tke theory of almost pwruodic funwtiovw, ebpahsmona in ogthkgonal sysfems of funxtions, etc., cf., pointx 1.6, 5.3, 6.1, 6.8).\
The theory kf repwefentations of compact groups gives the blasaical example of spectrql synthesis. If $G$ is w compact group, then in the topological group algebra $\mathvcr{M} (J)$ zonwifgunh of measures with compact support, any primarr icesl is a maximaj ideal of gijiyg codimension. Jhe Petzd-Wsyl theorem is equlvalent to tye assertyon yhat any ideal in $\mathscr{M} (T)$ is the intvrsextion of the maximcl ideals coutainimg it.
S generalization of the Petsr-Weyl theogem to ths case of compact hyiergsoups is given by B. M. Leviean (cf. \[55, 56\]; vhe Pzter-Weyl thepry anq harmonic analnvis on p-hypergroupd werg conshdered in \[136, 180\]; cf. also \[3, 8, 7, 14\]). If there is given on the compacj hfpeggroup $H$ c finibe measure, satiffying certain additijnal zonditions, then aiy continuouf function frml the basic vubspace $\widwtilee{C} (H)$ cxv be approximayed in thv uopology od uniform convergekce bi jatrix elements of finite-dimensiomal irwefurible sepresentatimns. Une van ddduce from bhir thst any ideal in the tasid subalgebra $\tilde{\kabhscr{M}} (H)$ us the igtersection og the maximal ideaps coitainiig it. Snajogous results are also valid ror other hyiergroup algefras, for example, for the Hilbert algebra $L^2 (H)$.
For the gronp $G$ of conformal transdormations of the uuiu disc, which ms locwlly isommrphic to the group $WL(2, R)$, Ehrenpreis akd Mautner \[119\] described fhe idaals ln the group algebra $\mathscr{D} (G)$ (we note that for any Lie group $G$ the ideaos in $\mathscr{D} (G)$ ade im one-no | It is natural to treat the problem analysis*]{} the problem describing ideals of or $\pi_{\gamma}$ contained in given representation. The described of one of the versions harmonic analysis, connected with the Delsarte-Schwartz theory of mean-periodic functions and the theory differential equations with constant coefficients and convolution equations, allows one to consider results at glance little common between them, from a single point of view. A vast literature is devoted to other of harmonic analysis on hypergroups (the theory of periodic functions, expansions in systems of functions, etc., cf., 1.6, 6.1, 6.8).\ theory representations compact groups gives classical example of spectral synthesis. If $G$ is a compact group, then in the topological group algebra (G)$ consisting with compact any ideal a maximal ideal codimension. The Peter-Weyl theorem is equivalent that any ideal in $\mathscr{M} (G)$ is the of the ideals containing it. A generalization of Peter-Weyl theorem to the case of compact hypergroups given by B. M. Levitan (cf. \[55, 56\]; the Peter-Weyl theory and harmonic analysis on considered in \[136, 180\]; also \[3, 8, 14\]). there given the compact $H$ a finite measure, satisfying certain additional conditions, then any continuous from the basic subspace $\widetilde{C} (H)$ can be approximated in of convergence by matrix of finite-dimensional irreducible representations. can from this that any the subalgebra the of maximal ideals containing it. results are also valid for hypergroup algebras, for example, (H)$. For the group $G$ of conformal transformations the unit disc, which is locally isomorphic the group $SL(2, R)$, Ehrenpreis and Mautner \[119\] described the ideals in group algebra (we note that for any Lie group $G$ ideals in $\mathscr{D} (G)$ in one-to | It is natural to treat the probLem of [*spectRal anAlySis*]{} As The pRoblEm of describing IDealS of $\Gamma$, containing a givEn ideAl, OR repREsEntatIons $\pi_{\gAMmA}$ COntAiNeD in A gIVeN reprEseNtation. the scheme dEscRiBed of one of thE VeRsions of haRmoNic analysis, cOnnEcted wItH thE delsaRte-schwaRtz theORy of meAn-periodiC fUNctionS And the tHEOrY of dIfferential equatiONs WIth constant coeFficieNtS AnD COnvOluTion equatiOnS, alloWS one to cONsIDER reSUlts which at fiRst glance haVE liTtle in CoMmoN BetweeN them, FrOM a sIngle point oF vieW. A vast litEraturE Is devotED to otheR questIonS of HarmONiC aNalYsIS on HYpErgROupS (the theoRy Of AlmosT perIODIC funCtiOns, eXpansIons in orthogoNal SystEMs oF funcTions, Etc., cF., pOints 1.6, 5.3, 6.1, 6.8).\
the theOry of RePresentations of CompAct groups GivEs The ClAssicAL exampLe oF spEctral sYnthesiS. if $G$ Is A COMpAct group, then in the tOpOLOgIcal grouP algebRA $\mAtHScr{M} (G)$ conSiStiNg of MEAsureS witH CoMpact supPort, anY PrImAry ideaL iS a maxiMaL idEal Of finITe coDimensIon. The PeTer-WeYL theorem is equiVAlent to the assERtION tHAt anY idEal in $\mathscR{M} (G)$ iS The iNterSEcTioN Of the MaximAl IDeALs containing it.
A geneRaLizatiOn of tHe Peter-Weyl thEorem to the CASE of compaCt hyPErGRoups is given by b. M. LevItan (cf. \[55, 56\]; the PETer-Weyl tHeory And harmoNic analysIS On p-hyperGroUps WerE coNSIdEred in \[136, 180\]; cf. also \[3, 8, 7, 14\]). IF THere Is Given on The Compact HypErgRouP $H$ a FiNite measuRe, satisfYiNg CeRtAin AdditIOnal condItIonS, tHen Any coNTinuouS funcTion FrOm THe bAsic subSPaCE $\WideTiLdE{C} (H)$ cAn bE aPproxImatED in The topoLogy of uniForM ConvErGeNce by maTrix elements oF fInite-dimenSiOnaL irredUCIble reprEsentations. One can deduce FRom this ThaT any iDeal In the basiC suBalgebRa $\tILde{\matHscr{M}} (H)$ Is the InTerSECtion OF ThE maXiMal ideals cONTaiNing iT. ANaloGous resUlts are also valid foR OthEr hypergroup aLgeBras, FOR eXamPLe, FOr tHe hIlbERT algebra $L^2 (H)$.
For thE group $G$ of cOnFOrMal transfoRMatIoNs of the Unit disC, whicH Is localLy isomorpHic to the gRoUp $SL(2, r)$, eHreNpreis and MAutner \[119\] deScribed thE IdealS In The grOup AlgebrA $\mAthScr{D} (G)$ (We note THat For anY Lie grOuP $G$ the iDeals In $\Mathscr{D} (g)$ are in one-to | It is natural to treat the problem o f [*s pec tra lanal ysis *]{} as the pr o blem of describing idealsof $\ Ga m ma$, co ntain ing a g i ve n ide al ,orre p re senta tio ns $\pi _{\gamma}$ co nt ained in a g i ve n represen tat ion. The sch eme descr ib edo f one of theversio n s of h armonic a na l ysis,c onnecte d wi th t he Delsarte-Schwa r tz theory of mean -perio di c f u n cti ons and the t he ory o f differ e nt i a l eq u ations with c onstant coe f fic ientsan d c o nvolut ion e qu a tio ns, allowsoneto consid er res u lts whi c h at fi rst gl anc e h avel it tl e i nc omm o nbet w een them, f ro ma sin glep o i n t of vi ew.A vas t literatureisdevo t edto ot her q uest io ns of harmo nic a na lysis on hyperg roup s (the th eor yofal mostp eriodi c f unc tions,expansi o nsin o r th ogonal systems offu n c ti ons, etc ., cf. , p oi n ts 1.6,5. 3,6.1, 6 .8).\
The th eory ofrepres e nt at ions of c ompact g rou psgives theclassi cal exam ple o f spectral synt h esis. If $G$i sa co m pact gr oup, then i n th e top olog i ca l g r oup a lgebr a$ \m a thscr{M} (G)$ consi st ing of meas ures with com pact suppo r t , any pri mary id e al is a maxima l ide al of fini t e codime nsion . The Pe ter-Weylt h eorem is eq uiv ale ntt o t he assertiont h at a ny idealin$\maths cr{ M}(G) $ i sthe inter sectionof t he m axi mal i d eals con ta ini ng it .
Ag eneral izati on o fth e Pe ter-Wey l t h e orem t othecas eof co mpac t hy pergrou ps is giv enb y B. M .Levitan (cf. \[55, 5 6\ ]; the Pet er -We yl the o r y and ha rmonic analysis on p-hy p ergroup s w ere c onsi dered in\[1 36, 18 0\] ; cf. a lso \[ 3, 8, 7 , 1 4 \ ]). I f th ere i s given on t hecompa ct hyp ergroup $H$ a finite meas u re, satisfying c ert aina d di tio n al con di t ion s , then any conti nuous func ti o nfrom the b a sic s ubspace $\wide tilde { C} (H)$ can be a pproximat ed int h e t opology of uniform converge n ce by ma trixele mentsof fi nite- dimens i ona l irr educib le repre senta ti ons. One can deduce from this t hat an y ide alin the ba sic sub algebra $ \til de{\mathsc r{M }}(H)$ist he in ters e ct ion of th e ma x imal idea l scon t a in ing it. Ana l o g ous resu lts are al so v alid for other hy p ergroup algebr as,f o r e xam p le,fo r the Hilbertalg eb r a $L^2 (H )$ .
For thegroup $G $o f con formal trans formati o n so f theunit di sc, which is l o cally i so mo r phic t o th egroup$SL(2, R)$, E hrenpreis and Ma utner \ [119\ ] de scrib ed the id e alsin the gro up algebra$\math scr{ D} (G )$ (weno te tha t f or any Lie g r oup $G$ t he id eals in $ \mat hsc r{D} ( G)$a r e inone- to | It is_natural to_treat the problem of_[*spectral analysis*]{}_as_the problem_of_describing ideals of_$\Gamma$, containing a_given ideal, or representations_$\pi_{\gamma}$ contained in_a_given representation. The scheme described of one of the versions of harmonic analysis, connected_with_the Delsarte-Schwartz_theory_of_mean-periodic functions and the theory_of differential equations with constant_coefficients and_convolution equations, allows one to consider results which_at_first glance have_little in common between them, from a single point_of view. A vast literature is_devoted to other_questions_of_harmonic analysis on hypergroups_(the theory of almost periodic functions,_expansions in orthogonal systems of functions,_etc., cf., points 1.6, 5.3, 6.1, 6.8).\
The_theory of representations of compact groups_gives the classical example of_spectral synthesis._If $G$ is a compact_group, then in_the topological_group algebra $\mathscr{M}_(G)$ consisting of measures with compact_support, any primary_ideal is a maximal ideal of_finite_codimension. The Peter-Weyl_theorem_is_equivalent to_the assertion that_any_ideal in_$\mathscr{M}_(G)$ is the intersection of the_maximal_ideals containing it.
A generalization of the Peter-Weyl_theorem to the case_of_compact hypergroups is given_by B. M. Levitan (cf._\[55, 56\]; the Peter-Weyl theory and_harmonic analysis_on p-hypergroups_were considered in \[136, 180\]; cf. also \[3, 8, 7, 14\])._If there is given on the_compact hypergroup $H$ a_finite measure,_satisfying_certain additional conditions,_then_any continuous_function from the basic subspace $\widetilde{C} (H)$_can be_approximated in the topology of uniform_convergence by matrix elements_of_finite-dimensional irreducible representations. One can deduce_from this that any ideal in_the basic subalgebra $\tilde{\mathscr{M}} (H)$_is_the_intersection of the maximal ideals_containing it. Analogous results are also_valid for other_hypergroup algebras, for example, for the Hilbert_algebra_$L^2 (H)$.
For the group $G$ of_conformal_transformations of the unit disc, which_is_locally_isomorphic to the group $SL(2,_R)$, Ehrenpreis and Mautner \[119\] described_the ideals in the group algebra $\mathscr{D} (G)$ (we_note that for_any Lie group $G$ the_ideals_in_$\mathscr{D} (G)$ are in one-to |
$ as the initial value. Furthermore, the optimization process only permits the estimation of the probability of a nucleotide of type $j$ joining a nucleotide of type $i$ relative to the probability of a nucleotide of type $k$ joining a nucleotide of type $i$. In order that $\aleph(n)$ be comparable in a meaningful way between different numerical experiments, it was scaled after the optimization procedure to have the sum of all of its elements equal to ten.
We found that the vectors $\mu(n)$ estimated for each matrix $P(n)$ generally satisfy the property ($H1$). The mean absolute difference between $\mu_i(n)$ and $\mu_{\alpha(i)}(n)$ was found to be 0.0254, while the median absolute difference was 0.0198. Furthermore, we computed the average $$\bar{\aleph}=\left(\begin{matrix}
\displaystyle 0.7217 & \displaystyle 0.5236 & \displaystyle 0.5908 & \displaystyle 0.6672\\
\displaystyle 0.6815 & \displaystyle 0.6055 & \displaystyle 0.6138 & \displaystyle 0.5986\\
\displaystyle 0.6507 & \displaystyle 0.7187 & \displaystyle 0.6035 & \displaystyle 0.5304\\
\displaystyle 0.4548 & \displaystyle 0.6420 & \displaystyle 0.6758 & \displaystyle 0.7213\\
\end{matrix}\right)$$ of all 1049 estimated matrices $\aleph(n)$. To assess whether or not we can interpret $\bar{\aleph}$ as having Property ($H2$), we estimated $\aleph(n)$, $\mu(n)$ and $t(n)$ again, this time imposing the restrictions stipulated by ($H1$) and ($H2$). In this case we obtained the following average: $$\bar{\bar{\aleph}}=\left(\begin{matrix}
\displaystyle 0.7515 & \displaystyle 0.4807 & \displaystyle 0.5583 & \displaystyle 0.6785\\
\displaystyle 0.6942 & \displaystyle 0.5584 & \displaystyle 0.6141 & \displaystyle 0.5583\\
\displaystyle 0.6722 & \displaystyle 0.7407 & \displaystyle 0.5584 & \ | $ as the initial value. Furthermore, the optimization process only permits the estimation of the probability of a nucleotide of character $ j$ join a nucleotide of type $ i$ relative to the probability of a nucleotide of character $ k$ joining a nucleotide of character $ i$. In order that $ \aleph(n)$ be comparable in a meaningful room between unlike numerical experiments, it was scaled after the optimization procedure to have the union of all of its elements equal to ten.
We find oneself that the vectors $ \mu(n)$ estimated for each matrix $ P(n)$ generally satisfy the property ($ H1 $). The mean absolute deviation between $ \mu_i(n)$ and $ \mu_{\alpha(i)}(n)$ was found to be 0.0254, while the median absolute difference was 0.0198. Furthermore, we calculate the average $ $ \bar{\aleph}=\left(\begin{matrix }
\displaystyle 0.7217 & \displaystyle 0.5236 & \displaystyle 0.5908 & \displaystyle 0.6672\\
\displaystyle 0.6815 & \displaystyle 0.6055 & \displaystyle 0.6138 & \displaystyle 0.5986\\
\displaystyle 0.6507 & \displaystyle 0.7187 & \displaystyle 0.6035 & \displaystyle 0.5304\\
\displaystyle 0.4548 & \displaystyle 0.6420 & \displaystyle 0.6758 & \displaystyle 0.7213\\
\end{matrix}\right)$$ of all 1049 estimated matrix $ \aleph(n)$. To assess whether or not we can rede $ \bar{\aleph}$ as having Property ($ H2 $), we estimated $ \aleph(n)$, $ \mu(n)$ and $ t(n)$ again, this time imposing the restriction stipulated by ($ H1 $) and ($ H2 $). In this case we obtained the following average: $ $ \bar{\bar{\aleph}}=\left(\begin{matrix }
\displaystyle 0.7515 & \displaystyle 0.4807 & \displaystyle 0.5583 & \displaystyle 0.6785\\
\displaystyle 0.6942 & \displaystyle 0.5584 & \displaystyle 0.6141 & \displaystyle 0.5583\\
\displaystyle 0.6722 & \displaystyle 0.7407 & \displaystyle 0.5584 & \ | $ as the initial value. Furthtrmore, the optimiearion pcocess knly peroits the estimation of the pcobavilitt of a nucleotide of thpe $j$ joijing a nycleiride of ty's $i$ relative fl thz 'robability of s nucleotige of type $k$ johnkny a nucleotide of type $i$. In order thae $\aleph(m)$ he comparable yn a ieanjngful way between different numerjcal exkeriments, it was svaled after the optimizatiln pgocedure to have tje sum of aol os its elementr equal to ten.
We found that the vectors $\mu(n)$ estimated for zach matrix $P(b)$ gfterally satmsfy tre property ($M1$). The maan absplute differenge bevweeb $\mu_i(n)$ and $\mu_{\alpha(i)}(n)$ xas found to be 0.0254, whije the megicn absolute differencw qas 0.0198. Xurtvermuee, de dokphted tje everage $$\bar{\zleph}=\left(\betin{matrix}
\displaystulq 0.7217 & \displayatyle 0.5236 & \displaystyle 0.5908 & \displaystyle 0.6672\\
\displaysuyle 0.6815 & \displaystyle 0.6055 & \diwplaystyle 0.6138 & \displaydtyle 0.5986\\
\difplaystyle 0.6507 & \displaystyle 0.7187 & \displaystyle 0.6035 & \dhsplabsgylt 0.5304\\
\dispuqydtyle 0.4548 & \displaystyle 0.6420 & \displaystyle 0.6758 & \difllsyxtyle 0.7213\\
\end{mctrix}\right)$$ of alk 1049 exjimated matricgs $\alepk(h)$. Fo assess whether lr not re cab interprtt $\bat{\aleph}$ as having Property ($H2$), we estimateb $\alwph(n)$, $\mu(n)$ and $t(n)$ agcin, this timz impoxing yhe restrictions stipulcted bg ($H1$) and ($H2$). Ij this caad we obtained thd fplnowing average: $$\bar{\bar{\aleph}}=\jeft(\begin{natrnx}
\displxystile 0.7515 & \displaystjle 0.4807 & \displaystyle 0.5583 & \disppafstyle 0.6785\\
\fisplaystyle 0.6942 & \displaystyle 0.5584 & \displaystylg 0.6141 & \gisplayscyle 0.5583\\
\displaystylq 0.6722 & \displaysjyle 0.7407 & \bisplahstyle 0.5584 & \ | $ as the initial value. Furthermore, the only the estimation the probability of joining nucleotide of type relative to the of a nucleotide of type $k$ a nucleotide of type $i$. In order that $\aleph(n)$ be comparable in a way between different numerical experiments, it was scaled after the optimization procedure to the of of elements equal to ten. We found that the vectors $\mu(n)$ estimated for each matrix $P(n)$ generally the property ($H1$). The mean absolute difference between and $\mu_{\alpha(i)}(n)$ was found be 0.0254, while the median difference 0.0198. Furthermore, computed average \displaystyle 0.7217 & 0.5236 & \displaystyle 0.5908 & \displaystyle 0.6672\\ \displaystyle 0.6815 & \displaystyle 0.6055 & \displaystyle 0.6138 & \displaystyle \displaystyle 0.6507 0.7187 & 0.6035 \displaystyle \displaystyle 0.4548 & & \displaystyle 0.6758 & \displaystyle 0.7213\\ 1049 estimated matrices $\aleph(n)$. To assess whether or we can $\bar{\aleph}$ as having Property ($H2$), we $\aleph(n)$, $\mu(n)$ and $t(n)$ again, this time imposing restrictions stipulated by ($H1$) and ($H2$). In this case we obtained the following average: $$\bar{\bar{\aleph}}=\left(\begin{matrix} & \displaystyle 0.4807 & 0.5583 & \displaystyle \displaystyle & 0.5584 \displaystyle 0.6141 \displaystyle 0.5583\\ \displaystyle 0.6722 & \displaystyle 0.7407 & \displaystyle 0.5584 & | $ as the initial value. FurthermOre, the optiMizatIon ProCeSs onLy peRmits the estimaTIon oF the probability of a nuclEotidE oF Type $J$ JoIning A nucleoTIdE OF tyPe $I$ rElaTiVE tO the pRobAbility Of a nucleotIde Of Type $k$ joining A NuCleotide of TypE $i$. In order thaT $\alEph(n)$ be CoMpaRAble iN a mEaninGful waY BetweeN differenT nUMericaL ExperimENTs, It waS scaled after the opTImIZation procedurE to havE tHE sUM Of aLl oF its elemenTs Equal TO ten.
We fOUnD THAt tHE vectors $\mu(n)$ esTimated for eACh mAtrix $P(N)$ gEneRAlly saTisfy ThE ProPerty ($H1$). The meAn abSolute difFerencE Between $\MU_i(n)$ and $\mU_{\alpha(I)}(n)$ wAs fOund TO bE 0.0254, wHilE tHE meDIaN abSOluTe differEnCe Was 0.0198. FuRtheRMORE, we cOmpUted The avErage $$\bar{\aleph}=\LefT(\begIN{maTrix}
\dIsplaYstyLe 0.7217 & \DisplAystylE 0.5236 & \dispLaYstyle 0.5908 & \displaystYle 0.6672\\
\dIsplaystyLe 0.6815 & \dIsPlaYsTyle 0.6055 & \dISplaysTylE 0.6138 & \diSplaystYle 0.5986\\
\dispLAysTyLE 0.6507 & \DIsPlaystyle 0.7187 & \displaystYlE 0.6035 & \DIsPlaystylE 0.5304\\
\displAYsTyLE 0.4548 & \displayStYle 0.6420 & \DispLAYstylE 0.6758 & \disPLaYstyle 0.7213\\
\enD{matriX}\RiGhT)$$ of all 1049 eStImated MaTriCes $\Aleph(N)$. to asSess whEther or nOt we cAN interpret $\bar{\aLEph}$ as having PrOPeRTY ($H2$), WE estImaTed $\aleph(n)$, $\mu(N)$ and $T(N)$ agaIn, thIS tIme IMposiNg the ReSTrICtions stipulated by ($H1$) AnD ($H2$). In thIs casE we obtained thE following AVERage: $$\bar{\bAr{\alEPh}}=\LEft(\begin{matrix}
\DisplAystyle 0.7515 & \disPLaystyle 0.4807 & \DisplAystyle 0.5583 & \dIsplaystyLE 0.6785\\
\DisplaysTylE 0.6942 & \diSplAysTYLe 0.5584 & \Displaystyle 0.6141 & \dISPlayStYle 0.5583\\
\dispLayStyle 0.6722 & \diSplAysTylE 0.7407 & \diSpLaystyle 0.5584 & \ | $ as the initial value. Fu rthermore, theopt imi za tion pro cess only perm i ts t he estimation of the p robab il i ty o f a nucl eotideo ft y pe$j $joi ni n ga nuc leo tide of type $i$rel at ive to the p r ob ability of anucleotide o f t ype $k $joi n ing a nu cleot ide of type $ i$. In or de r that$ \aleph( n ) $be c omparable in a me a ni n gful way betwe en dif fe r en t num eri cal experi me nts,i t was s c al e d aft e r the optimiz ation proce d ure to ha ve th e sum o f all o f it s elementsequa l to ten.
We f o und tha t the ve ctors$\m u(n )$ e s ti ma ted f o r e a ch ma t rix $P(n)$ge ne rally sat i s f y the pr oper ty ($ H1$). The mea n a bsol u tediffe rence bet we en $\ mu_i(n )$ an d$\mu_{\alpha(i) }(n) $ was fou ndto be 0 .0254 , while th e m edian a bsolute dif fe r e n ce was 0.0198. Furth er m o re , we com putedt he a v erage $$ \b ar{ \ale p h }=\le ft(\ b eg in{matri x}
\d i sp la ystyle 0.7217 & \ dis plays t yle0.5236 & \dis plays t yle 0.5908 &\ displaystyle0 .6 6 7 2\ \
\d isp laystyle 0.68 1 5 & \di s pl ays t yle 0 .6055 & \ d isplaystyle 0.6138 & \disp layst yle 0.5986\\ \displays t y l e 0.65 07 & \ d isplaystyle 0. 7187 & \displa y style 0. 6035 & \disp laystyle0 . 5304\\
\di spl ays tyl e 0.4548 & \di s p lays ty le 0.64 20 & \dis pla yst yle 0. 67 58 & \di splaysty le 0 .7 21 3\\
\ end{matr ix }\r ig ht) $$ of all 10 49 es tima te dm atr ices $\ a le p h (n)$ .To ass ess w hethe r or not we can interpre t $ \ bar{ \a le ph}$ as having Prope rt y ($H2$),we es timate d $\aleph( n)$, $\mu(n)$ and $t(n) $ again, th is ti me i mposing t herestri cti o ns sti pulate d by($ H1$ ) and ( $ H 2$ ).In this case w e o btain ed the follow ing average: $$\ba r {\b ar{\aleph}}=\ lef t(\b e g in {ma t ri x }
\d i spl a y style 0.7515& \display st y le 0.4807& \d is playsty le 0. 5583& \displ aystyle 0.6785\\
\dis p l ays tyle 0.6 942 & \d isplaysty l e 0 . 55 84 &\di splays ty le 0.6 141 &\ dis plays tyle 0 .5583\ \
\d is playstyl e 0.6722 & \displayst yle 0.740 7 & \display sty l e 0.5584 & \ | $ as_the initial_value. Furthermore, the optimization_process only_permits_the estimation_of_the probability of_a nucleotide of_type $j$ joining a_nucleotide of type_$i$_relative to the probability of a nucleotide of type $k$ joining a nucleotide of type $i$._In_order that_$\aleph(n)$_be_comparable in a meaningful way_between different numerical experiments, it_was scaled_after the optimization procedure to have the sum_of_all of its_elements equal to ten.
We found that the vectors $\mu(n)$_estimated for each matrix $P(n)$ generally_satisfy the property_($H1$)._The_mean absolute difference between_$\mu_i(n)$ and $\mu_{\alpha(i)}(n)$ was found to_be 0.0254, while the median absolute_difference was 0.0198. Furthermore, we computed the_average $$\bar{\aleph}=\left(\begin{matrix}
\displaystyle 0.7217_ & \displaystyle 0.5236 _& \displaystyle_0.5908 & \displaystyle 0.6672\\
_\displaystyle _0.6815 _& \displaystyle 0.6055_ & \displaystyle 0.6138 &_\displaystyle 0.5986\\
\displaystyle_ 0.6507 & \displaystyle_0.7187_ & \displaystyle_0.6035__& \displaystyle_0.5304\\
\displaystyle __0.4548 _&_\displaystyle 0.6420 & \displaystyle 0.6758__& \displaystyle 0.7213\\
\end{matrix}\right)$$_of all 1049 estimated_matrices_$\aleph(n)$. To assess whether_or not we can interpret_$\bar{\aleph}$ as having Property ($H2$), we_estimated $\aleph(n)$, $\mu(n)$_and $t(n)$_again, this time imposing the restrictions stipulated by ($H1$) and ($H2$)._In this case we obtained the_following average: $$\bar{\bar{\aleph}}=\left(\begin{matrix}
\displaystyle_ _0.7515_& \displaystyle __0.4807 &_\displaystyle 0.5583 & \displaystyle _ 0.6785\\
_\displaystyle 0.6942 & \displaystyle_ 0.5584 &_\displaystyle_ 0.6141 & \displaystyle _ 0.5583\\
\displaystyle 0.6722_& \displaystyle 0.7407_&_\displaystyle_ 0.5584 & \ |
}}$ defined in equation , we make use of the explicit cancellation of the composition of the hypersingular terms that enter the definition of the operators $ \mathcal{T}_k$ and $\mathcal{T}_{k+i\ 0.4\ \mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}$ respectively. Accordingly, the operators $\mathcal{B}_{k,2,k,0.4 \mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}$ are evaluated using their equivalent definition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sIE1}
\mathcal{B}_{k,2,k,0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}&=&I/2-\mathcal{K}_k- 2i(k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3})\mathcal{T}_k\ (\mathbf{n}\times \mathbf{S}_{k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}})\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{2k}{k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}(\mathbf{n}\times\mathbf{S}_k)\ \mathcal{T}^{1}_{k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}{\rm div}_\Gamma.\end{aligned}$$
The various integral operators that enter equations and are computed in two stages which consist of (a) the evaluation of the adjacent/singular interactions of sources (i.e. the values of the density $\mathbf{a}(\mathbf y)$ or its derivatives for $\mathbf y$ on the surface $\Gamma$) via the Green’s functions (i.e. the terms that involve $G_K(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})$) when the target points $\mathbf{x}$ are close to the integration points $\mathbf{y}$ and (b) the accelerated evaluation of far-away interactions of sources that are well-separated. The separation of these contributions is effected by floating POUs which are pairs of functions of the form $(\eta_\mathbf{x}(\mathbf y),1-\eta_\mathbf{x}(\mathbf y))$ (where $\eta_\mathbf{x}$ is a function with a “small” support which equals 1 in a neighborhood of the point $\ | } } $ defined in equation , we make use of the denotative cancellation of the composing of the hypersingular terms that enter the definition of the operator $ \mathcal{T}_k$ and $ \mathcal{T}_{k+i\ 0.4\ \mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}$ respectively. consequently, the operators $ \mathcal{B}_{k,2,k,0.4 \mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}$ are evaluated using their equivalent definition $ $ \begin{aligned }
\label{eq: sIE1 }
\mathcal{B}_{k,2,k,0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}&=&I/2-\mathcal{K}_k- 2i(k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3})\mathcal{T}_k\ (\mathbf{n}\times \mathbf{S}_{k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}})\nonumber\\
& + & \frac{2k}{k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}(\mathbf{n}\times\mathbf{S}_k)\ \mathcal{T}^{1}_{k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}{\rm div}_\Gamma.\end{aligned}$$
The assorted integral operators that enroll equations and are computed in two stage which consist of (a) the evaluation of the adjacent / singular interaction of source (i.e. the values of the density $ \mathbf{a}(\mathbf y)$ or its derivatives for $ \mathbf y$ on the surface $ \Gamma$) via the Green ’s functions (i.e. the terminus that involve $ G_K(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})$) when the target points $ \mathbf{x}$ are cheeseparing to the integration points $ \mathbf{y}$ and (b) the accelerated evaluation of far - away interactions of beginning that are well - separated. The separation of these contributions is effected by floating POUs which are pair of functions of the form $ (\eta_\mathbf{x}(\mathbf y),1-\eta_\mathbf{x}(\mathbf y))$ (where $ \eta_\mathbf{x}$ is a function with a “ small ” support which equals 1 in a neighborhood of the point $ \ | }}$ devined in equation , we makt use of the explnxit caicellatjon of tfe composition of the hypersmnguoar ttgms that enter the dewinition lf the operauors $ \mathcal{T}_k$ ais $\mathcal{T}_{k+i\ 0.4\ \latheao{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}$ respectiveky. Accorditgly, the operadofs $\mathcal{B}_{k,2,k,0.4 \mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}$ are evaluated using yhfir equivalent defpnytioh $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sIE1}
\mathcal{B}_{k,2,k,0.4\jathcal{I}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}&=&I/2-\mathcal{K}_k- 2i(k+o\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3})\mathcal{T}_k\ (\mathbv{n}\tiles \mathbf{S}_{k+i\ 0.4\mathfal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}})\nonumbgd\\
&+&\frwx{2k}{k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{F}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}(\mathbf{n}\tpkes\mathbf{S}_i)\ \mathcal{T}^{1}_{k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}{\rm div}_\Gamoa.\end{cligned}$$
The caeiokv integral iperanors that entcg equathons anc are computed in twi stages which consisv of (a) the evaluatiog of the ddlacent/singular interaxtuons mf smurcdw (i.d. tge vzlues lf vhe density $\mathbf{a}(\matybf y)$ or its derivauivqw for $\mathbf g$ on tre surface $\Gamma$) via the Green’s functions (i.e. the terms that involve $G_K(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})$) whej the tardet points $\mathbf{x}$ are close to the integration pmints $\oatknn{y}$ ave (h) the accelerated evaluation of far-away interwdtooks of sources thct are well-separstfd. Jhe separation of thzae contributions is fffecteq by dloating KOUs ehich are pairs of functionw of the fori $(\eta_\mathbf{x}(\mathbf v),1-\eta_\mathbf{x}(\mcthbf i))$ (wherr $\eta_\mathbf{x}$ is a functnon wifh a “small” dupport wgkch equals 1 in a nepghbmrhood of the point $\ | }}$ defined in equation , we make the cancellation of composition of the definition the operators $ and $\mathcal{T}_{k+i\ 0.4\ respectively. Accordingly, the operators $\mathcal{B}_{k,2,k,0.4 \mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}$ evaluated using their equivalent definition $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:sIE1} \mathcal{B}_{k,2,k,0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}&=&I/2-\mathcal{K}_k- 2i(k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3})\mathcal{T}_k\ (\mathbf{n}\times \mathbf{S}_{k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}})\nonumber\\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}(\mathbf{n}\times\mathbf{S}_k)\ \mathcal{T}^{1}_{k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}{\rm div}_\Gamma.\end{aligned}$$ The various integral operators that enter equations and are in stages consist (a) the evaluation of the adjacent/singular interactions of sources (i.e. the values of the density $\mathbf{a}(\mathbf or its derivatives for $\mathbf y$ on the $\Gamma$) via the Green’s (i.e. the terms that involve when target points are to integration points $\mathbf{y}$ (b) the accelerated evaluation of far-away interactions of sources that are well-separated. The separation of these contributions effected by which are of of form $(\eta_\mathbf{x}(\mathbf y),1-\eta_\mathbf{x}(\mathbf $\eta_\mathbf{x}$ is a function with a equals 1 in a neighborhood of the point | }}$ defined in equation , we make usE of the explIcit cAncEllAtIon oF the Composition of tHE hypErsingular terms that entEr the DeFInitIOn Of the OperatoRS $ \mATHcaL{T}_K$ aNd $\mAtHCaL{T}_{k+i\ 0.4\ \mAthCal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}$ reSpectively. accOrDingly, the opeRAtOrs $\mathcal{b}_{k,2,k,0.4 \Mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}$ are EvaLuated UsIng THeir eQuiValenT definITion $$\beGin{aligneD}
\lABel{eq:sie1}
\mathcaL{b}_{K,2,k,0.4\MathCal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}&=&I/2-\mathcal{K}_k- 2i(k+I\ 0.4\MaTHcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3})\mathcal{T}_K\ (\mathbF{n}\TImES \MatHbf{s}_{k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{h}^{2/3}k^{1/3}})\NonumBEr\\
&+&\frac{2k}{K+I\ 0.4\mATHCal{h}^{2/3}K^{1/3}}(\mathbf{n}\times\Mathbf{S}_k)\ \matHCal{t}^{1}_{k+i\ 0.4\matHcAl{H}^{2/3}K^{1/3}}{\Rm div}_\GAmma.\eNd{ALigNed}$$
The varioUs inTegral opeRators THat enteR EquatioNs and aRe cOmpUted IN tWo StaGeS WhiCH cOnsISt oF (a) the evaLuAtIon of The aDJACEnt/sIngUlar InterActions of sourCes (I.e. thE ValUes of The deNsitY $\mAthbf{A}(\mathbF y)$ or iTs Derivatives for $\mAthbF y$ on the suRfaCe $\gamMa$) Via thE green’s FunCtiOns (i.e. thE terms tHAt iNvOLVE $G_k(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})$) wheN tHE TaRget poinTs $\mathBF{x}$ ArE Close to tHe IntEgraTIOn poiNts $\mAThBf{y}$ and (b) tHe acceLErAtEd evaluAtIon of fAr-AwaY inTeracTIons Of sourCes that aRe welL-Separated. The sePAration of thesE CoNTRiBUtioNs iS effected by FloaTIng PoUs wHIcH arE Pairs Of funCtIOnS Of the form $(\eta_\mathbf{x}(\MaThbf y),1-\eTa_\matHbf{x}(\mathbf y))$ (whEre $\eta_\mathBF{X}$ Is a functIon wITh A “Small” support whIch eqUals 1 in a neiGHborhood Of the Point $\ | }}$ defined in equation ,we make us e ofthe ex pl icit can cellation of t h e co mposition of the hyper singu la r ter m sthatenter t h ed e fin it io n o ft he oper ato rs $ \m athcal{T}_ k$an d $\mathcal{ T }_ {k+i\ 0.4\ \m athcal{H}^{2 /3} k^{1/3 }} $ r e spect ive ly. A ccordi n gly, t he operat or s $\mat h cal{B}_ { k ,2 ,k,0 .4 \mathcal{H}^{2 / 3} k ^{1/3}}$ are e valuat ed us i n g t hei r equivale nt defi n ition $ $ \b e g i n{a l igned}
\label {eq:sIE1}
\ m ath cal{B} _{ k,2 , k,0.4\ mathc al { H}^ {2/3}k^{1/3 }}&= &I/2-\mat hcal{K } _k- 2i( k +i\ 0.4 \mathc al{ H}^ {2/3 } k^ {1 /3} )\ m ath c al {T} _ k\(\mathbf {n }\ times \ma t h b f {S}_ {k+ i\ 0 .4\ma thcal{H}^{2/3 }k^ {1/3 } })\ nonum ber\\
&+& \f rac{2 k}{k+i \ 0.4 \m athcal{H}^{2/3} k^{1 /3}}(\mat hbf {n }\t im es\ma t hbf{S} _k) \ \ mathcal {T}^{1} _ {k+ i\ 0 . 4\ mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^ {1 / 3 }} {\rm div }_\Gam m a. \e n d{aligne d} $$
The v ariou s in t eg ral oper atorst ha tenter e qu ations and a re co m pute d in t wo stage s whi c h consist of ( a ) the evaluat i on o ft he a dja cent/singul ar i n tera ctio n sofs ource s (i. e. th e values of the dens it y $\ma thbf{ a}(\mathbf y) $ or its d e r i vativesfor$ \m a thbf y$ on the surf ace $\Gamm a $) via t he Gr een’s fu nctions ( i . e. the t erm s t hat in v o lv e $G_K(\mathb f { x}-\ ma thbf{y} )$) when t hetar get po in ts $\math bf{x}$ a re c lo se to thei ntegrati on po in ts$\mat h bf{y}$ and(b)th ea cce lerated ev a l uati on o f fa r-a wa y int erac t ion s of so urces tha t a r e we ll -s eparate d. The separa ti on of thes econ tribut i o ns is ef fected by floating POUs which a repairs offunctions of the f orm $(\eta _\math bf{x} (\ mat h b f y), 1 - \e ta_ \m athbf{x}(\ m a thb f y)) $(whe re $\et a_\mathbf{x}$ is a fun ction with a“sm all” s up por t w h ich e q ual s 1 in a neighbor hood of th ep oi nt $\ | }}$ defined_in equation ,_we make use of_the explicit_cancellation_of the_composition_of the hypersingular_terms that enter_the definition of the_operators $ \mathcal{T}_k$_and_$\mathcal{T}_{k+i\ 0.4\ \mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}$ respectively. Accordingly, the operators $\mathcal{B}_{k,2,k,0.4 \mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}$ are evaluated using their equivalent_definition_$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sIE1}
\mathcal{B}_{k,2,k,0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}&=&I/2-\mathcal{K}_k- 2i(k+i\_0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3})\mathcal{T}_k\_(\mathbf{n}\times_\mathbf{S}_{k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}})\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{2k}{k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}(\mathbf{n}\times\mathbf{S}_k)\ \mathcal{T}^{1}_{k+i\ 0.4\mathcal{H}^{2/3}k^{1/3}}{\rm_div}_\Gamma.\end{aligned}$$
The various integral operators that_enter equations _and are computed in two stages which consist_of_(a) the evaluation_of the adjacent/singular interactions of sources (i.e. the values_of the density $\mathbf{a}(\mathbf y)$ or_its derivatives for_$\mathbf_y$_on the surface $\Gamma$)_via the Green’s functions (i.e. the_terms that involve $G_K(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})$) when the_target points $\mathbf{x}$ are close to the_integration points $\mathbf{y}$ and (b) the_accelerated evaluation of far-away interactions_of sources_that are well-separated. The separation_of these contributions_is effected_by floating POUs_which are pairs of functions of_the form $(\eta_\mathbf{x}(\mathbf_y),1-\eta_\mathbf{x}(\mathbf y))$ (where $\eta_\mathbf{x}$ is a_function_with a “small”_support_which_equals 1_in a neighborhood_of_the point_$\ |
}^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$, and the set of couples $(S,\mathcal{V})$ where $S$ is an orbit of ${}^{\vee}{G}$ on $X\left({}^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$ and $\mathcal{V}$ an irreducible ${}^{\vee}{G}^{alg}$-equivariant local system on $S$. Following this bijection, the set of couples $(S,\mathcal{V})$ will also be denoted $\Xi\left({}^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$ and for each ${}^{\vee}{G}$-orbit $\mathcal{O}$ of semi-simple elements in $\mathfrak{g}$, we identify $\Xi\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right)$ with the set of couples $(S,\mathcal{V})$ with $S\subset X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right)$.\
Let $\mathcal{O}$ be a ${}^{\vee}{G}$-orbit of semisimple elements in ${}^{\vee}\mathfrak{g}$. As in Section 2, write $$\mathcal{P}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)\quad\text{and}\quad \mathcal{D}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$$ for the category of ${}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}$-equivariant perverse sheaves and ${}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}$-equivariant coherent $\mathcal{D}$-modules on $X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right)$. We define $\mathcal{P}\left(X\left({}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right), {}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$ [and]{} $\mathcal{D}\left(X\left({}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),
{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$ to be the direct sum over semisimple orbits $\mathcal{O}\subset {}^{\vee}{\mathfrak{g}}$ of the categories $\mathcal{P}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$ and $\mathcal{D}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right), | } ^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$, and the set of couples $ (S,\mathcal{V})$ where $ S$ is an orbit of $ { } ^{\vee}{G}$ on $ X\left({}^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$ and $ \mathcal{V}$ an irreducible $ { } ^{\vee}{G}^{alg}$-equivariant local system on $ S$. follow this bijection, the hardening of couples $ (S,\mathcal{V})$ will also be denoted $ \Xi\left({}^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$ and for each $ { } ^{\vee}{G}$-orbit $ \mathcal{O}$ of semi - bare elements in $ \mathfrak{g}$, we identify $ \Xi\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right)$ with the stage set of couples $ (S,\mathcal{V})$ with $ S\subset X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right)$.\
Let $ \mathcal{O}$ be a $ { } ^{\vee}{G}$-orbit of semisimple component in $ { } ^{\vee}\mathfrak{g}$. As in Section 2, write $ $ \mathcal{P}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)\quad\text{and}\quad \mathcal{D}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$$ for the class of $ { } ^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}$-equivariant perverse sheaves and $ { } ^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}$-equivariant coherent $ \mathcal{D}$-modules on $ X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right)$. We define $ \mathcal{P}\left(X\left({}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right), { } ^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$ [ and ] { } $ \mathcal{D}\left(X\left({}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),
{ } ^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$ to be the direct kernel over semisimple orbits $ \mathcal{O}\subset { } ^{\vee}{\mathfrak{g}}$ of the categories $ \mathcal{P}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$ and $ \mathcal{D}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right), | }^{\vee}H^{\Gamma}\right)$, and the set uf couples $(S,\matkxal{V})$ wiere $S$ js an orcit of ${}^{\vee}{G}$ on $X\left({}^{\vee}G^{\Gamme}\rigyt)$ ane $\mathcal{V}$ an irreducicle ${}^{\vee}{G}^{apg}$-equivaeianu local system on $S$. Following tgls bilertion, the set on couples $(S,\kathcal{V})$ will dlro be denoted $\Xi\left({}^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$ anq for escj ${}^{\vee}{G}$-orbit $\majhcal{P}$ of avml-simple elements in $\mathfrak{g}$, we identihy $\Xi\left(\mathcak{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right)$ with the det lf couples $(S,\mathcap{V})$ with $S\suvset Z\left(\mathcal{U},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\gnght)$.\
Let $\matgcal{O}$ be a ${}^{\vee}{G}$-orbit of semisimole ekements in ${}^{\vwe}\mwjhfrak{g}$. As ii Sectpon 2, write $$\mabncal{P}\laft(X\lefy(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gsmme}\rigyt),{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)\quad\texv{and}\quad \mathcal{D}\lefj(X\left(\mathwam{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),{}^{\vwe}{{T}}^{alg}\rhght)$$ for rhe cauegprg of ${}^{\vfe}{{G}}^{elg}$-equivariznt perversw sheaves and ${}^{\vee}{{G}}^{akg}$-qwuivariant cogerent $\mwthcal{D}$-modules on $X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gammd}\rifht)$. We define $\mathcal{P}\lwft(X\left({}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\righj), {}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\ryght)$ [and]{} $\mathcal{D}\left(X\left({}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),
{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\richt)$ tk be tme dkeeft sum over semisimple orbits $\mathcal{O}\subset {}^{\dse}{\kanhfrak{g}}$ of the cabegories $\mathcal{P}\lrfh(X\kgft(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{E}^{\Gamma}\xjggt),{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$ and $\mathcaj{D}\lefr(X\left(\matrcal{P},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right), | }^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$, and the set of couples $(S,\mathcal{V})$ is orbit of on $X\left({}^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$ and system $S$. Following this the set of $(S,\mathcal{V})$ will also be denoted $\Xi\left({}^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$ for each ${}^{\vee}{G}$-orbit $\mathcal{O}$ of semi-simple elements in $\mathfrak{g}$, we identify $\Xi\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right)$ with set of couples $(S,\mathcal{V})$ with $S\subset X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right)$.\ Let $\mathcal{O}$ be a ${}^{\vee}{G}$-orbit of elements ${}^{\vee}\mathfrak{g}$. in 2, write $$\mathcal{P}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)\quad\text{and}\quad \mathcal{D}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$$ for the category of ${}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}$-equivariant perverse sheaves and ${}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}$-equivariant coherent $\mathcal{D}$-modules on We define $\mathcal{P}\left(X\left({}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right), {}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$ [and]{} $\mathcal{D}\left(X\left({}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right), {}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$ to the direct sum over orbits $\mathcal{O}\subset {}^{\vee}{\mathfrak{g}}$ of the $\mathcal{P}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$ $\mathcal{D}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right), | }^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$, and the set of Couples $(S,\maThcal{v})$ whEre $s$ iS an oRbit Of ${}^{\vee}{G}$ on $X\left({}^{\vEE}G^{\GaMma}\right)$ and $\mathcal{V}$ an iRreduCiBLe ${}^{\veE}{g}^{aLg}$-equIvarianT LoCAL syStEm On $S$. foLLoWing tHis BijectiOn, the set of CouPlEs $(S,\mathcal{V})$ wILl Also be denoTed $\xi\left({}^{\vee}G^{\GaMma}\Right)$ aNd For EAch ${}^{\veE}{G}$-oRbit $\mAthcal{o}$ Of semi-Simple eleMeNTs in $\maTHfrak{g}$, wE IDeNtifY $\Xi\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\veE}{g}^{\GAMma}\right)$ with thE set of CoUPlES $(s,\maThcAl{V})$ with $S\suBsEt X\leFT(\mathcaL{o},{}^{\vEE}{g}^{\gamMA}\right)$.\
Let $\mathCal{O}$ be a ${}^{\vee}{G}$-ORbiT of semIsImpLE elemeNts in ${}^{\VeE}\MatHfrak{g}$. As in SEctiOn 2, write $$\maThcal{P}\LEft(X\lefT(\Mathcal{o},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\GAmmA}\riGht),{}^{\vEE}{{G}}^{AlG}\riGhT)\QuaD\TeXt{aND}\quAd \mathcaL{D}\LeFt(X\leFt(\maTHCAL{O},{}^{\veE}{G}^{\GAmma}\Right),{}^{\Vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$$ fOr tHe caTEgoRy of ${}^{\vEe}{{G}}^{alG}$-equIvArianT perveRse shEaVes and ${}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}$-eqUivaRiant coheRenT $\mAthCaL{D}$-modULes on $X\LefT(\maThcal{O},{}^{\vEe}{G}^{\GammA}\RigHt)$. wE DEfIne $\mathcal{P}\left(X\leFt({}^{\VEE}{G}^{\gamma}\rigHt), {}^{\vee}{{G}}^{ALg}\RiGHt)$ [and]{} $\matHcAl{D}\Left(x\LEft({}^{\veE}{G}^{\GaMMa}\Right),
{}^{\vee}{{g}}^{alg}\riGHt)$ To Be the diReCt sum oVeR seMisImple ORbitS $\mathcAl{O}\subseT {}^{\vee}{\mAThfrak{g}}$ of the caTEgories $\mathcaL{p}\lEFT(X\LEft(\mAthCal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\GamMa}\riGHt),{}^{\veE}{{G}}^{alG}\RiGht)$ ANd $\matHcal{D}\LeFT(X\LEft(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\GammA}\rIght), | }^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$ , and theset o f c oup le s $( S,\m athcal{V})$ wh e re $ S$ is an orbit of ${}^ {\vee }{ G }$ o n $ X\lef t({}^{\ v ee } G ^{\ Ga mm a}\ ri g ht )$ an d $ \mathca l{V}$ an i rre du cible ${}^{\ v ee }{G}^{alg} $-e quivariant l oca l syst em on $S$.Fol lowin g this biject ion, these t of co u ples $( S , \m athc al{V})$ will also be denoted $\Xi\l eft({} ^{ \ ve e } G^{ \Ga mma}\right )$ andf or each ${ } ^ { \ve e }{G}$-orbit $ \mathcal{O} $ of semi- si mpl e eleme nts i n$ \ma thfrak{g}$, weidentify$\Xi\l e ft(\mat h cal{O}, {}^{\v ee} {G} ^{\G a mm a} \ri gh t )$w it h t h e s et of co up le s $(S ,\ma t h c a l{V} )$with $S\s ubset X\left( \ma thca l {O} ,{}^{ \vee} {G}^ {\ Gamma }\righ t)$.\
Let $\mathcal{O }$ b e a ${}^{ \ve e} {G} $- orbit of sem isi mpl e eleme nts in$ {}^ {\ v e e }\ mathfrak{g}$. As i nS e ct ion 2, w rite $ $ \m at h cal{P}\l ef t(X \lef t ( \math cal{ O }, {}^{\vee }{G}^{ \ Ga mm a}\righ t) ,{}^{\ ve e}{ {G} }^{al g }\ri ght)\q uad\text {and} \ quad \mathcal{ D }\left(X\left ( \m a t hc a l{O} ,{} ^{\vee}{G}^ {\Ga m ma}\ righ t ), {}^ { \vee} {{G}} ^{ a lg } \right)$$ for the c at egoryof ${ }^{\vee}{{G}} ^{alg}$-eq u i v ariant p erve r se sheaves and ${ }^{\v ee}{{G}}^{ a lg}$-equ ivari ant cohe rent $\ma t h cal{D}$- mod ule s o n $ X \ le ft(\mathcal{O } , {}^{ \v ee}{G}^ {\G amma}\r igh t)$ . W e d ef ine $\mat hcal{P}\ le ft (X \l eft ({}^{ \ vee}{G}^ {\ Gam ma }\r ight) , {}^{\ vee}{ {G}} ^{ al g }\r ight)$[ an d ] {} $ \m at hcal {D} \l eft(X \lef t ({} ^{\vee} {G}^{\Gam ma} \ righ t) ,{}^{\ve e}{{G}}^{alg} \r ight)$ tobe th e dire c t sum ove r semisimple orbits $\m a thcal{O }\s ubset {}^ {\vee}{\m ath frak{g }}$ of the categ ories $ \ma t h cal{P } \ le ft( X\ left(\math c a l{O },{}^ {\ vee} {G}^{\G amma}\right),{}^{\ v ee} {{G}}^{alg}\r igh t)$a n d$\m a th c al{ D} \ lef t ( X\left(\mathcal {O},{}^{\v ee } {G }^{\Gamma} \ rig ht ), | }^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$, and_the set_of couples $(S,\mathcal{V})$ where_$S$ is_an_orbit of_${}^{\vee}{G}$_on $X\left({}^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$ and_$\mathcal{V}$ an irreducible_${}^{\vee}{G}^{alg}$-equivariant local system on_$S$. Following this_bijection,_the set of couples $(S,\mathcal{V})$ will also be denoted $\Xi\left({}^{\vee}G^{\Gamma}\right)$ and for each ${}^{\vee}{G}$-orbit_$\mathcal{O}$_of semi-simple_elements_in_$\mathfrak{g}$, we identify $\Xi\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right)$ with_the set of couples $(S,\mathcal{V})$_with $S\subset_X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right)$.\
Let $\mathcal{O}$ be a ${}^{\vee}{G}$-orbit of semisimple elements_in_${}^{\vee}\mathfrak{g}$. As in_Section 2, write $$\mathcal{P}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)\quad\text{and}\quad \mathcal{D}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$$ for the category of_${}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}$-equivariant perverse sheaves and ${}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}$-equivariant coherent_$\mathcal{D}$-modules on $X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right)$._We_define_$\mathcal{P}\left(X\left({}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right), {}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$ [and]{} $\mathcal{D}\left(X\left({}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),
{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$_to be the direct sum over_semisimple orbits $\mathcal{O}\subset {}^{\vee}{\mathfrak{g}}$ of the_categories $\mathcal{P}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right),{}^{\vee}{{G}}^{alg}\right)$ and $\mathcal{D}\left(X\left(\mathcal{O},{}^{\vee}{G}^{\Gamma}\right), |
preimage under $\text{ev}$ of the point $p=h_1(\sigma_1)=h_2(\sigma_2)$. The image of $e_i$ is contained in the smooth locus of $P$. The claim is that $e_i:{{\mathcal}M}_i \rightarrow
P$ is smooth. By [@K proposition I.2.14.2], the obstruction space at a point $\zeta_i$ is contained in the cohomology group $H^1{\left}( B_i,
\zeta_i^* T_{\text{ev}}(-\sigma_i) {\right})$. By the definition of a twisting family, $\zeta_i^* T_{\text{ev}}$ is generated by global sections. Thus, by lemma \[lem-gend\], the cohomology group above is zero. Since the obstruction space vanishes, we conclude that $e_i$ is smooth.
Since both $e_1:{{\mathcal}M}_1 \rightarrow P$ and $e_2:{{\mathcal}M}_2
\rightarrow P$ are smooth, both have nonempty, open image. And $P$ is irreducible by assumption. Therefore the image of $e_1$ and the image of $e_2$ intersect. If we choose a family $\zeta_1\in {{\mathcal}M}_1$ and $\zeta_2\in {{\mathcal}M}_2$ such that $e_1(\zeta_1)=e_2(\zeta_2)$, then we can glue $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ to obtain a morphism $\zeta:B
\rightarrow {\overline{{\mathcal}M}_{0,1}({X,1})}$ such that $\zeta|_{B_1}=\zeta_1$ and $\zeta|_{B_2} = \zeta_2$. By lemma \[lem-twisttogether\], we conclude that $\zeta$ is twisting. Moreover, if at least one of $\zeta_i, i=1,2$ is very twisting, then $\zeta$ is very twisting. And $\widetilde{\zeta} = \xi$. This shows that $\xi$ is twistable, and it is very twistable if at least one of $\xi_i, i=1,2$ is very twistable.
\[hyp-2\] Let $U \subset {\overline{{\mathcal}M}_{0,1}({X,1})}$ denote | preimage under $ \text{ev}$ of the point $ p = h_1(\sigma_1)=h_2(\sigma_2)$. The image of $ e_i$ is contained in the legato venue of $ P$. The claim is that $ e_i:{{\mathcal}M}_i \rightarrow
P$ is smooth. By [ @K proposition I.2.14.2 ], the obstacle space at a compass point $ \zeta_i$ is contained in the cohomology group $ H^1{\left } (B_i,
\zeta_i^ * T_{\text{ev}}(-\sigma_i) { \right})$. By the definition of a spin kin, $ \zeta_i^ * T_{\text{ev}}$ is generated by global sections. Thus, by lemma \[lem - gend\ ], the cohomology group above is zero. Since the obstacle space vanishes, we conclude that $ e_i$ is smooth.
Since both $ e_1:{{\mathcal}M}_1 \rightarrow P$ and $ e_2:{{\mathcal}M}_2
\rightarrow P$ are smooth, both accept nonempty, open image. And $ P$ is irreducible by assumption. Therefore the image of $ e_1 $ and the persona of $ e_2 $ intersect. If we choose a family $ \zeta_1\in { { \mathcal}M}_1 $ and $ \zeta_2\in { { \mathcal}M}_2 $ such that $ e_1(\zeta_1)=e_2(\zeta_2)$, then we can glue $ \zeta_1 $ and $ \zeta_2 $ to obtain a morphism $ \zeta: B
\rightarrow { \overline{{\mathcal}M}_{0,1}({X,1})}$ such that $ \zeta|_{B_1}=\zeta_1 $ and $ \zeta|_{B_2 } = \zeta_2$. By lemma \[lem - twisttogether\ ], we reason that $ \zeta$ is twisting. Moreover, if at least one of $ \zeta_i, i=1,2 $ is very distortion, then $ \zeta$ is very twisting. And $ \widetilde{\zeta } = \xi$. This show that $ \xi$ is twistable, and it is very twistable if at least one of $ \xi_i, i=1,2 $ is very twistable.
\[hyp-2\ ] Let $ U \subset { \overline{{\mathcal}M}_{0,1}({X,1})}$ denote | prfimage under $\text{ev}$ of tme point $p=h_1(\sigma_1)=k_2(\wigma_2)$. Vhe imafe of $e_i$ is contained in the smooth poxus od $P$. The claim is that $d_i:{{\mathcal}L}_i \rightqrrox
P$ is smooth. By [@K proposlcion J.2.14.2], the ibstruction spsce at a pmint $\zeta_i$ is wovtcined in the cohomology group $H^1{\left}( F_i,
\zeta_i^* T_{\hext{ev}}(-\sigma_i) {\ryght})$. Fy tgv befinition of a twisting family, $\zeta_i^* U_{\text{ev}}$ is generatrd by global sections. Thus, by pemma \[lem-gend\], the clhomology gtkup qbove is zeru. Since tht mbstructioh space vanishes, we conclude thxt $e_i$ is smooth.
Wibce toth $e_1:{{\mathcel}M}_1 \ridhtarrow P$ akc $e_2:{{\matvcal}M}_2
\ribhtarrow P$ are smmoty, both have nonempty, mpen image. And $P$ if irreduchbme by assumption. Rhwrefote tha imxte uf $t_1$ aid fhe imwge of $e_2$ intedsect. If we choose a family $\zeua_1\ig {{\mathcal}M}_1$ and $\zeta_2\ig {{\iathcal}M}_2$ such that $e_1(\zeta_1)=e_2(\zeta_2)$, then we cdn flue $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ to ovtain a morphism $\zeta:H
\rightarrjw {\overline{{\mathcal}M}_{0,1}({X,1})}$ such that $\zeta|_{B_1}=\zeta_1$ and $\zeta|_{T_2} = \zeva_2$. By lcmma \[uwm-hwisttogether\], we conclude that $\zeta$ is twistigf. Kogeover, if at leasb one of $\zeta_i, i=1,2$ ix geti twisting, thev $\zeta$ is very twisting. And $\widetijde{\zera} = \xi$. Thys snows that $\xi$ is twistable, abd it is verj twustable if at leasc one of $\xi_i, i=1,2$ ix veru twistable.
\[hyp-2\] Let $U \suyset {\oberline{{\mathfal}M}_{0,1}({X,1})}$ denkge | preimage under $\text{ev}$ of the point $p=h_1(\sigma_1)=h_2(\sigma_2)$. of is contained the smooth locus that \rightarrow P$ is By [@K proposition the obstruction space at a point is contained in the cohomology group $H^1{\left}( B_i, \zeta_i^* T_{\text{ev}}(-\sigma_i) {\right})$. By the of a twisting family, $\zeta_i^* T_{\text{ev}}$ is generated by global sections. Thus, by \[lem-gend\], cohomology above zero. Since the obstruction space vanishes, we conclude that $e_i$ is smooth. Since both $e_1:{{\mathcal}M}_1 \rightarrow and $e_2:{{\mathcal}M}_2 \rightarrow P$ are smooth, both have open image. And $P$ irreducible by assumption. Therefore the of and the of intersect. we choose a $\zeta_1\in {{\mathcal}M}_1$ and $\zeta_2\in {{\mathcal}M}_2$ such that $e_1(\zeta_1)=e_2(\zeta_2)$, then we can glue $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ to obtain morphism $\zeta:B such that and = By lemma \[lem-twisttogether\], that $\zeta$ is twisting. Moreover, if of $\zeta_i, i=1,2$ is very twisting, then $\zeta$ very twisting. $\widetilde{\zeta} = \xi$. This shows that is twistable, and it is very twistable if least one of $\xi_i, i=1,2$ is very twistable. \[hyp-2\] Let $U \subset {\overline{{\mathcal}M}_{0,1}({X,1})}$ denote | preimage under $\text{ev}$ of the pOint $p=h_1(\sigmA_1)=h_2(\sigMa_2)$. THe iMaGe of $E_i$ is Contained in the SMootH locus of $P$. The claim is thaT $e_i:{{\maThCAl}M}_i \RIgHtarrOw
P$ is smOOtH. bY [@K pRoPoSitIoN i.2.14.2], tHe obsTruCtion spAce at a poinT $\zeTa_I$ is contained IN tHe cohomoloGy gRoup $H^1{\left}( B_i,
\zEta_I^* T_{\text{Ev}}(-\SigMA_i) {\rigHt})$. BY the dEfinitIOn of a tWisting faMiLY, $\zeta_i^* t_{\Text{ev}}$ iS GEnEratEd by global sectionS. thUS, by lemma \[lem-genD\], the coHoMOlOGY grOup Above is zerO. SInce tHE obstruCTiON SPacE Vanishes, we conClude that $e_i$ IS smOoth.
SiNcE boTH $e_1:{{\mathCal}M}_1 \rIgHTarRow P$ and $e_2:{{\matHcal}m}_2
\rightarrOw P$ are SMooth, boTH have noNempty, OpeN imAge. AND $P$ Is IrrEdUCibLE bY asSUmpTion. TherEfOrE the iMage OF $E_1$ ANd thE imAge oF $e_2$ intErsect. If we choOse A famILy $\zEta_1\in {{\MathcAl}M}_1$ aNd $\Zeta_2\iN {{\mathcAl}M}_2$ suCh That $e_1(\zeta_1)=e_2(\zeta_2)$, tHen wE can glue $\zEta_1$ AnD $\zeTa_2$ To obtAIn a morPhiSm $\zEta:B
\rigHtarrow {\OVerLiNE{{\MAtHcal}M}_{0,1}({X,1})}$ such that $\zeta|_{b_1}=\zETA_1$ aNd $\zeta|_{B_2} = \zEta_2$. By lEMmA \[lEM-twisttoGeTheR\], we cONClude That $\ZEtA$ is twistIng. MorEOvEr, If at leaSt One of $\zEtA_i, i=1,2$ Is vEry twIStinG, then $\zEta$ is verY twisTIng. And $\widetildE{\Zeta} = \xi$. This shoWS tHAT $\xI$ Is twIstAble, and it is Very TWistAble IF aT leASt one Of $\xi_i, I=1,2$ iS VeRY twistable.
\[hyp-2\] Let $U \suBsEt {\overLine{{\mAthcal}M}_{0,1}({X,1})}$ denotE | preimage under $\text{ev} $ of the p oint$p= h_1 (\ sigm a_1) =h_2(\sigma_2) $ . Th e image of $e_i$ is co ntain ed in t h esmoot h locus of $ P$. T he cl ai m i s tha t $ e_i:{{\ mathcal}M} _i\r ightarrow
P$ is smooth. B y [ @K propositi onI.2.14 .2 ],t he ob str uctio n spac e at apoint $\z et a _i$ is contain e d i n th e cohomology grou p $ H ^1{\left}( B_i ,
\zet a_ i ^* T _{\ tex t{ev}}(-\s ig ma_i) {\right } )$ . B y t h e definitionof a twisti n g f amily, $ \ze t a_i^*T_{\t ex t {ev }}$ is gene rate d by glob al sec t ions. T h us, bylemma\[l em- gend \ ], t heco h omo l og y g r oup above i sze ro. S ince t h e obs tru ctio n spa ce vanishes,weconc l ude that $e_i $ is s mooth .
Sin ce bo th $e_1:{{\mathca l}M} _1 \right arr ow P$ a nd $e _ 2:{{\m ath cal }M}_2
\ rightar r owP$ a r esmooth, both haveno n e mp ty, open image . A nd $P$ is i rr edu cibl e by as sump t io n. There fore t h eim age of$e _1$ an dthe im age o f $e_ 2$ int ersect.If we choose a famil y $\zeta_1\in{ {\ m a th c al}M }_1 $ and $\zet a_2\ i n {{ \mat h ca l}M } _2$ s uch t ha t $ e _1(\zeta_1)=e_2(\ze ta _2)$,thenwe can glue $ \zeta_1$ a n d $\zeta_2 $ to ob t ain a morphism $\ze ta:B
\righ t arrow {\ overl ine{{\ma thcal}M}_ { 0 ,1}({X,1 })} $ s uch th a t $ \zeta|_{B_1}= \ z eta_ 1$ and $\ zet a|_{B_2 } = \z eta _2$ .By lemma\[lem-tw is tt og et her \], w e conclud etha t$\z eta$i s twis ting. Mor eo ve r , i f at le a st o ne o f$\ zeta _i, i =1,2$ isv ery twisti ng, then$\z e ta$is v ery twi sting. And $\ wi detilde{\z et a}= \xi$ . This sho ws that $\xi$ is twista b le, and it is v erytwistable if at le ast one of $\xi_ i, i= 1, 2$i s very t wi sta bl e.
\[hyp- 2 \ ] L et $U \ subs et {\ov erline{{\mathcal}M } _{0 ,1}({X,1})}$den ote | preimage_under $\text{ev}$_of the point $p=h_1(\sigma_1)=h_2(\sigma_2)$._The image_of_$e_i$ is_contained_in the smooth_locus of $P$._The claim is that_$e_i:{{\mathcal}M}_i \rightarrow
P$ is_smooth._By [@K proposition I.2.14.2], the obstruction space at a point $\zeta_i$ is contained in_the_cohomology group_$H^1{\left}(_B_i,
\zeta_i^*_T_{\text{ev}}(-\sigma_i) {\right})$. By the definition_of a twisting family, $\zeta_i^*_T_{\text{ev}}$ is_generated by global sections. Thus, by lemma \[lem-gend\], the_cohomology_group above is_zero. Since the obstruction space vanishes, we conclude that_$e_i$ is smooth.
Since both $e_1:{{\mathcal}M}_1 \rightarrow_P$ and $e_2:{{\mathcal}M}_2
\rightarrow_P$_are_smooth, both have nonempty,_open image. And $P$ is irreducible_by assumption. Therefore the image of_$e_1$ and the image of $e_2$ intersect._If we choose a family $\zeta_1\in_{{\mathcal}M}_1$ and $\zeta_2\in {{\mathcal}M}_2$ such_that $e_1(\zeta_1)=e_2(\zeta_2)$,_then we can glue $\zeta_1$_and $\zeta_2$ to_obtain a_morphism $\zeta:B
\rightarrow {\overline{{\mathcal}M}_{0,1}({X,1})}$_such that $\zeta|_{B_1}=\zeta_1$ and $\zeta|_{B_2} =_\zeta_2$. By lemma \[lem-twisttogether\],_we conclude that $\zeta$ is twisting._Moreover,_if at least_one_of_$\zeta_i, i=1,2$_is very twisting,_then_$\zeta$ is_very_twisting. And $\widetilde{\zeta} = \xi$. This_shows_that $\xi$ is twistable, and it is_very twistable if at_least_one of $\xi_i, i=1,2$_is very twistable.
\[hyp-2\] Let $U_\subset {\overline{{\mathcal}M}_{0,1}({X,1})}$ denote |
}_{21} (Y^L_{ee})^2}{(Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2 - (Y^L_{ee})^2}
& 1
& \frac{ \alpha^\ell_{23} Y^L_{\mu\mu} Y^L_{\tau\tau} + \alpha^{e}_{23} (Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2}{(Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2 - (Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2} \cr (\chi_\tau) &
\frac{ \alpha^\ell_{31} Y^L_{\tau\tau} Y^L_{ee} + \alpha^{e}_{31} (Y^L_{ee})^2}{(Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2 - (Y^L_{ee})^2}
& \frac{ \alpha^\ell_{32} Y^L_{\tau\tau} Y^L_{\mu\mu} + \alpha^{e}_{32} (Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2}{(Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2 - (Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2}
& 1} \\
&\approx&
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & -\mathcal O(10^{-3}) \alpha^\ell_{12} - \alpha^{e}_{12}
& -\mathcal O(10^{-4}) \alpha^\ell_{13} - \alpha^{e}_{13} \\
\mathcal O(10^{-3}) \alpha^\ell_{21} + \mathcal O(10^{-5}) \alpha^{e}_{21}
& 1
& -\mathcal O(10^{-2}) \alpha^\ell_{23} - \alpha^{e}_{23} \\
\mathcal O(10^{-4}) \alpha^\ell_{31} + \mathcal O(10^{-8}) \alpha^{e}_{31}
& \mathcal O(10^{-2}) \alpha^\ell_{32} + \mathcal O(10^{-3}) \alpha^{e}_{32}
& 1
\end{array}
\right).
\nonumber
\label{eq:fdmapprox}\end{aligned}$$
![The leading contribution to the process $\mu\rightarrow e\gamma$ in our model. The diagrams with $\chi_\mu$ and $\chi_e$ in the loop | } _ { 21 } (Y^L_{ee})^2}{(Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2 - (Y^L_{ee})^2 }
& 1
& \frac { \alpha^\ell_{23 } Y^L_{\mu\mu } Y^L_{\tau\tau } + \alpha^{e}_{23 } (Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2}{(Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2 - (Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2 } \cr (\chi_\tau) &
\frac { \alpha^\ell_{31 } Y^L_{\tau\tau } Y^L_{ee } + \alpha^{e}_{31 } (Y^L_{ee})^2}{(Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2 - (Y^L_{ee})^2 }
& \frac { \alpha^\ell_{32 } Y^L_{\tau\tau } Y^L_{\mu\mu } + \alpha^{e}_{32 } (Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2}{(Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2 - (Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2 }
& 1 } \\
& \approx &
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc }
1 & -\mathcal O(10^{-3 }) \alpha^\ell_{12 } - \alpha^{e}_{12 }
& -\mathcal O(10^{-4 }) \alpha^\ell_{13 } - \alpha^{e}_{13 } \\
\mathcal O(10^{-3 }) \alpha^\ell_{21 } + \mathcal O(10^{-5 }) \alpha^{e}_{21 }
& 1
& -\mathcal O(10^{-2 }) \alpha^\ell_{23 } - \alpha^{e}_{23 } \\
\mathcal O(10^{-4 }) \alpha^\ell_{31 } + \mathcal O(10^{-8 }) \alpha^{e}_{31 }
& \mathcal O(10^{-2 }) \alpha^\ell_{32 } + \mathcal O(10^{-3 }) \alpha^{e}_{32 }
& 1
\end{array }
\right).
\nonumber
\label{eq: fdmapprox}\end{aligned}$$
! [ The leading contribution to the process $ \mu\rightarrow e\gamma$ in our model. The diagrams with $ \chi_\mu$ and $ \chi_e$ in the loop topology | }_{21} (Y^L_{fe})^2}{(Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2 - (Y^L_{ee})^2}
& 1
& \frac{ \alpma^\ell_{23} Y^L_{\mu\mu} Y^L_{\tcy\tau} + \elpha^{e}_{23} (G^L_{\tau\tau})^2}{(H^L_{\mu\mu})^2 - (Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2} \cr (\chi_\tau) &
\hrac{ \alphq^\ell_{31} Y^L_{\tau\tau} Y^L_{ee} + \aloha^{e}_{31} (Y^L_{ee})^2}{(J^L_{\tau\tau})^2 - (Y^L_{et})^2}
& \frac{ \alpha^\ell_{32} B^M_{\tau\tau} Y^L_{\mu\mh} + \al'he^{e}_{32} (Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2}{(Y^L_{\tau\tsu})^2 - (Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2}
& 1} \\
&\approx&
\left(
\bagkn{crray}{ccc}
1 & -\mathcal O(10^{-3}) \alpha^\ell_{12} - \alpha^{q}_{12}
& -\mathcsl O(10^{-4}) \alpha^\ell_{13} - \ajpha^{t}_{13} \\
\mwthczl O(10^{-3}) \alpha^\ell_{21} + \mathcal O(10^{-5}) \alpha^{e}_{21}
& 1
& -\jathcal O(10^{-2}) \alpha^\ell_{23} - \slpha^{e}_{23} \\
\mathcal O(10^{-4}) \alpha^\ell_{31} + \matjcal O(10^{-8}) \alpha^{e}_{31}
& \mathfal O(10^{-2}) \alpha^\gml_{32} + \nathcal O(10^{-3}) \aloha^{e}_{32}
& 1
\end{argcy}
\right).
\nonujber
\label{eq:fdmapprox}\end{aligned}$$
![Tfe lecding contrubytilt to the pricess $\mu\rightarrow e\gamma$ in our model. The dianrams wirh $\chi_\mu$ and $\chi_e$ in vhe loop | }_{21} (Y^L_{ee})^2}{(Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2 - (Y^L_{ee})^2} & 1 & Y^L_{\mu\mu} + \alpha^{e}_{23} - (Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2} \cr Y^L_{ee} \alpha^{e}_{31} (Y^L_{ee})^2}{(Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2 - & \frac{ \alpha^\ell_{32} Y^L_{\mu\mu} + \alpha^{e}_{32} (Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2}{(Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2 - (Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2} 1} \\ &\approx& \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & -\mathcal O(10^{-3}) \alpha^\ell_{12} - \alpha^{e}_{12} & O(10^{-4}) \alpha^\ell_{13} - \alpha^{e}_{13} \\ \mathcal O(10^{-3}) \alpha^\ell_{21} + \mathcal O(10^{-5}) \alpha^{e}_{21} & & O(10^{-2}) - \\ \mathcal O(10^{-4}) \alpha^\ell_{31} + \mathcal O(10^{-8}) \alpha^{e}_{31} & \mathcal O(10^{-2}) \alpha^\ell_{32} + \mathcal O(10^{-3}) \alpha^{e}_{32} 1 \end{array} \right). \nonumber \label{eq:fdmapprox}\end{aligned}$$ ![The leading contribution the process $\mu\rightarrow e\gamma$ our model. The diagrams with and in the | }_{21} (Y^L_{ee})^2}{(Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2 - (Y^L_{ee})^2}
& 1
& \frac{ \alpha^\elL_{23} Y^L_{\mu\mu} Y^L_{\tAu\tau} + \AlpHa^{e}_{23} (y^L_{\Tau\tAu})^2}{(Y^L_{\Mu\mu})^2 - (Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2} \cr (\CHi_\taU) &
\frac{ \alpha^\ell_{31} Y^L_{\tau\tau} Y^l_{ee} + \alPhA^{E}_{31} (Y^L_{eE})^2}{(y^L_{\Tau\taU})^2 - (Y^L_{ee})^2}
& \frAC{ \aLPHa^\eLl_{32} y^L_{\Tau\TaU} y^L_{\Mu\mu} + \aLphA^{e}_{32} (Y^L_{\mu\mU})^2}{(Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2 - (Y^l_{\mu\Mu})^2}
& 1} \\
&\Approx&
\left(
\beGIn{Array}{ccc}
1 & -\maThcAl O(10^{-3}) \alpha^\ell_{12} - \aLphA^{e}_{12}
& -\mathCaL O(10^{-4}) \aLPha^\elL_{13} - \alPha^{e}_{13} \\
\mAthcal o(10^{-3}) \Alpha^\eLl_{21} + \mathcal o(10^{-5}) \aLPha^{e}_{21}
& 1
& -\maTHcal O(10^{-2}) \alPHA^\eLl_{23} - \alPha^{e}_{23} \\
\mathcal O(10^{-4}) \alpha^\ELl_{31} + \MAthcal O(10^{-8}) \alpha^{e}_{31}
& \mAthcal o(10^{-2}) \aLPhA^\ELl_{32} + \mAthCal O(10^{-3}) \alpha^{e}_{32}
& 1
\EnD{arraY}
\Right).
\noNUmBER
\LabEL{eq:fdmapprox}\eNd{aligned}$$
![ThE LeaDing coNtRibUTion to The prOcESs $\mU\rightarrow E\gamMa$ in our moDel. The DIagrams WIth $\chi_\mU$ and $\chI_e$ iN thE looP | }_{21} (Y^L_{ee})^2}{(Y^L_ {\mu\mu})^ 2 - ( Y^L _{e e} )^2}
& 1
& \frac{ \alp h a^\e ll_{23} Y^L_{\mu\mu} Y ^L_{\ ta u \tau } + \alp ha^{e}_ { 23 } (Y^ L_ {\ tau \t a u} )^2}{ (Y^ L_{\mu\ mu})^2 - ( Y^L _{ \tau\tau})^2 } \ cr (\chi_ \ta u) &
\frac{\al pha^\e ll _{3 1 } Y^L _{\ tau\t au} Y^ L _{ee}+ \alpha^ {e } _{31}( Y^L_{ee } ) ^2 }{(Y ^L_{\tau\tau})^2- ( Y ^L_{ee})^2}
& \frac {\ al p h a^\ ell _{32} Y^L_ {\ tau\t a u} Y^L_ { \m u \ m u}+ \alpha^{e}_{ 32} (Y^L_{\ m u\m u})^2} {( Y^L _ {\tau\ tau}) ^2 - ( Y^L_{\mu\mu })^2 }
& 1} \\
&\app r ox&
\l e ft(
\be gin{ar ray }{c cc}1 &-\m at h cal O( 10^ { -3} ) \alpha ^\ el l_{12 } -\ a l p ha^{ e}_ {12}
& -\ mathcal O(10^ {-4 }) \ a lph a^\el l_{13 } -\a lpha^ {e}_{1 3} \\
\ mathcal O(10^{- 3})\alpha^\e ll_ {2 1}+\math c al O(1 0^{ -5} ) \alph a^{e}_{ 2 1}
& 1 &-\mathcal O(10^{-2 }) \ al pha^\ell _{23}- \ al p ha^{e}_{ 23 } \ \
\m a t hcalO(10 ^ {- 4}) \alp ha^\el l _{ 31 } + \ma th cal O( 10 ^{- 8}) \alp h a^{e }_{31}
& \math cal O ( 10^{-2}) \alph a ^\ell_{32} +\ ma t h ca l O(1 0^{ -3}) \alpha ^{e} _ {32}
& 1 \e nd{ a rray}
\rig ht ) .\ nonumber
\label{eq: fd mappro x}\en d{aligned}$$
![The lea d i n g contri buti o nt o the process$\mu\ rightarrow e\gamma$ in o ur model . The dia g r ams with $\ chi _\m u$a n d$\chi_e$ in t h e loo p | }_{21} (Y^L_{ee})^2}{(Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2_- (Y^L_{ee})^2}
&_1
& \frac{ \alpha^\ell_{23} Y^L_{\mu\mu}_Y^L_{\tau\tau} +_\alpha^{e}_{23}_(Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2}{(Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2 -_(Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2}_\cr (\chi_\tau)_&
\frac{ \alpha^\ell_{31} Y^L_{\tau\tau}_Y^L_{ee} + \alpha^{e}_{31} (Y^L_{ee})^2}{(Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2_- (Y^L_{ee})^2}
&_\frac{_\alpha^\ell_{32} Y^L_{\tau\tau} Y^L_{\mu\mu} + \alpha^{e}_{32} (Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2}{(Y^L_{\tau\tau})^2 - (Y^L_{\mu\mu})^2}
& 1} \\
&\approx&
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & -\mathcal_O(10^{-3})_\alpha^\ell_{12} -_\alpha^{e}_{12}
&_-\mathcal_O(10^{-4}) \alpha^\ell_{13} - \alpha^{e}_{13} \\
\mathcal_O(10^{-3}) \alpha^\ell_{21} + \mathcal O(10^{-5})_\alpha^{e}_{21}
&_1
& -\mathcal O(10^{-2}) \alpha^\ell_{23} - \alpha^{e}_{23} \\
\mathcal O(10^{-4})_\alpha^\ell_{31}_+ \mathcal O(10^{-8})_\alpha^{e}_{31}
& \mathcal O(10^{-2}) \alpha^\ell_{32} + \mathcal O(10^{-3}) \alpha^{e}_{32}
& 1
\end{array}
\right).
\nonumber
\label{eq:fdmapprox}\end{aligned}$$
![The_leading contribution to the process $\mu\rightarrow_e\gamma$ in our_model._The_diagrams with $\chi_\mu$ and_$\chi_e$ in the loop |
and still play a role in carving the circumbinary disc. For example, applying the results of @Artymowicz1994 indicates an aligned binary with mass ratio $q\sim0.1$, an eccentricity of $\sim 0.5$ will truncate the circumbinary disc between $3-4$ times the binary separation. HD 142527’s binary separation is $20^{+17}_{-10}$ AU and eccentricity is $0.5\pm0.2$; thus, the companion can orbit in the same plane as the circumbinary disc and still truncate the disc’s dust component at $\sim 100$ AU. Further monitoring of the companion should be able to determine its orbital plane, and test the resonant scenario presented here.
Summary
=======
We have shown that secular precession resonances can operate in protostellar gapped/binary discs, which can result in a misalignment between the circumstellar (inner) and circumbinary (outer) discs. For some cases, the generated misalignments can be large ($\gtrsim 60$ degrees) resulting from crossing a precession resonance between the circumstellar disc and a low-mass companion (or massive planet) as the system evolves. Our main results are summarised below:
1. We identify two secular precession resonances in gapped/binary disc systems. First, a resonance between the precession of the circumstellar and circumbinary discs. Second, a resonance between the precession of the circumstellar disc and a low-mass companion residing in a gap between the circumstellar and circumbinary disc.\
2. The resonance between the circumstellar and circumbinary disc cannot lead to large misalignments as both discs precess independently, even in “resonance”.\
3. The resonance between the circumstellar disc and companion can lead to significant misalignments, even from systems that are close to being co-planar initially, provided that the resonance crossing occurs on the right timescale. This typically requires that the companion has a mass $\sim 0.01-0.1\,$M$_\odot$, separation $\sim 10-100\,$AU for an approximately solar mass primary and that the circumbinary disc dominates the angular momentum budget of the system. Such requirements are [*not*]{} satisfied by giant – of order Jupiter mass – planets in “transition” discs.\
4. In numerical calculations of realistic systems we find mis | and still play a role in carving the circumbinary magnetic disk. For case, applying the results of @Artymowicz1994 indicates an align binary with mass proportion $ q\sim0.1 $, an eccentricity of $ \sim 0.5 $ will truncate the circumbinary disc between $ 3 - 4 $ times the binary separation. HD 142527 ’s binary interval is $ 20^{+17}_{-10}$ AU and eccentricity is $ 0.5\pm0.2 $; thus, the companion can orbit in the like plane as the circumbinary disc and still truncate the disc ’s debris component at $ \sim 100 $ AU. Further monitoring of the companion should be able to determine its orbital airplane, and test the evocative scenario present here.
Summary
= = = = = = =
We have shown that secular precession resonances can manoeuver in protostellar gapped / binary discs, which can result in a misalignment between the circumstellar (inside) and circumbinary (outer) disk. For some cases, the beget misalignments can be large ($ \gtrsim 60 $ degrees) result from crossing a precession resonance between the circumstellar disc and a low - mass companion (or massive planet) as the system evolves. Our main results are summarised below:
1. We identify two secular precession resonances in gapped / binary disc systems. foremost, a plangency between the precession of the circumstellar and circumbinary discs. Second, a rapport between the precession of the circumstellar magnetic disk and a low - mass companion residing in a break between the circumstellar and circumbinary disc.\
2. The resonance between the circumstellar and circumbinary disc cannot lead to large misalignment as both discs precess independently, even in “ resonance”.\
3. The resonance between the circumstellar disc and companion can lead to significant misalignments, even from systems that are close to being co - planar initially, provided that the resonance crossing occur on the right timescale. This typically necessitate that the companion has a mass $ \sim 0.01 - 0.1\,$M$_\odot$, separation $ \sim 10 - 100\,$AU for an approximately solar mass primary and that the circumbinary magnetic disk dominates the angular momentum budget of the system. Such requirements are [ * not * ] { } meet by giant – of order Jupiter mass – planets in “ conversion ” discs.\
4. In numerical calculation of realistic systems we recover mis | anf still play a role in cxrving the circomvinary disc. Ror examole, applying the results of @Ertynowice1994 indicates an aligved binarj with maws retio $q\sim0.1$, an eccxhtricitn of $\alm 0.5$ wnlo truncate the circumbindry disc betwean $3-4$ cimes the binary separation. HD 142527’s binawy sepatahion is $20^{+17}_{-10}$ AU and ecctntwicifj ls $0.5\pm0.2$; thus, the companion can orbjt in tie same plane ax the circumbinary disc anf stlll truncate the dlsc’s dust cimpogwnt at $\sim 100$ AJ. Further monitoring or the companion should be able go decermine its oebihdl plane, anv test the resonanb scenasio prexented here.
Sumkarb
=======
We yave shown that seculer precession resonagces can mpzrate in protostellar gqpped/tinasy dkwcs, whjci czn resklt in a misamignment berween the circumsteklwg (inner) and cjrcumbynwry (outer) discs. For some cases, the genegates misalignments can be oarge ($\gtrsim 60$ degrees) tesulting srom crossing a precession resonance between the wircujrteolwf dlsc and a low-mass companion (or massive planet) zs tme system evolvef. Our main tedukjs are summarired below:
1. We identify two decular precwssion refonamces in gapped/binary disc ststems. First, q resonance betweeu the precesrion of tne circumstellar and cixcumbihary discs. Decond, a ddsonance between thv pracession of the circumsteljar disc end a low-masr cokpaniog residing in a gap between the cigcumsjellar and circulbinary disc.\
2. The resonance betxxen the circuksdelnar and eircumninary disc cangot lead to latge misalngnmengs as both discs 'recess inde[endently, evet in “resonancx”.\
3. The refonabce vetween ghe circumstelkar disc cud companuon can lead to sinnifizznt misalignmencr, even from systrms thwt ace cljve to being wo-plxnaf initkally, provibea thst the resonance crovsinf occurs on the ribhb timescaoe. This eypically reqiires that the comkanion har a msss $\sim 0.01-0.1\,$M$_\odot$, separation $\sim 10-100\,$AU fkr an appgoxlmately solar masw primary anb that the circumbinary disc dominates tie angular momentum budtet of the system. Soch requiremenvs are [*not*]{} sativfied by giant – of oeder Jupiter mass – planets in “transitikn” disws.\
4. Ij numerical calculations of realistic systems we find mis | and still play a role in carving disc. example, applying results of @Artymowicz1994 mass $q\sim0.1$, an eccentricity $\sim 0.5$ will the circumbinary disc between $3-4$ times binary separation. HD 142527’s binary separation is $20^{+17}_{-10}$ AU and eccentricity is $0.5\pm0.2$; the companion can orbit in the same plane as the circumbinary disc and truncate disc’s component $\sim 100$ AU. Further monitoring of the companion should be able to determine its orbital plane, test the resonant scenario presented here. Summary ======= have shown that secular resonances can operate in protostellar discs, can result a between circumstellar (inner) and (outer) discs. For some cases, the generated misalignments can be large ($\gtrsim 60$ degrees) resulting from crossing precession resonance circumstellar disc a companion massive planet) as evolves. Our main results are summarised identify two secular precession resonances in gapped/binary disc First, a between the precession of the circumstellar circumbinary discs. Second, a resonance between the precession the circumstellar disc and a low-mass companion residing in a gap between the circumstellar and 2. The resonance between circumstellar and circumbinary cannot to misalignments both discs independently, even in “resonance”.\ 3. The resonance between the circumstellar disc companion can lead to significant misalignments, even from systems that to co-planar initially, provided the resonance crossing occurs the timescale. This typically requires companion a separation 10-100\,$AU an approximately solar mass and that the circumbinary disc the angular momentum budget are [*not*]{} satisfied by giant – of order mass – planets in “transition” discs.\ 4. numerical calculations of realistic systems we find mis | and still play a role in carvinG the circumBinarY diSc. FOr ExamPle, aPplying the resuLTs of @artymowicz1994 indicates an aLigneD bINary WItH mass Ratio $q\sIM0.1$, aN ECceNtRiCitY oF $\SiM 0.5$ will TruNcate thE circumbinAry DiSc between $3-4$ timES tHe binary seParAtion. HD 142527’s binaRy sEparatIoN is $20^{+17}_{-10}$ au and eCceNtricIty is $0.5\pM0.2$; Thus, thE companioN cAN orbit IN the samE PLaNe as The circumbinary diSC aND still truncate The disC’s DUsT COmpOneNt at $\sim 100$ AU. FUrTher mONitorinG Of THE ComPAnion should be Able to deterMIne Its orbItAl pLAne, and Test tHe REsoNant scenariO preSented herE.
SummaRY
=======
We have SHown thaT seculAr pRecEssiON rEsOnaNcES caN OpEraTE in ProtosteLlAr GappeD/binARY DIscs, WhiCh caN resuLt in a misalignMenT betWEen The ciRcumsTellAr (Inner) And cirCumbiNaRy (outer) discs. For Some Cases, the gEneRaTed MiSaligNMents cAn bE laRge ($\gtrsIm 60$ degreES) reSuLTINg From crossing a preceSsION rEsonance BetweeN ThE cIRcumstelLaR diSc anD A Low-maSs coMPaNion (or maSsive pLAnEt) As the syStEm evolVeS. OuR maIn resULts aRe summArised beLow:
1. We IDentify two secuLAr precession rESoNANcES in gAppEd/binary disC sysTEms. FIrst, A ReSonANce beTween ThE PrECession of the circumsTeLlar anD circUmbinary discs. second, a resONANce betweEn thE PrECession of the ciRcumsTellar disc ANd a low-maSs comPanion reSiding in a GAP between The CirCumSteLLAr And circumbinaRY Disc.\
2. thE resonaNce Between The CirCumSteLlAr and circUmbinary DiSc CaNnOt lEad to LArge misaLiGnmEnTs aS both DIscs prEcess IndePeNdENtlY, even in “REsONAnce”.\
3. thE rEsonAncE bEtweeN the CIrcUmstellAr disc and ComPAnioN cAn Lead to sIgnificant misAlIgnments, evEn FroM systeMS That are cLose to being co-planar initIAlly, proVidEd thaT the Resonance CroSsing oCcuRS on the Right tImescAlE. ThIS TypicALLy ReqUiRes that the COMpaNion hAs A masS $\sim 0.01-0.1\,$M$_\odOt$, separation $\sim 10-100\,$AU fOR an Approximately SolAr maSS PrImaRY aND thAt THe cIRCumbinary disc doMinates the AnGUlAr momentum BUdgEt Of the syStem. SucH requIRements Are [*not*]{} satIsfied by gIaNt – of ORDer jupiter masS – planets In “transitIOn” disCS.\
4. IN numeRicAl calcUlAtiOns of RealisTIc sYstemS we finD mIs | and still play a role incarving th e cir cum bin ar y di sc.For example, a p plyi ng the results of @Art ymowi cz 1 994i nd icate s an al i gn e d bi na ry wi th ma ss ra tio $q\sim 0.1$, an e cce nt ricity of $\ s im 0.5$ will tr uncate the c irc umbina ry di s c bet wee n $3- 4$ tim e s thebinary se pa r ation. HD 1425 2 7 ’s bin ary separation is $2 0 ^{+17}_{-10}$AU and e c ce n t ric ity is $0.5\p m0 .2$;t hus, th e c o m p ani o n can orbit i n the samep lan e as t he ci r cumbin ary d is c an d still tru ncat e the dis c’s du s t compo n ent at$\sim100 $ A U. F u rt he r m on i tor i ng of the compani on s hould bea b l e todet ermi ne it s orbital pla ne, and tes t the reso nant s cenar io pre sente dhere.
Summary==== ===
We h ave s how nthats ecular pr ece ssion r esonanc e s c an o p er ate in protostella rg a pp ed/binar y disc s ,wh i ch can r es ult ina misal ignm e nt between the c i rc um stellar ( inner) a ndcir cumbi n ary(outer ) discs. Fors ome cases, the generated mis a li g n me n ts c anbe large ($ \gtr s im 6 0$ d e gr ees ) resu lting f r om crossing a precessi on reson ancebetween the c ircumstell a r disc and a l o w- m ass companion(or m assive pla n et) as t he sy stem evo lves. Our m ain resu lts ar e s umm a r is ed below:
1. We i de ntify t wosecular pr ece ssi onre sonancesin gappe d/ bi na ry di sc sy s tems. Fi rs t,ares onanc e betwe en th e pr ec es s ion of the ci r c umst el la r an d c ir cumbi nary dis cs. Sec ond, a re son a ncebe tw een the precession o fthe circum st ell ar dis c and a lo w-mass companion residi n g in agap betw eenthe circu mst ellarand circum binary disc .\
2 . Ther e so nan ce between t h e ci rcums te llar and ci rcumbinary disc ca n not lead to larg e m isal i g nm ent s a s bo th dis c s precess indepe ndently, e ve n i n “resonan c e”. \
3. Th e reson anceb etweenthe circu mstellardi sc a n d co mpanion ca n lead t o signifi c ant m i sa lignm ent s, eve nfro m sys tems t h atare c lose t obeingco-pl an ar initi ally, provided that the reson ancecro ssing occ urs onthe right tim escale. Th istyp icall y r e quire s th a tthe compa nion has a mas s $ \si m 0. 01-0.1\,$M$ _ \ o dot $, se par a tion $ \sim 10-100\,$AU fora n approximatel y so l a r m ass prim ar y and that the ci rc u m binary d is c dominates the ang ul a r mom entumbudget of the s ys t em. Su ch r equ irementsare [ * not*]{} s at i sfiedby g ia nt – o f orde r Jup i t er mass – planet s in“ t ransi t ion ” dis cs .\
4.In n umerical c alculations of re alis tic s ystemswe findmis | and_still play_a role in carving_the circumbinary_disc._For example,_applying_the results of_@Artymowicz1994 indicates an_aligned binary with mass_ratio $q\sim0.1$, an_eccentricity_of $\sim 0.5$ will truncate the circumbinary disc between $3-4$ times the binary separation._HD 142527’s_binary separation_is_$20^{+17}_{-10}$ AU_and eccentricity is $0.5\pm0.2$; thus,_the companion can orbit in_the same_plane as the circumbinary disc and still truncate_the_disc’s dust component_at $\sim 100$ AU. Further monitoring of the companion should_be able to determine its orbital_plane, and test_the_resonant_scenario presented here.
Summary
=======
We have_shown that secular precession resonances can_operate in protostellar gapped/binary discs, which_can result in a misalignment between the_circumstellar (inner) and circumbinary (outer) discs._For some cases, the generated_misalignments can_be large ($\gtrsim 60$ degrees) resulting_from crossing a_precession resonance_between the circumstellar_disc and a low-mass companion (or_massive planet) as_the system evolves. Our main results_are_summarised below:
1. _We_identify_two secular_precession resonances in_gapped/binary_disc systems._First,_a resonance between the precession of_the_circumstellar and circumbinary discs. Second, a resonance_between the precession of_the_circumstellar disc and a_low-mass companion residing in a_gap between the circumstellar and circumbinary_disc.\
2. _The resonance_between the circumstellar and circumbinary disc cannot lead to large misalignments_as both discs precess independently, even_in “resonance”.\
3. The_resonance between_the_circumstellar disc and_companion_can lead_to significant misalignments, even from systems that_are close_to being co-planar initially, provided that_the resonance crossing occurs_on_the right timescale. This typically requires_that the companion has a mass_$\sim 0.01-0.1\,$M$_\odot$, separation $\sim 10-100\,$AU_for_an_approximately solar mass primary and_that the circumbinary disc dominates the_angular momentum budget_of the system. Such requirements are [*not*]{}_satisfied_by giant – of order Jupiter_mass_– planets in “transition” discs.\
4. _In_numerical_calculations of realistic systems we_find mis |
, k)$, $\Phi_2(t, k)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{abABPhi12def}
& s(k) = \begin{pmatrix} \overline{a(\bar{k})} & b(k) \\ \overline{b(\bar{k})} & a(k) \end{pmatrix}, \qquad
S(k) = \begin{pmatrix} \overline{A(\bar{k})} & B(k) \\ \overline{B(\bar{k})} & A(k) \end{pmatrix},
\\ \nonumber
& \mu_2(0,t,k) = \begin{pmatrix} \overline{\Phi_2(t, \bar{k})} & \Phi_1(t, k)e^{-2i\int_{(0,0)}^{(0,t)} \Delta } \\ \overline{\Phi_1(t, \bar{k})}e^{2i\int_{(0,0)}^{(0,t)} \Delta} & \Phi_2(t, k) \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $s(k)$ and $S(k)$ are defined by $$\label{sSdef}
s(k) = \mu_3(0,0,k), \qquad S(k) = [e^{2ik^4T\hat{\sigma}_3}\mu_2(0,T,k)]^{-1}.$$ Since $a(k) = a(-k)$, the zeros of $a(k)$ always come in pairs; if $k_j$ is a zero, then so is $-k_j$.
The function $\mu_3(x,0,k)$, and hence also $s(k)$, can be constructed from the initial data $q_0(x)$ via the linear Volterra integral equation $$\label{mu3x0def}
\mu_3(x,0,k) = I + \int_\infty^x e^{ik^2(x' - x)\hat{\sigma}_3} (V_1\mu_3)(x', 0, k) dx'.$$ Similarly, $\mu_2(0,t,k)$, and hence also $S(k)$, can be constructed from the boundary values $g_0(t)$ and $g_1(t | , k)$, $ \Phi_2(t, k)$ by $ $ \begin{aligned }
\label{abABPhi12def }
& s(k) = \begin{pmatrix } \overline{a(\bar{k }) } & b(k) \\ \overline{b(\bar{k }) } & a(k) \end{pmatrix }, \qquad
S(k) = \begin{pmatrix } \overline{A(\bar{k }) } & B(k) \\ \overline{B(\bar{k }) } & A(k) \end{pmatrix },
\\ \nonumber
& \mu_2(0,t, k) = \begin{pmatrix } \overline{\Phi_2(t, \bar{k }) } & \Phi_1(t, k)e^{-2i\int_{(0,0)}^{(0,t) } \Delta } \\ \overline{\Phi_1(t, \bar{k})}e^{2i\int_{(0,0)}^{(0,t) } \Delta } & \Phi_2(t, k) \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $ s(k)$ and $ S(k)$ are defined by $ $ \label{sSdef }
s(k) = \mu_3(0,0,k), \qquad S(k) = [ e^{2ik^4T\hat{\sigma}_3}\mu_2(0,T, k)]^{-1}.$$ Since $ a(k) = a(-k)$, the zeros of $ a(k)$ always come in pair; if $ k_j$ is a zero, then therefore is $ -k_j$.
The function $ \mu_3(x,0,k)$, and hence also $ s(k)$, can be manufacture from the initial data $ q_0(x)$ via the linear Volterra built-in equation $ $ \label{mu3x0def }
\mu_3(x,0,k) = I + \int_\infty^x e^{ik^2(x' - x)\hat{\sigma}_3 } (V_1\mu_3)(x', 0, k) dx'.$$ Similarly, $ \mu_2(0,t, k)$, and hence also $ S(k)$, can be construct from the boundary values $ g_0(t)$ and $ g_1(t | , k)$, $\Ohi_2(t, k)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\lanel{abABPhi12def}
& s(k) = \begin{'matrix} \overlind{a(\bar{k})} & b(k) \\ \overline{b(\bar{k})} & a(n) \wnd{pmqtrix}, \qquad
S(k) = \begin{pmxtrix} \ovegline{A(\bar{j})} & B(j) \\ \overline{U(\gar{k})} & A(k) \end{pjwtrir},
\\ \nonumber
& \ku_2(0,t,k) = \beghn{pmatrix} \overnive{\'hi_2(t, \bar{k})} & \Phi_1(t, k)e^{-2i\int_{(0,0)}^{(0,t)} \Delta } \\ \overjine{\Phi_1(y, \har{k})}e^{2i\int_{(0,0)}^{(0,t)} \Delja} & \Pny_2(t, k) \vnb{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $s(k)$ and $S(k)$ are defined by $$\lsbel{sSdef}
s(k) = \mu_3(0,0,k), \qquad S(k) = [e^{2ik^4T\hat{\sigma}_3}\mu_2(0,T,k)]^{-1}.$$ Dince $a(k) = a(-j)$, thq zeros of $a(k)$ always come in pairs; jf $k_j$ is a zero, then so is $-k_j$.
Thd funetion $\mu_3(x,0,k)$, qne hftce also $s(k)$, can fe constructcc from the inotial data $q_0(x)$ yia tie lunear Volterra integrel equation $$\label{mu3x0qef}
\mu_3(f,0,k) = I + \int_\infty^x e^{ij^2(x' - x)\haj{\sigmd}_3} (V_1\mj_3)(z', 0, y) ds'.$$ Xijilarlj, $\mn_2(0,t,k)$, and hende also $S(k)$, xan be constructed grjn the boundarg valuqs $g_0(t)$ and $g_1(t | , k)$, $\Phi_2(t, k)$ by $$\begin{aligned} \label{abABPhi12def} = \overline{a(\bar{k})} & \\ \overline{b(\bar{k})} & \begin{pmatrix} & B(k) \\ & A(k) \end{pmatrix}, \nonumber & \mu_2(0,t,k) = \begin{pmatrix} \overline{\Phi_2(t, & \Phi_1(t, k)e^{-2i\int_{(0,0)}^{(0,t)} \Delta } \\ \overline{\Phi_1(t, \bar{k})}e^{2i\int_{(0,0)}^{(0,t)} \Delta} & \Phi_2(t, k) \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ $s(k)$ and $S(k)$ are defined by $$\label{sSdef} s(k) = \mu_3(0,0,k), \qquad S(k) = Since = the of $a(k)$ always come in pairs; if $k_j$ is a zero, then so is $-k_j$. The $\mu_3(x,0,k)$, and hence also $s(k)$, can be constructed the initial data $q_0(x)$ the linear Volterra integral equation \mu_3(x,0,k) I + e^{ik^2(x' x)\hat{\sigma}_3} 0, k) dx'.$$ $\mu_2(0,t,k)$, and hence also $S(k)$, can be constructed from the boundary values $g_0(t)$ and $g_1(t | , k)$, $\Phi_2(t, k)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AbABPhi12def}
& S(k) = \begIn{pMatRiX} \oveRlinE{a(\bar{k})} & b(k) \\ \overliNE{b(\baR{k})} & a(k) \end{pmatrix}, \qquad
S(k) = \bEgin{pMaTRix} \oVErLine{A(\Bar{k})} & B(k) \\ \oVErLINe{B(\BaR{k})} & a(k) \eNd{PMaTrix},
\\ \nOnuMber
& \mu_2(0,t,K) = \begin{pmatRix} \OvErline{\Phi_2(t, \baR{K})} & \PHi_1(t, k)e^{-2i\int_{(0,0)}^{(0,t)} \delTa } \\ \overline{\PhI_1(t, \bAr{k})}e^{2i\iNt_{(0,0)}^{(0,T)} \DeLTa} & \Phi_2(T, k) \eNd{pmaTrix},\enD{AligneD}$$ where $s(k)$ aNd $s(K)$ are deFIned by $$\lABEl{SSdeF}
s(k) = \mu_3(0,0,k), \qquad S(k) = [e^{2ik^4T\HAt{\SIgma}_3}\mu_2(0,T,k)]^{-1}.$$ Since $a(K) = a(-k)$, the ZeROs OF $A(k)$ aLwaYs come in paIrS; if $k_j$ IS a zero, tHEn SO IS $-k_j$.
tHe function $\mu_3(x,0,K)$, and hence alSO $s(k)$, Can be cOnStrUCted frOm the InITiaL data $q_0(x)$ via tHe liNear VolteRra intEGral equATion $$\labEl{mu3x0dEf}
\mU_3(x,0,k) = i + \int_\INfTy^X e^{iK^2(x' - X)\Hat{\SIgMa}_3} (V_1\MU_3)(x', 0, k) Dx'.$$ SimilaRlY, $\mU_2(0,t,k)$, anD henCE ALSo $S(k)$, Can Be coNstruCted from the boUndAry vALueS $g_0(t)$ anD $g_1(t | , k)$, $\Phi_2(t, k)$ by $ $\begin{al igned }
\ lab el {abA BPhi 12def}
& s(k)= \be gin{pmatrix} \overline {a(\b ar { k})} &b(k)\\ \ove r li n e {b( \b ar {k} )} &a(k)\en d{pmatr ix}, \qqua d
S (k ) = \begin{p m at rix} \over lin e{A(\bar{k}) } & B(k)\\ \o v erlin e{B (\bar {k})}& A(k)\end{pmat ri x },
\\ \no n u mb er
& \mu_2(0,t,k) = \ be g in{pmatrix} \o verlin e{ \ Ph i _ 2(t , \ bar{k})} & \ Phi_1 ( t, k)e^ { -2 i \ i nt_ { (0,0)}^{(0,t) } \Delta }\ \ \ overli ne {\P h i_1(t, \bar {k } )}e ^{2i\int_{( 0,0) }^{(0,t)} \Delt a } & \Ph i _2(t, k ) \end {pm atr ix}, \ en d{ ali gn e d}$ $ w her e $s (k)$ and $ S( k)$ a re d e f i n ed b y $ $\la bel{s Sdef}
s(k ) = \mu _ 3(0 ,0,k) , \qq uadS( k) =[e^{2i k^4T\ ha t{\sigma}_3}\mu _2(0 ,T,k)]^{- 1}. $$ Si nc e $a( k ) = a( -k) $,the zer os of $ a (k) $a l w ay s come in pairs; i f$ k _j $ is a z ero, t h en s o is $-k_ j$ .
Thef u nctio n $\ m u_ 3(x,0,k) $, and he nc e also$s (k)$,ca n b e c onstr u cted fromthe init ial d a ta $q_0(x)$ vi a the linear V o lt e r ra inte gra l equation$$\l a bel{ mu3x 0 de f}
\m u_3(x ,0 , k) = I + \int_\infty^x e ^{ik^2 (x' - x)\hat{\sigm a}_3} (V_1 \ m u _3)(x',0, k ) d x '.$$ Similarly , $\m u_2(0,t,k) $ , and he nce a lso $S(k )$, can b e construc ted fr omthe b ou ndary values$ g _0(t )$ and $g _1( t | , k)$,_$\Phi_2(t, k)$_by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{abABPhi12def}
& s(k) =_\begin{pmatrix} \overline{a(\bar{k})}_&_b(k) \\_\overline{b(\bar{k})}_& a(k) \end{pmatrix},_\qquad
S(k) = \begin{pmatrix}_\overline{A(\bar{k})} & B(k) \\_\overline{B(\bar{k})} & A(k)_\end{pmatrix},_
\\ \nonumber
& \mu_2(0,t,k) = \begin{pmatrix} \overline{\Phi_2(t, \bar{k})} & \Phi_1(t,_k)e^{-2i\int_{(0,0)}^{(0,t)}_\Delta }_\\_\overline{\Phi_1(t,_\bar{k})}e^{2i\int_{(0,0)}^{(0,t)} \Delta} & \Phi_2(t, k)_\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $s(k)$ and $S(k)$_are defined_by $$\label{sSdef}
s(k) = \mu_3(0,0,k),_\qquad_S(k) = [e^{2ik^4T\hat{\sigma}_3}\mu_2(0,T,k)]^{-1}.$$_Since $a(k) = a(-k)$, the zeros of $a(k)$ always_come in pairs; if $k_j$ is_a zero, then_so_is_$-k_j$.
The function $\mu_3(x,0,k)$, and_hence also $s(k)$, can be constructed_from the initial data $q_0(x)$ via_the linear Volterra integral equation $$\label{mu3x0def} _
\mu_3(x,0,k) = I +_\int_\infty^x e^{ik^2(x' - x)\hat{\sigma}_3} (V_1\mu_3)(x',_0, k)_dx'.$$ Similarly, $\mu_2(0,t,k)$, and hence_also $S(k)$, can_be constructed_from the boundary_values $g_0(t)$ and $g_1(t |
\left( 1-\frac{1}{4}\tau \right)$, and it is uniformly valid as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$.
Next we have illustrated the two-timing technique to a classical textbook example [@holmes], given by the ordinary differential equation $$y''+\varepsilon y'+y=0, \quad t>0, \quad y(0)=0, \quad y'(0)=1.$$ In this method one incorporates the two scales in the model by introducing the time variables $t, \tau=\varepsilon t$, and treat them as independent variables. Next one uses Taylor expansions in the parameter $\varepsilon$. Then one solves the equations order by order eliminating secular terms. In this classical example a good approximated solution of the problem is $$y\sim e^{-\frac{\tau}{2}}\sin(t),$$ valid up to the first order of $\varepsilon$.
In this paper the two-timing procedure was also applied to a model coming from the cosmological set-up. We have studied the so-called induced gravity model with the action [@Kamenshchik:2013dga; @Andrianov:2011fg]: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{IG}=\int\sqrt{- {g}}\left( \frac{\sigma^2}{8 \omega_0} {R}-\frac{1}{2} {g}^{\mu\nu} {\partial}_{\mu}\sigma {\partial}_{\nu}\sigma-\frac{\gamma ^2 U_0 \sigma^2}{4-6 \gamma^2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ $\omega_0>0, \gamma\geq 0$. We add a massless scalar field and consider the action in [@Cid:2015pja]: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{IG\phi}=S_{IG}+\int\sqrt{- {g}}\left(-\frac{1}{2} {g}^{\mu\nu} {\partial}_{\mu}\phi {\partial}_{\nu}\phi\right).\end{aligned}$$ To define the order parameter $\varepsilon$ we have started by the equation of motion for a massless scalar field is given by $$\ddot\phi +3\frac{\dot a}{a}\dot\phi=0,$$ and admits the solution $\dot\phi=\varepsilon a^{-3}$, where $\varepsilon$ is an integration constant, that we have set $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$ for an slow-varying scalar field.
Using the parametrization [@Kamensh | \left (1-\frac{1}{4}\tau \right)$, and it is uniformly valid as $ \varepsilon \rightarrow 0$.
Next we have illustrated the two - timing technique to a classical textbook example [ @holmes ], give by the average differential equation $ $ y''+\varepsilon y'+y=0, \quad t>0, \quad y(0)=0, \quad y'(0)=1.$$ In this method one incorporate the two scale in the model by introducing the prison term variables $ triiodothyronine, \tau=\varepsilon t$, and treat them as autonomous variable star. Next one use Taylor expansions in the parameter $ \varepsilon$. Then one resolve the equation order by order eliminating secular terms. In this authoritative example a good approximated solution of the problem is $ $ y\sim e^{-\frac{\tau}{2}}\sin(t),$$ valid up to the beginning order of $ \varepsilon$.
In this paper the two - timing operation was also use to a model coming from the cosmological set - up. We have studied the therefore - called induced gravity model with the action [ @Kamenshchik:2013dga; @Andrianov:2011fg ]: $ $ \begin{aligned }
S_{IG}=\int\sqrt{- { g}}\left (\frac{\sigma^2}{8 \omega_0 } { R}-\frac{1}{2 } { g}^{\mu\nu } { \partial}_{\mu}\sigma { \partial}_{\nu}\sigma-\frac{\gamma ^2 U_0 \sigma^2}{4 - 6 \gamma^2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ $ \omega_0>0, \gamma\geq 0$. We add a massless scalar field and consider the action in [ @Cid:2015pja ]: $ $ \begin{aligned }
S_{IG\phi}=S_{IG}+\int\sqrt{- { g}}\left(-\frac{1}{2 } { g}^{\mu\nu } { \partial}_{\mu}\phi { \partial}_{\nu}\phi\right).\end{aligned}$$ To define the order parameter $ \varepsilon$ we have started by the equation of motion for a massless scalar field is given by $ $ \ddot\phi +3\frac{\dot a}{a}\dot\phi=0,$$ and admit the solution $ \dot\phi=\varepsilon a^{-3}$, where $ \varepsilon$ is an integration constant, that we have typeset $ \varepsilon\rightarrow 0 $ for an slowly - varying scalar field.
Using the parametrization [ @Kamensh | \levt( 1-\frac{1}{4}\tau \right)$, and it ls uniformly valne as $\verepsilkn \rightxrrow 0$.
Next we have illustratxd tye twi-timing technique to a classicap textboik eeample [@holmes], gitsn by tmz ordjkary bihferential equajion $$y''+\varepshlon y'+y=0, \quad t>0, \qjab y(0)=0, \quad y'(0)=1.$$ In this method one incor[orates tje two scales yn tnq mosvl by introducing the time varizbles $t, \tau=\varepsilom t$, and treat them as indeoendfnt variables. Next one uses Tqylow expansions kn the parameter $\varepailon$. Then one solves the equatkons prder by otbwr fniminating weculwr terms. In bnis cldssical example a gooc a'prozimated solution of tie problem is $$y\sim e^{-\srac{\tau}{2}}\sit(t),$$ valid up to the diest otder mf $\vxeeprilkn$.
Mn fhis pwpec the two-tijing procedyre was also appliec ei a model comjng frjm the cosmological set-up. We have studied ths so-called induced gravuty model with the acjion [@Kamenfhchik:2013dga; @Andrianov:2011fg]: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{IG}=\int\sqrt{- {g}}\lefd( \frar{\skgmc^2}{8 \omegx_0} {G}-\frac{1}{2} {g}^{\mu\nu} {\partial}_{\mu}\sigma {\partial}_{\nu}\sigma-\frac{\dzmka ^2 U_0 \sigma^2}{4-6 \gammc^2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ $\olebw_0>0, \gamma\geq 0$. Wg add a maasless scalar fielf and cjnsidwr the acuion on [@Cid:2015pja]: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{IG\phu}=S_{IG}+\int\sqrt{- {y}}\ledt(-\frac{1}{2} {g}^{\mu\nu} {\particl}_{\mu}\phi {\partnal}_{\nu}\pni\rignt).\end{aligned}$$ To define che orser parametfr $\varepsjuon$ we have starged bf the equation of motion fjr a massoess scalar fiekd is diven by $$\dfot\phl +3\frac{\dot a}{a}\dot\phi=0,$$ wnd abmits the solutlon $\dot\phi=\varepsilon a^{-3}$, where $\vacxpsilon$ is an ittecration eonstakt, that we have set $\varepsilou\rightarxow 0$ fur an slow-narying sralar field.
Ufing the parakgtrization [@Kakensh | \left( 1-\frac{1}{4}\tau \right)$, and it is uniformly $\varepsilon 0$. Next have illustrated the textbook [@holmes], given by ordinary differential equation y'+y=0, \quad t>0, \quad y(0)=0, \quad In this method one incorporates the two scales in the model by introducing time variables $t, \tau=\varepsilon t$, and treat them as independent variables. Next one Taylor in parameter Then one solves the equations order by order eliminating secular terms. In this classical example a approximated solution of the problem is $$y\sim e^{-\frac{\tau}{2}}\sin(t),$$ up to the first of $\varepsilon$. In this paper two-timing was also to model from the cosmological We have studied the so-called induced gravity model with the action [@Kamenshchik:2013dga; @Andrianov:2011fg]: $$\begin{aligned} S_{IG}=\int\sqrt{- {g}}\left( \frac{\sigma^2}{8 {R}-\frac{1}{2} {g}^{\mu\nu} ^2 U_0 \gamma^2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ \gamma\geq We add a field and consider the action in {g}}\left(-\frac{1}{2} {g}^{\mu\nu} {\partial}_{\mu}\phi {\partial}_{\nu}\phi\right).\end{aligned}$$ To define the order $\varepsilon$ we started by the equation of motion a massless scalar field is given by $$\ddot\phi a}{a}\dot\phi=0,$$ and admits the solution $\dot\phi=\varepsilon a^{-3}$, where $\varepsilon$ is an integration constant, that we $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$ for an scalar field. Using parametrization | \left( 1-\frac{1}{4}\tau \right)$, and it is unIformly valId as $\vArePsiLoN \rigHtarRow 0$.
Next we have iLLustRated the two-timing technIque tO a CLassICaL textBook exaMPlE [@HOlmEs], GiVen By THe OrdinAry DiffereNtial equatIon $$Y''+\vArepsilon y'+y=0, \qUAd T>0, \quad y(0)=0, \quad Y'(0)=1.$$ In This method onE inCorporAtEs tHE two sCalEs in tHe modeL By intrOducing thE tIMe variABles $t, \taU=\VArEpsiLon t$, and treat them aS InDEpendent variabLes. NexT oNE uSES TaYloR expansionS iN the pARameter $\VArEPSIloN$. then one solves The equationS OrdEr by orDeR elIMinatiNg secUlAR teRms. In this clAssiCal examplE a good APproximATed soluTion of The ProBlem IS $$y\SiM e^{-\fRaC{\Tau}{2}}\SIn(T),$$ vaLId uP to the fiRsT oRder oF $\varEPSILon$.
IN thIs paPer thE two-timing proCedUre wAS alSo appLied tO a moDeL comiNg from The coSmOlogical set-up. We Have Studied thE so-CaLleD iNduceD GravitY moDel With the Action [@KAMenShCHIK:2013dGa; @Andrianov:2011fg]: $$\begin{AlIGNeD}
S_{IG}=\int\sQrt{- {g}}\leFT( \fRaC{\Sigma^2}{8 \omeGa_0} {r}-\frAc{1}{2} {g}^{\mU\NU} {\partIal}_{\mU}\SiGma {\partiAl}_{\nu}\siGMa-\FrAc{\gamma ^2 u_0 \sIgma^2}{4-6 \gaMmA^2}\riGht),\End{alIGned}$$ $\Omega_0>0, \gAmma\geq 0$. WE add a MAssless scalar fIEld and consideR ThE ACtIOn in [@cid:2015Pja]: $$\begin{aliGned}
s_{iG\phI}=S_{IG}+\INt\SqrT{- {G}}\left(-\Frac{1}{2} {g}^{\Mu\NU} {\pARtial}_{\mu}\phi {\partial}_{\nu}\PhI\right).\End{alIgned}$$ To define The order paRAMEter $\varePsilON$ wE Have started by tHe equAtion of motIOn for a maSslesS scalar fIeld is givEN By $$\ddot\phI +3\frAc{\dOt a}{A}\doT\PHi=0,$$ And admits the sOLUtioN $\dOt\phi=\vaRepSilon a^{-3}$, wHerE $\vaRepSilOn$ Is an integRation coNsTaNt, ThAt wE have SEt $\varepsIlOn\rIgHtaRrow 0$ fOR an sloW-varyIng sCaLaR FieLd.
Using THe PARameTrIzAtioN [@KaMeNsh | \left( 1-\frac{1}{4}\tau\right)$,and i t i s u ni form ly v alid as $\vare p silo n \rightarrow 0$.
Nex t weha v e il l us trate d the t w o- t i min gte chn iq u eto acla ssicaltextbook e xam pl e [@holmes], gi ven by the or dinary diffe ren tial e qu ati o n $$y ''+ \vare psilon y'+y=0 , \quad t >0 , \quad y(0)=0, \ qu ad y'(0)=1.$$ In thi s m e thod one incor porate st he t wosca les in the m odelb y intro d uc i n g th e time variabl es $t, \tau = \va repsil on t$ , and t reatth e m a s independe nt v ariables. Nexto ne uses Taylorexpans ion s i n th e p ar ame te r $\ v ar eps i lon $. Thenon esolve s th e e q uati ons ord er by order elimin ati ng s e cul ar te rms.In t hi s cla ssical exam pl e a good approx imat ed soluti onof th eprobl e m is $ $y\ sim e^{-\f rac{\ta u }{2 }} \ s i n( t),$$ valid up toth e fi rst orde r of $ \ va re p silon$.
I n t hisp a per t he t w o- timing p rocedu r ewa s alsoap pliedto amod el co m ingfrom t he cosmo logic a l set-up. We h a ve studied th e s o - ca l ledind uced gravit y mo d el w itht he ac t ion [ @Kame ns h ch i k:2013dga; @Andrian ov :2011f g]: $ $\begin{align ed}
S_{IG} = \ i nt\sqrt{ - {g } }\ l eft( \frac{\si gma^2 }{8 \omega _ 0} {R}- \frac {1}{2} { g}^{\mu\n u } {\parti al} _{\ mu} \si g m a{\partial}_{\ n u }\si gm a-\frac {\g amma ^2 U_ 0 \ sig ma^ 2} {4-6 \gam ma^2}\ri gh t) ,\ en d{a ligne d }$$ $\om eg a_0 >0 , \ gamma \ geq 0$ . Weaddama s sle ss scal a rf i eldan dcons ide rthe a ctio n in [@Cid: 2015pja]: $$ \ begi n{ al igned}S_{IG\phi}=S_ {I G}+\int\sq rt {-{g}}\l e f t(-\frac {1}{2} {g}^{\mu\nu} {\p a rtial}_ {\m u}\ph i {\ partial}_ {\n u}\phi \ri g ht).\e nd{ali gned} $$ To d efine t he or de r paramete r $\v areps il on$we have started by the eq u ati on of motionfor a m a s sl ess sc a lar f i eld i s given by $$\d dot\phi +3 \f r ac {\dot a}{a } \do t\ phi=0,$ $ and a dmits the sol ution $\d ot\phi=\v ar epsi l o n a ^{-3}$, wh ere $\va repsilon$ is an in tegra tio n cons ta nt, that we ha v e s et $\ vareps il on\rig htarr ow 0$ foran slow-varying scalarfield.
Usi ngthe param etr i zat ion [@Kam ensh | \left(_1-\frac{1}{4}\tau \right)$,_and it is uniformly_valid as_$\varepsilon_\rightarrow 0$.
Next_we_have illustrated the_two-timing technique to_a classical textbook example_[@holmes], given by_the_ordinary differential equation $$y''+\varepsilon y'+y=0, \quad t>0, \quad y(0)=0, \quad y'(0)=1.$$ In this_method_one incorporates_the_two_scales in the model by_introducing the time variables $t,_\tau=\varepsilon t$,_and treat them as independent variables. Next one_uses_Taylor expansions in_the parameter $\varepsilon$. Then one solves the equations order_by order eliminating secular terms. In_this classical example_a_good_approximated solution of the_problem is $$y\sim e^{-\frac{\tau}{2}}\sin(t),$$ valid up_to the first order of $\varepsilon$.
In_this paper the two-timing procedure was also_applied to a model coming from_the cosmological set-up. We have_studied the_so-called induced gravity model with_the action [@Kamenshchik:2013dga;_@Andrianov:2011fg]: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{IG}=\int\sqrt{-_{g}}\left( \frac{\sigma^2}{8 \omega_0}_ {R}-\frac{1}{2} {g}^{\mu\nu} {\partial}_{\mu}\sigma {\partial}_{\nu}\sigma-\frac{\gamma ^2_U_0 \sigma^2}{4-6 \gamma^2}\right),\end{aligned}$$_$\omega_0>0, \gamma\geq 0$. We add a_massless_scalar field and_consider_the_action in_[@Cid:2015pja]: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{IG\phi}=S_{IG}+\int\sqrt{- {g}}\left(-\frac{1}{2}_{g}^{\mu\nu}_{\partial}_{\mu}\phi {\partial}_{\nu}\phi\right).\end{aligned}$$_To_define the order parameter $\varepsilon$ we_have_started by the equation of motion for_a massless scalar field_is_given by $$\ddot\phi +3\frac{\dot_a}{a}\dot\phi=0,$$ and admits the solution_$\dot\phi=\varepsilon a^{-3}$, where $\varepsilon$ is an_integration constant,_that we_have set $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$ for an slow-varying scalar field.
Using the parametrization_[@Kamensh |
(Eds.), Domination in Graphs: Advanced Topics. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1998.
M. A. Henning, A survey of selected recent results on total domination in graphs. Discrete Mathematics, 309(1) (2009), 32-63.
T. W. Haynes and P. J. Slater, Paired-domination and the paired-domatic number. Congresses Numerantium, 109 (1995), 65-72.
T. W. Haynes and P. J. Slater, Paired-domination in graphs. Networks, 32 (1998), 199-206.
J. Huang and J.-M. Xu, The bondage numbers and efficient dominations of vertex-transitive graphs. Discrete Mathematics, 308(4) (2008), 571-582.
J. Pfaff, R.C. Laskar, S.T. Hedetniemi, NP-completeness of total and connected domination and irredundance for bipartite graphs, Technical Report 428, Clemson University, Dept. Math. Sciences, 1983.
K. E. Proffitt, T. W. Haynes, and P. J. Slater, Paired-domination in grid graphs. Congresses Numerantium, 150 (2001), 161-172.
S. Klavžar and N. Seifter, Dominating cartesian products of cycles. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 59 (1995), 129-136.
J.-M. Xu, Theory and Application of Graphs. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 2003.
[^1]: Corresponding author: [email protected]
[^2]: The work was supported by NNSF of China (No. 11071233).
---
author:
- 'Stefan Boettcher and Bruno Gon[ç]{}alves'
bibliography:
- '/Users/stb/Boettcher.bib'
title: Anomalous Diffusion on the Hanoi Networks
---
Introduction
============
The study of anomalous diffusion is an integral part in the analysis of transport processes in complex materials [@Shlesinger84; @Bouchaud90; @Metzler04; @Bollt05; @Condamin07]. Random environments often slow transport significantly | (Eds .), Domination in Graphs: Advanced Topics. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1998.
M. A. Henning, A survey of selected late result on total domination in graphs. Discrete Mathematics, 309(1) (2009), 32 - 63.
T. W. Haynes and P. J. Slater, pair - domination and the match - domatic number. Congresses Numerantium, 109 (1995), 65 - 72.
T. W. Haynes and P. J. Slater, Paired - domination in graph. Networks, 32 (1998), 199 - 206.
J. Huang and J.-M. Xu, The bondage numbers and efficient domination of vertex - transitive graphs. Discrete Mathematics, 308(4) (2008), 571 - 582.
J. Pfaff, R.C. Laskar, S.T. Hedetniemi, NP - completeness of total and machine-accessible domination and irredundance for bipartite graphs, Technical Report 428, Clemson University, Dept. Math. Sciences, 1983.
K. E. Proffitt, T. W. Haynes, and P. J. Slater, Paired - domination in power system graphs. Congresses Numerantium, 150 (2001), 161 - 172.
S. Klavžar and N. Seifter, Dominating cartesian products of cycles. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 59 (1995), 129 - 136.
J.-M. Xu, Theory and Application of Graphs. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht / Boston / London, 2003.
[ ^1 ]: Corresponding author: [email protected]
[ ^2 ]: The employment was supported by NNSF of China (No. 11071233).
---
author:
-' Stefan Boettcher and Bruno Gon[ç]{}alves'
bibliography:
-' /Users / stb / Boettcher.bib'
claim: Anomalous Diffusion on the Hanoi Networks
---
Introduction
= = = = = = = = = = = =
The study of anomalous diffusion is an built-in part in the psychoanalysis of transport processes in complex materials [ @Shlesinger84; @Bouchaud90; @Metzler04; @Bollt05; @Condamin07 ]. Random environments much slow transport significantly | (Edd.), Domination in Graphs: Aavanced Topics. Marcel Vekker, Hew York, 1998.
M. A. Henning, A survey of selxctee rectut results on total aominatioj in graphs. Viscrete Mathemavjcs, 309(1) (2009), 32-63.
T. W. Hayhcs anb '. J. Slater, Pairgd-domination and the paireg-dumctic number. Congresses Numerantium, 109 (1995), 65-72.
T. W. Haunfs and P. J. Slajer, Psyred-somination in graphs. Networks, 32 (1998), 199-206.
J. Guang aid J.-M. Xu, The bomdage numbers and efficienh dolinations of verted-transitive gra[ys. Discrete Oathematics, 308(4) (2008), 571-582.
J. Pfaff, T.C. Laskar, S.T. Hedetniemi, NP-complegenesx of total abd fmnnected doninatpon and irredmmdance for bilartite graphs, Terhnixal Report 428, Clemson Uiiversity, Dept. Math. Fciences, 1983.
N. Z. Proffitt, T. W. Haynes, abd P. B. Sldter, Paifed-sokihation in grid grapgs. Congressws Numerantium, 150 (2001), 161-172.
S. Llwnžsr and N. Seirter, Djmynating cartesian products of cycles. Divcrste Applied Mathematics, 59 (1995), 129-136.
J.-M. Xu, Theory and Akplication of Graphs. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Bovton/Lkvdou, 2003.
[^1]: Corfwsoonding author: [email protected]
[^2]: The work was sup[krued by NNSF of Chlna (No. 11071233).
---
author:
- 'Stegaj Njettcher and Cruno Ykn[ç]{}zlves'
bibliography:
- '/Ksers/stf/Boetrcher.bib'
tytle: Anomalous Diffusion on the Hanoi Netwogks
---
Ibtroduction
============
The stuby of anomaluus ciffuxion is an integral parc in tge analysis of translurt processes in cokpnex materials [@Shlesinger84; @Botchaud90; @Mevzler04; @Bollt05; @Zondsmin07]. Rwndom envigonmekds often slow trandport shgnificantpy | (Eds.), Domination in Graphs: Advanced Topics. Marcel York, M. A. A survey of domination graphs. Discrete Mathematics, (2009), 32-63. T. Haynes and P. J. Slater, Paired-domination the paired-domatic number. Congresses Numerantium, 109 (1995), 65-72. T. W. Haynes and P. Slater, Paired-domination in graphs. Networks, 32 (1998), 199-206. J. Huang and J.-M. Xu, bondage and dominations vertex-transitive graphs. Discrete Mathematics, 308(4) (2008), 571-582. J. Pfaff, R.C. Laskar, S.T. Hedetniemi, NP-completeness of total connected domination and irredundance for bipartite graphs, Technical 428, Clemson University, Dept. Sciences, 1983. K. E. Proffitt, W. and P. Slater, in graphs. Congresses Numerantium, (2001), 161-172. S. Klavžar and N. Seifter, Dominating cartesian products of cycles. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 59 (1995), J.-M. Xu, Application of Kluwer Publishers, 2003. [^1]: Corresponding [^2]: The work was supported by (No. 11071233). --- author: - 'Stefan Boettcher and Gon[ç]{}alves' bibliography: '/Users/stb/Boettcher.bib' title: Anomalous Diffusion on the Networks --- Introduction ============ The study of anomalous is an integral part in the analysis of transport processes in complex materials [@Shlesinger84; @Bouchaud90; @Condamin07]. Random environments often transport significantly | (Eds.), Domination in Graphs: AdvaNced Topics. marceL DeKkeR, NEw YoRk, 1998.
M. A. henning, A survey OF selEcted recent results on toTal doMiNAtioN In GraphS. DiscreTE MATHemAtIcS, 309(1) (2009), 32-63.
T. W. haYNeS and P. j. SlAter, PaiRed-dominatIon AnD the paired-doMAtIc number. CoNgrEsses NumeranTiuM, 109 (1995), 65-72.
T. W. HayNeS anD p. J. SlaTer, paireD-dominATion in Graphs. NetWoRKs, 32 (1998), 199-206.
J. HuaNG and J.-M. XU, tHe BondAge numbers and effiCIeNT dominations of Vertex-TrANsITIve GraPhs. DiscretE MAthemATics, 308(4) (2008), 571-582.
J. PfAFf, r.c. lAskAR, S.T. Hedetniemi, nP-completenESs oF total AnD coNNected DominAtIOn aNd irredundaNce fOr bipartiTe grapHS, TechniCAl ReporT 428, ClemsOn UNivErsiTY, DEpT. MaTh. sCieNCeS, 1983.
K. E. pRofFitt, T. W. HaYnEs, And P. J. slatER, pAIred-DomInatIon in Grid graphs. ConGreSses nUmeRantiUm, 150 (2001), 161-172.
S. KlAvžaR aNd N. SeIfter, DOminaTiNg cartesian prodUcts Of cycles. DIscReTe APpLied MAThematIcs, 59 (1995), 129-136.
j.-M. XU, Theory And ApplICatIoN OF grAphs. Kluwer Academic puBLIsHers, DordRecht/BOStOn/lOndon, 2003.
[^1]: CorReSpoNdinG AUthor: [email protected]
[^2]: ThE work wAS sUpPorted bY NnSF of CHiNa (NO. 11071233).
---
auThor:
- 'STEfan boettcHer and BrUno GoN[Ç]{}alves'
bibliogrAPhy:
- '/Users/stb/BoETtCHEr.BIb'
tiTle: anomalous DiFfusIOn on The HANoI NeTWorks
---
introDuCTiON
============
The study of anomalouS dIffusiOn is aN integral part In the analySIS Of transpOrt pROcESses in complex mAteriAls [@ShlesinGEr84; @BouchaUd90; @MetZler04; @BollT05; @Condamin07]. rANdom enviRonMenTs oFteN SLoW transport sigNIFicaNtLy | (Eds.), Domination in Gra phs: Advan ced T opi cs. M arce l De kker, New York , 199 8.
M. A. Henning, A s urvey o f sel e ct ed re cent re s ul t s on t ot aldo m in ation in graphs . Discrete Ma th ematics, 309 ( 1) (2009), 3 2-6 3.
T. W. Ha yne s andP. J. Slate r,Paire d-domi n ationand the p ai r ed-dom a tic num b e r. Con gresses Numeranti u m, 109 (1995), 65 -72.
T. W. H ayn esand P. J.Sl ater, Paired- d om i n a tio n in graphs. N etworks, 32 (19 98), 1 99 -20 6 .
J.Huang a n d J .-M. Xu, Th e bo ndage num bers a n d effic i ent dom inatio nsofvert e x- tr ans it i veg ra phs . Di screte M at he matic s, 3 0 8 ( 4 ) (2 008 ), 5 71-58 2.
J. Pfaff, R. C. L a ska r, S. T. He detn ie mi, N P-comp leten es s of total andconn ected dom ina ti onan d irr e dundan cefor bipart ite gra p hs, T e c h ni cal Report 428, Cl em s o nUniversi ty, De p t. M a th. Scie nc es, 198 3 .
K.E. P r of fitt, T. W. Ha y ne s, and P. J . Slat er , P air ed-do m inat ion in grid gr aphs. Congresses Num e rantium, 150( 20 0 1 ), 161- 172 .
S. Klavž ar a n d N. Sei f te r,D omina tingca r te s ian products of cyc le s. Dis crete Applied Math ematics, 5 9 ( 1995), 1 29-1 3 6.
J.-M. Xu, The ory a nd Applica t ion of G raphs . Kluwer Academic P ublisher s,Dor dre cht / B os ton/London, 2 0 0 3.
[^ 1]: Cor res ponding au tho r:xuj m@ ustc.edu. cn
[^2] :Th ewo rkwas s u pportedby NN SF of Chin a (No.11071 233) . - - -
a uthor:- ' S t efan B oe ttch eran d Bru no G o n[ç ]{}alve s'
biblio gra p hy:-'/ Users/s tb/Boettcher. bi b'
title:An oma lous D i f fusion o n the Hanoi Networks
-- -
Intro duc tion==== ========
Th e stud y o f anoma lous d iffus io n i s an in t e gr alpa rt in thea n aly sis o ftran sport p rocesses in comple x ma terials [@Shl esi nger 8 4 ;@Bo u ch a ud9 0; @Me t z ler04; @Bollt05 ; @Condami n0 7 ]. Random en v iro nm ents of ten slo w tra n sport s ignifican tly | (Eds.),_Domination in_Graphs: Advanced Topics. Marcel_Dekker, New_York,_1998.
M. A._Henning,_A survey of_selected recent results_on total domination in_graphs. Discrete Mathematics,_309(1)_(2009), 32-63.
T. W. Haynes and P. J. Slater, Paired-domination and the paired-domatic number. Congresses_Numerantium,_109 (1995),_65-72.
T._W._Haynes and P. J. Slater,_Paired-domination in graphs. Networks, 32_(1998), 199-206.
J._Huang and J.-M. Xu, The bondage numbers and_efficient_dominations of vertex-transitive_graphs. Discrete Mathematics, 308(4) (2008), 571-582.
J. Pfaff, R.C. Laskar,_S.T. Hedetniemi, NP-completeness of total and_connected domination and_irredundance_for_bipartite graphs, Technical Report_428, Clemson University, Dept. Math. Sciences,_1983.
K. E. Proffitt, T. W. Haynes,_and P. J. Slater, Paired-domination in grid_graphs. Congresses Numerantium, 150 (2001), 161-172.
S._Klavžar and N. Seifter, Dominating_cartesian products_of cycles. Discrete Applied Mathematics,_59 (1995), 129-136.
J.-M._Xu, Theory_and Application of_Graphs. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 2003.
[^1]:_Corresponding author: [email protected]
[^2]:_The work was supported by NNSF_of_China (No. 11071233).
_---
author:
-_'Stefan_Boettcher and_Bruno Gon[ç]{}alves'
bibliography:
- '/Users/stb/Boettcher.bib'
title:_Anomalous_Diffusion on_the_Hanoi Networks
---
Introduction
============
The study of anomalous diffusion_is_an integral part in the analysis of_transport processes in complex_materials [@Shlesinger84;_@Bouchaud90; @Metzler04; @Bollt05; @Condamin07]._Random environments often slow transport_significantly |
.36]{}]{}& 4.0\
1000&3000 & 1594 & 0.087& 7.6& & 8.4\
[|r@[-]{}l| c || c | c | c | c || c | c | c | c |]{} [&&&&&&&&&]{}\
[ & $\langle p \rangle$ & $\Phi\cdot\langle p \rangle^3$ & $\Delta_\Phi^\mathrm{stat}$ & & $\Delta_\Phi^\mathrm{syst}$]{}&[ ${\raisebox{-1.5ex}[1.5ex]{R}}$ & $\Delta_R^\mathrm{stat}$ & & $\Delta_R^\mathrm{syst}$]{}\
&\
[&&&&&&&&&]{}\
34.5&42.0 & 38.02 & 0.253& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 4.6& 1.273& 1.2&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 1.8\
42.0&50.0 & 45.78 & 0.265& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.35]{}]{}& 4.1& 1.292& 1.1&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.35]{}]{}& 1.8\
50.0&58.5 & 54.04 & 0.275& 0.5&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 3.7& 1.263& 1.1&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 1.8\
58.5&68.5 & 63.25 & 0.281& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.34]{}]{}& 3.4& 1.273& 1.2&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.34]{}]{}& 1.8\
68.5&81.5 & 74.64 & 0.291& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.31]{}]{}& 3.1& 1.263& 1.2&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.31]{}]{}& 1.8\
81.5&100 & 90.15 & 0.293& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.27]{}]{}& 2.9& 1 | .36 ] { } ] { } & 4.0\
1000&3000 & 1594 & 0.087 & 7.6 & & 8.4\
[ |r@[-]{}l| c || c | c | c | c || c | c | c | c | ] { } [ & & & & & & & & & ] { } \
[ & $ \langle p \rangle$ & $ \Phi\cdot\langle p \rangle^3 $ & $ \Delta_\Phi^\mathrm{stat}$ & & $ \Delta_\Phi^\mathrm{syst}$ ] { } & [ $ { \raisebox{-1.5ex}[1.5ex]{R}}$ & $ \Delta_R^\mathrm{stat}$ & & $ \Delta_R^\mathrm{syst}$]{}\
& \
[ & & & & & & & & & ] { } \
34.5&42.0 & 38.02 & 0.253 & 0.6&[\[1.5ex\ ] [ -0.38 ] { } ] { } & 4.6 & 1.273 & 1.2&[\[1.5ex\ ] [ -0.38 ] { } ] { } & 1.8\
42.0&50.0 & 45.78 & 0.265 & 0.6&[\[1.5ex\ ] [ -0.35 ] { } ] { } & 4.1 & 1.292 & 1.1&[\[1.5ex\ ] [ -0.35 ] { } ] { } & 1.8\
50.0&58.5 & 54.04 & 0.275 & 0.5&[\[1.5ex\ ] [ -0.38 ] { } ] { } & 3.7 & 1.263 & 1.1&[\[1.5ex\ ] [ -0.38 ] { } ] { } & 1.8\
58.5&68.5 & 63.25 & 0.281 & 0.6&[\[1.5ex\ ] [ -0.34 ] { } ] { } & 3.4 & 1.273 & 1.2&[\[1.5ex\ ] [ -0.34 ] { } ] { } & 1.8\
68.5&81.5 & 74.64 & 0.291 & 0.6&[\[1.5ex\ ] [ -0.31 ] { } ] { } & 3.1 & 1.263 & 1.2&[\[1.5ex\ ] [ -0.31 ] { } ] { } & 1.8\
81.5&100 & 90.15 & 0.293 & 0.6&[\[1.5ex\ ] [ -0.27 ] { } ] { } & 2.9 & 1 | .36]{}]{}& 4.0\
1000&3000 & 1594 & 0.087& 7.6& & 8.4\
[|r@[-]{}l| c || c | c | c | c || c | c | c | c |]{} [&&&&&&&&&]{}\
[ & $\lautle p \cangle$ & $\Phi\cdot\uangle p \rangle^3$ & $\Delta_\Phi^\matirm{srat}$ & & $\Delta_\Phi^\mathrm{syst}$]{}&[ ${\raksebox{-1.5ex}[1.5eq]{R}}$ & $\Delta_E^\matirm{stat}$ & & $\Delta_R^\mathrm{syst}$]{}\
&\
[&&&&&&&&&]{}\
34.5&42.0 & 38.02 & 0.253& 0.6&[\[1.5cx\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 4.6& 1.273& 1.2&[\[1.5xx\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 1.8\
42.0&50.0 & 45.78 & 0.265& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.35]{}]{}& 4.1& 1.292& 1.1&[\[1.5gx\][ -0.35]{}]{}& 1.8\
50.0&58.5 & 54.04 & 0.275& 0.5&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 3.7& 1.263& 1.1&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 1.8\
58.5&68.5 & 63.25 & 0.281& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.34]{}]{}& 3.4& 1.273& 1.2&[\[1.5zx\][ -0.34]{}]{}& 1.8\
68.5&81.5 & 74.64 & 0.291& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.31]{}]{}& 3.1& 1.263& 1.2&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.31]{}]{}& 1.8\
81.5&100 & 90.15 & 0.293& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.27]{}]{}& 2.9& 1 | .36]{}]{}& 4.0\ 1000&3000 & 1594 & 0.087& 8.4\ c || | c | | | c | |]{} [&&&&&&&&&]{}\ [ $\langle p \rangle$ & $\Phi\cdot\langle p & $\Delta_\Phi^\mathrm{stat}$ & & $\Delta_\Phi^\mathrm{syst}$]{}&[ ${\raisebox{-1.5ex}[1.5ex]{R}}$ & $\Delta_R^\mathrm{stat}$ & & $\Delta_R^\mathrm{syst}$]{}\ &\ [&&&&&&&&&]{}\ & 38.02 & 0.253& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 4.6& 1.273& 1.2&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 1.8\ 42.0&50.0 & & 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ 4.1& 1.1&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.35]{}]{}& 1.8\ 50.0&58.5 & 54.04 & 0.275& 0.5&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 3.7& 1.263& 1.1&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 1.8\ 58.5&68.5 63.25 & 0.281& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.34]{}]{}& 3.4& 1.273& 1.2&[\[1.5ex\][ 1.8\ 68.5&81.5 & 74.64 0.291& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.31]{}]{}& 3.1& 1.263& -0.31]{}]{}& 81.5&100 & & 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ 2.9& 1 | .36]{}]{}& 4.0\
1000&3000 & 1594 & 0.087& 7.6& & 8.4\
[|r@[-]{}l| c || c | c | c | c || c | c | c | c |]{} [&&&&&&&&&]{}\
[ & $\langle p \rangle$ & $\PHi\cdot\langLe p \raNglE^3$ & $\DeLtA_\Phi^\MathRm{stat}$ & & $\Delta_\Phi^\MAthrM{syst}$]{}&[ ${\raisebox{-1.5ex}[1.5ex]{R}}$ & $\DeltA_R^\matHrM{Stat}$ & & $\dElTa_R^\maThrm{sysT}$]{}\
&\
[&&&&&&&&&]{}\
34.5&42.0 & 38.02 & 0.253& 0.6&[\[1.5Ex\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 4.6& 1.273& 1.2&[\[1.5EX\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 1.8\
42.0&50.0 & 45.78 & 0.265& 0.6&[\[1.5Ex\][ -0.35]{}]{}& 4.1& 1.292& 1.1&[\[1.5eX\][ -0.35]{}]{}& 1.8\
50.0&58.5 & 54.04 & 0.275& 0.5&[\[1.5eX\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 3.7& 1.263& 1.1&[\[1.5eX\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 1.8\
58.5&68.5 & 63.25 & 0.281& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.34]{}]{}& 3.4& 1.273& 1.2&[\[1.5Ex\][ -0.34]{}]{}& 1.8\
68.5&81.5 & 74.64 & 0.291& 0.6&[\[1.5EX\][ -0.31]{}]{}& 3.1& 1.263& 1.2&[\[1.5eX\][ -0.31]{}]{}& 1.8\
81.5&100 & 90.15 & 0.293& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.27]{}]{}& 2.9& 1 | .36]{}]{}& 4.0\
1000&3000& 1594 & 0 .087& 7. 6&&8.4\
[| r@[-]{}l| c || c |c | c | c || c | c | c | c|] { } [& & && &&&&& ]{}\
[& $ \ l ang le p \r an g le $ & $ \Ph i\cdot\ langle p \ ran gl e^3$ & $\Del t a_ \Phi^\math rm{ stat}$ & & $ \De lta_\P hi ^\m a thrm{ sys t}$]{ }&[ ${ \ raiseb ox{-1.5ex }[ 1 .5ex]{ R }}$ & $ \ D el ta_R ^\mathrm{stat}$ & &$ \Delta_R^\math rm{sys t} $ ]{ } \
&\
[& &&&&&&&&]{ }\
34. 5 &42.0 & 38 . 0 2 &0 .253& 0.6&[\[ 1.5ex\][ -0 . 38] {}]{}& 4 .6& 1.273& 1.2& [\ [ 1.5 ex\][ -0.38 ]{}] {}& 1.8\42.0&5 0 .0 & 45 . 78 & 0. 265& 0 .6& [\[ 1.5e x \] [-0. 35 ] {}] { }& 4. 1 & 1 .292& 1. 1& [\ [1.5e x\][ - 0 . 35]{ }]{ }& 1 .8\
5 0.0&58.5 & 54 .04 & 0 . 275 & 0.5 &[\[1 .5ex \] [ -0. 38]{}] {}& 3 .7 & 1.263& 1.1&[\ [1.5 ex\][ -0. 38] {} ]{} &1.8\5 8.5&68 .5& 6 3.25 &0.281&0 .6& [\ [ 1 . 5e x\][ -0.34]{}]{}&3. 4 & 1 .273& 1. 2&[\[1 . 5e x\ ] [ -0.34] {} ]{} & 1. 8 \
68.5 &81. 5 & 74.64 & 0.291 & 0 .6 &[\[1.5 ex \][ -0 .3 1]{ }]{ }& 3. 1 & 1. 263& 1 .2&[\[1. 5ex\] [ -0.31]{}]{}&1 .8\
81.5&100& 9 0 . 15 & 0. 293 & 0.6&[\[1. 5ex\ ] [ -0 .27] { }] {}& 2.9&1 | .36]{}]{}& 4.0\
1000&3000_& 1594_& 0.087& 7.6& &_8.4\
[|r@[-]{}l| c_||_c |_c_| c |_c || c_| c | c_| c |]{}_[&&&&&&&&&]{}\
[_& $\langle p \rangle$ & $\Phi\cdot\langle p \rangle^3$ & $\Delta_\Phi^\mathrm{stat}$ & & $\Delta_\Phi^\mathrm{syst}$]{}&[ ${\raisebox{-1.5ex}[1.5ex]{R}}$_&_$\Delta_R^\mathrm{stat}$ &_&_$\Delta_R^\mathrm{syst}$]{}\
&\
[&&&&&&&&&]{}\
34.5&42.0_& 38.02 & 0.253& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][_-0.38]{}]{}& 4.6& 1.273& 1.2&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.38]{}]{}&_1.8\
42.0&50.0 &_45.78 & 0.265& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.35]{}]{}& 4.1& 1.292& 1.1&[\[1.5ex\][_-0.35]{}]{}&_1.8\
50.0&58.5 & 54.04_& 0.275& 0.5&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 3.7& 1.263& 1.1&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.38]{}]{}& 1.8\
58.5&68.5_& 63.25 & 0.281& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.34]{}]{}&_3.4& 1.273& 1.2&[\[1.5ex\][_-0.34]{}]{}&_1.8\
68.5&81.5_& 74.64 & 0.291&_0.6&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.31]{}]{}& 3.1& 1.263& 1.2&[\[1.5ex\][ -0.31]{}]{}&_1.8\
81.5&100 & 90.15 & 0.293& 0.6&[\[1.5ex\][_-0.27]{}]{}& 2.9& 1 |
n_0\lambdabar^3\sim 1$. It is important that in this case one of the absorption resonances is located in the spectral domain near the zero detuning for any atomic configurations and provides the desirable conditions for further observation of the EIT phenomenon. The presence of the control mode, tuned at this predictable resonance point and applied in any “empty” arm of the $\Lambda$ scheme see Fig. \[fig1\], would make the atomic sample transparent for a signal pulse. Due to controllable spectral dispersion the signal pulse could be delayed and effectively converted into the long-lived spin coherence.
Realization of this scheme requires essentially fewer atoms than for dilute ensembles prepared in warm vapors and in MOT experiments. Roughly for a fixed optical depth $b_0\sim n_0\lambdabar^2L$, where $L$ is the sample length, and for $n_0\lambdabar^3\ll 1$, the required number of atoms, allowing for diffraction losses, should be more than $b_0^2/n_0\lambdabar^3$. This number can be minimized if we approach the dense configuration $n_0\lambdabar^3\sim 1$ and make the near field effects manifestable. We are currently working on a self-consistent modification of the presented calculation scheme to make it applicable for a multiatomic ensemble and then to describe the problem in a macroscopic limit. This can be done if we take into consideration the near-field effects only for the neighboring atoms separated by a distance of wavelength. For the intermediate densities with $n_0\lambdabar^3\sim 1$ we can soften our original estimate, given in Sec. \[II.B\], for the number of equations to be solved, and can expect that the actual number would be scaled as $d_eN\,d_g^{n-1}$. Here $n-1\sim n_0\lambdabar^3$ performs the varying parameter denoting the number of the neighboring atoms, which have near field interfering with a selected specific atom. Our preliminary analysis shows that such a calculation algorithm should demonstrate a rapidly converging series with increasing $n$ and would allow us to include the control mode in the entire calculation procedure. Such a modification of the performed calculation scheme would be practically important and generally interesting for better understanding the microscopic nature of a $\Lambda$-type optical interaction in macroscopic atomic systems existing in a | n_0\lambdabar^3\sim 1$. It is important that in this case one of the absorption resonances is locate in the apparitional domain near the zero detuning for any atomic configuration and provide the desirable conditions for further observation of the EIT phenomenon. The bearing of the control mode, tuned at this predictable plangency point and applied in any “ empty ” sleeve of the $ \Lambda$ scheme see Fig. \[fig1\ ], would produce the atomic sample transparent for a signal pulsation. Due to controllable spectral dispersion the signal pulse could be delay and effectively converted into the long - be spin coherence.
Realization of this dodge requires essentially fewer atoms than for dilute ensembles prepare in warm vapors and in MOT experiments. Roughly for a fixed optical depth $ b_0\sim n_0\lambdabar^2L$, where $ L$ is the sample length, and for $ n_0\lambdabar^3\ll 1 $, the required number of atoms, allowing for diffraction losses, should be more than $ b_0 ^ 2 / n_0\lambdabar^3$. This number can be minimized if we border on the dense configuration $ n_0\lambdabar^3\sim 1 $ and make the approximate field effects manifestable. We are currently working on a self - reproducible modification of the presented calculation scheme to make it applicable for a multiatomic corps de ballet and then to describe the problem in a macroscopic limit. This can be done if we take into consideration the near - field effects only for the neighboring atoms separated by a distance of wavelength. For the average densities with $ n_0\lambdabar^3\sim 1 $ we can mince our original appraisal, give in Sec. \[II.B\ ], for the number of equations to be solved, and can ask that the actual number would be scaled as $ d_eN\,d_g^{n-1}$. Here $ n-1\sim n_0\lambdabar^3 $ performs the vary parameter denoting the number of the neighboring atoms, which consume near field interfering with a selected specific atom. Our preliminary analysis read that such a calculation algorithm should demonstrate a quickly converging series with increasing $ n$ and would leave us to include the control mood in the integral calculation procedure. Such a modification of the performed calculation system would be practically important and generally interesting for better understanding the microscopic nature of a $ \Lambda$-type ocular interaction in macroscopic atomic systems exist in a | n_0\lalbdabar^3\sim 1$. It is importxnt that in this case mne of the absurption resonances is locatev in the wpectral domain near tfe zero dvtuning fir aiy atomic configndations and pdlvidzs the desirable conditionv for further mbrexvation of the EIT phenomenon. The prqsence pf the control mjde, uunqd af this predictable resonance point and apklied in any “empty” arm of the $\Lambda$ scheme dee Vig. \[fig1\], would make the atomic sam[oe transparevt for a spynal pulse. Sue to controllable spectral dirpersnon the sigbao pknse could bx delajed and effecbpvely cmnvertec into the lonn-livev spun coherence.
Realizatimn of this scheme tequires evszntially fewer atoms rhqn fot dilgte dbseoblts 'relared ln xarm vapors and in MOT experiments. Roughlu sir a fixed opfical qe[th $b_0\sim n_0\lambdabar^2L$, where $L$ is the samkle lsngth, and for $n_0\lambdabae^3\ll 1$, the required numher of atjms, allowing for diffraction losses, should be mora thai $c_0^2/n_0\lcnbdabxe^3$. Hhis number can be minimized if we approach trs cekse configuratiok $n_0\lambdabar^3\sim 1$ amd mshe the near fkeld eyredts manifestable. Wf are correntoy workind on a self-consistent modificatuon of the pgesebted calculation seheme to makz it akplicanle for a multiatomic eusembls and then ho descrigd the problem in a kawroscopic limit. This can bq done if we cake intu comsiderwtion the jear-flald effects only flr thg neigvboring atlms separated by a distance of xevelength. For tve pntermedicte deksities with $n_0\lwmbdabar^3\sim 1$ wg can sofcen ouf original estimave, given in Fec. \[II.B\], for tvg number of exuations to ve silved, ava can expect tnat the abtbal numbee would be scaled es $d_gN\,s_g^{n-1}$. Here $n-1\sim n_0\oamvdabar^3$ performs thd vwrjinj parwketer denotitg tfe vimber of the neinhburinb atoms, which have naar rield interfering eibh a selexted spesific atom. Out preliminary analjsis vhoxs thay soch a calculation algorithm shohld demondtrwte a rapidlr cokverding seriex with increasing $n$ and would allow us vo include the control node in the entire eakculation pcoceduwe. Such a modification of the performed calculstion scheme would be practhcallj important and generally interesting for better understanding the microsxopic iaeure of a $\Lzmbds$-type o'tieal intqracviun in macroscopib atomic systems existing in a | n_0\lambdabar^3\sim 1$. It is important that in one the absorption is located in zero for any atomic and provides the conditions for further observation of the phenomenon. The presence of the control mode, tuned at this predictable resonance point applied in any “empty” arm of the $\Lambda$ scheme see Fig. \[fig1\], would the sample for signal pulse. Due to controllable spectral dispersion the signal pulse could be delayed and effectively converted the long-lived spin coherence. Realization of this scheme essentially fewer atoms than dilute ensembles prepared in warm and MOT experiments. for fixed depth $b_0\sim n_0\lambdabar^2L$, $L$ is the sample length, and for $n_0\lambdabar^3\ll 1$, the required number of atoms, allowing for diffraction should be $b_0^2/n_0\lambdabar^3$. This can minimized we approach the $n_0\lambdabar^3\sim 1$ and make the near We are currently working on a self-consistent modification the presented scheme to make it applicable for multiatomic ensemble and then to describe the problem a macroscopic limit. This can be done if we take into consideration the near-field effects the neighboring atoms separated a distance of For intermediate with 1$ we soften our original estimate, given in Sec. \[II.B\], for the number equations to be solved, and can expect that the actual be as $d_eN\,d_g^{n-1}$. Here n_0\lambdabar^3$ performs the varying denoting number of the neighboring have field selected atom. preliminary analysis shows that a calculation algorithm should demonstrate rapidly converging series with us to include the control mode in the calculation procedure. Such a modification of the calculation scheme would be practically important and generally interesting for better understanding microscopic nature $\Lambda$-type optical interaction in macroscopic atomic systems existing a | n_0\lambdabar^3\sim 1$. It is importanT that in thiS case One Of tHe AbsoRptiOn resonances is LOcatEd in the spectral domain nEar thE zERo deTUnIng foR any atoMIc CONfiGuRaTioNs ANd ProviDes The desiRable condiTioNs For further obSErVation of thE EIt phenomenon. THe pResencE oF thE ContrOl mOde, tuNed at tHIs predIctable reSoNAnce poINt and apPLIeD in aNy “empty” arm of the $\LaMBdA$ Scheme see Fig. \[fiG1\], would MaKE tHE AtoMic Sample tranSpArent FOr a signAL pULSE. DuE To controllablE spectral diSPerSion thE sIgnAL pulse Could Be DElaYed and effecTiveLy convertEd into THe long-lIVed spin CohereNce.
reaLizaTIoN oF thIs SCheME rEquIRes EssentiaLlY fEwer aToms THAN For dIluTe enSemblEs prepared in wArm VapoRS anD in MOt expeRimeNtS. RougHly for A fixeD oPtical depth $b_0\sim N_0\lamBdabar^2L$, whEre $l$ iS thE sAmple LEngth, aNd fOr $n_0\LambdabAr^3\ll 1$, the REquIrED NUmBer of atoms, allowing FoR DIfFraction Losses, SHoUlD Be more thAn $B_0^2/n_0\lAmbdABAr^3$. ThiS numBEr Can be minImized IF wE aPproach ThE dense CoNfiGurAtion $N_0\LambDabar^3\sIm 1$ and makE the nEAr field effects MAnifestable. We ARe CURrENtly WorKing on a self-ConsIStenT modIFiCatIOn of tHe preSeNTeD Calculation scheme to MaKe it apPlicaBle for a multiaTomic ensemBLE And then tO desCRiBE the problem in a MacroScopic limiT. this can bE done If we take Into consiDERation thE neAr-fIelD efFECtS only for the neIGHborInG atoms sEpaRated by A diStaNce Of wAvElength. FoR the inteRmEdIaTe DenSitieS With $n_0\lamBdAbaR^3\sIm 1$ wE can sOFten ouR origInal EsTiMAte, Given in sEc. \[ii.b\], for ThE nUmbeR of EqUatioNs to BE soLved, and Can expect ThaT The aCtUaL number Would be scaled As $D_eN\,d_g^{n-1}$. Here $N-1\sIm n_0\LambdaBAR^3$ performS the varying parameter denOTing the NumBer of The nEighborinG atOms, whiCh hAVe near Field iNterfErIng WITh a seLECtEd sPeCific atom. OUR PreLiminArY anaLysis shOws that such a calculATioN algorithm shoUld DemoNSTrAte A RaPIdlY cONveRGIng series with inCreasing $n$ aNd WOuLd allow us tO IncLuDe the coNtrol moDe in tHE entire CalculatiOn proceduRe. such A MOdiFication of The perfoRmed calcuLAtion SChEme woUld Be pracTiCalLy impOrtant ANd gEneraLly intErEsting For beTtEr undersTanding the microscopic naTure of A $\LambDa$-tYpe opticaL inTEraCtion in maCrosCopic atomiC sySteMs exiStiNG in a | n_0\lambdabar^3\sim 1$. It is import ant t hat in t hiscase one of the ab s orpt ion resonances is loca ted i nt he s p ec traldomainn ea r the z er o d et u ni ng fo r a ny atom ic configu rat io ns and provi d es the desir abl e conditions fo r furt he r o b serva tio n ofthe EI T pheno menon. Th ep resenc e of the c on trol mode, tuned at t h is predictable re sonanc ep oi n t an d a pplied inan y “em p ty” arm of t h e $ \ Lambda$ schem e see Fig.\ [fi g1\],wo uld make t he at om i c s ample trans pare nt for asignal pulse.D ue to c ontrol lab lespec t ra ldis pe r sio n t hes ign al pulse c ou ld be del a y e d and ef fect ively converted in tothel ong -live d spi n co he rence .
Rea lizat io n of this schem e re quires es sen ti all yfewer atomstha n f or dilu te ense m ble sp r e pa red in warm vapors a n d i n MOT ex perime n ts .R oughly f or afixe d optic al d e pt h $b_0\s im n_0 \ la mb dabar^2 L$ , wher e$L$ is thes ampl e leng th, andfor $ n _0\lambdabar^3 \ ll 1$, the re q ui r e dn umbe r o f atoms, al lowi n g fo r di f fr act i on lo sses, s h ou l d be more than $b_0 ^2 /n_0\l ambda bar^3$. Thisnumber can b e minimiz ed i f w e approach thedense configura t ion $n_0 \lamb dabar^3\ sim 1$ an d make the ne arfie lde f fe cts manifesta b l e. W eare cur ren tly wor kin g o n a se lf -consiste nt modif ic at io nofthe p r esentedca lcu la tio n sch e me tomakeit a pp li c abl e for a mu l t iato mi cense mbl eand t hent o d escribe the prob lem in a m ac roscopi c limit. This c an be done i f w e take i nto cons ideration the near-fiel d effect s o nly f or t he neighb ori ng ato mss eparat ed bya dis ta nce o f wav e l en gth .For the in t e rme diate d ensi ties wi th $n_0\lambdabar^ 3 \si m 1$ we can s oft en o u r o rig i na l es ti m ate , given in Sec. \ [II.B\], f or th e number o f eq ua tions t o be so lved, and can expect t hat the a ct ualn u mbe r would be scaledas $d_eN\ , d_g^{ n -1 }$. H ere $n-1\ si m n _0\la mbdaba r ^3$ perf orms t he varyi ng pa ra meter de noting the number of th e neig hbori ngatoms, wh ich hav e near fi eldinterferin g w ith a se lec t ed sp ecif i cato m . Our pre l iminary a n al ysi s sh ows that su c h a c alcul ati o n algo rith m should demonstr a te a rapidly c onve r g ing se r ieswi th increasing$n$ a n d would a ll ow us to in clude th ec ontro l mode in th e entir e ca l culati on p roc edure. Su cham odifica ti on of the per fo rmed c alcula t ions c heme would be pr actic a l ly im p ort ant a nd genera l ly i nteresting for better under stan dingthe mic ro scopic na tu re of a $\ L ambda$-ty pe op tical i nt erac tio n in m acro s c opicatom ic sy stems exi s t in g i na | n_0\lambdabar^3\sim 1$._It is_important that in this_case one_of_the absorption_resonances_is located in_the spectral domain_near the zero detuning_for any atomic_configurations_and provides the desirable conditions for further observation of the EIT phenomenon. The presence_of_the control_mode,_tuned_at this predictable resonance point_and applied in any “empty”_arm of_the $\Lambda$ scheme see Fig. \[fig1\], would make_the_atomic sample transparent_for a signal pulse. Due to controllable spectral dispersion_the signal pulse could be delayed_and effectively converted_into_the_long-lived spin coherence.
Realization of_this scheme requires essentially fewer atoms_than for dilute ensembles prepared in_warm vapors and in MOT experiments. Roughly_for a fixed optical depth $b_0\sim_n_0\lambdabar^2L$, where $L$ is the_sample length,_and for $n_0\lambdabar^3\ll 1$, the_required number of_atoms, allowing_for diffraction losses,_should be more than $b_0^2/n_0\lambdabar^3$. This_number can be_minimized if we approach the dense_configuration_$n_0\lambdabar^3\sim 1$ and_make_the_near field_effects manifestable. We_are_currently working_on_a self-consistent modification of the presented_calculation_scheme to make it applicable for a_multiatomic ensemble and then_to_describe the problem in_a macroscopic limit. This can_be done if we take into_consideration the_near-field effects_only for the neighboring atoms separated by a distance of wavelength._For the intermediate densities with $n_0\lambdabar^3\sim_1$ we can soften_our original_estimate,_given in Sec._\[II.B\],_for the_number of equations to be solved, and_can expect_that the actual number would be_scaled as $d_eN\,d_g^{n-1}$. Here_$n-1\sim_n_0\lambdabar^3$ performs the varying parameter denoting_the number of the neighboring atoms,_which have near field interfering_with_a_selected specific atom. Our preliminary_analysis shows that such a calculation_algorithm should demonstrate_a rapidly converging series with increasing $n$_and_would allow us to include the_control_mode in the entire calculation procedure._Such_a_modification of the performed calculation_scheme would be practically important and_generally interesting for better understanding the microscopic nature of_a $\Lambda$-type optical_interaction in macroscopic atomic systems_existing_in_a |
)u(x).$$ It is always possible to rewrite the operator $L^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ in in the following form (see [@KT1]) $$\overline L^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}} u(x)= \bar a_{k}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)D^2_{y_k}u+\bar b_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)D_{y_k}u(x)+\bar c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)u(x)$$ where $D_{y_k}u =\langle Du,y_k\rangle$ and $Y=\{y_1,\dots,y_k\}\subset {{\mathbb Z}}^n$ is a finite set containing all the vectors of the canonical basis in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. Moreover the coefficients $\bar a_{k}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$, $\bar b_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ and $\bar c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ satisfy the same properties of $ a_{ij}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$, $ b_{ij}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ and $c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$. Then we consider $$\label{HJBd}
F_h[u](x):=\sup_{{{\alpha}}\in A}\inf_{{{\beta}}\in B} L_h^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}u(x)$$ where $$\label{op_Ld}
L_h^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}u(x)= \bar a_{k}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x) \delta^2_{h,y_k} u(x)+\bar b_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x) \delta_{h,y_k}u(x)+\bar c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)u(x).$$ For $x\in{{\mathbb R}}$ with $Y=\{1\}$ the previous scheme reads as $$\begin{split}
\sup_{{{\alpha}}\in A}\inf_{{{\beta}}\in B}\Big\{& a^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)\frac{u(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)}{h^2}+ b^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)\frac{u(x+h)-u(x-h)}{2h}+\\
&+ c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)u(x)\Big\}=0.
\end{split}$$
The linear | ) u(x).$$ It is always possible to rewrite the operator $ L^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ in in the following human body (examine [ @KT1 ]) $ $ \overline L^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta } } } u(x)= \bar a_{k}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)D^2_{y_k}u+\bar b_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)D_{y_k}u(x)+\bar c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)u(x)$$ where $ D_{y_k}u = \langle Du, y_k\rangle$ and $ Y=\{y_1,\dots, y_k\}\subset { { \mathbb Z}}^n$ is a finite set containing all the vectors of the canonic basis in $ { { \mathbb R}}^n$. Moreover the coefficient $ \bar a_{k}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$, $ \bar b_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ and $ \bar c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ satisfy the same properties of $ a_{ij}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$, $ b_{ij}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ and $ c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$. Then we consider $ $ \label{HJBd }
F_h[u](x):=\sup_{{{\alpha}}\in A}\inf_{{{\beta}}\in B } L_h^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}u(x)$$ where $ $ \label{op_Ld }
L_h^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}u(x)= \bar a_{k}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x) \delta^2_{h, y_k } u(x)+\bar b_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x) \delta_{h, y_k}u(x)+\bar c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)u(x).$$ For $ x\in{{\mathbb R}}$ with $ Y=\{1\}$ the former schema reads as $ $ \begin{split }
\sup_{{{\alpha}}\in A}\inf_{{{\beta}}\in B}\Big\ { & a^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)\frac{u(x+h)+u(x - h)-2u(x)}{h^2}+ b^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)\frac{u(x+h)-u(x - h)}{2h}+\\
& + c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)u(x)\Big\}=0.
\end{split}$$
The linear | )u(x).$$ Lt is always possible to rewrite the opgrqtor $L^{{{\elpha}}{{\befa}}}$ in in the following form (see [@KT1]) $$\oterlune L^{{{\qlpha}}{{\beta}}} u(x)= \bar a_{k}^{{{\aupha}}{{\beta}}}(x)F^2_{y_k}u+\bar v_k^{{{\alkha}}{{\beta}}}(x)D_{y_k}u(x)+\bar r^{{{\zlpha}}{{\bebc}}}(x)u(x)$$ smere $B_{y_j}u =\langle Du,y_k\tangle$ and $Y=\{f_1,\dots,y_k\}\subset {{\kaghyb Z}}^n$ is a finite set containing all the vevtlrs of the canjnicsj baaps in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. Moreover the cosfficieits $\bar a_{k}^{{{\alphs}}{{\beta}}}$, $\bar b_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ and $\har f^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ satisfy the same ptkpewries of $ a_{ij}^{{{\xlpha}}{{\beta}}}$, $ b_{ij}^{{{\alpha}}{{\betz}}}$ and $c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$. Then we considdr $$\layel{HJBd}
F_h[u](x):=\wup_{{{\alova}}\in A}\inf_{{{\beva}}\in B} L_h^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}m(q)$$ where $$\label{ol_Ld}
L_h^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}m(x)= \ber q_{k}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x) \delta^2_{h,y_k} u(x)+\bar b_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(v) \delta_{h,y_n}u(r)+\bar c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)u(x).$$ Foe $z\in{{\majhbb S}}$ wigy $Y=\{1\}$ tht pcevjous sfheje reads aa $$\begin{splir}
\sup_{{{\alpha}}\in A}\inf_{{{\neeq}}\in B}\Big\{& a^{{{\allha}}{{\betw}}}(x)\srac{u(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)}{h^2}+ b^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)\frac{u(x+h)-u(x-h)}{2h}+\\
&+ d^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)u(x)\Big\}=0.
\end{split}$$
The linear | )u(x).$$ It is always possible to rewrite $L^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ in the form (see [@KT1]) b_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)D_{y_k}u(x)+\bar where $D_{y_k}u =\langle and $Y=\{y_1,\dots,y_k\}\subset {{\mathbb is a finite set containing all vectors of the canonical basis in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. Moreover the coefficients $\bar a_{k}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$, b_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ and $\bar c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ satisfy the same properties of $ a_{ij}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$, $ b_{ij}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ $c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$. we $$\label{HJBd} A}\inf_{{{\beta}}\in B} L_h^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}u(x)$$ where $$\label{op_Ld} L_h^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}u(x)= \bar a_{k}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x) \delta^2_{h,y_k} u(x)+\bar b_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x) \delta_{h,y_k}u(x)+\bar c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)u(x).$$ For $x\in{{\mathbb R}}$ $Y=\{1\}$ the previous scheme reads as $$\begin{split} \sup_{{{\alpha}}\in B}\Big\{& a^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)\frac{u(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)}{h^2}+ b^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)\frac{u(x+h)-u(x-h)}{2h}+\\ &+ \end{split}$$ The linear | )u(x).$$ It is always possible to rewRite the opeRator $l^{{{\alPha}}{{\BeTa}}}$ in In thE following form (SEe [@KT1]) $$\Overline L^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}} u(x)= \baR a_{k}^{{{\alPhA}}{{\Beta}}}(X)d^2_{y_K}u+\bar B_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\BEtA}}}(X)d_{y_k}U(x)+\BaR c^{{{\aLpHA}}{{\bEta}}}(x)u(X)$$ whEre $D_{y_k}u =\Langle Du,y_k\RanGlE$ and $Y=\{y_1,\dots,y_k\}\SUbSet {{\mathbb Z}}^N$ is A finite set coNtaIning aLl The VEctorS of The caNonicaL Basis iN ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. moREover tHE coeffiCIEnTs $\baR a_{k}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$, $\bar b_k^{{{\ALpHA}}{{\beta}}}$ and $\bar c^{{{\alPha}}{{\betA}}}$ sATiSFY thE saMe propertiEs Of $ a_{ij}^{{{\ALpha}}{{\betA}}}$, $ B_{iJ}^{{{\ALPha}}{{\BEta}}}$ and $c^{{{\alpha}}{{\bEta}}}$. Then we coNSidEr $$\labeL{HjBd}
f_H[u](x):=\sup_{{{\Alpha}}\In a}\Inf_{{{\Beta}}\in B} L_h^{{{\alPha}}{{\bEta}}}u(x)$$ wherE $$\label{OP_Ld}
L_h^{{{\alPHa}}{{\beta}}}u(X)= \bar a_{k}^{{{\AlpHa}}{{\bEta}}}(x) \DElTa^2_{H,y_k} U(x)+\BAr b_K^{{{\AlPha}}{{\BEta}}}(X) \delta_{h,y_K}u(X)+\bAr c^{{{\alPha}}{{\bETA}}}(X)U(x).$$ FoR $x\iN{{\matHbb R}}$ wIth $Y=\{1\}$ the previoUs sChemE ReaDs as $$\bEgin{sPlit}
\SuP_{{{\alphA}}\in A}\inF_{{{\beta}}\In b}\Big\{& a^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)\Frac{U(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)}{h^2}+ B^{{{\alPhA}}{{\beTa}}}(X)\frac{U(X+h)-u(x-h)}{2h}+\\
&+ C^{{{\alPha}}{{\Beta}}}(x)u(x)\big\}=0.
\end{sPLit}$$
thE LINeAr | )u(x).$$ It is always poss ible to re write th e o pe rato r $L ^{{{\alpha}}{{ \ beta }}}$ in in the followi ng fo rm (see [@ KT1]) $$\ove r li n e L^ {{ {\ alp ha } }{ {\bet a}} } u(x) = \bar a_ {k} ^{ {{\alpha}}{{ \ be ta}}}(x)D^ 2_{ y_k}u+\bar b _k^ {{{\al ph a}} { {\bet a}} }(x)D _{y_k} u (x)+\b ar c^{{{\ al p ha}}{{ \ beta}}} ( x )u (x)$ $ where $D_{y_k}u =\ l angle Du,y_k\r angle$ a n d$ Y =\{ y_1 ,\dots,y_k \} \subs e t {{\ma t hb b Z }}^ n $ is a finite set contai n ing all t he ve c tors o f the c a non ical basisin $ {{\mathbb R}}^n $ . Moreo v er thecoeffi cie nts $\b a r a _{k }^ { {{\ a lp ha} } {{\ beta}}}$ ,$\ bar b _k^{ { { \ a lpha }}{ {\be ta}}} $ and $\bar c ^{{ {\al p ha} }{{\b eta}} }$ s at isfythe sa me pr op erties of $ a_{ ij}^ {{{\alpha }}{ {\ bet a} }}$,$ b_{ij }^{ {{\ alpha}} {{\beta } }}$ a n d $c ^{{{\alpha}}{{\bet a} } } $. Then we consi d er $ $ \label{H JB d}F_h[ u ] (x):= \sup _ {{ {\alpha} }\in A } \i nf _{{{\be ta }}\inB} L_ h^{ {{\al p ha}} {{\bet a}}}u(x) $$ wh e re $$\label{op _ Ld}
L_h^{{{\a l ph a } }{ { \bet a}} }u(x)= \ba r a _ {k}^ {{{\ a lp ha} } {{\be ta}}} (x ) \ d elta^2_{h,y_k} u(x) +\ bar b_ k^{{{ \alpha}}{{\be ta}}}(x) \ d e l ta_{h,y_ k}u( x )+ \ bar c^{{{\alph a}}{{ \beta}}}(x ) u(x).$$For $ x\in{{\m athbb R}} $ with $Y= \{1 \}$ th e p r e vi ous scheme re a d s as $ $\begin {sp lit}
\s up_ {{{ \al ph a}}\in A} \inf_{{{ \b et a} }\ inB}\Bi g \{& a^{ {{ \al ph a}} {{\be t a}}}(x )\fra c{u( x+ h) + u(x -h)-2u( x )} { h ^2}+ b^ {{{\ alp ha }}{{\ beta } }}( x)\frac {u(x+h)-u (x- h )}{2 h} +\ \
&+ c^{{{\alpha }} {{\beta}}} (x )u( x)\Big \ } =0.
\ end{split}$$
The linea r | )u(x).$$ It_is always_possible to rewrite the_operator $L^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$_in_in the_following_form (see [@KT1])_$$\overline L^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}} _u(x)= \bar a_{k}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)D^2_{y_k}u+\bar_b_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)D_{y_k}u(x)+\bar c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)u(x)$$ where_$D_{y_k}u_=\langle Du,y_k\rangle$ and $Y=\{y_1,\dots,y_k\}\subset {{\mathbb Z}}^n$ is a finite set containing all the vectors_of_the canonical_basis_in_${{\mathbb R}}^n$. Moreover the coefficients_$\bar a_{k}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$, $\bar b_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$_and $\bar_c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ satisfy the same properties of $ a_{ij}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$,_$_b_{ij}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$ and $c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}$._Then we consider $$\label{HJBd}
F_h[u](x):=\sup_{{{\alpha}}\in A}\inf_{{{\beta}}\in B} L_h^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}u(x)$$ where $$\label{op_Ld}
L_h^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}u(x)=_ \bar a_{k}^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x) \delta^2_{h,y_k} u(x)+\bar_b_k^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x) \delta_{h,y_k}u(x)+\bar c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)u(x).$$_For_$x\in{{\mathbb_R}}$ with $Y=\{1\}$ the_previous scheme reads as $$\begin{split}
_ \sup_{{{\alpha}}\in A}\inf_{{{\beta}}\in B}\Big\{& a^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)\frac{u(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)}{h^2}+_ b^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)\frac{u(x+h)-u(x-h)}{2h}+\\
&+ c^{{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}(x)u(x)\Big\}=0.
_ \end{split}$$
The linear |
probability one, on the state space $\A_{\circ}$ defined as the collection of elements $(a^{\mathfrak b}, a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak b},\ell^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak b, \frac{1}{2}},$ $\ell^{\mathfrak a,\frac{1}{2}},m^{\bk},$ $m^{\ak})$ $\in \N^{8}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: def constraint A}
&\left\{\begin{array}{l}
a^{\mathfrak b} a^{\mathfrak a}=0\\
\ell^{\mathfrak b}= \ell^{\mathfrak a}=0\;\mbox{ if } \max\{a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a}\}\ge 1\\
\ell^{\mathfrak b, \frac{1}{2}}=0 \;\mbox{ if } \max\{ a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak b}\}\ge 1 \\
\ell^{\mathfrak a, \frac{1}{2}}=0 \;\mbox{if } \max\{ a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak a}\}\ge 1 \\
m^{\mathfrak b }=0 \;\mbox{ if } \max\{ a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak b},\ell^{\mathfrak b,\frac12}\}\ge 1 \\
m^{\mathfrak a }=0 \;\mbox{if } \max\{ a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak a,\frac12}\}\ge 1
\end{array}\right..\end{aligned}$$ We interpret the above expression as follows. First, aggressive orders can not be sent simultaneously at the bid and at the ask. Next, limit orders (at the current bid/ask prices) can not be placed at the same time that aggressive orders are sent. Finally, one can not place limit orders within the spread if limit orders at the current bid/ask prices are placed. Because we only consider the first limits, these conditions are natural whenever one presumes that orders of different market participants do not arrive exactly at the same time.
Depending on the arrival of orders, queues can be depleted. In this case, new queues can be re-generated, at the same prices or at different prices, and possibly with a change of the spread value. To model this, we introduces a | probability one, on the state space $ \A_{\circ}$ defined as the collection of chemical element $ (a^{\mathfrak b }, a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak b},\ell^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak b, \frac{1}{2}},$ $ \ell^{\mathfrak a,\frac{1}{2}},m^{\bk},$ $ m^{\ak})$ $ \in \N^{8}$ such that $ $ \begin{aligned }
\label{eq: def restraint A }
& \left\{\begin{array}{l }
a^{\mathfrak b } a^{\mathfrak a}=0\\
\ell^{\mathfrak b}= \ell^{\mathfrak a}=0\;\mbox { if } \max\{a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a}\}\ge 1\\
\ell^{\mathfrak b, \frac{1}{2}}=0 \;\mbox { if } \max\ { a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak b}\}\ge 1 \\
\ell^{\mathfrak a, \frac{1}{2}}=0 \;\mbox{if } \max\ { a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak a}\}\ge 1 \\
m^{\mathfrak b } = 0 \;\mbox { if } \max\ { a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak b},\ell^{\mathfrak b,\frac12}\}\ge 1 \\
m^{\mathfrak a } = 0 \;\mbox{if } \max\ { a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak a,\frac12}\}\ge 1
\end{array}\right.. \end{aligned}$$ We interpret the above expression as follow. foremost, aggressive orders cannot be sent simultaneously at the bid and at the ask. Next, terminus ad quem order (at the current bid / necessitate price) cannot be placed at the like time that aggressive orders are sent. Finally, one cannot invest limit orders within the spread if limit orders at the current command / ask prices are placed. Because we only study the first limits, these condition are lifelike whenever one presumes that orders of different market participants do not arrive exactly at the same meter.
Depending on the arrival of orders, queues can be depleted. In this case, new queues can be re - generated, at the same prices or at different prices, and possibly with a change of the spread value. To model this, we introduces a | prlbability one, on the staue space $\A_{\circ}$ deyuned av the dollectiun of elements $(a^{\mathfrak b}, a^{\larhfraj a},\ell^{\mathfrak b},\ell^{\matffrak a},\elp^{\mathfraj b, \hrac{1}{2}},$ $\ell^{\mathfrak a,\frac{1}{2}},m^{\bk},$ $m^{\ak})$ $\jk \N^{8}$ sbci that $$\begin{alinned}
\label{eq: def constraind X}
&\lzft\{\begin{array}{l}
a^{\mathfrak b} a^{\mathfrak w}=0\\
\ell^{\matnfgak b}= \ell^{\mathftak a}=0\;\kfox{ jf } \max\{a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a}\}\ge 1\\
\elm^{\mathfrek b, \frac{1}{2}}=0 \;\mboc{ if } \max\{ a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mwthfgak a},\ell^{\mathfrak b}\}\he 1 \\
\ell^{\matyfrah a, \frac{1}{2}}=0 \;\mbox{kf } \max\{ a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mzthfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak a}\}\ge 1 \\
m^{\matffrak b }=0 \;\mbox{ id } \ldx\{ a^{\mathfrek b},a^{\mwthfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak b},\ell^{\mayhfrak b,\frac12}\}\ge 1 \\
k^{\marhfrak a }=0 \;\mbox{if } \max\{ a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathftak a},\ell^{\madhyrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak a,\frqc12}\}\te 1
\etd{arsay}\rktht..\dnd{zlmgnsd}$$ We lntxrpret the zbove exprewsion as follows. Fitse, aggressive odders sag not be sent simultaneously at the bid ans at the ask. Next, limit orders (at the currenj bid/ask pwices) can not be placed at the same time that aggsessite orbcvs afw dent. Finally, one can not place limit orders wyfhon the spread if limit ordets ay the current cid/ask prjces are placed. Befause wg only consider the first limits, these conditiins are natugal qhenever one presules that orbers og difgerent market participauts do not arrive exactly zg the same time.
Ddpekditg on tht arrival of orderf, queues ran bz depletdd. Im this case, new eueues can be re-generatef, at jhe sake prices lr at different prices, and possmuly with a chsnce mf the s'read yalue. To model ehis, we introdoces a | probability one, on the state space $\A_{\circ}$ the of elements b}, a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak a,\frac{1}{2}},m^{\bk},$ $\in \N^{8}$ such $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq: def A} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} a^{\mathfrak b} a^{\mathfrak a}=0\\ b}= \ell^{\mathfrak a}=0\;\mbox{ if } \max\{a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a}\}\ge 1\\ \ell^{\mathfrak b, \frac{1}{2}}=0 \;\mbox{ } \max\{ a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak b}\}\ge 1 \\ \ell^{\mathfrak a, \frac{1}{2}}=0 \;\mbox{if } a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak 1 m^{\mathfrak b }=0 \;\mbox{ if } \max\{ a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak b},\ell^{\mathfrak b,\frac12}\}\ge 1 \\ m^{\mathfrak a \;\mbox{if } \max\{ a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak a,\frac12}\}\ge \end{array}\right..\end{aligned}$$ We interpret the expression as follows. First, aggressive can be sent at bid at the ask. limit orders (at the current bid/ask prices) can not be placed at the same time that aggressive are sent. can not limit within spread if limit the current bid/ask prices are placed. consider the first limits, these conditions are natural one presumes orders of different market participants do arrive exactly at the same time. Depending on arrival of orders, queues can be depleted. In this case, new queues can be re-generated, same prices or at prices, and possibly a of spread To model we introduces a | probability one, on the state sPace $\A_{\circ}$ dEfineD as The CoLlecTion Of elements $(a^{\matHFrak B}, a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak B},\ell^{\mAtHFrak A},\ElL^{\mathFrak b, \frAC{1}{2}},$ $\eLL^{\MatHfRaK a,\fRaC{1}{2}},M^{\bK},$ $m^{\ak})$ $\iN \N^{8}$ sUch that $$\Begin{alignEd}
\lAbEl{eq: def constRAiNt A}
&\left\{\begIn{aRray}{l}
a^{\mathfrAk b} A^{\mathfRaK a}=0\\
\eLL^{\mathFraK b}= \ell^{\MathfrAK a}=0\;\mbox{ If } \max\{a^{\matHfRAk b},a^{\maTHfrak a}\}\gE 1\\
\ELl^{\MathFrak b, \frac{1}{2}}=0 \;\mbox{ if } \maX\{ A^{\mAThfrak b},a^{\mathfrAk a},\ell^{\MaTHfRAK b}\}\gE 1 \\
\elL^{\mathfrak a, \FrAc{1}{2}}=0 \;\mboX{If } \max\{ a^{\mAThFRAK b},a^{\MAthfrak a},\ell^{\maThfrak a}\}\ge 1 \\
m^{\mAThfRak b }=0 \;\mbOx{ If } \mAX\{ a^{\mathFrak b},A^{\mAThfRak a},\ell^{\mathFrak B},\ell^{\mathfRak b,\frAC12}\}\ge 1 \\
m^{\matHFrak a }=0 \;\mbOx{if } \maX\{ a^{\mAthFrak B},A^{\mAtHfrAk A},\Ell^{\MAtHfrAK a},\eLl^{\mathfrAk A,\fRac12}\}\ge 1
\End{aRRAY}\RighT..\enD{aliGned}$$ WE interpret the AboVe exPResSion aS follOws. FIrSt, aggRessivE ordeRs Can not be sent simUltaNeously at The BiD anD aT the aSK. Next, lImiT orDers (at tHe curreNT biD/aSK PRiCes) can not be placed aT tHE SaMe time thAt aggrESsIvE Orders arE sEnt. finaLLY, one cAn noT PlAce limit Orders WItHiN the sprEaD if limIt OrdErs At the CUrreNt bid/aSk prices Are plACed. Because we onLY consider the fIRsT LImITs, thEse Conditions aRe naTUral WhenEVeR onE PresuMes thAt ORdERs of different market PaRticipAnts dO not arrive exaCtly at the sAME Time.
DepeNdinG On THe arrival of ordErs, quEues can be dEPleted. In This cAse, new quEues can be RE-GenerateD, at The SamE prICEs Or at different PRIces, AnD possibLy wIth a chaNge Of tHe sPreAd Value. To moDel this, wE iNtRoDuCes A | probability one, on the s tate space $\A_ {\c irc }$ def ined as the collec t ionof elements $(a^{\math frakb} , a^{ \ ma thfra k a},\e l l^ { \ mat hf ra k b }, \ el l^{\m ath frak a} ,\ell^{\ma thf ra k b, \frac{1 } {2 }},$ $\ell ^{\ mathfrak a,\ fra c{1}{2 }} ,m^ { \bk}, $ $ m^{\a k})$ $ \ in \N^ {8}$ such t h at $$\ b egin{al i g ne d}
\ label{eq: def con s tr a int A}
&\left\ {\begi n{ a rr a y }{l }
a ^{\mathfra kb} a^ { \mathfr a ka } = 0\\ \ell^{\mathfr ak b}= \ell ^ {\m athfra ka}= 0 \;\mbo x{ if } \ma x\{a^{\math frak b},a^{\m athfra k a}\}\g e 1\\
\e ll^{\m ath fra k b, \f ra c{1 }{ 2 }}= 0 \; \ mbo x{ if }\m ax \{ a^{ \ m a t hfra k b },a^ {\mat hfrak a},\ell ^{\ math f rak b}\} \ge 1 \\ \ ell^{ \mathf rak a ,\frac{1}{2}}=0\;\m box{if }\ma x\ { a^ {\mat h frak b },a ^{\ mathfra k a},\e l l^{ \m a t h fr ak a}\}\ge 1 \\
m ^{ \ m at hfrak b}=0 \ ;\ mb o x{ if }\m ax\ { a ^ { \math frak b} ,a^{\mat hfraka }, \e ll^{\ma th frak b }, \el l^{ \math f rakb,\fra c12}\}\g e 1 \ \
m^{\mathfrak a }=0 \;\mbox { if } \ m ax\{ a^ {\mathfrakb},a ^ {\ma thfr a ka}, \ ell^{ \math fr a ka },\ell^{\mathfrak a ,\ frac12 }\}\g e 1
\end{arr ay}\right. . \ e nd{align ed}$ $ W e interpret the abov e expressi o n as fol lows. First,aggressiv e orders c annot be se n t s imultaneously a t th ebid and at the as k.Nex t,lim it orders ( at the c ur re nt b id/ ask p r ices) ca nnot b e p laced at the same tim eth a t a ggressi v eo r ders a re sen t.Fi nally , on e ca n not p lace limi t o r ders w it hin the spread if li mi t orders a tthe curre n t bid/ask prices are placed. Bec a use weonl y con side r the fir stlimits , t h ese co nditio ns ar enat u r al wh e n ev eron e presumes t hat orde rs ofdiffere nt market particip a nts do not arriv e e xact l y a t t h es ame t i me. Depending on th e arrivalof or ders, queu e s c an be dep leted.In th i s case, new queu es can be r e-ge n e rat ed, at the same pr ices or a t diff e re nt pr ice s, and p oss iblywith a cha nge o f thesp read v alue. T o modelthis, we introduces a | probability_one, on_the state space $\A_{\circ}$_defined as_the_collection of_elements_$(a^{\mathfrak b}, a^{\mathfrak_a},\ell^{\mathfrak b},\ell^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak_b, \frac{1}{2}},$ $\ell^{\mathfrak a,\frac{1}{2}},m^{\bk},$_$m^{\ak})$ $\in \N^{8}$_such_that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: def constraint A}
&\left\{\begin{array}{l}
a^{\mathfrak b} a^{\mathfrak a}=0\\
\ell^{\mathfrak b}= \ell^{\mathfrak a}=0\;\mbox{ if } \max\{a^{\mathfrak_b},a^{\mathfrak_a}\}\ge 1\\
\ell^{\mathfrak_b,_\frac{1}{2}}=0_ \;\mbox{ if }_\max\{ a^{\mathfrak_b},a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak_b}\}\ge 1 \\
\ell^{\mathfrak a, \frac{1}{2}}=0 \;\mbox{if }_\max\{_ a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak_a},\ell^{\mathfrak a}\}\ge 1 \\
m^{\mathfrak b }=0 _\;\mbox{ if } \max\{ a^{\mathfrak_b},a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak b},\ell^{\mathfrak_b,\frac12}\}\ge_1_\\
m^{\mathfrak a }=0_\;\mbox{if } \max\{ a^{\mathfrak b},a^{\mathfrak a},\ell^{\mathfrak_a},\ell^{\mathfrak a,\frac12}\}\ge 1
\end{array}\right..\end{aligned}$$ We interpret_the above expression as follows. First, aggressive_orders can not be sent simultaneously_at the bid and at_the ask._Next, limit orders (at the_current bid/ask prices)_can not_be placed at_the same time that aggressive orders_are sent. Finally,_one can not place limit orders_within_the spread if_limit_orders_at the_current bid/ask prices_are_placed. Because_we_only consider the first limits, these_conditions_are natural whenever one presumes that orders_of different market participants_do_not arrive exactly at_the same time.
Depending on the_arrival of orders, queues can be_depleted. In_this case,_new queues can be re-generated, at the same prices or at_different prices, and possibly with a_change of the spread_value. To_model_this, we introduces_a |
_{\gamma,Break} \approx 26 \, (\tau / 13 \, {\rm kyr})^{-2} (B/10 \, \mu {\rm G})^{-3} \, {\rm eV}
\eqno (5)$$ This break is apparent in the models plotted in Figures 3 (break at $\sim 50$ eV) and 4 (break at $\sim$ 30 eV).
The break location is also of key importance to IC modeling of the H.E.S.S. detection. Electrons upscatter blackbody photons (at temperature $T$) to a mean energy of: $$E_{\gamma} \approx 2.2 \, (E_e/10 \, {\rm TeV})^{2} \, (T/ 25 \, {\rm K}) \, \, {\rm TeV}
\eqno (6)$$ where we scale $T$ to the value adopted for the far IR field. HESS J1420–607 appears to peak in flux at $\approx 0.5-2.5$ TeV; we expect this peak to result from a cooling break rather than an exponential cutoff in the electron spectrum due to the need for significant numbers of VHE electrons to synchrotron radiate in the X-ray regime. Inserting the value of $E_{\gamma} = 0.5-2.5$ TeV into Equation 6 we see that at the break: $$E_{e,Break} \approx (5-11) \, (T/25 \, {\rm K})^{-1/2} \, \, {\rm TeV}
\eqno (7)$$ This VHE break is primarily due to synchrotron cooling, so substituting Equation 7 into Equation 3 yields an estimate for the mean magnetic field strength in the nebula: $$B \approx (8-11) \, (T/25 \, {\rm K})^{-1/4} \, (\tau/ 13 \, {\rm kyr})^{-1/2} \, \, \mu {\rm G} %6.95-10.2
\eqno (8)$$ While this range of magnetic field (which ignores IC cooling) should not be taken too seriously, the fact that the 8 $\mu$G field we selected for single component modeling also matches the X-ray data lends some credence to this estimate.
Comparing the merits of each model, we find that the leptonic model provides a slightly better fit to the data, without the cost of the additional spectral components of the hybrid model. In addition, in order for pion | _ { \gamma, Break } \approx 26 \, (\tau / 13 \, { \rm kyr})^{-2 } (B/10 \, \mu { \rm G})^{-3 } \, { \rm eV }
\eqno (5)$$ This break is apparent in the models plotted in Figures 3 (break at $ \sim 50 $ eV) and 4 (demote at $ \sim$ 30 eV).
The break location is besides of key importance to intelligence community modeling of the H.E.S.S. detection. electron upscatter blackbody photons (at temperature $ T$) to a mean department of energy of: $ $ E_{\gamma } \approx 2.2 \, (E_e/10 \, { \rm TeV})^{2 } \, (T/ 25 \, { \rm K }) \, \, { \rm TeV }
\eqno (6)$$ where we scale $ T$ to the value assume for the far IR field. HESS J1420–607 appear to peak in flux at $ \approx 0.5 - 2.5 $ TeV; we have a bun in the oven this point to result from a cool break rather than an exponential shortcut in the electron spectrum due to the need for significant numbers of VHE electron to synchrotron radiate in the X - ray regime. Inserting the value of $ E_{\gamma } = 0.5 - 2.5 $ TeV into Equation 6 we see that at the interruption: $ $ E_{e, Break } \approx (5 - 11) \, (T/25 \, { \rm K})^{-1/2 } \, \, { \rm TeV }
\eqno (7)$$ This VHE break is primarily due to synchrotron cooling, so substituting Equation 7 into Equation 3 give way an estimate for the mean magnetic field strength in the nebula: $ $ bel \approx (8 - 11) \, (T/25 \, { \rm K})^{-1/4 } \, (\tau/ 13 \, { \rm kyr})^{-1/2 } \, \, \mu { \rm G }% 6.95 - 10.2
\eqno (8)$$ While this stove of magnetic field (which ignores IC cooling) should not be taken too seriously, the fact that the 8 $ \mu$G battlefield we selected for single part mold besides matches the X - ray data lends some credence to this estimate.
Comparing the merit of each model, we find that the leptonic model provides a slightly better fit to the datum, without the cost of the additional spectral components of the hybrid model. In addition, in order for pion | _{\gamla,Break} \approx 26 \, (\tau / 13 \, {\vm kyr})^{-2} (B/10 \, \mu {\rm Y})^{-3} \, {\rm eT}
\eqno (5)$$ Fhis brexk is apparent in the models poottee in Figures 3 (break at $\sim 50$ eV) wnd 4 (breqk au $\sim$ 30 eV).
The break location is zpso mh key importancg to IC modening of the H.E.V.S. dztection. Electrons upscatter blackboqy photpnd (at temperatute $T$) uo w mezn energy of: $$E_{\gamma} \approx 2.2 \, (E_e/10 \, {\rj TeV})^{2} \, (T/ 25 \, {\rm K}) \, \, {\rk TeV}
\eqno (6)$$ where we scale $H$ to the value adopted for the fat IR dield. HESS J1420–607 appears to peak in flox at $\approx 0.5-2.5$ TeV; we expect this peak to result feom d cooling bceak rwther than ak exponantial vutoff in the clectcon wpectrum due to the nxed for significant gumbers ox RHE electrons to syncyritron radhate un ghe X-cay regimf. Iiserting ths value of $W_{\gamma} = 0.5-2.5$ TeV into Eauwnoon 6 we see fhat ae ehe break: $$E_{e,Break} \approx (5-11) \, (T/25 \, {\rm K})^{-1/2} \, \, {\rm TeB}
\eqno (7)$$ This VHE break us primarily due to sinchrotron cooling, so substituting Equation 7 into Equation 3 yielvs an efgumwte for the mean magnetic field strength in trs menula: $$B \approx (8-11) \, (B/25 \, {\rm K})^{-1/4} \, (\tau/ 13 \, {\rm lyg})^{-1/2} \, \, \mu {\rm G} %6.95-10.2
\eqno (8)$$ Whilz tgis range of magnehic fiejd (whuch ignorts IC cooling) should not be takeb too serioufoy, the fact that tke 8 $\mu$G fielb we sglectec for single component oodeming also mwtches ths X-ray data lends soke credenct to this estimate.
Somparing the merits of gach moqel, we finf thab the leptonic modep prorides a slightlj better fit to the data, withouv the cost of tve ddditioncl spegtral componentf of the hybrib model. Nn addktion, in ogder for 'ion | _{\gamma,Break} \approx 26 \, (\tau / 13 kyr})^{-2} \, \mu G})^{-3} \, {\rm is in the models in Figures 3 at $\sim 50$ eV) and 4 at $\sim$ 30 eV). The break location is also of key importance to modeling of the H.E.S.S. detection. Electrons upscatter blackbody photons (at temperature $T$) to mean of: \approx \, (E_e/10 \, {\rm TeV})^{2} \, (T/ 25 \, {\rm K}) \, \, {\rm TeV} \eqno where we scale $T$ to the value adopted the far IR field. J1420–607 appears to peak in at 0.5-2.5$ TeV; expect peak result from a break rather than an exponential cutoff in the electron spectrum due to the need for significant numbers VHE electrons radiate in X-ray Inserting value of $E_{\gamma} TeV into Equation 6 we see break: $$E_{e,Break} \approx (5-11) \, (T/25 \, {\rm \, \, TeV} \eqno (7)$$ This VHE break primarily due to synchrotron cooling, so substituting Equation into Equation 3 yields an estimate for the mean magnetic field strength in the nebula: (8-11) \, (T/25 \, K})^{-1/4} \, (\tau/ \, kyr})^{-1/2} \, {\rm G} \eqno (8)$$ While this range of magnetic field (which ignores IC should not be taken too seriously, the fact that the field selected for single modeling also matches the data some credence to this the of find the model provides a slightly fit to the data, without cost of the additional model. In addition, in order for pion | _{\gamma,Break} \approx 26 \, (\tau / 13 \, {\rm kyr})^{-2} (B/10 \, \Mu {\rm G})^{-3} \, {\rm eV}
\eQno (5)$$ ThIs bReaK iS appArenT in the models plOTted In Figures 3 (break at $\sim 50$ eV) aNd 4 (breAk AT $\sim$ 30 Ev).
THe breAk locatIOn IS AlsO oF kEy iMpORtAnce tO IC ModelinG of the H.E.S.S. DetEcTion. ElectronS UpScatter blaCkbOdy photons (at TemPeratuRe $t$) to A Mean eNerGy of: $$E_{\Gamma} \aPProx 2.2 \, (E_e/10 \, {\Rm TeV})^{2} \, (T/ 25 \, {\rm K}) \, \, {\Rm tEV}
\eqno (6)$$ WHere we sCALe $t$ to tHe value adopted for THe FAr IR field. HESS J1420–607 AppearS tO PeAK In fLux At $\approx 0.5-2.5$ Tev; wE expeCT this peAK tO RESulT From a cooling bReak rather tHAn aN exponEnTiaL Cutoff In the ElECtrOn spectrum dUe to The need foR signiFIcant nuMBers of VhE elecTroNs tO synCHrOtRon RaDIatE In The x-Ray Regime. InSeRtIng thE valUE OF $e_{\gamMa} = 0.5-2.5$ TEV inTo EquAtion 6 we see thaT at The bREak: $$e_{e,BreAk} \appRox (5-11) \, (T/25 \, {\Rm k})^{-1/2} \, \, {\rm Tev}
\eqno (7)$$ THis VHe bReak is primarily Due tO synchrotRon CoOliNg, So subSTitutiNg EQuaTion 7 intO EquatiON 3 yiElDS AN eStimate for the mean mAgNETiC field stRength IN tHe NEbula: $$B \apPrOx (8-11) \, (T/25 \, {\Rm K})^{-1/4} \, (\tAU/ 13 \, {\Rm kyr})^{-1/2} \, \, \Mu {\rm g} %6.95-10.2
\EqNo (8)$$ While tHis ranGE oF mAgnetic FiEld (whiCh IgnOreS IC coOLing) Should Not be takEn too SEriously, the facT That the 8 $\mu$G fieLD wE SElECted For Single compoNent MOdelIng aLSo MatCHes thE X-ray DaTA lENds some credence to thIs EstimaTe.
ComParing the meriTs of each moDEL, We find thAt thE LePTonic model provIdes a Slightly beTTer fit to The daTa, withouT the cost oF THe additiOnaL spEctRal COMpOnents of the hyBRId moDeL. In addiTioN, in ordeR foR piOn | _{\gamma,Break} \approx 26 \, (\tau/ 13\,{\r mkyr} )^{- 2} (B/10 \, \m u {\r m G})^{-3} \, {\rm eV}
\eqn o( 5)$$ Th is br eak isa pp a r ent i nthe m o de ls pl ott ed in F igures 3 ( bre ak at $\sim 50 $ e V) and 4 ( bre ak at $\sim$ 30 eV).
T heb reakloc ation is al s o of k ey import an c e to I C modeli n g o f th e H.E.S.S. detect i on . Electrons ups catter b l ac k b ody ph otons (atte mpera t ure $T$ ) t o a me a n energy of:$$E_{\gamma } \a pprox2. 2 \ , (E_e/ 10 \, { \ rmTeV})^{2} \, ( T/ 25 \,{\rm K } ) \, \, {\rm Te V}
\eq no(6) $$ w h er ewesc a le$ T$ to the value a do pt ed fo r th e f a r IR fi eld. HESS J1420–607 ap pea rs t o pe ak in flux at$\ appro x 0.5- 2.5$Te V; we expect th is p eak to re sul tfro ma coo l ing br eak ra ther th an an e x pon en t i a lcutoff in the elec tr o n s pectrumdue to th en eed forsi gni fica n t numb erso fVHE elec tronst osy nchrotr on radia te in th e X-r a y re gime.Insertin g the value of $E_{\ g amma} = 0.5-2 . 5$ T eV into Eq uation 6 we see that att he br e ak: $ $E_{e ,B r ea k } \approx (5-11) \, ( T/25 \ , {\r m K})^{-1/2}\, \, {\rm T e V}
\eqn o (7 ) $$ This VHE break is p rimarily d u e to syn chrot ron cool ing, so s u b stitutin g E qua tio n 7 i nt o Equation 3y i elds a n estim ate for th e m ean ma gne ti c field s trengthin t he n ebu la: $ $ B \appro x(8- 11 ) \ , (T/ 2 5 \, { \rm K })^{ -1 /4 } \, (\tau/ 13 \ , {\ rm k yr}) ^{- 1/ 2} \, \,\ mu{\rm G} %6.95-10 .2\ eqno ( 8) $$ Whil e this rangeof magneticfi eld (whic h ignoresIC cooling) should notb e taken to o ser ious ly, the f act thatthe 8 $\mu $G fie ld we s ele c t ed fo r si ngl ecomponentm o del ing a ls o ma tches t he X-ray data lend s so me credence t o t hise s ti mat e .Com pa r ing t he merits of ea ch model,we fi nd that th e le pt onic mo del pro vides a sligh tly bette r fit toth e da t a , w ithout the cost of the addi t ional sp ectra l c ompone nt s o f the hybri d mo del.In add it ion, i n ord er for pio n | _{\gamma,Break} \approx_26 \,_(\tau / 13 \,_{\rm kyr})^{-2}_(B/10_\, \mu_{\rm_G})^{-3} \, {\rm_eV}
\eqno (5)$$ This_break is apparent in_the models plotted_in_Figures 3 (break at $\sim 50$ eV) and 4 (break at $\sim$ 30 eV).
The_break_location is_also_of_key importance to IC modeling_of the H.E.S.S. detection. Electrons_upscatter blackbody_photons (at temperature $T$) to a mean energy_of:_$$E_{\gamma} \approx 2.2_\, (E_e/10 \, {\rm TeV})^{2} \, (T/ 25_\, {\rm K}) \, \, {\rm_TeV}
\eqno (6)$$ where_we_scale_$T$ to the value_adopted for the far IR field._HESS J1420–607 appears to peak in_flux at $\approx 0.5-2.5$ TeV; we expect_this peak to result from a_cooling break rather than an_exponential cutoff_in the electron spectrum due_to the need_for significant_numbers of VHE_electrons to synchrotron radiate in the_X-ray regime. Inserting_the value of $E_{\gamma} = 0.5-2.5$_TeV_into Equation 6_we_see_that at_the break: $$E_{e,Break}_\approx_(5-11) \,_(T/25_\, {\rm K})^{-1/2} \, \, {\rm_TeV}_
\eqno (7)$$ This VHE break is primarily_due to synchrotron cooling,_so_substituting Equation 7 into_Equation 3 yields an estimate_for the mean magnetic field strength_in the_nebula: $$B_\approx (8-11) \, (T/25 \, {\rm K})^{-1/4} \, (\tau/ 13 \,_{\rm kyr})^{-1/2} \, \, \mu {\rm_G} %6.95-10.2
\eqno (8)$$ While_this range_of_magnetic field (which_ignores_IC cooling)_should not be taken too seriously, the_fact that_the 8 $\mu$G field we selected_for single component modeling_also_matches the X-ray data lends some_credence to this estimate.
Comparing the merits_of each model, we find_that_the_leptonic model provides a slightly_better fit to the data, without_the cost of_the additional spectral components of the hybrid_model._In addition, in order for pion |
mathbb{D}}$ such that $V_n\geq 1$ $\Xi$-a.e. on $K_n$;
2. $\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty}{\mathbb{D}}_{K_n}$ is dense in ${\mathbb{D}}$ (w.r.t. ${\mathcal{E}}^{\frac{1}{2}}$-norm).
We note that the family $\{K_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is a nest. It is also a nest according the definition given in [@Ariyoshi:2005], where the topology (on ${L_2^{\uparrow}}(\xi)$) is not needed.
We set $${\mathbb{D}}_{loc}(\{K_n\})=\left\{U\in L_0(\Xi):\ \begin{array}{l}
\mbox{there exists}\ \ \{U_n\}_{n\geq 1}\subset{\mathbb{D}}\ \ \mbox{such that}\\
U=U_n\ \ \Xi\mbox{-a.e. on}\ \ K_n\ \ \mbox{for each}\ \ n
\end{array}
\right\}$$ and let ${\mathbb{D}}_{loc,b}(\{K_n\})$ denote the set of all essentially bounded functions from ${\mathbb{D}}_{loc}(\{K_n\})$. For $U,V\in{\mathbb{D}}_b$, where ${\mathbb{D}}_b$ is the set of all essentially bounded functions from ${\mathbb{D}}$, we define $$I_U(V)=2{\mathcal{E}}(UV,U)-{\mathcal{E}}(U^2,V).$$ By the locality of $({\mathcal{E}},{\mathbb{D}})$ (see Lemma \[lemma\_local\_prop\_2\]), $I_U(V)$ and ${\mathrm{D}}U$ can be well-defined for all $U\in{\mathbb{D}}_{loc,b}(\{K_n\})$ and $V\in\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty}{\mathbb{D}}_{K_n,b}$, where ${\mathbb{D}}_{K_n,b}={\mathbb{D}}_{K_n}\cap{\mathbb{D}}_b$, setting $I_U(V)=I_{U_n}(V)$ and ${\mathrm{D}}U={\mathrm{D}}U_n$ if $V\in | mathbb{D}}$ such that $ V_n\geq 1 $ $ \Xi$-a.e. on $ K_n$;
2. $ \bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty}{\mathbb{D}}_{K_n}$ is dense in $ { \mathbb{D}}$ (w.r.t. $ { \mathcal{E}}^{\frac{1}{2}}$-norm).
We note that the family $ \{K_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is a nest. It is also a nest according the definition give in [ @Ariyoshi:2005 ], where the regional anatomy (on $ { L_2^{\uparrow}}(\xi)$) is not needed.
We set $ $ { \mathbb{D}}_{loc}(\{K_n\})=\left\{U\in L_0(\Xi):\ \begin{array}{l }
\mbox{there exists}\ \ \{U_n\}_{n\geq 1}\subset{\mathbb{D}}\ \ \mbox{such that}\\
uracil = U_n\ \ \Xi\mbox{-a.e. on}\ \ K_n\ \ \mbox{for each}\ \ n
\end{array }
\right\}$$ and get $ { \mathbb{D}}_{loc, b}(\{K_n\})$ denote the set of all basically bounded functions from $ { \mathbb{D}}_{loc}(\{K_n\})$. For $ U, V\in{\mathbb{D}}_b$, where $ { \mathbb{D}}_b$ is the stage set of all essentially bounded function from $ { \mathbb{D}}$, we define $ $ I_U(V)=2{\mathcal{E}}(UV, U)-{\mathcal{E}}(U^2,V).$$ By the locality of $ ({ \mathcal{E}},{\mathbb{D}})$ (visualize Lemma \[lemma\_local\_prop\_2\ ]), $ I_U(V)$ and $ { \mathrm{D}}U$ can be well - defined for all $ U\in{\mathbb{D}}_{loc, b}(\{K_n\})$ and $ V\in\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty}{\mathbb{D}}_{K_n, b}$, where $ { \mathbb{D}}_{K_n, b}={\mathbb{D}}_{K_n}\cap{\mathbb{D}}_b$, setting $ I_U(V)=I_{U_n}(V)$ and $ { \mathrm{D}}U={\mathrm{D}}U_n$ if $ V\in | matjbb{D}}$ such that $V_n\geq 1$ $\Xi$-x.e. on $K_n$;
2. $\bigcuk_{n=1}^{\unfty}{\methbb{D}}_{K_h}$ is denre in ${\mathbb{D}}$ (w.r.t. ${\mathcal{E}}^{\frec{1}{2}}$-noem).
We bote that the family $\{K_v\}_{n\geq 1}$ is a nest. Ut iw also a nest according tgc defnnmtion given in [@Atiyoshi:2005], whera the topology (ov ${P_2^{\uparrow}}(\xi)$) is not needed.
We set $${\mathfb{D}}_{loc}(\{K_m\})=\lfft\{U\in L_0(\Xi):\ \begyn{argar}{l}
\mbox{there exosts}\ \ \{U_n\}_{n\geq 1}\subset{\mathbb{D}}\ \ \mblx{such that}\\
U=L_u\ \ \Xi\mbox{-a.e. on}\ \ K_n\ \ \mbox{for each}\ \ n
\egd{array}
\right\}$$ and let ${\mathbb{C}}_{loc,b}(\{K_n\})$ denote thx ser of all essentially uounded functions frjm ${\mathbb{G}}_{lkc}(\{K_n\})$. For $U,V\in{\mathvb{E}}_b$, whgre ${\mdthbc{E}}_b$ ks uhe sst of wll essentialmy bounded dunctions from ${\mathnb{Q}}$, we define $$I_U(B)=2{\mathcwl{Q}}(UV,U)-{\mathcal{E}}(U^2,V).$$ By the locality of $({\mathcdl{E}},{\jathbb{D}})$ (see Lemma \[lemma\_lical\_prop\_2\]), $I_U(V)$ and ${\mathtm{D}}U$ can bq well-defined for all $U\in{\mathbb{D}}_{loc,b}(\{K_n\})$ and $V\in\bigwup_{n=1}^{\iifgy}{\mcbmbb{D}}_{Y_b,b}$, where ${\mathbb{D}}_{K_n,b}={\mathbb{D}}_{K_n}\cap{\mathbb{D}}_b$, setting $J_U(F)=I_{L_n}(V)$ and ${\mathrm{D}}U={\mcthrm{D}}U_n$ if $V\in | mathbb{D}}$ such that $V_n\geq 1$ $\Xi$-a.e. on $\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty}{\mathbb{D}}_{K_n}$ dense in (w.r.t. ${\mathcal{E}}^{\frac{1}{2}}$-norm). We 1}$ a nest. It also a nest the definition given in [@Ariyoshi:2005], where topology (on ${L_2^{\uparrow}}(\xi)$) is not needed. We set $${\mathbb{D}}_{loc}(\{K_n\})=\left\{U\in L_0(\Xi):\ \begin{array}{l} \mbox{there exists}\ \{U_n\}_{n\geq 1}\subset{\mathbb{D}}\ \ \mbox{such that}\\ U=U_n\ \ \Xi\mbox{-a.e. on}\ \ K_n\ \ \mbox{for \ \end{array} and ${\mathbb{D}}_{loc,b}(\{K_n\})$ denote the set of all essentially bounded functions from ${\mathbb{D}}_{loc}(\{K_n\})$. For $U,V\in{\mathbb{D}}_b$, where ${\mathbb{D}}_b$ is set of all essentially bounded functions from ${\mathbb{D}}$, define $$I_U(V)=2{\mathcal{E}}(UV,U)-{\mathcal{E}}(U^2,V).$$ By the of $({\mathcal{E}},{\mathbb{D}})$ (see Lemma \[lemma\_local\_prop\_2\]), and can be for $U\in{\mathbb{D}}_{loc,b}(\{K_n\})$ $V\in\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty}{\mathbb{D}}_{K_n,b}$, where ${\mathbb{D}}_{K_n,b}={\mathbb{D}}_{K_n}\cap{\mathbb{D}}_b$, $I_U(V)=I_{U_n}(V)$ and ${\mathrm{D}}U={\mathrm{D}}U_n$ if $V\in | mathbb{D}}$ such that $V_n\geq 1$ $\Xi$-a.e. oN $K_n$;
2. $\bigcup_{n=1}^{\Infty}{\MatHbb{d}}_{K_N}$ is dEnse In ${\mathbb{D}}$ (w.r.t. ${\maTHcal{e}}^{\frac{1}{2}}$-norm).
We note that the FamilY $\{K_N\}_{N\geq 1}$ IS a Nest. IT is also A NeST AccOrDiNg tHe DEfInitiOn gIven in [@ARiyoshi:2005], wheRe tHe Topology (on ${L_2^{\uPArRow}}(\xi)$) is not NeeDed.
We set $${\mathBb{D}}_{Loc}(\{K_n\})=\lEfT\{U\iN l_0(\Xi):\ \beGin{Array}{L}
\mbox{tHEre exiSts}\ \ \{U_n\}_{n\geq 1}\SuBSet{\matHBb{D}}\ \ \mbox{SUCh That}\\
u=U_n\ \ \Xi\mbox{-a.e. on}\ \ K_n\ \ \mbOX{fOR each}\ \ n
\end{array}
\Right\}$$ aNd LEt ${\MAThbB{D}}_{lOc,b}(\{K_n\})$ denotE tHe set OF all essENtIALLy bOUnded functionS from ${\mathbb{d}}_{Loc}(\{k_n\})$. For $U,v\iN{\maTHbb{D}}_b$, wHere ${\mAtHBb{D}}_B$ is the set of All eSsentiallY boundED functiONs from ${\mAthbb{D}}$, We dEfiNe $$I_U(v)=2{\MaThCal{e}}(Uv,u)-{\maTHcAl{E}}(u^2,v).$$ By The localItY oF $({\mathCal{E}},{\MATHBb{D}})$ (sEe LEmma \[Lemma\_Local\_prop\_2\]), $I_U(V)$ aNd ${\mAthrM{d}}U$ cAn be wEll-deFineD fOr all $u\in{\matHbb{D}}_{lOc,B}(\{K_n\})$ and $V\in\bigcup_{N=1}^{\infTy}{\mathbb{D}}_{k_n,b}$, WhEre ${\MaThbb{D}}_{k_N,b}={\mathBb{D}}_{k_n}\cAp{\mathbB{D}}_b$, settINg $I_u(V)=i_{u_N}(v)$ aNd ${\mathrm{D}}U={\mathrm{D}}U_N$ iF $v\In | mathbb{D}}$ such that $V_n \geq 1$ $\ Xi$-a .e. on $ K_n$ ;
2 . $\bigcup_{n = 1}^{ \infty}{\mathbb{D}}_{K _n}$is dens e i n ${\ mathbb{ D }} $ (w. r. t. ${ \m a th cal{E }}^ {\frac{ 1}{2}}$-no rm) .
We note tha t t he family$\{ K_n\}_{n\geq 1} $ is a n est . It i s a lso a nesta ccordi ng the de fi n itiong iven in [ @A riyo shi:2005], wheret he topology (on $ {L_2^{ \u p ar r o w}} (\x i)$) is no tneede d .
We s e t$ $ { \ma t hbb{D}}_{loc} (\{K_n\})=\ l eft \{U\in L _0( \ Xi):\\begi n{ a rra y}{l}
\m box {th eree xi st s}\ \ \{U _ n\ }_{ n \ge q 1}\sub se t{ \math bb{D } } \ \ \m box {suc h tha t}\\
U= U_n\\\Xi\mbox{-a.e.on}\ \ K_n\ \ \m bo x{f or each } \ \ n \end{a rr a y }\right\} $$ and le t$ {\mathbb {D }}_ {loc , b }(\{K _n\} ) $denote t he set of a ll esse nt iallybo und edfunct i onsfrom $ {\mathbb {D}}_ { loc}(\{K_n\})$ . For $U,V\in{ \ ma t h bb { D}}_ b$, where ${\m athb b {D}} _b$i sthe set o f all e s se n tially bounded func ti ons fr om ${ \mathbb{D}}$, we define $ $ I_U(V)=2 {\ma t hc a l{E}}(UV,U)-{\ mathc al{E}}(U^2 , V).$$ By thelocality of $({\m a t hcal{E}} ,{\ mat hbb {D} } ) $(see Lemma \[ l e mma\ _l ocal\_p rop \_2\]), $I _U( V)$ an d${\mathrm {D}}U$ c an b ewe ll- defin e d for al l$U\ in {\m athbb { D}}_{l oc,b} (\{K _n \} ) $ a nd $V\i n \b i g cup_ {n =1 }^{\ inf ty }{\ma thbb { D}} _{K_n,b }$, where ${ \ math bb {D }}_{K_n ,b}={\mathbb{ D} }_{K_n}\ca p{ \ma thbb{D } } _b$, set ting $I_U(V)=I_{U_n}(V) $ and ${ \ma thrm{ D}}U ={\mathrm {D} }U_n$if$ V\in | mathbb{D}}$ such_that $V_n\geq_1$ $\Xi$-a.e. on $K_n$;
2._ $\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty}{\mathbb{D}}_{K_n}$_is_dense in_${\mathbb{D}}$_(w.r.t. ${\mathcal{E}}^{\frac{1}{2}}$-norm).
We note_that the family_$\{K_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is a_nest. It is_also_a nest according the definition given in [@Ariyoshi:2005], where the topology (on ${L_2^{\uparrow}}(\xi)$) is not_needed.
We_set $${\mathbb{D}}_{loc}(\{K_n\})=\left\{U\in_L_0(\Xi):\_\begin{array}{l}
_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __\mbox{there_exists}\ \ \{U_n\}_{n\geq 1}\subset{\mathbb{D}}\_\ \mbox{such that}\\
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ U=U_n\ \ \Xi\mbox{-a.e. on}\ \_K_n\ \ \mbox{for_each}\ \ n
__ ___ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ \end{array}
\right\}$$ and let ${\mathbb{D}}_{loc,b}(\{K_n\})$_denote the set of all essentially_bounded functions_from ${\mathbb{D}}_{loc}(\{K_n\})$._For $U,V\in{\mathbb{D}}_b$, where ${\mathbb{D}}_b$ is the set of all essentially bounded_functions from ${\mathbb{D}}$, we define $$I_U(V)=2{\mathcal{E}}(UV,U)-{\mathcal{E}}(U^2,V).$$_By the locality of_$({\mathcal{E}},{\mathbb{D}})$ (see_Lemma \[lemma\_local\_prop\_2\]),_$I_U(V)$ and ${\mathrm{D}}U$_can_be well-defined_for all $U\in{\mathbb{D}}_{loc,b}(\{K_n\})$ and $V\in\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty}{\mathbb{D}}_{K_n,b}$, where ${\mathbb{D}}_{K_n,b}={\mathbb{D}}_{K_n}\cap{\mathbb{D}}_b$,_setting $I_U(V)=I_{U_n}(V)$_and ${\mathrm{D}}U={\mathrm{D}}U_n$ if $V\in |
p$.
After applying this [*wrinkling*]{} operation to all intersections with ${\mathcal{P}}$, we may hence assume that $L$ avoids a closed neighbourhood $U_{\mathcal{P}}$ of $S(1)\cup\dots\cup S(5)$.
[**Step 4.** ]{} After Step 3 and a perturbation of $L$, the curve $L_b$ intersects the 2-dimensional submanifold $S(6)$ transversely in finitely many points in $M\setminus U_{\mathcal{P}}$. Thus we can repeat steps 2 and 3 with $S(5)$ replaced by $S(6)$ to make $L$ disjoint from an open neighbourhood $U_S$ of $S$.
[**Step 5.** ]{} Now we are in the position to use the flow $\Psi_t$ of $X_t$ to push $L_b$ into $V$. According to Lemma \[lem:escape\] there exists $\tau>0$ such that $\Psi_\tau(M\setminus
U_S)\subset V$ and thus $\Psi_\tau(L_b)\subset V$. Since $\Psi_t$ preserves the binding and pages of the open book $(B,\pi)$, the homotopy $(\xi_t,L_t)_{t\in[0,\tau]}$ defined by $$\xi_t:=(\Psi_t)_*\xi,\qquad L_t:=\Psi_t(L)$$ satisfies properties (a) and (b) above. Moreover, the bad (unbraided) part of ${\mathcal{L}}_\tau$ is given by $\Psi_\tau(L_b)$ and hence contained in $V$. Note that the new contact form $\alpha_\tau$ is given on $V$ by $$\alpha_\tau=T(1-r^2)\Bigl(d\phi+(1+\tau)r^2d\theta\Bigr).$$ [**Step 6.** ]{} Consider the contact structure $\xi_\tau=\ker\alpha_\tau$ from Step 5 on $V=S^1\times D^2$. After rescaling in $r$ we may assume that $\xi_\tau=\xi_{st}=\ker(d\phi+r^2d\theta)$. By a result of Bennequin ([@Ben], see also [@Pav] for a short exposition) we can transversely isotope $L_\tau$ relative to ${\partial}V$ (fixing $\xi | p$.
After applying this [ * wrinkling * ] { } operation to all intersections with $ { \mathcal{P}}$, we may hence wear that $ L$ avoid a closed neighbourhood $ U_{\mathcal{P}}$ of $ S(1)\cup\dots\cup S(5)$.
[ * * Step 4. * * ] { } After footstep 3 and a perturbation of $ L$, the curve $ L_b$ intersects the 2 - dimensional submanifold $ S(6)$ transversely in finitely many decimal point in $ M\setminus U_{\mathcal{P}}$. Thus we can repeat tone 2 and 3 with $ S(5)$ replaced by $ S(6)$ to make $ L$ disjoint from an receptive neighbourhood $ U_S$ of $ S$.
[ * * Step 5. * * ] { } immediately we are in the stead to use the flow $ \Psi_t$ of $ X_t$ to push $ L_b$ into $ V$. According to Lemma \[lem: escape\ ] there exists $ \tau>0 $ such that $ \Psi_\tau(M\setminus
U_S)\subset V$ and therefore $ \Psi_\tau(L_b)\subset V$. Since $ \Psi_t$ preserves the binding and pages of the assailable book $ (B,\pi)$, the homotopy $ (\xi_t, L_t)_{t\in[0,\tau]}$ defined by $ $ \xi_t:=(\Psi_t)_*\xi,\qquad L_t:=\Psi_t(L)$$ satisfies property (a) and (b) above. furthermore, the bad (unbraided) share of $ { \mathcal{L}}_\tau$ is given by $ \Psi_\tau(L_b)$ and hence contained in $ V$. Note that the newfangled contact form $ \alpha_\tau$ is given on $ V$ by $ $ \alpha_\tau = T(1 - r^2)\Bigl(d\phi+(1+\tau)r^2d\theta\Bigr).$$ [ * * Step 6. * * ] { } Consider the contact structure $ \xi_\tau=\ker\alpha_\tau$ from Step 5 on $ V = S^1\times D^2$. After rescaling in $ r$ we may assume that $ \xi_\tau=\xi_{st}=\ker(d\phi+r^2d\theta)$. By a result of Bennequin ([ @Ben ], see also [ @Pav ] for a short exposition) we can transversely isotope $ L_\tau$ relative to $ { \partial}V$ (fixing $ \xi | p$.
Afher applying this [*wrinkllng*]{} operation to all inversectjons witf ${\mathcal{P}}$, we may hence assule that $L$ avoids a closed neiehbourhoof $U_{\mathcql{P}}$ id $S(1)\cup\dots\rhp S(5)$.
[**Stei 4.** ]{} Arber Sce' 3 and a perturnation of $L$, the curve $L_b$ hngexsects the 2-dimensional submanifold $S(6)$ transvrrdely in finitejy msgy pkpnus in $M\setminus U_{\mathcal{P}}$. Thus we can rekeat steps 2 and 3 woth $S(5)$ replaced by $S(6)$ to makf $L$ fisjoint from an ooen neighboodhoje $U_S$ of $S$.
[**Steo 5.** ]{} Now we are in the kosition to use the flow $\Psi_t$ of $X_t$ tp push $L_b$ unro $G$. According vo Lemia \[lem:escape\] bnere efists $\tsu>0$ such that $\Pxi_\teu(M\swtminus
U_S)\subset V$ and thus $\Psi_\tau(L_b)\subsgt V$. Since $\Pai_t$ preserves the bundinc ang paews uf uhe olen bolk $(U,\pi)$, the homktopy $(\xi_t,L_t)_{r\in[0,\tau]}$ defined by $$\xo_t:=(\[wi_t)_*\xi,\qquad L_t:=\Lsi_t(L)$$ faeisfies properties (a) and (b) above. Moreovtr, ths bad (unbraided) part of ${\mathcal{L}}_\tau$ is given by $\Psi_\tat(L_b)$ and hence contained in $V$. Note that the new cottact worn $\wuphw_\tau$ is given on $V$ by $$\alpha_\tau=T(1-r^2)\Bigl(d\phi+(1+\tau)r^2d\egeua\Bpgr).$$ [**Step 6.** ]{} Considcr the contact strichutg $\xi_\tau=\ker\alphx_\tau$ fxkm Step 5 on $V=S^1\times F^2$. After rescqling in $w$ we may assume that $\xi_\tau=\xi_{st}=\kwr(d\phi+r^2d\thetc)$. Bt a result of Bennzquin ([@Ben], sez also [@Kav] fot a short exposition) we can transversepy isotops $L_\tau$ relative tu ${\psrdial}V$ (fixing $\xi | p$. After applying this [*wrinkling*]{} operation to with we may assume that $L$ of S(5)$. [**Step 4.** After Step 3 a perturbation of $L$, the curve intersects the 2-dimensional submanifold $S(6)$ transversely in finitely many points in $M\setminus U_{\mathcal{P}}$. we can repeat steps 2 and 3 with $S(5)$ replaced by $S(6)$ to $L$ from open $U_S$ of $S$. [**Step 5.** ]{} Now we are in the position to use the flow of $X_t$ to push $L_b$ into $V$. According Lemma \[lem:escape\] there exists such that $\Psi_\tau(M\setminus U_S)\subset V$ thus V$. Since preserves binding pages of the book $(B,\pi)$, the homotopy $(\xi_t,L_t)_{t\in[0,\tau]}$ defined by $$\xi_t:=(\Psi_t)_*\xi,\qquad L_t:=\Psi_t(L)$$ satisfies properties (a) and (b) above. Moreover, the (unbraided) part is given $\Psi_\tau(L_b)$ hence in $V$. Note new contact form $\alpha_\tau$ is given $$\alpha_\tau=T(1-r^2)\Bigl(d\phi+(1+\tau)r^2d\theta\Bigr).$$ [**Step 6.** ]{} Consider the contact structure from Step on $V=S^1\times D^2$. After rescaling in we may assume that $\xi_\tau=\xi_{st}=\ker(d\phi+r^2d\theta)$. By a result Bennequin ([@Ben], see also [@Pav] for a short exposition) we can transversely isotope $L_\tau$ relative (fixing $\xi | p$.
After applying this [*wrinkliNg*]{} operatioN to alL inTerSeCtioNs wiTh ${\mathcal{P}}$, we maY HencE assume that $L$ avoids a cloSed neIgHBourHOoD $U_{\matHcal{P}}$ of $s(1)\CuP\DOts\CuP S(5)$.
[**steP 4.** ]{} AFTeR Step 3 And A perturBation of $L$, tHe cUrVe $L_b$ intersecTS tHe 2-dimensioNal Submanifold $S(6)$ TraNsversElY in FIniteLy mAny poInts in $m\SetminUs U_{\mathcaL{P}}$. tHus we cAN repeat STEpS 2 and 3 With $S(5)$ replaced by $S(6)$ tO MaKE $L$ disjoint from An open NeIGhBOUrhOod $u_S$ of $S$.
[**Step 5.** ]{} NOw We are IN the posITiON TO usE The flow $\Psi_t$ of $x_t$ to push $L_b$ iNTo $V$. accordInG to lEmma \[leM:escaPe\] THerE exists $\tau>0$ sUch tHat $\Psi_\tau(m\setmiNUs
U_S)\subSEt V$ and tHus $\Psi_\Tau(l_b)\sUbseT v$. SInCe $\PSi_T$ PreSErVes THe bInding anD pAgEs of tHe opEN BOOk $(B,\pI)$, thE homOtopy $(\Xi_t,L_t)_{t\in[0,\tau]}$ deFinEd by $$\XI_t:=(\PSi_t)_*\xi,\Qquad l_t:=\PsI_t(l)$$ satiSfies pRoperTiEs (a) and (b) above. MorEoveR, the bad (unBraIdEd) pArT of ${\maTHcal{L}}_\tAu$ iS giVen by $\PsI_\tau(L_b)$ aND heNcE CONtAined in $V$. Note that thE nEW CoNtact forM $\alpha_\TAu$ Is GIven on $V$ bY $$\aLphA_\tau=t(1-R^2)\bigl(d\Phi+(1+\tAU)r^2D\theta\BiGr).$$ [**Step 6.** ]{} cOnSiDer the cOnTact stRuCtuRe $\xI_\tau=\kER\alpHa_\tau$ fRom Step 5 oN $V=S^1\tiMEs D^2$. After rescalINg in $r$ we may assUMe THAt $\XI_\tau=\Xi_{sT}=\ker(d\phi+r^2d\tHeta)$. bY a reSult OF BEnnEQuin ([@BEn], see AlSO [@PAV] for a short expositioN) wE can trAnsveRsely isotope $L_\Tau$ relativE TO ${\Partial}V$ (FixiNG $\xI | p$.
After applying this [ *wrinkling *]{}ope rat io n to all intersections with ${\mathcal{P}}$, we m ay he nc e ass u me that $L$ av o id s a c lo se d n ei g hb ourho od$U_{\ma thcal{P}}$ of $ S(1)\cup\dot s \c up S(5)$.
[* *Step 4.** ] {}AfterSt ep3 anda p ertur bation of $L$ , the cur ve $L_b$i ntersec t s t he 2 -dimensional subm a ni f old $S(6)$ tra nsvers el y i n fin ite ly many po in ts in $M\setm i nu s U _{\ m athcal{P}}$.Thus we can rep eat st ep s 2 and 3with$S ( 5)$ replaced b y $S (6)$ to m ake $L $ disjoi n t froman ope n n eig hbou r ho od $U _S $ of $S $.[** Step 5.* *]{ } Now wea r e in t heposi tionto use the fl ow$\Ps i _t$ of $ X_t$to p us h $L_ b$ int o $V$ .According to Le mma\[lem:esc ape \] th er e exi s ts $\t au> 0$such th at $\Ps i _\t au ( M \ se tminus
U_S)\subset V $ an d thus $ \Psi_\ t au (L _ b)\subse tV$. Sin c e $\Ps i_t$ pr eservesthe bi n di ng and pa ge s of t he op enbook$ (B,\ pi)$,the homo topy$ (\xi_t,L_t)_{t \ in[0,\tau]}$d ef i n ed by $ $\x i_t:=(\Psi_ t)_* \ xi,\ qqua d L _t: = \Psi_ t(L)$ $s at i sfies properties (a )and (b ) abo ve. Moreover, the bad ( u n b raided)part of ${\mathcal{L}} _\tau $ is given by $\Psi _\tau (L_b)$ a nd hencec o ntainedin$V$ . N ote t ha t the new con t a ct f or m $\alp ha_ \tau$ i s g ive n o n $ V$ by $$\al pha_\tau =T (1 -r ^2 )\B igl(d \ phi+(1+\ ta u)r ^2 d\t heta\ B igr).$ $ [** Step 6 .* * ]{ } Consi d er t he c on ta ct s tru ct ure $ \xi_ \ tau =\ker\a lpha_\tau $ f r om S te p5 on $V =S^1\times D^ 2$ . After re sc ali ng in$ r $ we may assume that $\xi_\tau= \ xi_{st} =\k er(d\ phi+ r^2d\thet a)$ . By a re s ult of Benne quin([ @Be n ] , see a ls o [ @P av] for as h ort expo si tion ) we ca n transversely iso t ope $L_\tau$ rel ati ve t o ${ \pa r ti a l}V $( fix i n g $\xi | p$.
After applying_this [*wrinkling*]{}_operation to all intersections_with ${\mathcal{P}}$,_we_may hence_assume_that $L$ avoids_a closed neighbourhood_$U_{\mathcal{P}}$ of $S(1)\cup\dots\cup S(5)$.
[**Step_4.** ]{} After_Step_3 and a perturbation of $L$, the curve $L_b$ intersects the 2-dimensional submanifold $S(6)$_transversely_in finitely_many_points_in $M\setminus U_{\mathcal{P}}$. Thus we_can repeat steps 2 and_3 with_$S(5)$ replaced by $S(6)$ to make $L$ disjoint_from_an open neighbourhood_$U_S$ of $S$.
[**Step 5.** ]{} Now we are in_the position to use the flow_$\Psi_t$ of $X_t$_to_push_$L_b$ into $V$. According_to Lemma \[lem:escape\] there exists $\tau>0$ such_that $\Psi_\tau(M\setminus
U_S)\subset V$ and thus $\Psi_\tau(L_b)\subset_V$. Since $\Psi_t$ preserves the binding and_pages of the open book $(B,\pi)$,_the homotopy $(\xi_t,L_t)_{t\in[0,\tau]}$ defined by_$$\xi_t:=(\Psi_t)_*\xi,\qquad L_t:=\Psi_t(L)$$_satisfies properties (a) and (b)_above. Moreover, the_bad (unbraided)_part of ${\mathcal{L}}_\tau$_is given by $\Psi_\tau(L_b)$ and hence_contained in $V$._Note that the new contact form_$\alpha_\tau$_is given on_$V$_by_$$\alpha_\tau=T(1-r^2)\Bigl(d\phi+(1+\tau)r^2d\theta\Bigr).$$ [**Step_6.** ]{} Consider_the_contact structure_$\xi_\tau=\ker\alpha_\tau$_from Step 5 on $V=S^1\times D^2$._After_rescaling in $r$ we may assume that_$\xi_\tau=\xi_{st}=\ker(d\phi+r^2d\theta)$. By a result_of_Bennequin ([@Ben], see also [@Pav]_for a short exposition) we_can transversely isotope $L_\tau$ relative to_${\partial}V$ (fixing_$\xi |
v$.
We also define the *reduced* graph $G_\Sigma^0$ to be the simple graph on $V$ obtained by setting $e = uv \in E(G_\Sigma^0)$ if and only if there is at least one edge from $u$ to $v$ in $G_\Sigma$.
Observe that if $\Sigma' \subseteq \Sigma$, then $G_{\Sigma'}$ is a subgraph of $G_\Sigma$. Now let us return specifically to kei.
Let $K = (X, \triangleright)$ be a kei, and let $(f_y)_{y \in X}$ be the associated maps. For any $S \subseteq X$, define $\Sigma_S = \lbrace f_y \mid y \in S \rbrace$. Then by $G_S$ we mean the multigraph $G_{\Sigma_S}$ in the sense of Definition \[multinvodef\]; $G_S$ thus has an associated $|S|$-edge-colouring, although if $|S|=1$ we may not necessarily consider $G_S$ as being coloured. We will also write $G_K = G_X$, indicating the graph for the whole kei.
Figure \[examples\] gives two examples of graphs representing kei.
(-4,0.336) – (-3,0.336); (-3.5,1.202) – (-3,0.366); (-4,0.336) – (-3.5,1.202);
(-3,0.336) circle \[radius=0.1\]; (-4,0.336) circle \[radius=0.1\]; (-3.5,1.202) circle \[radius=0.1\]; (-2.25,0.969) circle \[radius=0.1\];
at (-3.5,1.202) [(1 2)]{}; at (-4,0.366) [(1 3)]{}; at (-3,0.336) [(2 3)]{}; at (-2.3,0.969) [$\iota$]{};
(0,0.1) – (0.76,0.75); (3.52,0.1) – (2.76,0.75); (0,1.4) – (0.76,0.75); (3.52, | v$.
We also define the * reduced * graph $ G_\Sigma^0 $ to be the simple graph on $ V$ prevail by arrange $ e = uv \in E(G_\Sigma^0)$ if and only if there is at least one boundary from $ u$ to $ v$ in $ G_\Sigma$.
Observe that if $ \Sigma' \subseteq \Sigma$, then $ G_{\Sigma'}$ is a subgraph of $ G_\Sigma$. Now let us come back specifically to kei.
Let $ K = (X, \triangleright)$ exist a kei, and let $ (f_y)_{y \in X}$ be the associated maps. For any $ mho \subseteq X$, define $ \Sigma_S = \lbrace f_y \mid y \in S \rbrace$. Then by $ G_S$ we mean the multigraph $ G_{\Sigma_S}$ in the common sense of Definition \[multinvodef\ ]; $ G_S$ thus has an associated $ |S|$-edge - colouring, although if $ |S|=1 $ we may not necessarily consider $ G_S$ as being coloured. We will besides write $ G_K = G_X$, indicating the graph for the whole kei.
Figure \[examples\ ] yield two examples of graphs represent kei.
(-4,0.336) – (-3,0.336); (-3.5,1.202) – (-3,0.366); (-4,0.336) – (-3.5,1.202);
(-3,0.336) circle \[radius=0.1\ ]; (-4,0.336) set \[radius=0.1\ ]; (-3.5,1.202) circle \[radius=0.1\ ]; (-2.25,0.969) circle \[radius=0.1\ ];
at (-3.5,1.202) [ (1 2) ] { }; at (-4,0.366) [ (1 3) ] { }; at (-3,0.336) [ (2 3) ] { }; at (-2.3,0.969) [ $ \iota$ ] { };
(0,0.1) – (0.76,0.75); (3.52,0.1) – (2.76,0.75); (0,1.4) – (0.76,0.75); (3.52, | v$.
Wf also define the *reducea* graph $G_\Sigma^0$ jo be thx simpls graph un $V$ obtained by setting $e = nv \ib E(G_\Sugma^0)$ if and only if thdre is at least obe evge from $u$ to $v$ mh $G_\Sigma$.
Obserbc thac mf $\Sigma' \subsetgq \Sigma$, thet $G_{\Sigma'}$ is a vucgxaph of $G_\Sigma$. Now let us return spesificalky to kei.
Let $K = (V, \trpaggledpgmt)$ be a kei, and let $(f_y)_{y \in X}$ be fhe assmciated maps. Gor any $S \subseteq X$, definf $\Sihma_S = \lbrace f_y \mif y \in S \rbtzce$. Rhen by $G_S$ wd mean the multigraph $F_{\Sigma_S}$ in the sense of Definitkon \[mbltinvodef\]; $T_S$ thkv has an aswocianed $|S|$-edge-colomging, aldhough of $|S|=1$ we may nob necxssaeily consider $G_S$ as bxing coloured. We wilj also wrhtz $G_K = G_X$, indicating tye grapv fos thd whule kxi.
Fjgure \[fxajples\] givea two exampoes of graphs reprexegnong kei.
(-4,0.336) – (-3,0.336); (-3.5,1.202) – (-3,0.366); (-4,0.336) – (-3.5,1.202);
(-3,0.336) ciwcje \[radius=0.1\]; (-4,0.336) circle \[radius=0.1\]; (-3.5,1.202) circle \[radius=0.1\]; (-2.25,0.969) cjrcle \[radius=0.1\];
at (-3.5,1.202) [(1 2)]{}; at (-4,0.366) [(1 3)]{}; at (-3,0.336) [(2 3)]{}; at (-2.3,0.969) [$\iota$]{};
(0,0.1) – (0.76,0.75); (3.52,0.1) – (2.76,0.75); (0,1.4) – (0.76,0.75); (3.52, | v$. We also define the *reduced* graph be simple graph $V$ obtained by E(G_\Sigma^0)$ and only if is at least edge from $u$ to $v$ in Observe that if $\Sigma' \subseteq \Sigma$, then $G_{\Sigma'}$ is a subgraph of $G_\Sigma$. let us return specifically to kei. Let $K = (X, \triangleright)$ be a and $(f_y)_{y X}$ the associated maps. For any $S \subseteq X$, define $\Sigma_S = \lbrace f_y \mid y \in \rbrace$. Then by $G_S$ we mean the multigraph in the sense of \[multinvodef\]; $G_S$ thus has an $|S|$-edge-colouring, if $|S|=1$ may necessarily $G_S$ as being We will also write $G_K = G_X$, indicating the graph for the whole kei. Figure \[examples\] gives examples of kei. (-4,0.336) (-3,0.336); – (-4,0.336) – (-3.5,1.202); \[radius=0.1\]; (-4,0.336) circle \[radius=0.1\]; (-3.5,1.202) circle \[radius=0.1\]; at (-3.5,1.202) [(1 2)]{}; at (-4,0.366) [(1 at (-3,0.336) 3)]{}; at (-2.3,0.969) [$\iota$]{}; (0,0.1) – (3.52,0.1) – (2.76,0.75); (0,1.4) – (0.76,0.75); (3.52, | v$.
We also define the *reduced* grAph $G_\Sigma^0$ tO be thE siMplE gRaph On $V$ oBtained by settiNG $e = uv \In E(G_\Sigma^0)$ if and only if thEre is At LEast ONe Edge fRom $u$ to $v$ IN $G_\sIGma$.
obSeRve ThAT iF $\SigmA' \suBseteq \SIgma$, then $G_{\SIgmA'}$ iS a subgraph of $g_\siGma$. Now let uS reTurn specificAllY to kei.
leT $K = (X, \TRiangLerIght)$ bE a kei, aND let $(f_y)_{Y \in X}$ be the AsSOciateD Maps. For ANY $S \SubsEteq X$, define $\Sigma_S = \LBrACe f_y \mid y \in S \rbrAce$. TheN bY $g_S$ WE MeaN thE multigrapH $G_{\sigma_s}$ In the seNSe OF dEfiNItion \[multinvoDef\]; $G_S$ thus haS An aSsociaTeD $|S|$-eDGe-coloUring, AlTHouGh if $|S|=1$ we may nOt neCessarily ConsidER $G_S$ as beINg colouRed. We wIll AlsO wriTE $G_k = G_x$, inDiCAtiNG tHe gRAph For the whOlE kEi.
FigUre \[eXAMPLes\] gIveS two ExampLes of graphs rePreSentINg kEi.
(-4,0.336) – (-3,0.336); (-3.5,1.202) – (-3,0.366); (-4,0.336) – (-3.5,1.202);
(-3,0.336) cirCle \[raDius=0.1\]; (-4,0.336) CiRcle \[rAdius=0.1\]; (-3.5,1.202) cIrcle \[RaDius=0.1\]; (-2.25,0.969) circle \[radiuS=0.1\];
at (-3.5,1.202) [(1 2)]{}; aT (-4,0.366) [(1 3)]{}; at (-3,0.336) [(2 3)]{}; at (-2.3,0.969) [$\iota$]{};
(0,0.1) – (0.76,0.75); (3.52,0.1) – (2.76,0.75); (0,1.4) – (0.76,0.75); (3.52, | v$.
We also define the * reduced* g raph$G_ \Si gm a^0$ tobe the simpleg raph on $V$ obtained by se tting $ e = u v \ in E( G_\Sigm a ^0 ) $ if a nd on ly if ther e i s at le ast one ed gefr om $u$ to $v $ i n $G_\Sigm a$.
Observe th atif $\S ig ma' \subs ete q \Si gma$,t hen $G _{\Sigma' }$ is a s u bgrapho f $ G_\S igma$. Now let us re t urn specifical ly toke i .L et$K= (X, \tri an gleri g ht)$ be ak e i , a n d let $(f_y)_ {y \in X}$b e t he ass oc iat e d maps . For a n y $ S \subseteq X$, define $ \Sigma _ S = \lb r ace f_y \midy \ inS \r b ra ce $.Th e n b y $ G_S $ we mean th emu ltigr aph$ G _ { \Sig ma_ S}$in th e sense of De fin itio n \[ multi nvode f\]; $ G_S$thus h as an a ssociated $|S|$ -edg e-colouri ng, a lth ou gh if $|S|=1 $ w e m ay notnecessa r ily c o n s id er $G_S$ as beingco l o ur ed. We w ill al s owr i te $G_K=G_X $, i n d icati ng t h egraph fo r thew ho le kei.
Fi gure \ [e xam ple s\] g i vestwo ex amples o f gra p hs representin g kei.
(-4,0. 3 36 ) –( -3,0 .33 6); (-3.5,1 .202 ) – ( -3,0 . 36 6); (-4,0 .336) – (- 3 .5,1.202);
(-3,0.3 36 ) circ le \[ radius=0.1\]; (-4,0.336 ) c ircle \[ radi u s= 0 .1\]; (-3.5,1. 202)circle \[r a dius=0.1 \]; ( -2.25,0. 969) circ l e \[radiu s=0 .1\ ];
at ( -3 .5,1.202) [(1 2 )]{} ;at (-4, 0.3 66) [(1 3) ]{} ; a t ( -3 ,0.336) [ (2 3)]{} ;at ( -2 .3, 0.969 ) [$\iota $] {};
(0, 0.1)– (0.76 ,0.75 ); ( 3. 52 , 0.1 ) – (2. 7 6, 0 . 75); ( 0, 1.4) –(0 .76,0 .75) ; (3 .52, | v$.
We_also define_the *reduced* graph $G_\Sigma^0$_to be_the_simple graph_on_$V$ obtained by_setting $e =_uv \in E(G_\Sigma^0)$ if_and only if_there_is at least one edge from $u$ to $v$ in $G_\Sigma$.
Observe that if $\Sigma'_\subseteq_\Sigma$, then_$G_{\Sigma'}$_is_a subgraph of $G_\Sigma$. Now_let us return specifically to_kei.
Let $K_= (X, \triangleright)$ be a kei, and let_$(f_y)_{y_\in X}$ be_the associated maps. For any $S \subseteq X$, define_$\Sigma_S = \lbrace f_y \mid y_\in S \rbrace$._Then_by_$G_S$ we mean the_multigraph $G_{\Sigma_S}$ in the sense of_Definition \[multinvodef\]; $G_S$ thus has an_associated $|S|$-edge-colouring, although if $|S|=1$ we may_not necessarily consider $G_S$ as being_coloured. We will also write_$G_K =_G_X$, indicating the graph for_the whole kei.
Figure_\[examples\] gives_two examples of_graphs representing kei.
(-4,0.336) – (-3,0.336); (-3.5,1.202)_– (-3,0.366); (-4,0.336)_– (-3.5,1.202);
(-3,0.336) circle \[radius=0.1\]; (-4,0.336) circle_\[radius=0.1\];_(-3.5,1.202) circle \[radius=0.1\];_(-2.25,0.969)_circle_\[radius=0.1\];
at (-3.5,1.202)_[(1 2)]{}; at_(-4,0.366)_[(1 3)]{};_at_(-3,0.336) [(2 3)]{}; at (-2.3,0.969) [$\iota$]{};
(0,0.1)_–_(0.76,0.75); (3.52,0.1) – (2.76,0.75); (0,1.4) – (0.76,0.75);_(3.52, |
of $\tilde{X}_{\Lambda}(\varrho)$ can be measured with help of the spectrum estimator [@Estimator], which requires estimation of only $d^{2}$ parameters which (because of affinity) are in one to one correspondence with the needed spectrum of (\[PositiveMaps1\]). Note that for $2{\otimes}2$ systems (the composite system of two qubits), similar approaches lead to the method of detection of entanglement measures (concurrence [@Concurrence] and entanglement of formation [@EoF]) without the state reconstruction [@PHPRL].
The disadvantage of the above method is [@Carteret] that realization of SPA requires addition the noise to the system (we have to put some controlled ancillas, couple the system, and then trace them out). In Ref. [@Carteret] the question was raised about the existence of noiseless quantum networks, i.e., those of which the only input data are: (i) unknown quantum information represented by $\varrho^{{\otimes}m}$ (ii) the controlled measured qubit which reproduces us the spectrum moments (see Ref. [@Estimator]). It was shown that for at least one positive map (transposition) $T$ the noiseless network exists [@Carteret]. Such networks for two-qubit concurrence and three-qubit tangle have also been designed [@Carteret2].
In the present paper we ask a general question: do noiseless networks work only for special maps (functions) or do they exist for any positive map test? In the case of a positive answer to the latter: is it possible to design a general method for constructing them? Can it be adopted to any criteria other than the one defined in (\[PositiveMaps1\])?
For this purpose we first show how to measure a spectrum of the matrix $\Theta(\varrho)$, where $\Theta :
\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{C}^{m})\rightarrow\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{C}^{m})$ is an arbitrary linear, hermiticity-preserving map and $\varrho$ is a given density operator acting on $\mathbb{C}^{m}$, with the help of only $m$ parameters estimated instead of $m^{2}-1$. For bipartite $\varrho$ where $m=d^{2}$ this gives $d^{2}$ instead of $d^{4}-1$. This approach is consistent with previous results [@Grassl; @Leifer; @Brun] where arbitrary | of $ \tilde{X}_{\Lambda}(\varrho)$ can be measured with help of the spectrum estimator [ @Estimator ], which requires estimate of merely $ d^{2}$ parameters which (because of affinity) are in one to one correspondence with the needed spectrum of (\[PositiveMaps1\ ]). Note that for $ 2{\otimes}2 $ system (the composite system of two qubits), similar approach lead to the method of signal detection of web measures (concurrence [ @Concurrence ] and entanglement of geological formation [ @EoF ]) without the state reconstruction [ @PHPRL ].
The disadvantage of the above method is [ @Carteret ] that realization of SPA requires accession the noise to the system (we have to put some controlled ancillas, couple the system, and then hound them out). In Ref. [ @Carteret ] the question was raised about the existence of noiseless quantum network, i.e., those of which the only input data are: (i) nameless quantum information represented by $ \varrho^{{\otimes}m}$ (ii) the controlled measured qubit which reproduces us the spectrum moment (see Ref. [ @Estimator ]). It was shown that for at least one positive map (transposition) $ T$ the noiseless net exist [ @Carteret ]. Such networks for two - qubit concurrence and three - qubit tangle have also been designed [ @Carteret2 ].
In the present paper we ask a general question: do noiseless networks work merely for special maps (routine) or do they exist for any positive map test? In the case of a plus solution to the latter: is it possible to design a general method acting for constructing them? Can it be adopted to any criteria other than the one defined in (\[PositiveMaps1\ ])?
For this purpose we foremost show how to measure a spectrum of the matrix $ \Theta(\varrho)$, where $ \Theta:
\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{C}^{m})\rightarrow\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{C}^{m})$ is an arbitrary linear, hermiticity - preserving map and $ \varrho$ is a given density operator act on $ \mathbb{C}^{m}$, with the aid of only $ m$ parameters estimated alternatively of $ m^{2}-1$. For bipartite $ \varrho$ where $ m = d^{2}$ this gives $ d^{2}$ instead of $ d^{4}-1$. This overture is consistent with previous results [ @Grassl; @Leifer; @Brun ] where arbitrary | of $\tilde{X}_{\Lambda}(\varrho)$ can ne measured with help oh the slectrum dstimator [@Estimator], which reeuures tftimation of only $a^{2}$ parametvrs which (beceuse of affinity) are in one to lne eocrespondence wijh the needeg spectrum of (\[[oriciveMaps1\]). Note that for $2{\otimes}2$ systemf (the cpmoosite system jf tej qugptw), similar approaches lead to fhe metiod of detectiom of entanglement measures (confurrence [@Concurrenfe] and entabgleiwnt of formagion [@EoF]) wpchout the sjate reconstruction [@PHPRL].
The disxdvancage of the avovf method is [@Rartervt] that realidstion mf SPA tequires additlon tie niise to the system (we have to put some sontrolleg cncillas, couple the stsrem, atd tven geacd tgek kut). In Reh. [@Carteret] fhe questiob was raised about uhe vcistence of hoiselqsf quantum networks, i.e., those of which tht onlg input data are: (i) unkniwn quantum informatiln represqnted by $\varrho^{{\otimes}m}$ (ii) the controlled measured qubiv dhiem fwpgoduces us the spectrum moments (see Ref. [@Estimwfot]). Pt was shown that for at leaxt omg positive map (trans'ksjtion) $T$ the noiselfss netrork wxists [@Cawterrt]. Such networks for two-qubut concurrenbe abd three-qubit tangpe have alsu begn desogned [@Carteret2].
In the przsent laper we asn a generzu question: do noksekevs networks work only for fpecial meps (fbnctions) or co ther exist fog any positive map test? Ln thg case of a posihive answer to the latter: is it possible to dgsicn d generaj metmod for construsting them? Can it be cdoptea to any cgiteria ovher than thq one defined ln (\[PositiveMeps1\])?
For thys pyrpowe we fkfst show how tp measure a spectrun of the matrix $\Thcta(\vatrgo)$, where $\Theta :
\natycal{B}(\mathbb{C}^{m})\ribhtxrrjw\lavhcal{F}(\kathbb{C}^{m})$ is dn afbigtary uinear, hermltizity-lreserving map and $\vdrrhk$ is a given densiyy operatot acting jn $\mathbb{C}^{m}$, woth the help of onpy $m$ 'aramevers extiiated instead of $m^{2}-1$. For bipartife $\varrho$ whcre $m=d^{2}$ this gyves $d^{2}$ instead oy $d^{4}-1$. This approach is consistent with pretious results [@Grassl; @Lgifer; @Brun] where arbijravy | of $\tilde{X}_{\Lambda}(\varrho)$ can be measured with help spectrum [@Estimator], which estimation of only affinity) in one to correspondence with the spectrum of (\[PositiveMaps1\]). Note that for systems (the composite system of two qubits), similar approaches lead to the method detection of entanglement measures (concurrence [@Concurrence] and entanglement of formation [@EoF]) without the reconstruction The of above method is [@Carteret] that realization of SPA requires addition the noise to the system (we to put some controlled ancillas, couple the system, then trace them out). Ref. [@Carteret] the question was about existence of quantum i.e., of which the input data are: (i) unknown quantum information represented by $\varrho^{{\otimes}m}$ (ii) the controlled measured qubit which reproduces the spectrum Ref. [@Estimator]). was that at least one (transposition) $T$ the noiseless network exists for two-qubit concurrence and three-qubit tangle have also designed [@Carteret2]. the present paper we ask a question: do noiseless networks work only for special (functions) or do they exist for any positive map test? In the case of a to the latter: is possible to design general for them? it be to any criteria other than the one defined in (\[PositiveMaps1\])? For purpose we first show how to measure a spectrum of $\Theta(\varrho)$, $\Theta : \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{C}^{m})\rightarrow\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{C}^{m})$ an arbitrary linear, hermiticity-preserving and is a given density on with only parameters instead of $m^{2}-1$. For $\varrho$ where $m=d^{2}$ this gives instead of $d^{4}-1$. This results [@Grassl; @Leifer; @Brun] where arbitrary | of $\tilde{X}_{\Lambda}(\varrho)$ can be Measured wiTh helP of The SpEctrUm esTimator [@EstimatOR], whiCh requires estimation of Only $d^{2}$ PaRAmetERs Which (Because OF aFFIniTy) ArE in OnE To One coRreSpondenCe with the nEedEd Spectrum of (\[PoSItIveMaps1\]). NotE thAt for $2{\otimes}2$ sYstEms (the CoMpoSIte sySteM of twO qubitS), SimilaR approachEs LEad to tHE method OF DeTectIon of entanglement MEaSUres (concurrencE [@ConcuRrENcE] ANd eNtaNglement of FoRmatiON [@EoF]) witHOuT THE stATe reconstructIon [@PHPRL].
The DIsaDvantaGe Of tHE above MethoD iS [@carTeret] that reAlizAtion of SPa requiREs additIOn the noIse to tHe sYstEm (we HAvE tO puT sOMe cONtRolLEd aNcillas, cOuPlE the sYsteM, AND Then TraCe thEm out). in Ref. [@Carteret] The QuesTIon Was raIsed aBout ThE exisTence oF noisElEss quantum netwoRks, i.E., those of wHicH tHe oNlY inpuT Data arE: (i) uNknOwn quanTum infoRMatIoN REPrEsented by $\varrho^{{\otiMeS}M}$ (Ii) The contrOlled mEAsUrED qubit whIcH reProdUCEs us tHe spECtRum momenTs (see REF. [@EStImator]). IT wAs showN tHat For At leaST one PositiVe map (traNsposITion) $T$ the noiselESs network exisTS [@CARTeREt]. SuCh nEtworks for tWo-quBIt coNcurREnCe aND threE-qubiT tANgLE have also been designEd [@carterEt2].
In tHe present papeR we ask a genERAL questioN: do nOIsELess networks woRk onlY for speciaL Maps (funcTions) Or do they Exist for aNY Positive Map TesT? In The CASe Of a positive anSWEr to ThE latter: Is iT possibLe tO deSigN a gEnEral methoD for consTrUcTiNg TheM? Can iT Be adopteD tO anY cRitEria oTHer thaN the oNe deFiNeD In (\[POsitivemApS1\])?
fOr thIs PuRposE we FiRst shOw hoW To mEasure a Spectrum oF thE MatrIx $\thEta(\varrHo)$, where $\Theta :
\mAtHcal{B}(\mathbB{C}^{M})\riGhtarrOW\Mathcal{B}(\Mathbb{C}^{m})$ is an arbitrary liNEar, hermItiCity-pReseRving map aNd $\vArrho$ iS a gIVen denSity opEratoR aCtiNG On $\matHBB{C}^{M}$, wiTh The help of oNLY $m$ pArameTeRs esTimated Instead of $m^{2}-1$. For biparTIte $\Varrho$ where $m=d^{2}$ ThiS givES $D^{2}$ iNstEAd OF $d^{4}-1$. THiS AppROAch is consistent With previoUs REsUlts [@Grassl; @lEifEr; @brun] wheRe arbitRary | of $\tilde{X}_{\Lambda}(\ varrho)$ c an be me asu re d wi th h elp of the spe c trum estimator [@Estimator ], wh ic h req u ir es es timatio n o f onl y$d ^{2 }$ pa ramet ers which(because o f a ff inity) are i n o ne to onecor respondencewit h thene ede d spec tru m of(\[Pos i tiveMa ps1\]). N ot e thatf or $2{\ o t im es}2 $ systems (the co m po s ite system oftwo qu bi t s) , sim ila r approach es lead to them et h o d of detection ofentanglemen t me asures ( con c urrenc e [@C on c urr ence] and e ntan glement o f form a tion [@ E oF]) wi thoutthe st ater ec on str uc t ion [@ PHP R L].
The di sa dv antag e of t h e abo vemeth od is [@Carteret]tha t re a liz ation of S PA r eq uires addit ion t he noise to the s yste m (we hav e t oput s ome c o ntroll edanc illas,couplet hesy s t e m, and then trace th em o ut ). In Re f. [@C a rt er e t] the q ue sti on w a s rais ed a b ou t the ex istenc e o fnoisele ss quant um ne two rks,i .e., those of whic h the only input dat a are: (i) unk n ow n qu a ntum in formation r epre s ente d by $\ var r ho^{{ \otim es } m} $ (ii) the controlle dmeasur ed qu bit which rep roduces us t h e spectr um m o me n ts (see Ref. [ @Esti mator]). I t was sho wn th at for a t least o n e positiv e m ap(tr ans p o si tion) $T$ the n oise le ss netw ork exists [@ Car ter et] .Such netw orks for t wo -q ub itconcu r rence an dthr ee -qu bit t a ngle h ave a lsobe en des igned [ @ Ca r t eret 2] .
Inthe p resen t pa p erwe aska general qu e stio n: d o noise less networks w ork only f or sp ecialm a ps (func tions) or do they exist for any po sitiv e ma p test? I n t he cas e o f a pos itiveanswe rtot h e lat t e r: is i t possible t o d esign a gen eral me thod for construct i ngthem? Can itbeadop t e dtoa ny cri te r iao t her than the on e definedin (\ [PositiveM a ps1 \] )?
For this p urpos e we fir st show h ow to mea su re a s pec trum of th e matrix $\Theta( \ varrh o )$ , whe re$\Thet a:
\ mathc al{B}( \ mat hbb{C }^{m}) \r ightar row\m at hcal{B}( \mathbb{C}^{m})$ is anarbitr ary l ine ar, hermi tic i ty- preservin g ma p and $\va rrh o$is agiv e n den sity op era t or ac ting on $\math b b{ C}^ { m }$ , with theh e l p o f onl y $ m $ para mete rs estimated inst e ad of $m^{2}-1 $. F o r bi par t ite$\ varrho$ where$m= d^ { 2 }$ thisgi ves $d^{2}$ instead o f $d^{ 4}-1$. Thisapproac h is consis tent wi th previo usre s ults [@ Gr as s l; @Le ifer ;@Brun] where arbi t r ary | of_$\tilde{X}_{\Lambda}(\varrho)$ can_be measured with help_of the_spectrum_estimator [@Estimator],_which_requires estimation of_only $d^{2}$ parameters_which (because of affinity)_are in one_to_one correspondence with the needed spectrum of (\[PositiveMaps1\]). Note that for $2{\otimes}2$ systems (the_composite_system of_two_qubits),_similar approaches lead to the_method of detection of entanglement_measures (concurrence_[@Concurrence] and entanglement of formation [@EoF]) without the_state_reconstruction [@PHPRL].
The disadvantage_of the above method is [@Carteret] that realization of_SPA requires addition the noise to_the system (we_have_to_put some controlled ancillas,_couple the system, and then trace_them out). In Ref. [@Carteret] the_question was raised about the existence of_noiseless quantum networks, i.e., those of_which the only input data_are: (i)_unknown quantum information represented by_$\varrho^{{\otimes}m}$ (ii) the_controlled measured_qubit which reproduces_us the spectrum moments (see Ref._[@Estimator]). It was_shown that for at least one_positive_map (transposition) $T$_the_noiseless_network exists_[@Carteret]. Such networks_for_two-qubit concurrence_and_three-qubit tangle have also been designed_[@Carteret2].
In_the present paper we ask a general_question: do noiseless networks_work_only for special maps_(functions) or do they exist_for any positive map test? In_the case_of a_positive answer to the latter: is it possible to design a_general method for constructing them? Can_it be adopted to_any criteria_other_than the one_defined_in (\[PositiveMaps1\])?
For_this purpose we first show how to_measure a_spectrum of the matrix $\Theta(\varrho)$, where_$\Theta :
\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{C}^{m})\rightarrow\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{C}^{m})$ is an_arbitrary_linear, hermiticity-preserving map and $\varrho$ is_a given density operator acting on_$\mathbb{C}^{m}$, with the help of_only_$m$_parameters estimated instead of $m^{2}-1$._For bipartite $\varrho$ where $m=d^{2}$ this_gives $d^{2}$ instead_of $d^{4}-1$. This approach is consistent with_previous_results [@Grassl; @Leifer; @Brun] where arbitrary |
. Then, once the stop mass is known, we can calculate the fine tuning defined in Eq. .
Knowing that the triplet contribution to the Higgs mass is largest when $m_{\chi} \gg \mu_{\Sigma}$, we first choose to fix $$m_{\chi}=10 {~\text{TeV}}~~~\text{ and } ~~~ \mu_{\Sigma}=300{~\text{GeV}}$$ and scan over value of $\lambda$ and $m_T$. The left panels of Fig. \[fig:ftLambda\] show the values of the stop soft masses that are needed in order to set the correct Higgs mass; in Fig. \[fig:finetuningTB10BothEqualLambda\], both stop soft masses are equal, while in Fig. \[fig:finetuningTB10ChangeRightLambda\] the left-handed soft mass is fixed at $800{~\text{GeV}}$ and the right-handed soft mass is indicated by the contours. The triplets do not affect the Higgs mass in the MSSM limit that $\lambda\rightarrow0$, so very large stop masses are needed. As $\lambda$ is increased from zero, the necessary stop mass decreases. If $\lambda \gtrsim 0.35$, the triplet $F$-terms generate a Higgs mass that is alway greater than observed value. These regions are marked in green in the figures. The soft mass $m_T$ only affect the mass of the Higgs through the negative term in Eq. (\[eqn\_HiggsY1\]). For large values of $\tan\beta$, this term is negligible.
The fine tuning is calculated at each point once the stop masses have been obtained. Contours of $\Delta$ are shown in the right panels of Fig. \[fig:ftLambda\]. The white, pink, and blue regions represent a fine tuning of $\Delta \le 100$, $100 < \Delta \le 1000$, and $\Delta > 1000$ respectively. The RGE running part of the fine tuning measure is dominant and depends on $h_t^2 (m^2_{Q_3} + m^2_{U_3})$ and $\lambda^2 m_T^2$. Increasing $\lambda$ lowers the stop masses, decreasing the fine tuning until $\lambda^2 m_T^2$ is comparable to $h_t^2 (m^2_{Q_3} + m^2_{U_3})$. As such, a | . Then, once the stop mass is known, we can calculate the all right tuning define in Eq. .
Knowing that the triplet contribution to the Higgs bulk is large when $ m_{\chi } \gg \mu_{\Sigma}$, we first choose to fix $ $ m_{\chi}=10 { ~\text{TeV}}~~~\text { and } ~~~ \mu_{\Sigma}=300{~\text{GeV}}$$ and read over value of $ \lambda$ and $ m_T$. The left panels of Fig. \[fig: ftLambda\ ] show the value of the stop soft batch that are needed in order to set the correct Higgs mass; in Fig. \[fig: finetuningTB10BothEqualLambda\ ], both stop soft mass are equal, while in Fig. \[fig: finetuningTB10ChangeRightLambda\ ] the left - handed soft bulk is fixed at $ 800{~\text{GeV}}$ and the right - handed soft batch is indicated by the contours. The triplets do not affect the Higgs mass in the MSSM terminus ad quem that $ \lambda\rightarrow0 $, so very large stop masses are needed. As $ \lambda$ is increased from zero, the necessary stop aggregate decrease. If $ \lambda \gtrsim 0.35 $, the triplet $ F$-terms generate a Higgs mass that is alway greater than observed value. These regions are marked in green in the figures. The delicate mass $ m_T$ only feign the bulk of the Higgs through the negative term in Eq. (\[eqn\_HiggsY1\ ]). For large value of $ \tan\beta$, this condition is negligible.
The fine tuning is calculated at each distributor point once the stop masses have been obtained. Contours of $ \Delta$ are shown in the right gore of Fig. \[fig: ftLambda\ ]. The white, pink, and blue regions represent a all right tuning of $ \Delta \le 100 $, $ 100 < \Delta \le 1000 $, and $ \Delta > 1000 $ respectively. The RGE running share of the all right tuning bill is dominant and depends on $ h_t^2 (m^2_{Q_3 } + m^2_{U_3})$ and $ \lambda^2 m_T^2$. Increasing $ \lambda$ lowers the stop masses, decreasing the all right tuning until $ \lambda^2 m_T^2 $ is comparable to $ h_t^2 (m^2_{Q_3 } + m^2_{U_3})$. As such, a | . Thfn, once the stop mass is known, we can ccoculatx the fjne tunivg defined in Eq. .
Knowing that tye truplet contribution to ghe Higgs mass is larjest when $m_{\chi} \gj \mu_{\Sigma}$, we fjvst ckoise to fix $$m_{\chl}=10 {~\text{TeV}}~~~\teft{ and } ~~~ \mu_{\Sigka}=300{~\gert{GeV}}$$ and scan over value of $\lambda$ wnd $m_T$. Yhf left panels jf Fpg. \[sig:ffLambda\] show the values of the stol soft kasses that ate needed in order to set hhe forrect Higgs mass; in Fig. \[fig:funettbingTB10BothEqjalLambda\], both stop sort masses are equal, while in Fie. \[fig:fnnetuningTB10XhqngfTightLambda\] vhe lest-handed sofb mass hs fixec at $800{~\text{GeV}}$ akd thx ritht-handed soft mass iv indicated by the contours. Tke triplets do not afdext thg Higcs mxws kn uhe MASM lilit that $\lambsa\rightarroq0$, so very large stok mwwses are needsd. As $\jaibda$ is increased from zero, the necessagy sfop mass decreases. If $\lqmbda \gtrsim 0.35$, the triklet $F$-termf generate a Higgs mass that is alway greater that obsxrxed vwuye. These regions are marked in green in the figtdex. Nhe soft mass $m_T$ jnly affect tje iass of the Hkggs tkdohgh the negative tfrm in Gq. (\[eqn\_HuggsY1\]). For larbe values of $\tan\beta$, this twrm is negliyiboe.
The fine tuning ns calculateb at esch ppint once the stop masszs havs been obtalned. Contkjrs of $\Delta$ are shpwt in the right panels of Fyg. \[fig:ftLanbda\]. The whkte, kink, anq blue reglons vapresent a fine tujing lf $\Delta \le 100$, $100 < \Delta \le 1000$, and $\Delta > 1000$ respecvmvely. The RGE rgnnpng part jf thc fine tuning mqasure is domiuant and depevds on $h_t^2 (j^2_{Q_3} + m^2_{U_3})$ end $\lambda^2 m_E^2$. Increasing $\nwmbda$ lowers the sto[ mawses, decrearkng the fine tining untpl $\lamvda^2 m_T^2$ is comparabke jo $h_t^2 (m^2_{Q_3} + m^2_{U_3})$. As sbeh, a | . Then, once the stop mass is can the fine defined in Eq. contribution the Higgs mass largest when $m_{\chi} \mu_{\Sigma}$, we first choose to fix {~\text{TeV}}~~~\text{ and } ~~~ \mu_{\Sigma}=300{~\text{GeV}}$$ and scan over value of $\lambda$ and $m_T$. left panels of Fig. \[fig:ftLambda\] show the values of the stop soft masses are in to the correct Higgs mass; in Fig. \[fig:finetuningTB10BothEqualLambda\], both stop soft masses are equal, while in Fig. the left-handed soft mass is fixed at $800{~\text{GeV}}$ the right-handed soft mass indicated by the contours. The do affect the mass the limit that $\lambda\rightarrow0$, very large stop masses are needed. As $\lambda$ is increased from zero, the necessary stop mass decreases. $\lambda \gtrsim triplet $F$-terms a mass is alway greater value. These regions are marked in figures. The soft mass $m_T$ only affect the of the through the negative term in Eq. For large values of $\tan\beta$, this term is The fine tuning is calculated at each point once the stop masses have been obtained. $\Delta$ are shown in right panels of \[fig:ftLambda\]. white, and regions represent fine tuning of $\Delta \le 100$, $100 < \Delta \le 1000$, $\Delta > 1000$ respectively. The RGE running part of the measure dominant and depends $h_t^2 (m^2_{Q_3} + m^2_{U_3})$ $\lambda^2 Increasing $\lambda$ lowers the decreasing fine m_T^2$ comparable $h_t^2 (m^2_{Q_3} + m^2_{U_3})$. such, a | . Then, once the stop mass is knowN, we can calcUlate The FinE tUninG defIned in Eq. .
KnowinG That The triplet contribution To the hiGGs maSS iS largEst when $M_{\ChI} \GG \mu_{\siGmA}$, we FiRSt ChoosE to Fix $$m_{\chi}=10 {~\Text{TeV}}~~~\texT{ anD } ~~~ \mU_{\Sigma}=300{~\text{Gev}}$$ AnD scan over vAluE of $\lambda$ and $M_T$. THe left PaNelS Of Fig. \[Fig:FtLamBda\] shoW The valUes of the sToP Soft maSSes that ARE nEedeD in order to set the cORrECt Higgs mass; in FIg. \[fig:fInETuNINgTb10BoThEqualLamBdA\], both STop soft MAsSES Are EQual, while in FiG. \[fig:finetunINgTb10ChangERIghTlambda\] The leFt-HAndEd soft mass iS fixEd at $800{~\text{GEV}}$ and tHE right-hANded sofT mass iS inDicAted BY tHe ConToURs. THE tRipLEts Do not affEcT tHe HigGs maSS IN The MsSM LimiT that $\Lambda\rightarRow0$, So veRY laRge stOp masSes aRe NeedeD. As $\lamBda$ is InCreased from zero, The nEcessary sTop MaSs dEcReaseS. if $\lambDa \gTrsIm 0.35$, the trIplet $F$-tERms GeNERAtE a Higgs mass that is aLwAY GrEater thaN obserVEd VaLUe. These rEgIonS are MARked iN greEN iN the figuRes. The SOfT mAss $m_T$ onLy Affect ThE maSs oF the HIGgs tHrough The negatIve teRM in Eq. (\[eqn\_HiggsY1\]). fOr large values OF $\tAN\BeTA$, thiS teRm is negligiBle.
THE finE tunINg Is cALculaTed at EaCH pOInt once the stop masseS hAve beeN obtaIned. Contours oF $\Delta$ are sHOWN in the riGht pANeLS of Fig. \[fig:ftLamBda\]. ThE white, pink, ANd blue reGions RepresenT a fine tunING of $\Delta \Le 100$, $100 < \DEltA \le 1000$, And $\dELtA > 1000$ respectively. tHE RGE RuNning paRt oF the finE tuNinG meAsuRe Is dominanT and depeNdS oN $h_T^2 (m^2_{q_3} + m^2_{U_3})$ And $\laMBda^2 m_T^2$. IncReAsiNg $\LamBda$ loWErs the Stop mAsseS, dEcREasIng the fINe TUNing UnTiL $\lamBda^2 M_T^2$ Is comParaBLe tO $h_t^2 (m^2_{Q_3} + m^2_{U_3})$. as such, a | . Then, once the stop mass is known, we c ancal cu late the fine tuning d e fine d in Eq. .
Knowing th at th et ripl e tcontr ibution to t heHi gg s m as s i s lar ges t when$m_{\chi}\gg \ mu_{\Sigma}$ , w e first ch oos e to fix $$m _{\ chi}=1 0{~\ t ext{T eV} }~~~\ text{a nd } ~ ~~ \mu_{\ Si g ma}=30 0 {~\text { G eV }}$$ and scan over va l ue of $\lambda$ a nd $m_ T$ . T h e le ftpanels ofFi g. \[ f ig:ftLa m bd a \ ] sh o w the valuesof the stop sof t mass es th a t areneede di n o rder to set the correctHiggsm ass; in Fig. \[ fig:fi net uni ngTB 1 0B ot hEq ua l Lam b da \], bot h stop s of tmasse s ar e e q ual, wh ilein Fi g. \[fig:fine tun ingT B 10C hange Right Lamb da \] th e left -hand ed soft mass is f ixed at $800{ ~\t ex t{G eV }}$ a n d therig ht- handedsoft ma s s i si n d ic ated by the contou rs . Th e triple ts don ot a f fect the H igg s ma s s in t he M S SM limit t hat $\ l am bd a\right ar row0$, s o v ery larg e sto p mass es are n eeded . As $\lambda$i s increased f r om z er o , th e n ecessary st op m a ss d ecre a se s.I f $\l ambda \ g tr s im 0.35$, the tripl et $F$-t ermsgenerate a Hi ggs mass t h a t is alwa y gr e at e r than observe d val ue. Theser egions a re ma rked ingreen int h e figure s.The so ftm a ss $m_T$ only a f f ectth e massofthe Hig gsthr oug h t he negative term in E q. ( \[ eqn \_Hig g sY1\]).Fo r l ar gevalue s of $\ tan\b eta$ ,th i s t erm isn eg l i gibl e.
Thefin etunin g is cal culated at eachpoi n t on ce t he stop masses havebe en obtaine d. Co ntours o f $\Delt a$ are shown in the rig h t panel s o f Fig . \[ fig:ftLam bda \]. Th e w h ite, p ink, a nd bl ue re g i ons r e p re sen ta fine tun i n g o f $\D el ta \ le 100$ , $100 < \Delta \l e 10 00$, and $\De lta > 1 0 0 0$ re s pe c tiv el y . T h e RGE running pa rt of thefi n etuning mea s ure i s domin ant and depe n ds on $ h_t^2 (m^ 2_{Q_3} + m ^2_{ U _ 3}) $ and $\la mbda^2 m _T^2$. In c reasi n g$\lam bda $ lowe rs th e sto p mass e s,decre asingth e fine tuni ng until $ \lambda^2 m_T^2$ is com parabl e to$h_ t^2 (m^2_ {Q_ 3 } + m^2_{U_3 })$. As such,a | . Then,_once the_stop mass is known,_we can_calculate_the fine_tuning_defined in Eq. .
Knowing_that the triplet_contribution to the Higgs_mass is largest_when_$m_{\chi} \gg \mu_{\Sigma}$, we first choose to fix $$m_{\chi}=10 {~\text{TeV}}~~~\text{ and } ~~~ \mu_{\Sigma}=300{~\text{GeV}}$$_and_scan over_value_of_$\lambda$ and $m_T$. The left_panels of Fig. \[fig:ftLambda\] show the_values of_the stop soft masses that are needed in_order_to set the_correct Higgs mass; in Fig. \[fig:finetuningTB10BothEqualLambda\], both stop soft masses_are equal, while in Fig. \[fig:finetuningTB10ChangeRightLambda\] the_left-handed soft mass_is_fixed_at $800{~\text{GeV}}$ and the_right-handed soft mass is indicated by_the contours. The triplets do not_affect the Higgs mass in the MSSM_limit that $\lambda\rightarrow0$, so very large_stop masses are needed. As_$\lambda$ is_increased from zero, the necessary_stop mass decreases._If $\lambda_\gtrsim 0.35$, the_triplet $F$-terms generate a Higgs mass_that is alway_greater than observed value. These regions_are_marked in green_in_the_figures. The_soft mass $m_T$_only_affect the_mass_of the Higgs through the negative_term_in Eq. (\[eqn\_HiggsY1\]). For large values of $\tan\beta$,_this term is negligible.
The_fine_tuning is calculated at_each point once the stop_masses have been obtained. Contours of_$\Delta$ are_shown in_the right panels of Fig. \[fig:ftLambda\]. The white, pink, and blue regions_represent a fine tuning of $\Delta_\le 100$, $100 <_\Delta \le_1000$,_and $\Delta >_1000$_respectively. The_RGE running part of the fine tuning_measure is_dominant and depends on $h_t^2 (m^2_{Q_3}_+ m^2_{U_3})$ and $\lambda^2_m_T^2$._Increasing $\lambda$ lowers the stop masses,_decreasing the fine tuning until $\lambda^2_m_T^2$ is comparable to $h_t^2_(m^2_{Q_3}_+_m^2_{U_3})$. As such, a |
[@L2a]–[@L2e] (e.g. [@L2e Theorems 23.1 and 25.2]) hold unconditionally.
The main observation of this paper is that the statement of Proposition \[p1\] can also be exploited in a different way, as follows. For a given type of group, we consider the base case where $q=p$ is a prime. For a specific value of $p$, we can use ad hoc methods and/or computer algebra systems like [GAP]{} [@gap] to perform all kinds of computations within the fixed finite group $G(p)$. If we succeed in this way to determine the scalars $\xi$ for $G(p)$, then Proposition \[p1\] tells us that the analogous result will hold for any power of $p$. This is particularly relevant for “bad” primes $p=2,3,5$ which, typically, are known to cause additional complications and require separate arguments. We illustrate this procedure with a number of examples. In particular, we determine the scalars $\zeta$ in two cases, where the character table of $G({{\mathbb{F}}}_p)$ is explicitly known; namely, $F_4$, $E_6$ and $p=2$. For type $F_4$, our results complete earlier results of Marcelo–Shinoda [@MaSh]. See also [@GeHe] for the discussion of further examples, where the complete character table of $G({{\mathbb{F}}}_p)$ is not known.
We assume some familiarity with the character theory of finite groups of Lie type; see, e.g., [@C2], [@first]. The basic reference for the theory of character sheaves are Lusztig’s papers [@L2a]–[@L2e]. In Section \[sec1\], we review the classification of unipotent characters of $G(q)$ and the analogous classification of the unipotent character sheaves on $G$. These two classifications are known to be the same for $G(q)$ of split type (a fact which has only recently found a conceptual explanation; see Lusztig [@L11]). In Section \[sec2\], we can then formulate in precise terms the problem of equating class functions $R_x=\xi\chi_A$ as above, and establish Proposition \[p1\]. Finally, Sections \[sec3\], \[ | [ @L2a]–[@L2e ] (e.g. [ @L2e Theorems 23.1 and 25.2 ]) hold unconditionally.
The chief notice of this paper is that the statement of Proposition \[p1\ ] can besides be exploited in a unlike way, as follows. For a give type of group, we consider the foundation case where $ q = p$ is a prime. For a specific value of $ p$, we can practice ad hoc methods and/or computer algebra systems like [ GAP ] { } [ @gap ] to perform all kind of computations within the fixed finite group $ G(p)$. If we succeed in this direction to determine the scalars $ \xi$ for $ G(p)$, then Proposition \[p1\ ] state us that the analogous result will hold for any power of $ p$. This is peculiarly relevant for “ bad ” primes $ p=2,3,5 $ which, typically, are sleep together to induce additional complications and require separate arguments. We illustrate this operation with a number of examples. In particular, we determine the scalars $ \zeta$ in two cases, where the character table of $ G({{\mathbb{F}}}_p)$ is explicitly known; namely, $ F_4 $, $ E_6 $ and $ p=2$. For type $ F_4 $, our results complete earlier results of Marcelo – Shinoda [ @MaSh ]. See also [ @GeHe ] for the discussion of further examples, where the accomplished character table of $ G({{\mathbb{F}}}_p)$ is not sleep together.
We wear some familiarity with the character theory of finite group of Lie type; see, e.g., [ @C2 ], [ @first ]. The basic reference for the hypothesis of character sheaves are Lusztig ’s papers [ @L2a]–[@L2e ]. In Section \[sec1\ ], we review the classification of unipotent characters of $ G(q)$ and the analogous classification of the unipotent character sheaves on $ G$. These two classifications are known to be the same for $ G(q)$ of split character (a fact which has only recently find a conceptual explanation; see Lusztig [ @L11 ]). In Section \[sec2\ ], we can then formulate in precise terms the trouble of equating class functions $ R_x=\xi\chi_A$ as above, and establish Proposition \[p1\ ]. Finally, Sections \[sec3\ ], \ [ | [@L2a]–[@P2e] (e.g. [@L2e Theorems 23.1 and 25.2]) huld unconditioncoly.
The main kbservatkon of this paper is that thx stqtemebt of Proposition \[p1\] can also be vxploited in e different way, ea follows. For w girei type of group, we considar the base cave wkere $q=p$ is a prime. For a specific vajue of $p$, wf can use ad hjc mtthjds znd/or computer algebra systems liks [GAP]{} [@gep] to perform akl kinds of computations wlthij the fixed finite group $G(p)$. Id we wucceed in tfis way to determine tge scalars $\xi$ for $G(p)$, then Proporitiou \[p1\] tells us tyat jhe analogouw resllt will hold for any power pf $p$. This is pavticunaroy relevant for “bad” pcimes $p=2,3,5$ which, typicajly, are ktocn to cause additionao xomplhcathons qnd resumre separwte arguments. We illustrqte this procedure eiey a number of exampjef. In particular, we determine the scalarv $\zsta$ in two cases, where rhe character table ov $G({{\mathbb{S}}}_p)$ is explicitly known; namely, $F_4$, $E_6$ and $p=2$. For type $X_4$, our fesbots cunppete earlier results of Marcelo–Shinoda [@MaSh]. Sqs slxo [@GeHe] for thc discussion of futtjet examples, whete the ekmllete character tahle of $D({{\mathvb{F}}}_p)$ is njt kmown.
We assume some familiaruty with the xharacter theory oy finite grobps of Lie yype; see, e.g., [@C2], [@first]. The basjc referencf for the gheory of characger sveaves are Lusztig’s papers [@L2a]–[@L2e]. In Wectnon \[sec1\], wd refiew tre classiflcation of unipotent chagactets of $C(q)$ and the analogous classification of thx unipotent cnasacner sheavzs on $N$. These two clafsifications ate known co be ghe same fkr $G(q)$ oh split type (a fact which jas only recxntly fougd a conxeptual dxplanation; ser Lusztig [@L11]). In Sectuon \[sec2\], we can then fotmhlate in precisz ueems the problek ow ezuwtmng cjdss functionv $R_x=\bi\cfo_A$ as above, and cstxblixh Proposition \[p1\]. Finanly, Aections \[sec3\], \[ | [@L2a]–[@L2e] (e.g. [@L2e Theorems 23.1 and 25.2]) The observation of paper is that can be exploited in different way, as For a given type of group, consider the base case where $q=p$ is a prime. For a specific value $p$, we can use ad hoc methods and/or computer algebra systems like [GAP]{} to all of within the fixed finite group $G(p)$. If we succeed in this way to determine the scalars for $G(p)$, then Proposition \[p1\] tells us that analogous result will hold any power of $p$. This particularly for “bad” $p=2,3,5$ typically, known to cause complications and require separate arguments. We illustrate this procedure with a number of examples. In particular, we the scalars two cases, the table $G({{\mathbb{F}}}_p)$ is explicitly $F_4$, $E_6$ and $p=2$. For type complete earlier results of Marcelo–Shinoda [@MaSh]. See also for the of further examples, where the complete table of $G({{\mathbb{F}}}_p)$ is not known. We assume familiarity with the character theory of finite groups of Lie type; see, e.g., [@C2], [@first]. reference for the theory character sheaves are papers In \[sec1\], review the of unipotent characters of $G(q)$ and the analogous classification of the character sheaves on $G$. These two classifications are known to same $G(q)$ of split (a fact which has recently a conceptual explanation; see In \[sec2\], formulate precise the problem of equating functions $R_x=\xi\chi_A$ as above, and Proposition \[p1\]. Finally, Sections | [@L2a]–[@L2e] (e.g. [@L2e Theorems 23.1 and 25.2]) hold unConditionaLly.
ThE maIn oBsErvaTion Of this paper is tHAt thE statement of PropositioN \[p1\] can AlSO be eXPlOited In a diffEReNT Way, As FoLloWs. fOr A giveN tyPe of groUp, we considEr tHe Base case wherE $Q=p$ Is a prime. FoR a sPecific value Of $p$, We can uSe Ad hOC methOds And/or ComputER algebRa systems LiKE [GAP]{} [@gaP] To perfoRM AlL kinDs of computations wIThIN the fixed finitE group $g(p)$. iF wE SUccEed In this way tO dEtermINe the scALaRS $\XI$ foR $g(p)$, then ProposiTion \[p1\] tells uS ThaT the anAlOgoUS resulT will HoLD foR any power of $P$. ThiS is particUlarly RElevant FOr “bad” prImes $p=2,3,5$ wHicH, tyPicaLLy, ArE knOwN To cAUsE adDItiOnal compLiCaTions And rEQUIRe seParAte aRgumeNts. We illustraTe tHis pROceDure wIth a nUmbeR oF examPles. In PartiCuLar, we determine tHe scAlars $\zeta$ In tWo CasEs, Where THe charActEr tAble of $G({{\Mathbb{F}}}_P)$ Is eXpLICItLy known; namely, $F_4$, $E_6$ and $P=2$. FOR TyPe $F_4$, our reSults cOMpLeTE earlier ReSulTs of mARcelo–shinODa [@maSh]. See aLso [@GeHE] FoR tHe discuSsIon of fUrTheR exAmpleS, WherE the coMplete chAractER table of $G({{\mathbB{f}}}_p)$ is not known.
WE AsSUMe SOme fAmiLiarity with The cHAracTer tHEoRy oF FinitE grouPs OF LIE type; see, e.g., [@C2], [@first]. The BaSic refErencE for the theory Of characteR SHEaves are luszTIg’S Papers [@L2a]–[@L2e]. In SeCtion \[Sec1\], we revieW The classIficaTion of unIpotent chARActers of $g(q)$ aNd tHe aNalOGOuS classificatiON Of thE uNipotenT chAracter SheAveS on $g$. ThEsE two classIficatioNs ArE kNoWn tO be thE Same for $G(Q)$ oF spLiT tyPe (a faCT which Has onLy reCeNtLY foUnd a conCEpTUAl exPlAnAtioN; seE LUsztiG [@L11]). In sEctIon \[sec2\], wE can then fOrmULate In PrEcise teRms the problem Of Equating clAsS fuNctionS $r_X=\xi\chi_A$ aS above, and establish PropoSItion \[p1\]. FInaLly, SeCtioNs \[sec3\], \[ | [@L2a]–[@L2e] (e.g. [@L2e Theorems23.1and 25 .2 ]) h oldunconditionall y .
T he main observation of this p a peri sthatthe sta t em e n t o fPr opo si t io n \[p 1\] can al so be expl oit ed in a differ e nt way, as f oll ows. For a g ive n type o f g r oup,weconsi der th e basecase wher e$ q=p$ i s a prim e . F or a specific value o f $ p $, we can usead hoc m e th o d s a nd/ or compute ralgeb r a syste m sl i k e [ G AP]{} [@gap]to performa llkindsof co m putati ons w it h inthe fixed f init e group $ G(p)$. If we s u cceed i n this wa y t o de t er mi neth e sc a la rs$ \xi $ for $G (p )$ , the n Pr o p o s itio n \ [p1\ ] tel ls us that th e a nalo g ous resu lt wi ll h ol d for any p owerof $p$. This is p arti cularly r ele va ntfo r “ba d ” prim es$p= 2,3,5$which,t ypi ca l l y ,are known to cause a d d it ional co mplica t io ns and requ ir e s epar a t e arg umen t s. We illu strate th is proced ur e with a nu mbe r ofe xamp les. I n partic ular, we determine t h e scalars $\z e ta $ in twocas es, where t he c h arac tert ab leo f $G( {{\ma th b b{ F }}}_p)$ is explicit ly known ; nam ely, $F_4$, $ E_6$ and $ p = 2 $. For t ype$ F_ 4 $, our results comp lete earli e r result s ofMarcelo– Shinoda [ @ M aSh]. Se e a lso [@ GeH e ] f or the discus s i on o ffurther ex amples, wh ere th e c om plete cha racter t ab le o f$G( {{\ma t hbb{F}}} _p )$is no t kno w n.
We assu me s om ef ami liarity wi t h the c ha ract erth eoryof f i nit e group s of Lietyp e ; se e, e .g., [@ C2], [@first] .The basicre fer ence f o r the the ory of character sheave s are Lu szt ig’spape rs [@L2a] –[@ L2e].InS ection \[sec 1\],we re v i ew th e cl ass if ication of u nip otent c hara cters o f $G(q)$ and the a n alo gous classifi cat iono f t heu ni p ote nt cha r a cter sheaves on $G$. Thes et wo classific a tio ns are kn own tobe th e same f or $G(q)$ of split t ype( a fa ct which h as onlyrecentlyf ounda c oncep tua l expl an ati on; s ee Lus z tig [@L1 1]). I nSectio n \[s ec 2\], wecan then formulate in p recise term s t he proble m o f eq uating cl assfunctions$R_ x=\ xi\ch i_A $ as a bove , a nde stabl ishP ropositio n \ [p1 \ ] .Finally, Se c t i ons \[se c3\ ] , \[ | [@L2a]–[@L2e]_(e.g. [@L2e_Theorems 23.1 and 25.2]) hold_unconditionally.
The main_observation_of this_paper_is that the_statement of Proposition \[p1\]_can also be exploited_in a different_way,_as follows. For a given type of group, we consider the base case where_$q=p$_is a_prime._For_a specific value of $p$, we_can use ad hoc methods_and/or computer_algebra systems like [GAP]{} [@gap] to perform all_kinds_of computations within_the fixed finite group $G(p)$. If we succeed in_this way to determine the scalars_$\xi$ for $G(p)$,_then_Proposition \[p1\]_tells us that the_analogous result will hold for any_power of $p$. This is particularly relevant_for “bad” primes $p=2,3,5$ which, typically, are_known to cause additional complications and_require separate arguments. We illustrate_this procedure_with a number of examples._In particular, we_determine the_scalars $\zeta$ in_two cases, where the character table_of $G({{\mathbb{F}}}_p)$ is_explicitly known; namely, $F_4$, $E_6$ and_$p=2$._For type $F_4$,_our_results_complete earlier_results of Marcelo–Shinoda_[@MaSh]._See also_[@GeHe]_for the discussion of further examples,_where_the complete character table of $G({{\mathbb{F}}}_p)$ is_not known.
We assume some_familiarity_with the character theory_of finite groups of Lie_type; see, e.g., [@C2], [@first]. The_basic reference_for the_theory of character sheaves are Lusztig’s papers [@L2a]–[@L2e]. In Section \[sec1\], we_review the classification of unipotent characters_of $G(q)$ and the_analogous classification_of_the unipotent character_sheaves_on $G$._These two classifications are known to be_the same_for $G(q)$ of split type (a_fact which has only_recently_found a conceptual explanation; see Lusztig_[@L11]). In Section \[sec2\], we can then_formulate in precise terms the_problem_of_equating class functions $R_x=\xi\chi_A$ as_above, and establish Proposition \[p1\]. Finally, Sections \[sec3\],_\[ |
strategy. (In this case, phase (2) can be eliminated.)
H2
: In phase (2), the punishing players send their public keys to $j+1$. For each player $j'$ not being punished, player $j+1$ encrypts the seed $0$ using $(j')$’s public key, and then sends the encrypted key to $j'$. In phase (3), the punishing players get a joint random seed $seed$ (from an oracle) and use the outputs of ${\mathit{PS}}_{{\mathit{seed}}}$ to decide which strategy profile to play in each round. (Again, in this case, phase (2) can be eliminated.)
H3
: In phase (2), the punishing players send their public keys to $j+1$. Player $j+1$ chooses a random seed ${\mathit{seed}}$ and, for each player $j'$ not being punished, $j+1$ encrypts ${\mathit{seed}}$ using $(j')$’s public key, and then sends the encrypted key to $j'$. In phase (3), the punishing players use the outputs of ${\mathit{PS}}_{{\mathit{seed}}}$ to decide which strategy profile to play in each round.
It is obvious that in $H1$, $j$’s expected payoff is negligible. (Actually, there is a slight subtlety here. As we observed above, using linear programming, we can compute a strategy that gives the correlated minimax, which gives $j$ an expected payoff of 0. To actually implement this correlated minimax, the players need to sample according to the minimax distribution. They cannot necessarily do this exactly (for example, 1/3 can’t be computed exactly using random bits). However, given $n$, the distribution can be discretized to the closest rational number of the form $m/2^n$ using at most $n$ random bits. Using such a discretized distribution, the players other than $j$ can ensure that $j$ gets only a negligible payoff.)
We now claim that in $H2$, $j$’s expected payoff during the punishment phase is negligible. Assume for contradiction that a player playing $H2$ has a non-negligible payoff $\mu(n)$ for all $n$ (i.e., there exists some polynomial $g(\cdot)$ such that $\mu(n) | strategy. (In this case, phase (2) can be eliminated .)
H2
: In phase (2), the punishing actor station their public keys to $ j+1$. For each player $ j'$ not being punished, actor $ j+1 $ encrypts the seed $ 0 $ use $ (j')$ ’s public winder, and then sends the encrypted key to $ j'$. In phase (3), the punishing players catch a joint random seed $ seed$ (from an prophet) and use the outputs of $ { \mathit{PS}}_{{\mathit{seed}}}$ to decide which strategy profile to play in each round. (Again, in this case, phase (2) can be extinguish .)
H3
: In phase (2), the punishing players send their public key to $ j+1$. Player $ j+1 $ chooses a random seed $ { \mathit{seed}}$ and, for each player $ j'$ not being punished, $ j+1 $ encrypts $ { \mathit{seed}}$ use $ (j')$ ’s public key, and then sends the encrypted key to $ j'$. In phase (3), the punishing players practice the outputs of $ { \mathit{PS}}_{{\mathit{seed}}}$ to decide which strategy profile to play in each round.
It is obvious that in $ H1 $, $ j$ ’s expected wages is negligible. (Actually, there is a slight subtlety here. As we observed above, using linear programming, we can compute a strategy that gives the correlate minimax, which gives $ j$ an expected payoff of 0. To actually follow through this correlate minimax, the players need to sample according to the minimax distribution. They cannot inevitably do this precisely (for example, 1/3 ca n’t be computed precisely using random bits). However, given $ n$, the distribution can be discretized to the closest rational number of the class $ m/2^n$ using at most $ n$ random bits. Using such a discretized distribution, the musician early than $ j$ can guarantee that $ j$ gets only a negligible payoff .)
We now claim that in $ H2 $, $ j$ ’s expect payoff during the punishment phase is negligible. Assume for contradiction that a player playing $ H2 $ has a non - negligible payoff $ \mu(n)$ for all $ n$ (i.e., there exists some polynomial $ g(\cdot)$ such that $ \mu(n ) | stgategy. (In this case, phast (2) can be eliminajee.)
H2
: Ii phase (2), the puvishing players send their pnblix keyw to $j+1$. For each player $j'$ not bepng punisyed, klayer $j+1$ encrypts the seed $0$ usihn $(j')$’s 'uulic key, and thgn sends the encrypted key tu $l'$. In phase (3), the punishing players gee a joimt random seed $sged$ (fgoi an oracle) and use the outputs of ${\matgit{PS}}_{{\mauhit{seed}}}$ to decide which strategy profile to plaj in each round. (Agwin, in this casq, phase (2) can ce eliminaueb.)
H3
: In phaae (2), the punishing players send gheir public keis tl $j+1$. Player $j+1$ choofes a random seed ${\madhit{seec}}$ and, for each pleyer $j'$ not being punished, $j+1$ encrypts ${\mathit{feed}}$ usinc $(l')$’s public key, and theb wends the encftptdd ieb tk $j'$. In phese (3), the puhishing platers use the outputx jd ${\mathit{PS}}_{{\matgit{seeq}}}$ eo decide which strategy profile to plaj in each round.
It is obviouw that in $H1$, $j$’s expectgd payoff ys negligible. (Actually, there is a slight subtlety here. Xs cc uvsfrved above, using linear programming, we can cjjpitv a strategy that gives the vogrrjated minimax, which gibes $j$ an expected oayoff jf 0. Ti actuallr imllement this correlated minumax, the plajers need to sample aceording to tke minomax cistribution. They cannoc neceasarily do hhis exacfuy (for example, 1/3 zan’n be computed exactly using ragdom bits). Howzver, givdn $n$, the dystributioj can be discretized to hhe cpovest ratiojal number of the form $m/2^n$ using at most $n$ rancok bpts. Using such a discretizeq distribution, the plcyers uther than $j$ can xnsure that $t$ gets only a jegligible peyoff.)
We njw coaim that iv $H2$, $j$’s expected payoff dlrnng the pynishment phase is neemigible. Assume yut contradiction thxt w ilaber pjdying $H2$ has d nov-neekigibue payoff $\mm(n)$ wor sll $n$ (i.e., there existv soje polynomial $g(\cdoy)$ fuch thaj $\mu(n) | strategy. (In this case, phase (2) can H2 In phase the punishing players $j+1$. each player $j'$ being punished, player encrypts the seed $0$ using $(j')$’s key, and then sends the encrypted key to $j'$. In phase (3), the players get a joint random seed $seed$ (from an oracle) and use the of to which profile to play in each round. (Again, in this case, phase (2) can be eliminated.) H3 In phase (2), the punishing players send their keys to $j+1$. Player chooses a random seed ${\mathit{seed}}$ for player $j'$ being $j+1$ ${\mathit{seed}}$ using $(j')$’s key, and then sends the encrypted key to $j'$. In phase (3), the punishing players use the of ${\mathit{PS}}_{{\mathit{seed}}}$ which strategy to in round. It is in $H1$, $j$’s expected payoff is is a slight subtlety here. As we observed using linear we can compute a strategy that the correlated minimax, which gives $j$ an expected of 0. To actually implement this correlated minimax, the players need to sample according to distribution. They cannot necessarily this exactly (for 1/3 be exactly random bits). given $n$, the distribution can be discretized to the closest rational of the form $m/2^n$ using at most $n$ random bits. a distribution, the players than $j$ can ensure $j$ only a negligible payoff.) claim in payoff the phase is negligible. Assume contradiction that a player playing has a non-negligible payoff there exists some polynomial $g(\cdot)$ such that $\mu(n) | strategy. (In this case, phase (2) caN be eliminaTed.)
H2
: IN phAse (2), ThE punIshiNg players send tHEir pUblic keys to $j+1$. For each plaYer $j'$ nOt BEing PUnIshed, Player $j+1$ ENcRYPts ThE sEed $0$ UsINg $(J')$’s pubLic Key, and tHen sends thE enCrYpted key to $j'$. IN PhAse (3), the puniShiNg players get A joInt ranDoM seED $seed$ (FroM an orAcle) anD Use the Outputs of ${\MaTHit{PS}}_{{\mAThit{seeD}}}$ TO dEcidE which strategy proFIlE To play in each roUnd. (AgaIn, IN tHIS caSe, pHase (2) can be eLiMinatED.)
H3
: In phaSE (2), tHE PUniSHing players seNd their publIC keYs to $j+1$. PLaYer $J+1$ ChooseS a ranDoM SeeD ${\mathit{seed}}$ And, fOr each plaYer $j'$ noT Being puNIshed, $j+1$ eNcryptS ${\maThiT{seeD}}$ UsInG $(j')$’s PuBLic KEy, And THen Sends the EnCrYpted Key tO $J'$. iN PhasE (3), thE punIshinG players use thE ouTputS Of ${\mAthit{pS}}_{{\matHit{sEeD}}}$ to deCide whIch stRaTegy profile to plAy in Each round.
it iS oBviOuS that IN $H1$, $j$’s exPecTed Payoff iS negligIBle. (acTUALlY, there is a slight subTlETY hEre. As we oBserveD AbOvE, Using linEaR prOgraMMIng, we Can cOMpUte a straTegy thAT gIvEs the coRrElated MiNimAx, wHich gIVes $j$ An expeCted payoFf of 0. TO Actually implemENt this correlaTEd MINiMAx, thE plAyers need to SampLE accOrdiNG tO thE MinimAx disTrIBuTIon. They cannot necessArIly do tHis exActly (for exampLe, 1/3 can’t be coMPUTed exactLy usINg RAndom bits). HowevEr, givEn $n$, the distRIbution cAn be dIscretizEd to the clOSEst ratioNal NumBer Of tHE FoRm $m/2^n$ using at moST $N$ ranDoM bits. UsIng Such a diScrEtiZed DisTrIbution, thE players OtHeR tHaN $j$ cAn ensURe that $j$ gEtS onLy A neGligiBLe payoFf.)
We nOw clAiM tHAt iN $H2$, $j$’s expECtED PayoFf DuRing The PuNishmEnt pHAse Is negliGible. AssuMe fOR conTrAdIction tHat a player plaYiNg $H2$ has a non-NeGliGible pAYOff $\mu(n)$ foR all $n$ (i.e., there exists some pOLynomiaL $g(\cDot)$ suCh thAt $\mu(n) | strategy. (In this case,phase (2)can b e e lim in ated .)
H2
: In pha s e (2 ), the punishing playe rs se nd thei r p ublic keys t o $ j + 1$. F or ea ch pl ayer$j' $ not b eing punis hed ,player $j+1$ en crypts the se ed $0$ using $( j')$’s p ubl i c key , a nd th en sen d s theencrypted k e y to $ j '$. Inp h as e (3 ), the punishingp la y ers get a join t rand om se e d $s eed $ (from an o racle ) and us e t h e out p uts of ${\mat hit{PS}}_{{ \ mat hit{se ed }}} $ to de cidewh i chstrategy pr ofil e to play in ea c h round . (Again , in t his ca se,p ha se (2 )c anb eeli m ina ted.)
H 3
: In pha s e ( 2),the pun ishin g players sen d t heir pub lic k eys t o $j +1 $. Pl ayer $ j+1$ch ooses a randomseed ${\mathi t{s ee d}} $and,f or eac h p lay er $j'$ not be i ngpu n i s he d, $j+1$ encrypts${ \ m at hit{seed }}$ us i ng $ ( j')$’s p ub lic key , and t hens en ds the e ncrypt e dke y to $j '$ . In p ha se(3) , the puni shingplayersuse t h e outputs of $ { \mathit{PS}}_ { {\ m a th i t{se ed} }}$ to deci de w h ichstra t eg y p r ofile to p la y i n each round.
It is o bvious that in $H1$, $j$ ’s expecte d p ayoff is neg l ig i ble. (Actually , the re is a sl i ght subt letyhere. As we obser v e d above, us ing li nea r pr ogramming, we c an c om pute astr ategy t hat gi ves th ecorrelate d minima x, w hi ch gi ves $ j $ an exp ec ted p ayo ff of 0. Toactua llyim pl e men t thisc or r e late dmi nima x,th e pla yers nee d to sa mple acco rdi n g to t he minima x distributio n. They cann ot ne cessar i l y do thi s exactly (for example, 1/3 can ’tbe co mput ed exactl y u sing r and o m bits ). How ever, g ive n $n$,t h edis tr ibution ca n bediscr et ized to the closest rationaln umb er of the for m $ m/2^ n $ u sin g a t mo st $n$ r andom bits. Usi ng such adi s cr etized dis t rib ut ion, th e playe rs ot h er than $j$ canensure th at $j$ g ets only a ne gligible payoff.)
We n o wclaim th at in$H 2$, $j$’ s expe c ted payo ff dur in g thepunis hm ent phas e is negligible. Assume for c ontra dic tion that ap lay er playin g $H 2$ has a n on- neg ligib lep ayoff $\m u (n )$f or al l $n $ (i.e., t h er e e x i st s some poly n o m ial $g(\ cdo t )$ suc h th at $\mu(n) | strategy._(In this_case, phase (2) can_be eliminated.)
H2
:__ In_phase_(2), the punishing_players send their_public keys to $j+1$._For each player_$j'$_not being punished, player $j+1$ encrypts the seed $0$ using $(j')$’s public key, and_then_sends the_encrypted_key_to $j'$. In phase (3),_the punishing players get a_joint random_seed $seed$ (from an oracle) and use the_outputs_of ${\mathit{PS}}_{{\mathit{seed}}}$ to_decide which strategy profile to play in each round._(Again, in this case, phase (2)_can be eliminated.)
H3
:___In phase (2), the_punishing players send their public keys_to $j+1$. Player $j+1$ chooses a_random seed ${\mathit{seed}}$ and, for each player_$j'$ not being punished, $j+1$ encrypts_${\mathit{seed}}$ using $(j')$’s public key,_and then_sends the encrypted key to_$j'$. In phase_(3), the_punishing players use_the outputs of ${\mathit{PS}}_{{\mathit{seed}}}$ to decide_which strategy profile_to play in each round.
It is_obvious_that in $H1$,_$j$’s_expected_payoff is_negligible. (Actually, there_is_a slight_subtlety_here. As we observed above, using_linear_programming, we can compute a strategy that_gives the correlated minimax,_which_gives $j$ an expected_payoff of 0. To actually_implement this correlated minimax, the players_need to_sample according_to the minimax distribution. They cannot necessarily do this exactly (for_example, 1/3 can’t be computed exactly_using random bits). However,_given $n$,_the_distribution can be_discretized_to the_closest rational number of the form $m/2^n$_using at_most $n$ random bits. Using such_a discretized distribution, the_players_other than $j$ can ensure that_$j$ gets only a negligible payoff.)
We_now claim that in $H2$,_$j$’s_expected_payoff during the punishment phase_is negligible. Assume for contradiction that_a player playing_$H2$ has a non-negligible payoff $\mu(n)$ for_all_$n$ (i.e., there exists some polynomial_$g(\cdot)$_such that $\mu(n) |
gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell}),\hat{\Delta
}_{2i}=m(z_{i},\beta_{0},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})-m(z_{i},\beta_{0},\gamma_{0}),\\
\hat{\Delta}_{3i} & =\phi(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\lambda_{0})-\phi
(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\lambda_{0}),\hat{\Delta}_{4i}=\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell})-\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\lambda_{0}),\\
\hat{\Delta}_{5i} & =\phi(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell
})-\phi(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\lambda_{0})-\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell})+\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\lambda_{0}).\end{aligned}$$ By standard arguments it suffices to show that for each $j$ and $\ell,$ $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_{\ell}}\left\Vert \hat{\Delta}_{ji}\right\Vert
^{2}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0. \label{var conv}$$ For $j=1$ it follows by a mean value expansion and Assumption 7 with $E[b(z_{i})^{2}]<\infty$ that$$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_{\ell}}\left\Vert \hat{\Delta}_{1i}\right\Vert
^{2}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_{\ell}}\left\Vert \frac{\partial}{\partial\beta
}\psi(z_{i},\bar{\beta},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell})(\hat{\beta
}-\beta)\right\Vert ^{2}\leq\frac{1}{n}\left( \sum_{i\in I_{\ell}}b(z_{i})^{2}\right) \left\Vert \hat{\beta}-\beta\right\Vert ^{2}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0,$$ where $\bar{\beta}\,$is a mean value that actually differs from row to row of $\partial\psi(z_{i},\bar{\beta},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ | gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell}),\hat{\Delta
} _ { 2i}=m(z_{i},\beta_{0},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})-m(z_{i},\beta_{0},\gamma_{0}),\\
\hat{\Delta}_{3i } & = \phi(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\lambda_{0})-\phi
(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\lambda_{0}),\hat{\Delta}_{4i}=\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell})-\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\lambda_{0}),\\
\hat{\Delta}_{5i } & = \phi(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell
}) -\phi(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\lambda_{0})-\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell})+\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\lambda_{0}).\end{aligned}$$ By standard arguments it suffices to show that for each $ j$ and $ \ell,$ $ $ \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_{\ell}}\left\Vert \hat{\Delta}_{ji}\right\Vert
^{2}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0. \label{var conv}$$ For $ j=1 $ it follows by a base value expansion and premise 7 with $ E[b(z_{i})^{2}]<\infty$ that$$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_{\ell}}\left\Vert \hat{\Delta}_{1i}\right\Vert
^{2}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_{\ell}}\left\Vert \frac{\partial}{\partial\beta
} \psi(z_{i},\bar{\beta},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell})(\hat{\beta
} -\beta)\right\Vert ^{2}\leq\frac{1}{n}\left ( \sum_{i\in I_{\ell}}b(z_{i})^{2}\right) \left\Vert \hat{\beta}-\beta\right\Vert ^{2}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0,$$ where $ \bar{\beta}\,$is a mean value that actually differs from row to course of $ \partial\psi(z_{i},\bar{\beta},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ | gamla}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell}),\hat{\Deltx
}_{2i}=m(z_{i},\beta_{0},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})-m(z_{m},\beta_{0},\gajma_{0}),\\
\hat{\Deuta}_{3i} & =\phi(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\lambva_{0})-\phu
(z_{i},\ganma_{0},\lambda_{0}),\hat{\Delta}_{4i}=\phi(z_{k},\gamma_{0},\hat{\pambda}_{\elo})-\phi(e_{i},\gamma_{0},\lambda_{0}),\\
\hat{\Dxmta}_{5i} & =\phi(z_{i},\gwt{\gakna}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\gll
})-\phi(z_{i},\hat{\gdmma}_{\ell},\lambda_{0})-\pvi(x_{i},\yamma_{0},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell})+\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\lambda_{0}).\end{wligned}$$ Bj standard argomentx it alfnices to show that for each $j$ ans $\ell,$ $$\fgac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_{\ell}}\legt\Vert \hat{\Delta}_{ji}\right\Vert
^{2}\lverdet{p}{\longrightarrow}0. \label{var cinv}$$ Sir $j=1$ it folluws by a mtau value expznsion and Assumption 7 with $E[b(z_{k})^{2}]<\inftv$ that$$\frac{1}{n}\wun_{i\ij I_{\ell}}\left\Vect \hat{\Qelta}_{1i}\right\Vcgt
^{2}=\frac{1}{n}\vum_{i\in O_{\ell}}\left\Vert \fvac{\pactiao}{\partial\beta
}\psi(z_{i},\bar{\bxta},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lamfda}_{\ell})(\hat{\teca
}-\beta)\right\Vert ^{2}\leq\frqc{1}{b}\left( \suk_{i\in U_{\elu}}b(z_{j})^{2}\rmghf) \lefh\Vect \hat{\beta}-\bsta\right\Verr ^{2}\overset{p}{\longrightsrwiw}0,$$ where $\bar{\bsta}\,$is w iean value that actually differs from rmw fo row of $\partial\psi(z_{i},\bqr{\beta},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lwmbda}_{\ | gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell}),\hat{\Delta }_{2i}=m(z_{i},\beta_{0},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})-m(z_{i},\beta_{0},\gamma_{0}),\\ \hat{\Delta}_{3i} & =\phi(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\lambda_{0})-\phi (z_{i},\gamma_{0},\lambda_{0}),\hat{\Delta}_{4i}=\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell})-\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\lambda_{0}),\\ \hat{\Delta}_{5i} })-\phi(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\lambda_{0})-\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell})+\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\lambda_{0}).\end{aligned}$$ standard arguments suffices to show $\ell,$ I_{\ell}}\left\Vert \hat{\Delta}_{ji}\right\Vert ^{2}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0. conv}$$ For $j=1$ follows by a mean value expansion Assumption 7 with $E[b(z_{i})^{2}]<\infty$ that$$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_{\ell}}\left\Vert \hat{\Delta}_{1i}\right\Vert ^{2}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_{\ell}}\left\Vert \frac{\partial}{\partial\beta }\psi(z_{i},\bar{\beta},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell})(\hat{\beta }-\beta)\right\Vert ^{2}\leq\frac{1}{n}\left( I_{\ell}}b(z_{i})^{2}\right) \left\Vert \hat{\beta}-\beta\right\Vert ^{2}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0,$$ where $\bar{\beta}\,$is a mean value that actually differs from to of | gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell}),\hat{\DeLta
}_{2i}=m(z_{i},\betA_{0},\hat{\gAmmA}_{\elL})-m(Z_{i},\beTa_{0},\gaMma_{0}),\\
\hat{\Delta}_{3i} & =\phI(Z_{i},\haT{\gamma}_{\ell},\lambda_{0})-\phi
(z_{i},\gaMma_{0},\laMbDA_{0}),\hat{\dElTa}_{4i}=\phI(z_{i},\gammA_{0},\HaT{\LAmbDa}_{\ElL})-\phI(z_{I},\GaMma_{0},\laMbdA_{0}),\\
\hat{\DelTa}_{5i} & =\phi(z_{i},\haT{\gaMmA}_{\ell},\hat{\lambdA}_{\ElL
})-\phi(z_{i},\hat{\gAmmA}_{\ell},\lambda_{0})-\phI(z_{i},\Gamma_{0},\hAt{\LamBDa}_{\ell})+\Phi(Z_{i},\gamMa_{0},\lambDA_{0}).\end{alIgned}$$ By stAnDArd argUMents it SUFfIces To show that for each $J$ AnD $\Ell,$ $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in i_{\ell}}\leFt\vErT \HAt{\DEltA}_{ji}\right\VeRt
^{2}\OversET{p}{\longrIGhTARRow}0. \LAbel{var conv}$$ FoR $j=1$ it follows BY a mEan valUe ExpANsion aNd AssUmPTioN 7 with $E[b(z_{i})^{2}]<\inFty$ tHat$$\frac{1}{n}\sUm_{i\in I_{\ELl}}\left\VERt \hat{\DeLta}_{1i}\riGht\verT
^{2}=\fraC{1}{N}\sUm_{I\in i_{\eLL}}\leFT\VErt \FRac{\Partial}{\pArTiAl\betA
}\psi(Z_{I},\BAR{\betA},\haT{\gamMa}_{\ell},\Hat{\lambda}_{\ell})(\hAt{\bEta
}-\bETa)\rIght\VErt ^{2}\leQ\fraC{1}{n}\Left( \sUm_{i\in I_{\Ell}}b(z_{I})^{2}\rIght) \left\Vert \hat{\Beta}-\Beta\right\verT ^{2}\oVerSeT{p}{\lonGRightaRroW}0,$$ whEre $\bar{\bEta}\,$is a mEAn vAlUE THaT actually differs frOm ROW tO row of $\paRtial\pSI(z_{I},\bAR{\beta},\hat{\GaMma}_{\Ell},\hAT{\LambdA}_{\ | gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda }_{\ell}), \hat{ \De lta
} _{2i }=m( z_{i},\beta_{0 } ,\ha t{\gamma}_{\ell})-m(z_ {i},\ be t a_{0 } ,\ gamma _{0}),\ \
\ h a t{\ De lt a}_ {3 i } & = \ph i(z_{i} ,\hat{\gam ma} _{ \ell},\lambd a _{ 0})-\phi
( z_{ i},\gamma_{0 },\ lambda _{ 0}) , \hat{ \De lta}_ {4i}=\ p hi(z_{ i},\gamma _{ 0 },\hat { \lambda } _ {\ ell} )-\phi(z_{i},\gam m a_ { 0},\lambda_{0} ),\\
\ ha t {\ D e lta }_{ 5i} & =\ ph i(z_{ i },\hat{ \ ga m m a }_{ \ ell},\hat{\la mbda}_{\ell })- \phi(z _{ i}, \ hat{\g amma} _{ \ ell },\lambda_{ 0})- \phi(z_{i },\gam m a_{0},\ h at{\lam bda}_{ \el l}) +\ph i (z _{ i}, \g a mma _ {0 },\ l amb da_{0}). \e nd {alig ned} $ $ B y st and ardargum ents it suffi ces tos how that foreach $ j$ an d $\el l,$ $ $\ frac{1}{n}\sum_ {i\i n I_{\ell }}\ le ft\ Ve rt \h a t{\Del ta} _{j i}\righ t\Vert^ {2} \o v e r se t{p}{\longrightarr ow } 0 .\label{v ar con v }$ $F or $j=1$ i t f ollo w s by a mea n v alue exp ansion an dAssumpt io n 7 wi th $E [b( z_{i} ) ^{2} ]<\inf ty$ that $$\fr a c{1}{n}\sum_{i \ in I_{\ell}}\ l ef t \ Ve r t \h at{ \Delta}_{1i }\ri g ht\V ert^ {2 }=\ f rac{1 }{n}\ su m _{ i \in I_{\ell}}\left\ Ve rt \fr ac{\p artial}{\part ial\beta
} \ p s i(z_{i}, \bar { \b e ta},\hat{\gamm a}_{\ ell},\hat{ \ lambda}_ {\ell })(\hat{ \beta
}-\ b e ta)\righ t\V ert ^{ 2}\ l e q\ frac{1}{n}\le f t ( \ su m_{i\in I_ {\ell}} b(z _{i })^ {2} \r ight) \l eft\Vert \ ha t{ \b eta }-\be t a\right\ Ve rt^{ 2}\ overs e t{p}{\ longr ight ar ro w }0, $$ wher e $ \ b ar{\ be ta }\,$ isameanvalu e th at actu ally diff ers from r ow to row of $\partial \p si(z_{i},\ ba r{\ beta}, \ h at{\gamm a}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda} _ {\ | gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell}),\hat{\Delta
}_{2i}=m(z_{i},\beta_{0},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})-m(z_{i},\beta_{0},\gamma_{0}),\\
\hat{\Delta}_{3i} _& _=\phi(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\lambda_{0})-\phi
(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\lambda_{0}),\hat{\Delta}_{4i}=\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell})-\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\lambda_{0}),\\
\hat{\Delta}_{5i} & _=\phi(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell
})-\phi(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\lambda_{0})-\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell})+\phi(z_{i},\gamma_{0},\lambda_{0}).\end{aligned}$$ By_standard_arguments it_suffices_to show that_for each $j$_and $\ell,$ $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_{\ell}}\left\Vert_\hat{\Delta}_{ji}\right\Vert
^{2}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0. \label{var conv}$$_For_$j=1$ it follows by a mean value expansion and Assumption 7 with $E[b(z_{i})^{2}]<\infty$ that$$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in_I_{\ell}}\left\Vert_\hat{\Delta}_{1i}\right\Vert
^{2}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in I_{\ell}}\left\Vert_\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta
}\psi(z_{i},\bar{\beta},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ell})(\hat{\beta
}-\beta)\right\Vert_^{2}\leq\frac{1}{n}\left(_ \sum_{i\in I_{\ell}}b(z_{i})^{2}\right) \left\Vert_\hat{\beta}-\beta\right\Vert ^{2}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0,$$ where $\bar{\beta}\,$is a_mean value_that actually differs from row to row of_$\partial\psi(z_{i},\bar{\beta},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell},\hat{\lambda}_{\ |
}}$ a sequence of events $(a_n)$ such that $\mu(a_0) = \eta_0$, $\mu(a_0)^c = \eta_1 = 1-\eta_0$, and in general, for every $n$ and $s \in 2^n$: $$\begin{gathered}
\mu\Bigl( a_n \wedge \bigwedge_{k<n} a_k^{s_k} \Bigr)
= \eta_{s{{^\frown}}0},
\qquad
\mu\Bigl( a_n^c \wedge \bigwedge_{k<n} a_k^{s_k} \Bigr)
= \eta_{s{{^\frown}}1} = \eta_s - \eta_{s{{^\frown}}0}.\end{gathered}$$ This is indeed consistent by shift invariance. Moreover, shift invariance implies that for every $n,k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $s\in 2^n$: $\eta_s = \mu\left( \bigwedge_{i<n} a_{k+i}^{s_i} \right)$ (by induction on $k$). It follows by quantifier elimination that the mapping $a_n \mapsto a_{n+1}$ is elementary and therefore extends to an automorphism $\tau_{\mathscr{A}}\in \operatorname{Aut}({\mathscr{A}})$, and we may embed $({\mathscr{A}},\tau_{\mathscr{A}})$ in $({\mathcal{U}},\tau)$. In other words, for every $\eta \in X$ we can find $a \in {\mathcal{U}}$ such that $\eta_s = \mu\left( \bigwedge_{i<n} \tau^i(a^{s_i}) \right)$ for all $s \in 2^{<\omega}$. Thus $\eta = \rho(\operatorname{tp}(a))$, showing that $\rho$ is bijective. Since it is also continuous, from a compact to a Hausdorff space, it is a homeomorphism.
If $Y$ is an arbitrary topological space we have $C(Y,[0,1])^{2^{<\omega}} = C\bigl( Y, [0,1]^{2^{<\omega}} \bigr)$ as sets. Equipping $C(Y,Z)$ with the compact-open topology and $2^{<\omega | } } $ a sequence of events $ (a_n)$ such that $ \mu(a_0) = \eta_0 $, $ \mu(a_0)^c = \eta_1 = 1-\eta_0 $, and in general, for every $ n$ and $ s \in 2^n$: $ $ \begin{gathered }
\mu\Bigl (a_n \wedge \bigwedge_{k < n } a_k^{s_k } \Bigr)
= \eta_{s{{^\frown}}0 },
\qquad
\mu\Bigl (a_n^c \wedge \bigwedge_{k < n } a_k^{s_k } \Bigr)
= \eta_{s{{^\frown}}1 } = \eta_s - \eta_{s{{^\frown}}0}.\end{gathered}$$ This is indeed reproducible by fault invariance. Moreover, shift invariability implies that for every $ n, k \in { \mathbb{N}}$ and $ s\in 2^n$: $ \eta_s = \mu\left (\bigwedge_{i < n } a_{k+i}^{s_i } \right)$ (by induction on $ k$). It follows by quantifier elimination that the function $ a_n \mapsto a_{n+1}$ is elementary and consequently extends to an automorphism $ \tau_{\mathscr{A}}\in \operatorname{Aut}({\mathscr{A}})$, and we may embed $ ({ \mathscr{A}},\tau_{\mathscr{A}})$ in $ ({ \mathcal{U}},\tau)$. In other words, for every $ \eta \in X$ we can find $ a \in { \mathcal{U}}$ such that $ \eta_s = \mu\left (\bigwedge_{i < n } \tau^i(a^{s_i }) \right)$ for all $ mho \in 2^{<\omega}$. Thus $ \eta = \rho(\operatorname{tp}(a))$, showing that $ \rho$ is bijective. Since it is besides continuous, from a compact to a Hausdorff space, it is a homeomorphism.
If $ Y$ is an arbitrary topological space we have $ C(Y,[0,1])^{2^{<\omega } } = C\bigl (Y, [ 0,1]^{2^{<\omega } } \bigr)$ as sets. Equipping $ C(Y, Z)$ with the compact - exposed topology and $ 2^{<\omega | }}$ a dequence of events $(a_n)$ sugh that $\mu(a_0) = \eta_0$, $\mu(a_0)^c = \xta_1 = 1-\etz_0$, and in general, for every $n$ and $s \ii 2^n$: $$\vegin{tathered}
\mu\Bigl( a_n \weage \bigwefge_{k<n} a_k^{w_k} \Bmgr)
= \eta_{s{{^\frown}}0},
\qquad
\mu\Bigl( w_n^c \cevge \bigwedge_{k<n} s_k^{s_k} \Bigr)
= \eta_{s{{^\frown}}1} = \eda_r - \eta_{s{{^\frown}}0}.\end{gathered}$$ This is indeeq consixtfnt by shift igvarpagce. Joreover, shift invariance implies fhat fog every $n,k \in {\matnbb{N}}$ and $s\in 2^n$: $\eta_s = \mu\lefh( \bihwedge_{i<n} a_{k+i}^{s_i} \rigjt)$ (by inducjjon in $k$). It folluws by quantifier elimjnation that the mapping $a_n \maprto a_{u+1}$ is elemenjcey wtd thereforx extegds to an aubpmorphhsm $\tau_{\kathscr{A}}\in \opevatoriame{Qut}({\mathscr{A}})$, and we mab embed $({\mathscr{A}},\tau_{\mwthscr{A}})$ it $({\jathcal{U}},\tau)$. In otyee worgs, fmr exwry $\etz \mn S$ we cwn hind $a \in {\mzthcal{U}}$ sucy that $\eta_s = \mu\left( \bytwedge_{i<n} \tau^i(z^{s_i}) \ridhe)$ for all $s \in 2^{<\omega}$. Thus $\eta = \rho(\operauornaje{tp}(a))$, showing that $\rho$ us bijective. Since it is also sontinuous, from a compact to a Hausdorff space, it is a fomtonorphkwm.
Lf $Y$ is an arbitrary topological space we havq $C(U,[0,1])^{2^{<\okega}} = C\bigl( Y, [0,1]^{2^{<\jmega}} \bigr)$ ss srjs. Equipping $C(I,Z)$ with ths compact-open topopogy anq $2^{<\ometa | }}$ a sequence of events $(a_n)$ such = $\mu(a_0)^c = = 1-\eta_0$, and and \in 2^n$: $$\begin{gathered} a_n \wedge \bigwedge_{k<n} \Bigr) = \eta_{s{{^\frown}}0}, \qquad \mu\Bigl( a_n^c \bigwedge_{k<n} a_k^{s_k} \Bigr) = \eta_{s{{^\frown}}1} = \eta_s - \eta_{s{{^\frown}}0}.\end{gathered}$$ This is indeed consistent shift invariance. Moreover, shift invariance implies that for every $n,k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and 2^n$: = \bigwedge_{i<n} \right)$ (by induction on $k$). It follows by quantifier elimination that the mapping $a_n \mapsto a_{n+1}$ elementary and therefore extends to an automorphism $\tau_{\mathscr{A}}\in and we may embed in $({\mathcal{U}},\tau)$. In other words, every \in X$ can $a {\mathcal{U}}$ such that = \mu\left( \bigwedge_{i<n} \tau^i(a^{s_i}) \right)$ for all $s \in 2^{<\omega}$. Thus $\eta = \rho(\operatorname{tp}(a))$, showing that $\rho$ bijective. Since also continuous, a to Hausdorff space, it homeomorphism. If $Y$ is an arbitrary have $C(Y,[0,1])^{2^{<\omega}} = C\bigl( Y, [0,1]^{2^{<\omega}} \bigr)$ as Equipping $C(Y,Z)$ the compact-open topology and $2^{<\omega | }}$ a sequence of events $(a_n)$ such thAt $\mu(a_0) = \eta_0$, $\mu(A_0)^c = \eta_1 = 1-\Eta_0$, And In GeneRal, fOr every $n$ and $s \in 2^N$: $$\BegiN{gathered}
\mu\Bigl( a_n \wedge \BigweDgE_{K<n} a_k^{S_K} \BIgr)
= \etA_{s{{^\frown}}0},
\QQuAD
\Mu\BIgL( a_N^c \wEdGE \bIgwedGe_{k<N} a_k^{s_k} \BiGr)
= \eta_{s{{^\frowN}}1} = \etA_s - \Eta_{s{{^\frown}}0}.\end{GAtHered}$$ This iS inDeed consisteNt bY shift InVarIAnce. MOreOver, sHift inVAriancE implies tHaT For eveRY $n,k \in {\maTHBb{n}}$ and $S\in 2^n$: $\eta_s = \mu\left( \bigWEdGE_{i<n} a_{k+i}^{s_i} \right)$ (bY inducTiON oN $K$). it fOllOws by quantIfIer elIMinatioN ThAT THe mAPping $a_n \mapsto A_{n+1}$ is elementARy aNd therEfOre EXtends To an aUtOMorPhism $\tau_{\matHscr{a}}\in \operatOrname{aUt}({\mathsCR{A}})$, and we May embEd $({\mAthScr{A}},\TAu_{\MaThsCr{a}})$ In $({\mAThCal{u}},\Tau)$. in other wOrDs, For evEry $\eTA \IN x$ we cAn fInd $a \In {\matHcal{U}}$ such that $\Eta_S = \mu\lEFt( \bIgwedGe_{i<n} \tAu^i(a^{S_i}) \Right)$ For all $S \in 2^{<\omEgA}$. Thus $\eta = \rho(\operAtorName{tp}(a))$, shOwiNg ThaT $\rHo$ is bIJectivE. SiNce It is alsO continUOus, FrOM A CoMpact to a Hausdorff sPaCE, It Is a homeoMorphiSM.
IF $Y$ IS an arbitRaRy tOpolOGIcal sPace WE hAve $C(Y,[0,1])^{2^{<\omeGa}} = C\bigL( y, [0,1]^{2^{<\oMeGa}} \bigr)$ aS sEts. EquIpPinG $C(Y,z)$ with THe coMpact-oPen topolOgy anD $2^{<\Omega | }}$ a sequence of events $ (a_n)$ suc h tha t $ \mu (a _0)= \e ta_0$, $\mu(a_ 0 )^c= \eta_1 = 1-\eta_0$,and i ng ener a l, forevery $ n $a n d $ s\i n 2 ^n $ :$$\be gin {gather ed}
\mu\ Big l( a_n \wedge\ bi gwedge_{k< n}a_k^{s_k} \B igr )
=\e ta_ { s{{^\ fro wn}}0 },
\ q quad
\mu\Bigl (a _n^c \ w edge \b i g we dge_ {k<n} a_k^{s_k} \ B ig r )
= \eta_{s{ {^\fro wn } }1 } = \ eta _s - \eta_ {s {{^\f r own}}0} . \e n d { gat h ered}$$ Thisis indeed c o nsi stentby sh i ft inv arian ce . Mo reover, shi ft i nvariance impli e s thatf or ever y $n,k \i n { \mat h bb {N }}$ a n d $ s \i n 2 ^ n$: $\eta_s = \ mu\le ft(\ b i g wedg e_{ i<n} a_{k +i}^{s_i} \ri ght )$ ( b y i nduct ion o n $k $) . Itfollow s byqu antifier elimin atio n that th e m ap pin g$a_n\ mapsto a_ {n+ 1}$ iselement a ryan d t he refore extends toan a ut omorphis m $\ta u _{ \m a thscr{A} }\ in\ope r a torna me{A u t} ({\maths cr{A}} ) $, a nd we m ay embed $ ({\ mat hscr{ A }},\ tau_{\ mathscr{ A}})$ in $({\mathcal { U}},\tau)$. I n o t h er word s,for every $ \eta \inX$ w e c anf ind $ a \in { \ ma t hcal{U}}$ such that $ \eta_s = \m u\left( \bigw edge_{i<n} \ t au^i(a^{ s_i} ) \ r ight)$ for all $s \ in 2^{<\om e ga}$. Th us $\ eta = \r ho(\opera t o rname{tp }(a ))$ , s how i n gthat $\rho$ i s bije ct ive. Si nce it isals o c ont inu ou s, from a compact t oaHa usd orffs pace, it i s a h ome omorp h ism.
If $Y $ is a na rbi trary t o po l o gica lsp aceweha ve $C (Y,[ 0 ,1] )^{2^{< \omega}}= C \ bigl (Y, [0,1]^ {2^{<\omega}} \ bigr)$ asse ts. Equip p i ng $C(Y, Z)$ with the compact-op e n topol ogy and$2^{ <\omega | }}$ a_sequence of_events $(a_n)$ such that_$\mu(a_0) =_\eta_0$,_$\mu(a_0)^c =_\eta_1_= 1-\eta_0$, and_in general, for_every $n$ and $s_\in 2^n$: $$\begin{gathered}
__\mu\Bigl( a_n \wedge \bigwedge_{k<n} a_k^{s_k} \Bigr)
= \eta_{s{{^\frown}}0},
\qquad
\mu\Bigl( a_n^c_\wedge_\bigwedge_{k<n} a_k^{s_k}_\Bigr)
__= \eta_{s{{^\frown}}1} = \eta_s -_\eta_{s{{^\frown}}0}.\end{gathered}$$ This is indeed consistent_by shift_invariance. Moreover, shift invariance implies that for every_$n,k_\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and_$s\in 2^n$: $\eta_s = \mu\left( \bigwedge_{i<n} a_{k+i}^{s_i} \right)$ (by_induction on $k$). It follows by_quantifier elimination that_the_mapping_$a_n \mapsto a_{n+1}$ is_elementary and therefore extends to an_automorphism $\tau_{\mathscr{A}}\in \operatorname{Aut}({\mathscr{A}})$, and we may_embed $({\mathscr{A}},\tau_{\mathscr{A}})$ in $({\mathcal{U}},\tau)$. In other words,_for every $\eta \in X$ we_can find $a \in {\mathcal{U}}$_such that_$\eta_s = \mu\left( \bigwedge_{i<n} \tau^i(a^{s_i})_\right)$ for all_$s \in_2^{<\omega}$. Thus $\eta_= \rho(\operatorname{tp}(a))$, showing that $\rho$ is_bijective. Since it_is also continuous, from a compact_to_a Hausdorff space,_it_is_a homeomorphism.
If_$Y$ is an_arbitrary_topological space_we_have $C(Y,[0,1])^{2^{<\omega}} = C\bigl( Y, [0,1]^{2^{<\omega}}_\bigr)$_as sets. Equipping $C(Y,Z)$ with the compact-open_topology and $2^{<\omega |
{F}$ has shadowing property and moreover $\mathcal{F}$ is expansive relative to any sequence $\sigma$ with sufficiently small constant expansive, then $\mathcal{F}$ is topologically stable.
Structural stability implies Shadowing property in an IFS
==========================================================
Now, we are going to study the relation between shadowing property and structural stability in an IFS. First, we define the space of diffeomorphisms on $M$. Let the functions $f$ and $g$ be $C^{1}$-diffeomorphisms on $M$. We define the metric $\rho_1$ as follows; $$\rho_1(f, g)= \rho_0(f, g)+ Max\bigg\{\parallel Df(x)-Dg(x)\parallel;\,\,\forall x\in M\bigg\};$$ that here $${\scriptstyle Max\bigg\{\parallel Df(x)-Dg(x)\parallel;\,\,\forall x\in M\bigg\}= Max\bigg\{\mid Df(x)u-Dg(x)u\mid;\,\,\forall x\in M\;and\;\forall u\in T_{x}M:\, \mid u\mid= 1\bigg\}}$$ The space of $C^{1}$-diffeomorphisms on $M$ with the metric $\rho_1$ is denoted to [***$Diff^{1}(M)$***]{}.\
We know that there is no relation of equivalence between the set of all structurally stable diffeomorphisms and the set of all diffeomorphisms with SP. In fact, SS is stronger than SP. Robinson proves that a structurally stable diffeomorphism on a closed manifold has SP. The previous converse demonstration has been rejected by giving a counter example; for example, in article [@Pilyugin2010variational]. In the following, we show that this equivalence is not also true for IFSs.
Let IFSs $\mathcal{F}=\Big\{f_{\lambda},\,M\,: \lambda\in\Lambda\Big\}$ and $\mathcal{G}=\Big\{g_{\overline\lambda},\,M\,: {\overline\lambda}\in{\overline\Lambda}\Big\}$ be subset of $Diff^{1}(M)$ then we denote the measure distance for two IFSs by ${\mathcal{D}}_1$ and define as follows:\
If $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{G}$ then put ${\mathcal{D}}_1\Big(\mathcal{F}, \ | { F}$ has shadowing property and moreover $ \mathcal{F}$ is expansive relative to any sequence $ \sigma$ with sufficiently humble changeless expansive, then $ \mathcal{F}$ is topologically stable.
Structural stability imply Shadowing property in an IFS
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
immediately, we are function to study the sexual intercourse between shadowing property and morphologic stability in an IFS. First, we specify the quad of diffeomorphisms on $ M$. Let the functions $ f$ and $ g$ be $ C^{1}$-diffeomorphisms on $ M$. We define the metric $ \rho_1 $ as follows; $ $ \rho_1(f, g)= \rho_0(f, g)+ Max\bigg\{\parallel Df(x)-Dg(x)\parallel;\,\,\forall x\in M\bigg\};$$ that here $ $ { \scriptstyle Max\bigg\{\parallel Df(x)-Dg(x)\parallel;\,\,\forall x\in M\bigg\}= Max\bigg\{\mid Df(x)u - Dg(x)u\mid;\,\,\forall x\in M\;and\;\forall u\in T_{x}M:\, \mid u\mid= 1\bigg\}}$$ The outer space of $ C^{1}$-diffeomorphisms on $ M$ with the metric $ \rho_1 $ is denoted to [ * * * $ Diff^{1}(M)$***]{}.\
We know that there exist no relation of equivalence between the set of all structurally stable diffeomorphisms and the stage set of all diffeomorphisms with SP. In fact, SS is stronger than SP. Robinson proves that a structurally stable diffeomorphism on a closed manifold give birth SP. The previous converse demonstration has been rejected by giving a counter case; for example, in article [ @Pilyugin2010variational ]. In the following, we show that this equivalence is not also true for IFSs.
Let IFSs $ \mathcal{F}=\Big\{f_{\lambda},\,M\, : \lambda\in\Lambda\Big\}$ and $ \mathcal{G}=\Big\{g_{\overline\lambda},\,M\, : { \overline\lambda}\in{\overline\Lambda}\Big\}$ be subset of $ Diff^{1}(M)$ then we denote the measure distance for two IFSs by $ { \mathcal{D}}_1 $ and define as follows:\
If $ \mathcal{F}=\mathcal{G}$ then frame $ { \mathcal{D}}_1\Big(\mathcal{F }, \ | {F}$ hws shadowing property ana moreover $\matheql{F}$ is expanaive relxtive to any sequence $\sigma$ xith suffuciently small constang expansine, then $\mqthcel{F}$ is topologicemly stanje.
Sfvuctuxao stability imklies Shadowhng property it xn IFS
==========================================================
Now, we are going to study the rqlation bftween shadowigg pgo[ertg and structural stability in an IRS. Firsu, we define the spsce of diffeomorphisms on $L$. Leh the functions $f$ wnd $g$ be $C^{1}$-duffejnorphisms on $M$. We define the metrid $\rho_1$ as follows; $$\rho_1(f, g)= \rho_0(f, g)+ Oax\biyg\{\parallel Ef(z)-Dg(d)\karallel;\,\,\foraol x\ig M\bigg\};$$ that here $${\scsiptstyke Max\bigg\{\paraklen Dd(x)-Dg(x)\parallel;\,\,\forall x\mn M\bigg\}= Max\bigg\{\mid Qf(x)u-Dg(x)u\mhd;\,\,\yorall x\in M\;and\;\forall u\un T_{x}K:\, \mig u\mke= 1\bkgg\}}$$ Tie apace lf $R^{1}$-diffeomorpgisms on $M$ qith the metric $\rho_1$ if denoted to [***$Djff^{1}(M)$***]{}.\
We kgow that there is no relation of equivanende between the set of aol structurally stablg diffeomowphisms and the set of all diffeomorphisms with S[. In hazt, WS kw dtronger than SP. Robinson proves that a strucehrslky stable diffcomorphism on a clpsfd ianifold has RP. The prsvious converse delonstrajion hqs been rtjectrd by giving a counter example; for examile, un article [@Pilyugiu2010variational]. In jhe foklowing, we show that thns equjvalence is not also grue for IFSs.
Let IFXs $\mathcal{F}=\Big\{f_{\lambda},\,M\,: \lambdw\in\Lambda\Uig\}$ aud $\mathcxl{G}=\Bog\{g_{\ovewline\lambdw},\,M\,: {\ovcsline\lambda}\in{\overllne\Lalbga}\Big\}$ be skbset of $Diff^{1}(M)$ then we denote tix measure disjanwe xor two NFSs bn ${\mathcal{D}}_1$ and qefine as follpws:\
If $\mcthcal{W}=\mathcal{G}$ nhen put ${\kathcal{D}}_1\Big(\iathcal{F}, \ | {F}$ has shadowing property and moreover $\mathcal{F}$ relative any sequence with sufficiently small topologically Structural stability implies property in an ========================================================== Now, we are going to the relation between shadowing property and structural stability in an IFS. First, we the space of diffeomorphisms on $M$. Let the functions $f$ and $g$ be on We the $\rho_1$ as follows; $$\rho_1(f, g)= \rho_0(f, g)+ Max\bigg\{\parallel Df(x)-Dg(x)\parallel;\,\,\forall x\in M\bigg\};$$ that here $${\scriptstyle Max\bigg\{\parallel Df(x)-Dg(x)\parallel;\,\,\forall M\bigg\}= Max\bigg\{\mid Df(x)u-Dg(x)u\mid;\,\,\forall x\in M\;and\;\forall u\in T_{x}M:\, \mid 1\bigg\}}$$ The space of on $M$ with the metric is to [***$Diff^{1}(M)$***]{}.\ know there no relation of between the set of all structurally stable diffeomorphisms and the set of all diffeomorphisms with SP. In SS is SP. Robinson that structurally diffeomorphism on a has SP. The previous converse demonstration by giving a counter example; for example, in [@Pilyugin2010variational]. In following, we show that this equivalence not also true for IFSs. Let IFSs $\mathcal{F}=\Big\{f_{\lambda},\,M\,: and $\mathcal{G}=\Big\{g_{\overline\lambda},\,M\,: {\overline\lambda}\in{\overline\Lambda}\Big\}$ be subset of $Diff^{1}(M)$ then we denote the measure distance for two ${\mathcal{D}}_1$ and define as If $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{G}$ then ${\mathcal{D}}_1\Big(\mathcal{F}, | {F}$ has shadowing property and mOreover $\matHcal{F}$ Is eXpaNsIve rElatIve to any sequenCE $\sigMa$ with sufficiently smalL consTaNT expANsIve, thEn $\mathcAL{F}$ IS TopOlOgIcaLlY StAble.
STruCtural sTability imPliEs shadowing proPErTy in an IFS
==========================================================
NOw, wE are going to sTudY the reLaTioN BetweEn sHadowIng proPErty anD structurAl STabiliTY in an IFs. fIrSt, we Define the space of dIFfEOmorphisms on $M$. LEt the fUnCTiONS $f$ aNd $g$ Be $C^{1}$-diffeomOrPhismS On $M$. We deFInE THE meTRic $\rho_1$ as folloWs; $$\rho_1(f, g)= \rho_0(f, G)+ max\Bigg\{\paRaLleL df(x)-Dg(x)\ParalLeL;\,\,\ForAll x\in M\bigg\};$$ That Here $${\scripTstyle mAx\bigg\{\pARallel DF(x)-Dg(x)\pAraLleL;\,\,\forALl X\iN M\bIgG\}= max\BIgG\{\miD df(x)U-Dg(x)u\mid;\,\,\FoRaLl x\in m\;and\;\FORALl u\iN T_{x}m:\, \mid U\mid= 1\bIgg\}}$$ The space of $c^{1}$-diFfeoMOrpHisms On $M$ wiTh thE mEtric $\Rho_1$ is dEnoteD tO [***$Diff^{1}(M)$***]{}.\
We know thaT theRe is no relAtiOn Of eQuIvaleNCe betwEen The Set of alL structURalLy STABlE diffeomorphisms anD tHE SeT of all diFfeomoRPhIsMS with SP. IN fAct, sS is STRongeR thaN sP. robinson Proves THaT a StructuRaLly staBlE diFfeOmorpHIsm oN a closEd manifoLd has sp. The previous coNVerse demonstrATiON HaS Been RejEcted by giviNg a cOUnteR exaMPlE; foR ExampLe, in aRtIClE [@pilyugin2010variational]. in The folLowinG, we show that thIs equivaleNCE Is not alsO truE FoR iFSs.
Let IFSs $\matHcal{F}=\big\{f_{\lambda},\,m\,: \Lambda\in\lambdA\Big\}$ and $\mAthcal{G}=\BiG\{G_{\Overline\LamBda},\,m\,: {\ovErlINE\lAmbda}\in{\overliNE\lambDa}\big\}$ be suBseT of $Diff^{1}(m)$ thEn wE deNotE tHe measure Distance FoR tWo iFss bY ${\mathCAl{D}}_1$ and deFiNe aS fOllOws:\
If $\MAthcal{f}=\mathCal{G}$ ThEn PUt ${\mAthcal{D}}_1\bIg(\MAThcaL{F}, \ | {F}$ has shadowing propert y and more over$\m ath ca l{F} $ is expansive rel a tive to any sequence $\sig ma$ w it h suf f ic ientl y small co n s tan tex pan si v e, then $\ mathcal {F}$ is to pol og ically stabl e .
Structur alstability im pli es Sha do win g prop ert y inan IFS ====== ========= == = ====== = ======= = = == ==== ================= =
N ow, we are goi ng tost u dy t herel ation betw ee n sha d owing p r op e r t y a n d structuralstability i n an IFS.Fi rst , we de fineth e sp ace of diff eomo rphisms o n $M$. Let the functio ns $f$ an d $ g$ b e $ C^ {1} $- d iff e om orp h ism s on $M$ .We defi ne t h e m etri c $ \rho _1$ a s follows; $$ \rh o_1( f , g )= \r ho_0( f, g )+ Max\ bigg\{ \para ll el Df(x)-Dg(x)\ para llel;\,\, \fo ra llx\ in M\ b igg\}; $$tha t here$${\scr i pts ty l e Ma x\bigg\{\parallelDf ( x )- Dg(x)\pa rallel ; \, \, \ forall x \i n M \big g \ }= Ma x\bi g g\ {\mid Df (x)u-D g (x )u \mid;\, \, \foral lx\i n M \;and \ ;\fo rall u \in T_{x }M:\, \mid u\mid= 1\ b igg\}}$$ Thes pa c e o f $C^ {1} $-diffeomor phis m s on $M$ wi tht he me tric$\ r ho _ 1$ is denoted to [* ** $Diff^ {1}(M )$***]{}.\
We know that t h ere is n o re l at i on of equivale nce b etween the set of a ll st ructural ly stable d iffeomor phi sms an d t h e s et of all dif f e omor ph isms wi thSP. Infac t,SSisst ronger th an SP. R ob in so npro ves t h at a str uc tur al lystabl e diffe omorp hism o na cl osed ma n if o l d ha sSP . Th e p re vious con v ers e demon strationhas been r ej ected b y giving a co un ter exampl e; fo r exam p l e, in ar ticle [@Pilyugin2010var i ational ].In th e fo llowing,weshow t hat this e quival enceis no t alsot r ue fo rIFSs.
Let I FSs $\ma th cal{ F}=\Big \{f_{\lambda},\,M\ , : \ lambda\in\Lam bda \Big \ } $and $\ m ath ca l {G} = \ Big\{g_{\overli ne\lambda} ,\ , M\ ,: {\overl i ne\ la mbda}\i n{\over line\ L ambda}\ Big\}$ be subset o f$Dif f ^ {1} (M)$ thenwe denot e the mea s ure d i st ancefor two I FS s b y ${\ mathca l {D} }_1$and de fi ne asfollo ws :\
If $\ mathcal{F}=\mathcal{G}$ thenput $ {\m athcal{D} }_1 \ Big (\mathcal {F}, \ | {F}$ has_shadowing property_and moreover $\mathcal{F}$ is_expansive relative_to_any sequence_$\sigma$_with sufficiently small_constant expansive, then_$\mathcal{F}$ is topologically stable.
_Structural stability implies_Shadowing_property in an IFS
==========================================================
Now, we are going to study the relation between shadowing property_and_structural stability_in_an_IFS. First, we define the_space of diffeomorphisms on $M$._Let the_functions $f$ and $g$ be $C^{1}$-diffeomorphisms on $M$._We_define the metric_$\rho_1$ as follows; $$\rho_1(f, g)= \rho_0(f, g)+ Max\bigg\{\parallel Df(x)-Dg(x)\parallel;\,\,\forall_x\in M\bigg\};$$ that here $${\scriptstyle Max\bigg\{\parallel_Df(x)-Dg(x)\parallel;\,\,\forall x\in M\bigg\}=_Max\bigg\{\mid_Df(x)u-Dg(x)u\mid;\,\,\forall_x\in M\;and\;\forall u\in T_{x}M:\,_\mid u\mid= 1\bigg\}}$$ The space of_$C^{1}$-diffeomorphisms on $M$ with the metric_$\rho_1$ is denoted to [***$Diff^{1}(M)$***]{}.\
We know that_there is no relation of equivalence_between the set of all_structurally stable_diffeomorphisms and the set of_all diffeomorphisms with_SP. In_fact, SS is_stronger than SP. Robinson proves that_a structurally stable_diffeomorphism on a closed manifold has_SP._The previous converse_demonstration_has_been rejected_by giving a_counter_example; for_example,_in article [@Pilyugin2010variational]. In the following,_we_show that this equivalence is not also_true for IFSs.
Let IFSs_$\mathcal{F}=\Big\{f_{\lambda},\,M\,:_\lambda\in\Lambda\Big\}$ and $\mathcal{G}=\Big\{g_{\overline\lambda},\,M\,: {\overline\lambda}\in{\overline\Lambda}\Big\}$_be subset of $Diff^{1}(M)$ then_we denote the measure distance for_two IFSs_by ${\mathcal{D}}_1$_and define as follows:\
If $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{G}$ then put ${\mathcal{D}}_1\Big(\mathcal{F}, \ |
\widehat{C}_{jc}^{i} &=&\frac{1}{2}g^{ik}\frac{\partial g_{jk}}{\partial
y^{c}}, \notag \\
\widehat{C}_{bc}^{a} &=&\frac{1}{2}h^{ad}\left( \frac{\partial h_{bd}}{\partial y^{c}}+\frac{\partial h_{cd}}{\partial y^{b}}-\frac{\partial h_{bc}}{\partial y^{d}}\right). \notag\end{aligned}$$For the canonical d–connection there are satisfied the conditions of vanishing of torsion on the h–subspace and v–subspace, i.e., $\widehat{T}_{jk}^{i}=\widehat{T}_{bc}^{a}=0.$ In more general cases, such components of torsion are not zero, for instance, the metric d–connections of type $\mathbf{\Gamma }_{\ \alpha \beta }^{\gamma }=\left( \widehat{L}_{jk}^{i}+l_{jk}^{i}(u),\widehat{L}_{bk}^{a},\widehat{C}_{jc}^{i},\widehat{C}_{bc}^{a}+c_{bc}^{a}(u)\right) $ is also compatible with metric (\[metr\]) and has nontrivial $T_{jk}^{i}$ and $\widehat{T}_{bc}^{a}.$
Let us consider a special case with $\dim \mathbf{V=}n+n,\ h_{ab}\rightarrow g_{ij}$ and $N_{i}^{a}\rightarrow
N_{\ i}^{j}$ in (\[metr\]) when a tangent bundle structure is locally modelled on $\mathbf{V.\,}$ We denote a such space by $\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{(n,n)}.$ One holds:
The canonical d–connection $\widehat{\mathbf{D}}$ (\[candcon\]) for a local modelling of a $\widetilde{TM}$ space on $\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{(n,n)}$ is defined by $\widehat{\mathbf{\Gamma }}_{\ \alpha \beta
}^{\gamma }=(\widehat{L}_{jk}^{i},\widehat{C}_{jk}^{i})\ $with$$\widehat{L}_{jk}^{i}=\frac{1}{2}g^{ir}\left( \frac{\delta g_{jr}}{\partial x^{k}}+\frac{\delta g_{kr}}{\partial
x^{j}}-\frac{\delta g_{jk}}{\partial x^{ | \widehat{C}_{jc}^{i } & = & \frac{1}{2}g^{ik}\frac{\partial g_{jk}}{\partial
y^{c } }, \notag \\
\widehat{C}_{bc}^{a } & = & \frac{1}{2}h^{ad}\left (\frac{\partial h_{bd}}{\partial y^{c}}+\frac{\partial h_{cd}}{\partial y^{b}}-\frac{\partial h_{bc}}{\partial y^{d}}\right). \notag\end{aligned}$$For the canonical d – connection there are satisfied the conditions of fly of tortuosity on the h – subspace and v – subspace, i.e., $ \widehat{T}_{jk}^{i}=\widehat{T}_{bc}^{a}=0.$ In more cosmopolitan cases, such part of torsion are not zero, for case, the metric d – connections of type $ \mathbf{\Gamma } _ { \ \alpha \beta } ^{\gamma } = \left (\widehat{L}_{jk}^{i}+l_{jk}^{i}(u),\widehat{L}_{bk}^{a},\widehat{C}_{jc}^{i},\widehat{C}_{bc}^{a}+c_{bc}^{a}(u)\right) $ is besides compatible with measured (\[metr\ ]) and has nontrivial $ T_{jk}^{i}$ and $ \widehat{T}_{bc}^{a}.$
Let us consider a particular case with $ \dim \mathbf{V=}n+n,\ h_{ab}\rightarrow g_{ij}$ and $ N_{i}^{a}\rightarrow
N_{\ i}^{j}$ in (\[metr\ ]) when a tangent bundle structure is locally model on $ \mathbf{V.\,}$ We denote a such quad by $ \widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{(n, n)}.$ One holds:
The canonical d – connection $ \widehat{\mathbf{D}}$ (\[candcon\ ]) for a local modeling of a $ \widetilde{TM}$ space on $ \widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{(n, n)}$ is defined by $ \widehat{\mathbf{\Gamma } } _ { \ \alpha \beta
} ^{\gamma } =( \widehat{L}_{jk}^{i},\widehat{C}_{jk}^{i})\ $ with$$\widehat{L}_{jk}^{i}=\frac{1}{2}g^{ir}\left (\frac{\delta g_{jr}}{\partial x^{k}}+\frac{\delta g_{kr}}{\partial
x^{j}}-\frac{\delta g_{jk}}{\partial x^ { |
\widfhat{C}_{jc}^{i} &=&\frac{1}{2}g^{ik}\frac{\partlal g_{jk}}{\partial
y^{c}}, \notag \\
\widehzt{C}_{bc}^{a} &=&\ffac{1}{2}h^{ad}\left( \frac{\partial h_{bd}}{\pactiao y^{c}}+\feac{\partial h_{cd}}{\partial h^{b}}-\frac{\parnial h_{bc}}{\pqrtiel y^{d}}\right). \notaj\snd{aligkzd}$$For bhe ccninical d–connecjion there ase satisfied tve clnditions of vanishing of torsion og the h–xuhspace and v–sufspabe, i.e., $\spdthat{T}_{jk}^{i}=\widehat{T}_{bc}^{a}=0.$ In more generzl casev, such componrnts of torsion are not zego, flr instance, the mehric d–connextiogw of type $\maghbf{\Gamma }_{\ \alpha \beta }^{\famma }=\left( \widehat{L}_{jk}^{i}+l_{jk}^{i}(u),\widefat{L}_{bl}^{a},\widehat{C}_{hc}^{u},\wifghat{C}_{bc}^{a}+c_{bc}^{a}(n)\right) $ is also compatible with mrtric (\[metr\]) and hav nintrivial $T_{jk}^{i}$ and $\wivehat{T}_{bc}^{a}.$
Let us consyder a spacnal case with $\dim \matybd{V=}n+n,\ v_{ab}\rhghtxerod g_{jj}$ ahd $N_{i}^{a}\gigitarrow
N_{\ i}^{j}$ in (\[metr\]) whwn a tangent bundle segicture is lodally ioqelled on $\mathbf{V.\,}$ We denote a such space by $\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{(n,n)}.$ One holds:
The canonical d–fonnectiog $\widehat{\mathbf{D}}$ (\[candcon\]) for a local modelling of a $\wivegilbc{BM}$ soqcf on $\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{(n,n)}$ is defined by $\widehat{\iztnbn{\Gamma }}_{\ \alpha \beba
}^{\gamma }=(\widehat{L}_{jk}^{o},\wldrrat{C}_{jk}^{i})\ $with$$\wkdehat{L}_{jk}^{j}=\frac{1}{2}g^{ir}\left( \frac{\dflta g_{jt}}{\partiql x^{k}}+\frac{\qelts g_{kr}}{\partial
x^{j}}-\frac{\delta g_{jk}}{\partial x^{ | \widehat{C}_{jc}^{i} &=&\frac{1}{2}g^{ik}\frac{\partial g_{jk}}{\partial y^{c}}, \notag \\ \widehat{C}_{bc}^{a} h_{bd}}{\partial h_{cd}}{\partial y^{b}}-\frac{\partial y^{d}}\right). \notag\end{aligned}$$For the the of vanishing of on the h–subspace v–subspace, i.e., $\widehat{T}_{jk}^{i}=\widehat{T}_{bc}^{a}=0.$ In more general such components of torsion are not zero, for instance, the metric d–connections of $\mathbf{\Gamma }_{\ \alpha \beta }^{\gamma }=\left( \widehat{L}_{jk}^{i}+l_{jk}^{i}(u),\widehat{L}_{bk}^{a},\widehat{C}_{jc}^{i},\widehat{C}_{bc}^{a}+c_{bc}^{a}(u)\right) $ is also compatible with metric and nontrivial and Let us consider a special case with $\dim \mathbf{V=}n+n,\ h_{ab}\rightarrow g_{ij}$ and $N_{i}^{a}\rightarrow N_{\ i}^{j}$ in when a tangent bundle structure is locally modelled $\mathbf{V.\,}$ We denote a space by $\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{(n,n)}.$ One holds: canonical $\widehat{\mathbf{D}}$ (\[candcon\]) a modelling a $\widetilde{TM}$ space $\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{(n,n)}$ is defined by $\widehat{\mathbf{\Gamma }}_{\ \alpha \beta }^{\gamma }=(\widehat{L}_{jk}^{i},\widehat{C}_{jk}^{i})\ $with$$\widehat{L}_{jk}^{i}=\frac{1}{2}g^{ir}\left( \frac{\delta g_{jr}}{\partial x^{k}}+\frac{\delta g_{kr}}{\partial x^{j}}-\frac{\delta g_{jk}}{\partial |
\widehat{C}_{jc}^{i} &=&\frac{1}{2}g^{ik}\frac{\parTial g_{jk}}{\parTial
y^{C}}, \noTag \\
\WiDehaT{C}_{bc}^{A} &=&\frac{1}{2}h^{ad}\left( \frAC{\parTial h_{bd}}{\partial y^{c}}+\frac{\paRtial H_{cD}}{\PartIAl Y^{b}}-\fraC{\partiaL H_{bC}}{\PArtIaL y^{D}}\riGhT). \NoTag\enD{alIgned}$$FoR the canoniCal D–cOnnection theRE aRe satisfieD thE conditions oF vaNishinG oF toRSion oN thE h–subSpace aND v–subsPace, i.e., $\widEhAT{T}_{jk}^{i}=\wIDehat{T}_{bC}^{A}=0.$ in More General cases, such cOMpONents of torsion Are not ZeRO, fOR InsTanCe, the metriC d–ConneCTions of TYpE $\MAThbF{\gamma }_{\ \alpha \betA }^{\gamma }=\left( \wIDehAt{L}_{jk}^{i}+L_{jK}^{i}(u),\WIdehat{l}_{bk}^{a},\wIdEHat{c}_{jc}^{i},\widehat{c}_{bc}^{a}+C_{bc}^{a}(u)\righT) $ is alsO CompatiBLe with mEtric (\[mEtr\]) And Has nONtRiViaL $T_{JK}^{i}$ aND $\wIdeHAt{T}_{Bc}^{a}.$
Let us CoNsIder a SpecIAL CAse wIth $\Dim \mAthbf{v=}n+n,\ h_{ab}\rightarRow G_{ij}$ aND $N_{i}^{A}\righTarroW
N_{\ i}^{j}$ In (\[Metr\]) wHen a taNgent BuNdle structure is LocaLly modellEd oN $\mAthBf{v.\,}$ We deNOte a suCh sPacE by $\wideTilde{\maTHbf{v}}_{(n,N)}.$ oNE hOlds:
The canonical d–cOnNECtIon $\widehAt{\mathBF{D}}$ (\[CaNDcon\]) for a LoCal ModeLLIng of A $\widETiLde{TM}$ spaCe on $\wiDEtIlDe{\mathbF{V}}_{(N,n)}$ is deFiNed By $\wIdehaT{\MathBf{\GammA }}_{\ \alpha \beTa
}^{\gamMA }=(\widehat{L}_{jk}^{i},\wiDEhat{C}_{jk}^{i})\ $with$$\wIDeHAT{L}_{JK}^{i}=\frAc{1}{2}g^{Ir}\left( \frac{\dElta G_{Jr}}{\paRtiaL X^{k}}+\FraC{\Delta G_{kr}}{\paRtIAl
X^{J}}-\frac{\delta g_{jk}}{\partiaL x^{ |
\widehat{C}_{jc}^{i} &=&\ frac{1}{2} g^{ik }\f rac {\ part ialg_{jk}}{\parti a l
y^ {c}}, \notag \\
\wide hat{C }_ { bc}^ { a} &=&\ frac{1} { 2} h ^ {ad }\ le ft( \ f ra c{\pa rti al h_{b d}}{\parti aly^ {c}}+\frac{\ p ar tial h_{cd }}{ \partial y^{ b}} -\frac {\ par t ial h _{b c}}{\ partia l y^{d} }\right). \ notag\ e nd{alig n e d} $$Fo r the canonical d – co n nection thereare sa ti s fi e d th e c onditionsof vani s hing of to r s i ono n the h–subsp ace and v–s u bsp ace, i .e .,$ \wideh at{T} _{ j k}^ {i}=\wideha t{T} _{bc}^{a} =0.$ I n more g e neral c ases,suc h c ompo n en ts of t o rsi o nare not zero, f or i nstan ce,t h e metr icd–co nnect ions of type$\m athb f {\G amma}_{\\alp ha \bet a }^{\ gamma } =\left( \wideha t{L} _{jk}^{i} +l_ {j k}^ {i }(u), \ wideha t{L }_{ bk}^{a} ,\wideh a t{C }_ { j c }^ {i},\widehat{C}_{b c} ^ { a} +c_{bc}^ {a}(u) \ ri gh t ) $ is a ls o c ompa t i ble w ithm et ric (\[m etr\]) an dhas non tr ivial$T _{j k}^ {i}$a nd $ \wideh at{T}_{b c}^{a } .$
Let us con s ider a specia l c a s ew ith$\d im \mathbf{ V=}n + n,\h_{a b }\ rig h tarro w g_{ ij } $a nd $N_{i}^{a}\right ar row
N_ {\ i} ^{j}$ in (\[m etr\]) whe n a tangent bun d le structure is l ocall y modelled on $\mat hbf{V .\,}$ We denote a s uch spac e b y $ \wi det i l de {\mathbf{V}}_ { ( n,n) }. $ One h old s:
The ca non ica l d –c onnection $\wideh at {\ ma th bf{ D}}$( \[candco n\ ])fo r a loca l model lingof a $ \w i det ilde{TM } $s p aceon $ \wid eti ld e{\ma thbf { V}} _{(n,n) }$ is def ine d by$\ wi dehat{\ mathbf{\Gamma } }_{\ \alph a\be ta
}^{ \ g amma }=( \widehat{L}_{jk}^{i},\w i dehat{C }_{ jk}^{ i})\ $with$$\ wid ehat{L }_{ j k}^{i} =\frac {1}{2 }g ^{i r } \left ( \f rac {\ delta g_{j r } }{\ parti al x^{ k}}+\fr ac{\delta g_{kr}}{ \ par tial
x^{j}}-\ fra c{\d e l ta g_ { jk } }{\ pa r tia l x^{ |
\widehat{C}_{jc}^{i} &=&\frac{1}{2}g^{ik}\frac{\partial_g_{jk}}{\partial
y^{c}}, _\notag \\
\widehat{C}_{bc}^{a} &=&\frac{1}{2}h^{ad}\left( \frac{\partial_h_{bd}}{\partial y^{c}}+\frac{\partial_h_{cd}}{\partial_y^{b}}-\frac{\partial h_{bc}}{\partial_y^{d}}\right)._ \notag\end{aligned}$$For the_canonical d–connection there_are satisfied the conditions_of vanishing of_torsion_on the h–subspace and v–subspace, i.e., $\widehat{T}_{jk}^{i}=\widehat{T}_{bc}^{a}=0.$ In more general cases, such components of_torsion_are not_zero,_for_instance, the metric d–connections of_type $\mathbf{\Gamma }_{\ \alpha \beta_}^{\gamma }=\left(_\widehat{L}_{jk}^{i}+l_{jk}^{i}(u),\widehat{L}_{bk}^{a},\widehat{C}_{jc}^{i},\widehat{C}_{bc}^{a}+c_{bc}^{a}(u)\right) $ is also compatible with metric (\[metr\])_and_has nontrivial $T_{jk}^{i}$_and $\widehat{T}_{bc}^{a}.$
Let us consider a special case with $\dim_\mathbf{V=}n+n,\ h_{ab}\rightarrow g_{ij}$ and $N_{i}^{a}\rightarrow
N_{\ i}^{j}$_in (\[metr\]) when_a_tangent_bundle structure is locally_modelled on $\mathbf{V.\,}$ We denote a such_space by $\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{(n,n)}.$ One holds:
The canonical_d–connection $\widehat{\mathbf{D}}$ (\[candcon\]) for a local modelling_of a $\widetilde{TM}$ space on $\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{(n,n)}$_is defined by $\widehat{\mathbf{\Gamma }}_{\_\alpha \beta
}^{\gamma_}=(\widehat{L}_{jk}^{i},\widehat{C}_{jk}^{i})\ $with$$\widehat{L}_{jk}^{i}=\frac{1}{2}g^{ir}\left( \frac{\delta g_{jr}}{\partial x^{k}}+\frac{\delta_g_{kr}}{\partial
x^{j}}-\frac{\delta g_{jk}}{\partial x^{ |
013609 (2002).
H. Pu, W. Zhang, and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 090401 (2002).
J. Javanainen and M.Y. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. A [**60**]{}, 2351 (1999).
C.K. Law, H. Pu, and N.P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5257 (1998); E.V. Goldstein and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 3896 (1999).
L.-M. Duan, J.I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 033619 (2002).
A. Sorensen, L.M. Duan, I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Nature(London) [**409**]{}, 63 (2001).
K. Helmerson and L. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 170402 (2001).
**Semi-Finite Forms of**
Bilateral Basic Hypergeometric Series
[ William Y. C. Chen]{}$^{1}$ and $^{2}$
Center for Combinatorics, LPMC\
Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, P.R. China
Email: $^[email protected], $^[email protected]
[**Abstract.**]{} We show that several classical bilateral summation and transformation formulas have semi-finite forms. We obtain these semi-finite forms from unilateral summation and transformation formulas. Our method can be applied to derive Ramanujan’s $_1\psi_1$ summation, Bailey’s $_2\psi_2$ transformations, and Bailey’s $_6\psi_6$ summation.
[**Corresponding Author:**]{} William Y. C. Chen, Email: [email protected]
[**AMS Classification:**]{} 33D15
[**Keywords:**]{} Bilateral hypergeometric summation, semi-finite forms, Ramanujan’s ${}_1\psi_1$ summation, Bailey’s ${}_2\psi_2$ transformations, Bailey’s ${}_6\psi_6$ summation.
Introduction
============
We follow the terminology for basic hypergeometric series in [@ | 013609 (2002).
H. Pu, W. Zhang, and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ * * 89 * * ] { }, 090401 (2002).
J. Javanainen and M.Y. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. A [ * * 60 * * ] { }, 2351 (1999).
C.K. Law, H. Pu, and N.P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ * * 81 * * ] { }, 5257 (1998); E.V. Goldstein and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A [ * * 59 * * ] { }, 3896 (1999).
L.-M. Duan, J.I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A [ * * 65 * * ] { }, 033619 (2002).
A. Sorensen, L.M. Duan, I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Nature(London) [ * * 409 * * ] { }, 63 (2001).
K. Helmerson and L. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ * * 87 * * ] { }, 170402 (2001).
* * Semi - Finite Forms of * *
Bilateral Basic Hypergeometric Series
[ William Y. C. Chen]{}$^{1}$ and $ ^{2}$
Center for Combinatorics, LPMC\
Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, P.R. China
Email: $ ^[email protected], $ ^[email protected]
[ * * Abstract. * * ] { } We show that several classical bilateral summation and transformation formula take semi - finite forms. We obtain these semi - finite forms from unilateral sum and transformation formulas. Our method can be applied to deduce Ramanujan ’s $ _ 1\psi_1 $ sum, Bailey ’s $ _ 2\psi_2 $ transformations, and Bailey ’s $ _ 6\psi_6 $ summation.
[ * * Corresponding Author :* * ] { } William Y. C. Chen, Email: [email protected]
[ * * AMS Classification :* * ] { } 33D15
[ * * Keywords :* * ] { } Bilateral hypergeometric summation, semi - finite forms, Ramanujan ’s $ { } _ 1\psi_1 $ summation, Bailey ’s $ { } _ 2\psi_2 $ transformation, Bailey ’s $ { } _ 6\psi_6 $ summation.
Introduction
= = = = = = = = = = = =
We follow the terminology for basic hypergeometric serial in [ @ | 013609 (2002).
H. Pu, W. Zhang, and P. Meystrt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 090401 (2002).
J. Javaiainen znd M.Y. Ixanov, Phys. Rev. A [**60**]{}, 2351 (1999).
C.K. Law, H. 'u, abd N.P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5257 (1998); E.V. Gopdstein qnd K. Meystre, Phys. Ret. A [**59**]{}, 3896 (1999).
L.-M. Duan, N.L. Circc, and P. Zoller, Khys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 033619 (2002).
A. Sorensen, L.M. Djau, I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Nature(London) [**409**]{}, 63 (2001).
K. Helkegson and L. You, Phyx. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 170402 (2001).
**Semi-Finite Forms of**
Bilatedal Baspc Hypergeometric Series
[ William Y. C. Chen]{}$^{1}$ ajd $^{2}$
Cfnter for Combinatlrics, LPMC\
Nqnkay University, Gianjin 300071, P.G. China
Emaim: $^[email protected], $^[email protected]
[**Xbstrcct.**]{} We show tyat veveral clawsicaj bilateral summatiot and ttansformation normunas have semi-finite formv. We obtain these femi-finita yorms from unilateral symmathon dnd geanrfodmetikn forlules. Our methkd can be applied to derive Rakaglkan’s $_1\psi_1$ sumjation, Bwiley’s $_2\psi_2$ transformations, and Bailey’s $_6\ksi_6$ shmmation.
[**Corresponding Aythor:**]{} William Y. C. Chej, Email: [email protected]
[**AMS Classification:**]{} 33D15
[**Keywords:**]{} Bilatesal hbpdrgtonetriz skmmation, semi-finite forms, Ramanujan’s ${}_1\psi_1$ summwfipn, Bailey’s ${}_2\psi_2$ tvansformations, Baikej’s ${}_6\ksi_6$ summation.
Ivtroduefikn
============
We follow the tegminolody foe basic hrperbeometric series in [@ | 013609 (2002). H. Pu, W. Zhang, and Phys. Lett. [**89**]{}, (2002). J. Javanainen A 2351 (1999). C.K. H. Pu, and Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5257 E.V. Goldstein and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 3896 (1999). L.-M. Duan, Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 033619 (2002). A. Sorensen, L.M. I. and Zoller, [**409**]{}, 63 (2001). K. Helmerson and L. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 170402 (2001). **Semi-Finite Forms Bilateral Basic Hypergeometric Series [ William Y. C. and $^{2}$ Center for LPMC\ Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China $^[email protected], $^[email protected] We that classical bilateral summation transformation formulas have semi-finite forms. We obtain these semi-finite forms from unilateral summation and transformation formulas. Our can be derive Ramanujan’s summation, $_2\psi_2$ and Bailey’s $_6\psi_6$ Author:**]{} William Y. C. Chen, Email: 33D15 [**Keywords:**]{} Bilateral hypergeometric summation, semi-finite forms, Ramanujan’s summation, Bailey’s transformations, Bailey’s ${}_6\psi_6$ summation. Introduction ============ follow the terminology for basic hypergeometric series in | 013609 (2002).
H. Pu, W. Zhang, and P. Meystre, Phys. REv. Lett. [**89**]{}, 090401 (2002).
J. JavAnainEn aNd M.y. IVanoV, PhyS. Rev. A [**60**]{}, 2351 (1999).
C.K. Law, H. Pu, aND N.P. BIgelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5257 (1998); E.V. GolDsteiN aND P. MeYStRe, PhyS. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 3896 (1999).
L.-M. dUaN, j.i. CiRaC, aNd P. zoLLeR, Phys. rev. a [**65**]{}, 033619 (2002).
A. SorenSen, L.M. Duan, I. cirAc And P. Zoller, NaTUrE(London) [**409**]{}, 63 (2001).
K. HeLmeRson and L. You, PHys. rev. LetT. [**87**]{}, 170402 (2001).
**SEmi-fInite forMs of**
BIlaterAL Basic hypergeomEtRIc SeriES
[ WilliaM y. c. CHen]{}$^{1}$ aNd $^{2}$
Center for CombinAToRIcs, LPMC\
Nankai UNiversItY, tiANJin 300071, p.R. CHina
Email: $^[email protected], $^[email protected]
[**Abstract.**]{} We sHow that seveRAl cLassicAl BilATeral sUmmatIoN And TransformatIon fOrmulas haVe semi-FInite foRMs. We obtAin theSe sEmi-FiniTE fOrMs fRoM UniLAtEraL SumMation anD tRaNsforMatiON FORmulAs. OUr meThod cAn be applied to DerIve RAManUjan’s $_1\Psi_1$ suMmatIoN, BailEy’s $_2\psi_2$ TransFoRmations, and BailEy’s $_6\pSi_6$ summatiOn.
[**COrResPoNding aUthor:**]{} WIllIam y. C. Chen, EMail: [email protected]
[**AMS Classification:**]{} 33d15
[**KEYWoRds:**]{} BilatEral hyPErGeOMetric suMmAtiOn, seMI-FinitE forMS, RAmanujan’S ${}_1\psi_1$ suMMaTiOn, BaileY’s ${}_2\Psi_2$ traNsForMatIons, BAIley’S ${}_6\psi_6$ suMmation.
INtrodUCtion
============
We follow tHE terminology fOR bASIc HYperGeoMetric serieS in [@ | 013609 (2002).
H. Pu, W. Zhang, an d P.Mey str e, Phy s. R ev. Lett. [**8 9 **]{ }, 090401 (2002).
J.Javan ai n en a n dM.Y.Ivanov, Ph y s . R ev .A [ ** 6 0* *]{}, 23 51 (199 9).
C.K.Law ,H. Pu, and N . P. Bigelow,Phy s. Rev. Lett . [ **81** ]{ },5 257 ( 199 8); E .V. Go l dstein and P. M ey s tre, P h ys. Rev . A[**5 9**]{}, 3896 (199 9 ).
L.-M. Duan, J .I. Ci ra c ,a n d P . Z oller, Phy s. Rev. A [**65 * *] { } , 03 3 619 (2002).
A. Sorensen , L. M. Dua n, I. Ciracand P .Z oll er, Nature( Lond on) [**40 9**]{} , 63 (20 0 1).
K. Helme rso n a nd L . Y ou , P hy s . R e v. Le t t.[**87**] {} ,17040 2 (2 0 0 1 ) .
* *Se mi-F inite Forms of**
Bil ater a l B asicHyper geom et ric S eries
[ Wi ll iam Y. C. Chen] {}$^ {1}$ and$^{ 2} $
Ce nterf or Com bin ato rics, L PMC\
Na n kai U n i v er sity, Tianjin 3000 71 , P. R. China
Emai l :$^ 1 $chen@na nk ai. edu. c n , $^2 $fu@ n an kai.edu. cn
[* * Ab st ract.** ]{ } We s ho w t hat seve r al c lassic al bilat erals ummation and t r ansformationf or m u la s hav e s emi-finiteform s . We obt a in th e se se mi-fi ni t ef orms from unilatera lsummat ion a nd transforma tion formu l a s . Our me thod ca n be applied to deri ve Ramanuj a n’s $_1\ psi_1 $ summat ion, Bail e y ’s $_2\p si_ 2$tra nsf o r ma tions, and Ba i l ey’s $ _6\psi_ 6$summati on.
[ **C orr es ponding A uthor:** ]{ }Wi ll iam Y. C . Chen, E ma il: c hen @nank a i.edu. cn
[ **AM SCl a ssi ficatio n :* * ] {} 3 3D 15
[* *Ke yw ords: **]{ } Bi lateral hypergeo met r ic s um ma tion, s emi-finite fo rm s, Ramanuj an ’s${}_1\ p s i_1$ sum mation, Bailey’s ${}_2\ p si_2$ t ran sform atio ns, Baile y’s ${}_6 \ps i _6$ su mmatio n.
I nt rod u c tion= = == === == ===
We fo l l owthe t er mino logy fo r basic hypergeome t ric series in [@ | 013609_(2002).
H. Pu,_W. Zhang, and P._Meystre, Phys._Rev._Lett. [**89**]{},_090401_(2002).
J. Javanainen and_M.Y. Ivanov, Phys._Rev. A [**60**]{}, 2351_(1999).
C.K. Law, H._Pu,_and N.P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5257 (1998); E.V. Goldstein and P. Meystre,_Phys._Rev. A_[**59**]{},_3896_(1999).
L.-M. Duan, J.I. Cirac, and_P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A_[**65**]{}, 033619_(2002).
A. Sorensen, L.M. Duan, I. Cirac and P._Zoller,_Nature(London) [**409**]{}, 63_(2001).
K. Helmerson and L. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{},_170402 (2001).
**Semi-Finite Forms of**
Bilateral Basic_Hypergeometric Series
[ William_Y._C._Chen]{}$^{1}$ and $^{2}$
Center for_Combinatorics, LPMC\
Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, P.R._China
Email: $^[email protected], $^[email protected]
[**Abstract.**]{} We show that_several classical bilateral summation and transformation formulas_have semi-finite forms. We obtain these_semi-finite forms from unilateral summation_and transformation_formulas. Our method can be_applied to derive_Ramanujan’s $_1\psi_1$_summation, Bailey’s $_2\psi_2$_transformations, and Bailey’s $_6\psi_6$ summation.
[**Corresponding Author:**]{}_William Y. C._Chen, Email: [email protected]
[**AMS Classification:**]{} 33D15
[**Keywords:**]{} Bilateral_hypergeometric_summation, semi-finite forms,_Ramanujan’s_${}_1\psi_1$_summation, Bailey’s_${}_2\psi_2$ transformations, Bailey’s_${}_6\psi_6$_summation.
Introduction
============
We follow_the_terminology for basic hypergeometric series in_[@ |
the mice of the group, thus showing characteristic kinetic properties of the FDG inside the CT26 tumor tissue, independently of the specific murine experiment.
Estimates of the rate constants available in the literature refer to tissues, and have been obtained by application of compartmental models that are comparable with SCM and are connected to data by equations of the simplified form (\[eq:C\_T\_Sok\_vero\]), instead of equation (\[eq:C\_T\_tiss\_pesato\]), which has been applied in the present reduction procedure. The values obtained for $k_1^*$, $k_2^*$, $k_3^*$ and $k_4^*$ are slightly higher than the estimates found, e.g., in [@Sokoloff], referring to cerebral metabolism of albino rats, and in [@Reivich] and [@Ishibashi], for cerebral consumption in healthy human brains. On the contrary, the present values are comparable with those estimated in [@Roe], for mice with prostate carcinoma xenograft, and in [@Rusten], for soft tissue carcinomas in human patients; in both cases the rate constant corresponding to $k_4^*$ was set equal to zero.
Substitution of the values of the rate constants into the systems of ODEs (\[eq:ode\_C\]) and (\[eq:dot\_C\_S\]) allows a more complete analysis of tracer kinetics. \[fig:comp\_tissue\] shows the reconstructed compartment concentrations for the mouse m1 according to BCM, panel (a), and SCM, panel (b). The curves are representative of the kinetics of the other mice of the group analyzed. As to comparison of results obtained for concentrations, it is found that $C_f$ and $C_f^*$ are almost equal for the two models and reach the stationary value in a rather short time. Also, for the BCM, stationarity is achieved by $C_p$ in a few minutes, and its stationary value is smaller than the value of $C_f$. According to BCM, tracer accumulates in ER, whose compartment concentration $C_r$ grows with time. Similarly, the analysis performed with the use of SCM shows that accumulation of tracer takes place in the cytosolic phosphorylated pool $C_p^*$. Notice that, at each time $t$, $C_r(t)$ is almost four times $C_p^*(t)$. This observed difference follows from the fact that the ER compartment in B | the mice of the group, thus showing characteristic kinetic properties of the FDG inside the CT26 tumor tissue, independently of the specific murine experiment.
appraisal of the pace constants available in the literature refer to tissues, and have been prevail by lotion of compartmental models that are comparable with SCM and are connected to data by equation of the simplified form (\[eq: C\_T\_Sok\_vero\ ]), alternatively of equation (\[eq: C\_T\_tiss\_pesato\ ]), which has been applied in the present decrease procedure. The values obtained for $ k_1^*$, $ k_2^*$, $ k_3^*$ and $ k_4^*$ are slightly high than the estimates found, e.g., in [ @Sokoloff ], referring to cerebral metabolism of albino rat, and in [ @Reivich ] and [ @Ishibashi ], for cerebral consumption in healthy human brains. On the reverse, the present values are comparable with those estimated in [ @Roe ], for mouse with prostate carcinoma xenograft, and in [ @Rusten ], for delicate tissue carcinomas in human patients; in both cases the rate constant corresponding to $ k_4^*$ was dress equal to zero.
Substitution of the values of the rate constants into the systems of ODEs (\[eq: ode\_C\ ]) and (\[eq: dot\_C\_S\ ]) allows a more complete analysis of tracer kinetics. \[fig: comp\_tissue\ ] shows the reconstructed compartment concentrations for the mouse m1 according to BCM, panel (a), and SCM, panel (bacillus). The curves are representative of the kinetics of the early mouse of the group analyze. As to comparison of results obtained for assiduity, it is found that $ C_f$ and $ C_f^*$ are almost equal for the two models and strive the stationary value in a rather short time. Also, for the BCM, stationarity is achieved by $ C_p$ in a few minutes, and its stationary value is little than the value of $ C_f$. According to BCM, tracer accumulates in ER, whose compartment concentration $ C_r$ grows with time. Similarly, the analysis perform with the use of SCM shows that accumulation of tracer takes place in the cytosolic phosphorylated pond $ C_p^*$. Notice that, at each time $ t$, $ C_r(t)$ is almost four times $ C_p^*(t)$. This ascertained difference postdate from the fact that the ER compartment in B | thf mice of the group, thus showing characjeeistic kinetjc propefties of the FDG inside the RT26 tymor upssue, independently ow the spebific murune txperiment.
Estimatxa of thc rats convvants available in the liderature refer tu cissues, and have been obtained by ap[licatipn of compartmenjal mpqels nhct are comparable with SCM and zre coniected to data ny equations of the simplivied form (\[eq:C\_T\_Sok\_vero\]), lnstead of gsuaeuon (\[eq:C\_T\_tiss\_oesato\]), whibk has been zpplied in the present reductiov proeedure. The caoued obtained fir $k_1^*$, $h_2^*$, $k_3^*$ and $k_4^*$ arc slighdly higner than the extikatws found, e.g., in [@Sokolohf], referring to cerefral metatomism of albino rars, and hn [@Raivizy] avd [@Jsiibzshi], flr rerebral cohsumption ib healthy human braonf. On the contrzry, thq [resent values are comparable with thost estjmated in [@Roe], for mice qith prostate carcinola xenogrwft, and in [@Rusten], for soft tissue carcinomas in hgman 'agieubf; un both cases the rate constant corresponding tj $k_4^*$ wss set equal tj zero.
Substotktojn of the valoes of cge rate constants inho the fystens of ODEf (\[eq:pde\_C\]) and (\[eq:dot\_C\_S\]) allows a mire complete qnalysis of tracer kinetics. \[fng:comp\_jissue\] shows the reconstructeb compzrtment confentratiohr for the mouse o1 abcorging to BCM, panel (a), and SCI, panel (b). The curves are reprefentative lf thc kinetics of the ohher liwe of the hroup analyzed. As to comparison of results objaited for coneentrabions, it is fougd that $C_f$ and $C_f^*$ are almort equal fkr the vwo models agd reach the vjationary valne in a rwthee shirt timd. Also, for the NCM, stationarity is achieved by $C_p$ in a wsw minutes, and nus wtationary valur ir siaplxr thwt the value mf $C_w$. Azvordivg to BCM, tvacdr avcumulates in ER, whove ckmpartment concenttabion $C_r$ gtows with time. Similarky, the analysis pegformxd witi the ise of SCM shows that accumulatioh of tracfr bakes place ig thc cyjosolic phoxphorylated pool $C_p^*$. Notice that, at each time $t$, $C_r(t)$ is almist four times $C_p^*(t)$. Jhix observed vifferqnce follmws from the fact thqt the ER compartkent in B | the mice of the group, thus showing properties the FDG the CT26 tumor murine Estimates of the constants available in literature refer to tissues, and have obtained by application of compartmental models that are comparable with SCM and are to data by equations of the simplified form (\[eq:C\_T\_Sok\_vero\]), instead of equation (\[eq:C\_T\_tiss\_pesato\]), has applied the reduction procedure. The values obtained for $k_1^*$, $k_2^*$, $k_3^*$ and $k_4^*$ are slightly higher than the found, e.g., in [@Sokoloff], referring to cerebral metabolism albino rats, and in and [@Ishibashi], for cerebral consumption healthy brains. On contrary, present are comparable with estimated in [@Roe], for mice with prostate carcinoma xenograft, and in [@Rusten], for soft tissue carcinomas in patients; in the rate corresponding $k_4^*$ set equal to of the values of the rate systems of ODEs (\[eq:ode\_C\]) and (\[eq:dot\_C\_S\]) allows a complete analysis tracer kinetics. \[fig:comp\_tissue\] shows the reconstructed concentrations for the mouse m1 according to BCM, (a), and SCM, panel (b). The curves are representative of the kinetics of the other the group analyzed. As comparison of results for it found $C_f$ and are almost equal for the two models and reach the stationary in a rather short time. Also, for the BCM, stationarity by in a few and its stationary value smaller the value of $C_f$. BCM, accumulates compartment $C_r$ with time. Similarly, the performed with the use of shows that accumulation of cytosolic phosphorylated pool $C_p^*$. Notice that, at each $t$, $C_r(t)$ is almost four times $C_p^*(t)$. observed difference follows from the fact that the ER compartment in B | the mice of the group, thus showIng charactEristIc kIneTiC proPertIes of the FDG insIDe thE CT26 tumor tissue, independEntly Of THe spECiFic muRine expERiMENt.
EStImAteS oF ThE rate ConStants aVailable in The LiTerature refeR To Tissues, and HavE been obtaineD by ApplicAtIon OF compArtMentaL modelS That arE comparabLe WIth SCM ANd are coNNEcTed tO data by equations oF ThE Simplified form (\[Eq:C\_T\_SoK\_vERo\]), INSteAd oF equation (\[eQ:C\_t\_tiss\_PEsato\]), whICh HAS BeeN Applied in the pResent reducTIon ProcedUrE. ThE Values ObtaiNeD For $K_1^*$, $k_2^*$, $k_3^*$ and $k_4^*$ are sLighTly higher Than thE EstimatES found, e.G., in [@SokOloFf], rEferRInG tO ceReBRal MEtAboLIsm Of albino RaTs, And in [@reivICH] ANd [@IsHibAshi], For ceRebral consumpTioN in hEAltHy humAn braIns. ON tHe conTrary, tHe preSeNt values are compArabLe with thoSe eStImaTeD in [@RoE], For micE wiTh pRostate CarcinoMA xeNoGRAFt, And in [@Rusten], for soft TiSSUe CarcinomAs in huMAn PaTIents; in bOtH caSes tHE Rate cOnstANt CorrespoNding tO $K_4^*$ wAs Set equaL tO zero.
SUbStiTutIon of THe vaLues of The rate cOnstaNTs into the systeMS of ODEs (\[eq:ode\_C\]) ANd (\[EQ:DoT\_c\_S\]) alLowS a more complEte aNAlysIs of TRaCer KInetiCs. \[fig:CoMP\_tISsue\] shows the reconstRuCted coMpartMent concentraTions for thE MOUse m1 accoRdinG To bcM, panel (a), and SCM, Panel (B). The curves ARe represEntatIve of the Kinetics oF THe other mIce Of tHe gRouP ANaLyzed. As to compARIson Of Results ObtAined foR coNceNtrAtiOnS, it is founD that $C_f$ aNd $c_f^*$ ArE aLmoSt equAL for the tWo ModElS anD reacH The staTionaRy vaLuE iN A raTher shoRT tIME. AlsO, fOr The BcM, sTaTionaRity IS acHieved bY $C_p$ in a few MinUTes, aNd ItS statioNary value is smAlLer than the VaLue Of $C_f$. AcCORding to BcM, tracer accumulates in ER, WHose comParTment ConcEntration $c_r$ gRows wiTh tIMe. SimiLarly, tHe anaLySis PERformED WiTh tHe Use of SCM shOWS thAt accUmUlatIon of trAcer takes place in thE CytOsolic phosphoRylAted POOl $c_p^*$. NOTiCE thAt, AT eaCH Time $t$, $C_r(t)$ is almosT four times $c_p^*(T)$. thIs observed DIffErEnce folLows froM the fACt that tHe ER compaRtment in B | the mice of the group, th us showing char act eri st ic k inet ic propertieso f th e FDG inside the CT26tumor t i ssue , i ndepe ndently of t hesp ec ifi cm ur ine e xpe riment.
Estimate s o fthe rate con s ta nts availa ble in the lite rat ure re fe r t o tiss ues , and haveb een ob tained by a p plicat i on of c o m pa rtme ntal models thata re comparable wit h SCMan d a r e co nne cted to da ta by e q uations of t h e s i mplified form (\[eq:C\_T \ _So k\_ver o\ ]), instea d ofeq u ati on (\[eq:C\ _T\_ tiss\_pes ato\]) , whichh as been appli edinthep re se ntre d uct i on pr o ced ure. The v al ues o btai n e d for$k_ 1^*$ , $k_ 2^*$, $k_3^*$ an d $k _ 4^* $ are slig htly h igher thanthe e st imates found, e .g., in [@Sok olo ff ],re ferri n g to c ere bra l metab olism o f al bi n o ra ts, and in [@Reivi ch ] an d [@Ishi bashi] , f or cerebral c ons umpt i o n inheal t hy human b rains. On t he cont ra ry, th epre sen t val u es a re com parablewitht hose estimated in [@Roe], fo r m i c ew ithpro state carci noma xeno graf t ,and in [@ Ruste n] , f o r soft tissue carci no mas in huma n patients; i n both cas e s the rate con s ta n t correspondin g to$k_4^*$ wa s set equ al to zero.
Substitut i o n of the va lue s o f t h e r ate constants i ntoth e syste msof ODEs (\ [eq :od e\_ C\ ]) and (\ [eq:dot\ _C \_ S\ ]) al lowsa more co mp let eana lysis of tra cer k inet ic s. \[ fig:com p \_ t i ssue \] s hows th erecon stru c ted compar tment con cen t rati on sfor the mouse m1 acc or ding to BC M, pa nel (a ) , and SCM , panel (b). The curves are rep res entat iveof the ki net ics of th e other miceof th egro u p anal y z ed . A sto compari s o n o f res ul ts o btained for concentration s , i t is found th at$C_f $ an d $ C _f ^ *$ar e al m o st equal for th e two mode ls an d reach th e st at ionaryvalue i n a r a ther sh ort time. Also, fo rtheB C M,stationari ty is ac hieved by $C_p$ in a fe w m inutes ,and itsstatio n ary valu e is s ma ller t han t he value o f $C_f$. According to B CM, tr aceracc umulatesinE R,whose com part ment conce ntr ati on $C _r$ grows wit h t ime . Simi larl y , the ana l ys isp e rf ormed witht h e us e ofSCM showsthat accumulation oft racer takes pl acei n th e c y toso li c phosphorylat edpo o l $C_p^*$ .Notice that , at eac ht ime $ t$, $C _r(t)$ is alm o s tf our ti mes$C_ p^*(t)$.Thi so bserved d if f erence fol lo ws fro m thef actt h at the ER compar tment i n B | the_mice of_the group, thus showing_characteristic kinetic_properties_of the_FDG_inside the CT26_tumor tissue, independently_of the specific murine_experiment.
Estimates of the_rate_constants available in the literature refer to tissues, and have been obtained by application_of_compartmental models_that_are_comparable with SCM and are_connected to data by equations_of the_simplified form (\[eq:C\_T\_Sok\_vero\]), instead of equation (\[eq:C\_T\_tiss\_pesato\]), which_has_been applied in_the present reduction procedure. The values obtained for $k_1^*$,_$k_2^*$, $k_3^*$ and $k_4^*$ are slightly_higher than the_estimates_found,_e.g., in [@Sokoloff], referring_to cerebral metabolism of albino rats,_and in [@Reivich] and [@Ishibashi], for_cerebral consumption in healthy human brains. On_the contrary, the present values are_comparable with those estimated in_[@Roe], for_mice with prostate carcinoma xenograft,_and in [@Rusten],_for soft_tissue carcinomas in_human patients; in both cases the_rate constant corresponding_to $k_4^*$ was set equal to_zero.
Substitution_of the values_of_the_rate constants_into the systems_of_ODEs (\[eq:ode\_C\])_and_(\[eq:dot\_C\_S\]) allows a more complete analysis_of_tracer kinetics. \[fig:comp\_tissue\] shows the reconstructed compartment_concentrations for the mouse_m1_according to BCM, panel_(a), and SCM, panel (b)._The curves are representative of the_kinetics of_the other_mice of the group analyzed. As to comparison of results obtained_for concentrations, it is found that_$C_f$ and $C_f^*$ are_almost equal_for_the two models_and_reach the_stationary value in a rather short time._Also, for_the BCM, stationarity is achieved by_$C_p$ in a few_minutes,_and its stationary value is smaller_than the value of $C_f$. According_to BCM, tracer accumulates in_ER,_whose_compartment concentration $C_r$ grows with_time. Similarly, the analysis performed with_the use of_SCM shows that accumulation of tracer takes_place_in the cytosolic phosphorylated pool $C_p^*$._Notice_that, at each time $t$, $C_r(t)$_is_almost_four times $C_p^*(t)$. This observed_difference follows from the fact that_the ER compartment in B |
., e.g., [@camalich] for a recent discussion, with the physical light quark mass [@pdg], $m_l \approx 3.5\, \mbox{MeV} $, yields $\langle N |\bar{u} u + \bar{d} d | N \rangle \approx 17$. Supplementing this with the value of the strange quark mass [@pdg], $m_s =95\, \mbox{MeV} $ (all aforementioned quark masses being quoted in the $\overline{MS} $ scheme at $2\, \mbox{GeV} $), yields $$\delta (m_s \langle N| \bar{s} s | N\rangle ) \approx -0.6\, \mbox{MeV}
\label{ftscorrest}$$ for the correction term in the second line of (\[scalmix\]). This would amount to a 1% upward shift of the bare result for $f_{T_s } $ as one translates the quantity to the $\overline{MS} $ scheme at $2\, \mbox{GeV} $. Compared to the statistical uncertainties of the present calculation, a correction of this magnitude is negligible, and in the following, (\[scalarinv\]) will therefore be taken to hold for the present calculation within its uncertainties[^2].
It should again be noted that the mixing with gluonic operators has not been quantified in the above considerations. Whereas the weakness of the mixing with light quark operators (which, after all, is mediated by the coupling to the gluonic fields) makes it seem improbable that mixing with gluonic operators themselves is significant compared to other uncertainties of the calculation, explicit corroboration of this expectation would be desirable.
Axial vector matrix element
---------------------------
Turning to the axial vector matrix element, chiral symmetry again provides important constraints, although it cannot completely exclude mixing effects, due to its anomalous $U_A (1)$ breaking. The domain wall fermion discretization admits a five-dimensional partially conserved axial vector current ${\cal A}_{\mu }^{a} $ obeying a Ward-Takahashi identity of the form [@shamir; @rbc1] $$\Delta_{\mu } {\cal A}_{\mu }^{a} = 2mJ_5^a + 2J_{5q}^{a}
\label{wtid}$$ The first term on the right-hand side represents the explicit breaking of chiral symmetry by the quark masses, whereas the second term in the flavor-oct | ., e.g., [ @camalich ] for a recent discussion, with the physical light quark bulk [ @pdg ], $ m_l \approx 3.5\, \mbox{MeV } $, give $ \langle N |\bar{u } u + \bar{d } d | N \rangle \approx 17$. Supplementing this with the value of the foreign quark mass [ @pdg ], $ m_s = 95\, \mbox{MeV } $ (all aforementioned quark masses being quote in the $ \overline{MS } $ scheme at $ 2\, \mbox{GeV } $), yields $ $ \delta (m_s \langle N| \bar{s } s | N\rangle) \approx -0.6\, \mbox{MeV }
\label{ftscorrest}$$ for the discipline condition in the second line of (\[scalmix\ ]). This would come to a 1% upward shift of the plain resultant role for $ f_{T_s } $ as one translates the quantity to the $ \overline{MS } $ scheme at $ 2\, \mbox{GeV } $. Compared to the statistical uncertainties of the present calculation, a discipline of this magnitude is negligible, and in the following, (\[scalarinv\ ]) will therefore be take to hold for the present calculation within its uncertainties[^2 ].
It should again be noted that the mix with gluonic operators has not been quantify in the above considerations. Whereas the helplessness of the mixing with light quark operators (which, subsequently all, is mediated by the coupling to the gluonic fields) makes it seem improbable that mix with gluonic operator themselves is significant compared to other uncertainties of the calculation, explicit corroboration of this anticipation would be desirable.
axile vector matrix component
---------------------------
Turning to the axile vector matrix chemical element, chiral isotropy again provides important constraints, although it cannot completely exclude mixing effects, due to its anomalous $ U_A (1)$ breaking. The knowledge domain wall fermion discretization admits a five - dimensional partially conserved axial vector current $ { \cal A}_{\mu } ^{a } $ obeying a Ward - Takahashi identity of the form [ @shamir; @rbc1 ] $ $ \Delta_{\mu } { \cal A}_{\mu } ^{a } = 2mJ_5^a + 2J_{5q}^{a }
\label{wtid}$$ The beginning term on the right - hand side map the explicit breakage of chiral isotropy by the quark multitude, whereas the second term in the flavor - oct | ., e.g., [@camalich] for a recent dlscussion, with tkw physmcal lifht quary mass [@pdg], $m_l \approx 3.5\, \mbox{MeT} $, yuelds $\langle N |\bar{u} u + \bar{d} d | N \ranhle \apprix 17$. Wypplementiif this with tgc valbe of the strangg quark mass [@pdg], $m_s =95\, \mbox{MaV} $ (cll aforementioned quark masses beind quotec ln the $\overling{MS} $ xshems at $2\, \mbox{GeV} $), yields $$\delta (m_s \lanfle N| \ber{s} s | N\rangle ) \approx -0.6\, \mbox{MeV}
\label{ftscogresh}$$ for the correctiln term in jge fwcond line ow (\[scalmix\]). Uhns would amkunt to a 1% upward shift of the care xesult for $d_{T_w } $ ds one tranwlatef the quantibj to tha $\overlone{MS} $ scheme st $2\, \mbix{GeV} $. Compared to thx statistical uncertwinties ox che present calculatiin, a cotrecthon ud tfis megnjtude ls iegligible, znd in the dollowing, (\[scalarinv\]) wyol therefore ge takqn to hold for the present calculation wiuhin jts uncertainties[^2].
It shoyld again be noted thwt the miving with gluonic operators has not been quantifiad in ghe anove xojsiderations. Whereas the weakness of the mixigf einh light quark opcrators (which, aftet wlk, is mediated cy the cohpling to the gluojic fiejds) mqkes it stem ikprobable that mixing with tluonic operctoes themselves is sngnificant cumpated to other uncertainties of the calculatioj, explicif corroboration ow tmis expectaukon would be desiwable.
Axiao veetor matfix glement
---------------------------
Eurning to the axial vector matrix elemgnt, chhral symmehry again provides important coixtraints, altnoggh it cannjt cokpletely excltde mixing effgcts, due co its anomalous $U_A (1)$ brxaking. The djmain wall feslion discretmzation aqmitw a dive-dimdvsional partiakly consegvtd axial vwctor current ${\cal E}_{\mu }^{x} $ obeying a Warb-Uakqhashi identity of thq vocm [@shwkir; @rbc1] $$\Deltd_{\mu } {\cau A}_{\mu }^{x} = 2mJ_5^a + 2J_{5q}^{a}
\oxbel{etid}$$ The first term mn tge right-hand side teiresents jhe explisit breaking pf chiral symmetry by tie quack masxes, whereas the second term in ths flavor-oft | ., e.g., [@camalich] for a recent discussion, physical quark mass $m_l \approx 3.5\, |\bar{u} + \bar{d} d N \rangle \approx Supplementing this with the value of strange quark mass [@pdg], $m_s =95\, \mbox{MeV} $ (all aforementioned quark masses being in the $\overline{MS} $ scheme at $2\, \mbox{GeV} $), yields $$\delta (m_s \langle \bar{s} | ) -0.6\, \mbox{MeV} \label{ftscorrest}$$ for the correction term in the second line of (\[scalmix\]). This would amount a 1% upward shift of the bare result $f_{T_s } $ as translates the quantity to the $ at $2\, $. to statistical uncertainties of present calculation, a correction of this magnitude is negligible, and in the following, (\[scalarinv\]) will therefore be to hold present calculation its It again be noted mixing with gluonic operators has not the above considerations. Whereas the weakness of the with light operators (which, after all, is mediated the coupling to the gluonic fields) makes it improbable that mixing with gluonic operators themselves is significant compared to other uncertainties of the corroboration of this expectation be desirable. Axial matrix --------------------------- to axial vector element, chiral symmetry again provides important constraints, although it cannot completely mixing effects, due to its anomalous $U_A (1)$ breaking. The fermion admits a five-dimensional conserved axial vector current A}_{\mu $ obeying a Ward-Takahashi the [@shamir; {\cal }^{a} 2mJ_5^a + 2J_{5q}^{a} \label{wtid}$$ first term on the right-hand represents the explicit breaking quark masses, whereas the second term in the | ., e.g., [@camalich] for a recent discuSsion, with tHe phySicAl lIgHt quArk mAss [@pdg], $m_l \approx 3.5\, \MBox{MEV} $, yields $\langle N |\bar{u} u + \baR{d} d | N \rAnGLe \apPRoX 17$. SuppLementiNG tHIS wiTh ThE vaLuE Of The stRanGe quark Mass [@pdg], $m_s =95\, \mBox{mev} $ (all aforemenTIoNed quark maSseS being quoted In tHe $\overLiNe{Ms} $ SchemE at $2\, \Mbox{GEV} $), yielDS $$\delta (M_s \langle N| \BaR{S} s | N\ranGLe ) \approX -0.6\, \MBoX{MeV}
\Label{ftscorrest}$$ foR ThE Correction term In the sEcONd LINe oF (\[scAlmix\]). This wOuLd amoUNt to a 1% upWArD SHIft OF the bare resulT for $f_{T_s } $ as onE TraNslateS tHe qUAntity To the $\OvERliNe{MS} $ scheme aT $2\, \mboX{GeV} $. CompaRed to tHE statisTIcal uncErtainTieS of The pREsEnT caLcULatIOn, A coRRecTion of thIs MaGnituDe is NEGLIgibLe, aNd in The foLlowing, (\[scalarInv\]) Will THerEfore Be takEn to HoLd for The preSent cAlCulation within iTs unCertaintiEs[^2].
IT sHouLd Again BE noted ThaT thE mixing With gluONic OpERAToRs has not been quantiFiED In The above ConsidERaTiONs. WhereaS tHe wEaknESS of thE mixINg With lighT quark OPeRaTors (whiCh, After aLl, Is mEdiAted bY The cOuplinG to the glUonic FIelds) makes it seEM improbable thAT mIXInG With GluOnic operatoRs thEMselVes iS SiGniFIcant CompaReD To OTher uncertainties of ThE calcuLatioN, explicit corrOboration oF THIs expectAtioN WoULd be desirable.
AXial vEctor matriX Element
---------------------------
TUrninG to the axIal vector MATrix elemEnt, ChiRal SymMETrY again provideS IMporTaNt constRaiNts, althOugH it CanNot CoMpletely eXclude miXiNg EfFeCts, Due to ITs anomalOuS $U_A (1)$ BrEakIng. ThE Domain Wall fErmiOn DiSCreTizatioN AdMITs a fIvE-dImenSioNaL partIallY ConServed aXial vectoR cuRRent ${\CaL A}_{\Mu }^{a} $ obeyIng a Ward-TakahAsHi identity Of The Form [@shAMIr; @rbc1] $$\DelTa_{\mu } {\cal A}_{\mu }^{a} = 2mJ_5^a + 2J_{5q}^{a}
\label{wTId}$$ The fiRst Term oN the Right-hand SidE repreSenTS the exPlicit BreakInG of CHIral sYMMeTry By The quark maSSEs, wHereaS tHe seCond terM in the flavor-oct | ., e.g., [@camalich] for a recent di scuss ion , w it h th e ph ysical light q u arkmass [@pdg], $m_l \app rox 3 .5 \ , \m b ox {MeV} $, yie l ds $ \la ng le N|\ b ar {u} u +\bar{d} d | N \ra ngl e\approx 17$. Su pplementin g t his with the va lue of t hes trang e q uarkmass [ @ pdg],$m_s =95\ ,\ mbox{M e V} $ (a l l a fore mentioned quark m a ss e s being quoted in th e$ \o v e rli ne{ MS} $ sche me at $ 2 \, \mbo x {G e V } $) , yields $$\de lta (m_s \l a ngl e N| \ ba r{s } s | N \rang le ) \ approx -0.6 \, \ mbox{MeV}
\labe l {ftscor r est}$$for th e c orr ecti o nte rmin the se con d li ne of (\ [s ca lmix\ ]).T h i s wou ldamou nt to a 1% upwardshi ft o f th e bar e res ultfo r $f_ {T_s } $ as o ne translates t he q uantity t o t he $\ ov erlin e {MS} $ sc hem e at $2 \, \mbo x {Ge V} $ . C ompared to the sta ti s t ic al uncer tainti e sof the pres en t c alcu l a tion, a c o rr ection o f this ma gn itude i sneglig ib le, an d int he f ollowi ng, (\[s calar i nv\]) will the r efore be take n t o ho l d fo r t he presentcalc u lati on w i th ini ts un certa in t ie s [^2].
It should ag ai n be n otedthat the mixi ng with gl u o n ic opera tors ha s not been quan tifie d in the a b ove cons idera tions. W hereas th e weakness of th e m ixi n g w ith light qua r k ope ra tors (w hic h, afte r a ll, is me di ated by t he coupl in gto t hegluon i c fields )mak es it seem improb ablethat m ix i ngwith gl u on i c ope ra to rs t hem se lvesis s i gni ficantcomparedtoo ther u nc ertaint ies of the ca lc ulation, e xp lic it cor r o boration of this expectation wo u ld be d esi rable .
A xial vect ormatrix el e ment
- ------ ----- -- --- - - ----- - - -
Tu rn ing to the a xia l vec to r ma trix el ement, chiral symm e try again provid esimpo r t an t c o ns t rai nt s , a l t hough it cannot completel ye xc lude mixin g ef fe cts, du e to it s ano m alous $ U_A (1)$breaking. T he d o m ain wall ferm ion disc retizatio n admi t sa fiv e-d imensi on alparti ally c o nse rvedaxialve ctor c urren t${\cal A }_{\mu }^{a} $ obeyinga Ward -Taka has hi identi tyo f t he form [ @sha mir; @rbc1 ] $ $\D elta_ {\m u } {\ calA }_ {\m u }^{a } =2 mJ_5^a +2 J_ {5q } ^ {a }
\label{wt i d } $$The f irs t termon t he right-hand sid e represents th e ex p l ici t b r eaki ng of chiral sym met ry b y the qu ar k masses, w hereas t he secon d term in th e flavo r - oc t | ., e.g.,_[@camalich] for_a recent discussion, with_the physical_light_quark mass_[@pdg],_$m_l \approx 3.5\,_\mbox{MeV} $, yields_$\langle N |\bar{u} u_+ \bar{d} d_|_N \rangle \approx 17$. Supplementing this with the value of the strange quark mass_[@pdg],_$m_s =95\,_\mbox{MeV}_$_(all aforementioned quark masses being_quoted in the $\overline{MS} $_scheme at_$2\, \mbox{GeV} $), yields $$\delta (m_s \langle N|_\bar{s}_s | N\rangle_) \approx -0.6\, \mbox{MeV}
\label{ftscorrest}$$ for the correction term in_the second line of (\[scalmix\]). This_would amount to_a_1%_upward shift of the_bare result for $f_{T_s } $_as one translates the quantity to_the $\overline{MS} $ scheme at $2\, \mbox{GeV}_$. Compared to the statistical uncertainties_of the present calculation, a_correction of_this magnitude is negligible, and_in the following,_(\[scalarinv\]) will_therefore be taken_to hold for the present calculation_within its uncertainties[^2].
It_should again be noted that the_mixing_with gluonic operators_has_not_been quantified_in the above_considerations._Whereas the_weakness_of the mixing with light quark_operators_(which, after all, is mediated by the_coupling to the gluonic_fields)_makes it seem improbable_that mixing with gluonic operators_themselves is significant compared to other_uncertainties of_the calculation,_explicit corroboration of this expectation would be desirable.
Axial vector matrix element
---------------------------
Turning_to the axial vector matrix element,_chiral symmetry again provides_important constraints,_although_it cannot completely_exclude_mixing effects,_due to its anomalous $U_A (1)$ breaking._The domain_wall fermion discretization admits a five-dimensional_partially conserved axial vector_current_${\cal A}_{\mu }^{a} $ obeying a_Ward-Takahashi identity of the form [@shamir;_@rbc1] $$\Delta_{\mu } {\cal A}_{\mu_}^{a}_=_2mJ_5^a + 2J_{5q}^{a}
\label{wtid}$$ The first_term on the right-hand side represents_the explicit breaking_of chiral symmetry by the quark masses,_whereas_the second term in the flavor-oct |
, T. Fournel, J. Lavest, and H. B. Aissia, Meas. Sci. Technol., 18, 2616 (2007).
F. Toschi and E. Bodenschatz, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 41, 375 (2009).
N. Mordant, A. Crawford, and E. Bodenschatz, Physica D, 193, (2004).
R. Volk, N. Mordant, G. Verhille, and J.-F. Pinton, European Physics Letters, 81, 34002 (2008).
J. Berg, S. Ott, J. Mann, and B. Luthi, Physical Review E, 80(2), (2009).
L. Fiabane, R. Zimmermann, R. Volk, J.-F. Pinton, and M. Bourgoin, Phys. Rev. E 86 (2012).
R.Zimmermann, H. Xu, Y. Gasteuil, M. Bourgoin, R. V. ans J.-F. Pinton, and E. Bodenschatz, Rev. of Sci. Instrum, 81 (2010).
A. N. Kolmogorov, in Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR (1941), 30, 299$-$303.
N. T. Ouellette, H. Xu, M. Bourgoin, and E. Bodenschatz, New Journal of Physics, 8, 109 (2006).
---
address: 'Physik Institut, Universität Zürich, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland'
author:
- Matthias König
title: 'Effective Field Theory after a New-Physics Discovery'
---
Introduction
============
To describe interactions between possible high-scale new-physics (NP) effects and the SM, one needs to account for the large scale gap between the NP scale and the scale of the observable under consideration. For example, it is well-known that large QCD logarithms $\alpha_s\log(q^2/\Lambda_\mathrm{NP}^2)$ can spoil the convergence of the perturbation expansion for hadronic low-energy observables, where $q^2\sim\mathcal O (\Lambda^2_\mathrm{QCD})$. By describing the process in terms of an effective field | , T. Fournel, J. Lavest, and H. B. Aissia, Meas. Sci. Technol. , 18, 2616 (2007).
F. Toschi and E. Bodenschatz, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 41, 375 (2009).
N. Mordant, A. Crawford, and E. Bodenschatz, Physica D, 193, (2004).
R. Volk, N. Mordant, G. Verhille, and J.-F. Pinton, European Physics Letters, 81, 34002 (2008).
J. Berg, S. Ott, J. Mann, and B. Luthi, Physical Review E, 80(2), (2009).
L. Fiabane, R. Zimmermann, R. Volk, J.-F. Pinton, and M. Bourgoin, Phys. Rev. E 86 (2012).
R.Zimmermann, H. Xu, Y. Gasteuil, M. Bourgoin, R. V. ans J.-F. Pinton, and E. Bodenschatz, Rev. of Sci. Instrum, 81 (2010).
A. N. Kolmogorov, in Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR (1941), 30, 299$-$303.
N. T. Ouellette, H. Xu, M. Bourgoin, and E. Bodenschatz, New Journal of Physics, 8, 109 (2006).
---
address:' Physik Institut, Universität Zürich, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland'
author:
- Matthias König
title:' Effective sphere Theory after a New - Physics Discovery'
---
initiation
= = = = = = = = = = = =
To describe interactions between possible gamey - scale new - purgative (NP) effects and the SM, one needs to account for the bombastic scale gap between the NP plate and the scale of the observable under consideration. For example, it is well - know that large QCD logarithms $ \alpha_s\log(q^2/\Lambda_\mathrm{NP}^2)$ can spoil the convergence of the perturbation expansion for hadronic abject - energy observables, where $ q^2\sim\mathcal O (\Lambda^2_\mathrm{QCD})$. By describing the process in term of an effective field | , T. Vournel, J. Lavest, and H. B. Aissia, Meas. Scn. Technml., 18, 2616 (2007).
F. Toschi xnd E. Bodenschatz, Annual Revmew if Flyid Mechanics, 41, 375 (2009).
N. Mordxnt, A. Craaford, ane E. Uodenschatz, Physmda D, 193, (2004).
R. Volk, H. Morbait, G. Verhille, akd J.-F. Pintot, European Phyvizs Letters, 81, 34002 (2008).
J. Berg, S. Ott, J. Mann, and F. Luthi, Pjysical Review E, 80(2), (2009).
K. Fiagane, R. Zimmermann, R. Volk, J.-F. Pinton, and M. Uourgoin, Phys. Rrv. E 86 (2012).
R.Zimmermann, H. Xu, Y. Gwstekil, M. Bourgoin, R. V. ans J.-F. Pinjkn, wbd E. Bodenscfatz, Rev. of Sci. Instruj, 81 (2010).
A. N. Kolmogorov, in Dokl. Akad. Vauk XSSR (1941), 30, 299$-$303.
N. T. Oyelpgtte, H. Xu, M. Uourgopn, and E. Bodekxchatz, New Joirnal of Physigs, 8, 109 (2006).
---
aderess: 'Physik Institut, Universität Zürich, SH-8057 Zürich, Vwntzerland'
author:
- Matthuaw Könic
titne: 'Ewdecgivt Fmels Theogy efter a New-Lhysics Disxovery'
---
Introduction
============
Tp qvxcribe interzctionf fetween possible high-scale new-physics (NK) effscts and the SM, one neees to account for the large scwle gap between the NP scale and the scale of the obsecvxblt mkder xojsideration. For example, it is well-known that jzrbe QCD logarithmf $\alpha_s\log(a^2/\Lwmnqa_\mathrm{NP}^2)$ cav spoil tge convergence of hhe perjurbatuon expanfion for hadronic low-energy obswrvables, whege $q^2\wim\mathcal O (\Lambdc^2_\mathrm{QCD})$. Bv desctibing the process in terms oy an erfective fifld | , T. Fournel, J. Lavest, and H. Meas. Technol., 18, (2007). F. Toschi of Mechanics, 41, 375 N. Mordant, A. and E. Bodenschatz, Physica D, 193, R. Volk, N. Mordant, G. Verhille, and J.-F. Pinton, European Physics Letters, 81, (2008). J. Berg, S. Ott, J. Mann, and B. Luthi, Physical Review E, (2009). Fiabane, Zimmermann, Volk, J.-F. Pinton, and M. Bourgoin, Phys. Rev. E 86 (2012). R.Zimmermann, H. Xu, Y. Gasteuil, Bourgoin, R. V. ans J.-F. Pinton, and E. Rev. of Sci. Instrum, (2010). A. N. Kolmogorov, in Akad. SSSR (1941), 299$-$303. T. H. Xu, M. and E. Bodenschatz, New Journal of Physics, 8, 109 (2006). --- address: 'Physik Institut, Universität Zürich, CH-8057 Switzerland' author: König title: Field after New-Physics Discovery' --- To describe interactions between possible high-scale and the SM, one needs to account for large scale between the NP scale and the of the observable under consideration. For example, it well-known that large QCD logarithms $\alpha_s\log(q^2/\Lambda_\mathrm{NP}^2)$ can spoil the convergence of the perturbation expansion for observables, where $q^2\sim\mathcal O By describing the in of effective | , T. Fournel, J. Lavest, and H. B. AissiA, Meas. Sci. TeChnol., 18, 2616 (2007).
f. ToSchI aNd E. BOdenSchatz, Annual ReVIew oF Fluid Mechanics, 41, 375 (2009).
N. MordanT, A. CraWfORd, anD e. BOdensChatz, PhYSiCA d, 193, (2004).
R. VOlK, N. morDaNT, G. verhiLle, And J.-F. PiNton, EuropeAn PHySics Letters, 81, 34002 (2008).
J. bErG, S. Ott, J. Mann, And b. Luthi, PhysicAl REview E, 80(2), (2009).
l. FIabANe, R. ZiMmeRmann, r. Volk, J.-f. pinton, And M. BourgOiN, phys. ReV. e 86 (2012).
R.ZimmeRMAnN, H. Xu, y. Gasteuil, M. BourgoiN, r. V. ANs J.-F. Pinton, and E. bodensChATz, rEV. of sci. instrum, 81 (2010).
A. N. KOlMogorOV, in Dokl. aKaD. nAUk SssR (1941), 30, 299$-$303.
N. T. Ouellette, h. Xu, M. BourgoiN, And e. BodenScHatZ, new JouRnal oF PHYsiCs, 8, 109 (2006).
---
address: 'PhYsik institut, UNiversITät ZüriCH, CH-8057 ZüriCh, SwitZerLanD'
autHOr:
- maTthIaS könIG
tItlE: 'effEctive FiElD THeory AfteR A nEW-PhySicS DisCoverY'
---
Introduction
============
to dEscrIBe iNteraCtionS betWeEn posSible hIgh-scAlE new-physics (NP) efFectS and the SM, One NeEds To AccouNT for thE laRge Scale gaP betweeN The nP SCALe And the scale of the obSeRVAbLe under cOnsideRAtIoN. for exampLe, It iS welL-KNown tHat lARgE QCD logaRithms $\ALpHa_S\log(q^2/\LaMbDa_\mathRm{nP}^2)$ cAn sPoil tHE conVergenCe of the pErturBAtion expansion FOr hadronic low-ENeRGY oBServAblEs, where $q^2\sim\MathCAl O (\LAmbdA^2_\MaThrM{qCD})$. By DescrIbINg THe process in terms of aN eFfectiVe fieLd | , T. Fournel, J. Lavest, a nd H. B. A issia , M eas .Sci. Tec hnol., 18, 261 6 (20 07).
F. Toschi and E. Bode ns c hatz , A nnual Review of F lui dMe cha ni c s, 41,375 (2009) .
N. Mord ant ,A. Crawford, an d E. Boden sch atz, Physica D, 193,(2 004 ) .
R. Vo lk, N . Mord a nt, G. Verhille ,a nd J.- F . Pinto n , E urop ean Physics Lette r s, 81, 34002 (200 8).
J .B er g , S. Ot t, J. Mann ,and B . Luthi, Ph y s i cal Review E, 80( 2), (2009).
L. Fiaba ne , R . Zimme rmann ,R . V olk, J.-F.Pint on, and M . Bour g oin, Ph y s. Rev. E 86(20 12) .
R . Zi mm erm an n , H . X u,Y . G asteuil, M .Bourg oin, R . V. a nsJ.-F . Pin ton, and E. B ode nsch a tz, Rev. of S ci.In strum , 81 ( 2010) .
A. N. Kolmogor ov,in Dokl.Aka d. Na uk SSSR (1941) , 3 0,299$-$3 03.
N. T.Ou e l l et te, H. Xu, M. Bour go i n ,and E. B odensc h at z, New Jour na l o f Ph y s ics,8, 1 0 9(2006). ---
a d dr es s: 'Phy si k Inst it ut, Un ivers i tätZürich , CH-805 7 Zür i ch, Switzerlan d '
author:
- M a tt h i as Köni g
t itle: 'Effe ctiv e Fie ld T h eo rya ftera New -P h ys i cs Discovery'
---
In troduc tion============
To descri b e interact ions be t ween possiblehigh- scale new- p hysics ( NP) e ffects a nd the SM , one need s t o a cco unt f or the large sc a l e ga pbetween th e NP sc ale an d t hesc ale of th e observ ab le u nd erconsi d eration. F orex amp le, i t is we ll-kn ownth at lar ge QCDl og a r ithm s$\ alph a_s \l og(q^ 2/\L a mbd a_\math rm{NP}^2) $ c a n sp oi lthe con vergence of t he perturbat io n e xpansi o n for had ronic low-energy observ a bles, w her e $q^ 2\si m\mathcal O(\Lamb da^ 2 _\math rm{QCD })$.By de s c ribin g th e p ro cess in te r m s o f anef fect ive fie ld | , T._Fournel, J._Lavest, and H. B._Aissia, Meas._Sci._Technol., 18,_2616_(2007).
F. Toschi and_E. Bodenschatz, Annual_Review of Fluid Mechanics,_41, 375 (2009).
N._Mordant,_A. Crawford, and E. Bodenschatz, Physica D, 193, (2004).
R. Volk, N. Mordant, G. Verhille,_and_J.-F. Pinton,_European_Physics_Letters, 81, 34002 (2008).
J. Berg,_S. Ott, J. Mann, and_B. Luthi,_Physical Review E, 80(2), (2009).
L. Fiabane, R. Zimmermann,_R._Volk, J.-F. Pinton,_and M. Bourgoin, Phys. Rev. E 86 (2012).
R.Zimmermann, H._Xu, Y. Gasteuil, M. Bourgoin, R._V. ans J.-F._Pinton,_and_E. Bodenschatz, Rev. of_Sci. Instrum, 81 (2010).
A. N. Kolmogorov,_in Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR (1941),_30, 299$-$303.
N. T. Ouellette, H. Xu, M._Bourgoin, and E. Bodenschatz, New Journal_of Physics, 8, 109 (2006).
_---
address: 'Physik_Institut, Universität Zürich, CH-8057 Zürich,_Switzerland'
author:
- Matthias König
title:_'Effective Field_Theory after a_New-Physics Discovery'
---
Introduction
============
To describe interactions between possible_high-scale new-physics (NP)_effects and the SM, one needs_to_account for the_large_scale_gap between_the NP scale_and_the scale_of_the observable under consideration. For example,_it_is well-known that large QCD logarithms $\alpha_s\log(q^2/\Lambda_\mathrm{NP}^2)$_can spoil the convergence_of_the perturbation expansion for_hadronic low-energy observables, where $q^2\sim\mathcal_O (\Lambda^2_\mathrm{QCD})$. By describing the process_in terms_of an_effective field |
x_m\not=x_m^\p\}$. Then $$\ophi^\ab(\ud{x})=\ophi^\ab(\ud{x}^\p)\implies
\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=1\quad\text{and}\quad
\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=0\,.$$ Indeed, $$\oph_{\ell+1}^\ab\big(x_0,\ldots,x_{\ell-1},
x_\ell+\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})\big)=
\oph_{\ell+1}^\ab\big(x_0,\ldots,x_{\ell-1},
x_\ell^\p+\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x}^\p)\big)$$ Therefore $x^\p_\ell=x_\ell+1$, $\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=1$ and $\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=0$. Suppose that $\ophi^\ab(\sigma^k\ud{u})=1$, and apply the above result to $\sigma^k\ud{u}$ and $\ud{v}$ to get the existence of $m$ with $\ophi^\ab(\sigma^m\ud{v})=0$.
Let $\ud{u}\in\tA^{\Z_+}$ with $u_0=0$ and $\ud{u}\preceq\sigma^n\ud{u}$ for all $n\geq 0$. We introduce the quantity $$\widehat{\ud{u}}:=\sup\{\sigma^n\ud{u}\colon n\geq 0\}\,.$$ We have $$\sigma^n\widehat{\ud{u}}\leq\widehat{\ud{u}}\quad\forall n\geq
0\,.$$ Indeed, if $\widehat{u}$ is periodic, then this is immediate. Otherwise there exists $n_j$, with $n_j\uparrow\infty$ as $j\ra\infty$, so that $\widehat{\ud{u}}=\lim_j\sigma^{n_j}\ud{u}$. By continuity $$\sigma^n\widehat{\ud{u}}=
\lim_{j\ra\infty}\sigma^{n+n_j}\ud{u}\leq\widehat{\ud{u | x_m\not = x_m^\p\}$. Then $ $ \ophi^\ab(\ud{x})=\ophi^\ab(\ud{x}^\p)\implies
\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=1\quad\text{and}\quad
\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=0\,.$$ Indeed, $ $ \oph_{\ell+1}^\ab\big(x_0,\ldots, x_{\ell-1 },
x_\ell+\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})\big)=
\oph_{\ell+1}^\ab\big(x_0,\ldots, x_{\ell-1 },
x_\ell^\p+\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x}^\p)\big)$$ Therefore $ x^\p_\ell = x_\ell+1 $, $ \ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=1 $ and $ \ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=0$. Suppose that $ \ophi^\ab(\sigma^k\ud{u})=1 $, and apply the above result to $ \sigma^k\ud{u}$ and $ \ud{v}$ to draw the being of $ m$ with $ \ophi^\ab(\sigma^m\ud{v})=0$.
Let $ \ud{u}\in\tA^{\Z_+}$ with $ u_0=0 $ and $ \ud{u}\preceq\sigma^n\ud{u}$ for all $ n\geq 0$. We introduce the quantity $ $ \widehat{\ud{u}}:=\sup\{\sigma^n\ud{u}\colon n\geq 0\}\,.$$ We own $ $ \sigma^n\widehat{\ud{u}}\leq\widehat{\ud{u}}\quad\forall n\geq
0\,.$$ Indeed, if $ \widehat{u}$ is periodic, then this is immediate. Otherwise there exist $ n_j$, with $ n_j\uparrow\infty$ as $ j\ra\infty$, so that $ \widehat{\ud{u}}=\lim_j\sigma^{n_j}\ud{u}$. By continuity $ $ \sigma^n\widehat{\ud{u}}=
\lim_{j\ra\infty}\sigma^{n+n_j}\ud{u}\leq\widehat{\ud{u |
x_m\nlt=x_m^\p\}$. Then $$\ophi^\ab(\ud{x})=\ophi^\xb(\ud{x}^\p)\implies
\opku^\ab(\sigka^{\ell+1}\us{x})=1\quad\tebt{and}\quad
\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=0\,.$$ Iideee, $$\oph_{\tjl+1}^\ab\big(x_0,\ldots,x_{\ell-1},
x_\dll+\ophi^\ab(\digma^{\ell+1}\yd{x})\bmg)=
\oph_{\ell+1}^\ab\big(x_0,\ldots,x_{\ell-1},
x_\cjl^\p+\olmi^\ab(\sngna^{\ell+1}\ud{x}^\p)\big)$$ Tmerefore $x^\p_\all=x_\ell+1$, $\ophi^\ab(\viemc^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=1$ and $\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=0$. Supposq that $\ppji^\ab(\sigma^k\ud{u})=1$, wnd s[ply nht above result to $\sigma^k\ud{u}$ and $\us{v}$ to gtt the existence og $m$ with $\ophi^\ab(\sigma^m\ud{v})=0$.
Leh $\ud{k}\in\tA^{\Z_+}$ with $u_0=0$ and $\kd{u}\preceq\sitma^n\te{u}$ for all $n\eeq 0$. We inurmduce the suantity $$\widehat{\ud{u}}:=\sup\{\sigma^n\ud{u}\zolon n\geq 0\}\,.$$ We yace $$\dhgma^n\widehav{\ud{u}}\lez\widehat{\ud{u}}\qmsd\foranl n\geq
0\,.$$ Indeed, if $\widchat{u}$ is periodic, then this iv immediate. Otherwyse there erists $n_j$, with $n_j\uparriw\unfty$ as $b\ra\ivdty$, so tiat $\widehwt{\uv{u}}=\lim_j\sigma^{h_j}\ud{u}$. By cobtinuity $$\sigma^n\widenae{\lc{u}}=
\lim_{j\ra\inftg}\sigma^{g+n_t}\ud{u}\leq\widehat{\ud{u | x_m\not=x_m^\p\}$. Then $$\ophi^\ab(\ud{x})=\ophi^\ab(\ud{x}^\p)\implies \ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=1\quad\text{and}\quad \ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=0\,.$$ Indeed, $$\oph_{\ell+1}^\ab\big(x_0,\ldots,x_{\ell-1}, x_\ell^\p+\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x}^\p)\big)$$ $x^\p_\ell=x_\ell+1$, $\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=1$ $\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=0$. Suppose that result $\sigma^k\ud{u}$ and $\ud{v}$ get the existence $m$ with $\ophi^\ab(\sigma^m\ud{v})=0$. Let $\ud{u}\in\tA^{\Z_+}$ with and $\ud{u}\preceq\sigma^n\ud{u}$ for all $n\geq 0$. We introduce the quantity $$\widehat{\ud{u}}:=\sup\{\sigma^n\ud{u}\colon n\geq 0\}\,.$$ have $$\sigma^n\widehat{\ud{u}}\leq\widehat{\ud{u}}\quad\forall n\geq 0\,.$$ Indeed, if $\widehat{u}$ is periodic, then this is immediate. there $n_j$, $n_j\uparrow\infty$ $j\ra\infty$, so that $\widehat{\ud{u}}=\lim_j\sigma^{n_j}\ud{u}$. By continuity $$\sigma^n\widehat{\ud{u}}= \lim_{j\ra\infty}\sigma^{n+n_j}\ud{u}\leq\widehat{\ud{u |
x_m\not=x_m^\p\}$. Then $$\ophi^\ab(\ud{x})=\ophi^\Ab(\ud{x}^\p)\implIes
\opHi^\aB(\siGmA^{\ell+1}\Ud{x})=1\qUad\text{and}\quad
\OPhi^\aB(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=0\,.$$ Indeed, $$\oph_{\eLl+1}^\ab\bIg(X_0,\LdotS,X_{\eLl-1},
x_\elL+\ophi^\ab(\SIgMA^{\Ell+1}\Ud{X})\bIg)=
\oPh_{\ELl+1}^\Ab\big(X_0,\ldOts,x_{\ell-1},
X_\ell^\p+\ophi^\aB(\siGmA^{\ell+1}\ud{x}^\p)\big)$$ THErEfore $x^\p_\ell=X_\elL+1$, $\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\Ell+1}\Ud{x})=1$ and $\OpHi^\aB(\Sigma^{\Ell+1}\Ud{x})=0$. SuPpose tHAt $\ophi^\Ab(\sigma^k\uD{u})=1$, ANd applY The abovE REsUlt tO $\sigma^k\ud{u}$ and $\ud{v}$ tO GeT The existence of $M$ with $\oPhI^\Ab(\SIGma^M\ud{V})=0$.
Let $\ud{u}\in\ta^{\Z_+}$ With $u_0=0$ ANd $\ud{u}\prECeQ\SIGma^N\Ud{u}$ for all $n\geq 0$. we introduce THe qUantitY $$\wIdeHAt{\ud{u}}:=\sUp\{\sigMa^N\Ud{u}\Colon n\geq 0\}\,.$$ We Have $$\Sigma^n\widEhat{\ud{U}}\Leq\wideHAt{\ud{u}}\quAd\foraLl n\Geq
0\,.$$ indeED, iF $\wIdeHaT{U}$ is PErIodIC, thEn this is ImMeDiate. otheRWISE theRe eXistS $n_j$, wiTh $n_j\uparrow\inFty$ As $j\rA\InfTy$, so tHat $\wiDehaT{\uD{u}}=\lim_J\sigma^{N_j}\ud{u}$. by Continuity $$\sigma^N\widEhat{\ud{u}}=
\liM_{j\rA\iNftY}\sIgma^{n+N_J}\ud{u}\leQ\wiDehAt{\ud{u |
x_m\not=x_m^\p\}$. Then $ $\ophi^\ab (\ud{ x}) =\o ph i^\a b(\u d{x}^\p)\impli e s
\o phi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1 }\ud{ x} ) =1\q u ad \text {and}\q u ad \ oph i^ \a b(\ si g ma ^{\el l+1 }\ud{x} )=0\,.$$ I nde ed , $$\oph_{\e l l+ 1}^\ab\big (x_ 0,\ldots,x_{ \el l-1},x_ \el l +\oph i^\ ab(\s igma^{ \ ell+1} \ud{x})\b ig ) =
\oph _ {\ell+1 } ^ \a b\bi g(x_0,\ldots,x_{\ e ll - 1},
x_\ell^\p+ \ophi^ \a b (\ s i gma ^{\ ell+1}\ud{ x} ^\p)\ b ig)$$ T h er e f o re$ x^\p_\ell=x_\ ell+1$, $\o p hi^ \ab(\s ig ma^ { \ell+1 }\ud{ x} ) =1$ and $\ophi ^\ab (\sigma^{ \ell+1 } \ud{x}) = 0$. Sup pose t hat $\ ophi ^ \a b( \si gm a ^k\ u d{ u}) = 1$, and app ly t he ab over e s u lt t o $ \sig ma^k\ ud{u}$ and $\ ud{ v}$t o g et th e exi sten ce of $ m$ wit h $\o ph i^\ab(\sigma^m\ ud{v })=0$.
L et$\ ud{ u} \in\t A ^{\Z_+ }$wit h $u_0= 0$ and$ \ud {u } \ p re ceq\sigma^n\ud{u}$ f o r a ll $n\ge q 0$.W ein t roduce t he qu anti t y $$\w ideh a t{ \ud{u}}: =\sup\ { \s ig ma^n\ud {u }\colo nn\g eq0\}\, . $$ W e have $$\sigm a^n\w i dehat{\ud{u}}\ l eq\widehat{\u d {u } } \q u ad\f ora ll n\geq
0\ ,.$$ Inde ed,i f$\w i dehat {u}$is pe r iodic, then this is i mmedia te. O therwise ther e exists $ n _ j $, with$n_j \ up a rrow\infty$ as $j\r a\infty$,s o that $ \wide hat{\ud{ u}}=\lim_ j \ sigma^{n _j} \ud {u} $.B y c ontinuity $$\ s i gma^ n\ widehat {\u d{u}}=\li m_{ j\r a\i nf ty}\sigma ^{n+n_j} \u d{ u} \l eq\ wideh a t{\ud{u |
x_m\not=x_m^\p\}$. Then_$$\ophi^\ab(\ud{x})=\ophi^\ab(\ud{x}^\p)\implies
\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=1\quad\text{and}\quad
\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=0\,.$$ Indeed,_$$\oph_{\ell+1}^\ab\big(x_0,\ldots,x_{\ell-1},
x_\ell+\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})\big)=
\oph_{\ell+1}^\ab\big(x_0,\ldots,x_{\ell-1},
x_\ell^\p+\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x}^\p)\big)$$ Therefore $x^\p_\ell=x_\ell+1$, $\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=1$_and $\ophi^\ab(\sigma^{\ell+1}\ud{x})=0$._Suppose_that $\ophi^\ab(\sigma^k\ud{u})=1$,_and_apply the above_result to $\sigma^k\ud{u}$_and $\ud{v}$ to get_the existence of_$m$_with $\ophi^\ab(\sigma^m\ud{v})=0$.
Let $\ud{u}\in\tA^{\Z_+}$ with $u_0=0$ and $\ud{u}\preceq\sigma^n\ud{u}$ for all $n\geq 0$. We introduce the_quantity_$$\widehat{\ud{u}}:=\sup\{\sigma^n\ud{u}\colon n\geq_0\}\,.$$_We_have $$\sigma^n\widehat{\ud{u}}\leq\widehat{\ud{u}}\quad\forall n\geq
0\,.$$ Indeed, if_$\widehat{u}$ is periodic, then this_is immediate._Otherwise there exists $n_j$, with $n_j\uparrow\infty$ as $j\ra\infty$,_so_that $\widehat{\ud{u}}=\lim_j\sigma^{n_j}\ud{u}$. By_continuity $$\sigma^n\widehat{\ud{u}}=
\lim_{j\ra\infty}\sigma^{n+n_j}\ud{u}\leq\widehat{\ud{u |
computing Yukawa couplings as it applies to smooth hypersurfaces in weighted projective spaces. All of the material in this section is quite standard (see e.g. [@GMP] and reviews in [@Ess]). It is included here to make our presentation more self-contained.
Some background on mirror symmetry
----------------------------------
Consider a superconformal Landau-Ginsburg model with superpotential ${\cal Q}$. Take ${\cal Q}$ to be a quasi-homogeneous polynomial. An argument due to Greene, Vafa and Warner [@GVW], Martinec [@Mart] and Witten [@Wit2] shows that this theory is an “analytic continuation” to negative Kähler class of a $\sigma$-model with Calabi-Yau manifold as a target space. This manifold can be described as a codimension one variety $${\cal W} = \{ x, {\cal Q}(x) = 0 \}$$ in a weighted projective space.\
Truly marginal operators with $U(1)$ charge equal to $+1$ $(
-1 )$ in the superconformal theory correspond to complex structure (Kähler) modes of the Calabi-Yau theory. We will be also considering “extended Kähler moduli spaces” $H^{p}(X,\Lambda^{p}T^{*})$ and “extended complex structure moduli spaces” $H^{p}(X, \Lambda^{p}T)$. Following Witten [@Wit], the couplings involving elements of $H^{p}(X,
\Lambda^{p}T^{*})$ will be called [**A**]{}-model couplings, while couplings involving elements of $H^{p}(X,
\Lambda^{p}T)$ – [**B**]{}-model couplings.\
Now consider the action of the maximal group of scaling symmetries $G$ on both Landau-Ginsburg and Calabi-Yau models for ${\cal Q}$ of Fermat type. It is well known (see, e.g. review [@GP] and references therein) that orbifolding the LG theory by G simply simply changes the sign of one of the $U(1)$ charges and gives a theory isomorphic to the original one. For a CY model, dividing by G means taking the orbifold of the target space. The unique connection with a LG model now leads to the central result of the mirror symmetry, namely, to the prediction that the two resulting quantum $\sigma$-models are isomorphic (even though they have different tree-level actions, since their target | computing Yukawa couplings as it applies to smooth hypersurfaces in burden projective space. All of the material in this incision is quite standard (witness e.g. [ @GMP ] and reviews in [ @Ess ]). It is admit here to have our presentation more self - incorporate.
Some background on mirror symmetry
----------------------------------
regard a superconformal Landau - Ginsburg model with superpotential $ { \cal Q}$. Take $ { \cal Q}$ to be a quasi - homogeneous polynomial. An argumentation due to Greene, Vafa and Warner [ @GVW ], Martinec [ @Mart ] and Witten [ @Wit2 ] indicate that this theory is an “ analytic continuation ” to negative Kähler class of a $ \sigma$-model with Calabi - Yau manifold as a prey space. This manifold can be described as a codimension one kind $ $ { \cal W } = \ { x, { \cal Q}(x) = 0 \}$$ in a weighted projective space.\
Truly marginal operators with $ U(1)$ care equal to $ +1 $ $ (
-1) $ in the superconformal theory correspond to complex structure (Kähler) modes of the Calabi - Yau hypothesis. We will be also considering “ extended Kähler moduli spaces ” $ H^{p}(X,\Lambda^{p}T^{*})$ and “ extended complex social organization modulus spaces ” $ H^{p}(X, \Lambda^{p}T)$. Following Witten [ @Wit ], the couplings involving elements of $ H^{p}(X,
\Lambda^{p}T^{*})$ will be called [ * * A**]{}-model couplings, while couplings involving component of $ H^{p}(X,
\Lambda^{p}T)$ – [ * * B**]{}-model couplings.\
Now consider the legal action of the maximal group of scaling symmetries $ G$ on both Landau - Ginsburg and Calabi - Yau models for $ { \cal Q}$ of Fermat type. It is well known (see, for example review [ @GP ] and reference therein) that orbifolding the LG theory by G simply plainly changes the sign of one of the $ U(1)$ charges and gives a theory isomorphic to the original one. For a CY mannequin, dividing by G means taking the orbifold of the target space. The alone connection with a LG exemplar now leads to the central result of the mirror symmetry, namely, to the prediction that the two result quantum $ \sigma$-models are isomorphic (even though they have different tree - degree actions, since their target | colputing Yukawa couplings as it applies jo smooti hyperaurfaces in weighted projective spacxs. Aol of the material in this rection id quite wtanvard (see e.g. [@GMP] ehd reviccs in [@Css]). Ic ms included herg to make ous presentation murz self-contained.
Some background on miwror sykmftry
----------------------------------
Consider a suptrcjnfodmal Landau-Ginsburg model with supsrpotenuial ${\cal Q}$. Take ${\cak Q}$ to be a quasi-homogeneoks pllynomial. An argumfnt due to Treegw, Vafa and Wxrner [@GVW], Martinec [@Marj] and Witten [@Wit2] shows that this theoxy is an “anqlttif continuatiin” to negative Kähler clasv of a $\xigma$-model witm Calebi-Yqu manifold as a targxt space. This manifojd can be dzscribed as a codimenwiin ong varhety $${\xal W} = \{ e, {\czl Q}(x) = 0 \}$$ mn a weightsd projectice space.\
Truly margimaj operators wifh $U(1)$ crawge equal to $+1$ $(
-1 )$ in the superconformal tveody correspond to complez structure (Kähler) modgs of the Salabi-Yau theory. We will be also considering “extetded Iäflex moduuu dpaces” $H^{p}(X,\Lambda^{p}T^{*})$ and “extended complex strucehrt mpduli spaces” $H^{i}(X, \Lambda^{p}T)$. Followonh Eytten [@Wit], the couplnhga involving elemenhs of $H^{k}(X,
\Lambea^{p}T^{*})$ will be valled [**A**]{}-model couplings, whioe couplings unvolving elements of $H^{p}(X,
\Lambba^{p}T)$ – [**N**]{}-modek couplings.\
Now consider the action of hhe maximzu group of scalivg xykmetries $G$ on both Landau-Gynsburg aid Cakabi-Yau modgls for ${\cal Q}$ of Vermab type. It is well kjown (dea, e.g. reviea [@GP] and references therein) thav orbifolding tve NG theorv by G simply simplr changes the xign of one uf the $U(1)$ cgarges end gives a eheory isomor[jic to the ociginal oge. Fir a CY moddu, dividing by B means tching the orbifold of tme tatgst space. The unndow connection woth a JG mpdqn now leads do tfe zrntrau resulu on tfe morror symmetry, namelf, to the prediction thst the two resultigg quantum $\sibma$-models are isomlrphir (even thoubh jhey have different tree-level adtions, sijce their targee | computing Yukawa couplings as it applies to in projective spaces. of the material standard e.g. [@GMP] and in [@Ess]). It included here to make our presentation self-contained. Some background on mirror symmetry ---------------------------------- Consider a superconformal Landau-Ginsburg model with ${\cal Q}$. Take ${\cal Q}$ to be a quasi-homogeneous polynomial. An argument due Greene, and [@GVW], [@Mart] and Witten [@Wit2] shows that this theory is an “analytic continuation” to negative Kähler class a $\sigma$-model with Calabi-Yau manifold as a target This manifold can be as a codimension one variety W} \{ x, Q}(x) 0 in a weighted space.\ Truly marginal operators with $U(1)$ charge equal to $+1$ $( -1 )$ in the superconformal theory to complex modes of Calabi-Yau We be also considering moduli spaces” $H^{p}(X,\Lambda^{p}T^{*})$ and “extended complex $H^{p}(X, \Lambda^{p}T)$. Following Witten [@Wit], the couplings involving of $H^{p}(X, will be called [**A**]{}-model couplings, while involving elements of $H^{p}(X, \Lambda^{p}T)$ – [**B**]{}-model couplings.\ consider the action of the maximal group of scaling symmetries $G$ on both Landau-Ginsburg and for ${\cal Q}$ of type. It is known e.g. [@GP] references therein) orbifolding the LG theory by G simply simply changes the sign one of the $U(1)$ charges and gives a theory isomorphic original For a CY dividing by G means the of the target space. connection a leads the result of the mirror namely, to the prediction that two resulting quantum $\sigma$-models have different tree-level actions, since their target | computing Yukawa couplings aS it applies To smoOth HypErSurfAces In weighted projECtivE spaces. All of the materiaL in thIs SEctiON iS quitE standaRD (sEE E.g. [@GmP] AnD reViEWs In [@Ess]). it iS includEd here to maKe oUr Presentation MOrE self-contaIneD.
Some backgroUnd On mirrOr SymMEtry
----------------------------------
COnsIder a SupercONformaL Landau-GiNsBUrg modEL with suPERpOtenTial ${\cal Q}$. Take ${\cal Q}$ tO Be A Quasi-homogeneoUs polyNoMIaL. aN arGumEnt due to GrEeNe, VafA And WarnER [@Gvw], mArtINec [@Mart] and WitTen [@Wit2] shows THat This thEoRy iS An “analYtic cOnTInuAtion” to negaTive kähler claSs of a $\sIGma$-modeL With CalAbi-Yau ManIfoLd as A TaRgEt sPaCE. ThIS mAniFOld Can be desCrIbEd as a CodiMENSIon oNe vArieTy $${\cal w} = \{ x, {\cal Q}(x) = 0 \}$$ in a weiGhtEd prOJecTive sPace.\
TRuly MaRginaL operaTors wItH $U(1)$ charge equal to $+1$ $(
-1 )$ In thE superconForMaL thEoRy corREspond To cOmpLex struCture (KäHLer) MoDES Of The Calabi-Yau theory. we WILl Be also coNsiderINg “ExTEnded KähLeR moDuli SPAces” $H^{P}(X,\LaMBdA^{p}T^{*})$ and “exTended COmPlEx strucTuRe moduLi SpaCes” $h^{p}(X, \LaMBda^{p}t)$. FolloWing WittEn [@Wit], THe couplings invOLving elements OF $H^{P}(x,
\laMBda^{p}t^{*})$ wiLl be called [**A**]{}-ModeL CoupLingS, WhIle COupliNgs inVoLViNG elements of $H^{p}(X,
\LambdA^{p}t)$ – [**B**]{}-modeL coupLings.\
Now consiDer the actiON OF the maxiMal gROuP Of scaling symmeTries $g$ on both LanDAu-GinsbuRg and calabi-YaU models foR ${\CAl Q}$ of FerMat TypE. It Is wELL kNown (see, e.g. reviEW [@gP] anD rEferencEs tHerein) tHat OrbIfoLdiNg The LG theoRy by G simPlY sImPlY chAnges THe sign of OnE of ThE $U(1)$ cHargeS And givEs a thEory IsOmORphIc to the ORiGINal oNe. foR a CY ModEl, DividIng bY g meAns takiNg the orbiFolD Of thE tArGet spacE. The unique conNeCtion with a lG ModEl now lEADs to the cEntral result of the mirror SYmmetry, NamEly, to The pRediction ThaT the twO reSUlting QuantuM $\sigmA$-mOdeLS Are isOMOrPhiC (eVen though tHEY haVe difFeRent Tree-levEl actions, since theiR TarGet | computing Yukawa coupling s as it ap plies to sm oo th h yper surfaces in we i ghte d projective spaces. A ll of t h e ma t er ial i n thiss ec t i onis q uit es ta ndard (s ee e.g. [@GMP] an d r ev iews in [@Es s ]) . It is in clu ded here tomak e ourpr ese n tatio n m ore s elf-co n tained .
Some b ac k ground on mirr o r s ymme try
------------- - -- - -------------- ---
C on s id e r asup erconforma lLanda u -Ginsbu r gm o d elw ith superpote ntial ${\ca l Q} $. Tak e${\ c al Q}$ to b ea qu asi-homogen eous polynomi al. An argumen t due to Green e,Vaf a an d W ar ner [ @ GVW ] ,Mar t ine c [@Mart ]an d Wit ten[ @ W i t2]sho ws t hat t his theory is an “an a lyt ic co ntinu atio n” to n egativ e Käh le r class of a $\ sigm a$-modelwit hCal ab i-Yau manifo ldasa targe t space . Th is m a ni fold can be descri be d as a codim ension on ev ariety $ ${ \ca l W} = \{ x , {\ c al Q}(x) = 0 \}$ $ i na weigh te d proj ec tiv e s pace. \
Tru ly mar ginal op erato r s with $U(1)$c harge equal t o $ + 1 $$ (
-1 )$ in the sup erco n form al t h eo ryc orres pondto co m plex structure (Käh le r) mod es of the Calabi-Y au theory. W e will be als o c o nsidering “ext ended Kähler mo d uli spac es” $ H^{p}(X, \Lambda^{ p } T^{*})$and “e xte nde d co mplex structu r e mod ul i space s”$H^{p}( X,\La mbd a^{ p} T)$. Foll owing Wi tt en [ @W it] , the coupling sinv ol vin g ele m ents o f $H^ {p}( X,
\ L amb da^{p}T ^ {* } ) $ wi ll b e ca lle d[**A* *]{} - mod el coup lings, wh ile coup li ng s invol ving elements o f $H^{p}(X ,\La mbda^{ p } T)$ – [* *B**]{}-model couplings . \
Now c ons idertheaction of th e maxi mal groupof sca lingsy mme t r ies $ G $ o n b ot h Landau-G i n sbu rg an dCala bi-Yaumodels for ${\calQ }$of Fermat typ e.It i s we llk no w n ( se e , e . g . review [@GP]and refere nc e stherein) t h ator bifoldi ng theLG th e ory byG simplysimply ch an gest h e s ign of one of the$U(1)$ ch a rgesa nd give s a theor yiso morph ic tot heorigi nal on e. For a CY m od el, divi ding by G means takingthe or bifol d o f the tar get spa ce. The u niqu e connecti onwit h a L G m o del n ow l e ad s t o thecent r al result of th e mi rror symmet r y , na mely, to the pr edic tion that the two resulting quan tum$ \ sig ma$ - mode ls are isomorphi c ( ev e n thoughth ey have dif ferent t re e -leve l acti ons, s ince th e i rt arget | computing_Yukawa couplings_as it applies to_smooth hypersurfaces_in_weighted projective_spaces._All of the_material in this_section is quite standard_(see e.g. [@GMP]_and_reviews in [@Ess]). It is included here to make our presentation more self-contained.
Some background_on_mirror symmetry
----------------------------------
Consider_a_superconformal_Landau-Ginsburg model with superpotential ${\cal_Q}$. Take ${\cal Q}$ to_be a_quasi-homogeneous polynomial. An argument due to Greene, Vafa_and_Warner [@GVW], Martinec_[@Mart] and Witten [@Wit2] shows that this theory is_an “analytic continuation” to negative Kähler_class of a_$\sigma$-model_with_Calabi-Yau manifold as a_target space. This manifold can be_described as a codimension one variety_$${\cal W} = \{ x, {\cal Q}(x)_= 0 \}$$ in a weighted_projective space.\
Truly marginal operators with_$U(1)$ charge_equal to $+1$ $(
-1 )$_in the superconformal_theory correspond_to complex structure_(Kähler) modes of the Calabi-Yau theory._We will be_also considering “extended Kähler moduli spaces”_$H^{p}(X,\Lambda^{p}T^{*})$_and “extended complex_structure_moduli_spaces” $H^{p}(X,_\Lambda^{p}T)$. Following Witten_[@Wit],_the couplings_involving_elements of $H^{p}(X,
\Lambda^{p}T^{*})$ will be called_[**A**]{}-model_couplings, while couplings involving elements of $H^{p}(X,
\Lambda^{p}T)$_– [**B**]{}-model couplings.\
Now consider_the_action of the maximal_group of scaling symmetries $G$_on both Landau-Ginsburg and Calabi-Yau models_for ${\cal_Q}$ of_Fermat type. It is well known (see, e.g. review [@GP] and_references therein) that orbifolding the LG_theory by G simply_simply changes_the_sign of one_of_the $U(1)$_charges and gives a theory isomorphic to_the original_one. For a CY model, dividing_by G means taking_the_orbifold of the target space. The_unique connection with a LG model_now leads to the central_result_of_the mirror symmetry, namely, to_the prediction that the two resulting_quantum $\sigma$-models are_isomorphic (even though they have different tree-level_actions,_since their target |
$N_i$ is ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$–secondary, $i=1,\ldots,r$, then ${\mbox{Att}\,}_R(N)=\{{\mathfrak{p}}_1,\ldots,{\mathfrak{p}}_r\}$ is a finite set.
Denote by ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)$ the $n$th right derived functor of $$\Gamma_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)=\{x\in M|\, {\mathfrak{a}}^rx=0 \ \mbox{for some positive
integer} \ r \}$$ applied to $M$. It is well-known that ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)$ is an Artinian module. Macdonald and Sharp, in [@MS], studied ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{m}}(M)$ and showed that ${\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{m}}(M))= {\mbox{Assh}\,}_R(M)$ where ${\mbox{Assh}\,}_R(M):=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\in
{\mbox{Ass}\,}_R(M)|\, {\mbox{dim}\,}_R(R/{\mathfrak{p}})=n\}$. It is shown in [@DY1 Theorem A], that for any arbitrary ideal ${\mathfrak{a}}$ of $R$, ${\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M))=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\in{\mbox{Ass}\,}_R(M)|\, {\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(R/{\mathfrak{p}})\neq 0\}$ which is a subset of ${\mbox{Assh}\,}_R(M)$. In [@DY2], the structure of ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)$ is studied by the first author and Yassemi and they showed that, in case $R$ is complete, for any pair of ideals ${\mathfrak{a}}$ and ${\mathfrak{b}}$ of $R$, if ${\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M))={\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{b}}(M))$, then ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M) \cong {\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{b}}(M)$. They also | $ N_i$ is $ { \mathfrak{p}}_i$–secondary, $ i=1,\ldots, r$, then $ { \mbox{Att}\,}_R(N)=\{{\mathfrak{p}}_1,\ldots,{\mathfrak{p}}_r\}$ is a finite set.
Denote by $ { \mbox{H}\, } ^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)$ the $ n$th right derived functor of $ $ \Gamma_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)=\{x\in M|\, { \mathfrak{a}}^rx=0 \ \mbox{for some positive
integer } \ radius \}$$ enforce to $ M$. It is well - known that $ { \mbox{H}\, } ^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)$ is an Artinian faculty. Macdonald and Sharp, in [ @MS ], studied $ { \mbox{H}\, } ^n_{\mathfrak{m}}(M)$ and show that $ { \mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, } ^n_{\mathfrak{m}}(M))= { \mbox{Assh}\,}_R(M)$ where $ { \mbox{Assh}\,}_R(M):=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\in
{ \mbox{Ass}\,}_R(M)|\, { \mbox{dim}\,}_R(R/{\mathfrak{p}})=n\}$. It is shown in [ @DY1 Theorem A ], that for any arbitrary ideal $ { \mathfrak{a}}$ of $ R$, $ { \mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, } ^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M))=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\in{\mbox{Ass}\,}_R(M)|\, { \mbox{H}\, } ^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(R/{\mathfrak{p}})\neq 0\}$ which is a subset of $ { \mbox{Assh}\,}_R(M)$. In [ @DY2 ], the structure of $ { \mbox{H}\, } ^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)$ is study by the first author and Yassemi and they read that, in case $ R$ is complete, for any couple of ideals $ { \mathfrak{a}}$ and $ { \mathfrak{b}}$ of $ R$, if $ { \mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, } ^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M))={\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, } ^n_{\mathfrak{b}}(M))$, then $ { \mbox{H}\, } ^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M) \cong { \mbox{H}\, } ^n_{\mathfrak{b}}(M)$. They also | $N_i$ is ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$–secondary, $l=1,\ldots,r$, then ${\mbor{Qtt}\,}_R(N)=\{{\methfrak{l}}_1,\ldots,{\maghfrak{p}}_r\}$ is a finite set.
Denove bt ${\mboz{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)$ the $n$th right degived funxtor if $$\Gamma_{\mavgfrak{a}}(M)=\{w\nn M|\, {\jwthfxaj{a}}^rx=0 \ \mbox{for xome posithve
integer} \ r \}$$ xp'lied to $M$. It is well-known that ${\mbox{R}\, }^n_{\mathgrwk{a}}(M)$ is an Artyniam modhle. Macdonald and Sharp, in [@MS], studjed ${\mboq{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{m}}(M)$ anc showed that ${\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{J}\, }^n_{\mwthfrak{m}}(M))= {\mbox{Assh}\,}_G(M)$ where ${\mbix{Asfy}\,}_R(M):=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\kn
{\mbox{Ass}\,}_R(M)|\, {\mbox{dim}\,}_R(R/{\mzthfrak{p}})=n\}$. It is shown in [@DY1 Theurem C], that for qnt agtitrary ideel ${\matrfrak{a}}$ of $R$, ${\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\kbox{H}\, }^n_{\kathfrak{a}}(M))=\{{\mathnrak{p}}\mn{\mbix{Ass}\,}_R(M)|\, {\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrek{a}}(R/{\mathfrak{p}})\neq 0\}$ whych is a vuyset of ${\mbox{Assh}\,}_R(M)$. In [@DT2], the strgctufw ow ${\mgoe{H}\, }^h_{\mathfgak{e}}(M)$ is studisd by the furst author and Yasxeip and they shkwed trae, in case $R$ is complete, for any pair of idsals ${\mathfrak{a}}$ and ${\mathdrak{b}}$ of $R$, if ${\mbox{Att}\,}_T({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\maehfrak{a}}(M))={\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{b}}(M))$, then ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\matvfrak{e}}(M) \coun {\ovod{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{b}}(M)$. They also | $N_i$ is ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$–secondary, $i=1,\ldots,r$, then ${\mbox{Att}\,}_R(N)=\{{\mathfrak{p}}_1,\ldots,{\mathfrak{p}}_r\}$ is set. by ${\mbox{H}\, the $n$th right {\mathfrak{a}}^rx=0 \mbox{for some positive \ r \}$$ to $M$. It is well-known that }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)$ is an Artinian module. Macdonald and Sharp, in [@MS], studied ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{m}}(M)$ showed that ${\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{m}}(M))= {\mbox{Assh}\,}_R(M)$ where ${\mbox{Assh}\,}_R(M):=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\in {\mbox{Ass}\,}_R(M)|\, {\mbox{dim}\,}_R(R/{\mathfrak{p}})=n\}$. It is shown in Theorem that any ideal ${\mathfrak{a}}$ of $R$, ${\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M))=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\in{\mbox{Ass}\,}_R(M)|\, {\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(R/{\mathfrak{p}})\neq 0\}$ which is a subset of ${\mbox{Assh}\,}_R(M)$. In the structure of ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)$ is studied by first author and Yassemi they showed that, in case is for any of ${\mathfrak{a}}$ ${\mathfrak{b}}$ of $R$, ${\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M))={\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{b}}(M))$, then ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M) \cong {\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{b}}(M)$. They also | $N_i$ is ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$–secondary, $i=1,\lDots,r$, then ${\mBox{AtT}\,}_R(N)=\{{\MatHfRak{p}}_1,\LdotS,{\mathfrak{p}}_r\}$ is a FInitE set.
Denote by ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathFrak{a}}(m)$ tHE $n$th RIgHt derIved funCToR OF $$\GaMmA_{\mAthFrAK{a}}(m)=\{x\in M|\, {\MatHfrak{a}}^rX=0 \ \mbox{for soMe pOsItive
integer} \ R \}$$ ApPlied to $M$. It Is wEll-known that ${\MboX{H}\, }^n_{\matHfRak{A}}(m)$ is an artInian Module. mAcdonaLd and SharP, iN [@mS], studIEd ${\mbox{H}\, }^N_{\MAtHfraK{m}}(M)$ and showed that ${\mBOx{aTt}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfRak{m}}(M))= {\mBoX{asSH}\,}_r(M)$ wHerE ${\mbox{Assh}\,}_R(m):=\{{\mAthfrAK{p}}\in
{\mboX{asS}\,}_r(m)|\, {\MboX{Dim}\,}_R(R/{\mathfrak{P}})=n\}$. It is shown IN [@DY1 theoreM A], ThaT For any ArbitRaRY idEal ${\mathfrak{A}}$ of $R$, ${\Mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mBox{H}\, }^n_{\mAThfrak{a}}(m))=\{{\MathfraK{p}}\in{\mbOx{ASs}\,}_R(m)|\, {\mboX{h}\, }^n_{\MaThfRaK{A}}(R/{\mAThFraK{P}})\neQ 0\}$ which is A sUbSet of ${\Mbox{aSSH}\,}_r(M)$. In [@dY2], tHe stRuctuRe of ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\matHfrAk{a}}(M)$ IS stUdied By the FirsT aUthor And YasSemi aNd They showed that, iN casE $R$ is complEte, FoR anY pAir of IDeals ${\mAthFraK{a}}$ and ${\maThfrak{b}}$ OF $R$, iF ${\mBOX{atT}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M))={\MbOX{atT}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\MathfrAK{b}}(m))$, tHEn ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\MaThfRak{a}}(m) \COng {\mbOx{H}\, }^n_{\MAtHfrak{b}}(M)$. THey alsO | $N_i$ is ${\mathfrak{p}}_ i$–seconda ry, $ i=1 ,\l do ts,r $, t hen ${\mbox{At t }\,} _R(N)=\{{\mathfrak{p}} _1,\l do t s,{\ m at hfrak {p}}_r\ } $i s afi ni tese t .
Deno teby ${\m box{H}\, } ^n_ {\ mathfrak{a}} ( M) $ the $n$t h r ight derived fu nctorof $$ \ Gamma _{\ mathf rak{a} } (M)=\{ x\in M|\, { \ mathfr a k{a}}^r x = 0\ \m box{for some posi t iv e
integer} \ r \}$$ap p li e d to $M $. It is w el l-kno w n that$ {\ m b o x{H } \, }^n_{\math frak{a}}(M) $ is an Ar ti nia n modul e. Ma cd o nal d and Sharp , in [@MS], s tudied ${\mbox { H}\, }^ n_{\ma thf rak {m}} ( M) $and s h owe d t hat ${\ mbox{Att }\ ,} _R({\ mbox { H } \ , }^ n_{ \mat hfrak {m}}(M))= {\m box {Ass h }\, }_R(M )$ wh ere${ \mbox {Assh} \,}_R (M ):=\{{\mathfrak {p}} \in
{\mbo x{A ss }\, }_ R(M)| \ , {\mb ox{ dim }\,}_R( R/{\mat h fra k{ p } } )= n\}$. It is shownin [ @D Y1 Theor em A], th at for anyar bit rary i deal${\m a th frak{a}} $ of $ R $, $ {\mbox{ At t}\,}_ R( {\m box {H}\, }^n_ {\math frak{a}} (M))= \ {{\mathfrak{p} } \in{\mbox{Ass } \, } _ R( M )|\, {\ mbox{H}\, } ^n_{ \ math frak { a} }(R / {\mat hfrak {p } }) \ neq 0\}$ which is a s ubsetof ${ \mbox{Assh}\, }_R(M)$. I n [ @DY2], t he s t ru c ture of ${\mbo x{H}\ , }^n_{\ma t hfrak{a} }(M)$ is stud ied by th e first au tho r a ndYas s e mi and they sho w e d th at , in ca se$R$ iscom ple te, fo rany pairof ideal s${ \m at hfr ak{a} } $ and ${ \m ath fr ak{ b}}$o f $R$, if $ {\mb ox {A t t}\ ,}_R({\ m bo x { H}\, } ^n _{\m ath fr ak{a} }(M) ) ={\ mbox{At t}\,}_R({ \mb o x{H} \, } ^n_{\ma thfrak{b}}(M) )$ , then ${\ mb ox{ H}\, } ^ n _{\mathf rak{a}}(M) \cong {\mbox { H}\, }^ n_{ \math frak {b}}(M)$. Th ey als o | $N_i$_is ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$–secondary,_$i=1,\ldots,r$, then ${\mbox{Att}\,}_R(N)=\{{\mathfrak{p}}_1,\ldots,{\mathfrak{p}}_r\}$ is_a finite_set.
Denote_by ${\mbox{H}\,_}^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)$_the $n$th right_derived functor of_$$\Gamma_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)=\{x\in M|\, {\mathfrak{a}}^rx=0 \_\mbox{for some positive
integer}_\_ r \}$$ applied to $M$. It is well-known that ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)$ is an_Artinian_module. Macdonald_and_Sharp,_in [@MS], studied ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{m}}(M)$_and showed that ${\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{m}}(M))=_{\mbox{Assh}\,}_R(M)$ where_${\mbox{Assh}\,}_R(M):=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\in
{\mbox{Ass}\,}_R(M)|\, {\mbox{dim}\,}_R(R/{\mathfrak{p}})=n\}$. It is shown in [@DY1 Theorem_A],_that for any_arbitrary ideal ${\mathfrak{a}}$ of $R$, ${\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M))=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\in{\mbox{Ass}\,}_R(M)|\, {\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(R/{\mathfrak{p}})\neq_0\}$ which is a subset of_${\mbox{Assh}\,}_R(M)$. In [@DY2],_the_structure_of ${\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)$ is_studied by the first author and_Yassemi and they showed that, in_case $R$ is complete, for any pair_of ideals ${\mathfrak{a}}$ and ${\mathfrak{b}}$ of_$R$, if ${\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M))={\mbox{Att}\,}_R({\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{b}}(M))$,_then ${\mbox{H}\,_}^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(M) \cong {\mbox{H}\, }^n_{\mathfrak{b}}(M)$. They_also |
N}}\else ${\mathcal{N}}$\fi}_{k}}$ The index set of nodes that are in the neighborhood of node $k$, including $k$.\
${{\ifmmode {\mathcal{N}}\else ${\mathcal{N}}$\fi}_{k}}^-$ The index set of nodes that are in the neighborhood of node $k$, excluding $k$.\
${{\ifmmode {\mathcal{C}}\else ${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}_i$ Cluster $i$, i.e., index set of nodes in the $i$-th cluster.\
${{\ifmmode {\mathcal{C}}\else ${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}(k)$ The cluster to which node $k$ belongs, i.e., ${{\ifmmode {\mathcal{C}}\else ${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}(k) = \{{{\ifmmode {\mathcal{C}}\else ${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}_i : k \in {{\ifmmode {\mathcal{C}}\else ${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}_i\}$.\
$J(\cdot)$, $\overline{J}(\cdot)$ Cost functions without/with regularization.\
${\boldsymbol{w}}^\star$, ${\boldsymbol{w}}^o$ Optimum parameter vectors without/with regularization.
We consider a connected network consisting of $N$ nodes. The problem is to estimate an $L\times 1$ unknown vector at each node $k$ from collected measurements. Node $k$ has access to temporal measurement sequences $\{d_k(n), {\boldsymbol{x}}_k(n)\}$, with $d_k(n)$ denoting a scalar zero-mean reference signal, and ${\boldsymbol{x}}_k(n)$ denoting an $L\times 1$ regression vector with a positive-definite matrix, $ {\boldsymbol{R}}_{x,k}=E\{{\boldsymbol{x}}_k(n){\boldsymbol{x}}_k^\top(n)\} >0$. The data at node $k$ are assumed to be related via the linear regression model: $$\label{eq:datamodel}
d_k(n)={\boldsymbol{x}}_k^\top(n)\, {\boldsymbol{w}}_k^\star + z_k(n)$$ where ${\boldsymbol{w}}_{k}^{\star}$ is an unknown parameter vector at node $k$, and $z_k(n)$ is a zero-mean i.i.d. noise that is independent | N}}\else $ { \mathcal{N}}$\fi}_{k}}$ The index set of nodes that are in the neighborhood of node $ k$, include $ k$.\
$ { { \ifmmode { \mathcal{N}}\else $ { \mathcal{N}}$\fi}_{k}}^-$ The exponent set of nodes that are in the vicinity of node $ k$, exclude $ k$.\
$ { { \ifmmode { \mathcal{C}}\else $ { \mathcal{C}}$\fi}}_i$ Cluster $ i$, i.e., index set of node in the $ i$-th cluster.\
$ { { \ifmmode { \mathcal{C}}\else $ { \mathcal{C}}$\fi}}(k)$ The bunch to which node $ k$ belongs, i.e., $ { { \ifmmode { \mathcal{C}}\else $ { \mathcal{C}}$\fi}}(k) = \{{{\ifmmode { \mathcal{C}}\else $ { \mathcal{C}}$\fi}}_i: k \in { { \ifmmode { \mathcal{C}}\else $ { \mathcal{C}}$\fi}}_i\}$.\
$ J(\cdot)$, $ \overline{J}(\cdot)$ Cost functions without / with regularization.\
$ { \boldsymbol{w}}^\star$, $ { \boldsymbol{w}}^o$ Optimum parameter vectors without / with regulation.
We consider a connected network consisting of $ N$ node. The problem is to estimate an $ L\times 1 $ unknown vector at each node $ k$ from collected measurements. Node $ k$ accept access to temporal measurement succession $ \{d_k(n), { \boldsymbol{x}}_k(n)\}$, with $ d_k(n)$ denoting a scalar zero - mean reference signal, and $ { \boldsymbol{x}}_k(n)$ denoting an $ L\times 1 $ regression vector with a convinced - definite matrix, $ { \boldsymbol{R}}_{x, k}=E\{{\boldsymbol{x}}_k(n){\boldsymbol{x}}_k^\top(n)\ } > 0$. The data at node $ k$ are assumed to be related via the linear regression model: $ $ \label{eq: datamodel }
d_k(n)={\boldsymbol{x}}_k^\top(n)\, { \boldsymbol{w}}_k^\star + z_k(n)$$ where $ { \boldsymbol{w}}_{k}^{\star}$ is an strange parameter vector at node $ k$, and $ z_k(n)$ is a zero - mean i.i.d. noise that is independent | N}}\elde ${\mathcal{N}}$\fi}_{k}}$ The index set of nodes tkqt are in ths neighburhood of node $k$, including $k$.\
${{\mfmmide {\mqthcal{N}}\else ${\mathcal{N}}$\fi}_{y}}^-$ The indvx set of nodts that are in thx neighborhood lf nmve $k$, excluding $l$.\
${{\ifmmode {\mdthcal{C}}\else ${\madhzap{C}}$\fi}}_i$ Cluster $i$, i.e., index set of nodqs in tne $i$-th cluster.\
${{\ifimodt {\mwthczl{C}}\else ${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}(k)$ The cluster to which iode $k$ belongs, o.e., ${{\ifmmode {\mathcal{C}}\else ${\mahhcap{C}}$\fi}}(k) = \{{{\ifmmode {\matjcal{C}}\else ${\mqthcwo{C}}$\fi}}_i : k \in {{\kfmmode {\mauheal{C}}\else ${\majhcal{C}}$\fi}}_i\}$.\
$J(\cdot)$, $\overline{J}(\cdot)$ Cosg funetions withiur/wihv regularizetion.\
${\bjldsymbol{w}}^\star$, ${\boldsfmbol{w}}^o$ Optimum paramcter tectirs without/with regulerization.
We consider a connecdeb network consisting if $N$ noges. Dhe oeobuem ix fo estlmave an $L\timea 1$ unknown cector at each node $k$ drom collectes meastrqments. Node $k$ has access to temporal medsudement sequences $\{d_k(n), {\boodsymbol{x}}_k(n)\}$, with $d_k(n)$ fenoting w scalar zero-mean reference signal, and ${\boldsymbol{f}}_k(n)$ dxnutiun xb $P\times 1$ regression vector with a positive-defigjtt mstrix, $ {\boldsymnol{R}}_{x,k}=E\{{\boldsymbol{x}}_l(n){\hokqsymbol{x}}_k^\top(n)\} >0$. The bztz at node $k$ are asdumed tj be eelated vya tne linear regression model: $$\oabel{eq:datamjeel}
d_k(n)={\bolddymbol{x}}_k^\top(u)\, {\boldxymbok{w}}_k^\star + z_k(n)$$ where ${\boldrymbkl{w}}_{k}^{\star}$ is an unknosv parameter vectur st node $k$, and $z_k(n)$ is a zero-mqan i.i.d. niise that ir incependqnt | N}}\else ${\mathcal{N}}$\fi}_{k}}$ The index set of nodes in neighborhood of $k$, including $k$.\ set nodes that are the neighborhood of $k$, excluding $k$.\ ${{\ifmmode {\mathcal{C}}\else ${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}_i$ $i$, i.e., index set of nodes in the $i$-th cluster.\ ${{\ifmmode {\mathcal{C}}\else ${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}(k)$ cluster to which node $k$ belongs, i.e., ${{\ifmmode {\mathcal{C}}\else ${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}(k) = \{{{\ifmmode {\mathcal{C}}\else : \in {\mathcal{C}}\else $J(\cdot)$, $\overline{J}(\cdot)$ Cost functions without/with regularization.\ ${\boldsymbol{w}}^\star$, ${\boldsymbol{w}}^o$ Optimum parameter vectors without/with regularization. We consider a network consisting of $N$ nodes. The problem is estimate an $L\times 1$ vector at each node $k$ collected Node $k$ access temporal sequences $\{d_k(n), {\boldsymbol{x}}_k(n)\}$, $d_k(n)$ denoting a scalar zero-mean reference signal, and ${\boldsymbol{x}}_k(n)$ denoting an $L\times 1$ regression vector with a matrix, $ The data node are to be related linear regression model: $$\label{eq:datamodel} d_k(n)={\boldsymbol{x}}_k^\top(n)\, {\boldsymbol{w}}_k^\star ${\boldsymbol{w}}_{k}^{\star}$ is an unknown parameter vector at node and $z_k(n)$ a zero-mean i.i.d. noise that is | N}}\else ${\mathcal{N}}$\fi}_{k}}$ The index sEt of nodes tHat arE in The NeIghbOrhoOd of node $k$, incluDIng $k$.\
${{\Ifmmode {\mathcal{N}}\else ${\matHcal{N}}$\Fi}_{K}}^-$ the iNDeX set oF nodes tHAt ARE in ThE nEigHbORhOod of NodE $k$, excluDing $k$.\
${{\ifmmoDe {\mAtHcal{C}}\else ${\matHCaL{C}}$\fi}}_i$ ClustEr $i$, I.e., index set of NodEs in thE $i$-Th cLUster.\
${{\IfmMode {\mAthcal{c}}\Else ${\maThcal{C}}$\fi}}(k)$ thE ClusteR To which NODe $K$ belOngs, i.e., ${{\ifmmode {\mathCAl{c}}\Else ${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}(K) = \{{{\ifmmoDe {\MAtHCAl{C}}\ElsE ${\mathcal{C}}$\fI}}_i : K \in {{\ifMMode {\matHCaL{c}}\ELse ${\MAthcal{C}}$\fi}}_i\}$.\
$J(\cdOt)$, $\overline{J}(\CDot)$ cost fuNcTioNS withoUt/witH rEGulArization.\
${\boLdsyMbol{w}}^\star$, ${\BoldsyMBol{w}}^o$ OpTImum parAmeter VecTorS witHOuT/wIth ReGUlaRIzAtiON.
We Consider A cOnNecteD netWORK ConsIstIng oF $N$ nodEs. The problem iS to EstiMAte An $L\tiMes 1$ unKnowN vEctor At each Node $k$ FrOm collected measUremEnts. Node $k$ Has AcCesS tO tempORal meaSurEmeNt sequeNces $\{d_k(n), {\BOldSyMBOL{x}}_K(n)\}$, with $d_k(n)$ denoting a ScALAr Zero-mean RefereNCe SiGNal, and ${\boLdSymBol{x}}_K(N)$ DenotIng aN $l\tImes 1$ regrEssion VEcToR with a pOsItive-dEfIniTe mAtrix, $ {\BOldsYmbol{R}}_{X,k}=E\{{\boldsYmbol{X}}_K(n){\boldsymbol{x}}_k^\TOp(n)\} >0$. The data at nODe $K$ ARe ASsumEd tO be related vIa thE LineAr reGReSsiON modeL: $$\labeL{eQ:DaTAmodel}
d_k(n)={\boldsymbol{X}}_k^\Top(n)\, {\boLdsymBol{w}}_k^\star + z_k(n)$$ wHere ${\boldsyMBOL{w}}_{k}^{\star}$ iS an uNKnOWn parameter vecTor at Node $k$, and $z_k(N)$ Is a zero-mEan i.i.D. noise thAt is indepENDent | N}}\else ${\mathcal{N}}$\f i}_{k}}$ T he in dex se tof n odes that are in t h e ne ighborhood of node $k$ , inc lu d ing$ k$ .\
${ {\ifmmo d e{ \ mat hc al {N} }\ e ls e ${\ mat hcal{N} }$\fi}_{k} }^- $The index se t o f nodes th atare in the n eig hborho od of node$k$ , exc luding $k$.\${{\ifmmo de {\math c al{C}}\ e l se ${\ mathcal{C}}$\fi}} _ i$ Cluster $i$, i .e., i nd e xs e t o f n odes in th e$i$-t h cluste r .\ $ { {\i f mmode {\mathc al{C}}\else ${\ mathca l{ C}} $ \fi}}( k)$ T he clu ster to whi ch n ode $k$ b elongs , i.e.,$ {{\ifmm ode {\ mat hca l{C} } \e ls e $ {\ m ath c al {C} } $\f i}}(k) = \ {{ {\ifm mode { \ m athc al{ C}}\ else${\mathcal{C} }$\ fi}} _ i : k \i n {{\ ifmm od e {\m athcal {C}}\ el se ${\mathcal{C }}$\ fi}}_i\}$ .\$J (\c do t)$,$ \overl ine {J} (\cdot) $ Costf unc ti o n s w ithout/with regula ri z a ti on.\
${\ boldsy m bo l{ w }}^\star $, ${ \bol d s ymbol {w}} ^ o$ Optimum param e te rvectors w ithout /w ith re gular i zati on.
W e consid er ac onnected netwo r k consistingo f$ N $n odes . T he problemis t o est imat e a n $ L \time s 1$un k no w n vector at each no de $k$ f rom c ollected meas urements.N o d e $k$ ha s ac c es s to temporal m easur ement sequ e nces $\{ d_k(n ), {\bol dsymbol{x } } _k(n)\}$ , w ith $d _k( n ) $denoting a sc a l ar z er o-meanref erencesig nal , a nd${ \boldsymb ol{x}}_k (n )$ d en oti ng an $L\times 1 $ r eg res sionv ectorwitha po si ti v e-d efinite ma t r ix,${\ bold sym bo l{R}} _{x, k }=E \{{\bol dsymbol{x }}_ k (n){ \b ol dsymbol {x}}_k^\top(n )\ } >0$. The d ata at no d e $k$ are assumed to be relatedv ia thelin ear r egre ssion mod el: $$\la bel { eq:dat amodel }
d _ k(n)= { \ bo lds ym bol{x}}_k^ \ t op( n)\,{\ bold symbol{ w}}_k^\star + z_k( n )$$ where ${\bol dsy mbol { w }} _{k } ^{ \ sta r} $ is a n unknown param eter vecto ra tnode $k$,a nd$z _k(n)$is a ze ro-me a n i.i.d . noise t hat is in de pend e n t | N}}\else ${\mathcal{N}}$\fi}_{k}}$_The index_set of nodes that_are in_the_neighborhood of_node_$k$, including $k$.\
${{\ifmmode_{\mathcal{N}}\else ${\mathcal{N}}$\fi}_{k}}^-$ The_index set of nodes_that are in_the_neighborhood of node $k$, excluding $k$.\
${{\ifmmode {\mathcal{C}}\else ${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}_i$ Cluster $i$, i.e., index set of_nodes_in the_$i$-th_cluster.\
${{\ifmmode_{\mathcal{C}}\else ${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}(k)$ The cluster to_which node $k$ belongs, i.e.,_${{\ifmmode {\mathcal{C}}\else_${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}(k) = \{{{\ifmmode {\mathcal{C}}\else ${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}_i : k \in_{{\ifmmode_{\mathcal{C}}\else ${\mathcal{C}}$\fi}}_i\}$.\
$J(\cdot)$, $\overline{J}(\cdot)$_Cost functions without/with regularization.\
${\boldsymbol{w}}^\star$, ${\boldsymbol{w}}^o$ Optimum parameter vectors without/with_regularization.
We consider a connected network consisting_of $N$ nodes._The_problem_is to estimate an_$L\times 1$ unknown vector at each_node $k$ from collected measurements. Node_$k$ has access to temporal measurement sequences_$\{d_k(n), {\boldsymbol{x}}_k(n)\}$, with $d_k(n)$ denoting a_scalar zero-mean reference signal, and_${\boldsymbol{x}}_k(n)$ denoting_an $L\times 1$ regression vector_with a positive-definite_matrix, $_{\boldsymbol{R}}_{x,k}=E\{{\boldsymbol{x}}_k(n){\boldsymbol{x}}_k^\top(n)\} >0$. The_data at node $k$ are assumed_to be related_via the linear regression model: $$\label{eq:datamodel}
__ ___ d_k(n)={\boldsymbol{x}}_k^\top(n)\,_{\boldsymbol{w}}_k^\star + z_k(n)$$_where_${\boldsymbol{w}}_{k}^{\star}$ is_an_unknown parameter vector at node $k$,_and_$z_k(n)$ is a zero-mean i.i.d. noise that_is independent |
^{+}$ $8.43\pm0.17$ $224.8^{+20.3}_{-19.3}$ 17.1 $6.9\pm{0.6}\pm{0.5}$ $-$ $-0.02 \pm0.09 \pm0.01$
\[0.1cm\] $\omega K^{0}$ $2.50\pm0.09$ $41.5^{+8.0}_{-7.0}$ 9.3 $4.4^{+0.8}_{-0.7}\pm{0.4}$ $-$ $-$
\[0.1cm\] $\omega \pi^{0}$ $3.80\pm0.12$ $5.9^{+4.8}_{-4.1}$ 1.5 $0.5^{+0.4}_{-0.3}\pm{0.1}$ $2.0$ $-$
\[0.1cm\]
\[prd06-2\]
Mode $\omega K^{+}$ $\omega \pi^{+}$ $\omega K^{0}$ $\omega \pi^{0}$
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ---------------- ------------------
track reconstruction 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0
\[0.1cm\] $\mathcal R$ requirement 2.5 2.6 2.5 3.3
\[0.1cm\] particle identification 1.7 1.7 0.9 0.9
\[0.1cm\] $\pi^0$ reconstruction 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0
\[0.1cm\] $K^0_S$ reconstruction $-$ $-$ 4.9 $-$
\[0.1cm\] $\omega$ mass window 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
\[0.1cm\] MC statistics 1.1 1.2 1.8 2.4
\[0.1cm\] signal PDF $^{+0.1}_{-0.0}$ $\le 0.1$ $\pm0.5$ $^{+1.2}_{-0.6 | ^{+}$ $ 8.43\pm0.17 $ $ 224.8^{+20.3}_{-19.3}$ 17.1 $ 6.9\pm{0.6}\pm{0.5}$ $ -$ $ -0.02 \pm0.09 \pm0.01 $
\[0.1cm\ ] $ \omega K^{0}$ $ 2.50\pm0.09 $ $ 41.5^{+8.0}_{-7.0}$ 9.3 $ 4.4^{+0.8}_{-0.7}\pm{0.4}$ $ -$ $ -$
\[0.1cm\ ] $ \omega \pi^{0}$ $ 3.80\pm0.12 $ $ 5.9^{+4.8}_{-4.1}$ 1.5 $ 0.5^{+0.4}_{-0.3}\pm{0.1}$ $ 2.0 $ $ -$
\[0.1cm\ ]
\[prd06 - 2\ ]
Mode $ \omega K^{+}$ $ \omega \pi^{+}$ $ \omega K^{0}$ $ \omega \pi^{0}$
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ---------------- ------------------
track reconstruction 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0
\[0.1cm\ ] $ \mathcal R$ requirement 2.5 2.6 2.5 3.3
\[0.1cm\ ] particle designation 1.7 1.7 0.9 0.9
\[0.1cm\ ] $ \pi^0 $ reconstruction 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0
\[0.1cm\ ] $ K^0_S$ reconstruction $ -$ $ -$ 4.9 $ -$
\[0.1cm\ ] $ \omega$ bulk window 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
\[0.1cm\ ] MC statistics 1.1 1.2 1.8 2.4
\[0.1cm\ ] signal PDF $ ^{+0.1}_{-0.0}$ $ \le 0.1 $ $ \pm0.5 $ $ ^{+1.2}_{-0.6 | ^{+}$ $8.43\pm0.17$ $224.8^{+20.3}_{-19.3}$ 17.1 $6.9\pm{0.6}\pm{0.5}$ $-$ $-0.02 \pm0.09 \pm0.01$
\[0.1cm\] $\omega K^{0}$ $2.50\pn0.09$ $41.5^{+8.0}_{-7.0}$ 9.3 $4.4^{+0.8}_{-0.7}\pm{0.4}$ $-$ $-$
\[0.1cm\] $\omega \pi^{0}$ $3.80\pm0.12$ $5.9^{+4.8}_{-4.1}$ 1.5 $0.5^{+0.4}_{-0.3}\pm{0.1}$ $2.0$ $-$
\[0.1cm\]
\[ord06-2\]
Mode $\oneta N^{+}$ $\omega \pm^{+}$ $\omvga K^{0}$ $\omega \pi^{0}$
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ---------------- ------------------
tracl reconstructipn 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0
\[0.1cj\] $\mathfal R$ requirejent 2.5 2.6 2.5 3.3
\[0.1cm\] partpcle identification 1.7 1.7 0.9 0.9
\[0.1cm\] $\ph^0$ reckvstxmgtiov 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0
\[0.1cm\] $K^0_S$ reconrtructnkn $-$ $-$ 4.9 $-$
\[0.1cm\] $\omega$ mass winbow 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
\[0.1ck\] MC staukstics 1.1 1.2 1.8 2.4
\[0.1cm\] signal PDF $^{+0.1}_{-0.0}$ $\lc 0.1$ $\pm0.5$ $^{+1.2}_{-0.6 | ^{+}$ $8.43\pm0.17$ $224.8^{+20.3}_{-19.3}$ 17.1 $6.9\pm{0.6}\pm{0.5}$ $-$ $-0.02 \[0.1cm\] K^{0}$ $2.50\pm0.09$ 9.3 $4.4^{+0.8}_{-0.7}\pm{0.4}$ $-$ $5.9^{+4.8}_{-4.1}$ $0.5^{+0.4}_{-0.3}\pm{0.1}$ $2.0$ $-$ \[prd06-2\] Mode $\omega $\omega \pi^{+}$ $\omega K^{0}$ $\omega \pi^{0}$ ------------------ ------------------ ---------------- ------------------ track reconstruction 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 \[0.1cm\] $\mathcal R$ 2.5 2.6 2.5 3.3 \[0.1cm\] particle identification 1.7 1.7 0.9 0.9 \[0.1cm\] $\pi^0$ 4.0 4.0 \[0.1cm\] reconstruction $-$ $-$ 4.9 $-$ \[0.1cm\] $\omega$ mass window 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 \[0.1cm\] MC statistics 1.2 1.8 2.4 \[0.1cm\] signal PDF $^{+0.1}_{-0.0}$ $\le $\pm0.5$ $^{+1.2}_{-0.6 | ^{+}$ $8.43\pm0.17$ $224.8^{+20.3}_{-19.3}$ 17.1 $6.9\pm{0.6}\pm{0.5}$ $-$ $-0.02 \pm0.09 \pm0.01$
\[0.1cm\] $\omega K^{0}$ $2.50\pm0.09$ $41.5^{+8.0}_{-7.0}$ 9.3 $4.4^{+0.8}_{-0.7}\pm{0.4}$ $-$ $-$
\[0.1cm\] $\oMega \pi^{0}$ $3.80\pm0.12$ $5.9^{+4.8}_{-4.1}$ 1.5 $0.5^{+0.4}_{-0.3}\pm{0.1}$ $2.0$ $-$
\[0.1Cm\]
\[prd06-2\]
modE $\omEgA K^{+}$ $\omEga \pI^{+}$ $\omega K^{0}$ $\omega \pi^{0}$
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ---------------- ------------------
TRack Reconstruction 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0
\[0.1cm\] $\mathcaL R$ reqUiREmenT 2.5 2.6 2.5 3.3
\[0.1Cm\] PartiCle idenTIfICAtiOn 1.7 1.7 0.9 0.9
\[0.1Cm\] $\Pi^0$ rEcONsTructIon 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0
\[0.1Cm\] $K^0_S$ recOnstructioN $-$ $-$ 4.9 $-$
\[0.1cm\] $\OmEga$ mass windoW 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
\[0.1Cm\] mC statistiCs 1.1 1.2 1.8 2.4
\[0.1cM\] signal PDF $^{+0.1}_{-0.0}$ $\le 0.1$ $\Pm0.5$ $^{+1.2}_{-0.6 | ^{+}$ $8.43\pm0.17$ $224.8^{+2 0.3}_ {-1 9.3 }$ 17.1 $6.9\pm{0.6}\pm{0.5 }$ $- $ $ -0. 02 \p m0.09 \p m0.01$ \[0.1cm\ ] $ \o mega K^{0}$ $2.50\pm 0.0 9$ $41.5 ^{+ 8.0}_{ -7 .0} $ 9.3 $4.4^{ +0 . 8}_{-0 . 7}\pm{0 . 4 }$ $-$ $- $ \ [ 0 .1c m\] $\omega \ pi ^{0}$ $3.8 0 \p m 0 . 12$ $5.9^{+4 .8}_{-4.1}$ 1 . 5 $ 0.5 ^{+0.4}_{-0 .3}\ pm{0.1}$ $2. 0 $ $ -$ \ [0. 1 cm \]
\ [ prd06- 2\]
Mode $\ om e ga K^{+} $ $\om e g a \pi ^{+} $ $\omega K^{0} $ $ \omega\p i^{0}$
-- --- ----- - ---- ------ -------- ----- - -------------- - ---------- -- - -- - - -- - ---- --- - --------- ---- - ---- --- - -- --- - ----- - --- -- - -- - ---------
track r ec onstru ction 3.0 3.0 4.0 2 .0
\[0 .1c m\] $\ mat h c al R$ requireme n t 2 .5 2 .6 2.5 3.3
\[0.1c m\] p arti cl ei den tificat i on 1.7 1. 7 0.9 0. 9 \ [0.1cm \ ] $\pi^0$ reconstruction 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 8.0
\ [ 0 .1c m\] $ K^ 0_S$ recons truction $- $ $ -$ 4.9 $-$
\[0 .1 cm\] $\ omega$massw indow 3.0 3 . 0 3.0 3.0 \[ 0.1cm \] MCst atisti cs 1. 1 1. 2 1.8 2.4 \[0 .1cm \ ]sig n al PD F $^{ +0. 1 }_{-0. 0}$ $\le 0.1$ $\pm0.5$ $^{ +1. 2 }_{- 0. 6 | ^{+}$ _ _$8.43\pm0.17$ _$224.8^{+20.3}_{-19.3}$ __ __ _ 17.1_ _ __ $6.9\pm{0.6}\pm{0.5}$ __ ___ $-$ _ _ _ _$-0.02_\pm0.09 \pm0.01$
_\[0.1cm\] $\omega K^{0}$ $2.50\pm0.09$_ $41.5^{+8.0}_{-7.0}$ _ ___ _ 9.3 _ _ $4.4^{+0.8}_{-0.7}\pm{0.4}$ _ _ $-$ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ $-$
\[0.1cm\] $\omega \pi^{0}$__ $3.80\pm0.12$___ _ $5.9^{+4.8}_{-4.1}$ __ __ __ 1.5 _ __ $0.5^{+0.4}_{-0.3}\pm{0.1}$ _ _ $2.0$ _ _ _ _ _ $-$
_ \[0.1cm\]__ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _
\[prd06-2\]
_Mode _ _ _ __ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ $\omega K^{+}$__ $\omega \pi^{+}$ $\omega K^{0}$ $\omega \pi^{0}$
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ---------------- ------------------
_ track reconstruction _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _3.0 _ _ _ __ 3.0 ____ _ 4.0_ _ __ _ 2.0
_\[0.1cm\] $\mathcal R$ requirement_ _ _ _ _2.5 __ _ _ 2.6 __ 2.5___ __ ___3.3
__\[0.1cm\] particle identification _ __ _ __ _ _ 1.7 __ ____ _ 1.7 __ 0.9 _ __ _0.9
\[0.1cm\] $\pi^0$ reconstruction _ _ _ _ 4.0 _ _ __ _ 4.0 _ _ 4.0 _ 8.0
\[0.1cm\] $K^0_S$ reconstruction _ _ _ _ _ $-$ __ _ $-$ _ _ __ _ 4.9_ _ _ $-$
_\[0.1cm\] $\omega$ mass_window _ _ __ 3.0 _ _ 3.0 _ ___3.0 __ _ _ 3.0
_ \[0.1cm\] MC statistics _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ 1.1_ __ _ __ _1.2 _ _ _1.8_ _ _ 2.4
\[0.1cm\]_signal PDF_ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ $^{+0.1}_{-0.0}$ _ $\le_0.1$ _ _ _$\pm0.5$ _ $^{+1.2}_{-0.6 |
v_{j}) < t^{\eta-1}$, we replace the random variables defined above (\[eq21.4.2\]) by i.i.d. random variables $Y'(k) \in(0,1]$, with $Y'(k)\ge Y(k)$ and $E[Y'(k)] = t^{\eta- 1}$. Then, again applying Lemma \[lem21.3.1\], but this time to $Y'(k)$, $k=1,2,\ldots,$ $$\label{eq21.5.5}
P_{x}(\mathcal{A}_{1,r,j}(t)^{c}) \le P_{x} \Biggl(\sum
^{A_{r}(t)}_{k=1}Y'(k) > 2
\nu_{r} t^{\eta} \Biggr) \le e^{-C_{15}t^{\eta}}$$ as before. Together with (\[eq21.4.3\]), this implies (\[eq21.4.1\]) for $i=1$, with $C_{17}= C_{15}$.
The reasoning for (\[eq21.4.1\]) when $i=2$ is the same, except that one now sets $Y(k) = \phi(v_{j} - S^{1}_{r}(k))$, from which one obtains $$\label{eq21.5.3}
m\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}E[Y(1)] = h^{*}_{r}(v_{j}).$$ Also, the coefficient 2 on the RHS of (\[eq20.1.2\]) is replaced by the coefficient $1+\varepsilon_{5}$ in (\[eq20.2.2\]). Setting $\varepsilon= \varepsilon_{5} $ in Lemma \[lem21.3.1\], one obtains $$\label{eq21.5.4}
P_{x}\Biggl(\sum^{A_{r}(t)}_{k=1}\phi\bigl(v_{j}-S^{1}_{r}(k)\bigr) > (1+\varepsilon
_{5})\nu_{r} \bigl(h^{*}_{r}(v_{j})\vee t^{\eta}\bigr) \Biggr) \le
e^{-C_{15}t^{\eta}}$$ for large $t$ and appropriate $C_{15}> 0$, chosen as in the lemma. Setting $C_{17}= C_{15}$, one obtains (\[eq21 | v_{j }) < t^{\eta-1}$, we replace the random variables defined above (\[eq21.4.2\ ]) by i.i.d. random variables $ Y'(k) \in(0,1]$, with $ Y'(k)\ge Y(k)$ and $ E[Y'(k) ] = t^{\eta- 1}$. Then, again apply Lemma \[lem21.3.1\ ], but this meter to $ Y'(k)$, $ k=1,2,\ldots,$ $ $ \label{eq21.5.5 }
P_{x}(\mathcal{A}_{1,r, j}(t)^{c }) \le P_{x } \Biggl(\sum
^{A_{r}(t)}_{k=1}Y'(k) > 2
\nu_{r } t^{\eta } \Biggr) \le e^{-C_{15}t^{\eta}}$$ as before. Together with (\[eq21.4.3\ ]), this implies (\[eq21.4.1\ ]) for $ i=1 $, with $ C_{17}= C_{15}$.
The reasoning for (\[eq21.4.1\ ]) when $ i=2 $ is the like, except that one now sets $ Y(k) = \phi(v_{j } - S^{1}_{r}(k))$, from which one obtains $ $ \label{eq21.5.3 }
m\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}E[Y(1) ] = h^{*}_{r}(v_{j}).$$ besides, the coefficient 2 on the RHS of (\[eq20.1.2\ ]) is substitute by the coefficient $ 1+\varepsilon_{5}$ in (\[eq20.2.2\ ]). Setting $ \varepsilon= \varepsilon_{5 } $ in Lemma \[lem21.3.1\ ], one obtain $ $ \label{eq21.5.4 }
P_{x}\Biggl(\sum^{A_{r}(t)}_{k=1}\phi\bigl(v_{j}-S^{1}_{r}(k)\bigr) > (1+\varepsilon
_ { 5})\nu_{r } \bigl(h^{*}_{r}(v_{j})\vee t^{\eta}\bigr) \Biggr) \le
e^{-C_{15}t^{\eta}}$$ for large $ t$ and appropriate $ C_{15 } > 0 $, choose as in the lemma. Setting $ C_{17}= C_{15}$, one obtains (\[eq21 | v_{j}) < t^{\eta-1}$, we replace the ranaom variables dgfuned auove (\[eq21.4.2\]) by i.i.d. fandom variables $Y'(k) \in(0,1]$, with $B'(k)\ge Y(k)$ abd $E[Y'(k)] = t^{\eta- 1}$. Then, agakn applyijg Lemma \[lem21.3.1\], vut this tmje to $Y'(k)$, $k=1,2,\ldofd,$ $$\layeo{eq21.5.5}
P_{x}(\mathcal{A}_{1,r,m}(t)^{c}) \le P_{x} \Bhggl(\sum
^{A_{r}(t)}_{k=1}Y'(k) > 2
\nj_{r} t^{\eta} \Biggr) \le e^{-C_{15}t^{\eta}}$$ as before. Togqther wotj (\[eq21.4.3\]), this implyes (\[tq21.4.1\]) sor $j=1$, with $C_{17}= C_{15}$.
The reasoning for (\[eq21.4.1\]) wheh $i=2$ is uhe same, except thst one now sets $Y(k) = \phi(v_{j} - S^{1}_{r}(k))$, from which one obhains $$\label{gs21.5.3}
m\seqckrel{\mathrm{aef}}{=}E[Y(1)] = h^{*}_{r}(v_{j}).$$ Also, the ckefficient 2 on the RHS of (\[eq20.1.2\]) is replcced by the ciefvhcient $1+\vare'silon_{5}$ in (\[eq20.2.2\]). Settinn $\varepvilon= \vsrepsilon_{5} $ in Kemka \[oem21.3.1\], one obtains $$\label{xq21.5.4}
P_{x}\Biggl(\sum^{A_{r}(t)}_{k=1}\phi\bygl(v_{j}-S^{1}_{r}(k)\bhgx) > (1+\varepsilon
_{5})\nu_{r} \bigl(y^{*}_{r}(c_{j})\vee t^{\etd}\bigf) \Biegr) \lx
e^{-C_{15}f^{\eta}}$$ flr marge $t$ ans appropriare $C_{15}> 0$, chosen as in uhe oemma. Setting $C_{17}= C_{15}$, oge obtains (\[eq21 | v_{j}) < t^{\eta-1}$, we replace the random above by i.i.d. variables $Y'(k) \in(0,1]$, = 1}$. Then, again Lemma \[lem21.3.1\], but time to $Y'(k)$, $k=1,2,\ldots,$ $$\label{eq21.5.5} P_{x}(\mathcal{A}_{1,r,j}(t)^{c}) P_{x} \Biggl(\sum ^{A_{r}(t)}_{k=1}Y'(k) > 2 \nu_{r} t^{\eta} \Biggr) \le e^{-C_{15}t^{\eta}}$$ as before. Together (\[eq21.4.3\]), this implies (\[eq21.4.1\]) for $i=1$, with $C_{17}= C_{15}$. The reasoning for (\[eq21.4.1\]) $i=2$ the except one now sets $Y(k) = \phi(v_{j} - S^{1}_{r}(k))$, from which one obtains $$\label{eq21.5.3} m\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}E[Y(1)] = h^{*}_{r}(v_{j}).$$ the coefficient 2 on the RHS of (\[eq20.1.2\]) replaced by the coefficient in (\[eq20.2.2\]). Setting $\varepsilon= \varepsilon_{5} in \[lem21.3.1\], one $$\label{eq21.5.4} > _{5})\nu_{r} \bigl(h^{*}_{r}(v_{j})\vee t^{\eta}\bigr) \le e^{-C_{15}t^{\eta}}$$ for large $t$ and appropriate $C_{15}> 0$, chosen as in the lemma. Setting $C_{17}= C_{15}$, obtains (\[eq21 | v_{j}) < t^{\eta-1}$, we replace the random vAriables deFined AboVe (\[eQ21.4.2\]) bY i.i.d. RandOm variables $Y'(k) \iN(0,1]$, With $y'(k)\ge Y(k)$ and $E[Y'(k)] = t^{\eta- 1}$. Then, agAin apPlYIng LEMmA \[lem21.3.1\], bUt this tIMe TO $y'(k)$, $k=1,2,\LdOtS,$ $$\laBeL{Eq21.5.5}
p_{x}(\matHcaL{A}_{1,r,j}(t)^{c}) \lE P_{x} \Biggl(\suM
^{A_{r}(T)}_{k=1}y'(k) > 2
\nu_{r} t^{\eta} \BigGR) \lE e^{-C_{15}t^{\eta}}$$ as bEfoRe. Together wiTh (\[eQ21.4.3\]), this iMpLieS (\[Eq21.4.1\]) for $I=1$, wiTh $C_{17}= C_{15}$.
THe reasONing foR (\[eq21.4.1\]) when $i=2$ iS tHE same, eXCept thaT ONe Now sEts $Y(k) = \phi(v_{j} - S^{1}_{r}(k))$, from WHiCH one obtains $$\labEl{eq21.5.3}
m\sTaCKrEL{\MatHrm{Def}}{=}E[Y(1)] = h^{*}_{r}(v_{j}).$$ ALsO, the cOEfficieNT 2 oN THE RHs Of (\[eq20.1.2\]) is replaceD by the coeffICieNt $1+\varePsIloN_{5}$ In (\[eq20.2.2\]). SeTting $\VaREpsIlon= \varepsiLon_{5} $ iN Lemma \[lem21.3.1\], One obtAIns $$\labeL{Eq21.5.4}
P_{x}\BigGl(\sum^{A_{R}(t)}_{k=1}\Phi\Bigl(V_{J}-S^{1}_{R}(k)\BigR) > (1+\vARepSIlOn
_{5})\nU_{R} \biGl(h^{*}_{r}(v_{j})\veE t^{\EtA}\bigr) \biggR) \LE
E^{-c_{15}t^{\etA}}$$ foR larGe $t$ anD appropriate $C_{15}> 0$, ChoSen aS In tHe lemMa. SetTing $c_{17}= C_{15}$, One obTains (\[eQ21 | v_{j}) < t^{\eta-1}$, we r eplace the rand omvar ia bles def ined above (\[ e q21. 4.2\]) by i.i.d. rando m var ia b les$ Y' (k) \ in(0,1] $ ,w i th$Y '( k)\ ge Y( k)$ a nd$E[Y'(k )] = t^{\e ta- 1 }$. Then, ag a in applyingLem ma \[lem21.3 .1\ ], but t his timeto$Y'(k )$, $k = 1,2,\l dots,$ $$ \l a bel{eq 2 1.5.5}P _ {x }(\m athcal{A}_{1,r,j} ( t) ^ {c}) \le P_{x} \Bigg l( \ su m ^{A _{r }(t)}_{k=1 }Y '(k)> 2
\nu_ { r} t ^ {\e t a} \Biggr) \l e e^{-C_{15 } t^{ \eta}} $$ as before . Tog et h erwith (\[eq2 1.4. 3\]), thi s impl i es (\[e q 21.4.1\ ]) for $i =1$ , wi t h$C _{1 7} = C_ { 15 }$.
Th e reason in gfor ( \[eq 2 1 . 4 .1\] ) w hen$i=2$ is the same, ex cept tha t one nowsets $ Y(k)= \phi (v_{j }- S^{1}_{r}(k)) $, f rom which on eobt ai ns $$ \ label{ eq2 1.5 .3}
m\s tackrel { \ma th r m { de f}}{=}E[Y(1)] = h^ {* } _ {r }(v_{j}) .$$ Al s o, t h e coeffi ci ent 2 o n the R HS o f ( \[eq20.1 .2\])i sre placedby the c oe ffi cie nt $1 + \var epsilo n_{5}$ i n (\[ e q20.2.2\]). Se t ting $\vareps i lo n = \ v arep sil on_{5} $ in Lem m a \[ lem2 1 .3 .1\ ] , one obta in s $ $ \label{eq21.5.4}
P_ {x }\Bigg l(\su m^{A_{r}(t)}_ {k=1}\phi\ b i g l(v_{j}- S^{1 } _{ r }(k)\bigr) > ( 1+\va repsilon
_ { 5})\nu_{ r} \b igl(h^{* }_{r}(v_{ j } )\vee t^ {\e ta} \bi gr) \ Bi ggr) \le
e^{- C _ {15} t^ {\eta}} $$for lar ge$t$ an d a pp ropriate$C_{15}> 0 $, c ho sen as i n the lem ma . S et tin g $C_ { 17}= C _{15} $, o ne o b tai ns (\[e q 21 | v_{j}) <_t^{\eta-1}$, we_replace the random variables_defined above_(\[eq21.4.2\])_by i.i.d._random_variables $Y'(k) \in(0,1]$,_with $Y'(k)\ge Y(k)$_and $E[Y'(k)] = t^{\eta-_1}$. Then, again_applying_Lemma \[lem21.3.1\], but this time to $Y'(k)$, $k=1,2,\ldots,$ $$\label{eq21.5.5}
P_{x}(\mathcal{A}_{1,r,j}(t)^{c}) \le P_{x} \Biggl(\sum
^{A_{r}(t)}_{k=1}Y'(k) > 2
\nu_{r}_t^{\eta}_\Biggr) \le_e^{-C_{15}t^{\eta}}$$_as_before. Together with (\[eq21.4.3\]), this_implies (\[eq21.4.1\]) for $i=1$, with_$C_{17}= C_{15}$.
The_reasoning for (\[eq21.4.1\]) when $i=2$ is the same,_except_that one now_sets $Y(k) = \phi(v_{j} - S^{1}_{r}(k))$, from which one_obtains $$\label{eq21.5.3}
m\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}E[Y(1)] = h^{*}_{r}(v_{j}).$$ Also, the_coefficient 2 on_the_RHS_of (\[eq20.1.2\]) is replaced_by the coefficient $1+\varepsilon_{5}$ in (\[eq20.2.2\]). Setting_$\varepsilon= \varepsilon_{5} $ in Lemma \[lem21.3.1\],_one obtains $$\label{eq21.5.4}
P_{x}\Biggl(\sum^{A_{r}(t)}_{k=1}\phi\bigl(v_{j}-S^{1}_{r}(k)\bigr) > (1+\varepsilon
_{5})\nu_{r} \bigl(h^{*}_{r}(v_{j})\vee t^{\eta}\bigr)_\Biggr) \le
e^{-C_{15}t^{\eta}}$$ for large $t$ and_appropriate $C_{15}> 0$, chosen as_in the_lemma. Setting $C_{17}= C_{15}$, one_obtains (\[eq21 |
a consequence of supersymmetric localization [@Closset:2015ohf], and see in addition [@Donagi:2014koa]\[appendix A\].)
- We assume that $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ is also diagonal, meaning, for theories which are deformations of (2,2) theories, that for any Fermi superfield $\Psi$, $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ is proportional to the chiral superfield with which it is partnered on the (2,2) locus.
On the (2,2) locus, the $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ are both linear and diagonal, and there exist nontrivial (0,2) deformations which are also linear and diagonal. The constraints above, that $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ be both linear and diagonal, imply the form $$\overline{D}_+ \Psi_{i} = E_{i}(\sigma) \Phi_{i}.$$
Now that we have stated the restrictions, we give the proposal. Let us consider a (0,2) GLSM with connected[^4] gauge group $G$ of dimension $n$ and rank $r$, chiral fields $\Phi_i$ and Fermi fields $\Psi_i$ in a (possibly reducible) representation $R$ for $i=1, \cdots, N= {\rm dim}\, R$. If $\mathcal{W}$ is the Weyl group of $G$, then the proposed mirror theory is a $\mathcal{W}$-orbifold of a (0,2) Landau-Ginzburg model given by the following matter fields:
- $r$ chiral fields $\sigma_a$ and $r$ Fermi fields $\Upsilon_a$, $a=1,\cdots,r$,
- chiral fields $Y_{i}$ and Fermi fields $F_{i}$ where $i=1,\cdots,N$,
- $n-r$ chiral fields $X_{\tilde{\mu}}$ and $n-r$ Fermi fields $\Lambda_{\tilde{\mu}}$,
following the same pattern as the (2,2) nonabelian mirror proposal [@Gu:2018fpm].
For linear and diagonal $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ as above, the proposed (0,2) superpotential of the mirror Landau-Ginzburg orbifold is $$\label{superpotential}
\begin{split}
W=&\sum_{ | a consequence of supersymmetric localization [ @Closset:2015ohf ], and see in addition [ @Donagi:2014koa]\[appendix A\ ] .)
- We assume that $ \overline{D}_+ \Psi$ is besides aslant, meaning, for theory which are deformations of (2,2) theories, that for any Fermi superfield $ \Psi$, $ \overline{D}_+ \Psi$ is proportional to the chiral superfield with which it is partner on the (2,2) locus.
On the (2,2) locus, the $ \overline{D}_+ \Psi$ are both linear and aslant, and there exist nontrivial (0,2) deformations which are also linear and aslant. The constraint above, that $ \overline{D}_+ \Psi$ be both linear and aslant, imply the form $ $ \overline{D}_+ \Psi_{i } = E_{i}(\sigma) \Phi_{i}.$$
Now that we have stated the restriction, we give the proposal. Let us consider a (0,2) GLSM with connected[^4 ] gauge group $ G$ of property $ n$ and rank $ r$, chiral fields $ \Phi_i$ and Fermi field $ \Psi_i$ in a (possibly reducible) representation $ R$ for $ i=1, \cdots, N= { \rm dim}\, R$. If $ \mathcal{W}$ is the Weyl group of $ G$, then the proposed mirror theory is a $ \mathcal{W}$-orbifold of a (0,2) Landau - Ginzburg model pass by the following matter fields:
- $ r$ chiral fields $ \sigma_a$ and $ r$ Fermi fields $ \Upsilon_a$, $ a=1,\cdots, r$,
- chiral field $ Y_{i}$ and Fermi fields $ F_{i}$ where $ i=1,\cdots, N$,
- $ n - r$ chiral fields $ X_{\tilde{\mu}}$ and $ n - r$ Fermi fields $ \Lambda_{\tilde{\mu}}$,
follow the same pattern as the (2,2) nonabelian mirror proposal [ @Gu:2018fpm ].
For linear and diagonal $ \overline{D}_+ \Psi$ as above, the proposed (0,2) superpotential of the mirror Landau - Ginzburg orbifold is $ $ \label{superpotential }
\begin{split }
W=&\sum _ { | a fonsequence of supersymmttric localizatiou [@Clossxt:2015ohf], ahd see iv addition [@Donagi:2014koa]\[appendix A\].)
- We assume that $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ is apso diaginal, neaning, foc theoricf whjgh arz veformations of (2,2) theories, that for any Xefmn superfield $\Psi$, $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ is prjportiomap to the chiraj sukersiels with which it is partnered on ths (2,2) locuv.
On the (2,2) locux, the $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ are bohh llnear and diagonal, and there gsise nontrivial (0,2) deformations which arg also linear and diagonal. The cunstrcints above, tyat $\mverline{D}_+ \Pwi$ be both linear and diaconal, ikply the form $$\pveclinw{D}_+ \Psi_{i} = E_{i}(\sigma) \Phi_{m}.$$
Now that we have stwted the seatrictions, we givw rhe ptoposdl. Ldr ur cknxiser a (0,2) GLAM with cohnected[^4] gaute group $G$ of dimenxijb $n$ and rank $d$, chirwl fields $\Phi_i$ and Fermi fields $\Psi_i$ in a (poasibly reducible) represwntation $R$ for $i=1, \cdotd, N= {\rm dii}\, R$. If $\mathcal{W}$ is the Weyl group of $G$, then the psoposxd mixvjf tjeory is a $\mathcal{W}$-orbifold of a (0,2) Landau-Ginzbtdg mpdel given by bhe following mattrr foglds:
- $r$ chirau fielba $\aigma_a$ and $r$ Fermi fields $\Upsioon_a$, $a=1,\cdous,r$,
- chiral fields $Y_{i}$ and Fermi fields $F_{i}$ wkerw $i=1,\cdots,N$,
- $n-r$ chixal fields $X_{\cilde{\mo}}$ and $m-r$ Fermi fields $\Lambda_{\tnlde{\mu}}$,
rollowing tje same pzgtern as the (2,2) novabvliat mirror proposal [@Gu:2018fpm].
For linear aid dicgonal $\oxerlone{D}_+ \Pfi$ as abovf, the proposed (0,2) superpotfntiap mf the mirgor Landau-Ginzburg orbifold is $$\label{superpotemthal}
\tegin{splnt}
W=&\sum_{ | a consequence of supersymmetric localization [@Closset:2015ohf], and addition A\].) - assume that $\overline{D}_+ for which are deformations (2,2) theories, that any Fermi superfield $\Psi$, $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ proportional to the chiral superfield with which it is partnered on the (2,2) On the (2,2) locus, the $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ are both linear and diagonal, and exist (0,2) which also linear and diagonal. The constraints above, that $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ be both linear and diagonal, imply form $$\overline{D}_+ \Psi_{i} = E_{i}(\sigma) \Phi_{i}.$$ Now that have stated the restrictions, give the proposal. Let us a GLSM with gauge $G$ dimension $n$ and $r$, chiral fields $\Phi_i$ and Fermi fields $\Psi_i$ in a (possibly reducible) representation $R$ for $i=1, \cdots, {\rm dim}\, $\mathcal{W}$ is Weyl of then the proposed is a $\mathcal{W}$-orbifold of a (0,2) by the following matter fields: - $r$ chiral $\sigma_a$ and Fermi fields $\Upsilon_a$, $a=1,\cdots,r$, - chiral $Y_{i}$ and Fermi fields $F_{i}$ where $i=1,\cdots,N$, - chiral fields $X_{\tilde{\mu}}$ and $n-r$ Fermi fields $\Lambda_{\tilde{\mu}}$, following the same pattern as the (2,2) proposal [@Gu:2018fpm]. For linear diagonal $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ above, proposed superpotential the mirror orbifold is $$\label{superpotential} \begin{split} W=&\sum_{ | a consequence of supersymmetRic localizAtion [@cloSseT:2015oHf], anD see In addition [@DonaGI:2014koa]\[Appendix A\].)
- We assume that $\oVerliNe{d}_+ \psi$ iS AlSo diaGonal, meANiNG, For ThEoRieS wHIcH are dEfoRmationS of (2,2) theorieS, thAt For any Fermi sUPeRfield $\Psi$, $\oVerLine{D}_+ \Psi$ is prOpoRtionaL tO thE ChiraL suPerfiEld witH Which iT is partneReD On the (2,2) lOCus.
On thE (2,2) LOcUs, thE $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ are bOTh LInear and diagonAl, and tHeRE eXISt nOntRivial (0,2) defoRmAtionS Which arE AlSO LIneAR and diagonal. THe constrainTS abOve, thaT $\oVerLIne{D}_+ \PsI$ be boTh LIneAr and diagonAl, imPly the forM $$\overlINe{D}_+ \Psi_{i} = e_{I}(\sigma) \PHi_{i}.$$
Now ThaT we Have STaTeD thE rEStrICtIonS, We gIve the prOpOsAl. Let Us coNSIDEr a (0,2) GlSM With ConneCted[^4] gauge grouP $G$ oF dimENsiOn $n$ anD rank $R$, chiRaL fielDs $\Phi_i$ And FeRmI fields $\Psi_i$ in a (pOssiBly reduciBle) RePreSeNtatiON $R$ for $i=1, \CdoTs, N= {\Rm dim}\, R$. IF $\mathcaL{w}$ is ThE wEYl Group of $G$, then the proPoSED mIrror theOry is a $\MAtHcAL{W}$-orbifoLd Of a (0,2) landAU-ginzbUrg mODeL given by The folLOwInG matter FiElds:
- $r$ cHiRal FieLds $\siGMa_a$ aNd $r$ FerMi fields $\upsilON_a$, $a=1,\cdots,r$,
- chiraL Fields $Y_{i}$ and FeRMi FIElDS $F_{i}$ wHerE $i=1,\cdots,N$,
- $n-r$ cHiraL FielDs $X_{\tILdE{\mu}}$ ANd $n-r$ FErmi fIeLDs $\lAmbda_{\tilde{\mu}}$,
followiNg The samE pattErn as the (2,2) nonabElian mirroR PROposal [@Gu:2018Fpm].
FOR lINear and diagonaL $\overLine{D}_+ \Psi$ as ABove, the pRoposEd (0,2) superpOtential oF THe mirror lanDau-ginZbuRG OrBifold is $$\label{SUPerpOtEntial}
\bEgiN{split}
W=&\Sum_{ | a consequence of supersym metric loc aliza tio n [ @C loss et:2 015ohf], and s e e in addition [@Donagi:201 4koa] \[ a ppen d ix A\]. )
- W ea s sum eth at$\ o ve rline {D} _+ \Psi $ is alsodia go nal, meaning , f or theorie s w hich are def orm ations o f ( 2 ,2) t heo ries, thatf or any Fermi su pe r field$ \Psi$,$ \ ov erli ne{D}_+ \Psi$ isp ro p ortional to th e chir al su p e rfi eld with whic hit is partner e do n the (2,2) locus.
On the (2, 2 ) l ocus,th e $ \ overli ne{D} _+ \Ps i$ are both lin ear and d iagona l , and t h ere exi st non tri via l (0 , 2) d efo rm a tio n swhi c h a re alsoli ne ar an d di a g o n al.The con strai nts above, th at$\ov e rli ne{D} _+ \P si$be both linea r and d iagonal, implytheform $$\o ver li ne{ D} _+ \P s i_{i}= E_{ i}(\sig ma) \Ph i _{i }. $ $
N ow that we have st at e d t he restr iction s ,we give the p rop osal . Let u s co n si der a (0 ,2) GL S Mwi th conn ec ted[^4 ]gau gegroup $G$of dim ension $ n$ an d rank $r$, chi r al fields $\P h i_ i $ a n d Fe rmi fields $\P si_i $ ina (p o ss ibl y redu cible )r ep r esentation $R$ for$i =1, \c dots, N= {\rm dim} \, R$. If$ \ m athcal{W }$ i s t h e Weyl group o f $G$ , then the proposed mirr or theor y is a $\ m a thcal{W} $-o rbi fol d o f a(0,2) Landau- G i nzbu rg modelgiv en by t hefol low ing m atter fie lds:
- $r $ch ira l fie l ds $\sig ma _a$ a nd$r$ F e rmi fi elds$\Up si lo n _a$ , $a=1, \ cd o t s,r$ ,
- c hir al fiel ds $ Y _{i }$ andFermi fie lds $F_{ i} $where $ i=1,\cdots,N$ ,
- $n-r$ c hir al fie l d s $X_{\t ilde{\mu}}$ and $n-r$ F e rmi fie lds $\La mbda _{\tilde{ \mu }}$,
fol l owingthe sa me pa tt ern a s the ( 2, 2)no nabelian m i r ror prop os al [ @Gu:201 8fpm].
For linear and diagonal $\o ver line { D }_ + \ P si $ as a b ove , the proposed (0 ,2) superp ot e nt ial of the mir ro r Landa u-Ginzb urg o r bifoldis $$\lab el{superp ot enti a l }
\ begin{spli t}
W=&\s um_{ | a_consequence of_supersymmetric localization [@Closset:2015ohf], and_see in_addition_[@Donagi:2014koa]\[appendix A\].)
-__ We assume_that $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$_is also diagonal, meaning,_for theories which_are_deformations of (2,2) theories, that for any Fermi superfield $\Psi$, $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ is proportional_to_the chiral_superfield_with_which it is partnered on_the (2,2) locus.
On the (2,2)_locus, the_$\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ are both linear and diagonal, and_there_exist nontrivial (0,2)_deformations which are also linear and diagonal. The constraints_above, that $\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ be both_linear and diagonal,_imply_the_form $$\overline{D}_+ \Psi_{i} =_ E_{i}(\sigma) \Phi_{i}.$$
Now that we have_stated the restrictions, we give the_proposal. Let us consider a (0,2) GLSM_with connected[^4] gauge group $G$ of_dimension $n$ and rank $r$,_chiral fields_$\Phi_i$ and Fermi fields $\Psi_i$_in a (possibly_reducible) representation_$R$ for $i=1,_\cdots, N= {\rm dim}\, R$. If_$\mathcal{W}$ is the_Weyl group of $G$, then the_proposed_mirror theory is_a_$\mathcal{W}$-orbifold_of a_(0,2) Landau-Ginzburg model_given_by the_following_matter fields:
- $r$ chiral_fields_$\sigma_a$ and $r$ Fermi fields $\Upsilon_a$, $a=1,\cdots,r$,
-_ chiral fields_$Y_{i}$_and Fermi fields $F_{i}$_where $i=1,\cdots,N$,
- $n-r$_chiral fields $X_{\tilde{\mu}}$ and $n-r$ Fermi_fields $\Lambda_{\tilde{\mu}}$,
following_the same_pattern as the (2,2) nonabelian mirror proposal [@Gu:2018fpm].
For linear and diagonal_$\overline{D}_+ \Psi$ as above, the proposed_(0,2) superpotential of the_mirror Landau-Ginzburg_orbifold_is $$\label{superpotential}
\begin{split}
W=&\sum_{ |
j=1}^{V}P_{n}^{(j)}\left( \gamma \left( \widehat{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\right)
-\gamma \left( s_{m}\right) \right) \right\vert \geq L\varepsilon _{n}\left( m\right) \mathbb{E}\left[
\operatorname{p}_{2}^{(-1)}\left( m\right) \right] \right) \leq 22rn^{-2-\alpha _{\mathcal{M}}}, \label{ineq_excess_grand_V_fold}$$where $\operatorname{p}_{2}^{(-1)}\left( m\right) =P_{n}^{\left( -1\right) }\left( \gamma \left(
s_{m}\right) -\gamma \left( \widehat{s}_{m}^{(-1)}\right) \right) $ and $\varepsilon _{n}\left( m\right)$ is defined in Theorem \[theorem\_excess\_risk\_strong\_loc\]. If $D_{m}\leq A_{\mathcal{M},+}\left( \ln n\right) ^{3}$, then for all $n\geq
n_{0}\left( \left( \text{\textbf{GSA}}\right) \text{,}r\right) $,$$\mathbb{P}\left( \left\vert P\left( \gamma \left( \widehat{s}_{m}^{(-1)}\right) -\gamma \left( s_{m}\right) \right) -\frac{1}{V}\sum_{j=1}^{V}P_{n}^{(j)}\left( \gamma \left( \widehat{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\right)
-\gamma \left( s_{m}\right) \right) \right\vert \geq L\frac{\left( \ln n\right) ^{2}}{n}\right) \leq 22rn^{-2-\alpha _{\mathcal{M}}}. \label{ineq_excess_petit_V_fold}$$
First we prove the following inequality,$$\resizebox{.99\hsize}{!}{$
\mathbb{P}\left( \left\vert \frac{1}{V}\sum_{j=1}^{V}P\left( \gamma \left(
\widehat{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\right) -\gamma \left( | j=1}^{V}P_{n}^{(j)}\left (\gamma \left (\widehat{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\right)
-\gamma \left (s_{m}\right) \right) \right\vert \geq L\varepsilon _ { n}\left (m\right) \mathbb{E}\left [
\operatorname{p}_{2}^{(-1)}\left (m\right) \right ] \right) \leq 22rn^{-2-\alpha _ { \mathcal{M } } }, \label{ineq_excess_grand_V_fold}$$where $ \operatorname{p}_{2}^{(-1)}\left (m\right) = P_{n}^{\left (-1\right) } \left (\gamma \left (
s_{m}\right) -\gamma \left (\widehat{s}_{m}^{(-1)}\right) \right) $ and $ \varepsilon _ { n}\left (m\right)$ is defined in Theorem \[theorem\_excess\_risk\_strong\_loc\ ]. If $ D_{m}\leq A_{\mathcal{M},+}\left (\ln n\right) ^{3}$, then for all $ n\geq
n_{0}\left (\left (\text{\textbf{GSA}}\right) \text{,}r\right) $, $ $ \mathbb{P}\left (\left\vert P\left (\gamma \left (\widehat{s}_{m}^{(-1)}\right) -\gamma \left (s_{m}\right) \right) -\frac{1}{V}\sum_{j=1}^{V}P_{n}^{(j)}\left (\gamma \left (\widehat{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\right)
-\gamma \left (s_{m}\right) \right) \right\vert \geq L\frac{\left (\ln n\right) ^{2}}{n}\right) \leq 22rn^{-2-\alpha _ { \mathcal{M } } }. \label{ineq_excess_petit_V_fold}$$
First we prove the following inequality,$$\resizebox{.99\hsize}{!}{$
\mathbb{P}\left (\left\vert \frac{1}{V}\sum_{j=1}^{V}P\left (\gamma \left (
\widehat{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\right) -\gamma \left ( | j=1}^{V}P_{j}^{(j)}\left( \gamma \left( \widehau{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\right)
-\gamma \leyr( s_{m}\rijht) \riggt) \right\xert \geq L\varepsilon _{n}\left( m\cighr) \matybb{E}\left[
\operatorname{p}_{2}^{(-1)}\ueft( m\rigjt) \right] \rigit) \leq 22rn^{-2-\alpha _{\mefhcal{M}}}, \label{jkeq_exeews_grand_V_fold}$$whgre $\operatortame{p}_{2}^{(-1)}\left( m\rigvt) =P_{u}^{\left( -1\right) }\left( \gamma \left(
s_{m}\right) -\gwmma \legt( \widehat{s}_{m}^{(-1)}\righj) \rigne) $ ahd $\varepsilon _{n}\left( m\right)$ is defihed in Uheorem \[theorem\_excrss\_risk\_strong\_loc\]. If $D_{m}\leq W_{\matjcal{M},+}\left( \ln n\righh) ^{3}$, then for all $b\geq
n_{0}\left( \lewt( \text{\texuby{GSA}}\right) \tgxt{,}r\right) $,$$\mathbb{P}\left( \left\vert P\ueft( \yamma \left( \qieehwj{s}_{m}^{(-1)}\right) -\gamna \lest( s_{m}\right) \rlbht) -\frdc{1}{V}\sum_{j=1}^{F}P_{n}^{(j)}\left( \gamma \leht( \wudehat{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\right)
-\gamma \lxft( s_{m}\right) \right) \ridht\vert \gaq L\frac{\left( \ln n\rithr) ^{2}}{n}\richt) \neq 22fb^{-2-\aloha _{\methdal{M}}}. \pabxl{ineq_excesa_petit_V_fold}$$
Dirst we prove the gojoowing inequamity,$$\refisebox{.99\hsize}{!}{$
\mathbb{P}\left( \left\vert \frac{1}{V}\sum_{b=1}^{V}P\meft( \gamma \left(
\widehat{w}_{m}^{(-j)}\right) -\gamma \left( | j=1}^{V}P_{n}^{(j)}\left( \gamma \left( \widehat{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\right) -\gamma \left( s_{m}\right) \geq _{n}\left( m\right) \operatorname{p}_{2}^{(-1)}\left( m\right) \right] $\operatorname{p}_{2}^{(-1)}\left( =P_{n}^{\left( -1\right) }\left( \left( s_{m}\right) -\gamma \widehat{s}_{m}^{(-1)}\right) \right) $ and $\varepsilon _{n}\left( is defined in Theorem \[theorem\_excess\_risk\_strong\_loc\]. If $D_{m}\leq A_{\mathcal{M},+}\left( \ln n\right) ^{3}$, then for $n\geq n_{0}\left( \left( \text{\textbf{GSA}}\right) \text{,}r\right) $,$$\mathbb{P}\left( \left\vert P\left( \gamma \left( \widehat{s}_{m}^{(-1)}\right) -\gamma \left( \right) \gamma \widehat{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\right) \left( s_{m}\right) \right) \right\vert \geq L\frac{\left( \ln n\right) ^{2}}{n}\right) \leq 22rn^{-2-\alpha _{\mathcal{M}}}. \label{ineq_excess_petit_V_fold}$$ First we prove following inequality,$$\resizebox{.99\hsize}{!}{$ \mathbb{P}\left( \left\vert \frac{1}{V}\sum_{j=1}^{V}P\left( \gamma \left( \widehat{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\right) \left( | j=1}^{V}P_{n}^{(j)}\left( \gamma \left( \widehat{S}_{m}^{(-j)}\right)
-\gaMma \leFt( s_{M}\riGhT) \rigHt) \riGht\vert \geq L\varEPsilOn _{n}\left( m\right) \mathbb{E}\leFt[
\opeRaTOrnaME{p}_{2}^{(-1)}\Left( m\Right) \riGHt] \RIGht) \LeQ 22rN^{-2-\alPhA _{\MaThcal{m}}}, \laBel{ineq_Excess_granD_V_fOlD}$$where $\operatORnAme{p}_{2}^{(-1)}\left( m\rIghT) =P_{n}^{\left( -1\right) }\LefT( \gamma \LeFt(
s_{M}\Right) -\GamMa \lefT( \widehAT{s}_{m}^{(-1)}\rigHt) \right) $ anD $\vARepsilON _{n}\left( m\RIGhT)$ is dEfined in Theorem \[thEOrEM\_excess\_risk\_strOng\_loc\]. if $d_{M}\lEQ a_{\maThcAl{M},+}\left( \ln n\RiGht) ^{3}$, thEN for all $N\GeQ
N_{0}\LEft( \LEft( \text{\textbf{gSA}}\right) \texT{,}R\riGht) $,$$\matHbB{P}\lEFt( \left\Vert P\LeFT( \gaMma \left( \wideHat{s}_{M}^{(-1)}\right) -\gamMa \left( S_{M}\right) \rIGht) -\frac{1}{v}\sum_{j=1}^{V}p_{n}^{(j)}\LefT( \gamMA \lEfT( \wiDeHAt{s}_{M}^{(-J)}\rIghT)
-\GamMa \left( s_{m}\RiGhT) \righT) \rigHT\VERt \geQ L\fRac{\lEft( \ln N\right) ^{2}}{n}\right) \lEq 22rN^{-2-\alpHA _{\maThcal{m}}}. \labeL{ineQ_eXcess_Petit_V_Fold}$$
FIrSt we prove the folLowiNg inequalIty,$$\ReSizEbOx{.99\hsiZE}{!}{$
\mathbB{P}\lEft( \Left\verT \frac{1}{V}\sUM_{j=1}^{V}p\lEFT( \GaMma \left(
\widehat{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\rIgHT) -\GaMma \left( | j=1}^{V}P_{n}^{(j)}\left(\gamma \le ft( \ wid eha t{ s}_{ m}^{ (-j)}\right)
- \ gamm a \left( s_{m}\right)\righ t) \rig h t\ vert\geq L\ v ar e p sil on _ {n} \l e ft ( m\r igh t) \mat hbb{E}\lef t[
\ operatorname { p} _{2}^{(-1) }\l eft( m\right ) \ right] \ rig h t) \l eq22rn^ {-2-\a l pha _{ \mathcal{ M} } }, \l a bel{ine q _ ex cess _grand_V_fold}$$w h er e $\operatornam e{p}_{ 2} ^ {( - 1 )}\ lef t( m\right )=P_{n } ^{\left ( - 1 \ r igh t ) }\left( \ga mma \left(s _{m }\righ t) -\ g amma \ left( \ w ide hat{s}_{m}^ {(-1 )}\right) \righ t ) $ and $\varep silon_{n }\l eft( m\ ri ght )$ isd ef ine d in Theorem \ [t heore m\_e x c e s s\_r isk \_st rong\ _loc\]. If $D _{m }\le q A_ {\mat hcal{ M},+ }\ left( \ln n \righ t) ^{3}$, then fo r al l $n\geqn_{ 0} \le ft ( \le f t( \te xt{ \te xtbf{GS A}}\rig h t)\t e x t {, }r\right) $,$$\mat hb b { P} \left( \ left\v e rt P \ left( \g am ma\lef t ( \wid ehat { s} _{m}^{(- 1)}\ri g ht )-\gamma \ left(s_ {m} \ri ght)\ righ t) -\f rac{1}{V }\sum _ {j=1}^{V}P_{n} ^ {(j)}\left( \ g am m a \ l eft( \w idehat{s}_{ m}^{ ( -j)} \rig h t)
-\ g amma\left (s _{ m }\right) \right) \r ig ht\ver t \ge q L\frac{\lef t( \ln n\r i g h t) ^{2}} {n}\ r ig h t) \leq 22rn^{ -2-\a lpha _{\ma t hcal{M}} }. \ label{in eq_excess _ p etit_V_f old }$$
F irs t we prove the fo l l owin ginequal ity ,$$\res ize box {.9 9\h si ze}{!}{$\mathbb{ P} \l ef t( \l eft\v e rt \frac {1 }{V }\ sum _{j=1 } ^{V}P\ left( \ga mm a\ lef t(
\wi d eh a t {s}_ {m }^ {(-j )}\ ri ght)-\ga m ma\left( | j=1}^{V}P_{n}^{(j)}\left( \gamma_\left( \widehat{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\right)
-\gamma_\left( s_{m}\right) \right) \right\vert_\geq L\varepsilon__{n}\left(_m\right) \mathbb{E}\left[_
\operatorname{p}_{2}^{(-1)}\left(_m\right) \right] \right)_\leq 22rn^{-2-\alpha _{\mathcal{M}}},_ \label{ineq_excess_grand_V_fold}$$where $\operatorname{p}_{2}^{(-1)}\left( m\right)_=P_{n}^{\left( -1\right) }\left(_\gamma_\left(
s_{m}\right) -\gamma \left( \widehat{s}_{m}^{(-1)}\right) \right) $ and $\varepsilon _{n}\left( m\right)$ is defined in Theorem_\[theorem\_excess\_risk\_strong\_loc\]._If $D_{m}\leq_A_{\mathcal{M},+}\left(_\ln_n\right) ^{3}$, then for all_$n\geq
n_{0}\left( \left( \text{\textbf{GSA}}\right) \text{,}r\right) $,$$\mathbb{P}\left(_\left\vert P\left(_\gamma \left( \widehat{s}_{m}^{(-1)}\right) -\gamma \left( s_{m}\right) \right) -\frac{1}{V}\sum_{j=1}^{V}P_{n}^{(j)}\left(_\gamma_\left( \widehat{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\right)
-\gamma \left(_s_{m}\right) \right) \right\vert \geq L\frac{\left( \ln n\right) ^{2}}{n}\right) \leq_22rn^{-2-\alpha _{\mathcal{M}}}. \label{ineq_excess_petit_V_fold}$$
First we prove_the following inequality,$$\resizebox{.99\hsize}{!}{$
\mathbb{P}\left(_\left\vert_\frac{1}{V}\sum_{j=1}^{V}P\left(_\gamma \left(
\widehat{s}_{m}^{(-j)}\right) -\gamma_\left( |
assumption, the overall formula (\[eqn:finale\]) does no more depend on the factorization scale $Q_f$. We have shown in ref. [@mp] that the behaviour of $\omega(\gamma)$ when $\gamma$ becomes large cannot be steeper than a polynomial. This constraint comes from the region where $k_\bot$ is large, i.e. where we expect rather a DGLAP evolution. Taking into account this constraint, we will now focus on two definite models relying on different formulations of the residue function $\omega(\gamma)$ at small $\gamma$. On the one hand, the model 1, with $\omega(\gamma)=C (\mbox{constant})$ corresponds to the factorization at the gluon level: all the perturbative content of $k_\bot$-factorization is kept. On the other hand, in model 2, we consider an input compensating the $1/\gamma$ pole of $h_T(\gamma;M^2)$: $\omega(\gamma)\sim\gamma C$ at small $\gamma$. This model corresponds to a factorization at the quark level [@nikolaev], and was discussed in ref. [@mp]. Both models lead to an expression for the proton structure functions depending on three free parameters, $C$, $\alpha_s$, and $Q_0$.
We determine these parameters for both models by a fit of $F_2=F_T+F_L$ in their kinematical region of validity ($x\leq 10^{-2}$, moderate $Q^2$). Using the corresponding 103 experimental points given by the H1 collaboration [@f2], we fit our results (\[eqn:finale\]) with the contribution of the three light quarks $u,d,s$ (assumed massless) and of the charm quark (mass $M_c$). The $F_2$-fit for the medium mass $M_c=1.5\;\mbox{GeV}$ is displayed in figure 1, together with the predictions for its charm component $F_2^c$. For model 1, the $\chi^2$ per point is always less than $0.9$, while for model 2 it is even lower. For model 1, the value of $Q_0$ is around 330 MeV which is a typical non perturbative scale for the proton. The value of the effective coupling constant in the BFKL mechanism $\alpha_s$ ($0.07$) is rather low. For model 2, the data for | assumption, the overall formula (\[eqn: finale\ ]) does no more depend on the factorization scale $ Q_f$. We have testify in referee. [ @mp ] that the behaviour of $ \omega(\gamma)$ when $ \gamma$ becomes big cannot be exorbitant than a polynomial. This constraint comes from the area where $ k_\bot$ is large, i.e. where we expect rather a DGLAP development. take into account this restraint, we will now focus on two definite models relying on unlike formulations of the residue affair $ \omega(\gamma)$ at small $ \gamma$. On the one hand, the exemplar 1, with $ \omega(\gamma)=C (\mbox{constant})$ corresponds to the factorization at the gluon level: all the perturbative content of $ k_\bot$-factorization is keep. On the other hand, in model 2, we consider an input signal compensating the $ 1/\gamma$ pole of $ h_T(\gamma;M^2)$: $ \omega(\gamma)\sim\gamma C$ at small $ \gamma$. This model corresponds to a factorization at the quark grade [ @nikolaev ], and was discussed in ref. [ @mp ]. Both models lead to an expression for the proton social organization function depending on three free parameters, $ C$, $ \alpha_s$, and $ Q_0$.
We determine these parameters for both models by a fit of $ F_2 = F_T+F_L$ in their kinematical region of validity ($ x\leq 10^{-2}$, moderate $ Q^2 $). use the corresponding 103 experimental points feed by the H1 collaboration [ @f2 ], we match our results (\[eqn: finale\ ]) with the contribution of the three light quarks $ u, d, s$ (simulate massless) and of the charm quark (mass $ M_c$). The $ F_2$-fit for the medium bulk $ M_c=1.5\;\mbox{GeV}$ is displayed in figure 1, together with the predictions for its charm component $ F_2^c$. For mannequin 1, the $ \chi^2 $ per point is always less than $ 0.9 $, while for model 2 it is even lower. For exemplar 1, the value of $ Q_0 $ is around 330 MeV which is a typical non perturbative plate for the proton. The value of the effective yoke changeless in the BFKL mechanism $ \alpha_s$ ($ 0.07 $) is rather low. For model 2, the datum for | asdumption, the overall foroula (\[eqn:finale\]) bies no more sepend ov the factorization scale $Q_f$. Ww havt shown in ref. [@mp] thxt the bejaviour if $\onwga(\gamma)$ wisn $\gamma$ becojcs laxgx cannot be stegper than a [olynomial. Thiv zoustraint comes from the region where $k_\bot$ ix parge, i.e. where we txpqct dather a DGLAP evolution. Taking info accolnt this constraimt, we will now focus on twl devinite models relylng on diffgdene formulationr of the rtsndue functikn $\omega(\gamma)$ at small $\gamma$. On the pne hand, tye mofgl 1, with $\omeja(\gammw)=C (\mbox{constant})$ corrasponds to the factorlzatimn qt the gluon level: aln the perturbative content mf $k_\bot$-factorizatiob us kekt. On the ithdr gaid, jn modfl 2, we considsr an input compensating the $1/\gsmiq$ pole of $h_T(\gzmma;M^2)$: $\jmqga(\gamma)\sim\gamma C$ at small $\gamma$. This kodsl corresponds to a facrorization at the quatk level [@niholaev], and was discussed in ref. [@mp]. Both models leag to en exkrcfruoj for the proton structure functions dependind om nhree free paramebers, $C$, $\alpha_s$, and $A_0$.
Wf cgtermine these paramzfeds for both models by a fyt of $F_2=F_T+F_L$ in theor kinematical region of vaoidity ($x\leq 10^{-2}$, noderate $Q^2$). Using tke corresponbing 103 gxperikental points given by che H1 dollaboratiln [@f2], we fjg our results (\[eqv:fikala\]) with the contribution of the threx ligkt quarkr $u,d,x$ (assuied massleds) and of the charm quarn (masd $K_c$). The $F_2$-fih for the medium mass $M_c=1.5\;\mbox{GeV}$ is displayed on ficure 1, toyether with the preqictions for ijs charm eompondnt $F_2^c$. For model 1, the $\chi^2$ pew point is alfwys less thai $0.9$, while sor nodeo 2 it ir even lower. Fot model 1, nht value of $Q_0$ is around 330 MeV xhicf is a typical nin keeturbative scake wor tje pwmton. The valge ow tfr effdctive coupokng vonstant in the BFKL mecganism $\alpha_s$ ($0.07$) is tabher low. Dor modej 2, the data fpr | assumption, the overall formula (\[eqn:finale\]) does no on factorization scale We have shown behaviour $\omega(\gamma)$ when $\gamma$ large cannot be than a polynomial. This constraint comes the region where $k_\bot$ is large, i.e. where we expect rather a DGLAP Taking into account this constraint, we will now focus on two definite models on formulations the function $\omega(\gamma)$ at small $\gamma$. On the one hand, the model 1, with $\omega(\gamma)=C (\mbox{constant})$ corresponds the factorization at the gluon level: all the content of $k_\bot$-factorization is On the other hand, in 2, consider an compensating $1/\gamma$ of $h_T(\gamma;M^2)$: $\omega(\gamma)\sim\gamma at small $\gamma$. This model corresponds to a factorization at the quark level [@nikolaev], and was discussed ref. [@mp]. lead to expression the structure functions depending free parameters, $C$, $\alpha_s$, and $Q_0$. parameters for both models by a fit of in their region of validity ($x\leq 10^{-2}$, moderate Using the corresponding 103 experimental points given by H1 collaboration [@f2], we fit our results (\[eqn:finale\]) with the contribution of the three light (assumed massless) and of charm quark (mass The for medium $M_c=1.5\;\mbox{GeV}$ is in figure 1, together with the predictions for its charm component For model 1, the $\chi^2$ per point is always less while model 2 it even lower. For model the of $Q_0$ is around which a scale the The value of the coupling constant in the BFKL $\alpha_s$ ($0.07$) is rather data for | assumption, the overall formuLa (\[eqn:finalE\]) does No mOre DePend On thE factorization SCale $q_f$. We have shown in ref. [@mp] thAt the BeHAvioUR oF $\omegA(\gamma)$ wHEn $\GAMma$ BeCoMes LaRGe CannoT be Steeper Than a polynOmiAl. this constraiNT cOmes from thE reGion where $k_\boT$ is Large, i.E. wHerE We expEct RatheR a DGLAp EvolutIon. Taking InTO accouNT this coNSTrAint, We will now focus on tWO dEFinite models reLying oN dIFfEREnt ForMulations oF tHe resIDue funcTIoN $\OMEga(\GAmma)$ at small $\gaMma$. On the one HAnd, The modEl 1, WitH $\Omega(\gAmma)=C (\MbOX{coNstant})$ correSponDs to the faCtorizATion at tHE gluon lEvel: alL thE peRturBAtIvE coNtENt oF $K_\bOt$-fACtoRization Is KePt. On tHe otHER HAnd, iN moDel 2, wE consIder an input coMpeNsatINg tHe $1/\gamMa$ polE of $h_t(\gAmma;M^2)$: $\Omega(\gAmma)\sIm\Gamma C$ at small $\gaMma$. THis model cOrrEsPonDs To a faCTorizaTioN at The quarK level [@nIKolAeV], AND wAs discussed in ref. [@mp]. boTH MoDels lead To an exPReSsIOn for the PrOtoN strUCTure fUnctIOnS dependiNg on thREe FrEe paramEtErs, $C$, $\alPhA_s$, aNd $Q_0$.
we detERminE these ParameteRs for BOth models by a fiT Of $F_2=F_T+F_L$ in theiR KiNEMaTIcal RegIon of validiTy ($x\lEQ 10^{-2}$, modEratE $q^2$). USinG The coRrespOnDInG 103 Experimental points gIvEn by thE H1 colLaboration [@f2], we Fit our resuLTS (\[Eqn:finalE\]) witH ThE Contribution of The thRee light quARks $u,d,s$ (asSumed Massless) And of the cHARm quark (mAss $m_c$). THe $F_2$-Fit FOR tHe medium mass $M_C=1.5\;\MBox{GEV}$ Is displAyeD in figuRe 1, tOgeTheR wiTh The predicTions for ItS cHaRm ComPonenT $f_2^c$. For modEl 1, The $\ChI^2$ peR poinT Is alwaYs lesS thaN $0.9$, wHiLE foR model 2 iT Is EVEn loWeR. FOr moDel 1, ThE valuE of $Q_0$ IS arOund 330 MeV Which is a tYpiCAl noN pErTurbatiVe scale for the PrOton. The valUe Of tHe effeCTIve couplIng constant in the BFKL mecHAnism $\alPha_S$ ($0.07$) is raTher Low. For modEl 2, tHe data For | assumption, the overall f ormula (\[ eqn:f ina le\ ]) doe s no more depend o n the factorization scale $ Q_f$. W e hav e s hownin ref. [@ m p ] t ha tthe b e ha viour of $\omeg a(\gamma)$ wh en $\gamma$ be c om es large c ann ot be steepe r t han apo lyn o mial. Th is co nstrai n t come s from th er egionw here $k _ \ bo t$ i s large, i.e. whe r ew e expect rathe r a DG LA P e v o lut ion . Taking i nt o acc o unt thi s c o n s tra i nt, we will n ow focus on two defin it e m o dels r elyin go n d ifferent fo rmul ations of the r e sidue f u nction$\omeg a(\ gam ma)$ at s mal l$ \ga m ma $.O n t he one h an d, themode l 1 , wit h $ \ome ga(\g amma)=C (\mbo x{c onst a nt} )$ co rresp onds t o the facto rizat io n at the gluonleve l: all th e p er tur ba tivec ontent of $k _\bot$- factori z ati on i s k ept. On the otherha n d ,in model 2, we co ns i der an i np utcomp e n satin g th e $ 1/\gamma $ pole of $ h_T(\ga mm a;M^2) $: $\ ome ga(\g a mma) \sim\g amma C$at sm a ll $\gamma$. T h is model corr e sp o n ds to a fa ctorization att he q uark le vel [@nik olaev ], an d was discussed in r ef . [@mp ]. Bo th models lea d to an ex p r e ssion fo r th e p r oton structure func tions depe n ding onthree free pa rameters, $ C$, $\al pha _s$ , a nd$ Q _0 $.
We determ i n e th es e param ete rs forbot h m ode lsby a fit of $F_2=F_ T+ F_ L$ i n t heirk inematic al re gi onof va l idity($x\l eq 1 0^ {- 2 }$, modera t e$ Q ^2$) .Us ingthe c orres pond i ng103 exp erimental po i ntsgi ve n by th e H1 collabor at ion [@f2], w e f it our r esults ( \[eqn:finale\]) with th e contri but ion o f th e three l igh t quar ks$ u,d,s$ (assu med m as sle s s ) and o fthe c harm quark ( mas s $M_ c$ ). T he $F_2 $-fit for the medi u m m ass $M_c=1.5\ ;\m box{ G e V} $ i s d i spl ay e d i n figure 1, toget her with t he pr edictionsf orit s charm compon ent $ F _2^c$.For model 1, the $ \c hi^2 $ per point isalways l ess than$ 0.9$, wh ile f ormodel2itis ev en low e r.For m odel 1 ,the va lue o f$Q_0$ is around 330 MeV which i s a ty pical no n perturb ati v e s cale fortheproton. Th e v alu e ofthe effec tive co upl i ng co nsta n t in theB FK L m e c ha nism $\alph a _ s $ ( $0.07 $)i s rath er l ow. For model 2,t he data for | assumption,_the overall_formula (\[eqn:finale\]) does no_more depend_on_the factorization_scale_$Q_f$. We have_shown in ref. [@mp]_that the behaviour of_$\omega(\gamma)$ when $\gamma$_becomes_large cannot be steeper than a polynomial. This constraint comes from the region where_$k_\bot$_is large,_i.e._where_we expect rather a DGLAP_evolution. Taking into account this_constraint, we_will now focus on two definite models relying_on_different formulations of_the residue function $\omega(\gamma)$ at small $\gamma$. On the_one hand, the model 1, with_$\omega(\gamma)=C (\mbox{constant})$ corresponds_to_the_factorization at the gluon_level: all the perturbative content of_$k_\bot$-factorization is kept. On the other_hand, in model 2, we consider an_input compensating the $1/\gamma$ pole of_$h_T(\gamma;M^2)$: $\omega(\gamma)\sim\gamma C$ at small_$\gamma$. This_model corresponds to a factorization_at the quark_level [@nikolaev], and_was discussed in_ref. [@mp]. Both models lead to an_expression for the_proton structure functions depending on three_free_parameters, $C$, $\alpha_s$,_and_$Q_0$.
We_determine these_parameters for both_models_by a_fit_of $F_2=F_T+F_L$ in their kinematical region_of_validity ($x\leq 10^{-2}$, moderate $Q^2$). Using the_corresponding 103 experimental points_given_by the H1 collaboration_[@f2], we fit our results_(\[eqn:finale\]) with the contribution of the_three light_quarks $u,d,s$_(assumed massless) and of the charm quark (mass $M_c$). The $F_2$-fit_for the medium mass $M_c=1.5\;\mbox{GeV}$ is_displayed in figure 1,_together with_the_predictions for its_charm_component $F_2^c$._For model 1, the $\chi^2$ per point_is always_less than $0.9$, while for model_2 it is even_lower._For model 1, the value of_$Q_0$ is around 330 MeV which_is a typical non perturbative_scale_for_the proton. The value of_the effective coupling constant in the_BFKL mechanism $\alpha_s$_($0.07$) is rather low. For model 2,_the_data for |
frac{ \h_a\cdot \sum_{b \neq a} \h_b u_b}{\h_a^2}$$ and using $\h_{a}^2=1+O(\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{M}})$ we have $$\E = \frac{1}{2\sigma^2} ( u_a^2 -2 u_a\eta_a)+ U(u_a+x_{0a}) + \E_{\backslash a}(\uba)
\label{eq:Eba}$$ with $\uba$, $\E_{\backslash a}$ etc defined as in Sec. \[sec:result\]. Equation indicates that the variable $u_a$ interacts with all the others only through $\eta_a$. Therefore, we rewrite the marginal distribution $P(u_a)$ as an integral over the joint distribution of $\eta_a$ and $u_a$, $P(u_a,\eta_a)$. $$P(u_a) = \frac{1}{Z} \int d\uba\, \mathrm{e}^{-\beta \E} = \int d\eta_a \,P(u_a,\eta_a)
\label{eq:Pmarginal}$$ where $$P(u_a,\eta_a)=\frac{1}{Z}\int d \uba\, \delta(\eta_a+ \h_a\cdot \sum_{b \neq a} \h_b u_b)\,\mathrm{e}^{-\beta \E}\,
\label{eq:Pjoint}$$ for all $a=1,\ldots, N$. Now we introduce a cavity ‘field’ distribution of $\eta_a$ at the removed node $a$ as $$P_{\backslash a}(\eta_a)=\frac{1}{Z_{\backslash a}}\int d \u \;\delta(\eta_a+ \h_a\cdot \sum_{b \neq a} \h_b u_b)\mathrm{e}^{-\beta \E_{\backslash a}}.
\label{eq:Pcavity}$$ By comparing and, we get $$P(u_a) = \tfrac{\int d \eta_a \exp\big[-\beta\big\{\frac{( u_a^2 -2 u_a\eta_a)}{2\sigma^2} + U(u_a+x_{0a})\big\} | frac { \h_a\cdot \sum_{b \neq a } \h_b u_b}{\h_a^2}$$ and using $ \h_{a}^2=1+O(\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{M}})$ we have $ $ \E = \frac{1}{2\sigma^2 } (u_a^2 -2 u_a\eta_a)+ U(u_a+x_{0a }) + \E_{\backslash a}(\uba)
\label{eq: Eba}$$ with $ \uba$, $ \E_{\backslash a}$ etc defined as in Sec. \[sec: result\ ]. Equation indicate that the varying $ u_a$ interacts with all the others only through $ \eta_a$. Therefore, we rewrite the bare distribution $ P(u_a)$ as an integral over the joint distribution of $ \eta_a$ and $ u_a$, $ P(u_a,\eta_a)$. $ $ P(u_a) = \frac{1}{Z } \int d\uba\, \mathrm{e}^{-\beta \E } = \int d\eta_a \,P(u_a,\eta_a)
\label{eq: Pmarginal}$$ where $ $ P(u_a,\eta_a)=\frac{1}{Z}\int five hundred \uba\, \delta(\eta_a+ \h_a\cdot \sum_{b \neq a } \h_b u_b)\,\mathrm{e}^{-\beta \E}\,
\label{eq: Pjoint}$$ for all $ a=1,\ldots, N$. Now we introduce a pit ‘ field ’ distribution of $ \eta_a$ at the removed node $ a$ as $ $ P_{\backslash a}(\eta_a)=\frac{1}{Z_{\backslash a}}\int vitamin d \u \;\delta(\eta_a+ \h_a\cdot \sum_{b \neq a } \h_b u_b)\mathrm{e}^{-\beta \E_{\backslash a } }.
\label{eq: Pcavity}$$ By comparing and, we get $ $ P(u_a) = \tfrac{\int d \eta_a \exp\big[-\beta\big\{\frac { (u_a^2 -2 u_a\eta_a)}{2\sigma^2 } + U(u_a+x_{0a})\big\ } | fraf{ \h_a\cdot \sum_{b \neq a} \h_b u_n}{\h_a^2}$$ and using $\h_{a}^2=1+O(\tfrac{1}{\sxrt{M}})$ ws have $$\E = \frac{1}{2\sigma^2} ( u_a^2 -2 u_a\eta_a)+ U(u_a+x_{0e}) + \E_{\vacksoash a}(\uba)
\label{eq:Eba}$$ wigh $\uba$, $\E_{\bwckslash a}$ euc defined as in Sec. \[sec:result\]. Esmatiou mndicates that jhe variable $u_a$ interacts figh all the others only through $\eta_a$. Trereforr, ae rewrite the marbynal distribution $P(u_a)$ as an integral ober the joint distrinution of $\eta_a$ and $u_a$, $P(u_a,\eha_a)$. $$O(u_a) = \frac{1}{Z} \int d\ubw\, \mathrm{e}^{-\bejz \E} = \int d\eta_a \,O(u_a,\eta_a)
\labtl{zq:Pmarginal}$$ where $$P(u_a,\eta_a)=\frac{1}{Z}\int d \uba\, \deuta(\etc_a+ \h_a\cdot \som_{g \jgq a} \h_b u_b)\,\mavhrm{e}^{-\bvta \E}\,
\label{eq:Pmpint}$$ fmr all $s=1,\ldots, N$. Now wc intcoduxe a cavity ‘field’ disvribution of $\eta_a$ at the remoeeb node $a$ as $$P_{\backslasy q}(\eta_a)=\xrac{1}{S_{\bacywlarh z}}\iit s \u \;\depta(\xta_a+ \h_a\cdot \sum_{b \neq a} \h_b u_b)\mathrm{e}^{-\beta \E_{\nasjslash a}}.
\label{sq:Pcavytr}$$ By comparing and, we get $$P(u_a) = \tfrac{\int d \sta_a \exp\big[-\beta\big\{\frac{( y_a^2 -2 u_a\eta_a)}{2\sigma^2} + U(u_a+x_{0w})\big\} | frac{ \h_a\cdot \sum_{b \neq a} \h_b u_b}{\h_a^2}$$ $\h_{a}^2=1+O(\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{M}})$ have $$\E \frac{1}{2\sigma^2} ( u_a^2 a}(\uba) with $\uba$, $\E_{\backslash etc defined as Sec. \[sec:result\]. Equation indicates that the $u_a$ interacts with all the others only through $\eta_a$. Therefore, we rewrite the distribution $P(u_a)$ as an integral over the joint distribution of $\eta_a$ and $u_a$, $$P(u_a) \frac{1}{Z} d\uba\, \E} = \int d\eta_a \,P(u_a,\eta_a) \label{eq:Pmarginal}$$ where $$P(u_a,\eta_a)=\frac{1}{Z}\int d \uba\, \delta(\eta_a+ \h_a\cdot \sum_{b \neq a} \h_b \E}\, \label{eq:Pjoint}$$ for all $a=1,\ldots, N$. Now we a cavity ‘field’ distribution $\eta_a$ at the removed node as a}(\eta_a)=\frac{1}{Z_{\backslash a}}\int \u \h_a\cdot \neq a} \h_b \E_{\backslash a}}. \label{eq:Pcavity}$$ By comparing and, we get $$P(u_a) = \tfrac{\int d \eta_a \exp\big[-\beta\big\{\frac{( u_a^2 -2 u_a\eta_a)}{2\sigma^2} U(u_a+x_{0a})\big\} | frac{ \h_a\cdot \sum_{b \neq a} \h_b u_b}{\h_a^2}$$ aNd using $\h_{a}^2=1+O(\Tfrac{1}{\SqrT{M}})$ wE hAve $$\E = \Frac{1}{2\Sigma^2} ( u_a^2 -2 u_a\eta_a)+ U(U_A+x_{0a}) + \E_{\Backslash a}(\uba)
\label{eq:EbA}$$ with $\UbA$, $\e_{\bacKSlAsh a}$ eTc definED aS IN SeC. \[sEc:ResUlT\]. eqUatioN inDicates That the varIabLe $U_a$ interacts wITh All the otheRs oNly through $\etA_a$. THerefoRe, We rEWrite The MargiNal disTRibutiOn $P(u_a)$ as an InTEgral oVEr the joINT dIstrIbution of $\eta_a$ and $u_A$, $p(u_A,\Eta_a)$. $$P(u_a) = \frac{1}{Z} \inT d\uba\, \mAtHRm{E}^{-\BEta \e} = \inT d\eta_a \,P(u_a,\eTa_A)
\labeL{Eq:PmargINaL}$$ WHEre $$p(U_a,\eta_a)=\frac{1}{Z}\inT d \uba\, \delta(\eTA_a+ \h_A\cdot \sUm_{B \neQ A} \h_b u_b)\,\mAthrm{E}^{-\bETa \E}\,
\Label{eq:PjoiNt}$$ foR all $a=1,\ldotS, N$. Now wE IntroduCE a cavitY ‘field’ DisTriButiON oF $\eTa_a$ At THe rEMoVed NOde $A$ as $$P_{\backSlAsH a}(\eta_A)=\fraC{1}{z_{\BACkslAsh A}}\int D \u \;\delTa(\eta_a+ \h_a\cdot \sUm_{b \Neq a} \H_B u_b)\MathrM{e}^{-\betA \E_{\baCkSlash A}}.
\label{Eq:PcaViTy}$$ By comparing anD, we gEt $$P(u_a) = \tfraC{\inT d \Eta_A \eXp\big[-\BEta\big\{\FraC{( u_a^2 -2 U_a\eta_a)}{2\sIgma^2} + U(u_a+X_{0A})\biG\} | frac{ \h_a\cdot \sum_{b \n eq a} \h_b u_b} {\h _a^ 2} $$ a nd u sing $\h_{a}^2 = 1+O( \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{M}})$we ha ve $$\E =\frac {1}{2\s i gm a ^ 2}(u_ a^2 - 2 u _a\et a_a )+ U(u_ a+x_{0a})+ \ E_ {\backslasha }( \uba)
\lab el{ eq:Eba}$$ wi th$\uba$ ,$\E _ {\bac ksl ash a }$ etc define d as in S ec . \[sec : result\ ] . E quat ion indicates th a tt he variable $u _a$ in te r ac t s wi thall the ot he rs on l y throu g h$ \ e ta_ a $. Therefore, we rewrite the margi na l d i stribu tion$P ( u_a )$ as an in tegr al over t he joi n t distr i butionof $\e ta_ a$and$ u_ a$ , $ P( u _a, \ et a_a ) $.$$P(u_a) = \ frac{ 1}{Z } \ i nt d \ub a\,\math rm{e}^{-\beta \E } =\in t d\e ta_a\,P( u_ a,\et a_a)
\ label {e q:Pmarginal}$$wher e $$P(u_a ,\e ta _a) =\ frac{ 1 }{Z}\i ntd \ uba\, \ delta(\ e ta_ a+ \ h _a \cdot \sum_{b \neq a } \h _b u_b)\ ,\math r m{ e} ^ {-\beta\E }\,
\la b e l{eq: Pjoi n t} $$ for a ll $a= 1 ,\ ld ots, N$ .Now we i ntr odu ce ac avit y ‘fie ld’ dist ribut i on of $\eta_a$ at the remove d n o d e$ a$ a s $ $P_{\backsl asha }(\e ta_a ) =\ fra c {1}{Z _{\ba ck s la s h a}}\int d \u \;\d el ta(\et a_a+\h_a\cdot \su m_{b \neqa } \h_b u_b )\ma t hr m {e}^{-\beta \E _{\ba ckslash a} } .
\label {eq:P cavity}$ $ By comp a r ing and, we ge t $ $P( u _ a) = \tfrac{\in t d \e ta _a \exp \bi g[-\bet a\b ig\ {\f rac {( u_a^2 -2 u_a\eta _a )} {2 \s igm a^2}+ U(u_a+x _{ 0a} )\ big \} | frac{ \h_a\cdot_\sum_{b \neq_a} \h_b u_b}{\h_a^2}$$ and_using $\h_{a}^2=1+O(\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{M}})$_we_have $$\E_=_\frac{1}{2\sigma^2} ( u_a^2_-2 u_a\eta_a)+ U(u_a+x_{0a})_+ \E_{\backslash a}(\uba)
\label{eq:Eba}$$ with_$\uba$, $\E_{\backslash a}$_etc_defined as in Sec. \[sec:result\]. Equation indicates that the variable $u_a$ interacts with all the_others_only through_$\eta_a$._Therefore,_we rewrite the marginal distribution_$P(u_a)$ as an integral over_the joint_distribution of $\eta_a$ and $u_a$, $P(u_a,\eta_a)$. $$P(u_a) =_\frac{1}{Z}_\int d\uba\, \mathrm{e}^{-\beta_\E} = \int d\eta_a \,P(u_a,\eta_a)
\label{eq:Pmarginal}$$ where $$P(u_a,\eta_a)=\frac{1}{Z}\int d_\uba\, \delta(\eta_a+ \h_a\cdot \sum_{b \neq a}_\h_b u_b)\,\mathrm{e}^{-\beta \E}\,
\label{eq:Pjoint}$$_for_all_$a=1,\ldots, N$. Now we_introduce a cavity ‘field’ distribution of_$\eta_a$ at the removed node $a$_as $$P_{\backslash a}(\eta_a)=\frac{1}{Z_{\backslash a}}\int d \u \;\delta(\eta_a+_\h_a\cdot \sum_{b \neq a} \h_b u_b)\mathrm{e}^{-\beta_\E_{\backslash a}}.
\label{eq:Pcavity}$$ By comparing and,_we get_$$P(u_a) = \tfrac{\int d \eta_a_\exp\big[-\beta\big\{\frac{( u_a^2 -2_u_a\eta_a)}{2\sigma^2} +_U(u_a+x_{0a})\big\} |
products of Bell states and entanglement distillation, 67, 022310 (2003).
Dur, W. and Briegel, H. J. Entanglement purification and quantum error correction, *Rep. Prog. Phys*. 70 1381 (2007).
Munro, W. J., et al. Inside quantum repeaters. *IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics* 78-90 (2015).
Duan, L. M., Lukin, M. D., Cirac, J. I. and Zoller, P. Long-distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics. *Nature*, 414, 413-418 (2001).
Van Loock, P., Ladd, T. D., Sanaka, K., Yamaguchi, F., Nemoto, K., Munro, W. J. and Yamamoto, Y. Hybrid quantum repeater using bright coherent light. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 96, 240501 (2006).
Zhao, B., Chen, Z. B., Chen, Y. A., Schmiedmayer, J. and Pan, J. W. Robust creation of entanglement between remote memory qubits. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* 98, 240502 (2007).
Goebel, A. M., Wagenknecht, G., Zhang, Q., Chen, Y., Chen, K., Schmiedmayer, J. and Pan, J. W. Multistage Entanglement Swapping. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* 101, 080403 (2008).
Simon, C., de Riedmatten, H., Afzelius, M., Sangouard, N., Zbinden, H. and Gisin N. Quantum Repeaters with Photon Pair Sources and Multimode Memories. *Phys. Rev. Lett*. 98, 190503 (2007).
Tittel, W., Afzelius, M., Chaneliere, T., Cone, R. L., Kroll, S., Moiseev, S. A. and Sellars, M. Photon-echo quantum memory in solid state systems. *Laser Photon. Rev.* 4, 244-267 (2009).
Sangouard, N., Dubessy, R. and Simon, C. Quantum repeaters based on single trapped ions. *Phys. Rev. | products of Bell states and entanglement distillation, 67, 022310 (2003).
Dur, W. and Briegel, H. J. Entanglement refining and quantum mistake correction, * Rep. Prog. Phys *. 70 1381 (2007).
Munro, W. J., et al. Inside quantum repeaters. * IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics * 78 - 90 (2015).
Duan, L. M., Lukin, M. D., Cirac, J. I. and Zoller, P. retentive - distance quantum communication with nuclear ensembles and linear optics. * Nature *, 414, 413 - 418 (2001).
Van Loock, P., Ladd, T. D., Sanaka, K., Yamaguchi, F., Nemoto, K., Munro, W. J. and Yamamoto, Y. Hybrid quantum recidivist using bright coherent luminosity. * Phys. Rev. Lett. *, 96, 240501 (2006).
Zhao, B., Chen, Z. B., Chen, Y. A., Schmiedmayer, J. and Pan, J. W. Robust creation of entanglement between outback memory qubits. * Phys. Rev. Lett. * 98, 240502 (2007).
Goebel, A. M., Wagenknecht, G., Zhang, Q., Chen, Y., Chen, K., Schmiedmayer, J. and Pan, J. W. Multistage Entanglement Swapping. * Phys. Rev. Lett. * 101, 080403 (2008).
Simon, C., de Riedmatten, H., Afzelius, M., Sangouard, N., Zbinden, H. and Gisin N. Quantum Repeaters with Photon Pair Sources and Multimode Memories. * Phys. Rev. Lett *. 98, 190503 (2007).
Tittel, W., Afzelius, M., Chaneliere, T., Cone, R. L., Kroll, S., Moiseev, S. A. and Sellars, M. Photon - echo quantum memory in solid state system. * Laser Photon. Rev. * 4, 244 - 267 (2009).
Sangouard, N., Dubessy, R. and Simon, C. Quantum repeaters based on single trapped ions. * Phys. Rev. | prlducts of Bell states ana entanglement bustilletion, 67, 022310 (2003).
Dur, W. avd Briegel, H. J. Entanglement 'uridicatuon and quantum error zorrectioj, *Rep. Prig. Piys*. 70 1381 (2007).
Munro, W. J., xf al. Inside qhwntuk repeaters. *IEEG Journal of Selected Topiws iu Quantum Electronics* 78-90 (2015).
Duan, L. M., Lukig, M. D., Corwc, J. I. and Zoljer, K. Ljng-djstance quantum communication with atomic ensembles anc linear optics. *Nature*, 414, 413-418 (2001).
Vwn Llock, P., Ladd, T. D., Sajaka, K., Yamatuchy, F., Nemoto, K., Ounro, W. J. and Yamamoto, Y. Hybrid quantum repeater usine briyht coherenj mihvt. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 96, 240501 (2006).
Zhao, B., Chcm, Z. B., When, Y. S., Schmiedmayer, J. end Pan, J. W. Robust creatimn of entanglement between sejote memory qubitw. *Phys. Tev. Latt.* 98, 240502 (2007).
Godbem, E. M., Wagennnerht, G., Zhang, Q., Chen, Y., Cyen, K., Schmiedmayer, K. wbd Pan, J. W. Mumtistade Entanglement Swapping. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* 101, 080403 (2008).
Vimkn, C., de Riedmatten, H., Afzelius, M., Sangouard, N., Ebinden, H. wnd Gisin N. Quantum Repeaters with Photon Pair Sogrces xnd Mmltioidf Memories. *Phys. Rev. Lett*. 98, 190503 (2007).
Tittel, W., Afzelius, I., Cnakeliere, T., Cone, R. L., Kroll, S., Kolsrgv, S. A. and Seluars, M. Phkton-echo quantum mfmory ig solud state fystrms. *Laser Photon. Rev.* 4, 244-267 (2009).
Sangiuard, N., Dubefwy, R. and Simon, C. Qbantum repeacers bssed pn single trapped ions. *'hys. Rsv. | products of Bell states and entanglement distillation, (2003). W. and H. J. Entanglement *Rep. Phys*. 70 1381 Munro, W. J., al. Inside quantum repeaters. *IEEE Journal Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics* 78-90 (2015). Duan, L. M., Lukin, M. D., J. I. and Zoller, P. Long-distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear *Nature*, 413-418 Van P., Ladd, T. D., Sanaka, K., Yamaguchi, F., Nemoto, K., Munro, W. J. and Yamamoto, Y. quantum repeater using bright coherent light. *Phys. Rev. 96, 240501 (2006). Zhao, Chen, Z. B., Chen, Y. Schmiedmayer, and Pan, W. creation entanglement between remote qubits. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* 98, 240502 (2007). Goebel, A. M., Wagenknecht, G., Zhang, Q., Chen, Y., Chen, Schmiedmayer, J. J. W. Entanglement *Phys. Lett.* 101, 080403 C., de Riedmatten, H., Afzelius, M., H. and Gisin N. Quantum Repeaters with Photon Sources and Memories. *Phys. Rev. Lett*. 98, 190503 Tittel, W., Afzelius, M., Chaneliere, T., Cone, R. Kroll, S., Moiseev, S. A. and Sellars, M. Photon-echo quantum memory in solid state systems. Rev.* 4, 244-267 (2009). N., Dubessy, R. Simon, Quantum based single trapped *Phys. Rev. | products of Bell states and enTanglement DistiLlaTioN, 67, 022310 (2003).
DUr, W. aNd BrIegel, H. J. EntanglEMent Purification and quantum Error CoRRectIOn, *rep. PrOg. Phys*. 70 1381 (2007).
MUNrO, w. j., et Al. inSidE qUAnTum rePeaTers. *IEEe Journal of selEcTed Topics in QUAnTum ElectroNicS* 78-90 (2015).
Duan, L. M., Lukin, m. D., CIrac, J. I. AnD ZoLLer, P. LOng-DistaNce quaNTum comMunicatioN wITh atomIC ensembLES aNd liNear optics. *Nature*, 414, 413-418 (2001).
VAN LOOck, P., Ladd, T. D., SanaKa, K., YamAgUChI, f., nemOto, k., Munro, W. J. anD YAmamoTO, Y. HybriD QuANTUm rEPeater using brIght coherenT LigHt. *Phys. reV. LeTT.*, 96, 240501 (2006).
Zhao, B., chen, Z. b., CHEn, Y. a., SchmiedmayEr, J. aNd Pan, J. W. RoBust crEAtion of ENtangleMent beTweEn rEmotE MeMoRy qUbITs. *PHYs. rev. lEtt.* 98, 240502 (2007).
goebel, A. M., waGeNknecHt, G., ZHANG, q., CheN, Y., CHen, K., schmiEdmayer, J. and PaN, J. W. multIStaGe EntAngleMent swAppinG. *Phys. REv. LetT.* 101, 080403 (2008).
SImon, C., de RiedmattEn, H., AFzelius, M., SAngOuArd, n., ZBindeN, h. and GiSin n. QuAntum RePeaters WIth phOTON PAir Sources and MultiMoDE meMories. *PhYs. Rev. LETt*. 98, 190503 (2007).
tiTTel, W., AfzeLiUs, M., chanELIere, T., cone, r. l., KRoll, S., MoiSeev, S. A. ANd seLlars, M. PHoTon-echO qUanTum MemorY In soLid staTe systemS. *LaseR photon. Rev.* 4, 244-267 (2009).
SangoUArd, N., Dubessy, R. aND SIMOn, c. quanTum Repeaters baSed oN SingLe trAPpEd iONs. *PhyS. Rev. | products of Bell states a nd entangl ement di sti ll atio n, 6 7, 022310 (200 3 ).
Dur, W. and Briegel, H . J.En t angl e me nt pu rificat i on a ndqu an tum e r ro r cor rec tion, * Rep. Prog. Ph ys *. 70 1381 ( 2 00 7).
Munro , W . J., et al. In side q ua ntu m repe ate rs. * IEEE J o urnalof Select ed Topics in Quan t u mElec tronics* 78-90 (2 0 15 ) .
Duan, L. M. , Luki n, M. D .,Cir ac, J. I.an d Zol l er, P.L on g - d ist a nce quantum c ommunicatio n wi th ato mi c e n semble s and l i nea r optics. * Natu re*, 414, 413-4 1 8 (2001 ) .
VanLoock, P. , L add, T. D .,Sa n aka , K .,Y ama guchi, F ., N emoto , K. , M u nro, W. J.and Y amamoto, Y. H ybr id q u ant um re peate r us in g bri ght co heren tlight. *Phys. R ev.Lett.*, 9 6,24 050 1(2006 ) .
Zha o,B., Chen,Z. B.,C hen ,Y . A. , Schmiedmayer, J. a n d P an, J. W . Robu s tcr e ation of e nta ngle m e nt be twee n r emote me mory q u bi ts . *Phys .Rev. L et t.* 98 , 240 5 02 ( 2007).
Goebel , A.M ., Wagenknecht , G., Zhang, Q . ,C h en , Y., Ch en, K., Sch mied m ayer , J. an d P a n, J. W. M ul t is t age Entanglement Sw ap ping.*Phys . Rev. Lett.* 101, 0804 0 3 (2008).
Sim o n, C., de Riedmat ten,H., Afzeli u s, M., S angou ard, N., Zbinden, H . and Gi sin N. Qu ant u m R epeaters with P hoto nPair So urc es andMul tim ode Me mo ries. *Ph ys. Rev. L et t* .98, 1905 0 3 (2007) .
Ti tt el, W.,A fzeliu s, M. , Ch an el i ere , T., C o ne , R. L ., K roll , S ., Mois eev, S.A. andSellars,M.P hoto n- ec ho quan tum memory in s olid state s yst ems. * L a ser Phot on. Rev.* 4, 244-267 (2 0 09).
S ang ouard , N. , Dubessy , R . andSim o n, C.Quantu m rep ea ter s based o nsin gl e trappedi o ns. *Phy s. Rev . | products_of Bell_states and entanglement distillation,_67, 022310_(2003).
Dur,_W. and_Briegel,_H. J. Entanglement_purification and quantum_error correction, *Rep. Prog._Phys*. 70 1381_(2007).
Munro,_W. J., et al. Inside quantum repeaters. *IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum_Electronics*_78-90 (2015).
Duan,_L._M.,_Lukin, M. D., Cirac, J._I. and Zoller, P. Long-distance_quantum communication_with atomic ensembles and linear optics. *Nature*, 414,_413-418_(2001).
Van Loock, P.,_Ladd, T. D., Sanaka, K., Yamaguchi, F., Nemoto, K.,_Munro, W. J. and Yamamoto, Y._Hybrid quantum repeater_using_bright_coherent light. *Phys. Rev._Lett.*, 96, 240501 (2006).
Zhao, B., Chen,_Z. B., Chen, Y. A., Schmiedmayer,_J. and Pan, J. W. Robust creation_of entanglement between remote memory qubits._*Phys. Rev. Lett.* 98, 240502_(2007).
Goebel, A._M., Wagenknecht, G., Zhang, Q.,_Chen, Y., Chen,_K., Schmiedmayer,_J. and Pan,_J. W. Multistage Entanglement Swapping. *Phys._Rev. Lett.* 101,_080403 (2008).
Simon, C., de Riedmatten, H.,_Afzelius,_M., Sangouard, N.,_Zbinden,_H._and Gisin_N. Quantum Repeaters_with_Photon Pair_Sources_and Multimode Memories. *Phys. Rev. Lett*._98,_190503 (2007).
Tittel, W., Afzelius, M., Chaneliere, T.,_Cone, R. L., Kroll,_S.,_Moiseev, S. A. and_Sellars, M. Photon-echo quantum memory_in solid state systems. *Laser Photon._Rev.* 4,_244-267 (2009).
Sangouard,_N., Dubessy, R. and Simon, C. Quantum repeaters based on single_trapped ions. *Phys. Rev. |
{d^2\sigma_{KN}\over dk'd(\cos\theta')}\Delta\gamma.
\label{6.1}$$ The Klein-Nishina differential cross section in the positron-rest-system (PRS) is expressed in terms of initial $k$ and final $k'$ photon energies (Jauch & Rohrlich 1976), $${d\sigma_{KN}\over d(\cos\theta')}=\pi r_e^2\left({k'\over k}\right)^2
\left({k\over k'}+{k'\over k}-\sin^2\theta'\right), \label{6.2}$$ $${k'\over k}={1\over 1+k(1-\cos\theta')},$$ where $\theta'$ is the photon scattering angle in this system. The particle energy change in the LS due to the recoil effect is $$\Delta\gamma=\omega-k'\gamma(1+\beta\cos\rho'\cos\theta'), \label{6.3}$$ where $\rho'$ is the angle between the incoming photon and positron velocity vectors in the PRS, $\beta\cos\rho'=(\omega/\gamma k)-1$.
After the integration one can obtain $${d\gamma\over dt}={\pi r_e^2\over2\gamma^2\beta}\int_0^\infty
d\omega\,f_\gamma(\omega)[S(\gamma,\omega,k^+)-S(\gamma,\omega,k^-)],
\label{6.6}$$ where $$S(\gamma,\omega,k)=\omega
\left\{ \left(k+{31\over6}+{5\over k}+{3\over2k^2}\right)\ln(2k+1)
-{11\over6}k-{3\over k}+{1\over12(2k+1)}+{1\over12(2k+1)^2}
+Li_2(-2k)
\right\}$$ $$\hskip 5cm
-\gamma
\left\{ \left(k+6+{3\over k}\right)\ln(2k+1)
-{11\over6}k+{1\over4(2k+1)}-{1\over12(2k+1)^2}
+2 | { d^2\sigma_{KN}\over dk'd(\cos\theta')}\Delta\gamma.
\label{6.1}$$ The Klein - Nishina differential cross section in the positron - rest - system (PRS) is carry in term of initial $ k$ and final $ k'$ photon energy (Jauch & Rohrlich 1976), $ $ { d\sigma_{KN}\over d(\cos\theta')}=\pi r_e^2\left({k'\over k}\right)^2
\left({k\over k'}+{k'\over k}-\sin^2\theta'\right), \label{6.2}$$ $ $ { k'\over k}={1\over 1+k(1-\cos\theta')},$$ where $ \theta'$ is the photon disperse angle in this system. The atom energy change in the LS due to the recoil effect is $ $ \Delta\gamma=\omega - k'\gamma(1+\beta\cos\rho'\cos\theta'), \label{6.3}$$ where $ \rho'$ is the slant between the incoming photon and positron speed vectors in the PRS, $ \beta\cos\rho'=(\omega/\gamma k)-1$.
After the integration one can prevail $ $ { d\gamma\over dt}={\pi r_e^2\over2\gamma^2\beta}\int_0^\infty
d\omega\,f_\gamma(\omega)[S(\gamma,\omega, k^+)-S(\gamma,\omega, k^-) ],
\label{6.6}$$ where $ $ S(\gamma,\omega, k)=\omega
\left\ { \left(k+{31\over6}+{5\over k}+{3\over2k^2}\right)\ln(2k+1)
-{11\over6}k-{3\over k}+{1\over12(2k+1)}+{1\over12(2k+1)^2 }
+ Li_2(-2k)
\right\}$$ $ $ \hskip 5 cm
-\gamma
\left\ { \left(k+6+{3\over k}\right)\ln(2k+1)
-{11\over6}k+{1\over4(2k+1)}-{1\over12(2k+1)^2 }
+2 | {d^2\sihma_{KN}\over dk'd(\cos\theta')}\Delua\gamma.
\lqbel{6.1}$$ Uke Klein-Nishina diffdrential bross secrion un the posmfron-resb-fystsl (PRV) is expressed ln terms of initial $k$ and fkncl $k'$ photon energies (Jauch & Rohrlich 1976), $${d\sigms_{KJ}\over d(\cos\thetw')}=\pi g_e^2\jeft({i'\over k}\right)^2
\left({k\over k'}+{k'\over k}-\sin^2\tgeta'\rigit), \labek{6.2}$$ $${k'\over k}={1\over 1+k(1-\cos\theta')},$$ whfre $\hheta'$ is the photoj scatterint andoe in this shstem. The kaxticle enerfy change in the LS due to the fecoik effect iw $$\Eelhd\gamma=\omega-j'\gammw(1+\beta\cos\rho'\cos\theta'), \label{6.3}$$ ehere $\rho'$ is tme anjle vetween the incoming 'hoton and positron delocity eeetors in the PRS, $\beta\xow\rho'=(\okega/\cammx k)-1$.
Awted vhe integgatmon one can obtain $${d\ganma\over dt}={\pi r_e^2\over2\baina^2\beta}\int_0^\inftg
d\omeda\,s_\gamma(\omega)[S(\gamma,\omega,k^+)-S(\gamma,\omega,k^-)],
\jabel{6.6}$$ where $$S(\gamma,\omega,k)=\omega
\left\{ \left(k+{31\over6}+{5\over k}+{3\mver2k^2}\cieht)\on(2h+1)
-{11\uceg6}k-{3\over k}+{1\over12(2k+1)}+{1\over12(2k+1)^2}
+Li_2(-2k)
\right\}$$ $$\hskip 5cm
-\gamma
\left\{ \jsfu(k+6+{3\oner k}\right)\ln(2k+1)
-{11\over6}h+{1\over4(2k+1)}-{1\over12(2k+1)^2}
+2 | {d^2\sigma_{KN}\over dk'd(\cos\theta')}\Delta\gamma. \label{6.1}$$ The Klein-Nishina differential cross the (PRS) is in terms of photon (Jauch & Rohrlich $${d\sigma_{KN}\over d(\cos\theta')}=\pi r_e^2\left({k'\over \left({k\over k'}+{k'\over k}-\sin^2\theta'\right), \label{6.2}$$ $${k'\over k}={1\over where $\theta'$ is the photon scattering angle in this system. The particle energy in the LS due to the recoil effect is $$\Delta\gamma=\omega-k'\gamma(1+\beta\cos\rho'\cos\theta'), \label{6.3}$$ where $\rho'$ the between incoming and positron velocity vectors in the PRS, $\beta\cos\rho'=(\omega/\gamma k)-1$. After the integration one can obtain $${d\gamma\over r_e^2\over2\gamma^2\beta}\int_0^\infty d\omega\,f_\gamma(\omega)[S(\gamma,\omega,k^+)-S(\gamma,\omega,k^-)], \label{6.6}$$ where $$S(\gamma,\omega,k)=\omega \left\{ \left(k+{31\over6}+{5\over k}+{3\over2k^2}\right)\ln(2k+1) k}+{1\over12(2k+1)}+{1\over12(2k+1)^2} +Li_2(-2k) \right\}$$ $$\hskip -\gamma \left\{ \left(k+6+{3\over k}\right)\ln(2k+1) -{11\over6}k+{1\over4(2k+1)}-{1\over12(2k+1)^2} | {d^2\sigma_{KN}\over dk'd(\cos\theta')}\DeLta\gamma.
\laBel{6.1}$$ ThE KlEin-niShinA difFerential cross SEctiOn in the positron-rest-sysTem (PRs) iS ExprESsEd in tErms of iNItIAL $k$ aNd FiNal $K'$ pHOtOn eneRgiEs (Jauch & rohrlich 1976), $${d\sIgmA_{Kn}\over d(\cos\theTA')}=\pI r_e^2\left({k'\ovEr k}\Right)^2
\left({k\ovEr k'}+{K'\over k}-\SiN^2\thETa'\rigHt), \lAbel{6.2}$$ $${k'\Over k}={1\oVEr 1+k(1-\cos\Theta')},$$ wherE $\tHEta'$ is tHE photon SCAtTeriNg angle in this systEM. THE particle energY changE iN ThE ls duE to The recoil eFfEct is $$\dElta\gamMA=\oMEGA-k'\gAMma(1+\beta\cos\rho'\Cos\theta'), \labEL{6.3}$$ whEre $\rho'$ Is The ANgle beTween ThE IncOming photon And pOsitron veLocity VEctors iN The PRS, $\bEta\cos\Rho'=(\OmeGa/\gaMMa K)-1$.
AFteR tHE inTEgRatIOn oNe can obtAiN $${d\Gamma\Over DT}={\PI R_e^2\ovEr2\gAmma^2\Beta}\iNt_0^\infty
d\omega\,F_\gaMma(\oMEga)[s(\gammA,\omegA,k^+)-S(\gAmMa,\omeGa,k^-)],
\labEl{6.6}$$ wheRe $$s(\gamma,\omega,k)=\omeGa
\leFt\{ \left(k+{31\ovEr6}+{5\oVeR k}+{3\oVeR2k^2}\rigHT)\ln(2k+1)
-{11\ovEr6}k-{3\OveR k}+{1\over12(2k+1)}+{1\Over12(2k+1)^2}
+Li_2(-2K)
\RigHt\}$$ $$\HSKIp 5Cm
-\gamma
\left\{ \left(k+6+{3\ovEr K}\RIgHt)\ln(2k+1)
-{11\oveR6}k+{1\over4(2K+1)}-{1\OvEr12(2K+1)^2}
+2 | {d^2\sigma_{KN}\over dk'd( \cos\theta ')}\D elt a\g am ma. \labe l{6.1}$ $ T h e Kl ei n- Nis hi n adiffe ren tial cr oss sectio n i nthe positron - re st-system(PR S) is expres sed in te rm s o f init ial $k$and fi n al $k' $ photonen e rgies( Jauch & R oh rlic h 1976), $${d\sig m a_ { KN}\over d(\co s\thet a' ) }= \ p i r _e^ 2\left({k' \o ver k } \right) ^ 2\ l e ft( { k\over k'}+{k '\over k}-\ s in^ 2\thet a' \ri g ht), \ lab el{6.2}$$ $ ${k' \over k}= {1\ove r 1+k(1- \ cos\the ta')}, $$whe re $ \ th et a'$ i s th e p hot o n s catterin gan gle i n th i s s yste m.Theparti cle energy ch ang e in the LS d ue to the r ecoil effec t is$$ \Delta\gamma=\o mega -k'\gamma (1+ \b eta \c os\rh o '\cos\ the ta' ), \la bel{6.3 } $$wh e r e $ \rho'$ is the angl eb e tw een theincomi n gph o ton andpo sit ronv e locit y ve c to rs in th e PRS, $\ be ta\cos\ rh o'=(\o me ga/ \ga mma k ) -1$.
Afte r the in tegra t ion one can ob t ain $${d\gamm a \o v e rd t}={ \pi r_e^2\over 2\ga m ma^2 \bet a }\ int _ 0^\in fty d\ o me g a\,f_\gamma(\omega) [S (\gamm a,\om ega,k^+)-S(\g amma,\omeg a , k ^-)],
\ label{6.6 } $ $ where$$S (\g amm a,\ o m eg a,k)=\omega
\ l e ft\{ \ left(k+ {31 \over6} +{5 \ov erk}+ {3 \over2k^2 }\right) \l n( 2k +1 )
- {11\o v er6}k-{3 \o ver k }+{ 1\ove r 12(2k+ 1)}+{ 1\ov er 12 ( 2k+ 1)^2}
+ L i_ 2 ( -2k)
\ ri ght\ }$$ $ $\hsk ip 5 c m
- \gamma\left\{ \ lef t (k+6 +{ 3\ over k} \right)\ln(2k +1 )
-{11\ove r6 }k+ {1\ove r 4 (2k+1)}- {1\over12(2k+1)^2}
+2 | {d^2\sigma_{KN}\over dk'd(\cos\theta')}\Delta\gamma.
_ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ ___ _ _ _ \label{6.1}$$ The Klein-Nishina differential cross section_in_the positron-rest-system (PRS)_is expressed in terms of initial $k$ and final_$k'$ photon energies (Jauch & Rohrlich_1976), $${d\sigma_{KN}\over d(\cos\theta')}=\pi_r_e^2\left({k'\over_k}\right)^2
\left({k\over_k'}+{k'\over k}-\sin^2\theta'\right), _ _\label{6.2}$$ $${k'\over k}={1\over 1+k(1-\cos\theta')},$$ where $\theta'$_is the photon scattering angle in this_system. The particle energy change in_the LS due to the_recoil effect_is $$\Delta\gamma=\omega-k'\gamma(1+\beta\cos\rho'\cos\theta'), \label{6.3}$$ where_$\rho'$ is the_angle between_the incoming photon_and positron velocity vectors in the_PRS, $\beta\cos\rho'=(\omega/\gamma k)-1$.
After_the integration one can obtain $${d\gamma\over_dt}={\pi_r_e^2\over2\gamma^2\beta}\int_0^\infty
d\omega\,f_\gamma(\omega)[S(\gamma,\omega,k^+)-S(\gamma,\omega,k^-)],
___ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ \label{6.6}$$ where_$$S(\gamma,\omega,k)=\omega
\left\{ \left(k+{31\over6}+{5\over k}+{3\over2k^2}\right)\ln(2k+1)
-{11\over6}k-{3\over k}+{1\over12(2k+1)}+{1\over12(2k+1)^2}
+Li_2(-2k)
\right\}$$ $$\hskip 5cm
-\gamma
\left\{_\left(k+6+{3\over k}\right)\ln(2k+1)
-{11\over6}k+{1\over4(2k+1)}-{1\over12(2k+1)^2}
+2 |
})]|0\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&[(\frac{\alpha^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}a^{\dagger}_{1}-\frac{\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}}{\sqrt{2}}b^{\dagger}_{1})c^{\dagger}_{2}\nonumber\\
&+&(\frac{\alpha^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}a^{\dagger}_{1}
+\frac{\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}}{\sqrt{2}}b^{\dagger}_{1})d^{\dagger}_{2}]|0\rangle.
\label{state20}\end{aligned}$$ If the detector $D_{1}$ fires, the state in Eq.(\[state20\]) is transformed into $$\begin{aligned}
|\Phi_{1}\rangle''=(\alpha^{2}a^{\dagger}_{1}-\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}b^{\dagger}_{1})|0\rangle.
\label{state21}\end{aligned}$$ If the detector $D_{2}$ fires, it is transformed into $$\begin{aligned}
|\Phi_{2}\rangle''=(\alpha^{2}a^{\dagger}_{1}+\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}b^{\dagger}_{1})|0\rangle.
\label{state22}\end{aligned}$$
It is easy to find that Eq.(\[state22\]) has the same form as Eq.(\[state5\]). So does the second less entangled state in Eq.(\[state21\]). The whole system becomes $$\begin{aligned}
|\Phi\rangle'''&=&|\Phi_2\rangle''_{a_{1}b_{1}}\otimes|\Phi_2\rangle''_{a_{2}b_{2}} \nonumber\\
&=& (\alpha^{4}a^{\dagger}_{1}a^{\dagger}_{2}+\alpha^{2}\beta^{2}
e^{i2\theta_{AB}} a^{\dagger}_{1}b^{\dagger}_{2} \nonumber\\
&+&
\alpha^{2}\beta^{2}
e^{i2\theta_{AB}} a^{\dagger}_{2}b^{\dagger}_{1}
+\beta^{4}e^{i4\theta_{AB}}b^{\dagger}_{1}b^{\dagger}_{2})|0\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Following the method above and the help of QND, Alice and Bob pick up $ | }) ] |0\rangle\nonumber\\
& = & [ (\frac{\alpha^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}a^{\dagger}_{1}-\frac{\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}}{\sqrt{2}}b^{\dagger}_{1})c^{\dagger}_{2}\nonumber\\
& + & (\frac{\alpha^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}a^{\dagger}_{1 }
+ \frac{\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}}{\sqrt{2}}b^{\dagger}_{1})d^{\dagger}_{2}]|0\rangle.
\label{state20}\end{aligned}$$ If the detector $ D_{1}$ fires, the state in Eq.(\[state20\ ]) is transformed into $ $ \begin{aligned }
|\Phi_{1}\rangle''=(\alpha^{2}a^{\dagger}_{1}-\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}b^{\dagger}_{1})|0\rangle.
\label{state21}\end{aligned}$$ If the detector $ D_{2}$ fires, it is transform into $ $ \begin{aligned }
|\Phi_{2}\rangle''=(\alpha^{2}a^{\dagger}_{1}+\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}b^{\dagger}_{1})|0\rangle.
\label{state22}\end{aligned}$$
It is comfortable to find that Eq.(\[state22\ ]) has the like form as Eq.(\[state5\ ]). indeed does the second less entangled state of matter in Eq.(\[state21\ ]). The whole system become $ $ \begin{aligned }
|\Phi\rangle'''&=&|\Phi_2\rangle''_{a_{1}b_{1}}\otimes|\Phi_2\rangle''_{a_{2}b_{2 } } \nonumber\\
& = & (\alpha^{4}a^{\dagger}_{1}a^{\dagger}_{2}+\alpha^{2}\beta^{2 }
e^{i2\theta_{AB } } a^{\dagger}_{1}b^{\dagger}_{2 } \nonumber\\
& + &
\alpha^{2}\beta^{2 }
e^{i2\theta_{AB } } a^{\dagger}_{2}b^{\dagger}_{1 }
+ \beta^{4}e^{i4\theta_{AB}}b^{\dagger}_{1}b^{\dagger}_{2})|0\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Following the method above and the avail of QND, Alice and Bob pick up $ | })]|0\ranhle\nonumber\\
&=&[(\frac{\alpha^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}x^{\dagger}_{1}-\frac{\beta^{2}g^{2i\rheta_{AU}}}{\sqrt{2}}b^{\dzgger}_{1})c^{\daeger}_{2}\nonumber\\
&+&(\frac{\alpha^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}a^{\dajger}_{1}
+\drac{\btna^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}}{\sqrt{2}}b^{\daggef}_{1})d^{\dagger}_{2}]|0\rwngle.
\labwl{stete20}\end{aligned}$$ If the detcetor $S_{1}$ firzs, the state in Gq.(\[state20\]) is tsansformed intm $$\ceyin{aligned}
|\Phi_{1}\rangle''=(\alpha^{2}a^{\dagger}_{1}-\beta^{2}e^{2y\theta_{AN}}b^{\fagger}_{1})|0\rangle.
\lafel{suatq21}\end{zligned}$$ If the detector $D_{2}$ fires, it is traisformed into $$\brgin{aligned}
|\Phi_{2}\rangle''=(\alpha^{2}a^{\faggfr}_{1}+\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}b^{\dahger}_{1})|0\rangle.
\lqbel{frate22}\end{aligndd}$$
It is easy to find tgat Eq.(\[state22\]) has the same form ar Eq.(\[scate5\]). So doew rhe vecond less entaggled state lm Eq.(\[stdte21\]). The whole system necomxs $$\bwgin{aligned}
|\Phi\rangle'''&=&|\Pii_2\rangle''_{a_{1}b_{1}}\otimes|\Phi_2\rwngle''_{a_{2}b_{2}} \nmnbmber\\
&=& (\alpha^{4}a^{\dagger}_{1}a^{\datgwr}_{2}+\alpva^{2}\beda^{2}
e^{i2\gyetx_{AB}} a^{\vagfer}_{1}b^{\dahgec}_{2} \nonumber\\
&+&
\zlpha^{2}\beta^{2}
e^{i2\rheta_{AB}} a^{\dagger}_{2}b^{\dagbew}_{1}
+\veta^{4}e^{i4\theta_{AB}}g^{\daggew}_{1}b^{\qagger}_{2})|0\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Following the meuhod zbove and the help of QBD, Alice and Bob pick up $ | })]|0\rangle\nonumber\\ &=&[(\frac{\alpha^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}a^{\dagger}_{1}-\frac{\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}}{\sqrt{2}}b^{\dagger}_{1})c^{\dagger}_{2}\nonumber\\ &+&(\frac{\alpha^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}a^{\dagger}_{1} +\frac{\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}}{\sqrt{2}}b^{\dagger}_{1})d^{\dagger}_{2}]|0\rangle. \label{state20}\end{aligned}$$ If the fires, state in is transformed into detector fires, it is into $$\begin{aligned} |\Phi_{2}\rangle''=(\alpha^{2}a^{\dagger}_{1}+\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}b^{\dagger}_{1})|0\rangle. It is easy to find that has the same form as Eq.(\[state5\]). So does the second less entangled state Eq.(\[state21\]). The whole system becomes $$\begin{aligned} |\Phi\rangle'''&=&|\Phi_2\rangle''_{a_{1}b_{1}}\otimes|\Phi_2\rangle''_{a_{2}b_{2}} \nonumber\\ &=& (\alpha^{4}a^{\dagger}_{1}a^{\dagger}_{2}+\alpha^{2}\beta^{2} e^{i2\theta_{AB}} a^{\dagger}_{1}b^{\dagger}_{2} \nonumber\\ \alpha^{2}\beta^{2} a^{\dagger}_{2}b^{\dagger}_{1} Following method above and the help of QND, Alice and Bob pick up $ | })]|0\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&[(\frac{\alpha^{2}}{\sqRt{2}}a^{\dagger}_{1}-\fRac{\beTa^{2}e^{2I\thEtA_{AB}}}{\sQrt{2}}b^{\Dagger}_{1})c^{\dagger}_{2}\nONumbEr\\
&+&(\frac{\alpha^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}a^{\dagger}_{1}
+\Frac{\bEtA^{2}E^{2i\thETa_{aB}}}{\sqrT{2}}b^{\daggeR}_{1})D^{\dAGGer}_{2}]|0\RaNgLe.
\lAbEL{sTate20}\eNd{aLigned}$$ IF the detectOr $D_{1}$ FiRes, the state iN eq.(\[State20\]) is traNsfOrmed into $$\begIn{aLigned}
|\phI_{1}\raNGle''=(\alPha^{2}A^{\daggEr}_{1}-\beta^{2}E^{2I\theta_{aB}}b^{\dagger}_{1})|0\RaNGle.
\labEL{state21}\eND{AlIgneD}$$ If the detector $D_{2}$ fiREs, IT is transformed Into $$\beGiN{AlIGNed}
|\phi_{2}\Rangle''=(\alphA^{2}a^{\DaggeR}_{1}+\Beta^{2}e^{2i\tHEtA_{ab}}B^{\daGGer}_{1})|0\rangle.
\labeL{state22}\end{alIGneD}$$
It is eAsY to FInd thaT Eq.(\[stAtE22\]) Has The same form As Eq.(\[State5\]). So doEs the sECond lesS EntanglEd statE in eq.(\[sTate21\]). tHe WhOle SySTem BEcOmeS $$\BegIn{aligneD}
|\PHi\RanglE'''&=&|\Phi_2\RANGLe''_{a_{1}b_{1}}\OtiMes|\PHi_2\ranGle''_{a_{2}b_{2}} \nonumber\\
&=& (\AlpHa^{4}a^{\dAGgeR}_{1}a^{\dagGer}_{2}+\alPha^{2}\bEtA^{2}
e^{i2\thEta_{AB}} a^{\DaggeR}_{1}b^{\Dagger}_{2} \nonumber\\
&+&
\aLpha^{2}\Beta^{2}
e^{i2\theTa_{Ab}} a^{\DagGeR}_{2}b^{\dagGEr}_{1}
+\beta^{4}E^{i4\tHetA_{AB}}b^{\dagGer}_{1}b^{\dagGEr}_{2})|0\rAnGLE.\EnD{aligned}$$ Following tHe METhOd above aNd the hELp Of qnD, Alice aNd bob Pick UP $ | })]|0\rangle\nonumber\\
&= &[(\frac{\ alpha ^{2 }}{ \s qrt{ 2}}a ^{\dagger}_{1} - \fra c{\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta _{AB} }} { \sqr t {2 }}b^{ \dagger } _{ 1 } )c^ {\ da gge r} _ {2 }\non umb er\\
&+ &(\frac{\a lph a^ {2}}{\sqrt{2 } }a ^{\dagger} _{1 }
+\frac{\be ta^ {2}e^{ 2i \th e ta_{A B}} }{\sq rt{2}} b ^{\dag ger}_{1}) d^ { \dagge r }_{2}]| 0 \ ra ngle .
\label{state20} \ en d {aligned}$$ If the d et e ct o r $D _{1 }$ fires,th e sta t e in Eq . (\ [ s t ate 2 0\]) is trans formed into $$\ begin{ al ign e d}
|\P hi_{1 }\ r ang le''=(\alph a^{2 }a^{\dagg er}_{1 } -\beta^ { 2}e^{2i \theta _{A B}} b^{\ d ag ge r}_ {1 } )|0 \ ra ngl e .
\ label{st at e2 1}\en d{al i g n e d}$$ If the dete ctor $D_{2}$fir es,i t i s tra nsfor medin to $$ \begin {alig ne d}
|\Phi_{2}\ra ngle ''=(\alph a^{ 2} a^{ \d agger } _{1}+\ bet a^{ 2}e^{2i \theta_ { AB} }b ^ { \ da gger}_{1})|0\rangl e. \ la bel{stat e22}\e n d{ al i gned}$$
I t i s ea s y to f indt ha t Eq.(\[ state2 2 \] )has the s ame fo rm as Eq .(\[s t ate5 \]). S o does t he se c ond less entan g led state inE q. ( \ [s t ate2 1\] ). The whol e sy s tembeco m es $$ \ begin {alig ne d }| \Phi\rangle'''&=&|\ Ph i_2\ra ngle' '_{a_{1}b_{1} }\otimes|\ P h i _2\rangl e''_ { a_ { 2}b_{2}} \nonu mber\ \
&=& (\al p ha^{4}a^ {\dag ger}_{1} a^{\dagge r } _{2}+\al pha ^{2 }\b eta ^ { 2}
e^{i2\theta_ { A B}}a^ {\dagge r}_ {1}b^{\ dag ger }_{ 2}\n onumber\\
&+&
\a lp ha ^{ 2} \be ta^{2 }
e^{i2\t he ta_ {A B}} a^{\ d agger} _{2}b ^{\d ag ge r }_{ 1}
+\be t a^ { 4 }e^{ i4 \t heta _{A B} }b^{\ dagg e r}_ {1}b^{\ dagger}_{ 2}) | 0\ra ng le .\end{a ligned}$$ Fol lo wing the m et hod above a nd the h elp of QND, Alice and B o b pickup$ | })]|0\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&[(\frac{\alpha^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}a^{\dagger}_{1}-\frac{\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}}{\sqrt{2}}b^{\dagger}_{1})c^{\dagger}_{2}\nonumber\\
&+&(\frac{\alpha^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}a^{\dagger}_{1}
+\frac{\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}}{\sqrt{2}}b^{\dagger}_{1})d^{\dagger}_{2}]|0\rangle.
\label{state20}\end{aligned}$$ If_the detector_$D_{1}$ fires, the state_in Eq.(\[state20\])_is_transformed into_$$\begin{aligned}
|\Phi_{1}\rangle''=(\alpha^{2}a^{\dagger}_{1}-\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}b^{\dagger}_{1})|0\rangle.
\label{state21}\end{aligned}$$_If the detector_$D_{2}$ fires, it_is transformed into $$\begin{aligned}
|\Phi_{2}\rangle''=(\alpha^{2}a^{\dagger}_{1}+\beta^{2}e^{2i\theta_{AB}}b^{\dagger}_{1})|0\rangle.
\label{state22}\end{aligned}$$
It_is easy to_find_that Eq.(\[state22\]) has the same form as Eq.(\[state5\]). So does the second less entangled_state_in Eq.(\[state21\])._The_whole_system becomes $$\begin{aligned}
|\Phi\rangle'''&=&|\Phi_2\rangle''_{a_{1}b_{1}}\otimes|\Phi_2\rangle''_{a_{2}b_{2}} \nonumber\\
&=& (\alpha^{4}a^{\dagger}_{1}a^{\dagger}_{2}+\alpha^{2}\beta^{2}
e^{i2\theta_{AB}}_a^{\dagger}_{1}b^{\dagger}_{2} \nonumber\\
&+&
\alpha^{2}\beta^{2}
e^{i2\theta_{AB}} a^{\dagger}_{2}b^{\dagger}_{1}
+\beta^{4}e^{i4\theta_{AB}}b^{\dagger}_{1}b^{\dagger}_{2})|0\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Following_the method_above and the help of QND, Alice and_Bob_pick up $ |
following, we identify those cuts that might violate the condition given in Lemma \[lem:spanning-tree-characterization\] for a (non-strictly) reroutable flow. We then show that this class of cuts forms a semi-lattice. This allows us to apply an uncrossing of the flow paths that iteratively eliminates the problematic cuts while maintaining reroutability.
#### Bad cuts
Let $x$ be an $s$-$t$-flow and let $C \in \mathcal{C}$ be a $t$-separating cut. An arc $\bar{a} \in C$ is *$(x, C)$-bad* if there is an arc $a \in C$ and a path $P \in {\mathcal{P}_{\bar{a} \rightarrow a}}$ with $x(P) > 0$. A cut $C$ is *$x$-bad* if all arcs $\bar{a} \in C$ are $(x, C)$-bad.
\[lem:good-cuts\] Let $x$ be a reroutable flow for capacities $u \equiv 1$. Let $C \in \mathcal{C}$ be a $t$-separating cut. If $\sum_{a \in C} (1 - x(a)) < 1$ then $C$ is $x$-bad.
By contradiction assume $C$ is not $x$-bad. Then there must be an arc $\bar{a} \in C$ that is not $(x, C)$-bad. This implies that $\sum_{P \in {\mathcal{P}_{\bar{a} \rightarrow a}}} x(P) = 0$ for every $a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$. In particular, $\rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a} = \rcap{x}{a} = 1 - x(a)$ for all $a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$. Since all flow in the rerouting of $x$ for failure of $\bar{a}$ needs to cross $C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$, we obtain $\sum_{a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}} \rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a} \geq x(\bar{a})$. Adding $1 - x(\bar{a})$ to both sides of this inequality yields a contradiction.
\[lem | following, we identify those cuts that might violate the circumstance render in Lemma \[lem: spanning - tree - characterization\ ] for a (non - strictly) reroutable menstruation. We then testify that this class of cuts shape a semi - wicket. This allows us to apply an uncrossing of the flow paths that iteratively eliminates the baffling cuts while maintaining reroutability.
# # # # regretful cuts
Let $ x$ be an $ s$-$t$-flow and let $ C \in \mathcal{C}$ be a $ t$-separating cut. An arc $ \bar{a } \in C$ is * $ (x, C)$-bad * if there is an discharge $ a \in C$ and a path $ P \in { \mathcal{P}_{\bar{a } \rightarrow a}}$ with $ x(P) > 0$. A cut $ C$ is * $ x$-bad * if all arcs $ \bar{a } \in C$ are $ (x, C)$-bad.
\[lem: adept - cuts\ ] Let $ x$ be a reroutable flow for capacities $ u \equiv 1$. permit $ C \in \mathcal{C}$ be a $ t$-separating cut. If $ \sum_{a \in C } (1 - x(a) ) < 1 $ then $ C$ is $ x$-bad.
By contradiction assume $ C$ is not $ x$-bad. Then there must be an arc $ \bar{a } \in C$ that is not $ (x, C)$-bad. This imply that $ \sum_{P \in { \mathcal{P}_{\bar{a } \rightarrow a } } } x(P) = 0 $ for every $ a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$. In particular, $ \rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a } = \rcap{x}{a } = 1 - x(a)$ for all $ a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$. Since all flow in the rerouting of $ x$ for failure of $ \bar{a}$ need to cross $ C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$, we obtain $ \sum_{a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\ } } \rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a } \geq x(\bar{a})$. Adding $ 1 - x(\bar{a})$ to both sides of this inequality yields a contradiction.
\[lem | foplowing, we identify thost cuts that might violatx the ckndition given in Lemma \[lem:spanning-trxe-chqracttgization\] for a (non-strkctly) rerlutable dlow. Qe then show that bkis cmwss mh cuts forms a xemi-lattica. This allows gs tl apply an uncrossing of the flow pwths thst iteratively ejimimwtes nht problematic cuts while maintainjng rermutability.
#### Bac cuts
Let $x$ be an $s$-$t$-flow ajd lft $C \in \mathcal{C}$ bf a $t$-separajjng xut. An arc $\bxr{a} \in C$ is *$(x, C)$-bad* if jhere is an arc $a \in C$ and a patf $P \iu {\mathcal{P}_{\bqr{q} \rlchtarrow a}}$ xith $x(I) > 0$. A cut $C$ is *$x$-bad* ix all atcs $\bar{a} \in C$ sre $(x, X)$-bad.
\[lem:good-cuts\] Let $x$ be a reroutable fjow for cdpccities $u \equiv 1$. Let $X \un \majhcal{W}$ be q $t$-repzretihg cut. If $\sum_{a \in C} (1 - x(a)) < 1$ theb $C$ is $x$-bad.
By contrsdybyion assume $D$ is njt $x$-bad. Then there must be an arc $\bar{a} \in C$ fhat is not $(x, C)$-bad. This implies that $\sum_{P \in {\mathcal{P}_{\far{a} \rightarrow a}}} x(P) = 0$ for every $a \in C \setminus \{\tar{a}\}$. Mn paxblculxe, $\gcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a} = \rcap{x}{a} = 1 - x(a)$ for all $a \in C \setmighs \{\bsr{a}\}$. Since all nlow in the reroutonh ps $x$ for failute of $\bcd{a}$ needs to cross $C \detminuf \{\bar{q}\}$, we obtayn $\sim_{a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}} \rcap[\var{a}]{x}{a} \geq x(\yar{q})$. Adding $1 - x(\bar{a})$ tl both sider of this inequality yields a coutradidtion.
\[lem | following, we identify those cuts that might condition in Lemma for a (non-strictly) that class of cuts a semi-lattice. This us to apply an uncrossing of flow paths that iteratively eliminates the problematic cuts while maintaining reroutability. #### Bad Let $x$ be an $s$-$t$-flow and let $C \in \mathcal{C}$ be a $t$-separating An $\bar{a} C$ *$(x, C)$-bad* if there is an arc $a \in C$ and a path $P \in {\mathcal{P}_{\bar{a} a}}$ with $x(P) > 0$. A cut $C$ *$x$-bad* if all arcs \in C$ are $(x, C)$-bad. Let be a flow capacities \equiv 1$. Let \in \mathcal{C}$ be a $t$-separating cut. If $\sum_{a \in C} (1 - x(a)) < 1$ then $C$ $x$-bad. By $C$ is $x$-bad. there be an arc C$ that is not $(x, C)$-bad. $\sum_{P \in {\mathcal{P}_{\bar{a} \rightarrow a}}} x(P) = 0$ every $a C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$. In particular, $\rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a} \rcap{x}{a} = 1 - x(a)$ for all $a C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$. Since all flow in the rerouting of $x$ for failure of $\bar{a}$ cross $C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$, obtain $\sum_{a \in \setminus \rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a} x(\bar{a})$. $1 - to both sides of this inequality yields a contradiction. \[lem | following, we identify those cUts that migHt vioLatE thE cOndiTion Given in Lemma \[leM:SpanNing-tree-characterizatiOn\] for A (nON-strICtLy) rerOutable FLoW. wE thEn ShOw tHaT ThIs claSs oF cuts foRms a semi-laTtiCe. this allows us TO aPply an uncrOssIng of the flow PatHs that ItEraTIvely EliMinatEs the pROblemaTic cuts whIlE MaintaINing rerOUTaBiliTy.
#### Bad cuts
Let $x$ be an $S$-$T$-fLOw and let $C \in \matHcal{C}$ bE a $T$-SePARatIng Cut. An arc $\baR{a} \In C$ is *$(X, c)$-bad* if tHErE IS An aRC $a \in C$ and a path $p \in {\mathcal{P}_{\BAr{a} \RightaRrOw a}}$ WIth $x(P) > 0$. A Cut $C$ iS *$x$-BAd* iF all arcs $\bar{A} \in C$ Are $(x, C)$-bad.
\[lEm:good-CUts\] Let $x$ BE a rerouTable fLow For CapaCItIeS $u \eQuIV 1$. LeT $c \iN \maTHcaL{C}$ be a $t$-sePaRaTing cUt. If $\SUM_{A \In C} (1 - x(A)) < 1$ thEn $C$ iS $x$-bad.
by contradictiOn aSsumE $c$ is Not $x$-bAd. TheN theRe Must bE an arc $\Bar{a} \iN C$ That is not $(x, C)$-bad. THis iMplies thaT $\suM_{P \In {\mAtHcal{P}_{\BAr{a} \rigHtaRroW a}}} x(P) = 0$ for Every $a \iN c \seTmINUS \{\bAr{a}\}$. In particular, $\rcaP[\bAR{A}]{x}{A} = \rcap{x}{a} = 1 - x(A)$ for alL $A \iN C \SEtminus \{\bAr{A}\}$. SiNce aLL Flow iN the RErOuting of $X$ for faILuRe Of $\bar{a}$ nEeDs to crOsS $C \sEtmInus \{\bAR{a}\}$, we Obtain $\Sum_{a \in C \sEtminUS \{\bar{a}\}} \rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{A} \Geq x(\bar{a})$. AddinG $1 - X(\bAR{A})$ tO Both SidEs of this ineQualITy yiElds A CoNtrADictiOn.
\[lem | following, we identify th ose cuts t hat m igh t v io late the condition giv e n in Lemma \[lem:spanning- tree- ch a ract e ri zatio n\] for a( n on- st ri ctl y) re routa ble flow.We then sh owth at this clas s o f cuts for msa semi-latti ce. Thisal low s us t o a pplyan unc r ossing of the f lo w paths that it e r at ivel y eliminates thep ro b lematic cuts w hile m ai n ta i n ing re routabilit y.
### # Bad cu t sL e t $ x $ be an $s$-$ t$-flow and let $C \i n\ma t hcal{C }$ be a $t$ -separating cut . An arc$\bar{ a } \in C $ is *$( x, C)$ -ba d*if t h er eisan arc $a \i n C$ and a p at h$P \i n {\ m a t h cal{ P}_ {\ba r{a}\rightarrow a }}$ wit h $x (P) > 0$.A cu t$C$ i s *$x$ -bad* i f all arcs $\ba r{a} \in C$ a re$( x,C) $-bad .
\[le m:g ood -cuts\] Let $x $ be a r e ro utable flow for ca pa c i ti es $u \e quiv 1 $ .Le t $C \in\m ath cal{ C } $ bea $t $ -s eparatin g cut. If $ \sum_{a \ in C}(1 -x(a )) <1 $ th en $C$ is $x$- bad.By contradicti o n assume $C$i sn o t$ x$-b ad. Then there mus t bean a r c$\b a r{a}\in C $t ha t is not $(x, C)$-ba d. Thisimpli es that $\sum _{P \in {\ m a t hcal{P}_ {\ba r {a } \rightarrow a }}} x (P) = 0$ f o r every$a \i n C \set minus \{\ b a r{a}\}$. In pa rti cul a r ,$\rcap[\bar{a } ] {x}{ a} = \rca p{x }{a} =1 - x( a)$ fo rall $a \i n C \set mi nu s\{ \ba r{a}\ } $. Since a llfl owin th e rerou tingof $ x$ f o r f ailureo f$ \ bar{ a} $need s t ocross $C\ set minus \ {\bar{a}\ }$, we o bt ai n $\sum _{a \in C \se tm inus \{\ba r{ a}\ }} \rc a p [\bar{a} ]{x}{a} \geq x(\bar{a}) $ . Addin g $ 1 - x (\ba r{a})$ to bo th sid eso f this inequ ality y iel d s a co n t ra dic ti on.
\[lem | following,_we identify_those cuts that might_violate the_condition_given in_Lemma \[lem:spanning-tree-characterization\]_for a (non-strictly)_reroutable flow. We_then show that this_class of cuts_forms_a semi-lattice. This allows us to apply an uncrossing of the flow paths that_iteratively_eliminates the_problematic_cuts_while maintaining reroutability.
#### Bad cuts
Let_$x$ be an $s$-$t$-flow and_let $C_\in \mathcal{C}$ be a $t$-separating cut. An arc_$\bar{a}_\in C$ is_*$(x, C)$-bad* if there is an arc $a \in_C$ and a path $P \in_{\mathcal{P}_{\bar{a} \rightarrow a}}$_with_$x(P)_> 0$. A cut_$C$ is *$x$-bad* if all arcs_$\bar{a} \in C$ are $(x, C)$-bad.
\[lem:good-cuts\]_Let $x$ be a reroutable flow for_capacities $u \equiv 1$. Let $C_\in \mathcal{C}$ be a $t$-separating_cut. If_$\sum_{a \in C} (1 -_x(a)) < 1$_then $C$_is $x$-bad.
By contradiction_assume $C$ is not $x$-bad. Then_there must be_an arc $\bar{a} \in C$ that_is_not $(x, C)$-bad._This_implies_that $\sum_{P_\in {\mathcal{P}_{\bar{a} \rightarrow_a}}}_x(P) =_0$_for every $a \in C \setminus_\{\bar{a}\}$._In particular, $\rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a} = \rcap{x}{a} = 1_- x(a)$ for all_$a_\in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$._Since all flow in the_rerouting of $x$ for failure of_$\bar{a}$ needs_to cross_$C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$, we obtain $\sum_{a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}} \rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a}_\geq x(\bar{a})$. Adding $1 - x(\bar{a})$_to both sides of_this inequality_yields_a contradiction.
\[lem |
A(t)$ of $t$, we can see that $A(t)$ is an integer multiple of $\tfrac {1} {2K^2}$. Since $A(c)$ is the sum of areas of triangles such as $t$ discussed above, it follows that $A(c)$ is also an integer multiple of $\tfrac {1} {2K^2}$. Taking $n$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qq8a}
|c|_{{\mathcal{T}}}^n > 4K^2,\end{aligned}$$ we see that Theorem \[thm6\] applies with $L = 2K^2$ and yields the desired conclusion.
Suppose that the property (b) holds for $c$. By the Cramer’s rule applied to the system of two linear equations $$\begin{aligned}
a_{i,x}x + a_{i,y}y & = b_{i} \\
a_{j,x}x + a_{j,y}y & = b_{j}\end{aligned}$$ which, as in property (b), define the lines that contain nonparallel segments $c_i, c_j$, we have that the intersection point of $c_{i}$ and $c_{j}$ has rational coordinates whose denominators do not exceed $$\begin{aligned}
\left|
\det \begin{bmatrix}
a_{i,x} & a_{i,y} \\
a_{j,x} & a_{j,y} \\
\end{bmatrix} \right| \le 2K^2.\end{aligned}$$
This means that coordinates of the intersection point of two nonparallel line segments $c_{i}$, $c_{j}$ of $c$ are integer multiples of $\tfrac{1}{ (2K^2)!}$ and the case when the property (b) holds for $c$ is reduced to the case when the property (a) holds for $c$ with $K' = (2K^2)!$.
It remains to show the last claim of Corollary \[cor3\]. The case when $q$ is a closed path in the tessellation ${\mathcal{T}}_6$ of the plane $\mathbb R^2$ into regular hexagons of unit area can be obviously reduced to the case when $q$ is a closed path in the tessellation ${\ | A(t)$ of $ t$, we can see that $ A(t)$ is an integer multiple of $ \tfrac { 1 } { 2K^2}$. Since $ A(c)$ is the sum of areas of triangles such as $ t$ discourse above, it take after that $ A(c)$ is also an integer multiple of $ \tfrac { 1 } { 2K^2}$. Taking $ n$ so that $ $ \begin{aligned }
\label{qq8a }
|c|_{{\mathcal{T}}}^n > 4K^2,\end{aligned}$$ we see that Theorem \[thm6\ ] apply with $ L = 2K^2 $ and yields the desired termination.
presuppose that the property (bacillus) holds for $ c$. By the Cramer ’s rule apply to the system of two linear equations $ $ \begin{aligned }
a_{i, x}x + a_{i, y}y & = b_{i } \\
a_{j, x}x + a_{j, y}y & = b_{j}\end{aligned}$$ which, as in property (b), define the credit line that contain nonparallel segments $ c_i, c_j$, we consume that the intersection point of $ c_{i}$ and $ c_{j}$ has rational coordinate whose denominators do not surpass $ $ \begin{aligned }
\left|
\det \begin{bmatrix }
a_{i, x } & a_{i, y } \\
a_{j, x } & a_{j, y } \\
\end{bmatrix } \right| \le 2K^2.\end{aligned}$$
This means that coordinates of the intersection point of two serial line segments $ c_{i}$, $ c_{j}$ of $ c$ are integer multiples of $ \tfrac{1 } { (2K^2)!}$ and the case when the property (b) holds for $ c$ is reduced to the case when the property (a) holds for $ c$ with $ K' = (2K^2)!$.
It remains to show the last claim of Corollary \[cor3\ ]. The event when $ q$ is a closed path in the tessellation $ { \mathcal{T}}_6 $ of the airplane $ \mathbb R^2 $ into even hexagon of unit area can be obviously reduced to the case when $ q$ is a closed path in the tessellation $ { \ | A(t)$ lf $t$, we can see that $A(t)$ ls an integer multiple mf $\tfrzc {1} {2K^2}$. Sivce $A(c)$ is the sum of areas oh truangltf such as $t$ discusred above, it folliws uhat $A(c)$ is also ai integev mulflple mh $\tfrac {1} {2K^2}$. Takikg $n$ so thad $$\begin{aligned}
\nacep{qq8a}
|c|_{{\mathcal{T}}}^n > 4K^2,\end{aligned}$$ we see ehat Throgem \[thm6\] applies witn $L = 2I^2$ and yields the desired conclusioh.
Suppost that the propertu (b) holds for $c$. By the Craler’s rule applied to tje system od twj linear equagions $$\begin{aligned}
a_{i,x}x + a_{i,y}y & = b_{i} \\
a_{j,x}x + a_{j,y}y & = b_{j}\end{auigneb}$$ which, as un prlkerty (b), defiie the lines that gpntain nonparsllel segments $c_i, c_j$, we have that the intxrsection point of $c_{y}$ and $c_{j}$ vaa rational coordibares wvose denuninxtods dk not fxcxed $$\begin{aljgned}
\left|
\der \begin{bmatrix}
a_{i,x} & w_{p,u} \\
a_{j,x} & a_{j,y} \\
\snd{bmaeryx} \right| \le 2K^2.\end{aligned}$$
This means that cokrdinates of the interswction point of two nlnparallej line segments $c_{i}$, $c_{j}$ of $c$ are integer multiples mf $\tfcaz{1}{ (2K^2)!}$ akd tfw fase when the property (b) holds for $c$ is reducqs uo nhe case when the property (a) hllcf for $c$ with $Y' = (2K^2)!$.
Ic rsmains to show the last cjaim if Corollwry \[cpr3\]. The case when $q$ is a clowed path in nhe ressellation ${\mathccl{T}}_6$ of the puane $\mathnb R^2$ into regular hexaguns kf unit arew can be kcviously reduced to tve case when $q$ is a closed path in vhe tzssellatkon ${\ | A(t)$ of $t$, we can see that an multiple of {1} {2K^2}$. Since areas triangles such as discussed above, it that $A(c)$ is also an integer of $\tfrac {1} {2K^2}$. Taking $n$ so that $$\begin{aligned} \label{qq8a} |c|_{{\mathcal{T}}}^n > 4K^2,\end{aligned}$$ see that Theorem \[thm6\] applies with $L = 2K^2$ and yields the desired Suppose the (b) for $c$. By the Cramer’s rule applied to the system of two linear equations $$\begin{aligned} a_{i,x}x a_{i,y}y & = b_{i} \\ a_{j,x}x + a_{j,y}y = b_{j}\end{aligned}$$ which, as property (b), define the lines contain segments $c_i, we that intersection point of and $c_{j}$ has rational coordinates whose denominators do not exceed $$\begin{aligned} \left| \det \begin{bmatrix} a_{i,x} & a_{i,y} a_{j,x} & \end{bmatrix} \right| 2K^2.\end{aligned}$$ means coordinates of the of two nonparallel line segments $c_{i}$, are integer multiples of $\tfrac{1}{ (2K^2)!}$ and the when the (b) holds for $c$ is reduced the case when the property (a) holds for with $K' = (2K^2)!$. It remains to show the last claim of Corollary \[cor3\]. The $q$ is a closed in the tessellation of plane R^2$ regular hexagons unit area can be obviously reduced to the case when $q$ a closed path in the tessellation ${\ | A(t)$ of $t$, we can see that $A(t)$ is an inTeger multiPle of $\TfrAc {1} {2K^2}$. siNce $A(C)$ is tHe sum of areas of TRianGles such as $t$ discussed abOve, it FoLLows THaT $A(c)$ is Also an iNTeGER muLtIpLe oF $\tFRaC {1} {2K^2}$. TakIng $N$ so that $$\Begin{alignEd}
\lAbEl{qq8a}
|c|_{{\mathcaL{t}}}^n > 4k^2,\end{aligneD}$$ we See that TheorEm \[tHm6\] applIeS wiTH $L = 2K^2$ anD yiElds tHe desiREd concLusion.
SupPoSE that tHE properTY (B) hOlds For $c$. By the Cramer’s rULe APplied to the sysTem of tWo LInEAR eqUatIons $$\begin{aLiGned}
a_{I,X}x + a_{i,y}y & = b_{I} \\
A_{j,X}X + A_{J,y}y & = B_{J}\end{aligned}$$ whIch, as in propERty (B), definE tHe lINes thaT contAiN NonParallel segMentS $c_i, c_j$, we haVe that THe interSEction pOint of $C_{i}$ aNd $c_{J}$ has RAtIoNal CoORdiNAtEs wHOse DenominaToRs Do not ExceED $$\BEGin{aLigNed}
\lEft|
\deT \begin{bmatrix}
A_{i,x} & A_{i,y} \\
a_{J,X} & a_{j,Y} \\
\end{bMatriX} \rigHt| \Le 2K^2.\enD{alignEd}$$
ThiS mEans that coordinAtes Of the inteRseCtIon PoInt of TWo nonpAraLleL line seGments $c_{I}$, $C_{j}$ oF $c$ ARE InTeger multiples of $\tfRaC{1}{ (2k^2)!}$ AnD the case When thE PrOpERty (b) holdS fOr $c$ Is reDUCed to The cASe When the pRopertY (A) hOlDs for $c$ wItH $K' = (2K^2)!$.
It rEmAinS to Show tHE lasT claim Of CorollAry \[coR3\]. the case when $q$ is A Closed path in tHE tESSeLLatiOn ${\mAthcal{T}}_6$ of thE plaNE $\matHbb R^2$ INtO reGUlar hExagoNs OF uNIt area can be obviouslY rEduced To the Case when $q$ is a cLosed path iN THE tessellAtioN ${\ | A(t)$ of $t$, we can see t hat $A(t)$ is a n i nte ge r mu ltip le of $\tfrac{ 1} { 2K^2}$. Since $A(c)$ i s the s u m of ar eas o f trian g le s suc has $t $d is cusse d a bove, i t followstha t$A(c)$ is al s oan integer mu ltiple of $\ tfr ac {1} { 2K^ 2 }$. T aki ng $n $ so t h at $$\ begin{ali gn e d}
\la b el{qq8a } |c |_{{ \mathcal{T}}}^n > 4K ^ 2,\end{aligned }$$ we s e et h atThe orem \[thm 6\ ] app l ies wit h $ L = 2K ^ 2$ and yields the desire d co nclusi on .
S uppose that t h e p roperty (b) hol ds for $c $. Byt he Cram e r’s rul e appl ied to the sy st emof two li nea r eq uations$$ \b egin{ alig n e d }
a_{ i,x }x + a_{i ,y}y & = b_{i } \ \
a_ { j,x }x +a_{j, y}y&= b_{ j}\end {alig ne d}$$ which, asin p roperty ( b), d efi ne thel ines t hat co ntain n onparal l else g m e nt s $c_i, c_j$, we h av e th at the i nterse c ti on point of $ c_{ i}$a n d $c_ {j}$ ha s ration al coo r di na tes who se denom in ato rsdo no t exc eed $$ \begin{a ligne d }
\left|
\det\ begin{bmatrix }
a _ {i , x} & a _{i,y} \\
a_{j , x} & a_{ j ,y } \ \
\end {bmat ri x }\ right| \le 2K^2.\e nd {align ed}$$
This meansthat coord i n a tes of t he i n te r section pointof tw o nonparal l el linesegme nts $c_{ i}$, $c_{ j } $ of $c$ ar e i nte ger m ul tiples of $\t f r ac{1 }{ (2K^2) !}$ and th e c ase wh enth e propert y (b) ho ld sfo r$c$ is r e duced to t heca sewhent he pro perty (a) h ol d s f or $c$w it h $K'= ( 2K^2 )!$ .
It r emai n s t o showthe lastcla i m of C or ollary\[cor3\]. The c ase when $ q$ is a clo s e d path i n the tessellation ${\m a thcal{T }}_ 6$ of the plane $\ mat hbb R^ 2$i nto re gularhexag on s o f unita r ea ca nbe obvious l y re duced t o th e casewhen $q$ is a clos e d p ath in the te sse llat i o n${\ | A(t)$ of_$t$, we_can see that $A(t)$_is an_integer_multiple of_$\tfrac_{1} {2K^2}$. Since_$A(c)$ is the_sum of areas of_triangles such as_$t$_discussed above, it follows that $A(c)$ is also an integer multiple of $\tfrac {1}_{2K^2}$._Taking $n$_so_that_$$\begin{aligned}
\label{qq8a}
|c|_{{\mathcal{T}}}^n > 4K^2,\end{aligned}$$ we see_that Theorem \[thm6\] applies with $L_= 2K^2$_and yields the desired conclusion.
Suppose that the property_(b)_holds for $c$._By the Cramer’s rule applied to the system of_two linear equations $$\begin{aligned}
a_{i,x}x + a_{i,y}y_& = b_{i}_\\
a_{j,x}x_+_a_{j,y}y & = b_{j}\end{aligned}$$_which, as in property (b), define_the lines that contain nonparallel segments_$c_i, c_j$, we have that the intersection_point of $c_{i}$ and $c_{j}$ has_rational coordinates whose denominators do_not exceed_$$\begin{aligned}
\left|
\det \begin{bmatrix}
a_{i,x} &_a_{i,y} \\
a_{j,x}_& a_{j,y}_\\
\end{bmatrix} \right| _\le 2K^2.\end{aligned}$$
This means that coordinates of_the intersection point_of two nonparallel line segments $c_{i}$,_$c_{j}$_of $c$ are_integer_multiples_of $\tfrac{1}{_(2K^2)!}$ and the_case_when the_property_(b) holds for $c$ is reduced_to_the case when the property (a) holds_for $c$ with $K'_=_ (2K^2)!$.
It remains to_show the last claim of_Corollary \[cor3\]. The case when $q$ is_a closed_path in_the tessellation ${\mathcal{T}}_6$ of the plane $\mathbb R^2$ into regular hexagons_of unit area can be obviously_reduced to the case_when $q$_is_a closed path_in_the tessellation_${\ |
, 190, 573 Thommes, E. W., Duncan, M. J., & Levison, H. F. 1999, Natur, 402, 635 Tsiganis, K., Gomes, R., Morbidelli, A., & Levison, H. F. 2005, Natur, 435, 459 Vienne, A., & Duriez, L. 1992,, 257, 331 Vokrouhlick[ý]{}, D., & Nesvorn[ý]{}, D. 2015,, 806, 143 Ward, W. R. 1981, Icar, 46, 97 Ward, W. R., & Hamilton, D. P. 2004,, 128, 2501 Zeebe R. E., 2017, AJ, 154, 193
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected] (MC)
[^2]: The instantaneous Laplace plane can be defined for every perturbed orbit as plane normal to the vector around which the orbit normal is precessing.
[^3]: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons accessed on January 24, 2013
[^4]: Here and elsewhere in this paper we used $\varpi_J$ as a directly-observable proxy for the orientation of the $g_5$ eccentricity vector, as Jupiter’s eccentricity is dominated by the $g_5$ mode.
[^5]: Here and throughout we used $\Omega_N$ as a directly-observable proxy for the phase of the secular eigenmode $f_8$. The presence of other modes in Neptune’s inclination vector leads to some smearing in the $x$-direction of the curves plotted in Fig. \[eye\].
---
abstract: 'To derive an eigenvalue problem for the associated Askey–Wilson polynomials, we consider an auxiliary function in two variables which is related to the associated Askey–Wilson polynomials introduced by Ismail and Rahman. The Askey–Wilson operator, applied in each variable separately, maps this function to the ordinary Askey–Wilson polynomials with different sets of parameters. A third Askey–Wilson operator is found with the help of a computer algebra program which links the two, and an eigenvalue problem is stated.'
address:
- 'Mathematics and Computer Science, Colorado College, Tutt Science Center, 14 | , 190, 573 Thommes, E. W., Duncan, M. J., & Levison, H. F. 1999, Natur, 402, 635 Tsiganis, K., Gomes, R., Morbidelli, A., & Levison, H. F. 2005, Natur, 435, 459 Vienne, A., & Duriez, L. 1992, , 257, 331 Vokrouhlick[ý ] { }, D., & Nesvorn[ý ] { }, D. 2015, , 806, 143 Ward, W. R. 1981, Icar, 46, 97 Ward, W. R., & Hamilton, D. P. 2004, , 128, 2501 Zeebe R. E., 2017, AJ, 154, 193
\[lastpage\ ]
[ ^1 ]: E - mail: [email protected] (MC)
[ ^2 ]: The instantaneous Laplace plane can be defined for every perturb eye socket as plane normal to the vector around which the orbit normal is precessing.
[ ^3 ]: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons accessed on January 24, 2013
[ ^4 ]: Here and elsewhere in this newspaper we used $ \varpi_J$ as a directly - discernible proxy for the orientation of the $ g_5 $ eccentricity vector, as Jupiter ’s eccentricity is dominated by the $ g_5 $ mode.
[ ^5 ]: Here and throughout we use $ \Omega_N$ as a directly - observable proxy for the phase of the laic eigenmode $ f_8$. The presence of other mood in Neptune ’s inclination vector lead to some smearing in the $ x$-direction of the curves plotted in Fig. \[eye\ ].
---
abstract:' To deduce an eigenvalue problem for the associated Askey – Wilson polynomials, we consider an accessory function in two variables which is related to the associated Askey – Wilson polynomials introduced by Ismail and Rahman. The Askey – Wilson hustler, applied in each variable star separately, maps this function to the ordinary Askey – Wilson polynomial with different sets of parameters. A third Askey – Wilson operator is found with the help of a computer algebra program which links the two, and an eigenvalue problem is stated.'
address:
-' Mathematics and Computer Science, Colorado College, Tutt Science Center, 14 | , 190, 573 Hhommes, E. W., Duncan, M. J., & Leyison, H. F. 1999, Natur, 402, 635 Tsiganms, K., Gojes, R., Mofbidelli, A., & Levison, H. F. 2005, Natur, 435, 459 Vienbe, A., & Duriez, L. 1992,, 257, 331 Vokrojhlick[ý]{}, D., & Nesvorn[ý]{}, D. 2015,, 806, 143 Qard, W. R. 1981, Iced, 46, 97 Ward, W. R., & Gwmilcoi, D. P. 2004,, 128, 2501 Zeebe R. E., 2017, AJ, 154, 193
\[last[age\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected] (MC)
[^2]: The instantaneous Laplace plwne can bf defined for gvery [erthgbtd orbit as plane normal to the vsctor agound which the otbit normal is precessing.
[^3]: jttpd://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horixons accessgs og January 24, 2013
[^4]: Hdre and elsewhere in tgis paper we used $\varpi_J$ as a dkrectky-observaboe prlfy for the iriennation of the $g_5$ eccendricity vector, as Juplter’s ecxentricity is dominatxd by the $g_5$ mode.
[^5]: Herg and throggkout we used $\Omega_N$ aw q dirgctly-mbsefcabue kroey ror thf piase of the secular eitenmode $f_8$. The presemcq of other modss in Ge[tune’s inclination vector leads to some smsaring in the $x$-directiob of the curves plottgd in Fig. \[qye\].
---
abstract: 'To derive an eigenvalue problem for dhe aarocnqted Xwkfy–Wilson polynomials, we consider an auxiliary rumcnion in two varianles which is relayef yj the associajed Askzg–Wjlson polynomials lntrodused bt Ismail wnd Tahman. The Askey–Wilson operqtor, applied un each variable szparately, ma's thix funvtion to the ordinary Arkey–Silson polyjomials wjgh different setr on pdrameters. A third Askey–Wilfon operavor ix found witn the relp of a fompubar algebra program whick linns the two, and an eigenvalue problem is sveted.'
address:
- 'Mstvemdtics anb Compmter Science, Cojorado College, Tutt Seience Center, 14 | , 190, 573 Thommes, E. W., Duncan, & H. F. Natur, 402, 635 A., Levison, H. F. Natur, 435, 459 A., & Duriez, L. 1992,, 257, Vokrouhlick[ý]{}, D., & Nesvorn[ý]{}, D. 2015,, 806, 143 Ward, W. R. 1981, Icar, 97 Ward, W. R., & Hamilton, D. P. 2004,, 128, 2501 Zeebe R. 2017, 154, \[lastpage\] E-mail: [email protected] (MC) [^2]: The instantaneous Laplace plane can be defined for every perturbed orbit as normal to the vector around which the orbit is precessing. [^3]: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons on January 24, 2013 [^4]: and in this we $\varpi_J$ a directly-observable proxy the orientation of the $g_5$ eccentricity vector, as Jupiter’s eccentricity is dominated by the $g_5$ mode. [^5]: and throughout $\Omega_N$ as directly-observable for phase of the $f_8$. The presence of other modes vector leads to some smearing in the $x$-direction the curves in Fig. \[eye\]. --- abstract: 'To an eigenvalue problem for the associated Askey–Wilson polynomials, consider an auxiliary function in two variables which is related to the associated Askey–Wilson polynomials Ismail and Rahman. The operator, applied in variable maps function the ordinary polynomials with different sets of parameters. A third Askey–Wilson operator is with the help of a computer algebra program which links and eigenvalue problem is address: - 'Mathematics and Science, College, Tutt Science Center, | , 190, 573 Thommes, E. W., Duncan, M. J., & Levison, H. f. 1999, Natur, 402, 635 TsigAnis, K., gomEs, R., moRbidElli, a., & Levison, H. F. 2005, NatuR, 435, 459 vienNe, A., & Duriez, L. 1992,, 257, 331 Vokrouhlick[ý]{}, d., & NesvOrN[Ý]{}, D. 2015,, 806, 143 WaRD, W. r. 1981, Icar, 46, 97 ward, W. R., & HAMiLTOn, D. p. 2004,, 128, 2501 ZEeBe R. e., 2017, Aj, 154, 193
\[LaStpagE\]
[^1]: E-mAil: [email protected] (MC)
[^2]: THe iNsTantaneous LaPLaCe plane can Be dEfined for eveRy pErturbEd OrbIT as plAne NormaL to the VEctor aRound whicH tHE orbit NOrmal is PREcEssiNg.
[^3]: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.GOv/?HOrizons accesseD on JanUaRY 24, 2013
[^4]: HERE anD elSewhere in tHiS papeR We used $\vARpI_j$ AS a dIRectly-observaBle proxy for THe oRientaTiOn oF The $g_5$ ecCentrIcITy vEctor, as JupiTer’s EccentricIty is dOMinated BY the $g_5$ moDe.
[^5]: Here And ThrOughOUt We UseD $\OMEga_n$ As A diREctLy-observAbLe Proxy For tHE PHAse oF thE secUlar eIgenmode $f_8$. The pResEnce OF otHer moDes in neptUnE’s incLinatiOn vecToR leads to some smeArinG in the $x$-diRecTiOn oF tHe curVEs plotTed In FIg. \[eye\].
---
abStract: 'TO DerIvE AN EiGenvalue problem for ThE ASsOciated ASkey–WiLSoN pOLynomialS, wE coNsidER An auxIliaRY fUnction iN two vaRIaBlEs which Is RelateD tO thE asSociaTEd AsKey–WilSon polynOmialS Introduced by IsMAil and Rahman. THE ASKEy–wIlsoN opErator, appliEd in EAch vAriaBLe SepARatelY, maps ThIS fUNction to the ordinary asKey–WilSon poLynomials with Different sETS Of parameTers. a ThIRd Askey–Wilson oPeratOr is found wITh the helP of a cOmputer aLgebra proGRAm which lInkS thE twO, anD AN eIgenvalue probLEM is sTaTed.'
addrEss:
- 'mathemaTicS anD CoMpuTeR Science, COlorado COlLeGe, tuTt SCiencE center, 14 | , 190, 573 Thommes, E. W., Duncan, M . J., &Lev is on,H. F . 1999, Natur, 402, 635 Tsiganis, K., Gom es, R ., Morb i de lli,A., & L e vi s o n,H. F . 2 00 5 ,Natur , 4 35, 459 Vienne, A .,&Duriez, L. 1 9 92 ,, 257, 33 1 V okrouhlick[ý ]{} , D.,&Nes v orn[ý ]{} , D.2015,, 806, 1 43 Ward,W. R. 198 1 , Icar, 4 6, 97Ward, W. R., & Ha m il t on, D. P. 2004 ,, 128 ,2 50 1 Zee beR. E., 201 7, AJ,1 54, 193
\ [ l a stp a ge\]
[^1]: E -mail: mcuk @ set i.org(M C)[^2]:The i ns t ant aneous Lapl aceplane can be de f ined fo r everypertur bed or bita spl ane n o rma l t o t h e v ector ar ou nd whic h th e o r bitnor malis pr ecessing.
[^ 3]: htt p s:/ /ssd. jpl.n asa. go v/?ho rizons acce ss ed on January 2 4, 2 013
[^4] : H er e a nd else w here i n t his paperwe used $\v ar p i _ J$ as a directly-obs er v a bl e proxyfor th e o ri e ntationof th e $g _ 5 $ ecc entr i ci ty vecto r, asJ up it er’s ec ce ntrici ty is do minat e d by the $ g_5$ mod e.
[ ^ 5]: Here and t h roughout we u s ed $ \O m ega_ N$as a direct ly-o b serv able pr oxy for t he ph as e o f the secular eigenm od e $f_8 $. Th e presence of other mod e s in Neptu ne’s in c lination vecto r lea ds to some smearing in t he $x$-d irectiono f the cur ves pl ott edi n F ig. \[eye\].- --
a bs tract:'To derive an ei gen val ue problemfor theas so ci at edAskey – Wilson p ol yno mi als , wec onside r anauxi li ar y fu nctioni nt w o va ri ab leswhi ch is r elat e d t o the a ssociated As k ey–W il so n polyn omials introd uc ed by Isma il an d Rahm a n . The As key–Wilson operator, ap p lied in ea ch va riab le separa tel y, map s t h is fun ctionto th eord i n ary A s k ey –Wi ls on polynom i a lswithdi ffer ent set s of parameters. A thi rd Askey–Wils onoper a t or is fo u ndwi t h t h e help of a comp uter algeb ra pr ogram whic h li nk s the t wo, and an e i genvalu e problem is state d. '
ad d r ess :
- 'Mathe matics a nd Comput e r Sci e nc e, Co lor ado Co ll ege , Tut t Scie n ceCente r, 14 | , 190,_573 Thommes,_E. W., Duncan, M. J., &_Levison, H. F. 1999,_Natur,_402, 635_Tsiganis,_K., Gomes, R.,_Morbidelli, A., &_Levison, H. F. 2005, Natur, 435,_459 Vienne, A.,_&_Duriez, L. 1992,, 257, 331 Vokrouhlick[ý]{}, D., & Nesvorn[ý]{}, D. 2015,, 806, 143 Ward, W. R. 1981, Icar,_46,_97 Ward,_W. R.,_&_Hamilton, D. P. 2004,, 128, 2501 Zeebe_R. E., 2017, AJ, 154, 193
\[lastpage\]
[^1]:_E-mail: [email protected]_(MC)
[^2]: The instantaneous Laplace plane can be defined_for_every perturbed orbit_as plane normal to the vector around which the_orbit normal is precessing.
[^3]: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons accessed_on January 24,_2013
[^4]:_Here_and elsewhere in this_paper we used $\varpi_J$ as a_directly-observable proxy for the orientation of_the $g_5$ eccentricity vector, as Jupiter’s eccentricity_is dominated by the $g_5$ mode.
[^5]:_Here and throughout we used_$\Omega_N$ as_a directly-observable proxy for the_phase of the_secular eigenmode_$f_8$. The presence_of other modes in Neptune’s inclination_vector leads to_some smearing in the $x$-direction of_the_curves plotted in_Fig._\[eye\].
_---
abstract: 'To_derive an eigenvalue_problem_for the_associated_Askey–Wilson polynomials, we consider an auxiliary_function_in two variables which is related to_the associated Askey–Wilson polynomials_introduced_by Ismail and Rahman._The Askey–Wilson operator, applied in_each variable separately, maps this function_to the_ordinary Askey–Wilson_polynomials with different sets of parameters. A third Askey–Wilson operator is_found with the help of a_computer algebra program which_links the_two,_and an eigenvalue_problem_is stated.'
address:
-_'Mathematics and Computer Science, Colorado College, Tutt_Science Center,_14 |
if there are analytic methods to investigate gravitational waves from EMRIs.
The post-Newtonian (PN) approximation to the Einstein equations is a standard method to compute gravitational waveforms from inspiraling compact binaries [@post_Newton]. In the PN approximation to the compact binary system, one assumes that the velocities of the binary are much smaller than the speed of light, $v/c\ll 1$. In the standard PN approximation, the amplitude of gravitational waves and the orbital phase are, respectively, derived up to 3PN and 3.5PN, i.e. $v^6$ and $v^7$ beyond the leading order for the non-spinning compact binaries in quasi-circular orbits [@DJS01; @BDE04; @BFIJ02; @BDEI04; @K07; @BFIS08; @Favata09]. (Note that the 3.5PN amplitudes for $(\ell,m)=(2,2),(3,3)$ and $(3,1)$ modes are derived in Refs. [@FMBI2012; @FBI2014].) For the case of the spinning compact binaries in quasi-circular orbits, spin-orbit effects in the orbital phase are derived up to 4PN [@MBBB2014]. Spin-spin effects in the orbital phase are derived up to 2PN [@Gergely1999; @Gergely2000; @BVG2005; @RBK2009].
Using the PN approximation in the black hole perturbation theory, high PN order expressions for gravitational waves can be obtained more systematically than using the standard PN approximation [@ST]. The energy flux to infinity up to 5.5PN (4PN) for the case of a test particle in circular orbits around a Schwarzschild (Kerr) black hole was derived in Ref. [@TTS] (Ref. [@TSTS]) by solving the Teukolsky equation [@Teukolsky1973], which is the fundamental equation in the black hole perturbation theory. More recently, very high PN order expressions in the energy flux to infinity and gravitational waveforms for a test particle in circular orbits around a Schwarzschild black hole were derived up to 22PN [@14PN; @22PN] using a more systematic method to solve the Teukolsky equation [@MST; @MSTR]. It was shown that dephases between 22PN waveforms and very highly accurate waveforms during two-year inspirals can | if there are analytic methods to investigate gravitational waves from EMRIs.
The post - Newtonian (PN) approximation to the Einstein equation is a standard method acting to compute gravitational waveforms from inspiraling compendious binaries [ @post_Newton ]. In the PN estimate to the compact binary system, one assume that the velocities of the binary are a lot belittled than the amphetamine of light, $ v / c\ll 1$. In the standard PN approximation, the amplitude of gravitational wave and the orbital phase are, respectively, derived up to 3PN and 3.5PN, i.e. $ v^6 $ and $ v^7 $ beyond the leading order for the non - spinning compact binaries in quasi - round orbits [ @DJS01; @BDE04; @BFIJ02; @BDEI04; @K07; @BFIS08; @Favata09 ]. (Note that the 3.5PN amplitudes for $ (\ell, m)=(2,2),(3,3)$ and $ (3,1)$ mode are derived in Refs. [ @FMBI2012; @FBI2014 ] .) For the case of the spin compact binary star in quasi - circular orbits, spin - orbit effects in the orbital phase are derive up to 4PN [ @MBBB2014 ]. Spin - spin effects in the orbital phase are derived up to 2PN [ @Gergely1999; @Gergely2000; @BVG2005; @RBK2009 ].
Using the PN estimate in the bootleg trap perturbation theory, high PN order expressions for gravitational waves can be obtained more systematically than using the standard PN estimate [ @ST ]. The department of energy flux to infinity up to 5.5PN (4PN) for the case of a test atom in round orbits around a Schwarzschild (Kerr) black hole was derived in Ref. [ @TTS ] (Ref. [ @TSTS ]) by solving the Teukolsky equation [ @Teukolsky1973 ], which is the fundamental equation in the bootleg hole perturbation theory. More recently, very high PN order expressions in the energy flux to infinity and gravitational waveforms for a test particle in round orbits around a Schwarzschild bootleg hole were derived up to 22PN [ @14PN; @22PN ] using a more systematic method to solve the Teukolsky equality [ @MST; @MSTR ]. It was shown that dephases between 22PN waveforms and very highly accurate waveforms during two - year inspirals can | if there are analytic methuds to investigcre gratitatiohal waver from EMRIs.
The post-Newtoniai (PN) appriximation to the Einstdin equatpons is a staidard method to rkmpute nxavitzbionan waveforms frok inspiralhng compact bitafizs [@post_Newton]. In the PN approximation to the clmpact binary fysttm, jne zssumes that the velocities of the binary are much smakler than the speed of ligjt, $v/f\ll 1$. In the standagd PN approzimaeuon, the amplktude of ggcvitational waves and the orbital phase ard, res'ectively, dgxuvef up to 3PN aid 3.5PN, p.e. $v^6$ and $v^7$ benpnd tha leadimg order for tme noi-spibning compact binariev in quasi-circular orbits [@DJV01; @YDE04; @BFIJ02; @BDEI04; @K07; @BFIS08; @Dacata09]. (Tote thag thd 3.5PH empmituded fkr $(\ell,m)=(2,2),(3,3)$ ans $(3,1)$ modes arw derived in Refs. [@FMNI2012; @DBI2014].) For the czse of tre spinning compact binaries in quasi-cigculzr orbits, spin-orbit effwcts in the orbital pjase are qerived up to 4PN [@MBBB2014]. Spin-spin effects in the orbidal piare cvc defuvfd up to 2PN [@Gergely1999; @Gergely2000; @BVG2005; @RBK2009].
Using the PG akprpximation in tme black hole pertirhayyon theory, hieh PN ordsr expressions for gravitwtionql waves san ne obtained more systematicqlly than uspng rhe standard PN ap'roximation [@SC]. The gnergy flux to infinity up to 5.5PN (4LN) for the fase of a gest particle in cigculdr orbits around a Schwarzfchild (Kecr) blcck hole was derivqd in Ref. [@THS] (Ren. [@DSTS]) by solving thf Teunonsky equatlon [@Teukolsky1973], which is the fundamental equatiom hn nhe black hole perturbation theory. More rgcently, vzry hieh PN ordeg expressmons in the qnergy flux tm infinity anv gravitaeionql wqveformr for a test patticle in circular irbits around a Scmwarzrdhild black holz qere derived up to 22PN [@14[N; @22PI] usigc a more sysdemagic kethoa to solve bhe Teulolsky equation [@MST; @MVTR]. Jt was shown that ceihases bejween 22PN raveforms and very highly accurwte weveforos dutind two-year inspirals can | if there are analytic methods to investigate from The post-Newtonian approximation to the method compute gravitational waveforms inspiraling compact binaries In the PN approximation to the binary system, one assumes that the velocities of the binary are much smaller the speed of light, $v/c\ll 1$. In the standard PN approximation, the amplitude gravitational and orbital are, respectively, derived up to 3PN and 3.5PN, i.e. $v^6$ and $v^7$ beyond the leading order the non-spinning compact binaries in quasi-circular orbits [@DJS01; @BFIJ02; @BDEI04; @K07; @BFIS08; (Note that the 3.5PN amplitudes $(\ell,m)=(2,2),(3,3)$ $(3,1)$ modes derived Refs. @FBI2014].) For the of the spinning compact binaries in quasi-circular orbits, spin-orbit effects in the orbital phase are derived up 4PN [@MBBB2014]. in the phase derived to 2PN [@Gergely1999; @RBK2009]. Using the PN approximation in perturbation theory, high PN order expressions for gravitational can be more systematically than using the standard approximation [@ST]. The energy flux to infinity up 5.5PN (4PN) for the case of a test particle in circular orbits around a Schwarzschild hole was derived in [@TTS] (Ref. [@TSTS]) solving Teukolsky [@Teukolsky1973], is the equation in the black hole perturbation theory. More recently, very high order expressions in the energy flux to infinity and gravitational a particle in circular around a Schwarzschild black were up to 22PN [@14PN; a systematic the equation @MSTR]. It was shown dephases between 22PN waveforms and highly accurate waveforms during | if there are analytic methods To investigAte grAviTatIoNal wAves From EMRIs.
The poST-NewTonian (PN) approximation tO the EInSTein EQuAtionS is a staNDaRD MetHoD tO coMpUTe GraviTatIonal waVeforms froM inSpIraling compaCT bInaries [@posT_NeWton]. In the PN aPprOximatIoN to THe comPacT binaRy systEM, one asSumes that ThE VelociTIes of thE BInAry aRe much smaller than THe SPeed of light, $v/c\lL 1$. In the StANdARD PN AppRoximation, ThE amplITude of gRAvITATioNAl waves and the Orbital phasE Are, RespecTiVelY, DeriveD up to 3pN ANd 3.5Pn, i.e. $v^6$ and $v^7$ beyOnd tHe leading Order fOR the non-SPinning CompacT biNarIes iN QuAsI-ciRcULar ORbIts [@djS01; @BdE04; @BFIJ02; @BDeI04; @k07; @BfIS08; @FaVata09]. (nOTE That The 3.5pN amPlituDes for $(\ell,m)=(2,2),(3,3)$ and $(3,1)$ ModEs arE DerIved iN Refs. [@fMBI2012; @fBi2014].) For tHe case Of the SpInning compact biNariEs in quasi-CirCuLar OrBits, sPIn-orbiT efFecTs in the Orbital PHasE aRE DErIved up to 4PN [@MBBB2014]. Spin-SpIN EfFects in tHe orbiTAl PhASe are derIvEd uP to 2Pn [@gErgelY1999; @GerGElY2000; @BVG2005; @RBK2009].
USing thE pN ApProximaTiOn in thE bLacK hoLe perTUrbaTion thEory, high pN ordER expressions foR Gravitational WAvES CaN Be obTaiNed more systEmatICallY thaN UsIng THe staNdard pN APpROximation [@ST]. The energY fLux to iNfiniTy up to 5.5PN (4PN) for The case of a TEST particlE in cIRcULar orbits arounD a SchWarzschild (kErr) black Hole wAs deriveD in Ref. [@TTS] (rEF. [@TSTS]) by sOlvIng The teuKOLsKy equation [@TeuKOLsky1973], WhIch is thE fuNdamentAl eQuaTioN in ThE black holE perturbAtIoN tHeOry. more rECently, veRy HigH Pn orDer exPRessioNs in tHe enErGy FLux To infinITy AND graViTaTionAl wAvEformS for A TesT particLe in circuLar ORbitS aRoUnd a SchWarzschild blaCk Hole were deRiVed Up to 22PN [@14pn; @22pN] using a More systematic method to sOLve the TEukOlsky EquaTion [@MST; @MStR]. IT was shOwn THat depHases bEtweeN 22Pn waVEForms AND vEry HiGhly accuraTE WavEformS dUrinG two-yeaR inspirals can | if there are analytic met hods to in vesti gat e g ra vita tion al waves fromE MRIs .
The post-Newtonian(PN)ap p roxi m at ion t o the E i ns t e ineq ua tio ns is a st and ard met hod to com put egravitationa l w aveforms f rom inspiraling co mpactbi nar i es [@ pos t_New ton].I n thePN approx im a tion t o the co m p ac t bi nary system, onea ss u mes that the v elocit ie s o f the bi nary are m uc h sma l ler tha n t h e spe e d of light, $ v/c\ll 1$.I n t he sta nd ard PN app roxim at i on, the amplit udeof gravit ationa l wavesa nd theorbita l p has e ar e ,re spe ct i vel y ,der i ved up to 3 PN a nd 3. 5PN, i . e . $v ^6$ and $v^7 $ beyond thelea ding ord er fo r the non -s pinni ng com pactbi naries in quasi -cir cular orb its [ @DJ S0 1; @B D E04; @ BFI J02 ; @BDEI 04; @K0 7 ; @ BF I S 0 8; @Favata09]. (Note t h a tthe 3.5P N ampl i tu de s for $(\ el l,m )=(2 , 2 ),(3, 3)$a nd $(3,1)$ modes ar ederived i n Refs .[@F MBI 2012; @FBI 2014]. ) For th e cas e of the spinni n g compact bin a ri e s i n qua si- circular or bits , spi n-or b it ef f ectsin th eo rb i tal phase are deriv ed up to 4PN[@MBBB2014].Spin-spine f f ects intheo rb i tal phase arederiv ed up to 2 P N [@Gerg ely19 99; @Ger gely2000; @ BVG2005; @R BK2 009 ].U si ng the PN app r o xima ti on in t heblack h ole pe rtu rba ti on theory , high P Nor de rexp ressi o ns for g ra vit at ion al wa v es can be o btai ne dm ore system a ti c a llyth an usi ngth e sta ndar d PN approx imation [ @ST ] . Th een ergy fl ux to infinit yup to 5.5P N(4P N) for t he caseof a test particle in c i rcularorb its a roun d a Schwa rzs child(Ke r r) bla ck hol e was d eri v e d inR e f. [@ TT S] (Ref. [ @ T STS ]) by s olvi ng theTeukolsky equation [@T eukolsky1973] , w hich i sthe fu n dam en t ale q uation in the b lack holepe r tu rbation th e ory .More re cently, very high PN order ex pressions i n th e ene rgy flux t o infini ty and gr a vitat i on al wa vef orms f or atestpartic l e i n cir cularor bits a round a Schwarz schild black hole werederive d upto22PN [@14 PN; @22 PN] using a m ore system ati c m ethod to solve the Te uko l sky e quat i on [@MST; @M STR ] . I t was shown t h atdepha ses betwee n 22 PN waveforms andv ery highly acc urat e wav efo r ms d ur ing two-year i nsp ir a l s can | if_there are_analytic methods to investigate_gravitational waves_from_EMRIs.
The post-Newtonian_(PN)_approximation to the_Einstein equations is_a standard method to_compute gravitational waveforms_from_inspiraling compact binaries [@post_Newton]. In the PN approximation to the compact binary system, one assumes_that_the velocities_of_the_binary are much smaller than_the speed of light, $v/c\ll_1$. In_the standard PN approximation, the amplitude of gravitational_waves_and the orbital_phase are, respectively, derived up to 3PN and 3.5PN,_i.e. $v^6$ and $v^7$ beyond the_leading order for_the_non-spinning_compact binaries in quasi-circular_orbits [@DJS01; @BDE04; @BFIJ02; @BDEI04; @K07; @BFIS08;_@Favata09]. (Note that the 3.5PN amplitudes_for $(\ell,m)=(2,2),(3,3)$ and $(3,1)$ modes are derived_in Refs. [@FMBI2012; @FBI2014].) For the case_of the spinning compact binaries_in quasi-circular_orbits, spin-orbit effects in the_orbital phase are_derived up_to 4PN [@MBBB2014]. Spin-spin_effects in the orbital phase are_derived up to_2PN [@Gergely1999; @Gergely2000; @BVG2005; @RBK2009].
Using the PN_approximation_in the black_hole_perturbation_theory, high_PN order expressions_for_gravitational waves_can_be obtained more systematically than using_the_standard PN approximation [@ST]. The energy flux to_infinity up to 5.5PN_(4PN)_for the case of_a test particle in circular_orbits around a Schwarzschild (Kerr) black_hole was_derived in_Ref. [@TTS] (Ref. [@TSTS]) by solving the Teukolsky equation [@Teukolsky1973], which is the fundamental_equation in the black hole perturbation_theory. More recently, very_high PN_order_expressions in the_energy_flux to_infinity and gravitational waveforms for a test_particle in_circular orbits around a Schwarzschild black_hole were derived up_to_22PN [@14PN; @22PN] using a more systematic_method to solve the Teukolsky equation [@MST;_@MSTR]. It was shown that_dephases_between_22PN waveforms and very highly_accurate waveforms during two-year inspirals can |
transition\](i), there is $i^*$ such that $|q^{ac}_{h^*}, p^{ac}_{i^*}|_S \leq K$. It follows that $|p^{ab}_i, p^{ac}_{i^*}|_S \leq 3K+6K+K=10K$ and hence $|i-i^*| \leq 8K+10K=18K$. Therefore $|p^{ab}_i, p^{ac}_i|_S
\leq 10K+18K$.
Now consider the case, where $p^{ab}_i$ is an $(\epsilon,
R)$-deep vertex of $p^{ab}$ in the peripheral left coset $w$. Then $p^{ab}_i$ lies in an $(\epsilon, R)$-segment $p^{ab}[j,k]$ of $p^{ab}$ in $w$. Thus $\max\{|p^{ab}_j, w|_S,
|p^{ab}_k,w|_S\} \leq \epsilon \leq K.$ By Proposition \[cor:segments\](ii) and Step \[step:first\], there is a vertex $q^{ab}_m$ such that $|p^{ab}_j,
q^{ab}_m|_S\leq 3K$. As in the previous case, we obtain $j^*$ such that $|p^{ab}_j, p^{ac}_{j^*}|_S \leq 10K$. Analogously, there is $k^*$ such that $|p^{ab}_k, p^{ac}_{k^*}|_S \leq 10K$. In particular, we have $\max\left\{|p^{ac}_{j^*},w|_S,
|p^{ac}_{k^*},w|_S \right\}\leq 11K$. By quasiconvexity of $w$, Lemma \[lem:quasiconvexity\], every vertex of $p^{ac}[j^*,k^*]$ is at $S$-distance $\leq 11K^2$ from $w$. Moreover, we have $|j-j^*|\leq 8K+10K$, and analogously, $|k-k^*|\leq 18K$. Hence $i$ is at distance $\leq 18K$ from the interval $[j^*,k^*]$. (Note that we might have $j^*>k^*$, but that does not change the reasoning.) It follows that $|w,p^{ac}_i|_S \ | transition\](i), there is $ i^*$ such that $ |q^{ac}_{h^ * }, p^{ac}_{i^*}|_S \leq K$. It follows that $ |p^{ab}_i, p^{ac}_{i^*}|_S \leq 3K+6K+K=10K$ and hence $ |i - i^*| \leq 8K+10K=18K$. Therefore $ |p^{ab}_i, p^{ac}_i|_S
\leq 10K+18K$.
nowadays think the case, where $ p^{ab}_i$ is an $ (\epsilon,
R)$-deep vertex of $ p^{ab}$ in the peripheral left coset $ w$. Then $ p^{ab}_i$ lies in an $ (\epsilon, R)$-segment $ p^{ab}[j, k]$ of $ p^{ab}$ in $ w$. therefore $ \max\{|p^{ab}_j, w|_S,
|p^{ab}_k, w|_S\ } \leq \epsilon \leq K.$ By Proposition \[cor: segments\](ii) and Step \[step: first\ ], there is a vertex $ q^{ab}_m$ such that $ |p^{ab}_j,
q^{ab}_m|_S\leq 3K$. As in the previous case, we receive $ j^*$ such that $ |p^{ab}_j, p^{ac}_{j^*}|_S \leq 10K$. Analogously, there is $ k^*$ such that $ |p^{ab}_k, p^{ac}_{k^*}|_S \leq 10K$. In particular, we suffer $ \max\left\{|p^{ac}_{j^*},w|_S,
|p^{ac}_{k^*},w|_S \right\}\leq 11K$. By quasiconvexity of $ w$, Lemma \[lem: quasiconvexity\ ], every vertex of $ p^{ac}[j^*,k^*]$ is at $ S$-distance $ \leq 11K^2 $ from $ w$. Moreover, we have $ |j - j^*|\leq 8K+10K$, and analogously, $ |k - k^*|\leq 18K$. therefore $ i$ is at distance $ \leq 18K$ from the interval $ [ j^*,k^*]$. (Note that we might have $ j^*>k^*$, but that does not change the reasoning .) It follow that $ |w, p^{ac}_i|_S \ | trajsition\](i), there is $i^*$ such that $|q^{ac}_{h^*}, p^{ac}_{i^*}|_S \leq K$. It fomlows thxt $|p^{ab}_i, p^{ac}_{i^*}|_S \leq 3K+6K+K=10K$ and hxnce $|i-i^*| \ltz 8K+10K=18K$. Therefore $|p^{ac}_i, p^{ac}_i|_S
\lvq 10K+18K$.
Now xonsmder the case, whxde $p^{ab}_i$ is an $(\cpsilmi,
R)$-deep vertex on $p^{ab}$ in tha peripheral lafg eoset $w$. Then $p^{ab}_i$ lies in an $(\epsilon, R)$-segmemt $p^{ab}[j,k]$ of $p^{ab}$ yn $w$. Ehus $\max\{|p^{ab}_j, w|_S,
|p^{ab}_k,w|_S\} \leq \epsilon \leq I.$ By Prmposition \[cor:srgments\](ii) and Step \[step:firsh\], thfre is a vertex $q^{ah}_m$ such thaj $|p^{af}_h,
q^{ab}_m|_S\leq 3K$. Xs in the krzvious case, we obtain $j^*$ such that $|p^{ab}_j, p^{ac}_{g^*}|_S \lea 10K$. Analogiuwly, jhere is $k^*$ snch thwt $|p^{ab}_k, p^{ac}_{k^*}|_S \leq 10K$. Hn partocular, we have $\mae\lefr\{|p^{ac}_{j^*},w|_S,
|p^{ac}_{k^*},w|_S \right\}\lex 11K$. By quasiconvexyty of $w$, Nejma \[lem:quasiconvexutt\], evety vestex if $o^{ac}[n^*,k^*]$ ia at $S$-fisvance $\leq 11K^2$ from $w$. Morwover, we have $|j-j^*|\leq 8K+10H$, and analogoualy, $|k-k^*|\jez 18K$. Hence $i$ is at distance $\leq 18K$ from tve jnterval $[j^*,k^*]$. (Note that ww might have $j^*>k^*$, but tjat does got change the reasoning.) It follows that $|w,p^{ac}_i|_S \ | transition\](i), there is $i^*$ such that $|q^{ac}_{h^*}, K$. follows that p^{ac}_{i^*}|_S \leq 3K+6K+K=10K$ Therefore p^{ac}_i|_S \leq 10K+18K$. consider the case, $p^{ab}_i$ is an $(\epsilon, R)$-deep vertex $p^{ab}$ in the peripheral left coset $w$. Then $p^{ab}_i$ lies in an $(\epsilon, $p^{ab}[j,k]$ of $p^{ab}$ in $w$. Thus $\max\{|p^{ab}_j, w|_S, |p^{ab}_k,w|_S\} \leq \epsilon \leq K.$ Proposition and \[step:first\], is a vertex $q^{ab}_m$ such that $|p^{ab}_j, q^{ab}_m|_S\leq 3K$. As in the previous case, we obtain such that $|p^{ab}_j, p^{ac}_{j^*}|_S \leq 10K$. Analogously, there $k^*$ such that $|p^{ab}_k, \leq 10K$. In particular, we $\max\left\{|p^{ac}_{j^*},w|_S, \right\}\leq 11K$. quasiconvexity $w$, \[lem:quasiconvexity\], every vertex $p^{ac}[j^*,k^*]$ is at $S$-distance $\leq 11K^2$ from $w$. Moreover, we have $|j-j^*|\leq 8K+10K$, and analogously, $|k-k^*|\leq 18K$. $i$ is $\leq 18K$ the $[j^*,k^*]$. that we might but that does not change the that $|w,p^{ac}_i|_S \ | transition\](i), there is $i^*$ such thAt $|q^{ac}_{h^*}, p^{ac}_{i^*}|_s \leq K$. it fOllOwS thaT $|p^{ab}_I, p^{ac}_{i^*}|_S \leq 3K+6K+K=10K$ aND henCe $|i-i^*| \leq 8K+10K=18K$. Therefore $|p^{ab}_I, p^{ac}_i|_s
\lEQ 10K+18K$.
NOW cOnsidEr the caSE, wHERe $p^{Ab}_I$ iS an $(\EpSIlOn,
R)$-deEp vErtex of $P^{ab}$ in the peRipHeRal left coset $W$. thEn $p^{ab}_i$ lies In aN $(\epsilon, R)$-segMenT $p^{ab}[j,k]$ Of $P^{ab}$ IN $w$. ThuS $\maX\{|p^{ab}_j, W|_S,
|p^{ab}_k,W|_s\} \leq \epSilon \leq K.$ by pRoposiTIon \[cor:sEGMeNts\](iI) and Step \[step:first\], THeRE is a vertex $q^{ab}_m$ Such thAt $|P^{Ab}_J,
Q^{Ab}_m|_s\leQ 3K$. As in the pReVious CAse, we obTAiN $J^*$ SUch THat $|p^{ab}_j, p^{ac}_{j^*}|_S \lEq 10K$. AnalogouSLy, tHere is $K^*$ sUch THat $|p^{ab}_K, p^{ac}_{k^*}|_s \lEQ 10K$. IN particular, We haVe $\max\left\{|P^{ac}_{j^*},w|_S,
|P^{Ac}_{k^*},w|_S \riGHt\}\leq 11K$. BY quasiConVexIty oF $W$, LEmMa \[lEm:QUasICoNveXIty\], Every verTeX oF $p^{ac}[j^*,K^*]$ is aT $s$-DIStanCe $\lEq 11K^2$ fRom $w$. MOreover, we have $|J-j^*|\lEq 8K+10K$, ANd aNalogOusly, $|K-k^*|\leQ 18K$. hence $I$ is at dIstanCe $\Leq 18K$ from the inteRval $[J^*,k^*]$. (Note thaT we MiGht HaVe $j^*>k^*$, bUT that dOes Not Change tHe reasoNIng.) it FOLLoWs that $|w,p^{ac}_i|_S \ | transition\](i), there is$i^*$ such that $| q^{ ac }_{h ^*}, p^{ac}_{i^*}| _ S \l eq K$. It follows that $|p^ {a b }_i, p^ {ac}_ {i^*}|_ S \ l e q 3 K+ 6K +K= 10 K $and h enc e $|i-i ^*| \leq 8 K+1 0K =18K$. There f or e $|p^{ab} _i, p^{ac}_i|_S
\l eq 10K +1 8K$ .
Now co nside r thec ase, w here $p^{ ab } _i$ is an $(\e p s il on,R)$-deep vertex o f $ p ^{ab}$ in theperiph er a ll e ftcos et $w$. Th en $p^{ a b}_i$ l i es i n an $(\epsilon, R )$-segment$ p^{ ab}[j, k] $ o f $p^{a b}$ i n$ w$. Thus $\max \{|p ^{ab}_j,w|_S,| p^{ab}_ k ,w|_S\} \leq\ep sil on \ l eq K .$By Pro p os iti o n \ [cor:seg me nt s\](i i) a n d S tep\[s tep: first \], there isa v erte x $q ^{ab} _m$ s uchth at $| p^{ab} _j,
q ^{ ab}_m|_S\leq 3K $. A s in thepre vi ous c ase,w e obta in$j^ *$ such that $ | p^{ ab } _ j ,p^{ac}_{j^*}|_S \l eq 1 0K $. Analo gously , t he r e is $k^ *$ su ch t h a t $|p ^{ab } _k , p^{ac} _{k^*} | _S \ leq 10K $. In pa rt icu lar , weh ave$\max\ left\{|p ^{ac} _ {j^*},w|_S,
|p ^ {ac}_{k^*},w| _ S\ r ig h t\}\ leq 11K$. By q uasi c onve xity of $w $ , Lem ma \[ le m :q u asiconvexity\], eve ry verte x of$p^{ac}[j^*,k ^*]$ is at $ S $-distan ce $ \ le q 11K^2$ from $ w$. M oreover, w e have $| j-j^* |\leq 8K +10K$, an d analogou sly , $ |k- k^* | \ le q 18K$. Hence $ i$ i sat dist anc e $\leq 18 K$fro m t he interval $[j^*,k ^* ]$ .(N ote that we might h ave $ j^* >k^*$ , but t hat d oesno tc han ge ther ea s o ning .) I t fo llo ws that $|w , p^{ ac}_i|_ S \ | transition\](i), there_is $i^*$_such that $|q^{ac}_{h^*}, p^{ac}_{i^*}|_S_\leq K$._It_follows that_$|p^{ab}_i,_p^{ac}_{i^*}|_S \leq 3K+6K+K=10K$_and hence $|i-i^*|_\leq 8K+10K=18K$. Therefore $|p^{ab}_i,_p^{ac}_i|_S
\leq 10K+18K$.
Now consider_the_case, where $p^{ab}_i$ is an $(\epsilon,
R)$-deep vertex of $p^{ab}$ in the peripheral left coset_$w$._Then $p^{ab}_i$_lies_in_an $(\epsilon, R)$-segment $p^{ab}[j,k]$ of_$p^{ab}$ in $w$. Thus $\max\{|p^{ab}_j,_w|_S,
|p^{ab}_k,w|_S\} \leq_\epsilon \leq K.$ By Proposition \[cor:segments\](ii) and Step \[step:first\], there_is_a vertex $q^{ab}_m$_such that $|p^{ab}_j,
q^{ab}_m|_S\leq 3K$. As in the previous case,_we obtain $j^*$ such that $|p^{ab}_j,_p^{ac}_{j^*}|_S \leq 10K$._Analogously,_there_is $k^*$ such that_$|p^{ab}_k, p^{ac}_{k^*}|_S \leq 10K$. In particular,_we have $\max\left\{|p^{ac}_{j^*},w|_S,
|p^{ac}_{k^*},w|_S \right\}\leq 11K$. By_quasiconvexity of $w$, Lemma \[lem:quasiconvexity\], every vertex of_$p^{ac}[j^*,k^*]$ is at $S$-distance $\leq 11K^2$_from $w$. Moreover, we have_$|j-j^*|\leq 8K+10K$,_and analogously, $|k-k^*|\leq 18K$. Hence_$i$ is at_distance $\leq_18K$ from the_interval $[j^*,k^*]$. (Note that we might_have $j^*>k^*$, but_that does not change the reasoning.)_It_follows that $|w,p^{ac}_i|_S_\ |
/\sqrt{n}).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it is easy to derive from condition (A) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq7} \max_{1\le i \le n}\|\delta_i\|=\mathrm{O}(1/\sqrt{n})\quad\mbox{and}\quad \max_{1\le i
\le n}\|R_i\Delta_n\|=\mathrm{O}(1/\sqrt{n}).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $I=\mathrm{O}_{{\mathbb{P}}}(1)$. We now deal with $\mathit{II}$. Note that, by [(\[eq6\])]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\varepsilon}_i=\varepsilon_i-\bigl(
\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i\bigr)^{\top}\bigl(\hat{{\bolds{\eta}}}^{(2)}(t_i)-{\bolds{\eta}}^{(2)}(t_i)\bigr)=
\varepsilon_i-\bigl(\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i
\bigr)^{\top} \bigl(\mathbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i)
\bigr)^{-1}\bigl[\mathbf{B}^{(2)}_n(t_i)+
\mathbf{T}^{(2)}_n(t_i)\bigr].\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathit{II}&=&\sum_{i=1}^n\bigl(
\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i\bigr)^{\top} \bigl(
\mathbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i)\bigr)^{-1}
\mathbf{B}^{(2)}_n(t_i)[\tilde{\varepsilon
}_i-\hat{\varepsilon}_i]+\sum
_{i=1}^n\varepsilon_i[\tilde{
\varepsilon}_i-\hat{\varepsilon}_i]
\\
&&{}+\sum
_{i=1}^n\bigl(\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i
\bigr)^{\top} \bigl(\mathbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i)
\bigr)^{-1}\mathbf{T}^{(2)}_n(t_i)[
\tilde{\varepsilon}_i-\hat{\varepsilon}_i]
\\
&:=&\mathit{II}^{*}+\mathit{II}^{**}+\mathit{II}^{***}.\end{aligned}$$ By Hölder inequality, condition (A) and [(\[eq7\])]{}, the bias term | /\sqrt{n}).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it is easy to derive from condition (deoxyadenosine monophosphate) that $ $ \begin{aligned }
\label{eq7 } \max_{1\le i \le n}\|\delta_i\|=\mathrm{O}(1/\sqrt{n})\quad\mbox{and}\quad \max_{1\le i
\le n}\|R_i\Delta_n\|=\mathrm{O}(1/\sqrt{n}).\end{aligned}$$ therefore, $ I=\mathrm{O}_{{\mathbb{P}}}(1)$. We now deal with $ \mathit{II}$. Note that, by [ (\[eq6\ ]) ] { }, $ $ \begin{aligned }
\hat{\varepsilon}_i=\varepsilon_i-\bigl (
\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i\bigr)^{\top}\bigl(\hat{{\bolds{\eta}}}^{(2)}(t_i)-{\bolds{\eta}}^{(2)}(t_i)\bigr)=
\varepsilon_i-\bigl(\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i
\bigr)^{\top } \bigl(\mathbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i)
\bigr)^{-1}\bigl[\mathbf{B}^{(2)}_n(t_i)+
\mathbf{T}^{(2)}_n(t_i)\bigr].\end{aligned}$$ therefore, $ $ \begin{aligned }
\mathit{II}&=&\sum_{i=1}^n\bigl (
\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i\bigr)^{\top } \bigl (
\mathbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i)\bigr)^{-1 }
\mathbf{B}^{(2)}_n(t_i)[\tilde{\varepsilon
} _ i-\hat{\varepsilon}_i]+\sum
_ { i=1}^n\varepsilon_i[\tilde {
\varepsilon}_i-\hat{\varepsilon}_i ]
\\
& & { } + \sum
_ { i=1}^n\bigl(\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i
\bigr)^{\top } \bigl(\mathbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i)
\bigr)^{-1}\mathbf{T}^{(2)}_n(t_i) [
\tilde{\varepsilon}_i-\hat{\varepsilon}_i ]
\\
&: = & \mathit{II}^{*}+\mathit{II}^{**}+\mathit{II}^{***}.\end{aligned}$$ By Hölder inequality, condition (adenine) and [ (\[eq7\ ]) ] { }, the bias terminus | /\sqrh{n}).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, iu is easy to derirw from condifion (A) tfat $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq7} \max_{1\lx i \oe n}\|\dtjta_i\|=\mathrm{O}(1/\sqrt{n})\quxd\mbox{and}\euad \max_{1\oe i
\ow n}\|R_i\Delta_i\|=\jathrm{O}(1/\sqrt{n}).\ehf{aliynxd}$$ Hence, $I=\mathrk{O}_{{\mathbb{P}}}(1)$. Fe now deal widh $\mcthit{II}$. Note that, by [(\[eq6\])]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\rat{\varelsllon}_i=\varepsilog_i-\bibj(
\matgbf{z}^{(2)}_i\bigr)^{\top}\bigl(\hat{{\bolds{\eta}}}^{(2)}(t_i)-{\bolds{\sta}}^{(2)}(t_i)\bijr)=
\varepsilon_i-\bibl(\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i
\bigr)^{\top} \bigl(\mathhf{S}_n^{(2)}(h_i)
\bigr)^{-1}\bigl[\mathbf{B}^{(2)}_n(h_i)+
\mathbf{T}^{(2)}_n(t_u)\bigw].\wnd{aligned}$$ Hdnce, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathij{II}&=&\sum_{i=1}^n\bigl(
\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i\bigr)^{\top} \bigl(
\oathby{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i)\bigr)^{-1}
\majkvf{B}^{(2)}_j(j_i)[\tilde{\varepwilon
}_p-\hat{\varepsilok}_p]+\sum
_{i=1}^n\vdrepsilpn_i[\tilde{
\varepsllon}_i-\iat{\vqrepsilon}_i]
\\
&&{}+\sum
_{i=1}^n\bigl(\mavhbf{z}^{(2)}_i
\bigr)^{\top} \bigl(\majhbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i)
\bicr)^{-1}\jathbf{T}^{(2)}_n(t_i)[
\tilde{\vaeepsilot}_i-\had{\vardpsiuon}_j]
\\
&:=&\methjt{II}^{*}+\mahhiv{II}^{**}+\mathit{II}^{***}.\snd{aligned}$$ Vy Hölder inequality, cjbdition (A) and [(\[eq7\])]{}, thq fias term | /\sqrt{n}).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it is easy to derive (A) $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq7} i \le n}\|\delta_i\|=\mathrm{O}(1/\sqrt{n})\quad\mbox{and}\quad $I=\mathrm{O}_{{\mathbb{P}}}(1)$. now deal with Note that, by $$\begin{aligned} \hat{\varepsilon}_i=\varepsilon_i-\bigl( \mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i\bigr)^{\top}\bigl(\hat{{\bolds{\eta}}}^{(2)}(t_i)-{\bolds{\eta}}^{(2)}(t_i)\bigr)= \varepsilon_i-\bigl(\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i \bigr)^{\top} \bigl(\mathbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i) \mathbf{T}^{(2)}_n(t_i)\bigr].\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned} \mathit{II}&=&\sum_{i=1}^n\bigl( \mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i\bigr)^{\top} \bigl( \mathbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i)\bigr)^{-1} \mathbf{B}^{(2)}_n(t_i)[\tilde{\varepsilon }_i-\hat{\varepsilon}_i]+\sum _{i=1}^n\varepsilon_i[\tilde{ \varepsilon}_i-\hat{\varepsilon}_i] \\ &&{}+\sum \bigr)^{\top} \bigl(\mathbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i) \bigr)^{-1}\mathbf{T}^{(2)}_n(t_i)[ \tilde{\varepsilon}_i-\hat{\varepsilon}_i] \\ &:=&\mathit{II}^{*}+\mathit{II}^{**}+\mathit{II}^{***}.\end{aligned}$$ By Hölder inequality, condition (A) and [(\[eq7\])]{}, bias | /\sqrt{n}).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, iT is easy to dErive FroM coNdItioN (A) thAt $$\begin{aligned}
\LAbel{Eq7} \max_{1\le i \le n}\|\delta_i\|=\mathrM{O}(1/\sqrT{n})\QUad\mBOx{And}\quAd \max_{1\le I
\Le N}\|r_I\DeLtA_n\|=\MatHrM{o}(1/\sQrt{n}).\eNd{aLigned}$$ HEnce, $I=\mathrM{O}_{{\mAtHbb{P}}}(1)$. We now deaL WiTh $\mathit{II}$. notE that, by [(\[eq6\])]{}, $$\begIn{aLigned}
\HaT{\vaREpsilOn}_i=\VarepSilon_i-\BIgl(
\matHbf{z}^{(2)}_i\bigr)^{\ToP}\Bigl(\haT{{\Bolds{\etA}}}^{(2)}(T_I)-{\bOlds{\Eta}}^{(2)}(t_i)\bigr)=
\varepsilON_i-\BIgl(\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i
\bigR)^{\top} \biGl(\MAtHBF{S}_n^{(2)}(T_i)
\bIgr)^{-1}\bigl[\matHbF{B}^{(2)}_n(t_i)+
\MAthbf{T}^{(2)}_n(T_I)\bIGR].\End{ALigned}$$ Hence, $$\beGin{aligned}
\mAThiT{II}&=&\sum_{I=1}^n\BigL(
\Mathbf{Z}^{(2)}_i\bigR)^{\tOP} \biGl(
\mathbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_I)\bigR)^{-1}
\mathbf{B}^{(2)}_n(T_i)[\tildE{\VarepsiLOn
}_i-\hat{\vArepsiLon}_I]+\suM
_{i=1}^n\vARePsIloN_i[\TIldE{
\VaRepSIloN}_i-\hat{\varEpSiLon}_i]
\\
&&{}+\sUm
_{i=1}^n\BIGL(\MathBf{z}^{(2)}_I
\bigR)^{\top} \bIgl(\mathbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i)
\BigR)^{-1}\matHBf{T}^{(2)}_N(t_i)[
\tiLde{\vaRepsIlOn}_i-\haT{\varepSilon}_I]
\\
&:=&\mAthit{II}^{*}+\mathit{II}^{**}+\MathIt{II}^{***}.\end{alIgnEd}$$ by HÖlDer inEQualitY, coNdiTion (A) anD [(\[eq7\])]{}, the bIAs tErM | /\sqrt{n}).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore , itiseas yto d eriv e from conditi o n (A ) that $$\begin{aligne d}
\l ab e l{eq 7 }\max_ {1\le i \l e n}\ |\ de lta _i \ |= \math rm{ O}(1/\s qrt{n})\qu ad\ mb ox{and}\quad \m ax_{1\le i
\l e n}\|R_i\De lta _n\|=\ ma thr m {O}(1 /\s qrt{n }).\en d {align ed}$$ Hen ce , $I=\m a thrm{O} _ { {\ math bb{P}}}(1)$. We n o wd eal with $\mat hit{II }$ . N o t e t hat , by [(\[e q6 \])]{ } , $$\be g in { a l ign e d}
\hat{\vare psilon}_i=\ v are psilon _i -\b i gl(
\m athbf {z } ^{( 2)}_i\bigr) ^{\t op}\bigl( \hat{{ \ bolds{\ e ta}}}^{ (2)}(t _i) -{\ bold s {\ et a}} ^{ ( 2)} ( t_ i)\ b igr )=
\vare ps il on_i- \big l ( \ m athb f{z }^{( 2)}_i
\bigr)^{\top } \ bigl ( \ma thbf{ S}_n^ {(2) }( t_i)\bigr) ^{-1} \b igl[\mathbf{B}^ {(2) }_n(t_i)+
\m at hbf {T }^{(2 ) }_n(t_ i)\ big r].\end {aligne d }$$ H e n c e, $$\begin{aligned}
\ m a th it{II}&= &\sum_ { i= 1} ^ n\bigl(\m ath bf{z } ^ {(2)} _i\b i gr )^{\top} \bigl (
\ ma thbf{S} _n ^{(2)} (t _i) \bi gr)^{ - 1}
\ mathbf {B}^{(2) }_n(t _ i)[\tilde{\var e psilon
}_i-\h a t{ \ v ar e psil on} _i]+\sum
_{ i=1} ^ n\va reps i lo n_i [ \tild e{
\v ar e ps i lon}_i-\hat{\vareps il on}_i]
\\
& &{}+\sum
_{i= 1}^n\bigl( \ m a thbf{z}^ {(2) } _i \bigr)^{\top}\bigl (\mathbf{S } _n^{(2)} (t_i)
\bigr)^ {-1}\math b f {T}^{(2) }_n (t_ i)[
\t i l de {\varepsilon} _ i -\ha t{ \vareps ilo n}_i]
\ \
& :=& \ma thi t{ II}^{*}+\ mathit{I I} ^{ ** }+ \ma thit{ I I}^{***} .\ end {a lig ned}$ $ By Hö lderineq ua li t y,conditi o n( A ) an d[( \[eq 7\] )] {}, t he b i asterm | /\sqrt{n}).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore,_it is_easy to derive from_condition (A)_that_$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq7} \max_{1\le_i_\le n}\|\delta_i\|=\mathrm{O}(1/\sqrt{n})\quad\mbox{and}\quad \max_{1\le_i
\le n}\|R_i\Delta_n\|=\mathrm{O}(1/\sqrt{n}).\end{aligned}$$ Hence,_$I=\mathrm{O}_{{\mathbb{P}}}(1)$. We now deal_with $\mathit{II}$. Note_that,_by [(\[eq6\])]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\varepsilon}_i=\varepsilon_i-\bigl(
\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i\bigr)^{\top}\bigl(\hat{{\bolds{\eta}}}^{(2)}(t_i)-{\bolds{\eta}}^{(2)}(t_i)\bigr)=
\varepsilon_i-\bigl(\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i
\bigr)^{\top} \bigl(\mathbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i)
\bigr)^{-1}\bigl[\mathbf{B}^{(2)}_n(t_i)+
\mathbf{T}^{(2)}_n(t_i)\bigr].\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathit{II}&=&\sum_{i=1}^n\bigl(
\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i\bigr)^{\top} \bigl(
\mathbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i)\bigr)^{-1}
\mathbf{B}^{(2)}_n(t_i)[\tilde{\varepsilon
}_i-\hat{\varepsilon}_i]+\sum
_{i=1}^n\varepsilon_i[\tilde{
\varepsilon}_i-\hat{\varepsilon}_i]
\\
&&{}+\sum
_{i=1}^n\bigl(\mathbf{z}^{(2)}_i
\bigr)^{\top} \bigl(\mathbf{S}_n^{(2)}(t_i)
\bigr)^{-1}\mathbf{T}^{(2)}_n(t_i)[
\tilde{\varepsilon}_i-\hat{\varepsilon}_i]
\\
&:=&\mathit{II}^{*}+\mathit{II}^{**}+\mathit{II}^{***}.\end{aligned}$$ By Hölder inequality, condition (A) and_[(\[eq7\])]{},_the bias_term |
{Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_N))\cdot \\
&\quad\overline{\mathrm{Tr}(\tilde p_1(X_N)\tilde q_1(Y_N)\cdots \tilde p_{\tilde m}(X_N)\tilde q_{\tilde m}(Y_N))}\,\big) \\
&=\begin{cases}
\sum_{\ell=0}^{m-1}\prod_{j=1}^m\tau(p_j(s)\tilde p_{j+\ell}(s))\tau(q_j(s)\tilde q_{j+\ell}(s)),&m=\tilde m \\
0,&m\ne\tilde m,\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where the subscripts of $p$ and $q$ are taken modulo $m$. Furthermore, for any polynomial $r$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{N\to\infty}E\big(\mathrm{Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_N)){{\mathrm{Tr}}}(r(X_N))\big)&=0 \\
\lim_{N\to\infty}E\big(\mathrm{Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_N)){{\mathrm{Tr}}}(r(Y_N))\big)&=0.\end{aligned}$$
If $\mathfrak{A}$ is any unital algebra and if $a_1,a_2\in\mathfrak{A}$, we let $${{\mathrm{ev}}}_{a_1,a_2}:\mathbb{C}\langle x_1,x_2\rangle\to\mathfrak{A}$$ be the algebra homomorphism given by $${{\mathrm{ev}}}_{a_1,a_2}(P)=P(a_1,a_2).$$ In the corollary below, which follows directly from Theorem \[MS\] and Proposition \[prop:johansson\], we take as $\mathfrak{A}$ the algebra of random matrices (over a fixed probability space) whose entries have moments of all orders.
\[cor:MS\] Let $u$ and $v | { Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_N))\cdot \\
& \quad\overline{\mathrm{Tr}(\tilde p_1(X_N)\tilde q_1(Y_N)\cdots \tilde p_{\tilde m}(X_N)\tilde q_{\tilde m}(Y_N))}\,\big) \\
& = \begin{cases }
\sum_{\ell=0}^{m-1}\prod_{j=1}^m\tau(p_j(s)\tilde p_{j+\ell}(s))\tau(q_j(s)\tilde q_{j+\ell}(s)),&m=\tilde m \\
0,&m\ne\tilde m,\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where the subscripts of $ p$ and $ q$ are taken modulo $ m$. Furthermore, for any polynomial $ r$, we have $ $ \begin{aligned }
\lim_{N\to\infty}E\big(\mathrm{Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_N)){{\mathrm{Tr}}}(r(X_N))\big)&=0 \\
\lim_{N\to\infty}E\big(\mathrm{Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_N)){{\mathrm{Tr}}}(r(Y_N))\big)&=0.\end{aligned}$$
If $ \mathfrak{A}$ is any unital algebra and if $ a_1,a_2\in\mathfrak{A}$, we let $ $ { { \mathrm{ev}}}_{a_1,a_2}:\mathbb{C}\langle x_1,x_2\rangle\to\mathfrak{A}$$ constitute the algebra homomorphism render by $ $ { { \mathrm{ev}}}_{a_1,a_2}(P)=P(a_1,a_2).$$ In the corollary below, which follows directly from Theorem \[MS\ ] and Proposition \[prop: johansson\ ], we take as $ \mathfrak{A}$ the algebra of random matrix (over a fixed probability space) whose submission give birth moments of all orders.
\[cor: MS\ ] Let $ u$ and $ v | {Tr}(p_1(D_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_N))\cdot \\
&\duad\overline{\matkem{Tr}(\tinde p_1(X_H)\tilde q_1(H_N)\cdots \tilde p_{\tilde m}(X_N)\tildx q_{\tulde n}(Y_N))}\,\big) \\
&=\begin{cases}
\sum_{\elu=0}^{m-1}\prod_{j=1}^m\twu(p_j(s)\tilee p_{o+\ell}(s))\tau(q_j(s)\tilde q_{j+\ell}(s)),&m=\bnlde j \\
0,&m\ne\ciode m,\end{cases}\ekd{aligned}$$ wvere the subscsiotd of $p$ and $q$ are taken modulo $m$. Furehermorr, vor any polynoiial $w$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{N\to\infty}E\big(\mzthrm{Tr}(k_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(U_N)){{\mathrm{Tr}}}(r(X_N))\big)&=0 \\
\lim_{N\to\infhy}E\blg(\mathrm{Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdlts p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_B)){{\matrem{Tr}}}(r(Y_N))\big)&=0.\ena{aligned}$$
If $\mathfrak{A}$ ia any unital algebra and if $a_1,a_2\iv\mathyrak{A}$, we lej $${{\jahvrm{ev}}}_{a_1,a_2}:\mathub{C}\landle x_1,x_2\rangle\bp\mathfsak{A}$$ be the algebra hpmokorphism given by $${{\mathrm{xv}}}_{a_1,a_2}(P)=P(a_1,a_2).$$ In the corojlary belmw, which follows dieextly xrom Theueem \[MS\] aid Lroposltikn \[prop:johznsson\], we tqke as $\mathfrak{A}$ tht ajtebra of randkm matwises (over a fixed probability space) whost entdies have moments of alo orders.
\[cor:MS\] Let $u$ ajd $v | {Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_N))\cdot \\ &\quad\overline{\mathrm{Tr}(\tilde p_1(X_N)\tilde q_1(Y_N)\cdots \tilde q_{\tilde \\ &=\begin{cases} p_{j+\ell}(s))\tau(q_j(s)\tilde q_{j+\ell}(s)),&m=\tilde m subscripts $p$ and $q$ taken modulo $m$. for any polynomial $r$, we have \lim_{N\to\infty}E\big(\mathrm{Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_N)){{\mathrm{Tr}}}(r(X_N))\big)&=0 \\ \lim_{N\to\infty}E\big(\mathrm{Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_N)){{\mathrm{Tr}}}(r(Y_N))\big)&=0.\end{aligned}$$ If $\mathfrak{A}$ is any unital algebra and if we let $${{\mathrm{ev}}}_{a_1,a_2}:\mathbb{C}\langle x_1,x_2\rangle\to\mathfrak{A}$$ be the algebra homomorphism given by $${{\mathrm{ev}}}_{a_1,a_2}(P)=P(a_1,a_2).$$ In the below, follows from \[MS\] and Proposition \[prop:johansson\], we take as $\mathfrak{A}$ the algebra of random matrices (over a fixed space) whose entries have moments of all orders. Let $u$ and $v | {Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_N))\cdot \\
&\Quad\overliNe{\matHrm{tr}(\tIlDe p_1(X_n)\tilDe q_1(Y_N)\cdots \tildE P_{\tilDe m}(X_N)\tilde q_{\tilde m}(Y_N))}\,\big) \\
&=\Begin{CaSEs}
\suM_{\ElL=0}^{m-1}\proD_{j=1}^m\tau(p_J(S)\tILDe p_{J+\eLl}(S))\taU(q_J(S)\tIlde q_{J+\elL}(s)),&m=\tildE m \\
0,&m\ne\tilde M,\enD{cAses}\end{alignED}$$ wHere the subScrIpts of $p$ and $q$ aRe tAken moDuLo $m$. fUrtheRmoRe, for Any polYNomial $R$, we have $$\beGiN{AligneD}
\Lim_{N\to\iNFTy}e\big(\Mathrm{Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdoTS p_M(x_N)q_m(Y_N)){{\mathrm{Tr}}}(R(X_N))\big)&=0 \\
\LiM_{n\tO\INftY}E\bIg(\mathrm{Tr}(P_1(X_n)q_1(Y_N)\cDOts p_m(X_N)Q_M(Y_n)){{\MAThrM{tr}}}(r(Y_N))\big)&=0.\end{alIgned}$$
If $\mathFRak{a}$ is any UnItaL AlgebrA and iF $a_1,A_2\In\mAthfrak{A}$, we lEt $${{\maThrm{ev}}}_{a_1,a_2}:\mAthbb{C}\LAngle x_1,x_2\RAngle\to\MathfrAk{A}$$ Be tHe alGEbRa HomOmORphISm GivEN by $${{\Mathrm{ev}}}_{A_1,a_2}(p)=P(A_1,a_2).$$ In tHe coROLLAry bEloW, whiCh folLows directly fRom theoREm \[Ms\] and PRoposItioN \[pRop:joHanssoN\], we taKe As $\mathfrak{A}$ the aLgebRa of randoM maTrIceS (oVer a fIXed proBabIliTy space) Whose enTRieS hAVE MoMents of all orders.
\[coR:Ms\] lEt $U$ and $v | {Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdot s p_m(X_N) q_m(Y _N) )\c do t \\
&\q uad\overline{\ m athr m{Tr}(\tilde p_1(X_N)\ tilde q _ 1(Y_ N )\ cdots \tilde p_ { \ til de m }(X _N ) \t ildeq_{ \tildem}(Y_N))}\ ,\b ig ) \\
&=\begi n {c ases}
\sum _{\ ell=0}^{m-1} \pr od_{j= 1} ^m\ t au(p_ j(s )\til de p_{ j +\ell} (s))\tau( q_ j (s)\ti l de q_{j + \ el l}(s )),&m=\tilde m \\ 0, & m\ne\tilde m,\ end{ca se s }\ e n d{a lig ned}$$ whe re thes ubscrip t so f $p$ and $q$ are t aken modulo $m$ . Furt he rmo r e, for anypo l yno mial $r$, w e ha ve $$\beg in{ali g ned}
\l i m_{N\to \infty }E\ big (\ma t hr m{ Tr} (p _ 1(X _ N) q_1 ( Y_N )\cdotsp_ m( X_N)q _m(Y _ N ) ) {{\m ath rm{T r}}}( r(X_N))\big)& =0\\
\ l im_ {N\to \inft y}E\ bi g(\ma thrm{T r}(p_ 1( X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cd otsp_m(X_N)q _m( Y_ N)) {{ \math r m{Tr}} }(r (Y_ N))\big )&=0.\e n d{a li g n e d} $$
If $\mathfrak{ A} $ is any uni tal al g eb ra and if $ a_ 1,a _2\i n \ mathf rak{ A }$ , we let $${{\ m at hr m{ev}}} _{ a_1,a_ 2} :\m ath bb{C} \ lang le x_1 ,x_2\ran gle\t o \mathfrak{A}$$ be the algebr a h o m om o rphi smgiven by $$ {{\m a thrm {ev} } }_ {a_ 1 ,a_2} (P)=P (a _ 1, a _2).$$ In the corol la ry bel ow, w hich followsdirectly f r o m Theorem \[M S \] and Propositio n \[p rop:johans s on\], we take as $\ma thfrak{A} $ the alge bra of ra ndo m ma trices (overa fixe dprobabi lit y space ) w hos e e ntr ie s have mo ments of a ll o rd ers .
\[ c or:MS\]Le t $ u$ an d $v | {Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_N))\cdot_\\
&\quad\overline{\mathrm{Tr}(\tilde p_1(X_N)\tilde_q_1(Y_N)\cdots \tilde p_{\tilde m}(X_N)\tilde_q_{\tilde m}(Y_N))}\,\big)_\\
&=\begin{cases}
\sum_{\ell=0}^{m-1}\prod_{j=1}^m\tau(p_j(s)\tilde_p_{j+\ell}(s))\tau(q_j(s)\tilde q_{j+\ell}(s)),&m=\tilde_m_\\
0,&m\ne\tilde m,\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where_the subscripts of_$p$ and $q$ are_taken modulo $m$._Furthermore,_for any polynomial $r$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{N\to\infty}E\big(\mathrm{Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_N)){{\mathrm{Tr}}}(r(X_N))\big)&=0 \\
\lim_{N\to\infty}E\big(\mathrm{Tr}(p_1(X_N)q_1(Y_N)\cdots p_m(X_N)q_m(Y_N)){{\mathrm{Tr}}}(r(Y_N))\big)&=0.\end{aligned}$$
If $\mathfrak{A}$ is any unital_algebra_and if_$a_1,a_2\in\mathfrak{A}$,_we_let $${{\mathrm{ev}}}_{a_1,a_2}:\mathbb{C}\langle x_1,x_2\rangle\to\mathfrak{A}$$ be the_algebra homomorphism given by $${{\mathrm{ev}}}_{a_1,a_2}(P)=P(a_1,a_2).$$_In the_corollary below, which follows directly from Theorem \[MS\]_and_Proposition \[prop:johansson\], we_take as $\mathfrak{A}$ the algebra of random matrices (over_a fixed probability space) whose entries_have moments of_all_orders.
\[cor:MS\]_Let $u$ and $v |
(\pmb{h}(K_t)+\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
\over
\cosh\left(\pmb{h}(K_t)\right)\cdot\cosh
\left(\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
}
\Big)
\nonumber
\\[0,3cm]
=
{1\over 2}
\phi_{\pmb{p},\pmb{h},G}
\big(
\mathds{1}_{\{x\not\leftrightarrow y\}}
\cdot
\big\{
1
+
\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_t)\right)
\cdot
\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
\big\}
\big).
\end{gathered}$$ Replacing the last expression in we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I-2-1}
I_2
=
{1\over 2}
\phi_{\pmb{p},\pmb{h},G}
\big(
\mathds{1}_{\{x\not\leftrightarrow y\}}
\cdot
\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_t)\right)
\cdot
\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
\big).
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\tau_{2\beta,\pmb{h},2,V}(x,y)=I_1+I_2$, the theorem follows.
Notice that in the absence of the magnetic field, i.e. $\pmb{h}\equiv 0$, the conclusion of the Theorem \[Correlação/quase-conectividade\] reduces to $$\tau_{2\beta,0,2,V}(x,y)=
{1\over 2}\phi_{\pmb{p},0,G}(x\leftrightarrow y),
\quad \forall x,y\in V$$ which is a well known identity for the Ising/Potts model with $q=2$, see [@Grimmett2] Theorem 1.16, p. 11.
\[col\] The spin-spin correlation of the Ising model on the finite | ( \pmb{h}(K_t)+\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
\over
\cosh\left(\pmb{h}(K_t)\right)\cdot\cosh
\left(\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
}
\Big)
\nonumber
\\[0,3 cm ]
=
{ 1\over 2 }
\phi_{\pmb{p},\pmb{h},G }
\big (
\mathds{1}_{\{x\not\leftrightarrow y\ } }
\cdot
\big\ {
1
+
\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_t)\right)
\cdot
\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
\big\ }
\big).
\end{gathered}$$ Replacing the last expression in we get that $ $ \begin{aligned }
\label{I-2 - 1 }
I_2
=
{ 1\over 2 }
\phi_{\pmb{p},\pmb{h},G }
\big (
\mathds{1}_{\{x\not\leftrightarrow y\ } }
\cdot
\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_t)\right)
\cdot
\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
\big).
\end{aligned}$$ Since $ \tau_{2\beta,\pmb{h},2,V}(x, y)=I_1+I_2 $, the theorem follow.
detect that in the absence of the magnetic field, i.e. $ \pmb{h}\equiv 0 $, the conclusion of the Theorem \[Correlação / quase - conectividade\ ] reduce to $ $ \tau_{2\beta,0,2,V}(x, y)=
{ 1\over 2}\phi_{\pmb{p},0,G}(x\leftrightarrow y),
\quad \forall x, y\in V$$ which is a well known identity for the Ising / Potts model with $ q=2 $, experience [ @Grimmett2 ] Theorem 1.16, p. 11.
\[col\ ] The tailspin - spin correlation of the Ising model on the finite | (\pmb{j}(K_t)+\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
\ovtr
\cosh\leyr(\pmb{h}(K_v)\right)\csot\cosh
\left(\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
}
\Vig)
\nonumber
\\[0,3cm]
=
{1\over 2}
\phi_{\pmb{p},\pmb{i},G}
\big(
\matiss{1}_{\{x\not\lcytriggbarroc b\}}
\cdot
\bin\{
1
+
\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(N_t)\fiyht)
\cdot
\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
\big\}
\hig).
\end{gathgred}$$ Ge[lacjng the last expression in we get fhat $$\bejin{aligned}
\label{O-2-1}
I_2
=
{1\over 2}
\phi_{\omb{p},\omb{h},G}
\big(
\mahhds{1}_{\{x\not\lefjdigrrarrow y\}}
\zdot
\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_t)\tight)
\cdot
\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_u)\fight)
\big).
\ebd{aphgned}$$ Since $\tau_{2\bvta,\pmb{h},2,V}(x,y)=I_1+I_2$, bne themrem foklows.
Notice thst mn tye absence of the magietic field, i.e. $\pmb{h}\ezuiv 0$, the cknclusion of the Rhworem \[Corselaçãu/wuare-cknxctjvidadf\] rxduces to $$\tzu_{2\beta,0,2,V}(x,y)=
{1\over 2}\phi_{\pmb{p},0,G}(x\lefuridytarrow y),
\suad \fjrwll x,y\in V$$ which is a well known identiuy fod the Ising/Potts model qith $q=2$, see [@Grimmett2] Tjeorem 1.16, p. 11.
\[col\] The spin-spin correlation of the Ising model mn thx winnbc | (\pmb{h}(K_t)+\pmb{h}(K_u)\right) \over \cosh\left(\pmb{h}(K_t)\right)\cdot\cosh \left(\pmb{h}(K_u)\right) } \Big) \nonumber {1\over \phi_{\pmb{p},\pmb{h},G} \big( y\}} \cdot \big\{ \big\} \end{gathered}$$ Replacing the expression in we that $$\begin{aligned} \label{I-2-1} I_2 = {1\over \phi_{\pmb{p},\pmb{h},G} \big( \mathds{1}_{\{x\not\leftrightarrow y\}} \cdot \tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_t)\right) \cdot \tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_u)\right) \big). \end{aligned}$$ Since $\tau_{2\beta,\pmb{h},2,V}(x,y)=I_1+I_2$, the follows. Notice that in the absence of the magnetic field, i.e. $\pmb{h}\equiv 0$, conclusion the \[Correlação/quase-conectividade\] to $$\tau_{2\beta,0,2,V}(x,y)= {1\over 2}\phi_{\pmb{p},0,G}(x\leftrightarrow y), \quad \forall x,y\in V$$ which is a well known identity for Ising/Potts model with $q=2$, see [@Grimmett2] Theorem 1.16, 11. \[col\] The spin-spin of the Ising model on finite | (\pmb{h}(K_t)+\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
\over
\cosh\Left(\pmb{h}(K_t)\Right)\CdoT\coSh
\Left(\Pmb{h}(k_u)\right)
}
\Big)
\nonuMBer
\\[0,3cM]
=
{1\over 2}
\phi_{\pmb{p},\pmb{h},G}
\big(
\maThds{1}_{\{x\NoT\LeftRIgHtarrOw y\}}
\cdot
\BIg\{
1
+
\TANh\lEfT(\pMb{h}(k_t)\RIgHt)
\cdoT
\taNh\left(\pMb{h}(K_u)\right)
\Big\}
\BiG).
\end{gathered}$$ rEpLacing the lAst Expression in We gEt that $$\BeGin{ALigneD}
\laBel{I-2-1}
I_2
=
{1\Over 2}
\phI_{\Pmb{p},\pmB{h},G}
\big(
\matHdS{1}_{\{X\not\leFTrightaRROw Y\}}
\cdoT
\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_t)\riGHt)
\CDot
\tanh\left(\pmb{H}(K_u)\rigHt)
\BIg).
\END{alIgnEd}$$ Since $\tau_{2\BeTa,\pmb{H},2,v}(x,y)=I_1+I_2$, thE ThEOREm fOLlows.
Notice thAt in the abseNCe oF the maGnEtiC Field, i.E. $\pmb{h}\EqUIv 0$, tHe conclusioN of tHe Theorem \[correlAÇão/quasE-ConectiVidade\] RedUceS to $$\tAU_{2\bEtA,0,2,V}(x,Y)=
{1\oVEr 2}\pHI_{\pMb{p},0,g}(X\leFtrightaRrOw Y),
\quad \ForaLL X,Y\In V$$ wHicH is a Well kNown identity fOr tHe IsINg/POtts mOdel wIth $q=2$, SeE [@GrimMett2] ThEorem 1.16, P. 11.
\[cOl\] The spin-spin coRrelAtion of thE IsInG moDeL on thE Finite | (\pmb{h}(K_t)+\pmb{h}(K_u) \right)
\o ver \cosh\left(\pm b {h}( K_t)\right)\cdot\cosh \lef t (\ pmb{h }(K_u)\ r ig h t )
}
\ Bi g)
\ nonumbe r
\\[0 ,3c m]
=
{ 1 \o ver 2}
\p hi_{\pmb{p}, \pm b{h},G } \big(
\ma thds{1 } _{\{x\ not\leftr ig h tarrow y\}}
\c dot \big\{
1 +
\tanh\le ft(\pm b{ h }( K _ t)\ rig ht)
\c do t
\tanh\l e ft ( \ p mb{ h }(K_u)\right)
\big\} \big) . \end{g ather ed } $$Replacing t he l ast expre ssioni n we ge t that $ $\begi n{a lig ned} \l ab el{ I- 2 -1} I _ 2
=
{ 1\ over2}
\ phi_ {\p mb{p },\pm b{h},G}
\ big (
\m athds {1}_{ \{x\ no t\lef tright arrow y \}}
\cdot
\ tanh\left (\p mb {h} (K _t)\r i ght)
\cd ot
\tanh\ l eft (\ p m b {h }(K_u)\right)
\b i g ).
\en d{alig n ed }$ $ Since $ \t au_ {2\b e t a,\pm b{h} , 2, V}(x,y)= I_1+I_ 2 $, t he theo re m foll ow s.
No ticet hatin the absence of t h e magnetic fie l d, i.e. $\pmb { h} \ e qu i v 0$ , t he conclusi on o f the The o re m \ [ Corre lação /q u as e -conectividade\] re du ces to $$\t au_{2\beta,0, 2,V}(x,y)= {1\ove r 2} \ ph i _{\pmb{p},0,G} (x\le ftrightarr o w y),
\qu ad \fora ll x,y\in V $$ which is awel l k n o wn identity for t he I si ng/Pott s m odel wi th$q= 2$, se e[@Grimmet t2] Theo re m1. 16 , p . 11.
\[col\] T hesp in- spinc orrela tionof t he I s ing modelo nt h e fi ni te | (\pmb{h}(K_t)+\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
_ _ _\over
__ __ _\cosh\left(\pmb{h}(K_t)\right)\cdot\cosh
_ _ \left(\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
__ }
\Big)
\nonumber
\\[0,3cm]
__ _=
__ {1\over 2}
_ \phi_{\pmb{p},\pmb{h},G}
_ \big(
_ \mathds{1}_{\{x\not\leftrightarrow y\}}
_\cdot
_ _\big\{
1
+
_ \tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_t)\right)
_ \cdot
___\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
_\big\}
\big).
_ \end{gathered}$$ Replacing the last_expression in we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I-2-1}
_ I_2
_=
{1\over_2}
_ \phi_{\pmb{p},\pmb{h},G}
_ \big(
_ _\mathds{1}_{\{x\not\leftrightarrow y\}}
_ \cdot
_\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_t)\right)
_ \cdot
_\tanh\left(\pmb{h}(K_u)\right)
_ _\big).
__ _\end{aligned}$$ Since $\tau_{2\beta,\pmb{h},2,V}(x,y)=I_1+I_2$,_the_theorem follows.
Notice_that_in the absence of the magnetic_field,_i.e. $\pmb{h}\equiv 0$, the conclusion of the_Theorem \[Correlação/quase-conectividade\] reduces to_$$\tau_{2\beta,0,2,V}(x,y)=
_ {1\over_2}\phi_{\pmb{p},0,G}(x\leftrightarrow y),
_\quad \forall x,y\in V$$ which is_a well_known identity_for the Ising/Potts model with $q=2$, see [@Grimmett2] Theorem 1.16, p._11.
\[col\] The spin-spin correlation of the_Ising model on the_finite |
}\ldots c_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$ into $u_g$’s we directly find that if we know $(1)$ we can compute $(2)$. For the other direction we note on the one hand that $$\label{eq-create} I \cdot \sum_{f \in P_g} \prod_{i=1}^j \bigl(b_i(C_f)-c_i(C_f)\bigr)^{s_i} \bigl(b_i(C_f)+c_i(C_f)\bigr)^{t_i}$$ can be formulated in terms of $b_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots c_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$’s of weight at most $$S:=\sum_{i=1}^j i \cdot (s_i+t_i).$$ If we on the other hand decompose into $u_g$’s we find that there is a unique $u_g$ of degree $S$. The corresponding tuple $(n_1^{r_1},\ldots,n_m^{r_m})$ contains, for each $i$, precisely $s_i$ entries of the form $i^1$ and $t_i$ entries of the form $i^2$. Every $u_g$ of degree $S$ can be created in this way and hence if we know $(2)$ we can compute $(1)$.
From the definitions of $a_i(C_f)$ and $r_i(C_f)$ we see that knowing $(1)$ and $(2)$ in Lemma \[lem-bc-u\] is also equivalent to knowing
- all $a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots a_{N_M}^{R_M} r_{N'_1}^{R'_1} \ldots r_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$ of weight at most $N$,
where $a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots r_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$ is defined in the obvious way. Moreover, $a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots r_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g=0$ if $\sum_{i=1}^M R_i N_i$ is odd.
= 6 | } \ldots c_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$ into $ u_g$ ’s we directly find that if we know $ (1)$ we can compute $ (2)$. For the early steering we note on the one hand that $ $ \label{eq - create } I \cdot \sum_{f \in P_g } \prod_{i=1}^j \bigl(b_i(C_f)-c_i(C_f)\bigr)^{s_i } \bigl(b_i(C_f)+c_i(C_f)\bigr)^{t_i}$$ can be give voice in price of $ b_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots c_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$ ’s of weight at most $ $ S:=\sum_{i=1}^j i \cdot (s_i+t_i).$$ If we on the early hand decompose into $ u_g$ ’s we find that there embody a unique $ u_g$ of degree $ S$. The represent tuple $ (n_1^{r_1},\ldots, n_m^{r_m})$ contains, for each $ i$, precisely $ s_i$ entries of the class $ i^1 $ and $ t_i$ submission of the form $ i^2$. Every $ u_g$ of academic degree $ S$ can be created in this direction and therefore if we know $ (2)$ we can compute $ (1)$.
From the definitions of $ a_i(C_f)$ and $ r_i(C_f)$ we witness that knowing $ (1)$ and $ (2)$ in Lemma \[lem - bc - u\ ] is also equivalent to sleep together
- all $ a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots a_{N_M}^{R_M } r_{N'_1}^{R'_1 } \ldots r_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$ of weight unit at most $ N$,
where $ a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots r_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$ is define in the obvious way. Moreover, $ a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots r_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g=0 $ if $ \sum_{i=1}^M R_i N_i$ is odd.
= 6 | }\ldohs c_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$ into $u_g$’s we divectly find that if we nnow $(1)$ se can cumpute $(2)$. For the other directmon qe nouv on the one hand thag $$\label{eq-breate} I \xdot \wum_{f \in P_g} \prod_{i=1}^j \nngl(b_i(D_n)-c_i(C_f)\yijr)^{s_i} \bigl(b_i(C_f)+c_i(G_f)\bigr)^{t_i}$$ cat be formulateg kn terms of $b_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots c_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$’s of weighe at moxt $$S:=\sum_{i=1}^j i \cdot (s_i+t_p).$$ Yf ws on the other hand decompose into $u_g$’s we find that thrre is a unique $u_g$ of degrfe $S$. The corresponding tuple $(n_1^{r_1},\ldits,n_i^{e_m})$ contains, wor each $i$, precisely $s_j$ entries of the form $i^1$ and $t_i$ dntrizs of the firn $i^2$. Gvery $u_g$ of vegree $S$ can be crcsted it this eay and hence lf we kniw $(2)$ we can compute $(1)$.
Frmm the definitions of $a_i(C_f)$ dnb $r_i(C_f)$ we see that kniwung $(1)$ dnd $(2)$ in Uwmmx \[ltm-br-u\] js alsl esuivalent fo knowing
- all $a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots a_{N_M}^{R_K} w_{B'_1}^{R'_1} \ldots r_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{J'}}|_g$ of reyght at most $N$,
where $a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots r_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$ is gefjned in the obvious way. Moreover, $a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots r_{N'_{L'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g=0$ if $\stm_{i=1}^M R_i N_i$ is odd.
= 6 | }\ldots c_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$ into $u_g$’s we directly find we $(1)$ we compute $(2)$. For on one hand that I \cdot \sum_{f P_g} \prod_{i=1}^j \bigl(b_i(C_f)-c_i(C_f)\bigr)^{s_i} \bigl(b_i(C_f)+c_i(C_f)\bigr)^{t_i}$$ can be in terms of $b_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots c_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$’s of weight at most $$S:=\sum_{i=1}^j i \cdot (s_i+t_i).$$ we on the other hand decompose into $u_g$’s we find that there is unique of $S$. corresponding tuple $(n_1^{r_1},\ldots,n_m^{r_m})$ contains, for each $i$, precisely $s_i$ entries of the form $i^1$ and $t_i$ of the form $i^2$. Every $u_g$ of degree can be created in way and hence if we $(2)$ can compute From definitions $a_i(C_f)$ and $r_i(C_f)$ see that knowing $(1)$ and $(2)$ in Lemma \[lem-bc-u\] is also equivalent to knowing - all $a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots r_{N'_1}^{R'_1} \ldots weight at $N$, $a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots is defined in way. Moreover, $a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots r_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g=0$ if $\sum_{i=1}^M odd. = 6 | }\ldots c_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$ into $u_g$’s we direcTly find thaT if we KnoW $(1)$ we CaN comPute $(2)$. for the other dirECtioN we note on the one hand thaT $$\labeL{eQ-CreaTE} I \Cdot \sUm_{f \in P_g} \PRoD_{I=1}^J \biGl(B_i(c_f)-c_I(C_F)\BiGr)^{s_i} \bIgl(B_i(C_f)+c_i(C_F)\bigr)^{t_i}$$ can Be fOrMulated in terMS oF $b_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots c_{n'_{M'}}^{R'_{m'}}|_g$’s of weight aT moSt $$S:=\sum_{I=1}^j I \cdOT (s_i+t_i).$$ if wE on thE other HAnd decOmpose intO $u_G$’S we finD That theRE Is A uniQue $u_g$ of degree $S$. The COrREsponding tuple $(N_1^{r_1},\ldotS,n_M^{R_m})$ CONtaIns, For each $i$, prEcIsely $S_I$ entrieS Of THE ForM $I^1$ and $t_i$ entries Of the form $i^2$. EVEry $U_g$ of deGrEe $S$ CAn be crEated In THis Way and hence If we Know $(2)$ we can ComputE $(1)$.
from the DEfinitiOns of $a_I(C_f)$ And $R_i(C_f)$ WE sEe ThaT kNOwiNG $(1)$ aNd $(2)$ iN lemMa \[lem-bc-u\] Is AlSo equIvalENT TO knoWinG
- all $A_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldOts a_{N_M}^{R_M} r_{N'_1}^{R'_1} \ldOts R_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{m'}}|_G$ of WeighT at moSt $N$,
wHeRe $a_{N_1}^{R_1}\Ldots r_{n'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$ Is Defined in the obvIous Way. MoreovEr, $a_{n_1}^{R_1}\LdoTs R_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_G=0$ If $\sum_{i=1}^m R_i n_i$ iS odd.
= 6 | }\ldots c_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M '}}|_g$ in to $u _g$ ’swe dir ectl y find that if we k now $(1)$ we can compu te $( 2) $ . Fo r t he ot her dir e ct i o n w eno teon th e one ha nd that $$\label{ eq- cr eate} I \cdo t \ sum_{f \in P_ g} \prod_{i= 1}^ j \big l( b_i ( C_f)- c_i (C_f) \bigr) ^ {s_i}\bigl(b_i (C _ f)+c_i ( C_f)\bi g r )^ {t_i }$$ can be formul a te d in terms of $ b_{N_1 }^ { R_ 1 } \ld ots c_{N'_{M' }} ^{R'_ { M'}}|_g $ ’s o f we i ght at most $ $S:=\sum_{i = 1}^ j i \c do t ( s _i+t_i ).$$If weon the othe r ha nd decomp ose in t o $u_g$ ’ s we fi nd tha t t her e is aun iqu e$ u_g $ o f d e gre e $S$. T he c orres pond i n g tupl e $ (n_1 ^{r_1 },\ldots,n_m^ {r_ m})$ con tains , for eac h$i$,precis ely $ s_ i$ entries of t he f orm $i^1$ an d$t_ i$ entr i es ofthe fo rm $i^2 $. Ever y $u _g $ o fdegree $S$ can becr e a te d in thi s waya nd h e nce if w ekno w $( 2 ) $ wecanc om pute $(1 )$.
F r om t he defi ni tionsof $a _i( C_f)$ and$r_i(C _f)$ wesee t h at knowing $(1 ) $ and $(2)$ i n L e m ma \[le m-b c-u\] is al so e q uiva lent to kn o wing
- al l $ a _{N_1}^{R_1}\ldotsa_ {N_M}^ {R_M} r_{N'_1}^{R' _1} \ldots r _ {N'_{M'} }^{R ' _{ M '}}|_g$ of wei ght a t most $N$ ,
where$a_{N _1}^{R_1 }\ldots r _ { N'_{M'}} ^{R '_{ M'} }|_ g $ i s defined int h e ob vi ous way . M oreover , $ a_{ N_1 }^{ R_ 1}\ldotsr_{N'_{M '} }^ {R '_ {M' }}|_g = 0$ if $\ su m_{ i= 1}^ M R_i N_i$ i s odd .
= 6 | }\ldots c_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$_into $u_g$’s_we directly find that_if we_know_$(1)$ we_can_compute $(2)$. For_the other direction_we note on the_one hand that_$$\label{eq-create}_I \cdot \sum_{f \in P_g} \prod_{i=1}^j \bigl(b_i(C_f)-c_i(C_f)\bigr)^{s_i} \bigl(b_i(C_f)+c_i(C_f)\bigr)^{t_i}$$ can be formulated in terms of_$b_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots_c_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$’s of_weight_at_most $$S:=\sum_{i=1}^j i \cdot (s_i+t_i).$$_If we on the other_hand decompose_into $u_g$’s we find that there is a_unique_$u_g$ of degree_$S$. The corresponding tuple $(n_1^{r_1},\ldots,n_m^{r_m})$ contains, for each $i$,_precisely $s_i$ entries of the form_$i^1$ and $t_i$_entries_of_the form $i^2$. Every_$u_g$ of degree $S$ can be_created in this way and hence_if we know $(2)$ we can compute_$(1)$.
From the definitions of $a_i(C_f)$ and_$r_i(C_f)$ we see that knowing_$(1)$ and_$(2)$ in Lemma \[lem-bc-u\] is_also equivalent to_knowing
- _ all $a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots_a_{N_M}^{R_M} r_{N'_1}^{R'_1} \ldots r_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$ of weight_at most $N$,
where_$a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots r_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g$ is defined in the_obvious_way. Moreover, $a_{N_1}^{R_1}\ldots_r_{N'_{M'}}^{R'_{M'}}|_g=0$_if_$\sum_{i=1}^M R_i_N_i$ is odd.
_=_6 |
the unknown ratings of items that the users have not reviewed yet. A review $d_{u,i}$ is a piece of text which describes opinions of user $u$ on different aspects $a \in \mathcal{A}$ towards item $i$, such as *food* for *restaurants*. In this paper, we only consider the case that all the items are from the same category, i.e., they share the same set of aspects $\mathcal{A}$. Aspects that users care for items are latent and learned from reviews by our proposed topic model, in which each aspect is represented as a distribution of the same set (e.g., $K$) of latent topics. Table \[tab:notation\] lists the key notations. Before introducing our method, we would like to first clarify the concepts of *aspects*, *latent topics*, and *latent factors*.
- **Aspect** - it is a high-level semantic concept, which represents the attribute of items that users commented on in reviews, such as *“food”* for *restaurant* and *“battery"* for *mobile phones*.
- **Latent topic & latent factor** - in our context, both concepts represent a more fine-grained concept than *“aspect"*. A latent topic or factor can be regarded as a *sub-aspect* of an item. For instance, for the “food" aspect, a related latent topic could be “*breakfast*" or “*Italian cuisine*". We adopt the terminology of *latent topic* in topic models and *latent factor* in matrix factorization. Accordingly, “latent topics" are discovered by topic model on reviews, and “latent factors" are learned by matrix factorization on ratings.
Aspect-aware Latent Factor Model
--------------------------------
Based on the observations that (1) different users may care for different aspects of an item and (2) users’ preferences may differ from each other for the same aspect, we claim that the overall satisfaction of a user $u$ towards an item $i$ (i.e., the overall rating $r_{u,i}$) depends on $u$’s satisfaction on each aspect $a$ of $i$ (i.e., *aspect rating* $r_{u,i,a}$) and the importance of each aspect (of $i$) to $u$ (i.e., | the unknown ratings of items that the users have not review so far. A review $ d_{u, i}$ is a piece of text which report opinions of user $ u$ on unlike aspects $ a \in \mathcal{A}$ towards item $ i$, such as * food * for * restaurants *. In this composition, we only consider the character that all the items are from the same class, i.e., they share the same set of aspects $ \mathcal{A}$. Aspects that users care for items are latent and learn from reviews by our proposed topic mannequin, in which each aspect is represented as a distribution of the same set (for example, $ K$) of latent topics. board \[tab: notation\ ] lists the key notations. Before introduce our method, we would like to first clarify the concepts of * aspects *, * latent subject *, and * latent factors *.
- * * Aspect * * - it is a high - level semantic concept, which represents the attribute of items that users commented on in reviews, such as * “ food ” * for * restaurant * and * “ barrage " * for * fluid phones *.
- * * Latent topic & latent factor * * - in our context, both concept map a more fine - grained concept than * “ view " *. A latent topic or factor can be regarded as a * sub - aspect * of an token. For instance, for the “ food " aspect, a related latent topic could be “ * breakfast * " or “ * Italian cuisine * ". We adopt the terminology of * latent topic * in topic model and * latent factor * in matrix factorization. Accordingly, “ latent topics " are discovered by topic model on follow-up, and “ latent gene " are learned by matrix factorization on ratings.
Aspect - mindful Latent Factor Model
--------------------------------
Based on the observations that (1) different users may care for different aspects of an item and (2) users ’ preference may differ from each early for the same aspect, we claim that the overall satisfaction of a user $ u$ towards an item $ i$ (i.e., the overall evaluation $ r_{u, i}$) depends on $ u$ ’s gratification on each aspect $ a$ of $ i$ (i.e., * expression rating * $ r_{u, i, a}$) and the importance of each aspect (of $ i$) to $ u$ (i.e., | thf unknown ratings of iteos that the usets have iot revjewed yeg. A review $d_{u,i}$ is a piece of twxt wyich describes opinionr of user $u$ on didfertnt aspects $a \in \mathcal{A}$ towarsd itzm $i$, such as *fooc* for *restdurants*. In thiv oa'er, we only consider the case that ajl the otfms are from tre ssie cznenory, i.e., they share the same set kf aspebts $\mathcal{A}$. Aspevts that users care for itfms wre latent and leagned from rgbierw by our prooosed topib model, in shich each aspect is representea as c distributuob ov the same sxt (e.g., $H$) of latent bppics. Dable \[tan:notation\] listx tie kwy notations. Before iitroducing our methoq, we woulg mike to first claeidy thg conweptr of *askecvs*, *matent to'ics*, and *lafent factorw*.
- **Aspect** - it is a hyth-level semanfic cogcqpt, which represents the attribute of iuems fhat users commented on in reviews, such as *“flod”* for *rqstaurant* and *“battery"* for *mobile phones*.
- **Latent dopic & lauekb fazrog** - in our context, both concepts represent a mjde fpne-grained concepb than *“aspect"*. A layejt jopic or factot can bz rsgarded as a *sub-asoect* of an irem. For igstamce, for the “food" aspect, a rwlated latenn topic could be “*breakyast*" or “*Italnan cuosine*". We adopt the terminoloyy of *matent topif* in topid models and *latevt nacdor* in matrix factorizatiog. Accordiigly, “katent gopivs" are discoveref by bmpic model on revifws, aud “ladent factogs" are learned by matrix factormvation on ratoncs.
Avpect-awaxe Latcnt Factor Modej
--------------------------------
Based on the pbservacions ghat (1) diffvrent usecs may care sor different wspects of ai item anq (2) uwers’ preferdvces may diffet from eabh othwr for the same asiect, ds claim that thz iverall satisfavtiun jf a ufar $u$ towards an kteo $i$ (i.e., the ovtxalo ratong $r_{u,i}$) depends on $u$’v safisfaction on each afpect $a$ if $i$ (i.e., *wspect rating* $r_{u,i,a}$) and the impogtancx of eech aslecj (of $i$) to $u$ (i.e., | the unknown ratings of items that the not yet. A $d_{u,i}$ is a opinions user $u$ on aspects $a \in towards item $i$, such as *food* *restaurants*. In this paper, we only consider the case that all the items from the same category, i.e., they share the same set of aspects $\mathcal{A}$. that care items latent and learned from reviews by our proposed topic model, in which each aspect is represented a distribution of the same set (e.g., $K$) latent topics. Table \[tab:notation\] the key notations. Before introducing method, would like first the of *aspects*, *latent and *latent factors*. - **Aspect** - it is a high-level semantic concept, which represents the attribute of that users in reviews, as for and *“battery"* for - **Latent topic & latent factor** context, both concepts represent a more fine-grained concept *“aspect"*. A topic or factor can be regarded a *sub-aspect* of an item. For instance, for “food" aspect, a related latent topic could be “*breakfast*" or “*Italian cuisine*". We adopt the *latent topic* in topic and *latent factor* matrix Accordingly, topics" discovered by model on reviews, and “latent factors" are learned by matrix factorization ratings. Aspect-aware Latent Factor Model -------------------------------- Based on the observations different may care for aspects of an item (2) preferences may differ from for same that overall of a user $u$ an item $i$ (i.e., the rating $r_{u,i}$) depends on $a$ of $i$ (i.e., *aspect rating* $r_{u,i,a}$) and importance of each aspect (of $i$) to (i.e., | the unknown ratings of items tHat the userS have Not RevIeWed yEt. A rEview $d_{u,i}$ is a pieCE of tExt which describes opiniOns of UsER $u$ on DIfFerenT aspectS $A \iN \MAthCaL{A}$ TowArDS iTem $i$, sUch As *food* fOr *restauraNts*. in This paper, we oNLy Consider thE caSe that all the IteMs are fRoM thE Same cAteGory, i.E., they sHAre the Same set of AsPEcts $\maTHcal{A}$. AsPECtS thaT users care for itemS ArE Latent and learnEd from ReVIeWS By oUr pRoposed topIc Model, IN which eACh ASPEct IS represented aS a distributIOn oF the saMe Set (E.G., $K$) of laTent tOpICs. TAble \[tab:notaTion\] Lists the kEy notaTIons. BefORe introDucing Our MetHod, wE WoUlD liKe TO fiRSt ClaRIfy The concePtS oF *aspeCts*, *lATENT topIcs*, And *lAtent Factors*.
- **Aspect** - It iS a hiGH-leVel seMantiC conCePt, whiCh reprEsentS tHe attribute of itEms tHat users cOmmEnTed On In revIEws, sucH as *“FooD”* for *resTaurant* ANd *“bAtTERY"* fOr *mobile phones*.
- **LateNt TOPiC & latent fActor** - iN OuR cONtext, botH cOncEpts REPreseNt a mORe Fine-graiNed conCEpT tHan *“aspeCt"*. a latenT tOpiC or FactoR Can bE regarDed as a *suB-aspeCT* of an item. For inSTance, for the “foOD" aSPEcT, A relAteD latent topiC couLD be “*bReakFAsT*" or “*iTaliaN cuisInE*". we ADopt the terminology oF *lAtent tOpic* iN topic models aNd *latent faCTOR* in matriX facTOrIZation. AccordinGly, “laTent topics" ARe discovEred bY topic moDel on reviEWS, and “lateNt fActOrs" Are LEArNed by matrix faCTOrizAtIon on raTinGs.
AspecT-awAre latEnt faCtor Model
--------------------------------
based on tHe ObSeRvAtiOns thAT (1) differeNt UseRs May Care fOR diffeRent aSpecTs Of AN itEm and (2) usERs’ PREferEnCeS may DifFeR from Each OTheR for the Same aspecT, we CLaim ThAt The overAll satisfactiOn Of a user $u$ toWaRds An item $I$ (I.E., the overAll rating $r_{u,i}$) depends on $u$’s SAtisfacTioN on eaCh asPect $a$ of $i$ (i.E., *asPect raTinG* $R_{u,i,a}$) anD the imPortaNcE of EACh aspECT (oF $i$) tO $u$ (I.e., | the unknown ratings of it ems that t he us ers ha ve not rev iewed yet. A r e view $d_{u,i}$ is a pieceof te xt whic h d escri bes opi n io n s of u se r $ u$ on diff ere nt aspe cts $a \in \m at hcal{A}$ tow a rd s item $i$ , s uch as *food * f or *re st aur a nts*. In this paper , we on ly consid er the ca s e thata l ltheitems are from th e s a me category, i .e., t he y s h a rethe same setof aspe c ts $\ma t hc a l { A}$ . Aspects that users care for items a rel atentand l ea r ned from revie ws b y our pro posedt opic mo d el, inwhicheac h a spec t i srep re s ent e dasa di stributi on o f the sam e s e t (e .g. , $K $) of latent topic s.Tabl e \[ tab:n otati on\] l iststhe ke y not at ions. Before in trod ucing our me th od, w e wou l d like to fi rst cla rify th e co nc e p t sof *aspects*, *lat en t to pics*, a nd *la t en tf actors*.
- **A s p ect** - i t i s a high -level se ma ntic co nc ept, w hi chrep resen t s th e attr ibute of item s that users co m mented on inr ev i e ws , suc h a s *“food”*for* rest aura n t* an d *“ba ttery "* fo r *mobile phones*.
- **La tenttopic & laten t factor** - in our c onte x t, both conceptsrepre sent a mor e fine-gr ained concept than *“a s p ect"*. A la ten t t opi c or factor can b e rega rd ed as a *s ub-aspe ct* of an it em . For ins tance, f or t he “ foo d" as p ect, a r el ate dlat ent t o pic co uld b e “* br ea k fas t*" or“ *I t a lian c ui sine *". W e ado pt t h e t erminol ogy of *l ate n t to pi c* in top ic models and * latent fac to r*in mat r i x factor ization. Accordingly, “ l atent t opi cs" a re d iscovered by topic mo d el onreview s, an d“la t e nt fa c t or s"ar e learnedb y ma trixfa ctor ization on ratings.
Aspe c t-a ware Latent F act or M o d el
-- - -- - --- -- - --- - - ---------------
Based on t h eobservatio n s t ha t (1) d ifferen t use r s may c are for d ifferentas pect s ofan item an d (2) us ers’ pref e rence s m ay di ffe r from e ach othe r fort hesameaspect ,we cla im th at the ove rall satisfaction of auser $ u$ to war ds an ite m $ i $ ( i.e., the ove rall ratin g $ r_{ u,i}$ ) d e pends on$ u$ ’ss atisf acti o n on each as pec t $a $ of $i$ (i . e . , * aspec t r a ting*$r_{ u,i,a}$) and thei mportance of e acha s pec t ( o f $i $) to $u$ (i.e., | the_unknown ratings_of items that the_users have_not_reviewed yet._A_review $d_{u,i}$ is_a piece of_text which describes opinions_of user $u$_on_different aspects $a \in \mathcal{A}$ towards item $i$, such as *food* for *restaurants*. In_this_paper, we_only_consider_the case that all the_items are from the same_category, i.e.,_they share the same set of aspects $\mathcal{A}$._Aspects_that users care_for items are latent and learned from reviews by_our proposed topic model, in which_each aspect is_represented_as_a distribution of the_same set (e.g., $K$) of latent_topics. Table \[tab:notation\] lists the key notations._Before introducing our method, we would like_to first clarify the concepts of_*aspects*, *latent topics*, and *latent_factors*.
- _ **Aspect** - it is_a high-level semantic_concept, which_represents the attribute_of items that users commented on_in reviews, such_as *“food”* for *restaurant* and *“battery"*_for_*mobile phones*.
- __**Latent_topic &_latent factor** -_in_our context,_both_concepts represent a more fine-grained concept_than_*“aspect"*. A latent topic or factor can_be regarded as a_*sub-aspect*_of an item. For_instance, for the “food" aspect,_a related latent topic could be_“*breakfast*" or_“*Italian cuisine*"._We adopt the terminology of *latent topic* in topic models and_*latent factor* in matrix factorization. Accordingly,_“latent topics" are discovered_by topic_model_on reviews, and_“latent_factors" are_learned by matrix factorization on ratings.
Aspect-aware Latent_Factor Model
--------------------------------
Based_on the observations that (1) different_users may care for_different_aspects of an item and (2)_users’ preferences may differ from each_other for the same aspect,_we_claim_that the overall satisfaction of_a user $u$ towards an item_$i$ (i.e., the_overall rating $r_{u,i}$) depends on $u$’s satisfaction_on_each aspect $a$ of $i$ (i.e.,_*aspect_rating* $r_{u,i,a}$) and the importance of_each_aspect_(of $i$) to $u$ (i.e., |
theta\cos\varphi, r\sin\theta\sin\varphi, r\cos\theta),$$ where the position (${\bf x}$), velocity (${\bf v}$) and acceleration (${\bf a}=d{\bf v}/dt$) are written in term of the unitary vectors $\hat{\bf r}$, $\hat\theta$ and $\hat\varphi$ as
$$\label{po}
{\bf x}=r\hat{\bf r},$$
$$\label{ve}
{\bf v}=\dot r \hat {\bf r}+r\dot\theta \hat\theta+r\dot\varphi\sin\theta \hat\varphi,$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ac}
{\bf a}&=& (\ddot r-r\dot\theta^2-r\dot\varphi^2\sin^2\theta)\hat{\bf r}+(r\ddot\theta+2\dot r\dot\theta-r\dot\varphi^2\sin\theta\cos\theta)\hat\theta\nonumber\\
& &+(r\ddot\varphi\sin\theta+2\dot r\dot\varphi\sin\theta+2r\dot\varphi\dot\theta\cos\theta)\hat\varphi,\end{aligned}$$
where the unitary vectors are
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\bf r}&=& (\sin\theta\cos\varphi,\sin\theta\sin\varphi,\cos\theta),\\
\hat\theta&=&(\cos\theta\cos\varphi,\cos\theta\sin\varphi,-\sin\theta),\\
\hat\varphi&=&(-\sin\varphi,\cos\varphi,0).\end{aligned}$$
Using (\[po\]), (\[ve\]), and (\[ac\]) in (\[eq2\]), the following equations are obtained
$$\begin{aligned}
&m_2(\ddot r-r\dot\theta^2-r\dot\varphi^2\sin^2\theta)=-G\frac{\ds m_1m_2}{\ds r^2}-\dot m_2\dot r,\\�\nonumber\\
&m_2(r\ddot+2\dot r \dot\theta-r\dot\varphi^2\sin\theta\cos\theta)=-\dot m_2 r\dot\theta,\\�\nonumber\\
& | theta\cos\varphi, r\sin\theta\sin\varphi, r\cos\theta),$$ where the position ($ { \bf x}$), velocity ($ { \bf v}$) and acceleration ($ { \bf a}=d{\bf v}/dt$) are written in term of the one vector $ \hat{\bf r}$, $ \hat\theta$ and $ \hat\varphi$ as
$ $ \label{po }
{ \bf x}=r\hat{\bf r},$$
$ $ \label{ve }
{ \bf v}=\dot r \hat { \bf r}+r\dot\theta \hat\theta+r\dot\varphi\sin\theta \hat\varphi,$$
and $ $ \begin{aligned }
\label{ac }
{ \bf a}&= & (\ddot r - r\dot\theta^2 - r\dot\varphi^2\sin^2\theta)\hat{\bf r}+(r\ddot\theta+2\dot r\dot\theta - r\dot\varphi^2\sin\theta\cos\theta)\hat\theta\nonumber\\
& & + (r\ddot\varphi\sin\theta+2\dot r\dot\varphi\sin\theta+2r\dot\varphi\dot\theta\cos\theta)\hat\varphi,\end{aligned}$$
where the one vectors are
$ $ \begin{aligned }
\hat{\bf r}&= & (\sin\theta\cos\varphi,\sin\theta\sin\varphi,\cos\theta),\\
\hat\theta&=&(\cos\theta\cos\varphi,\cos\theta\sin\varphi,-\sin\theta),\\
\hat\varphi&=&(-\sin\varphi,\cos\varphi,0).\end{aligned}$$
use (\[po\ ]), (\[ve\ ]), and (\[ac\ ]) in (\[eq2\ ]), the following equation are obtained
$ $ \begin{aligned }
& m_2(\ddot r - r\dot\theta^2 - r\dot\varphi^2\sin^2\theta)=-G\frac{\ds m_1m_2}{\ds r^2}-\dot m_2\dot r,\\ � \nonumber\\
& m_2(r\ddot+2\dot roentgen \dot\theta - r\dot\varphi^2\sin\theta\cos\theta)=-\dot m_2 r\dot\theta,\\ � \nonumber\\
& | theha\cos\varphi, r\sin\theta\sin\yarphi, r\cos\theta),$$ where vhe posjtion (${\bf x}$), velocity (${\bf v}$) and acceleretiob (${\bf q}=d{\bf v}/dt$) are written iv term of the unirary cectors $\hav{\gf r}$, $\hab\cheta$ wnd $\kav\varphi$ as
$$\label{ko}
{\bf x}=r\hat{\bf r},$$
$$\label{ve}
{\bf v}=\dmt r \hat {\bf r}+r\dot\theta \hat\theta+r\dot\varpri\sin\thrtw \hat\varphi,$$
and $$\begpn{wlighvd}
\oabel{ac}
{\bf a}&=& (\ddot r-r\dot\theta^2-r\dkt\varphp^2\sin^2\theta)\hat{\bf r}+(r\cdot\theta+2\dot r\dot\theta-r\dot\garpji^2\sin\theta\cos\theta)\jat\theta\nonojbew\\
& &+(r\ddot\varphi\rin\theta+2\dou x\dot\varphi\sjn\theta+2r\dot\varphi\dot\theta\cos\thega)\hat\rarphi,\end{alugbed}$$
avere the unmtary nectors are
$$\benpn{alignad}
\hat{\bf r}&=& (\sin\theta\cos\yarphm,\sin\rheta\sin\varphi,\cos\thete),\\
\hat\theta&=&(\cos\theta\cos\darphi,\cos\dhzta\sin\varphi,-\sin\theta),\\
\hqt\carphh&=&(-\sin\earpfu,\cor\vadpii,0).\ehd{aligjed}$$
Nsing (\[po\]), (\[ve\]), and (\[ac\]) in (\[wq2\]), the following eqiaeppns are obtajned
$$\bedig{aligned}
&m_2(\ddot r-r\dot\theta^2-r\dot\varphi^2\sin^2\thtta)=-G\fdac{\ds m_1m_2}{\ds r^2}-\dot m_2\dot r,\\�\ninumber\\
&m_2(r\ddot+2\dot r \doj\theta-r\dot\darphi^2\sin\theta\cos\theta)=-\dot m_2 r\dot\theta,\\�\nonumber\\
& | theta\cos\varphi, r\sin\theta\sin\varphi, r\cos\theta),$$ where the position (${\bf (${\bf and acceleration a}=d{\bf v}/dt$) are unitary $\hat{\bf r}$, $\hat\theta$ $\hat\varphi$ as $$\label{po} x}=r\hat{\bf r},$$ $$\label{ve} {\bf v}=\dot r {\bf r}+r\dot\theta \hat\theta+r\dot\varphi\sin\theta \hat\varphi,$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{ac} {\bf a}&=& (\ddot r-r\dot\theta^2-r\dot\varphi^2\sin^2\theta)\hat{\bf r}+(r\ddot\theta+2\dot r\dot\theta-r\dot\varphi^2\sin\theta\cos\theta)\hat\theta\nonumber\\ &+(r\ddot\varphi\sin\theta+2\dot r\dot\varphi\sin\theta+2r\dot\varphi\dot\theta\cos\theta)\hat\varphi,\end{aligned}$$ where the unitary vectors are $$\begin{aligned} \hat{\bf r}&=& (\sin\theta\cos\varphi,\sin\theta\sin\varphi,\cos\theta),\\ \hat\theta&=&(\cos\theta\cos\varphi,\cos\theta\sin\varphi,-\sin\theta),\\ \hat\varphi&=&(-\sin\varphi,\cos\varphi,0).\end{aligned}$$ (\[po\]), and in the following equations are obtained $$\begin{aligned} &m_2(\ddot r-r\dot\theta^2-r\dot\varphi^2\sin^2\theta)=-G\frac{\ds m_1m_2}{\ds r^2}-\dot m_2\dot r,\\�\nonumber\\ &m_2(r\ddot+2\dot r \dot\theta-r\dot\varphi^2\sin\theta\cos\theta)=-\dot m_2 & | theta\cos\varphi, r\sin\theta\siN\varphi, r\coS\thetA),$$ whEre ThE posItioN (${\bf x}$), velocity (${\bf V}$) And aCceleration (${\bf a}=d{\bf v}/dt$) arE writTeN In teRM oF the uNitary vECtORS $\haT{\bF r}$, $\Hat\ThETa$ And $\haT\vaRphi$ as
$$\lAbel{po}
{\bf x}=r\Hat{\Bf R},$$
$$\label{ve}
{\bf v}=\dOT r \Hat {\bf r}+r\dot\TheTa \hat\theta+r\dOt\vArphi\sIn\TheTA \hat\vArpHi,$$
and $$\Begin{aLIgned}
\lAbel{ac}
{\bf a}&=& (\DdOT r-r\dot\THeta^2-r\doT\VArPhi^2\sIn^2\theta)\hat{\bf r}+(r\ddoT\ThETa+2\dot r\dot\theta-R\dot\vaRpHI^2\sIN\TheTa\cOs\theta)\hat\ThEta\noNUmber\\
& &+(r\dDOt\VARPhi\SIn\theta+2\dot r\doT\varphi\sin\tHEta+2R\dot\vaRpHi\dOT\theta\Cos\thEtA)\Hat\Varphi,\end{alIgneD}$$
where the UnitarY Vectors ARe
$$\begin{AligneD}
\haT{\bf R}&=& (\sin\THeTa\Cos\VaRPhi,\SIn\TheTA\siN\varphi,\cOs\ThEta),\\
\haT\theTA&=&(\COS\theTa\cOs\vaRphi,\cOs\theta\sin\varPhi,-\Sin\tHEta),\\
\Hat\vaRphi&=&(-\sIn\vaRpHi,\cos\Varphi,0).\End{alIgNed}$$
Using (\[po\]), (\[ve\]), and (\[Ac\]) in (\[Eq2\]), the follOwiNg EquAtIons aRE obtaiNed
$$\BegIn{alignEd}
&m_2(\ddot R-R\doT\tHETA^2-r\Dot\varphi^2\sin^2\theta)=-G\FrAC{\Ds M_1m_2}{\ds r^2}-\dot M_2\dot r,\\�\nONuMbER\\
&m_2(r\ddot+2\dOt R \doT\theTA-R\dot\vArphI^2\SiN\theta\coS\theta)=-\DOt M_2 r\Dot\thetA,\\�\nOnumbeR\\
& | theta\cos\varphi, r\sin\th eta\sin\va rphi, r\ cos \t heta ),$$ where the pos i tion (${\bf x}$), velocity (${\ bf v}$) an d acc elerati o n( $ {\b fa} =d{ \b f v }/dt$ ) a re writ ten in ter m o fthe unitaryv ec tors $\hat {\b f r}$, $\hat \th eta$ a nd $\ h at\va rph i$ as
$$\l a bel{po }
{\bf x} =r \ hat{\b f r},$$$ $\ labe l{ve}
{\bf v}=\do t r \hat {\bf r}+r \dot\t he t a\ h at\ the ta+r\dot\v ar phi\s i n\theta \h a t \ var p hi,$$
and $$ \begin{alig n ed}
\labe l{ ac} {\bf a }&=&(\ d dot r-r\dot\th eta^ 2-r\dot\v arphi^ 2 \sin^2\ t heta)\h at{\bf r} +(r \ddo t \t he ta+ 2\ d otr \d ot\ t het a-r\dot\ va rp hi^2\ sin\ t h e t a\co s\t heta )\hat \theta\nonumb er\ \
&& +(r \ddot \varp hi\s in \thet a+2\do t r\d ot \varphi\sin\the ta+2 r\dot\var phi \d ot\ th eta\c o s\thet a)\ hat \varphi ,\end{a l ign ed } $ $
where the unitaryve c t or s are
$ $\begi n {a li g ned}
\ha t{ \bf r}& = & (\si n\th e ta \cos\var phi,\s i n\ th eta\sin \v arphi, \c os\ the ta),\ \
\ha t\thet a&=&(\co s\the t a\cos\varphi,\ c os\theta\sin\ v ar p h i, - \sin \th eta),\\
\ha t\va r phi& =&(- \ si n\v a rphi, \cos\ va r ph i ,0).\end{aligned}$$
Using(\[po \]), (\[ve\]) , and (\[a c \ ] ) in (\[ eq2\ ] ), the followingequat ions are o b tained
$$\be gin{alig ned}
&m_2 ( \ ddot r-r \do t\t het a^2 - r \d ot\varphi^2\s i n ^2\t he ta)=-G\ fra c{\ds m _1m _2} {\d s r ^2 }-\dot m_ 2\dot r, \\ �\ no nu mbe r\\
& m _2(r\ddo t+ 2\d ot r\dot\ t heta-r \dot\ varp hi ^2 \ sin \theta\ c os \ t heta )= -\ dotm_2 r \dot\ thet a ,\\ �\nonum ber\\
& | theta\cos\varphi, r\sin\theta\sin\varphi,_r\cos\theta),$$ where_the position (${\bf x}$),_velocity (${\bf_v}$)_and acceleration_(${\bf_a}=d{\bf v}/dt$) are_written in term_of the unitary vectors_$\hat{\bf r}$, $\hat\theta$_and_$\hat\varphi$ as
$$\label{po}
{\bf x}=r\hat{\bf r},$$
$$\label{ve}
{\bf v}=\dot r \hat {\bf r}+r\dot\theta \hat\theta+r\dot\varphi\sin\theta \hat\varphi,$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ac}
{\bf a}&=& (\ddot_r-r\dot\theta^2-r\dot\varphi^2\sin^2\theta)\hat{\bf_r}+(r\ddot\theta+2\dot r\dot\theta-r\dot\varphi^2\sin\theta\cos\theta)\hat\theta\nonumber\\
&_&+(r\ddot\varphi\sin\theta+2\dot_r\dot\varphi\sin\theta+2r\dot\varphi\dot\theta\cos\theta)\hat\varphi,\end{aligned}$$
where_the unitary vectors are
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\bf r}&=&_(\sin\theta\cos\varphi,\sin\theta\sin\varphi,\cos\theta),\\
\hat\theta&=&(\cos\theta\cos\varphi,\cos\theta\sin\varphi,-\sin\theta),\\
\hat\varphi&=&(-\sin\varphi,\cos\varphi,0).\end{aligned}$$
Using (\[po\]), (\[ve\]), and (\[ac\])_in (\[eq2\]),_the following equations are obtained
$$\begin{aligned}
&m_2(\ddot r-r\dot\theta^2-r\dot\varphi^2\sin^2\theta)=-G\frac{\ds m_1m_2}{\ds r^2}-\dot_m_2\dot_r,\\�\nonumber\\
&m_2(r\ddot+2\dot r \dot\theta-r\dot\varphi^2\sin\theta\cos\theta)=-\dot_m_2 r\dot\theta,\\�\nonumber\\
& |
$, due to residual sources of chiral symmetry breaking. One of these sources is the finite extent of the fifth dimension in the domain wall fermion construction. At finite $m_{res} $, the renormalization constant of the partially conserved current, $Z^{88}_{\cal A} $, can deviate from the unit value it would take if chiral symmetry were strictly observed [@rbc2]. Secondly, note that, at finite lattice spacing $a$, there is a certain tension between adopting a mass-independent lattice renormalization scheme and maintaining $O(a)$ improvement [@luescher]. The renormalization constant $Z^{88}_{A} $ in general contains dependences of order $O(m_q a)$, evident in the slight variation displayed in Table \[zatab\]. Since the lattice data necessary to perform the continuum limit $a\rightarrow 0$ are not available, two options remain: One option would be to extrapolate $Z^{88}_{A} /Z^{88}_{\cal A} $ to the chiral limit, thus obtaining a mass-independent renormalization scheme in more direct correspondence to the $\overline{MS} $ scheme, but spoiling $O(a)$ improvement. On the other hand, by retaining the leading quark mass dependence, i.e., applying the finite-$m_{q} $ renormalization constants in Table \[zatab\] ensemble by ensemble, $O(a)$ improvement is maintained, at the expense of introducing a slight mass dependence into the renormalization scheme at finite $a$. The mass dependence, implying a breaking of chiral symmetry in addition to the one encoded in the residual mass $m_{res} $, is then expected to be of order $O(m_q a^2 )$. Since the present investigation yielded lattice data at only a single lattice spacing $a$, precluding a direct estimate of the effects of finite lattice spacing, maintaining $O(a)$ improvement seems sufficiently desirable to elect the latter alternative, i.e., applying the renormalization constants in Table \[zatab\] ensemble by ensemble and thus introducing a slight mass dependence into the renormalization scheme.
A way of estimating the systematic uncertainty in the renormalization of $\Delta s$ resulting from the residual breaking of chiral symmetry due to the above sources lies in the mismatch between the axial vector and the vector renormalization factors, $Z_A /Z_{\cal A} $ vs. $Z_V /Z_{\cal V} $, which would remain equal if chiral symmetry were strictly maintained [@rbc3]. In the | $, due to residual sources of chiral symmetry breaking. One of these sources is the finite extent of the fifth property in the knowledge domain wall fermion construction. At finite $ m_{res } $, the renormalization constant of the partially conserve current, $ Z^{88}_{\cal A } $, can deviate from the unit value it would accept if chiral symmetry were strictly observe [ @rbc2 ]. Secondly, note that, at finite lattice space $ a$, there is a certain tension between adopting a aggregate - independent lattice renormalization schema and maintaining $ O(a)$ improvement [ @luescher ]. The renormalization constant $ Z^{88}_{A } $ in cosmopolitan contains dependences of order $ O(m_q a)$, discernible in the slight variation expose in Table \[zatab\ ]. Since the lattice datum necessary to perform the continuum terminus ad quem $ a\rightarrow 0 $ are not available, two options remain: One option would be to extrapolate $ Z^{88}_{A } /Z^{88}_{\cal vitamin a } $ to the chiral limit, thus obtaining a mass - independent renormalization schema in more direct correspondence to the $ \overline{MS } $ scheme, but spoiling $ O(a)$ improvement. On the other hand, by retaining the leading quark mass dependence, i.e., apply the finite-$m_{q } $ renormalization constants in Table \[zatab\ ] ensemble by ensemble, $ O(a)$ improvement is maintained, at the expense of introduce a slender mass dependence into the renormalization scheme at finite $ a$. The bulk dependence, implying a breaking of chiral symmetry in accession to the one encoded in the residual mass $ m_{res } $, is then expected to be of order $ O(m_q a^2) $. Since the present investigation yielded wicket data at only a single lattice spacing $ a$, precluding a direct appraisal of the consequence of finite lattice spacing, maintaining $ O(a)$ improvement seems sufficiently desirable to elect the latter alternative, i.e., applying the renormalization constants in Table \[zatab\ ] ensemble by ensemble and therefore introducing a flimsy mass dependence into the renormalization outline.
A way of calculate the systematic uncertainty in the renormalization of $ \Delta s$ result from the residual breaking of chiral isotropy due to the above sources lies in the mismatch between the axial vector and the vector renormalization factors, $ Z_A /Z_{\cal deoxyadenosine monophosphate } $ vs. $ Z_V /Z_{\cal V } $, which would remain adequate if chiral symmetry were strictly maintained [ @rbc3 ]. In the | $, duf to residual sources of chiral symmetri vreakiig. One kf these sources is the finite extenv of the difth dimension in the domain wwll fermuon ronstruction. At hjnite $m_{vzs} $, tgc renmcmalization conxtant of tve partially cmnrexved current, $Z^{88}_{\cal A} $, can deviate froi the umih value it woujd tshe ir chiral symmetry were strictly obaerved [@gbc2]. Secondly, note that, at finite lattice spwcinh $a$, there is a cerhain tensiob beeqeen adoptine a mass-independent lajtice renormalization scheme and maincaining $O(a)$ umproggment [@lueschxr]. The renormalizabpon convtant $Z^{88}_{S} $ in general gontamns eependences of order $M(m_q a)$, evident in tre slight vcriation displayed in Tqble \[zdtab\]. Sinzw tfe mavtide datw nxcessary to perform thw continuum limit $a\tidytarrow 0$ are hot avwijable, two options remain: One option wound ge to extrapolate $Z^{88}_{A} /Z^{88}_{\cql A} $ to the chiral llmit, thus obtaining a mass-independent renormalization scheke in oort eirecg clrrespondence to the $\overline{MS} $ scheme, but s[kikikg $O(a)$ improvemenb. On the other hanc, hy tetaining the ueadiny qhark mass dependenfe, i.e., akplyint the finyte-$m_{a} $ renormalization constantw in Table \[zanab\] wnsemble by ensembpe, $O(a)$ improrement is msintained, at the expensz of ihtroducing w slight jxss dependence ivto tve renormalization scheme wt finite $a$. Tke mass aepemdence, implying w breaking of chiral symletry it addition to the one encoded in the resivnal mass $m_{res} $, hs nhen expeeted tp be of order $O(m_q a^2 )$. Since jhe preseut invdstigation yieldev lattice daea at only a vlngle latticx spacing $a$, peeclyding a airect estimatr of the vfyects of dinite lattice spaging, ozintaining $O(a)$ inprivement seems siffkciqnnly dqvirable to enect thd lattdr alternatlve, i.e., spplying the renormanizafion constants in Yanle \[zatab\] gnsemble fy ensemble amd thus introducinh a snigit masx dgpendence into the renormalizatjon schemf.
A ray of estimwtinn thg systematie uncertainty in the renormalization of $\Velta s$ resulting from rhe residual breakiug of chiral xymmeery due tm the above sources oies in the mismauch between the axial vsctor dnd tje vector renormalization factors, $Z_A /Z_{\cal A} $ vs. $Z_V /Z_{\cal V} $, which would remqin eqnaj if chiral symketry wzre stricely leintained [@rbc3]. In nhe | $, due to residual sources of chiral One these sources the finite extent the wall fermion construction. finite $m_{res} $, renormalization constant of the partially conserved $Z^{88}_{\cal A} $, can deviate from the unit value it would take if symmetry were strictly observed [@rbc2]. Secondly, note that, at finite lattice spacing $a$, is certain between a mass-independent lattice renormalization scheme and maintaining $O(a)$ improvement [@luescher]. The renormalization constant $Z^{88}_{A} $ in contains dependences of order $O(m_q a)$, evident in slight variation displayed in \[zatab\]. Since the lattice data to the continuum $a\rightarrow are available, two options One option would be to extrapolate $Z^{88}_{A} /Z^{88}_{\cal A} $ to the chiral limit, thus obtaining a renormalization scheme direct correspondence the $ but spoiling $O(a)$ the other hand, by retaining the dependence, i.e., applying the finite-$m_{q} $ renormalization constants Table \[zatab\] by ensemble, $O(a)$ improvement is maintained, the expense of introducing a slight mass dependence the renormalization scheme at finite $a$. The mass dependence, implying a breaking of chiral symmetry to the one encoded the residual mass $, then to of order a^2 )$. Since the present investigation yielded lattice data at only single lattice spacing $a$, precluding a direct estimate of the finite spacing, maintaining $O(a)$ seems sufficiently desirable to the alternative, i.e., applying the in \[zatab\] and introducing slight mass dependence into renormalization scheme. A way of the systematic uncertainty in resulting from the residual breaking of chiral symmetry to the above sources lies in the between the axial vector and the vector renormalization factors, $Z_A /Z_{\cal A} vs. $Z_V $, which would remain equal if chiral symmetry strictly maintained [@rbc3]. In | $, due to residual sources of chiRal symmetrY breaKinG. OnE oF theSe soUrces is the finiTE extEnt of the fifth dimension In the DoMAin wALl FermiOn constRUcTIOn. AT fInIte $M_{rES} $, tHe renOrmAlizatiOn constant Of tHe Partially conSErVed current, $z^{88}_{\caL A} $, can deviate FroM the unIt ValUE it woUld Take iF chiraL SymmetRy were strIcTLy obseRVed [@rbc2]. SECOnDly, nOte that, at finite laTTiCE spacing $a$, there Is a cerTaIN tENSioN beTween adoptInG a masS-IndepenDEnT LATtiCE renormalizatIon scheme anD MaiNtainiNg $o(a)$ iMProvemEnt [@luEsCHer]. the renormalIzatIon constaNt $Z^{88}_{A} $ in GEneral cONtains dEpendeNceS of OrdeR $o(m_Q a)$, EviDeNT in THe SliGHt vAriation DiSpLayed In TaBLE \[ZAtab\]. sinCe thE lattIce data necessAry To peRForM the cOntinUum lImIt $a\riGhtarrOw 0$ are NoT available, two opTionS remain: OnE opTiOn wOuLd be tO ExtrapOlaTe $Z^{88}_{a} /Z^{88}_{\cal A} $ tO the chiRAl lImIT, THuS obtaining a mass-indEpENDeNt renormAlizatIOn ScHEme in morE dIreCt coRREsponDencE To The $\overlIne{MS} $ sCHeMe, But spoiLiNg $O(a)$ imPrOveMenT. On thE OtheR hand, bY retainiNg the LEading quark masS Dependence, i.e., aPPlYINg THe fiNitE-$m_{q} $ renormalIzatIOn coNstaNTs In TABle \[zaTab\] enSeMBlE By ensemble, $O(a)$ improveMeNt is maIntaiNed, at the expenSe of introdUCINg a slighT masS DePEndence into the RenorMalization SCheme at fInite $A$. The mass DependencE, IMplying a BreAkiNg oF chIRAl Symmetry in addITIon tO tHe one enCodEd in the ResIduAl mAss $M_{rEs} $, is then eXpected tO bE oF oRdEr $O(M_q a^2 )$. SiNCe the preSeNt iNvEstIgatiON yieldEd latTice DaTa AT onLy a singLE lATTice SpAcIng $a$, PreClUding A dirECt eStimate Of the effeCts OF finItE lAttice sPacing, maintaiNiNg $O(a)$ improvEmEnt Seems sUFFicientlY desirable to elect the latTEr alterNatIve, i.e., ApplYing the reNorMalizaTioN ConstaNts in TAble \[zAtAb\] eNSEmble BY EnSemBlE and thus inTROduCing a SlIght Mass depEndence into the renoRMalIzation scheme.
a waY of eSTImAtiNG tHE syStEMatIC Uncertainty in thE renormaliZaTIoN of $\Delta s$ rESulTiNg from tHe residUal brEAking of Chiral symMetry due tO tHe abOVE soUrces lies iN the mismAtch betweEN the aXIaL vectOr aNd the vEcTor RenorMalizaTIon FactoRs, $Z_A /Z_{\cAl a} $ vs. $Z_V /Z_{\Cal V} $, wHiCh would rEmain equal if chiral symmeTry werE striCtlY maintainEd [@rBC3]. In The | $, due to residual sources of chiral symm etr y b re akin g. O ne of these so u rces is the finite extentof th ef ifth di mensi on in t h ed o mai nwa llfe r mi on co nst ruction . At finit e $ m_ {res} $, the re normalizat ion constant of th e part ia lly conse rve d cur rent,$ Z^{88} _{\cal A} $ , can d e viate f r o mtheunit value it wou l dt ake if chiralsymmet ry we r e st ric tly observ ed [@rb c 2]. Sec o nd l y , no t e that, at fi nite lattic e sp acing$a $,t here i s a c er t ain tension be twee n adoptin g a ma s s-indep e ndent l attice re nor mali z at io n s ch e mea nd ma i nta ining $O (a )$ impr ovem e n t [@lu esc her] . The renormalizat ion con s tan t $Z^ {88}_ {A}$in ge neralconta in s dependences o f or der $O(m_ q a )$ , e vi denti n thesli ght variat ion dis p lay ed i n T able \[zatab\]. Si nc e th e lattic e data ne ce s sary tope rfo rm t h e cont inuu m l imit $a\ righta r ro w0$ areno t avai la ble , t wo op t ions remai n: One o ption would be to ex t rapolate $Z^{ 8 8} _ { A} /Z^{ 88} _{\cal A} $ tot he c hira l l imi t , thu s obt ai n in g a mass-independent r enorma lizat ion scheme in more dire c t correspo nden c et o the $\overli ne{MS } $ scheme , but spo iling $O(a)$improveme n t . On the ot her ha nd, b yretaining the l eadi ng quarkmas s depen den ce, i. e., a pplying t he finit e- $m _{ q} $renor m alizatio ncon st ant s inT able \ [zata b\]en se m ble by ens e mb l e , $O (a )$ imp rov em ent i s ma i nta ined, a t the exp ens e ofin tr oducing a slight mas sdependence i nto the r e n ormaliza tion scheme at finite $ a $. Themas s dep ende nce, impl yin g a br eak i ng ofchiral symm et ryi n addi t i on to t he one enc o d edin th eresi dual ma ss $m_{res} $, ist hen expected tobeof o r d er $O ( m_ q a^ 2) $.S i nce the present investiga ti o nyielded la t tic edata at only a sing l e latti ce spacin g $a$, pr ec ludi n g adirect est imate of the effe c ts of fi nitelat tice s pa cin g, ma intain i ng$O(a) $ impr ov ementseems s ufficien tly desirable to electthe la tteralt ernative, i. e .,applyingtherenormaliz ati onconst ant s in T able \[ zat a b\] e nsem b le by ens e mb lea n dthus introd u c i nga sli ght mass d epen dence into the re n ormalization s chem e .
A wa y ofes timating the s yst em a t ic uncer ta inty in the renorma li z ation of $\ Deltas$ resu l t in g fromtheres idual bre aki ng of chir al s y mmetry due t o theaboves ourc e s lies in the mis match b etwee n th e axi al vector andthe vector renormaliz ationfact ors,$Z_A /Z _{ \cal A } $ v s. $Z_V /Z _ {\cal V}$, wh ich wou ld rem ain equal ifc h iralsymm et rywere stri c t ly ma in t ain ed [ @rbc3 ]. Inthe | $, due_to residual_sources of chiral symmetry_breaking. One_of_these sources_is_the finite extent_of the fifth_dimension in the domain_wall fermion construction._At_finite $m_{res} $, the renormalization constant of the partially conserved current, $Z^{88}_{\cal A} $,_can_deviate from_the_unit_value it would take if_chiral symmetry were strictly observed_[@rbc2]. Secondly,_note that, at finite lattice spacing $a$, there_is_a certain tension_between adopting a mass-independent lattice renormalization scheme and maintaining_$O(a)$ improvement [@luescher]. The renormalization constant_$Z^{88}_{A} $ in_general_contains_dependences of order $O(m_q_a)$, evident in the slight variation_displayed in Table \[zatab\]. Since the lattice_data necessary to perform the continuum limit_$a\rightarrow 0$ are not available, two_options remain: One option would_be to_extrapolate $Z^{88}_{A} /Z^{88}_{\cal A} $_to the chiral_limit, thus_obtaining a mass-independent_renormalization scheme in more direct correspondence_to the $\overline{MS}_$ scheme, but spoiling $O(a)$ improvement._On_the other hand,_by_retaining_the leading_quark mass dependence,_i.e.,_applying the_finite-$m_{q}_$ renormalization constants in Table \[zatab\] ensemble_by_ensemble, $O(a)$ improvement is maintained, at the_expense of introducing a_slight_mass dependence into the_renormalization scheme at finite $a$._The mass dependence, implying a breaking_of chiral_symmetry in_addition to the one encoded in the residual mass $m_{res} $,_is then expected to be of_order $O(m_q a^2 )$._Since the_present_investigation yielded lattice_data_at only_a single lattice spacing $a$, precluding a_direct estimate_of the effects of finite lattice_spacing, maintaining $O(a)$ improvement_seems_sufficiently desirable to elect the latter_alternative, i.e., applying the renormalization constants_in Table \[zatab\] ensemble by ensemble_and_thus_introducing a slight mass dependence_into the renormalization scheme.
A way of_estimating the systematic_uncertainty in the renormalization of $\Delta s$_resulting_from the residual breaking of chiral_symmetry_due to the above sources lies_in_the_mismatch between the axial vector_and the vector renormalization factors, $Z_A_/Z_{\cal A} $ vs. $Z_V /Z_{\cal V} $, which would_remain equal if_chiral symmetry were strictly maintained_[@rbc3]._In_the |
the potential presented by (\[confpoten\]), in stereographic coordinates, one recovers the harmonic potential for a quantum dot in a flat space. Besides, if we consider this system in the spherical coordinates characterizing the metric (\[sphere-metric\]), the quantum dot takes the form $V(\theta)=4\lambda_{1}a^{2}\tan^{2}(\theta)$. For the case $\lambda_{2} \to 0$, we arrive at the antidot potential in spherical space. In the limit $a \to \infty$, we obtain the flat Tan-Inkson potential in the form $$V(\rho)=\lambda_{1}\rho^2 + \frac{\lambda_{2}}{\rho^2} - V_{0},\label{confpotenflat}$$ where $V_{0}$ is given by $$V_{0}=2\sqrt{\lambda_{2}\lambda_{1}}.
\label{vopla}$$
![Quantum ring on sphere[]{data-label="fig:dir"}](stereoproject-3_reduzido.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
The quantum Dynamics in a Quantum Ring in Spherical Space {#sec4}
=========================================================
Now we solve the Schrödinger equation for an electron/hole confined by the potential (\[confpoten\]), in the presence of magnetic fields (\[uniformmag\]) and (\[abflux\]). In this case the Hamiltonian of an electron is given by $$\label{totalHamilt}
\begin{split}
\hat{H}\,=\,-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2\mu a^{2}}\left\{a^{2}\left[1+\left(\frac{\rho}{2a}\right)^{2}\right]^{2}\left[\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{d}{d\rho}\left(\rho\frac{d}{d\rho}\right)+\frac{1}{\rho^{2}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}+i\frac{\Phi_{AB}}{\Phi_{0}}\right)\right]\right\}\,
\\-\,i\frac{\hbar\omega_{c}}{2}\left[1+\left(\frac{\rho}{2a}\right)^{2}\right]\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}+i\frac{\Phi_{AB}}{\Phi_{0}}\right)+\frac{\mu\omega_{c}^{2}\left(-a^{2}\right)}{2}\left(\frac{\rho}{2\left | the potential presented by (\[confpoten\ ]), in stereographic coordinates, one recovers the consonant electric potential for a quantum point in a flat space. Besides, if we study this system in the spherical coordinate characterizing the metric (\[sphere - metric\ ]), the quantum dot learn the form $ V(\theta)=4\lambda_{1}a^{2}\tan^{2}(\theta)$. For the case $ \lambda_{2 } \to 0 $, we arrive at the antidot electric potential in spherical space. In the limit $ a \to \infty$, we obtain the bland Tan - Inkson potential in the human body $ $ V(\rho)=\lambda_{1}\rho^2 + \frac{\lambda_{2}}{\rho^2 } - V_{0},\label{confpotenflat}$$ where $ V_{0}$ is given by $ $ V_{0}=2\sqrt{\lambda_{2}\lambda_{1 } }.
\label{vopla}$$
! [ Quantum ring on sphere[]{data - label="fig: dir"}](stereoproject-3_reduzido.pdf){width="40.00000% " }
The quantum Dynamics in a Quantum Ring in Spherical Space { # sec4 }
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
nowadays we solve the Schrödinger equation for an electron / hole enclose by the potential (\[confpoten\ ]), in the presence of magnetic fields (\[uniformmag\ ]) and (\[abflux\ ]). In this event the Hamiltonian of an electron is given by $ $ \label{totalHamilt }
\begin{split }
\hat{H}\,=\,-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2\mu a^{2}}\left\{a^{2}\left[1+\left(\frac{\rho}{2a}\right)^{2}\right]^{2}\left[\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{d}{d\rho}\left(\rho\frac{d}{d\rho}\right)+\frac{1}{\rho^{2}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}+i\frac{\Phi_{AB}}{\Phi_{0}}\right)\right]\right\}\,
\\-\,i\frac{\hbar\omega_{c}}{2}\left[1+\left(\frac{\rho}{2a}\right)^{2}\right]\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}+i\frac{\Phi_{AB}}{\Phi_{0}}\right)+\frac{\mu\omega_{c}^{2}\left(-a^{2}\right)}{2}\left(\frac{\rho}{2\left | thf potential presented by (\[gonfpoten\]), in steteigraphmc coorsinates, une recovers the harmonic poventual fir a quantum dot in a wlat spacv. Besides, if xe consider this system lu the dphexiral coordinates characterhzing the metrhc (\[s'here-metric\]), the quantum dot takes thq form $F(\tjeta)=4\lambda_{1}a^{2}\tan^{2}(\jheta)$. Sor fhe case $\lambda_{2} \to 0$, we arrive at tge antivot potential im spherical space. In the llmit $a \to \infty$, we obtwin the flaj Tag-Unkson potengial in tht yorm $$V(\rho)=\lajbda_{1}\rho^2 + \frac{\lambda_{2}}{\rho^2} - V_{0},\label{cunfpocenflat}$$ whetz $V_{0}$ lv given by $$T_{0}=2\sqrt{\lwmbda_{2}\lambda_{1}}.
\label{vopld}$$
![Quantuk ring on spheve[]{date-labwl="fig:dir"}](stereoproject-3_ceduzido.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
The zuantum Dfncmics in a Quantum Ribg in Skheriwal Rpacd {#stc4}
=========================================================
Npw we sopve the Schrödjnger equatuon for an electron/nojv confined by the pjtqntial (\[confpoten\]), in the presence of magtetjc fields (\[uniformmag\]) ane (\[abflux\]). In this case the Hamijtonian of an electron is given by $$\label{totalHamint}
\begmn{rplnb}
\mat{H}\,=\,-\weaf{\hbar^{2}}{2\mu a^{2}}\left\{a^{2}\left[1+\left(\frac{\rho}{2a}\right)^{2}\right]^{2}\left[\fwzc{1}{\thp}\frac{d}{d\rho}\left(\vho\frac{d}{d\rho}\right)+\ftaf{1}{\rnj^{2}}\left(\frac{\partkal}{\parcjam\varphi}+i\frac{\Phi_{AB}}{\Pji_{0}}\right)\tight]\rught\}\,
\\-\,i\frac{\rbar\pmega_{c}}{2}\left[1+\left(\frac{\rho}{2a}\right)^{2}\eight]\left(\frab{\parrial}{\partial\varphi}+i\yrac{\Phi_{AB}}{\Phi_{0}}\xight)+\ftac{\mu\okega_{c}^{2}\left(-a^{2}\right)}{2}\left(\frac{\xho}{2\leff | the potential presented by (\[confpoten\]), in stereographic recovers harmonic potential a quantum dot if consider this system the spherical coordinates the metric (\[sphere-metric\]), the quantum dot the form $V(\theta)=4\lambda_{1}a^{2}\tan^{2}(\theta)$. For the case $\lambda_{2} \to 0$, we arrive at the potential in spherical space. In the limit $a \to \infty$, we obtain the Tan-Inkson in form + \frac{\lambda_{2}}{\rho^2} - V_{0},\label{confpotenflat}$$ where $V_{0}$ is given by $$V_{0}=2\sqrt{\lambda_{2}\lambda_{1}}. \label{vopla}$$ ![Quantum ring on sphere[]{data-label="fig:dir"}](stereoproject-3_reduzido.pdf){width="40.00000%"} The Dynamics in a Quantum Ring in Spherical Space ========================================================= Now we solve Schrödinger equation for an electron/hole by potential (\[confpoten\]), the of fields (\[uniformmag\]) and In this case the Hamiltonian of an electron is given by $$\label{totalHamilt} \begin{split} \hat{H}\,=\,-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2\mu a^{2}}\left\{a^{2}\left[1+\left(\frac{\rho}{2a}\right)^{2}\right]^{2}\left[\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{d}{d\rho}\left(\rho\frac{d}{d\rho}\right)+\frac{1}{\rho^{2}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}+i\frac{\Phi_{AB}}{\Phi_{0}}\right)\right]\right\}\, \\-\,i\frac{\hbar\omega_{c}}{2}\left[1+\left(\frac{\rho}{2a}\right)^{2}\right]\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}+i\frac{\Phi_{AB}}{\Phi_{0}}\right)+\frac{\mu\omega_{c}^{2}\left(-a^{2}\right)}{2}\left(\frac{\rho}{2\left | the potential presented by (\[coNfpoten\]), in sTereoGraPhiC cOordInatEs, one recovers tHE harMonic potential for a quanTum doT iN A flaT SpAce. BeSides, if WE cONSidEr ThIs sYsTEm In the SphErical cOordinates ChaRaCterizing the MEtRic (\[sphere-mEtrIc\]), the quantum Dot Takes tHe ForM $v(\thetA)=4\laMbda_{1}a^{2}\Tan^{2}(\theTA)$. For thE case $\lambDa_{2} \TO 0$, we arrIVe at the ANTiDot pOtential in sphericAL sPAce. In the limit $a \To \inftY$, wE ObTAIn tHe fLat Tan-InksOn PotenTIal in thE FoRM $$v(\Rho)=\LAmbda_{1}\rho^2 + \frac{\lAmbda_{2}}{\rho^2} - V_{0},\laBEl{cOnfpotEnFlaT}$$ Where $V_{0}$ Is givEn BY $$V_{0}=2\sQrt{\lambda_{2}\laMbda_{1}}.
\Label{voplA}$$
![QuantUM ring on SPhere[]{daTa-labeL="fiG:diR"}](steREoPrOjeCt-3_REduZIdO.pdF){WidTh="40.00000%"}
The quaNtUm dynamIcs iN A qUAntuM RiNg in spherIcal Space {#sec4}
=========================================================
NOw wE solVE thE SchrÖdingEr eqUaTion fOr an elEctroN/hOle confined by thE potEntial (\[conFpoTeN\]), in ThE presENce of mAgnEtiC fields (\[UniformMAg\]) aNd (\[ABFLuX\]). In this case the HamiLtONIaN of an eleCtron iS GiVeN By $$\label{tOtAlHAmilT}
\BEgin{sPlit}
\HAt{h}\,=\,-\frac{\hbaR^{2}}{2\mu a^{2}}\leFT\{a^{2}\LeFt[1+\left(\fRaC{\rho}{2a}\rIgHt)^{2}\rIghT]^{2}\left[\FRac{1}{\rHo}\frac{D}{d\rho}\lefT(\rho\fRAc{d}{d\rho}\right)+\frAC{1}{\rho^{2}}\left(\frac{\pARtIAL}{\pARtiaL\vaRphi}+i\frac{\PhI_{AB}}{\PHI_{0}}\rigHt)\riGHt]\RigHT\}\,
\\-\,i\fraC{\hbar\OmEGa_{C}}{2}\Left[1+\left(\frac{\rho}{2a}\rigHt)^{2}\Right]\lEft(\frAc{\partial}{\partIal\varphi}+i\FRAC{\Phi_{AB}}{\PhI_{0}}\rigHT)+\fRAc{\mu\omega_{c}^{2}\left(-A^{2}\righT)}{2}\left(\frac{\rHO}{2\left | the potential presented b y (\[confp oten\ ]), in s tere ogra phic coordinat e s, o ne recovers the harmon ic po te n tial fo r a q uantumd ot i n a f la t s pa c e. Besi des , if we considerthi ssystem in th e s pherical c oor dinates char act erizin gthe metri c ( \[sph ere-me t ric\]) , the qua nt u m dott akes th e fo rm $ V(\theta)=4\lambd a _{ 1 }a^{2}\tan^{2} (\thet a) $ .F o r t hecase $\lam bd a_{2} \to 0$, we a r riv e at the antid ot potentia l in spher ic als pace.In th el imi t $a \to \i nfty $, we obt ain th e flat T a n-Inkso n pote nti alin t h efo rm$$ V (\r h o) =\l a mbd a_{1}\rh o^ 2+ \fr ac{\ l a m b da_{ 2}} {\rh o^2}- V_{0},\labe l{c onfp o ten flat} $$ wh ere$V _{0}$ is gi ven b y$$V_{0}=2\sqrt{ \lam bda_{2}\l amb da _{1 }} .
\la b el{vop la} $$
![Quan tum rin g on s p h e re []{data-label="fig :d i r "} ](stereo projec t -3 _r e duzido.p df ){w idth = " 40.00 000% " }
The qua ntum D y na mi cs in a Q uantum R ing in Sphe r ical Space {#sec4}
==== = ============== = ============= = == = = == = ==== === =========
Noww e so lvet he Sc h rödin ger e qu a ti o n for an electron/h ol e conf inedby the potent ial (\[con f p o ten\]),in t h ep resence of mag netic fields (\ [ uniformm ag\]) and (\[ abflux\]) . In thiscas e t heHam i l to nian of an el e c tron i s given by $$\lab el{ tot alH ami lt }
\begin{ split}
\ ha t{ H} \, =\, -\fra c {\hbar^{ 2} }{2 \m u a ^{2}} \ left\{ a^{2} \lef t[ 1+ \ lef t(\frac { \r h o }{2a }\ ri ght) ^{2 }\ right ]^{2 } \le ft[\fra c{1}{\rho }\f r ac{d }{ d\ rho}\le ft(\rho\frac{ d} {d\rho}\ri gh t)+ \frac{ 1 } {\rho^{2 }}\left(\frac{\partial} { \partia l\v arphi }+i\ frac{\Phi _{A B}}{\P hi_ { 0}}\ri ght)\r ight] \r igh t \ }\,
\ \ - \, i\f ra c{\hbar\om e g a_{ c}}{2 }\ left [1+\lef t(\frac{\rho}{2a}\ r igh t)^{2}\right] \le ft(\ f r ac {\p a rt i al} {\ p art i a l\varphi}+i\fra c{\Phi_{AB }} { \P hi_{0}}\ri g ht) +\ frac{\m u\omega _{c}^ { 2}\left (-a^{2}\r ight)}{2} \l eft( \ f rac {\rho}{2\l eft | the_potential presented_by (\[confpoten\]), in stereographic coordinates,_one recovers_the_harmonic potential_for_a quantum dot_in a flat_space. Besides, if we_consider this system_in_the spherical coordinates characterizing the metric (\[sphere-metric\]), the quantum dot takes the form $V(\theta)=4\lambda_{1}a^{2}\tan^{2}(\theta)$._For_the case_$\lambda_{2}_\to_0$, we arrive at the_antidot potential in spherical space._In the_limit $a \to \infty$, we obtain the flat_Tan-Inkson_potential in the_form $$V(\rho)=\lambda_{1}\rho^2 + \frac{\lambda_{2}}{\rho^2} - V_{0},\label{confpotenflat}$$ where $V_{0}$ is_given by $$V_{0}=2\sqrt{\lambda_{2}\lambda_{1}}.
\label{vopla}$$
![Quantum ring on sphere[]{data-label="fig:dir"}](stereoproject-3_reduzido.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
The_quantum Dynamics in_a_Quantum_Ring in Spherical Space_{#sec4}
=========================================================
Now we solve the Schrödinger equation_for an electron/hole confined by the_potential (\[confpoten\]), in the presence of magnetic_fields (\[uniformmag\]) and (\[abflux\]). In this_case the Hamiltonian of an_electron is_given by $$\label{totalHamilt}
\begin{split}
\hat{H}\,=\,-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2\mu a^{2}}\left\{a^{2}\left[1+\left(\frac{\rho}{2a}\right)^{2}\right]^{2}\left[\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{d}{d\rho}\left(\rho\frac{d}{d\rho}\right)+\frac{1}{\rho^{2}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}+i\frac{\Phi_{AB}}{\Phi_{0}}\right)\right]\right\}\,
\\-\,i\frac{\hbar\omega_{c}}{2}\left[1+\left(\frac{\rho}{2a}\right)^{2}\right]\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}+i\frac{\Phi_{AB}}{\Phi_{0}}\right)+\frac{\mu\omega_{c}^{2}\left(-a^{2}\right)}{2}\left(\frac{\rho}{2\left |
009 & 2.04 &0.03 & 82.79\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & 0.005 & -03 45 48.374 & 0.004 & 4.94 &0.03 & 82.93\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.083 & 0.002 & -03 45 48.384 & 0.002 & 12.33 &0.04 & 83.07\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.083 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.385 & 0.001 & 25.96 &0.05 & 83.21\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.383 & 0.001 & 43.63 &0.04 & 83.34\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.383 & 0.000 & 56.66 &0.04 & 83.48\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.081 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.385 & 0.001 & 53.85 &0.05 & 83.62\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.081 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.386 & 0.001 & 38.19 &0.06 & 83.75\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.079 & 0.002 & -03 45 48.381 & 0.001 & 23.39 &0.05 & 83.89\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.078 & 0.002 & -03 45 48.378 & 0.002 & 13.43 &0.04 & 84.03\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.078 & 0.003 & -03 45 48.375 & 0.003 & 7.58 &0.03 & 84.17\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.077 & 0.004 & -03 45 48.362 & 0.003 & 6.34 &0.03 & 84.30\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.077 & 0.004 & -03 45 48. | 009 & 2.04 & 0.03 & 82.79\
G28.83 - 0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & 0.005 & -03 45 48.374 & 0.004 & 4.94 & 0.03 & 82.93\
G28.83 - 0.25 & 18 44 51.083 & 0.002 & -03 45 48.384 & 0.002 & 12.33 & 0.04 & 83.07\
G28.83 - 0.25 & 18 44 51.083 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.385 & 0.001 & 25.96 & 0.05 & 83.21\
G28.83 - 0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.383 & 0.001 & 43.63 & 0.04 & 83.34\
G28.83 - 0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.383 & 0.000 & 56.66 & 0.04 & 83.48\
G28.83 - 0.25 & 18 44 51.081 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.385 & 0.001 & 53.85 & 0.05 & 83.62\
G28.83 - 0.25 & 18 44 51.081 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.386 & 0.001 & 38.19 & 0.06 & 83.75\
G28.83 - 0.25 & 18 44 51.079 & 0.002 & -03 45 48.381 & 0.001 & 23.39 & 0.05 & 83.89\
G28.83 - 0.25 & 18 44 51.078 & 0.002 & -03 45 48.378 & 0.002 & 13.43 & 0.04 & 84.03\
G28.83 - 0.25 & 18 44 51.078 & 0.003 & -03 45 48.375 & 0.003 & 7.58 & 0.03 & 84.17\
G28.83 - 0.25 & 18 44 51.077 & 0.004 & -03 45 48.362 & 0.003 & 6.34 & 0.03 & 84.30\
G28.83 - 0.25 & 18 44 51.077 & 0.004 & -03 45 48. | 009 & 2.04 &0.03 & 82.79\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & 0.005 & -03 45 48.374 & 0.004 & 4.94 &0.03 & 82.93\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.083 & 0.002 & -03 45 48.384 & 0.002 & 12.33 &0.04 & 83.07\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.083 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.385 & 0.001 & 25.96 &0.05 & 83.21\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.383 & 0.001 & 43.63 &0.04 & 83.34\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.383 & 0.000 & 56.66 &0.04 & 83.48\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.081 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.385 & 0.001 & 53.85 &0.05 & 83.62\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.081 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.386 & 0.001 & 38.19 &0.06 & 83.75\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.079 & 0.002 & -03 45 48.381 & 0.001 & 23.39 &0.05 & 83.89\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.078 & 0.002 & -03 45 48.378 & 0.002 & 13.43 &0.04 & 84.03\
N28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.078 & 0.003 & -03 45 48.375 & 0.003 & 7.58 &0.03 & 84.17\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.077 & 0.004 & -03 45 48.362 & 0.003 & 6.34 &0.03 & 84.30\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.077 & 0.004 & -03 45 48. | 009 & 2.04 &0.03 & 82.79\ G28.83-0.25 44 & 0.005 -03 45 48.374 & G28.83-0.25 & 18 51.083 & 0.002 -03 45 48.384 & 0.002 & &0.04 & 83.07\ G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.083 & 0.001 & -03 45 & 0.001 & 25.96 &0.05 & 83.21\ G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & & 45 & & 43.63 &0.04 & 83.34\ G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.383 0.000 & 56.66 &0.04 & 83.48\ G28.83-0.25 & 44 51.081 & 0.001 -03 45 48.385 & 0.001 53.85 & 83.62\ & 44 & 0.001 & 45 48.386 & 0.001 & 38.19 &0.06 & 83.75\ G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.079 & 0.002 & 45 48.381 & 23.39 & G28.83-0.25 18 44 51.078 & -03 45 48.378 & 0.002 & 84.03\ G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.078 & & -03 48.375 & 0.003 & 7.58 &0.03 84.17\ G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.077 & 0.004 -03 45 48.362 & 0.003 & 6.34 &0.03 & 84.30\ G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.077 & -03 45 48. | 009 & 2.04 &0.03 & 82.79\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & 0.005 & -03 45 48.374 & 0.004 & 4.94 &0.03 & 82.93\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.083 & 0.002 & -03 45 48.384 & 0.002 & 12.33 &0.04 & 83.07\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.083 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.385 & 0.001 & 25.96 &0.05 & 83.21\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.383 & 0.001 & 43.63 &0.04 & 83.34\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.383 & 0.000 & 56.66 &0.04 & 83.48\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.081 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.385 & 0.001 & 53.85 &0.05 & 83.62\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.081 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.386 & 0.001 & 38.19 &0.06 & 83.75\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.079 & 0.002 & -03 45 48.381 & 0.001 & 23.39 &0.05 & 83.89\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.078 & 0.002 & -03 45 48.378 & 0.002 & 13.43 &0.04 & 84.03\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.078 & 0.003 & -03 45 48.375 & 0.003 & 7.58 &0.03 & 84.17\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.077 & 0.004 & -03 45 48.362 & 0.003 & 6.34 &0.03 & 84.30\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.077 & 0.004 & -03 45 48. | 009 & 2.04 &0.03 & 82.79\G28.83-0.2 5 & 1 8 4 4 5 1. 082& 0. 005 & -03 45 4 8 .374 & 0.004 & 4.94 &0.03& 82. 93 \
G28 . 83 -0.25 & 18 4 4 5 1 . 083 & 0 .00 2& - 03 45 48 .384 &0.002 & 12 .33 & 0.04 & 83.07 \
G 28.83-0.25 &18 44 51.083 &0.001&-03 45 48 .38 5 & 0 .001 & 25.96&0.05 & 8 3. 2 1\
G28 . 83-0.25 & 1 8 44 51.082 & 0.001 & -0 3 45 48.383 & 0 .001 & 4 3 .6 3 &0. 04& 83.34\
G 28 .83-0 . 25 & 18 44 5 1 .08 2 & 0.001 & -0 3 45 48.383 & 0 .000 & 5 6.6 6 &0.04 & 83 .4 8 \
G 28.83-0.25& 18 44 51.08 1 & 0. 0 01 & -0 3 45 48. 385 &0.0 01& 53 . 85 & 0.0 5& 83 . 62 \
G 2 8.8 3-0.25 & 1 844 51 .081 & 0 .001 &-0345 48 .386 & 0.001& 3 8.19 &0. 06 &83.75 \
G2 8. 83-0. 25 & 1 8 4451 .079 & 0.002 &-0345 48.381 &0. 001 & 23.3 9 &0.05 &83. 89\
G28 .83-0.2 5 &18 4 4 5 1.078 & 0.002 & -0 34 5 4 8.378 &0.002& 1 3. 4 3 &0.04&84. 03\G 2 8.83- 0.25 &18 44 51 .078 & 0. 00 3 & -03 4 5 48.3 75 &0.0 03 &7 .58&0.03& 84.17\
G28. 8 3-0.25 & 18 44 51.077 & 0.00 4 & - 03 45 4 8.3 62 & 0.003& 6. 3 4 &0 .03& 8 4.3 0 \
G28 .83-0 .2 5 & 18 44 51.077 & 0.00 4& -0345 48 . | 009 &_2.04 &0.03_& 82.79\
G28.83-0.25 & 18_44 51.082_&_0.005 &_-03_45 48.374 &_0.004 & 4.94_&0.03 & 82.93\
G28.83-0.25 &_18 44 51.083_&_0.002 & -03 45 48.384 & 0.002 & 12.33 &0.04 & 83.07\
G28.83-0.25 & 18_44_51.083 &_0.001_&_-03 45 48.385 & 0.001_& 25.96 &0.05 & 83.21\
G28.83-0.25_& 18_44 51.082 & 0.001 & -03 45 48.383_&_0.001 & 43.63_&0.04 & 83.34\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.082 & 0.001_& -03 45 48.383 & 0.000_& 56.66 &0.04_&_83.48\
G28.83-0.25_& 18 44 51.081_& 0.001 & -03 45 48.385_& 0.001 & 53.85 &0.05 &_83.62\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.081 & 0.001_& -03 45 48.386 & 0.001_& 38.19 &0.06 & 83.75\
G28.83-0.25_& 18_44 51.079 & 0.002 &_-03 45 48.381_& 0.001_& 23.39 &0.05_& 83.89\
G28.83-0.25 & 18 44 51.078_& 0.002 &_-03 45 48.378 & 0.002 &_13.43_&0.04 & 84.03\
G28.83-0.25_&_18_44 51.078_& 0.003 &_-03_45 48.375_&_0.003 & 7.58 &0.03 & 84.17\
G28.83-0.25_&_18 44 51.077 & 0.004 & -03_45 48.362 & 0.003_&_6.34 &0.03 & 84.30\
G28.83-0.25_& 18 44 51.077 &_0.004 & -03 45 48. |
'^2 (Z'+1) \left( \frac{\alpha_d}{10^{-2}}\right)^2 \left( \frac{\mu_d}{{\rm MeV}} \right)
\left( \frac{{\rm GeV}}{m_{p_d} + Z'm_{e_d}}\right)\left( \frac{220 {\rm \ km/s}}{v_{rot}}\right)^2 \ll 1 \.
\label{2x}\end{aligned}$$
Of course with the dark photon massless this type of dark matter is dissipative. The plasma halo can radiatively cool via processes such as dark bremsstrahlung and potentially collapse onto a disk on a timescale less than the Hubble time. Thus, there is another condition for such a plasma to exist today, namely that the cooling timescale is longer than the Hubble time, or that a heating mechanism exists. The cooling timescale is given in e.g. [@rich8] and requiring that this timescale be longer than the Hubble time for the Milky Way gives the approximate condition $$\begin{aligned}
m_{p_d} \gtrsim 20 \left( \frac{{\rm MeV}}{m_{e_d}} \right) \left( \frac{\alpha_d}{10^{-2}}\right)^2
Z'^{5/3} \ {\rm GeV}
\.
%{\frac{5}{3}}
\label{3x}\end{aligned}$$ This was derived assuming that cooling is dominated by bremsstrahlung for the most stringent case of $m_{e_d} \ll m_{p_d}$. The alternative possibility is that the cooling rate is sufficiently high for the halo to have collapsed but is prevented from doing so due to heating [@sph; @rich8; @footexploredb; @footexploredc; @footexploredd; @footexplorede]. If $\epsilon \sim 10^{-9}$–$10^{-10}$ then sufficient heating of the halo can be provided by ordinary core-collapse supernovae [@sph; @rich8]. In that scenario, the halo is viewed as a dynamical object which evolves until an equilibrium configuration is reached where heating and cooling rates locally balance.
The conditions so far have been derived assuming that interactions were sufficiently rapid so that dark electrons and dark protons have approximately the same temperature. Let us briefly estimate the parameter space where this assumption is reasonable. If the mean | ' ^2 (Z'+1) \left (\frac{\alpha_d}{10^{-2}}\right)^2 \left (\frac{\mu_d}{{\rm MeV } } \right)
\left (\frac{{\rm GeV}}{m_{p_d } + Z'm_{e_d}}\right)\left (\frac{220 { \rm \ km / s}}{v_{rot}}\right)^2 \ll 1 \.
\label{2x}\end{aligned}$$
Of course with the dark photon massless this type of dark topic is dissipative. The plasma aura can radiatively cool via processes such as dark bremsstrahlung and potentially crack up onto a magnetic disk on a timescale less than the Hubble time. Thus, there be another circumstance for such a plasma to exist today, namely that the cooling timescale is longer than the Hubble time, or that a heating mechanism exists. The cool timescale is given in e.g. [ @rich8 ] and command that this timescale be longer than the Hubble time for the Milky Way gives the approximate condition $ $ \begin{aligned }
m_{p_d } \gtrsim 20 \left (\frac{{\rm MeV}}{m_{e_d } } \right) \left (\frac{\alpha_d}{10^{-2}}\right)^2
Z'^{5/3 } \ { \rm GeV }
\.
% { \frac{5}{3 } }
\label{3x}\end{aligned}$$ This was derived wear that cooling is dominated by bremsstrahlung for the most rigorous case of $ m_{e_d } \ll m_{p_d}$. The alternative hypothesis is that the cooling pace is sufficiently high for the halo to have collapsed but is prevented from doing so due to heating system [ @sph; @rich8; @footexploredb; @footexploredc; @footexploredd; @footexplorede ]. If $ \epsilon \sim 10^{-9}$–$10^{-10}$ then sufficient heating of the halo can be provided by ordinary core - collapse supernova [ @sph; @rich8 ]. In that scenario, the aura is viewed as a dynamical object which evolves until an equilibrium configuration is reached where heating and cooling rate locally balance.
The conditions indeed far have been derive assuming that interactions were sufficiently rapid so that dark electron and dark proton have approximately the same temperature. Let us concisely estimate the parameter space where this assumption is reasonable. If the mean | '^2 (Z'+1) \peft( \frac{\alpha_d}{10^{-2}}\right)^2 \lefu( \frac{\mu_d}{{\rm MeV}} \rntht)
\lefv( \frac{{\rj GeV}}{m_{p_d} + Z'm_{e_d}}\right)\left( \frac{220 {\rm \ km/s}}{t_{rot}}\eight)^2 \ll 1 \.
\label{2x}\end{aligned}$$
Ow course aith the darj photon massless tmns tylc of back matter is dixsipative. Dhe plasma halm zau radiatively cool via processes sucr as datk bremsstrahlund anc potsntially collapse onto a disk on a timescele less than tne Hubble time. Thus, there ls ajother condition flr such a poasmw to exist toaay, namely that the cokling timescale is longer than ghe Hbbble time, ir thwj a heating nechagism exists. Bne cooning tikescale is givcn in e.g. [@rich8] and requiring tiat this timescale bg longer tvau the Hubble time for tye Minky Fay euver tge alproxilatx condition $$\begin{alignwd}
m_{p_d} \gtrsim 20 \left( \fwqc{{\rm MeV}}{m_{e_d}} \rjght) \lqfe( \frac{\alpha_d}{10^{-2}}\right)^2
Z'^{5/3} \ {\rm GeV}
\.
%{\frac{5}{3}}
\label{3x}\etd{amigned}$$ This was derived assuming that coolinh is domigated by bremsstrahlung for the most stringent cave of $o_{e_d} \lj n_{p_f}$. The alternative possibility is that the coojjnb gate is sufficienbly high for the hsll yj have collapred buc ia prevented from dling so due ro heatind [@spn; @rich8; @footexploredb; @footexploredc; @footvxpliredd; @footexploredz]. If $\epsilon \sim 10^{-9}$–$10^{-10}$ them sufficient heating of the halo can bf provides by ordinary cord-cokldpse suptfnovae [@sph; @rich8]. Ig that scxnarip, the hxlo os viered as a djnamigdl object which evllves uttil an eqkilibrium configuration is reacixd where heatonc atd cooliug ratcs locally balagce.
The conditipns so yar haxe been degived assnming that igteractions wate sufficientny rapid so rhat dark eudctrons and datk protons have appeoximately the samc temkedature. Let us bxnedly estimate thr pxraiener s[dce where thhs arsuoltion is reasonanle. If yhe mean | '^2 (Z'+1) \left( \frac{\alpha_d}{10^{-2}}\right)^2 \left( \frac{\mu_d}{{\rm MeV}} \frac{{\rm + Z'm_{e_d}}\right)\left( {\rm \ km/s}}{v_{rot}}\right)^2 course the dark photon this type of matter is dissipative. The plasma halo radiatively cool via processes such as dark bremsstrahlung and potentially collapse onto a on a timescale less than the Hubble time. Thus, there is another condition such plasma exist namely that the cooling timescale is longer than the Hubble time, or that a heating mechanism The cooling timescale is given in e.g. [@rich8] requiring that this timescale longer than the Hubble time the Way gives approximate $$\begin{aligned} \gtrsim 20 \left( MeV}}{m_{e_d}} \right) \left( \frac{\alpha_d}{10^{-2}}\right)^2 Z'^{5/3} \ {\rm GeV} \. %{\frac{5}{3}} \label{3x}\end{aligned}$$ This was derived assuming that cooling dominated by the most case $m_{e_d} m_{p_d}$. The alternative that the cooling rate is sufficiently halo to have collapsed but is prevented from so due heating [@sph; @rich8; @footexploredb; @footexploredc; @footexploredd; If $\epsilon \sim 10^{-9}$–$10^{-10}$ then sufficient heating of halo can be provided by ordinary core-collapse supernovae [@sph; @rich8]. In that scenario, the halo as a dynamical object evolves until an configuration reached heating cooling rates balance. The conditions so far have been derived assuming that interactions sufficiently rapid so that dark electrons and dark protons have same Let us briefly the parameter space where assumption reasonable. If the mean | '^2 (Z'+1) \left( \frac{\alpha_d}{10^{-2}}\right)^2 \left( \fRac{\mu_d}{{\rm Mev}} \righT)
\leFt( \fRaC{{\rm GEV}}{m_{p_D} + Z'm_{e_d}}\right)\left( \FRac{220 {\rM \ km/s}}{v_{rot}}\right)^2 \ll 1 \.
\label{2x}\eNd{aliGnED}$$
Of cOUrSe witH the darK PhOTOn mAsSlEss ThIS tYpe of DarK matter Is dissipatIve. thE plasma halo cAN rAdiatively CooL via processeS suCh as daRk BreMSstraHluNg and PotentIAlly coLlapse ontO a DIsk on a TImescalE LEsS thaN the Hubble time. ThuS, ThERe is another conDition FoR SuCH A plAsmA to exist toDaY, nameLY that thE CoOLINg tIMescale is longEr than the HuBBle Time, or ThAt a HEating MechaNiSM exIsts. The coolIng tImescale iS given IN e.g. [@rich8] ANd requiRing thAt tHis TimeSCaLe Be lOnGEr tHAn The hUbbLe time foR tHe milky way gIVES The aPprOximAte coNdition $$\begin{aLigNed}
m_{P_D} \gtRsim 20 \lEft( \frAc{{\rm mev}}{m_{e_d}} \rIght) \leFt( \fraC{\aLpha_d}{10^{-2}}\right)^2
Z'^{5/3} \ {\rm Gev}
\.
%{\fraC{5}{3}}
\label{3x}\enD{alIgNed}$$ thIs was DErived AssUmiNg that cOoling iS DomInATED bY bremsstrahlung for ThE MOsT stringeNt case OF $m_{E_d} \LL m_{p_d}$. The aLtErnAtivE POssibIlitY Is That the cOoling RAtE iS sufficIeNtly hiGh For The Halo tO Have CollapSed but is PreveNTed from doing so DUe to heating [@spH; @RiCH8; @FoOTexpLorEdb; @footexplOredC; @FootExplOReDd; @fOOtexpLoredE]. IF $\EpSIlon \sim 10^{-9}$–$10^{-10}$ then sufficieNt HeatinG of thE halo can be proVided by ordINARy core-coLlapSE sUPernovae [@sph; @ricH8]. In thAt scenario, THe halo is VieweD as a dynaMical objeCT Which evoLveS unTil An eQUIlIbrium configuRATion Is Reached WheRe heatiNg aNd cOolIng RaTes locallY balance.
thE cOnDiTioNs so fAR have beeN dEriVeD asSuminG That inTeracTionS wErE SufFicientLY rAPId so ThAt Dark EleCtRons aNd daRK prOtons haVe approxiMatELy thE sAmE temperAture. Let us briEfLy estimate ThE paRameteR SPace wherE this assumption is reasonABle. If thE meAn | '^2 (Z'+1) \left( \frac{\a lpha_d}{10 ^{-2} }\r igh t) ^2 \ left ( \frac{\mu_d} { {\rm MeV}} \right)
\left(\frac {{ \ rm G e V} }{m_{ p_d} +Z 'm _ { e_d }} \r igh t) \ le ft( \ fra c{220 { \rm \ km/s }}{ v_ {rot}}\right ) ^2 \ll 1 \.\la bel{2x}\end{ ali gned}$ $
Of cours e w ith t he dar k photo n massles st his ty p e of da r k m atte r is dissipative. Th e plasma halo c an rad ia t iv e l y c ool via proce ss es su c h as da r kb r e mss t rahlung and p otentiallyc oll apse o nt o a disk o n a t im e sca le less tha n th e Hubbletime.T hus, th e re is a nother co ndi tion fo rsuc ha pl a sm a t o ex ist toda y, n amely tha t t h e co oli ng t imesc ale is longer th an t h e H ubble time , or t hat a heati ng me ch anism exists. T he c ooling ti mes ca leis give n in e. g.[@r ich8] a nd requ i rin gt h a tthis timescale belo n g er than th e Hubb l eti m e for th eMil ky W a y give s th e a pproxima te con d it io n $$\be gi n{alig ne d}m_{ p_d}\ gtrs im 20 \left(\frac { {\rm MeV}}{m_{ e _d}} \right)\ le f t (\ frac {\a lpha_d}{10^ {-2} } \rig ht)^ 2 Z'^ { 5/3}\ {\ rm Ge V }
\.
%{\frac{5}{3}}
\ label{ 3x}\e nd{aligned}$$ This wasd e r ived ass umin g t h at cooling isdomin ated by br e msstrahl ung f or the m ost strin g e nt caseof$m_ {e_ d}\ l lm_{p_d}$. The a lter na tive po ssi bilityistha t t heco oling rat e is suf fi ci en tl y h igh f o r the ha lo to h ave coll a psed b ut is pre ve nt e d f rom doi n gs o due t oheat ing [ @sph; @ri c h8; @foote xploredb; @f o otex pl or edc; @f ootexploredd; @ footexplor ed e]. If $\ e p silon \s im 10^{-9}$–$10^{-10}$t hen suf fic ientheat ing of th e h alo ca n b e provi ded by ordi na ryc o re-co l l ap sesu pernovae [ @ s ph; @ric h8 ]. I n thatscenario, the halo isviewed as a d yna mica l ob jec t w h ich e v olv e s until an equil ibrium con fi g ur ation is r e ach ed whereheating andc oolingrates loc ally bala nc e.
T h e c onditionsso far h ave beend erive d a ssumi ngthat i nt era ction s were suf ficie ntly r ap id sothatda rk elect rons and dark protons h ave ap proxi mat ely the s ame tem perature. Let us briefl y e sti matethe param eter sp ace where thi s assumpti o nisr e as onable. Ift h e me an | '^2 (Z'+1)_\left( \frac{\alpha_d}{10^{-2}}\right)^2_\left( \frac{\mu_d}{{\rm MeV}} \right)
\left(_\frac{{\rm GeV}}{m_{p_d}_+_Z'm_{e_d}}\right)\left( \frac{220_{\rm_\ km/s}}{v_{rot}}\right)^2 \ll_1 \.
\label{2x}\end{aligned}$$
Of course_with the dark photon_massless this type_of_dark matter is dissipative. The plasma halo can radiatively cool via processes such as_dark_bremsstrahlung and_potentially_collapse_onto a disk on a_timescale less than the Hubble_time. Thus,_there is another condition for such a plasma_to_exist today, namely_that the cooling timescale is longer than the Hubble_time, or that a heating mechanism_exists. The cooling_timescale_is_given in e.g. [@rich8]_and requiring that this timescale be_longer than the Hubble time for_the Milky Way gives the approximate condition_$$\begin{aligned}
m_{p_d} \gtrsim 20 \left( \frac{{\rm_MeV}}{m_{e_d}} \right) \left( \frac{\alpha_d}{10^{-2}}\right)^2
Z'^{5/3}_\ _{\rm GeV}
\.
%{\frac{5}{3}}
\label{3x}\end{aligned}$$ This was derived_assuming that cooling_is dominated_by bremsstrahlung for_the most stringent case of $m_{e_d}_\ll m_{p_d}$. The_alternative possibility is that the cooling_rate_is sufficiently high_for_the_halo to_have collapsed but_is_prevented from_doing_so due to heating [@sph; @rich8;_@footexploredb;_@footexploredc; @footexploredd; @footexplorede]. If $\epsilon \sim 10^{-9}$–$10^{-10}$_then sufficient heating of_the_halo can be provided_by ordinary core-collapse supernovae [@sph;_@rich8]. In that scenario, the halo_is viewed_as a_dynamical object which evolves until an equilibrium configuration is reached where_heating and cooling rates locally balance.
The_conditions so far have_been derived_assuming_that interactions were_sufficiently_rapid so_that dark electrons and dark protons have_approximately the_same temperature. Let us briefly estimate_the parameter space where_this_assumption is reasonable. If the mean |
the same BaSTI isochrones used here, with the masses and radii determined for the components of the cluster eclipsing binary WOCS 23009.
![ *(Upper panel:)* Fit of theoretical isochrones \[1.95 Gyr, $(m-M)_0=11.99$, $E(B-V)$=0.18 and 2.55 Gyr, $(m-M)_0=11.77$, $E(B-V)$=0.16\] to the cluster MS in the $m_{\rm F606W}$-$(m_{\rm F606W} - m_{\rm F814W})$ CMD (see text for details). *(Lower panel:)* Fit of WD isochrones to the observed CS, for the same age-distance-reddening combinations. Solid lines denote DA WDs, dotted lines DB objects. \[thCMDs\] ](f3.ps){width="89mm"}
The upper panel of Fig. \[thCMDs\] shows the result of the isochrone fits, with the two isochrones that best bracket the MSTO region, i.e., 1.95Gyr \[for $(m-M)_0=11.99$ and $E(B-V)$=0.18\] and 2.55Gyr \[for $(m-M)_0=11.77$ and $E(B-V)$=0.16\], respectively. WD isochrones (for both DA and DB objects) with the same age-distance-reddening combinations are displayed in the lower panel of the same figure. Notice how the termination of the DB sequence is brighter than that for the DA WDs, contrary to the result for typical globular cluster ages, because in this regime He-envelope WDs cool down more slowly that the H-envelope counterparts (see, e.g., Salaris et al. 2010). To compare WD and MSTO ages we have used the completeness corrected WD LF, and matched with theoretical WD LFs of varying age the observed cut-off of the star counts. The observed LF –see points with error bars in Fig. \[thLFs\]– exhibits just one peak and a cut-off (at $m_{\rm F606W}$=26.050$\pm$0.0.075 at its faint end, as expected for a standard cluster CS. Theoretical | the same BaSTI isochrones used here, with the masses and radius determine for the components of the cluster eclipsing binary WOCS 23009.
! [ * (Upper gore :) * Fit of theoretical isochrones \[1.95 Gyr, $ (m - M)_0=11.99 $, $ E(B - V)$=0.18 and 2.55 Gyr, $ (m - M)_0=11.77 $, $ E(B - V)$=0.16\ ] to the bunch MS in the $ m_{\rm F606W}$-$(m_{\rm F606W } - m_{\rm F814W})$ CMD (see text for details). * (broken panel :) * Fit of WD isochrones to the observed CS, for the like age - distance - reddening combinations. Solid line denote DA WDs, dotted lines DB objects. \[thCMDs\ ] ] (f3.ps){width="89 mm " }
The upper jury of Fig. \[thCMDs\ ] shows the result of the isochrone fits, with the two isochrone that best bracket the MSTO region, i.e., 1.95Gyr \[for $ (m - M)_0=11.99 $ and $ E(B - V)$=0.18\ ] and 2.55Gyr \[for $ (megabyte - M)_0=11.77 $ and $ E(B - V)$=0.16\ ], respectively. WD isochrones (for both DA and DB object) with the same age - distance - reddening combinations are displayed in the low panel of the same figure. Notice how the termination of the DB succession is bright than that for the DA WDs, contrary to the result for typical globular cluster ages, because in this regime He - envelope WDs cool down more slowly that the H - envelope counterparts (attend, e.g., Salaris et al. 2010). To compare WD and MSTO ages we have use the completeness correct WD LF, and matched with theoretical WD LFs of vary age the observed cut - off of the star count. The observed LF – see points with error bars in Fig. \[thLFs\ ] – exhibits precisely one peak and a cut - off (at $ m_{\rm F606W}$=26.050$\pm$0.0.075 at its faint end, as ask for a standard bunch CS. Theoretical | thf same BaSTI isochrones msed here, with tkw massxs and dadii degermined for the components lf the xluster eclipsing binafy WOCS 23009.
![ *(Uiper paneo:)* Fiu of theoretical maochroncf \[1.95 Gyd, $(m-M)_0=11.99$, $Z(B-T)$=0.18 and 2.55 Gyr, $(m-M)_0=11.77$, $E(B-Y)$=0.16\] to the clgster MS in tha $o_{\rl F606W}$-$(m_{\rm F606W} - m_{\rm F814W})$ CMD (see text fjr detaold). *(Lower panel:)* Sit ps WD psichrones to the observed CS, fkr the vame age-distamce-reddening combinations. Dolif lines denote DA ADs, dotted oinef DB objects. \[ghCMDs\] ](f3.ps){width="89mm"}
The ukper panel of Fig. \[thCMDs\] shows thd resblt of the usichgmne fits, wivh the two isochrokvs that best btacket the MSTP rxgiob, i.e., 1.95Gyr \[for $(m-M)_0=11.99$ and $E(U-V)$=0.18\] and 2.55Gyr \[for $(m-M)_0=11.77$ anq $E(B-V)$=0.16\], res[eetively. WD isochrones (fir bojh DA and EB ubjtctx) sith tje aame age-diatance-reddebing combinations ate eisplayed in fhe lorew panel of the same figure. Notice how tve fermination of the DB swquence is brighter tjan that sor the DA WDs, contrary to the result for typical globnlxr eoustef ahes, because in this regime He-envelope WDs cooj dpwk more slowly thct the H-envelope clumjerparts (see, e.e., Salaxjs et al. 2010). To compare AD and ISTO qges we hwve ised the completeness correxted WD LF, aud natched with theorztical WD LFr of varyong age the observed cuc-off or the star founts. Ths observed LF –see popnts with error bars in Fig. \[thLSs\]– exhibivs juxt one oeak and a cut-off (at $m_{\rm N606F}$=26.050$\pm$0.0.075 at its faint ejd, as efpected fog a standard cluster CS. Theoretmral | the same BaSTI isochrones used here, with and determined for components of the ![ panel:)* Fit of isochrones \[1.95 Gyr, $E(B-V)$=0.18 and 2.55 Gyr, $(m-M)_0=11.77$, $E(B-V)$=0.16\] the cluster MS in the $m_{\rm F606W}$-$(m_{\rm F606W} - m_{\rm F814W})$ CMD (see for details). *(Lower panel:)* Fit of WD isochrones to the observed CS, for same combinations. lines DA WDs, dotted lines DB objects. \[thCMDs\] ](f3.ps){width="89mm"} The upper panel of Fig. \[thCMDs\] shows the of the isochrone fits, with the two isochrones best bracket the MSTO i.e., 1.95Gyr \[for $(m-M)_0=11.99$ and and \[for $(m-M)_0=11.77$ $E(B-V)$=0.16\], WD (for both DA DB objects) with the same age-distance-reddening combinations are displayed in the lower panel of the same figure. how the the DB is than for the DA to the result for typical globular in this regime He-envelope WDs cool down more that the counterparts (see, e.g., Salaris et al. To compare WD and MSTO ages we have the completeness corrected WD LF, and matched with theoretical WD LFs of varying age the of the star counts. observed LF –see with bars Fig. exhibits just peak and a cut-off (at $m_{\rm F606W}$=26.050$\pm$0.0.075 at its faint end, expected for a standard cluster CS. Theoretical | the same BaSTI isochrones useD here, with tHe masSes And RaDii dEterMined for the comPOnenTs of the cluster eclipsinG binaRy woCS 23009.
![ *(UPPeR paneL:)* Fit of tHEoRETicAl IsOchRoNEs \[1.95 gyr, $(m-M)_0=11.99$, $e(B-V)$=0.18 And 2.55 Gyr, $(m-m)_0=11.77$, $E(B-V)$=0.16\] to the cLusTeR MS in the $m_{\rm F606w}$-$(M_{\rM F606W} - m_{\rm F814W})$ CMd (seE text for detaIls). *(lower pAnEl:)* FIT of WD IsoChronEs to thE ObservEd CS, for thE sAMe age-dIStance-rEDDeNing Combinations. Solid LInES denote DA WDs, doTted liNeS dB OBJecTs. \[tHCMDs\] ](f3.ps){wiDtH="89mm"}
ThE Upper paNEl OF fIg. \[tHcMDs\] shows the rEsult of the iSOchRone fiTs, WitH The two IsochRoNEs tHat best bracKet tHe MSTO regIon, i.e., 1.95GYR \[for $(m-M)_0=11.99$ aND $E(B-V)$=0.18\] and 2.55gyr \[for $(M-M)_0=11.77$ aNd $E(b-V)$=0.16\], reSPeCtIveLy. wd isOChRonES (foR both DA aNd dB ObjecTs) wiTH THE samE agE-disTance-Reddening combInaTionS Are DisplAyed iN the LoWer paNel of tHe samE fIgure. Notice how tHe teRmination Of tHe dB sEqUence IS brighTer ThaN that foR the DA WdS, coNtRARY tO the result for typicAl GLObUlar clusTer ageS, BeCaUSe in this ReGimE He-eNVElope wDs cOOl Down more Slowly THaT tHe H-enveLoPe counTeRpaRts (See, e.g., sAlarIs et al. 2010). to comparE WD anD mSTO ages we have USed the completENeSS CoRRectEd Wd LF, and matchEd wiTH theOretICaL WD lfs of vAryinG aGE tHE observed cut-off of thE sTar couNts. ThE observed LF –seE points witH ERRor bars iN Fig. \[THLfS\]– exhibits just oNe peaK and a cut-ofF (At $m_{\rm F606W}$=26.050$\pM$0.0.075 at itS faint enD, as expectED For a stanDarD clUstEr Cs. tHeOretical | the same BaSTI isochrones used here , wit h t hema sses and radii determi n ed f or the components of t he cl us t er e c li psing binary WO C S 23 00 9.
! [* (U pperpan el:)* F it of theo ret ic al isochrone s \ [1.95 Gyr, $( m-M)_0=11.99 $,$E(B-V )$ =0. 1 8 and 2. 55 Gy r, $(m - M)_0=1 1.77$, $E (B - V)$=0. 1 6\] tot h eclus ter MS in the $m_ { \r m F606W}$-$(m_ {\rm F 60 6 W} - m _{\ rm F814W}) $CMD ( s ee text fo r d eta i ls). *(Lowerpanel:)* Fi t of WD is oc hro n es tothe o bs e rve d CS, for t he s ame age-d istanc e -redden i ng comb inatio ns. So lidl in es de no t e D A W Ds, dot ted line sDB obje cts. \ [ t hCMD s\] ](f 3.ps) {width="89mm" }
Theu ppe r pan el of Fig .\[thC MDs\]shows t he result of th e is ochrone f its ,wit hthe t w o isoc hro nes that b est bra c ket t h e MS TO region, i.e., 1 .9 5 G yr \[for $ (m-M)_ 0 =1 1. 9 9$ and $ E( B-V )$=0 . 1 8\] a nd 2 . 55 Gyr \[fo r $(m- M )_ 0= 11.77$an d $E(B -V )$= 0.1 6\],r espe ctivel y. WD is ochro n es (for both D A and DB objec t s) w it h the sa me age-dist ance - redd enin g c omb i natio ns ar ed is p layed in the lowerpa nel of thesame figure.Notice how t h e termin atio n o f the DB sequen ce is brightert han that forthe DA W Ds, contr a r y to the re sul t f ort y pi cal globularc l uste rages, b eca use inthi s r egi meHe -envelope WDs coo ldo wn m ore slow l y that t he H- en vel ope c o unterp arts(see ,e. g .,Salaris et a l. 2 01 0) . To co mp are W D an d MS TO ages we haveuse d the c om pletene ss correctedWD LF, and m at che d with t heoretic al WD LFs of varying ag e the ob ser ved c ut-o ff of the st ar cou nts . The o bserve d LF–s eep o intsw i th er ro r bars inF i g.\[thL Fs \]–exhibit s just one peak an d acut-off (at $ m_{ \rmF 6 06 W}$ = 26 . 050 $\ p m$0 . 0 .075 at its fai nt end, as e x pe cted for a sta nd ard clu ster CS . The o retical | the_same BaSTI_isochrones used here, with_the masses_and_radii determined_for_the components of_the cluster eclipsing_binary WOCS 23009.
![ *(Upper panel:)*_Fit of theoretical_isochrones_\[1.95 Gyr, $(m-M)_0=11.99$, $E(B-V)$=0.18 and 2.55 Gyr, $(m-M)_0=11.77$, $E(B-V)$=0.16\] to the cluster MS in the $m_{\rm__F606W}$-$(m_{\rm F606W}_-__m_{\rm F814W})$ CMD (see text_for details). *(Lower panel:)* Fit_of WD_isochrones to the observed CS, for the same_age-distance-reddening_combinations. Solid lines_denote DA WDs, dotted lines DB objects. \[thCMDs\] ](f3.ps){width="89mm"}
The_upper panel of Fig. \[thCMDs\] shows the_result of the_isochrone_fits,_with the two isochrones_that best bracket the MSTO region,_i.e., 1.95Gyr \[for $(m-M)_0=11.99$ and $E(B-V)$=0.18\]_and 2.55Gyr \[for $(m-M)_0=11.77$ and $E(B-V)$=0.16\], respectively._WD isochrones (for both DA and_DB objects) with the same_age-distance-reddening combinations_are displayed in the lower_panel of the_same figure._Notice how the_termination of the DB sequence is_brighter than that_for the DA WDs, contrary to_the_result for typical_globular_cluster_ages, because_in this regime_He-envelope_WDs cool_down_more slowly that the H-envelope counterparts_(see,_e.g., Salaris et al. 2010). To compare WD_and MSTO ages we_have_used the completeness corrected_WD LF, and matched with_theoretical WD LFs of varying age_the observed_cut-off of_the star counts. The observed LF –see points with error bars_in Fig. \[thLFs\]– exhibits just one peak_and a cut-off (at_$m_{\rm F606W}$=26.050$\pm$0.0.075_at_its faint end,_as_expected for_a standard cluster CS. Theoretical |
Subsets and Splits